ogremarauder
New Member
But the stakes shouldn't determin your level of attention to the details and procedures of playing the game.
More on the topic of "declumping"
- Thread starter BlisseyRocks
- Start date
- Status
But the stakes shouldn't determin your level of attention to the details and procedures of playing the game.
Kayle
Active Member
As much as I agree with this sentiment, P!P disagrees. Penalties for mistakes increase drastically as the size of tournaments increase.
psychup2034
New Member
Guess what buddy? Welcome to the real world. Stakes matter.
The stakes affect everyone's attention to detail. For example, you started your post with a conjunction and you misspelled the word "determine." The stakes of posting on the 'gym are really low. If you were turning in a report to your boss at work, then you'd be more careful about making sure that your sentences don't have any spelling or grammatical mistakes.
ogremarauder
New Member
No I wouldn't. I work for me and thus have the best boss ever. And "stakes matter" is merely an opinion. Most players in our area play every game as if it were finals. it's the only way to truly improve and reach higher. Well, that or luck sacking. But sacking only lasts so long.
psychup2034
New Member
Through declumping, you are manipulating the probability of not drawing multiples of particular cards in your favor. You are making the probability distribution of drawing certain combination of cards more predictable.
You don't need to check where you're putting the card to understand what you're doing to the probability distribution of drawing the particular cards that you're declumping. That's why people declump, because even though they don't know exactly where they're putting the card (and they don't know exactly the math behind what they're doing), they do know that making the distribution of cards in their deck more favorable, such that the distribution of cards that they're going to draw is not only more predictable, but aligned with what they want.
It doesn't matter whether you declump the Junipers or not, the next card has the exact same probability of being a Juniper provided you shuffled enough. It doesn't matter what you've done, if you shuffle enough there is always the possibility that a Juniper is next. If you ever think that a Juniper is not next you've stacked your deck.
The only thing declumping does is make you feel like you've separated the cards, which, if you actually did, is stacking. You can declump, shuffle and still end up with 3 Junipers in a row, that's just how it works.
Going to have to call you on this. No, no it wouldn't. That's not how random works. If anything, it's now less random, as you've taken indirect control of the positions of the card(s) you moved. Indirect, since you do shuffle your deck afterwards, but control nonetheless. You're not going to achieve computer-levels of randomisation; 7 shuffles doesn't make the deck completely or perfectly random, only sufficiently so. This is even what the rules say.
That aside, I think the idea of simply making a rule against declumping will help a lot. The main problem that usually comes up to kick off a declumping debate is that declumping is far too prevalent and needs to stop (or something to that effect). In other words, the problem is that people who do follow the rules are still declumping because it's not against the rules. Making a rule against it won't stop the cheaters who declump to cheat, but it could very well reduce the problem from "far too many people declump" to "we need to find a way to catch the few people who declump".
TheDarkTwins
Active Member
I declump, but I always shuffle afterwards. I always ask my opponent if they want to cut. They are more than welcome to shuffle (assuming they are delicate with my deck and sleeves) if they so desire if they feel I've gained some sort of advantage. Declumping isn't cheating, stacking your deck is.
Drew
Drew
psychup2034
New Member
Drew, the way Pokemon bifurcates deck manipulation into the categories of "stacking" and "declumping" means that declumping isn't cheating. No-one's arguing that.
However, this nomenclature is exclusive to Pokemon. For other card games (like blackjack and poker), "declumping" a deck before shuffling would easily fall under the standard definition of stacking, and thus would be classified as cheating.
No-one's arguing what the rules currently are.
losjackal
Technical Administrator
Feel free to disagree, but here's my definition of "stacking the deck" in Pokémon: doing something overt so as to dictate what card I draw next. That would mean capitalizing on knowing my opponent doesn't cut to fake some shuffles to make sure I card I want is on top. Or, somehow noticing the bottom card when I take the deck back from a cut and putting it on top when the opponent isn't looking. Or even maybe pulling a card from my discard and putting it on top of the deck face down. Those crazy maneuvers are the only way to guarantee it in this game, where there is so much shuffling and cutting.
You know the scene at the end of the movie Maverick, in the last poker hand where one player is dealt four of a kind, the next guy has a straight flush, and Maverick topdecks a royal flush after stopping the dealer from cheating any more? That was a stacked deck, making sure people bet big so that one person can win it all. (It was supposed to be the guy with the straight flush.)
There is a penalty for "stacking the deck": disqualification, no matter the size of the tournament. In my opinion, trying to call declumping where you are at most changing the probability that two cards will be drawn in succession is very, very far away from true stacking of the deck.
---------- Post added 09/28/2012 at 05:57 PM ----------
I actually like this perspective. Maybe instead of Junipers, I see 2 or 3 energy together, and I leave them that way because I'm preparing to Celestial Roar. Or maybe two or three rare candies together than I don't need anymore are clumped together, and I'll leave them that way hoping they stay far away from the top of my deck. The point is, even having knowledge of a clump can affect your gameplay.
