First of all, this is my first thread post. I have tried to obey the rules, and I appologize if I made any mistakes. I am a new member here. I hope that the following research will benefit many players!
ALERT
Are you running Fetch Lands in your RDW? Why?
common answers:
1)" It thins my deck! Duh! You Gnoob!"
2)"It serves Plated Geopede!"
Well, I have some shocking news for all of you about deck thinning. In a nutshell, it's a fantasy. The concept is pure dogma. Very few people have actually sat down, calculator in hand, to prove whether deck thinning provides a substantial benefit to the player.
Luckily, I took calculus at a university; however, it doesn't take complicated math to figure out that deck thinning is a myth. Oh, you could use all sorts of complicated math to prove it, but simple ratios tell the story plainly.
Finale Assessment (see math below for rationalle): Over the first 1-5 turns, Deck Thinning via Fetch Lands give you a 1-4% higher chance of drawing a spell (rather than a land). Over turns 5-10, a "thinned" deck gives the player a 3-7% higher chance of drawing spells over land.
This means means that "deck thinning" is barely real. There is no mega advantage. Remember, you are taking substantial damage and gaining nothing. Running fetch lands purely for "deck thinning" only reduces your life total by 3-4 (or more), while providing no substantial benefits whatsoever.
For landfall abilities: While fetch lands can "pump" your landfall abilities dramatically at the start of a game (pretty good), they also reduce your chance of drawing a land slightly. This is obvious, but it's the most important point one can remember about deck thinning. Is it better to have a 3/3 plated on numerous turns, or a 5/5 plated once - maybe twice? The jury might be out on that one.
Obviously, for decks like Boros and Jund, fetch lands are essential. Boros won't get a 3rd turn win without them. Jund will be manascrewed. In other cases though, Vamps, RDW, etc., I have constructed decks that do not require fetch lands - and they play test (exhaustive play testing) extremely well.
Here's some basic fetch math:
The Math
This is taken from my original document, so it won't be perfect. I used pen and paper to prove to myself the math several times afterword. A 60 card deck with fetch, and without fetch, are evaluated side by side.
First we look at the fetch lands.
60 card deck. 23 lands. 37 spells.
We draw 7 cards. 3 of them are land.
(turns)
1) We play a fetch.
19 lands remain in library.
33 spells remain in library.
Chance of drawing land -> 19/52 [(number of land)/(total cards remaining in library)] = 37% chance to draw land
2) We draw. It's a spell. We play another fetch.
Lands remaining in library: 18
Spells remaining: 32
chances: 18/50 = 36% chance to draw a land
3) We draw another spell card. Play the 3rd fetch.
Lands remaining: 17
Spells remaining: 31
chances: 17/48 = 35% chance of drawing a land.
4) We draw a fetch land now. We play yet another fetch land.
Lands remaining: 15
Spells remaining: 31
chances: 15/46 = 33% chance of drawing a land.
------
Now we evaluate the same process in a deck that doesn't have fetch lands.
60 card deck. 7 card opening hand. 3 lands.
1) First turn. We play a land.
Lands remaining: 20
Spells remaining: 33
chances: 20/53 = 38% chance of drawing a land.
2) Second turn. We play another land, and draw a spell from the library.
Poker players (great card players and math wizards some of them are) tell us that anything less than a 5% advantage is irrelevant. Under ideal conditions (in which you played 3 fetch lands in a row, and took 3 damage, I might add), you suddenly arrive at a 5% advantage over regular land on turn 5.
Don't get excited about deck thinning just yet. Remember, 5% is the bare minimum advantage you can have. Is it really worth the 4 damage that you just took to get it? You have reduced your life by 20%, for an advantage of 5% with regards to drawing land! That is utter nonsense. This discounts deck thinning as a "good idea" all together.
Remember, the calculations above have many permutations. I calculated a number of them, and the list would be extensive. I showed ideal conditions for both decks. The advantage of a thinned deck might be as low as 2% for 5 turns, and as high as 5%-6%. This isn't a reason to trade in 20% of your life.
Okay!
Now I hope many of you will seriously reconsider whether deck thinning is winning you any matches. For my part, I have removed the concept from RDW and my decks are doing much better. Often times, I enter into a race to see who can drain the other person's life faster. Those extra 4-5 lives that I gain have won me many matches. Advantage is what we want, not just a "thinned" deck.
