More on the topic of "declumping"

[signofzeta]

This thread isn't necessarily an accurate representation of the world, but I'd say it's pretty stacked against you so far.

sorry, that was bad.

hey, man, not everybody is square you know. Have you seen those guys who take lots of risks?

I don't know, but if I do see someone at a huge disadvantage, I'd allow him to gain a slight advantage over that huge disadvantage, deck recipe notwithstanding. Getting bad draws all the time, reorder the cards a bit in hopes to get a least a good draw. If both the player and his opponent are ok with it, I don't see why somebody should butt in, and be such a square and make the game boring for both of them.

Ok, with the intent to gain an advantage, basically, you are cheating if you are turning your unlucky draws, your constant unluck draws in to a more average draws by manipulating your disadvantaged deck so it goes up to par? As I said, nobody can shuffle perfect, and if someone has all the energies off to one side, it is most likely that the energies would stay together. That's a huge disadvantage, and you need to play through a few games just to split these energies apart, because if it's random, it will eventually split and not be grouped together game after game after game. So if they move the energies around, even, evenly distribute them, to remove any disadvantage they had, should be DQed, because they know that, their distrinution of energies and their poor shuffling techniques nets them 2 losses in a row, due to bad draws, hence the DQ doesn't really matter, since he's out anyway? I'd rather let a person reorder the deck if it seems like a bad hand would likely result constantly, and if it seems like that person can't shuffle properly, in order to make it so that I don't win due to pure luck alone. I would go to the casino for those games.

I believe that people should be allowed to manipulate their deck between matches. It's not really stacking unless you gain an advantage, but if everybody does it, then it doesn't matter. It eliminates boring games, and gives the best games. I think the only crucial deck manipulation is when you do it from the deck check stage. I sure ain't going to shuffle it for 2 hours just to get the lands apart. No sir. That ain't happening, until I learned the better mash shuffle, but if I am playing without sleeves, I have to do the inefficient overhand shuffle, and trust me, it takes me 2 or 3 games to finally get the deck into a random distribution. But after that, I don't see the point, but there is no harm done.

Is there any statistical proof that those who stacked their decks won every match, while also sufficiently shuffled? Then why does the no stacking rule even exist? Well my definition of stacking is, manipulating a deck so that it NEEDS to be FULLY randomized to unstack it. We all know that no deck can be fully randomized. It's highly impossible, but yet, the rules says it must be fully randomized. That is my definition of a stacked deck. A deck isn't stacked if a simple mash shuffle 12 times can remove the stack. I don't see any harm done, and I don't see why there should be such a rule that really doesn't do anything.

There is seriously a huge solution to shuffle the opponent's deck. It's such a simple solution, but a bunch of squares here would rather have that person DQed, because they just HAD to follow the rules to the letter, and be strict about it, especially with such a vague rule. Every deck manipulation between matches has an intent, it may be an intent to stack it to win, intent to take it from a very horrible mess to something average, or an intent to increase the performance ever so slightly that it makes no difference anyway. As that, these squares would rather go 2 and out, and give the opponent a bad game, because of a huge unlucky steamroll that happened due to bad draws.

Heck, if everybody were squares, and followed the rules to the letter, they'd be afraid to even do something to make the game more fun, but rather, they both having bad draws, and bad hands game after game, because nobody is a perfect shuffler, and the games just go on and on until somebody gets their ace pokemon out first in some turn over the 15th turn. At least if both parties are ok with some breaking of the rules, then it obviously means that the opponent doesn't mind. He'd probably get upset if his opponent get's DQed, because all that person wants to do is play, and wait until the matches for the other games are over just to wait for someone to play with, unless all they want is a W from a technicality, then I don't see why anybody would want to see some DQed, when they at least want to have fun, even if the advanage gained is not that significant, or that the intent was to decrease any disadvantage so that the opponent doesn't have to go through a boring one sided match.