---------- Post added 09/28/2012 at 06:06 PM ----------
From some other discussions, my understanding is that a rule won't be made that is unenforceable.
When I'm searching my deck, my deck contents are private. If I move cards around, you don't know if I'm moving my target choices around for better visualization, or if I am declumping some other cards. So as my opponent, there is no way you can know for sure if I am breaking a rule, to call a Judge over for. And for something that is defeated with sufficient randomization, which is indeed a rule of the game, there is no need to bother the Judges over it either.
So what is left is that it just "wastes time". If your opponent regularly takes too much time searching their deck for whatever reason, by all means ask a Judge to warn them about pace of play.
You know the scene at the end of the movie Maverick, in the last poker hand where one player is dealt four of a kind, the next guy has a straight flush, and Maverick topdecks a royal flush after stopping the dealer from cheating any more? That was a stacked deck, making sure people bet big so that one person can win it all. (It was supposed to be the guy with the straight flush.)
There is a penalty for "stacking the deck": disqualification, no matter the size of the tournament. In my opinion, trying to call declumping where you are at most changing the probability that two cards will be drawn in succession is very, very far away from true stacking of the deck.
---------- Post added 09/28/2012 at 05:57 PM ----------
I actually like this perspective. Maybe instead of Junipers, I see 2 or 3 energy together, and I leave them that way because I'm preparing to Celestial Roar. Or maybe two or three rare candies together than I don't need anymore are clumped together, and I'll leave them that way hoping they stay far away from the top of my deck. The point is, even having knowledge of a clump can affect your gameplay.
---------- Post added 09/28/2012 at 06:06 PM ----------
From some other discussions, my understanding is that a rule won't be made that is unenforceable.
When I'm searching my deck, my deck contents are private. If I move cards around, you don't know if I'm moving my target choices around for better visualization, or if I am declumping some other cards. So as my opponent, there is no way you can know for sure if I am breaking a rule, to call a Judge over for. And for something that is defeated with sufficient randomization, which is indeed a rule of the game, there is no need to bother the Judges over it either.
So what is left is that it just "wastes time". If your opponent regularly takes too much time searching their deck for whatever reason, by all means ask a Judge to warn them about pace of play.
psychup2034
New Member
The same applies to stacking. By an extension of your logic:
When you are searching your deck, your deck contents are private. If you move cards around, your opponent doesn't know if you're moving your target choices around for better visualization, or if you are moving some cards to the front of your deck to stack them. So as your opponent, there is no way I can know for sure if you are breaking a rule to call a judge over for. And for something that is defeated with sufficient randomization, which is indeed a rule of the game, there is no need to other the judges over stacking.
Kayle
Active Member
But that's my point. You don't know that you are making the distribution more favorable. You are putting it in a new place. You might take apart two Junipers, then put one of them next to another Juniper. I understand the weakness of this point, but really, the important thing is as follows.
But you guys' arguments actually support my original point: declumping doesn't matter if you shuffle sufficiently, and the whole thing about insufficient shuffling feels like it's just an issue of paranoia and distrust to me. If your opponent declumps and you don't feel comfortable with their shuffling, take it into your own hands. Riffle it a couple more times. Problem solved.
There are a couple of major flaws in some other arguments this thread makes. The biggest one being the whole "seven riffles" thing. The idea that 7-8 riffles gives "optimal" randomness is a misrepresented mathematical experiment designed for 52-card poker decks. There are two important differences between poker decks and Pokemon decks... firstly, the latter is 60 cards; secondly, the latter usually has multiples of the same card, while the former most certainly does not. Statistics and probability are sensitive things - these differences really alter the numbers quite a bit and can make things very difficult to predict or compute. The 7-8 riffles argument is just out of place here.
But even aside from that, you guys DO know that the "randomization" of a deck, compared against the number of riffles, is asymptotic, right? That means each riffle shuffle consecutively has less and less of an effect. So while 7 might produce optimal results for a casino dealer who can take his time while his players take a drink and chat, I'd think 3 - maybe 4 (I've seen players do 7 fast, good riffles, but let's be generous to the slower-handed players out there) - should be enough to really shake up the cards and prevent you from guessing what comes up next.
This is a much more educated way of looking at probability and randomness. For functional purposes, randomness really has a lot less to do with the actual ordering of the cards, and more to do with how much you know about that ordering. Whether you do or don't declump, once you've searched your deck, your deck isn't random anymore, and you need to shuffle it to return it to the appropriate state of randomness.
Therefore you could make the argument that declumping is actually completely irrelevant to randomness.
Again, this entire thing feels to me like it comes down to distrust and paranoia, and some stuffiness from people who don't want to take matters into their own hands. If your opponent reorders their deck or really does ANYTHING that makes you uncomfortable, just shuffle their darn deck.
