"Declumping" a Deck

[djjoe227]

If it's pointless then why do you care if I do it or not. Just let me be.

If it's pointless don't do it. you're wasting my time. I'm playing the game too, and if time is called in the round, I don't want to be the one stuck with only one extra turn because you took too long on your previous ones.

I might want to declump for any reason in the world. I might even be superstitious about it and not like my rare candies next to energies. Maybe I think cleffa looks extra cute sitting next to an Elm's training method when I search. It doesn't matter.

Then when our game is over, you can take your deck, and you can put your Rare Candies on opposite ends of the room while you perform a Ritual over your Professor Elm's that are Training your Cleffa. But while our game is going on, you do what the cards to tell you to do and that is final.

All that matters to YOU is that my deck is properly shuffled and I haven't taken more time that is allotted to me when I perform a search.

But you're not searching. When you decided to rearrange things, you've deterred from Searching in order to make things look pretty. It matters to me when you waste my time and the game's time so that you can be satisfied how something looks for the next 3-5 seconds.

I'll decide if what I do is "pointless" or not.

Sure thing. Just don't be wrong when you actually get down to deciding.

Also, if for any reason you feel your opponent's shuffle isn't adequate enough, then by all means ask to shuffle it yourself. There are rules for this, ya know. No player should ever feel that their opponent's deck isn't properly shuffled at any point in the match. It's your own due diligence to shuffle if you feel your opponent isn't doing a good enough job shuffling their deck.

Shuffling is not the issue. The issue is the attempt to either Cheat yourself into a better advantage or to waste time.

 

[Mystery Thing]

By noticing there are 3 Rare Candies, as the example everyone is using, alls that is being accomplished is confirming prior questions- "Why didn't I draw my rare candies?". Well now you know why. The deck will be shuffled and you can re-ask that question as you do or don't draw them.

Disagree. Barring a complete and proper shuffle (which is either humanly impossible or would take too long, whatever consensus on that is is irrelevant), the very act of NOT doing anything to them is in and of itself gathering information. Call it different severity of cheating if you so desire, but the instant I look at the deck and see the 3 Candies, I've learned something that can only be negated by a perfectly randomizing shuffle, which is never going to occur. You learn more of a something by declumping them, I'll give you that, but whether you do or do not, you have learned ~something~.

Going with a truly randomizing shuffle to be not practical (if even possible), the only way to prevent all forms of information gathering would be for you to declare your card choice to a third party who then went through the deck and pulled one out for you.

 

[Politoed666]

At this point, after reading through the last couple pages of this, here's where I'm at.

1. Ness has a big problem with declumping. Evidently, a lot of other very, very good players feel the same way.
2. If you declump and proceed to shuffle somewhat thoroughly, it will have the same effect as shuffling very thoroughly.
3. If you declump and fail to shuffle thoroughly, I'd stop short of calling it cheating, but there's certainly something wrong with it.

So, looking at those, let's make a compromise. I still don't believe declumping is "cheating," since it's not actually against the rules. It's not stalling as long as it's not excessive, obviously. I don't think it gives one player an unfair advantage... it just accomplishes the same thing a thorough shuffle probably would in a shorter amount of time. However, while I may not agree with their position, some of the world's foremost players are vehemently opposed to this practice, and we have to be considerate of that.

As long as they aren't completely outlandish, a tenant of SotG is to take into account our opponent's desires. If he or she is uncomfortable with something we are doing that we can easily rectify without interrupting the rules/flow of the game, we owe it to them to be considerate. If Ness and friends are genuinely concerned about the randomness of the draw being affected by declumping, it's a small sacrifice to just shuffle a little better and a little longer.

I'll try to intentionally avoid declumping and instead simply shuffle longer and better after I finish my search. Basically, I'm willing to waste my time to give my opponents peace of mind. If you're not, keep arguing.

 

[Ness]

2. If you declump and proceed to shuffle somewhat thoroughly, it will have the same effect as shuffling very thoroughly.

No! Holy Golbat, no! Where on earth are you getting such a ridiculous idea? There is no "effect" of a random deck. It has no likelihood of being anyone particular sequence than any other! You cannot artificially produce a "random" deck!

 

[djjoe227]

Disagree. Barring a complete and proper shuffle (which is either humanly impossible or would take too long, whatever consensus on that is is irrelevant), the very act of NOT doing anything to them is in and of itself gathering information. Call it different severity of cheating if you so desire, but the instant I look at the deck and see the 3 Candies, I've learned something that can only be negated by a perfectly randomizing shuffle, which is never going to occur. You learn more of a something by declumping them, I'll give you that, but whether you do or do not, you have learned ~something~.

Going with a truly randomizing shuffle to be not practical (if even possible), the only way to prevent all forms of information gathering would be for you to declare your card choice to a third party who then went through the deck and pulled one out for you.

But that is what the cards are telling you to do.

"Search".

If Police "Search" my car, they are looking through it in detail for something they may or may not find.

If someone "Searches" for buried treasure, they are looking through an area for the correct spot to dig.

