i'm more interested in what things are like and why people come to certain conclusions than i am in winning or losing videogames
if there is a bias towards low or high hand draws in comparison to if cards were being drawn randomly then it would certainly be a quirk of weighting draws to try and get people certain kinds of hands, which you seem to be saying exists. I'd still be surprised if low and high-land draws were more common than they were in regular magic, since one of the obvious goals of a weighting system would be to prevent mana manaflood/screw and so I would imagine they wouldn't somehow make it more common instead.
It would be interesting if it were the case though.
Let me try my best to explain:
There have been rumors (I believe confirmed) that MTG has purposefully adjusted the odds of a 'good' (meaning balanced) starting hand. This means that you are more likely to have at least the 'right' amount of lands when you start (meaning not too many or too few). All they have done is create an algorithm that scraps 1 bad starting hand - basically, you are getting a free mulligan but you don't see it happen. (they have not been particularly transparent about the algorithm, but I'd assume it simply reduces the likelihood of 0, 1, 5, 6, and 7 land opening hands - this will slightly improve the performance of poorly built decks, but honestly it won't make enough of a difference to justify crappy builds).
Regarding the rest of the deck, there is no indication - admitted or otherwise - that these changes would affect the ordering of the remaining 53 cards.
Anyway, from my perspective I don't want to get into a discussion on the underlying math again. The last time I did so, I caught someone using (obviously) faked data. I can't imagine what kind of crazy person you'd have to be to do that, and yet that kind of crazy person clearly exists. (who knows how many people their BS influenced)