"Declumping" a Deck

[djjoe227]

When I play a search card like Collector, I'll put the basics I'm thinking about getting on top of my deck. Then, after I have thought it over completely I'll show them, put then in my hand, and shuffle.

This is "Narrowing Down A Search".

What we're talking about is when you take cards that may or may not have any real relation to the actual purpose of your initial action and separate them from their identical twins within the deck.

Two completely different concepts. Yours is 100% focused on the task initially at hand.

About stacking:

You must shuffle afterwards and your opponent may shuffle or simply cut your deck after you're done. That takes care of any kind of stacking.

What if I bring my deck stacked to the match? Is it legal? Of course! You must get there and begin by shuffling anyway.

This is no different.

Have you read any of the previous posts? This was covered.

If you stack the deck, you are cheating.
If your opponent shuffles the deck, it undoes the cheating AND randomizes the deck.
Therefore, you stacking the deck was wasting time. It served no point whatsoever.

 

[Raen]

There's something people seem to not understand: Random is just that, random. If there are clumped cards, it can still be random. Randomness allows for ALL possibilities. So that hand of all energy? That was random. Unlikely, sure, but still random. An even spread of cards could be random, or it could not be. Same for clumped cards. Neither thing happening denotes random/unrandomness.

 

[BlisseyRocks]

Honestly i dont think they will ever touch this subject nor do i think they SHOULD!

For example, Jason is not a fast player by any means. To your opponent, you are just "wasting time". You know the time isnt wasted because you always DOUBLE check whether your move is correct. YOU think the declumping is a "waste of time" while your opponent feels comfortable by doing this. Its not stacking if they randomize sufficiently, and the span of a second surely isnt anything important.

Theres nothing wrong with it if they randomize sufficiently. I do agree though is they move more than 4-5 cards it IS somewhat of a problem, but not something that should be ILLEGAL.

 

[pokeking11]

I'm sure that when you search you deck for say a collector that you move basics to the front of your deck to see what you do and don't have in your deck, and according to what i have understood your arguments to be that action is the exact same as declumping because you have moved cards out of their original shuffled position. By moving certain cards out of certain locations for whatever reason you have influenced the deck position and therefore the dispersion of the cards which is in your mind cheating. If moving basics to the front to see what you have is not bad, but moving the 4 rare candy clump at the bottom is then all i see is a contradiction. I am perfectly fine with declumping because it really doesn't affect anything in my mind, maybe the math says it does, but we do have to remember that this is a children's card game.

 

[PokePop]

but we do have to remember that this is a children's card game.

You were doing fine up until this statement.
It implies that the game should be handled as a schoolyard game.
So why don't we all just make up rules as we go along, then?
How about we play that Charizard beats all Pokemon because he is just the coolest?

Sorry, but that statement just...

 

[Mekkah]

Honestly i dont think they will ever touch this subject nor do i think they SHOULD!

For example, Jason is not a fast player by any means. To your opponent, you are just "wasting time". You know the time isnt wasted because you always DOUBLE check whether your move is correct. YOU think the declumping is a "waste of time" while your opponent feels comfortable by doing this. Its not stacking if they randomize sufficiently, and the span of a second surely isnt anything important.

Theres nothing wrong with it if they randomize sufficiently. I do agree though is they move more than 4-5 cards it IS somewhat of a problem, but not something that should be ILLEGAL.

Comparing his double checking his moves to "deck de-clumping" is so insane I don't really know where to begin. Do you really want to go there?

Can I hire you as my spokesperson or something?

^Everything he said.

Maybe if you post more YouTube videos we can work something out......

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

Actually at least one person has tried and failed. Either you managed to miss it, failed to comprehend this, or are willfully making a misleading statement to unethically support your stance. The DarkTwins has in fact been debating this with Ness (and a few others).



No, it is not. A strategy can involve making an opponent think you're wasting time, or someone can merely mistake what you are doing for wasting time, but either it was wasting time or it wasn't. Perspective only affects your ability to recognize it, not what it is. If I see a dog in the distance, but my perspective makes it appear smaller than it is and I perceive it as a cat, it is not a cat.



