"Declumping" a Deck

[Alazor]

If we're given 15 seconds for a search and a shuffle, why does time keep coming up? It takes me like 4 seconds to search my deck for cards. I rarely use or go past 15 seconds for the search and declump.

I just want to know your real problem with it?

I think the problem is when the deck is not fully randomized, meaning the declumping has had effect even after the shuffle. I mean if you're stacking all the pokemon together, there has to be a problem with that. Spreading the deck could be a problem although generally overlooked.

Cards that I see that get clumped together generally are those reverse holos and league promo double colorless energy. They just stuck together. What do you mean I have seven prizes?!?! I think asking Ness why he has a problem with declumping is like asking you why you have a problem with not declumping.

I mean it could be 3 Rare Candies stuck together, it could be a Rare Candy and 2 other random cards. It would be easier to turn them around to separate them. Or you could use the push and slide technique on the back of the cards.

You could do a six pile shuffle and roll six dice and number each of the piles, so if:

you roll: 1,2,3,4,6,5, then

Pile 1 goes on pile 2, pile 2 goes on pile 3, etc. respectively... just to make sure it is random.

I don't think Ness made this all out of thin air. I do think that the Pokegym might appreciate declumping as an article instead of an ongoing debate, with input from other members of course!

 

[Ness]

I don't think Ness made this all out of thin air. I do think that the Pokegym might appreciate declumping as an article instead of an ongoing debate, with input from other members of course!

I actually did write an article for The Top Cut about a week ago summarizing all the points of declumping and why you shouldn't do it for. When I wrote it, I didn't realize how much this thread would blow up, so everything I wrote has already been covered in here. I told Kyle he probably shouldn't bother posting it since everything had been discussed already, but perhaps I'll tell him to publish it, anyway.

 

[SLOW DECK]

25 pages on Declumping a deck? I haven't been on the gym for a while......

Maybe next the gym can work on world peace, cure for cancer, and who steals those socks out of the load of laundry.

 

[vaporeon]

Perhaps but how do you respond to someone who just searched their deck for pokemon and then shuffled 2 or 3 times? No declumping.

 

[CMsvW]

I agree 100% with Jason... but if I ever play him again, I am gonna declump every chance I get :v

 

[ShadowCard]

The whole reason this thread got blown out of proportion is further proof that this is indeed a problem. If declumping was a simple waste of a few seconds, no one (including me) would make a deal about it. The reality is people are doing it to decrease the chances of drawing bad hands. (We've even seen people admit to this on this thread.) And that does indeed constitute cheating.

I am going to refrain from answering any questions I've already addressed

Disagree. The reason it is so blown out of proportion is because you spent the first part of the thread calling people cheaters, and then spent the next part of the thread taking a high horse and telling people to go back and read those pages where you sat on this thread and posted practically after every 3rd or 4th post, multiple times within an hour.

And now you refuse to answer questions? Remember, you are trying to convince us.

If the OP refuses to answer questions, it sounds like it is time to lock the thread. If the answers are all in previous pages and he doesn't wish to elaborate on them when the question is re-asked or asked again for comparisons, then there's little reason to continue. At that point, he is basically leaving the room.

 

[K2theAblaM]

The whole reason this thread got blown out of proportion is further proof that this is indeed a problem. If declumping was a simple waste of a few seconds, no one (including me) would make a deal about it. The reality is people are doing it to decrease the chances of drawing bad hands. (We've even seen people admit to this on this thread.) And that does indeed constitute cheating.

I am going to refrain from answering any questions I've already addressed.

Lol, how do people look up to you?

You're copping out EVERY single time someone asks you a question of note. Even Pokepop had to come out and specifically tell you to answer a question after you chose to ignore it. What's good with that, ness?

Any yes, it IS just a waste of a few seconds, literally. Takes less than half a second to slide a card from one spot into another undetermined spot in the deck. It's been addressed plenty of times in this post, maybe YOU should go back and read our posts.

