the way i see it, current rules are more prone to result in 3-0, while lesllamas rules are more prone to result in 3-1 in the event of a player winning the first 2 games in a row. However, the current rules are more prone to result in 3-2 whenever the other player wins game3, while lesllamas rules are still prone to result in 3-1.
Lets assume that counterpicking is really strong in this game (Which it is, in my opinion) and therefor, the player who counterpicks has 2x better odds to win the game than the countered player, so the most likely event to happen is that the countered player loses. Whenever a player who is being countered wins, we shall call it breaking his opponent (like in tennis, when you win on your opponents serve).
If this happens all the the time, then in both systems, the most likely outcome is 3-2. and it will look like this
Player A wins Neutral game1
Player B wins CounterPick g2
Player A wins CP g3
Player B wins CP g4
Player A wins CP game 5
=3-2 for A
Now in the less likely event that a player wins 2 games in a row, the current rules are most likely to result in this
Player A wins N g1
Player A breaks Countered g2
Player A wins CP g3
=3-0 for A
While in this case, LesLlama's rules are most likely to result in this
Player A wins N g1
Player A breaks C g2
Player B wins CP g3
Player A wins CP g4
= 3-1 for A
Lesllamas is arguing that this is more fair, because the losing player gets to use all his potential CP's in the series before he tabs out, and he wont be punished for losing the neutral first game by being put in a countered postion when he is down 2-0. There is definitely merit to this argument. There is definitely precedent for the current rule set too though, for example Tennis, where the Serve can be compared to the Counterpick, which means it makes it more likely for the serving player to win that particular game (not the set or the match, but the 45p to gamepoint). In tennis serves are alternated, and breaking your opponents serve doesn't mean he gets to serve another time, however tennis doesn't have a neutral game, possibly making it even more unfair than the current rules
However, consider the following too, in the unlikely event that a player wins two in a row (aka wins neutral game 1 and then breaks in game2), and then gets broken in game3, the current ruleset is most likely going to play out like this:"
Player A wins N g1
Player A breaks C g2
Player B breaks C g3
Player B wins CP g4
Player A wins CP g5
= 3-2 for A
However, lesllamas rules are still most likely going to result in a 3-1 situation because of the winner picks first rule and it will most likely look like this:
Player A wins N g1
Player A breaks C g2
Player B breaks C g3
Player A wins CP g4
= 3-1 for A
So while the rules lesllamas proposes do avoid the situation where the player who is down 2-0 gets counterpicked on matchpoint in game3, they do not avoid the same situation in game4.
There are two more situations to consider, and that is a break in game3 and a break in g3+4, in which case the current rules will look like this:
Player A wins N g1
Player B wins CP g2
Player B breaks C g3
Player B wins CP g4
= 3-1 for B
While lesllama's rules are most likely to play out like this
Player A wins N g1
Player B wins CP g2
Player B breaks C g3
Player A wins CP g4
Player B wins CP g5
= 3-2 for B
The double break will look like the following in the current ruleset
Player A wins N g1
Player B wins CP g2
Player B breaks C g3
Player A breaks C g4
Player A wins CP g5
= 3-2 for A
While in the ruleset lesllamas proposes it is most likely to go as follows:
Player A wins N g1
Player B wins CP g2
Player B breaks C g3
Player A breaks C g4
Player B wins CP g5
= 3-2 for B
So it seems to me that there are situations in which both rulesets are more lenient to the winner of g1, but also situations in which both rule sets are more punishing to the winner of g1. But there it appears that only in one case lesllamas ruleset will most likely result in a different winner of the series than the current ruleset, and that is in the last case of the double break, and this might be seen as punishing the winner of the neutral game one in a way. However, in the case of break in game3, the current ruleset are most likely not going to end up in that situation, so its arguable wether or not lesllamas rules are more unfair in that situation. However, i dont really see too much difference in the end, so i dont think its needed to change the rules atm, specially since the thing is actually more complicated if you are going to consider civ reset and a depleting civ pool, specially relevant in series longer than bo5.