Abstract thinking about strategy choices

This is me thinking aloud, maybe asking for help, i'm not sure. It's all the fault of the voices. They whisper to me when i have had too much to eat, and this is what they've been telling me over the past few nights. Suppose you are building a deck. You decide that your deck is going to have some number between 1 and x of Things It Does [this is how they think in Atlanta these nights, so i'm told, and i think it's a strong plan]. What is the chance that your deck will NOT be able to do one of the Things It Does at any given time? i think this is fairly easy to work out. Let's say you've decided to put n cards in your [for the sake of argument] 90-card deck which will allow you to Do Something. Then the chance that you'll be looking at a 7-card hand which will NOT allow you to pull off this particular trick is [1-[n/90]]^7 ["^" means "to the power ..."]. For example, if you have 14 cards in your deck then the chance you can pull off the trick based on this card with any given hand is 69%. If you have 25 it is 90%. In practise, i find my reliable degenerate decks have about 16 cards in a 90-card deck which spookily enough works out to 75% reliable. Now it seems to me that following through this line of reasoning you come up with something rather remarkable. Suppose you decide your deck is going to do 3 things actively, when it's your turn, and three things reactively, when it is someone else's turn. Let's say you dedicate 10 cards to each thing. Now the chance that you won't be able to do any one thing is 43% for each strategy. But the chance that NOT ONE of your active or reactive strategies is going to come off is just over 8%. In fact even if you put only 6 cards of any given type into your deck you have still got a better-than-75%-reliable deck in the sense that it will have something to say in any given situation. This sounds awfully close to a mathematical argument for the Inherent Superiority of Toolbox, but right now i am not claiming that at all, at all [i'm assuming one-card strategies, which are likely to be weak compared to multi-card-combo strategies if you can actually pull the latter off]. i wonder if this is a way into quantifying deck-construction at a higher-than-happy-families level. The basic idea is of course the same, it's about proportions of cards. In this extension of the idea i am trying to map something a bit more abstract than discipline-mixes of decks onto crypt-vampires; i am trying to map strategies onto decks. The enormous utility of DoTS, Distraction, Aura reading and so on [card-cycling generally, in fact] become analysable in terms of numbers rather than just instinct, and the same is true of the dual-purpose cards like Telepathic Misdirection which can fit into your 'i'm gonna intercept' and 'i'm gonna bounce' strategies. Or modules, if you will. i'll be thinking about this concept a bit more over the holidays and i'ld be interested in other peoples' ideas on the subject, ESPECIALLY corrections to my ABYSMAL arithmetic and algebra. But wouldn't it be lovely if one could look at a deck you were building or someone else was posting and say, well, that deck is 45% reliable but if you cut it down to 65 cards, put in two more Beat the Unliving Shit out of Target Minion cards, replace the Gimme More Bloods by another two No, No and A Thousand Times No!s, then it would be 65% reliable.

legbiter wrote: > i wonder if this is a way into quantifying deck-construction at a > higher-than-happy-families level. The basic idea is of course the > same, it's about proportions of cards. In this extension of the idea i > am trying to map something a bit more abstract than discipline-mixes > of decks onto crypt-vampires; i am trying to map strategies onto > decks. The enormous utility of DoTS, Distraction, Aura reading and so > on [card-cycling generally, in fact] become analysable in terms of > numbers rather than just instinct, and the same is true of the > dual-purpose cards like Telepathic Misdirection which can fit into > your 'i'm gonna intercept' and 'i'm gonna bounce' strategies. Or > modules, if you will. > > i'll be thinking about this concept a bit more over the holidays and > i'ld be interested in other peoples' ideas on the subject, ESPECIALLY > corrections to my ABYSMAL arithmetic and algebra. But wouldn't it be > lovely if one could look at a deck you were building or someone else > was posting and say, well, that deck is 45% reliable but if you cut it > down to 65 cards, put in two more Beat the Unliving Shit out of Target > Minion cards, replace the Gimme More Bloods by another two No, No and > A Thousand Times No!s, then it would be 65% reliable. From an area of non-gaming experience comes my question of deniability. Basically the matter of cost-performance from a security point of view. I place my serverapplication on this PC for $1500 or I place it on this redundant system of firewalls and clustered servers for $150000. Now, what on earth does this have to do with VTES? In the example above I'll very often end up with a raw performance that is LOWER if I choose the more expensive version, but chances are very low that any one single mishap will break my system. Converted into VTES this could translate into the loss of performance when packing stealth/intercept as they steal cardslots. At the other hand, deniability also goes down as I'll be more likely to succeed when acting/blocking. So you'll end up planning an n%reliability deck in an environment with an m denial-rating. This is also reflected in the posts on strategy here. Never block a stealth/bleed deck for example which would translate into the danger of being able to handle a too high m-value without the ability discard several cards. I guess you will end up in this problem while playing an intercept-wall against people refusing to stealth. For simplicity I guess you'll have to assume that a generic game takes X rounds, and any cards attempting to deviate from that is also a denial- strategy as all decks would be better off using the last library-card the round it ousts the last remaining player. -- NetGuide Scandinavia AB http://www.netg.se/ Tankegangen 4 in...@netg.se 417 56 Goteborg Phone:+46 - (0)31 - 50 79 45 Sweden Fax: +46 - (0)31 - 50 79 39

"legbiter" <legb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:68f2e9f8.01082...@posting.google.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Interesting thought experiment, but there is still deck randomization issues that cannot be predicted in a mathematical models... ie DUMB LUCK. I'll give the whole idea more thought and respond in kind, but this is the first thought that popped into my head. Matt

(partly a placeholder to remind me to reply later tonight, -after- games and beer, partly a response) Sten During <ya...@netg.se> wrote in news:3B811699...@netg.se: > So you'll end up planning an n%reliability deck in an environment with > an m denial-rating. This is also reflected in the posts on strategy (probably should hang onto these terms, as I can see it getting very wordy otherwise: n% R, and an M-rating. :) > here. Never > block a stealth/bleed deck for example which would translate into the > danger of being able to handle a too high m-value without the ability > discard several cards. I guess you will end up in this problem while > playing > an intercept-wall against people refusing to stealth. You will. It's one of the Great Tricks against intercept; if you don't think you can ever stealth past him, discard any stealth you have, or if it's a metagame issue, just play a nice l'il zero stealth deck. > For simplicity I guess you'll have to assume that a generic game takes > X rounds, and any cards attempting to deviate from that is also a ...12. ;) > denial- strategy as all decks would be better off using the last > library-card the round it ousts the last remaining player. They would! It's something we've been trying to foist off on others for some time in Atlanta; reduce the size of your deck to make the whole thing run more efficiently. :)

Derek Ray wrote: > (partly a placeholder to remind me to reply later tonight, -after- games > and beer, partly a response) > > Sten During <ya...@netg.se> wrote in news:3B811699...@netg.se: > > > So you'll end up planning an n%reliability deck in an environment with > > an m denial-rating. This is also reflected in the posts on strategy > > (probably should hang onto these terms, as I can see it getting very wordy > otherwise: n% R, and an M-rating. :) Oki, then let's call denial-rating D-rating and reliability R% :) > > > > For simplicity I guess you'll have to assume that a generic game takes > > X rounds, and any cards attempting to deviate from that is also a > > ...12. ;) I guess this will need some actual clocking, ie round 2 table 3 ended in turn 12, or timed out during round 15, that way we can also assume that no generic game will last more than 15 (or whatever) turns. > > > > denial- strategy as all decks would be better off using the last > > library-card the round it ousts the last remaining player. > > They would! It's something we've been trying to foist off on others for > some time in Atlanta; reduce the size of your deck to make the whole thing > run more efficiently. :) Ok, then we split any turn into beginning-middle-end. The beginning game will last for let's say four turns, after which the amount of ready minions will no longer increase. The middle-game will last until the second oust, and so on. Now, how many cards will I play during each phase? More assumptions - I will not run into hand-jam during the first phase, so I only have to care about D-rating in terms of succesfully acting or blocking, having my vamps torporized included. During the second phase I'll discard anything that potentially hand-jams me. During the last phase I'll discard anything that needs table-politics as the game (usually) becomes more prey-orientated. Basic strategy will vary as well. During the first phase I'll build/deny buildups. The second phase will see table-control/prey-hurting/predator-protection, and the third prey-hurting/planning to stay last/predator-protection. Each deck will have three R%, one for each phase with a weighting for each phase (Wn), telling me how important the phase is for my deck (Equipment/Praxis vote decks with all equip/praxis seizures failing during phase one will probably fall over, stealth/intercept decks being refused to cycle will fall over during phase 2 etc etc) So my deck ends up something like this: R1%/W1 + R2%/W2 + R3%/W3 being how reliably it will 'pull it off' with a given D-rating. It will also produce three (check this) D-ratings. Denial of blocking (stealth, swarm), denial of acting (wake, intercept, out-of-turn-masters) and denial of deck-size (changing game-length, pool-burning around the table or pool-addition around the table being the most obvious). A tool-box will probably have decent R% with low Wn coupled with the capacity to handle a wider span of D-rating. Probably produces low D-rating of all three kinds. Your weenie-bleed will probably have high R% with low Wn coupled with a total inability to handle large deviations of D-rating. It will produce a high D-rating for blocking only. Toreador gun-bleed sees a high R% with very high W1, decent W2 and low W3. It will also be unable to handle a high D-rating for actions. Will produce a high D-rating for actions only. Sten During [ quoted text not captured ]

legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote: >This is me thinking aloud, maybe asking for help, i'm not sure. It's >all the fault of the voices. They whisper to me when i have had too >much to eat, and this is what they've been telling me over the past >few nights. > >Suppose you are building a deck. You decide that your deck is going to >have some number between 1 and x of Things It Does [this is how they >think in Atlanta these nights, so i'm told, and i think it's a strong >plan]. What is the chance that your deck will NOT be able to do one of >the Things It Does at any given time? > >i think this is fairly easy to work out. Let's say you've decided to >put n cards in your [for the sake of argument] 90-card deck which will >allow you to Do Something. Then the chance that you'll be looking at a >7-card hand which will NOT allow you to pull off this particular trick >is [1-[n/90]]^7 ["^" means "to the power ..."]. For example, if you >have 14 cards in your deck then the chance you can pull off the trick >based on this card with any given hand is 69%. If you have 25 it is >90%. In practise, i find my reliable degenerate decks have about 16 >cards in a 90-card deck which spookily enough works out to 75% >reliable. Your formula is incorrect. Assume a 90-card deck with 84 of some card. By your formula, it would be possible to not get your card, but it is impossible not to as there are only six cards that aren't the one you want and there are seven cards in a hand. i.e. You must get at least one of your cards. I think the correct figure is given by: Let s be the size of the deck. Let c be how many of your card are in the deck. Let n be s-c. (This is just to simplify the formula.) n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)*(n-4)*(n-5)*(n-6) P(stuck)= ------------------------------------- s*(s-1)*(s-2)*(s-3)*(s-4)*(s-5)*(s-6) [snip] Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices.

ge...@shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko) wrote in message news:<3b814499....@news.shuswap.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Oops, blush, you're right. Implicit in what i wrote out is that actually you have a one-card hand and every time you draw or play a card you shuffle the one you drawed/played back into your deck. This isn't legal even in competitive magic [though i'm told it sometimes happens anyway]. > > I think the correct figure is given by: > > Let s be the size of the deck. > Let c be how many of your card are in the deck. > Let n be s-c. (This is just to simplify the formula.) > > n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)*(n-4)*(n-5)*(n-6) > P(stuck)= ------------------------------------- > s*(s-1)*(s-2)*(s-3)*(s-4)*(s-5)*(s-6) > > [snip] > > Sincerely, > > Gene Wirchenko > Thank-you, that's MUCH better. And it draws attention to the effect of depleting your library. Scott [if you're reading this] i know we can't take notes, but can we take calculators into tournament games?

legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote in message news:<68f2e9f8.01082...@posting.google.com>... > This is me thinking aloud, maybe asking for help, i'm not sure. It's > all the fault of the voices. They whisper to me when i have had too > much to eat, and this is what they've been telling me over the past > few nights. > I should lay off the strong cheese before bedtime if i were you.....:-)

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > They would! It's something we've been trying to foist off > on others for some time in Atlanta; reduce the size of your > deck to make the whole thing run more efficiently. :) By all means, reduce your deck size whenever possible. That'll make my "oust by deck death" decks much more efficient! This is one theory that I never bought into. So long as the proportions are the same, there should be no reason that a smaller deck is more efficient than a bigger one. Regards, Noal

Noal McDonald wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] That would be only partially true. Some decks actually risk loosing by getting a very good start, and while attemting to get rid of acute hand-jam the rest of the table (by now being a very scared table) removes the (by now no longer dangerous) offending player. More usual is the toolbox with several different unique cards. With a smaller deck the need for forced discard goes down rapidly as the need for multiples of important uniques is lower. Normally a deck based on non-combat transients can be more or less whatever size without much difference, and so I tend to build my 90 card libraries never seeing more than 50 cards being played whenever playing one, but when I'm creating a deck that needs multiple copies of The Barrens I always feel that a smaller deck could have done the job as well. [ quoted text not captured ]

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in news:bb705c59.01082...@posting.google.com: > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> They would! It's something we've been trying to foist off >> on others for some time in Atlanta; reduce the size of your deck to >> make the whole thing run more efficiently. :) > > By all means, reduce your deck size whenever possible. That'll make my > "oust by deck death" decks much more efficient! I consider all the "n Raptors and run you out of cards!" decks to be basically a cute idea, fun to play, and tier-2 because of WAY too many moving parts required. If I sit next to one of them -and- it gets its trick off, that's great, but I'm also not going to worry about them... ever. Consider what you need in order to make it happen: * must have superior Animalism * must have 2 blood per Raptor * must equip only 1 Raptor per turn, OR - must play Shepherd's Innocence to move them all to one vampire * must get the Raptors in your hand * must have enough stealth to guarantee getting a Raptor - must have enough stealth to guarantee the highly vulnerable Shepherd's Innocence action, if you're using it * must have enough untap to not be ousted while you are building up * must have enough combat to not be killed while you are building up * must have a repeatable trick to make someone lose lots of cards * must be able to direct all this against your prey, while still ensuring the above 8 things AND, while you're doing all this, there are some other problems. One Raptor actually helps most decks. Two Raptors are a minor nuisance, but still not a problem. Three is where they start to be a real cramp; so until you get 3 Raptors on one vampire, your deck is actually somewhat beneficial to decks it blocks, unless you're including enough active combat to kill things you block; which is more than "not be killed". While I'll freely admit that the Raptor idea is amusing (and I posted the three-and-a- half Raptors deck awhile back, based not on running your opponents totally out of cards, but by constantly screwing up their hand with 3 Raptors on one minion) and oodles of fun, I just don't see it ever being tier-1, or being able to hold its own at a table with tier-1 decks. > This is one theory that I never bought into. So long as the > proportions are the same, there should be no reason that a smaller > deck is more efficient than a bigger one. With cards you have 6+ of, the math works out to be negligibly better in favor of a smaller deck. (1% difference, or so; not especially worth it). The cards you only have 1-3 of in the deck start to matter a lot, though. With a 70-card deck, I can put 1 of each of the news locations in, and guarantee that I have at LEAST 2 out by end-of-game, and probably all 3. With a 90-card deck, I'll be lucky to get 2 out by end-of-game, and my game is much more likely to end early since I'm effectively operating with one less "panic" intercept per turn. If you want a specific card such as the Ivory Bow, it's safe to put only 1 in a 70-card deck; you should get it within a reasonable amount of time. 1 card in a 90-card deck is a "prayer" card, though. Including 2 of them begins to work against you; now you have one of your valuable discard phases taken up with a card you'll HAVE to discard late in the game, when hand jam will be more critical. In addition, you have to look at how long the average game lasts, and how often your decks run out of cards. If you have a 90-card deck, look at where your deck is when you get ousted. Does it have 40 cards left? Were there cards still in your library that could have saved you? Even if you win, look at where your deck is... if you have 20 cards left, then you can assume that your deck would only have run BETTER if you were a few cards shorter, because there were unquestionably still cards you wanted to see (Masters, whatever) hidden in those 20. I did a bunch of math regarding this awhile back, and it can be chased down on Google. But more easily than doing that, ...just try it and see. (Don't try it with a deck that's going to blow cards out the wazoo every action, however. Rush decks do well at 90 cards because they tend to run out of cards ANYWAY.)

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9104826B...@198.99.146.10>... > > This is one theory that I never bought into. So long as the_________________ > > proportions are the same, there should be no reason that a smaller__________ > > deck is more efficient than a bigger one.___________________________________ > ______________________________________________________________________________ > With cards you have 6+ of, the math works out to be negligibly better in _____ > favor of a smaller deck. (1% difference, or so; not especially worth it).____ > ______________________________________________________________________________ > The cards you only have 1-3 of in the deck start to matter a lot, though. ___ > With a 70-card deck, I can put 1 of each of the news locations in, and _______ > guarantee that I have at LEAST 2 out by end-of-game, and probably all 3. ____ > With a 90-card deck, I'll be lucky to get 2 out by end-of-game, and my game __ > is much more likely to end early since I'm effectively operating with one ____ > less "panic" intercept per turn. If you want a specific card such as the ____ > Ivory Bow, it's safe to put only 1 in a 70-card deck; you should get it ______ > within a reasonable amount of time. 1 card in a 90-card deck is a ___________ > "prayer" card, though. Including 2 of them begins to work against you; Derek, I think you missed the "SO LONG AS THE PORPORTIONS ARE THE SAME" part of what he said. He is saying that 2 cards in a 60 card deck is the same as 3 cards in a 90 card deck. In both cases 1/30th of your deck is that card. But the 90 card deck is less likely to run out of cards. In most cases reducing your deck to 60 cards is simply reducing the longevity of your deck. > In addition, you have to look at how long the average game lasts, and how ____ > often your decks run out of cards. If you have a 90-card deck, look at ______ > where your deck is when you get ousted. Does it have 40 cards left? Were > there cards still in your library that could have saved you? Even if you ____ > win, look at where your deck is... if you have 20 cards left, then you can ___ > assume that your deck would only have run BETTER if you were a few cards _____ > shorter, because there were unquestionably still cards you wanted to see _____ > (Masters, whatever) hidden in those 20. Games usually go between 10-15 turns. You should have your 90 card deck tuned to be spent by roughly that many turns. If you deck doesnt go through 90 cards in 15 turns, then you should probably look at redesigning your deck even if it means adding a Barrens or Fragment. With unlimited cardstock resources, I can think of only one reason to play with less than a 90 card deck. That reason is Waste Management, Pocthli and summon soul. If you are replenishing your library with cards that are most usefull for the particular table set up, then you want to have a small library. This will allow you to better customize your library to overcome the particular table situation. That is if you got stuck between two Combat End decks you start putting the Psyches and Immortal grapples back into your deck to handle that particular situation. If your facing a grapple deck you start packing your library up with manuevers. The concept works great and I have won an LA tourney playing my 60 card waste managment deck. However 60 card libraries are really corner cases only productive when using those few library replenishing cards that exist. I would go even further to say, that properly designed decks get stronger and stronger as the size of the library gets larger and larger. Brad Ward Prince of NLV

"Brad Ward" <wa...@nevada.edu> wrote in message news:e5b93701.01082...@posting.google.com... > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9104826B...@198.99.146.10>... > > > This is one theory that I never bought into. So long as the > > > proportions are the same, there should be no reason that a smaller > > > deck is more efficient than a bigger one. Assuming there are any multiples of cards in the deck, a bigger deck is less efficient than a smaller deck. In a 40 card deck with 5 Minion Taps (1/8th of your deck) you stand about a 44% chance of getting exactly one in your opening hand. In an 80 card deck, with 10 minion taps (still 1/8th) your chance of getting exactly one Minion Tap in the opening hand is 41%. That's because the chances of getting *more than one* copy of the card increases as your deck size increases. Think of that 3% difference like you do the house edge in Vegas. Its not a huge difference but with enough trials, the house will win. Since each card draw is another trial, you can imagine that the variance will have its way sooner or later. I personally prefer taking the risk and using a 90-card deck. I just seek to build the deck in a way that reduces the jamming effects of variance. -Robert rob...@vtesinla.org

legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote: >ge...@shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko) wrote in message news:<3b814499....@news.shuswap.net>... [snip] >> Your formula is incorrect. Assume a 90-card deck with 84 of some >> card. By your formula, it would be possible to not get your card, but >> it is impossible not to as there are only six cards that aren't the >> one you want and there are seven cards in a hand. i.e. You must get at >> least one of your cards. > >Oops, blush, you're right. Implicit in what i wrote out is that >actually you have a one-card hand and every time you draw or play a >card you shuffle the one you drawed/played back into your deck. This Sampling with replacement. >isn't legal even in competitive magic [though i'm told it sometimes >happens anyway]. >> >> I think the correct figure is given by: >> >> Let s be the size of the deck. >> Let c be how many of your card are in the deck. >> Let n be s-c. (This is just to simplify the formula.) >> >> n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)*(n-4)*(n-5)*(n-6) >> P(stuck)= ------------------------------------- >> s*(s-1)*(s-2)*(s-3)*(s-4)*(s-5)*(s-6) >Thank-you, that's MUCH better. And it draws attention to the effect of >depleting your library. Scott [if you're reading this] i know we can't >take notes, but can we take calculators into tournament games? If you're playing with a 90-card deck, you can generate a percentage table for c=1 to whatever concerns you and memorize the table. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <68f2e9f8.0108...@posting.google.com>, legbiter <legb...@my-deja.com> writes >Thank-you, that's MUCH better. And it draws attention to the effect of >depleting your library. Scott [if you're reading this] i know we can't >take notes, Of *other* players' activities: "1.4. Taking Notes Players are not allowed to take written notes of their opponents' decks or activities [...]" > but can we take calculators into tournament games? "1.5. Electronic Devices The head judge or tournament organizer may choose not to allow players to participate with electronic devices (such as cellular phones, pagers, and/or portable audio units) turned on." Try a slide rule, just in case? -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F They don't need to see you cry B457CA213D7E6 I can't promise I will heal you, but if you want to I will try 68C3695D623D5D

On 20 Aug 2001 05:03:42 -0700, legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote: <snip general discussion of hypothesis, which others have responded to with far more erudition than I can summon> > >i wonder if this is a way into quantifying deck-construction at a >higher-than-happy-families level. The basic idea is of course the >same, it's about proportions of cards. In this extension of the idea i >am trying to map something a bit more abstract than discipline-mixes >of decks onto crypt-vampires; i am trying to map strategies onto >decks. The enormous utility of DoTS, Distraction, Aura reading and so >on [card-cycling generally, in fact] become analysable in terms of >numbers rather than just instinct, and the same is true of the >dual-purpose cards like Telepathic Misdirection which can fit into >your 'i'm gonna intercept' and 'i'm gonna bounce' strategies. Or >modules, if you will. MOst of the discussion of the hypothesis so far, it seems to me, has danced around something I consider highly important in trying to model deck flow - which is essentially what we're attempting her, neh? Sten's D-rating is about as close as anyone's come to mentioning the non-uniformity of cards (and more importantly card TYPES) in terms of how quickly a given card can flow through your hand. For example, all master cards flow slowly, since they are limited to max 2 per turn (play 1, discard 1) without other flow-enhancement effects. Action cards flow at 1 per minion per turn max (without taking into account untaps, cardless actions, or other effects). Combat cards flow very nicely indeed, in general, but one must get into combat to use them - hence the beauty of Obedience as combat defense. Stealth & intercept flow well, but only if your opponent cooperates :-). All well and good, but how does this map onto the putative Mathematical Superiority of Toolbox ? I would suspect that it would mean that there is some Golden Point of Toolboxiness (or Things The Deck Does) that is the happy medium. Essentially, if D is the Denial Rating of the table environment and R is the deck's reliability, you'd see curves for deck reliablity like THIS |X | X R | X | X | X | X | X ------------------------- D for highly focused decks, and like THIS (curve X : moderately toolboxy, N=3) (curve Y : extreme toolbox, N=6) | X | X R |X X | Y X |Y Y X | Y Y Y Y Y X | Y ---------------------------------- D for toolboxy decks. The focussed deck is VERY efficient if it is not being denied effectively, and flows nicely. Denial cuts its efficiency very quickly, so it needs to have ways to bring more flow under its own control and out of the control of opponents. Of course, including those cards dilute its flow and increase its toolboxiness (including enough Barrens in your Rush deck to be sure of getting in first means 2-3 less combat cards and rush actions, as well as getting rid of the duplicates). The toolboxy deck is _less_ effective in a low denial rating environment, since some of its facets will not be particularly useful at any given point in the game (e.g. I include anti-vote, no-one is playing votes when I draw it, I either hold it until needed, effectively reducing my hand size, or I have to discard it, impeding flow.). As D-rating climbs, the toolbox GAINS effectiveness, since it will be more likely to have SOMETHING to do at any given point - and to have a countermeasure for whatever form the denial is taking. But at some point the dropoff does take its toll and the toolbox weakens, although more slowly than the focused deck. As N (the number of things the deck does) increases, the curve flattens and the mean reliability is lower. This is pretty much raw theory, and I lack the math to prove it, but I wanted to try to inject something into the discussion. Mark Woodhouse (who is definitely spending way too much time thinking about this)

wa...@nevada.edu (Brad Ward) wrote in news:e5b93701.01082...@posting.google.com: > Derek, I think you missed the "SO LONG AS THE PORPORTIONS ARE THE > SAME" part of what he said. He is saying that 2 cards in a 60 card How do you match the proportions of individual unique cards, such as the Parthenon? 1 in a 60-card deck is simply better than 1 *or* 2 in a 90-card deck. > deck is the same as 3 cards in a 90 card deck. In both cases 1/30th What if that card's unique and not easily burnable... or is something like an Assault Rifle, where you absolutely HAVE to have one on Anneke quickly, but you don't want to keep spending for the thing? 2 in a 60 is noticeably better than 3 in a 90, in this instance; you only have to get rid of one card, instead of two. And the math isn't as simple as just "1/30th". Go back and search on Google; I'll be damned if I work it all out AGAIN from scratch. > of your deck is that card. But the 90 card deck is less likely to run > out of cards. In most cases reducing your deck to 60 cards is simply > reducing the longevity of your deck. If I have a choice between a 60-card deck that reliably gains 3 VPs, runs out of cards, and is ousted, and a 90-card deck that MAY sweep, but also may fold if I clump up early on, I will take the 60-card deck every time. I only need 3 VPs to win, and the entire point is to reduce the random factor somewhat. Reducing it below 3 VPs is an indicator that you maybe should start putting cards back IN. > Games usually go between 10-15 turns. You should have your 90 card > deck tuned to be spent by roughly that many turns. If you deck doesnt > go through 90 cards in 15 turns, then you should probably look at > redesigning your deck even if it means adding a Barrens or Fragment. This strikes me as a very elaborate construct. If you have cards that you're trying to find ways to discard, you OBVIOUSLY have too many of those cards in the deck and should cut the size down. Creating additional discards isn't the sign of a "good deck", it's the sign of a deck with too much fluff in it. Take the fluff out, and you won't need the Barrens... not to mention that relying on the highly-contestable Barrens and the steal-me-please Fraggie is not a very safe plan. A well-built deck should only rarely -need- to discard. (I openly reject (and ridicule) the Magic-derived conclusion that "well, the more cards you see, the better your deck is running!" ...not implying that you're saying that here, but just in case anyone is tempted to throw that in.) [description of Pochtli and WMO tricks snipped; entertaining, but not really relevant to the issue of whether small decks WITHOUT those tricks work] > LA tourney playing my 60 card waste managment deck. However 60 card > libraries are really corner cases only productive when using those few > library replenishing cards that exist. It is worth noting here that I generally build 70 or 75-card decks if the deck style is suitable. Going down to 60 is reserved for highly effective pool-damage decks, or extreme-permanent decks, since you can be pretty sure that you'll move through 60 cards within 15 turns. The idea isn't to design a deck to run out early, it's to design a deck that has less than 10 cards left when you win or are ousted - and then it's very easy to alter the design, and to identify which cards were ineffective. > I would go even further to say, that properly designed decks get > stronger and stronger as the size of the library gets larger and > larger. Demonstrably false. Try playing a 180-card verson of Peter's Rush deck; simply double the proportions of everything. You should jam up on something and die miserably; the distribution curve will get you.

On 22 Aug 2001, Derek Ray wrote: > > (I openly reject (and ridicule) the Magic-derived conclusion that "well, > the more cards you see, the better your deck is running!" ...not implying > that you're saying that here, but just in case anyone is tempted to throw > that in.) actually, in the statistics i personally have collected, there is this somewhat horrible point to note: the prey of a Library Destruction deck gets more vps. now, i will also throw in here that this is based on a sample size of _4_ games that included the Library Destruction deck (Raptors, couriers, etc). But each game the prey of the LD deck clocked up quite a few vps. It seems that being able to cycle all those extra cards can help. Or maybe it's just that around here we build decks with too much "fluff", and this sort of predator just helps us clear it out of our hands. Curious, though.... salem...

"W. Mark Woodhouse" wrote: > > Sten's D-rating is about as close as anyone's come to mentioning the > non-uniformity of cards (and more importantly card TYPES) in terms of > how quickly a given card can flow through your hand. For example, all If we for simplicitys sake divide cards into denial-cards and activity-cards and create a hypothetical deck with 40 of each type, and then we also assume that one environment have a D-rating of 1, but our deck is meant to handle a D-rating of 2 (10 Cloak the Gathering, 10 Faceless Night, 10 Spirits Touch and 10 Precognition), then it would seem likely that if the decks R% was 50% for it's designated D-rating, that deck ought to have its actual chance of doing what it's supposed to do lowered because of the 20 unneeded denial-cards. Personally I'd classify more or less all action-cards as activity-cards and dump any untap/wake -card into that cathegory as well. Stealth, intercept and most in-referendum-cards would go into the denial-card cathegory. I'm not sure where to place combat-cards, but I tend to look at damage-dealing ones as denial-cards and all S:CE/prevent as activity-cards. Minions are activity-cards in themselves, but you can assign a number of them to try to modify your impact on D-rating, the absurd example of the latter being a 5 Cap Gangrel with Atonement, Guardian Angel, 7 Raptors, Dog Pack, Shadow of the Beast and an Assault Rifle. In the stupid example above the minion actually only partially increases your R% because of the Atonement, but it sure allows you to modify the D-rating in a horrid way. The other argument for dividing cards into denial and activity ones is that I normally only hear complaints about hand-jam concerning the denial-ones (wake-cards can by the classification above never cause hand-jam, but you may regret designing a deck that is 100% reliable in order to react, but designed to handle a D-rating of zero). Hmm, is this rambling or going anywhere? :) Sten [ quoted text not captured ]

shan...@tcinternet.net (W. Mark Woodhouse) wrote in message news:<3b833a69...@news.tcinternet.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] Interesting, my intuition is the same as yours. i think the only thing i would add [or maybe re-emphasise from what you say above] is that the SOMETHING the toolboxy deck does PROBABLY will be qualitatively inferior to what the focussed deck does. This is going to make it difficult if not impossible to PROVE that toolbox is better [and actually, i don't REALLY believe it is, but that's another debate]. Off to Portugal now, so until i get back thanks to all who have helped with this. i'm coming round to the concept of Key Cards, which i'll explain when i get back.

