losjackal
Technical Administrator
(emphasis mine)
Isn't that what these two judges did say?
http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2333491&postcount=256
More on the topic of "declumping"
- Thread starter BlisseyRocks
- Start date
- Status
(emphasis mine)
Isn't that what these two judges did say?
http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=2333491&postcount=256
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
Personally, I disagree with that too.
Lawman's P.S. I do agree with.
Lawman's P.S. I do agree with.
vaporeon
Moderator
Thats simply what I said I do. I pile shuffle afterwards, like twice, riffle it many time. Some where around the area of 10. When then next round starts, I pile shuffle again and riffle a few times then give it to my opponent.
No ill will or intent to cheat anyone. Something I think is harmless.
signofzeta
New Member
Another reason why players should be punished for action, and not thought.
Case A: I think that by declumping, it gives me better draws every time. It actually happens all the time.
Case B: I think that by declumping, it gives me better draws every time. It happens some of the time.
Case C: I think that by declumping, it gives me better draws every time. It never happens every time.
Case D: I think that by declumping, it stops me from having bad draws all the time. It actually happens, and the occasional good draw comes in.
Case E: I think that by declumping, it stops me from having bad draws all the time. Good draws happen all the time instead.
Case F: I think that by declumping, it stops me from having bad draws all the time. It doesn't happen. Bad draws all the time.
To assess the situation, you must look at intent vs action. If you get good draws all the time, that's cheating. If you get bad draws all the time, that's also cheating, unlucky, but cheating nonetheless.
Case A, B, C is thinking of a cheating result. Both A and C are cheating. Case B isn't. Case D, E, and F are all not intending to cheat, but intending to not be unlucky all the time. Case D isn't cheating, but E and F are cheating. The difference between the 6 cases has more to do with their shuffling skills.
Either way, both "sufficiently randomized", and "no stacking" rule are redundant to one another. You can't have a stacked deck if you sufficiently randomize your deck, and your deck has to be insfficiently randomized deck for the deck to be stacked. Basically, I'm saying the same 2 things, but yet, the former is based off the no stacking rule, and the latter is based off the sufficiently randomized rule.
I think there should be a rules change, that rather than having 2 vague rules, make 1 detailed rule instead. As I said before, "no stacking" rule is made with the intent that someone will break the "sufficiently randomized" rule.
I have a challenge for you. "Stack" your deck so you draw certain cards in your opening hand every time. Then shuffle that deck. Now draw 7 cards. I bet you that it doesn't happen all the time. In order to truly gain advantage from stacking your deck, you have to omit the sufficiently shuffle step, or at least a do a poor job at shuffling.
@Vaporeon, which case (A to F) happens for you? You say that you are expecting good hands, so it is obvious Case A to C, but what actually happens in your games? Do you get the occasional bad hands, the occasional good hands, and most of your hands are meh?
@Baby Mario. You are mixing up Intent with Attempt. Those are different. Intent is planning to do it, but not really doing it, and that really is hard to prove. Somebody could be intending to cheat, or somebody could be intending to make the game more fair, and they both could be doing the same action, that is declumping. Remember that just by picking up after yourself from the last game, is and not have a stacked deck, without any reordering of the cards is impossible. Attempting to cheat is a different story. Attempting to cheat is performing the action, and not simply thinking about it. When you reordering your cards, you may be intending to cheat, but not attempting to cheat. A person who is attempting to cheat may also reorder their cards in their favor, but in that case, they would most likely guaranteed to not shuffle their decks, and these attempts may go against their favor as well. Therefore, people attempting to cheat should be DQed, but those who intend to cheat shouldn't. Another difference between intent and attempt, with intent to cheat, you don't care if the results go in your favor. With attempt to cheat, you totally would make a huge fuss if your cheating didn't go your way. It is also hard to prove one who is intending to cheat, and one who is attempting to cheat. Hence, judges shouldn't DQ anyone who is looking like they are thinking about cheating, but those who actually commit the act itself. It is a foolproof system, and you don't DQ the wrong guy, or not DQ a cheater who is out there. Fine, have it your way, DQ some innocent people by mistake then. If you owned a store, and you were the judge for the tournament in that store, whoo boy, you'd see few customers visiting your store, since you are happy to DQ someone for thinking about gaining an advantage by doing something, and that advantage never really happens, because that person thinks that advantage will happen, but it doesn't. If you were a sports referee, fans would boo you so hard for dumb calls. I've never seen someone get a penalty in football for an attempt to do an illegal hit, or an intent to do an illegal hit. The penalty only happens when the illegal hit happened. But oh well, Pokemon isn't sports, so what am I to judge. One difference is that, nobody gets DQed for an accidental breaking of the rules in Pokemon TCG, but in football, you get a 5 yard penalty for accidentally stepping over the line of scrimmage. Weird.
Declumping vs stacking
Intend vs Attempt
Stop mixing these up.
