Why I use Night's Whisper over Dark Confidant

[JACO]

My view is pretty simple: Night's Whisper is sort of like Intuition AK.  It's strong in the control mirror, but terrible against Stax and Fish comparatively.    Dark Confidant is much better than NW against Stax and Fish.   People act as if the only relevant matchup is the control mirror.   Not so.

... Night's Whisper is stronger than Bob in the control mirror? 

If you have Bobs as a draw engine, I can run Fact, Gifts, NWs, and probably outdraw you.

Sure, but most Drain decks that play Confidant also play Gifts and Fact or Fiction, so you're probably not going to outdraw them. The singleton draw plan (Gifts, Fact, Scrying, 2-3 Night's Whisper, Jace, etc.) is comparable to the Confidant+Gifts/Fact plan, but the Confidants give more leverage against Stax as stated.

Yes, but if the Bob Tez lists run Gifts and Fact, unlike Hiromichi's list, they are at much greater risk of killing themselves with Bob.  That's why some dont run those cards. 

Even if they do the ACMC is like 1.34 or something (instead of say 1.31), so the difference ends up being minimal. Frankly it's not worth not running the broken cards to not die to Confidant, because against Control they're game breakers, and when the little life matters (and against things like Null Rod where your mana will be restricted) you can side them out for other things instead.

Just because the ACMC is only slightly higher doesn't mean the difference is minimal. That's the wrong point of view, imo. The issue is the risk of two or three high flips, which goes up dramatically if you have both Fact and Gifts, even though the acmc only rises slightly. Jacob Orlove pointed this out to me a few months back.

It may seem like that, but having played Confidant in nearly every Vintage deck I've played the past couple of years (as your teammate Jimmy can attest to ), in my experience you really don't care about Force, Fact, or Gifts being revealed in multiples. You only care if you flip over your Tinker target, whether it's Colossus, Inkwell, Sphinx of the 6/6 Life Gain, or Sundering Titan, because it's such a big chunk in one turn, especially if you happen to be playing any number of Thoughtseizes. It's the same principle in B/R Stax; you play a bunch of mid to high casting cost things (Trinisphere, Triskelion, Smokestacks, etc.), but you also play a lot of 0/1 casting cost things, so it really averages it out, and the difference betweeen 1.30 and even like 1.40 is pretty marginal in the long run (but don't get me wrong, the difference between something like 1.1 and 1.5 is quite noticeable). Magic was partially designed as a mathematical game of averages, and like counting cards in Blackjack this is very similar. You're usually playing by the numbers when you build your deck and run a Confidant out there in the middle or late game.

The thing is, we don't actually play Magic that way.   That's why Spoils of the Vault doesn't see play.  It only kills you 8% of the time, but that 8% is deemed to high or unacceptably high by the field.

That's why, I again assert, that ACMC is the wrong lens. Let me just quote Jacob:

The difference in your average CMC between a deck that has Gifts + Fact and one that runs two 0cc cards in those slots (Crypt and LoA I guess?) is 0.13333etc. That's an average of one extra damage from Bob every 8 turns, less if you replace them with 1-2 CMC cards.

I don't think average CMC is the best metric to evaulate Bob damage here. It's more that you shift from ~7 high CMC cards to ~9. That's both an increased chance to get hit once, and a much higher chance to hit two high CMC cards in the same game.

yeah, that's my concern.

If you start with 6 high CMC cards and add two, then once you've drawn one, the extra two make you almost 40% more likely than before to hit a second. That's a significant increase, even if your average CMC only goes up by about 0.1

You see Jacob's point?   CMC is the wrong lens to evaluate Bob.   Because the question isn't whether, in average, whether you will die, but what happens if you hit one of your high casting cost spells.   Overall CMC obscures this fact.

I understand with the point that Jacob and you are trying to make, I just disagree with it entirely. The first problem I have with your logic is that it that it is similar to the people who play Craps and Roulette in the incorrect way. Rather than playing by the numbers (ACMC), you are ignoring that fact of statistical evidence (ACMC, or in gambling the simple odds) out of fear or an irrational regard for the next possible result (another high converted mana cost, or another Black Roulette spin after 4 in a row).