"....salem christ...." wrote: > actually, in the statistics i personally have collected, there is this > somewhat horrible point to note: > the prey of a Library Destruction deck gets more vps. > > now, i will also throw in here that this is based on a sample size of _4_ > games that included the Library Destruction deck (Raptors, couriers, etc). Raptors are "hand cycling" effects, not "library destruction" tools. I can see where the prey of a Raptor deck has an advantage (until the number of Raptors on a given minion is greater than 2 or 3). -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"....salem christ...." <s940...@bohm.anu.edu.au> wrote in news:Pine.SOL.3.90.1010822171823.16381A-100000@bohm: > actually, in the statistics i personally have collected, there is this > somewhat horrible point to note: > the prey of a Library Destruction deck gets more vps. > > now, i will also throw in here that this is based on a sample size of > _4_ games that included the Library Destruction deck (Raptors, > couriers, etc). But each game the prey of the LD deck clocked up quite Hm. I want to clarify this one; a Courier deck is not library-destruction in my opinion. It is SELECTIVE library-destruction, something which is far more effective than simply chunking cards off the top of someone's deck. If I make you burn 5 cards, and 3 of them were useless in your current situation while 2 of them were good, I probably haven't *really* accomplished anything. However, if, using Couriers, I make you burn a Bonding, then a Minion Tap, and then find that the second card on top of your deck is a duplicate of your Hunting Ground that is already in play... then I can force you to not only lose good cards, but take a BAD card, effectively a forced-discard. This can be even more annoying than losing cards. > a few vps. It seems that being able to cycle all those extra cards can > help. Or maybe it's just that around here we build decks with too much > "fluff", and this sort of predator just helps us clear it out of our > hands. Most decks, no matter how little "fluff" they have when you build them, will develop fluff over the course of a game. Peter's POT-Rush deck has "conditional fluff" in it; his maneuvers. If he sits at a table where nobody is carrying maneuvers, then all those maneuvers are discards and candidates for the fluff-pile. It's not to say that those cards should be removed from his deck; far from it. But the varied situations you may be in will cause your deck to develop fluff. (last Monday, I was in front of a Setite Corruption horde with my Jan Pieterzoon* DOM/FOR deck; I was pitching Deflections left and right, because they were fluff.) This is one reason I cannot support deliberately putting extra fluff in your deck just to make 90 cards; you're already going to need your discard phase to get rid of things that just aren't appropriate for your situation. You can't be running around increasing your own problem. -- Derek * ...Is my new favourite vampire. His effect on the table is probably not TERRIBLY significant as far as people getting things done, but he definitely makes people start to twitch and do crazy things. =) I should maybe do the math sometime and see exactly how much less likely it is that you can get a 4-card combo off with a 6-card hand, as opposed to a 7-card hand. Hmm. =) </ramble>

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9105BABB...@198.99.146.10>... > wa...@nevada.edu (Brad Ward) wrote in > news:e5b93701.01082...@posting.google.com: > > Derek, I think you missed the "SO LONG AS THE PORPORTIONS ARE THE > > SAME" part of what he said. He is saying that 2 cards in a 60 card > How do you match the proportions of individual unique cards, such as the > Parthenon? 1 in a 60-card deck is simply better than 1 *or* 2 in a 90-card > deck. Gee if you REALLY need 1/60th of your library to be a certain card you will have to make a 60 card library and put in 1 of that card. Your argument there is silly. Silly because the same argument could be made that a certain deck needs to have exactly 1/77th or 1/90th etc. of a certain card, and in that case a 60 card deck could not produce that exact ratio. > What if that card's unique and not easily burnable... or is something like > an Assault Rifle, where you absolutely HAVE to have one on Anneke quickly, > but you don't want to keep spending for the thing? 2 in a 60 is noticeably > better than 3 in a 90, in this instance; you only have to get rid of one > card, instead of two. > And the math isn't as simple as just "1/30th". Go back and search on > Google; I'll be damned if I work it all out AGAIN from scratch. 3 in 90 is just about as good as 2 in 60. The only valid argument against this is variance. R. Goudie brought that up in a followup. I didnt want to get into variance since its effect is marginal between a 60 and 90 card deck and I also thought you might have some trouble understanding it. > If I have a choice between a 60-card deck that reliably gains 3 VPs, runs > out of cards, and is ousted, and a 90-card deck that MAY sweep, but also > may fold if I clump up early on, I will take the 60-card deck every time. > I only need 3 VPs to win, and the entire point is to reduce the random > factor somewhat. Reducing it below 3 VPs is an indicator that you maybe > should start putting cards back IN. Well, thats a mighty fine deck you have there then derek, I still say that deck would be stronger, more efficeint and have more stamina if properly redesigned to 90 cards. > This strikes me as a very elaborate construct. If you have cards that _______ > you're trying to find ways to discard, you OBVIOUSLY have too many of those > cards in the deck and should cut the size down. Creating additional > discards isn't the sign of a "good deck", it's the sign of a deck with too > much fluff in it. Take the fluff out, and you won't need the Barrens... _____ > not to mention that relying on the highly-contestable Barrens and the _ The above statement is SO absolutely wrong and self conflicting to boot. We could start with that Arika Praxis Berlin Soul gem deck as an example. That deck has 9 soul gems in which it only needs 1. That leaves 8 to be discarded. Should the "fluff" be taken out of that deck? You also say a good deck won't need the barrens and in the same breath say that its highly contestable. Is it just that everyone brings crappy decks to tournaments and therefor their decks contain the Barrens, or is it possible that the discard the barrens provides is a very powerfull asset to almost any deck? > A well-built deck should only rarely -need- to discard. A well-built deck should be able to persevere against what is thrown at it. Sometimes that means intercepting, handling combat, stealthing actions, bouncing bleeds, or passing votes. The discard phase lets you customize your hand so that you can deal with the problems facing you at the moment. If my prey and preditor are playing with no stealth, I want nothing more than to be able to discard all my intercept cards. Discarding is a valuable tool that gives you a dynamic advantage. > > I would go even further to say, that properly designed decks get > > stronger and stronger as the size of the library gets larger and > > larger. > Demonstrably false. Try playing a 180-card verson of Peter's Rush deck; > simply double the proportions of everything. You should jam up on > something and die miserably; the distribution curve will get you. I said, "properly designed decks" not just double up the deck porportions. If his deck is a potence rush deck im sure I could strengthen it up by going to 180 cards. I would probably add the barrens and fragment and about 40 increased strength in addition to increasing the number of the rest of the cards.

ge...@shuswap.net (Gene Wirchenko) wrote in message news:<3b814499....@news.shuswap.net>... > legb...@my-deja.com (legbiter) wrote: > > >This is me thinking aloud, maybe asking for help, i'm not sure. It's > >all the fault of the voices. They whisper to me when i have had too > >much to eat, and this is what they've been telling me over the past > >few nights. (snip) > >i think this is fairly easy to work out. Let's say you've decided to > >put n cards in your [for the sake of argument] 90-card deck which will > >allow you to Do Something. Then the chance that you'll be looking at a > >7-card hand which will NOT allow you to pull off this particular trick > >is [1-[n/90]]^7 ["^" means "to the power ..."]. For example, if you > >have 14 cards in your deck then the chance you can pull off the trick > >based on this card with any given hand is 69%. If you have 25 it is > >90%. In practise, i find my reliable degenerate decks have about 16 > >cards in a 90-card deck which spookily enough works out to 75% > >reliable. > > Your formula is incorrect. Assume a 90-card deck with 84 of some > card. By your formula, it would be possible to not get your card, but > it is impossible not to as there are only six cards that aren't the > one you want and there are seven cards in a hand. i.e. You must get at > least one of your cards. > > I think the correct figure is given by: > > Let s be the size of the deck. > Let c be how many of your card are in the deck. > Let n be s-c. (This is just to simplify the formula.) > > n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)*(n-4)*(n-5)*(n-6) > P(stuck)= ------------------------------------- > s*(s-1)*(s-2)*(s-3)*(s-4)*(s-5)*(s-6) > From the nature of the discussion, I'd say it is a matter of that subpart of Mathematics called Probabilities, with all those fancy equations involving factorials (the "!" symbol) and such. Because of that, I'm not sure the above equation is valid, as it misses the factorial part (even if you rework the equation, I seem to remember that there is always a factorial remaining). I can check in my textbooks later tonight, if nobody comes up with the answer before then. :-)

> Most decks, no matter how little "fluff" they have when you build them, > will develop fluff over the course of a game. Peter's POT-Rush deck has > "conditional fluff" in it; his maneuvers. If he sits at a table where > nobody is carrying maneuvers, then all those maneuvers are discards and > candidates for the fluff-pile. It's not to say that those cards should be > removed from his deck; far from it. But the varied situations you may be > in will cause your deck to develop fluff. (last Monday, I was in front of > a Setite Corruption horde with my Jan Pieterzoon* DOM/FOR deck; I was > pitching Deflections left and right, because they were fluff.) > > This is one reason I cannot support deliberately putting extra fluff in > your deck just to make 90 cards; you're already going to need your discard > phase to get rid of things that just aren't appropriate for your situation. > You can't be running around increasing your own problem. And this is really one of the biggest parts of the 90 card deck; your numbers of discards do NOT scale with the number of cards in your deck. Any *card* that gives you cycling may not show up in your opening hand, even if you have 3 Dreams and 2 Barrens. And you'll cycle 1/90th of your deck with that first discard. However, you're cycling 1/60th of your deck in the 60-card version, and therefore cycling 50% better. Also, and someone should do the math out and stick it on a web page where it can be pointed at, there is the standard deviation. A 90-card replica of a 60-card deck is more capable of clumping, and more likely to. When you compound this with discards becoming less efficient as you increase your deck size, you have a hand-jam recipe. Somewhere is an ideal, and from experience, it's less than 90 cards. In *every* situation where I (or any other Atlantan) has trimmed a 90-card deck to a 70 to 80 card deck, usually just by ratios, the deck has ALWAYS performed better. I really don't get clumping and hand jam much; I've had it in a few games recently, and it surprised me. It was like "Hey, this...this is Hand Jam! THAT'S what everyone's been complaining about!" UNsuprisingly, I was playing 90-card decks when it happened. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

wa...@nevada.edu (Brad Ward) wrote in news:e5b93701.01082...@posting.google.com: > Gee if you REALLY need 1/60th of your library to be a certain card you > will have to make a 60 card library and put in 1 of that card. Your > argument there is silly. Silly because the same argument could be > made that a certain deck needs to have exactly 1/77th or 1/90th etc. > of a certain card, and in that case a 60 card deck could not produce > that exact ratio. You've successfully ignored the actual point (which I made in my ORIGINAL post as well), which is that unique cards, and cards you only have a few of in the deck, are the ones that gain the most benefit from a smaller library. You cannot match exact proportions of a single card, and many times it is appropriate to only include one of that card. The Ivory Bow is an excellent example. The Parthenon is another. >> What if that card's unique and not easily burnable... or is something >> like an Assault Rifle, where you absolutely HAVE to have one on >> Anneke quickly, but you don't want to keep spending for the thing? 2 >> in a 60 is noticeably better than 3 in a 90, in this instance; you >> only have to get rid of one card, instead of two. You didn't respond to this point. I accept your concession. >> And the math isn't as simple as just "1/30th". Go back and search on >> Google; I'll be damned if I work it all out AGAIN from scratch. > 3 in 90 is just about as good as 2 in 60. The only valid argument 3 in 90 forces an extra discard, something you fail to address. With only 10-15 turns in a game, you may only discard 10-15 cards. > against this is variance. R. Goudie brought that up in a followup. I > didnt want to get into variance since its effect is marginal between a > 60 and 90 card deck and I also thought you might have some trouble > understanding it. Dude, I worked it out from scratch a long time ago, all right here in public on r.g.t-c.j. If you want to look at the math, go back and search Google, and quit making random assertions with nothing useful behind them. >> If I have a choice between a 60-card deck that reliably gains 3 VPs, >> runs out of cards, and is ousted, and a 90-card deck that MAY sweep, >> but also may fold if I clump up early on, I will take the 60-card >> deck every time. I only need 3 VPs to win, and the entire point is >> to reduce the random factor somewhat. Reducing it below 3 VPs is an >> indicator that you maybe should start putting cards back IN. > Well, thats a mighty fine deck you have there then derek, I still say > that deck would be stronger, more efficeint and have more stamina if > properly redesigned to 90 cards. And you provide no evidence to support your argument. However, I can provide plenty of evidence to support mine; for one, a smaller deck size makes it POSSIBLE to rely on individual unique cards, or permanents, or cards you only put 3 of in the deck, WITHOUT requiring one to discard multiples. Relying on discarding multiples requires putting in more Masters instead of the ones you'd LIKE to see and begins adding points of attack for your deck. > > This strikes me as a very elaborate construct. If you have cards > > that _______ you're trying to find ways to discard, you OBVIOUSLY > > have too many of those cards in the deck and should cut the size > > down. Creating additional discards isn't the sign of a "good > > deck", it's the sign of a deck with too much fluff in it. Take the > > fluff out, and you won't need the Barrens... _____ not to mention > > that relying on the highly-contestable Barrens and the _ > The above statement is SO absolutely wrong and self conflicting to > boot. We could start with that Arika Praxis Berlin Soul gem deck as an Oh, you mean the best example of a deck which either sweeps or flops? Yes, LET'S use that deck! That deck is a PERFECT support for my argument. It - requires- so many discards that it makes itself extremely vulnerable. > example. That deck has 9 soul gems in which it only needs 1. That > leaves 8 to be discarded. Should the "fluff" be taken out of that > deck? You also say a good deck won't need the barrens and in the same I think the deck has too many weak points to be reliable. Intercept the vote and it dies. Intercept the Soul Gem and it dies. Intercept a Distraction and it dies. Kill Arika and it dies. Delaying Tactics the vote and it dies. Bounce the bleed and it ousts the wrong prey. Direct Intervention ANY of its key cards and it dies, and the deck is nothing BUT key cards. All of the above are highly likely to be seen. The weakest points are the Distractions, because the deck absolutely, positively, MUST dump cards out of its hand like a maniac, or it will jam up on stealth, Soul Gems, etc. If it ever reaches a situation where it has no Praxis, Awe, Daring the Dawn, or Force of Will, it crashes to a halt. If you think otherwise, feel free to play that deck in your next tournament, and see how it fares. I think it's a very clever idea, and when it works, it's funny as hell; and when it fails, it's going to crash hard... and the failure is TOTALLY beyond its own control. If I wanted to flip a coin, I'd just flip a coin. > breath say that its highly contestable. Is it just that everyone > brings crappy decks to tournaments and therefor their decks contain > the Barrens, or is it possible that the discard the barrens provides > is a very powerfull asset to almost any deck? Both are true, actually; an awful lot of people bring crap. However, this still supports my point that a good deck should not need to use the Barrens. If you are relying on the Barrens, then you are adding an additional weak point to your deck that should be taken out if at all possible. If you can do this by reducing numbers of cards, so that you are forced to discard less, then why not do so? I won't even mention how common Arson is becoming these days, with all the new location toys. The Barrens is a prime target around here; take away someone's extra discards they were relying on and watch their deck grind to a halt. > actions, bouncing bleeds, or passing votes. The discard phase lets > you customize your hand so that you can deal with the problems facing [...] > intercept cards. Discarding is a valuable tool that gives you a > dynamic advantage. Correct. This is why forcing yourself to discard cards by putting too much fluff in your deck will cause you to be screwed. You need to have the discard phase OPEN for your own use, not locked up with your third copy of the Parthenon that you needed early and had to put 4 in your deck to guarantee. With 4 Parthenon in your deck, 3 of them are cards you NEED to discard. Stealth and/or intercept may be things you WANT to discard, but I would much rather have the option to discard those than have all my late-game discard phases locked up with cards that HAVE to be got rid of. >> Demonstrably false. Try playing a 180-card verson of Peter's Rush >> deck; simply double the proportions of everything. You should jam up >> on something and die miserably; the distribution curve will get you. > > I said, "properly designed decks" not just double up the deck > porportions. If his deck is a potence rush deck im sure I could Matching proportions is the primary argument of the bigger-decks-are- always-better crowd. Deviating from it supports my point, because you increase the size of the deck by using cards which are NOT fluff, or which (as below) can be cycled in large multiples. > strengthen it up by going to 180 cards. I would probably add the > barrens and fragment and about 40 increased strength in addition to > increasing the number of the rest of the cards. Ah, so you would add cards that effectively collapse your deck size back down to a much smaller deck? I see you actually support my point AFTER all. And I still think you'd get completely crunched with that deck the first time you got 5-7 Increased Strengths in your hand and no Rush action. See if your playgroup will let you try it. I'll be interested in the results. My results are as follows: I played five different 70- or 75-card decks this past Monday, and six games. Three of them got 3VP, and one got 4. One of them got 0VP twice - the weenie Celerity-and-guns Rush deck, because everyone, strangely, kept intercepting its "can i equip THIS .44?" actions. Not much can be said about that with regards to deck size. One ran out of library completely, and I ended the game with two cards in hand. One of them, my Cailean/Eternal Vigilance/Combat Shotgun deck, survived long enough to get 3VP UNQUESTIONABLY because of the smaller deck size. 70 cards, and at the end of the game 5 cards were left in my library. 3 of those 5 were Eternal Vigilance cards; I had only put 4 in the deck to begin with. I had included 5 Raven Spies, and was able early on to get 2 onto Cailean, who was forced to mostly remain untapped just to survive. I didn't draw the first EV until my 35th card, though; and it came just in time, as my predator was probably going to blow through me that turn, as I was out of transient untap (and could only block one action). After that, I was able to start taking actions with Cailean, which were votes called with BO/Voter Cap, which put more blood back on him, which let him untap more and kill MORE vampires; and I finally was able to move forward. If I had a 90-card deck, I'd have died miserably. 10 more cards would have been too far to go, and the odds of my getting the Raven Spies early would have been much less. I was already discarding extra Raven Spies as unnecessary, and actually equipped a second minion with one to ward off any potential Call of the Grateful Dead actions. I was also having to discard piles of stealth, as nobody was even attempting to block ANY of my actions; fortunately I had Cicatriz available to ditch two stealth cards at a time. Empirical evidence shows that these reduced-size decks have done quite well against high-caliber players. My observations during the game indicate that the deck size is a significant factor. I get to my uniques earlier in the game, I discard less, and I hand-jam rarely. Perhaps you should try it for yourself. I've played LOTS of 90-card decks; for two years I built nothing that wasn't 90 cards. Then Tatu proposed his smaller-deck concept, and I gave it a whirl, figuring the only way to find out for SURE was to test. He was right.

> I still say that > deck > would be stronger, more efficeint and have more stamina if properly redesigned > to 90 cards. Question: Does your group play 5 or less player games, and NCL? And how long do your games take, on average? And actually count them, if you haven't; multiple experiences have shown that first guesses are way off, and actual counting of turns is necessary. =) Also, more general question for the group: Do people play with 2 hour time limits or not? I hear occasionally about "7 player, 5 hour games" which I find to be a bit silly[0]. Personally, I'd rather get in three 2-hour games instead of one 6-hour game, because I'd like to swap around table positions and decks. Our experience has been that we just keep playing so long as it's interesting. However, if one week the games were held up by an unexciting knock-down, drag-out match for hours on end, we usually institute time limits for the following week. =) [0] 5 is the rock solid best number of players, of course: A kills B, C gets a free ride and kills D, D gets a free ride and kills A, and WHUPS the pressure is a traveling wave, not a standing wave. This would true of 7 player games as well, BUT, you have players you have almost NO effect on. In a 5 player game, hurting my prey (something my deck does anyway) helps my grandprey, and hurting my predator (again, something my deck does already) helps my grand-predator. By the time we're up to "great-grand-," you've basically got to Rush or KRC cross table to affect them. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 13:59:12 -0500, Pat Ricochet <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote: > Question: Does your group play 5 or less player games, and NCL? And >how long do your games take, on average? And actually count them, if you >haven't; multiple experiences have shown that first guesses are way off, and >actual counting of turns is necessary. =) > > Also, more general question for the group: Do people play with 2 hour >time limits or not? I hear occasionally about "7 player, 5 hour games" >which I find to be a bit silly[0]. Personally, I'd rather get in three >2-hour games instead of one 6-hour game, because I'd like to swap around >table positions and decks. > Our experience has been that we just keep playing so long as it's >interesting. However, if one week the games were held up by an unexciting >knock-down, drag-out match for hours on end, we usually institute time >limits for the following week. =) > I prefer the long drawn out types. So does everyone I play with (of course, or we wouldnt be a group). Like any other game, tenacity is just as much a part of it as forethought...which is why ppl like ME dont like monopoly. Pertaining to whether or not you directly affect another person excepting specific cross table cirsumstances, you get into REAL meth politicking, when it's unclear IMHO. I mean, when a couple of meths need to walk away from the table and discuss something privately like in Diplomacy, I'm enjoying myself...not that I've ever done that =p

gen...@iname.com (Frederic Genest) wrote: [snip] >> I think the correct figure is given by: >> >> Let s be the size of the deck. >> Let c be how many of your card are in the deck. >> Let n be s-c. (This is just to simplify the formula.) >> >> n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)*(n-4)*(n-5)*(n-6) >> P(stuck)= ------------------------------------- >> s*(s-1)*(s-2)*(s-3)*(s-4)*(s-5)*(s-6) >From the nature of the discussion, I'd say it is a matter of that >subpart of Mathematics called Probabilities, with all those fancy >equations involving factorials (the "!" symbol) and such. Because of >that, I'm not sure the above equation is valid, as it misses the >factorial part (even if you rework the equation, I seem to remember >that there is always a factorial remaining). I can check in my >textbooks later tonight, if nobody comes up with the answer before >then. :-) Factorials are not compulsory for calculating probabilities. n/s is the probability of getting a card that you don't want for the first card. (n-1)/(s-1) is the probability of getting a card that you don't want for the second card. The numerator is one less because there is one less unwanted card (the first card), and the denominator is one less because there is one less card in the deck to pick. Similar reasoning applies to -2 to -6. All of these events must occur in order for the stuck situation to occur. That is why the probabilities are multiplied together. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > And the math isn't as simple as just "1/30th". Go back and search on > Google; I'll be damned if I work it all out AGAIN from scratch. I'll have to take a look at your math and see if it takes into account card redundancy (different cards that accomplish the same thing) or not. Where possible, the permanents that I put in decks tend to have a limited lifespan (Dreams of the Sphinx), have redundancy (Ecoterrorists, Powerbase: Montreal) or have a low cost (2 pool or less) of play. > If I have a choice between a 60-card deck that reliably gains 3 VPs, runs > out of cards, and is ousted, and a 90-card deck that MAY sweep, but also > may fold if I clump up early on, I will take the 60-card deck every time. Sure. But because the 60 card deck is more concentrated, any clumping problems will be more frequent, not less. > A well-built deck should only rarely -need- to discard. I agree 100%. Occasionally, I drag out "The Grind" to reinforce that point. > (I openly reject (and ridicule) the Magic-derived conclusion that "well, > the more cards you see, the better your deck is running!" ...not implying > that you're saying that here, but just in case anyone is tempted to throw > that in.) Again, I agree. Cards played that effectively advance you goal are better than just playing cards. Were the above true, a Deal With The Devil deck would be the ultimate deck. (but I still mantain that I'll be able to build a sucessful deck around it some day) Regards, Noal

>> dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote: >> By all means, reduce your deck size whenever possible. That'll make my >> "oust by deck death" decks much more efficient! > > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I consider all the "n Raptors and run you out of cards!" decks to be > basically a cute idea, fun to play, and tier-2 because of WAY too many > moving parts required. Notice that I didn't specify Raptor decks, Derek. !Nosferatu Courier Fleet decks can be just as effective. However, they excel more at surgically striking, by discarding the cards you don't like, than shoveling your prey's library to the ash heap. I've also got another "library shovel" deck on the drawing board that'll blow the Raptors away. However, it'll be several months before I unveil it as I'm still in final development of the "Swinging Dick II" and "Loyalty of Lunatics" decks and next couple in the development queue are the Uriah Winter Betrayer deck that I discussed a few months ago and a Setite rush combat deck with a dash of Necromancy. > AND, while you're doing all this, there are some other problems. > One Raptor actually helps most decks. Two Raptors are a minor > nuisance, but still not a problem. Three is where they start to > be a real cramp; so until you get 3 Raptors on one vampire, your > deck is actually somewhat beneficial to decks it blocks, unless > you're including enough active combat to kill things you block; > which is more than "not be killed". Which is why I maintain that my ANI/pro was the one of the best versions designed. It not only regularly got at least 5+ Raptors on a single vampire within 4-5 rounds, but Protean is the least card intensive of the combat disciplines. > While I'll freely admit that the Raptor idea is amusing (and I > posted the three-and-a-half Raptors deck awhile back, based not > on running your opponents totally out of cards, but by constantly > screwing up their hand with 3 Raptors on one minion) and oodles > of fun, I just don't see it ever being tier-1, or being able to > hold its own at a table with tier-1 decks. I would largely agree with that. My experience with my version was that it was slightly more effective at gaining VPs than most intercept combat decks that do not use Eagle's Sight. Regards, Noal

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in news:bb705c59.01082...@posting.google.com: > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> And the math isn't as simple as just "1/30th". Go back and search on >> Google; I'll be damned if I work it all out AGAIN from scratch. > > I'll have to take a look at your math and see if it takes into account > card redundancy (different cards that accomplish the same thing) or > not. Where possible, the permanents that I put in decks tend to have a > limited lifespan (Dreams of the Sphinx), have redundancy > (Ecoterrorists, Powerbase: Montreal) or have a low cost (2 pool or > less) of play. It doesn't. It was mostly just a simple probability run on getting a card, how likely you are to draw your next card, how easy it is to get a multiple-card combo in your hand, etc. Logical extension means it would actually support card redundancy; if you have two different cards that perform the same function (London, KRCG), then you have the advantage of having 'duplicated' a unique card (2 in a 60) without automatically having to discard the second one. 2 in a 60 is better than 2 in a 90, obviously, and the only way to match the proportions and effectiveness in the 90 is to either include a Rumor Mill (which doesn't QUITE perform the same effect as London/KRCG), or to duplicate one of your uniques and burn one of your discard phases. All of this is assuming a game where 90 cards will be played, by the way. If we assume a game where only 70 cards will be played, a 70-card deck clearly has an advantage, as it sees ALL its cards, while a 90-card deck will only see about 78% of them -- a nasty little gotcha. I believe this is one of the advantages "short" decks gain over full ones; the initial speed of a "short" deck is accelerated, and the game length is reduced (thus reducing the number of cards played). >> If I have a choice between a 60-card deck that reliably gains 3 VPs, >> runs out of cards, and is ousted, and a 90-card deck that MAY sweep, >> but also may fold if I clump up early on, I will take the 60-card >> deck every time. > > Sure. But because the 60 card deck is more concentrated, any clumping > problems will be more frequent, not less. My experience indicates differently, and enough so that it was extremely noticeable. I believe I did some math regarding this as well (how likely it was to get 2 of the same card in hand, how likely it was to get 3 of the same card in hand), but I don't remember exactly. I will point out that simple logic indicates that with only 6 of any given card in your deck, you'll have a hell of a tough time getting 3 of them in your hand at once as compared to 9, unless you're just not playing them as often as you thought you would and they pile up on you. (The solution indicated here is obviously to put even FEWER in the deck.) If you stick 9 in a 60 and 9 in a 90, then yes, you ARE asking for hand jam, but you've also altered the proportions, which is kind of a dumb thing. "more concentrated" is not the idea. >> A well-built deck should only rarely -need- to discard. > > I agree 100%. Occasionally, I drag out "The Grind" to reinforce that > point. Amusingly, someone attempted to put that card in play Monday. =) It got intercepted, which was a shame; I was sort of looking forward to it, since I had about 5 minions by then to take actions and move cards for me. >> (I openly reject (and ridicule) the Magic-derived conclusion that >> "well, the more cards you see, the better your deck is running!" >> ...not implying that you're saying that here, but just in case anyone >> is tempted to throw that in.) > > Again, I agree. Cards played that effectively advance you goal are > better than just playing cards. Were the above true, a Deal With The > Devil deck would be the ultimate deck. (but I still mantain that I'll > be able to build a sucessful deck around it some day) Well, obviously it's going to need the Giovanni, since all it really does is put lots of cards into your ash heap. I'd say start there, and continue on. :)

dhar...@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) wrote in news:bb705c59.01082...@posting.google.com: >> Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> I consider all the "n Raptors and run you out of cards!" decks to be >> basically a cute idea, fun to play, and tier-2 because of WAY too many >> moving parts required. > > Notice that I didn't specify Raptor decks, Derek. !Nosferatu Courier I'm just heading that line of discussion off at the pass. =) Plenty of people have drooled openly on this group over that combo; I remember a NUMBER of threads about using Blaise and Psyche! to abuse the snot out of someone's library. If it wasn't you, SOMEONE was going to jump in. =) > Fleet decks can be just as effective. However, they excel more at > surgically striking, by discarding the cards you don't like, than > shoveling your prey's library to the ash heap. I've also got another Yeah. I mentioned that in another post somewhere, I think; those aren't what I think of as "library hose" decks, they're "hand screw" decks. They create hand screw. =) >> be a real cramp; so until you get 3 Raptors on one vampire, your >> deck is actually somewhat beneficial to decks it blocks, unless >> you're including enough active combat to kill things you block; which >> is more than "not be killed". > > Which is why I maintain that my ANI/pro was the one of the best > versions designed. It not only regularly got at least 5+ Raptors on a > single vampire within 4-5 rounds, but Protean is the least card > intensive of the combat disciplines. Also the safest; Flesh of Marble is a lovely way to keep people off your back. Sucks to fight the Assamites/Tzimisce/Gangrel, but everything has its weakness. Mine was largely !Nossies and all the 5-caps with ANI, with Atonement/disguised .44s for permanent survival ability, and Carrion Crows to back it up. I'm not sure what else I was doing other than pool-gaining ferociously in an attempt to get 7-8 minions out. > I would largely agree with that. My experience with my version was > that it was slightly more effective at gaining VPs than most intercept > combat decks that do not use Eagle's Sight. Shame, in a way. It -is- amusing. =)

> > (I openly reject (and ridicule) the Magic-derived conclusion that "well, > > the more cards you see, the better your deck is running!" ...not implying > > that you're saying that here, but just in case anyone is tempted to throw > > that in.) > > Again, I agree. Cards played that effectively advance you goal are > better than just playing cards. Were the above true, a Deal With The > Devil deck would be the ultimate deck. (but I still mantain that I'll > be able to build a sucessful deck around it some day) heh speaking of which, I got a fun idea that I have to try sometime. Make a 60-deck and include like 5 deal witht he Devils...then have Pochtli out and do some Summon Souls with Weenies and recycle with Carlotta/Sargon, then you'll have a pretty control over what cards you're going to have in your hand all the time :) You could possibly do a crossover with !Brujah (since they got pot) and include Waste Management Op but that's probably not going to be very effective heh. Roger

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns91058CF5...@198.99.146.10>... > wa...@nevada.edu (Brad Ward) wrote in > > Gee if you REALLY need 1/60th of your library to be a certain card you > > will have to make a 60 card library and put in 1 of that card. Your > > argument there is silly. Silly because the same argument could be > > made that a certain deck needs to have exactly 1/77th or 1/90th etc. > > of a certain card, and in that case a 60 card deck could not produce > > that exact ratio. > You've successfully ignored the actual point (which I made in my ORIGINAL > post as well), which is that unique cards, and cards you only have a few of > in the deck, are the ones that gain the most benefit from a smaller > library. You cannot match exact proportions of a single card, and many > times it is appropriate to only include one of that card. The Ivory Bow is > an excellent example. The Parthenon is another. . Let me clarify for you. You are saying that cards like ivory bow and Parthenon?!? are cards you really like to have be 1/60th of your deck, no more no less. My rebuttal is that in a 90 card deck its true you cannot get 1/60th as a portion, but you can get 1/45th or 1/90th which is close enough. there are also many fractions that a 90 card deck can create that a 60 card deck cannot. You have a strange obsession with having ONLY 1 of a unique card, perhaps this is due to your role playing proclivities. I prefer to have a backup bow incase somthing happens to my first one, or make use of my discard. . > >> What if that card's unique and not easily burnable... or is something > >> like an Assault Rifle, where you absolutely HAVE to have one on > >> Anneke quickly, but you don't want to keep spending for the thing? 2 > >> in a 60 is noticeably better than 3 in a 90, in this instance; you >> only have to get rid of one card, instead of two. > You didn't respond to this point. I accept your concession. . No concession here. You are just plain wrong. 1/30th of your deck being an assault rifle is 1/30th weather its in a 90 card deck or 60 card deck. Variance will have an effect to clump your hand but its minimal between 60 and 90 card decks. . > >> And the math isn't as simple as just "1/30th". Go back and search on > >> Google; I'll be damned if I work it all out AGAIN from scratch. > > 3 in 90 is just about as good as 2 in 60. The only valid argument > 3 in 90 forces an extra discard, something you fail to address. With only > 10-15 turns in a game, you may only discard 10-15 cards. . so you do make use of your discard phase? I was under the impression from you that you make such tight decks that you rarely have to discard. If you do bulk your decks up to 90 cards and you still cant play through 75 cards (90 - 15 discards) in 15 turns, I suggest that you figure a way to get Dreams of sphinx, Barrens, Fragment, Storage Annex, Ulugh Beg or other cycling cards into your deck. This is all assuming of course that you are interested in making your decks more competetive. . > > I also thought you might have some trouble > > understanding it. > Dude, I worked it out from scratch a long time ago, all right here in > public on r.g.t-c.j. If you want to look at the math, go back and search > Google, and quit making random assertions with nothing useful behind them. . I've asserted your lack of mathmatical understanding back in our argument about Abomination vs Garou. That was somthing fairly simple, variance and probability is a whole step above basic addition and subtraction. . > a smaller deck size > makes it POSSIBLE to rely on individual unique cards, or permanents, or > cards you only put 3 of in the deck, WITHOUT requiring one to discard > multiples. Relying on discarding multiples requires putting in more > Masters instead of the ones you'd LIKE to see and begins adding points of > attack for your deck. . Maybe you just design decks poorly. One discard every turn should be enough to build a 90 card deck that flows through all its cards in 15 turns. Again you obsess about putting only 1 of each unique card in a <90 card deck. I have found that 2 in a 90 card deck works dandy well. But check this out, I could even put 1 in a 90 card deck. That makes a 1/90th portion of my deck. Can't do that in a <90 deck. you say put 3 of a card in a 75 card deck, 4 in a 90 card deck is even better, more stamina, more card play, bigger advantage. . > Oh, you mean the best example of a deck which either sweeps or flops? Yes, > LET'S use that deck! That deck is a PERFECT support for my argument. It - > requires- so many discards that it makes itself extremely vulnerable. > > example. That deck has 9 soul gems in which it only needs 1. That > > leaves 8 to be discarded. Should the "fluff" be taken out of that > > deck? You also say a good deck won't need the barrens and in the same > I think the deck has too many weak points to be reliable. Intercept the > vote and it dies. Intercept the Soul Gem and it dies. Intercept a > Distraction and it dies. Kill Arika and it dies. Delaying Tactics the > vote and it dies. Bounce the bleed and it ousts the wrong prey. Direct > Intervention ANY of its key cards and it dies, and the deck is nothing BUT > key cards. All of the above are highly likely to be seen. . The deck is not perfect, I would make many changes to it myself. My only point that I was making was that is a prime example of a deck design that having 8 extra soul gems is necessary even though it is somthing you stated was "fluff". It is fluff, but that type of deck NEEDS 9 soul gems since it is the pinnacle of the intire deck. . [Snip a lot of derek's attacks on the Arika Deck] . > > Is it just that everyone > > brings crappy decks to tournaments and therefor their decks contain > > the Barrens, or is it possible that the discard the barrens provides > > is a very powerfull asset to almost any deck? > Both are true, actually; an awful lot of people bring crap. However, this > still supports my point that a good deck should not need to use the > Barrens. If you are relying on the Barrens, then you are adding an > additional weak point to your deck that should be taken out if at all > possible. If you can do this by reducing numbers of cards, so that you are > forced to discard less, then why not do so? . I say that you can make a GREAT deck using the barrens. That arika deck could probably make great use of the barrens. The Barrens is one of the best cards out there, which can make some decks way stronger. . > > actions, bouncing bleeds, or passing votes. The discard phase lets > > you customize your hand so that you can deal with the problems facing > [...] > > intercept cards. Discarding is a valuable tool that gives you a > > dynamic advantage. > Correct. This is why forcing yourself to discard cards by putting too much > fluff in your deck will cause you to be screwed. You need to have the > discard phase OPEN for your own use, not locked up with your third copy of > the Parthenon that you needed early and had to put 4 in your deck to > guarantee. . I didnt say to pack your deck with fluff. I said if you are not capable of building 90 card decks that expend themselves in 15 turns it would be advantageous to increase to 90 and include barrens, frag or Dreams in that increase. Try it! take one of your silly 75 card decks and add 10 more of your functional cards and 2 barrens 2 dreams and 1 frag. Of course you still need to know when and what to discard. . > > I said, "properly designed decks" not just double up the deck > > porportions. If his deck is a potence rush deck im sure I could > Matching proportions is the primary argument of the bigger-decks-are- > always-better crowd. Deviating from it supports my point, because you > increase the size of the deck by using cards which are NOT fluff, or which > (as below) can be cycled in large multiples. . Guess you grouped me in the wrong crowd. Bigger decks are only better if you still get through all your cards effectively. I agree with you on the point that having extra cards when you win or are ousted doesnt do you a bit of good. . > > strengthen it up by going to 180 cards. I would probably add the > > barrens and fragment and about 40 increased strength in addition to > > increasing the number of the rest of the cards. > Ah, so you would add cards that effectively collapse your deck size back > down to a much smaller deck? I see you actually support my point AFTER > all. And I still think you'd get completely crunched with that deck the > first time you got 5-7 Increased Strengths in your hand and no Rush action. Id probably bleed with all my minions or take other directed actions until I could use the barrens, Frag, Dreams and discard phase to find myself a bums rush. If they block I fight, if they dont I bled them. Its pretty nice not to have your bleeds blocked. . > I played five different 70- or 75-card decks this past Monday, and six > games. Three of them got 3VP, and one got 4. One of them got 0VP twice - > the weenie Celerity-and-guns Rush deck, because everyone, strangely, kept > intercepting its "can i equip THIS .44?" actions. Not much can be said > about that with regards to deck size. One ran out of library completely, > and I ended the game with two cards in hand. . That doesnt speak well for your playgroup. How about your results in tourney settings or perhaps your VKEN ratings? Oh yeah thats right, you dont believe in the VKEN ranking system, surely due to your ineptitude of mathmatics. Was it Tatu that blocked all your equips? Ive had Tatu as my prey before, he sure could block a lot of stuff. He didn't last too long that game though. How about the game when you ran out of cards, I guess you won that one? Saying you win in your playgroup doesn't say much toward your caliber as a player. You could be playing with 14 yr olds that you also are teaching how to play. . > Empirical evidence shows that these reduced-size decks have done quite well > against high-caliber players. My observations during the game indicate > that the deck size is a significant factor. I get to my uniques earlier in > the game, I discard less, and I hand-jam rarely. . Maybe you do better with small decks. Perhaps you just cant handle a big deck like mine. Good luck with your small deck, hope it wins a tourney or somthing for you someday. . > Perhaps you should try it for yourself. I've played LOTS of 90-card decks; > for two years I built nothing that wasn't 90 cards. Then Tatu proposed his > smaller-deck concept, and I gave it a whirl, figuring the only way to find > out for SURE was to test. He was right. . Like I said, I have won an LA tourney with a 60 card deck. I still think 60 cards are only good for corner cases. . You take a real "Hippy" approach to Jyhad. You think every card has its use and that less is more. Truth is that everyone isn't a special star and more really is more. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Also the safest; Flesh of Marble is a lovely way to keep people off your > back. Sucks to fight the Assamites/Tzimisce/Gangrel, but everything has > its weakness. Hmm ever tried with Adaptability? The card normally sucks, but with FoM and no fortitude it can be a nice surprise factor =)

