all i can say is that each player has their turn to waste time, simply in your turn, don't waste time if u feel like that.. u know? thats why i think this game is really interesting because since is a face to face game u really battle different kind of people and you see how they play and react and hadle different kinds of situation but i can tell u one thing Ness and that is that i agree with you. I think is a waste of time specially in top cuts but i dont consider it cheating since one has the right to shuffle ur opponents deck...
"Declumping" a Deck
- Thread starter Ness
- Start date
- Status
Sandslash7
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=
Thank you for answering directly. However, I would ask then for your opinion of this scenario:
Player 1 is playing Reshiboar. T1 He Collectors, with a Tepig active. The opponent is has an active Yanma, with a benched Magnemite. During the collector, the Reshiboar player pulls 2 Vulpix and another Tepig to the front of the deck, to consider (bear in mind I haven't played in ages, but for "argument's sake"). Then, thinking better of it, he goes back through the deck and pulls a Cleffa and a Reshiram as well. Pondering his options, he concludes that it would be better to grab the Cleffa, along with a Vulpix and the Reshiram, so that if the opponent Judges, he can immediately promote Cleffa if his draw is terrible, (as well as having a beefy basic and a way to evolve into Ninetales if that is what he is dealt off of a possible Judge.) Now, the player drops the Cleffa, Vulpix, and Reshiram to the table and now is left with his deck, with the two basics (Vulpix and Tepig) on top.
Should he split them up, randomly placing them somewhere in the deck (facedown if you wish) before shuffling adequately? Or should he just shuffle? For example's sake this placement would take all of 1 second, probably less. Also bear in mind that the Reshiboar player has nothing but good intentions for this to be a fair and excellent game with his Yanmegazone partner, with whom he is engaging this fine morning.
FunnyBear ~ Excellent that you would test this yourself by shuffling. It would have been even better had the RCs been numbered, but alas.
I would like to point out something I saw in your first set:
FunnyBear said:
It appears to me that the first 4 sets look just as random as the last 4 sets. The last 4 look a bit more like a Standard Distribution, but "more random?" Had I taken each as just a single shuffle out of context, I wouldn't have been able to tell if there had been any type of order in the last shuffle. (though #1 would possibly lean that way)
They all look pretty random to me (minus the 3/7/3/7 repeat which I think is VERY Suspicious, and highly non-random appearing)
However, if one was, instead of randomness, looking for Standard Distribution, (which is what I think most shuffling philosophies tend towards), it seems like "declumping" would actually HELP find a Standard Distribution more quickly. It would have been interesting to see what the data would have shown if you had counted from shuffle 1, rather than shuffle 6 on the "declumped" section.
Ness
Member
He should simply do a sufficient shuffle. Whether he breaks the two basics apart before shuffling or leaves them together, he has gained some information about the order of cards in his deck. Your opponent may be forgiving of a modest shuffle if it didn't look like you spent much time deliberately moving things around, but it's hard to really tell what you're doing when you're in your deck rearranging these cards. Technically, you have performed one minor movement that could give you an advantage (albeit a very tiny one) and the right thing to do is shuffle sufficiently.
Here's the simplified etiquette: If you ever spent more than a few seconds in your deck, if you ever rearranged anything other than immediately pulling cards to the front of your deck, if you ever declumped any cards, you should be expected to shuffle sufficiently.
If your search was brief, and resulted in you simply pulling a card or two out quickly without rearranging anything, 3-4 riffles will probably satisfy your opponent and judge. However, this is only a courtesy, and if a judge or your opponent deems your shuffling insufficient, you may be asked to shuffle more.
Good question.
Team Deathmatch
New Member
I'm supposed to be the franchise pokemon player, and we're here sitting, talking about shuffling? Not a game, not a game, but shuffling?
In all seriousness, having random clumps is exactly what it is, random. No way to prevent it even if you try to declump. Just focus on shuffling better after seeing several of the same cards stuck together. Regardless, one should always try to improve their shuffling skills to get a sufficient shuffle within a timely manner.
In all seriousness, having random clumps is exactly what it is, random. No way to prevent it even if you try to declump. Just focus on shuffling better after seeing several of the same cards stuck together. Regardless, one should always try to improve their shuffling skills to get a sufficient shuffle within a timely manner.
losjackal
Technical Administrator
It took you that long Carlos to see that Jason is just playing with everyone
No, I probably realized that around Page 10. (Maybe even that was too late!) I just didn't like it, so tried to sort it out with logic and good discussion. There are a lot of well-intentioned people contributing their thoughts here.
---------- Post added 11/10/2011 at 06:18 AM ----------
Nice and clear and concise. The next time I play against you, Jason, I will grant the courtesy of shuffling at least 3 times no matter the situation. If I happen to move around cards, I will shuffle more.
However, I will also begin the practice of clumping cards, and even moving random insignificant cards around, while performing my search, as long as it doesn't take too long. That way you don't gain an unfair advantage of knowing that I was declumping cards.