The second problem I have with your logic lays in the fact that you have designated that the number 4 is the threshold for 'high cost' cards. Why is that? Why isn't it 3 or 5? Why isn't it 2, or anything higher than the mean/ACMC for that matter? You have put a seemingly arbitrary bookmark on the number 4, and if you could logically argue this position I would legitimately be interested in why you chose this. This again comes into play when you talk about why the ACMC is so important as it relates to Confidant, and why the average is so important compared to a few spells you have designated as large because you attached the number 4 or higher to them.

I think the key metric to ask is: how many high CMC cards to each of these decks have?   Itou's Tezzeret and my Tezzeret both have high ACMC according to your math, but our lists have few flips of 4 or more.   Mine only has Inky, 4 Force, 1 Misd, and 1 Tez.  Itou's only has 6 as well.

You guys don't seem to realize that the CMC of Fire/Ice is 4 as it relates to Confidant, and not 2, which means your calculations are off here in regards to revealing what you have designated as 'high casting cost' cards to Confidant. With that in mind, let's look at your lists again with the real numbers:
Itou Hiromichi Confidant Tezzeret from Vintage Worlds 2009 - 94/60=1.567
CMC of 4 or more (9): 1 Inkwell Leviathan, 1 Fact or Fiction, 1 Fire/Ice, 4 Force of Will, 1 Misdirection, 1 Tezzeret
Steve Q. Menendian Confidant Tezzeret from MeanDeck Open 11/22/09 - 91/60=1.517
CMC of 4 or more (9): 4 Force of Will, 1 Misdirection, 1 Tezzeret, 1 Inkwell Leviathan, 1 Gifts Ungiven, 1 Fire/Ice
Jaco Confidant Tezzeret from ICBM Xtreme Open Day 2 - 88/60=1.467
CMC of 4 or more (8): 4 Force of Will, 1 Gifts Ungiven, 2 Tezzeret the Seeker, 1 Sundering Titan
A sample Confidant Tezzeret list with 1 Tezzeret, 4 Force, 4 Confidant, 1 Fact, 1 Gifts, 1 Tinker target - somewhere between 88/60 to 96/60
CMC of 4 of more (8): 4 Force of Will, 1 Gifts Ungiven, 1 Fact or Fiction, 1 Tezzeret the Seeker, 1 Tinker target

It seems there is obvious interest in this, so I will be writing a full article on the subject this weekend probably, and have found a new home to host my Eternal articles and content. I will be partnering with Spain's native son and Team Pataners founder Jordi Amat (pizzero) to begin covering Eternal subjects on his relaunched website (all English now to cater to a larger audience). Be on the lookout for it Monday or Tuesday, and please wait for more of my responses until then Steven. We'll move our thoughts to that thread to focus on the subject.

I apologize to the original poster for turning this thread into a debate on Confidant and CMC, when it was originally about Confidant vs. Night's Whispers. On that note, welcome to the Vintage Open Thread! This is where Vintage's semi-serious minds talk about serious business.

[Purple Hat]

except that magic isn't like craps or roulette in one key way.  You can't sit at the table forever regardless of how much money you have.  In a magic tournament you have a statistically insignificant set of points that are the only thing that matter.  This is another reason that variance matters far more than the mean.  The law of large numbers works in craps and roulette provided a big enough bank roll.  In magic you get 20 life points regardless, so what you care about is the variance, not the mean.

[Anusien]

The law of large numbers can only hurt you in roulette, since statistically you're favored to lose. Unless you're talking about the "optimal" roulette strategy, where you can win $1 with infinite money.

[Purple Hat]

see...I was gonna say that, but I figured JACO knew something I didn't when he said people play roulette stupidly.

[TheBrassMan]

I apologize to the original poster for turning this thread into a debate on Confidant and CMC, when it was originally about Confidant vs. Night's Whispers. On that note, welcome to the Vintage Open Thread! This is where Vintage's semi-serious minds talk about serious business.

