"Declumping" a Deck

[ogremarauder]

No. It's the rules that are deeming how to behave with regard to deck conduct. There is (or should be) no real tie to a player's skill level in this issue: nobody likes having to shuffle their opponent's deck, or leaving themselves open for cheating. It's just that for the good players, there's often more on the line than for more casual players who might not know what "declumping" your deck actually accomplishes.

I'd also appreciate it if people stopped posting "just shuffle your opponent's deck for them if you're uncomfortable with it". I shouldn't have to do that as your opponent. Randomizing your deck is your job.

I'm sorry ,but this is just not true. It is up to Both players to keep a correct and proper game state. If you feel that your opponent is lacking in this, I say it IS up to you to pick up their deck and shuffle it. It is in the rules, and I'd reiterate that other tcgs even REQUIRE it as part of the floor rules. What is more SOTG; shuffling the opposing deck a couple of times, or calling a judge cause your opponents bridge shuffled 5 times instead of 7?

(not that other tcgs should be the be-all model for pokemon,but there are plenty of things done in other games that could benefit tournament pokemon. I only used this as an example.)

 

[losjackal]

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.

Super! I was hoping we could talk more about Sandslash7's post:

Aren't 2 good riffles sufficient for "randomization?" Randomness is where you don't know what is next, right? Therefore, wouldn't just 2 be enough?

Sure, people say 5-7 riffles are needed for randomness, but according to the definition of randomness, I don't know if that's true. It sounds more like 5-7 riffles are needed for Standard Distribution.

Standard distribution i.e. "it doesn't look stacked/clumped."

I think this is a key that some people have overlooked, and a VERY interesting point that should be discussed.

5-7 riffles are needed to take a 52-card playing card deck originally in rank (Ace through King) and suit (Hearts, Spades, Diamonds, Clubs) order and sufficiently randomize them.

So why does it require another 5-7 shuffles to sufficiently randomize a deck that was previously randomized when you only glanced through it for 15 seconds?

 

[Otaku]

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:

Since others have made this the foundation of their last few posts, and I am finally back home and able to respond, respond I shall.

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.

Advantage is neither good nor bad, it simply is. Acquiring advantage is the primary strategy for winning the game. Needlessly giving up advantage is an excellent strategy to lose the game. To become "good" or "bad" requires further modifiers, which brings us to the next point.

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?

Here is one of the major sticking points. Unfair advantage would be advantage attained not in accordance with the rules of the game. If an action is considered "cheating", it is unfair, however all unfair actions are not necessarily cheating. In this specific instance, it has been established that due to the inability to actually enforce a rule against minor stacking (e.g. "declumping").

Note that both players have the option of cheating, but that doesn't make cheating "fair". We have proof that at least those currently in charge of the game (I cannot speak for the designers) do not intend for minor stacking to be a part of the game. So while you are able to gain advantage by engaging in minor stacking and is legal, it is not "fair".

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.

Here is where you altered your strategy. Perhaps you should have described "gaining", or better yet just defined "gaining advantage" earlier and then "focused" on "unfair".

So what do you gain from minor stacking like declumping? If at least one player thoroughly shuffles, you gain some time. Yes, your opponent got whatever time you spent "thinking" to do their own planning, and if they are gifted enough, might gain some time thinking while you thoroughly shuffle your deck. Still given the amount of searching that goes on during a match, especially one that does otherwise go to time, those few seconds could matter. Of course, if you are skilled at minor stacking and then don't thoroughly shuffle, now your opponent loses time thoroughly shuffling your deck. If they are not skilled at shuffling, you may gain extra "think time" over them. Of course, you also may eat up a judges time since if neither of you can shuffle adequately, that is the last recourse: having the judge come over and shuffle.

If these were the only outcomes, this would be a different debate. It'd purely be a courtesy thing. These are not the only outcomes. Since it takes an actual effort to thoroughly shuffle, the minor stacking stands a chance of being preserved. Now here is where I think we get to the heart of the debate: I believe this is a significant chance. Even if it isn't high, the amount of deck searching that goes on in a season means unless your deck is prone to losing due to time, you may as well attempt minor stacking every time. Best case scenario, neither player shuffle well enough to undo it and you gain clear cut advantage as your draws are more favorable. Worse case scenario, you draw a bad hand like you might have if you hadn't tried to affect your deck order. You either gain advantage or lose nothing.