wa...@nevada.edu (Brad Ward) wrote in news:e5b93701.01082...@posting.google.com: > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:<Xns91058CF5...@198.99.146.10>... >> You've successfully ignored the actual point (which I made in my >> ORIGINAL post as well), which is that unique cards, and cards you >> only have a few of in the deck, are the ones that gain the most >> benefit from a smaller library. You cannot match exact proportions >> of a single card, and many times it is appropriate to only include >> one of that card. The Ivory Bow is an excellent example. The >> Parthenon is another. > . > Let me clarify for you. You are saying that cards like ivory bow and > Parthenon?!? are cards you really like to have be 1/60th of your deck, > no more no less. My rebuttal is that in a 90 card deck its true you No, Bradley, I'm saying exactly what I said above. Unique cards and cards you only have a few of (Shadow of the Beast in a PRO combat deck) are the ones that gain the most benefit from a smaller library. I'm sorry if you can't grasp basic English, and I'm sorry you don't understand probabilities; it isn't simply "1/45th" or "1/60th". If you can't respond to what I actually SAY, then move on and quit babbling like the tool you are. > can create that a 60 card deck cannot. You have a strange obsession > with having ONLY 1 of a unique card, perhaps this is due to your role > playing proclivities. I prefer to have a backup bow incase somthing > happens to my first one, or make use of my discard. . More of your discards locked up forever with excessive duplicates, when you could be tuning your hand to perfection. > No concession here. You are just plain wrong. 1/30th of your deck > being an assault rifle is 1/30th weather its in a 90 card deck or 60 > card deck. Variance will have an effect to clump your hand but its > minimal between 60 and 90 card decks. Again, you fail to comprehend what I'm saying. I'm pointing out that the more Assault Rifles you have to put in when you only want one makes for more discards that you'll be using later. Increasing your deck size increases the number of them you must put in to ensure you have one early on. This is a pretty simple concept. >> 3 in 90 forces an extra discard, something you fail to address. With >> only 10-15 turns in a game, you may only discard 10-15 cards. > . > so you do make use of your discard phase? I was under the impression > from you that you make such tight decks that you rarely have to > discard. If you do bulk your decks up to 90 cards and you still cant I rarely have FORCED discards. I frequently discard something I don't expect to need in the near future in order to draw up something I might. The second copy of a Parthenon is a forced discard, however; as soon as it hits your hand, you have to remove it. Same with the third, and any others you happen to have in there. > play through 75 cards (90 - 15 discards) in 15 turns, I suggest that > you figure a way to get Dreams of sphinx, Barrens, Fragment, Storage > Annex, Ulugh Beg or other cycling cards into your deck. This is all > assuming of course that you are interested in making your decks more > competetive. . Yes, yes, Bradley, whatever. People who rely on discards too much are simply filling their deck with fluff. I personally enjoy using Dreams with a 75-card deck; it REALLY makes things go well. Of course, when I use Dreams this way, I actually get a FULL 9 useful cards, instead of having to use it to bring myself back up to an effective 7 cards, because I have two pieces of fluff in my hand I need to get rid of. >> Dude, I worked it out from scratch a long time ago, all right here in >> public on r.g.t-c.j. If you want to look at the math, go back and >> search Google, and quit making random assertions with nothing useful >> behind them. > . > I've asserted your lack of mathmatical understanding back in our > argument about Abomination vs Garou. That was somthing fairly simple, > variance and probability is a whole step above basic addition and > subtraction. . I accept your concession here, as well. This sort of blather is insubstantive and meaningless. Bradley, I'm starting to see why you're such a tool whereever you play, and why Paul Johnson was able to yank you around like a little lost sheep. When confronted with something you don't have an answer to, you basically froth at the mouth and spew out nonsense. If you aren't going to attempt to address the points I've made, just let me know so I can not waste any more time responding to you. > Maybe you just design decks poorly. One discard every turn should be > enough to build a 90 card deck that flows through all its cards in 15 You must be one of those people who believes that old Magic saw "the more cards you see, the better your deck is doing". That pretty much speaks for itself. > turns. Again you obsess about putting only 1 of each unique card in a > <90 card deck. I have found that 2 in a 90 card deck works dandy > well. But check this out, I could even put 1 in a 90 card deck. That > makes a 1/90th portion of my deck. Can't do that in a <90 deck. you > say put 3 of a card in a 75 card deck, 4 in a 90 card deck is even > better, more stamina, more card play, bigger advantage. . You have yet to have supported it with any evidence, though, Bradley. Random assertions will get you nowhere. Last chance. > The deck is not perfect, I would make many changes to it myself. My > only point that I was making was that is a prime example of a deck > design that having 8 extra soul gems is necessary even though it is > somthing you stated was "fluff". It is fluff, but that type of deck > NEEDS 9 soul gems since it is the pinnacle of the intire deck. I accept your concession that the deck's weak points make it very unreliable. Soul Gem may well be the absolute key point in the deck, but the amount of fluff in that deck means that if you EVER stop its discarding mechanism (the Distractions), then you kill the deck immediately. Like I said, it makes GREAT support for my argument. >> Both are true, actually; an awful lot of people bring crap. However, >> this still supports my point that a good deck should not need to use >> the Barrens. If you are relying on the Barrens, then you are adding >> an additional weak point to your deck that should be taken out if at >> all possible. If you can do this by reducing numbers of cards, so >> that you are forced to discard less, then why not do so? > . > I say that you can make a GREAT deck using the barrens. That arika > deck could probably make great use of the barrens. The Barrens is one > of the best cards out there, which can make some decks way stronger. I didn't say the Barrens was a bad card, and you again concede my point by failing to address it. If you have room for the Barrens, then include it. But many times there are better Masters to include than the Barrens, and this is why fixating on it is not a good thing. Removing the need for the Barrens allows you to choose to remove the Barrens itself, making more room for your primary strategy. The Barrens will never be a primary strategy; it will always be merely a support card. >> Correct. This is why forcing yourself to discard cards by putting >> too much fluff in your deck will cause you to be screwed. You need >> to have the discard phase OPEN for your own use, not locked up with >> your third copy of the Parthenon that you needed early and had to put >> 4 in your deck to guarantee. > . > I didnt say to pack your deck with fluff. I said if you are not > capable of building 90 card decks that expend themselves in 15 turns > it would be advantageous to increase to 90 and include barrens, frag > or Dreams in that increase. Try it! take one of your silly 75 card > decks and add 10 more of your functional cards and 2 barrens 2 dreams > and 1 frag. Of course you still need to know when and what to > discard. . I -used- to build decks that way. Fraggie, Dreams, and Barrens in every deck, and 90 card decks. Then I started pulling out the Fraggie and Barrens, and trimming the deck down to only play the cards it needs to... and they ran better. I've tried yours, and I have the evidence; now you try mine. Or are you scared? > Guess you grouped me in the wrong crowd. Bigger decks are only better > if you still get through all your cards effectively. I agree with you > on the point that having extra cards when you win or are ousted doesnt > do you a bit of good. . What do you do when someone steals your Fragment and Arsons your Barrens? >> point AFTER all. And I still think you'd get completely crunched >> with that deck the first time you got 5-7 Increased Strengths in your >> hand and no Rush action. > Id probably bleed with all my minions or take other directed actions > until I could use the barrens, Frag, Dreams and discard phase to find > myself a bums rush. If they block I fight, if they dont I bled them. > Its pretty nice not to have your bleeds blocked. Until you are ousted by the predator that you can't Bum's Rush and kill. > That doesnt speak well for your playgroup. How about your results in Now, now, Bradley. You KNOW some of the people who play here; you know better. > tourney settings or perhaps your VKEN ratings? Oh yeah thats right, > you dont believe in the VKEN ranking system, surely due to your I believe the VEKN rating system works great if you give a shit about it. I certainly don't; V:TES isn't my primary form of recreation. > ineptitude of mathmatics. Was it Tatu that blocked all your equips? > Ive had Tatu as my prey before, he sure could block a lot of stuff. > He didn't last too long that game though. How about the game when you Way to show PLENTY of class there, Bradley. Tatu is well-known as one of the best players out there; you only demonstrate your own incompetence by spouting off in this fashion. I bet he was just lucky at Origins. I bet it's just random chance that people constantly bring his name up when they mention "Jedi Mind Trick", huh? Oh, wait, I guess Jedi Mind Tricks are a sore spot with you, aren't they... > ran out of cards, I guess you won that one? Saying you win in your > playgroup doesn't say much toward your caliber as a player. You could > be playing with 14 yr olds that you also are teaching how to play. However, I'm not. Personal attacks against me are one thing, Bradley, but personal attacks like this against people who haven't even weighed into the conversation are something entirely different. Do you normally go all rabid like this when people question your fallacies? >> Empirical evidence shows that these reduced-size decks have done >> quite well against high-caliber players. My observations during the >> game indicate that the deck size is a significant factor. I get to >> my uniques earlier in the game, I discard less, and I hand-jam >> rarely. > . > Maybe you do better with small decks. Perhaps you just cant handle a > big deck like mine. Good luck with your small deck, hope it wins a > tourney or somthing for you someday. Perhaps it will... perhaps it won't. I won't lose any sleep over it. >> Perhaps you should try it for yourself. I've played LOTS of 90-card >> decks; for two years I built nothing that wasn't 90 cards. Then Tatu >> proposed his smaller-deck concept, and I gave it a whirl, figuring >> the only way to find out for SURE was to test. He was right. > . > Like I said, I have won an LA tourney with a 60 card deck. I still > think 60 cards are only good for corner cases. 60-card decks are only suitable, as I've said elsewhere, for high-speed pool damage decks, or for decks that intend to play very few cards per turn. A 60-card Rush deck would be highly inappropriate. A 60-card Anson "all-Masters" deck would be VERY appropriate. However, dropping from 90 down to 80 or 70 makes a visible difference. It's interesting to see; you should try it. > You take a real "Hippy" approach to Jyhad. You think every card has > its use and that less is more. > Truth is that everyone isn't a special star and more really is more. More random babble. Bradley, you don't actually know a THING about me, so instead of spending all your adrenaline and rabid energy conducting random personal attacks against Tatu and thinking up fantasies of who I might be... why don't you actually attempt to respond to some things I say for a change? It would certainly be novel. In the meantime, I'll let everything I said stand. Either produce some arguments backed by evidence, or I'll continue this debate with the others (such as Noal), who are actually willing to -discuss- the issue. which reminds me... Noal, can you resend that e-mail with a VALID return address on it, instead of the none-of-your-fscking-business? =)

"Roger Carhult" <rogc...@student.luth.se> wrote in news:9m1i5r$btb28$1...@ID-104455.news.dfncis.de: [ quoted text not captured ] I've actually thrown a few of them in a Protean 'banzai' deck before, yeah. It comes in handy to stop, say, Dragon's Breath Rounds or the Escaped Mental Patient, and it can handle the occasional Breath of the Dragon from a fiend-deck, but the Assamites tend to just Blur and hit you again, the Gangrel usually press, and the Tzimisce are normally packing 9,207,398 aggravated-damage cards (good old Choppy Marauder). =)

In message <Xns9105EB7F...@198.99.146.10>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >> Hmm ever tried with Adaptability? The card normally sucks, but with >> FoM and no fortitude it can be a nice surprise factor =) > >I've actually thrown a few of them in a Protean 'banzai' deck before, yeah. Use it with Abominations, too, since they only have PRO. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: >> tourney settings or perhaps your VKEN ratings? Oh yeah thats right, >> you dont believe in the VKEN ranking system, surely due to your > > I believe the VEKN rating system works great if you give a shit about it. > I certainly don't; V:TES isn't my primary form of recreation. VTES is certainly in my top five primary forms of recreation. Okay, top six now that it's football season and I'm in two fantasy football leagues. In spite of that, I don't give two shakes what my VEKN rating is either. I go to tournaments, not to raise my rating, but to win stuff. After all, I can't use my rating to trade for more Derange cards. ;) Of the "deadly sins," I prefer greed to vanity. >> Maybe you do better with small decks. Perhaps you just cant handle a >> big deck like mine. Good luck with your small deck, hope it wins a >> tourney or somthing for you someday. > > Perhaps it will... perhaps it won't. I won't lose any sleep over it. I have a question here. Is Bradley actually "dick waving" here?!? Seriously. Replace the word, "deck," with the word, "dick," in the above passage. It certainly comes off even more as petty, ego-boosting false bragging trying desperately to hide an inferiority complex. To be honest, Derek, I'm not even certain why you wasted that much typing on this useless waste of skin. Seems to me that you'd be better off spending your time discussing issues with those that have enough grey matter to understand them, or at the very least, be polite when they don't. > which reminds me... Noal, can you resend that e-mail with a VALID return > address on it, instead of the none-of-your-fscking-business? =) *laughs* By the way, you are aware that "fsck" is a Unix command, eh? I don't usually keep copies of the e-mail I send out. If you want to reply, replace "none-of-your-fscking-business" with "yahoo" and it will get to me fine. I have the same user name (dharzhak) everywhere besides work. Regards, Noal

Noal McDonald <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> wrote in news:3B847CC1...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com: > Derek Ray wrote: >> I believe the VEKN rating system works great if you give a shit about >> it. I certainly don't; V:TES isn't my primary form of recreation. > > VTES is certainly in my top five primary forms of recreation. Okay, Oh, it's in my top five as well. I think it's number two, actually. But pool is #1 and always will be, so that's the only one I'll ever worry about my performance in as compared to others. > top six now that it's football season and I'm in two fantasy football > leagues. In spite of that, I don't give two shakes what my VEKN rating > is either. I go to tournaments, not to raise my rating, but to win > stuff. After all, I can't use my rating to trade for more Derange > cards. ;) LOL. I go to tournaments to have fun, drink beer, meet people, drink beer, and test theories. =) And then drink beer while post-mortemming the results. It's one of the best experimental environments you'll find, just because you KNOW everyone is going to have something reasonably functional. Matt Green will probably love me for saying this, but he can rest a bit easier knowing that the last experiment finished 6th, only a half point out of the finals. I don't experiment with crap. =) > Of the "deadly sins," I prefer greed to vanity. I prefer lust, when you get right down to it. > I have a question here. Is Bradley actually "dick waving" here?!? > Seriously. Replace the word, "deck," with the word, "dick," in the > above passage. It certainly comes off even more as petty, ego-boosting > false bragging trying desperately to hide an inferiority complex. Now look what you did. I successfully avoided ANY small-penis jokes in my response, out of some strange, foreign impulse to actually not inflame things. =) I'd say he's certainly waving SOMETHING around. If he ties an American flag to it, maybe someone will salute. > To be honest, Derek, I'm not even certain why you wasted that much > typing on this useless waste of skin. Seems to me that you'd be better > off spending your time discussing issues with those that have enough > grey matter to understand them, or at the very least, be polite when > they don't. (shrug) I do have a good chunk of time at the moment. But by the same token, I'm not going to waste any more time; he can either produce actual concepts in defense of his position, or he can sod off and I'll just debate it with everyone ELSE who holds that view. I'm tempted to just let him sod off anyway; he doesn't seem to understand the underlying layers of the discussion, and he's spending way too much time blowing his own horn... pun intended. It's one thing to insert snide cheap shots into a debate, and I'm certainly guilty of that. But it's another thing to simply ignore the subject and randomly flame away... and it's still ANOTHER thing to blather on about "i'm so good, the rest of you must suck if you disagree, look at my rating, i r3wl." And we aren't even going to go into the cheap shot at Tatu. I know I set MYSELF up as a target, but there is absolutely NO need to take aim at anyone but me... especially inaccurate aim. > *laughs* By the way, you are aware that "fsck" is a Unix command, eh? Quite. =) I keep multiple partitions; one of them is generally some flavor of linux. =) I mangle and restore it every so often; I can't convert to it completely, as I'm stuck having to keep Win2k around for the roommate. Right now it's in one of its mangled states, and I just haven't been motivated to fix and update it. =/ > I don't usually keep copies of the e-mail I send out. If you want to > reply, replace "none-of-your-fscking-business" with "yahoo" and it > will get to me fine. I have the same user name (dharzhak) everywhere > besides work. ../done. =) I actually briefly was tempted to try an nslookup on www.none-of-your-fscking-business.com to see if it existed. :)

On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, LSJ wrote: > "....salem christ...." wrote: > > actually, in the statistics i personally have collected, there is this > > somewhat horrible point to note: > > the prey of a Library Destruction deck gets more vps. > > > > now, i will also throw in here that this is based on a sample size of _4_ > > games that included the Library Destruction deck (Raptors, couriers, etc). > > Raptors are "hand cycling" effects, not "library destruction" tools. > I can see where the prey of a Raptor deck has an advantage (until the > number of Raptors on a given minion is greater than 2 or 3). umm.....if my prey's hand size is reduced by some number for a given combat, so that he discards that number of cards (X, say). then at the end of combat he needs to draw back up X cards to return to his handsize. and thus, the library has X less cards in it. if you do this with about 4 raptors, and then heidleburg them over to some other minion and enter combat again, that person has now 8 cards less in her library. this, to me, looks like it is destroying the library. what perplexes me is, even when they (the meth who's library is being destroyed) don't get to choose which cards are gone (couriers tapping instead of raptor hand size reduction), they still seem to have a better time of it. kooky. salem.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Noal McDonald wrote: [snip a bunch of stuff, including who wrote what. sorry] > > >> Maybe you do better with small decks. Perhaps you just cant handle a > >> big deck like mine. Good luck with your small deck, hope it wins a > >> tourney or somthing for you someday. > > > > Perhaps it will... perhaps it won't. I won't lose any sleep over it. > > I have a question here. Is Bradley actually "dick waving" here?!? > Seriously. Replace the word, "deck," with the word, "dick," in the above > passage. It certainly comes off even more as petty, ego-boosting false > bragging trying desperately to hide an inferiority complex. > > To be honest, Derek, I'm not even certain why you wasted that much > typing on this useless waste of skin. Seems to me that you'd be better > off spending your time discussing issues with those that have enough > grey matter to understand them, or at the very least, be polite when > they don't. now, are you trying to imply that a big dick is a waste of skin? :/ personally, i feel that things might get a tad messy a tad quickly if, say, it was skinless. and that's really not something i encourage anyone to visualise. salem. O:)

On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > gen...@iname.com (Frederic Genest) wrote: > > [snip] > > >> I think the correct figure is given by: > >> > >> Let s be the size of the deck. > >> Let c be how many of your card are in the deck. > >> Let n be s-c. (This is just to simplify the formula.) > >> > >> n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)*(n-4)*(n-5)*(n-6) > >> P(stuck)= ------------------------------------- > >> s*(s-1)*(s-2)*(s-3)*(s-4)*(s-5)*(s-6) > > >From the nature of the discussion, I'd say it is a matter of that > >subpart of Mathematics called Probabilities, with all those fancy > >equations involving factorials (the "!" symbol) and such. Because of well, there are factorials in the above expression. they're just expressed explicitly. n*(n-1)*...*(n-6) = n!/(n-7)! so, the above P(stuck) formula could be re-written: n!*(s-7)! P(stuck)= ------------- s!*(n-7)! with, of course, the *'s being superfluous as standard maths has an implicit * wherever two values are slapped next to each other... > >that, I'm not sure the above equation is valid, as it misses the > >factorial part (even if you rework the equation, I seem to remember > >that there is always a factorial remaining). I can check in my that there are.... > >textbooks later tonight, if nobody comes up with the answer before > >then. :-) > > Factorials are not compulsory for calculating probabilities. > > n/s is the probability of getting a card that you don't want for > the first card. > > (n-1)/(s-1) is the probability of getting a card that you don't > want for the second card. The numerator is one less because there is > one less unwanted card (the first card), and the denominator is one > less because there is one less card in the deck to pick. > > Similar reasoning applies to -2 to -6. > > All of these events must occur in order for the stuck situation > to occur. That is why the probabilities are multiplied together. and it's just a hell of a lot neater to write them as factorials, especially if you have, say, a hand size of 11. salem. (going on 8 years at university! yeah! ....still an undergrad...)

On 23 Aug 2001, Derek Ray wrote: > Noal McDonald <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> wrote in > news:3B847CC1...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com: > > > Derek Ray wrote: > > I have a question here. Is Bradley actually "dick waving" here?!? > > Seriously. Replace the word, "deck," with the word, "dick," in the > > above passage. It certainly comes off even more as petty, ego-boosting > > false bragging trying desperately to hide an inferiority complex. > > Now look what you did. I successfully avoided ANY small-penis jokes in my > response, out of some strange, foreign impulse to actually not inflame > things. =) "inflame" things. hur hur hur. um, let's just say i have absolutely nothing to say about this thread, and am just a waste of bandwidth. sorry. salem.

> That doesnt speak well for your playgroup. How about your results in tourney > settings or perhaps your VKEN ratings? Oh yeah thats right, you dont believe > in the VKEN ranking system, surely due to your ineptitude of mathmatics. > Was it Tatu that blocked all your equips? Ive had Tatu as my prey before, he > sure could block a lot of stuff. He didn't last too long that game though. > How about the game when you ran out of cards, I guess you won that one? > Saying you win in your playgroup doesn't say much toward your caliber as a > player. You could be playing with 14 yr olds that you also are teaching how > to play. V:EKN ratings are not working as they should , you won't go to the finals with 1.5 all other 0.5 VP deck but your V:EKN ratings will be VERY high with such a deck. Even if run out of cards in deck (especially 60-70 cards permanent deck) it's not that bad ... you have probably +2 intercept on one vampire and aproximately 10 point of bleed on the table and oh you are gaing like 4-5 pool each turn - this whole setup is worth like milion of cards on the hand. Such decks are impossible to build correctly with 90 cards for example due to reasons Derek repeat here over and over. Running out of cards with 70 cards deck isn't very often , it usually happens only in endgame (2-3 people left including you) where your permanents are superior to their now jammed up because of 90 cards deck hand , if it happens otherwise the game last more than 2 hours which means it doesn't matter (from tournament perspective) The concept of less then 90 cards decks is really very powerfull one , if you want an empiricall proof go to http://www.geocities.com/area51/labyrinth/7031/decks.html and look to the latest addition - this deck demonstrated everything Derek say's , to your reference it 1) won Iberian Open (euro qualifier , 64 people) deck was 70 cards 2) make another person (Xavier Abad) qualify with it for Euro championship in Vienna (6th place) , his version was 80 cards 3) Zolt Varga won latest tournament with it here in Kosice , his version was 75 cards Since you brought here an issue of Derek's V:EKN rating here note that Xavier , Zolo and me (Karol Magda) are currenty in top 10 in Zolo's and my case certainly because we play less than 90 cards deck. Kajik

On 23 Aug 2001 01:43:04 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: >produce some arguments backed by evidence I'm not seeing much evidence on either side of the argument. Dipping into the winning deck archive again, I see that most winning decks listed there have 90 cards in their library. Checking 35 decks for this year and last year, their average library size was 88. I see no winning library with fewer than 72 cards. Also, neither the Barrens, Fragment of the Book of Nod nor Elder Library seem very popular. The Barrens is the only one to get significant usage - 12 decks out of 88. However, my snapshot is a bit out of date now - not refreshed since April. I notice that Ben Peal's recent winning deck - the 2001 NA Champion - has a 90 card library containing 2 copies of The Barrens. Andrew

On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 10:53:58 +0100, Andrew S. Davidson wrote: >However, my snapshot is a bit out of date now - not refreshed since >April. I notice that Ben Peal's recent winning deck - the 2001 NA >Champion - has a 90 card library containing 2 copies of The Barrens. And checking further, I see that all the finalists had 90 cards in their library except Stephen Fazio who had 91 (!?). There were no more copies of The Barrens but Stephen did have an Elder Library. Andrew

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > And checking further, I see that all the finalists had 90 cards in > their library except Stephen Fazio who had 91 (!?). Probably a transciption error on my part. I'll check on that. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

LSJ wrote: > "Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > And checking further, I see that all the finalists had 90 cards in > > their library except Stephen Fazio who had 91 (!?). > > Probably a transciption error on my part. > I'll check on that. Yeah. The listing showed 2 Legendary Vampires. The deck has only 1. I've posted a corrected deck listing. [ quoted text not captured ]

"....salem christ...." <s940...@bohm.anu.edu.au> wrote in message news:<Pine.SOL.3.90.1010823152743.13086B-100000@bohm>... > what perplexes me is, even when they (the meth who's library is being > destroyed) don't get to choose which cards are gone (couriers tapping > instead of raptor hand size reduction), they still > seem to have a better time of it. The answer is this: If you play with Couriers as "library destruction", indiscriminately peeling cards from the top of your prey's deck, you don't get any advantage until you burn through your prey's entire deck. If you don't burn up their deck, then they get an advantage because you've been wasting actions, blood, and cards on Couriers. Also, the Couriers have virtually no defensive value(-1 intercept to block vampires), so you're more likely to get ousted as well. -Matt H.

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in news:D02CB8C991B881D1.274C6951...@lp.airnews.net: > On 23 Aug 2001 01:43:04 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: > >>produce some arguments backed by evidence > > I'm not seeing much evidence on either side of the argument. Dipping > into the winning deck archive again, I see that most winning decks > listed there have 90 cards in their library. Checking 35 decks for > this year and last year, their average library size was 88. I see no > winning library with fewer than 72 cards. Nor will you see any evidence, as far as THAT approach is concerned; this theory isn't all THAT old, and hasn't had a whole lot of time to propagate. Prior to now, conventional wisdom held that 90 cards was the only way to fly. I remember doing quite a bit last time this debate came up, though. Robert Goudie had a telling point recently; 3% is *TWICE* as good as the odds the house gets in Vegas. If you can get even as small as a 3% improved chance in the card-by-card draw (where you have 63 or more occurrences of drawing a card), you should be in pretty good shape. I'm going to have to go back and find my OWN stuff, frankly... now I'm curious. Other than the numbers from then, all I can do is challenge people to try. Take decks that are a solid concept, but constantly have library left at the end of the game, and trim cards out in reasonable proportion. Replay and see. If you gain less than 3VP AND run out of cards, put the ones you wish you'd had more of back in. If you gain less than 3VP and STILL don't run out of cards, either trim more or go back and revisit the deck concept. If you gain 3VP or more, check your library; the closer you are to the bottom, the closer you are to the "ideal" size for that particular deck. > Also, neither the Barrens, Fragment of the Book of Nod nor Elder > Library seem very popular. The Barrens is the only one to get > significant usage - 12 decks out of 88. Not surprising. The Fraggie's built-in steal clause makes it suicide to rely on, and the Elder Library costs pool, making many people shy away from it. The Barrens is free, and even if someone else has it you can always play it to contest, and then yield if the other guy doesn't. But even the Barrens is a band-aid type of card... put in to fix a problem. Sometimes it's necessary. But in every deck? =/ > However, my snapshot is a bit out of date now - not refreshed since > April. I notice that Ben Peal's recent winning deck - the 2001 NA > Champion - has a 90 card library containing 2 copies of The Barrens. Not surprising there, either. That thing has a small pile of moving parts and absolutely HAS to have the right thing in hand at the right time. :)

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > On 23 Aug 2001 01:43:04 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: > > >produce some arguments backed by evidence > > I'm not seeing much evidence on either side of the argument. Dipping > into the winning deck archive again, I see that most winning decks > listed there have 90 cards in their library. Checking 35 decks for > this year and last year, their average library size was 88. I see no > winning library with fewer than 72 cards. > That might not be the best of arguments ;) I do believe that a deck that actually can make good use of <MAX-CARD-NUMBER> number of cards and use all of them during a game WILL be an optimal deck. However, if you have created a concept that will reliably cycle all of its 75 cards during an average game, then you will more probably than not lower it's performance by adding another 15 cards without adding another angle to your deck allowing you to get those cards in play as well. I'll agree that an optimized 60-card concept will probably not do as good as an 90-card concept. Not because of the number of cards, but rather because the larger deck will almost guaranteed be built on the assumption that it will have 50% more actions/reactions during an average game, and VTES (insert protests here) is built around 'most actions wins'. That's why I see all the hate-posts about weenie-decks ;) My argument is based on my own experience. The number of cards used during a non-combat-seeking action actually varies very little between different decks. Those decks that differ are usually based around heavy stealth/intercept, and it's also here we hear the outcries about hand-jam when they run into a skilled opponent refusing them to cycle cards. I'd say that your standard action will use zero or two cards before adding denial-cards. I don't buy the argument about adding discardenhancing abilities to enhance your deck (Arika-deck is a marvelous contradiction to this general rule), as they both take up cardslots and you can't rely upon getting them in play before hand-jam strikes. Sten -- NetGuide Scandinavia AB http://www.netg.se/ Tankegangen 4 in...@netg.se 417 56 Goteborg Phone:+46 - (0)31 - 50 79 45 Sweden Fax: +46 - (0)31 - 50 79 39

Noal McDonald wrote: > > > Which is why I maintain that my ANI/pro was the one of the best > versions designed. It not only regularly got at least 5+ Raptors on a > single vampire within 4-5 rounds, but Protean is the least card > intensive of the combat disciplines. > > > While I'll freely admit that the Raptor idea is amusing (and I > > posted the three-and-a-half Raptors deck awhile back, based not > > on running your opponents totally out of cards, but by constantly > > screwing up their hand with 3 Raptors on one minion) and oodles > > of fun, I just don't see it ever being tier-1, or being able to > > hold its own at a table with tier-1 decks. > > I would largely agree with that. My experience with my version was > that it was slightly more effective at gaining VPs than most intercept > combat decks that do not use Eagle's Sight. > Hmm, reminds me that we might actually start playing with retainers again. Was half a year when people even put guns in the hands of Ghould Retainers, killing two retainers per combat without using additional-strikes. Decks got REALLY low on retainers after a while. I LOVE running into a Raptor-deck, but then I like playing with a green wave - blue wake deck. Tap out using all your actions and fill your hand with blue ones, react like mad etc etc etc. Usually breaks sometime during the game, and then forcing another Meth to cycle my hand comes in REALLY handy :) Also proves that I need to tune my decks better - if I get hand-jam it's because I've constructed a less than optimal deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

kma...@my-deja.com (Karol Magda) wrote in message news:<c0c36ed1.01082...@posting.google.com>... > V:EKN ratings are not working as they should , you won't go to the____________ > finals with 1.5 all other 0.5 VP deck but your V:EKN ratings will be__________ > VERY high with such a deck. . The ratings still go up if you win and down if you lose. So even though they may not be perfect, they still represent who is winning and who is losing . > Even if run out of cards in deck (especially 60-70 cards permanent____________ > deck) it's not that bad ... you have probably +2 intercept on one_____________ > vampire and aproximately 10 point of bleed on the table and oh you are________ > gaing like 4-5 pool each turn - this whole setup is worth like milion_________ > of cards on the hand. Such decks are impossible to build correctly____________ > with 90 cards for example due to reasons Derek repeat here over and___________ > over. . By the time you have that kind of set up, you should have already won. I Agree that setup is worth lots and lots of cards. The competition around where I've played would never allow such a set up to happen, they'd either block your equips, arson your locations, or burn your vamps. That's a real Monty Haul playing scenario. . > happens only in endgame (2-3 people left including you) where your____________ > permanents are superior to their now jammed up because of 90 cards____________ > deck hand , if it happens otherwise the game last more than 2 hours___________ > which means it doesn't matter (from tournament perspective) . I seem to rarely have hand jams in my 90 card decks. Even ones without the Barrens or dreams. . > http://www.geocities.com/area51/labyrinth/7031/decks.html_____________________ > and look to the latest addition - this deck demonstrated everything___________ > Derek say's , to your reference it This doesnt seem to demonstrate anything Derek has said. It just lists decks. . > Since you brought here an issue of Derek's V:EKN rating here note that________ > Xavier , Zolo and me (Karol Magda) are currenty in top 10 in Zolo's___________ > and my case certainly because we play less than 90 cards deck._ . Nice some subtance, finally. So you regularly play with <90 librarys? whats the average size of your library? . Lasombra's site has the tourney winning deck archives. Most of them are 90 card libraries. in the NA championships all 5 finalists were 90 card decks. . Brad Ward

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<7186A66D4FC0918C.AF6B88C8...@lp.airnews.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] . Interesting, in the 2001 NA Championship all 5 finalists had 90 card decks and there was 3 Barrens amongst the 5, two of which were in the winning deck. These piss poor players like Robert Goudie and Ben Peal really need to take a lesson from Derek and slim down those fluff filled fat 90 card decks into slimmer sleak ~75 card powerhouses filled with permanents and no more than one of each unique card. . -Brad

"....salem christ...." <s940...@bohm.anu.edu.au> wrote in message > On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > > > gen...@iname.com (Frederic Genest) wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > >> I think the correct figure is given by: > > >> > > >> Let s be the size of the deck. > > >> Let c be how many of your card are in the deck. > > >> Let n be s-c. (This is just to simplify the formula.) > > >> > > >> n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)*(n-4)*(n-5)*(n-6) > > >> P(stuck)= ------------------------------------- > > >> s*(s-1)*(s-2)*(s-3)*(s-4)*(s-5)*(s-6) > > > >From the nature of the discussion, I'd say it is a matter of that > > >subpart of Mathematics called Probabilities, with all those fancy > > >equations involving factorials (the "!" symbol) and such. Because of > > well, there are factorials in the above expression. they're just > expressed explicitly. > > n*(n-1)*...*(n-6) = n!/(n-7)! > > so, the above P(stuck) formula could be re-written: > > n!*(s-7)! > P(stuck)= ------------- > s!*(n-7)! Duh! (slaps head with hands) (knocks head on wall) (etc.) Hidden in plain sight. Somebody must have had obfuscated the other form ("Mask of 1k formulas"..?). I'm shamed. Thanks for pointing it out. Frederic.

wa...@nevada.edu (Brad Ward) wrote in news:e5b93701.01082...@posting.google.com: > The ratings still go up if you win and down if you lose. So even > though they may not be perfect, they still represent who is winning > and who is losing . Hm. My rating is... 3046? Since all ratings start at 3000, that means I'm winning. Not half bad for someone who doesn't care. > Lasombra's site has the tourney winning deck archives. Most of them > are 90 card libraries. in the NA championships all 5 finalists were > 90 card decks. . This is not a meaningful statement unless you also know how many decks in those tournaments were LESS than 90 cards. In a field where all or nearly all the decks are 90 cards, it's easy to predict that a 90-card deck will win, and it proves nothing. When challenging a current paradigm, it is not a valid defense to simply quote the paradigm being challenged. Fortunately, I believe LSJ has deck lists from everyone in the NAC, if he is willing to post the number of "full" decks as compared to the number of "short" ones. However, the only ACCURATE comparison of this type would be to hold a tournament with an equal number of 60-, 70-, 80-, and 90-card decks, and see which size did the best. And even then, there would be some uncertainty from the fact that not all players would be of the same skill level, and skill tends to matter more than deck size.