People are DQed for cheating. The -ing suffix describe the act of doing something at that exact time. Attempting or intending to cheat isn't the same as cheating, as they happen before the actual cheating. You are also treating this game like it's life or death, being paranoid that even thinking that a simple action such as declumping would net an advantage all the time, which is false, rather than catching those in the process of the cheat, rather than the leading up to the cheat. Both judges and referees in PTCG and football respectively are trained to catch those who commit the act, right here, right now. Police officers are trained to do that too, and are trained to catch people who commit crimes right there right now, and even from crimes commited in the past. They will NEVER catch someone who will commit a crime in the future, and from my 5 year old vs 25 year old example, I could say that person could be 24 years old. It doesn't matter. It takes tons and tons of proof to prove someone will do something, than someone who is doing or did something.
So someone who is going to cheat should NEVER be DQed, until they actually commit the act, unless you have loads of proof. It's like that with the law, in sports, in every game. And if you think you already found the proof for someone who is going to cheat, hey, guess what, that proof came from the act of cheating itself.
It's these small details you find, such as, OMG this guy is reordering his deck prematch, therefore he is cheating. I bet you won't suspect him of cheating until you actually lost. Reordering the cards doesn't do anything if you shuffle sufficiently. You are blaming it on the reordering of the cards for your loss rather than his luck, your unluckiness, of the fact that you made some mistakes during the match.
If someone is really cheating, the results show, and it is much easier catching someone that way, than before a game, when you don't know whether that person is really cheating or not.
Just a food for thought, only sore losers would point fingers at opponents and go "ha, cheat", all the time.
Even with my murder example, you are stalking someone with the intent to murder someone. You get caught, for what? Intent to murder? No. You are caught for stalking, which is a totally has nothing to do with being caught for murder. I bet you think that someone, who is reordering their cards is cheating, and you DQ them immediately. Instead you should observe first, look at a few games, that is the action taking place, before you act and DQ them. Here, you are GETTING PROOF. If you are DQing someone who is simply reordering their cards just because you think they are stacking their deck, then it is a biased DQ, because you probably most likely hate the guy, and is not based on fact, or any fair judgment. Most judges who suspect someone who is cheating OBSERVE before they act, and to get further proof, they watch a few games and let the cheating happen.
Some judges probably don't DQ people who are reordering their cards, who seem suspicious of cheating, because they know that what they are doing probably won't have an effect on the results of the game.
Judges who go "ha, cheat", without gaining evidence deserves no respect.
The solution has already been found to this whole suspect opponent of stacking mess. Shuffle their decks.
Here's some fiction I found.
You sufficiently shuffle your opponent's deck, thus you gain an advantage instead. FALSE. all it does is negate the opponent's GUARANTEED advantage, You don't gain any advantage, unless you physically reorder the card in your opponent's deck in your favor, and shuffle poorly.
Case A: I think that by declumping, it gives me better draws every time. It actually happens all the time.
Case B: I think that by declumping, it gives me better draws every time. It happens some of the time.
Case C: I think that by declumping, it gives me better draws every time. It never happens every time.
Case D: I think that by declumping, it stops me from having bad draws all the time. It actually happens, and the occasional good draw comes in.
Case E: I think that by declumping, it stops me from having bad draws all the time. Good draws happen all the time instead.
Case F: I think that by declumping, it stops me from having bad draws all the time. It doesn't happen. Bad draws all the time.
To assess the situation, you must look at intent vs action. If you get good draws all the time, that's cheating. If you get bad draws all the time, that's also cheating, unlucky, but cheating nonetheless.
Case A, B, C is thinking of a cheating result. Both A and C are cheating. Case B isn't. Case D, E, and F are all not intending to cheat, but intending to not be unlucky all the time. Case D isn't cheating, but E and F are cheating. The difference between the 6 cases has more to do with their shuffling skills.
Either way, both "sufficiently randomized", and "no stacking" rule are redundant to one another. You can't have a stacked deck if you sufficiently randomize your deck, and your deck has to be insfficiently randomized deck for the deck to be stacked. Basically, I'm saying the same 2 things, but yet, the former is based off the no stacking rule, and the latter is based off the sufficiently randomized rule.
I think there should be a rules change, that rather than having 2 vague rules, make 1 detailed rule instead. As I said before, "no stacking" rule is made with the intent that someone will break the "sufficiently randomized" rule.
I have a challenge for you. "Stack" your deck so you draw certain cards in your opening hand every time. Then shuffle that deck. Now draw 7 cards. I bet you that it doesn't happen all the time. In order to truly gain advantage from stacking your deck, you have to omit the sufficiently shuffle step, or at least a do a poor job at shuffling.
@Vaporeon, which case (A to F) happens for you? You say that you are expecting good hands, so it is obvious Case A to C, but what actually happens in your games? Do you get the occasional bad hands, the occasional good hands, and most of your hands are meh?