There are just so many variables during shuffling and cutting that it's impossible to vilify someone for changing the order of their cards.

Not really. The intent is there. Intent without capacity can be enough to prevent one from being charged with a crime (or in this case penalized for cheating), but it is still enough to present an ethical concern. That would be the case even if something was either entirely impossible. In this case we have an act that can work unless a specific effort is made to counter it. One time when I was in 1st grade, I panicked on a spelling test. It was the last word, I knew I had everything else perfectly right, so you know what I did? I am sad to say I cheated and glanced at another student's paper. Do you know how I rationalized it to myself? I made sure to cheat off of someone I was sure would have gotten it wrong anyway!

An exact parallel? No, it is not. Still I hope you can see there is a similarity.

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.

And you just said "don't de-clump". There just happens to be several words in between and by ignoring them I can completely misrepresent your point. What Ness (and others) have actually said that is that there are two possibilities with minor stacking like what you call "declumping": either one player, the other, or the combination of both of them shuffling undoes the stacking or the sum of their efforts don't erase the advantage gained. So through an act that is only legal because the judging staff cannot prove it was done (and have decided that is grounds for merely making it a behavior that is frowned upon but legal).

Now guess what? If minor stacking doesn't make a difference and the person doesn't take to much time and it makes them feel better... what if it by that same token makes said player's opponent feel worse? Whose "feelings" and unsubstantiated beliefs matter more? Using the Spirit of the Game, the obvious recourse is simple: if you ask your opponent if it is okay with them if you declump and if it isn't, you let them do it. That means when you face someone who cares about it and doesn't grant permission, you still don't do it.

 

[K2theAblaM]

Otaku,

What advantage is gained if the decks are properly shuffled to the satisfaction of both players?

My point is this.

Every time someone goes through there deck, there is a discernible advantage over a situation where they don't go through their deck. This is certain. Knowledge is gained about the order of cards and the prizes that are drawn. Ness himself has stated that moving the order of pokemon around is okay when deciding which pokemon to chose with a collector or communication.

Why is it, then, if I decide to break up a clump of 3 rare candies and insert them into RANDOM SPOTS IN THE DECK (by definition, not stacking) considered gaining an unfair advantage, even though my opponent is within rights to perform the same actions when he/she is searching his/her deck. ESPECIALLY considering every deck search is followed by an adequate shuffle and cut to BOTH player's satisfaction.

 

[Sandslash7]

Super! I was hoping we could talk more about Sandslash7's post:

5-7 riffles are needed to take a 52-card playing card deck originally in rank (Ace through King) and suit (Hearts, Spades, Diamonds, Clubs) order and sufficiently randomize them.

So why does it require another 5-7 shuffles to sufficiently randomize a deck that was previously randomized when you only glanced through it for 15 seconds?

Excellent. I was hoping it wasn't lost on the previous page.


But, WHY does it take 5-7 riffles? What are they trying to accomplish with those riffles, and why does it take so many of them to accomplish it? Aren't they trying to make it so that the cards have a Standard Distribution instead? If it was random, then wouldn't an AceoH-KingoH-QueenoH run be as likely as an AceoH-ThreeoH-SevenpH run?

I think that what many people say is random is really just Standard Distribution. Though I would definitely like more input in this.

 

[SteveP]

Some people compare randomness to the Chaos Thereoy, which states that objects generally go from an ordered state to an unordered state. It takes more effort to keep things ordered that it does to disorganize them. Obviously, there are situations where objects tend to stay ordered even when attempts are made to disorganize them. Some would argue that foil cards, due to their slightly curved nature, tend to clump together. Declumping is an attempt to disrupt that tendency.

As long as this topic has become, it's refreshing to notice that a couple pages back, someone posted the compendium's current rulings about declumping. Until those rulings are overturned, declumping, followed by sufficient shuffling, can't be penalized in tournament play, not without the judge ignoring the rulings.

