I see, thanks for clarifying that. I could see how someone's chump-shuffling could be a problem. Though if I had any doubt about the quality of their work I'd just shuflle it for them. And then I'd donk them. :thumb:
Cheating from Worlds Contestants
- Thread starter Ness
- Start date
- Status
I see, thanks for clarifying that. I could see how someone's chump-shuffling could be a problem. Though if I had any doubt about the quality of their work I'd just shuflle it for them. And then I'd donk them. :thumb:
z-man
New Member
Jason, you only mentioned shuffling methods. In juniors, a kid got DQ'd for cheating in a number of different ways. His primary method of cheating was wiping damage off of one of his benched Pokemon when he picked up and looked at his discard pile. The judges spent 40 minutes figuring out what to do because it is nearly impossible to rewind the gamestate to see if he originally had damage on his bench. Apparently he did this every round and parents were able to corroborate to give the judges enough evidence to DQ the kid.
This type of cheating is actually really easy and leaves the opponent to surrender the issue, or the judge to decide the game. All you have to do is say "you didn't really play that switch", and you've got an issue. Some players will respond "oh I guess you're right", while others will let the judge decide who wins the despite (spoiler: in an unrewindable game state, the judge gives the right call 50% of the time).
Having played and talked to other players at worlds, it sounded like there was more gossip about cheating than usual. I'm sure there was just about as much cheating as usual, but there was far more gossip about it than most worlds that I've been to.
This type of cheating is actually really easy and leaves the opponent to surrender the issue, or the judge to decide the game. All you have to do is say "you didn't really play that switch", and you've got an issue. Some players will respond "oh I guess you're right", while others will let the judge decide who wins the despite (spoiler: in an unrewindable game state, the judge gives the right call 50% of the time).
Having played and talked to other players at worlds, it sounded like there was more gossip about cheating than usual. I'm sure there was just about as much cheating as usual, but there was far more gossip about it than most worlds that I've been to.
StormFront
New Member
While I haven't caught anyone red handed cheating. I've mostly see weak/ineffective shuffles. Whenever I see that I always riffle before making a cut.
TheDancingPeanut
New Member
I have always wondered how many people just play with more or less cards in their deck. Seems like an easy thing to do, considering the infrequency of deck checks and the way they're conducted.
When I judge, I do random "swoop" checks wherein I get everyone seated and than use a randomize to select a couple of table numbers. I then swoop in and grab those decks after the players are set up. We start the rest of the round and give the other players an extension.
I haven't judged in a while, so I don't know if this is still permitted by the floor rules.
When I judge, I do random "swoop" checks wherein I get everyone seated and than use a randomize to select a couple of table numbers. I then swoop in and grab those decks after the players are set up. We start the rest of the round and give the other players an extension.
I haven't judged in a while, so I don't know if this is still permitted by the floor rules.
Glumanda
Rulings Compendium Translator
Have you informed a judge about anything of this? This is one of these things I really hate: If there are problems during tournaments, everyone stays silent, let us talk afterwards on message boards about that.
Nevertheless, the observations are valid and important and I have heard similar rumors / concerns from German players. Some random musings about this stuff.
1) A pile shuffle is not a shuffle, it is an ordered rearrangement of cards. The only reason to do a pile shuffle before a match is to count the cards in the deck. If you are doing a pile shuffle to randomize your deck, you are doing something wrong. Therefore, a pile shuffle as the only method of shuffling is not acceptable. There have to "good" riffles and or handovers mixed into it. However, it is a good countermeasure against stacking (provided that you also mix up different shuffling techniques, when shuffling your opponents deck).
2) In order to catch stacked decks, there should be more deck checks at the beginning of a round. Judges should pick up the decks when the deck were presented to the opponent because in that moment the player says: "My deck has been shuffled sufficiently." Before doing anything else with a collected deck at deck check, spread out all cards to watch for patterns. Stacked decks differ considerably from random decks.
3) I would like to see "declumping" to be forbidden once and for all. "But when I shuffle sufficiently, this should be okay." is unfortunately a stupid legal excuse players can say when they are performing actions which can be considered cheating. There is a certain probability that cards will be clumped. If you declump, you have to shuffle that much that there is a fair probability that the cards might be clumped again. And to be honest: You will never shuffle that much, especially not after a search in-game.
Nevertheless, the observations are valid and important and I have heard similar rumors / concerns from German players. Some random musings about this stuff.
