Hi again! It seems from the comments that people really do prefer the live recordings of the matches. The result is videos that are way longer, but otherwise i don't mind. The video for round 2 got corrupted unfortunately (I won!) so it jumps from round 1 to round 3.
If I could rebuild the deck, I'd play the version with black in it that I sideboarded into. We have the classic argument of power vs consistency here, but I don't think that's the whole story. Usually we think of consistency in terms of being reliably able to cast your spells and hit your curve. I think in this format, consistency can also be defined in terms of being able to consistently be able to cast your bombs and deal with your opponents bombs. Curving out is all fun and games until someone drops a carniflex demon, or a hordesmelter dragon, or a battlesphere, or a massacre wurm, or a sunblast angel.... you get the picture. I think its more likely that a game in sealed in this format will be decided by an unanswered bomb hitting the table then who can curve out better in the first 4-5 turns.
So how does that apply to my build? I think deciding to run certarch over spread the sickness is mistake number 1. Even if I don't go heavy into the black, while I can certainly cast certarch mroe consistently, spread the sickness does what I actually want it to do (ie. kill bombs) waaaaaay more consistently. There is simply no question that spread the sickness needed to be in the deck considering the overall lack of removal in the pool.
Mistake number 2 was undervaluing the black in general. I got a bit blinded by the dragon and corrupted conscience, and as we saw I could very greedily include them and the black anyways. For the record, there is no way I cut corrupted conscience or hordesmelter-dragon from a main deck unless its for something better. If black had a carniflex demon or massacre wurm then maybe I might consider cutting the conscience or the dragon and play two colors.
Keep in mind, even though I say I'd start with the really greedy three color deck, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't sideboard into the more (traditionally) consistent 2 color deck. It just means that I think you're more likely to play against a bombcentric deck then an aggro deck (that is actually any good, most aggro decks I've played seem pretty terrible!). As we saw in round 4, against a particularly aggressive deck, especially one that doesn't seem to be defined by any ridiculous bombs, the extra removal is not as important as just keeping up pace on the board. Especially since the cards you are going to need to use the removal on are on average going to be way worse, especially if you stumble on mana before you're able to cast them.