 

[Ness]

Why is it, then, if I decide to break up a clump of 3 rare candies and insert them into RANDOM SPOTS IN THE DECK (by definition, not stacking)

You are not placing your cards in a random spot. For example, when you split apart 2 Rare Candy, you know for sure that those 2 Rare Candy are not next to each other. Even that tiny bit of information is enough to be unrandom and give you an advantage - even if it is very tiny one.

Here, I'll save time and act out our rebuttals:

You: But I shuffle anyway!
Me: But you may not shuffle enough!
You: Yes, I do!
Me: Then what was the point of moving the cards?
You: YOU'RE NOT MY MOM DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO

 

[GodBlessAmerica]

For those who say properly shuffling the deck will get rid of the clumps, followed by saying 6 riffle shuffles are needed to achieve randomness, have you ever tried to riffle shuffle 6 times? It takes much more time than "declumping" followed by 2-3 riffle shuffles. The time wasting argument is totally flawed.

As for cheating, if you really think your opponent is cheating, then you can;

1. Ask them to stop "declumping"
2. Call a Judge
3. Shuffle their deck instead of cut
4. All of the above.

This topic seems to have gotten way out of hand! 19 pages on something that I thought was done by 90% of the community!

Honestly, I don't care whether or not the opponent declumps, as long as he doesn't do it before the match, or take a really long time. It technically is stacking, but if you shuffle afterward, it will be random again. If the opponent doesn't think you shuffled enough, he can shuffle it some more! More Exclamation Points!!!!

It baffles me how a topic that seemed so insignificant has blown up into a huge 20 page argument.

 

[K2theAblaM]

You are not placing your cards in a random spot. For example, when you split apart 2 Rare Candy, you know for sure that those 2 Rare Candy are not next to each other. Even that tiny bit of information is enough to be unrandom and give you an advantage - even if it is very tiny one.

Here, I'll save time and act out our rebuttals:

You: But I shuffle anyway!
Me: But you may not shuffle enough!
You: Yes, I do!
Me: Then what was the point of moving the cards?
You: YOU'RE NOT MY MOM DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO

Lol, childish and pathetic response. Really...

And, yes, a card is in a random spot if you don't know where it is. Not knowing where something is completely different that knowing where something is not... And besides. Aren't we shuffling my deck after my search anyways? I guess you're still missing the point.

---------- Post added 11/04/2011 at 05:00 PM ----------

For those who say properly shuffling the deck will get rid of the clumps, followed by saying 6 riffle shuffles are needed to achieve randomness, have you ever tried to riffle shuffle 6 times? It takes much more time than "declumping" followed by 2-3 riffle shuffles. The time wasting argument is totally flawed.

As for cheating, if you really think your opponent is cheating, then you can;

1. Ask them to stop "declumping"
2. Call a Judge
3. Shuffle their deck instead of cut
4. All of the above.

This topic seems to have gotten way out of hand! 19 pages on something that I thought was done by 90% of the community!

Honestly, I don't care whether or not the opponent declumps, as long as he doesn't do it before the match, or take a really long time. It technically is stacking, but if you shuffle afterward, it will be random again. If the opponent doesn't think you shuffled enough, he can shuffle it some more! More Exclamation Points!!!!

It baffles me how a topic that seemed so insignificant has blown up into a huge 20 page argument.

agreed.

You should actually be shuffling properly EVERY TIME. If I see you only shuffled once or riffled once, then I will take time out of the match to shuffle your deck for you.

The "time wasted" argument is getting so tired. Especially when people take SIGNIFICANTLY more time searching for twins or making a hard playing decision. At least allow me the opportunity to shuffle my own deck properly without complaining about me wasting your time.

 

[Bleak]

I'm going to go ahead and preface this by saying I think this whole thread has blown up way beyond the proportion it should have. With that being said;

For example, when you split apart 2 Rare Candy, you know for sure that those 2 Rare Candy are not next to each other. Even that tiny bit of information is enough to be unrandom and give you an advantage - even if it is very tiny one.