For everyone else, I hope you all don't start insisting on 3+ shuffles for a brief search with no rearranging, and 6+ for searches with rearranging. That's just going to waste a whole lot more time overall, in my opinion.
With that, I'm out of this discussion. Good luck at Regionals everybody!
Last edited:
Nobody is forgetting that. In fact, the entire discussion of everybody else in this thread is about proper shuffling and (in)sufficient shuffling.
What you seem to forget is that I'm not talking about the Shuffling. It's why I said don't bother posting if that's all you have to say- I'm not talking about that. The action I'm talking about takes place BEFORE Shuffling.
I don't think you understand what an "Intent" is either, because to say there's no intent means it just "Happens". And if it just happens, you can't possibly admit to declumping because you wouldn't know the cards were together in the deck in the first place.
You can replace "Intent" with "Purpose" or "Reason". Either way, there is an Intent/Purpose/Reason behind what you are doing. Shuffling comes after, we all agreed to that a long time ago, but the intent/purpose/reason for declumping is still there- to reduce the possibility to get bad/dead/undesirable draws in the future. If you search your deck and simply move cards to the front, your intent/purpose/reason is different- to narrow down your choices.
And then you either 1) Declump! Because you insert the cards NOT selected randomly back into the deck OR 2) You have gained an unfair adv. bc you left 2-3 cards clumped together on the top/bottom of your deck BEFORE you shuffed (hopefully sufficiently)
If cards get moved around in a search, a proper shuffle is needed to randomize again. You have seen the deck in the order it was in, whether you moved a single card around or not! Proper shuffles are needed after any search, but they must be timely too! That is the paradox.
As a high level Judge, I see more wasting of time by players either sitting there contemplating their moves too long and/or shuffling way too many times. Havent you seen the player who shuffles the sopts of their deck before handing it over to you? I have.
Keith
^Of course, I want them to shuffle a bit too much vs not at all or very little!
First paragraph: The intent is not there to stack the deck. The process in narrowing down is first narrow down the choices, then remove you final choices, and finally shuffle the deck. The intent is not to move all possible choices together, it's to complete what the card askedin a timely fashion.
Second paragraph: Agreed. However the shuffle, which comes after, is not the part in question. It's the during and the intent.
Third Paragraph:Yes.
Last bit: Mutual feeling.
vaporeon
Moderator
The intent should not matter though. We don't need more key words for the searching of cards. When you search your deck, the contents are not random, so you can do what you what. I can move half my deck to the top, bottom, take the middle and move it, move a few cards around and go from there.
I know you're not trying to focus on the shuffle, but during the search but its something you can't take out. The deck search is finalized during the and after the shuffle. You also should not be expected to shuffle more or less if you choose to move cards around your deck or not.
Remember, taking cards from the deck does in fact change the order of the cards.
I know you're not trying to focus on the shuffle, but during the search but its something you can't take out. The deck search is finalized during the and after the shuffle. You also should not be expected to shuffle more or less if you choose to move cards around your deck or not.
Remember, taking cards from the deck does in fact change the order of the cards.
Trying to separate the declumping discussion from shuffling in this thread is like trying to separate lightning from thunder. It's impossible to do, and absurd to attempt to do.
Why do I pile shuffling after each game? Because I'm trying to best randomize and breakup the card sequences (including clumps) caused by the game-play. I'm trying to uniformly distribute the cards. Was my intent wrong in that case because I was "knowingly" attempting to declump? A pile shuffle certainly declumps a clumpy deck.
I'm so glad that I'm allowed to declump (and shuffle) without fear of penalty from a normal judge. Only an over-zealous, out-there judge would ever bother to consider such a practice to be intentionally cheating.
Ness
Member
I just love the use of hyperboles in all these posts. How absurd to try to turn shuffling into a separate thread! It's actually already been cited from the rules that you are allowed to call a judge if you find your opponent's shuffling techniques to be questionable. Rearranging cards and shuffling briefly afterwards would be questionable. It wouldn't take an overzealous judge to penalize someone for repeatedly doing this. It would just take a judge with a sense of fairness and some balls.
Originally Posted by Pokemon Tournament Rules
And Carlos, tell me I'm playing with you the next time we're paired and I call a judge every single time you start declumping and do the 3 riffle shuffles you admit to considering sufficient.
Last edited:
Top Cut Comics
Member
Jason, Typically I support you with most of your arguements as they are always well thought out, and have the "best for the game" mentality behind them.
However, I think you are really crossing the line. Do you think YOU are the judge and jury in this case? I seriously think you are treading into some very dirty water with your above statement.
3 Riffles may not meet your stringent standard. However, at an event this will not be your call. Like it or not. Coming to the gym and getting people to agree with you does not make things suddenly go Jason's way at an event. If that is what this thread is about, I am a little disappointed that you would use your "fame" as a means to try and manipulate a rule for your benefit.
I invite you to call a judge when people are doing things illegal according to the guidelines we currently have in place. I tend to lean on you myself for some information I may not know, because you are a knowledgable player, and a great asset to this game. I would however caution you on being a little overzealous at an event to "prove" your point.