Even for you, do you like to win through technicalities? Do you like to win from one sided matches? Do you like to win from even matches? For me, I prefer the third choice, and if i see my opponent feel unlucky, I will let that person do something to decrease that disadvantage, or unluckiness, but I know that most of you would love to win through technicalities. You would call cheat, even if it doesn't garner any significant advantage, ahem, moving one card to the top of the deck, shuffling, and then drawing that card, which doesn't happen all the time anyway, rather than play through someone anyway, who may or may not have that advantage anyway. If you want to get a W by not even playing, then what's the point? I mean, BORING.

 

[Kayle]

I don't know, but if I do see someone at a huge disadvantage, I'd allow him to gain a slight advantage over that huge disadvantage, deck recipe notwithstanding. Getting bad draws all the time, reorder the cards a bit in hopes to get a least a good draw. If both the player and his opponent are ok with it, I don't see why somebody should butt in, and be such a square and make the game boring for both of them.

Well, now you're pushing something else entirely. I could care less what happens in a game if both participants agree to some any kind of modification of the rules. We all know about David Cohen allowing Yamato to take back an energy attachment in the finals of a very prestigious (if unofficial) tournament, which is very clearly not allowed, but because they both agreed to it, it was allowed. Not only did no one mind, it was one of the greatest showings of sportsmanship in our recent history, if not entire history.

But you can't argue that this should be allowed on a blanket level on that premise.

Ok, with the intent to gain an advantage, basically, you are cheating if you are turning your unlucky draws, your constant unluck draws in to a more average draws by manipulating your disadvantaged deck so it goes up to par?

Well... yeah.

You might, as the opponent, deign to let them do it without saying anything because you don't care and you know they're still going to lose, but that doesn't stop it from being cheating.

Your lengthy example about energy really isn't a problem for me, ever, despite playing decks with Mewtwo and Darkrai and such where my energy ends up severely clumped (all Dark energy on the bottom of the discard where I can see it, or huge stacks on Mewtwo, etc). I just know how to shuffle - alternations of pile and riffle, etc - to help remove those clumps, and if you want to say that I'm cheating I'd be really interested to hear how. I'm not manipulating my deck, I just make a point to pile shuffle regularly in irregular numbers of piles to help remove clumps while still maintaining an unpredictable deck order.

Is there any statistical proof that those who stacked their decks won every match, while also sufficiently shuffled? Then why does the no stacking rule even exist?

...I don't think you understand the premise of the no-stacking rule. Actually, I guess you'd agree with me. That's why you're asking.

Let's have another analogy, why not. Stacking your deck is kinda like counting cards in a poker or blackjack game. You're not going to guarantee yourself the win every time; there are factors beyond your control still. But you have inside knowledge. Inside knowledge that can get you in a lot of trouble with some people. A lot of trouble.

There is seriously a huge solution to shuffle the opponent's deck. It's such a simple solution, but a bunch of squares here would rather have that person DQed, because they just HAD to follow the rules to the letter, and be strict about it, especially with such a vague rule.

I really don't like your terminology about "squares". It's very unkind and even ad hominem of you to try to group those of us who stand as opposition to you into some uniform labeling. I defended your point of view, I agree that a rule against declumping is ineffective at best and infringent (not a word) at worst, but still I'm a square? Have I said I want people disqualified?

I'm interested in people understanding that what they're doing is unfair, and learning to play as intended, rather than risking sour grapes from the more informed but less secure crowd, and/or just being called out on cheating they didn't "mean".

 

[signofzeta]

Well, now you're pushing something else entirely. I could care less what happens in a game if both participants agree to some any kind of modification of the rules. We all know about David Cohen allowing Yamato to take back an energy attachment in the finals of a very prestigious (if unofficial) tournament, which is very clearly not allowed, but because they both agreed to it, it was allowed. Not only did no one mind, it was one of the greatest showings of sportsmanship in our recent history, if not entire history.

But you can't argue that this should be allowed on a blanket level on that premise.



Well... yeah.

You might, as the opponent, deign to let them do it without saying anything because you don't care and you know they're still going to lose, but that doesn't stop it from being cheating.

