"Declumping" a Deck

[djjoe227]

Artificial random is the best random we can get. If I play Juniper and draw 7 energy, I'd wish I used and Electrode Prime. Computers use different methods of random and so do humans. Computers look for patterns and mix them up several times. A computer can shuffle thousands of times in 1 go. Humans can only shuffle the best way we know how. Like it was said, we are programed to recognize patterns. If I play a draw card and pick up 3 rare candies, It could suck or it could be very useful, it all depends on the game state. I could Roast Reveal into 3 Pokemon or other cards I don't need.

It's Random, or it's not. It does not matter who or what makes it so. There is no such thing as "artificially random".

It all depends on game state but when I get the chance to search. While searching, I notice a bulk of cards together and just move them around the deck and continue my search, taking no extra time. The deck is shuffled by both players and a judge if it's needed.

Thinking. Part of the Game.

Cards. Part of the Game.

Organizing your Deck in the middle of a game. NOT Part of the Game.

Anything you do that is not part of the game is extra, and if you're doing those extra things, you are taking time away from the things that are part of the game.

When a card tells you to "Search for a Pokemon" and you search and search and search- you've done nothing wrong. You've done exactly what the card is telling you to do. When that same card, afterwards, tells you to shuffle the deck, and you shuffle the deck 5 times , then you've done what the card is telling you to do. Anything a card tells you to do is part of the game.

Rules. They too are a part of the game. And the rules ask that you do not excessively do actions or stall time. So if you are facing me in a match and you deliberatley move one counter at a time for the purpose of either a) Proving a point or b) taking your time; I will call over a judge.

At no point, on any card or in any rule, does it say "Organize your deck, and then shuffle it". Therefore it is not part of the game. It is extra. It is taking time away from the actual game. Therfore, it is wasting time. And yes, 1/100th of a second is still a fraction of time.

 

[MCNewfall]

So uh, dj, you're gonna let the record show that you have never EVER declumped before, after, or during a game?

 

[djjoe227]

So uh, dj, you're gonna let the record show that you have never EVER declumped before, after, or during a game?

The thread never called for "Before" and "after" a game. They are irrelevant. What someone does on their own time is their own business.

During a game- No I have never declumped my deck.

 

[vaporeon]

When an effect says to search for cards, I search for cards. During that search, if I see cards clumped, I move them around the deck because shuffling might not fix it. While on the same subject of doing what a card says, I can call a judge when my opponent Damage Swap 12 damage counters at 1 time instead of 1.

It's just an action that kind of happens during a search. Almost a reflex. People play the game differently. Some declump, some don't. Some netdeck, some don't. Some judges care, some don't.

Now the scary thing is getting a game loss because your Judge don't like it, when the other say's if fine because the deck gets shuffled.

---------- Post added 11/03/2011 at 11:25 AM ----------

The shuffling program does not look for patterns at all...it shouldn't...that is not a random shuffle.

It simply takes all the data in the file and rearranges it multiple times and stops...there is NEVER a point where the computer checks for "randomness".

My point is that random is random is random. If you never had the opportunity to look at your deck, you would never know its order.

Declumping by definition is saying "I DO NOT LIKE THE ORDER OF MY DECK AND WISH TO INTENTIONALLY CHANGE IT"...that can be viewed as cheating by some. You may not see this as cheating, but if others do, don't you think you have the common courtesy of not doing it?

No...it is not against the rules...why? Not because its ok...but because it is very difficult to enforce from a judging standpoint... maybe you ignored that particular part of the discussion..

I guess that leads to a thread on laws vs ethics...

I just have to make sure you're not judging my match. Like I have said and others have said. It's not done to gain an advantage. It's merely a reflex. When I search, it's almost autopilot to see it and when I see it, I move them and continue with the search. The deck gets shuffled anyway by both players.

 

[losjackal]

To respect Bullados' plea, I think I have something new to say (though I haven't read all 13 pages, being late to this discussion, but have tried to catch the high points).