@Baby Mario. You are mixing up Intent with Attempt. Those are different. Intent is planning to do it, but not really doing it, and that really is hard to prove. Somebody could be intending to cheat, or somebody could be intending to make the game more fair, and they both could be doing the same action, that is declumping. Remember that just by picking up after yourself from the last game, is and not have a stacked deck, without any reordering of the cards is impossible. Attempting to cheat is a different story. Attempting to cheat is performing the action, and not simply thinking about it. When you reordering your cards, you may be intending to cheat, but not attempting to cheat. A person who is attempting to cheat may also reorder their cards in their favor, but in that case, they would most likely guaranteed to not shuffle their decks, and these attempts may go against their favor as well. Therefore, people attempting to cheat should be DQed, but those who intend to cheat shouldn't. Another difference between intent and attempt, with intent to cheat, you don't care if the results go in your favor. With attempt to cheat, you totally would make a huge fuss if your cheating didn't go your way. It is also hard to prove one who is intending to cheat, and one who is attempting to cheat. Hence, judges shouldn't DQ anyone who is looking like they are thinking about cheating, but those who actually commit the act itself. It is a foolproof system, and you don't DQ the wrong guy, or not DQ a cheater who is out there. Fine, have it your way, DQ some innocent people by mistake then. If you owned a store, and you were the judge for the tournament in that store, whoo boy, you'd see few customers visiting your store, since you are happy to DQ someone for thinking about gaining an advantage by doing something, and that advantage never really happens, because that person thinks that advantage will happen, but it doesn't. If you were a sports referee, fans would boo you so hard for dumb calls. I've never seen someone get a penalty in football for an attempt to do an illegal hit, or an intent to do an illegal hit. The penalty only happens when the illegal hit happened. But oh well, Pokemon isn't sports, so what am I to judge. One difference is that, nobody gets DQed for an accidental breaking of the rules in Pokemon TCG, but in football, you get a 5 yard penalty for accidentally stepping over the line of scrimmage. Weird.
Declumping vs stacking
Intend vs Attempt
Stop mixing these up.
People are DQed for cheating. The -ing suffix describe the act of doing something at that exact time. Attempting or intending to cheat isn't the same as cheating, as they happen before the actual cheating. You are also treating this game like it's life or death, being paranoid that even thinking that a simple action such as declumping would net an advantage all the time, which is false, rather than catching those in the process of the cheat, rather than the leading up to the cheat. Both judges and referees in PTCG and football respectively are trained to catch those who commit the act, right here, right now. Police officers are trained to do that too, and are trained to catch people who commit crimes right there right now, and even from crimes commited in the past. They will NEVER catch someone who will commit a crime in the future, and from my 5 year old vs 25 year old example, I could say that person could be 24 years old. It doesn't matter. It takes tons and tons of proof to prove someone will do something, than someone who is doing or did something.
So someone who is going to cheat should NEVER be DQed, until they actually commit the act, unless you have loads of proof. It's like that with the law, in sports, in every game. And if you think you already found the proof for someone who is going to cheat, hey, guess what, that proof came from the act of cheating itself.
It's these small details you find, such as, OMG this guy is reordering his deck prematch, therefore he is cheating. I bet you won't suspect him of cheating until you actually lost. Reordering the cards doesn't do anything if you shuffle sufficiently. You are blaming it on the reordering of the cards for your loss rather than his luck, your unluckiness, of the fact that you made some mistakes during the match.
If someone is really cheating, the results show, and it is much easier catching someone that way, than before a game, when you don't know whether that person is really cheating or not.
Just a food for thought, only sore losers would point fingers at opponents and go "ha, cheat", all the time.
Even with my murder example, you are stalking someone with the intent to murder someone. You get caught, for what? Intent to murder? No. You are caught for stalking, which is a totally has nothing to do with being caught for murder. I bet you think that someone, who is reordering their cards is cheating, and you DQ them immediately. Instead you should observe first, look at a few games, that is the action taking place, before you act and DQ them. Here, you are GETTING PROOF. If you are DQing someone who is simply reordering their cards just because you think they are stacking their deck, then it is a biased DQ, because you probably most likely hate the guy, and is not based on fact, or any fair judgment. Most judges who suspect someone who is cheating OBSERVE before they act, and to get further proof, they watch a few games and let the cheating happen.
Some judges probably don't DQ people who are reordering their cards, who seem suspicious of cheating, because they know that what they are doing probably won't have an effect on the results of the game.
Judges who go "ha, cheat", without gaining evidence deserves no respect.
The solution has already been found to this whole suspect opponent of stacking mess. Shuffle their decks.
Here's some fiction I found.
You sufficiently shuffle your opponent's deck, thus you gain an advantage instead. FALSE. all it does is negate the opponent's GUARANTEED advantage, You don't gain any advantage, unless you physically reorder the card in your opponent's deck in your favor, and shuffle poorly.
Last edited:
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
I'm tired of your inability to understand that the rules state the stacking is cheating (whether or not you think they should is utterly irrelevant). The only part of your post I care to reply to is this.
Don't tell me what I would or wouldn't do. I have already said multiple times that if I saw someone arranging their deck between rounds I would inform a judge. Doesn't matter whether I am going to play that person or not. Doesn't even matter if they are in the same age division as me.
This has nothing to do with sour grapes or losing a match. I don't recall ever losing a game to someone I suspected of stacking. So stop making assumptions about the behaviour and motives of people you don't even know. It is as ill-informed as everything else you post.
vaporeon
Moderator
@signofzeta
I don't do it to get the good hands all the time. Sometimes I still draw dead. Sometimes I draw great and sometimes I draw in between. No need to beat around the bush but you would reset your deck for better performance. Same with declumping. You will move those 3 Junipers so you are not put at a disadvantage. Most people don't care but the same could be said about those who choose to leave the clumps. You know if you draw a Juniper off the top, you will be drawing into another one soon or right after. You gained a advantage of that knowledge. At the end of the day, you can't question someones intent because you don't know. All you can do it watch.