Yeah is there any way we can split this thread? I think this is a fairly interesting topic, but people have been ignoring the original poster since post 4 or so.  If we're going to require people to make a well thought out post to be in this forum, we might as well pay attention to them when we do.

For the record neither side here really matches up with my model of how Confidant works, but Menendian's is a little closer.  This is something I wanted to write an article about a year ago, but never had the soapbox/never did the work - I look forward to reading Rico's more formalized version.

[TheShop]

The question of running a Night's Whisper over Confidant does not intrigue me nearly as much as the usefulness of Skeletal Scrying.

My biggest problem with Confidant and Whisper is that neither can be played while keeping up mana for Drain.  Sorcery speed draw has always been less useful than instant speed draw.  Ponder will never be as good as brainstorm because it must be played on your turn.  With all the disadvantages to Skeletal Scrying (loss of useful graveyard spells, and life to a lesser extent) seem to be overcome simply because the spell can be played at the end of the opponent's turn.

Using this reasoning, I would rather run my single copy of Thirst, 1 copy of Scrying, and not sweat the timing difference between Confidant/Whisper when they make up only 1/30 of the cards in the deck.  I guess we just have to wait until Wizards messes up and prints 2 more instant speed draw spells to restrict before we will get back to the functionality of having 4 copies of Thirst (just like we will eventually get 4 cards that will be some sort of functional equivalent of Brainstorm).

I can't remember who said it, but "On a long enough timeline, we will all be playing highlander."  I used to think that the highlander option was pretty terrible, but having 4 distinct cards that are functionally similar does have some advantages.  The unpredictability factor makes it harder to hate the deck out.  For instance, REB is not nearly as good against 1 Thirst + 3 Black draw spells as it is against 4 Thirsts.

[Cyberpunker]

I want to say something to the skeptics of Night's Whisper. I have not posted for a while because I wanted to do additional testing before posting something again. And today I went to a small local 8 man tournament with most of Tokyo's best Vintage players. My friend had to borrow my Night's Whispers and so I took apart my EDH deck and ran the following in replacement:

1 Mulldrifter
1 Counsel of Soratami
1 Divinination.

These are the same draw 2 effects of Night's Whisper except they cost 1 more to cast.

Game 1 vs Workshop Aggro STAX
Game 1 I got locked down and lost 7 Mana Crypt flips in a row. I hard casted DSC eventually but still lost because of the Mana Crypt. Japanese dice are...suspicious.  

I resolved both Counsel of Soratami and Divination game 2 and as a result draw as well as topdecked into 4 straight counterspells in 2 turns. These spells countered Sphere, Smokestacks, Smokestacks, Triskelion. If those had been Dark Confidants, I would only have been able to counter 2 of the 4 spells.

I won game 3 but forgot how.

Game 2 vs Dredge
G1 was slaughter
G2 Divination helped me find Tezzeret for Tormod's Crypt and then Time Vault
G3 I just won with a good hand and good Ancestral Recall + Brainstorm.

Game 3 vs Heavy Lock STAX
G1 Early lock with Smokestacks out is GG.
G2 I won with the help of lots of counterspells and early Tezzeret
G3 I cast Mulldrifter UNDER THORN OF AMETHYST and draw into...Darksteel Colossus and Tolarian Academy . This is usually a bad sign...but you know what? Its not because I had 13 mana now to cast Darksteel Colossus under his 1 Sphere (alongside Thorn).   I won 2 turns later under 2 Smokestack set at 3 and 1

My point to this post is this:

Immediate draw effects are better than slower but stronger long term plans (Confidant). Tezzeret decks need immediate answers to their opponent's threats. Dark Confidant is only better if you resolve it turn 1-4 and they do not have any huge threats along the way. (Dark Confidant gives them a window of opportunity to resolve threats before you can start digging for spells; unless you already have a broken hand in which case you win no matter what engine you run). Confidant is great in the Control Mirror if they cannot answer it quick enough. But it doesn't provide immediate results. And that is what I like; I like immediate results. 

1st place Prize:

Foil Strip Mine. Yay! (Cheap!!!)

[Tha Gunslinga]

How are we supposed to take you seriously when you're playing Divination and Counsel of the Sorotami in Vintage?