Finale Assessment (see math below for rationalle): Over the first 1-5 turns, Deck Thinning via Fetch Lands give you a 1-4% higher chance of drawing a spell (rather than a land). Over turns 5-10, a "thinned" deck gives the player a 3-7% higher chance of drawing spells over land.
That's more then enough reason to run fetch lands for thinning.
I wrote a slight guide on Fetchlands earlier in Zendikar's release, now I need to check your math (I'm not assuming your incorrect). The thing is though, I don't think you actually realize the percentages your giving to us.
Finale Assessment (see math below for rationalle): Over the first 1-5 turns, Deck Thinning via Fetch Lands give you a 1-4% higher chance of drawing a spell (rather than a land). Over turns 5-10, a "thinned" deck gives the player a 3-7% higher chance of drawing spells over land.
Over 5-10 turns 3-7. Lets just make that an average of 5 for arguments sake. So, over the course of the game, I get that much more of an edge over you? Wow, I'll gladly take that. I don't think you understand how high that percentage is in my mind. When we both topdeck, odds are I'm going to win? These percentages must increase over time as cards are drawn.
I'm flabberghasted, after years and years of competition, people still have the will to write how they think fetchlands are bad, but every deck will run 4+ in the competitive level.
Until I see a deck with 24 mountains, and not 4 teetering peeks, 4 arid mesa, 4 scalding tarn in standard. This is a proclaimed, statistical joke.
With all the aggro in the format I would say it is not worth it. The games where those life you lost to thin is not worth it imo...I do use deck thinning in my legacy control deck but it is because I would use fetches anyways. If I need more lands I keep then uncracked, but if I need to draw more gas I pop them.
If you dont need fetches to color fix it is not worth it. If you do then you need to can use them to help you get what you want.
I agree with Spooky lol. Spells win games more then lands do. I know from my own experiences, that some games come down to the topdeck. About 90% of the time, I am hoping for just about anything besides a land. So even though the poker legends say it is not relevant, I will would like that chance to not draw into a land and possibly top deck an answer.
That's more then enough reason to run fetch lands for thinning.
Yes, but remember, it reduces your chances of winning substantially because the fetch lands reduce your life total. You are trading upwards of 10-20% chances of winning for a small advantage in top-decking. That was my ultimate point.
I agree that 5% is a decent advantage, but not at the ultimate cost of winning.
Boros and Jund aside (and other decks where Fetch are essential), I still don't see the major advantage.
---
Alright some things have been misunderstood. You don't gain a 5% chance of winning through deck thinning. You actually lose percentage points towards winning because of the life loss. The loss of life outweighs the small advantage thinning provides.
If you dont need fetches to color fix it is not worth it. If you do then you need to can use them to help you get what you want.
Indeed, my point entirely.
And all this talk of "top decks running fetch lands" is a bit silly.
Those top decks you refer to are probably Jund and Boros, etc. These decks I openly acknowledge - they need fetch lands.
Why don't you see RDW or Vamps winning enough? Fetch hurts them more than it helps them! That is the point of my research. That is what I have discovered.
For landfall abilities: While fetch lands can "pump" your landfall abilities dramatically at the start of a game (pretty good), they also reduce your chance of drawing a land drastically. This is obvious, but it's the most important point one can remember about deck thinning. Is it better to have a 3/3 plated on numerous turns, or a 5/5 plated once - maybe twice? The jury might be out on that one.
Bolded where you contradicted the rest of your post. A land fetched is a land I don't have to draw into. As for the "5/5 one turn or 3/3 for many turns" question, isn't RDW supposed to win fast? why would I want to get chumped multiple turns when I can hit you for 1/4 your life on the turn you didn't have a blocker?
Yes, but remember, it reduces your chances of winning substantially because the fetch lands reduce your life total. You are trading upwards of 10-20% chances of winning for a small advantage in top-decking. That was my ultimate point.
I agree that 5% is a decent advantage, but not at the ultimate cost of winning.
Boros and Jund aside (and other decks where Fetch are essential), I still don't see the major advantage.
I will gladly trade 1 life, for an increased chance of drawing a threat and winning the game.
There is no competition here. That's just like saying Brainstorm is bad.
When did red care about their own life total?.... ever?
Yes, but remember, it reduces your chances of winning substantially because the fetch lands reduce your life total. You are trading upwards of 10-20% chances of winning for a small advantage in top-decking. That was my ultimate point.
I agree that 5% is a decent advantage, but not at the ultimate cost of winning.
Boros and Jund aside (and other decks where Fetch are essential), I still don't see the major advantage.