So based on your own admission, "no one, (including yourself) should make a big deal about it."

Done and done. Now for the 18th time, please lock this troll fest. The OP has refused to discuss any topic outside of his comfort zone, where he's been proven wrong multiple times only to ignore all logic and reason.

This thread is the definition of circular logic

 

[evil psyduck]

Mods and/or higher ups will decide when and if the thread gets locked.

 

[djjoe227]

Disagree. The reason it is so blown out of proportion is because you spent the first part of the thread calling people cheaters, and then spent the next part of the thread taking a high horse and telling people to go back and read those pages where you sat on this thread and posted practically after every 3rd or 4th post, multiple times within an hour.

And now you refuse to answer questions? Remember, you are trying to convince us.

If the OP refuses to answer questions, it sounds like it is time to lock the thread. If the answers are all in previous pages and he doesn't wish to elaborate on them when the question is re-asked or asked again for comparisons, then there's little reason to continue. At that point, he is basically leaving the room.

Actually, out of the 32 posts where "Cheater" appears (seriously- do a "Search this thread" option at the top of the page), 3 of them belong to Ness. Out of those 3, only 2 are actually him saying it, the other quotes someone else who had posted it.

There's almost 600 posts, so 2 doesn't nearly constitute as "Half", especially when the last Cheater comment was made in the 60's post range.

If you want an accurate description of the thread, it is that Ness presented an idea, and people disagreed. Then Ness (and others) tried to reinforce his idea, and everyone else demanded their opinions be accepted as fact. Then Ness (and a few others) still tried to reinforce the idea, a few others insisted they be allowed to do what they want, a few others got upset at the thought of being accused as Cheaters, and a very small amount of others actually consulted the Rules, Compendium, or Head/Higher Judges (such as, but not limited to, Pokepop).

If the posters refuse to read the thread for previously answered questions they may have, that is not Ness' fault and the thread does not need to be closed. What needs to happen is people need to go back and read the thread rather than cry that they are not getting attention by asking the same things over and over. As proven with the recent interaction between Ness and Pokepop, Ness is willing to answer different questions or questions that have a new angle (Specifically referencing losjackal's questions), so please spare us the drama of making it seem like he doesn't care about the situation.

We've had how many people, randomly, chime in with "I don't know if it's been said already, but..." ?

 

[Rambo]

Actually, out of the 32 posts where "Cheater" appears (seriously- do a "Search this thread" option at the top of the page), 3 of them belong to Ness. Out of those 3, only 2 are actually him saying it, the other quotes someone else who had posted it.

There's almost 600 posts, so 2 doesn't nearly constitute as "Half", especially when the last Cheater comment was made in the 60's post range.

If you want an accurate description of the thread, it is that Ness presented an idea, and people disagreed. Then Ness (and others) tried to reinforce his idea, and everyone else demanded their opinions be accepted as fact. Then Ness (and a few others) still tried to reinforce the idea, a few others insisted they be allowed to do what they want, a few others got upset at the thought of being accused as Cheaters, and a very small amount of others actually consulted the Rules, Compendium, or Head/Higher Judges (such as, but not limited to, Pokepop).

If the posters refuse to read the thread for previously answered questions they may have, that is not Ness' fault and the thread does not need to be closed. What needs to happen is people need to go back and read the thread rather than cry that they are not getting attention by asking the same things over and over. As proven with the recent interaction between Ness and Pokepop, Ness is willing to answer different questions or questions that have a new angle (Specifically referencing losjackal's questions), so please spare us the drama of making it seem like he doesn't care about the situation.

We've had how many people, randomly, chime in with "I don't know if it's been said already, but..." ?

He didn't say that he used the word, "cheater" he's saying that Ness had implied it.

 

[K2theAblaM]

Mods and/or higher ups will decide when and if the thread gets locked.

