To original post: This is kind of neat as an exercise, but it's not that helpful for actually playing Dominion. Your distribution of money each turn is much more important - even in decks with 1 Smithy + treasures, it's not important that you hit a certain money density, it's important how often you spike $8 from either Golds or Smithies, because that spike is what gets you to $8 while cycling your deck. (Which is also why 1 Smithy + treasures loses to 1 Smithy + 2nd or 3rd bought at the right time + treasures, but wins against too-many-Smithies + treasures.) If you want to do more, I'd definitely recommend doing simulations instead of trying to work out the probabilities by hand, unless you're doing this for personal math fulfillment in which case do what you want.
To, like, everything else: There is a line between criticism and constructive criticism, except it's not a line, it's a sliding scale, and this whole debacle is about where people think this falls on that scale, yada yada etc.
Addressing SCSN's comment in particular:
Improperly explained complaints are basically worthless - if that person doesn't know why something is bad, how is telling them "this is useless" and not explaining WHY going to actually change anything? You did make some earlier constructive comments about it, but I think they're too succinct. Shorter comments are better if you can get away with it, but only if you can get away with it. In this scenario of a clearly new poster making a post that indirectly displays some misconceptions about the useful points of Dominion, your post reads like a brick wall. I don't think I would have been able to identify where you point out why this heuristic is bad if I hadn't had the same point explained to me a while ago, on this very forum, but in more detail and with more explanation. Even then, I still missed the tail end of that sentence the first time through because surprise - assuming someone is going to catch every word of your sentence in a post on an internet forum is highly optimistic. My overall feeling is that it's well-intentioned, but misguided, and it reads badly from a newcomer perspective.
---
In the extreme, badly explained or unexplained criticism leads to very tight communities that are incredibly difficult to get into without lurking for months, in hopes that you don't make a fool of yourself when you finally make a post about strategy instead of random stuff. I'd rather avoid that.