[Cyberpunker]

How are we supposed to take you seriously when you're playing Divination and Counsel of the Sorotami in Vintage?

Well I beat 3 top decks in the field: Workshop aggro, STAX, and Dredge. And my point is not that Divination is a good card to play. My point is that if I can win with Divination/Counsel of Soratami/Mulldrifter, than imagine what I could have done with Night's Whisper. The Draw 2 effects are very nice.

I was hoping the results spoke for themselves.

[Tha Gunslinga]

You won an 8-man tourney.  I mean, why would you post something like that and expect us to do anything but laugh?

I know you can put bad cards in a good deck and still win.  I'm sure you could swap out Drains for Muddle the Mixtures and still do well.

[Cyberpunker]

You won an 8-man tourney.  I mean, why would you post something like that and expect us to do anything but laugh?

I did top 2 a 30+ man tourney with Night's Whisper and then top 3 another 17+ tourney the next week with the same list. Do you want that link? The deck is on deckcheck and morphling.de.

You can laugh if you want, I just wanted to share with you my findings on Night's Whisper and the solidness of a draw 2 effects as opposed to Dark Confidant. I blazed through an 8 man tourney with 3 suboptimal cards as a draw engine. And I still won because of the Draw 2 effect. So yeah that is my point.

[Rico Suave]

My point is that if I can win with Divination/Counsel of Soratami/Mulldrifter, than imagine what I could have done with Night's Whisper. The Draw 2 effects are very nice.

What does this have to do with the idea of Night's Whisper being better than Bob?  

I'm not sure anybody would disagree with the statement that Night's Whisper is better than Divination.  

Personally, I think the biggest telling sign of Night's Whisper vs. Dark Confidant is in this quote that you had in your original post:

"While all the answers to Night's Whisper is an answer to Dark Confidant, not all the answers to Dark Confidant can take out Whisper. Usually no one will Force of Will it (unless they hardcast it)."

What does it say if Bob is worth Forcing, but Night's Whisper is not?

[Cyberpunker]

What does this have to do with the idea of Night's Whisper being better than Bob?  

I would not have won if I had Bob because he would have been 2 turns too slow to get me the answers I needed to stablize and win.

What does it say if Bob is worth Forcing, but Night's Whisper is not?

I have already said multiple times that a resolved Bob would carry the game if the game were to drag on. Bob is no doubt a bigger threat in the long run and I have said he is the stronger long term plan. And that is the reason that he is forced early game. Late game, when you have already resolved a lot of draw spells and the opponent casts Bob, will you still counter it? I would not because I would already be poised to win very soon and the Bob would only eat up my counterspell. I would however Mana Drain a Night's Whisper in any given circumstance. The only situation where I would counter Bob is if I was planning on casting Tezzeret for Time Vault next turn.

The thing that makes Night's Whisper better than Bob is he gets you the cards immediately and allows Tezzeret to explode in the next few turns or to have more answers to opponent's threats. And I believe that would make it better than Bob in the short term. And the faster you dig, the closer you are to winning with your combo or Tinker.

[Rico Suave]

We can come up with circumstantial evidence all day, but I don't think one, or two, or even a dozen examples will suffice if there are more examples where Bob is better than Night's Whisper. 

I have seen games where Lava Dart won the game, where Ancestral Recall or Force of Will have not.  That doesn't mean anything though.

[Cyberpunker]

there are more examples where Bob is better than Night's Whisper. 

I disagree with this line. But I will do more testing and maybe I will find out more about what is a better Draw engine. Maybe it is a card that is neither Bob nor Night's Whisper. I don't know yet.

[Tha Gunslinga]

The real question is, do we even need a draw engine anymore?  I mean, you can start with most of the restricted list, and once you're playing that many tutors, why bother drawing random cards?

[Cyberpunker]

The real question is, do we even need a draw engine anymore?  I mean, you can start with most of the restricted list, and once you're playing that many tutors, why bother drawing random cards?

