I think that is the fundamental question the OP is trying to get some clarity on. Is it against the SOTG and the specifics of the rules to try and flip heads by using some system, or does P!P consider it to be a non issue as long as an acceptable coin is used and the player follows the minimum standards set for an appropriate flip?
National's Coin Manipulation Issue
- Thread starter jax54
- Start date
I think that is the fundamental question the OP is trying to get some clarity on. Is it against the SOTG and the specifics of the rules to try and flip heads by using some system, or does P!P consider it to be a non issue as long as an acceptable coin is used and the player follows the minimum standards set for an appropriate flip?
billbilski
New Member
Here is how I look at this whole thing:
1) I'm not buying the assumption that Dave practiced flipping to the point of acquiring some skill (let's use the 10,000 hour rule for example) of which is dubious in the first place. I want to see someone prove this... see Slowdeck's post.
2) I'm still not sure that trying to flip heads is against the rules. I have never heard specifically from a judge that this is illegal nor do I know how this can be enforced.
3) I personally would prefer an "official dice" just to keep things 100% equal.
4) This is not the first instance in the game's history where someone has attempted to control the outcome of randomizer solely through skill,divine intervention,coaxing, ritual or any other nonsense. Once again, I DON'T BELIEVE A LEGAL COIN FLIP CAN BE THROWN IN A MANNER THAT ALLOWS THE TOSSER TO DETERMINE HEADS OR TAILS WITHOUT SHAOLIN MONK LEVEL DEVOTION......
5) The only reason this is even an issue is because of a Dad's claims that the above is possible and that he encouraged this because of his exposure to Japanese players and a culture that apparently feels this is ok. The powers that be can determine whether this is wrong and make this clear, but I am sure that the dad in question didn't think of this as cheating and it is this point where I hope any personal qualms can be laid to rest. Lets decide if this is appropriate and move on.... I truly respect both families in question and hate to see anything other than clarity in the rules brought to light.
1) I'm not buying the assumption that Dave practiced flipping to the point of acquiring some skill (let's use the 10,000 hour rule for example) of which is dubious in the first place. I want to see someone prove this... see Slowdeck's post.
2) I'm still not sure that trying to flip heads is against the rules. I have never heard specifically from a judge that this is illegal nor do I know how this can be enforced.
3) I personally would prefer an "official dice" just to keep things 100% equal.
4) This is not the first instance in the game's history where someone has attempted to control the outcome of randomizer solely through skill,divine intervention,coaxing, ritual or any other nonsense. Once again, I DON'T BELIEVE A LEGAL COIN FLIP CAN BE THROWN IN A MANNER THAT ALLOWS THE TOSSER TO DETERMINE HEADS OR TAILS WITHOUT SHAOLIN MONK LEVEL DEVOTION......
5) The only reason this is even an issue is because of a Dad's claims that the above is possible and that he encouraged this because of his exposure to Japanese players and a culture that apparently feels this is ok. The powers that be can determine whether this is wrong and make this clear, but I am sure that the dad in question didn't think of this as cheating and it is this point where I hope any personal qualms can be laid to rest. Lets decide if this is appropriate and move on.... I truly respect both families in question and hate to see anything other than clarity in the rules brought to light.
ShuckleLVX
Active Member
This statement is 100% true. Since we had around 900 players in the masters division, the fully luck-based format left us with a top 16 full of random people we had never seen before, because you need no skill to play this game.
Oh...
Wait...
waynegg
CotD Editor<br>Forum Moderator
I don't see OP trying to get clarity on anything. I just see random poke-people complaining about someone being better at something than they themselves are. Situation normal in other words...
Box of Fail
New Member
Personally, I think it is obvious that 'randomizers' should be 'random.' However, if someone is deliberately skewing the results of a 'randomizer' and getting 70% heads within the flipping protocol set forth in the Torunament Guidelines and using a tournament legal randomizer, then it's the system at fault and not the player.
I still wouldn't do this (because really, practicing coin flips to win a children's card game is pretty pathetic), but I don't really feel that whether a player is intentionally manipulating a randomizer matters if the game allows for it. Do you blame people for taking unemployment and not trying to get a job until it runs out? No, the system sucks and if they want to take advantage of a crappy system, more power to them.
Do I think we should have a mandated die for worlds to make the 'randomizer' aspect of the game more fair? No, because there are theme decks, cards, and rulebooks all telling us to use coins. A mandated coin would definitely irritate players because dice are superior in terms of randomness. So in the end, I don't think we should have any sort of mandated randomizer. Just let people bring their R/S coins and flip heads 70% of the time.
P.S. This is all hypothetical. I am not accusing the National Champion of having manipulated his randomizer.