---
Alright some things have been misunderstood. You don't gain a 5% chance of winning through deck thinning. You actually lose percentage points towards winning because of the life loss. The loss of life outweighs the small advantage thinning provides.
Indeed, my point entirely.
And all this talk of "top decks running fetch lands" is a bit silly.
Those top decks you refer to are probably Jund and Boros, etc. These decks I openly acknowledge - they need fetch lands.
Why don't you see RDW or Vamps winning enough? Fetch hurts them more than it helps them! That is the point of my research. That is what I have discovered.
Vamp (mono-black) deck went 6-0 day 1 of worlds with 6 Fetch lands.
I'd gladly start every game with 16 life for starting with a deck of 56 cards. Trading 1 life for upwards to 5-7% of drawing a spell after mid-game is more then enough incentive for anyone to run fetches. If your are losing so quick that you need to take out fetches in your deck you need to re-evaluate how you are playing the deck you are, and why its losing so badly.
I would highly doubt many of the most competitive players in the world didn't do math crunching to see if it helps or not.
Vamp (mono-black) deck went 6-0 day 1 of worlds with 6 Fetch lands.
I'd gladly start every game with 16 life for starting with a deck of 56 cards. Trading 1 life for upwards to 5-7% of drawing a spell after mid-game is more then enough incentive for anyone to run fetches. If your are losing so quick that you need to take out fetches in your deck you need to re-evaluate how you are playing the deck you are, and why its losing so badly.
This is true but brainstorm has no real drawback. It is just flat out good. Fetches have a pro and con for a pure thinning effect.
Exactly. And people are unwilling to evaluate the con side of the argument.
Blanket statements like "red doesn't care about its life total" are as bizarre as statements like "fetch lands are good for deck thinning."
If you don't care about your life total, then you just don't care about winning enough. That much is plain. Everyone should give some thought to their life total, and how that will effect them (and how they will play against decks in the meta).
And yes, Brainstorm was an absolutely amazing card. When it came out, everyone I knew was using it in one way or another.
I think fetch lands are great cards, btw, lol. Just not for deck thinning.
Let's not have bold read yeah? That's reserved for moderators.
Instead of calling you a noob I'll just go ahead and explain.
Fetches let you shuffle away the cards you put back on your deck. Works the same with Top.
Well thanks for not dissing me I guess. I know how that works. Landstill is my main deck and I use it for that all the time. I was looking at the two cards as being separate not in synergy since they are not able to be used in standard
Yes, but you have to use it wisely. Too many people mess this up. Pay 1 life draw a card is great. Pay 5 life draw a card is not. That is essentially what fetches are.
Blanket statements like "red doesn't care about its life total" are as bizarre as statements like "fetch lands are good for deck thinning."
If you don't care about your life total, then you just don't care about winning enough. That much is plain. Everyone should give some thought to their life total, and how that will effect them (and how they will play against decks in the meta).
You're wrong. You're absolutely wrong. Life is the resource in magic you are most able to play fast and loose with, and ONLY THE LAST POINT ACTUALLY MATTERS.
Bitterblossom, thoughtseize, etc. Cards that hurt you and have a justifiable effect are absolutely worth playing.
Well thanks for not dissing me I guess. I know how that works. Landstill is my main deck and I use it for that all the time. I was looking at the two cards as being separate not in synergy since they are not able to be used in standard
Yes, but you have to use it wisely. Too many people mess this up. Pay 1 life draw a card is great. Pay 5 life draw a card is not. That is essentially what fetches are.
Pay one life. Go get a land out of your deck. Increase your chances of drawing gas by an increasing margin as the game goes on. Can't be countered.
I didn't compare the card functionally... It's a rampant growth available to any color combination in the form of a land... It was just easier to think of a card that everyone used in the past besides goyf and can be considered good.. because that example is used far too often. I'm just sick of all these people coming out of the closet, trying to change the world on how everyone should not play with fetchlands.
Why weren't people raging at how bad the ravnica dual lands were? When manabases had like 12 shocklands. That was damage, and no deck thinning...
I would rather have fetchlands in core sets, then any other lands right now. I like them because it forces players to make decisions, its not repetitively costly either, such as the painlands.
Look at how hard it is for the OP to even try to justify how bad fetchlands are, his own stats are working against him. How are people so blind?
I am not even theorhetically justifying anything, the statistics themselves say it all. If anything in magic says "increase your odds potentially by 7% and rising" you play it.
