More on the topic of "declumping"

[SMP88]

Again, Stacking is putting cards in your deck in a known order to gain a advantage. What don't you get about that?

Again, declumping is moving cards in your deck from a known order in order to gain an advantage. What don't you get about that?

 

[psychup2034]

Again, Stacking is putting cards in your deck in a known order to gain a advantage. What don't you get about that?

I get that you're wrong. Type in "stacking the deck definition" in Google. Note the first definition: "...purposely arranges the cards in his favour..."

What did you say you do? You "[reset] your deck after the end of each round to ensure better deck performance." In other words you purposely arrange the cards in your favor, which by definition, is stacking.

Stacking doesn't necessarily involve putting cards in a known order. It could be some property of the card that is known (Pokemon, Trainer, or Energy). As long as you're arranging the cards in your favor (which you admit to doing), you're stacking.

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

Again, declumping is moving cards in your deck from a known order in order to gain an advantage. What don't you get about that?

Last time I checked most people who declump put the cards in a random location of the deck, and don't know where it is in the end, negating most possible advantage they would have.

 

[vaporeon]

DEFINITION

Stacking the Deck – promoting arguments that favor only one side while rejecting (or avoiding the mention of) arguments for another point of view.


Gamblers “stack the deck” in their favor by pre-arranging their cards to ensure their victories. People do this by evading any mention of any arguments or evidence contrary to their position.

With that said. What 'pre arranging' is going on? Putting cards in a known order is in fact know as stacking. Stacking is putting cards in a order to gain a unfair advantage. Again, show me a pre arranged cards...

 

[chrataxe]

If you are declumping to give yourself an advantage that is stacking, there's no other way about it. You could shuffle a million times afterwards for all I care, your initial act was done to give yourself an advantage that you otherwise wouldn't have. You literally just said that you organize your deck so that you get better draws. If you can't understand how this is stacking then I'm not sure what else there is to say.

I only looked through this last page, JUST to see if anyone said this...

So, I deck check and have my deck arranged specifically for deck check. I sit across from my opponent and do a crappy shuffle and my opponent cuts it. I draw a Tynamo and 7 energy for an opening hand. Wouldn't it have given

yourself an advantage

to shuffle?

To elaborate a bit:

I play Random Receiver, revealing 5 cards I don't like, nor do I need, before hitting a supporter. Isn't it advantageous to shuffle my deck to remove those cards from the top and space them out to help me from hitting that exact five card sequence?

I play Super Rod, grabbing three energy. If I only need one and I am just trying to increase my odds of hitting one off of a supporter draw, wouldn't shuffling be advantageous?

So, maybe the heart of the problem is OVER shuffling...

Better yet, people need to learn to define cheating.

Not to lead this thread into another topic, but the Prop 8 in California comes to mind. Don't beat me up on details as I don't live in Cali...but, the gist is that it was a PUBLIC REFERENDUM (meaning a public vote instead of a representative vote) to add an amendment to the California state constitution that outlawed *** marriage...it passed. Later, a judge ruled it unconstitutional...so, me thinks the judge needs to look up the definition of CONSTITUTIONAL! If its IN the constitution, it can't be unconstitutional.

A society is defined by a group of individuals with similar ideals living together under equally agreed upon laws. Think of a TCG as the same. We all agree to play the game under predetermined rules. You know the rules, I know the rules. When there is a handful of rules that explicitly say WHY declumping is not cheating, you cannot call it cheating.

So, to define cheating, for the purposes of a TCG, it means a player gains an advantage by stepping outside of the guidelines of predetermined rules, rule NOT written by the players.

So, to continually sit here and whine about how a player cheats when he is skirting well within the boundaries of the rules that both players have the advantage of using, is just....whining.

As for how judges "feel" about it, who gives a toss how a judge "feels" about a player playing within the rules. They have been known to be wrong (remember the thread about a head judge telling players they could only use the di given out at states) and its irrelevant, the player isn't doing anything wrong. If the judge doesn't like the rules, there is no point in taking it out on a player that plays within the rules. "Outplaying" someone means you did it within the confines of rules. If your opponent declumps and you don't and you lose, you need to reevaluate why you play this game. If it is for fun, you had fun. If it is to win, you shouldn't have a problem with declumping.