Shuffling and stacking are really important in regular playing card games like Blackjack or Poker.
They are important for two reasons different from Pokemon:

1. The players share a common deck
2. Once shuffled, cut, and play has begun, the deck is not re-shuffled

The definition of "stacking" from New Oxford American Dictionary on my Mac is: shuffle or arrange (a deck of cards) dishonestly so as to gain an unfair advantage.

When a common deck is stacked in favor of one player, the other players are at an inherent disadvantage.
However, this logic doesn't directly apply to Pokemon, because we each have our own deck, and if we both declump, we are both getting our respective advantages. Therefore it is not an unfair advantage, and therefore not stacking as per that definition.

If you don't like that conclusion, then let's just agree it's part of the gray area, and partially explains why there are 13 pages on this thread.
Please read on to the more relevant part...

Unlike Poker, our Pokemon decks are shuffled many times during a single game. That means at best, the results of achieving randomness by shuffling is only applicable for the X number of drawn cards, until the game requires the deck to be searched and shuffled again.

Sometimes having multiple rare candies together can be a good thing (decks that run multiple Stage 2, especially ones that utilize Magnezone or Ninetales), sometimes it's bad. Sometimes having multiple energies together is a good thing (Kyogre Groudon Legend), sometimes it's bad. There is no rule against rearranging cards during a search, but your search and shuffles should not take more than 15 seconds as per the recommended time allotment.

After searching, the player is supposed to shuffle to "achieve randomness to their satisfaction" (quoted from Tournament Rules). Then the opponent can cut. If the opponent wishes, they can also shuffle, but that shuffle "should be brief". Then the original player can cut. At that point, both parties should be satisfied.

Why?

Because of the cut.
The cut is really what randomly determined the next X cards the player is going to draw, declumped or not.

How many times have you cut the opponent's deck at the beginning of the game, and they had no Basic?
Yes, their shuffle can be partially blamed (not enough distribution), but your cut (middle, shallow, deep, or no cut at all) was the last random element.
And your cut only matters until the deck gets shuffled again.

So I suggest we stop obsessing about how people go about searching or shuffling their deck, as long as it doesn't take too long, because the cut is what makes the final "random" difference. What do people think about that?

 

[Mekkah]

"I move them around the deck because shuffling might not fix it."

So what you're saying is you change the order of your deck to give yourself an advantage.

 

[vaporeon]

And that's all that should be said.

 

[djjoe227]

When an effect says to search for cards, I search for cards. During that search, if I see cards clumped, I move them around the deck because shuffling might not fix it.

Because Shuffling might not fix it!? I'm sorry, but if your deck order is ABCDEFGHIJ and after you shuffle and cut it's ABDEFJHIGC, it is not your job to fix that and be satisfied. You play through the game because unfortunately that's how the randomized shuffling worked out and unfortunately it was not to your favor.

While on the same subject of doing what a card says, I can call a judge when my opponent Damage Swap 12 damage counters at 1 time instead of 1.

And the Judges will rule that they are taking "Shortcuts" that will end up with the same result. Whether they move 12 counters at once or one at a time the result is ultimately the same- 12 counters were moved from one place to another, with no detour throughout.

It's just an action that kind of happens during a search. Almost a reflex. People play the game differently.

Declumping doesn't "Kind of" happen. It either happens, or it does not. It's not a reflex, a reflex is an involuntary action. You noticing 2 or more cards together you would rather them not is not a reflex, it's a skill you've developed to help you notice these situations more clearly.

Some declump, some don't. Some netdeck, some don't. Some judges care, some don't.

Declumping- in game action that is not part of the game.

Netdecking- Outside research that results in a completed decklist

The two are not anywhere close to each other. I'm almost suprised you didn't tell us that some people start walking with the right foot and others take their first step with their left.

Now the scary thing is getting a game loss because your Judge don't like it, when the other say's if fine because the deck gets shuffled.

The scary thing is not the difference, it's the lack of detail you're providing. For one, if it's a Game loss, it's more severe. You're purposely altering the deck, going through and making sure each card is away from certain other ones, and taking time out of the match after repeated offenses. Stop making up scenerios that never happened- nobody has made a claim thus far that they were given a game loss for simply "declumping" a deck.

