Umezawa's Jitte doesn't seem like a bad card to hit on cascade that bolsters your creatures and answers tokens. Furthermore, cascading into Stoneforge Mystic is high value. SFM/equipment seems great for this deck all around. (Probably better than JVP)
When Mentor was a new card, I played Mentor +4 SFM, and I absolutely slaughtered Delver decks at NYSE that year. Just something to consider, I'm sure it's still true.
Glackin is the new Will Mcgrann
I've played Curious Homunculus a lot as well and it's nowhere near as good as Baral. The best the Homunculus has been is in Intuition/AK shell (still better off with Baral). The only advantage Homunculus has is to Cunning Wish for Berserk, but that plan is awfully finicky
I think best case scenario, Curious Homunculus is a Baral. But the floor is pretty low on the Homunculus, so it's intuitive to play 4 Baral before the first Homonculus. Dedicated 4x Baral decks are definitely Intuition decks. Also Frantic Search, Regrowth, and Deep Analysis; the mentioned 16-20 cards combine with Baral to form a high power "solidarity" type combo deck. I've found Empty the Warrens then to be superior to Homculous + Berserk.
It's important to consider all options when casting Intuition. Inexperienced players might want to get 3 Accumulated Knowledges to begin with. But piles such as Tolarian Academy, Regrowth, Yawgmoth's Will can be critical to setting up a quick "infinite" chain of spells, and in effect seeing more cards than you would from just a "draw 3".
So the "win percentage against the field" averages wins of an archetype against random opponents. What if we were to calculate numberWithWinningRecord_Archetype / totalNumber_Archetype? How might this data look from that perspective?
Shops: 44%
Paradoxical: 25%
Young Pyromancer: 50%
@diophan is the classification, "Big Blue", appropriate for decks like 7th place (Egget's)? In my opinion this is more along the lines of Young Pyromancer because of the 4 Preordains, Dacks, delve spells, and spot removal (Plowshares, Wear/Tear) There's no Yawgmoth's Will or tutors or anything to really "go big" with besides Tinker-BSC, which I'm assuming is basically just Mentor #2.
Vintage was a better format when the data collection was more limited (before MTGO). There were more threads about strategy then and less threads about complaining because people had hope that they could win the next tournament if they put enough energy into it. (Still True today but people don't do it; they just go with the win percentages and call it a day)
So I have played limited leagues before on MTGO and have experienced getting paired with the same opponent multiple times. This suggests that each opponent in a league is not incrementally more difficult; you're round 5 opponent could theoretically be 0-3 even if you are undefeated. Combined with the fact that Wizards will cherry pick the results and post in a way that presents the format as more diverse than it really is, how legitimate are 5-0 League results?
How many restrictions has Shops had? After every Shop restriction over the last few years, it begins on the decline and and eventually emerges as the best deck. Looking at the performance of Shops at this event, it's not unreasonable to estimate the meta is headed for a similar spot. The Jeskai Mentor deck can go back to what it looked like in some of its earlier forms with cards like Stoneforge Mystic and Lightning Bolts to combat BUG Fish and and Delver. I expect the URW decks to not lose much steam. I think the decks are a little more attractive to me without the Mentor madness, but there definitely won't be any drastic changes to the meta besides Shops eventually climbing the ranks.
For the next event, the top 16 will play the same decks. The bottom players will netdeck those decks. And the middle pack will probably tune their decks up and switch decks more akin to the top decks. Maybe a handful of players bring something new to the table, and hopefully get a top 8, which might stick but most likely not.
Here's the meta breakdown from the first challenge after the restriction of Gush:
You can see that the numbers of metagamePostGush are very similar to what we have now in metagamePostMentor, except that metagamePostGush is actually much more diverse (more combo, more Oath, etc.)
The metagamePostMentor data, which is less diverse, suggest that the metagame will become quickly consolidated and even less diverse as people are able to netdeck more. (assuming that the metagame will behave in a similar trend, which have no reason to assume otherwise)
The given is that the metagame will "tighten up" and become less diverse since the evidence over the last 6 months suggests that netdecking is the most prominent form of deck construction. Since we are already at a less diverse starting point, the new metagame will undoubtedly be less diverse than the previous metagame (before the restriction of Mentor).
Sprinkle in the Dack/Delve singleton Mentor decks and it's literally exactly the same as the pre-restriction, "nightmare" meta