Having said that, I will say that CHEATING is INTENTIONALLY stepping outside of the rules. When this happens, punish the cheater, severely if you like. I don't like cheaters. But can we quit whining about people that are playing within the confines of the rules because you "don't like it."

Ultimately, it all comes back to this, again and again:

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html

If you want something to whine about, maybe it should be the definition of randomize.

Part of the problem might be that Pokemon, as a game, has a horrible "rule" book. I'm not knocking the Compendium or the rule book that comes with starter decks, but they need more advanced rules, even something very, very simple, like a glossary. Other card games have very, very extensive rules, but more precisely, they have simple definitions. Other games define "in play," "zone," "damage," and even simplistic things, like "draw," and yes, even "shuffle." Pokemon is unique in that it has much more card-to-card interaction rulings, thus the need for the compendium, but that shouldn't exclude the game from having a more "advanced" rule book.


And, one last thing, because I just saw this right before I hit submit:

Do you realize how asinine it sounds for someone to say that people who "reset" their deck after each round to "ensure better deck performance" are not "trying to gain an unfair advantage"?

Again, we go back to definitions...how, exactly, is it unfair? You disagreeing with it does not make it unfair. In this statement, you acknowledge one thing and ignore three (probably more).

Acknowledged:
You gain an advantage (this is more implied than factual, but you acknowledge that it can potentially give you an advantage)

Unacknowledged:
It is legal
It will get shuffled later
YOU CAN DO IT TOO

Its mostly the last point I'm trying to point out. If you can do it too, then it is in NO WAY UNFAIR. To define unfair, straight from the dictionary:

adjective
1.
not fair; not conforming to approved standards, as of justice, honesty, or ethics: an unfair law; an unfair wage policy.
2.
disproportionate; undue; beyond what is proper or fitting: an unfair share.

There is an approved standard and it is proportional since both players can do it.

One could argue that it is an issue of justice, honesty, or ethics...or even beyond what is proper, but the point is, its not the players that make the rules. Its not fair to criticize players for playing within the rules.

 

[psychup2034]

With that said. What 'pre arranging' is going on? Putting cards in a known order is in fact know as stacking. Stacking is putting cards in a order to gain a unfair advantage. Again, show me a pre arranged cards...

Pokemon, Trainer, Energy, Pokemon, Trainer, Energy, Pokemon, Trainer, Energy, etc.

That's pre-arranging. That's what you admit to doing. That's stacking, regardless of how you try to cover up what you're doing by playing semantic games.

I split all my into trainer, energy and pokemon, then I put them into a order in the deck. I put in 1 Pokemon, trainer and then energy. I put my 4 of cards into the 1/4 spot, all my 3 of cards into the 1/3 spot and all my 2 of cards into the 1/2 (between cards number 20 and 40) and all my 1 of in the middle, then I shuffle.

---------- Post added 10/01/2012 at 11:28 PM ----------

Its mostly the last point I'm trying to point out. If you can do it too, then it is in NO WAY UNFAIR.

Your argument makes no sense. Let's say that your opponent uses weighted dice. You can use weighted dice too, so then it's NO WAY UNFAIR?

That doesn't make sense. At all.

 

[chrataxe]

The rules ALLOW you to deflect declumping by shuffling your opponent's deck after they evidently rearrange the cards in it. You are trying to change the rules to PREVENT them from doing this, when it's not necessary to PREVENT, and such a rule would be impossibly difficult to enforce.

Not picking on you Kayle, this was just the first comment I saw that said something to this effect, though I'm quite sure there are plenty more...

Does the above quote imply that shuffling my opponent's deck is to ensure, after they have stacked it, it unstacks it?

If so, wouldn't that be rearranging your opponent's deck to YOUR advantage?

That's the flaw in the logic of arguing against declumping. If you opponent gains an advantage from declumping, do you not gain an advantage from shuffling their deck afterwards?

The point of randomization is not to "randomize," its to ensure that neither player knows the sequence of the cards in the deck. A few good shuffles will thoroughly randomize AND reorder the deck to ensure neither player knows the sequence of cards.

---------- Post added 10/01/2012 at 10:42 PM ----------

That doesn't make sense. At all.