I still wouldn't do this (because really, practicing coin flips to win a children's card game is pretty pathetic), but I don't really feel that whether a player is intentionally manipulating a randomizer matters if the game allows for it. Do you blame people for taking unemployment and not trying to get a job until it runs out? No, the system sucks and if they want to take advantage of a crappy system, more power to them.
Do I think we should have a mandated die for worlds to make the 'randomizer' aspect of the game more fair? No, because there are theme decks, cards, and rulebooks all telling us to use coins. A mandated coin would definitely irritate players because dice are superior in terms of randomness. So in the end, I don't think we should have any sort of mandated randomizer. Just let people bring their R/S coins and flip heads 70% of the time.
P.S. This is all hypothetical. I am not accusing the National Champion of having manipulated his randomizer.
Well, to be honest the game relies on:
Who goes first
What you start with
What you flip
I don't see SKILL fall under those categories. GG.
Posted with Mobile style...
ShuckleLVX
Active Member
Still having trouble understanding how we see the same faces in top 16 time and again when there is no skill involved. But I read it on the internet, so it must be true. There is no skill in Pokemon.
Box of Fail
New Member
Well, skill does play a part, but you make it sound like the only reason so many good players cut is skill. Part of the reason is skill, but I'd argue that decklist plays a bigger role right now than skill does. And the really good players tend to have really good decklists.
ShuckleLVX
Active Member
Building a good decklist IS skill. Do you think Pooka netdecked Donphan/Yanmega/Zoroark/Manaphy?
And even if you want to argue decklist vs skill, neither of those is luck. Unless we're randomly assigning decks when you register now, but I'm not sure how I could have missed that...
TheDarkTwins
Active Member
I think what you miss, is that I'm not TRYING to manipulate anything. I just happen to roll heads 65% of the time. I can say that in testing I roll tails about 65% of the time. I seem to roll better or have better luck in tournaments for some reason. I can't explain it. It's just how it is. That being said, I try to avoid flippy cards. I think I have played three or four decks in the past 5 years that have had flippy aspects to them.
Drew
I haven't thought this out so it probably wouldn't work and I post this half in jest.
Instead of having one player flip a coin and getting a result depending on the result, have both players flip coins with one result for matching flips (heads/heads or tails/tails) and a different result for unmatched flips(heads/tails or tails/heads). If you can flips heads every time it wouldn't give you an advantage because I would probably flip tails half the time. Unless you could consistantly anticipate what I am going to flip (I would only get worried if I saw the Amazing Kreskin enter the tournament) you would have no advantage if you could guarentee all of your flips every time.
Instead of having one player flip a coin and getting a result depending on the result, have both players flip coins with one result for matching flips (heads/heads or tails/tails) and a different result for unmatched flips(heads/tails or tails/heads). If you can flips heads every time it wouldn't give you an advantage because I would probably flip tails half the time. Unless you could consistantly anticipate what I am going to flip (I would only get worried if I saw the Amazing Kreskin enter the tournament) you would have no advantage if you could guarentee all of your flips every time.
I actually do like that.. 2 heads or 2 tails is Heads, 1 of each is tails. Takes away any chance of randomization manipulation. However.. it would be really annoying if anyone ever decides to play Fearow.
--
Pooka said he got lucky and had a good run for 2 reasons: 1. He is modest. 2. He is disgusted with the luck factor in the current format and wants to drive home a point. His T2 Tournament Report on Lafonte was 50 words long.
--
There was a poster a lot earlier (Page 4?) who seemed to be quite young. He seemed convinced that it was possible to practice flipping coins to overrule randomness. Whats more, he had a child-like innocence about it, and thought it was no big deal. If anything is to be taken away from this ordeal, it's that we are negatively influencing kids. It might just be a trading card game today, but who knows what tomorrow.
Once you learn how to manipulate a randomizer, it is no longer, by definition, a randomizer. I am a fan of Judges administering dice before a tournament, with them being returned upon collection of the promo cards, or raffle tickets, or what have you.
--
Pooka said he got lucky and had a good run for 2 reasons: 1. He is modest. 2. He is disgusted with the luck factor in the current format and wants to drive home a point. His T2 Tournament Report on Lafonte was 50 words long.
--
There was a poster a lot earlier (Page 4?) who seemed to be quite young. He seemed convinced that it was possible to practice flipping coins to overrule randomness. Whats more, he had a child-like innocence about it, and thought it was no big deal. If anything is to be taken away from this ordeal, it's that we are negatively influencing kids. It might just be a trading card game today, but who knows what tomorrow.
Once you learn how to manipulate a randomizer, it is no longer, by definition, a randomizer. I am a fan of Judges administering dice before a tournament, with them being returned upon collection of the promo cards, or raffle tickets, or what have you.
What is this supposed to prove? There was still an advantage to a player who got the desired effect of an opening flip, we had all the Baby Pokemon we have now, but nobody used them because we had FAR more imbalanced cards like Uxie, Crobat G, and Sableye. Same argument with Reversal and Luxray X. If you are trying to boast about not wanting the mid-season rotation, you're standing on false grounds.
