"Declumping" a Deck

[Magic_Umbreon]

There's a collision between idealism and practicalities here. I think where that exists, Spirit of the Game comes in.

Arguing a perfect shuffle is impossible would be like saying if someone is a perfect cheat there's nothing we can do about it. The principles stand, and it is the responsibility of a player to respect those principles for a greater good. Regardless of how enforceable those are.

A shuffle is a shuffle is a shuffle, a complete randomisation of the deck leaving the player with ZERO knowledge of the position of any card in the deck (only its contents). If that's not practically possible, fine. (it obviously isn't). But that doesn't mean players are somehow justified in exploiting those limits.

It's in the spirit of the game to reach as close to those ideals as possible, and that means working as hard as possible for a shuffle to be a perfect shuffle. This means you shouldn't even NOTICE the position of cards in your deck! The deck's about to be totally randomised, it's not relevant! Your play should be equivalent to seeing your deck ordered alphabetically for the purposes of Spirit of the Game.

Another analogy about what you're supposed to know in an ideal game and what you might find out:

Say you see your opponent's hand because they hold it too low. You shouldn't use that information in making your play decisions! Of course this is not enforceable as no formal rule was violated, but it's not in the spirit of the game.

So which rule is violated? Fairness of spirit of the game. The game is defined formally using rules about information as much as rules about legitimate uses of the cards, you don't violate either!

 

[losjackal]

A shuffle is a shuffle is a shuffle, a complete randomisation of the deck leaving the player with ZERO knowledge of the position of any card in the deck (only its contents).

I suppose that definition is arguable. In a previous post of mine, I pointed out how said shuffling and cutting is only relevant until a few turns later when you search the deck again and thus shuffle and cut again (unlike other card games like Poker). There are plenty of chances during a game to re-randomize your deck. As NoPoke says, a brief search should get a brief shuffle.

So it's extreme to work to destroy ALL knowledge during each shuffle. That's arguably wasting time, which was Ness' whole point of his first post. (Though the time he argued was wasted was the time someone spent declumping.)

Instead, I'd say the purpose of the randomization during shuffle and cut so that you don't know which card you are going to draw next.

So which rule is violated? Fairness of spirit of the game. The game is defined formally using rules about information as much as rules about legitimate uses of the cards, you don't violate either!

Fairness: Games cease to be fun when players break the rules to achieve victory. A player should prefer to lose a game than to win by cheating.

Other posts have shown there is no rule against declumping (as long as it is brief).
If you still believe it's "unfair", I welcome you to explain how this is significantly different than selectively arranging cards back into your deck after playing Flower Shop Lady or a Judge card.

 

[MrMeches]

Was reading the new stuff and just have to say that referencing PTCGO is ridiculous for anything.

You can't call a Judge when your opponent is stalling. You can't roll a 6 sided trans di. You can't use sleeves for flare. The prizes are set to the standard format. Etc.

Just absurd to use it at all in this debate.

Still feel declumping is no more a waste of time that the initial deck search where ppl go through up to 3 times trying to figure out what is in their prizes. Why should it be 'allowable' (and has been advocated FOR) that a player gets extra time on the first deck search and minor declumping is not? I don't remember seeing ANY card saying to search your deck and try to figure out what is in your prizes.... but that has become the standard.

As for being selected..... it is not What you know, but Who you know in these parts <--- so not a valid reference either.

 

[Moss Factor]

I think wiem0014's post (#440) above PROVES that declumping, with sufficient shuffling, cannot be penalized, nor is considered cheating in any fashion whatsoever.

The problem comes into play by those who think, for whatever reason, that declumping, even with sufficent shuffling, somehow "perverts the game state." (sorry Matt - I respect you, but disagree with that comment.:thumb It's very clear from the compendium quotes where the rules are on this issue.

Its the second part of what you said that catches my ire. Nobody sufficiently shuffles their deck mid-game. They just don't do it. They shake it up a little bit but then that is it. Sure, I could always shuffle if I felt that their shuffling was insufficient, but give me a break it takes a ton of time during a match to do this and is effectively tantamount to my opponent inducing stalling were I to try and undo someone's de-clumping every time they did it.

The fact of the matter is, you can set your deck in literally any order and it is undone with thorough shuffling. The other fact of the matter is, nobody thoroughly shuffles their deck mid-game. That's why people "de-clump," they do it because they know this and because it gives them an advantage.