1) A pile shuffle is not a shuffle, it is an ordered rearrangement of cards. The only reason to do a pile shuffle before a match is to count the cards in the deck. If you are doing a pile shuffle to randomize your deck, you are doing something wrong. Therefore, a pile shuffle as the only method of shuffling is not acceptable. There have to "good" riffles and or handovers mixed into it. However, it is a good countermeasure against stacking (provided that you also mix up different shuffling techniques, when shuffling your opponents deck).
2) In order to catch stacked decks, there should be more deck checks at the beginning of a round. Judges should pick up the decks when the deck were presented to the opponent because in that moment the player says: "My deck has been shuffled sufficiently." Before doing anything else with a collected deck at deck check, spread out all cards to watch for patterns. Stacked decks differ considerably from random decks.
3) I would like to see "declumping" to be forbidden once and for all. "But when I shuffle sufficiently, this should be okay." is unfortunately a stupid legal excuse players can say when they are performing actions which can be considered cheating. There is a certain probability that cards will be clumped. If you declump, you have to shuffle that much that there is a fair probability that the cards might be clumped again. And to be honest: You will never shuffle that much, especially not after a search in-game.
z-man
New Member
The issue with that is that a randomly ordered deck can be in the "perfect order" for a player. Patterns can happen in randomly generated orders of cards. This method may produce a large number of False Positives (people getting caught despite not cheating). I think all changes made should minimize the number of false positive results. Give the player the benefit of the doubt. It is very possible that players run really hot. I've seen "the perfect N to 1" a few times before. It is unlikely, but not impossible without stacking. To catch a cheater, you have to catch him/her in the act. Sadly, there is very little that judges can do proactively beyond watching known stackers. As players, it is our jobs to keep the opponent honest and fair. If you see anything suspicious, mention it in a nice way. The player will typically stop. If they don't stop after you bring it up once or twice, call judge to watch the game. Attempting to proactively stop stacking will produce false results sometimes. There is no worse feeling than getting "caught cheating" when you're playing the game fairly. New policies shouldn't punish fair players. They might be lenient on cheaters, but cheaters will eventually get caught.
If I recall correctly, one of the reasons the shuffling rules are as open as they are is that younger players (though generally not at the worlds level) often have trouble doing a riffle shuffle (furthermore, I personally recommend never doing a riffle shuffle on unsleeved cards, which many younger players use at my league).
Glumanda
Rulings Compendium Translator
Well, I did not say I would immediately DQ a player if I find a pattern, right?
A pattern alone is not enough grounds to go hard on a player (barring for really, really clear patterns, see below). Normally, you would like to see a shuffle process of that player. Optimally, the person collecting the decks hovers around the table long enough to see the complete shuffling.
Another good technique is: You find a pattern? Memorize the pattern and deck check the player again. Same pattern? Mhm...
One method to find distributionally stacked decks is the "7-streak-method". How does this work? Lay the deck down in order and count the number of streaks of 7 consecutive cards or more without a certain type of card e.g. a supporter card or an energy card. Based on the total number of cards of that type and a computer simulation I did on 10000 randomly shuffled decks you can find some very interesting results.
Suppose, someone plays 10 energies in his deck. How big do you think is the probability that there is no streak of at least 7 consecutive cards without an energy (meaning that regardless of the 7 cards, you pick, you will always have an energy on the starting hand)? In my computer simulation of 10000 runs, this case did not happen ONE SINGLE TIME.
For 13 cards of one type (e.g. 11 supporters + 2 Random Receivers), the probability would be 0.5% (or 50 out of 10000 runs).
Thus, it is good to look at combinations. Let´s say I find a deck like that:
* 11 energies where there is no "streak of 7" (probability 3 out of 10000)
* 13 supporter-like cards where there is no "streak of 7" (probability 50 out of 10000)
* Junk Arm always directly above or under Professor Juniper (empty hand = good juniper)
* Next to each basic pokemon you can find an energy card
I think, if you find such a combination of unlikely patterns in the deck, it is very unlikely that you will hit an innocent player.
A pattern alone is not enough grounds to go hard on a player (barring for really, really clear patterns, see below). Normally, you would like to see a shuffle process of that player. Optimally, the person collecting the decks hovers around the table long enough to see the complete shuffling.
Another good technique is: You find a pattern? Memorize the pattern and deck check the player again. Same pattern? Mhm...
One method to find distributionally stacked decks is the "7-streak-method". How does this work? Lay the deck down in order and count the number of streaks of 7 consecutive cards or more without a certain type of card e.g. a supporter card or an energy card. Based on the total number of cards of that type and a computer simulation I did on 10000 randomly shuffled decks you can find some very interesting results.