Playing Devil's Advocate here. Couldn't you say the same thing about just simply knowing those two Rare Candy are next to eachother, regardless of whether or not they were "declumped?" With that logic, wouldn't knowing that information alone be a tiny advantage?

 

[Politoed666]

I'm confounded.

Are those still insisting that declumping is breaking the rules openly challenging the TWO previous Compendium rulings on the topic that Wiem brought up?

 

[K2theAblaM]

I'm going to go ahead and preface this by saying I think this whole thread has blown up way beyond the proportion it should have. With that being said;



Playing Devil's Advocate here. Couldn't you say the same thing about just simply knowing those two Rare Candy are next to eachother, regardless of whether or not they were "declumped?" With that logic, wouldn't knowing that information alone be a tiny advantage?

It started blowin up after people threw the words "cheating" and "cheater" around without explaining why or backing up any of their claims... DESPITE having empirical evidence from judges and the compendium stating the legality of "declumping"

Like I've already said, this thread has ran its course. Time to lock it.

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

Since others have made this the foundation of their last few posts, and I am finally back home and able to respond, respond I shall.

Advantage is neither good nor bad, it simply is. Acquiring advantage is the primary strategy for winning the game. Needlessly giving up advantage is an excellent strategy to lose the game. To become "good" or "bad" requires further modifiers, which brings us to the next point.

No, Advantage has a few definitions in the dictionaries I decided to look up, and they may not share the same wording, but they do mean gaining benefit or superiority. There is a single exception to this, and unless we're suddenly discussing the scoring practices of a game involving two players hitting a small ball over a netted fence then it has no meaning here.

Here is one of the major sticking points. Unfair advantage would be advantage attained not in accordance with the rules of the game. If an action is considered "cheating", it is unfair, however all unfair actions are not necessarily cheating. In this specific instance, it has been established that due to the inability to actually enforce a rule against minor stacking (e.g. "declumping").

Note that both players have the option of cheating, but that doesn't make cheating "fair". We have proof that at least those currently in charge of the game (I cannot speak for the designers) do not intend for minor stacking to be a part of the game. So while you are able to gain advantage by engaging in minor stacking and is legal, it is not "fair".

Just to point this out you aren't talking about fairness, the availability of this method is available to all, which is fair by several standards. What your talking about is the ethical positions of a player, but that goes into a whole different realm that I don't think people should or want to discuss.

Here is where you altered your strategy. Perhaps you should have described "gaining", or better yet just defined "gaining advantage" earlier and then "focused" on "unfair".

So what do you gain from minor stacking like declumping? If at least one player thoroughly shuffles, you gain some time. Yes, your opponent got whatever time you spent "thinking" to do their own planning, and if they are gifted enough, might gain some time thinking while you thoroughly shuffle your deck. Still given the amount of searching that goes on during a match, especially one that does otherwise go to time, those few seconds could matter. Of course, if you are skilled at minor stacking and then don't thoroughly shuffle, now your opponent loses time thoroughly shuffling your deck. If they are not skilled at shuffling, you may gain extra "think time" over them. Of course, you also may eat up a judges time since if neither of you can shuffle adequately, that is the last recourse: having the judge come over and shuffle.

However this is assuming players don't continue their turn while their opponent is shuffling their deck. From my experience whenever a player finishes a search and shuffling and the opponent is offered the choice to cut/shuffle/tap the player places the deck in the middle of the table and continues with their turn, often playing whatever cards they just got. (ie playing their basics or evolving) the game experiences no slow down at this point here as the player is continuing their turn and the opponent is shuffling/cutting the deck if they chose to.

If these were the only outcomes, this would be a different debate. It'd purely be a courtesy thing. These are not the only outcomes. Since it takes an actual effort to thoroughly shuffle, the minor stacking stands a chance of being preserved. Now here is where I think we get to the heart of the debate: I believe this is a significant chance. Even if it isn't high, the amount of deck searching that goes on in a season means unless your deck is prone to losing due to time, you may as well attempt minor stacking every time. Best case scenario, neither player shuffle well enough to undo it and you gain clear cut advantage as your draws are more favorable. Worse case scenario, you draw a bad hand like you might have if you hadn't tried to affect your deck order. You either gain advantage or lose nothing.

