More on the topic of "declumping"

[vaporeon]

That would also mean that taking cards from the deck affects its order as well. When you search the deck it affects its order. Why, because you know the order of the deck.

You said it yourself. Stacking is purposefully arranging the cards which you don't do with declumping. To stack in a card game means you are cheating. Pokemon is a game where you can control elements if the game. You can't draw or search the deck in a game of poker like you can in Pokemon. Every cards you play affects the order of the deck. Super Rod affects the order of the deck.

What about if a player plays N? Would you chow me out for not putting my whole hand on top of my deck and shuffling it because I like to put my hand into my deck in random spots? Declumping is not stacking and there is no proof that it is.

 

[psychup2034]

You said it yourself. Stacking is purposefully arranging the cards which you don't do with declumping.

To someone who understands English and has no mental deficiencies that prevent them from reasoning, declumping is by definition a purposeful rearrangment of cards in the deck in order to achieve a more favorable probability distribution of drawing particular cards.

Declumping and stacking are both purposeful rearrangments of cards in a deck. If one were to argue against this fact, it would be asinine.

 

[ryanvergel]

Luckily, regardless of your opinion on whether declumping is stacking or not, the deck should be randomized sufficiently afterwards. If the declumping influences the randomization in any way, then the deck was not randomized properly.

That is the fallback that is used. It doesn't really matter if the opponent, or you, declump. After a sufficient randomization, at worst it does not affect anything at all, but takes time. If the time taken has no bearing on the game (it was done before the game, or between rounds, or during announcements of setup), then it doesn't really matter.

Ensure your opponent and yourself randomize properly. That is the best way to go from here.

 

[Diaz]

Luckily, regardless of your opinion on whether declumping is stacking or not, the deck should be randomized sufficiently afterwards. If the declumping influences the randomization in any way, then the deck was not randomized properly.

That is the fallback that is used. It doesn't really matter if the opponent, or you, declump. After a sufficient randomization, at worst it does not affect anything at all, but takes time. If the time taken has no bearing on the game (it was done before the game, or between rounds, or during announcements of setup), then it doesn't really matter.

Ensure your opponent and yourself randomize properly. That is the best way to go from here.

Bold added by me.

So would you agree that mid-game declumping is an issue? At the very least, it is a waste of time.

 

[ryanvergel]

Bold added by me.

So would you agree that mid-game declumping is an issue? At the very least, it is a waste of time.

It has the potential to be, yes.

If you are really smart about it, and when you're doing a deck search move clumped cards while looking for other cards, it might not have bearing. It probably does, like a second or two, but yeah.

If I use an ultra ball, and am searching for pokemon, and while perusing my deck see 5 fighting energy together, and without even thinking grab one and move it to the "top" or "bottom" of the deck, it may not have taken any real time, as you are still performing the search and it didn't impede on the movement of the other cards or anything. But that is a best case situation.

Typically, I'd say declumping in-game probably takes up 2-3 seconds at maxiumum, but potentially more or less. I am not sure whether 2-3 seconds is an issue or not, but I will agree that it has the potential to be.

 

[Phazon Elite]

I am unable to think of a reply witty enough so as to convey the level of amusement I'm having by reading this thread.

Also, the following must be made illegal, as they could be misconstrewn as declumping:

Deck checks (curse those judges, they've been helping us stack our decks for years!)
showing someone the layout of your deck mid tourney,
building a deck right before the tournament and not playing a game with it beforehand (ermahgerd it's still clumped!!),
Arranging your hand the turn before the game ends (oh no now part of my deck is clumped!).
Precon decks, and,
any form of self respect.

Kids these days . . . always finding something to complain about.

Still, keep it up guys, you're making my breaks from work THAT much more enjoyable!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go start a thread about how anyone using small dice needs to be banned, just because I hate small dice.

 

[BlisseyRocks]

I am unable to think of a reply witty enough so as to convey the level of amusement I'm having by reading this thread.