There are people who try to use every means neccesary to win. However, I would seriously limit that to less that 5% of our playerbase. To try and put Carlos and the rest if us in that "cheating" boat because of your interpretation of a guideline is simply, wrong.
Jimmy
Last edited:
Ness
Member
Jimmy, if you've read the thread, you'll see PokePop (a judge with much more experience than you) has already ruled that 3 riffles are insufficient, especially if you are reorganizing a deck. All credible research supports his stance.
These aren't my rules, Jimmy. These are the rules. And they are intended to keep the game fair.
These aren't my rules, Jimmy. These are the rules. And they are intended to keep the game fair.
Top Cut Comics
Member
Jason,
This statement from POP?
Where exactly is it 3?
All I am trying to tell you is tread cautiously. You will get this point across a little easier by not insulting and threatening people who are trying to understand exactly what it is your trying to convey. (believe me, I learned this the hard way!)
I did read this thread. (I wish I had that part of my life back) I'm still not swayed by this.
Jimmy
This statement from POP?
Where exactly is it 3?
All I am trying to tell you is tread cautiously. You will get this point across a little easier by not insulting and threatening people who are trying to understand exactly what it is your trying to convey. (believe me, I learned this the hard way!)
I did read this thread. (I wish I had that part of my life back) I'm still not swayed by this.
Jimmy
Ness
Member
Carlos's post read he would riffle twice instead of three times? That's even worse!
Just like I as a player have an obligation to play fairly, you have an obligation as an organizer to host a fair event. Are you suggesting that you would allow players to declump their cards, then riffle only twice? Perhaps you should tread more carefully, Jimmy.
Just like I as a player have an obligation to play fairly, you have an obligation as an organizer to host a fair event. Are you suggesting that you would allow players to declump their cards, then riffle only twice? Perhaps you should tread more carefully, Jimmy.
Top Cut Comics
Member
All players have that obligation. As well as, I have to uphold the guidelines. You however tend to think that everyone who isnt shuffling to your standards is cheating. I simply dont see it that way.
I will not continue to argue a worthless point. No matter where anyone stands on this issue you have a rebuttle.
Your threats ring hollow Jason. Especially with me. I dont care what your stature is in the game. You will not use one of my events to try and "prove" your point. If you think there is something wrong with the guidelines, that is NOT the way you go about getting it reworked or changed. You are very well versed on how it works. Utilize your talents to make things happen, assuming something needs to happen.
You are already the slowest player in the world. (in my opinion) Now you want an additional amount of time added to both yours and your opponents turn to meet your interpretation of the shuffling standards? Rediculous.
Good luck with this,
Jimmy
Ness
Member
The reason I have rebuttals to the legitimacy of declumping is because I'm right, Jimmy.
What are my threats? Calling a judge if someone is rigging their deck and not shuffling properly? I have a right to call a judge if my opponent isn't playing fairly. LOL @ having so much hubris you think someone is attempting to overtake your tournament and prove a point. This isn't about you or your events. It's not about me or any other individual player. All players have an expectation and a right to play a fair game of Pokémon at any premier event they attend.
What are my threats? Calling a judge if someone is rigging their deck and not shuffling properly? I have a right to call a judge if my opponent isn't playing fairly. LOL @ having so much hubris you think someone is attempting to overtake your tournament and prove a point. This isn't about you or your events. It's not about me or any other individual player. All players have an expectation and a right to play a fair game of Pokémon at any premier event they attend.
Last edited:
ShadowCard
Active Member
You realize a judge can then penalize you for repeated, needless calls from you, right? Game tempo for slow play. Unsporting conduct by intentionally trying to get the judge to penalize the opponent. Procedural error by dominating the judge's time if it hinders event processes, such as the judge's ability to make rulings at other tables.
MrMeches
New Member
I tend to side with Lawman on the fact if you choose several cards and put them on the top of your deck, then change your mind and leave the selected card on top and shuffle, have you not stacked your deck as now the proposed but not selected card has been moved and purposely placed?
Again, making multiple selections to then contemplate your final choice is manipulating your deck just as much as declumping. Additionally, they are both time wasting, especially if you go back in to try and figure out what your prizes are. That is intentional and outside of the selection process of the card played. So will you get upset if you do this and an opponent calls a Judge over because your 'wasting time' doing things other than the selection process?
And if we are discussing declumping as the primary point, if I play a Collector, choose 5 possible choices (again referencing your idea of wanting to go back through to try and figure out my prizes) and then only take three leaving the two on top, is this not stacking ? if I place the other two in 'random' spots am I not now declumping as they did not go back in the original places pulled from?
This is one of the reasons I always felt the 'allowance' of extended early game searches was not needed. There were guidelines that had limits on searches before vagueness won over, and IMHO those were sufficient and more easily enforceable if needed. I understand player friendly and I am all for it, but sometimes rigid structure is a positive and necessary thing.
Fish
PS.. Can't wait for the response.
- Status