Your lengthy example about energy really isn't a problem for me, ever, despite playing decks with Mewtwo and Darkrai and such where my energy ends up severely clumped (all Dark energy on the bottom of the discard where I can see it, or huge stacks on Mewtwo, etc). I just know how to shuffle - alternations of pile and riffle, etc - to help remove those clumps, and if you want to say that I'm cheating I'd be really interested to hear how. I'm not manipulating my deck, I just make a point to pile shuffle regularly in irregular numbers of piles to help remove clumps while still maintaining an unpredictable deck order.



...I don't think you understand the premise of the no-stacking rule. Actually, I guess you'd agree with me. That's why you're asking.

Let's have another analogy, why not. Stacking your deck is kinda like counting cards in a poker or blackjack game. You're not going to guarantee yourself the win every time; there are factors beyond your control still. But you have inside knowledge. Inside knowledge that can get you in a lot of trouble with some people. A lot of trouble.



I really don't like your terminology about "squares". It's very unkind and even ad hominem of you to try to group those of us who stand as opposition to you into some uniform labeling. I defended your point of view, I agree that a rule against declumping is ineffective at best and infringent (not a word) at worst, but still I'm a square? Have I said I want people disqualified?

I'm interested in people understanding that what they're doing is unfair, and learning to play as intended, rather than risking sour grapes from the more informed but less secure crowd, and/or just being called out on cheating they didn't "mean".

Ok, I overuse the word square, because I like to use it, but I'm using the term to label people who are willing to stick to the rules so tightly to make the game unfun, rather than bend them slightly to make it more fun. I don't think you're a square, but do you think it's hip to be a square? Oh, bad joke, based off a song. From someone's perspective, even pile shuffling is a form of stacking. You are essentially placing the energy, let's call it Swamp, in groups of 3, provided you have 24 swamps in a 60 card deck. You basically have, everything else, 3 swamp, everything else, 3 swamp, and everything else, or somewhere around that vicinity, so that your deck seems evenly distributed before the riffle. That's basically what declumpers do. I don't know about vaporeon, but he's going to give us a video, and from that I can totally tell if he's stacking of declumping. Even with vaporeon's case, I don't think he should have moved anything around during the match, but only should do it after matches. If you use sleeves, 12 mashes is usually fine, without any pile shuffling, but unfortunately some people don't use sleeves.

I think that the initial condition of the deck shouldn't matter as long as you sufficiently shuffle, as I think the rule needs to be changed, or perhaps merged with the attempt to manipulate random results rule, because one can't be broken without breaking the other, and have an ill effect. Normally, if the no stacking rule is broken, normally, there aren't any ill effects, which is why I fail to see the point in this rule.

Usually when I think of this rule, I think of severely extreme cases, like ordering the deck so a pattern results, or ordering a deck so that one can predict where each card would go. When I think of advantage, I think of advantage to win every single match, rather than some of them. Everybody who moves any one card anywhere is looking for an advantage, no matter the magnitude. I think it is dumb that the official rules use the word INTENT. One could simply move cards around face down, and I know some people call that cheating. You basically, with your pile shuffle, know that in your deck, that your darkness energy are all at the bottom, and therefore will be evenly distributed in groups of 3, without looking at the deck, provided you have 24 darkness energy, for example. Even with stacking, the ill happenings only happening with the shuffling step. In that case, they are manipulating the random result, in order to preserve the stack.

With Vaporeon, if he really cares about the order of the cards then he's most likely stacking. If he doesn't care, and just places them whereever, and take chunks at a time, and place them whereever, it is highly unlikely that he isn't trying to stack, but in both cases, he is looking for an advantage, no matter the magnitude, one is large, one is small, but his intent was to have a large increase in advantage, but the results show otherwise. You may call it cheating, but it doesn't really affect the outcome of the match. It would be sad for anybody to win through a technicality, because some stickler for the rules comes in and DQ's him, rather than showing sympathy and allowing both parties to have fun, when whatever Vaporeon does, it doesn't affect the game at all.

I'd seriously like to see someone stack a deck, and see if it goes in their favor after a sufficient shuffle. If it doesn't, I don't see why this rule even exists.