1) You must be able to declump on "autopilot" in order to not waste any time. If you fully dedicate your mind to thinking, declumping will take place at a snail's pace. If you don't dedicate your mind to thinking about your search, then you're increasing the time you need in order to make a good decision for the search and wasting time.

2) Even if you can contemplate your search with all your faculties while declumping on "autopilot" time will be lost in two places: while you sufficiently randomize your deck after de-clumping and while your opponent also shuffles long enough to sufficiently randomize your deck, since if they don't they risk you having cheated!



I will take this moment to re-iterate my point: perception does not equal fact, so either you are wasting time or you are not, and if you are declumping while thinking that would realistically make the time required to think take longer.

Unless we have some method of verifying that you are actually shortchanging your own thinking time by dedicating time and consideration to declumping.



While almost certainly true, you cannot actually prove this. Even if this is true, it does not making wasting time a "good" thing. There are many behaviors every person capable of performing are guilty of, and the natural counter to this is pointing out that if murder is no longer wrong because everyone does it, then all someone has to do is murder everyone who has never murdered to no longer be guilty.



Again, by this logic any stalling is legal until most matches fail to finish before time is called. The behavior is wrong or it is not wrong. By this action, I can cheat in any manner I like so long as it does not by itself determine who wins. How many "short stalls" can we come up with? I am betting we can come up with enough that a player could stack the "short stalls" together to truly stall.



It has been a while since I last went over the rules, but if I blatantly repeat the same three actions over and over again, where each action only costs a few seconds, am I not still stalling? Anyway, Ness doesn't need this sole point to be right, you need it to have any argument.



It sets a precedent. It is okay to arrange your deck so long as you then make an effort to re-randomize it. If you specially arrange your deck then make a sincere, successful attempt at randomizing it, congrats you've only wasted time. If you fail to successfully randomize it after arranging it, you are cheating, whether you intended to or not. Your opponent is presented an opportunity to foil your cheating, but it does not erase that you did attempt to cheat, even if no one caught you. Like I said, it doesn't matter what is perceived, what matters is what actually "is".

If declumping is permissible as long as it is followed by sufficient randomization, how does one determine "sufficient randomization"? You're telling me your opponent now has to watch his or her opponent searching his or her deck like a hawk and have a judge (who is allowed to see the actual contents of the deck) also watching, so that between the two (judge and opposing player) it is known for certain the one player is declumping.

The opposing player must know this so that said player can sufficiently randomize your deck. Anything less creates an easy way to cheat. If this is not the procedure, a player can stack his or her deck to his or her heart's content and claim to merely be declumping if said player's opponent notices something happening, and said opponent must risk being called for stalling in order to properly protect against another player's possible cheating!

I know some may counter "Doing that would take too much time..." but I have learned this is never a defense: as long as we aren't breaking the laws of physics or setting a new record for human performance, you can't discount it. It doesn't matter if a player can only successfully cheat this way once during a season, when they notice there are only a handful of cards that need their order adjusted and a less than thorough opponent for the stacking to work.

This then sets up for a cruel trade off: you know the best way to stall? Forcing your opponent to do it for you! With declumping being allowed, you can spend two seconds declumping to force your opponent to burn their maximum allowed time shuffling your deck in order to ensure you didn't actually stack anything. If time is almost up, that's a horrible choice to have to make: prevent stacking or run out of time!

On top of all of that, how does this not translate to deck weaving being legal? By the logic that declumping is not a bad practice, neither is weaving. If I can weave my deck (stack the order Pokemon-Energy-Trainer-repeat) in a timely manner then shuffle sufficiently to randomize, I an doing exactly what the declumper is doing.

Ignatius brought up (ironically in support of you but actually proving why this is wrong) why can't I arrange a "power hand" within my deck. If all we care about is not taking so long as to earn a 'stalling penalty', I just have to be able to create one or two "quality clumps". They don't have to be clumps of identical cards, but of desirable cards. If you don't shuffle thoroughly, I have now manipulated the odds so that it is more likely than before that I can draw into a good combo.

