I'm not able to get out much to gaming stores (once in a blue moon) due to scheduling, are there ways I can evaluate the speed/efficiency/resilience of my decks, without playing other people (or preferably not playing myself, though I can do that too)? For instance, I usually try to see if my aggro decks can have done at least 20 damage by the end of the fourth turn, assuming no blockers (this method falls flat if against a second aggro deck). Are there any kinds of benchmarks/milestones/signs for any of the types of decks that I have a deck that needs a lot of improvement vs. being ok/good? (I know of aggro, combo, and control, pls tell me if I'm ingnorant fo something)
Eventually someone will run a stochastic simulation that allows you to automatically test decks. Who knows, Wizards' R&D department may already have something like that. For now, however, all we mere mortals can do is to play a lot of games, either online or with friends.
If you have a good deck list, you can post it in the appropriate forum. Then you'll get feedback from other players. If the deck is really good, others will try it too and post their feedback (although that's pretty rare).
Back when I was in high school, I used to write little quotes on the whiteboard of my chemistry class, little, funny things that I'd made up and attributed to an anonymous author. Just tiny things I found amusing. Some time near the end of the year, a substitute teacher game in, read it, and told us a quote she had heard from a 13 year old girl. I don't remember what it was, but the quote sounded deep and philosophical. Then I actually thought about it. I realized that the quote was actually meaningless, but simply couched in the language of philosophy and depth. And that's what your post is. It is meaningless bull**** that you said in such a way as to make it seem sophisticated. But just as a lab coat doesn't make you a scientist, language won't make you a philosopher. Only love of wisdom will. And until then, you will always remind me of a nameless 13 year old.