I don't do it to get the good hands all the time. Sometimes I still draw dead. Sometimes I draw great and sometimes I draw in between. No need to beat around the bush but you would reset your deck for better performance. Same with declumping. You will move those 3 Junipers so you are not put at a disadvantage. Most people don't care but the same could be said about those who choose to leave the clumps. You know if you draw a Juniper off the top, you will be drawing into another one soon or right after. You gained a advantage of that knowledge. At the end of the day, you can't question someones intent because you don't know. All you can do it watch.
signofzeta
New Member
You should look in the mirror. It is obvious that you are making ill assumptions to your opponent that he is cheating without assessing the situation first. Arranging decks between rounds and shuffling sufficiently afterward garners NO ADVANTAGE to that person. So rest easy, you don't need to suspect someone who is fiddling with their deck between rounds as a cheater. Instead, you should observe the opponent's shuffling habits. Much easier to track as an actual cheater than checking how your opponent orders cards between rounds.
This known factual evidence is not an ill assumption that I made, but something that you posted. You are saying that, you pull the itchy trigger finger "ha, cheat". It's said right in the very quoted post. You just see someone rearrange the deck, and you inform the judge. That's your proof, your own vision. Well, that isn't enough proof. I bet the judge doesn't even DQ the guy. I bet that really happens, am I right?
Basically, what you're saying is, you are calling out on someone without any factual evidence or proof. Simply seeing that somebody is doing something isn't enough proof. Are you actually looking over the shoulder for 2 minutes, and actually observing that person's every move? Even so, if that person shuffles well, it doesn't really matter.
Judges, in order to prove someone is suspected stacking, is to actually look through the ordering of the cards in the deck, without showing anyone else. Give it back, and let the person shuffle. Take it again, and look through the ordering of the cards. You can't say, ha, stack, cheat, just by looking at a person reordering the cards. By that time, you can't prove if the deck is stacked or not. Good thing you're not a judge.
Since I don't know you, in order to not play against you, or even be in the same building as you ever, I've decided to never join any Pokemon tournaments, or leagues. Good thing, because I never intended to do so in the first place, because of these itchy trigger finger judges, sore losers, and people who tattle on someone without any proof or factual evidence of it happening. Oh and the issue of trust. It's obvious that you don't trust the honesty of some people if you call out on everybody who reorganizes their deck between matches. Maybe I don't trust people too, and opt to never play in tournaments, knowing they might cheat, ohhh scary.
Last edited:
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
I'm not making any assumptions at all. Stacking is cheating. That's not my opinion, it says so in the rules that have been quoted multiple times.
It's not my business to pull the trigger on anyone. I'm a player, I don't give out penalties or DQ anyone. I am simply informing the judge so that they can take action as they see fit.
Do I have the time or the opportunity to watch this hypothetical person shuffle every round? Of course I don't. That's why I would tell the judge.
I have judged before actually. I'd love to know what your practical experience is. You said earlier that you don't even play in tournaments. It shows pretty clearly in your total lack of understanding of what would happen in those circumstances.
signofzeta
New Member
It's something called common sense. You know that if you shuffle sufficiently, a deck can never be stacked. As I said, stacking is vague. You think that someone reordering their cards is stacking, but they aren't until YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE DOING CLOSE UP. You can't just glance at the corner of your eye and see someone reordering their cards, and call them out for stacking. Why don't you use your judging skills, and OBSERVE CAREFULLY what that person is doing, otherwise, just trust that the person won't cheat. It's that simple.
Oh for the record, reordering the cards is NOT stacking. Stacking is a subsection of reordering the cards. All stackers reorder cards. All people who reorder cards don't always stack. Do I have to draw a Venn Diagram for you in order for you to understand? Basically, you are saying, ALL people who reorders their cards are stackers. Stacking is cheating. Reordering cards isn't.
From what you are saying, you are calling out on EVERYBODY seen moving cards around, whether they be stacking, looking at their cards, declumping, forumulating strategies, cleaning up from the previous match, whatever. You are calling them out for stacking, but not all of them are stacking.
As an experiment, why don't you chill, and just leave some of these people alone, and observe whether they have an advantage or not. As you said, you call out on even people that aren't even in the same age gruop, and people you haven't played, basically just anybody sitting there moving cards around in their deck, but yet, you don't know the final outcome. If a deck were truly stacked, it shows in the match itself. Stacking is cheating, but you can't call on them because THEY AREN'T STACKING. The only way to PROVE that some stacks is to watch the games.
From my understanding, you calling out on people proves that you don't trust the ability of the Judges. As you said, you are a player, and not a judge, well currently. Just play the game, and leave the suspect of cheating to the judges. That person will be caught eventually, as the judge has better observation than you would as a player. From what I can tell, you totally lack any trust in people. You don't trust your opponent's, or any other player, because you call out on them for every minute detail, ahem stacking, whoops, wrong word, I mean, reordering cards, and the Judges, because you just had to take it into your own hands, and not let the Judges do their work.