In the mirror the one who draws the most restricted cards most likely wins; that is the luck factor in Magic that we cannot overcome. I think however that deckbuilding right now revolves around how strong you can make your hand when you fail to draw the restricted cards. Decks like Starcity Vault use the most broken out of the restricted list.

I just do not like to play Starcity Vault and think regular Tezz is a better alternative. Wastelands hurt too much, Crucible lock becomes more of a threat since they don't need Strip Mine. Plus there is the occasional beatdown deck with Bloodmoon and Price of Progress.

[JACO]

The thing that makes Night's Whisper better than Bob is he gets you the cards immediately and allows Tezzeret to explode in the next few turns or to have more answers to opponent's threats. And I believe that would make it better than Bob in the short term. And the faster you dig, the closer you are to winning with your combo or Tinker.

This is what the crux of your argument should be, not the fact that some random crappy Blue draw spells allowed you to win against Stax variants (where Confidant would have been your MVP anyway).

Night's Whisper nets you +1 card right away, so as Rico Suave noted, is it really worth Forcing or even Mana Drainining? Most often not if you've got a few cards in hand, especially when there are much better potential threats (Tinker, Demonic Tutor, etc.). A first or second turn Night's Whisper will rarely win you the game, but a first or second turn Confidant will often win you the game, which is exactly why people want or need to counter it.

[Meddling Mike]

I actually made this argument in an article about 4 years ago:

http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/vintage/11161_What_About_Bob_Dark_Confidant_in_Vintage.html

Personally, I find this deck somewhat lacking, confused about which role it wants to play. To truly capitalize on Dark Confidant, the game needs to last long enough to net significant card advantage, but not so long that Bob begins to pose a legitimate threat to his controller. Much of the rest of the deck, however, seems to be urging the player to win and win quickly, as is the nature of combo decks. When I look at this decklist, I find myself asking “Is Confidant any better than Night's Whisper?”


Think about it for a moment.


They have the same casting cost.
Both are sorcery speed.
Night's Whisper will never accidentally lose you the game because you drew your Darksteel Colossus off it.
Night's Whisper will draw you the cards immediately, rather than having to wait multiple turns for the cards to show up.
Night's Whisper will never get plowed, blasted, darted, duped, or any of the other fine methods Vintage uses to deal with one-toughness creatures.
One doesn't need to reveal the cards drawn off Night's Whisper.
Night's Whisper doesn't encourage running singletons like Sensei's Divining Top for the sake of synergy.


The benefits of Confidant don't seem to measure up...


He has the potential to draw more than two cards.
If they can't deal with the creature or provide a blocker, he'll come in for two damage every turn.


This is not to say that I think people should start playing Night's Whisper in place of Dark Confidant in decks such as these, but rather to illustrate my misgivings about the viability of this deck on the whole. I think a Storm Combo deck with a game-plan that involves sitting around for multiple turns to net some card advantage off a vulnerable 2/1 body is inherently flawed. It's three turns before Dark Confidant so much as draws even with Night's Whisper, which is an eternity for a Vintage combo deck.

Another benefit of NW is that it can be replayed off a Yawmoth's Will, not that a Dark Confidant cannot, but obviously the NW has a more immediate effect. I think this thread's author may also have neglected to mention that NW doesn't reveal as confidant does, it's not a major point, but I know I always write down anything I see off an opponent's confidant flip.

[nineisnoone]

I have already said multiple times that a resolved Bob would carry the game if the game were to drag on. Bob is no doubt a bigger threat in the long run and I have said he is the stronger long term plan. And that is the reason that he is forced early game. Late game, when you have already resolved a lot of draw spells and the opponent casts Bob, will you still counter it? I would not because I would already be poised to win very soon and the Bob would only eat up my counterspell. I would however Mana Drain a Night's Whisper in any given circumstance. The only situation where I would counter Bob is if I was planning on casting Tezzeret for Time Vault next turn.

The thing that makes Night's Whisper better than Bob is he gets you the cards immediately and allows Tezzeret to explode in the next few turns or to have more answers to opponent's threats. And I believe that would make it better than Bob in the short term. And the faster you dig, the closer you are to winning with your combo or Tinker.