NoPoke
Active Member
FWIW Judges are not defending cheating, but are rightly concerned about observer bias leading to wild accusations, character assassinations, "high ground" appeals.
Players should practice flipping. Should practice producing flips that meet P!Ps minimum for height and rotations. Far too many flips are marginal: that is where the issue actually lies.
---
Random comes with a distribution. Saying that being able to do something before the fact to make a small influence on the distribution means it is no longer random is just wrong. Every time you elect to use a dice roll over a P!P coin flip you are doing just that. Both the flip and the roll are random processes but they are not the same random process.
Players should practice flipping. Should practice producing flips that meet P!Ps minimum for height and rotations. Far too many flips are marginal: that is where the issue actually lies.
---
Random comes with a distribution. Saying that being able to do something before the fact to make a small influence on the distribution means it is no longer random is just wrong. Every time you elect to use a dice roll over a P!P coin flip you are doing just that. Both the flip and the roll are random processes but they are not the same random process.
Last edited:
Otaku
Active Member
This thread already seems quite convoluted. We've got a range of sub-debates that vary from tangentially related to important parts of the debate, but either way it isn't making things any clearer jumping from rail to rail. So far we've got:
We've seen that the English guidelines might need some clarification, because right now there is a double standard of what someone believes can manipulate events. What happens when two people have the same beliefs? Do we treat their "lucky rituals" as cheating?
We've had a lot of unsubstantiated accusations of cheating. So far the strongest "evidence" is that the report (not actual quotations) that a father confirmed his son's practiced flipping coins... and still no proof that their practice paid off or ever could pay off. One of the accused has stated they did not cheat and the father was not speaking for them or knowledgeable about what he was saying. This is casts reasonable doubt on the father's so-called "confession". No one has explained to me that the father was an expert on probability, sleight of hand, or Pokemon, after all.
Personally I think this thread is done and we'd be better off spinning off those other conversations. The rulings have been made and finalized for Nationals. Right now I am just convinced I should avoid the runner-ups family at all costs, because a polite assertion stops being polite when it is repeated ad nauseam and never substantially backed up.
No, repeating that you have an unrecorded conversation with the father of the player and that he admitted it somewhere else in writing without furnishing a copy of that writing doesn't count as substantiating it, especially when a reasonable counterargument has been made that the father in question didn't really know what he was talking about.
tl;dr: Let this exact case go and focus on clarifying the rules - even if the actual player confesses to having tried to learn how to flip coins, there is no proof that is a rational belief. Instead it looks to just be a more complicated form of "lucky coin" rituals.
- people trying to debate about whether this format is better than the last (which honestly seems far too off topic to me)
- we've got people debating whether or not luck is a major part of this game (a little more relevant)
- discussions about specific players trustworthiness and skill (varies)
- we've got an unsubstantiated report that "all" Japanese players practice flipping heads (relevant)
- A debate about whether or not the intent of the game is for a coin toss to be truly random, or merely a sub-skill of the game that can be improved (relevant)
- A debate about whether or not it is possible to significantly alter the randomness of a coin toss (highly important)
- the concern that we are setting a bad example for the youth through players who do practice rolling dice/tossing coins (relevant)
- The National's Coin Manipulation Issue
We've seen that the English guidelines might need some clarification, because right now there is a double standard of what someone believes can manipulate events. What happens when two people have the same beliefs? Do we treat their "lucky rituals" as cheating?
We've had a lot of unsubstantiated accusations of cheating. So far the strongest "evidence" is that the report (not actual quotations) that a father confirmed his son's practiced flipping coins... and still no proof that their practice paid off or ever could pay off. One of the accused has stated they did not cheat and the father was not speaking for them or knowledgeable about what he was saying. This is casts reasonable doubt on the father's so-called "confession". No one has explained to me that the father was an expert on probability, sleight of hand, or Pokemon, after all.
Personally I think this thread is done and we'd be better off spinning off those other conversations. The rulings have been made and finalized for Nationals. Right now I am just convinced I should avoid the runner-ups family at all costs, because a polite assertion stops being polite when it is repeated ad nauseam and never substantially backed up.
No, repeating that you have an unrecorded conversation with the father of the player and that he admitted it somewhere else in writing without furnishing a copy of that writing doesn't count as substantiating it, especially when a reasonable counterargument has been made that the father in question didn't really know what he was talking about.
tl;dr: Let this exact case go and focus on clarifying the rules - even if the actual player confesses to having tried to learn how to flip coins, there is no proof that is a rational belief. Instead it looks to just be a more complicated form of "lucky coin" rituals.
JandPDS
New Member
That is why I allways insist that my opponent roll a die