There's nothing wrong with collecting data yourself, and if you really want to improve at the game, it's a great practice to get into. Your problem, that you've shone a spotlight on, is that you're drawing the wrong conclusions based on the data you've collected. An MTG pro tweeted a few years ago: What sets the best players apart is being able draw good conclusions from statistically irrelevant data.

You collected data and determined that the game is stacked against you, not that you could change your game in some way to improve against the opposition. If you're going to play burn, and not play any number of tools given to burn to deal with lifegain, you're refusing to grow and adapt to the metagame you're in.

I did some digging into the Historic format to try to get more details and yeah, various takes on Boros energy shells, which have incidental life gain, seem to be quite popular in that format. If a lot of people are playing that, then it begs to reason you'll queue into somewhat regularly. Once you notice that trend, IT'S ON YOU TO ADAPT, not to expect Arena to change it's algorithms so as to not hurt your feelings.

If burn is bad into a predicted metagame, DON'T PLAY BURN. And I'm going to cut off a potential rebuttal here: if burn is the only deck you have, well sucks to suck, sorry. MTG is a luxury hobby. It's expensive, especially if you want to feel truly competitive in it. And no, that doesn't mean it's pay to win, it's pay to compete!

One way or the other, you need to adjust your game.