Suppose, someone plays 10 energies in his deck. How big do you think is the probability that there is no streak of at least 7 consecutive cards without an energy (meaning that regardless of the 7 cards, you pick, you will always have an energy on the starting hand)? In my computer simulation of 10000 runs, this case did not happen ONE SINGLE TIME.
For 13 cards of one type (e.g. 11 supporters + 2 Random Receivers), the probability would be 0.5% (or 50 out of 10000 runs).
Thus, it is good to look at combinations. Let´s say I find a deck like that:
* 11 energies where there is no "streak of 7" (probability 3 out of 10000)
* 13 supporter-like cards where there is no "streak of 7" (probability 50 out of 10000)
* Junk Arm always directly above or under Professor Juniper (empty hand = good juniper)
* Next to each basic pokemon you can find an energy card
I think, if you find such a combination of unlikely patterns in the deck, it is very unlikely that you will hit an innocent player.
The most blatant cheat I have witnesses went like this:
The player would either play intentionally with cards that bend (or bend the cards) and then shuffle lightly. His opponent noticed the light shuffle and constantly decided to shuffle the cheaters deck. Then the cheater would cut his deck to the cards with a noticeable bend. Thus, he would get cards he wanted off any shuffle.
The second most blatant cheat I have seen is this. One players would peek at his deck for every shuffle. He would hold the deck just past perpendicular to himself. Then while shuffling he could see the deck on an angle. He wouldn't shuffle with the cards faces directly towards him, but it was enough to see the cards but not enough for most people to call him out.
The player would either play intentionally with cards that bend (or bend the cards) and then shuffle lightly. His opponent noticed the light shuffle and constantly decided to shuffle the cheaters deck. Then the cheater would cut his deck to the cards with a noticeable bend. Thus, he would get cards he wanted off any shuffle.
The second most blatant cheat I have seen is this. One players would peek at his deck for every shuffle. He would hold the deck just past perpendicular to himself. Then while shuffling he could see the deck on an angle. He wouldn't shuffle with the cards faces directly towards him, but it was enough to see the cards but not enough for most people to call him out.
King Piplup
Active Member
^And THAT is why I hate that somebody can cut after an Opponent shuffles. This is why I'll call a judge for shuffle if I think something is really up.
I have seen a number of players do this. Of course, it's much worse when they do it while shuffling my deck!
I pile shuffle, but instead of stacking the piles back up I riffle and overhand shuffle each pile into another pile until the deck is completely back together. I also follow this with more riffle and overhand shuffling before offering my opponent to cut. I never understood people who just pile shuffle and stack the piles up on top of each other... that's not random at all. If you had the deck in a particular order, the same exact order every time, and you pile shuffled the same way every time, you're just going to get the same arrangement of cards.
If you have the judge shuffle, the player cannot cut afterwards.
King Piplup
Active Member
Exactly what I'm saying.
Ness
Member
Lots of good feedback. Regarding other forms of cheating, such as the kid simply removing damage counters from his board, we are all aware this type of cheating occasionally occurs in the game. Such conspicuous forms of cheating are easy to recognize occurring and also recognize as wrong. The methods of cheating I have mentioned in my OP are more furtive.
I've tried to avoid the issue of "declumping" because I anticipated it would hijack the thread, but now that the main ideas have been discussed, I will digress.
For those of you who understand why it is wrong to rearrange your deck in a particular order before a game, why is rearranging cards in a desirable order in the middle of a game any more acceptable? The argument usually goes something like this.
Player A: Why are you stacking your deck?
Player B: Well, I'm shuffling anyway.
Player A: Then why do it?
Of course, the players who do the stacking, rearranging, declumping - all of these are the same things, the only difference is to the degree it is done, usually do not intend to do a thorough shuffle afterwards. They offer a light shuffle which is likely to retain the artificial order of the cards they have created, giving them an unfair advantage, no matter how small.
So why is rearranging cards in your deck during the middle of a game legal? Besides being difficult to enforce, it's legal because not all rearranging of cards is done with the intention of stacking a deck. Players may be placing cards next to each other in order to count them, in order to weigh their options, or otherwise help themselves make a decision. Additionally, whether a player rearranges cards in a desirable order or not, once the deck is seen, it is no longer random, and needs to be shuffled anyway.