The rules guys can't make a rule saying you cannot change the order of cards in your deck because of the practical limitations around that, but it doesn't mean that what someone is trying to do isn't deck manipulation. A de-clumper is trying to manipulate his or her deck and that isn't within the rules!

 

[NoPoke]

If de-clumping is manipulating your deck to gain an advantage then so is adjusting how much you shuffle based upon what you see in your deck.

It isn't too hard to go from "declumping is manipulation to gain an advantage" to players who can shuffle effectively and quickly have an unfair advantage. I'm never particularly happy with appeals to "its not fair..." without a whole lot of further elaboration as to why.

Opponents always have the right to shuffle/cut if they wish.
Opponents always have the right to call a judge if they are unhappy with what their opponent is doing.
Opponents always have the right to express the opinion to a judge that their opponent is spending too much time on activities that are not directly related to searching.

Worst outcome for me would be a rule banning de-clumping. Players who are poor at shuffling would then be forced to ask a judge to perform a good shuffle because they know that they cannot. There is a difference between seeking an advantage you should not have and trying to mitigate against a disadvantage that you are not supposed to have.

 

[Otaku]

I have only read 90% of the posts in this thread, but this is straight from The Compendium and seems to address "declumping"

Q. I play an Oracle, and search for two cards. While I am searching, I find that I have a HUGE energy pocket coming up. So I break it up and add some trainers in between them. I then shuffle and put 2 cards on top. Is that legal?
A. As long as you shuffle sufficiently afterward. (Mar 25, 2004 PUI Rules Team)
Posted with Mobile style...

Also this from the compendium as well:

Q. I was playing with this guy and he rearranged the order of the cards in his deck prior to shuffle it, would this be allowed in a tournament?
A. Yes but you would have the right to shuffle it yourself or cut it as well if you were uncomfortable with his shuffling method. (Sep 14, 2000 WotC Chat, Q125)

I think wiem0014's post (#440) above PROVES that declumping, with sufficient shuffling, cannot be penalized, nor is considered cheating in any fashion whatsoever.

The problem comes into play by those who think, for whatever reason, that declumping, even with sufficent shuffling, somehow "perverts the game state." (sorry Matt - I respect you, but disagree with that comment.:thumb It's very clear from the compendium quotes where the rules are on this issue.

Just to note, it almost was made a part of the tournament rules that "declumping" would have been illegal.
The sole reason argued against it and why it was not made against the rule was the difficulty in enforcement ("I wasn't declumping, I was moving a card that I was considering getting with my search and I changed my mind")

So declumping is definitely not a good thing and while allowed (with sufficient randomization afterward), it is frowned upon.

PokePop's post from far, far earlier makes the issue truly clear: this is only "legal" because it the powers that be thought it was impossible to enforce a rule making it illegal.

Think about that carefully: if there was a way to reasonably prove or disprove someone was declumping, it would be illegal because it is a minor form of stacking.

This is why I believe it needs to be re-ruled upon. It needs to be made an official illegal play, and judges will merely have to be educated that short of a confession you'll never actually be able to penalize someone for it. Players will not be able to openly do it, and judges who notice a player doing something like declumping can make sure to investigate and keep the practice from being common.

 

[Prof Clay]

Was reading the new stuff and just have to say that referencing PTCGO is ridiculous for anything.

You can't call a Judge when your opponent is stalling. You can't roll a 6 sided trans di. You can't use sleeves for flare. The prizes are set to the standard format. Etc.

Just absurd to use it at all in this debate.

Still feel declumping is no more a waste of time that the initial deck search where ppl go through up to 3 times trying to figure out what is in their prizes. Why should it be 'allowable' (and has been advocated FOR) that a player gets extra time on the first deck search and minor declumping is not? I don't remember seeing ANY card saying to search your deck and try to figure out what is in your prizes.... but that has become the standard.

As for being selected..... it is not What you know, but Who you know in these parts <--- so not a valid reference either.

Hey Danny, Any reference to the PTCGO that I made was me fishing for a certain perspective on the psychology of declumping...was not truly thinkning it needed that feature. Some have said that declumping is done simply because it makes them feel better

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

Its the second part of what you said that catches my ire. Nobody sufficiently shuffles their deck mid-game. They just don't do it. They shake it up a little bit but then that is it.

That reminds me. Most people don't even do rifle shuffles. It generally isn't very practical, due to sleeves and whatnot. So if they don't do a rifle shuffle then what are they never doing a good shuffle? Rifle shuffling isn't the only way to shuffle and IMO some other methods of shuffling are better and easier.