Last edited:
No. What he's saying is that people who reorder cards in order to gain an advantage are stacking. Cleaning up from the previous match is not attempting to gain an advantage.
baby mario
Front Page Article Editor<br><a href="http://pokeg
Funnily enough, I DO know how to tell the difference between someone looking through their deck and formulating strategies and someone stacking.
I thought that would be taken as read, but then again, I didn't realise that you don't even play in tournaments. It does explain an awful lot. Like this for example
When you play in a tournament, you really don't have time to observe the shuffling and the outcomes in other people's matches. That's why I would inform a Judge, because they can do this.
I thought that would be taken as read, but then again, I didn't realise that you don't even play in tournaments. It does explain an awful lot. Like this for example
When you play in a tournament, you really don't have time to observe the shuffling and the outcomes in other people's matches. That's why I would inform a Judge, because they can do this.
The important point that those arguing that declumping is totally fine are missing is that, IF you are declumping because you BELIEVE it will help you draw BETTER, you are cheating. Anything to try to do to make your draws "better" outside proper deck building and PROPER randomization after deck ordering is cheating, to be completely simple. Whether you SUCCEED at cheating or not is irrelevant; if you do something like declumping to help you do better in an event, you are cheating.
signofzeta
New Member
How the heck are you supposed to gain an advantage IF YOU SHUFFLE PROPERLY AFTERWARDS. OMG, you don't seem to get it. You can declump, stack, place all the energies to one side, and YOU GAIN NO ADVANTAGE if you shuffle the deck properly. Stacking the deck. wow, the person may also falsely believe the deck is being stacked, but it really isn't. You can't tell until you actually observe some matches taking place.
I'll prove to you right now, that doing 12 mash shuffles and a single cut, that I can never draw Gothitelle, Swanna, and Glaceon all at once, from the Shadows theme deck. This is what I did.
I place Swanna, Empoleon, Glaceon all at the top. I use these cards because I know there is only 1 of each in this deck, and that I want to track where these cards will end up after the shuffle. From the top, Glaceon is 21st card. Swanna is 27th card. Empoleon is the 34th card. From that, I don't see how I can gain any advantage of that, provided I wouldn't know the exact positions of the cards without actually looking through the deck again. I can do this as many times as I want, same result.
A second experiment, this time, stacking 2 reshiram, 1 persian, 1 chandelure, and 1 beartic from the explosive edge deck at the top, to see where they end up. This deck isn't sleeved, and I will do the not so effective overhand shuffle, and 1 cut. First from top is Reshiram. Chandelure is 5th from top. Reshiram is 26th from top. Persian is 30th from top, and beartic is 46th from top. Pretty nice distribution.
From personal experience when shuffling magic decks and checking where the lands are, I found that if I did the 12 mash shuffle and cut, I find that I get just whatever. Close to even distribution, huge clumps of land, whatever. This is a good shuffle. If I did the overhand shuffle, and a cut, I get clumps of land most of the time. in both cases, the starting condition of the deck is that all lands are placed together, without any reordering. This is an example of a poor shuffle.
You say that, because that person believes that he gains an advantage, in which case it is no longer called declumping, but now is called stacking, you have NO PROOF if that person is trying to gain an advantage, or trying to remove it just to be fair. Either way, it doesn't really matter, because if you shuffle your opponent's deck, it KILLS ALL ADVANTAGE THAT IS GUARANTEED TO HAPPEN WITH THAT DECK.
I also said this before, but whoever said that if you shuffle your opponent's deck you would gain the advantage instead, well, I just am speechless. This is the wrongiest wrongest most wrong statement I ever heard. If you sufficiently shuffling your opponent's deck, you are NEGATING his GUARANTEED advantage, and not adding your own advantage.
It's such a simple solution, and I don't understand why there needs to be this huge fuss over everything. Trust your opponent, trust every player, trust the judges.
And for the record, people declump NOT TO GAIN ADVANTAGE, but to ELIMINATE CONSTANT DISADVANTAGES due to their poor shuffling.
People who gain hands full of energies every time every game is just as much a cheater as the next stacker. Even picking up after yourself is still stacking. I don't know where you came from, but I bet you blindfold yourself when you pick up after yourself. I could totally tell where I put the cards from the discard, the active pokemon, the bench pokemon, and the unclaimed prizes. Even just looking through the deck once could garner enough information to give you a slight advantage. You only gain advantage IF YOU KNOW WHERE EACH CARD IS. I fail to see anybody who declumps, and then shuffles properly afterward to gain any advantage from that. It's just impossible. You need to do a poor shuffle in order to preserve the order of the deck in order to gain an advantage. As with my experiment, if you want to have specific cards in your hand, especially 3 specific cards all at once, you can put it anywhere in your deck, but you sure as heck can't sufficiently shuffle it to the top of the deck.
From what I can tell from this thread, the users with the whole "Pokemon Professor" logo, seems to have no problem with declumping. I don't even know if that logo is for show, or if they are actually Pokemon Professors, and that they know everything, and when something is cheating and when something is not. Sometimes dumb rules are made to be broken, or more like redundant rules. It seems that the "No stacking the deck" rule is followed to the letter, but the "Deck must be sufficiently randomized" is broken all the time. Why the no stacking rule is dumb.