So while I continue to encourage people not to "declump" their deck while searching (spacing apart their Rare Candies, energies, etc.), making it against the rules may ultimately be worse for the game than allowing it. Now, if we go to the beginning of a game, I see no reason players should be allowed to rearrange cards before a game starts - at least after they have begun shuffling. Once you have begun shuffling your deck, you should not be able to pick it up, rearrange cards, then shuffle again. There is absolutely no reason for this, - you are never doing a search or weighing a strategic option. In these instances, you are either attempting to gain an unfair advantage by manipulating the order of your deck or you are unquestionably holding the game up because you have now negated the previous shuffling you have done.
I've tried to avoid the issue of "declumping" because I anticipated it would hijack the thread, but now that the main ideas have been discussed, I will digress.
For those of you who understand why it is wrong to rearrange your deck in a particular order before a game, why is rearranging cards in a desirable order in the middle of a game any more acceptable? The argument usually goes something like this.
Player A: Why are you stacking your deck?
Player B: Well, I'm shuffling anyway.
Player A: Then why do it?
Of course, the players who do the stacking, rearranging, declumping - all of these are the same things, the only difference is to the degree it is done, usually do not intend to do a thorough shuffle afterwards. They offer a light shuffle which is likely to retain the artificial order of the cards they have created, giving them an unfair advantage, no matter how small.
So why is rearranging cards in your deck during the middle of a game legal? Besides being difficult to enforce, it's legal because not all rearranging of cards is done with the intention of stacking a deck. Players may be placing cards next to each other in order to count them, in order to weigh their options, or otherwise help themselves make a decision. Additionally, whether a player rearranges cards in a desirable order or not, once the deck is seen, it is no longer random, and needs to be shuffled anyway.
So while I continue to encourage people not to "declump" their deck while searching (spacing apart their Rare Candies, energies, etc.), making it against the rules may ultimately be worse for the game than allowing it. Now, if we go to the beginning of a game, I see no reason players should be allowed to rearrange cards before a game starts - at least after they have begun shuffling. Once you have begun shuffling your deck, you should not be able to pick it up, rearrange cards, then shuffle again. There is absolutely no reason for this, - you are never doing a search or weighing a strategic option. In these instances, you are either attempting to gain an unfair advantage by manipulating the order of your deck or you are unquestionably holding the game up because you have now negated the previous shuffling you have done.
CardKaptor
New Member
I definitely think this is an added benefit of recording matches, though if Magic the Gathering (which has WAY more viewers that will immediately notice things) is any indication, it certainly won't deter those determined to cheat.
Its definitely not cheating. Declumping is permitted explicitly. The only thing I would ask is why are you doing it. If you sufficiently shuffle, the procedure should be no more likely to "avoid countless Mulligans." If it is helping you avoid mulligans, your deck isn't randomized.
EDIT: And Ness, I completely agree that "banning' declumping would lead to people not being able to bring multiple pokemon next to each other to decide on a dual ball choice, for example. That would be bad for the game.
Nice post, Jason. I agree with you on all points. People just need to be more aware of what their opponent's are doing. And not to derail the thread, but that reprint of Computer Search as only a single in decks is going to cause more reason for people to stack their deck. Not only that, but the starts based on shear luck you can get when you open that one single are pretty stupid, but that's another topic. Just watch out.
NoPoke
Active Member
The issue I have with this thread's change of direction is that it ignores that players are almost universally bad at shuffling in every card game. Forgetting that to manually shuffle a deck takes a lot of time. That given the amount of shuffling in Pokemon tcg that players would have to spend the majority of each round shuffling to achieve randomness rather than playing.
Focus upon the pre-game setup and I hope for a positive outcome. But if it diverges into mid game shuffles then the potential to reduce any pre-game setting of the deck will be lost.
Focus upon the pre-game setup and I hope for a positive outcome. But if it diverges into mid game shuffles then the potential to reduce any pre-game setting of the deck will be lost.
Otaku
Active Member
Ness, I agree with much of what you have said in this thread, however I fear that by tackling a "player myth", you're going to create another one. We already have Glumanda claiming that pile shuffling can't randomize the deck. Well, if we ignore common shuffling guidelines for TCGs, then he is correct. If I take a deck of specifically ordered cards, break it up into piles, then simply combine the piles back into a deck, I may maintain the exact order, or maintain the order within the piles while having moved the cards around otherwise. This is why in TCGs pile shuffling never ends at that point.