If I "Search" my deck, I look through it for the card I'm looking for.

Searching involves an analysis of the medium used, whether it be a car, an area, or the deck, you need to know what you're looking through.

You see 3 Rare Candies together and you know now that there is not a Pikachu card between them. You gain that knowledge in your search. It goes hand in hand.

There is no such thing as a perfectly randomized shuffle. Think about all the ways 60 different cards can be arranged. A deck has to look like any one of those arrangements. Alls a Shuffle does is say "Choose a different arrangement". Those 3 rare candies can be in both, one of, or niether of those arrangements. You seeing the 3 rare candies confirms only one thing: At one point, the arrangement was set where those 3 Rare Candies were in line with each other.

 

[NoPoke]

FWIW the autocorrelation function of a deck with clumps is typically higher than that of a deck where a player has split the clump up. High autocorrelation results indicate LESS random distributions containing MORE potential information.

One of the reasons why I don't like the hand over hand shuffle is that the autocorrelation result decreases very slowly for that kind of shuffle.

Good shuffles contain separation and folding. Separation means cards are pulled apart (the pile shuffle is hte best example of this) There is no easy way to perform the folding operation manually though a 2/3 riffle does reverse the order of some cards. The wash shuffle does separate and fold well . but as Ness has already pointed out it isn't appropriate for our game.

 

[K2theAblaM]

If it's pointless don't do it. you're wasting my time. I'm playing the game too, and if time is called in the round, I don't want to be the one stuck with only one extra turn because you took too long on your previous ones.

I'm not wasting your time. I can use MY OWN time to search through MY OWN deck and I can even use MY OWN time to check for MY OWN prizes if I want (and always do). Point is a 60 second search isn't out of the question the first time you go through your deck. It takes all but a fraction of a second to move one card from one part of your deck to another. I can do this multiple times, search my deck for prizes and make a decision about what pokemon I want to grab and you will give me that time because I will give you the same courtesy when you first search through your deck. So don't cry to me about wasting your time when we're both given plenty of leeway during our first search through our decks.


Then when our game is over, you can take your deck, and you can put your Rare Candies on opposite ends of the room while you perform a Ritual over your Professor Elm's that are Training your Cleffa. But while our game is going on, you do what the cards to tell you to do and that is final.

The first part of the comment is childish and makes zero sense.

Anyways, I will do what the cards tell me to do and I always have. If it says search through my deck, I'll do just that. I might even move some pokemon to the front when I make my decision on what to pick and still be perfectly alright by everyone's logic in this thread. (right ness?) But that's not what the cards say. Point is there's no discernible way to enforce the rules of the card VERBATIM. I can't stop ness from moving his pokemon to the front of the deck and nobody can stop their opponent from taking the fraction of a second it takes and move a rare candy from one part of a deck to another. Furthermore, the cards say shuffle your deck afterwards.... so by all means, shuffle my deck if you're not satisfied.


But you're not searching. When you decided to rearrange things, you've deterred from Searching in order to make things look pretty. It matters to me when you waste my time and the game's time so that you can be satisfied how something looks for the next 3-5 seconds.

Lol, do me a favor and grab your deck. then take the top card and put it in the middle of your deck. That's how long it would take me to declump my rare candies. if you want to sit across the table and cry about the millisecond it would take me to move a card from one part of my deck to another, be my guest. I'm going to continue to search for my pokemon while you call a judge.


Sure thing. Just don't be wrong when you actually get down to deciding.

*Shrugs*

Lulz. you're making it too easy for me. Responses in red.

 

[cpeterik]

^^ Here is the thing about declumping. Many players get used to the "Faro" shuffle, perhaps during play testing when they aren't as vigilant or when their opponents are more laid back/forgiving. The Faro shuffle, by nature, keeps groups of 2,3 or 4 cards together in one place (just puts them in a different order within the deck). Declumping followed by a Faro shuffle is no longer random, and is thus cheating.

Now, that same player enters a tournament and is now doing a Riffle- Faro- Riffle- Faro- Faro type pattern of shuffling. In this case, declumping cards is already achieved by the Riffle part, and any declumping is just wasting time. The argument for why it is done then, is for 'state of mind'. Now that is all fine and good, but separating the players that declump for state of mind and the players that declump to cheat is very difficult.

 

[Politoed666]

No! Holy Golbat, no! Where on earth are you getting such a ridiculous idea? There is no "effect" of a random deck. It has no likelihood of being anyone particular sequence than any other! You cannot artificially produce a "random" deck!

Okay, it will very likely have the same effect as shuffling very thoroughly.
If cards are clumped to begin with, shuffling thoroughly will almost certainly declump them. The odds of it reclumping them or clumping another group of cards are fairly low.

Either way, read the rest of my post and be happy.

 

[K2theAblaM]

Can we drop the "wasting time" argument already. It's absurd that someone would think it takes any longer than a fraction of a second to move a card from one place to another random place in the deck.

Just drop it.

 

[NoPoke]

A single riffle moves cards apart by a single card. Riffles don't destroy clumps anywhere nearly as effectively as some in this thread seem to think they do.