Back to the definition of a square. It contains 4 sides, all sides are the same size, someone who is by the book, follows the rules, takes little risks, is conservative, boring, willing to follow every rule no matter how good or bad it is. Someone who has no sympathy just because the rules matter more than having fun, or if you don't intend to have fun, stripping other people of their fun. Even with the takeback example you gave, a true square would punish them immediately, rather than be cool with it. As I said, I'm sort of a square too, as I get an anxiety attack every time I break a rule.

A square would go, when seeing somebody unlucky, who is reordering the deck in hopes of gaining a little bit of luck, (that in itself is intent to gain an advantage, by increasing some confidence in that person), OMG, CHEAT, DQ. A non-square would be ok with it, knowing that he has sympathy for someone who is going to lose anyway. A square would most likely DQ someone who will most likely lose the next match anyway, because that person thinks that ordering the deck does something, but it doesn't, and despite the square knowing so, he DQ's him anyway, because "it's the rules." The opponent would feel upset, because I don't think any opponent would want to win through a technicality, even if it is a minute detail such as reordering a deck just to make them feel better about themselves, unless that opponent too, is a square.

I may be calling you all squares, but you have to prove to me that you aren't. From what I stand, a lot of people have no problem DQing a person who intends to gain a futile advantage, but yet it doesn't happen, making the opponent feel bad, because he never got to play, rather that say, yeah, I think you should shuffle your deck more, or shuffle it for them, or let opponent shuffle, and go on their merry way. That way, if the "stacker" isn't so upset about the shuffle ruining the stack, there is no harm done. The opponent doesn't have to wait for someone else to finish their match in order to play. Both parties win, rather than DQing the stacker, because "it's the rules", and have the opponent sit out because there are no other people to play with.

 

[losjackal]

It seems we are in agreement with this definition that is being circulated in various posts:

stacking your deck is manipulating the order of your deck with the intent to gain an advantage


Sometimes clumps are favorable (Celestial Roar), but everyone would probably agree most of the time they are not. When the cards in a deck are nicely distributed, the player is happy and the game continues on.

When they see clumps, they think it puts them at a disadvantage. And they want to do something about it. One set of players (Set A) performs extra riffle shuffles to attempt to break up the clumps, and one set of players (Set B) moves those cards first while searching to break up the clumps and then riffle shuffles the same number of times.

(Please do not reply with "the second set of players probably didn't riffle shuffle enough". In these most recent posts, you all have isolated the infraction has to do only with moving the cards, not with insufficiently randomizing.)

So let's talk advantage for a moment. Even unfair advantage. As a player, you would assume the player across from you is pleased with his deck order when he sees it performing a search. Otherwise they would similarly shuffle extra or declump. So the most "advantage" either player can have is simply having a nicely distributed deck. Let's call it nirvana. After every search and shuffles, players hope to reach nirvana for themselves. Set A shuffled 7 times to try to reach nirvana, and Set B shuffled 7 times after moving cards to try to reach nirvana. Both Sets are trying to reach nirvana. Nirvana isn't an advantage over another player, it's just not being disadvantaged against yourself. Even if you think it's still some kind of unfair advantage, with intent now being debated, shouldn't Set A be penalized for trying to get that advantage?

In summary, I'm contributing two new thoughts (I think):

1. There is no advantage to be had by manipulating the order and sufficiently randomizing; only the perception of not being disadvantaged.
2. Players who simply shuffle extra when they see clumps have a similar intent.

 

[signofzeta]

I think to not achieve any form of "advantage" is to be the most advantageous. You can't go any higher than that, or be at rock bottom, because getting any form of an "advantage", calls for a disqualification.

 

[Kayle]

1. There is no advantage to be had by manipulating the order and sufficiently randomizing; only the perception of not being disadvantaged.
2. Players who simply shuffle extra when they see clumps have a similar intent.

If your first point is true, then why not discourage people from declumping?

Isn't it fair to assume that "no disadvantage" (over a player who might have such a disadvantage) is an advantage?

You seem to be getting at the idea that the cards in your deck, and their order, are fickle and difficult things to narrow down for purposes of debate, and you're right at that. You could say that "extra shuffling" is deck manipulation with intent. But we're trying not to worry so much about the results of actions and rather just the actions themselves, since those are much easier to perceive. Extra shuffling is extra shuffling (and maybe you can get into slow play there, but that's unrelated). Declumping is a more willful, obvious, and heavy-handed act.