You're wrong. You're absolutely wrong. Life is the resource in magic you are most able to play fast and loose with, and ONLY THE LAST POINT ACTUALLY MATTERS.
Bitterblossom, thoughtseize, etc. Cards that hurt you and have a justifiable effect are absolutely worth playing.
I agree with this. There is way to many variables to flat out say with a simple number crunch "Fetch lands for thinning reduces your chance of losing by 20% because you lose 4 life".
What if you are facing control? Then your life points are irrelevant because they are going to lock you out of the game and take them all while you can't retaliate.
Same thing with Jund, and other midrange, they aren't going to have a 20% chance of winning because you took 4 from fetch lands. They are going to win because they sapped all the resources out of your hand and you have no gas.
My issue with fetches right now is that it lowers your life. Yes life is a resource that can be used, but this current meta just seems very life intensive. The majority of decks are trying to burn you down quick.
Red Deck wins, R/W borros, Jund, vamps. They all want to destroy you quick and fetches do help their cause.
It's been mathematically proven for over 6 years now that fetchlands do thin your deck, but they thin your deck by such an insignificant amount that you won't actually detect it:
I've linked this article several times to people who tell me, "Play fetchlands to thin your deck!!!!111". The above article proves otherwise. Fetchlands do not thin your deck by any notable margain at all. This isn't an opinion; it's fact.
Of course, I know there will be people that continue to dismiss the statstics behind the data. Numbers don't lie folks.
ALERT
Are you running Fetch Lands in your RDW? Why?
common answers:
1)" It thins my deck! Duh! You Gnoob!"
2)"It serves Plated Geopede!"
Well, I have some shocking news for all of you about deck thinning. In a nutshell, it's a fantasy. The concept is pure dogma. Very few people have actually sat down, calculator in hand, to prove whether deck thinning provides a substantial benefit to the player.
Luckily, I took calculus at a university; however, it doesn't take complicated math to figure out that deck thinning is a myth. Oh, you could use all sorts of complicated math to prove it, but simple ratios tell the story plainly.
Finale Assessment (see math below for rationalle): Over the first 1-5 turns, Deck Thinning via Fetch Lands give you a 1-4% higher chance of drawing a spell (rather than a land). Over turns 5-10, a "thinned" deck gives the player a 3-7% higher chance of drawing spells over land.
This means means that "deck thinning" is barely real. There is no mega advantage. Remember, you are taking substantial damage and gaining nothing. Running fetch lands purely for "deck thinning" only reduces your life total by 3-4 (or more), while providing no substantial benefits whatsoever.
For landfall abilities: While fetch lands can "pump" your landfall abilities dramatically at the start of a game (pretty good), they also reduce your chance of drawing a land slightly. This is obvious, but it's the most important point one can remember about deck thinning. Is it better to have a 3/3 plated on numerous turns, or a 5/5 plated once - maybe twice? The jury might be out on that one.
Obviously, for decks like Boros and Jund, fetch lands are essential. Boros won't get a 3rd turn win without them. Jund will be manascrewed. In other cases though, Vamps, RDW, etc., I have constructed decks that do not require fetch lands - and they play test (exhaustive play testing) extremely well.
Here's some basic fetch math:
The Math
This is taken from my original document, so it won't be perfect. I used pen and paper to prove to myself the math several times afterword. A 60 card deck with fetch, and without fetch, are evaluated side by side.
First we look at the fetch lands.
60 card deck. 23 lands. 37 spells.
We draw 7 cards. 3 of them are land.
(turns)
1) We play a fetch.
19 lands remain in library.
33 spells remain in library.
Chance of drawing land -> 19/52 [(number of land)/(total cards remaining in library)] = 37% chance to draw land
2) We draw. It's a spell. We play another fetch.
Lands remaining in library: 18
Spells remaining: 32
chances: 18/50 = 36% chance to draw a land
3) We draw another spell card. Play the 3rd fetch.
Lands remaining: 17
Spells remaining: 31
chances: 17/48 = 35% chance of drawing a land.
4) We draw a fetch land now. We play yet another fetch land.
Lands remaining: 15
Spells remaining: 31
chances: 15/46 = 33% chance of drawing a land.
------
Now we evaluate the same process in a deck that doesn't have fetch lands.
60 card deck. 7 card opening hand. 3 lands.
1) First turn. We play a land.
Lands remaining: 20
Spells remaining: 33
chances: 20/53 = 38% chance of drawing a land.
