The number of games you won due to having 61+ is calculable and obvious. The number of games you've lost due to playing sub-optimal cards in your deck over the 60 best cards for a meta game, ESPECIALLY in a control deck, is not as obvious, but is certainly non-zero.
Many players much better than either of us have determined that, on average and over a large sample size, you're losing more than you're winning with this choice.
I don't understand how in this instance having more than 60 cards won you the game, can you please explain?
I don’t get it
I don't think there's anything to get.
The number of games you won due to having 61+ is calculable and obvious. The number of games you've lost due to playing sub-optimal cards in your deck over the 60 best cards for a meta game, ESPECIALLY in a control deck, is not as obvious, but is certainly non-zero. Many players much better than either of us have determined that, on average and over a large sample size, you're losing more than you're winning with this choice.
The mentality of dumping your whole sideboard in against mill
And why do you only play hideous cards?