Sure, I could always shuffle if I felt that their shuffling was insufficient, but give me a break it takes a ton of time during a match to do this and is effectively tantamount to my opponent inducing stalling were I to try and undo someone's de-clumping every time they did it.

There's a small thing I'd like to point out here. In most cases after a search (since cards like Oak don't constitute a search) a player will have a few actions to perform, and while their opponent is shuffling they do those actions. I've seen it happen all the time in both small and big tournaments, so it really isn't wasting time, since the opponent is still doing what they were going to do during this time anyway.

 

[Ness]

If de-clumping is manipulating your deck to gain an advantage then so is adjusting how much you shuffle based upon what you see in your deck.

You're absolutely right! This is true if you are shuffling less because you want to maintain some order of cards you saw in the deck. What I was advocating earlier is because midgame shuffles are usually not very thorough, you shouldn't be spending time memorizing current patterns of cards to gain an advantage just like you shouldn't be creating those patterns artificially yourself.

If you spend a lot of time looking at your deck, you should be expected to shuffle thoroughly to remove any possible advantage you could have. If you do a brief search, grab your cards and get out without rearranging your cards, your opponent may be forgiving of a modest shuffle because Pokemon is played in the real world and we don't have all day to repeatedly shuffle deck over and over. Yes, technically, the deck should always be shuffled thoroughly - but in the Spirit of the Game, players may tolerate a less than perfect shuffle when it is clear you aren't retaining any information about your deck and aren't gaining an unfair advantage.

 

[losjackal]

I'm getting tired of seeing "gaining an unfair advantage", so I want to examine that for a moment. Let's break it apart, starting backwards:

advantage - that's a good thing right? Every player strives to be in an advantageous position, whether by KO'ing the opponent's main attacker, Lost Removing a crucial energy, or Catchering up a high retreater? Nothing wrong here.

unfair - why is it so unfair? You can do it too when searching your own deck. OK, maybe you consciously don't because you don't believe it makes any difference, or you really believe it is a form of cheating. So bet it. But why begrudge the other people from doing it? Why is the order of previously randomized cards so holy? If when I find the Pokemon I'm searching for in the middle of my deck, and I take the stack of cards that preceded it and place them at the bottom so my Pokemon is now at the top, did I really commit an act that fouled up the game, intentional or not?

gaining - any benefit from de-clumping may not even be realized. The shuffles change things, even an insufficient one. (If I take 3 Rare Candies and place them at 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 positions deep in the deck, after one riffle shuffle of equal piles the first and third have a high likelihood of being clumped together again.) Then there's the cut, which means the person may not even draw into one of the de-clumped cards before a card effect tells them to search and shuffle again.

There are just so many variables during shuffling and cutting that it's impossible to vilify someone for changing the order of their cards.
Going back to the original post, Ness says don't waste time de-clumping because it doesn't make a difference.
So if it doesn't make a difference, let people de-clump if it makes them feel better as long as it doesn't take too much time.

 

[ShadowCard]

And why on earth do you assume someone else convinced me this was a problem? I'm here to convince you it's a problem!

Because people can be manipulative. What I have experienced is people who will attempt to convince you that they can cheat--even when they can't--simply to light a fire under you. It messes with you during game play. Are you trying to do that here? Convince us that rearranging cards during a search is stacking/cheating when a shuffle followed by a cut/reshuffle nullifies any (dis)advantage?

And then the idea of not taking apart a clump being its own way of preserving a clump (A player sees 3 Durants together in a deck search and is currently holding a Bianca in hand, keeping that clump together would be very valuable)? But you somehow see that differently?

Why would I think someone else has convinced you of this non-issue? People like to play tricks on PokeGym. You name, with your credentials, makes the trick seem more credible. Is it a coincidence that you made this thread now, a little less than 2 weeks before Regionals instead of the week after? Judges should be focused on studying up on rulings on common cards and instead we are thrown into this distraction.

Which is why I say your search should be focused on the task at hand: getting your Pokémon. But yes, I understand - you may occasionally have something pop up and catch your attention - 4 Pokémon Catcher next to each other, for example. If something like that catches your attention, then go ahead and give it a few more shuffles and randomize the deck.

The main problem with this "problem" is that you have to prove intent. The moment anyone says "I am just reorganizing my cards to see possibilities," you cannot do anything about it, especially since this reordering takes negligible seconds at most.