1, You stack your deck
2. You sufficiently shuffle
3. You don't achieve the intended results, because you NEVER achieve intended results all the time.
4. The opponent wins, and there is no harm done.
If you want to follow this rule to the letter, you know, like sheeple, be my guest. It doesn't affect me, but I'm just sayin, to rather than follow whatever some superior being says, you should maybe question it?
I'll prove to you right now, that doing 12 mash shuffles and a single cut, that I can never draw Gothitelle, Swanna, and Glaceon all at once, from the Shadows theme deck. This is what I did.
I place Swanna, Empoleon, Glaceon all at the top. I use these cards because I know there is only 1 of each in this deck, and that I want to track where these cards will end up after the shuffle. From the top, Glaceon is 21st card. Swanna is 27th card. Empoleon is the 34th card. From that, I don't see how I can gain any advantage of that, provided I wouldn't know the exact positions of the cards without actually looking through the deck again. I can do this as many times as I want, same result.
A second experiment, this time, stacking 2 reshiram, 1 persian, 1 chandelure, and 1 beartic from the explosive edge deck at the top, to see where they end up. This deck isn't sleeved, and I will do the not so effective overhand shuffle, and 1 cut. First from top is Reshiram. Chandelure is 5th from top. Reshiram is 26th from top. Persian is 30th from top, and beartic is 46th from top. Pretty nice distribution.
From personal experience when shuffling magic decks and checking where the lands are, I found that if I did the 12 mash shuffle and cut, I find that I get just whatever. Close to even distribution, huge clumps of land, whatever. This is a good shuffle. If I did the overhand shuffle, and a cut, I get clumps of land most of the time. in both cases, the starting condition of the deck is that all lands are placed together, without any reordering. This is an example of a poor shuffle.
You say that, because that person believes that he gains an advantage, in which case it is no longer called declumping, but now is called stacking, you have NO PROOF if that person is trying to gain an advantage, or trying to remove it just to be fair. Either way, it doesn't really matter, because if you shuffle your opponent's deck, it KILLS ALL ADVANTAGE THAT IS GUARANTEED TO HAPPEN WITH THAT DECK.
I also said this before, but whoever said that if you shuffle your opponent's deck you would gain the advantage instead, well, I just am speechless. This is the wrongiest wrongest most wrong statement I ever heard. If you sufficiently shuffling your opponent's deck, you are NEGATING his GUARANTEED advantage, and not adding your own advantage.
It's such a simple solution, and I don't understand why there needs to be this huge fuss over everything. Trust your opponent, trust every player, trust the judges.
And for the record, people declump NOT TO GAIN ADVANTAGE, but to ELIMINATE CONSTANT DISADVANTAGES due to their poor shuffling.
People who gain hands full of energies every time every game is just as much a cheater as the next stacker. Even picking up after yourself is still stacking. I don't know where you came from, but I bet you blindfold yourself when you pick up after yourself. I could totally tell where I put the cards from the discard, the active pokemon, the bench pokemon, and the unclaimed prizes. Even just looking through the deck once could garner enough information to give you a slight advantage. You only gain advantage IF YOU KNOW WHERE EACH CARD IS. I fail to see anybody who declumps, and then shuffles properly afterward to gain any advantage from that. It's just impossible. You need to do a poor shuffle in order to preserve the order of the deck in order to gain an advantage. As with my experiment, if you want to have specific cards in your hand, especially 3 specific cards all at once, you can put it anywhere in your deck, but you sure as heck can't sufficiently shuffle it to the top of the deck.
From what I can tell from this thread, the users with the whole "Pokemon Professor" logo, seems to have no problem with declumping. I don't even know if that logo is for show, or if they are actually Pokemon Professors, and that they know everything, and when something is cheating and when something is not. Sometimes dumb rules are made to be broken, or more like redundant rules. It seems that the "No stacking the deck" rule is followed to the letter, but the "Deck must be sufficiently randomized" is broken all the time. Why the no stacking rule is dumb.
1, You stack your deck
2. You sufficiently shuffle
3. You don't achieve the intended results, because you NEVER achieve intended results all the time.
4. The opponent wins, and there is no harm done.
If you want to follow this rule to the letter, you know, like sheeple, be my guest. It doesn't affect me, but I'm just sayin, to rather than follow whatever some superior being says, you should maybe question it?
Last edited:
vaporeon
Moderator
Okay to be clear. Its foolish to say that declumping does not give a advantage but its so small its almost non existent. When we declump its because we notice a group of same name cards together. We move them as if it were second nature but shuffle appropriately afterwards. The shuffle afterwards may destroy that clump. Its also foolish to say that if someone notices that clump of same name cards and does not declump, they also may have advantage in knowing those cards are together. We declump to destroy that information.
The same things goes with resetting the deck. Players do it to destroy all information and orders from the last game to start the next game fresh. The only real advantage gained is a better performing deck. I'm not arguing that some kind of advantage is not gain but it does not affect game state. The deck is fully randomized where the order of cards are unknown.