That's not at all what I said. That's you lying about what I said.

IF
We are both playing the SAME deck and there were no "advantage" to going first, or at least, some sort of payoff for going second, then yes, its, it would be equally fair.

IF
We are playing separate decks and you know your di is loaded and make a deck that is reliant on flips and I never have to flip, then no, its not fair. It actually falls into the two highlighted section of the definition: within the rules (no, loaded di are not) and disproportionate (if you make your deck rely on flips, you've made it disproportionate)

All of your arguments fall apart real quick when you start comparing apples to mountains. Declumping is legal, loaded di aren't.

 

[psychup2034]

The point of randomization is not to "randomize," its to ensure that neither player knows the sequence of the cards in the deck. A few good shuffles will thoroughly randomize AND reorder the deck to ensure neither player knows the sequence of cards.

False. Not knowing the sequence of cards isn't the entire purpose of randomization. Let's say my opponent has 12 cards left in his deck with 3 Energy, and he needs 1 energy to win. He just searched his deck, declumped in the process, and is about to play Bianca for 4. He doesn't have to know the exact sequence of cards in his deck. He only cares about the 3 energy not being "clumped" together, such that he will draw the energy from the Bianca and get the win.

It's critical that my opponent not only doesn't know the sequence of cards in his deck (a weaker condition), but that my opponent's entire deck is randomized (a stronger condition).

A few good shuffles will not thoroughly randomize the deck to ensure that the advantage gained by declumping is undone. It will take a good 15-20 seconds of shuffling to undo your opponent's attempt to manipulate cards in his deck to his advantage. That 15-20 seconds is what judges often do not give you, and that's a problem.

 

[chrataxe]

If you are declumping to give yourself an advantage that is stacking, there's no other way about it. You could shuffle a million times afterwards for all I care, your initial act was done to give yourself an advantage that you otherwise wouldn't have. You literally just said that you organize your deck so that you get better draws. If you can't understand how this is stacking then I'm not sure what else there is to say.

The whole point of shuffling your opponent's deck is to ensure they are not giving themselves an advantage. By virtue, shuffling their deck gives you an advantage. Its a distinction without a difference.

 

[psychup2034]

All of your arguments fall apart real quick when you start comparing apples to mountains. Declumping is legal, loaded di aren't.

Your comparison of a player stacking his deck in between games (illegal) to declumping (legal) is like comparing apples to mountains. Thus, your argument falls apart (as you mentioned). Declumping is legal, stacking between games is not.

We've been discussing vaporeon manipulating the order of cards in his deck between rounds (Pokemon, Trainer, Energy, Pokemon, Trainer, Energy, etc.) for the last page and a half. That's illegal. Declumping is not.

---------- Post added 10/01/2012 at 11:51 PM ----------

The whole point of shuffling your opponent's deck is to ensure they are not giving themselves an advantage. By virtue, shuffling their deck gives you an advantage. Its a distinction without a difference.

Shuffling your opponent's deck does not give you any statistical advantage if your opponent isn't stacking their deck (or declumping their deck). Only when your opponent stacks his deck (whether through declumping or in another way) does your shuffling prevent your opponent from gaining a statistical advantage.

 

[vaporeon]

Pokemon, Trainer, Energy, Pokemon, Trainer, Energy, Pokemon, Trainer, Energy, etc.

That's pre-arranging. That's what you admit to doing. That's stacking, regardless of how you try to cover up what you're doing by playing semantic games.



---------- Post added 10/01/2012 at 11:28 PM ----------



Your argument makes no sense. Let's say that your opponent uses weighted dice. You can use weighted dice too, so then it's NO WAY UNFAIR?

That doesn't make sense. At all.

Again, you seem to miss one very important thing. You can shuffle the deck. I'm not a magical card shark that can can draw the perfect hand each game. I reset my deck after the first round to insure better deck performance for the next round. You know what is a disadvantage for me? Leaving my deck in the same order that it was from the last game.

They one thing you're doing is linking to definitions and then them proving you wrong. In each one you linked to, they all said 'pre arranged' cards, which decluming or deck reseting does not. We don't know the order of the cards.

 

[psychup2034]

Again, you seem to miss one very important thing. You can shuffle the deck.