If you're worried about being called out on it for taking too long, call a judge over and ask THEM to shuffle.
The rules are not your enemy, people.
losjackal
Technical Administrator
Yes it does. When conducting a deck search, the opponent could absolutely be trying to change the cards at the front of the deck. Then with some light shuffling, where the top of the stack in their left hand always remains on top, they will cross their fingers as they offer the opponent the cut (or not at all, breaking a rule) and hope that they get to draw the stacked top card the next time.
So all that happened here from the opponent perspective is that you saw them move some cards around, and their shuffling didn't appear through enough. So CUT THE DECK! You are defeating their effort to set what the next card they draw is. Even further, shuffle if you want. The rules let you defeat any attempt on their part.
So what people are asking for is to prevent them from even trying. Rules are not going to be made to start policing player's intentions, whether in game declumping or in between rounds spreading the distribution of cards. Trying to stack the deck isn't the same as actually stacking the deck, and getting caught with proof. The most you could do above is say in the scenario above is "Judge! He didn't let me cut the deck, and I think he put an advantageous card on top." That's worth some kind of penalty, but likely not DQ for stacking because it can't be proven. A weaker version is "Judge! I haven't cut his deck, because I think he put an advantageous card on top." The Judge may look at the top card, and just tell you to continue with the game and cut the deck. This is why the examples I gave of possible stacking involved something more overt like taking a card from your discard pile and trying to sneak it into the top of your deck. THAT is true stacking, where it is possible to have witnesses and game state evidence.
Last edited:
PMysterious
New Member
I declump before, during, and after games to make sure I don't dead draw for most of the game. Now, I don't do it as a staking method, its just to keep myself from embarrassing myself.
Let me rephrase that:
"My opponent should ALWAYS thoroughly shuffle my deck whenever I shuffle, because I declump and intentionally shuffle poorly to prevent any dead draws"
NoPoke
Active Member
This whole thread seems to be players trying to put words into the mouths of others.
If I say " I don't dead draw" does that mean that I've arranged my deck so that I can guarantee one supporter in every group of 5 or does it mean that with a well randomised deck I should expect a uniform distribution of one supporter every five or so cards? The former suggests some dodgy practice and that latter expectation of how my deck should behave after it is sufficiently shuffled.
If I say " I don't dead draw" does that mean that I've arranged my deck so that I can guarantee one supporter in every group of 5 or does it mean that with a well randomised deck I should expect a uniform distribution of one supporter every five or so cards? The former suggests some dodgy practice and that latter expectation of how my deck should behave after it is sufficiently shuffled.
vaporeon
Moderator
You're right about that. I'm not going to willingly put myself at a disadvantage by leaving 4 Junipers clumped together. Why, because if I play a draw supporter and draw into 4 Junipers, that will hurt me. So, I'll move them around the deck since the information of 'random' was destroyed when you searched.
The key is the info being destroyed. You destroy it each time you riffle shuffle. The declumping helps the randomization of the deck. We base or decks random based on the info of the search we preformed last. You also not choosing to declump could mean your stacking. If you have a strong hand and need to hit 2 or 3 Rare Candy and noticed them clumped in your deck, shuffled and played a Cheren and picked up 3 candies. That could mean you 'stacked' the deck because you did not destroy the information when you had the chance to and gained a advantage because of it.
Then again, if would be fair to say psychup2034 would count cards at a casino since hes such a stickler for statistics and probability.
Sorry to say this ... but this quote above is done by many players, not all, and it IS cheating !!!!
If you move one single card for any reason this is cheating ... there is no pokemon card ( in current format) that says to move a card from the bottom of your deck to the top and then shuffle
please follow the rules to the letter
Last edited:
vaporeon
Moderator
There's also no card that says "use time from the game clock during your search to see whats prized." or "move your card choices to the front of the deck to see what you want to take from your search."
Guess all those players are cheating as well...
BlisseyRocks
New Member
So far everyone besides losjackal who defends declumping admit they declump but dont understand it as cheating. Vaporeon i think see's that he is strengthening his odds, but if that's the case you are cheating!
Yes, cheating is a big word to throw around. It is a light form of cheating, but cheating none the less.
Like the guy who would cram his shaymin between pokemon, he didn't stack his deck to a certain order, just put the shaymin in a spot where it would be harder to open with it as an only basic. That was blatant cheating, and is considered declumping. You are doing the same thing the shaymin guy did, just in a different way.
Yes, cheating is a big word to throw around. It is a light form of cheating, but cheating none the less.
Like the guy who would cram his shaymin between pokemon, he didn't stack his deck to a certain order, just put the shaymin in a spot where it would be harder to open with it as an only basic. That was blatant cheating, and is considered declumping. You are doing the same thing the shaymin guy did, just in a different way.
- Status