I'd also argue that while extra shuffling is definitely changing the order of your deck, and you can do it with intent, I don't think you can actually manipulate your deck with extra shuffling, assuming it's being done correctly. The whole point is that you don't know what is going on in there. You're just blindly changing things in hopes of getting a favorable result. Soft resetting vs. RNG manipulation. One is clearly a willful action to directly and significantly alter the outcome. [Declumping isn't nearly as overt to be fair.]

At this point, though, I'm not trying to debate the fairness of the action - I'm trying to debate the point of it, talking to the players instead of speaking for them. (speaking to no one in particular here...) There isn't a point. You are either cheating/gaining an unfair advantage in an unintended way, or you are wasting time.

I can't actually stop you, but I wish you would stop. Please?

 

[signofzeta]

I think that mash shuffling guarantees me that I draw better hands that if I did the overhand shuffle. That isn't the case in how the actual cards are ordered.

When I mash shuffle, or overhand shuffle, it is the same as how you do your mash and overhand.

Since I mash shuffle, having the intent that I think I am going to get an advantage, even if it isn't really there, I should be DQed?

Stupid rules are stupid.

 

[psychup2034]

I think that mash shuffling guarantees me that I draw better hands that if I did the overhand shuffle. That isn't the case in how the actual cards are ordered.

When I mash shuffle, or overhand shuffle, it is the same as how you do your mash and overhand.

Since I mash shuffle, having the intent that I think I am going to get an advantage, even if it isn't really there, I should be DQed?

Stupid rules are stupid.

Any player in particular who thinks that mash shuffling will gain them any type of advantage over any other acceptable shuffling method is certainly ignorant to what he/she is actually doing. (Refer to this article from MtG, which is relevant to what we're discussing here.)

If that player declares to a judge that he is shuffling in a particular way to gain an advantage, that player would be penalized under normal circumstances. A player who has declared an intent to cheat (in a non-joking fashion) would easily be the target for a penalty at the discretion of a tournament judge.

One thing to note is that if a player weren't trying to cheat (gain an advantage), why on earth would they be stacking their decks (through weaving different cards together before shuffling)? I'm going to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume everyone in this discussion is intelligent enough to reject any superstitions involving deck ordering.

If you were trying to cheat through mash shuffling, it's not obvious that you're trying to cheat because mash shuffling is a legitimate shuffling technique. However, if you were stacking your deck (regardless of whether you're trying to cheat or not), it's obvious that stacking the deck can only lead to a more advantageous distribution of cards, which would imply cheating. I may be going on a stretch here, but I'd like to assume that Pokemon players in general are intelligent enough to understand why deck stacking is construed as cheating, not only in Pokemon, but in pretty much every other card game.

When one thinks that a rule is "stupid" as you do, it may not be the rule that is "stupid"...

 

[losjackal]

I'll go along with the difference of blindly changing vs. visibly manipulating. It a small difference, but a difference nonetheless. Same with Super Rod....the Trainer card is giving me permission to choose how to put the cards back in my deck. I'm not allowed to see where I'm sticking them in, but I have halfway knowledge knowing they are spread apart if I want them to be before I shuffle.

Given these small and subtle differences, I want to talk more about advantage. Here is the spectrum:

      [--------------------|--------------------]
disadvantaged           nirvana            advantaged

When I see clumps in my deck during a search, or re: the original post my discard is clumped after a match, I consider this order to put me at a disadvantage. This isn't relative to the other player, this is just relative to how the order of the cards could ideally be. Ideal being nirvana, which again represents an order of the cards that looks decent.

If you manipulate the order of the cards, and shuffle insufficiently to try to preserve this order as much as possible, then and only then do you get into the realm of "advantaged" because you have some knowledge of the distribution. This would be unfair.

But if you sufficiently shuffle after manipulating the order of the cards to reach nirvana, I don't see how this puts you at an unfair advantage over the other player. Kayle, you said:

Isn't it fair to assume that "no disadvantage" (over a player who might have such a disadvantage) is an advantage?

