41 cards is more variable than 40. You have fewer chances to draw the cards you need. Show me a 41 card deck and I'll show you which card to take out. More cards is never the answer.

Childish, probably. I was bored, and just annoyed at seeing certain unnamed individuals staying otherwise. And calling you Math Nazis if you disagree. That any better?

This is fact, and is here for new members so they can see it as such. Not based on anecdotal and biased data, not based on hours of personal research and the flawed theory of more draw should mean more cards, just cold, hard, painful to accept fact.

I would love to find room for another card or 5 I like, we all would, and sometimes I do it. I don't pretend I'm making the deck anything less than weaker though.

IMO the only deck capable of running more than 60 cards is chant because of the large amounts of tutors. Otherwise its complete nonsense. Have you ever ran out of cards when running 60?

There is only one deck I think capable of running 70, the rest I stick to 64 or less. That deck is Guardians of Light. 6 draw creatures, 3 tutor creatures, 4 insanely good tutors. Imo, it runs BETTER at 70.

I was playing sideboarded games with CoMD against LoD, and had to side in additional creatures to survive the infinite removal spells. The deck ended up having more than 60 cards, but I think it was right in that scenario. The games tended to be long because of all the removal and the slow nature of the decks, so you ended up reaching the very late game. At that point having an active Eye of Ugin that can search up multiple Eldrazi is actually useful. And if you cut the ramp spells, you will get outraced.