"Early" game and "late" game shouldn't be though of in terms of what turn it is.  The point is that Bob is the beginning of a strong play series whereas, as you said, Night's Whisper is not the foundation of a strong gameplay.

Additionally consider this fact.  If I don't counter your Night's Whisper, that means I have a counter that I can use for whatever you draw.  Is your threat density greater than 50%?  If not you haven't gained any ground on your opponent.  I think this is one of the reasons why it hasn't gained a strong presence.  2 cards is just not enough to draw into a multiple threats occasionally or one threat consistently.  If your draw spells, can't hit a threat it's chaff.  And if your draw spell only sometimes hits one threat, then you might as well pack your deck with more threats rather than another draw spell.

Going back to Bob being the beginning of a strong play series, it's not about Bob as a draw spell.  It's about Bob as a threat.  Night Whisper doesn't draw well enough to be a threat.  You can say Night Whisper is a superior draw spell (not necessarily agreeing with you but let's just assume), but you're not playing Bob as a draw spell.  You're playing him as a threat (who happens to threaten by drawing cards).

--

On the Bob math, I'd agree that ACMC isn't the key number.  It's not irrelevant, but I would look at the number of high costed cards in the deck.

Think of it this way, the difference between 1.5 and 1.4 (you say) are irrelevant.  Sure.  You also say the difference between 1.1 and 1.5 is relevant.  Again, sure. 

But in the actual game, the difference between flipping a card that cost 1 or cost 2 are irrelevant.  Even though that difference would be relevant if it was the ACMC. 

Essentially the cards that are really low costed are irrelevant in terms of the analysis.  I would actually say the only relevant cards to consider would be those that cost above 2 (greater than Bob's power).  I mean sure, you *could* die from flipping 20 straight 1 costed cards, but that's just highly unlikely.

All that matters are the number of relevant flips.  How the irrelevant flips converge into the ACMC is incidental and largely irrelevant (though again, it's within the realm of possibility).

Another way to think of it is what if there was an infinite costed artifact that won the game as soon as it came into play.  Any ACMC analysis would rule it out of the realm of possibility and relatively look horrible, but if you look more to relevant flips it changes the outlook on the analysis dramatically.

[zeus-online]

Night's whisper dosn't have to draw multiple threats to be worth while, it only needs to build up resources to cast and protect a threat to be good enough for consideration...The key thing is to build up resources for the end game where those will translate into a win. The question is wether or not night's whisper accomplices this better then dark confidant.

[nineisnoone]

Perhaps you disagree with my analysis, but you don't really offer any of your own.  You just... say it.  And I think you are wrong.

And I did not say it "has to draw multiple threats to be worthwhile."  I suppose you misunderstood my meaning.

Cards like Impulse and Dark Confidant are not chosen over Night's Whisper because they are better at building up resources.  If that was all we were looking at, the Night's Whisper would be the easy choice.  It puts two cards into your hands immediately.   If it wasn't that resource accumulation suggests its superiority, we wouldn't even be having the conversation because it certainly isn't the evidence of experience suggesting it.  I mean if we want to just talk about resource accumulation, then isn't it better than Thirst for Knowledge?  They both just give +1 CA after all, with Thirst being more expensive and conditional.

But those cards aren't chosen for resource building they are chosen because they are their own threats.  The putting cards into hand thing is just incidental to how they threaten.  Digging 4 deep with Impulse almost guarantees you something really strong.  Dark Confidant can finish the game on his own.  Night's Whisper puts you at +1 CA.  Sure, whatever.  Is that +1 CA going to be stronger than the best cards out of my top 4 cards?  Is it going to be stronger than Bob?  

And the thing is, probably not.  Dark Confidant can win games on his own.  Impulse is a bit closer, but going 4 deep is twice as good as going 2 deep.  You lose the +1 CA, but in reality that is a staple decision that we make.  We make it every time we play Force of Will.  We decided to go down -1 CA, because the card that we countered is better than that +1 CA.  

The fact is there are too many plays that are stronger than merely giving a +1 CA to a player.  It doesn't matter that Night's Whisper is better at accumulating resources, because you aren't accumulating them fast enough to counterbalance the threat dilution that playing them has caused.  

