NoPoke
Active Member
I've never seen a fully randomised deck. Nor do I ever expect to see one.
Canadian National Championship 2013
- Thread starter LucarioLvlX
- Start date
I've never seen a fully randomised deck. Nor do I ever expect to see one.
I must have been playing this game wrong. Never realized "randomization" meant looking at my own deck after a shuffle and putting specific cards I pick out into spots where they have a high chance of being drawn along with other cards. The "shuffle" your brother did after his declump would not have been accepted in any other card game, that's for sure.
Pikajew1213
New Member
Technically you have due to the number of possible combinations of cards every single time you shuffle and draw your deck will be different than ever before the equation being 60! or 60x59x58x57.....x2x1
NoPoke
Active Member
Since my computer can't produce a result that is fully randomised I fail to see how a player can. My computer can produce randomisation that is sufficiently close to random that I can use it to generate decks that are so very close to fully randomised that it is very hard to tell that they are not in fact fully randomised.
I stand by my statement that I have not seen nor do I expect to ever see a fully randomised deck.
Pikajew1213
New Member
having cards clumped together does not make it not random..... random does not mean diverse it means there is nor particular order rhyme or reason. You can have random with or without 2 of a card clumped together. Unless the deck is organized you have seen a random deck.
Why argue over a technicality like this? All that matters in the practical sense is that once you flip the deck over and manually adjust a deck that has been randomized to an extent by rigorous shuffling, it's no longer randomized in any sense of the word.
When players shuffle rigorously, a deck is sufficiently randomized based on the fact that the order of the cards are not located in a predetermined sequence due to the assumed inability to fully control where each card in a 60 card deck cuts through each shuffle. I don't even know what "full randomization" means in this sense, so not sure why that's an issue. As long as the player hasn't influenced this randomization process by way of influencing the card distribution through other means, a deck is "random"
When players shuffle rigorously, a deck is sufficiently randomized based on the fact that the order of the cards are not located in a predetermined sequence due to the assumed inability to fully control where each card in a 60 card deck cuts through each shuffle. I don't even know what "full randomization" means in this sense, so not sure why that's an issue. As long as the player hasn't influenced this randomization process by way of influencing the card distribution through other means, a deck is "random"
ok ok nothing is truly random - get over it.
Isn't this conversation about proper shuffling?
Are you implying that he stacked the bottom of his deck, shuffled face down for a few seconds, and then had his opponent cut *just right* such that he could draw a hand he set on the bottom of his deck?
Now, this is certainly not a sufficiently random shuffle, and that should be penalized in some fashion. And whether Zach knew the severity of this type of stacking is questionable, but I believe it to be an insufficient shuffle without malicious intent. That doesn't excuse it, but as part of this whole mess, Spirit of the Game is a big factor. Though Zach didn't sufficiently shuffle his deck that time, I don't think the mindset was "I am going to draw very well now this game."
When I played him, he sorted his cards but then proceeded to riffle shuffle for another 20-30 seconds. I think Zach's insufficient shuffle was more about nerves of being in the 3rd game and wanting to get things started, not with the mindset of trying to fix the third game (though this is what he ended up doing).
So though ignorance is not an excuse, as a society we have different severities of punishment for the same crime depending on the motivations behind it. Think of 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree murder as an example. I dunno what the baseline punishment TPCi considers appropriate for this, but I probably wouldn't escalate it beyond that. That may be a ban, that may be a slap on the wrist etc...
Point is, Zach's an honest guy who made a big mistake. He'll have to pay for it, but I would cut it out with the defamation.
DanthePokeMan
New Member
From Pokémon Organized Play Tournament Rules (Rev: November 1, 2012)
6. Shuffling
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.
I think the rules are clear. Also, just because two or more of the same card are next to each other, it doesn't mean that a deck isn't randomized. This could happen naturally during regular shuffles.
Here's what happened in the video:
- The cards were piled (shuffling begins)
- Then the cards were shuffled
- Then the deck was riffled 4 times
- Then the deck was picked up and the declumping happens
- Then the deck was shuffled again
- Then the deck was cut by the opponent
I'm not an expert on declumping and I don't know for sure it Zach intentionally cheated or not, but he did make an infraction on the rules by revealing cards during the shuffle. I didn't mean to come down so hard on Zach before, I am just so disillusioned with the state of this game right now. I still find it a little odd though that someone, who's been a Champion before, would not be aware of what was happening or that it was wrong.
slayer_chaos
New Member
"Innocent declumping" is just a nicer way of saying "stacking your deck"
On another note, if someone can have their win revoked for giving the shocker to the camera then this is definitely in line to have his title taken away.
