Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Consistency, and why it should matter more to you

I have 6 energies in my pluff.
Well, stacking- how do you define that? After the shuffle I have no idea of how the cards individually is placed in the deck, but I lay them out so more often that not, it will be - trainer - pokemon - trainer - pokemon - trainer - energy - trainer - pokemon - trainer - pokemon. but more than that I wouldn't stand a chance to know. All I'm saying is, shuffling your deck the proper way, will help your consistency.
+ it can never be called cheating after my opponent have had the chance to top drop/ shuffle my deck.

That is not what the rules say! The rules state that stacking is illegal. One must RANDOMIZE your deck in front of your oppo. You then offer your oppo the chance to cut or shuffle. The oppo doesn't have to touch your deck. Ergo, just bc you offered a stacked deck to be cut or shuffled doesn't let you escape a cheating penalty.

I don't know how you shuffle, but unless it is a true randomizing method (not just cut/slap parts together), then you have stacked your deck and have NOT randomized it!

Keith
 
well ofcourse I do shuffle after I "stack" them, but let's just say that I, try to mess the order around the least I can.
And btw guys, to avoid this happening against you, just choose to shuffle ur opponents deck @ start of the game.
 
With 6 energy you should be starting with an energy 55% of the time (7 cards).

I don't like to do the 8 cards because then you want to take into account mulligans. I prefer to concentrate merely on the first 7.
 
well ofcourse I do shuffle after I "stack" them, but let's just say that I, try to mess the order around the least I can.
And btw guys, to avoid this happening against you, just choose to shuffle ur opponents deck @ start of the game.

Let's just say you are trying to fix your deck so it is not completely random.

Let's just say that is cheating.

To avoid this happening to you, call a Judge.
 
Ryan - I'm honestly curious about the math behind this; I haven't had time so far to take any kind of statistics course, and I really need to. Can you outline how you get a couple of basic probabilities so that some of us can do these calculations on our own, if we're interested? I don't want to just try some stuff because I know that stats is a... fickle branch of math, where sometimes it looks very easy but isn't, and other times it looks very difficult but isn't.
 
Ryan, how do you do your math? Because when I want to calculate the probality of one energy in a seven card hand with 6 energies in your deck, I would do this:

(6/60)*(54/59)*(53/58)*(52/57)*(51/56)*(50/56)*(49/56) and then that one energy can be in any order of seven cards so you have to that math times 7. The outcome of this sum is axpromiately 40% and not 55%.

Btw Hijacked by Kayle
 
well ofcourse I do shuffle after I "stack" them, but let's just say that I, try to mess the order around the least I can.
And btw guys, to avoid this happening against you, just choose to shuffle ur opponents deck @ start of the game.

Then I'd say at the least that you are cheating. :nonono: Stop playing semantics and games here and shuffle like a real player. Better yet, not stack in the 1st place. It can lead to bad penalties.

Keith
 
Let's just say you are trying to fix your deck so it is not completely random.

Let's just say that is cheating.

To avoid this happening to you, call a Judge.

I fail to see how it's cheating.

1. You pick up your discard, then cards in play, then prizes, put them on top of your deck.

You then shuffle sufficiently as per the rules.
Your deck is then considered randomized.

2. You pick up all your cards and sort them into an arbitrary number of piles based on whatever pattern you so choose.

You then shuffle sufficiently as per the rules.
Your deck is then considered randomized.

I fail to see how starting order has any effect on the matter so long as you do a shuffle that sufficiently randomizes card order. You have the right to shuffle your opponent's deck, so if you think pile shuffling gives an advantage, then shuffle it again.

I played 20 go-fish games with Fulop's Jumpluff list (more than that, actually, but this was a separate idea I had had) before Regionals. I "stacked" then did my normal shuffle for ten. I just shuffled for ten. I got qualitatively the same caliber of hands either way.

People are up in arms over this because the term used for it is "stacking" which elicits the thought of "stacked decks" and fallacies over randomization: if you believe sorting your deck in a pattern then shuffling is not random, then you can't logically believe shuffling is random.

EDIT: I did not see the part where he said:

but let's just say that I, try to mess the order around the least I can.

That is indefensible.
 
Yeah, that's the part I objected to.

If he wants to stack his deck and then make it completely random, then . . . well, he's just wasted his time.

I also found it wrong that he tried to put the responsibility on the opponent.
 