We don't need players to go around saying so and so is cheating because you don't know that. Just go and tell the judge so and so seems to be putting their cards in a order or they are weaving or whatever and have the judge watch them. People play Pokemon because they don't have to worry about players cheating in most cases but I don't expect players to play sloppy. Some do and some done.
Its also like flipping coins or rolling dice. You never know if someone can flip heads or role even all the time because they practiced it. Does that mean we should ban dice from being use as randomizes and only use official Pokemon coins? You don't know the intent so don't pass judgement so harshly.
The same things goes with resetting the deck. Players do it to destroy all information and orders from the last game to start the next game fresh. The only real advantage gained is a better performing deck. I'm not arguing that some kind of advantage is not gain but it does not affect game state. The deck is fully randomized where the order of cards are unknown.
We don't need players to go around saying so and so is cheating because you don't know that. Just go and tell the judge so and so seems to be putting their cards in a order or they are weaving or whatever and have the judge watch them. People play Pokemon because they don't have to worry about players cheating in most cases but I don't expect players to play sloppy. Some do and some done.
Its also like flipping coins or rolling dice. You never know if someone can flip heads or role even all the time because they practiced it. Does that mean we should ban dice from being use as randomizes and only use official Pokemon coins? You don't know the intent so don't pass judgement so harshly.
If you gain any advantage from declumping or "resetting" you have stacked your deck and are a cheater. There's no way to sugar coat that.
Yes, you destroy the previous game's information by "resetting", but instead you place everything in an order you know already. Once again, it doesn't matter that you shuffle the deck. What matters is that you attempted to manipulate some aspect of the game by declumping or resetting. People do not attempt to manipulate some aspect of the game when they gather their cards at the end of the game.
signofzeta
New Member
Lol, just don't call on the judge EVERY TIME you see, in the corner of your eye, a person reordering their deck.
I don't know, to make it safer from those people who call out on people for the littlest of things, I suggest declumping with the cards face down. Just declump as if you didn't care what goes where. I already proven that doing one task, such as simply placing a few cards together at the top, doesn't guarantee that these same cards will be at the top.
Ok, Vaporeon says he gains an advantage by declumping, making his deck perform better, yes, that is cheating, but when you see him do it, and you didn't read what he said, or never have read this thread at all, would you know that? No. You can't prove intent. The rules say not to stack your deck. The rule sucks, because stacking your deck is reordering cards with intent to gain an advantage, but you need tons of proof. Nobody stacks their deck to lose, otherwise it wouldn't be stacking. Stacking happens when you stack it enough to know where each card will end up after the poor shuffle. An advantage can only be gained if you want to do a combo in magic, so you stack the deck so the cards for the combo are in close proximity to each other, but if you shuffle your deck properly, gaining those 2 cards in a few turn apart isn't guaranteed.
Basically people get DQed for believing that a deck performs better if they did such and such a thing, but in reality, it doesn't. People are DQed for beliefs rather than what actually happens, but rules are rules, no matter how stupid, redundant, and vague they are. I guess the no stacking rule is to help eliminate confidence boosts and optimism as to what cards they are going to draw next. I mean, when you are optimistic, you'd probably play better, than if you didn't declump, expect bad draws, therefore you are a pessimist, and you would more likely lose. yeah, that's it. They don't want people to have confidence boosts after stacking, despite the shuffling destroying any advantage gained through the stacking.
Last edited:
vaporeon
Moderator
but you can't call anyone a cheater because you don't know the intent. In a earlier post that he told a head judge about it and the head judge did not see a problem with it so as long you shuffle the deck the right way. The head judge also said its done to draw better.
its foolish to say you don't gain. You remove clumps so they don't place you at a disadvantage but as long as you shuffle, its fine. You can also shuffle the deck. You can reset your deck in order to your deck list to destroy info from the last round. The only order I know is the order of my deck list but after a hard shuffle process, the order is not known and because of that, its not stacked.
Its no different then the player who wants to cut your deck in 8 parts. They do that so they can try to place you at a disadvantage, which could also be cheating because you are changing the order of your opponents deck, but that seems to be all fine and dandy because you all do it.
If you want to be safe, then call a judge and let them know. I would do the same thing if I though my opponent had loaded dice or had a method for flipping heads every time because they are doing it to cheat the system and gain a unfair advantage. Stacking to me means to have your cards in a pre known configuration to gain a advantage. That would be shuffling your combo cards to the top of the deck, something we don't do. People who stack their decks do so to gain a unfair advantage. When you declump, there is a advantage gained but its so small it does not matter after the shuffling process, same with resetting the deck.
Everyone needs to stop throwing around the words cheating and stacking because its not what it is.
Last edited:
signofzeta
New Member
People who say that you don't stack your deck when you pick up after yourself from the last round. I laugh at you. It just doesn't make any sense, and I have factual evidence and experience to prove it.
Every time I pick up after myself, and I don't reorder my cards, both knowingly and unknowingly, and this is with Magic, and doing a poor shuffle, which IS THE PROBLEM, and not the declumping itself, because in this case, I didn't even declump or reorder the cards, I KEEP ON GETTING draws that ARE SIMILAR to what I had the last game. KNOWING THAT, I can use this advantage to EXPECT what is going to happen next, because every time, it's going to be the similar draws over and over, so I can use the SAME STRATEGY every game.