I have two issues with this. First 'sufficient shuffling' is partly a matter of perspective, in the fact that if I shuffle the deck the only standard of 'sufficient shuffling' I have is my own, since there isn't a set standard. It has been pointed out that 5-7 rifle shuffles is a good amount for this, but most players either, a. don't know this, or b. don't know what a rifle shuffle is to begin with, and thus are left with their own devices for shuffling.

My second issue is that both players shuffle the deck then it should be randomized pretty well, after all that's the point of giving the opponent the choice to shuffle.

And you just said "don't de-clump". There just happens to be several words in between and by ignoring them I can completely misrepresent your point. What Ness (and others) have actually said that is that there are two possibilities with minor stacking like what you call "declumping": either one player, the other, or the combination of both of them shuffling undoes the stacking or the sum of their efforts don't erase the advantage gained. So through an act that is only legal because the judging staff cannot prove it was done (and have decided that is grounds for merely making it a behavior that is frowned upon but legal).

Now guess what? If minor stacking doesn't make a difference and the person doesn't take to much time and it makes them feel better... what if it by that same token makes said player's opponent feel worse? Whose "feelings" and unsubstantiated beliefs matter more? Using the Spirit of the Game, the obvious recourse is simple: if you ask your opponent if it is okay with them if you declump and if it isn't, you let them do it. That means when you face someone who cares about it and doesn't grant permission, you still don't do it.

There's a common misconception of some sorts here and it needs to be addressed here, and that's the fact that a good draw following these action doesn't mean it's a result of cheating, even if it's one of the cards declumped. I might've declumped some things near the top of my deck, but the card I drew may have originated from the bottom.

 

[vaporeon]

I think that what many people say is random is really just Standard Distribution. Though I would definitely like more input in this.

Like it was said. Humans don't understand random. We use computer to randomnate for us. Heard of pseudo-random. That's not "True Random" . True Random is like the never ending Universe, you'll never understand it. All we know is that random counts for all possibilities. This is true but us humans can't randomize for all possibilities. Someone said that you can random your deck list back into it deck check order. Is this true, sure, why not but it's impossible. That will never happen because we can't randomize randomly enough for it.

So what do we do, we can't use computer to randomize for us during a game so we do the best way we can random. We shuffle and we each shuffle differently. I choose to shuffle my cards from the side into each other. Some prefer to bridge, etc. Why that's not random enough, because most of the time, you're shuffling clumps back into the deck. You shuffle cards in about 3 to 5 clumps. It's not 1 for 1, it rarely is. ALL players are guilty of bad randomizing when it comes to shuffling.

Why is that, because we can't shuffle the perfect way, even you Ness. The topic here went from many different things at once. Here is why people don;t see declumping as a problem or cheating.

1) You learn the contents of your deck when you search, therefor making it not random because random is not knowing and we know the order and contents of our deck. If you choose to move cards around the deck during your search, you can.

It does not change the game state. Removing the cards from the deck with your Pokemon Collector does because it 3 less possibilities for drawing into them. The cards you put at random spots in your deck don't change the game state. They can reclump and you have a chance of drawing into them.

2) You shuffle your deck. After I shuffle my deck, it's random, the best way I can make it. That Professor Juniper on top of my deck had I waited for 1 turn might not be there. Whey because I randomized the deck. I then gave it to my opponent for them so shuffle also randomizing the deck. Then I can choose to take the cut, finalizing the random process. Unless I'm God or have the ability to control what I draw, I have no way of knowing what I will draw or the order of my deck.

3) Information. Information I have that my opponents does not have is an advantage. After my search, I have learned the order of my cards, making them no longer random, I have learned what cards are in the deck and I have learned what cards are prized. My opponent has no access to that data but with that data, I can plan all my moves for the rest of the game. Even with my deck randomized, I leave with the information of knowing I have a chance of drawing those cards. That can be like cheating because I know the contents of my deck during the game and can make judgement calls based on that information.