It may seem too obvious to state, but if you only have a limited number of certain awesome cards, putting them in a smaller deck increases your chance of drawing them in at timely fashion. For example, I own only three Freak Drives, so I put them in a 60-card deck, along with my only Hostile Takeover. I've never run out of cards with that deck either, since it packs plenty of Anarch Revolts.

> On 23 Aug 2001 01:43:04 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: > >> produce some arguments backed by evidence > > I'm not seeing much evidence on either side of the argument. Dipping > into the winning deck archive again, I see that most winning decks > listed there have 90 cards in their library. Checking 35 decks for > this year and last year, their average library size was 88. I see no > winning library with fewer than 72 cards. As Derek's said, the idea of using less than 90 cards in your library (60 card bleed horrors aside) is a relatively New Thing (tm), and hasn't had much time to catch on. It was a pretty foreign idea to everyone we even knew till Tatu came up with trying it. We all thought he was crazy at first, too. > Also, neither the Barrens, Fragment of the Book of Nod nor Elder > Library seem very popular. The Barrens is the only one to get > significant usage - 12 decks out of 88. > > However, my snapshot is a bit out of date now - not refreshed since > April. I notice that Ben Peal's recent winning deck - the 2001 NA > Champion - has a 90 card library containing 2 copies of The Barrens. Not that you could have known this, but some context shows that's quite the exception and not the rule. I clearly remember Ben Peal when he was last in Atlanta saying he puts the Barrens in EVERY deck, and that decks are all about cardflow, not how many usable cards you have in your hand at any given time. He also claims to play "with more Masters than any of you," ("you" being limited to the 6 of us who still hadn't gone to bed) and I believe him, having seen some of his decks.[0] Add to that: I also remember Tatu's shock when Ben said yes, he was *serious* when he said he could use more copies of the Barrens. I think Tatu gave him about an inch worth of Barrens, and you'd think he just gave him a stack of uncommons he's been looking for. (To be fair, Ben likes to have a LOT of decks built at once; I've actually traded Bum's Rushes in bulk to him for several uncommons and even rares. =) [0] I'm quite the opposite, and my reply to that was the origin of "the grayer my hand, the grayer my mood." -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9105DC56...@198.99.146.10>... > No, Bradley, I'm saying exactly what I said above. Unique cards and cards ___ > you only have a few of (Shadow of the Beast in a PRO combat deck) are the ____ > ones that gain the most benefit from a smaller library. I'm sorry if you ____ > can't grasp basic English, and I'm sorry you don't understand ________________ > probabilities; it isn't simply "1/45th" or "1/60th". If you can't respond ___ . You are the one who still doenst grasp it. I'll lay out some of the math including the variance caused by having the same ratio in a larger deck. . Lets start with something simple, like two sacks of marbles. One sack has 5 marbles the other sack has 10. The sack with 5 marbles has only 1 red marble the sack with 10 marbles has 2 red marbles, So both sacks have 1/5th red marble content. . Here's the question: If you draw 2 marbles from a bag, what are the chances of that marble being a red marble? . Here's the Answer: 5 marble bag: 1-(4/5)*(3/4)*(2/3)=50% 10 marble bag: 1-(8/10)*(7/9)*(6/8)=41.7% . Now on the surface, you seem to be right derek. The smaller bag has a 8.3% greater chance of pulling the red marble. But now lets take this example into Jyhad comparing your 60 card with 2 assault rifles, to my 90 card with 3 assault rifles: . Chances of drawing an assault in first hand (7 cards) . 90 card deck: 1-(58/60)*(57/59)*(56/58)*(55/57)*(54/56)*(53/55)*(52/54)=19.46% 60 card deck: 1-(87/90)*(86/89)*(85/88)*(84/87)*(83/86)*(82/85)*(81*84)=19.09% . Oh well look here, Now the difference is less than half a percent. And this is the most extreem difference in deck size possible in Jyhad. Let's take this further and say you want to know the chance of drawing that assault rifle if you burn through oh 15 cards looking for it . Chances of finding an assault rifle when cycling through 15 cards . 90 card deck: 40.5% 60 card deck: 42.1% . Still only 1.6% difference when chugging through 15 cards!! to me, this does not warrant limiting yourself to 60 cards. . Let's compare a 90 card deck with 6 assault rifles vs your favorite 75 card decks with 5 assault rifles (both decks 1/15th assault rifle) . Chance of drawing an assault rifle in first hand (7 cards) . 90 card deck: 35% 75 card deck: 35.3% . chance of drawing an assault rifle after cycling 15 cards . 90 card deck: 65.4% 75 card deck: 66.1% . > Yes, yes, Bradley, whatever. People who rely on discards too much are > simply filling their deck with fluff. I personally enjoy using Dreams with > a 75-card deck; it REALLY makes things go well. Of course, when I use > Dreams this way, I actually get a FULL 9 useful cards, instead of having to > use it to bring myself back up to an effective 7 cards, because I have two > pieces of fluff in my hand I need to get rid of. . I've already proved with math (you may or maynot understand) that a 75 card deck is going to function less than 1% better when using a dreams. That is EXTREEMLY marginal and would not describe it as going REALLY well. . > >> Dude, I worked it out from scratch a long time ago, all right here in > >> public on r.g.t-c.j. If you want to look at the math, go back and > >> search Google, and quit making random assertions with nothing useful > >> behind them. > > I've asserted your lack of mathmatical understanding back in our > > argument about Abomination vs Garou. That was somthing fairly simple, > > variance and probability is a whole step above basic addition and > > subtraction. . > I accept your concession here, as well. This sort of blather is > insubstantive and meaningless. . boy you sure like to point out concessions when they dont exist. You said I was making random assertions. I stated that I have asserted you dont know math from our past argument. . > Bradley, I'm starting to see why you're such a tool whereever you play, and > why Paul Johnson was able to yank you around like a little lost sheep. . Paul didnt lead me like a sheep, he simply lied to me about what phase we were in. Do you consider this method of cheating sportsman like and good playing? . > You must be one of those people who believes that old Magic saw "the more > cards you see, the better your deck is doing". That pretty much speaks for > itself. . The more cards you play beneficially is certainly going to strengthen your deck. . > You have yet to have supported it with any evidence, though, Bradley. > Random assertions will get you nowhere. Last chance. . see if you can comprehend the math above. . > I accept your concession that the deck's weak points make it very ____________ > unreliable. Soul Gem may well be the absolute key point in the deck, but ____ > the amount of fluff in that deck means that if you EVER stop its discarding __ > mechanism (the Distractions), then you kill the deck immediately. . Again with your concession problem, I said the deck could be better. Not that your methods would make it better. You have conceeded that the "fluff" is needed for that type of deck design. A good way to deal with not clogging up with soul gems would be to add the barrens. . > I didn't say the Barrens was a bad card, and you again concede my point by ___ > failing to address it. If you have room for the Barrens, then include it. __ > But many times there are better Masters to include than the Barrens, and _____ > this is why fixating on it is not a good thing. Removing the need for the ___ > Barrens allows you to choose to remove the Barrens itself, making more room __ > for your primary strategy. The Barrens will never be a primary strategy; ____ > it will always be merely a support card. . You seem to have room for the barrens if your deck is only 75 cards. Hell you could add Parthenon and the barrens and a frag and some dreams. Yeah barrens suck, only beginner decks like Ben Peals NA championship winner would dare to put 2 of them in his deck. . > Now, now, Bradley. You KNOW some of the people who play here; you know ______ > better._ . Actually I just know you mentioned Tatu. I dont know if you regularly play with him or not. I wasnt poking at Tatu either, just my only experience in playing with him didnt seem like his deck did anything. Perhaps it was just a case of the 75 card deck getting bad hand jam. Maybe you have gotton a chance to play with Robin. Now she's a pretty good player. Perhaps you can pick up some deck building tips from her. . > > You take a real "Hippy" approach to Jyhad. You think every card has________ > > its use and that less is more.______________________________________________ > > Truth is that everyone isn't a special star and more really is more.________ > More random babble. Bradley, you don't actually know a THING about me, so ___ > instead of spending all your adrenaline and rabid energy conducting random ___ > personal attacks against Tatu and thinking up fantasies of who I might _______ > be... why don't you actually attempt to respond to some things I say for a ___ > change? It would certainly be novel._ . I do know you think every card has a good use to it and that smaller decks are better. If not what are we arguing about here? .

Brad Ward wrote: > Lets start with something simple, like two sacks of marbles. One sack has 5 > marbles the other sack has 10. The sack with 5 marbles has only 1 red marble > the sack with 10 marbles has 2 red marbles, So both sacks have 1/5th red marble > content. > . > Here's the question: If you draw 2 marbles from a bag, what are the chances of > [one of those marbles] being a red marble? > . > Here's the Answer: > 5 marble bag: 1-(4/5)*(3/4)*(2/3)=50% That's 60%, actually. Cancel the fours and threes: 1-(2/5). > 10 marble bag: 1-(8/10)*(7/9)*(6/8)=41.7% That's 53.33%. 1-(6/10)*(7/9) = 1-(42/90) = 1-.4667 > . > Now on the surface, you seem to be right derek. The smaller bag has a 8.3% > greater chance of pulling the red marble. But now lets take this example into > Jyhad comparing your 60 card with 2 assault rifles, to my 90 card with 3 > assault rifles: > . > Chances of drawing an assault in first hand (7 cards) > . > [60] card deck: 1-(58/60)*(57/59)*(56/58)*(55/57)*(54/56)*(53/55)*(52/54)=19.46% 1 - (53*52 / 60*59) = 22.15% > [90] card deck: 1-(87/90)*(86/89)*(85/88)*(84/87)*(83/86)*(82/85)*(81*84)=19.09% 1 - (83*82*81 / 90*89*88) = 21.79% > . > Oh well look here, Now the difference is less than half a percent. And this is The difference is still less than half a percentage point, so the validity of your point (which I am not trying to argue for or against) remains unchanged. [ quoted text not captured ]

Emmit Svenson wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Agreed, but I think this subtopic of the topic actually deals with wether lower than maxsized libraries will perform better than the maxsized ones given a card-collection where you as a deck- designer own at least 90 of every existing card. From what I've read this far, the subthread has degenerated into a abuse-contest, which is a pity. I know for certain that some type of decks are always better off with less than 90 cards, but I most definitely don't know how to cathegorize those. My guess is some kind of deck with heavy emphasis on permanents and uniques and relatively few transients. However, if such a deck will ever be a good deck compared to a deck based on transients remains a TOTALLY different question. Sten

wa...@nevada.edu (Brad Ward) wrote in news:e5b93701.01082...@posting.google.com: > You are the one who still doenst grasp it. I'll lay out some of the > math including the variance caused by having the same ratio in a > larger deck. . Congratulations. You have successfully recreated some of the math that I did six months ago, when this subject was originally brought up. For reference, please check Google on the following message-IDs... OK, don't check Google for those, since it won't TELL me the message-IDs. Search Google for threads with the subjects: "How many turns in a game", and "It's not the size that counts". Both of these contain the math I worked on. They also contain some points you won't like. You'll have to deal with it. [math snipped, as I've done it all before and more besides... as I've repeated OVER and OVER again, if you had the good sense to listen and the clue to do your own web-search] >> Bradley, I'm starting to see why you're such a tool whereever you >> play, and why Paul Johnson was able to yank you around like a little >> lost sheep. > . > Paul didnt lead me like a sheep, he simply lied to me about what phase > we were in. Do you consider this method of cheating sportsman like > and good playing? . He had a leash on you like a pimp had on his best ho, boy. You were pissing, moaning, crying, and thinking about EVERYTHING except what was happening on the table, because he fooled you. Welcome to Jedi Mind Trick land; you have Been Tricked. (And yes, I think you should've been allowed to replace the Wake. But it wouldn't have mattered; you STILL would've been his tool.) >> You must be one of those people who believes that old Magic saw "the >> more cards you see, the better your deck is doing". That pretty much >> speaks for itself. > . > The more cards you play beneficially is certainly going to strengthen > your deck. The converse is also true; the more cards that you CANNOT play beneficially and need to discard will certainly weaken your deck. Make it too big, and include too much crap, and you'll get hosed. > Again with your concession problem, I said the deck could be better. > Not that your methods would make it better. You have conceeded that > the "fluff" is needed for that type of deck design. A good way to > deal with not clogging up with soul gems would be to add the barrens. I think that the Arika deck relies on a 5-card combo with 10 or more of each card, actually, forcing it to be MUCH larger than it should really be in order to be effective. For some giggly numbers: The odds of getting a Soul Gem in the first 11 cards (opening hand and 4 discards before you get to take an action with Arika) are: ncard(9,90,11) = 0.70859, or 71%. This is only slightly better than 2/3, nothing I'd be TOO confident about. But you aren't totally screwed; if you get a Distraction, you can go chasing for a Gem. This actually makes it, to get either a Distraction or a Gem: ncard(14,90,11) = 0.86234, 86%. That's much better. However, if you HAVE to use a Distraction, the gem had better be in your next 5 cards: ncard(9,79,5) = 0.46298, 46%. THAT sucks. Coin flips are bad enough without having to take the short side on them. No wonder the deck had two sweeps and two flops. You can also chunk around Praxis: Berlin and Freak Drive (once) if you have those in your hand, but Distraction is your best bet to get a Gem if you didn't get one already. By the way, the 'ncard' you see here is a function I plugged into a tray- calculator I have (www.allercalc.com) of the form: 1-((fact(b-a)*fact(b-c))/(fact(b)*fact(b-a-c))), where a is the number of card "X" in the deck, b is the number of cards currently in your library, and c is the number of cards you intend to draw from that library. It returns the likelihood of having at least one of card "X" in c cards drawn. It also saved me a shitload of time 6 months ago, and it saved me a shitload of time now. > You seem to have room for the barrens if your deck is only 75 cards. > Hell you could add Parthenon and the barrens and a frag and some > dreams. Yeah barrens suck, only beginner decks like Ben Peals NA > championship winner would dare to put 2 of them in his deck. Again, I didn't say the Barrens was a bad card, and if I'm building a 75- card deck, it's so I won't NEED the Barrens. You're so obsessed with what's inside your own mind that you don't actually bother reading anything that's said. >> Now, now, Bradley. You KNOW some of the people who play here; you >> know ______ better._ . > Actually I just know you mentioned Tatu. I dont know if you regularly Oh, no, Bradley, you won't get out of it that easily. The only place I mentioned Tatu in this thread before you took shots at him was when I gave him credit for originally suggesting the "short deck" idea. I have taken GREAT care not to mention who I was playing with this past Monday. You went out of your way to make cracks about Tatu AND at the entire Atlanta playgroup (there's only one, by the way), in hopes of somehow diminishing my argument without actually providing any substance for your side. Bradley, I'm going to say this once, and once only. Noal's message was right on the button. That sort of stupid dick-waving not only won't get you anywhere fast, it really DOES make you look like a complete waste of skin. I don't personally give a shit what you say to me, because I don't really think highly enough of you to care. When you start taking shots at innocent bystanders who are also my friends, however, THEN I actually begin to get annoyed. Here's a lesson: Nobody gives a crap how good you think you are in V:TES. Nobody cares about your rating except you. Nobody is the slightest bit impressed. And you aren't as good as you think you are. You've done well in this message by actually producing some math, although you should have saved yourself the trouble and gone back and looked mine up on Google. But this blather about how good you are and how everyone here must suck is the mark of a pathetic, puling fool. Feel free to continue the math, and say what you want to me, but as for the little side comments about the rest of the group, please... put a sock in it. ;) > play with him or not. I wasnt poking at Tatu either, just my only This is a pretty bald-faced lie, Bradley. At least have the fucking balls to stand up and apologize when you do something that dumb. Or are yours only marbles? By the way, Tatu reads this group, although he doesn't post. Smooth move, ex-lax. > experience in playing with him didnt seem like his deck did anything. > Perhaps it was just a case of the 75 card deck getting bad hand jam. > Maybe you have gotton a chance to play with Robin. Now she's a pretty > good player. Perhaps you can pick up some deck building tips from > her. . I have, in fact, had numerous opportunities to play with Robyn since she's been here. We have had quite a few very interesting discussions regarding deckbuilding. And she is quite a good player. I'm glad you don't think our ENTIRE group sucks. We would just be heartbroken. > I do know you think every card has a good use to it and that smaller > decks are better. If not what are we arguing about here? I do, in fact, believe smaller decks can be better (for the appropriate deck). Peter's Rush deck would probably not do as well at 80 cards, since it tends to run out of cards anyway. However, a lot of decks COULD do much better with a trim-down; and some decks do VERY well if you break the proportions. Curious as to what I mean? Go read the Google threads.

Sten During <ya...@netg.se> wrote in news:3B855631...@netg.se: > Agreed, but I think this subtopic of the topic actually deals with > wether lower than maxsized libraries will perform better than the > maxsized ones given a card-collection where you as a deck- > designer own at least 90 of every existing card. Dat's der bunny. > From what I've read this far, the subthread has degenerated into > a abuse-contest, which is a pity. I know for certain that some OK, let's fix that by starting it off over HERE *without* the idiot involved. I probably should've just gone back and scrounged up my old posts and reposted them in the first place, really. =/ > type of decks are always better off with less than 90 cards, but > I most definitely don't know how to cathegorize those. My guess > is some kind of deck with heavy emphasis on permanents and > uniques and relatively few transients. However, if such a deck > will ever be a good deck compared to a deck based on > transients remains a TOTALLY different question. Well, one trick is, of course, getting the permanents and uniques in play. If you're sitting next to Ridiculous Intercept(tm), you won't actually have anything happen, and you'll die. But Creepshow Casino has definitely put some help on the table for "permanents" decks; imagine a Tzimisce all-VIC deck that keeps equipping Revenants at +3 stealth (casino + Changeling). That's beyond the reach of 2nd Tradition, and therefore is quite reliable... and once you get 3 Revenants on a minion and a news location out, you no longer actually need any transient Auspex cards. Yes, you're vulnerable to Call of the Grateful Telemarketers, Elder Impersonation, and Seduction, but so is a transient intercept deck, really. However, my original point (long ago) was something different. If you break the proportions when reducing the deck size, and focus more clearly on what you WANT to do, and how many times you REALLY want to play a certain card, then you can actually improve a deck. THEN, you want to find a deck's ideal size, which is where it has less than 10 cards in its library when you win (or are ousted). For some decks, this will still be 90. For others, it can be smaller, reaping the inherent benefits.

> Emmit Svenson wrote: > >> It may seem too obvious to state, but if you only have a limited >> number of certain awesome cards, putting them in a smaller deck >> increases your chance of drawing them in at timely fashion. For >> example, I own only three Freak Drives, so I put them in a 60-card >> deck, along with my only Hostile Takeover. I've never run out of cards >> with that deck either, since it packs plenty of Anarch Revolts. > > Agreed, but I think this subtopic of the topic actually deals with > wether lower than maxsized libraries will perform better than the > maxsized ones given a card-collection where you as a deck- > designer own at least 90 of every existing card. Well, it's not THAT abstract. If I can make a 90-card of, well, ANY type, I can try to make a 75 card version of it, right? All I have to do is take out cards. > From what I've read this far, the subthread has degenerated into > a abuse-contest, which is a pity. I know for certain that some > type of decks are always better off with less than 90 cards, but > I most definitely don't know how to cathegorize those. My guess > is some kind of deck with heavy emphasis on permanents and > uniques and relatively few transients. That's actually not the issue under discussion, though it is an interesting question in it's own right, but you need to drop the 90 card max as "generally best"... or, at least, THAT'S what's under discussion. The premise is this: for most 90 card decks, those the win lots and those that don't win lots, you usually end up with 20+ cards left over in your library at the end of the game (especially in 2-hour timeout tournaments). Not only that, but every player has spent time discarding cards they didn't need, whether duplicates of uniques, or just cycling to get to "that card you need." David Tatu, the Doubly Evil One, surmised one evening that you could thin a deck out by ratios or somesuch to have the same effective deck, but could maybe reduce the clumping, and make more effective use of your discards. Derek and Brad BOTH have produced math showing that there is a finite, positive, albeit small, increase in getting or cycling efficiently to "the card you need" in having a smaller deck size. The whole Atlanta playgroup has experimented with this idea, and found that, in practice, 75-80 card decks seem to be be better. 65-70 starts to get too small, and 90 starts to get unwieldy. (special note: 60-card bleed monsters don't count, because 60 cards is all you need to oust most tables when it's all Dominate. And for combat decks, it's not hard to blow through 90 cards.) Anyway, the conclusion being that, instead of: > for certain that some > type of decks are always better off with less than 90 cards, I'd say it as "MOST types of decks are usually better off with less than 90 cards." > However, if such a deck > will ever be a good deck compared to a deck based on > transients remains a TOTALLY different question. A yet third question, actually. =) But, to be honest, it's not totally unrelated. If you build a deck to run through all it's cards by the end of the game, you have most all your permanents in play, and you probably got them earlier on. And, since you DO have less cards (undisputable fact), you are certainly more capable of running out of cards, so you might toss in a .44, say, when designing the deck. However, experience has shown that you don't need to discard as much with a tighter, smaller deck, and that you don't necessarily run out of cards (90/N) times faster. Some of that is of course knowing that you HAVE less cards, so you don't discard as freely, but that's never kept me from discarding something I didn't need to go fishing for something I did. The big point we're trying to get out there is TRY IT. We've played 90 card decks, and we all KNOW the pain of finding 10 cards, much less 15 cards, that you can take out, so it's kind of hard to get up the gumption to strip GOOD, useful cards out of your deck. But, if you regularly leave 20+ GOOD, useful cards in your library by the end of the game, why not try it? Better yet: If you've even clumped up and gotten killed before you could get going, those 60+ cards in you library aren't doing you much good either! What *I* think is the more interesting point is: Why does 75-80 cards seem to work? For 4 and 5 player games, taking about 12 turns, and lasting 2 hours or less (basically irrelevant data with "about 12 turns" in there, but) it seems to. The only one I've really hammered on is that in a 12 turn game, you get 12 Master Phase actions, (usually 11, since so many Masters can't be played on turn 1) and 12 discards. You can build a deck around the Parthenon and the Barrens to get around these, introducing some fragility and unreliability, but there are some tricks that just require this (lots of Masters, fast, and then discarding lots of duplicates later on; a Brainwash deck, say). But, outside of that, those kind of dictate things to every deck about cardflow, affecting both cards cycled each turn, and the maximum number of cards you'll ever play in a game. But, it's a function of, well, everything: That vampires bleed for 1, but can bleed for up to 6 (sometimes more). That you start with 30 pool. That KRC does 3 and 1. That you get 4 transfers per influence phase. And so on. This really gets into the MEAT of the game and it's flow, and the kind of thing I'd like to get Legbiter chewing on. (Hi, James! =) [ quoted text not captured ]

> >> Also the safest; Flesh of Marble is a lovely way to keep people off > >> your back. Sucks to fight the Assamites/Tzimisce/Gangrel, but > >> everything has its weakness. > > > > Hmm ever tried with Adaptability? The card normally sucks, but with > > FoM and no fortitude it can be a nice surprise factor =) > > I've actually thrown a few of them in a Protean 'banzai' deck before, yeah. > It comes in handy to stop, say, Dragon's Breath Rounds or the Escaped > Mental Patient, and it can handle the occasional Breath of the Dragon from > a fiend-deck, but the Assamites tend to just Blur and hit you again, the > Gangrel usually press, and the Tzimisce are normally packing 9,207,398 > aggravated-damage cards (good old Choppy Marauder). =) I usually play them in !Gangrel decks since the city ones lack fortitude. If you have some celerity then you can always make additional strikes or press against. Of course you could dodge too, but I guess it comes down to a matter of taste and whather all of your !Gangrels have celerity or not (Catilin and Pieter does not for example and they're good vamps). I've yet to play an Adaptability ina game though! I include them sometimes (I've got 3) but never got agg when having them in hand and including more (by borrowing) is a rather waste of slots I think.

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:Xns9106A6BF...@198.99.146.10: > ncard(9,79,5) = 0.46298, 46%. THAT sucks. Coin flips are bad enough Self-correction: should be ncard(9,79,6) = 0.5283, 53%. Forgot to replace the Distraction before performing its effect. This logical extension follows, now that more of this is coming back to me: the -true- chance of getting a Gem in the early game, whether via a Distraction or just having one, is: ncard(9,90,11) = 0.70859 (original chance of Soul Gem in hand) ncard(5,90,11) = 0.48719 (chance of having Distraction in hand) ncard(9,79,6) = 0.5283 (chance of drawing up Gem via Distraction) 1-.70859 = 0.29141*.5283*.48719 = 0.075004+.70589 = 0.78089, or 78%. This is only 4 in 5. While I'll bet on it in Vegas all day long, it's a little bit scary in a V:TES deck, especially for something the deck absolutely MUST have to operate. If you want to make things a little scarier, he has 9 stealth cards in. To be proof against early-game light intercept, he'd also like to have a stealth card handy while he's equipping the Gem (or chasing it via Distraction). Chance to have stealth early is exactly the same as the Gem, so you can simply take 0.78089*.70589 = 0.55122, or 55%. Add in the chance of replacing the Distraction with a stealth card, and you get an extra 0.033197 to make 0.58442. This doesn't allow for the chance of drawing into stealth from the resolution of the Distraction action, but someone who is able will be intercepting the Distraction anyway, so it's not quite relevant. And 58% would make ME worried; a LOT of people are packing +1 intercept these days. This whole exercise had little bearing on the main debate, I know. But it was amusing, and probably informational in SOME fashion. =)

"....salem christ...." <s940...@bohm.anu.edu.au> wrote: >On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Gene Wirchenko wrote: > >> gen...@iname.com (Frederic Genest) wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> >> I think the correct figure is given by: >> >> >> >> Let s be the size of the deck. >> >> Let c be how many of your card are in the deck. >> >> Let n be s-c. (This is just to simplify the formula.) >> >> >> >> n*(n-1)*(n-2)*(n-3)*(n-4)*(n-5)*(n-6) >> >> P(stuck)= ------------------------------------- >> >> s*(s-1)*(s-2)*(s-3)*(s-4)*(s-5)*(s-6) >> >> >From the nature of the discussion, I'd say it is a matter of that >> >subpart of Mathematics called Probabilities, with all those fancy >> >equations involving factorials (the "!" symbol) and such. Because of > >well, there are factorials in the above expression. they're just >expressed explicitly. There are no factorials in the above expression. There aren't any dollar bills either. "explicitly" doesn't mean implied but the opposite. >n*(n-1)*...*(n-6) = n!/(n-7)! > >so, the above P(stuck) formula could be re-written: > > n!*(s-7)! >P(stuck)= ------------- > s!*(n-7)! Sure, you can rewrite with factorials, but the resulting expression is more complex. Unless you cancel out values, you will get numbers well over 10^100. (70! is just over 10^100, and 90! is even bigger.) For s=90, c=20, and n=70, it is much easier to calculate 70*69*68*67*66*65*64 -------------------- 90*89*88*87*86*85*84 than 70!*83! ------- 90!*63! If you do cancel out values, you end up with the first expression anyway. [snip] >and it's just a hell of a lot neater to write them as factorials, >especially if you have, say, a hand size of 11. It's neater from the theoretical perspective, but more awkward for calculating. From My Sig Collection: The difference between theory and practice in practice is bigger than the difference between theory and practice in theory. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > > Nor will you see any evidence, as far as THAT approach is concerned; this > theory isn't all THAT old, and hasn't had a whole lot of time to propagate. > Prior to now, conventional wisdom held that 90 cards was the only way to > fly. I think that the idea of keeping a deck at the smallest optimal size is fairly intuitive; it's just that how large that optimal size will need to be is always going to change. If I know that 60 cards are enough for my deck to do what it needs to do, then 60 is good enough and any more would be redundant. However, I cannot reliably say that I won't need 30 extra cards (in most deck-types anyway). I think there is a natural tendency to assume that games will last longer than they do. And since we cannot accurately predict how long a given game will be, we often guesstimate on the assumption that it will be longer than it actually will be. So where 60 cards is usually safe, 90 *feels* safe. A deck which forces the table to become much faster can take away this doubt altogether. If I know that my deck is capable of tremendous speed, indeed relies on its speed, then I can reliably prepare less cards for a shorter game. I don't *know* that the game will be shorter, but since *I* know how my deck works, it's probably a safe bet. My weenie politics deck, listed here for your convenience uses only 60 cards. I made this decision based on several factors: 1) I used *no* disciplines and therefore had fewer options to work with 2) I had to be *sure* that at least one of my Praxis Seizure cards came up in the first hand... preferrably two or three. 3) Limited resources (using a lot of the same cards was at that time a problem... some Conservative Agitations vs KRC frex) 4) I had no need to prepare for a long haul... I only needed to be sure that I had vote lock to reliably oust all of my opponents within about eight turns. I saw no reason to increase this to 90 cards, and in fact using 90 cards would have made it considerably harder to get going. The deck relies on its speed and the inability of opposing Methuselahs to outvote you in the first two turns. Failing that, being able to shmooze a vote always helped. Since I didn't prepare for combat aside from a few dodges, nor for intercept except for a few Change of Targets, this deck really needed to just concentrate on what it did best and ignore everything else. If I wanted to take this further, I could just eliminate most of the Masters and non-damaging votes and just go for 20 Praxis Seizures and 20 KRC. I think the actual minimum is 40 cards, correct? Of course, this would also create a new problem... the deck would be as boring as shit. I suppose if I did that, I could also choose to go 45 PS and 45 KRC, but this would actually make it slightly harder to get those initial PS out, and indeed I would spend much of the game discarding the PS that I don't need (which is already a problem). Cheers, WES CRYPT (12 vampires) Julius 1 Navar McClaren 1 Antoinette DuChamp 1 Hasina Kesi 1 Smudge the Ignored 1 Nik 1 Igo the Hungry 1 Franciscus 1 Angel 2 Rufina Soledad 2 Magdelena Schaefer 2 Normal 2 Roreca Quaid 2 Dimple 2 Total 20 -- Average 1.6 -- Best 4 -- Worst 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- LIBRARY (60 cards; 12 Master, 48 Minion) Effective Management 5 Anarch Revolt 4 Info Highway Elysium: the Arboretum Antedilluvean Awakening Praxis Seizure (various, less-popular ones) 15 Kine Resources Contested 15 Dodge 4 Change of Target 2 Autarkis Persecution 2 Banishment 2 Disputed Territory 2 Judgment: Camarilla Segregation The First Tradition: The Masquerade Dramatic Upheaval Kindred Restructure Political Flux Rumors of Gehenna

wa...@nevada.edu (Brad Ward) wrote in message news:<e5b93701.01082...@posting.google.com>... > Here's the question: If you draw 2 marbles from a bag, what are the chances of > that marble being a red marble?_______________________________________________ > ._____________________________________________________________________________ > Here's the Answer:____________________________________________________________ > 5 marble bag: 1-(4/5)*(3/4)*(2/3)=50%_________________________________________ > 10 marble bag: 1-(8/10)*(7/9)*(6/8)=41.7%_____________________________________ sorry, this example was for drawing 3 marbles from the bag, not 2. -brad

"Sten During" <ya...@netg.se> wrote > > I LOVE running into a Raptor-deck, but then I like playing with a > green wave - blue wake deck. Tap out using all your actions and > fill your hand with blue ones, react like mad etc etc etc. Usually > breaks sometime during the game, and then forcing another Meth > to cycle my hand comes in REALLY handy :) Also proves that I > need to tune my decks better - if I get hand-jam it's because I've > constructed a less than optimal deck. I'm sorry... 'green wave', 'blue wake'? Are these Magic: the Crack Habit concepts or am I missing something? Cheers, WES

On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 17:13:48 -0500, Pat Ricochet wrote: >The whole Atlanta playgroup has experimented with this idea, and found >that, in practice, 75-80 card decks seem to be be better. But I don't play in Atlanta. One thing we observe about the folk there - yourself, David Tatu, Derek Ray, LSJ - is that you go on and on. If you get a game where folk keep yapping (like the NA championship final) then not many turns will be played before time is up. But supposing folk play at a brisk pace instead - maybe there's a more significant risk of running out of cards. I'm not taking that chance for a marginal increase in focus. BTW, I don't know why folk think this is such a revolutionary concept. Keeping your deck to the minimum size is almost an article of faith in Magic. It's a flaw in the game, IMO - there should be pros and cons to decks of different sizes - makes for a more interesting metagame that way. Note that the DCI/VEKN tournament rules mandate a deck minimum of 60 rather than the rulebook's 40. This suggests that there was a time when players were aping Magic and trimming their decks as tight as possible, eh? Otherwise, why bother to raise the minimum? Andrew

In message <e5b93701.01082...@posting.google.com>, Brad Ward <wa...@nevada.edu> writes >Interesting, in the 2001 NA Championship all 5 finalists had 90 card decks In a situation where the concept of slimming down to 70 is supported by a small minority of players, this is to be expected. >and there was 3 Barrens amongst the 5, two of which were in the winning deck. >These piss poor players No-one's said that, so far as I can see. The suggestion is how to make a good deck better. (Obviously, we can all debate our views as to whether it could/would work.) >like Robert Goudie and Ben Peal really need to take >a lesson from Derek and slim down those fluff filled fat 90 card decks into >slimmer sleak ~75 card powerhouses filled with permanents and no more than >one of each unique card. For many deck strategies, the idea has some potential. In a one-trick pony deck, this will reduce (though I recall the statistics show that it isn't a huge reduction) the chance of unfortunate runs (in a deck with 12 Bum's Rushes, you'll get more chance of hand jam on them than in a deck with 8, say). This does, however, work against the toolboxing principle. Those 15 cards could quite happily include 2 Dreams, 6 Wakes, 4 Deflections, 1 Archon Investigation and 2 Delaying Tactics, say. I, for one, have seen a number of powerful decks excel with such diversity at their finger- tips. Where one is playing a clearly focused deck, slimming can be a useful aid, though. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F They don't need to see you cry B457CA213D7E6 I can't promise I will heal you, but if you want to I will try 68C3695D623D5D

