Ness
Member
How 'bout you read the 17 pages of this thread where everything you ask is thoroughly and repeatedly answered & explained? None of your questions are new. Read the thread.
"Declumping" a Deck
- Thread starter Ness
- Start date
- Status
How 'bout you read the 17 pages of this thread where everything you ask is thoroughly and repeatedly answered & explained? None of your questions are new. Read the thread.
K2theAblaM
New Member
^ Cop out answer while still not actually answering anything at all.
This conversation is done.
...and FYI I was never asking anything. All my posts are points about "declumping" and it's use during a game. You have been actively avoiding them, apparently.
And if you do happen to search through my posts and find questions, they are in fact rhetorical asked to prove a point.
TheRolesWePlay
New Member
Yes, because people have the time to, and want to read a 17 long thread full a vague answers, some of which weren't answered too well. Seriously though he's trying to ask what the difference is between shuffling his cards into his deck in a certain order is different from declumping, the least you could do is actually answer him in your own words.
Ness
Member
There is one subtle difference here with this Judge example than there would be if I was simply searching my deck. Your examples of the Judge (and Flower Shop Lady) are actually requiring me to shuffle cards into my deck. So cards are going to go into my deck in some method. There's no time being wasted there. However, the assumption that you & too many players on this board seem to be making are that everyone is shuffling thoroughly, and the only problem is the time-wasting. This couldn't be further from the truth. The reality of Pokémon is that these midgame shuffles are rarely sufficient to randomize a deck. So when you see someone taking extra effort to create a noticeable pattern in their deck, you expect additional shuffling.
Going back to the practical, real-world where Pokemon is played in, where we are limited to 30 minutes, if I played a Judge and then saw you simply throw the hand into your deck without putting any thought into it, I might be willing to accept the slightest imperfection in the game and allow you to get away with a modest shuffle. Afterall, it didn't look like you put any effort into how you spread the cards into the deck, or memorize what order you were putting them into the deck, and since your deck was randomized beforehand anyway, I wouldn't be so vehement about requiring a thorough shuffle.
Good points, good questions, though. You definitely got me thinking.
Last edited:
TheRolesWePlay
New Member
I'll fully admit people are often horrible at shuffling, but even good shuffling is going to suck, and it bites. However this raises a good question though, what is a sufficient shuffle for the middle of the game?
Ness
Member
We've already established that in order to randomize a deck, 5-7 riffles is the standard: let's just say six.
If you want to be technical, you should be doing six riffles anytime your deck is searched. But like I said, Pokemon is played in the real world. The game would become quite time-consuming (and boring) if we did this everytime we were told to shuffle, especially for the players that cannot shuffle quickly. I might be able to pull off six riffles in 10 seconds, but what about all the novice and less-experienced players? Additionally, if we had to shuffle this thoroughly after every search, many games would end without players getting enough turns to finish. The ability to play Pokemon fairly while still having fun requires taking things with a grain of salt. When a card tells you to shuffle, that means it wants your deck randomized. So don't move stuff around and try to create some desired pattern. Just complete your search, do a quick shuckle without trying to manipulate or memorize the cards, and continue playing.
A whole 'nother topic I should get into is that in terms of saving time, it makes a lot more sense for your opponent to be shuffling your deck than you. (At the same time, that doesn't mean I should be obligated to randomize a deck that you have unfairly stacked/manipulated.) But that's a whole additional topic.
If you want to be technical, you should be doing six riffles anytime your deck is searched. But like I said, Pokemon is played in the real world. The game would become quite time-consuming (and boring) if we did this everytime we were told to shuffle, especially for the players that cannot shuffle quickly. I might be able to pull off six riffles in 10 seconds, but what about all the novice and less-experienced players? Additionally, if we had to shuffle this thoroughly after every search, many games would end without players getting enough turns to finish. The ability to play Pokemon fairly while still having fun requires taking things with a grain of salt. When a card tells you to shuffle, that means it wants your deck randomized. So don't move stuff around and try to create some desired pattern. Just complete your search, do a quick shuckle without trying to manipulate or memorize the cards, and continue playing.
A whole 'nother topic I should get into is that in terms of saving time, it makes a lot more sense for your opponent to be shuffling your deck than you. (At the same time, that doesn't mean I should be obligated to randomize a deck that you have unfairly stacked/manipulated.) But that's a whole additional topic.