 

[espeon200]

One other thing that hasn't been mentioned before: you can ask a judge to shuffle an opponent's deck that you don't think is sufficiently randomized. (sorry for the wall of text)

Each player’s deck is expected to be fully randomized at the start of each game and during the game, as card effects require. In order to achieve randomness, players are allowed to riffle, pile, or otherwise shuffle their decks until they are satisfied that the deck is random. Randomization must be done in the presence of the player’s opponent and must be done in a reasonable amount of time. Care should be taken to assure that the cards in the deck are not harmed or revealed during the shuffle.

After the shuffle, the deck must be offered to the player’s opponent to be cut once. Cutting the deck consists of creating two separate stacks of cards by removing a portion of the top of the deck, and then placing it under the remaining portion. Players should take care to not reveal any of their opponent’s cards while cutting. Cutting into more than two stacks is considered a shuffle.

Instead of cutting, the opponent may choose to shuffle the deck. This shuffle should be brief, and when it concludes, the deck’s owner is allowed to cut the deck once as described above. Players should take care when shuffling an opponent’s deck, as the cards in that deck are not the shuffling player’s property. At this point, the deck should be sufficiently randomized to both players’ satisfaction.

If either player still does not feel that either deck is sufficiently randomized, or if a player wishes to not offer his or her deck to an opponent for randomization, a judge must be called over to shuffle the deck(s) in question. No player is allowed to shuffle or cut after the judge’s shuffle.

Players engaging in questionable shuffling methods may be subject to the Unsporting Conduct section of the Penalty Guidelines. Players are strongly encouraged to shuffle their opponent’s deck at Premier Events.

I bolded the last part there because it's basically what this whole discussion is about. Is clumping a "questionable shuffling method"? Most of the recent posters on this thread would say yes. A lot of other players would say no. The problem is that how questionable this activity is, is determined by motive. If someone who is OCD looks through their deck and can't stand the fact that they have 2 Typhlosion sitting together, they are going to move the cards. Are they trying to get ahead in the game? No, they're trying to create more order for their sanity. Then they will shuffle the deck and that order will be disrupted, but that won't matter to them because in their mind they fixed the problem with the deck. On the other hand if an unscrupulous player wants to get ahead in the game, they will stack the deck and lightly shuffle. Is this right? Definitely not, and I think everyone on this forum would agree with that.

So how do we, as a community, stop the unscrupulous players? There are three options: 1. We convince TPCi and PCL (or whoever it is doing the cards now) that clumping is an action that is only used to cheat and it should be stopped. The problem is that this does punish little Jimmy who doesn't even realize that declumping is stacking before a randomization. 2. We accept that it's a possibility that our opponents are cheating and choose to shuffle the deck every time they declump. The problem is this wastes precious game. 3. Every time the opponent declumps we ask a judge to come over and shuffle the deck. The problem is that this is bound to annoy the judges and even if they DQ the opponent for cheating, it's possible you'll get a warning or worse for Rules Lawyering.

PokePop has already said that this is something that was discussed and that while it was felt to be dubious there was no efficient way to police it. If we as a community want it to change, lets find a better way of policing it.

TLR Lets quit arguing over whether it's right or wrong and instead find a way to fix it that doesn't hurt a portion of the players who aren't trying to cheat.

 

[vaporeon]

Not really how much more clear I have to be. The deck gets shuffled afterwards. What don't you all get about that.

 

[Prof Clay]

Now the scary thing is getting a game loss because your Judge don't like it, when the other say's if fine because the deck gets shuffledI just have to make sure you're not judging my match. Like I have said and others have said. It's not done to gain an advantage. .

Wow...point missed entirely...

Also...I was head judge of 1 pod in Masters at 2011 Nats, 2 times head judge of World's Grinder...and Head judge for St Louis regionals. Hard to not be in a situation where I am not judging you in someways.

And no one is going to get a game loss for this.