In message <F7D6A7F5967A9107.DF4D6764...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >Note that the DCI/VEKN tournament rules mandate a deck minimum of 60 >rather than the rulebook's 40. This suggests that there was a time >when players were aping Magic and trimming their decks as tight as >possible, eh? Otherwise, why bother to raise the minimum? There was a fairly large amount of the DCI rules for Magic that was just adopted more or less wholesale. This might have been one of them, originally. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in news:F7D6A7F5967A9107.DF4D6764...@lp.airnews.net: > On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 17:13:48 -0500, Pat Ricochet wrote: > >>The whole Atlanta playgroup has experimented with this idea, and found >>that, in practice, 75-80 card decks seem to be be better. > > But I don't play in Atlanta. One thing we observe about the folk > there - yourself, David Tatu, Derek Ray, LSJ - is that you go on and > on. If you get a game where folk keep yapping (like the NA > championship final) then not many turns will be played before time is > up. But supposing folk play at a brisk pace instead - maybe there's a > more significant risk of running out of cards. I'm not taking that > chance for a marginal increase in focus. (puzzle) Hmmm. I'm not entirely sure where you got THAT impression; we're the ones who originally counted turns and came up with a consistent average of 12, while everyone else was guessing 20-and-up. During the time we were counting, we NEVER had to call a game on time, either. 12 turns is NOT an especially long game; it's actually kind of a pointy, vicious one. We *will* stop and make deals[0] whenever we see a convenient opportunity [1], and that might have contributed some to the impression. I understand that you and Tatu have met several times, and he's certainly fond of offering deals[2]. But I don't believe we necessarily play at a SLOW pace; and how much time any given turn takes doesn't have a direct effect on the number of cards played. More vice-versa, really; there simply isn't much to deal about on "Govern, Lost in Crowds", but an AWFUL lot more to discuss with regard to "Charming Lobby, KRC, Bewitching Oration, Malkavian Rider Clause". =) Oh, LSJ is in the Carolinas, by the way, not Atlanta. =) But I suppose if you lump all the Southeast US players together... > BTW, I don't know why folk think this is such a revolutionary concept. Actually, I don't either, if you want the truth. The little I knew about CCGs before I started this game was Magic, and the dogma there was 40 cards or bust. > Keeping your deck to the minimum size is almost an article of faith in > Magic. It's a flaw in the game, IMO - there should be pros and cons > to decks of different sizes - makes for a more interesting metagame > that way. Fortunately, there ARE. =) Short decks CAN run out. > Note that the DCI/VEKN tournament rules mandate a deck minimum of 60 > rather than the rulebook's 40. This suggests that there was a time > when players were aping Magic and trimming their decks as tight as > possible, eh? Otherwise, why bother to raise the minimum? (shrug) I remember seeing a 40-card weenie bleed deck a long time ago. This certainly makes sense to -me-. -- Derek [0] lie [1] someone whose position is tits-up [2] blatant lies

wa...@nevada.edu (Brad Ward) wrote in message news:<e5b93701.01082...@posting.google.com>... > kma...@my-deja.com (Karol Magda) wrote in message news:<c0c36ed1.01082...@posting.google.com>... > > V:EKN ratings are not working as they should , you won't go to the____________ > > finals with 1.5 all other 0.5 VP deck but your V:EKN ratings will be__________ > > VERY high with such a deck. > . > The ratings still go up if you win and down if you lose. So even though > they may not be perfect, they still represent who is winning and who is losing They go sometimes way down when you are losing by gaining 0 VP in tournament round you can lose anything between 16-64 points although when you get majority of V.P (3-5) you always get 64 (assuming everyone has equal rating and 5 people table) .That means that ratings are little bit out of way and using 'you have less than average rating' 'argument' when all rest fail is little bit silly. > > Even if run out of cards in deck (especially 60-70 cards permanent____________ > > deck) it's not that bad ... you have probably +2 intercept on one_____________ > > vampire and aproximately 10 point of bleed on the table and oh you are________ > > gaing like 4-5 pool each turn - this whole setup is worth like milion_________ > > of cards on the hand. Such decks are impossible to build correctly____________ > > with 90 cards for example due to reasons Derek repeat here over and___________ > > over. > . > By the time you have that kind of set up, you should have already won. I > Agree that setup is worth lots and lots of cards. The competition around > where I've played would never allow such a set up to happen, they'd either > block your equips, arson your locations, or burn your vamps. That's a real > Monty Haul playing scenario. The competition here is VERY fierce but even then such setup CAN happen , anyway having LOT of permanent in play counts for lot of cards , especially in endgame and I built my decks accordingly. > . > > happens only in endgame (2-3 people left including you) where your____________ > > permanents are superior to their now jammed up because of 90 cards____________ > > deck hand , if it happens otherwise the game last more than 2 hours___________ > > which means it doesn't matter (from tournament perspective) > . > I seem to rarely have hand jams in my 90 card decks. Even ones without the > Barrens or dreams. > http://www.geocities.com/area51/labyrinth/7031/decks.html_____________________ > > and look to the latest addition - this deck demonstrated everything___________ > > Derek say's , to your reference it > This doesnt seem to demonstrate anything Derek has said. It just lists decks. Look at the last deck and count number of cards. It's very succesful deck (two tournament wins) but is still using 70 card , it shows at the very least that concept of less than 90 cards in deck is perfectly viable. . > > Since you brought here an issue of Derek's V:EKN rating here note that________ > > Xavier , Zolo and me (Karol Magda) are currenty in top 10 in Zolo's___________ > > and my case certainly because we play less than 90 cards deck._ > . > Nice some subtance, finally. So you regularly play with <90 librarys? > whats the average size of your library? Average size of library is around 70. I prepare my decks for average 12 turns games (it was first said by Derek , my testing showed that average game last 12 turns) > . > Lasombra's site has the tourney winning deck archives. Most of them are 90 > card libraries. in the NA championships all 5 finalists were 90 card decks. As other people have pointed out this concept is new to most people. Kajik > . > Brad Ward

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > Brad Ward wrote: > > Lets start with something simple, like two sacks of marbles. One sack has 5 > > marbles the other sack has 10. The sack with 5 marbles has only 1 red marble > > the sack with 10 marbles has 2 red marbles, So both sacks have 1/5th red marble > > content. > > . > > Here's the question: If you draw 2 marbles from a bag, what are the chances of > > [one of those marbles] being a red marble? > > . > > Here's the Answer: > > 5 marble bag: 1-(4/5)*(3/4)*(2/3)=50% > > That's 60%, actually. Cancel the fours and threes: 1-(2/5). Um, shouldn't that be 40%? The 60% is the chance that neither draw is the red marble (80% first draw) X (75% second draw) = 60%. And the 40% of one red marble is the rest of the universe of two draw probability (100%). If you don't like the bass acward way of doing it, go with 20% (got it first draw) + 80% (darn) X (25% get it second). Pretty sure, but math is my least favorite thing to do on newsgroup, what with all the fire. Check that, math corrections are my least favorite thing to do on newsgroup. > > 10 marble bag: 1-(8/10)*(7/9)*(6/8)=41.7% > > That's 53.33%. 1-(6/10)*(7/9) = 1-(42/90) = 1-.4667 Um, this one is a bit more difficult, since the question doesn't make it clear whether it's ok to draw two red marbles. But I think it's 80% (not red first) X 78% (not red second) = 62% that neither are red. That means 38% that at least one is red, but you may have to subtract the 2% chance that both are red if that's important, which would make a 36% chance that exactly one is red. I think. If not, it's on account of my being terribly stupid. > > Now on the surface, you seem to be right derek. The smaller bag has a 8.3% > > greater chance of pulling the red marble. I think it's either a 2% better or 4% better, depending on how many reds are acceptable. > > But now lets take this example into > > Jyhad comparing your 60 card with 2 assault rifles, to my 90 card with 3 > > assault rifles: > > . > > Chances of drawing an assault in first hand (7 cards) > > . > > [60] card deck: 1-(58/60)*(57/59)*(56/58)*(55/57)*(54/56)*(53/55)*(52/54)=19.46% > > 1 - (53*52 / 60*59) = 22.15% This looks right. > > [90] card deck: 1-(87/90)*(86/89)*(85/88)*(84/87)*(83/86)*(82/85)*(81*84)=19.09% > > 1 - (83*82*81 / 90*89*88) = 21.79% Also looks right. But again, we don't know whether it is acceptable to have multiple assault rifles in the opening hand or not. I refuse to do the calculation for this one, on account of my profound laziness. > > Oh well look here, Now the difference is less than half a percent. And this is > > The difference is still less than half a percentage point, so the validity of your > point (which I am not trying to argue for or against) remains unchanged. Oh well, I suppose I'll weigh in with my opinion of smaller vs. larger decks. I like 90, not only because I may run out of cards, but because I like the freedom of discarding something that's not vital *right now* but may be vital later, where in a smaller deck, I may be forced to hang onto such a card because it is necessary later. To use the Assault Rifle example above, given that I have one in my opening hand and don't want it until turn 4 or even 6 (maybe bad example for Assault Rifle, but I'm using the example anyway), I can discard it from my 90 card deck, knowing I have 2 in my next 83 cards. With the 60 card deck, I may not like the lower probability of getting the only other one in my next say, 10 cards. By the way, I think that probability would be: Getting at least one more Assault Rifle in my next 10 cards: 90 card deck (83 remaining cards when AR discarded) = 22.8% 60 card deck (53 remaining cards when AR discarded) = 18.9% I suppose 4 percentage points is not such a big deal, but the 90 card deck has a 20% better chance relative to the 60 card. But third and last, the reason I like 90 is that I can put some specialized cards in the 90 deck and plan to filter them out if they aren't useful, while that is less of an option in a 60. Cards that alone can hose certain types of decks (maybe Dog Pack, maybe Atonement, Far Mastery, Archon Investigation) are nice to have a chance at, but may not always desirable or woth playing at certain tables or in certain seating positions. I don't think I could put all those bells and whistles in if I limited myself to 60, and those bells and whistles are one of the reasons I enjoy the game (and random event games more generally). My friends always (and rightly) criticize me for letting my sealed and draft Magic decks creep over 40 cards, but that's the way I like to play. On a final note, since I am responding to LSJ, let me beg the V:tES gods for some clan hosers that have a backup purpose. Most of the clan hosers weren't amazingly useful before the number of clans exploded (I've never seen a Letter from Vienna played), and are almost unusable now. If these cards had a secondary purpose, or even the ability to gain another discard action if they are discarded during the discard phase (maybe even then only if none of the appropriate clan are in play), perhaps they could see some play. As an excercise for the reader, how many tournament winning decks have included a clan hoser (excluding Malkavian Dementia)? A single Brujah Frenzy? One Cultivated Blood Shortage? One Obsession?!? A very small handful overall, of probably over 100 decks that I searched through (I am, as always, grateful for your site, Lasombra). - Jason Bell

Derek Ray wrote: > > > However, my original point (long ago) was something different. If you > break the proportions when reducing the deck size, and focus more clearly > on what you WANT to do, and how many times you REALLY want to play a > certain card, then you can actually improve a deck. THEN, you want to find > a deck's ideal size, which is where it has less than 10 cards in its > library when you win (or are ousted). For some decks, this will still be > 90. For others, it can be smaller, reaping the inherent benefits. No objections here ;) I have a feeling that some combat-decks will actually have an optimal size far larger than the tournament-legal. [ quoted text not captured ]

Wes wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] Oh, it's all about probability actually. A deck based around a somewhat even distribution of cards (masters uncounted) that can be used wither during your actions or during your reactions will see your hand slowly filling up with reactioncards (may be combat-ones you prefer to use when blocking as well) while you tap out taking all your actions. After that, when you wake/block/deflect etc, your hand will slowly be less and less adequate for reactions, which if your deck is well balanced is good as you're not only reacting but also preparing for your own turna again. So, action-cards are green (and in this case equipment etc are conceptually green as well), and any reaction-card is then conceptually blue. [ quoted text not captured ]

Pat Ricochet wrote: > > Well, it's not THAT abstract. If I can make a 90-card of, well, ANY > type, I can try to make a 75 card version of it, right? All I have to do is > take out cards. Only if you don't count on running out of cards during the game as a result. > > > The premise is this: for most 90 card decks, those the win lots and > those that don't win lots, you usually end up with 20+ cards left over in > your library at the end of the game (especially in 2-hour timeout > tournaments). Not only that, but every player has spent time discarding > cards they didn't need, whether duplicates of uniques, or just cycling to > get to "that card you need." Ending up with x cards should actually be counted only in those games where you achieve your goal, which should be to get a minimum of 3 VP and preferably to sweep. For simplicity, never count a game where you're not the last man standing. > Derek and Brad BOTH have produced math showing that there is a finite, > positive, albeit small, increase in getting or cycling efficiently to "the > card you need" in having a smaller deck size. If the chance is one third of a precent better, then the deck is one third of a percent better, which still is better. It actually doesn't matter how much better. > I'd say it as "MOST types of decks are usually better off with less than > 90 cards." I'd say that most decks would benefit from adding more weenies, but that is very often a rather hated idea. People don't like weeniestupidity actually performing very well, but I don't hear many complaints about the one single unbalance in the game that is clear. This game is all about being able to perform the largest amount of actions and reactions. Weenie-decks get that advantage so easily that they're more forgiving to designers building otherwise less than optimal libraries. > > > > However, if such a deck > > will ever be a good deck compared to a deck based on > > transients remains a TOTALLY different question. > > A yet third question, actually. =) > But, to be honest, it's not totally unrelated. If you build a deck to > run through all it's cards by the end of the game, you have most all your > permanents in play, and you probably got them earlier on. And, since you DO > have less cards (undisputable fact), you are certainly more capable of > running out of cards, so you might toss in a .44, say, when designing the > deck. > I partially agree here. I think the question to ask is how many cards will I be playing in average per action/reaction, and then start counting minions. If we assume an 12 round game the math should be pretty straightforward. > > The only one I've really hammered on is that in a 12 turn game, you get > 12 Master Phase actions, (usually 11, since so many Masters can't be played > on turn 1) and 12 discards. You can build a deck around the Parthenon and > the Barrens to get around these, introducing some fragility and > I personally don't like discard-enhancers as they make me feel that I've failed during deck-construction somewhere else. I do have a fondness for mastercards and often play with Anson and the Parthenon, but that's because I can make good use of two masteractions. There's one obvious deck-type that'll make VERY good use of discard- enhancers, and that's a massive Embrace/Progeny -deck. You pour in far more diciplinecards than what's good for you and throw them away as they come, but in this case we're not discarding an unwanted card. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > wa...@nevada.edu (Brad Ward) wrote: > > Lasombra's site has the tourney winning deck archives. Most of them > > are 90 card libraries. in the NA championships all 5 finalists were > > 90 card decks. . > > This is not a meaningful statement unless you also know how many decks in > those tournaments were LESS than 90 cards. In a field where all or nearly > all the decks are 90 cards, it's easy to predict that a 90-card deck will > win, and it proves nothing. > > When challenging a current paradigm, it is not a valid defense to simply > quote the paradigm being challenged. > > Fortunately, I believe LSJ has deck lists from everyone in the NAC, if he > is willing to post the number of "full" decks as compared to the number of > "short" ones. The NAC event hosted 37 players. 25 played "full" decks (90-card libraries). 7 played with 80-89 cards in their libraries (80,80,81,82,87,88,89). 5 played with 70-79 cards in their libraries (70,73,74,75,76). 0 played with 60-69 cards in their libraries. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to rulebook, card text, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3B8554A8...@white-wolf.com... > > Here's the Answer: > > 5 marble bag: 1-(4/5)*(3/4)*(2/3)=50% > > That's 60%, actually. Cancel the fours and threes: 1-(2/5). > > > 10 marble bag: 1-(8/10)*(7/9)*(6/8)=41.7% > > That's 53.33%. 1-(6/10)*(7/9) = 1-(42/90) = 1-.4667 Yeah, I Was using Excel spreadsheet to do the calculation and accidently left the first iteration out of the calc. Made each of the probabilities a little lower than they should be. > > Now on the surface, you seem to be right derek. The smaller bag has a 8.3% > > greater chance of pulling the red marble. But now lets take this example into > > Jyhad comparing your 60 card with 2 assault rifles, to my 90 card with 3 > > assault rifles: > > . > > Chances of drawing an assault in first hand (7 cards) > . > > [60] card deck: 1-(58/60)*(57/59)*(56/58)*(55/57)*(54/56)*(53/55)*(52/54)=19.46% > > 1 - (53*52 / 60*59) = 22.15% > > > [90] card deck: 1-(87/90)*(86/89)*(85/88)*(84/87)*(83/86)*(82/85)*(81*84)=19.09% > > 1 - (83*82*81 / 90*89*88) = 21.79% > The difference is still less than half a percentage point, so the validity of your > point (which I am not trying to argue for or against) remains unchanged. yeah, even with the first iteration left and the numbers arent exact, the difference between them is about the same. brad

On 24 Aug 2001 05:27:13 -0700, LSJ wrote: >The NAC event hosted 37 players. That seems low when the program advertised 50 places and the qualifier attracted 70. And not being a multiple of 5 is an obvious nuisance. You should arrange it so that the final on-site qualifier provides a reserve list to fill up all the empty places resulting from no-shows. >25 played "full" decks (90-card libraries). > 7 played with 80-89 cards in their libraries (80,80,81,82,87,88,89). > 5 played with 70-79 cards in their libraries (70,73,74,75,76). > 0 played with 60-69 cards in their libraries. I hope you're going publish more stats and/or deck lists. It'd be interesting to see what the metagame was like there - the exact mix of clans and deck types. Andrew

vte...@white-wolf.com (LSJ) wrote in news:eb4eb7f8.01082...@posting.google.com: > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> When challenging a current paradigm, it is not a valid defense to >> simply quote the paradigm being challenged. >> >> Fortunately, I believe LSJ has deck lists from everyone in the NAC, >> if he is willing to post the number of "full" decks as compared to >> the number of "short" ones. Muchas gracias, senor. > The NAC event hosted 37 players. > > 25 played "full" decks (90-card libraries). > 7 played with 80-89 cards in their libraries (80,80,81,82,87,88,89). for purposes of producing as realistic as possible numbers, i'm going to add the three decks which contained 87+ cards into the "full library" slot. I am aware that this technically is not accurate, but realistically, the difference between an 87-card and a 90-card library is insigificant at best. Note that all my posts advocate removing at LEAST ten cards from your library in order to have ANY appreciable impact. > 5 played with 70-79 cards in their libraries (70,73,74,75,76). > 0 played with 60-69 cards in their libraries. So, this gives us a tournament in which 76% were "full" decks, 11% were 80- ish card decks, and 13% were 70-ish card decks. Strictly according to the math, this should produce a final with 4 "full" decks and one "short" deck. Further analysis of the "short" decks could help indicate whether or not their "shortness" was at fault, or whether or not their concepts were ill-advised; however, I don't think we need to do this. Again, to make any results drawn from an exercise such as this truly valid, the tournament would have needed to have 9 in each "slot".

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns9106A6BF...@198.99.146.10... > wa...@nevada.edu (Brad Ward) wrote in > news:e5b93701.01082...@posting.google.com: > >> Bradley, I'm starting to see why you're such a tool whereever you > >> play, and why Paul Johnson was able to yank you around like a little > >> lost sheep. > > . > > Paul didnt lead me like a sheep, he simply lied to me about what phase > > we were in. Do you consider this method of cheating sportsman like > > and good playing? . > > He had a leash on you like a pimp had on his best ho, boy. You were > pissing, moaning, crying, and thinking about EVERYTHING except what was > happening on the table, because he fooled you. Welcome to Jedi Mind Trick > land; you have Been Tricked. (And yes, I think you should've been allowed > to replace the Wake. But it wouldn't have mattered; you STILL would've > been his tool.) > You werent there, you dont know what your talking about. You just talking out of your ass again. > >> You must be one of those people who believes that old Magic saw "the > >> more cards you see, the better your deck is doing". That pretty much > >> speaks for itself. > > . > > The more cards you play beneficially is certainly going to strengthen > > your deck. > > The converse is also true; the more cards that you CANNOT play beneficially > and need to discard will certainly weaken your deck. Make it too big, and > include too much crap, and you'll get hosed. I will accept your concession that a deck that flows through 90 cards played is better than a deck that only flows through 60 cards played. [Snip repeat of math on arika deck and dereks nerdy calculator talk] > > You seem to have room for the barrens if your deck is only 75 cards. > > Hell you could add Parthenon and the barrens and a frag and some > > dreams. Yeah barrens suck, only beginner decks like Ben Peals NA > > championship winner would dare to put 2 of them in his deck. > > Again, I didn't say the Barrens was a bad card, and if I'm building a 75- > card deck, it's so I won't NEED the Barrens. You're so obsessed with > what's inside your own mind that you don't actually bother reading anything > that's said. And im saying that if you only have 75 cards you could add 2 barrens and 13 other cards to you deck. Then you have an extra discard every turn and a better ability to dynamically enhance your decks capabilities. Seems like we both understand each other on this point, but still have diffrernce of opinions on which method is better. You like small with 1 discard. Given those as the only two choices, I like big with 2 discards. > >> Now, now, Bradley. You KNOW some of the people who play here; you > >> know ______ better._ . > > Actually I just know you mentioned Tatu. I dont know if you regularly > > Oh, no, Bradley, you won't get out of it that easily. The only place I > mentioned Tatu in this thread before you took shots at him was when I gave > him credit for originally suggesting the "short deck" idea. I have taken > GREAT care not to mention who I was playing with this past Monday. You > went out of your way to make cracks about Tatu AND at the entire Atlanta > playgroup (there's only one, by the way), in hopes of somehow diminishing > my argument without actually providing any substance for your side. Yeah, you mentioned Tatu... I know he lives in Atlanta via Robyns move there. I know of no one else who plays in Atlanta other than you, Tatu and Robyn. Robyn had just moved there so you didnt regularly play with her. > Bradley, I'm going to say this once, and once only. Noal's message was > right on the button. That sort of stupid dick-waving not only won't get > you anywhere fast, it really DOES make you look like a complete waste of > skin. I don't personally give a shit what you say to me, because I don't > really think highly enough of you to care. When you start taking shots at > innocent bystanders who are also my friends, however, THEN I actually begin > to get annoyed. Oh, shut up derek. Work yourself up and get annoyed then. > You've done well in this message by actually producing some math, although > you should have saved yourself the trouble and gone back and looked mine up > on Google. But this blather about how good you are and how everyone here > must suck is the mark of a pathetic, puling fool. Feel free to continue > the math, and say what you want to me, but as for the little side comments > about the rest of the group, please... put a sock in it. ;) I havent said everyone here sucks, I have on several occasions admired the skill of other players such as Goudie, Ben Peal, Robyn.. etc. I do however think you are a mediocre player with too much time on his hands to post and argue. > > play with him or not. I wasnt poking at Tatu either, just my only > > This is a pretty bald-faced lie, Bradley. At least have the fucking balls > to stand up and apologize when you do something that dumb. Or are yours > only marbles? Dick waving, now ball waving.. whatever derek. > By the way, Tatu reads this group, although he doesn't post. Smooth move, > ex-lax. yeah, ok so? > > experience in playing with him didnt seem like his deck did anything. > > Perhaps it was just a case of the 75 card deck getting bad hand jam. > > Maybe you have gotton a chance to play with Robin. Now she's a pretty > > good player. Perhaps you can pick up some deck building tips from > > her. . > > I have, in fact, had numerous opportunities to play with Robyn since she's > been here. We have had quite a few very interesting discussions regarding > deckbuilding. And she is quite a good player. I'm glad you don't think > our ENTIRE group sucks. We would just be heartbroken. I dont know who the rest of your group is. Yes ive played several games with robyn and think she's great! > > I do know you think every card has a good use to it and that smaller > > decks are better. If not what are we arguing about here? > > I do, in fact, believe smaller decks can be better (for the appropriate > deck). Peter's Rush deck would probably not do as well at 80 cards, since > it tends to run out of cards anyway. However, a lot of decks COULD do much > better with a trim-down; and some decks do VERY well if you break the > proportions. Curious as to what I mean? Go read the Google threads. I believe that smaller decks do better only in corner cases, such as the library replenishing cards (Waste management) or even the Anson all mastercard library. But designing a deck you will either want a few cards as possible (60) or as many as possible (90). At least with a 30 card difference variance comes into play at a percent or two depending on how many cards you draw. Trimming down a 90 card deck to 75 has almost no effect mathmatically at improving the chances of drawing certain cards that have the same ratio content in each deck. This has been proven with math by both of us. So what are you talking about?

"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote: > > On 24 Aug 2001 05:27:13 -0700, LSJ wrote: > > >The NAC event hosted 37 players. > > That seems low when the program advertised 50 places and the qualifier > attracted 70. It was high, actually. The qualifying system was set up to produce a 25-player NAC. 50 slots were allocated to handle all conceivable possibilities. The Qualifier had 100 slots, for a similar reason, even though the 75-player turnout was higher than expected. > And not being a multiple of 5 is an obvious nuisance. Not really. Non-multiple-of-five tournaments happen about 80% of the time. Most judges are accustomed to handling that state. Multiple-of-five's major benefit is that handling players who drop after the second round is much easier. Given the nature of the NAC, that was not much of a consideration. > You should arrange it so that the final on-site qualifier provides a > reserve list to fill up all the empty places resulting from no-shows. Why? The method used proved more than satisfactory. > > >25 played "full" decks (90-card libraries). > > 7 played with 80-89 cards in their libraries (80,80,81,82,87,88,89). > > 5 played with 70-79 cards in their libraries (70,73,74,75,76). > > 0 played with 60-69 cards in their libraries. > > I hope you're going publish more stats and/or deck lists. It'd be > interesting to see what the metagame was like there - the exact mix of > clans and deck types. I hope I have enough time to do so. (Like I wish I had enough money to buy an elephant :-) -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:3B866D1E...@white-wolf.com... > I hope I have enough time to do so. > (Like I wish I had enough money to buy an elephant :-) > > -- > LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. > Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: > http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/ Man I've got to get a job with WW! You've got room in your house for an elephant? Wow! I can't even convince my wife to buy me a Pony! ("Where are we going to put a Pony Matt!") Matt

James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in news:b0d2gQJR...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk: > For many deck strategies, the idea has some potential. In a one-trick > pony deck, this will reduce (though I recall the statistics show that > it isn't a huge reduction) the chance of unfortunate runs (in a deck > with 12 Bum's Rushes, you'll get more chance of hand jam on them than > in a deck with 8, say). That's a given. Plus, you encounter some very interesting statistics with regard to actually getting your combos off. Say, for example, that we design a deck around Bum's Rush, Torn Signpost, and Blur, with the occasional Amaranth. That's a 3-card combo with drop-ins by a 4th card. (Whether this combo is effective or not is not relevant to the discussion; I'm well aware that it lacks an IG at the moment. PATIENCE.) Let's go ahead and start off with 12 of each card in a 90-card deck. Good industry-standard type of number. Again, nc(X,Y,Z) gives the chance of drawing card "N" in the next Z cards, given X of that card in a remaining library of Y. nc(12,90,8) = 0.69752^3 = 0.33937, or 34% ...the chance of having at least one of all 3 cards in your opening hand. Um, Batman? That number looks pretty goddamn small, doesn't it? Yes, Robin, it does. Once you begin doing the math, you start to realize very quickly just how vulnerable the industry-standard Rush deck IS, and how much it relies on the interchangeability of its strike cards and strength increasers. Fortunately for the Rush deck, the only number it REALLY has to worry about is the one for having a Rush on hand... which is a much safer 70% (and we haven't even included the 4 Havens yet). So you Rush someone and play your cards. Your chances of having each of those cards back in your hand are now nc(11,82,3) = 0.35462^3 = 0.044595, or 4.5%... which can be colloquially referred to as "dick". That won't do at all. Let's slop it down to a 60-card deck. Same 12 actions, since we're only using 36 cards and haven't even come close to our deck maximum yet. nc(12,60,8) = 0.85252^3 = 0.6196, 62%... difference of 28% (!) nc(11,52,3) = 0.51765^3 = 0.13871, 14%... difference of 9.5% (!) That's pretty strong out of the gate there. But we also barely have room for anything else, with only 24 card slots left. That won't do. What if we only rip 10 cards out of the total; how much of a change is the 80-card deck going to make? nc(12,80,8) = 0.74499^3 = 0.41348, 41%... difference of 7% nc(11,72,3) = 0.39655^3 = 0.062358, 6%... difference of 1.5%, negligible So far we've been playing with number theory, and while it's amusing, we also have a deck that really doesn't do shit because the combo has big holes in it. We're just going to have to rip up an existing deck, and guess whose we're going to use to do it. (You saw this coming.) 1x Fame 1x Pentex Loves You! 2x Dreams of the Sphinx 3x Blood Doll 3x Potence 4x Haven Uncovered (total 14 masters) 12x Bum's Rush 12x Immortal Grapple 10x Undead Strength 10x Torn Signpost 4x Fists of Death 4x Disarm 4x Decapitate 8x Behind You! 8x Taste of Vitae 4x Computer Hacking (total 76 other cards, 90 card library) Which deck could this be? It's certainly focussed enough for our purposes, though, and easy to define. I'm going to assume that for each action, two cards are absolutely desired: a Bum's Rush/Haven and an Immortal Grapple. The Havens actually potentially provide more than one Rush action, but odds are you'll vaporize the guy on the first go-round anyway, so it more-or-less works out. I'm also going to assume that we'd like to have one strength increaser and one strike card for every action as well, and I use those terms in order to take advantage of the duplication of purposes in the deck. So, to have a turn-2 kill, the chances are... nc(16,90,8) = 0.80557 = 81% chance of having a Rush. Play that, and: nc(14,89,8) = 0.76112 = 76% for having Torn Signpost/FoD. Play that, and: nc(12,88,8) = 0.70665 = 71% for having an IG. Play it, and: nc(14,87,8) = 0.76996 = 77% for having a strike card (US/Decap). Looks good at first, but: .80577*.76112*.70665*.76996 = 0.33369. HOWEVER, this is not the chance of the victim-vampire being dead, because IG provides a press and TS lasts for the whole combat; further cards don't necessarily have to be played. Also, the only card that the other three are dependent on is the initial Rush. You can prove a lot of the wrong things with math, too. That number is simply the chance of those four cards being available to be played in that sequence at the top of your deck. Get a Dreams out on turn 2 and the numbers improve: nc(16,89,10) = 0.87781 (Rush) nc(14,88,10) = 0.84084 (TS/FoD) nc(12,87,10) = 0.79281 (IG) nc(14,86,10) = 0.84857 (Strike) .87781*.84084*.79281*.84857 = 0.49656. Not bad; 17% improvement just from having a hand size of 2 greater. Says a LOT about Dreams right there. Let's see what trimming this bastard down to 80 cards would do. I'm going to be cavalier about it; I'm going to throw out all four Disarms, two Decapitates, three Taste of Vitae, two Behind You, and a Computer Hacking. To make up the shortage of strike cards, I'm going to include two extra Undead Strength. There's my 80 cards. nc(16,79,8) = 0.85155 (Rush) 90 w/Dreams: .87781 nc(14,78,8) = 0.81123 (TS/FoD) 90 w/Dreams: .84084 nc(12,77,8) = 0.76013 (IG) 90 w/Dreams: .79281 nc(14,76,8) = 0.82069 (strike) 90 w/Dreams: .84857 .85155*.81123*.76013*.82069 = 0.43094, 43% as compared to 33%. The individual numbers themselves actually are VERY close to the numbers for a 90-card deck with Dreams -- but a reduced deck size doesn't go away like a Dreams does. I like this already. We need to assess the "cons", though. I've given the deck increased killing ability. What have I pulled away from it? Well, it has to actually beat vampires down to empty now, it can't just rip their arms off; but that's a preferable solution anyway. It can't burn people quite as easily. It doesn't have as much blood gain onto vampires, but since you're only being punched for 1 most times anyway, you aren't hurting to just save your Taste in-hand, since you're much less likely to get multiples of them. It's -slightly- more vulnerable to maneuvers, but against decks that aren't maneuvering (which are more common to see) it has fewer cards it needs to get rid of. And one time, it will bleed for 1 less than usual. It's possible that the -exact- ratios might need to be shuffled a bit; I hate actually removing all 4 Disarms, for example. Maybe rip out another CH and put a Disarm back in instead. > This does, however, work against the toolboxing principle. Those 15 > cards could quite happily include 2 Dreams, 6 Wakes, 4 Deflections, 1 > Archon Investigation and 2 Delaying Tactics, say. I, for one, have > seen a number of powerful decks excel with such diversity at their > finger- tips. Dreams is a big key to this, too. > Where one is playing a clearly focused deck, slimming can be a useful > aid, though. It'd be entertaining to get Peter to play with this deck and see what he "feels" about what it does. =)

"Bradly Ward" <br...@jakescrane.com> wrote in news:tocpag4...@corp.supernews.com: > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:Xns9106A6BF...@198.99.146.10... >> Mind Trick land; you have Been Tricked. (And yes, I think you >> should've been allowed to replace the Wake. But it wouldn't have >> mattered; you STILL would've been his tool.) > > You werent there, you dont know what your talking about. You just > talking out of your ass again. I see the tears forming in your eyes now. And I know a whole lot more than you think I do, Bradley... even if the entire situation, details and all, HADN'T been posted to this group. >> The converse is also true; the more cards that you CANNOT play >> beneficially and need to discard will certainly weaken your deck. >> Make it too big, and include too much crap, and you'll get hosed. > > I will accept your concession that a deck that flows through 90 cards > played is better than a deck that only flows through 60 cards played. This is, of course, not what I said, but again you fail to actually understand. I'll move on; you really are basically a waste of skin, and there are other people who are willing to support your side of it who can read English. And some of them are Europeans. You know, Bradley, I'd be embarrassed if I were you; there are people who have English as a second language posting here who comprehend more than you. > [Snip repeat of math on arika deck and dereks nerdy calculator talk] Oh, I'm sorry, did you not like it that I just COMPLETELY showed up all your little snide comments? That's a SHAME, Bradley. Yes, I can DEFINITELY see the tears forming in your eyes. Tool. > And im saying that if you only have 75 cards you could add 2 barrens > and 13 other cards to you deck. Then you have an extra discard every > turn and a better ability to dynamically enhance your decks > capabilities. And then someone Arsons or contests your Barrens, and you die. I have removed a weak point from my deck by not requiring the Barrens; you have ADDED a weak point to yours. And what happens if you don't draw the Barrens? With 2 in a 90-card deck, you still only have a 75% chance of drawing one in your first 45 cards. And until you've cycled 26 cards on your own, you have LESS than a 50% chance of seeing one. That's more than a quarter of your deck that you're going to have to burn through on your own before you even can beat a coin flip! Really, Bradley, the Barrens is a nice card, but hardly a be-all, end-all for the game. > Seems like we both understand each other on this point, but still have > diffrernce of opinions on which method is better. You like small with > 1 discard. Given those as the only two choices, I like big with 2 > discards. ACTUALLY, I like not having points of attack for other decks. People around here play real aggressively and real smart, Bradley. I've had a stealth/bleed predator who chose to take my Fragment and Arson my Barrens when he had 4 bleed cards in hand, because he knew my deck relied on both of them. That was when I quit putting both in every deck I played, and started learning to REALLY build decks. That was about a year, year and a half ago. > Yeah, you mentioned Tatu... I know he lives in Atlanta via Robyns move > there. I know of no one else who plays in Atlanta other than you, > Tatu and Robyn. Robyn had just moved there so you didnt regularly > play with her. If you don't actually know anyone who plays here, wouldn't you think it's just a little bit foolish to spew bullshit about how you think everyone here sucks? It's sort of similar to walking into a pool hall, beating one person once, and saying "Man, isn't there anyone around here who can play this game?" When you do that, you usually get shaken down until your teeth rattle. Which is what is happening to you right now. > Oh, shut up derek. Work yourself up and get annoyed then. It's fun to watch you cry and backpedal like a maniac. > I havent said everyone here sucks, I have on several occasions You most certainly implied (and long ago, said outright) that all of us here in Atlanta did. After all, I couldn't have gotten so many VPs against a "competent" group, right? Still more backpedaling from you. > admired the skill of other players such as Goudie, Ben Peal, Robyn.. > etc. I do however think you are a mediocre player with too much time > on his hands to post and argue. And I think you're an older version of that one fat kid who always talked too much, got beaten up and had his lunch money stolen, and sat in the middle of the cafeteria crying. What's your point? >> > play with him or not. I wasnt poking at Tatu either, just my only >> >> This is a pretty bald-faced lie, Bradley. At least have the fucking >> balls to stand up and apologize when you do something that dumb. Or >> are yours only marbles? > > Dick waving, now ball waving.. whatever derek. Yes, yours are definitely marbles. How totally pathetic. >> By the way, Tatu reads this group, although he doesn't post. Smooth >> move, ex-lax. > > yeah, ok so? Nope, I'm wrong. Yours are actually BBs. Even more pathetic. > I dont know who the rest of your group is. Yes ive played several > games with robyn and think she's great! I sense more backpedaling. Don't worry, there's no fin in the water behind you... or is there? Maybe that's just a dolphin. > few cards as possible (60) or as many as possible (90). At least with > a 30 card difference variance comes into play at a percent or two > depending on how many cards you draw. Trimming down a 90 card deck to The casinos in Vegas only have about a 1.5% advantage on the odds, and look how much THEY rake in. It is unwise to underestimate the effects of variance, although with such a small model to draw from, we won't be seeing quite the same benefits that the Vegas casinos do. > 75 has almost no effect mathmatically at improving the chances of > drawing certain cards that have the same ratio content in each deck. > This has been proven with math by both of us. > > So what are you talking about? Why don't you have a look at what happens when you break the ratios? There's some math on Google in a couple threads, if you'd like to look... Or, if you like, you can view my responses in different threads, where I'm going to discuss it with people who are more capable of actually debating the issues. Noal was right. You really ARE a total waste of time.