Declumping=/=stacking, but Declumpling=Stacking/x, where x>1. Declumping is just a minor level of stacking.



Actually, I question the legality of "good luck charms". If they work, it is cheating. If they don't work, they are just a waste of time. Maybe they make the player doing them 'feel better', but what about the opposing player who is also a "believer", and whom feels worse for the ritual. I'd think their use would be against Spirit of the Game.



I'd say this is a faulty analysis on your part. Declumping=stacking/x. The benefit will be less than actual stacking, but it would be easier to accomplish. It is the same reason why a person would steal only a few cards out of an opponent's deck in the hope of getting said opponent disqualified versus stealing the whole deck: the former is less effective as the victim will need to replace less cards, but the latter is much harder to get away with!



The more you talk the more it is apparent the hate is warranted. Ness laid this out in his first statement: if this improves your results its cheating, if it doesn't it is wasting time since first you use time to "cheat" then you and your opponent have to spend time to undo the cheat!

This is further substantiated by PokePop's post. I really think this should be made illegal due to the precedent it sets. I assumed with Spirit of the Game that it was recognized some rules simply cannot be enforced without confession by the perpetrator. If not, it needs to be. Some things are wrong but cannot be policed and must be left to the honor system. They are still wrong and are stated so because not doing so means they are in essence "right" and can be used to support other undesirable behaviors.

Not every cheat can be proven, but all cheats should still be clearly labeled as illegal in the rules.

Thank you Otaku. Your post, which actually talks directly about what I said is appreciated.

So let's begin with saying, I was being vague, and that's my fault a lot, but when people start complaining about 5 seconds of dead time, the argument begins to lose strength IMO. Stalling is a problem, but such small increments of time (which do add up I admit) seem arbitrary, and complaining about such small pockets of time seem like they'd waste more time than save

As for the perspective thing I was talking more about the fact that the opponent isn't always clear on what the opponent is doing, for instance the opponent could be playing Collector and garbing another Pokemon (ie an evolution) so they can then quickly play a communication. The opponent of course may not realize this until the Communication is played. (Sorry can't think of a better example at the moment, but I hope this still works)

As for the whole 'sufficient shuffling' I completely agree, I just used that since it seemed that everyone else seemed to agree on that point, but yes that's difficult to impossible to agree upon. As for the minor clumping, I kind of have to disagree, because I don't see a big difference between it and rearranging a deck when you are choosing cards for searches for stuff like Collector and Twins, since some players like to keep the cards in their deck until they choose them.

The problem with clumping as I see it is that it's just as likely to harm as help, which is why I don't view it as harmful. That kind of goes into a whole other territory of only benefits being wrong, but that's not what I'm addressing.

Again thank you Otaku.

 

[NoPoke]

I don't have a problem with de-clumping. I do have a problem with insufficient shuffling regardless of whether a de-clump has taken place or not.

First the deck is expected to be random and that means you do not know its order. Everytime you search your deck you are observing the order and even if you don't explicitly pick up on its arrangement you are still exposed to information that can influence you. A good shuffle destroys that information.

Second Random DOES mean uniform. All of the statistics used to calculate mulligans etc using the hypergeometric distribution or equivalent statistics assume that the deck is random and uniform. Uniform in the context that any card is equally likely to occupy any position in the deck.

Third real people are bad at shuflling. This should not surprise anyone. Not least because if a computer, which can perform thousands and thousands of card exchanges as part of its algorithm, can make a mess of randomising a deck then players who typically shuffle for less than 20 seconds are very unlikely to end up with an uncorrelated arrangement of cards as their shuffled deck.

I don't even need to address the problem of sticky cards to not be at all surprised that players see unusual clumps during searches. I will assert without proof that these are worse (more frequent) than would be expected if a deck was fully randomised due to the physical processes involved in how players shuffle.

I loathe the hand over hand shuffle as it typically preserves deck sequence.