Ness, if someone has alerted to you that people were going to try to ruleslawyer the current shuffling rules to produce a stacked deck, the judges in your area need to enforce the rules on shuffling. No new rules need to be made here, simply apply the existing ones.

PokePop's post from far, far earlier makes the issue truly clear: this is only "legal" because it the powers that be thought it was impossible to enforce a rule making it illegal.

Think about that carefully: if there was a way to reasonably prove or disprove someone was declumping, it would be illegal because it is a minor form of stacking.

I really thought that was just a way out. The powers-that-be were so insistent on this there was little to make them see reason that shuffling nullifies the intention. So focusing on the enforceability, that it pits judges against players and makes judges look stupid for trying to catch players in this loop, would be cutting one's nose off to spite the face. Losjackal has put together good reasons why there should not be a rule to prevent this on the books without mentioning enforceability. What we need to do is enforce the current rules on shuffling.

Going back to the original post, Ness says don't waste time de-clumping because it doesn't make a difference.
So if it doesn't make a difference, let people de-clump if it makes them feel better as long as it doesn't take too much time.

Food for thought.

 

[Cyrus]

Since I don't expect to pursuade anyone through explaining my position, I'll just ask what rule is being broken when a player de-clumps?

I concede that the point of shuffling/players being offered the response-cut is not in fact total randomization, but meant to "destroy information." You had a good argument for that, so you've at least convinced one person on that front!

That said, POP does have its own implied requirement for decks to be "sufficiently randomized." So for the purpose of our discussion, let's define sufficient randomization as "destruction of information."

With all that, here's my claim for why it is valid to say that deliberate de-clumping breaks the rules:

Examples of Game-Play Error: Major include:

Insufficiently randomizing your deck.

[One of you judges (NoPoke, Pop, etc): correct me if I'm wrong.]

While these penalties are usually reserved for much more blatant instances of insufficient randomization (stacking), deliberate de-clumping also violates this rule because the player who does it has not "destroyed" enough info, since the individual has good reason to believe that he/she will not draw a dead hand. If you have sufficiently randomized/sufficiently destroyed info, then shouldn't you be able to receive any hand?


...Of course, this one rule seems to allow for a lot of judge discretion: even if deliberate de-clumping isn't explicitly referenced, it falls under this "insufficient randomization" umbrella.

 

[Mystery Thing]

even if de-clumping isn't explicitly referenced, de-clumping falls under this "insufficient randomization" umbrella.

No it doesn't. It's entirely possible that after one declumps, they DO sufficiently randomize the deck.

Does declumping open the door for insufficient randomization? Absolutely. But it only opens the door, it doesn't go through it.

 

[K2theAblaM]

Because people can be manipulative. What I have experienced is people who will attempt to convince you that they can cheat--even when they can't--simply to light a fire under you. It messes with you during game play. Are you trying to do that here? Convince us that rearranging cards during a search is stacking/cheating when a shuffle followed by a cut/reshuffle nullifies any (dis)advantage?

And then the idea of not taking apart a clump being its own way of preserving a clump (A player sees 3 Durants together in a deck search and is currently holding a Bianca in hand, keeping that clump together would be very valuable)? But you somehow see that differently?

Why would I think someone else has convinced you of this non-issue? People like to play tricks on PokeGym. You name, with your credentials, makes the trick seem more credible. Is it a coincidence that you made this thread now, a little less than 2 weeks before Regionals instead of the week after? Judges should be focused on studying up on rulings on common cards and instead we are thrown into this distraction.


The main problem with this "problem" is that you have to prove intent. The moment anyone says "I am just reorganizing my cards to see possibilities," you cannot do anything about it, especially since this reordering takes negligible seconds at most.

Ness, if someone has alerted to you that people were going to try to ruleslawyer the current shuffling rules to produce a stacked deck, the judges in your area need to enforce the rules on shuffling. No new rules need to be made here, simply apply the existing ones.


I really thought that was just a way out. The powers-that-be were so insistent on this there was little to make them see reason that shuffling nullifies the intention. So focusing on the enforceability, that it pits judges against players and makes judges look stupid for trying to catch players in this loop, would be cutting one's nose off to spite the face. Losjackal has put together good reasons why there should not be a rule to prevent this on the books without mentioning enforceability. What we need to do is enforce the current rules on shuffling.


Food for thought.

Fantastic post. Debated every single one of ness' points with proper reasoning and logic, a lot of which I already discussed and brought to light yesterday.

I will await to see if ness responds. I'm guessing he won't.