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >Brad Ward wrote: >> Lets start with something simple, like two sacks of marbles. One sack has 5 >> marbles the other sack has 10. The sack with 5 marbles has only 1 red marble >> the sack with 10 marbles has 2 red marbles, So both sacks have 1/5th red marble >> content. >> . >> Here's the question: If you draw 2 marbles from a bag, what are the chances of >> [one of those marbles] being a red marble? >> . >> Here's the Answer: >> 5 marble bag: 1-(4/5)*(3/4)*(2/3)=50% You are only drawing twice, so the expression is 4*3 1 - --- 5*4 3 1 - - = 2/5 = 40% exactly 5 >That's 60%, actually. Cancel the fours and threes: 1-(2/5). >> 10 marble bag: 1-(8/10)*(7/9)*(6/8)=41.7% Again, it's only two draws, so the expression is 8*7 1 - ---- 10*9 56 1 - -- = 34/90 = 17/45 = 37.78% 90 >That's 53.33%. 1-(6/10)*(7/9) = 1-(42/90) = 1-.4667 ^ Nope. That should be 8. >> Now on the surface, you seem to be right derek. The smaller bag has a 8.3% >> greater chance of pulling the red marble. But now lets take this example into >> Jyhad comparing your 60 card with 2 assault rifles, to my 90 card with 3 >> assault rifles: >> . >> Chances of drawing an assault in first hand (7 cards) >> . >> [60] card deck: 1-(58/60)*(57/59)*(56/58)*(55/57)*(54/56)*(53/55)*(52/54)=19.46% This formula is correct, but the result is wrong. >1 - (53*52 / 60*59) = 22.15% This is a correct simplification. The answer is correct. >> [90] card deck: 1-(87/90)*(86/89)*(85/88)*(84/87)*(83/86)*(82/85)*(81*84)=19.09% This formula is correct, but the result is wrong. >1 - (83*82*81 / 90*89*88) = 21.79% This is a correct simplification. The answer is correct. >> Oh well look here, Now the difference is less than half a percent. And this is >The difference is still less than half a percentage point, so the validity of your >point (which I am not trying to argue for or against) remains unchanged. Approximately .36%. Handjamming is more complex than this. Looking for just one card is easier than looking for a multiple number of cards for a combo. Back when I played MtG, I had a red-black deck that had about 200 cards. It was purely for fun. I had all kinds of stuff in it. I was very careful about shuffling fairly, but it could be very different depending on what came up: VERY different. Suppose one has a two card combo and that there are two of each combo card in a 60-card deck and three of each combo card in a 90-card deck. Asking what is the chance of getting the combo in the first n cards isn't good enough to settle the issue of handjamming as there are going to be other combos as well. Can someone put together a reasonable scenario for handjamming? I can then try to work out the probabilities. [ quoted text not captured ]

Gene Wirchenko wrote: > > LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > >Brad Ward wrote: > >> Lets start with something simple, like two sacks of marbles. One sack has 5 > >> marbles the other sack has 10. The sack with 5 marbles has only 1 red marble > >> the sack with 10 marbles has 2 red marbles, So both sacks have 1/5th red marble > >> content. > >> . > >> Here's the question: If you draw 2 marbles from a bag, what are the chances of > >> [one of those marbles] being a red marble? > >> . > >> Here's the Answer: > >> 5 marble bag: 1-(4/5)*(3/4)*(2/3)=50% > > You are only drawing twice, so the expression is Brad's already corrected that point - the equations are for 3 draws. (And the figures he arrives at are faulty in that they all replace the first fraction with 1). I was correcting the math, not the mistake in the problem statement (which I overlooked - the formulae are clearly based on 3 draws). > >> 10 marble bag: 1-(8/10)*(7/9)*(6/8)=41.7% > >That's 53.33%. 1-(6/10)*(7/9) = 1-(42/90) = 1-.4667 > ^ > Nope. That should be 8. For three draws (as in the equation being referenced), it should be 6. The eights cancel. [ quoted text not captured ]

LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in news:3B866D1E.7754C654@white- wolf.com: > (Like I wish I had enough money to buy an elephant :-) I'm not even going to ASK what you might want to do with an elephant. -- Derek (although I'm having a terrible case of flashbacks to "Thank You Mask Man" right now.)

"Bradly Ward" <br...@jakescrane.com> wrote: [snip] >I believe that smaller decks do better only in corner cases, such as the >library replenishing cards (Waste management) or even the Anson all >mastercard library. But designing a deck you will either want a few cards >as possible (60) or as many as possible (90). At least with a 30 card >difference variance comes into play at a percent or two depending on how >many cards you draw. Trimming down a 90 card deck to 75 has almost no >effect mathmatically at improving the chances of drawing certain cards that >have the same ratio content in each deck. This has been proven with math by >both of us. It has only been proven for single named cards. What about more than one? What about combos? That slight advantage is going to apply to each case. I don't know how to calculate the interaction of probabilities, but it's going to be there. It's something like the Birthday Problem: what is the minimum number of randomly-selected people required to have a 50% or higher probability of at least two sharing the same birthday? Most people will guess 100 or more. The answer is 23. Some combinations combine quickly. [ quoted text not captured ]

> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 17:13:48 -0500, Pat Ricochet wrote: > >> The whole Atlanta playgroup has experimented with this idea, and found >> that, in practice, 75-80 card decks seem to be be better. > > But I don't play in Atlanta. One thing we observe about the folk > there - yourself, David Tatu, Derek Ray, LSJ - is that you go on and > on. If you get a game where folk keep yapping (like the NA > championship final) then not many turns will be played before time is > up. But supposing folk play at a brisk pace instead - maybe there's a > more significant risk of running out of cards. I'm not taking that > chance for a marginal increase in focus. I think you've mistaken our propensity for blathering at length on the newsgroup with our playstyle. We like to keep the game moving, and at local (or even away) tournaments, we're usually the ones badgering people who are obviously stalling for the timeout. Heck, if a tournament round is going to timeout, we like to offer everyone turbo-discard and all withdrawal, for 1 VP each instead of 0.5. > BTW, I don't know why folk think this is such a revolutionary concept. Well, like a newly bought used automobile, it's "new to me," and really, new-ish to the game. The usual argument goes like: "Have you ever considered a less-than 90 card deck? You might because..." "Heck, no, I might run out of cards, and then the world would end!" "Have you tried it?" "Heck, no, I might run out of cards, and then..." so you get the feeling that maybe > Keeping your deck to the minimum size is almost an article of faith in > Magic. It's a flaw in the game, IMO - there should be pros and cons > to decks of different sizes - makes for a more interesting metagame > that way. Well, if you play VTES with a 4CL, you'd come up against the same thing, trying to get a 3 card combo with only 4 of each card in your whole deck. Being an NCL game, it means you can "size up" any deck by an arbitrary amount (given, say, mostly common cards, and a modestly sized collection). Oddly, IIRC, Magic had "Millstone" decks from the start, to destroy your library (deck, or whatever it's called in Magic), but even a Dirty Little Secrets deck will oust it's prey before burning through their library. But minimum size libraries is, as you say, an "article of faith" in Magic, and people actually argue against less-than-90 card libraries by holding up the Dirty Little Secrets/Courier or Raptor deck. (I *will* say that one argument against thinning down my ratios that I've seen be relevant is Revelations. If you've got 9 Deflections in a 90 card deck and 7 in a 70 card deck, losing both in your hand to 2 consecutive Revelations really SUCKS. =) It also takes a certain number of cards to oust 3 or 4 prey, while remaining alive, in your usual 4 and 5 player games. Magic is traditionally a 2-player game. If I was playing 2-player VTES (with a gun to my head, of course), I'd ALSO want a 40 card deck. -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

Derek Ray wrote in message ... >wa...@nevada.edu (Brad Ward) wrote in >news:e5b93701.01082...@posting.google.com: > (big snip) >> I would go even further to say, that properly designed decks get >> stronger and stronger as the size of the library gets larger and >> larger. > >Demonstrably false. Try playing a 180-card verson of Peter's Rush deck; >simply double the proportions of everything. You should jam up on >something and die miserably; the distribution curve will get you. This "distribution curve" is the criticle point, at least for me. The larger the deck the more chance the "random" distribution will screw you. I've been getting screwed hard by card distribution in my 90 card decks over the last year. Anyone that plays with me can vouch for this fact. I have recently been getting a reputation for being the most cursed V:TES player in existence. I have played 100's of games using 90 card decks that I have gone through 25, 30, 40, even 45 cards or more with out seeing a single criticle card type of which 10, 12, or even more copies are in the deck. Tatu, Josh Duffin and others had the opportunity to witness me cycle through 30 or so cards of my 90 card Shambling Hoard deck without seeing a single blood doll (out of 10) and only getting one Shambling hoard (out of 15 or so allies). Tatu suggested me trim my deck size to 70 or 80 and see if it helps. So far I have not had much of a chance since Gen-Con to experiment. However, at this point, I do see any postive change in variance as a really good thing and will be trying smaller decks. Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles area.

"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> wrote in news:9m64b...@enews4.newsguy.com: > This "distribution curve" is the criticle point, at least for me. The > larger the deck the more chance the "random" distribution will screw > you. I've been getting screwed hard by card distribution in my 90 card > decks over the last year. Anyone that plays with me can vouch for this > fact. I have recently been getting a reputation for being the most > cursed V:TES player in existence. I have played 100's of games using > 90 card decks that I have gone through 25, 30, 40, even 45 cards or > more with out seeing a single criticle card type of which 10, 12, or > even more copies are in the deck. Tatu, Josh Duffin and others had the THIS is the prime reason we advocate short decks; those critical cards are, well, critical, and anything you can do to help yourself get them is worthwhile. If this means shrinking your deck around it... > opportunity to witness me cycle through 30 or so cards of my 90 card > Shambling Hoard deck without seeing a single blood doll (out of 10) > and only getting one Shambling hoard (out of 15 or so allies). Tatu You got screwed... =) nc(10,90,30) = 0.98682... congratulations on successfully finding the 1.4%. The Shambling Horde situation is even worse: nc(14,89,30) = 0.99826. Changing your deck size won't stop extreme situations like this, but you'll at least have to blow through fewer cards to get to the same point. However, I feel your pain, having been there before. =) > suggested me trim my deck size to 70 or 80 and see if it helps. So far > I have not had much of a chance since Gen-Con to experiment. However, > at this point, I do see any postive change in variance as a really > good thing and will be trying smaller decks. Climb aboard. Plenty of room. ;)

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote in message news:eb4eb7f8.01082...@posting.google.com... > Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > wa...@nevada.edu (Brad Ward) wrote > The NAC event hosted 37 players. > > 25 played "full" decks (90-card libraries). > 7 played with 80-89 cards in their libraries (80,80,81,82,87,88,89). > 5 played with 70-79 cards in their libraries (70,73,74,75,76). > 0 played with 60-69 cards in their libraries. How many VPs did the 12 small decks achieve? -Brad

(This may should have been snipped up into 2 posts, but it wasn't) > Pat Ricochet wrote: > >>> Well, it's not THAT abstract. If I can make a 90-card of, well, ANY >> type, I can try to make a 75 card version of it, right? All I have to do is >> take out cards. > > Only if you don't count on running out of cards during the game as a > result. (Hey, hey, watch the context, there! I was replying to the outrageous and untrue "assuming you have 90 of every card" statement you snipped.) Yes and no. If I run out of cards and still get 3 or more VPs, that deck is success. As far as "counting on it," I elaborate on that below: >> The premise is this: for most 90 card decks, those the win lots and >> those that don't win lots, you usually end up with 20+ cards left over in >> your library at the end of the game (especially in 2-hour timeout >> tournaments). Not only that, but every player has spent time discarding >> cards they didn't need, whether duplicates of uniques, or just cycling to >> get to "that card you need." > > Ending up with x cards should actually be counted only in those games > where you achieve your goal, which should be to get a minimum of > 3 VP and preferably to sweep. For simplicity, never count a game > where you're not the last man standing. I disagree there. Last man standing with 2 VPs and cards left in a 5 player game is a failure. All I should care about is 3 or more VP. Sure, I'll try to sweep, but if I get 3/5 VP, I win, right? Something we'll have to agree to disagree on is that if I get 3 VPs regularly and then run out of cards, and fail to sweep, I *don't* think I necessarily need more cards in the deck. The key word is "regularly." If I keep winning but run out of cards in some games, "costing me" that last oust, I'd rather have the reliability of a tight, tuned, slightly smaller deck. The reason I think this is experience; usually I've got a 90 card deck that does ok, but dies too much with lots of cards left in my library, but then I thin it down, and it starts winning, but maybe occasionally runs out of cards in doing so. Basically, I contend that, for some (but not all) decks, a reliable 70-80 card version of a deck cannot be "scaled up" to a 90 card deck that runs out of cards less. For me personally, "for some decks" has been "for most decks." >> Derek and Brad BOTH have produced math showing that there is a finite, >> positive, albeit small, increase in getting or cycling efficiently to "the >> card you need" in having a smaller deck size. > > If the chance is one third of a precent better, then the deck is one third of > a percent better, which still is better. It actually doesn't matter how much > better. And all these calculations are for *1* card. This small differences will compound over the course of the game, and IME, they add up to success for the thinned down deck, and eventual handjam for the 90 card deck. >> I'd say it as "MOST types of decks are usually better off with less than >> 90 cards." > > I'd say that most decks would benefit from adding more weenies, but that > is very often a rather hated idea. People don't like weeniestupidity actually > performing very well, but I don't hear many complaints about the one > single unbalance in the game that is clear. This game is all about being > able to perform the largest amount of actions and reactions. Weenie-decks > get that advantage so easily that they're more forgiving to designers > building otherwise less than optimal libraries. Actually, I've (along with David Davila) been around that basically every deck can use 1 or 2 Embraces, because, of course, more is better. "Hated idea" or not, I couldn't agree more with you. Somewhat of a sideline to other posts: If you have a crypt that requires duplicates, consider putting in some weenies instead of duplicates. If you get an opening crypt of all weenies, even, you're not in BAD shape; you can bring them out quickly, maybe grab an Edge, and go fishing for the minions you need. And, I'd rather have Smudge and Andrea Giovanni in my opening draw of 4 over 2 Andrea's. =) >> But, to be honest, it's not totally unrelated. If you build a deck to >> run through all it's cards by the end of the game, you have most all your >> permanents in play, and you probably got them earlier on. And, since you DO >> have less cards (undisputable fact), you are certainly more capable of >> running out of cards, so you might toss in a .44, say, when designing the >> deck. > > I partially agree here. I think the question to ask is how many cards will I > be playing in average per action/reaction, and then start counting > minions. If we assume an 12 round game the math should be pretty > straightforward. Now, I've tried this one before, but never taken it to it's conclusion. You kind of have to write off the first couple of turns as you get out vampires, and ramp up the actions/reactions. Sure, you could make an "average," but I think that's the wrong way to go. There's usually a few turns of setup, and then you have out all the vamps you're going to have for a while (till you get pool gain going enough to outstrip your pool loss), and then you can use an average number. But, since that "mid game" is where all the action is, it's a good place to look. It's very deck dependent, of course, but let's try a basic bleeding deck, maybe with some stealth or bruise. You expect to get out 3 or 4 small-to-mid-caps, depending on your crypt draw or what's behind you. Turn 1: transfer 1-4 on a vamp. No one comes out. Discard? (1 card cycled) Turn 2: transfer 4 more, vamp comes out. Discard again. (+1=2 cards cycled) Prey/Predator turn 3: play 2 reactive cards (not neccesarily reactions, but reaction, combat, etc.) (+2=4 cards cycled) Turn 3: Master, bleed with stealth or bruise, playing 3 cards. transfer 4, get another vamp. Discard. (+5=9 cards cycled) Prey/Predator turn 4: (+2=11 cards cycled) Turn 4: Master, 4 active cards, transfer a third vamp out, discard (+6=17 cards cycled) Ok, from here on, you can expect to cycle at least EITHER a Master OR a Discard (if I've got no Master to play, I'm discarding to look for one, usually), and probably 2 active and 1 reactive card per each of 3 vampires, for about 10 cards each "full turn." Do this for turns 5,6,7,8,9 and 10, and you've cycled 77 cards, say. You can probably bring out another vamp if you're still alive by then, and so play 13 cards a turn (2 more active, and 1 more reactive card per turn), so by turn 12 you've cycled 103 cards. Anyone believe that? Well, no, of course. Vamps get torporized and get rescued. Hand jam happens, and you sit tight some turns, etc. Cardless actions happen; people stop blocking you, so you don't get to play your bruise or your stealth. If your deck actually flowed 10 cards perfectly each time around the table with a bleed deck, you'd have already swept the table *before* turn 11 (the magic 90 cards cycled turn, for this construct). BUT, the question is, when "sh*t happens", do you lose out on action cards or reaction cards? Both? (The idea of "averages" gets all messed up when you're playing an Embrace weenie deck, of course, because your number of ready minions is constantly changing. Or something like the "Turbo-Arika" deck, that does nothing for 3 turns, and then ousts the table. =) I've seen a deck that won tournament finals once that was !Ventrue counting on this kind of card flow. Lots of reactive cards all played when not it's turn (Deflection, intercept, prevent), to fill it's hand with active cards. Most decks do this to some degree, this was just tuned to the right amount and kinds of cards to keep flowing right. The deck can be found here: http://people.atl.mediaone.net/intj/jpa/decks_Stu.htm and be sure to read the descriptions and decks on "Bi" and "It's All About the Flow (Bi 2.0)" before clicking on the links. (note: not for everyone: this deck was played by Stuart Pieloch, an excellent table balancer/manipulator. Well versed in the arts of holding cards till the right moment to make the table fall as he wished. He actually took all 5 VPs with a judicious use of Life Boon, when he would have had 3 and won anyway had he not bothered. =) What I guess one need to do is, just like counting turns, card counting needs to be done. I've got some pretty vague notions, but actually counting cards played out of turn and in turn in "an average game" for a few deck types might be enlightening. I just hate counting anything that takes pen and paper during a card game. =) >> The only one I've really hammered on is that in a 12 turn game, you get >> 12 Master Phase actions, (usually 11, since so many Masters can't be played >> on turn 1) and 12 discards. You can build a deck around the Parthenon and >> the Barrens to get around these, introducing some fragility and > > I personally don't like discard-enhancers as they make me feel that I've > failed during deck-construction somewhere else. I do have a fondness > for mastercards and often play with Anson and the Parthenon, but that's > because I can make good use of two masteractions. Which is somewhat of the type I'm thinking about, a Master-heavy deck, but being open to Rumors of Gehenna, the World(of Darkness)'s Most Passable Vote, since I'm tired of playing Anson. =) What hand-cyclers allow, really, is for you to build decks with multiple copies of costly or Unique cards that you NEED to get early, but need to ditch the extra copies later. Even having a 70 card deck doesn't do good enough here if you've got 10 extra cards you know you'll have to ditch, clamboring for attention of your ~12 discards. But, I concur about discard-enhancers *in* *general*. I think putting them in just for hand cycling is, as you say, a failure of deck construction. > There's one obvious deck-type that'll make VERY good use of discard- > enhancers, and that's a massive Embrace/Progeny -deck. You pour in > far more diciplinecards than what's good for you and throw them away > as they come, but in this case we're not discarding an unwanted card. An interesting variant I've seen is a Potence Shock Troops decks with mostly Thrown Gates, but also with Cailean and Relentless Pursuit, so when Cailean blocks, he can press, gain 2 cards, and be full of Potence skill cards on his turn to drop the Shock Troops. Dreams is obviously good to have, here, too, but not as a discard-enhancer as it's often seen, but *truly* for it's hand-size increase. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns910778A...@198.99.146.10... > "Bradly Ward" <br...@jakescrane.com> wrote in > > You werent there, you dont know what your talking about. You just > > talking out of your ass again. > > I see the tears forming in your eyes now. And I know a whole lot more than > you think I do, Bradley... even if the entire situation, details and all, > HADN'T been posted to this group. Yeah im all choked up about Derek, you got me buddy. > >> The converse is also true; the more cards that you CANNOT play > >> beneficially and need to discard will certainly weaken your deck. > >> Make it too big, and include too much crap, and you'll get hosed. > > > > I will accept your concession that a deck that flows through 90 cards > > played is better than a deck that only flows through 60 cards played. > > This is, of course, not what I said, but again you fail to actually > understand. I'll move on; you really are basically a waste of skin, and > there are other people who are willing to support your side of it who can > read English. And some of them are Europeans. You know, Bradley, I'd be > embarrassed if I were you; there are people who have English as a second > language posting here who comprehend more than you. > Yep, sure I just dont understand english. That must be it Derek. You are so superior. > > [Snip repeat of math on arika deck and dereks nerdy calculator talk] > > Oh, I'm sorry, did you not like it that I just COMPLETELY showed up all > your little snide comments? That's a SHAME, Bradley. You just repeated yourself again is all. > Yes, I can DEFINITELY see the tears forming in your eyes. Tool. Again, true.. I can barely make out the screen through my misty eyes :~( > > And im saying that if you only have 75 cards you could add 2 barrens > > and 13 other cards to you deck. Then you have an extra discard every > > turn and a better ability to dynamically enhance your decks > > capabilities. > > And then someone Arsons or contests your Barrens, and you die. I have > removed a weak point from my deck by not requiring the Barrens; you have > ADDED a weak point to yours. And what happens if you don't draw the > Barrens? With 2 in a 90-card deck, you still only have a 75% chance of > drawing one in your first 45 cards. Here you go again throwing out unrelated scenarios to make some type of weak counter argument. If you were to take your suggestions you'd never play with locations out of fear that they might be arsoned. Also by your logic you'd never play with any card that might be contested. Guess that limits you to playing Aabt Kindred decks with no locations or unique library cards. Really a pathetically weak counter argument. You have also missed the major point. The barrens is only there to help you get through most of your 90 card library since you dont have the ability to design (or play) a deck that can get through all its 90 in 10-15 turns. If you dont get the barrens fine, you just wont run out of your library is all. We both have seen the math a 90 deck cycles less than 1% different than a 60 card deck with the same card ratios. > And until you've cycled 26 cards on > your own, you have LESS than a 50% chance of seeing one. That's more than > a quarter of your deck that you're going to have to burn through on your > own before you even can beat a coin flip! Really, Bradley, the Barrens is > a nice card, but hardly a be-all, end-all for the game. Yup, exactly this means half the games of which you last 5 turns you will be putting the barrens into play. You dont have to put it out the first turn. > ACTUALLY, I like not having points of attack for other decks. People > around here play real aggressively and real smart, Bradley. I've had a > stealth/bleed predator who chose to take my Fragment and Arson my Barrens > when he had 4 bleed cards in hand, because he knew my deck relied on both > of them. That was when I quit putting both in every deck I played, and > started learning to REALLY build decks. That was about a year, year and a > half ago. AGain you dont have to RELY on the barrens, the barrens is just a bonus dynamic power booster to any deck that sacrafices cards for enhanced performance. The Fragment is a double edged sword and I wouldnt put it in a deck that couldnt protect it. Dreams of the Sphinx would still work in this situation. > > Yeah, you mentioned Tatu... I know he lives in Atlanta via Robyns move > > there. I know of no one else who plays in Atlanta other than you, > > Tatu and Robyn. Robyn had just moved there so you didnt regularly > > play with her. > > If you don't actually know anyone who plays here, wouldn't you think it's > just a little bit foolish to spew bullshit about how you think everyone > here sucks? It's sort of similar to walking into a pool hall, beating one > person once, and saying "Man, isn't there anyone around here who can play > this game?" You said you won 5 games with your <90 card decks last week. I said "Big deal, for all I know you are playing with 14 year olds whom you are teaching the game too." Is this spewing bull shit about people I dont know? I'm just pointing out that winning a game of ping pong with your dog doesnt mean you are the ping pong champ of the world. I dont know who you played with that weekend. You bragging about winning some games in your backyard means that you are only besting the level of competition in your backyard. > When you do that, you usually get shaken down until your teeth rattle. > Which is what is happening to you right now. Im so shaken up, please help me! > > Oh, shut up derek. Work yourself up and get annoyed then. > > It's fun to watch you cry and backpedal like a maniac. It was you who was crying when you thought I was talking bad about your jyhad buddies. > > I havent said everyone here sucks, I have on several occasions > > You most certainly implied (and long ago, said outright) that all of us > here in Atlanta did. After all, I couldn't have gotten so many VPs against > a "competent" group, right? Still more backpedaling from you. Right, who is in your group? I still don't know who these poeple are. Is it Tatu and Robyn? Maybe if you put a little more substance rather than just bragging about winning some backyard games with 75 card decks. I think if you came to LA you would get your ass handed to you and almost never make it to a finals of a tournament. Have you ever made it to a final in a tournament? > > admired the skill of other players such as Goudie, Ben Peal, Robyn.. > > etc. I do however think you are a mediocre player with too much time > > on his hands to post and argue. > > And I think you're an older version of that one fat kid who always talked > too much, got beaten up and had his lunch money stolen, and sat in the > middle of the cafeteria crying. What's your point? My point is that im not saying everyone sucks except me. Im saying that only you suck. Maybe Tatu sucks too, Maybe hes is a Jedi master, I dont know. Ive only played with him once and never had a chance to read any of his thoughts on the game. > >> > play with him or not. I wasnt poking at Tatu either, just my only > >> > >> This is a pretty bald-faced lie, Bradley. At least have the fucking > >> balls to stand up and apologize when you do something that dumb. Or > >> are yours only marbles? > > > > Dick waving, now ball waving.. whatever derek. > > Yes, yours are definitely marbles. How totally pathetic. > > >> By the way, Tatu reads this group, although he doesn't post. Smooth > >> move, ex-lax. > > > > yeah, ok so? > > Nope, I'm wrong. Yours are actually BBs. Even more pathetic. You just want to come over here and feel my hairy balls dont you Derek? > > I dont know who the rest of your group is. Yes ive played several > > games with robyn and think she's great! > > I sense more backpedaling. Don't worry, there's no fin in the water behind > you... or is there? Maybe that's just a dolphin. No backpedaling. Ive played with robyn several times. I have also read several of her views on game dynamics. She understands the game well. > > few cards as possible (60) or as many as possible (90). At least with > > a 30 card difference variance comes into play at a percent or two > > depending on how many cards you draw. Trimming down a 90 card deck to > > The casinos in Vegas only have about a 1.5% advantage on the odds, and look > how much THEY rake in. It is unwise to underestimate the effects of > variance, although with such a small model to draw from, we won't be seeing > quite the same benefits that the Vegas casinos do. I have lived in Las Vegas for 25 years. The casinos have way more than a 1.5% advantage in the odds. They have figured out exactly how much of your money to take in order to keep you comming back for more. Generally the casinos give back 90% of your money. They take 10%, more on holidays and weekends and less when its not busy. As far as Table games go, yes if you play perfectly you can edge the house to a 1.5% advantage when playing blackjack. If you play sloppy and I when I visit the tables most people do play incorrectly, the house gets more like a 25% advantage. I taught myself to count cards and have been able to push the odds to my advantage to date (4 years of gambling) ive taken $400.00 from the vegas casinoes. Not nearly enough to make a living, but the advantage is obviously in my favor. High rollers and whales can sink a casino if they get lucky one weekend. Last month the Rio hotel and casino reported losses due to high stakes gambling. > > 75 has almost no effect mathmatically at improving the chances of > > drawing certain cards that have the same ratio content in each deck. > > This has been proven with math by both of us. > > > > So what are you talking about? > > Why don't you have a look at what happens when you break the ratios? > There's some math on Google in a couple threads, if you'd like to look... > > Or, if you like, you can view my responses in different threads, where I'm > going to discuss it with people who are more capable of actually debating > the issues. Noal was right. You really ARE a total waste of time. I think I have joined the team that's willing to buy you a pint or pay you to shut up. Add another beer to that list.

Brad Ward wrote in message ... >Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns91058CF5...@198.99.146.10>... >> wa...@nevada.edu (Brad Ward) wrote in >> > Gee if you REALLY need 1/60th of your library to be a certain card you >> > will have to make a 60 card library and put in 1 of that card. Your >> > argument there is silly. Silly because the same argument could be >> > made that a certain deck needs to have exactly 1/77th or 1/90th etc. >> > of a certain card, and in that case a 60 card deck could not produce >> > that exact ratio. >> You've successfully ignored the actual point (which I made in my ORIGINAL >> post as well), which is that unique cards, and cards you only have a few of >> in the deck, are the ones that gain the most benefit from a smaller >> library. You cannot match exact proportions of a single card, and many >> times it is appropriate to only include one of that card. The Ivory Bow is >> an excellent example. The Parthenon is another. >. >Let me clarify for you. You are saying that cards like ivory bow and >Parthenon?!? are cards you really like to have be 1/60th of your deck, no more >no less. My rebuttal is that in a 90 card deck its true you cannot get 1/60th >as a portion, but you can get 1/45th or 1/90th which is close enough. there >are also many fractions that a 90 card deck can create that a 60 card deck >cannot. You have a strange obsession with having ONLY 1 of a unique card, >perhaps this is due to your role playing proclivities. I prefer to have a >backup bow incase somthing happens to my first one, or make use of my discard. The extra ability to have an extra copy of something criticle is benificial to the 90 card deck. For ages I have included extra copies of certain cards just in case they get burned, stolen, etc.. However it can also be a big problem when you draw the extra copies instead of getting the vote you need to oust your prey. Something that turned out to directly contribute to my failure to qualify for the national here in L.A.. >> >> What if that card's unique and not easily burnable... or is something >> >> like an Assault Rifle, where you absolutely HAVE to have one on >> >> Anneke quickly, but you don't want to keep spending for the thing? 2 >> >> in a 60 is noticeably better than 3 in a 90, in this instance; you >>> only have to get rid of one card, instead of two. >> You didn't respond to this point. I accept your concession. >. >No concession here. You are just plain wrong. 1/30th of your deck being >an assault rifle is 1/30th weather its in a 90 card deck or 60 card deck. >Variance will have an effect to clump your hand but its minimal between 60 >and 90 card decks. I'm not so sure how "minimal" this clump factor may be. It certainly is screwing me over big time in 90 card decks. (snip) >> > Is it just that everyone >> > brings crappy decks to tournaments and therefor their decks contain >> > the Barrens, or is it possible that the discard the barrens provides >> > is a very powerfull asset to almost any deck? >> Both are true, actually; an awful lot of people bring crap. However, this >> still supports my point that a good deck should not need to use the >> Barrens. If you are relying on the Barrens, then you are adding an >> additional weak point to your deck that should be taken out if at all >> possible. If you can do this by reducing numbers of cards, so that you are >> forced to discard less, then why not do so? >. >I say that you can make a GREAT deck using the barrens. That arika deck could >probably make great use of the barrens. The Barrens is one of the best cards >out there, which can make some decks way stronger. This makes a big assumption. The assumption you get to use the Barrens. It is a great card. When Jyhad first came out I had 2 Barrens in every deck. Of course so did Robert Goudie, Mike Courtois, and most other people I played with. The situation only got worse when we combined with Paul Johnson and his group. I soon gave up hope of ever getting to use the Barrens. It was gauranteed to be contested. If not it was very likely to victim of Disputed Territory or Arson. It became a disadvantage to have it my decks around here. I eventually gave up after having to discard them because it was already contested in dozens of games. To this day I still see Barrens played in most games. I then tried the Fragment, but soon realized I had to devote more cards in my deck to trying to defend it then it was actually worth. When Ancients Hearts appeared I was the first one to jump on Dream's of the Sphinx. I had great success with it, but now everyone knows this trick too. To depend on such cards to allow you to unclog hand jam in my enviroment is nothing short of nuts. It is a great idea, especially in a 90 card deck, but I can no longer depend on them to bail me out. >> > actions, bouncing bleeds, or passing votes. The discard phase lets >> > you customize your hand so that you can deal with the problems facing >> [...] >> > intercept cards. Discarding is a valuable tool that gives you a >> > dynamic advantage. >> Correct. This is why forcing yourself to discard cards by putting too much >> fluff in your deck will cause you to be screwed. You need to have the >> discard phase OPEN for your own use, not locked up with your third copy of >> the Parthenon that you needed early and had to put 4 in your deck to >> guarantee. >. >I didnt say to pack your deck with fluff. I said if you are not capable of >building 90 card decks that expend themselves in 15 turns it would be >advantageous to increase to 90 and include barrens, frag or Dreams in that >increase. Try it! take one of your silly 75 card decks and add 10 more of >your functional cards and 2 barrens 2 dreams and 1 frag. Of course you still >need to know when and what to discard. The problem with this is what is "fluff". The deflections that win you one game may be useless fluff in the next. The S:CE cards that save you one game my clog your hand and kill you the next. It's not just an issue of what is in the deck, but what your seating is, what the enviroment is, who you play with, etc.. In such cases I have to go with Derek in the point that having 7 useless Majesties in a 70 card deck is probably better then 9 useless ones in a 90 card deck. Less to discard is better. It's even more criticle since you can't depend on a guaranteed Barrens, Dreams, or Fragment. (snip start of catfight) >> Empirical evidence shows that these reduced-size decks have done quite well >> against high-caliber players. My observations during the game indicate >> that the deck size is a significant factor. I get to my uniques earlier in >> the game, I discard less, and I hand-jam rarely. >. >Maybe you do better with small decks. Perhaps you just cant handle a big deck >like mine. Good luck with your small deck, hope it wins a tourney or somthing >for you someday. >. >> Perhaps you should try it for yourself. I've played LOTS of 90-card decks; >> for two years I built nothing that wasn't 90 cards. Then Tatu proposed his >> smaller-deck concept, and I gave it a whirl, figuring the only way to find >> out for SURE was to test. He was right. >. >Like I said, I have won an LA tourney with a 60 card deck. I still think 60 >cards are only good for corner cases. >. >You take a real "Hippy" approach to Jyhad. You think every card has its use >and that less is more. >Truth is that everyone isn't a special star and more really is more. What this basically comes down to is two different people with different play styles. Both think they are 100% correct that the way they do things is better. The truth is niether of you can say for certain one way is better then the other. Both have good points and negative. In certain situations Derek's style will work much better. In others Brad's will work better. I think it depends a great deal on how the player views things, his playstyle, the environment they play in, seating in the game, and any number of other variables. Neither should make a claim the way they play is certainly superior. My position is that I have played 90 card decks for 5+ years. I have been in 100's of tournaments and have won over a dozen. I was top seed in the 2000 final at Gen-Con with a 90 card deck. I have had tons of success with 90 card decks. However this last year has been nothing short of a total nightmare for me with 90 card decks. At this point I'm willing to try anything that may reduce variance and my cursed clumping problem. Even if the difference is slight. I plan on playing some 75 card decks just to see what happens. Steve Bucy -- "The only human commander to survive combat with the Minbari fleet is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your lives be somewhere else!" - Delenn Check out http://vtesinla.org/ for all V:TES information in Los Angeles area.