The fact that I (as your hypothetical opponent) have the right to shuffle your deck after you have stacked it does not change the fact that you severely broke a rule by stacking your deck in the first place.

 

[chrataxe]

False. Not knowing the sequence of cards isn't the entire purpose of randomization. Let's say my opponent has 12 cards left in his deck with 3 Energy, and he needs 1 energy to win. He just searched his deck, declumped in the process, and is about to play Bianca for 4. He doesn't have to know the exact sequence of cards in his deck. He only cares about the 3 energy not being "clumped" together, such that he will draw the energy from the Bianca and get the win.

It's critical that my opponent not only doesn't know the sequence of cards in his deck (a weaker condition), but that my opponent's entire deck is randomized (a stronger condition).

A few good shuffles will not thoroughly randomize the deck to ensure that the advantage gained by declumping is undone. It will take a good 15-20 seconds of shuffling to undo your opponent's attempt to manipulate cards in his deck to his advantage. That 15-20 seconds is what judges often do not give you, and that's a problem.

Again, a bad example.

Three energy in 12 cards with Juniper in the format? Its convenient you pick Bianca for 4 instead of Juniper for 7.

Lets just say they shuffle and don't declump. In this instance, you do realize it is more advantageous to no declump, especially with 12 cards. Its not hard to "thoroughly" shuffle 12 cards quickly. If its clumped and shuffled, it will unclump. If its declumped, then shuffled, it will clump. Though, this is true for larger decks, though it is harder to shuffle a larger deck as thorough as it is a smaller deck.


As much as I would love to, I'm not going to sit here arguing the point all day. You don't agree with it, that's fine, I'm ok with that. Either way you look at it, you can't claim someone is cheating if they are within the boundaries of the rules....






It does bug me that we have such a large player base that thinks its "wrong" to declump, despite the fact that its within the rules, but not letting your opponent take back simple misplays is ok, a la Ross and Sami at worlds. Neither is cheating, they are both within the rules, but one impacts the game MUCH more, but the overwhelming majority of players think that ok. I'm not advocating for letting your opponent take back misplays. I've gone both ways at tournaments. There is a time and place for it. It just amazes me what some players chose to whine over when it comes to being "just" and "fair" when it pertains to the rules. People don't declump with the intent of screwing their opponent. People disallow take backs for the sole purpose of screwing their opponent. Maybe we really do need to have a good discussion about SotG. I find it quite the violation of SotG to dislike declumping. You are calling your opponent a cheater when they've done nothing wrong because you feel like it lowers your chances of winning. Being a sore loser violates SotG in every way.

IF....IF declumping really was cheating, why hasn't it been banned? The game has been around for a while now. Whining about rules that have been in place for a decade is also a violation of SotG. It just makes for a bad experience all around. You are mad because your "think" your opponent cheated, your opponent is mad because you think they cheated, where's the SotG there?

To the anti-declumping crowd: if you don't understand why its not cheating, I don't see how you can play ANY game since you obviously have NO idea what "rules" mean. You are trying to approach the rules, which are absolute, with YOUR "moral" ideas, which are not. If you read the rules to ANY game, then say "Well, I don't like those rules, so I'm gonna play this way," you are playing the game wrong. Disliking players that play by the rules as they are written is just wrong and actually supersedes any moral argument you can come up with since the only "moral" contract between the two players is that they both agree to play within the confines of the rules as they are written.

Everyone needs to understand this simple statement: While your personal opinion can influence the changes to rules, it doesn't influence the rules to change. More simply, if its wrong, advocate to change the rule, but while its in play, play the game as is. Putting Darkrai in my deck gives me an advantage. Putting catcher in my deck gives me advantages. Declumping my deck gives me (arguably) advantages. If the rules say your deck needs to be randomized (regardless of how you define randomized) AND the rules say declumping is fine as long as it is randomized (within the guidelines of the rules), even IF it does give you an advantage, the player doing the action is MEANT to have that advantage, just like the option to play catcher.

 

[Kayle]

False. Not knowing the sequence of cards isn't the entire purpose of randomization.

You don't make the rules, Mr. Schrute, and I imagine you don't know the motivation behind them, either.