So, with that, the only 'legal' way to cheat is to gain the knowledge of cards in your deck and prizes. That can be a unfair advantage because your opponent does not have access to that information. Everyone can declump their cards, even you. If I chose to do it, it because I feel better in knowing 3 Rare Candy have a slim chance to show up but after the shuffle, they can reclump but the deck is random because I have no idea what will show up, if I declump or not.

There is no mid game shuffle. You can still shuffle 30 cards pretty well. Now if it were 4 cards, you do the best with them. Time declumping can't be the issue because it takes me like 1 or 2 seconds to move the card, same as other people but it seems to be perfectly fine to take a 52 second search with Pokemon Communication. Maybe this is okay for the world class players, I don't know. I've see the games where people took 5 to 10 minute turns and you even said yourself 'He won game one so he has no reason to speed up." Sounds like if you win game one, you can stall for time to me. Even some of your games were won on time so I know for a fact that time is not the issue.

The main problem with this is how you feel about it. You feel like your opponent is cheating you when they search your deck and that's a bad way to play the game because it become hostel and not fun. I would not want to play with someone if they thought I was cheating. I don't even play with people who rule shark. Like it was said by many people, both noobs and good players. You have the option to shuffle your opponents deck.

I know I don't have competitive history you have and the many states and other countries you've played in but I don't see this as a problem and nether should you.

 

[Otaku]

TheRolesWePlay: With respect to my comments about 'good' or 'bad' advantage, I was unclear. By qualifying it I was referring to how it was gained and if it was desirable to gain it in such a manner. I can gain an advantage in many ways, but some of those ways would be considered "good" and some "bad". More importantly unless we sink to moral relativism then whether we consider them "good" or "bad", at least some will indeed be one or the other.

"Fair" can be used to imply ethical standards. Indeed, that is ultimately exactly what it implies for a game. If there are no standards of ethics, the rules are not binding, and "cheating" becomes meaningless. If all we care about is equal availability, then natural talent is "unfair" and cheating is "fair": the former is not equally available to everyone while (at least some forms of) the latter can be learned by all. We may be using mathematics during this discussion, but that does not remove the ethical component.

As for the time dilemma... the emphasis was to be on the time lost having to make sure to thoroughly shuffle the opponent's deck (even if they appear to be thoroughly shuffling it) or the need to call a judge over to do it for you. You also neglect that some players may request you wait for the shuffling to complete. If this is not allowed, I stand corrected, but since I (your opponent) need to pay attention to your actions but I also need to thoroughly shuffle your deck, I should not be penalized for it.

Again, if I am mistaken in this point (your opponent can proceed while you are shuffling whether you like it or not), then... honestly it just changes the nature of the lost time. Now minor stacking becomes a method of misdirection: time is not wasted by the player whose turn it is and no time is gained for pondering by either player, but instead advantage is gained by distracting your opponent from your moves!

You'll have to explain your own points about "significant shuffling" further, as they seem to support me, not contradict me, and yet the connotation tells me it is supposed to be rebuttal. I mean, most of what you say about the difficulty of shuffling seems contrary to stating that any shuffling by both players will randomize it well. Like I said, why should anyone not stack their deck as well as they can while searching? Give a token shuffle, then as long as your opponent is either unwilling or unable to shuffle the deck well (or get assistance to shuffle well), then you have odds that are great enough to matter at least over the course of the season.

Winning one game by stacking (even minor stacking that is referred to as declumping) is one to many.

As for your final response, you seem to believe that proving something might not be a result of the action means it never could be the result. Do you know how we can make sure that good hand was not a result of stacking? Don't stack. Otherwise we have to resort to the next best thing of shuffling a lot, which while highly improbable could always still fail. You have addressed why no one can ascertain the direct benefits of deck stacking in these scenarios (save when neither player significantly shuffles and it is obvious). If we could prove this without a doubt, then judges could as well and thus would be capable of enforcing rules, even if after the fact.

SteveP: We've been over this repeatedly. Minor stacking such as "declumping" is not illegal within the game only because it cannot be proven by (or to) a judge and thus it is impossible to enforce it as a rule. We have compelling testimony I've quoted in response to your own posts to confirm this. If you believe PokePop has been misinformed, please state so. If not, what is your case? It is legal (for now) but is also something to be discourage, frowned upon. In short, while it is permissible it is undesirable and the polite thing to do would be to avoid it.

