It also feels almost "too consistent". When I was behind I wanted some out (my opponent missing on their draw step, whatever), but I just slippery sloped further and further behind with no real tools for trying to turn the game around. I know people don't like mana screw, but I think the threat of it provides something fundamental to the game, some tension, hope and excitement. With this system the draw step felt like a drip feed of value, and I was never really excited about what I was going to draw. The decision density was high but the fun-density was not.
It's reasonably common in economic games, some of which have very long play times for an early mistake to come about and be insurmountable, deciding the game in the first 20 minutes. I mean, you can try your best to scrape back in, making lots of decisions to gain marginal value, but all that effort is basically for nothing: its already over. Decisions aren't fun once you pull back the veil and see they are pointless (a point CML has often harped on), but while an early mistake can snowball and make later decisions worthless, "swingy" mechanics can wipe out the importance of early decisions, so its no better.
Its no surprise that many economic games can be frustrating when the skill levels of the players are unequal, often becoming an exercise in "who can get the noob throw them the game".
For low margin games to be most effective, I think two things should be true:
1) Gains should be linear, rather then exponential, so that an early error CAN be overcome by a great move later.
2) It should be fairly obvious when a game is hopeless so that the losing player can concede. [As players improve at the game, they generally get better at this, but new players (who are also the most prone to be frustrated) often can't.]
or at worst
3) The game should be short enough that it isn't frustrating to complete the game.
As far as Magic is concerned, I think the Wrath suggestion is a decent one as it helps with #1.