"Randomness" as you seek it does not exist. There is no way to perceive something's randomness, nor to measure it. That's kind of the point. Randomness is a result we do not yet know. Once we know what it is, it's not random anymore.

You can optimize the distribution of cards in a 52-card (or 60-card) deck by shuffling some number of times. But technically, it's "random" from the first shuffle, or even if you just cut the deck. You just might be able to use some prior knowledge to guess, given a little more information, what is most likely to happen next.

Please make sure to argue the correct point, okay? This a very technical discussion and randomness is a thing easily misunderstood.

 

[chrataxe]

Your comparison of a player stacking his deck in between games (illegal) to declumping (legal) is like comparing apples to mountains. Thus, your argument falls apart (as you mentioned). Declumping is legal, stacking between games is not.

We've been discussing vaporeon manipulating the order of cards in his deck between rounds (Pokemon, Trainer, Energy, Pokemon, Trainer, Energy, etc.) for the last page and a half. That's illegal. Declumping is not.

Does he not have to shuffle infront of his opponent before the game? Can his opponent then shuffle his deck afterwards?

I get your point, but realistically, its no different than shuffling after deck check.

---------- Post added 10/01/2012 at 11:51 PM ----------



Shuffling your opponent's deck does not give you any statistical advantage if your opponent isn't stacking their deck (or declumping their deck). Only when your opponent stacks his deck (whether through declumping or in another way) does your shuffling prevent your opponent from gaining a statistical advantage.

Neither does stacking your deck, then shuffling over and over.

But, I wasn't talking about statistical probabilities, I was making a simplistic point as to WHY my opponent shuffles. It has been said over and over, the point of me shuffling my deck is not to give me an advantage, but to randomize. I simply pointed out the obvious, that the point of my opponent shuffling my deck was to garner an advantage in case I didn't shuffle. Merely pointing out irony, not arguing statistics.

But, I would be curious...put your 12 card/3 energy theory to test. Get multiple results, then tell me how often you hit that energy in the "4" card draw.

If we were arguing statistics, this would be a short thread. Statistically speaking, you have the same probability of drawing the cards either way IF the deck has been randomized (even if it was stacked or declumped first).

 

[losjackal]

False. Not knowing the sequence of cards isn't the entire purpose of randomization. Let's say my opponent has 12 cards left in his deck with 3 Energy, and he needs 1 energy to win. He just searched his deck, declumped in the process, and is about to play Bianca for 4. He doesn't have to know the exact sequence of cards in his deck. He only cares about the 3 energy not being "clumped" together, such that he will draw the energy from the Bianca and get the win.

It's critical that my opponent not only doesn't know the sequence of cards in his deck (a weaker condition), but that my opponent's entire deck is randomized (a stronger condition).

A few good shuffles will not thoroughly randomize the deck to ensure that the advantage gained by declumping is undone. It will take a good 15-20 seconds of shuffling to undo your opponent's attempt to manipulate cards in his deck to his advantage. That 15-20 seconds is what judges often do not give you, and that's a problem.

What if after the search, he noticed his energy were not clumped, and was satisfied...all ready for a Bianca. He shuffles and offers you the cut. In this case, he still has the same "advantage" of distributed energy before the shuffle. The only difference is, the previous shuffle provided the declumping, as "part of th game" that SMP88 stated earlier.

So when did the natural order of your deck become so holy??? If you can appreciate said "advantage" can be had without declumping, then the point of shuffling becomes solely focused on destroying knowledge, NOT about attempting to "undo" something.

Speaking of which, psychup2034, I do concur with the Top 4 judge that riffle shuffling 12 cards late game six times is excessive. Think about it: for a deck of 52 playing cards, 7 shuffles thoroughly randomizes it from a known order (suit and rank). So 12 cards from a mostly unknown order has to beg for far less than 7. 2 is probably right, if only seeking to destroy information and make sure the deck is "sufficiently randomized" according to the rules. Regardless of how much time were left in a match, 15 seconds is crazy to mix up 12 cards, IMO. Seriously people...count to 15, and imagine your opponent staring at you while shuffling the same 12 cards over and over. Certainly looks like stalling time, doesn't it?

 

[vaporeon]

The fact that I (as your hypothetical opponent) have the right to shuffle your deck after you have stacked it does not change the fact that you severely broke a rule by stacking your deck in the first place.