---------- Post added 11/04/2011 at 01:08 PM ----------

What I was advocating earlier is because midgame shuffles are usually not very thorough, you shouldn't be spending time memorizing current patterns of cards to gain an advantage just like you shouldn't be creating those patterns artificially yourself.

If you spend a lot of time looking at your deck, you should be expected to shuffle thoroughly to remove any possible advantage you could have. If you do a brief search, grab your cards and get out without rearranging your cards, your opponent may be forgiving of a modest shuffle because Pokemon is played in the real world and we don't have all day to repeatedly shuffle deck over and over. Yes, technically, the deck should always be shuffled thoroughly - but in the Spirit of the Game, players may tolerate a less than perfect shuffle when it is clear you aren't retaining any information about your deck and aren't gaining an unfair advantage.

You've used that phrase many times in support of your argument...The "mid game shuffle", despite most of the conversation revolving around the fact that declumping takes place during the FIRST DECK SEARCH.

Everyone looks through their deck, for one reason or another. that knowledge will always be gained. It seams like your issue is with shuffling, not "declumping" You might want to rephrase your argument.

which brings me to yesterday's post responding to you directly (that you also conveniently dodged)

I'm going to try a different approach to get my point across. One that focuses on the real world, and a practical game of Pokemon as its played all across the world. Let's see where everyone stands on this:


The reality of the Pokémon TCG is that midgame shuffles are rarely sufficient. (And when it is insufficient, your rearranging of cards can be maintained and that is unfair.) Research online tells us we need 6 riffles with good form to randomize a deck. Now, who here does 6+ riffles everytime they play a Pokemon Collector, Pokemon Communication, etc.? I'll admit I don't! And let's be real: do we even want to spend this much time shuffling? I think a lot of players (including me) realize this as an imperfect reality of the game caused by the 30 minute time limit and because of it, they (and I) allow their opponents to get away with some less than thorough shuffling. But if you're looking through your deck and quickly make your choices without memorizing the order of your cards or rearranging them as you choose, your opponent realizes you are not attempting to exploit any information or manipulate the deck, and will be forgiving of your brief shuffle and play on! Sure, maybe your first search took a bit longer because you wanted to see if you prized a particular card - no big deal, just do a more thorough shuffle that time. That way you don't retain any unfair knowledge about the order your cards were in.

If one person "saw the light" from this alternative, practical example, I will be satisfied. Does it makes sense to anyone yet?

I'm glad you posted this.

You've effectively diverted the issue from "declumping" towards proper SHUFFLING.

What can we do to effectively SHUFFLE BETTER. There's no way of policing and enforcing any rules that governs how a player searches through their deck. There SHOULD be rules about randomization and proper shuffling so each player is satisfied with the randomization of a deck after a search.... and guess what. There are.

You shuffle and I cut. Or you shuffle, then I shuffle, then you cut.

I don't know about you, but I can riffle 6 times pretty easily when I shuffle. Actually, I riffle about 5-8 times, and then I strip twice and riffle once more for good measure, EVERY time I go into my deck, and then offer the cut. It's habit now, and part of my muscle memory to do so. If I feel like your deck isn't properly shuffled, then I will be shuffling your deck and offering you the cut. You're welcomed to do the same to my deck so long as you don't bridge or bend the cards.

This is how is should work.

 

[Cyrus]

No it doesn't. It's entirely possible that after one declumps, they DO sufficiently randomize the deck.

Does declumping open the door for insufficient randomization? Absolutely. But it only opens the door, it doesn't go through it.

Should've carried my phrasing throughout the whole post, sorry. Deliberate de-clumping meant to prevent a bad hand runs through that door, and I've edited the post to show that.

 

[K2theAblaM]

If de-clumping is manipulating your deck to gain an advantage then so is adjusting how much you shuffle based upon what you see in your deck.

It isn't too hard to go from "declumping is manipulation to gain an advantage" to players who can shuffle effectively and quickly have an unfair advantage. I'm never particularly happy with appeals to "its not fair..." without a whole lot of further elaboration as to why.

Opponents always have the right to shuffle/cut if they wish.
Opponents always have the right to call a judge if they are unhappy with what their opponent is doing.
Opponents always have the right to express the opinion to a judge that their opponent is spending too much time on activities that are not directly related to searching.

Worst outcome for me would be a rule banning de-clumping. Players who are poor at shuffling would then be forced to ask a judge to perform a good shuffle because they know that they cannot. There is a difference between seeking an advantage you should not have and trying to mitigate against a disadvantage that you are not supposed to have.