 

[cpeterik]

Multiple Riffles should solve any cards sicking together. What are the chances that the same 2 cards stick together each time you riffle if you are riffling up to 6 times?

 

[Ness]

Point is a 60 second search isn't out of the question the first time you go through your deck.

I don't think you are qualified to set these timeframes. I would sure hope 60 seconds to search your deck for Pokémon Collector was out of the question. I don't care if it was your first search or not.

Can we get an answer from Clay or Pop on this?

 

[K2theAblaM]

I don't think you are qualified to set these timeframes. I would sure hope 60 seconds to search your deck for Pokémon Collector was out of the question. I don't care if it was your first search or not.

Can we get an answer from Clay or Pop on this?

You're nitpicking my argument... but that's okay. My point still stands.

It doesn't matter whether we're allowed 60 seconds, 30 seconds, or 15 seconds. It takes less than half a second to grab a rare candy and slide it to a random spot in my deck. Hardly enough time to warrant an infraction based on the "normal" ambiguous time it takes to actually search, check prizes, and make a selection of 3 pokemon.


I'm going to quote myself again... since people may have overlooked it.

Can we drop the "wasting time" argument already. It's absurd that someone would think it takes any longer than a fraction of a second to move a card from one place to another random place in the deck.

Just drop it.

 

[Rambo]

You're complaining about wasting time when people take half a second to move one card from one place to another, most people just throw it somewhere else randomly in the deck. Apparently this is wasting time.

Then you claim that if you think the deck is not distributed correctly or "unevenly" then instead of declumping, you should spend more time shuffling the deck.

Using this logic, how on earth is half a second longer than spending extra time shuffling your deck?

 

[MGS-58]

The wasting time argument as Ness and others have stated is the randomization done AFTER you declump. Again I don't think it's a big deal but as Ness said, it requires about 5-7 riffle shuffles to randomize a deck which takes about 1 minute let's say. In order to fully randomize ur deck after declumping, you have to riffle 5 times at least. If you do not do so your opponent will have to do it for you if they deem it necessary. If you declump after EVERY search i can see more than 5 minutes of playing time being wasted on proper shuffling which I'm thinking is most peoples' problem over the issue. Correct if I'm wrong but please don't flame me

 

[K2theAblaM]

Hey I've got a video to show you guys, namely you, ness.

Game 2 Ross Vs. Sami in the top 16 at worlds.

Game 2: Part 1

Forward to 4:38 Ross uses 52 seconds to search for a cleffa off a pokemon communication. A CLEFFA mind you. A single pokemon. 52 seconds.


Notable quotes from Pooka & Crimz.

"Ross probably was just checking to see what was prized. On the first turn it’s perfectly acceptable… The first one you can’t blame them."

"Ross isn’t forced to speed up by any means."

Due note that this is a game where TIME was extremely important. It was the second game of a match that had already taken up a large amount of time.

 

[SteveP]

Wow, lots of chatter on this topic!

That's not true. If you stack your deck and then do not shuffle sufficiently during setup, you're a cheater. Remember when Sammy Sosa was using a corked bat during pregame batting practice? Then, he brought that corked bat into the game. Was this not cheating? Same concept.

I don't know why you'd think I meant it was okay to slightly declump your deck (2-3 cards) during a routine deck search without suffling afterwards.

The rules are quite clear on what entails sufficent shuffling, so just about any amount of declumping, followed by sufficent shuffling is NOT cheating, WHATSOEVER!

And, to expand upon your Sammy Sosa analogy, suppose it were possible to "de-cork" the bat (get it back to it's playable condition)? Would it be okay for Sammy to use a de-corked bat in the game?

To say that you can't get a declumped deck back to a random condition is ridiculous.

Some would argue that certain cards have a tendency to clump. If that's true (I'm not claiming it is), then declumping would actually facilitate/improve randomization.

This debate seems so nit-picky to me that it turns me off about playing Pokemon with such players who consider declumping to be cheating or an annoyance. A little common sense about shuffling is all that's needed to put this topic to rest!

 

[Alazor]

The wasting time argument as Ness and others have stated is the randomization done AFTER you declump. Again I don't think it's a big deal but as Ness said, it requires about 5-7 riffle shuffles to randomize a deck which takes about 1 minute let's say. In order to fully randomize ur deck after declumping, you have to riffle 5 times at least. If you do not do so your opponent will have to do it for you if they deem it necessary. If you declump after EVERY search i can see more than 5 minutes of playing time being wasted on proper shuffling which I'm thinking is most peoples' problem over the issue. Correct if I'm wrong but please don't flame me

You know this thread can cause a lot of headaches when it gets this complicated. Not to mention if the opponent rearranges your hand during a mulligan, that could be the same type of thing.

 

[MGS-58]

You know this thread can cause a lot of headaches when it gets this complicated. Not to mention if the opponent rearranges your hand during a mulligan, that could be the same type of thing.

What do you mean by rearranging your hand during a mulligan?