Sure, but if it's been pointed out plenty of times by multiple posters, maybe the mods and higher ups should simply consider the possibility that ness is in fact trolling this board.

just saying.

oh and nice sig... I mean it.

 

[Ness]

Lol, how do people look up to you?

You're copping out EVERY single time someone asks you a question of note. Even Pokepop had to come out and specifically tell you to answer a question after you chose to ignore it. What's good with that, ness?

Lol, I would like to think because I advocate fairness and integrity of the game? I followed the rules of the board by not repeating the same thing over and over. I had already answered those questions (and similar questions more than once).

It's time for a reality check regarding the terms cheating and cheaters: If you rearrange your cards to produce a more desirable order and choose not to shuffle sufficiently, you are indeed cheating. There's no ands, ifs, or buts about it. That's not my opinion. That's not debatable. And it's actually been addressed by the rules judges that it isn't allowed. Every judge who has acknowledged that you are allowed to declump has specified that you must shuffle sufficiently afterwards. And do they really have to? It's common sense that this isn't allowed in any card games.

People blow up is because they don't like to draw bad hands. Too bad, bad hands are part of the game. One good thing about this thread getting so blown-up is that attention was brought to it. Now everytime you declump your deck, there's dozens more educated players who are going to make sure you do shuffle properly. If you don't, I hope they call a judge or riffle your deck back to the stone age.

 

[djjoe227]

He didn't say that he used the word, "cheater" he's saying that Ness had implied it.

No, if you read the thread, he implies that declumping is a form of cheating.

If you'd like some more numbers:

The Word "Cheat" appears 62 times in this thread before this post. Of those 62 times, 5 of them were by Ness. Of those 5, only 3 of them weren't be quoting somebody else.

The word "Cheating" appears 207 times, and of thost Ness's posts total 27. I didn't bother to look at each post incase he was quoting someone else's use of the word this time.

Again, considering that there's a total of 32 posts (and mind you, I think a few posts may have both or all 3 words in them) that use a form of the word "Cheat" or imply it. 32/612 Posts. Roughly 5.22% is made up of Ness implying Cheating or Cheaters of any kind. Still, MUCH less than Half.

Ness has 90 posts in this thread, 35.55% of which are referencing "Cheat" and some variation of it. Again- less than Half.

I think that would qualify for "out of proportion"..

 

[fire spin]

by disallowing people to de-clump a few cards, surely you are rewarding those who are very good at shuffling. If that is what we want to test when playing pokemon, then.. Furthermore the opponent is always allowed to cut/perform a fast shuffle, so even if the declumper's shuffle wasn't great you can do something about this. I don't see why there seems to be such a huge problem with this, as the deck is very hard to manipulate mid game.

 

[Rambo]

No, if you read the thread, he implies that declumping is a form of cheating.

If you'd like some more numbers:

The Word "Cheat" appears 62 times in this thread before this post. Of those 62 times, 5 of them were by Ness. Of those 5, only 3 of them weren't be quoting somebody else.

The word "Cheating" appears 207 times, and of thost Ness's posts total 27. I didn't bother to look at each post incase he was quoting someone else's use of the word this time.

Again, considering that there's a total of 32 posts (and mind you, I think a few posts may have both or all 3 words in them) that use a form of the word "Cheat" or imply it. 32/612 Posts. Roughly 5.22% is made up of Ness implying Cheating or Cheaters of any kind. Still, MUCH less than Half.

Ness has 90 posts in this thread, 35.55% of which are referencing "Cheat" and some variation of it. Again- less than Half.

I think that would qualify for "out of proportion"..

If you read what I wrote, I'm merely trying to explain to you what he was trying to say, I didn't want a mathematical solution to the problem.

Also, mainly towards Ness, would you be more lenient towards it if it was the 1st search of the game, from say a collector?

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

No, if you read the thread, he implies that declumping is a form of cheating.

