How do you define "consistency" in a deck?

I had an argument with someone ages ago, which I'd completely forgotten about, until today, when they felt the need to bring it up again, even though we came to a stalemate (he thinks he won, I agreed to disagree not claiming either opinion was wrong).

It started with Dino Rabbit and the term "consistency." See, I don't think Dino Rabbit is consistent. This is not making any statement about the deck, or its pilots. I think last format it was a fantastically powerful deck that had really good match ups. I think this format with a skilled player it's still an extremely versatile deck open to a lot of plays and good at controlling and the ability to main Macro makes it really good. But I don't think it's consistent.

Why? Well, my definition of a consistent deck is any deck, good or bad, strong or powerful, successful or rarely seen, which can, with a large amount of frequency, create a combo, play, or highly specific game state. Dino Rabbit doesn't fit that criteria to me, because they can't always get out Laggia/Dolkka. They're versatile, because they run a lot of generic and good spells and traps which allow them support, and as I said, being able to main Macro Cosmos is always helpful. But they aren't like, for example, Elemental HEROs. With Stratos, E - Emergency Call, Reinforcement of the Army, Pot of Duality, Hero Blast, etc. it is able to consistently create certain game states. Some variants are more consistent than others, but most of them are good because they can regularly achieve something.

Now, I'll go ahead and try to play devil's advocate and represent the other side of the argument. I'll try to do so with less malice and more articulation than was given to me the first time. While my definition of consistency is based on playstyle, they offered a definition on the performance success of the deck. Thus, any deck that regularly tops or wins major events is considered to be "consistent." This better fits my definition of a deck that is "good" or "successful" or simply has better match ups to common decks (like Dark Worlds back when no one played them so no one sided against them). I acknowledged that, if you base your definition of consistency on the performance of the deck, then yes, Dino Rabbit is consistent. However, my definition is based on playstyle, meaning that Dino Rabbit doesn't fit my definition of consistency.

What about you, r/yugioh? What do you mean when you say "consistent"? Consistently winning, or consistent in playstyle?