But why do we have to assume that? Isn't that along the lines of playing their game for them? I have no way of knowing what order their cards are in. Like I said before, when they search and then shuffle, I can't know if they are pleased with what they saw, or not. So it doesn't seem reasonable to me to factor that into what I do with my deck.

The first sentence from the Penalty Guidelines:

7.6.4. Cheating
Players who intentionally commit infractions are looking to gain an unfair advantage over other players at the event.

(emphasis mine)
To summarize, my mind is currently stuck on: if it isn't knowable whether the opponent is at "disadvantaged" or "nirvana" with their own deck, it's not possible to conclude that one player has an advantage over the other player.

 

[Kayle]

Any player in particular who thinks that mash shuffling will gain them any type of advantage over any other acceptable shuffling method is certainly ignorant to what he/she is actually doing.

Any player who thinks that a certain method of shuffling will actually gain them an advantage in general is either shuffling wrong or doesn't understand the point of shuffling.

Yeah, I have a way of shuffling that I feel helps remove clumps and promote standard distributions without actually manipulating the deck. But I don't know that. It's just a random deck. I draw pretty bad sometimes. I'm not a great player. So there you go.

 

[LibertyFigter]

@losjackal, I just came into this discussion now, and haven't read the entire thread. I have read the past page or two though, and want to take a quick look at the definition of "advantage," as you are touching on. Advantage is a relative term. While you say "Disadvantage, Nirvana, Advantage" is a spectrum, it is not. Really, the spectrum is:

Bad Draw ---------- OK Draw ----------- Good Draw

And advantage is any positive change on that spectrum. Gaining an advantage for yourself would be any action that pushes the probability of being more towards the positive direction on the above spectrum. This includes shuffling or "extra shuffling." However, shuffling is explicitly promoted and necessary, making it a fair advantage. The more random your deck, the less likely you will have extremely good draws AND the less likely you have extremely bad draws. A random deck (which is extremely difficult to achieve) results in a random point on the scale above, resulting in no unfair advantage. Declumping, however, without sufficient randomization results in unfair advantage, pushing yourself to the positive end of the scale above while not abiding by the rules of P!P. However, declumping with sufficient randomization keeps you random on the above scale, resulting in no unfair advantage. Meaning, once again, that the action of declumping itself was useless, unnecessary, and just probably shouldn't be done.

 

[Biggie]

Here is the only thing I have to say on this topic. (It should sound familiar)

Facts:

• Declumping can look like stacking even when that is not your intent.
• Stacking is cheating.
• If a judge sees you doing something that looks like stacking they are going to pay extra attention to how you shuffle.
• Your actions prior to the shuffle may affect the judges perception on how much/what kind of shuffling constitutes sufficient randomization.
• If you do not shuffle sufficiently to undo any order established by declumping, you are risking getting a penalty for insufficient randomization or even stacking.

Opinion:
If you must shuffle enough to (reasonably) undo any order established by declumping, you have also shuffled enough to (reasonably) conclude that you have also broken up any “clumps” you saw while searching your deck, so why risk the penalty?

 

[BlisseyRocks]

Honestly when i first made this thread I thought 'd be able to keep up, but now it's just a headache.

Big thanks to psychup though, he's been able to really put my thoughts into words(i'm not particularly good at arguing)

 

[losjackal]

Reasonable advice Biggie! Sounds just like what Pooka said too....why even risk the suspicion? Bottom line: shuffle sufficiently, and don't be surprised if the rest of your play is scrutinized.


LibertyFigter, thanks for joining in, but I'm afraid you do need to read the entire thread. We've already covered those topics, specifically:

• the definition of random, and sufficiently randomized
• my examples are assuming that someone is sufficiently shuffling
• and recent posters have focused on just the manipulaton of cards, regardless of how much shuffling is done afterwards

On that last point, I'm bothering to keep posting new thoughts because I don't like where the most of the recent discussed has ended with people dogpiling on the mere act of ordering cards between rounds being punishable. We have Judges who have said they would look at the shuffling afterwards, and players who disagree with that and want rules changed. So I'm attempting to put a fine point on what the difference is (and relative advantage gained over another player) by the action of manipulating cards before a sufficient shuffle.