I do expect to see players make an effective effort to destroy information that they may have after a search. That includes the location of clumps and the cards in the clump.

 

[Otaku]

I'm sure that when you search you deck for say a collector that you move basics to the front of your deck to see what you do and don't have in your deck, and according to what i have understood your arguments to be that action is the exact same as declumping because you have moved cards out of their original shuffled position.

This statement makes it clear you have not understood the heart of the matter. I will be happy to clarify it for you. It is not matter of moving cards out of their "original shuffled position": every time you shuffle again you are doing that! The problem is people are taking time to re-arrange their deck in a manner that would increase the likelihood of a preferential draw. That is what "declumping" is about, a more even distribution when it would be preferential for your drawing. Really need a Rare Candy? Play a non-Suppporter Search card (even if it requires some luck) and you notice the three Rare Candy left in your deck are all in a row in your deck. You then top deck one, bottom deck the other, and middle deck the remaining copy.

If you and/or your opponent shuffle sufficiently, you have the same likelihood that they are clumped together again. Which means your efforts were a waste of time and provides a screen for actual cheaters. If I am a cheater, now just have another opportunity to try to stack my deck. Can you just shuffle it away? Probably, but as long as I am not being penalized, as a hypothetical cheater I might as well try.

So in the Rare Candy example I've just given, you use a non-Supporter search card, notice the Rare Candy, and split them up manually, instead of allowing your shuffle the chance to (or not to) do the job. Now you need to riffle shuffle seven times to sufficiently re-randomize your deck. If you don't, and especially if you aren't forthcoming and warning your opponent, your declumping just became stacking.

By moving certain cards out of certain locations for whatever reason you have influenced the deck position and therefore the dispersion of the cards which is in your mind cheating.

If you are actually searching for a card as part of a card effect legally played, you are allowed to move cards out of the way for your search. What is being called into question is moving cards for a non-effect related reason. If there is a card effect that says "search your deck for clumps of cards and break them up, then shuffle your deck" I've got no problem with declumping in such a scenario and I doubt Ness would either.

This is not just cheating "in my mind", or Ness's, though I don't presume to speak for him: I just happen to share a viewpoint so what you say about this viewpoint applies to me, even if it is directed to him. If you are attempting to influence the results of randomization, making them no longer sufficiently randomized, you are cheating.

If moving basics to the front to see what you have is not bad, but moving the 4 rare candy clump at the bottom is then all i see is a contradiction.

If after careful explanation you still see this as contradiction, then you should have no problem with me constantly stacking my deck as much as time allows. Hopefully that is blatantly a problem for you and this will give you pause to try yet again to understand what Ness is saying.

In the first case we have someone moving cards around for the effect mandated by a card. While not always necessary, that is what moving around the possible legal targets for a search effect is about: efficiently choosing your target before you sufficiently randomize your deck. There is no intent at affecting the randomization of the deck and no attempt. It is not wasting time either since it directly used to speed up your selection.

Moving around "clumped" copies of Rare Candy are specifically attempts at reducing the randomization of your deck. If you follow by sufficiently randomizing your deck, again you're just wasting time and providing a smokescreen for actual cheats. If somehow you fail to sufficiently randomize, you are actually attempting to cheat. If your opponent didn't catch what was happening, then you are succeeding at cheating, even if you didn't mean to.

I am perfectly fine with declumping because it really doesn't affect anything in my mind, maybe the math says it does, but we do have to remember that this is a children's card game.

I find this final statement disturbing. Please reconsider this stance: this isn't such a big deal playing your little brother at home, but at a tournament with Prizes on the line? Also when the underlying principals make it logical for more drastic deck alterations to be allowed? Definitely something to make sure you either understand or can undermine the opposing argument.

TheRolesWePlay: The politeness of your response (which went up as I was typing this) was appreciated and sufficient to convince me I should be more careful with my wording (I am unhappy with the exact wording of my response to you, but editing it now would confuse the point). At least I remembered to attempt to remain civil with pokeking11, eh?