"Bradly Ward" <br...@jakescrane.com> wrote in news:todbcpk...@corp.supernews.com: > Yeah im all choked up about Derek, you got me buddy. Well, you've definitely choked up enough to be unable to produce more than sentence fragments. What a tool. You should really look at what you've been saying... it's pretty rich. =) >> And then someone Arsons or contests your Barrens, and you die. I >> have removed a weak point from my deck by not requiring the Barrens; >> you have ADDED a weak point to yours. And what happens if you don't >> draw the Barrens? With 2 in a 90-card deck, you still only have a >> 75% chance of drawing one in your first 45 cards. > > Here you go again throwing out unrelated scenarios to make some type > of weak counter argument. If you were to take your suggestions you'd Oh, no, not unrelated at ALL. The Barrens is a location. There are a lot of new locations that have just entered play with Sabbat War and Final Nights; location-destroyer cards are very common to see right now, as a result. If you can't understand or don't accept this, then you're even more of a damn fool than we all thought you were already. > You have also missed the major point. The barrens is only there to > help you get through most of your 90 card library since you dont have > the ability to design (or play) a deck that can get through all its 90 > in 10-15 turns. If you dont get the barrens fine, you just wont run > out of your library is all. We both have seen the math a 90 deck Bradley, your entire point has been "take your good 75-card deck and add 13 cards plus two Barrens, it'll run better". If I add in 13 cards that I didn't need in the first place, and a location that I now DEPEND on to get rid of those 13 cards, how the FUCK is this EVER going to be an improvement? That's right. IT'S NOT. All I will have done is add points of attack to my deck and reduce its reliability. Boy, is THAT fucking dumb, huh? Now, if I have a 75-card deck and it runs out of cards without getting 3VP, then I damn well OUGHT to add more cards into it. But right now, I find that I have no trouble building 70-80 card decks that gain 3VP or more, and do not run out of library. And I don't have to include the Barrens or Fraggie, and I NEVER include more than one Dreams of the Sphinx. >> And until you've cycled 26 cards on >> your own, you have LESS than a 50% chance of seeing one. That's more >> than a quarter of your deck that you're going to have to burn through >> on your own before you even can beat a coin flip! Really, Bradley, >> the Barrens is a nice card, but hardly a be-all, end-all for the >> game. > > Yup, exactly this means half the games of which you last 5 turns you > will be putting the barrens into play. You dont have to put it out > the first turn. "Number of cards played" looks like the left side of a bell curve, Bradley, not a diagonal line. In the early game, everyone has fewer minions to even PLAY the cards, play is moving a lot slower, and fewer cards get used. It's only later in the game when people start to take actions with 4+ minions and react to lots of actions that large numbers of cards start to hit the table. And, you fail to address the issue that relying on the Barrens and WITH 13 extra cards in your deck, if you get early-game hand jam you'll be UNABLE to cycle through 26 cards to even reach that "50%" point. We aren't even going to go into what happens to people who rely on a 50% chance of something happening, by the way, other than to say that I sure like playing them for money. The 80% point for getting 1 of 2 Barrens into play is 49 cards, and you will DEFINITELY have noticed its absence by the time you've moved over half your deck. > AGain you dont have to RELY on the barrens, the barrens is just a > bonus dynamic power booster to any deck that sacrafices cards for > enhanced performance. The Fragment is a double edged sword and I > wouldnt put it in a deck that couldnt protect it. Dreams of the > Sphinx would still work in this situation. You have totally failed to indicate how a 75-card deck that doesn't run out of cards gains any sort of "enhanced performance" from gluing on 13 more cards plus two Barrens. All it gains is a weak point and a bunch of fluff, and a NEED to rely on the Barrens to get rid of its fluff. I'd rather have more of the "right cards" in hand in the first place, so that I only have to make use of my free discard. I'd rather judge my deck carefully and ask myself "How many times will I REALLY need to play Carrion Crows?", instead of blindly throwing in 12 of them and trusting to my Barrens to dump them out of my hand when they clog up. > You said you won 5 games with your <90 card decks last week. correction: four. Such a statement is valid, because it indicates that 80- card or less decks can indeed be effective without running out of cards. Such a statement is made even more valid because I'm playing with some VERY good players down here. You've already admitted Robyn, and whether or not you admit it, Tatu is one as well. If you are curious as to who else might actually play in this group, you are always welcome to visit http://people.atl.mediaone.net/intj/jpa/. It is possible that you may recognize some names. > I said "Big deal, for all I know you are playing with 14 year olds > whom you are teaching the game too." You said a lot of other things too, Bradley. More backpedaling. > Is this spewing bull shit about people I dont know? I'm just pointing > out that winning a game of ping pong with your dog doesnt mean you are > the ping pong champ of the world. I dont know who you played with > that weekend. This past Monday, specifically (as I said in the first place). By making and repeating all these statements, Bradley, you are both assuming and DIRECTLY implying that the people I play with are poor players and not "worthy tests" of my theories. If you believed they WERE suitable tests, then you wouldn't have said anything at all, now would you? Sheesh. You are SUCH a transparent little tool. > You bragging about winning some games in your backyard means that you > are only besting the level of competition in your backyard. This is correct: I'm only besting the level of competition in my backyard. >> It's fun to watch you cry and backpedal like a maniac. > > It was you who was crying when you thought I was talking bad about > your jyhad buddies. What, you don't have friends who'll stand up for you? I know that I sure as fuck will stand up for MY friends... and if you won't back up yours when someone talks bad about them, then you really ARE a worthless piece of shit. > Right, who is in your group? I still don't know who these poeple are. > Is it Tatu and Robyn? > Maybe if you put a little more substance rather than just bragging > about winning some backyard games with 75 card decks. More criticism, even though you claim to not be talking bad about us. Bradley, do you realize what a hypocrite and fool you're being here? > I think if you came to LA you would get your ass handed to you and > almost never make it to a finals of a tournament. Have you ever made > it to a final in a tournament? Multiple times, actually. It's one of the reasons I happen to somehow be ranked ABOVE 3000. My worst finish so far when playing at least a semi-serious deck in a constructed tournament is .. hmm. 6th place, in the Atlanta qualifier. I have reached the finals of two others (tzimisce intercept, crypt machine), and exploded gloriously with 0VP in one (Brujah flung-sewer-lid Rush), which is why I qualify the above statement with "semi-serious"; I was OPENLY out to have fun with that one. I have also reached the finals in two sealed-draft tournaments, and performed mediocrely to horribly in many other sealed events. I don't feel like I'm very good at sealed at all, really, but fortunately that's not under discussion. Wait, my bad; I left one out. In my first ever tournament, I only got 3VPs; I was playing Gangrel DOM/PRO/Form of Mist and ended up sitting behind Josh Duffin's POT Rush deck in round 2 (crunch), and Rob Grau's 60-DotB deck in round 3 (crunch). So THAT is actually my worst finish with a 'serious' deck. You've won a tournament with a 60-card deck -- supporting my point. How many other finals appearances and wins do YOU have, Bradley? I'm sure that such a ratings-conscious person as yourself will be able to quote from memory. I would also love to visit LA sometime. I think I would get along with all the players there, and have some very enjoyable games and a hell of a lot of fun. I hope to be able to manage a trip out someday. > My point is that im not saying everyone sucks except me. Im saying > that only you suck. Oh, I dunno, you're doing a LOT of saying that my entire playgroup sucks. You're trying to disguise it thinly, but really, nobody is fooled. > Maybe Tatu sucks too, Maybe hes is a Jedi master, I dont know. Ive > only played with him once and never had a chance to read any of his > thoughts on the game. My, this is a HUGE change from your previous attitude on Tatu's play. Let's go back and quote, shall we? Bradley Ward said, in response to my citing recent local wins with short decks: "That doesnt speak well for your playgroup. [...] Was it Tatu that blocked all your equips? Ive had Tatu as my prey before, he sure could block a lot of stuff. He didn't last too long that game though. [...] Saying you win in your playgroup doesn't say much toward your caliber as a player. [...] Maybe if you put a little more substance rather than just bragging about winning some backyard games with 75 card decks." While you've definitely done a LOT of backpedaling, you went and shot yourself in the foot a couple times in this past message too. If I were you, Bradley, I would just shut the fuck up about this and hope like hell people forgot that I ever opened my mouth. > As far as Table games go, yes if you play perfectly you can edge the > house to a 1.5% advantage when playing blackjack. If you play sloppy > and I when I visit the tables most people do play incorrectly, the > house gets more like a 25% advantage. I taught myself to count cards > and have been able to push the odds to my advantage to date (4 years > of gambling) ive taken $400.00 from the vegas casinoes. Not nearly > enough to make a living, but the advantage is obviously in my favor. *snort* Uh, that's it? I made $400 at the blackjack tables last May, when I visited Vegas for the BCA Nationals. I made $500 the year before that. Each trip lasted for 10 days. And I'm a "cautious" gambler; I don't take too many risks. > High rollers and whales can sink a casino if they get lucky one > weekend. Last month the Rio hotel and casino reported losses due to > high stakes gambling. Yep. I bet they're just crying in their beer over it, too. The casinos have plenty of cushion to soak the occasional bad run of luck. The individual players don't, and that's why they always end up losing if they stay at it long enough. > I think I have joined the team that's willing to buy you a pint or pay > you to shut up. Add another beer to that list. 'Fraid I'd hafta turn yore beer down, Bradley, unless you came up with an apology fer some thangs you've said 'bout mah friends. Them pesky Southerners, they shore got such weird PRIII-orities, don't they?

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > > Bradley, your entire point has been "take your good 75-card deck and add 13 > cards plus two Barrens, it'll run better". If I add in 13 cards that I > didn't need in the first place, and a location that I now DEPEND on to get > rid of those 13 cards, how the F*CK is this EVER going to be an > improvement? Profanity notwithstanding, those 13 cards are not cards that you didn't need, they are cards that you might need, cards that you might desparately need, depending on you seating, your opponents, and on game flow. Extra cards which can be useful depending on game situations, but can be discarded with the inclusion of the Barrens, which may take the bullet for one of your more important locations if Arson is afoot. The 13 unneeded cards is an arid, highly flammable straw man. Try harder. Do better. > And, you fail to address the issue that relying on the > Barrens and WITH 13 extra cards in your deck, if you get early-game hand > jam you'll be UNABLE to cycle through 26 cards to even reach that "50%" > point. Losing out on the Barrens is not a difficult situation when the 13 or more extra cards are cards that merely increase the already existing card ratios. I don't think I've ever seen the Barrens go down on account of Arson when other locations are in play, I've seen it lost to contesting and to Arika. However, if the Barrens is available, you are able to sift through your deck for the cards that are most appropriate for the current game situation, seating position, prevailing metagame, whathaveyou. > You have totally failed to indicate how a 75-card deck that doesn't run out > of cards gains any sort of "enhanced performance" from gluing on 13 more > cards plus two Barrens. All it gains is a weak point and a bunch of fluff, > and a NEED to rely on the Barrens to get rid of its fluff. Surely you jest. You're being obtuse, is it intentional? > I'd rather have more of the "right cards" in hand in the first place, so > that I only have to make use of my free discard. Laugh riot. A game of Jyhad, once begun, is a rambling chaos. Only Ms. Clio could determine what the "right cards" are ahead of time, so the sifting power of the Barrens or the Fragment or Dreams are always appreciated. > Multiple times, actually. It's one of the reasons I happen to somehow be > ranked ABOVE 3000. Careful, one might presume you care about your VEKN ranking. > 'Fraid I'd hafta turn yore beer down, Bradley, unless you came up with an > apology fer some thangs you've said 'bout mah friends. Them pesky > Southerners, You mean Suthenas, of course. If you believe that it was in fact the Civil War, you must be some sort of transplanted Nuthena, especially in Atlanta. - Jason Bell

"Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> wrote > > My position is that I have played 90 card decks for 5+ years. I have been in > 100's of tournaments and have won over a dozen. I was top seed in the 2000 > final at Gen-Con with a 90 card deck. I have had tons of success with 90 > card decks. However this last year has been nothing short of a total > nightmare for me with 90 card decks. At this point I'm willing to try > anything that may reduce variance and my cursed clumping problem. Even if > the difference is slight. I plan on playing some 75 card decks just to see > what happens. As someone who became inexplicably haunted by mana screw in Magic, I can advise that you change your shuffling style. Table shuffle into 7 stacks between EVERY game, then riffle, then overhand, then riffle some more. Sometime during all that, go through the deck face up and separate repeated cards. I've played so very many games of Magic that this is the only explanation I have determined, barring the idea that the fates, stars, and providence are all aligned against me. I very seriously doubt your deck count is your problem. - Jason Bell Eye of newt and toe of frog...

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns910778A2...@198.99.146.10... [snip] > It'd be entertaining to get Peter to play with this deck and see what he > "feels" about what it does. =) Aside from running out of cards too often? :) I might give it a try too, slimming down decks has been on my "list of things to do"...it just seems *really* risky with a rush deck, though. Xian has trouble cutting down to 90 cards

"Xian" <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote in news:HzPh7.36$1W3.2...@news.uswest.net: > Aside from running out of cards too often? :) > > I might give it a try too, slimming down decks has been on my "list of > things to do"...it just seems *really* risky with a rush deck, though. Note that the number of Rushes, IGs, and strike cards was not changed at all, though... I doubt it's any more likely to run out of cards than the 90-card version would be.

>"Xian" <xi...@NOSPAMwaste.org> wrote in > >> Aside from running out of cards too often? :) >> >> I might give it a try too, slimming down decks has been on my "list of >> things to do"...it just seems *really* risky with a rush deck, though. > >Note that the number of Rushes, IGs, and strike cards was not changed at >all, though... I doubt it's any more likely to run out of cards than the >90-card version would be. I think what you might find to be true is that certain deck archetypes have a tendancy to perform better when operating with "x" number of cards. Rush combat is hard to bring under 90 because it is so card intensive. Fast Bleed probably operates best around 75 cards Politics? Not sure if there's a "best" number here yet. I've not yet hit on a great ratio here yet. Of course the numbers I'm using above are reflective of VERY focused decks. Some Examples: Peter's Potence Rush deck (Combat) My Gangrel Protean deck (Nigh unstoppable bleed) Bernie

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in news:WyJh7.168434$TM5.30...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com: > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> >> Bradley, your entire point has been "take your good 75-card deck and >> add 13 cards plus two Barrens, it'll run better". If I add in 13 >> cards that I didn't need in the first place, and a location that I >> now DEPEND on to get rid of those 13 cards, how the F*CK is this EVER >> going to be an improvement? > > Profanity notwithstanding, those 13 cards are not cards that you > didn't need, they are cards that you might need, cards that you "if only I'd had fifteen Carrion Crows, I'd have had one for all those times I was Rushed as WELL as all the times I Rushed my prey!" > might desparately need, depending on you seating, your opponents, "if only I'd packed tons of maneuvers, I could've chased down that damn Deer Rifle deck!" > and on game flow. Extra cards which can be useful depending on > game situations, but can be discarded with the inclusion of the "if only I had ten Tastes in my deck, I'd have been able to spend for my Blur after Thin Blood!" > Barrens, which may take the bullet for one of your more important > locations if Arson is afoot. The 13 unneeded cards is an arid, > highly flammable straw man. Try harder. Do better. SO sorry, Jason, it's not a straw man... it's real. All those extra cards that you're throwing in there are 'what ifs', and when you end up not needing them, then you have to get rid of them somehow. You will gain much better results by being SURE of how many cards you want to play, and then putting that many in, and no more, as opposed to succumbing to wild speculation with the "what ifs". Play more. Pay attention. >> And, you fail to address the issue that relying on the >> Barrens and WITH 13 extra cards in your deck, if you get early-game >> hand jam you'll be UNABLE to cycle through 26 cards to even reach >> that "50%" point. > > Losing out on the Barrens is not a difficult situation when the 13 or > more extra cards are cards that merely increase the already existing > card ratios. I don't think I've ever seen the Barrens go down on However, you aren't guaranteed to get the cards in the right order. If you put 10 of action card "X" in a deck, you had better be sure you can use action card "X" a whole lot. Same with action modifier "X", or combat card "X" -- and combat card "X" is where a LOT of hand jam happens. Peter's Rush deck has 8 maneuvers and 8 Tastes in it; the maneuvers are going to be a nuisance to get rid of when he doesn't have to use them, because his deck can move through cards -fast- and it sucks to get 3-4 maneuvers in hand all at once. 8 Tastes are a little easier, but you DO need to play one almost every combat, whether you need to or not, as otherwise you'll quickly jam up on them... although I believe you can dump any number of Tastes in the same strike resolution to cycle, and it will only gain the blood for you once. Still, you do NOT want to have to do this just to get to your next Rush card -- any time you have to "waste" cards to fix a problem, you've most likely made a deck building error. (Sorry Peter. Yours is just a good example of a historically effective, OBVIOUSLY focussed 90 card deck. =) > account of Arson when other locations are in play, I've seen it lost > to contesting and to Arika. I've seen it lost to contesting a LOT, because so many people like to play with it. I've seen it hit with Disputed Territory a lot, because you can always just give it to the guy with the swing votes. And I've seen it get hit with Arson cross-table, because someone else wanted to play their own next turn. >> You have totally failed to indicate how a 75-card deck that doesn't >> run out of cards gains any sort of "enhanced performance" from gluing >> on 13 more cards plus two Barrens. All it gains is a weak point and >> a bunch of fluff, and a NEED to rely on the Barrens to get rid of its >> fluff. > > Surely you jest. You're being obtuse, is it intentional? Read what I said again. Specifically, how does a 75-card deck that can gain 3VPs while not running out of cards gain "enhanced performance" from having a bunch of extra cards in the deck that it'll probably need to get rid of, and two copies of a card that's likely to be contested at some point in the game? >> I'd rather have more of the "right cards" in hand in the first place, >> so that I only have to make use of my free discard. > > Laugh riot. A game of Jyhad, once begun, is a rambling chaos. > Only Ms. Clio could determine what the "right cards" are ahead > of time, so the sifting power of the Barrens or the Fragment or > Dreams are always appreciated. Which nobody has yet denied; look who's bringing up straw-men now. However, if I have no cards in my deck that I can look at and say "I'm going to end up discarding some of these", then I don't need the sifting power; my free discard should be sufficient. If I then add a Dreams or Barrens to the deck as well, I'll REALLY be in good shape, as I can now fire-hose those 8 maneuvers out of my deck at a rate of 2 per turn instead of just one. But if I have cards in my deck that I'm going to have to get rid of (4 copies of the Parthenon, 6 Hidden Lurkers, etc), then I'm going to be NEEDING that sifting power to dump the forced discards first, and only THEN the "worthless by position" cards. Or maybe both at the same time; doesn't matter, I still have added a weak point. As an aside: Hidden Lurker can be one of the most frustrating cards to put in your deck, EVER. You can include 6 in an 80-card deck, giving yourself a functional chance of having one early on while still not putting TOO many in. After you play the first one, the other 5 immediately become forced discards, as nobody EVER blocks you again unless you're going to oust them, and at that point you usually want to stealth it by, not kill a vampire. But if you don't have all 6 in the deck to play the FIRST one early on,... you get the picture. I see some of y'all out there talk about having players who habitually block everything they can. I want to come play with some of you sometime. I could have SO much fun with HL... >> Multiple times, actually. It's one of the reasons I happen to >> somehow be ranked ABOVE 3000. > > Careful, one might presume you care about your VEKN ranking. He does... I don't. I was actually surprised to be above 3000 (had to go look); I was sure all the draft stuff I've flopped in would have sent it much further into the ditch. I guess some of the draft tournaments weren't sanctioned, rated, etc. >> 'Fraid I'd hafta turn yore beer down, Bradley, unless you came up >> with an apology fer some thangs you've said 'bout mah friends. Them >> pesky Southerners, > > You mean Suthenas, of course. If you believe that it was in fact > the Civil War, you must be some sort of transplanted Nuthena, > especially in Atlanta. Look, ma... a redneck troll! Talk about stinky-bait. Sheesh. Bad dog. Back on the porch.

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in news:1NJh7.168502$TM5.30...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com: > "Steve Bucy" <tb...@lainet.com> wrote >> >> My position is that I have played 90 card decks for 5+ years. I have >> been in 100's of tournaments and have won over a dozen. I was top >> seed in the 2000 final at Gen-Con with a 90 card deck. I have had >> tons of success with 90 card decks. However this last year has been >> nothing short of a total nightmare for me with 90 card decks. At this >> point I'm willing to try anything that may reduce variance and my >> cursed clumping problem. Even if the difference is slight. I plan on >> playing some 75 card decks just to see what happens. > > As someone who became inexplicably haunted by mana screw > in Magic, I can advise that you change your shuffling style. Shuffling is supposed to be random. Clumping is supposed to be a possibility. > Table shuffle into 7 stacks between EVERY game, then > riffle, then overhand, then riffle some more. Sometime during > all that, go through the deck face up and separate repeated > cards. I've played so very many games of Magic that this > is the only explanation I have determined, barring the idea > that the fates, stars, and providence are all aligned against > me. I very seriously doubt your deck count is your problem. Gee, Jason, why don't you just SET your deck in the order you want and save all the trouble?. One initial pile-shuffle followed by *multiple* riffles and/or overhands is reasonably acceptable (and common practice), but stopping the process midway and manually, FACE UP, separating cards that are next to each other? I don't THINK so. If you turned your deck face-up and tried to do this, I'd first ask what you were doing ("dude, don't be stopping to sort your deck now, it's almost time to start"), and then yell for a judge after you explained. Again, shuffling is supposed to be RANDOM. What you are describing removes an enormous amount of the random element... which I'm sure is the intent, but it's also cheating, frankly.

berni...@aol.com (BernieTime) wrote in news:20010825180037...@mb-mn.aol.com: >>Note that the number of Rushes, IGs, and strike cards was not changed >>at all, though... I doubt it's any more likely to run out of cards >>than the 90-card version would be. > > I think what you might find to be true is that certain deck archetypes > have a tendancy to perform better when operating with "x" number of > cards. Absolutely. > Rush combat is hard to bring under 90 because it is so card intensive. Yep. I doubt I could bring Peter's deck much below 80 without removing some vital parts such as ALL the maneuvers. However, if you DO this sort of thing, you give yourself a huge tradeoff -- astonishingly good performance under the correct circumstances, but a BIG hole in the wrong circumstances, as someone's 6 Aid from Bats now become a viable way to survive against you. In this case, I wouldn't risk it; Aid from Bats, guns, etc. are still not entirely uncommon. And most combat decks also have their own maneuvers for one reason or another, so having absolutely -none- looks like a bad idea. > Fast Bleed probably operates best around 75 cards > Politics? Not sure if there's a "best" number here yet. I've not yet > hit on a great ratio here yet. Depends on how many cards you intend to play per political action. Nossie Princes would visibly benefit from a smaller deck; they don't have to piss around with BO/Voter Cap/etc., as they don't even HAVE that option. The Setites, on the other hand, are going to need a LOT of BO/Awe due to their inherent vote shortage.

>> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote >> Table shuffle into 7 stacks between EVERY game, then >> riffle, then overhand, then riffle some more. Sometime during >> all that, go through the deck face up and separate repeated >> cards. *blink* *blink* What exactly is "riffle?" Derek Ray wrote: > Gee, Jason, why don't you just SET your deck in the order you want and save > all the trouble?. Derek, there is one little tournament rule that makes it easy to screw with people that try to take the random element from their deck. The predator of a player may, instead of cutting, may repeatedly shuffle and/or rifle the deck and pass it back. The owner of said deck may cut it afterwards, but may not reshuffle it or try any of the above shenanigans. I regularly employ it against people I don't know in tournaments as a kind of warm up exercise for Jedi Mind Tricks. Regards, Noal

Derek wrote: >>So far we've been playing with number theory, and while it's amusing, we also have a deck that really doesn't do shit because the combo has big holes in it. We're just going to have to rip up an existing deck, and guess whose we're going to use to do it. (You saw this coming.)>> Yow--I really haven't been paying much to this discussion (too much math for me :-), but now that I have been invoked (Hastur! Hastur! Hastur!), how could I not jump in! >>1x Fame 1x Pentex Loves You! 2x Dreams of the Sphinx 3x Blood Doll 3x Potence 4x Haven Uncovered (total 14 masters) 12x Bum's Rush 12x Immortal Grapple 10x Undead Strength 10x Torn Signpost 4x Fists of Death 4x Disarm 4x Decapitate 8x Behind You! 8x Taste of Vitae 4x Computer Hacking (total 76 other cards, 90 card library) Which deck could this be? It's certainly focussed enough for our purposes, though, and easy to define.>> Yeah, that's my deck. I haven't played it that much since the additition of the bleed aspects, but they certainly haven't hurt me in the games I have used them. >>I'm going to assume that for each action, two cards are absolutely desired: a Bum's Rush/Haven and an Immortal Grapple. The Havens actually potentially provide more than one Rush action, but odds are you'll vaporize the guy on the first go-round anyway, so it more-or-less works out. I'm also going to assume that we'd like to have one strength increaser and one strike card for every action as well, and I use those terms in order to take advantage of the duplication of purposes in the deck.>> Certainly reasonable. >>.87781*.84084*.79281*.84857 = 0.49656. Not bad; 17% improvement just from having a hand size of 2 greater. Says a LOT about Dreams right there.>> See! I told y'all that Dreams kicked ass! >>Let's see what trimming this bastard down to 80 cards would do. I'm going to be cavalier about it; I'm going to throw out all four Disarms, two Decapitates, three Taste of Vitae, two Behind You, and a Computer Hacking. To make up the shortage of strike cards, I'm going to include two extra Undead Strength. There's my 80 cards.>> Now as I haven't been paying attention to this point (but get that the thesis is that smaller decks are always going to be better), why not take out the cards you suggest, and replace them with extras of the absolutely necessary cards, to go back up to 90? For instance, you take out 4 Disarm, 2 Decapitate, 3 Taste, 2 Behind You, 1 Computer Hacking (12 cards). Why not simply replace them, with, say, 2 IG, 2 Bum's Rush, 4 Undead Strength, 3 Torn Signpost, 1 Fists of Death? The math is revolving around drawing a Rush, IG, TS/FoD, US--if you are going to take out 10 cards to increase these chances, why not simply replace those 10 cards with 10 different cards that also increase the chances? I mean, sure, if you take out the 12 and replace the 12, your chances of drawing the other fringe cards (Taste, Behind You) become slightly lesser, but I wonder if this makes much difference (and there might be a combination where all the numbers work out, however). >>We need to assess the "cons", though. I've given the deck increased killing ability. What have I pulled away from it? Well, it has to actually beat vampires down to empty now, it can't just rip their arms off; but that's a preferable solution anyway.>> Certainly a viable view, but the Disarms are *so* good, I wouldn't ever consider removing them (heck, I might swap out Decapitates for them if I had more). They allow early killing (small vamps with pot can torporize huge vampires with little effort, for deablere if desireable), and they help against other combat decks (your opponents get -1 or -2 hand damage in the future, which is always good). >>It's possible that the -exact- ratios might need to be shuffled a bit; I hate actually removing all 4 Disarms, for example. Maybe rip out another CH and put a Disarm back in instead.>> I'd pull out all the Computer Hackings before I pulled out anything else--they are totally long shot cards that I put in simply because I had the 4 slots (that have been weird since day 1--first they were 4 Rampages, then they were 2 Rampage/2 Wake). >>It'd be entertaining to get Peter to play with this deck and see what he "feels" about what it does. =)>> Maybe I will give it a try. Sadly, I'd have to play it a lot to really see how it worked, and I can really only pull of playing this deck once per evening locally :-) Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "The Ramones are more important than the Solar System." -Sean Flanerty

Noal McDonald <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> wrote in news:3B8833E6...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com: >>> "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote >>> Table shuffle into 7 stacks between EVERY game, then >>> riffle, then overhand, then riffle some more. Sometime during >>> all that, go through the deck face up and separate repeated cards. > > *blink* *blink* > > What exactly is "riffle?" The "standard" shuffle; you know, where you split the deck in half and riffle :) the two halves back together? > Derek Ray wrote: >> Gee, Jason, why don't you just SET your deck in the order you want >> and save all the trouble?. > > Derek, there is one little tournament rule that makes it easy to screw > with people that try to take the random element from their deck. The > predator of a player may, instead of cutting, may repeatedly shuffle > and/or rifle the deck and pass it back. The owner of said deck may cut > it afterwards, but may not reshuffle it or try any of the above > shenanigans. I regularly employ it against people I don't know in > tournaments as a kind of warm up exercise for Jedi Mind Tricks. Hmm. I may begin regularly employing that as well... Jedi Mind Tricks or not. I know that I would NOT be happy with anyone doing any kind of face- up "shuffling" of any form; with sufficiently nimble fingers it would be extremely easy to actually "set" things. Especially with a Jan Pieterzoon/weenie AUS Revelations deck. Hmmm. =) Stir well with Change of Target, of course, and just let Jan do the Scouting Mission/Bonding/Seduction thing every turn while the weenies empty anything useful like Deflections out of my prey's hand... *ponder* A few Aura Reading make it even less pleasant for someone to successfully block you, and a few Kiss My Ra put even more teeth in for people wanting to get in Jan's way. That'll take a lot of Revelations, though. Damn. Who wants to trade me some Revelations? =)