Last edited:
Otaku
Active Member
Did you catch this one:
Bullados: The article you linked to was a joke, you realize that? By it's very nature if it is true, it falls prey to those same rules it talks about all arguments succumbing to. The writer has to at least be subconsciously (if not consciously) trying to establish dominance by being correct. If he is wrong about his point, he will ignore contrary facts. He will misunderstand statistics and probability.
Is it true that most, if not all people desire to be right? I cannot test every person who ever lived, or even everyone alive right now. I can state that I have never met anyone who did not ultimately enjoy being right. I do know that at many times throughout recorded human history, and very likely during "pre-history", insisting you were right against the "alpha male" was good for one thing: getting beat-up by the alpha male. As long as the alpha male does not have sole reproductive rights, swallowing your pride most definitely does improve your survival more than being more skilled at arguing. It doesn't matter if you are the better debater: whether you are right or wrong, if you showed up the chief/king/etc. in many cultures you were dead.
The article itself pulled questionable facts in... which makes sense if the article was a joke or else naturally affected by its own conclusions. Data does not speak for itself, it requires someone interpret it. Getting non-biased data any way other than first hand is difficult, since biases will creep into how said data is recorded/reported, even if the person giving it is trying to be unbiased. Yes, even a machine gathering data is subject to bias: it was built (and sometimes operated) by a human.
By my nature I am an argumentative person. The thing is, having questions and debating is not wrong, it is how you go about it, and your willingness to accept when you are proven wrong. I make no claim to having behaved perfectly this thread. I have not yet been presented counterclaims that make declumping seem like it should be legal. The best argument presented has been that it isn't enforceable, and as we can see that has created a dangerous precedent and entitlement. Vaporeon comically refers to other players as rules sharks (where I grew up, they were called rules lawyers), but has constantly relied on the fact that the practice is not illegal, ignoring that it is frowned upon and only legal because the powers that be could not think of a realistic way of enforcing the rule, and felt that as such it should not exist.
PokePop: I think this thread demonstrates why rules that cannot always be enforced still need to be on the books.
Team CREAM
New Member
I dislike it greatly when people declump. It makes me think that they are trying to stack their deck to where they topdeck a necessary card the following turn.
toxicroak 96
New Member
I just always shuffle my opponents deck during and before a game, it just allows me to know that they did not cheat in any way. I only do it at CC and larger events, it may be annoying to them to grab their deck and shuffle it, but 2-3 riffles of their deck helps by me helps me feel like their deck was randomized. Its sad to me that some people actually try to cheat, at a fun yet, essentially at most events a low stakes card game.
Sandslash7
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=
Just a thought here.
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.
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.
Moss Factor
New Member
The point some people are making that is perhaps the best counterargument I've heard so far is "well, declumped or not, I have information about the general distribution of my deck and so therefore it isn't random." This creates the implication that whether you de-clump or you don't, we still need to re-randomize the deck.
I am somewhat sympathetic to this approach. But I still disagree with the logic for a couple of reasons:
1) Even though you may have some information on the deck's distribution, its order was still created in a random way. I may not be able to re-randomize it with thorough mid-game shuffling, and you may have some information on the distribution, but honestly that is acceptable to me because there isn't much you can do about it.
2) If you were to observe the distribution of the cards in your deck and de-clump, you would only do so when de-clumping would improve the distribution in your deck. So you would go from having simply a general informational advantage, to compounding that by taking action to further exacerbate that advantage.
Point #2 is the kicker. I'm honestly willing to sacrifice some informational advantage on your deck's general card distribution, simply because I'll probably get the same advantage (the first time I search my deck) and there isn't too much you can do with that info (Howl Entei is perhaps one example of an exception).
That said, when you de-clump, you are using that information more pro-actively to tilt it in your favor by improving the distribution when it is advantageous for you to do so. You take a deck whose contents may not come up in a truly random order (you have information about the distribution), but whose order was created in a random process, I think its pretty obvious that the former situation is better than one where you have both information about the deck's distribution, and then you change it to your advantage to eliminate its random construction.
Its a bit of a subtle point but I think it matters. If we can concede that a random construction is a good enough proxy for a random distribution, then I think we see pretty quickly why de-clumping is not only a unique action, but one that perverts the game state.