 

[ogremarauder]

This is the easiest to solve of any 'problem'(using 'problem ' loosely) any Poke'-griper has complained about. The answer is this-

Pick up your opponents deck and shuffle it.

ALL of the other issues regarding 'declumping' are already covered by the time guidelines of the floor rules. If they take too long to do it,there is an already defined consequence. I for one ALWAYS shuffle my opponents deck after they do. They then have the option of cutting my shuffle. How can this be any more simple?

 

[Otaku]

I am thinking the exact problem is not being appreciated. When properly executed, declumping is not time consuming or cheating. However it still provides a screen for actual cheaters, since they now have a legitimate cover for their attempts at stacking. This is indeed the very reason we have rules about allowing your opponent to shuffle or cut your deck for randomization purposes, to reduce the opportunities for cheaters to cheat.

I would like to paint this in a different light: why carry out an act that does not help you, can eat up time, and provides and distresses others? I see this as possibly being a Spirit of the Game issue. Why do this if it causes your fellow players to stumble?

Oh, and we totally need to make it clear that all players should make time for sufficient shuffling, and what it actually is. I had no idea it takes about seven riffle shuffles to properly randomize, and I've been playing this game since it came out (plus other TCGs and even playing card games)!

 

[NoPoke]

...

I would like to paint this in a different light: why carry out an act that does not help you, can eat up time, and provides and distresses others? I see this as possibly being a Spirit of the Game issue. Why do this if it causes your fellow players to stumble?

Oh, and we totally need to make it clear that all players should make time for sufficient shuffling, and what it actually is. I had no idea it takes about seven riffle shuffles to properly randomize, and I've been playing this game since it came out (plus other TCGs and even playing card games)!

It is only an "unhelpful act" if players are capable of shuffling sufficiently well to destroy all information on deck order. Most aren't from what I've observed.

If you perfectly riffle a standard deck of 52 cards the order is returned to exactly what it was prior to starting the riffles.

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

This is "Narrowing Down A Search".

What we're talking about is when you take cards that may or may not have any real relation to the actual purpose of your initial action and separate them from their identical twins within the deck.

Two completely different concepts. Yours is 100% focused on the task initially at hand.



Have you read any of the previous posts? This was covered.

If you stack the deck, you are cheating.
If your opponent shuffles the deck, it undoes the cheating AND randomizes the deck.
Therefore, you stacking the deck was wasting time. It served no point whatsoever.

I find it odd that I brought that up before, and it gets argued now. So it goes I guess.

But really now is it really that different, just think about it. Sure it's related, but considering how the deck is private information, you as the opponent shouldn't be aware they are dealing with cards unrelated to the search. Also, while yes some declumping might take a little time, but in the scenario of a three card clump, you'd 'waste' what a few seconds? When most matches finish well before time, and most players do it sometimes not even once during a tournament, that isn't a massive waste of time. And from the view point of the opponent, what's lost after you shuffle, which is a good idea to do regardless of them doing so, a few seconds?

 

[ogremarauder]

Many things can provide a screen for cheaters. Shaved dice, marked sleeves, ect.. That is precicely why I shuffle my opponents deck. I get a feel for the sleeves, make sure they aren't obviously marked in any way, and I randomize the deck to avoid stacking. The whole concept of this being an issue is solved by encouraging or even requiring the opponent to shuffle your deck like in M;tg's pro tour. As long as it doesn't ABUSE time, it isn't a problem no matter what complainers want to think.

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

I am thinking the exact problem is not being appreciated. When properly executed, declumping is not time consuming or cheating. However it still provides a screen for actual cheaters, since they now have a legitimate cover for their attempts at stacking. This is indeed the very reason we have rules about allowing your opponent to shuffle or cut your deck for randomization purposes, to reduce the opportunities for cheaters to cheat.

I would like to paint this in a different light: why carry out an act that does not help you, can eat up time, and provides and distresses others? I see this as possibly being a Spirit of the Game issue. Why do this if it causes your fellow players to stumble?