Psychup, in your most recent post, you said "gain an advantage" many times. That isn't against the rules. We play to retain or gain advantages all the time. Thinking of playing Professor Juniper, but you have 3 other supporters in your hand? Doing so would put you at a disadvantage. Discarding a Dark Energy with Ultra Ball so that later on you have it in your discard pile to use with Dark Patch? That put you in a more advantageous position. I hit heads on Super Scoop up to lift my damaged Darkrai? I'm suddenly in a better board position, even relatively over my opponent.

The problem comes in when it is an unfair advantage over another player. The other examples in cheating involve both players and often involve altering the game state: drawing extra cards, changing damage counters, reusing a card from discard, manipulating a coin flip. Each one of those, in spirit, gives me an advantage and you a disadvantage....because as you say, it's relative. It's an either/or. It's win/lose. But the subtlety with decks is we each have our own. If we obey the shuffling rules and sufficiently randomize, I'm suggesting there is no way to have an advantage over another player. If not, there is no cheating.

 

[psychup2034]

Psychup, in your most recent post, you said "gain an advantage" many times. That isn't against the rules. ... The problem comes in when it is an unfair advantage over another player.

I'm not a huge fan of playing semantic games. :nonono: Building upon what you said, you can replace the words "gain an advantage" in my previous post with "gain an unfair advantage" and still maintain the integrity of my argument. From the tone of my previous post, someone who took a couple seconds to think about what I was saying could reasonably infer that I was referring to advantages that were gained unfairly, especially since I'm talking about stacking a deck.

 

[losjackal]

^^ Fair enough, I wanted to be sure you saw a difference between "gain an advantage" and "gain an unfair advantage over another player". Because this is the nature of my points today: with two decks, and not knowing the state of each other's decks, after sufficient shuffling it isn't possible to have an unfair advantage over another player. If not, it's not possible to cheat.

 

[psychup2034]

^^ Fair enough, I wanted to be sure you saw a difference between "gain an advantage" and "gain an unfair advantage over another player". Because this is the nature of my points today: with two decks, and not knowing the state of each other's decks, after sufficient shuffling it isn't possible to have an unfair advantage over another player. If not, it's not possible to cheat.

I think the crux of the problem for me comes down to this:

"One thing to note is that if a player weren't trying to cheat (gain an unfair advantage), why on earth would they be stacking their decks (through weaving different cards together before shuffling)?"

Assuming that players are not stupid and have enough of a basic level of intelligence to reject the superstitions associated with "deck ordering" before shuffling, what good reason is there for a player to stack their decks before shuffling sufficiently?

You could say that it's out of "habit," but just because some behavior is "habit," it doesn't make that "habit" acceptable. Here's an example: let's say that I had a habit of compulsively scratching my card sleeves. While I'm not systematically scratching any particular cards, I'm scratching the sleeves such that there are small noticeable differences between a sleeve that I have scratched and a sleeve I have not scratched. I'm not intending to mark my sleeves; my compulsive scratching is just habit (OCD or whatever; I had light OCD when I was younger and grew out of it, so I can relate). However, this habit is easily misconstrued as marking cards (and thus looks a lot like cheating). Sure, I'm not trying to cheat by scratching my cards, but the fact is that I am marking certain cards (even though I'm not doing it systematically, nor do I even know which cards I'm marking). That raises suspicion that I'm trying to cheat.

Why would I put myself in that position? Why on earth would I continue to put myself in a position where my actions could be easily misconstrued as cheating if I wasn't (1) trying to cheat, or (2) being an idiot? Moreover, why would I go on a public forum and defend these actions that are easily construed as cheating?

 

[losjackal]

Beliefs often overpower intelligence or common sense. See: religion, politics, etc.

Yes, belief is very close to superstition, but we can't disregard it.

Like Pooka and Biggie, you're asking the question why would they bother?

Because they want to, and they are going on a public forum because they believe in their actions. When challenged, many people will rise to the occasion and take an arrow on principle. That's why.