Also, the following must be made illegal, as they could be misconstrewn as declumping:

Deck checks (curse those judges, they've been helping us stack our decks for years!)
showing someone the layout of your deck mid tourney,
building a deck right before the tournament and not playing a game with it beforehand (ermahgerd it's still clumped!!),
Arranging your hand the turn before the game ends (oh no now part of my deck is clumped!).
Precon decks, and,
any form of self respect.

Kids these days . . . always finding something to complain about.

Still, keep it up guys, you're making my breaks from work THAT much more enjoyable!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go start a thread about how anyone using small dice needs to be banned, just because I hate small dice.

Almost all of those examples have nothing to do with catching someone who actually sets their deck.

 

[psychup2034]

Kids these days . . . always finding something to complain about.

Still, keep it up guys, you're making my breaks from work THAT much more enjoyable!

If reading the 'gym is how you find enjoyment during breaks at work, then I truly for sorry for your life. There are many more enjoyable things to do online.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go start a thread about how anyone using small dice needs to be banned, just because I hate small dice.

From the physical perspective, small dice actually roll better than larger dice, assuming the same weight distribution. This is because if you throw a small and large die with the same force, the small die will roll more because it as a lower absolute weight (remember, same weight distribution). The size of the die, ceretis paribus, will affect the quality of the roll if tossed by the same amount of force. However, if sufficient force is applied, the size of the die has no bearing on the probability distribution of results generated from rolling that die.

Moreover, "I hate small dice" is a bad reason for banning it. "Stacking affects the probability of drawing certain cards, as to give the stacker an advantage" is a good reason for discussing this issue.

 

[Phazon Elite]

If reading the 'gym is how you find enjoyment during breaks at work, then I truly for sorry for your life. There are many more enjoyable things to do online.

Well I'm tired of Fruit Ninja, and Tower Defense generally takes longer than the time I have for a break (lucky if I can sneak outside for ten minutes without being bothered).

From the physical perspective, small dice actually roll better than larger dice, assuming the same weight distribution. This is because if you throw a small and large die with the same force, the small die will roll more because it as a lower absolute weight (remember, same weight distribution). The size of the die, ceretis paribus, will affect the quality of the roll if tossed by the same amount of force. However, if sufficient force is applied, the size of the die has no bearing on the probability distribution of results generated from rolling that die.

Moreover, "I hate small dice" is a bad reason for banning it. "Stacking affects the probability of drawing certain cards, as to give the stacker an advantage" is a good reason for discussing this issue.

I just don't know why you're arguing against it. I mean, if declumping gets you so hot and bothered, I'd love to see your reaction to politics or the breakdown of how much money each Walmart worker would get if the company split its profits in half ($55K, btw).

 

[ogremarauder]

Stacking does affect the order. Declumping does not. Shuffling negates that "stack" you feel has been made by declumping. The problem is that sufficient shuffling is a subjective action. If I manipulate the order of my cards, I've cheated. If I temporarily manipulate the order of my cards, but then shuffle the bejeezus out of the deck; I've just negated any advantage. Whether that advantage be perceived or real. The end outcome supercedes(spelling?) all.

 

[Swordfish1989]

I just don't know why you're arguing against it. I mean, if declumping gets you so hot and bothered, I'd love to see your reaction to politics or the breakdown of how much money each Walmart worker would get if the company split its profits in half ($55K, btw).

What's your point, that there are bigger problems in the world? That's not exactly news. There's always going to be bigger problems out there, for as long as the universe and time exist. Just because of that it means that we can't have a healthy discussion about a topic that we feel affects the game we love? Please.

 

[ShuckleLVX]

stuffstuffstuff

I must have forgotten to mention that my examples were "ranging from EXACTLY what we're are talking about to absurdly irrelevant, just to show you how ridiculous your question was." I'm sorry, I'll make sure to include that next time.

 

[psychup2034]

Stacking does affect the order. Declumping does not.

Declumping doesn't affect the order of the deck? What? :nonono:

Declumping affects the order of the deck. Declumping changes the order of the deck.