[zeus-online]

Thirst is better since card quality is also a factor, rather then just pure CA. In a way night's whisper is a threat of its own, just because you don't think FoW+Blue card is more valuable then night's whisper, dosn't mean that it's not a threat. I've lost quite a bit of games to turn 1 night's whisper, turn 2 thirst back when thirst was still legal as a 4-off. Which one did i loose to? I'm not sure, often night's whisper was really annoying since i didn't think it was worth FoW'ing either, but it still helped my opponent enough to be a genuine problem for my deck.

Night's whisper is far faster then dark confidant in terms of drawing cards, it takes two turns with confidant to dig equally deep (As you most likely known ).

How do you define what is a threat? Anything that helps the opponent win is a threat in some way. It seems like you're talking about which cards needs answering rather then which cards are "threats".

I'm not saying night's whisper is better then confidant, afterall i love ophidian...I'm just saying that it isn't clear cut that Dark confidant is better.

I'm a bit pressed for time, so i'm gonna stop rambling on about why night's whisper is an option.

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

Many people seem to generically classifying Dark Confidant as a threat, and I certainly disagree with that. When my opponent casts Dark Confidant I always look at my hand when deciding if I care about it. It takes three turns in my opinion for Dark Confidant to be a threat. If I can't win within three turns then I'll start caring about it. Essentially if your metagame is filled with a lot of fast decks I would probably go with Night's Whisper but if your metagame is slow then Dark Confidant is king.

I think the popularity of Dark Confidant is due largely in part because two of the most important matchups are probably control mirrors and hate decks, which is where long term engines dominate. Night's Whisper and Dark Confidant are both reasonable engines and I think trying to say that one is better than the other in a vacuum is wrong. However, I think there is an additional consideration that can make Night's Whisper stronger than Dark Confidant:

Thirst is better since card quality is also a factor, rather then just pure CA. In a way night's whisper is a threat of its own, just because you don't think FoW+Blue card is more valuable then night's whisper, dosn't mean that it's not a threat. I've lost quite a bit of games to turn 1 night's whisper, turn 2 thirst back when thirst was still legal as a 4-off. Which one did i loose to? I'm not sure, often night's whisper was really annoying since i didn't think it was worth FoW'ing either, but it still helped my opponent enough to be a genuine problem for my deck.

If your decklist is heavy on draw spells like Night's Whisper+TfK in decks of old or Thoughtcast+Night's Whisper in modern times, then you can chain draw spells together. This is similar to the argument for keeping FoF (and to a lesser extent TfK) restricted. While it may not be super amazing as a singleton if you could run 4 of them you could chain them together and just destroy your opponent. Assuming you want to run a lot of instant card advantage spells then Night's Whisper will be stronger in my opinion. This stems from the fact that countering something like Night's Whisper or Thoughtcast seems like the wrong play, but by the time it becomes the right play your opponent will likely have already won by chaining +1CA.

The aspect of chaining spells together is why TfK was the major offender and got restricted and not Dark Confidant. The snowball effect of +1 just wins games, especially when you dig deeper with the same spell as well. Now obviously TfK is stronger than Night's Whisper, but it is just an example.

Edit: Hopefully this does not count as offtopic but having just reread the thread I'd like to add my own input to the CMC debate of Dark Confidant. I think a big problem is that when analysing the CMC is that it does not take in to account what actually happens during gameplay. I have noticed that not a single analysis takes into account library searching effects. Every time you use a fetchland you are cutting in to your deck's average CMC. In addition to this most tutors often get cheap cards, like Ancestral Recall, Time Vault, or 1-2 CC bounce/removal. I think this is why one side of the argument contends that it is the number of high casting cost cards that make a difference and not the average converted mana cost, because in reality many of your cheap spells are likely being filtered out in one way or another leading a higher density of big spells left in your deck. This may also be why a deck like Stax can get away with running so many high casting cost cards, not just because they don't run many other ways like Thoughtseize to lose life but also because they aren't sucking the low casting cost cards out of their decks.