__________________
Last note on the cheater stuff: I'm honestly not out to call people names, but I think the reason why de-clumping is so pervasive is that people in their heads don't view it as deck stacking or cheating. They simply view it as creating a "fair" game where their deck won't get a particularly great draw or a particularly terrible draw. They view it as good for the game. I think sometimes one needs to shock the system by calling a spade a spade in order for people to get through their heads that manipulating your deck in a way that isn't allowed for on the text of a card is simply against the rules.
Perhaps that's what people need to see it as: in what context should you be able to manipulate your deck (aside from where a card explicitly mandates) and it not be considered cheating?
I am somewhat sympathetic to this approach. But I still disagree with the logic for a couple of reasons:
1) Even though you may have some information on the deck's distribution, its order was still created in a random way. I may not be able to re-randomize it with thorough mid-game shuffling, and you may have some information on the distribution, but honestly that is acceptable to me because there isn't much you can do about it.
2) If you were to observe the distribution of the cards in your deck and de-clump, you would only do so when de-clumping would improve the distribution in your deck. So you would go from having simply a general informational advantage, to compounding that by taking action to further exacerbate that advantage.
Point #2 is the kicker. I'm honestly willing to sacrifice some informational advantage on your deck's general card distribution, simply because I'll probably get the same advantage (the first time I search my deck) and there isn't too much you can do with that info (Howl Entei is perhaps one example of an exception).
That said, when you de-clump, you are using that information more pro-actively to tilt it in your favor by improving the distribution when it is advantageous for you to do so. You take a deck whose contents may not come up in a truly random order (you have information about the distribution), but whose order was created in a random process, I think its pretty obvious that the former situation is better than one where you have both information about the deck's distribution, and then you change it to your advantage to eliminate its random construction.
Its a bit of a subtle point but I think it matters. If we can concede that a random construction is a good enough proxy for a random distribution, then I think we see pretty quickly why de-clumping is not only a unique action, but one that perverts the game state.
__________________
Last note on the cheater stuff: I'm honestly not out to call people names, but I think the reason why de-clumping is so pervasive is that people in their heads don't view it as deck stacking or cheating. They simply view it as creating a "fair" game where their deck won't get a particularly great draw or a particularly terrible draw. They view it as good for the game. I think sometimes one needs to shock the system by calling a spade a spade in order for people to get through their heads that manipulating your deck in a way that isn't allowed for on the text of a card is simply against the rules.
Perhaps that's what people need to see it as: in what context should you be able to manipulate your deck (aside from where a card explicitly mandates) and it not be considered cheating?
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)
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)
TheRolesWePlay
New Member
Thank you! This is what I've been trying to get at (admittedly it wasn't very successful). This is where some of the problem comes from. Some players tend to want a good fair match, and I don't mean one by the rules, but one against two fully set-up and fully powered decks, and could go either way, but where some of you view this as trying to establish an unfair advantage, I'd wager that a fair amount of players do this in an effort to even the playing field. I'm not saying that this position is in anyway correct, or a fully supportable one. However I do think that it at least needs to be acknowledged, or at least thought about. I don't really care about the argument for weather it's cheating or not (Frankly I thought this was a rather silly complaint myself), so have at it but at least try to understand where I'm coming from, that's all I ask.
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.
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.
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
It's strange how far a little tweak in semantics can go. Maybe instead of calling it "cheating," we should simply say that it "breaks the rules."
If a player presents a deck to the opponent that said player knows is incapable of achieving every possible combination (i.e., not random), then he/she is unambiguously breaking the rules - something I think everyone can agree on. This is true even if those rules are not necessarily enforceable. Is driving one mile over the speed limit on a highway any less against the rules when there is virtually no enforcement/ticketing that comes with it? No.
Still, this doesn't make someone a "cheater." Cheating requires intent, but breaking the rules doesn't. I think a lot of people are just too worried about their characters being besmirched. Once they begin to view it under the lens of "breaking the rules" (it really does make people feel better), it should become much easier to discuss this unnecessarily controversial issue.