I don't know how to respond to that...

 

[psychup2034]

Speaking of which, psychup2034, I do concur with the Top 4 judge that riffle shuffling 12-20 cards late game six times is excessive. Think about it: for a deck of 52 playing cards, 7 shuffles thoroughly randomizes it from a known order (suit and rank). So 20 cards from a mostly unknown order has to beg for far less than 7. 2 is probably right, if only seeking to destroy information and make sure the deck is "sufficiently randomized" according to the rules.

Ugh, I hate pulling out papers from my past, but luckily it's online. How many times should you shuffle a deck of cards? (Section 8)

Correcting for the author's typo, Aldous proposes the upper bound where shuffling one more riffle stops randomizing the deck to be estimated by 1.5*log_base2(n), where n is the number of cards in the deck.

The lower bound k (variable used in original paper) for about 20 cards left in deck is about k=3 (where number of shuffles begins to become sufficient), and the upper bound is around 6.5 (n=20), so the actual amount of shuffles required to AT LEAST sufficiently randomize a 20 card deck (of which 1/4 had been moved by the player to an optimal position) is about 5 riffles.

So 5 is probably right. If not, then it's 4, but there's no precise math to find the "optimal" number of shuffles (around 4.7). 2 is way too low.

Oh, and I should point out that this is the conservative way to estimate the number of shuffles required. Markov chain methods typically estimate fewer shuffles.

---------- Post added 10/02/2012 at 02:09 AM ----------

What if after the search, he noticed his energy were not clumped, and was satisfied...all ready for a Bianca. He shuffles and offers you the cut. In this case, he still has the same "advantage" of distributed energy before the shuffle. The only difference is, the previous shuffle provided the declumping, as "part of th game" that SMP88 stated earlier.

That's an excellent point. It wouldn't be a problem if all declumping was banned (which is not practical). If a critical draw is about to happen, I would shuffle my opponent's deck. The problem is sometimes judges don't give players enough time to randomize their opponent's decks.

---------- Post added 10/02/2012 at 02:20 AM ----------

So when did the natural order of your deck become so holy??? If you can appreciate said "advantage" can be had without declumping, then the point of shuffling becomes solely focused on destroying knowledge, NOT about attempting to "undo" something.

When playing against players who do not manipulate their decks, shuffling is about destroying knowledge. I buy that.

The whole premise of this thread is that when you play against a player who does manipulate his/her deck, shuffling serves as a safeguard to "undo" any advantage that the said player has gained because of his deck manipulation.

I'd love it if the point of shuffling becomes solely focused on destroying knowledge, but in a world where people openly admit to pre-ordering their cards by category before they shuffle (stacking), shuffling sufficiently can be useful tool for preventing such a player from gaining an advantage because of his pregame (or midgame) deck manipulation.

 

[Kayle]

The problem is sometimes judges don't give players enough time to randomize their opponent's decks.

If I ever actually saw this (and I don't mean to say that it doesn't happen) I would be in agreement that this is a serious problem.

It doesn't take long to randomize a deck. In about 20 seconds, I can riffle 6 times - more than enough for a midgame shuffle (given that the deck is <47 cards). But some people don't have hands as fast as mine, and some people are just plain bad at mash shuffling/whatever.

So, this is something judges should be careful about. You can shuffle your way to slow play, but be aware of each player's actions and apparent motivations. If player A is declumping or shuffling poorly and player B is taking his time making sure his opponent's deck is randomized, that should be treated as fair.

 

[psychup2034]

If I ever actually saw this (and I don't mean to say that it doesn't happen) I would be in agreement that this is a serious problem.

It doesn't take long to randomize a deck. In about 20 seconds, I can riffle 6 times - more than enough for a midgame shuffle (given that the deck is <47 cards). But some people don't have hands as fast as mine, and some people are just plain bad at mash shuffling/whatever.

So, this is something judges should be careful about. You can shuffle your way to slow play, but be aware of each player's actions and apparent motivations. If player A is declumping or shuffling poorly and player B is taking his time making sure his opponent's deck is randomized, that should be treated as fair.

I'm out of thanks, but I completely agree with this.