This guy gets it.

*High Five*

---------- Post added 11/04/2011 at 01:14 PM ----------

Should've carried my phrasing throughout the whole post, sorry. Deliberate de-clumping meant to prevent a bad hand runs through that door, and I've edited the post to show that.

Not if I shuffle my deck thoroughly and offer you the cut/opportunity to shuffle for yourself. Then no, it doesn't pass through any door. ''

Everyone in this thread agrees that a propper shuffle of 6 riffles is enough to randomize a deck. There is no discussion about it.


Properly shuffled deck negates all effects of declumping, moving pokemon to the front when you make your decision, memorizing the order of cards.

In other words, a properly shuffled deck negates all unfair advantages that may arise from a player searching through their deck.

There's nothing left to argue as far as declumping is concerned.

If you still have issues, it's with proper shuffling and the (in)ability to randomize a deck after a search.


/thread (seriouly, lock it. This topic has run its course)

 

[Mystery Thing]

Should've carried my phrasing throughout the whole post, sorry. Deliberate de-clumping meant to prevent a bad hand runs through that door, and I've edited the post to show that.

Fair enough then :thumb:


I dunno. I've always declumped, for as long as I can remember. But I must say, I am starting to sway.

 

[Cyrus]

Why is this thread "over," and at what point did everyone line up to agree with what constitutes a proper shuffle? Because you said so?

Did you even read NoPoke's most recent post, as opposed to cherry-picked for the things that lined up with your viewpoint? He brings up a really fascinating, great point about shuffling's true purpose - one that has implications for both sides of the debate, despite the fact that he stands firmly on "your side."

So "pretty please, with sugar on top:" don't be so presumptive. You're encouraging the same bad behavior that's made this normally 100-post topic a 500-post one.


Anyways...

The transformation of opinion has actually led a lot of the primary proponents to consider the very understanding of what shuffling's purpose is, and what "randomization" is under floor rule definitions. That really shakes up how people approach it.

 

[espeon200]

You're absolutely right! This is true if you are shuffling less because you want to maintain some order of cards you saw in the deck. What I was advocating earlier is because midgame shuffles are usually not very thorough, you shouldn't be spending time memorizing current patterns of cards to gain an advantage just like you shouldn't be creating those patterns artificially yourself.

The point I thought NoPoke was making there was that if you see clumps in your deck and decided to spend extra time shuffling to break up those clump instead of declumping you're wasting the same amount of time with extraneous shuffles as you would be with declumping your deck. Does this mean that you are cheating? Please correct me if I read that statement wrong, NoPoke.

 

[K2theAblaM]

Why is this thread "over," and at what point did everyone line up to agree with what constitutes a proper shuffle? Because you said it was?

Did you even read NoPoke's most recent post, as opposed to cherry-picked for the things that lined up with your viewpoint? He brings up a really fascinating, great point about shuffling's true purpose - one that has implications for both sides of the debate, despite the fact that he stands firmly on "your side."

So "pretty please, with sugar on top:" don't be so presumptive. You're encouraging the same bad behavior that's made this normally 100-post topic a 500-post one.


Anyways...

The transformation of opinion has actually led a lot of the primary proponents to consider the very understanding of what shuffling's purpose is, and what "randomization" is under floor rule definitions. That really shakes up how people approach it.

Of course I read his (second to) last post. It was great, and the same position that I took when I said..

The moment you see your cards, they are no longer random. The whole point of shuffling is to not know what card you will draw.

With that said, people should be shuffling properly ANYWAYS. I don't care what the next person says about declumping, shuffling etc. You have to do it. No exceptions. If you don't do it, then I'll do it for you and don't care how long it will take. You can tell the judge that I'm taking extra time making sure your deck is random if you want... and that judge would wonder why you didn't shuffle properly in the first place.

...yesterday


Like I've already said, and will continue to say until someone offers a counter argument ...

Properly shuffled deck negates all effects of declumping, moving pokemon to the front when you make your decision and memorizing the order of cards.

In other words, a properly shuffled deck negates all unfair advantages that may arise from a player searching through their deck.

There's nothing left to argue as far as declumping is concerned.

If you still have issues, it's with proper shuffling and the (in)ability to randomize a deck after a search.

And for the record, everyone lined up to believe the proper randomization is 6 riffles shuffles because NESS said it, not because I said it. The quote's in this thread somewhere, I'll find if you don't believe me.