So congratulations, posters! You are now doing at least one of FOUR things when you de-clump:
1) Breaking the rules (however unenforceable they may be - hence no penalty guidelines)
2) Cheating
3) Wasting time
4) [Insert the next thing someone comes up with that makes sense]
If a player presents a deck to the opponent that said player knows is incapable of achieving every possible combination (i.e., not random), then he/she is unambiguously breaking the rules - something I think everyone can agree on. This is true even if those rules are not necessarily enforceable. Is driving one mile over the speed limit on a highway any less against the rules when there is virtually no enforcement/ticketing that comes with it? No.
Still, this doesn't make someone a "cheater." Cheating requires intent, but breaking the rules doesn't. I think a lot of people are just too worried about their characters being besmirched. Once they begin to view it under the lens of "breaking the rules" (it really does make people feel better), it should become much easier to discuss this unnecessarily controversial issue.
So congratulations, posters! You are now doing at least one of FOUR things when you de-clump:
1) Breaking the rules (however unenforceable they may be - hence no penalty guidelines)
2) Cheating
3) Wasting time
4) [Insert the next thing someone comes up with that makes sense]
Last edited:
NoPoke
Active Member
Shuffling is not a random process. It can't be as there are magicians out there who can repeatedly shuffle a deck perfectly back into its original order.
People are bad at shuffling and by curious perversity the very best at shuffling (magicians) get so good that they can reproduce the original deck order.
So if shuffling isn't about generating a random sequence what is its purpose? The answer is to destroy information. Information about order, sequence, location of the cards within the deck. Every time you search your deck you are exposed to that information. Information that a brief shuffle cannot be expected to fully destroy. Information that the longer you are allowed to search the more opportunity you will have to learn either consciously or subliminally. Note that what you do learn from searching your deck would not be classed as cheating but as a memory skill to be rewarded.
So at this point you might think I'm arguing that there is no solution. That cheats can not be prevented. Though that may be true in the limit, especially with players propensity to change the definition of cheating as they go along, in practice it is not the case at all. It is not the case because players are given limited amounts of time to complete a search. We use time constraints and tempo to remove the opportunity to gather information about deck order.
A brief search gets a brief shuffle . Because the expectation is that you won't pick up on how your deck is ordered when executing a brief search.
The long first search is tolerated because it is followed by a much more thorough shuffle. Why is the long first search allowed when it is potentially against the goals of preserving a random deck and giving more opportunity to the alleged cheats and time-wasters? The answer is because this is a game where card memory is a skill.
I don't object to de-clumping because I don't expect players to be very good at randomising their decks. They are there to play Pokemon tcg and not as part of their apprenticeship towards becoming card magicians. I will object , much like Clay has already stated he would, if a player seems to be more focused upon de-clumping than completing a search. I will object because the tempo rule is in danger of being breached.
====
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?
People are bad at shuffling and by curious perversity the very best at shuffling (magicians) get so good that they can reproduce the original deck order.
So if shuffling isn't about generating a random sequence what is its purpose? The answer is to destroy information. Information about order, sequence, location of the cards within the deck. Every time you search your deck you are exposed to that information. Information that a brief shuffle cannot be expected to fully destroy. Information that the longer you are allowed to search the more opportunity you will have to learn either consciously or subliminally. Note that what you do learn from searching your deck would not be classed as cheating but as a memory skill to be rewarded.
So at this point you might think I'm arguing that there is no solution. That cheats can not be prevented. Though that may be true in the limit, especially with players propensity to change the definition of cheating as they go along, in practice it is not the case at all. It is not the case because players are given limited amounts of time to complete a search. We use time constraints and tempo to remove the opportunity to gather information about deck order.
A brief search gets a brief shuffle . Because the expectation is that you won't pick up on how your deck is ordered when executing a brief search.
The long first search is tolerated because it is followed by a much more thorough shuffle. Why is the long first search allowed when it is potentially against the goals of preserving a random deck and giving more opportunity to the alleged cheats and time-wasters? The answer is because this is a game where card memory is a skill.
I don't object to de-clumping because I don't expect players to be very good at randomising their decks. They are there to play Pokemon tcg and not as part of their apprenticeship towards becoming card magicians. I will object , much like Clay has already stated he would, if a player seems to be more focused upon de-clumping than completing a search. I will object because the tempo rule is in danger of being breached.
====
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?
Last edited:
- Status