But let's stop asking that question. I'm still looking for responses if anyone sees merit to my arguments today, of given two decks and sufficient randomization, if it's even possible to have an unfair advantage over another player when both sides are unknown at that point. Trying to put forth a solid argument against the players who think the mere act of manipulating the order alone is cheating.

 

[psychup2034]

But let's stop asking that question. I'm still looking for responses if anyone sees merit to my arguments today, of given two decks and sufficient randomization, if it's even possible to have an unfair advantage over another player when both sides are unknown at that point. Trying to put forth a solid argument against the players who think the mere act of manipulating the order alone is cheating.

The mere act of manipulating the order alone is not always cheating (for example, declumping 1 or 2 cards when you're searching your deck).

However, some types of order manipulation alone constitute cheating. Why? It's defined that way in the rulebook. As specified in §7.6.4 of the Penalty Guidelines Document, stacking the deck is cheating. Note that the rules don't specify that the deck has to be stacked with intention to use the stacked deck to gain an unfair advantage. The prerequisite for stacking to be classified as cheating is only in whether the player intended to stack! The first time I read the penalty guidelines, I also mistakenly believed that a player had to stack with intention to gain an unfair advantage for cheating to occur. I was wrong back then. Once I read the rules carefully, I understood that you only have to intend to stack the deck for the cheating to occur. Even if you sufficiently shuffle afterward, if you intended to stack your deck (whether out of superstition/habit/any other reason), then it's cheating!

Now why might this be the case? Why did the rules team define stacking in itself as cheating, even if you don't have an intention to gain an unfair advantage from stacking? The answer to this question ties back to the point that Biggie and Pooka were making earlier:

• Why would someone stack their deck if they weren't trying to gain an unfair advantage?
• If you're not trying to gain an unfair advantage, why would you put yourself in a position where your actions (stacking) are easily construed as cheating?

To put it simply: intentionally stacking the deck is an infraction (regardless of whether the player intends to use that stacked deck to gain an unfair advantage)!!! I didn't make this rule up. I'm merely telling people what it is.

---------- Post added 10/04/2012 at 03:24 PM ----------

Beliefs often overpower intelligence or common sense. See: religion, politics, etc.

Yes, belief is very close to superstition, but we can't disregard it.

In the 1st world countries, rules/laws are generally not made to cater to people's individual beliefs (not based in reason/morality). For example, certain religious beliefs/practices are acceptable in the United States (like wearing a burqa) because they don't break any other rules. Other religious beliefs/practices are not acceptable in the United States (like child marriages) because they break other rules.

In Pokemon, certain beliefs/superstitions that people have are not in violation of the rules (like kissing your deck before you shuffle). However, other beliefs/superstitions that people have are in violation of the rules (like stacking your deck before you shuffle).

Beliefs often overpower intelligence or common sense, but rules overwhelmingly take precedence over people's individual beliefs in real life and in Pokemon. I can't use my lucky sleeves if they don't have uniform borders. I can't use my lucky die if the edges are not rounded. Rules are set in place to ensure fairness, and when people's individual believes are in contradiction with the rules, the rules should take precedence.

 

[losjackal]

Note that the rules don't specify that the deck has to be stacked with intention to use the stacked deck to gain an unfair advantage.

Doesn't it though?

7.6.4. Cheating
Players who intentionally commit infractions are looking to gain an unfair advantage over other players at the event. The Head Judge should carefully consider whether an infraction was intentional or not before applying this penalty. If the Head Judge feels that an infraction was unintentional, this penalty should not be applied.

The emphasis is directly from the guidelines.

The prerequisite for stacking to be classified as cheating is only in whether the player intended to stack!

Maybe we're seeing this differently because you're looking at intent to stack and I'm looking at intent to cheat. And you're saying why else would they stack if they weren't intending to cheat? Maybe not all stacking is cheating. Let's look at the various examples resulting from an initial stacking of the deck:

1. Player weaves, sits down at the match, starts dealing their hand: cheating.
2. Player weaves, sits down at the match, shuffles twice, offers cut: intending to cheat.
3. Player weaves, sits down at the match, shuffles seven times, offers cut: not intending to cheat.

From that, my takeway is that all of the actions together indication the intention, not just the weaving alone.