On another note, if someone can have their win revoked for giving the shocker to the camera then this is definitely in line to have his title taken away.
Mystery Thing
Administrator
He didn't have the win revoked, he just got suspended.
Mystery Thing
Administrator
Talking about Worlds however long ago that was.
OnTheBubble
New Member
2010 I believe. Shocking to think it was 3 years ago already. 
Flare Starfire
New Member
OnTheBubble placed the video of the match that ostensibly started this whole discussion up here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeJM-tq2Rnk
The Curtis Lyon / Zack Lesage Blastoise mirror match.
Now people can see for themselves, and make their own decisions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeJM-tq2Rnk
The Curtis Lyon / Zack Lesage Blastoise mirror match.
Now people can see for themselves, and make their own decisions.
For those who haven't noticed yet, there's another video up, of the Curtis/Zach top 4 match. The video is pretty grainy, so here's a walkthrough of what's going on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeJM-tq2Rnk
(Partially ninja'd by Flare, but I hope the walkthrough is still useful. Hi Flare!)
Start at 18:15 and notice Curtis making three piles; the top pile is energy, the middle pile is pokemon, the bottom pile is trainers. Starting at 19:03, he pile shuffles those stacks into four piles; at 19:30, he puts those piles on top of each other without riffling or mashing them together, and begins another four-pile shuffle. At 19:56, he puts those four piles on top of each other, again without mixing them at all; at 20:05, he cuts the deck once; at 20:07, he presents the deck to his opponent. This is a double nickel, except with piles of four.
(Zach's shuffling technique is markedly different from his technique in the video that was discussed earlier, and may also be worth a watch for that reason.)
Game 2 ends at 43:04. Curtis proceeds to make three piles, one of pokemon, trainers, and energy, while Zach pile shuffles without looking at his deck. At around 43:50, you can see Zach shuffle the individual piles of his pile shuffle together, while Curtis is nickeling again. At 44:15, Zach is still in his pile shuffle with extra shuffles, and Curtis starts the second half of the nickel. At 44:38, Curtis's pile shuffle ends, AND Zach starts looking through his deck. At 44:45 Curtis presents without even cutting, while Zach continues reordering his deck. At 45:30 Zach starts riffling again.
You can hear what I assume a judge is saying starting at 50:15, though, which is pretty awesome because we no longer need to rely on hearsay. At 51:18 Curtis describes the shuffle that he is doing: "How I do it is I map it out so it's like trainers, energies, pokemon, then I do four [piles] and [unintelligible]." At 52:15 the a judge says "Me and Dave were both here, and we believe that you shuffled it enough, randomized it enough, what we want to tell you is, just make sure that if you do it, you're shuffling a lot after." Curtis: "So do you want us to shuffle our decks?" Judge: "No, it's fine, we believe that you've shuffled enough." Later: "There's not going to be any cautions or warnings, it's just kind of like a verbal thing"
I'm not the most experienced judge, but I do not think that is how I would have ruled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeJM-tq2Rnk
(Partially ninja'd by Flare, but I hope the walkthrough is still useful. Hi Flare!)
Start at 18:15 and notice Curtis making three piles; the top pile is energy, the middle pile is pokemon, the bottom pile is trainers. Starting at 19:03, he pile shuffles those stacks into four piles; at 19:30, he puts those piles on top of each other without riffling or mashing them together, and begins another four-pile shuffle. At 19:56, he puts those four piles on top of each other, again without mixing them at all; at 20:05, he cuts the deck once; at 20:07, he presents the deck to his opponent. This is a double nickel, except with piles of four.
(Zach's shuffling technique is markedly different from his technique in the video that was discussed earlier, and may also be worth a watch for that reason.)
Game 2 ends at 43:04. Curtis proceeds to make three piles, one of pokemon, trainers, and energy, while Zach pile shuffles without looking at his deck. At around 43:50, you can see Zach shuffle the individual piles of his pile shuffle together, while Curtis is nickeling again. At 44:15, Zach is still in his pile shuffle with extra shuffles, and Curtis starts the second half of the nickel. At 44:38, Curtis's pile shuffle ends, AND Zach starts looking through his deck. At 44:45 Curtis presents without even cutting, while Zach continues reordering his deck. At 45:30 Zach starts riffling again.