But if an action can be perceived as cheating by many many people..would it not be common courtesy for you to stop or is it simply up to the other players to "get over it cause your doin nothin wrong"

 

[losjackal]

espeon200, I think we're trying to steer this in the same direction, so I'll build upon your points to that end.

Is [de]clumping a "questionable shuffling method"?

Let's not mix the two. Any declumping occurs during the search phase. A player gains knowledge of their deck when searching. If they don't like what they see, there is no rule that says they can't change the order of the cards. As Ness argued earlier, the moment you looked at your cards, it is no longer random. By that argument, it really doesn't matter if previous shuffles placed two Typhlosions together. I don't see the importance of respecting the order of the cards previous shuffles resulted upon. Not random is not random.

According to the tournament rules, it's more important to place the cards face down and shuffle to "achieve randomness to their satisfaction" again. If part of that involved a quick card rearrangement beforehand, so be it, because the judges have said there is no way to enforce this otherwise. (And shuffling really is a distinct phase. For instance, if you search for and pull out a card, begin shuffling, and then change your mind, a Judge may not let you because you've already begun shuffling....that's what the card said to do. Search, then shuffle.)

Alternatively, Ness and others would argue to shuffle the heck out of the deck if the player doesn't like what they saw. Some people shuffle faster than others. In terms of time, it can be much more efficient to move a card out of the way while searching and then doing two shuffles than it takes to perform many more shuffles (5-7?) in an attempt to "fix" a known "problem".

TLR Lets quit arguing over whether it's right or wrong and instead find a way to fix it that doesn't hurt a portion of the players who aren't trying to cheat.

Right. What do you think about the fact that the cut after the shuffling phase pretty much takes care of it?

 

[NoPoke]

There is a faulty premise at the heart of this thread: that players are good at shuffling. The reality is that very few players are good at shuffling and all would struggle to turn an ordered deck into something that might be considered random given the constraint of a brief shuffle that is expected at the conclusion of a mid game search.

We shuffle to destroy information so that we don't know what the top card is. But there is more, we shuffle so that given knowledge of the top card we don't know what the next card is either.

===========

Quick Sort is a very efficient sorting algorithm, yet if I'm anticipating partially ordered data then the very first thing I will do is randomise the data prior to sorting. This waste of time is absolutely necessary to avoid the quick sort algorithm behaving badly and taking a whole lot longer to complete than it will with the more commonly encountered data that is much less ordered. Anyone spot the similarity here between the very efficient algorithm needing help to avoid its worst behaviour being exposed and a player declumping prior to their much poorer shuffle?

If it looks like they are trying to destroy information with their shuffle then they are unlikely to be cheating. If you are unhappy with their shuffle and think it is insufficient then call a judge. The expectation is that players will achieve a sufficiently randomised deck by their own shuffle, and not require the waste of time that an opponent shuffle imposes.

 

[vaporeon]

I hope OP are watching this. There's definitely grounds for a ban here.

This guy has admitted to manipulating the order of his deck to gain an advantage. Does anyone know who he is?

Care to tell me where I said that.

---------- Post added 11/03/2011 at 12:53 PM ----------

Wow...point missed entirely...

Also...I was head judge of 1 pod in Masters at 2011 Nats, 2 times head judge of World's Grinder...and Head judge for St Louis regionals. Hard to not be in a situation where I am not judging you in someways.

And no one is going to get a game loss for this.

But if an action can be perceived as cheating by many many people..would it not be common courtesy for you to stop or is it simply up to the other players to "get over it cause your doin nothin wrong"

You said

"As a judge, if I see you are going through your deck pulling cards out that are not part of your search and reorganizing them, I will most likely ASK POLITELY for you to only do what the text of the card says and move on to your shuffle...No penalty involved...but if I am ignored (and I really hate being ignored when I ask something reasonable) I will remember."

I have a problem with that because you will judge based on your personal belief on the subject.

 

[The Gorn]

"the deck was not shuffled well, or it was but not in the order I wanted but when the chance comes for me to search, I'm going to fix the issue,"


No one else was bothered by the "the deck was not in the order I wanted so I'm going to fix it" comment?