2) Second turn. We play another land, and draw a spell from the library.
Lands remaining: 20
Spells remaining: 32
Chances: 20/52 = 38% chance of drawing a land.
3) 3rd turn. We draw a spell, and play a land.
Lands remaining: 20
Spells remaining: 31
chances: 20/51 = 39% chance of drawing a land
4) 4rth turn. We draw land.
Lands remaining: 19
Spells remaining: 31
chances: 19/50 = 38% chances
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of percentages (the odds that you will draw land)
TURN 1
1) Fetch = 37% chance
2) Regular Lands = 38% chance
TURN 2
1) Fetch = 36% chance
2) Regular Lands = 38% chance
TURN 3
1) Fetch = 35% chance
2) Regular Lands = 39% chance
TURN 4
1) Fetch = 33% chance
2) Regular Lands = 38% chance
-----------------------------------
We will stop here at turn 4.
Now, here's our axiom.
Poker players (great card players and math wizards some of them are) tell us that anything less than a 5% advantage is irrelevant. Under ideal conditions (in which you played 3 fetch lands in a row, and took 3 damage, I might add), you suddenly arrive at a 5% advantage over regular land on turn 5.
Don't get excited about deck thinning just yet. Remember, 5% is the bare minimum advantage you can have. Is it really worth the 4 damage that you just took to get it? You have reduced your life by 20%, for an advantage of 5% with regards to drawing land! That is utter nonsense. This discounts deck thinning as a "good idea" all together.
Remember, the calculations above have many permutations. I calculated a number of them, and the list would be extensive. I showed ideal conditions for both decks. The advantage of a thinned deck might be as low as 2% for 5 turns, and as high as 5%-6%. This isn't a reason to trade in 20% of your life.
Okay!
Now I hope many of you will seriously reconsider whether deck thinning is winning you any matches. For my part, I have removed the concept from RDW and my decks are doing much better. Often times, I enter into a race to see who can drain the other person's life faster. Those extra 4-5 lives that I gain have won me many matches. Advantage is what we want, not just a "thinned" deck.
Do you all feel me yet?
R
Click Here to Sign up for Free Live Chat Sessions with Some of Magic's Biggest Pros
That's more then enough reason to run fetch lands for thinning.
Over 5-10 turns 3-7. Lets just make that an average of 5 for arguments sake. So, over the course of the game, I get that much more of an edge over you? Wow, I'll gladly take that. I don't think you understand how high that percentage is in my mind. When we both topdeck, odds are I'm going to win? These percentages must increase over time as cards are drawn.
I'm flabberghasted, after years and years of competition, people still have the will to write how they think fetchlands are bad, but every deck will run 4+ in the competitive level.
Until I see a deck with 24 mountains, and not 4 teetering peeks, 4 arid mesa, 4 scalding tarn in standard. This is a proclaimed, statistical joke.
If you dont need fetches to color fix it is not worth it. If you do then you need to can use them to help you get what you want.
Yes, but remember, it reduces your chances of winning substantially because the fetch lands reduce your life total. You are trading upwards of 10-20% chances of winning for a small advantage in top-decking. That was my ultimate point.
I agree that 5% is a decent advantage, but not at the ultimate cost of winning.
Boros and Jund aside (and other decks where Fetch are essential), I still don't see the major advantage.
---
Alright some things have been misunderstood. You don't gain a 5% chance of winning through deck thinning. You actually lose percentage points towards winning because of the life loss. The loss of life outweighs the small advantage thinning provides.
Indeed, my point entirely.
And all this talk of "top decks running fetch lands" is a bit silly.
Those top decks you refer to are probably Jund and Boros, etc. These decks I openly acknowledge - they need fetch lands.
Why don't you see RDW or Vamps winning enough? Fetch hurts them more than it helps them! That is the point of my research. That is what I have discovered.
Click Here to Sign up for Free Live Chat Sessions with Some of Magic's Biggest Pros
Bolded where you contradicted the rest of your post. A land fetched is a land I don't have to draw into. As for the "5/5 one turn or 3/3 for many turns" question, isn't RDW supposed to win fast? why would I want to get chumped multiple turns when I can hit you for 1/4 your life on the turn you didn't have a blocker?
I will gladly trade 1 life, for an increased chance of drawing a threat and winning the game.
There is no competition here. That's just like saying Brainstorm is bad.
When did red care about their own life total?.... ever?