You can hear what I assume a judge is saying starting at 50:15, though, which is pretty awesome because we no longer need to rely on hearsay. At 51:18 Curtis describes the shuffle that he is doing: "How I do it is I map it out so it's like trainers, energies, pokemon, then I do four [piles] and [unintelligible]." At 52:15 the a judge says "Me and Dave were both here, and we believe that you shuffled it enough, randomized it enough, what we want to tell you is, just make sure that if you do it, you're shuffling a lot after." Curtis: "So do you want us to shuffle our decks?" Judge: "No, it's fine, we believe that you've shuffled enough." Later: "There's not going to be any cautions or warnings, it's just kind of like a verbal thing"
I'm not the most experienced judge, but I do not think that is how I would have ruled.
Last edited:
DanthePokeMan
New Member
This is really starting to get ridiculous now. The more I read about this topic the more I am convinced that the top players are purposely cheating. Putting your cards into specific orders before doing a double nickle is NOT a mistake; you know what you are doing! Stacking the deck is considered cheating.
From the Pokemon TCG Penalty Guidelines:
7.6.4. Cheating
Players who intentionally commit infractions are looking to gain an unfair advantage over other players at the event. The Head Judge should carefully consider whether an infraction was intentional or not before applying this penalty. If the Head Judge feels that an infraction was unintentional, this penalty should not be applied.
Examples of Unsporting Conduct: Cheating include:
Drawing extra cards.
Taking cards from the discard pile and adding them to your hand or deck.
Offering some form of compensation to an opponent for a concession.
Altering match results after the conclusion of the match.
Playing with marked cards.
Lying to event staff.
Arbitrarily adjusting the Special Conditions or damage counters put on any Pokémon in play.
Use of dubious game actions intended to deceive your opponent into making misplays.
Attempting to manipulate a random result.
Stacking your deck.
Recommended Starting Penalty:
Tier 1: Disqualification
Tier 2: Disqualification
I just recently read on a Facebook page that even though stacking or declumping may happen, it is the responsibility of the opponent to cut or shuffle. I am tired of hearing this excuse. Just because the opponent is trusting, this should not excuse cheating!
Also, I just watched the video and the fact that Curtis automatically knew what the questionable methods were (both his and Zach's) without the judges explaining it just cements it there. Nobody better come on this forum anymore and state that these actions were not intentional.
And the fact that the Judges did nothing and just passed on this...WHAT??!! Even the commentators of the stream were surprised by this. TPCi better do something about this. I do not want my country to be represented at Worlds by people that cheat, nor do I want my country's reputation in the Pokemon world to be diminished.
From the Pokemon TCG Penalty Guidelines:
7.6.4. Cheating
Players who intentionally commit infractions are looking to gain an unfair advantage over other players at the event. The Head Judge should carefully consider whether an infraction was intentional or not before applying this penalty. If the Head Judge feels that an infraction was unintentional, this penalty should not be applied.
Examples of Unsporting Conduct: Cheating include:
Drawing extra cards.
Taking cards from the discard pile and adding them to your hand or deck.
Offering some form of compensation to an opponent for a concession.
Altering match results after the conclusion of the match.
Playing with marked cards.
Lying to event staff.
Arbitrarily adjusting the Special Conditions or damage counters put on any Pokémon in play.
Use of dubious game actions intended to deceive your opponent into making misplays.
Attempting to manipulate a random result.
Stacking your deck.
Recommended Starting Penalty:
Tier 1: Disqualification
Tier 2: Disqualification
I just recently read on a Facebook page that even though stacking or declumping may happen, it is the responsibility of the opponent to cut or shuffle. I am tired of hearing this excuse. Just because the opponent is trusting, this should not excuse cheating!
Also, I just watched the video and the fact that Curtis automatically knew what the questionable methods were (both his and Zach's) without the judges explaining it just cements it there. Nobody better come on this forum anymore and state that these actions were not intentional.
And the fact that the Judges did nothing and just passed on this...WHAT??!! Even the commentators of the stream were surprised by this. TPCi better do something about this. I do not want my country to be represented at Worlds by people that cheat, nor do I want my country's reputation in the Pokemon world to be diminished.
Pikajew1213
New Member
He's not necessarily a cheater, he won nationals last year without doing so....
I do not believe this "cheating" was not intentional on his part, whether he knew it was wrong, it was intentional, or otherwise, the fact that he did in fact cheat is what matters.