Ryan, how do you do your math? Because when I want to calculate the probality of one energy in a seven card hand with 6 energies in your deck, I would do this:

(6/60)*(54/59)*(53/58)*(52/57)*(51/56)*(50/56)*(49/56) and then that one energy can be in any order of seven cards so you have to that math times 7. The outcome of this sum is axpromiately 40% and not 55%.

Btw Hijacked by Kayle

*In the bolded part you forgot to reduce the denominator*

Yeah... Ryan's math is right. You forgot to calculate the probability of getting more than one energy in your start

Probability of at least 1 energy = 1 - (54/60)*(53/59)*(52/58)*(51/57)*(50/56)*(49/55)*(48/54)
Which equals about 54%

Assuming an 8 card start, you the probability of having at least one energy is still only 59%
 
Kayle: I will outline some basic math computations and "plug and chug" formulas.

I have most of the numbers memorized (1 card=12%, 2=22%, 3=31, 4=40), but sar86 points out how to do this for numbers greater than 4, which is important when you start doing advanced probability and want to calculate TOTAL outs for say- energy (roseanne+cyrus+energy) or a stage 2 out (pokemon+luxury ball+bebe+communication(+pokemon)), etc etc.

To figure out the odds of something happening, we can find out how often it won't happen (hence the 1- X*Y*Z...)

So, probability of energy= 1-odds of NOT having an energy
NOT having an energy is determined for each of the 7 cards we have.
If we start with 6 energy, then on the first card we draw, there is a 54/60 chance of it not being an energy, but as each card is drawn, this probability slightly boosts. We multiply them all together to get the collective chance of the entire 7 card hand NOT having an energy.

So, if we start with 54/60, when we draw another card- if we assume no energy, it is 53/59, and so forth, until you get:

1 - (54/60)*(53/59)*(52/58)*(51/57)*(50/56)*(49/55)*(48/54)
So, if the probability of NO energy is 45.9, then the probability of YES energy is 1-45.9 or about 54%. That number is why I instantly knew that 8/10 for an energy in opening hand in jumpluff is absurd.

To get that kind of number, like I said, you'd be running 11 or 12 energy- twice as many energy! This also shows the non-geometric progression of the distribution. Although the energy between 6 and 12 is doubled, doubling the energy only boosts the consistency of opening with an energy from 54% to 81%, a 27% increase. The first 6 energy gave a 54% increase, and the second 6 gave HALF of that.

This is what I was trying to get at in the article itself when I suggested that as consistency is added, its overall INFLUENCE on the probability DECREASES. That is why there is an ideal ratio/threshold to hit in order to get an ideal amount of consistency for how much deck space it is taking up- which hurts other parts of the deck.

I will later outline my method of finding the odds of a SPECIFIC basic starter (useful to know how often you will get that Regice start, or Spiritomb start, etc).
1-(N-X/N)*([N-1]-X/[N-1])* and so forth, until you get N-6 for a 7 card opening hand, or N-7 for an 8 card opening hand (after you draw for turn)
N denoted the number of cards in the deck left, and X denotes the number of "outs" we are calculating with.

I will outline odds of a supporter start, odds of a specific starter, odds of a turn 2 claydol given certain other combinations- odds of a turn 2 bright look, etc. Calculating a specific starter uses the same kind of probability calculations, but also takes into consideration mulligans and starting with multiple basics and so forth.

I remember last year when I made my LuxTrix deck, I figured out the exact odds of a turn 2 bright look. Calculated the odds of luxray start, non-luxray start, odds of drawing a rose/Q with my non-luxray start (or having a free retreat electrike or crobat), the odds of getting the energy gain+ lightning, or cyrus, the odds of a bebe/etc. It took a while to do, but it was definitely enlightening to see how my deck ACTUALLY should function and knowing just how many resources it takes to reasonably expect certain scenarios to take place.
 
1. I enjoyed the article. I'm glad that someone is taking the time to write an article about the greater workings of the game, rather than the merits of one specific deck, or one specific card...
2. I now feel terrible about my competence in basic statistics. Thanks.
 
After reading this great article, I'm wondering if anyone has done something similar for deck shuffling?

i.e., statistically calculate the best way to maximize randomization for a 60 card deck given a (reasonable) amount of time (say, 5 minutes tops)
 
Yeah, that's the part I objected to.