I dont see the correlation between fetches and brainstrorm. Could you elaborate on that?
Good cards noobs consider bad, because they don't understand the concept of deck thinning/manipulation.
This is true but brainstorm has no real drawback. It is just flat out good. Fetches have a pro and con for a pure thinning effect.
Vamp (mono-black) deck went 6-0 day 1 of worlds with 6 Fetch lands.
I'd gladly start every game with 16 life for starting with a deck of 56 cards. Trading 1 life for upwards to 5-7% of drawing a spell after mid-game is more then enough incentive for anyone to run fetches. If your are losing so quick that you need to take out fetches in your deck you need to re-evaluate how you are playing the deck you are, and why its losing so badly.
I would highly doubt many of the most competitive players in the world didn't do math crunching to see if it helps or not.
Vamps use fetches for more than thinning though.
Instead of calling you a noob I'll just go ahead and explain.
Fetches let you shuffle away the cards you put back on your deck. Works the same with Top.
Yea I know it uses it for Vamp Lord to, but it wouldn't include 6 of them if they hurt your chances of winning as much as this theory says so.
Drawing gas > drawing a land and gaining 1 life.
Exactly. And people are unwilling to evaluate the con side of the argument.
Blanket statements like "red doesn't care about its life total" are as bizarre as statements like "fetch lands are good for deck thinning."
If you don't care about your life total, then you just don't care about winning enough. That much is plain. Everyone should give some thought to their life total, and how that will effect them (and how they will play against decks in the meta).
And yes, Brainstorm was an absolutely amazing card. When it came out, everyone I knew was using it in one way or another.
I think fetch lands are great cards, btw, lol. Just not for deck thinning.
Let's not have bold read yeah? That's reserved for moderators.
Click Here to Sign up for Free Live Chat Sessions with Some of Magic's Biggest Pros
Well thanks for not dissing me I guess. I know how that works. Landstill is my main deck and I use it for that all the time. I was looking at the two cards as being separate not in synergy since they are not able to be used in standard
Yes, but you have to use it wisely. Too many people mess this up. Pay 1 life draw a card is great. Pay 5 life draw a card is not. That is essentially what fetches are.
You're wrong. You're absolutely wrong. Life is the resource in magic you are most able to play fast and loose with, and ONLY THE LAST POINT ACTUALLY MATTERS.
Bitterblossom, thoughtseize, etc. Cards that hurt you and have a justifiable effect are absolutely worth playing.
Oh. Lol. It was meant as a dig at Shmanka.
Pay one life. Go get a land out of your deck. Increase your chances of drawing gas by an increasing margin as the game goes on. Can't be countered.
You're looking at it wrong.
thats only if you drop a fetch land every single turn- the odds of doing that are extremely low assuming you run 8 fetchlands.
I didn't compare the card functionally... It's a rampant growth available to any color combination in the form of a land... It was just easier to think of a card that everyone used in the past besides goyf and can be considered good.. because that example is used far too often. I'm just sick of all these people coming out of the closet, trying to change the world on how everyone should not play with fetchlands.
Why weren't people raging at how bad the ravnica dual lands were? When manabases had like 12 shocklands. That was damage, and no deck thinning...
I would rather have fetchlands in core sets, then any other lands right now. I like them because it forces players to make decisions, its not repetitively costly either, such as the painlands.
Look at how hard it is for the OP to even try to justify how bad fetchlands are, his own stats are working against him. How are people so blind?
I am not even theorhetically justifying anything, the statistics themselves say it all. If anything in magic says "increase your odds potentially by 7% and rising" you play it.
I agree with this. There is way to many variables to flat out say with a simple number crunch "Fetch lands for thinning reduces your chance of losing by 20% because you lose 4 life".
What if you are facing control? Then your life points are irrelevant because they are going to lock you out of the game and take them all while you can't retaliate.
Same thing with Jund, and other midrange, they aren't going to have a 20% chance of winning because you took 4 from fetch lands. They are going to win because they sapped all the resources out of your hand and you have no gas.
Red Deck wins, R/W borros, Jund, vamps. They all want to destroy you quick and fetches do help their cause.
http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/print.asp?ID=3096
I've linked this article several times to people who tell me, "Play fetchlands to thin your deck!!!!111". The above article proves otherwise. Fetchlands do not thin your deck by any notable margain at all. This isn't an opinion; it's fact.
Of course, I know there will be people that continue to dismiss the statstics behind the data. Numbers don't lie folks.