I prefer to do a few quick overhand shuffles, pile shuffle, and then one final series of overhand shuffles. The last shuffle is not optional: if you don't do it, your opponent needs to be savvy enough to "do it for you". Indeed, I am being a bit vague about the workings of the "pile shuffle" itself. Once breaking my deck down into piles, I quickly splice the piles together; I know of few experienced players (e.g. those not making mistakes) who would simply restack the piles. The exception is if they do multiple pile shuffles with different sizes (10 stacks of six, then 12 stacks of five etc.) and/or have the opposing player pick the piles. That can be time consuming, though it all depends on the player if that is faster and more reliable than the alternatives.
Riffle shuffling is indeed the most efficient, but of the common shuffling techniques it seems to be hardest on the cards. Sorry friend, but if my choice is taking a big risk of warping the cards (especially expensive ones) in my deck (which ironically could get me accused of playing marked cards!) and me not participating in OP... looks like I am even less likely to ever make it to Worlds. :lol:
Riffle shuffling is also far more difficult to do quickly and effectively than you allow for; its a skill, and for some of us it is rather difficult; when I do it correctly, yes it is much faster than pile shuffling. Since that's maybe a 20% success rate, fixing the mistakes takes far longer than pile shuffling. Overhand shuffling isn't much faster than pile shuffling when you factor in sufficient randomization, and familiarity with pile shuffling. Don't forget that one really should be breaking up certain strings of cards from the previous game. A basic Pokemon and any cards that were attached to it at the time of KO are likely to be together, as are cards discarded by Junk Arm, Junk Arm itself, and often what it searched for. Yes a sufficiently randomized deck may contain such 'clumps'; the point is for the clumping to occur as a result of shuffling sufficiently, not because I did a poor overhand shuffle and my opponent didn't catch that.
tl;dr: "Pile-shuffling" in TCGs is often a misnomer as experienced players use pile shuffling between two other shuffles, and don't simply re-stack the piles, and should always end with some other legitimate shuffle at the end. It is used because while it takes time, it tends to be fairly easy even for the clumsier players like myself to implement; the same level of shuffling using another technique to achieve sufficient randomization would take longer, and likely result in me being DQed after bending my last copy of an expensive card. And we should all be counting our cards between rounds anyway... and counting our opponent's cards.
I prefer to do a few quick overhand shuffles, pile shuffle, and then one final series of overhand shuffles. The last shuffle is not optional: if you don't do it, your opponent needs to be savvy enough to "do it for you". Indeed, I am being a bit vague about the workings of the "pile shuffle" itself. Once breaking my deck down into piles, I quickly splice the piles together; I know of few experienced players (e.g. those not making mistakes) who would simply restack the piles. The exception is if they do multiple pile shuffles with different sizes (10 stacks of six, then 12 stacks of five etc.) and/or have the opposing player pick the piles. That can be time consuming, though it all depends on the player if that is faster and more reliable than the alternatives.
Riffle shuffling is indeed the most efficient, but of the common shuffling techniques it seems to be hardest on the cards. Sorry friend, but if my choice is taking a big risk of warping the cards (especially expensive ones) in my deck (which ironically could get me accused of playing marked cards!) and me not participating in OP... looks like I am even less likely to ever make it to Worlds. :lol:
Riffle shuffling is also far more difficult to do quickly and effectively than you allow for; its a skill, and for some of us it is rather difficult; when I do it correctly, yes it is much faster than pile shuffling. Since that's maybe a 20% success rate, fixing the mistakes takes far longer than pile shuffling. Overhand shuffling isn't much faster than pile shuffling when you factor in sufficient randomization, and familiarity with pile shuffling. Don't forget that one really should be breaking up certain strings of cards from the previous game. A basic Pokemon and any cards that were attached to it at the time of KO are likely to be together, as are cards discarded by Junk Arm, Junk Arm itself, and often what it searched for. Yes a sufficiently randomized deck may contain such 'clumps'; the point is for the clumping to occur as a result of shuffling sufficiently, not because I did a poor overhand shuffle and my opponent didn't catch that.
tl;dr: "Pile-shuffling" in TCGs is often a misnomer as experienced players use pile shuffling between two other shuffles, and don't simply re-stack the piles, and should always end with some other legitimate shuffle at the end. It is used because while it takes time, it tends to be fairly easy even for the clumsier players like myself to implement; the same level of shuffling using another technique to achieve sufficient randomization would take longer, and likely result in me being DQed after bending my last copy of an expensive card. And we should all be counting our cards between rounds anyway... and counting our opponent's cards.
Last edited:
If you bend your last copy of an expensive card, or somehow destroy any card you can't replace, during an event, you can ask the head judge to allow you to play with a proxy card instead. It's up to the head judge whether to allow that, but destroying a card you can't replace isn't an automatic DQ.
- Status