 

[Prof Clay]

Care to tell me where I said that.

---------- Post added 11/03/2011 at 12:53 PM ----------



You said

"As a judge, if I see you are going through your deck pulling cards out that are not part of your search and reorganizing them, I will most likely ASK POLITELY for you to only do what the text of the card says and move on to your shuffle...No penalty involved...but if I am ignored (and I really hate being ignored when I ask something reasonable) I will remember."

I have a problem with that because you will judge based on your personal belief on the subject.

Making a ruling and asking you to be considerate are 2 different things. As a human being I cannot help remember when I asked something reasonably and was ignored. I will ALWAYS rule based upon the letter of the law if that is what you are implying...I wouldn't get the Jobs I get if I did otherwise...

 

[djjoe227]

Care to tell me where I said that.

Here:

When an effect says to search for cards, I search for cards. During that search, if I see cards clumped, I move them around the deck because shuffling might not fix it.

If you do anything else that is not required by the search, you are manipulating the deck. It doesn't matter if the deck is shuffled after, you still manipulated the deck during the search. The card said "Search", you search. If the card said "Rearrange the cards in your deck", only then would you be doing the right thing.

You said

"As a judge, if I see you are going through your deck pulling cards out that are not part of your search and reorganizing them, I will most likely ASK POLITELY for you to only do what the text of the card says and move on to your shuffle...No penalty involved...but if I am ignored (and I really hate being ignored when I ask something reasonable) I will remember."

I have a problem with that because you will judge based on your personal belief on the subject.

He's judging based on the situation, which is that you are performing an action in an untimely manner because you are distracted with declumping. Nothing about that bolded statement indicates personal belief, he is trying to move the game along in a timely and fair manner. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[vaporeon]

Here:



If you do anything else that is not required by the search, you are manipulating the deck. It doesn't matter if the deck is shuffled after, you still manipulated the deck during the search. The card said "Search", you search. If the card said "Rearrange the cards in your deck", only then would you be doing the right thing.



He's judging based on the situation, which is that you are performing an action in an untimely manner because you are distracted with declumping. Nothing about that bolded statement indicates personal belief, he is trying to move the game along in a timely and fair manner. There is nothing wrong with that.

Like I said, I declump during the search if it catches my eyes. I don't move all the cards around, just the ones I happen to see and continue with my search. The random order is disrupted anyway by the search because I know the order of the cards. What I do with them doing my search is up to me, as long as the deck gets shuffled.

On a side note, he can ask for it to not be done but I don't have to follow it. People declump and it should be the end of that.

---------- Post added 11/03/2011 at 01:16 PM ----------

Making a ruling and asking you to be considerate are 2 different things. As a human being I cannot help remember when I asked something reasonably and was ignored. I will ALWAYS rule based upon the letter of the law if that is what you are implying...I wouldn't get the Jobs I get if I did otherwise...

And as a human being, I don't like being called a cheater because I choose to break up the random order of a not randomless deck search.

It all comes down to personal belief, weather or not you see it. it's always around you and will make decisions based on what you think is right, rules or not.

 

[djjoe227]

On a side note, he can ask for it to not be done but I don't have to follow it. People declump and it should be the end of that.

So you're basically saying, "A judge told me not to do something. I'm going to ignore him entirely, and do it anyway, because I think we should be able to".

And you're seriously questioning his personal beliefs?

 

[ShadowCard]

Has anyone considered simply moving cards around? People do it in their own hands to see different ideas (Scrabble suggests this technique). So, people move around cards within their decks during a search to see different strategies and make sure they have not forgotten anything?

So, while I'm using Twins, I take that Rare Candy which was next to two other Rare Candy and put it next to a Typhlosion because I like that idea, but then as the search continues I see Pokemon Catcher and Pokemon Communication and I need those too, so I move those around.

Or are we simply going to fixate to the worst possible intention?

So I suggest we stop obsessing about how people go about searching or shuffling their deck, as long as it doesn't take too long, because the cut is what makes the final "random" difference. What do people think about that?

I think you are correct.