If you'd like some more numbers:

The Word "Cheat" appears 62 times in this thread before this post. Of those 62 times, 5 of them were by Ness. Of those 5, only 3 of them weren't be quoting somebody else.

The word "Cheating" appears 207 times, and of thost Ness's posts total 27. I didn't bother to look at each post incase he was quoting someone else's use of the word this time.

Again, considering that there's a total of 32 posts (and mind you, I think a few posts may have both or all 3 words in them) that use a form of the word "Cheat" or imply it. 32/612 Posts. Roughly 5.22% is made up of Ness implying Cheating or Cheaters of any kind. Still, MUCH less than Half.

Ness has 90 posts in this thread, 35.55% of which are referencing "Cheat" and some variation of it. Again- less than Half.

I think that would qualify for "out of proportion"..

That's not the only problem though. He's also continually insulted people without even a hint of a proper rebuttal. I was upset when he started throwing the word cheating around (which has since decreased), but insulting people is both destructive to his cause and led some people to be incredibly upset.

 

[SuperWooper]

Lol, how do people look up to you?

He did win Worlds. Twice.

 

[Ness]

by disallowing people to de-clump a few cards, surely you are rewarding those who are very good at shuffling. If that is what we want to test when playing pokemon, then.. Furthermore the opponent is always allowed to cut/perform a fast shuffle, so even if the declumper's shuffle wasn't great you can do something about this. I don't see why there seems to be such a huge problem with this, as the deck is very hard to manipulate mid game.

I don't think one person in this thread has proposed we should disallow rearranging cards in a deck as there are good-intentioned rearrangements that are not attempting to manipulate a deck. (Again, you missed out on this because the thread has ballooned into 25 pages and it's difficult to read in its entirety.)

Additionally, you cannot declump to replace shuffling. That would be unfair and is actually against the rules (You must perform an adequate shuffle. Expect judges and your opponent to demand this especially if they see you rearranging cards.) You cannot artificially replicate randomness by making your own face-up adjustments in the deck. (This was also discussed, but I'll save you the time of reading through the thread.)

Many of the younger players have more trouble grasping this concept because less attention is paid to how you shuffle in the younger age divisions. However, if you read through the thread, it might be explained to you in a way that makes more sense. I encourage you to browse through it.

Also, mainly towards Ness, would you be more lenient towards it if it was the 1st search of the game, from say a collector?

No. It does not matter how early in the game your search is, you should not be attempting to manipulate the order your cards will be drawn in ever. Not pregame, not on the first turn, midgame or the end of the game.

Remember, when playing a Pokémon Collector, no one is going to object to you moving Pokémon you are considering selecting to the front of your deck to help you make your decision. If that's what you're asking, I'll continue to remind everyone that's fine.

 

[fire spin]

@ ness
I figured that shuffling after de-clumping my deck was implied... any card that would give me the opportunity to see my entire deck, also states shuffle at the end of it, thus i can't have completed the card until i perform a shuffle.

Also with the statement 'its fine to move pokemon that i'm considering to the front of my deck during collector', how would you know i'm not moving other things to the front of my deck? Surely your response means that you think its fine to change positions of cards in your deck during a search, which is contradictory to what you have been saying.

 

[Ness]

Also with the statement 'its fine to move pokemon that i'm considering to the front of my deck during collector', how would you know i'm not moving other things to the front of my deck? Surely your response means that you think its fine to change positions of cards in your deck during a search, which is contradictory to what you have been saying.

That's why the whole situation is so tricky. As PokePop wrote 20+ pages ago, they wanted to make declumping against the rules, but they couldn't because it's too difficult for a judge to know whether or not someone was stacking their deck or simply moving some potential choices that their search card tells them to seek out. You really can't know what someone is doing when they are looking at their deck. If you're experienced, there may be times it is blatant someone is declumping, but it's a lot harder for judges to be able to do this and to do it consistently when they are expected to be watching dozens of games. Browse through the thread. Those are good questions and others have been discussing them.