Very few people on this thread have called it officially illegal, but multiple (myself included) have called for it to be made illegal (but acknowledged in said same rules as being unenforceable). People who wish to do it will still be able to try. However it is better discouragement than we have now and creates a foundation for all stacking to be illegal.

GodBlessAmerica: You bring up that "declumping" breaks up clumps more efficiently than thorough shuffling. That doesn't make it a good practice to be encouraged. Please note what PokePop told us: its only legal because they felt it wasn't worth calling it "cheating" if they couldn't enforce it.

This minor stacking is more efficient for separating the cards in a clump but then requires extra thorough shuffling to render it a legal move, extra thorough shuffling that is just as likely to separate and not re-clump the cards as the declumping followed by shuffling. Your example leaves out the extra shuffling requires to keep the "declumping" legal.

K2theAblaM: My time is short but you finally addressed me directly, so I will do you the courtesy of answering. Unless you make more persuasive arguments in the future, do not count on this happening again.

What I have read you posting usually is answered by my comments to others, or does not make any sense to me so I ignore it. I literally explained what advantage was gained if both players sufficiently shuffle the deck. "To their own satisfaction" only matters in that an unsatisfied player can seek a judge to make it satisfactory.

1) Sufficient randomization has been achieved. The stacking served no point. Maybe it make the stacker feel better. Maybe it made the other player feel worse. It is still a legal action that is frowned upon by those in charge of the game. Also unless the non-stacking player engages in an extreme amount of shuffling, there will be doubt that this was a result of proper randomization. The rules say you must be satisfied, but unless judges are allowed to offer time extensions for this (and being called over to address it), it won't just be impatient players signing off on being satisfied when they aren't.

People skilled at card tricks can do quite a bit with a few card movements and shuffling techniques. Any beneficial result will be suspect.

2) If sufficient randomization has not been achieved, unfair advantage may be gained through improved draws. It is not certain, but it doesn't have to be: there just needs to be the opportunity to benefit, especially since there is no penalty.

The rest of your statements in that post are flawed. By it's naturestacking(which includes declumping) is an attempt at improving what you draw by manipulating the cards in a manner other than repeated shuffling. If you are moving stuff around while making up your mind, you're not stacking your deck. This goes to why "declumping" is legal but frowned upon: intent matters (but is not all of it - if it could be proved that how someone moves their cards around to aid in decision making was somehow stacking their deck, that particular technique would likely be banned).

"Random declumping" is an oxymoron, or else another way to describe blind shuffling. Declumping is stacking your deck, deliberately altering card order. You can take a step to mitigate it, but the problem is that there is no way to prove you ever intended to mitigate it or the attempt at mitigation was successful.

Vaporeon: Claiming the universe is random is a belief statement. I would say the universe might be infinite, but I do not believe it random. To big and complicated for the human mind to grasp? Yes. Deck randomness is not too big and complicated for the human mind to grasp, though it can be tricky.

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

Otaku
In regards to advantage again the way your approaching it has to do more with ethical standards, which I shall address momentarily.

There are two types of fairness. There's the fairness dictated by the rules (which state it's fine, so long as you shuffle well), and then there is fairness as viewed by the player, which essentially boils down to one's ethical standards. I understand that you and many others believe that declumping should be considered cheating, since it fits your definition of stacking. However there are those who believe the opposite, that it isn't stacking and shouldn't be considered cheating. Both positions are fine and perfectly reasonable. However in cases such as these we have to turn to the written rules and use their definition of fair. In this scenario, while it may have been kept legal for other reasons, it is still defined as fair by the rules. The only true way to change this is to follow proper channels of authority.