When a certain advantage happens once, it doesn't prove anything. The advantage must be constant game after game. That's the proof. In that case, the deck is stacked. Even with the belief that the person may gain an advantage, that person's deck may in actuality not be stacked, as in, in actuality, the deck gains no advantage. The rule says "no stacking the deck". Why would you DQ someone who believes they are gaining an advantage through " stacking their deck", if they stack their deck, and it's end result isn't a stacked deck, and therefore, that person isn't stacking their deck?
The rule says "NO STACKING THE DECK". I didn't see an attempt, or a intent in it.
A great analogy is this. You go to a pokemon tournament with the intent to cheat, the intent to stack your deck in your favor. You do so, reordering cards, shuffle, but that stack doesn't go in your favor most of the time. A stack only happens if the deck ALWAYS goes in your favor most of the time. Therefore you didn't even stack your deck in the first place. You thought you did, but you didn't. The deck wasn't even stacked, and the rules weren't broken. Hence people should be DQed for DOING IT, and NOT THINKING IT, or failing at doing it.
Back to my murder example. Accessories, stalkers, failed attempts, all those, these people aren't tried for murder. They are tried as an asscessory to murder, as a stalker, and an attempt at murder.
Going back to the Pokemon rules, show me the word "attempt", or "intent" in the rules where it refers to stacking, and in the section pertaining to the things you do to get disqualified. In the penalty guidelines, the only thing that deals with "attempt", is manipulating a random result, like, I don't know, SHUFFLING WRONG? You can attempt to stack, but your attempts can fail, as such, your deck isn't stacked, and therefore, you didn't stack at all.
People should NEVER get disqualified for believing that they gain an advantage for reordering thier cards, or that they believe that they are stacking, or that they intend to stack or make an attempt at stacking. They only should be DQed if the deck is actually stacked. If the deck isn't stacked, then the rule of "NO STACKING THE DECK" didn't happen, no matter how many times that person tries to do it. That's the rule.
I don't know about you and your, hey, it's the rules, so follow it, but I think you are reading the rules wrong. Remember, the only attempt at doing something is with manipulating random result. You can be DQed for failing at doing such a task, but not for failing at stacking your deck.
Every time I pick up after myself, and I don't reorder my cards, both knowingly and unknowingly, and this is with Magic, and doing a poor shuffle, which IS THE PROBLEM, and not the declumping itself, because in this case, I didn't even declump or reorder the cards, I KEEP ON GETTING draws that ARE SIMILAR to what I had the last game. KNOWING THAT, I can use this advantage to EXPECT what is going to happen next, because every time, it's going to be the similar draws over and over, so I can use the SAME STRATEGY every game.
When a certain advantage happens once, it doesn't prove anything. The advantage must be constant game after game. That's the proof. In that case, the deck is stacked. Even with the belief that the person may gain an advantage, that person's deck may in actuality not be stacked, as in, in actuality, the deck gains no advantage. The rule says "no stacking the deck". Why would you DQ someone who believes they are gaining an advantage through " stacking their deck", if they stack their deck, and it's end result isn't a stacked deck, and therefore, that person isn't stacking their deck?
The rule says "NO STACKING THE DECK". I didn't see an attempt, or a intent in it.
A great analogy is this. You go to a pokemon tournament with the intent to cheat, the intent to stack your deck in your favor. You do so, reordering cards, shuffle, but that stack doesn't go in your favor most of the time. A stack only happens if the deck ALWAYS goes in your favor most of the time. Therefore you didn't even stack your deck in the first place. You thought you did, but you didn't. The deck wasn't even stacked, and the rules weren't broken. Hence people should be DQed for DOING IT, and NOT THINKING IT, or failing at doing it.
Back to my murder example. Accessories, stalkers, failed attempts, all those, these people aren't tried for murder. They are tried as an asscessory to murder, as a stalker, and an attempt at murder.
Going back to the Pokemon rules, show me the word "attempt", or "intent" in the rules where it refers to stacking, and in the section pertaining to the things you do to get disqualified. In the penalty guidelines, the only thing that deals with "attempt", is manipulating a random result, like, I don't know, SHUFFLING WRONG? You can attempt to stack, but your attempts can fail, as such, your deck isn't stacked, and therefore, you didn't stack at all.
People should NEVER get disqualified for believing that they gain an advantage for reordering thier cards, or that they believe that they are stacking, or that they intend to stack or make an attempt at stacking. They only should be DQed if the deck is actually stacked. If the deck isn't stacked, then the rule of "NO STACKING THE DECK" didn't happen, no matter how many times that person tries to do it. That's the rule.
I don't know about you and your, hey, it's the rules, so follow it, but I think you are reading the rules wrong. Remember, the only attempt at doing something is with manipulating random result. You can be DQed for failing at doing such a task, but not for failing at stacking your deck.
Last edited:
I know your intent. Your intent is to gain an advantage and it's considered cheating. If you don't get caught or if a judge says it's difficult to determine or if you attempt to shuffle away your advantage that doesn't mean you've cheated any less.
- Status