*sigh*

---------- Post added 09/27/2012 at 05:03 PM ----------

I just don't know why you're arguing against it. I mean, if declumping gets you so hot and bothered, I'd love to see your reaction to politics or the breakdown of how much money each Walmart worker would get if the company split its profits in half ($55K, btw).

And what percent of corporations split their profits in half? Pretty much 0-1%.

Simplified explanation:
Walmart employees don't make $55K a year on average because there will be people willing to do the job for $54K a year. They don't make $54K a year on average because there will be people willing to do the job for $53K a year. They don't make $53K a year on average because there will be people willing to do the job for $52K a year. So on and so forth.

It's a fact of a capitalist system that people typically achieve a salary based on supply and demand, where incentive compensation does not come into play. Unfortunately, menial labor is not worth very much in the labor market because of the amount of supply.

To put this in Pokemon terms, people won't buy a playset of a card for $55 each when they could get the same card for $25 each. Very few (if any) Pokemon players are willing to pay more than they have to for a card; likewise, very few (if any) corporations are willing to pay more than they have to for labor.

 

[ogremarauder]

Declumping doesn't affect the order of the deck? What? :nonono:

Declumping affects the order of the deck. Declumping changes the order of the deck.

*sigh*

Only until you shuffle.

Shuffled sufficiently = pointless thread

 

[psychup2034]

Shuffled sufficiently = pointless thread

Shuffle my opponent's deck sufficiently (6-7 riffles) every time = "play game at lively pace" warning

 

[ogremarauder]

That doesn't take into account any riffle shuffles the opponent has already done. If they have shuffled 7-8 riffles already, you don't need to do your own 7-8 added shuffles. Only if they "declump" midmatch then present after 0-4 riffles. At the beginning of a match, you have ample time to shuffle the opponent's deck.

---------- Post added 09/27/2012 at 04:35 PM ----------

It's a method of shuffle question. Not a declump or not question. The rules are vague on what constitutes sufficient randomization, mainly because "sufficient" is a subjective description. My standard for sufficient will vary from the next person's. Neither of us will be right or wrong. It's a matter of opinion.

 

[tutti]

I have to ask; how difficult is it to use an "authenticator"? Is it even close to the difficulty (or lack there of) with regards to a player being required to present his or her deck to his or her opponent after shuffling for said opponent to ignore, cut, or shuffle? If it is, again one may be a victim but choosing not to take easy preventative measures to protect one's self means you are in part your own victim.

The authenticator is similar to the code devices used for online banks, although with only a single button. When you log into a Blizzard game, you're asked for the code, You then push the button and enter the code you see. You'll only be asked for the code once a week on any given computer, although logging into the website will ask you every time (which can also be enabled for the games).

They're sold for rather cheap in the Blizzard store, and shipping is free to most locations. There's also a free app for smart phones that does the same thing. There are some locations that can't get free shipping, which can make the physical one rather not expensive, and also some locations where it simply cannot be shipped at all. If you live in one of these places and also don't have a smart phone, getting an authenticator might not be worth the trouble, but for most anyone else it's little effort for great security.

*is an avid WoW player*

 

[Kayle]

Shuffle my opponent's deck sufficiently (6-7 riffles) every time = "play game at lively pace" warning

If your opponent declumps midgame call them out on it for taking too long.

Declumping between rounds = whatever I don't care.
Declumping during a match = Um... please stop, that's obnoxious.

 

[psychup2034]

If your opponent declumps midgame call them out on it for taking too long.

Declumping mid-game is legal as long as it's done in a timely fashion. The time it requires to shuffle your opponent's deck to prevent your opponent from gaining an advantage because of his/her declump is what "takes too long."

 

[Kayle]

Declumping mid-game is legal as long as it's done in a timely fashion. The time it requires to shuffle your opponent's deck to prevent your opponent from gaining an advantage because of his/her declump is what "takes too long."

If your opponent spends an appropriate amount of time declumping midgame, it shouldn't take very long to randomize their deck to a satisfactory extent. One or two strong riffle shuffles should be sufficient. Your statistically-optimal 6-7 is honestly excessive. =/