The points you raised are valid, but I do have to disagree. In the case of a player shuffling I view it as a valid use of time, after all if your going to shuffle it why not shuffle it well. Calling a judge over to shuffle is also a valid use of time, and if you don't that's fine, then just don't use it that option. In the case of the opponent shuffling the deck, which is an available option, that is again your choice, your free to not do it, and from my experience most players are capable and willing to watch the opponent while they shuffle. Further as I said in the majority of these cases the player is just playing the cards they just go out, like their basics they got from collector, or sorting their hand to figure out what they're going to do. And if you miss something you can ask your opponent to clarify and explain what they just did, which can take less time than the actual plays themselves.

As for my comments on sufficient shuffling what I was trying to say is that my good shuffles may be sufficient by my standards, and really there isn't a fully agreed shuffling standard, and the only real tools to judge this are the player's standards, the opponent's standards, and if one is called a judge's standards of shuffling, which is why this is such a complicated gray area. You might be making an mountain out of an anthill, and like wise we might be might be be making an anthill out of a mountain (sorry I can't think of any analogies that go in revers). I'd be willing to bet that there are situations where the shuffle is insufficient, and where the shuffle is overly sufficient. Really when it comes down to it the only way to judge it is through the standards of those present.

My final comment was merely to try and point out that the only conclusion that seems to be that the only available option is that a good draw means they cheated, and a bad draw means that the problem was prevented. I'm sure everyone realizes that this isn't the case by any stretch, but I thought it was at least posting to at least get people to acknowledge the possibilities. And it is still fully possible to see no benefits from declumping in neither player shuffles sufficiently, for instance if the declump was at the bottom, and the shuffles keep the cards down there then the declump's potential threat has been rendered useless, in fact I would think that it's difficult to see benefits from declumping unless you tried to rig your shuffle in addition to a declump, which would be a threat with good knowledge of your cards locations as well.

 

[Ness]

Couldn't you say the same thing about just simply knowing those two Rare Candy are next to eachother, regardless of whether or not they were "declumped?" With that logic, wouldn't knowing that information alone be a tiny advantage?

This is a good point and I tried to discuss this in a previous post. I mentioned how even if you simply look through your deck without rearranging cards, you still can retain some information about what cards were in what order, even unintentionally. And what I tried to get across is that Pokémon is not a perfect game - all midgame shuffles aren't going to be thorough, and since they aren't, you shouldn't be spending time trying to memorize the order of your cards for the same reason you shouldn't be rearranging them in a desirable order. You should simply do what the card tells you to do and get out of your deck. If you spend some more time searching, perhaps trying to see what's prized, then don't expect to get away with a modest shuffle. But for most of those midgame searches, there's an etiquette or almost unwritten rule of Pokémon to be forgiving of modest shuffles, but you should only let these quick shuffles slide when you believe your opponent isn't trying to memorize or manipulate the order of cards in his deck.

You can see how sticky this starts to get because of the real-life concept that we don't want to spend 5 minutes per game shuffling and as a result shuffles aren't always as thorough as they should be. Definitely a good point, though.

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

I'm going to be completely honest here. I'm guilty of "declumping my deck" when I notice things like this occurring in my deck as well. However, I in no way at all shuffle frequently, go back into it, then shuffle frequently some more (unless I do it unintentionally by just playing my turn by ear.) But once I shuffle following this, I'm done with that as long as I don't play anymore cards to enter my deck once more. Once it's cut, it's cut.

 

[SteveP]

Otaku, I don't doubt PokePop's testimony that no-declumping was considered for addition to the rules. I also know that some people truly believe declumping to be a "perversion." I guess it's like seeing someone using their cell phone while driving down the street. When you see them, you might get annoyed, but when the "tables are turned," and you talk on the phone while driving, it's no big deal. Why? Because you know it's not illegal, and there are times when it just seems necessary.

So, the judges can't penalize me for declumping, and the cops can't ticket me for talking on my phone. Others might get annoyed at me when I do these things, but whose fault is that?

 

[Swordfish1989]

I feel like this topic has become 'much ado about nothing' after reading most of the posts.

If you see your opponent declumping/moving cards around, make sure they shuffle properly. If they don't, shuffle/cut their deck yourself. If you are suspicious about anything, call a judge. Done.

Are we that bored that we need to spend so much time on this topic? Does no one work/study anymore? *confused*