If he wants to stack his deck and then make it completely random, then . . . well, he's just wasted his time.

I also found it wrong that he tried to put the responsibility on the opponent.

He didn't waste his time, he put his own mind at ease. It's the same thing as a magic player "land piling" - having a specific form of shuffling so that ( in a 20 - 40 ), you set up card, card, land, card, card, land. Then, you shuffle. The deck is randomized, but it prevents clumping all together ( you know, the same way you put three energies in three different locations when you play Night Maintenance? )

Should I penalize players for pile shuffling, or for "placing" energy in decks? What about for not placing the card from a BeBe's search on top of the deck before they search / shuffle?
 
He didn't waste his time, he put his own mind at ease. It's the same thing as a magic player "land piling" - having a specific form of shuffling so that ( in a 20 - 40 ), you set up card, card, land, card, card, land. Then, you shuffle. The deck is randomized, but it prevents clumping all together ( you know, the same way you put three energies in three different locations when you play Night Maintenance? )

Should I penalize players for pile shuffling, or for "placing" energy in decks? What about for not placing the card from a BeBe's search on top of the deck before they search / shuffle?

Look at his posts above where he says he stacks his lines a certain way after a game and then does a very minimal shuffle to do the slightest disruption possible (if any) to his deck. THAT is cheating!

It doesnt matter what you do to your deck between rds as long as a proper shuffle/randomization is done afterwards and a shuffle is done in the presence of your oppo during set up. He "blamed" his oppo for not using the OPTIONAL cut/shuffle allowed to the oppo. He conveniently "forgot" that the onus is on HIM to offer a properly randomized deck to the oppo in the 1st place!

Keith
 
I have 6 energies in my pluff.
Well, stacking- how do you define that? After the shuffle I have no idea of how the cards individually is placed in the deck, but I lay them out so more often that not, it will be - trainer - pokemon - trainer - pokemon - trainer - energy - trainer - pokemon - trainer - pokemon. but more than that I wouldn't stand a chance to know. All I'm saying is, shuffling your deck the proper way, will help your consistency.
+ it can never be called cheating after my opponent have had the chance to top drop/ shuffle my deck.

skovtrold said:
well ofcourse I do shuffle after I "stack" them, but let's just say that I, try to mess the order around the least I can.
And btw guys, to avoid this happening against you, just choose to shuffle ur opponents deck @ start of the game.

I read that as he separates in to three piles, Pokemon, trainer, energy. Then he sets out pokemon, trainer, pokemon, trainer, energy. He's not doing specific cards, he's simply making sure his deck isn't clumped. That -is- the way I'm saying that. He says he does shuffle.

At the end of the game, when you pick up your discard pile, do you go through it and make sure your energies aren't clumped together? Or multiple lines / copies of cards aren't sitting right next to each other? It's the -same thing-, especially since you will shuffle before your next game, as he says he does.

He didn't blame his opponent, he's saying that his opponent does have the opportunity to cut / shuffle, and if he doesn't, then both players are satisfied with the randomization.

I don't think this is cheating. Stacking indicates a specific card set, and specific outcome. This is simply a way to make sure cards aren't set together. It's identical to your first pile shuffle after separating your deck for a cut. If I pile 6 times, the first wave of cards ( for me ) is usually going to be energy. Then I pile from the top or bottom ( pokemon ) to ensure that the cards aren't going to have two energies on top of each other.

That isn't cheating. If, after I've piled, I shuffle two or three times, then I am satisfied with my deck's randomization. If I shuffle two or three times at the table, and my opponent chooses to cut / shuffle, or not to cut / shuffle, both players are satisfied with the randomization of the deck.

I think you're misunderstanding him. Maybe the line about "it can't be called cheating because my opponent can cut / shuffle" was a bit much, and might send up red flags because it sounds like he's intentionally trying to get one over on his opponent. But I disagree that this is stacking.

If I stack a regular set of 52 playing cards so that I get all 4 aces in a hand of poker, that's cheating. If I put all 4 aces in specific places to assure they're not getting clumped together, then shuffle the deck appropriately, then it's not cheating. The deck is randomized, with an -additional- randomization of the cards not being placed together.
 
Last edited:
^ That's my point, but I didn't know the proper way of writing it down. Thank you for taking time and effort into typing all that, you really made me happy :)
 
Back
Top