Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Consistency, and why it should matter more to you

Skovtrold-be careful how you word things, because when you said you shuffle as little as possible after "stacking", you sound like you are cheating.

Now can we get back to the original topic?
 
ryanvergel said:
added the tl;dr for people who don't wanna read Ryan's standard wall of text

Pop's Note: For those not fluent in Internetese, that means "too long, didn't read" - Pop
Click to expand...
:lol:

It's got 4 stars now, Ryan. Anyone who rated this article low is either trollin' or TCG-retarded.
 
new sample calculation for odds of starting with a lone hoppip/unown Q with a 16 card jumpluff deck.

and yes, it is, but it's just interesting to see it in work. i wonder what people are doing with this, or if it has helped?

i grew tired of posting decklist articles because i feel that it was literally giving a man a fish, instead of teaching him to fish. i think this kind of practice inculcates a better understanding of the game than merely seeing lists and netdecking. this allows me to exchange information with the community without a fear of my individual work being taken advantage of or directly hindering/affecting my performances, and it allows no negative incentive to this.

i recommend this as a trend for those who can write well, have stuff to say, but dont like netdecking- that's most of the better players.

PS, thanks to everyone who has said good things about this. :thumb: :)

PPS, +100 guru points?
 
Last edited:
I deckbuild completely contrarily to this article. There is such a strong variety of search cards in the game that singles for everything is the way to be. I never play 4 of anything unless it is ridiculously overpowered like Cyrus's Conspiracy or Cradily SS.
 
I don't think that all the cards are equal. It's quite clear that many cards are much better than other ones.

Yes, Cyrus is great, and so is Roseanne, Collector, Communication, Bebe, etc. What singles do you play that make them seem better than the other noted supporters?
 
The issue, I think, Ryan, is that you're aiming at a very narrow margin of people who are just good enough to recognize that they're doing things poorly and understand why you're right. Any better and they're probably doing enough of it to simply skim this article, any worse and they'll think you're ludicrous.

It's a good article though.
 
PokeDrawer +, its like computer search for free.

ryanvergel said:
I don't think that all the cards are equal. It's quite clear that many cards are much better than other ones.

Yes, Cyrus is great, and so is Roseanne, Collector, Communication, Bebe, etc. What singles do you play that make them seem better than the other noted supporters?
Click to expand...
 
pokedrawers in the right deck can be quite good- but you just said that you played a lot of singles, and here you give a card that needs to be used in pairs to be used effectively (computer search-like effect). furthermore, the more of them you play the more likely you are to pair them up and achieve its desired effect, which gives incentive to increase/max out the numbers of pokedrawer in a deck.

i think you kind of supported my argument =X
 
There's no point to running 4 PokeDrawer+ unless you do the PokeDrawer Combo, where you search for 2 PokeDrawer with your 2 PokeDrawer, but it's too hard to pull off because you might not get them both or one might be in prizes. Thus it's much better to just play 1 PokeDrawer +
 
I think you might have misread PokeDrawer. You need 2 to actually search for anything.

Playing 1 means you just draw 1 card.

That makes it worse than Pokedex.
 
ryanvergel said:
i think this kind of practice inculcates a better understanding of the game than merely seeing lists and netdecking. this allows me to exchange information with the community without a fear of my individual work being taken advantage of or directly hindering/affecting my performances, and it allows no negative incentive to this.

i recommend this as a trend for those who can write well, have stuff to say, but dont like netdecking- that's most of the better players.
Click to expand...

Well said.

yes, teaching how is what we're all about.
 
I love consistency, its one of my favorite things in like.

If every thing could be consistent the world would have peace, and we could all marry an asian woman.

But enough dreaming.

Consistency is also great in Pokemon, it helps the deck be the best it can.

Though my best tournament performance was with a very inconsistent deck. So there is something to say about having an inconsistent deck and just being lucky.
 
Great article, but personally I'm a little confused with some of the statistics. If you have a deck with 6 energies then 1 out of every 10 cards is an energy so that's a 10% chance that you will draw and energy. 10%*7 cards equals 70 % which is no where close to what you got. Where did I go wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top