Oh, and we totally need to make it clear that all players should make time for sufficient shuffling, and what it actually is. I had no idea it takes about seven riffle shuffles to properly randomize, and I've been playing this game since it came out (plus other TCGs and even playing card games)!

What your describing I have never seen. I have never seen a player become uncomfortable because the opponent is declumping, if they take too long point it out, and they might stumble to hastily finish, but no such action I've seen has the opponent distressed, unless prior tension is built.

 

[Politoed666]

Not in agreement with this post, Jason.

I'm not aware of anything in the rules that prevents people from rearranging the order of their deck while using Collector or another search card, as long as they shuffle properly. If I find four energy in a row or something, I usually do split them up. If someone asked me what I was doing, I would probably say, "rearranging the order of my deck. Problem?" I don't think it falls into the category of stalling as long as it isn't excessive. It takes, like, ten seconds, tops.

If one rearranges their deck in a manner like "Pokémon, Energy, Supporter, Trainer," that should be brought to a judge's attention, especially if they fail to shuffle properly afterwards. Otherwise, I see no violation of the rules or of good sportsmanship.

 

[Otaku]

TheRolesWePlay: This entire thread started because Ness stated he didn't like it, so for sure it bothered him. Having had it brought to light, it bothers me as well.

 

[djjoe227]

I find it odd that I brought that up before, and it gets argued now. So it goes I guess.

But really now is it really that different, just think about it. Sure it's related, but considering how the deck is private information, you as the opponent shouldn't be aware they are dealing with cards unrelated to the search. Also, while yes some declumping might take a little time, but in the scenario of a three card clump, you'd 'waste' what a few seconds? When most matches finish well before time, and most players do it sometimes not even once during a tournament, that isn't a massive waste of time. And from the view point of the opponent, what's lost after you shuffle, which is a good idea to do regardless of them doing so, a few seconds?

You're trying to grind two issues together.

Your first issue is the deck contents. Yes, you are correct- there is no real way to tell if my opponent declumps his or her deck unless I either cheated and watched them do it, or they told me they were doing it. If you ignore all other points, then yes Declumping a deck is a nonissue as long as the deck contents remain private and random before and after the peek inside the deck.

Your second issue is the Time Wasted. A few seconds to you can be nothing. "A few seconds?" you're thinking, and you're wondering why this has erupted into a full-on debate. BUT, your few seconds aren't my few seconds. And they're not the same few seconds that someone else at Table 3 is experiencing. And over at table 12, those "few seconds" have accumulated. The point is, a few seconds can be nothing. But they can also be everything. In a timed game, even if it's as large as 40 minutes, seconds are valuable. If I declumped for 3 seconds every search, let's say, and you declumped every search too, then that means after 20 searches between the two of us, we've wasted a full minute doing it. And that's on top of the time we've already taken to perform the actual search. That also is ignoring anything else happening in the game. It's unfortunate that our current Meta is steering towards Donks and quick set-up; but some players do know that games can and will go to 40 minutes, and sometimes further. Those few seconds can be the decided factor if you are turn 0 or Turn 1 when time is called.

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

TheRolesWePlay: This entire thread started because Ness stated he didn't like it, so for sure it bothered him. Having had it brought to light, it bothers me as well.

There are to problems with this. The first is my continued argument of trying to control the behavior of the player. The other is that you are the minority, and most players are fine with this, and why should the game have to conform to your ideals because you don't like it?

 

[Ness]

Not in agreement with this post, Jason.

I'm not aware of anything in the rules that prevents people from rearranging the order of their deck while using Collector or another search card, as long as they shuffle properly. If I find four energy in a row or something, I usually do split them up. If one rearranges their deck in a manner like "Pokémon, Energy, Supporter, Trainer," that should be brought to a judge's attention, especially if they fail to shuffle properly afterwards.

Basically, you think it's okay to stack your deck as long as you don't overdo it. (Which is funny.) Whether you are rearranging your Energy, or your Energy, Pokemon AND Trainers, you are either:

1) Cheating
2) Wasting Time

And back to Square One we go.