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> wrote in message news:3B8833E6...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com... > Derek, there is one little tournament rule that makes it easy to screw > with people that try to take the random element from their deck. The > predator of a player may, instead of cutting, may repeatedly shuffle > and/or rifle the deck and pass it back. The owner of said deck may cut > it afterwards, but may not reshuffle it or try any of the above > shenanigans. I regularly employ it against people I don't know in > tournaments as a kind of warm up exercise for Jedi Mind Tricks. I did this in round one of the GenCon championships. I also got such a strange look that I think I set him on edge right away. I do think this is probably the best way to handle the possibility that someone might actually arrange their deck--as long as you aren't trying to lay low. :) -Robert rob...@vtesinla.org

pd...@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote in news:20010825204355...@mb-co.aol.com: > Derek wrote: > holes in it. We're just going to have to rip up an existing deck, and > guess whose we're going to use to do it. (You saw this coming.)>> > > Yow--I really haven't been paying much to this discussion (too much > math for me :-), but now that I have been invoked (Hastur! Hastur > Hastur!), how could I not jump in! HAH! My clever plan has WORKED! Get him, my loyal henchmen! > Yeah, that's my deck. I haven't played it that much since the > additition of the bleed aspects, but they certainly haven't hurt me in > the games I have used them. Computer Hacking is one of those convenient cards, yeah. "Nothing better to do, might as well bleed for two." Doesn't work as well for other decks; replacing the word "two" with the words "six, at stealth" generally fails to give quite the same casual impression. >>>.87781*.84084*.79281*.84857 = 0.49656. Not bad; 17% improvement just >>>from having a hand size of 2 greater. Says a LOT about Dreams right >>>there.>> > > See! I told y'all that Dreams kicked ass! (shrug) Didn't have to tell ME. =) Although now that you mention it, I guess there WAS a big "what is Dreams good for" thing some time ago, wasn't there? > Now as I haven't been paying attention to this point (but get that the > thesis is that smaller decks are always going to be better), why not Usually, not always. It could well turn out that in a deck like this, 90 cards is actually better, toys or no toys. It didn't (IMO), but I'd hate to math myself into a corner. > take out the cards you suggest, and replace them with extras of the > absolutely necessary cards, to go back up to 90? For instance, you > take out 4 Disarm, 2 Decapitate, 3 Taste, 2 Behind You, 1 Computer > Hacking (12 cards). Why not simply replace them, with, say, 2 IG, 2 > Bum's Rush, 4 Undead Strength, 3 Torn Signpost, 1 Fists of Death? Actually, I had already put back in 2 Undead Strength to replace the 2 Decapitate (had to have the "possible strike cards" remain the same)... so we'll change that to 2 IG, 2 BR, 3 US, and 3 TS. =) First, I'll correct my error: I cut-n-pasted the "Dreams" numbers when I did my "cut down" math, instead of the "non-Dreams" numbers, and was calculating from a 79-card library instead of an 80-card library. Oops. nc(16,80,8) = 0.84731, 85% (Rush), 16/80 = .2 nc(14,79,8) = 0.80653, 81% (TS/FoD), 14/80 = .175 nc(12,78,8) = 0.75504, 76% (IG) 12/80 = .15 nc(14,77,8) = 0.81595, 82% (strike), 14/80 = .175 .84731*.80653*.75504*.81595 = 0.42101, 42% instead of my previous 43%. Essentially negligible, but when we're dealing with a bunch of numbers that are likely to all be less than 10%, 1% matters a lot. Now, with your changes listed above: nc(18,90,8) = 0.84559, 85% (Rush), 18/90 = .2 (convenient, that) nc(17,89,8) = 0.83053, 83% (TS/FoD), 17/90 = .188 nc(14,88,8) = 0.76552, 77% (IG), 14/90 = .155 nc(17,87,8) = 0.83844, 84% (Strike), 17/90 = .188 .84559*.83053*.76552*.83844 = 0.45076. Up to 45%, a 3% difference. Not HUGE, but not totally insignificant either. Comparatively, cutting the deck size gave a 9% improvement; so there's a lot to be said for being careful of how many "toys" you include. Both of these tricks have accomplished the same thing; we've increased the proportions of the "key cards" in the deck twice, once by reducing deck size, and once by re-increasing deck size and stuffing cards back in (although note that the Rush actions stayed the same, and suffered the expected small hit in the chance of drawing one). We pretty much knew this already; the more of card "X" you put in the deck, the more likely you are to get it. But now it's been quantified, which makes the next comparison valuable... > the 12, your chances of drawing the other fringe cards (Taste, Behind > You) become slightly lesser, but I wonder if this makes much > difference (and there might be a combination where all the numbers > work out, however). To have Behind You in hand at the right time: nc(6,78,8) = 0.48953, 49% nc(6,88,8) = 0.4455, 45% nc(8,88,8) = 0.54902, 55% <-- number in Peter's original deck and to have Taste of Vitae: nc(5,76,8) = 0.43577, 44% nc(5,86,8) = 0.39382, 39% Looking at the Master cards, just for fun: nc(14,80,8) = 0.80186, 80% chance of having one on turn 2 nc(14,90,8) = 0.75675, 76% ...A 4% and 5% difference. This is very interesting in comparison. Your basic combo's reliability is up, but your chances of getting your support cards are down. How much at risk this actually puts you depends on how often you actually NEED to play Taste, or NEED to maneuver. You're also 4% further in the bin as far as getting Masters, although I don't consider 76% to be "bad". Also, by yanking a couple of the maneuvers when we slimmed down the deck, your chance of having one noticeably decreased. However, this is still a two-edged sword, as your maneuvers MUST be discarded if they're not being used; at which point that 6% extra chance of drawing one starts working against you. Well, let's see. Assume you play a Master and conduct a successful combat against a defenseless minion on turn 2. If you have one maneuver in hand, no problem; you can discard it. What are the chances of having TWO maneuvers in hand by now, which will effectively reduce your hand size by one in the following turn? nc(6,75,7) = 0.45643, nc(8,85,7) = 0.51279 (chances of at least one) nc(5,74,6) = 0.35289, nc(7,84,6) = 0.41672 (chances of a second) nc(4,73,5) = 0.25178, nc(6,83,5) = 0.3195 (please, not a third?) .45634*.35289 = 0.16104, 16% (*.25178 = 0.040547, 4% of having 3) .51279*.41672 = 0.21369, 21% (*.3195 = 0.068274, 7% of having 3) About 5% more likely to have "basic" hand jam, and about 3% more likely to have "wow, this sucks" hand jam. This is on the opening turn, and you've only played 5 cards by now, so you're not TOO badly off. Let's say you beat the odds, and don't get ANY maneuvers in hand; no need to discard, either, your hand looks great with all that basic-combo in it, and probably a Master besides. So turn 3 comes along,... and you play your Master, and then BOTH your vampires go kill something. The fresh one plays 4 cards, and the original one plays 5 - a Taste of Vitae seems in order for him by now, and you'll surely have gotten one in your hand. How likely are you to have maneuvers NOW? nc(6,65,7) = 0.50998, nc(8,75,7) = 0.56185 (one) nc(5,64,6) = 0.39903, nc(7,74,6) = 0.46129 (two) nc(4,63,5) = 0.28774, nc(6,73,5) = 0.35703 (three) .50998*.39903 = 0.2035, 20% (*.28774 = 0.058555, 6% for three) .56185*.46129 = 0.25918, 26% (*.35703 = 0.092535, 9% for three) These numbers are starting to get a lot less small... and you're STILL only able to discard one maneuver at the end of this turn. Worse, the differential for having two is slowly increasing for the "big" deck; if it doesn't draw into its maneuvers soon, it's going to be at visible risk of getting wedged. (The chances of having 1, meanwhile, are not altering; there was a 5% difference last turn, and a 5% difference this turn.) Looking at the Master cards, just for fun: nc(14,80,8) = 0.80186, 80% chance of having one on turn 2 nc(14,90,8) = 0.75675, 76% And you're also 4% further in the bin as far as getting Masters, although I don't consider 76% to be "bad", and if you get too many Masters too fast you'll be fucked. If you rip out the Potence skill card I suggested below: nc(13,80,8) = 0.77499, 77%, almost totally back to the original. So, what we're pretty much at here is: Trimming down decks by removing the "fringe" support cards will increase the reliability of your primary focus and improve overall card flow... at the cost of availability of those support cards. It will also noticeably reduce your chances of ever jammming up ON those support cards if they prove unnecessary; and it will provide a small advantage with regard to unique and fixed-amount cards (Fame and the Potence skill cards, for example), which will be magnified by the increased card flow (you'll get to them quicker). Hand-cycling tools such as Dreams and the Barrens will have a startling effect on both, although again larger in the case of the smaller deck. Tentative conclusion: If you NEED your support cards, or have no visible support cards (ie, a complete toolbox), don't go hacking things out wholesale... go ahead and stay high. If you're a focused deck with occasional sidelines, chop that puppy down some and improve your primary focus; it'll be worth it. Sideline conclusion: Cards that, if unnecessary, can't be moved except via discard end up being very hazardous to your deck; a mere 6 maneuvers provided a 20% chance of a screwup. Peter's original deck has two major points of collapsibility available to it; it can play one or multiple Taste of Vitae whether or not it needs to, and it can play one Disarm per combat. These are support cards, but they are not support cards that can cause hand jam in and of themselves; all Peter needs is a Rush action to move them. As the bits above showed, the Rush cards are the TRUE key to the deck; lacking a means of forcing combat turns roughly 70% of his deck into hand- jam fodder. Anyone who would like to (correctly) identify flaws in my math, PLEASE feel free to speak up. Everything above looks accurate to me, but I'll openly admit that I'm no Einstein; I could have fucked something up[0]. > Certainly a viable view, but the Disarms are *so* good, I wouldn't > ever consider removing them (heck, I might swap out Decapitates for > them if I had more). They allow early killing (small vamps with pot > can torporize huge vampires with little effort, for deablere if > desireable), and they help against other combat decks (your opponents > get -1 or -2 hand damage in the future, which is always good). Fortunately, you can no longer send Hasina Kesi to rush Wynn and rip his poke off while she's going to torpor. =) There was always something inherently 'wrong' about that. =) > I'd pull out all the Computer Hackings before I pulled out anything > else--they are totally long shot cards that I put in simply because I > had the 4 slots (that have been weird since day 1--first they were 4 > Rampages, then they were 2 Rampage/2 Wake). Well, there you go. Let's rip out the remaining 3 CH, one Potence skill card, and chuck all 4 Disarms back in. (it occurs to me that not removing any Masters might be somewhat dangerous). This idea also follows well from the sideline concluson, above; the Computer Hacks can't be moved during the course of making things dead, they need to be an action all their own. > Maybe I will give it a try. Sadly, I'd have to play it a lot to really > see how it worked, and I can really only pull of playing this deck > once per evening locally :-) Heh. I can't imagine why? =) Although frankly, when I started producing 80-card creations, I was able to notice an improved effect damn near immediately. A 9% difference should hit at least once in the course of 11 cards played, right? =) -- Derek [0] However, THIS statement is unwelcome: "That just SEEMS wrong, ...are you sure you did the math right?" Of course I'm sure. If I weren't sure, I wouldn't be posting it. If you can fix it, fix it, but don't just stand there in disbelief.

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > Barrens, which may take the bullet for one of your more important > > locations if Arson is afoot. The 13 unneeded cards is an arid, > > highly flammable straw man. Try harder. Do better. > > SO sorry, Jason, it's not a straw man... it's real. All those extra cards > that you're throwing in there are 'what ifs', and when you end up not > needing them, then you have to get rid of them somehow. You will gain much > better results by being SURE of how many cards you want to play, and then > putting that many in, and no more, as opposed to succumbing to wild > speculation with the "what ifs". Play more. Pay attention. Consider more carefully. If your deck has 5 moving parts (go get you, get a hold of you, pop you one, make sure you don't pop me, kill the guy like in the deal), the relative importance of each part is highly dependent upon opponents, seating position, and overall metagame situation. The ability to move through your deck and discard whichever moving part is less important is a valuable asset, well worth the extra 15 cards (3 or less for each part plus the sifters). > > Surely you jest. You're being obtuse, is it intentional? > > Read what I said again. Specifically, how does a 75-card deck that can > gain 3VPs while not running out of cards gain "enhanced performance" from > having a bunch of extra cards in the deck that it'll probably need to get > rid of, and two copies of a card that's likely to be contested at some > point in the game? Flammable, again on account of it being made of straw. > >> I'd rather have more of the "right cards" in hand in the first place, > >> so that I only have to make use of my free discard. > > > > Laugh riot. A game of Jyhad, once begun, is a rambling chaos. > > Only Ms. Clio could determine what the "right cards" are ahead > > of time, so the sifting power of the Barrens or the Fragment or > > Dreams are always appreciated. > > Which nobody has yet denied Of course you did, when you mentioned the "'right cards.'" > As an aside: Hidden Lurker can be one of the most frustrating cards to put > in your deck, EVER. No need to aside. It was in, now is out, of my obfuscate disguised weapon deck. I misplayed the card in two games when my bum's rush wasn't blocked, and took the things out forever. > > You mean Suthenas, of course. If you believe that it was in fact > > the Civil War, you must be some sort of transplanted Nuthena, > > especially in Atlanta. > > Look, ma... a redneck troll! > > Talk about stinky-bait. Sheesh. Bad dog. Back on the porch. Not a troll at all, just the clarity that comes from being a Suthena myself, and knowing enough Georgians to learn that is was the "War of Northern Aggression." Surely you must be some transplant, lest you would be better mannered in any environment, virtual or no (that may be just a teensy bit of a troll, but for you only). - Jason Bell

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > > > As someone who became inexplicably haunted by mana screw > > in Magic, I can advise that you change your shuffling style. > > Shuffling is supposed to be random. Clumping is supposed to be a > possibility. > > > Table shuffle into 7 stacks between EVERY game, then > > riffle, then overhand, then riffle some more. Sometime during > > all that, go through the deck face up and separate repeated > > cards. I've played so very many games of Magic that this > > is the only explanation I have determined, barring the idea > > that the fates, stars, and providence are all aligned against > > me. I very seriously doubt your deck count is your problem. > > Gee, Jason, why don't you just SET your deck in the order you want and save > all the trouble?. One initial pile-shuffle followed by *multiple* riffles > and/or overhands is reasonably acceptable (and common practice), but > stopping the process midway and manually, FACE UP, separating cards that > are next to each other? I don't THINK so. If you turned your deck face-up > and tried to do this, I'd first ask what you were doing ("dude, don't be > stopping to sort your deck now, it's almost time to start"), and then yell > for a judge after you explained. Laugh out loud funny. I can understand this particular flavor of idiocy from someone who plays games separated by 1 to 3 hours. Almost any tournament Magic player would, of course, laugh in your face, and the judge who you called over would also laugh in your face, once assured that the de-clumping was followed by 3 or more riffle shuffles. In Magic, the Canadian players began this tradition on the Pro Tour, and it has been upheld as an appropriate randomization technique, and is widely called the "Canadian Shuffle." In fact other competitive card games require that you can assure randomness before presenting your deck to be cut. You, however, are free to wonder why you play game after game where you draw Mr. Winthrop, followed by Dominate, followed by Ivory Bow, and every other permanent that got scooped together from your previous game. It must just be one of life's randomization mysteries. Just leave alone those of us who have played 15 minute games enough times (I may have played 10,000 games of Magic or more) to know how to randomize our decks between games. > Again, shuffling is supposed to be RANDOM. What you are describing removes > an enormous amount of the random element... which I'm sure is the intent, > but it's also cheating, frankly. Again with the laughing in your face. You would do well to explain how de-clumping, followed by riffle shuffling, constitutes cheating before you "frankly" toss about that accusation, which I take very seriously indeed. - Jason Bell

"Noal McDonald" <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> wrote > > Derek, there is one little tournament rule that makes it easy to screw > with people that try to take the random element from their deck. The > predator of a player may, instead of cutting, may repeatedly shuffle > and/or rifle the deck and pass it back. The owner of said deck may cut > it afterwards, but may not reshuffle it or try any of the above > shenanigans. I regularly employ it against people I don't know in > tournaments as a kind of warm up exercise for Jedi Mind Tricks. Interesting. In Magic, the rule is that if your opponent does aught besides a single cut, you are allowed three riffle shufles before presenting the deck for only a single cut. If the opponent for some reason objects to your shuffling after his nonstandard cut, the judge may shuffle your deck three times, and that's the end of it. If the opponent then does anything besides a single cut, he is in violation of the rules (as I recall, it's been awhile). In answer to your other question, a riffle shuffle is a shuffle whereby one takes approximately half of the deck in each hand, and one rubs one's thumbs across the top edge of each card stack such that the stacks interleave into a single stack of cards. > Regards, > Noal As well, - Jason Bell

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote > "Noal McDonald" <dhar...@none-of-your-fscking-business.com> wrote > > Derek, there is one little tournament rule that makes it easy to screw > > with people that try to take the random element from their deck. The > > predator of a player may, instead of cutting, may repeatedly shuffle > > and/or rifle the deck and pass it back. The owner of said deck may cut > > it afterwards, but may not reshuffle it or try any of the above > > shenanigans. I regularly employ it against people I don't know in > > tournaments as a kind of warm up exercise for Jedi Mind Tricks. > > I did this in round one of the GenCon championships. I also got such a strange > look that I think I set him on edge right away. I do think this is probably the > best way to handle the possibility that someone might actually arrange their > deck--as long as you aren't trying to lay low. :) Heh. I once called a judge over to a table to inspect a Magic deck where some card backs were upside down and others were not. There was no violation (he wasn't using upside down cards to clue him into lands or anything), but he was definately puzzled. It was also my first tournament, so I was relatively uptight. I made the finals, for those who enjoy happy endings. - Jason Bell

In message <Xns91097017...@198.99.146.10>, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> writes >Tentative conclusion: If you NEED your support cards, or have no visible >support cards (ie, a complete toolbox), don't go hacking things out >wholesale... go ahead and stay high. If you're a focused deck with >occasional sidelines, chop that puppy down some and improve your primary >focus; it'll be worth it. Indeed. It would seem that the more focused the deck and the smaller the "necessary" combos, the better off you are by slipping a few copies of fluff out. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F They don't need to see you cry B457CA213D7E6 I can't promise I will heal you, but if you want to I will try 68C3695D623D5D

In message <Oh2i7.180925$J37.45...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> > Table shuffle into 7 stacks between EVERY game, then >> > riffle, then overhand, then riffle some more. Sometime during >> > all that, go through the deck face up and separate repeated >> > cards. I've played so very many games of Magic that this >> > is the only explanation I have determined, barring the idea >> > that the fates, stars, and providence are all aligned against >> > me. I very seriously doubt your deck count is your problem. >> >Laugh out loud funny. I can understand this particular flavor of >idiocy from someone who plays games separated by 1 to 3 hours. >Almost any tournament Magic player would, of course, laugh in >your face, and the judge who you called over would also laugh in >your face, once assured that the de-clumping was followed by 3 or >more riffle shuffles. The original proposition did not make sure that "3 or more" riffle shuffles were in order after de-clumping. (As I recall, the optimum number in Poker etc. is usually 7.) Indeed, there were only 2 guaranteed riffles. >In Magic, the Canadian players began this >tradition on the Pro Tour, and it has been upheld as an appropriate >randomization technique, and is widely called the "Canadian >Shuffle." It is useful to recall that the body for upholding such a decision in Magic and the body that would arbitrate such a decision in V:TES are not the same. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2001 08:18:54 GMT, Jason Bell wrote: >Again with the laughing in your face. You would do well to explain >how de-clumping, followed by riffle shuffling, constitutes cheating >before you "frankly" toss about that accusation, which I take >very seriously indeed. The DCI Universal rules state that: "21. Shuffle All shuffling must be done so that the faces of the cards cannot be seen. Regardless of the method used to shuffle, players' decks must be sufficiently randomized." So, if you look at your deck while you're shuffling, you're cheating. If you pause to rebuild your deck (e.g. sideboarding) then you have to start shuffling all over again. Note that 3 riffle shuffles are not enough to randomise a 60-card deck. That's even assuming that they are good riffle shuffles (which many aren't). If 3 riffle shuffles are the norm in Canadian Magic then that explains why folk such as you are stacking their deck prior to the shuffles. You're all cheating because decks "must be sufficiently randomised". You might perhaps claim that "sufficiently" is a weasel word which would permit such cheating but I wouldn't accept that. The idea of randomisation is that the cards are equally likely to be in any position in the deck. It should be possible, if unlikely, for all of one type to be together. If the stacking/shuffling procedure is designed to prevent this then it is not random. I've seen someone blatantly stacking their deck prior to a perfunctory shuffle in a VEKN event too. As long as some people think that such deck-rigging is legitimate, the rest of us should shuffle the spots off their cards as a matter of course. Of course, you have to watch what players do when they are shuffling their opponents deck too. One Magic player has just been given a 3-year suspension for stacking his opponent's deck while shuffling it. Andrew

In message <6EDA48A6D2AB88C2.87DD956B...@lp.airnew s.net>, Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> writes >I've seen someone blatantly stacking their deck prior to a perfunctory >shuffle in a VEKN event too. And the judge's reaction when you informed him/her? [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in news:5K1i7.180527$J37.45...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com: > Consider more carefully. If your deck has 5 moving parts (go get you, Considered VERY carefully. Now you do the same. > get a hold of you, pop you one, make sure you don't pop me, kill the > guy like in the deal), the relative importance of each part is highly > dependent upon opponents, seating position, and overall metagame > situation. The ability to move through your deck and discard > whichever moving part is less important is a valuable asset, well > worth the extra 15 cards (3 or less for each part plus the sifters). Go read my respond to Peter Bakija. >> > Surely you jest. You're being obtuse, is it intentional? >> >> Read what I said again. Specifically, how does a 75-card deck that >> can gain 3VPs while not running out of cards gain "enhanced >> performance" from having a bunch of extra cards in the deck that >> it'll probably need to get rid of, and two copies of a card that's >> likely to be contested at some point in the game? > > Flammable, again on account of it being made of straw. Jason, I've often found that people who blather about "straw man! straw man!" are simply ducking the question. And you're doing it right here. Every bit of this question is relevant; you simply don't have an answer for it, so you yap up your "straw man" nonsense. Keep yapping, but understand that I KNOW you are simply avoiding a made point. >> > of time, so the sifting power of the Barrens or the Fragment or >> > Dreams are always appreciated. >> >> Which nobody has yet denied > > Of course you did, when you mentioned the "'right cards.'" Incorrect. The Barrens adds valuable sifting power to every deck. However, I'm going to point out that making the assumption that you will have the Barrens AND then adding cards that will need to be sifted is a very sloppy deck-building trap to fall into. It would be better to make sure you never have cards that MUST be sifted, removing your NEED for the Barrens; then if you put a copy of the Barrens in your deck, it's nothing but good no matter when you draw it. >> Talk about stinky-bait. Sheesh. Bad dog. Back on the porch. > > Not a troll at all, just the clarity that comes from being a Suthena Oh, no, certainly NOT a troll. Let's just pick something that people have argued about for 150 years, and that is scattered all over the South on bumper stickers, license plates, flags, and hats, and let's just lob it out there to see what happens, and see if any Yankees want to respond with an out-and-out diatribe? No, surely, of course THAT'S not a troll. > myself, and knowing enough Georgians to learn that is was the > "War of Northern Aggression." Surely you must be some transplant, > lest you would be better mannered in any environment, virtual > or no (that may be just a teensy bit of a troll, but for you only). *chuckle* You really haven't seen much of the South, have you? =)

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in news:Oh2i7.180925$J37.45...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com: > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote >> >> Shuffling is supposed to be random. Clumping is supposed to be a >> possibility. Remember these words, Jason. Shuffling is supposed to be RANDOM. True randomness includes the possibility of having a clump of all the same cards together. Do you dispute that statement? > more riffle shuffles. In Magic, the Canadian players began this > tradition on the Pro Tour, and it has been upheld as an appropriate > randomization technique, and is widely called the "Canadian > Shuffle." In fact other competitive card games require that you > can assure randomness before presenting your deck to be cut. It is assuredly NOT a randomization technique; it is a technique to ensure a lack of clumping. Whether or not everyone accepts it without understanding it fully is one thing, but it is definitely not "random". > You, however, are free to wonder why you play > game after game where you draw Mr. Winthrop, followed > by Dominate, followed by Ivory Bow, and every other > permanent that got scooped together from your previous > game. It must just be one of life's randomization mysteries. Actually, I pile shuffle face-down first, then riffle 5-8 times, then overhand a couple more times so I don't know what the bottom card is. I find that this is very effective randomization, WITHOUT any cheating on my part, since I don't ever turn the cards face-up. > Just leave alone those of us who have played 15 minute games > enough times (I may have played 10,000 games of Magic or more) > to know how to randomize our decks between games. To know how to cheat, you mean? I'd expect nothing less from a Magic player... everything I've seen of them indicates that they'll break any rule they can get away with to win. >> Again, shuffling is supposed to be RANDOM. What you are describing >> removes an enormous amount of the random element... which I'm sure is >> the intent, but it's also cheating, frankly. > > Again with the laughing in your face. You would do well to explain > how de-clumping, followed by riffle shuffling, constitutes cheating > before you "frankly" toss about that accusation, which I take > very seriously indeed. You mean BESIDES it being obvious from your statements on the matter, Jason? When you advocate "shuffle better" as a remedy for clumping and hand-jam, one can only assume that following your method of shuffling will somehow reduce the number of identical cards that are next to each other, and this is what you are advocating. THIS IS NOT RANDOM. However, if you want even more support, riffle shuffling is not perfect with a 90-card deck, as it is difficult to actually "riffle" cards properly and get a full interleave. (A 40-card deck is MUCH easier.) Three riffle shuffles are simply not sufficient, as many of the cards you carefully separated and "set" will still be next to each other... guaranteeing large portions of your deck that had no chance to clump back up. Isn't that the whole purpose of this shuffle, as you stated? Yes, I call it cheating. And yes, if I see someone doing this I'll riffle their deck an additional 5-6 times. Shuffling needs to take place face DOWN. Do whatever you want while it's face down, even pile shuffle it three or four times if you must, but when you look at the cards and manually sort them, you remove all the effects of prior shuffling, and need to perform a NUMBER of riffles afterwards to re-introduce the randomness. More than 'three'.

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in news:6EDA48A6D2AB88C2.87DD956B...@lp.airnews.net: > The DCI Universal rules state that: > > "21. Shuffle > All shuffling must be done so that the faces of the cards cannot be > seen. Regardless of the method used to shuffle, players' decks must be > sufficiently randomized." Well, that's convenient. The White Wolf site is down at the moment, so I can't verify, but I suspect such a provision exists in the VEKN rules as well. > accept that. The idea of randomisation is that the cards are equally > likely to be in any position in the deck. It should be possible, if > unlikely, for all of one type to be together. If the > stacking/shuffling procedure is designed to prevent this then it is > not random. you know, it worries me when I find myself agreeing with you. Either that, or it indicates something that's blatantly obvious. > I've seen someone blatantly stacking their deck prior to a perfunctory > shuffle in a VEKN event too. As long as some people think that such > deck-rigging is legitimate, the rest of us should shuffle the spots > off their cards as a matter of course. Of course, you have to watch After reading this conversation, I fully intend to do just that in the future. I really had higher hopes for things, and I tend to trust people early on no matter what, but Jason's matter-of-fact acceptance and honest belief that this ISN'T deck-stacking worries me; I've never paid much attention to my opponents' shuffles in the past. That will change. > what players do when they are shuffling their opponents deck too. One > Magic player has just been given a 3-year suspension for stacking his > opponent's deck while shuffling it. Well, it's not THAT difficult to deliberately riffle all someone's best cards onto or near the bottom, where a cut will likely only move them back to the middle of the pack. I learned how to do that when I was 10 or so, deliberately setting an ace on the bottom all the time. It's amazing how much information knowing the location of one card can give you in a game like Poker.

Derek Ray wrote: > > Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in > news:6EDA48A6D2AB88C2.87DD956B...@lp.airnews.net: > > > The DCI Universal rules state that: > > > > "21. Shuffle > > All shuffling must be done so that the faces of the cards cannot be > > seen. Regardless of the method used to shuffle, players' decks must be > > sufficiently randomized." > > Well, that's convenient. The White Wolf site is down at the moment, so I > can't verify, but I suspect such a provision exists in the VEKN rules as > well. VEKN 3.2: All shuffling must be done so that the faces of the cards cannot be seen. Regardless of the method used to shuffle, players' decks must be sufficiently randomized. Each time players shuffle their decks (before the game or during the game), they must present their decks to their predator for additional shuffling and/or cutting. At the judge's discretion, players may request to have a judge shuffle their cards rather than pass that duty to their predators. By presenting their decks to their predators, players state that their decks are sufficiently randomized. After decks are presented and accepted, players who do not consider their opponents' decks to be sufficiently randomized must notify a judge. The head judge has final authority regarding whether a deck has been sufficiently randomized. Once predators have the opportunity to shuffle and/or cut players' decks, the cards are returned to their original owners. If the predator has shuffled the player's deck, that player may make one final cut. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Derek wrote: >>Tentative conclusion: If you NEED your support cards, or have no visible support cards (ie, a complete toolbox), don't go hacking things out wholesale... go ahead and stay high. If you're a focused deck with occasional sidelines, chop that puppy down some and improve your primary focus; it'll be worth it.>> Interesting. The math certainly seems to support this. I'd still be warry of dropping below 90 cards, however, as I run out of cards on a fairly regular basis. I'd probably be more inclined to go with the "swap out 10 sideline cards for 10 more important cards" angle rather than push the 80 card idea. >>Sideline conclusion: Cards that, if unnecessary, can't be moved except via discard end up being very hazardous to your deck; a mere 6 maneuvers provided a 20% chance of a screwup. Peter's original deck has two major points of collapsibility available to it; it can play one or multiple Taste of Vitae whether or not it needs to, and it can play one Disarm per combat. These are support cards, but they are not support cards that can cause hand jam in and of themselves; all Peter needs is a Rush action to move them. As the bits above showed, the Rush cards are the TRUE key to the deck; lacking a means of forcing combat turns roughly 70% of his deck into hand- jam fodder.>> Which is the deck's greatest flaw--too many Rush cards, and my hand gets jammed with them. Too few, and I am totally useless. Perhaps I'll build the all inherrent Attack deck. Lets see...3 Taco Bell, 3 Ebaneezer La Roush, 3 Rooooooooxane, and, um, well, hmm. >>Although frankly, when I started producing 80-card creations, I was able to notice an improved effect damn near immediately. A 9% difference should hit at least once in the course of 11 cards played, right? =)>> Heh heh :-) Maybe I'll try this plan out at the next tournament I get to. I'll let you know. Peter D Bakija PD...@aol.com http://www.geocities.com/bakija6 "The Ramones are more important than the Solar System." -Sean Finnerty

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >> > Table shuffle into 7 stacks between EVERY game, then > >> > riffle, then overhand, then riffle some more. Sometime during > >> > all that, go through the deck face up and separate repeated > >> > cards. I've played so very many games of Magic that this > >> > is the only explanation I have determined, barring the idea > >> > that the fates, stars, and providence are all aligned against > >> > me. I very seriously doubt your deck count is your problem. > >> > >Laugh out loud funny. I can understand this particular flavor of > >idiocy from someone who plays games separated by 1 to 3 hours. > >Almost any tournament Magic player would, of course, laugh in > >your face, and the judge who you called over would also laugh in > >your face, once assured that the de-clumping was followed by 3 or > >more riffle shuffles. > > The original proposition did not make sure that "3 or more" riffle > shuffles were in order after de-clumping. (As I recall, the optimum > number in Poker etc. is usually 7.) Indeed, there were only 2 > guaranteed riffles. This has to be some sort of bad joke. Surely you aren't trying to parse "then riffle some more" into an absurd one riffle short back-door criticism of this randomization technique? Or to presume that the assumed lack of the third riffle was the basis for Derek's attack on the process? If somehow it is, replace "some more" with "three or more times," but I can't make myself believe that either of you are that pedantic. > >In Magic, the Canadian players began this > >tradition on the Pro Tour, and it has been upheld as an appropriate > >randomization technique, and is widely called the "Canadian > >Shuffle." > > It is useful to recall that the body for upholding such a decision in > Magic and the body that would arbitrate such a decision in V:TES are not > the same. It is also useful to recognize that Magic has been a successful Deckmaster tournament game for at least 7 years, far longer than Jyhad/V:tES. The V:EKN can disregard the hard learned experiences that Magic has endured, or it can ignore all that free information, due to some subborn little-brother complex. To do that would be pretty pathetic, though. - Jason Bell

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote > Jason Bell wrote: > > >Again with the laughing in your face. You would do well to explain > >how de-clumping, followed by riffle shuffling, constitutes cheating > >before you "frankly" toss about that accusation, which I take > >very seriously indeed. > > The DCI Universal rules state that: > > "21. Shuffle > All shuffling must be done so that the faces of the cards cannot be > seen. Regardless of the method used to shuffle, players' decks must be > sufficiently randomized." > > So, if you look at your deck while you're shuffling, you're cheating. > If you pause to rebuild your deck (e.g. sideboarding) then you have to > start shuffling all over again. > > Note that 3 riffle shuffles are not enough to randomise a 60-card > deck. That's even assuming that they are good riffle shuffles (which > many aren't). If 3 riffle shuffles are the norm in Canadian Magic > then that explains why folk such as you are stacking their deck prior > to the shuffles. You're all cheating because decks "must be > sufficiently randomised". You might perhaps claim that "sufficiently" > is a weasel word which would permit such cheating but I wouldn't > accept that. Before you wade into this, with your accompanying accusations, I first invite you to talk to any Level 3 or better Magic judge for clarification on the rule you've cited, before you get your foot any farther down your throat. Next, I submit that if you present your deck for cutting without assuring that you have re-distributed your ash heap, hand, and cards in play from your last game into your library (or in the case of Magic, lands, graveyard, hand, and in play), you are in violation of the rule above. The original poster, who has had a run of low probability outcomes (not seeing a card for half his deck when he has 8 or more copies in the deck), is clearly in violation of the "sufficiently randomized" rule, so is he doomed to be called a cheater by you for this Catch-22? > The idea of randomisation is that the cards are equally > likely to be in any position in the deck. It should be possible, if > unlikely, for all of one type to be together. If the > stacking/shuffling procedure is designed to prevent this then it is > not random. This is only true if no shuffling occurs after the de-clumping. LSJ, I need VEKN's official position on this before I play a tournament game. When and under what circumstances will I be allowed to inspect the card faces in my deck between games? I've read VEKN 3.2, but it is unclear whether de-clumping should be considered "shuffling" as defined there. - Jason Bell

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > VEKN 3.2: > > All shuffling must be done so that the faces of the cards cannot be seen. > Regardless of the method used to shuffle, players' decks must be sufficiently > randomized. Each time players shuffle their decks (before the game or during > the game), they must present their decks to their predator for additional > shuffling and/or cutting. At the judge's discretion, players may request to > have a judge shuffle their cards rather than pass that duty to their predators. > By presenting their decks to their predators, players state that their decks > are sufficiently randomized. > > After decks are presented and accepted, players who do not consider their > opponents' decks to be sufficiently randomized must notify a judge. The head > judge has final authority regarding whether a deck has been sufficiently > randomized. > > Once predators have the opportunity to shuffle and/or cut players' decks, the > cards are returned to their original owners. If the predator has shuffled the > player's deck, that player may make one final cut. Fine, but what is the implication? Does moving cards within your deck based upon whether they have the same title constitute shuffling? How strict is the "cannot be seen" provision, considering the difficulty of shuffling in sleeves? - Jason Bell

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> > >> Shuffling is supposed to be random. Clumping is supposed to be a > >> possibility. > > Remember these words, Jason. Shuffling is supposed to be RANDOM. True > randomness includes the possibility of having a clump of all the same cards > together. Do you dispute that statement? No, what I dispute is the relationship between that statement and de-clumping your deck before or during the randomization process. > > more riffle shuffles. In Magic, the Canadian players began this > > tradition on the Pro Tour, and it has been upheld as an appropriate > > randomization technique, and is widely called the "Canadian > > Shuffle." In fact other competitive card games require that you > > can assure randomness before presenting your deck to be cut. > > It is assuredly NOT a randomization technique; it is a technique to ensure > a lack of clumping. Whether or not everyone accepts it without > understanding it fully is one thing, but it is definitely not "random". No, it does not ensure a lack of clumping, it merely increases the chance that the deck is randomized, by removing obvious ordered card arrangements within the deck. An inspection of the card faces can be useful to detect and dissipate obvious orderliness within the deck (multiple cards with the same name together, a great number of a certain card type together, repeated Torn Grapple Undead from last game's ash heap) which was not dissipated by regular shuffling or might not be dissipated in later shuffling. That you shuffle afterwards allows that such cards or types have the random chance of meeting again. It is sensible that this is more difficult for Jyhad players to understand, as the vampires are not distributed within the play deck. With Magic, it is perfectly clear that 10 lands next to one another may very well not randomly distribute with a bout of regular shuffling. I suppose Jyhad players could appreciate the example if it were 15 master cards one after the other. > > You, however, are free to wonder why you play > > game after game where you draw Mr. Winthrop, followed > > by Dominate, followed by Ivory Bow, and every other > > permanent that got scooped together from your previous > > game. It must just be one of life's randomization mysteries. > > Actually, I pile shuffle face-down first, then riffle 5-8 times, then > overhand a couple more times so I don't know what the bottom card is. How would you know what the bottom card is? The rules apparently require that the card faces "cannot be seen" while shuffling. Seriously, though, you would do well to break up your riffling with your overhands, as repeated riffle-shuffles are not a great randomization technique. Try 3 riffles, some overhand, 4 more riffles, then the overhand again to hide from yourself whatever information you gained by glimpses during shuffling. > I > find that this is very effective randomization, WITHOUT any cheating on my > part, since I don't ever turn the cards face-up. Accusations aside, I think you'll find that our goals are the same, to ensure a random draw. > > Just leave alone those of us who have played 15 minute games > > enough times (I may have played 10,000 games of Magic or more) > > to know how to randomize our decks between games. > > To know how to cheat, you mean? I'd expect nothing less from a Magic > player... everything I've seen of them indicates that they'll break any > rule they can get away with to win. Such casual slander. > When you advocate "shuffle better" as a remedy for clumping and > hand-jam, one can only assume that following your method of shuffling will > somehow reduce the number of identical cards that are next to each other, > and this is what you are advocating. I'm going to have to ask you again to cease putting text in quotation marks that I did not author. The original poster complained that he was repeatedly getting outcomes of very low probability (less than one half percent), so I offered the technique I used to help assure randomization when I play. Steve Bucy wrote: >However this last year has been nothing short of a total > nightmare for me with 90 card decks. At this point I'm willing to try > anything that may reduce variance and my cursed clumping problem. Even if > the difference is slight. I plan on playing some 75 card decks just to see > what happens. I understand the difficulty Jyhad players have differentiating between bad luck on draws and poorly randomized decks, because they play fewer games by such a large margin, have a greater number of cards, and rarely feel the full brunt of a non-randomized deck as Magic players do. You will merely continue to sling your accusations at me and shrug at Steve Bucy's experience as just bad luck, but I know his experience well, as do several of my Magic playing friends. It is not bad luck, it is what can happen when you fail to ensure that your deck is randomized. Ensuring randomization is not cheating, it is in fact required by the rules. > THIS IS NOT RANDOM. You can shout it as often as you like, it will not make your statement true. > However, if you want even more support, riffle shuffling is not perfect > with a 90-card deck, as it is difficult to actually "riffle" cards properly > and get a full interleave. (A 40-card deck is MUCH easier.) Three riffle > shuffles are simply not sufficient, as many of the cards you carefully > separated and "set" will still be next to each other... guaranteeing large > portions of your deck that had no chance to clump back up. Isn't that the > whole purpose of this shuffle, as you stated? Yes, and given that difficulty of perfectly interleaving on a shuffle, it makes even more sense to remove obvious orderly arrangement of cards before or during the randomization process, lest those orderly groups be part of the non-interleaved clumps. Point of information, you don't want perfect interleaving anyway, since riffle shuffling with full interleave is not a randomization technique. Don't believe me? Take 4 cards, and simulate a riffle shuffle twice, and you have the same order you started with. 8 cards? three times. 90 cards? 11 times. > Yes, I call it cheating. And yes, if I see someone doing this I'll riffle > their deck an additional 5-6 times. And your opponent will be happy for you to do it. More randomization can't be bad if random is the goal. Only less random can be bad. However, if you in addition call your opponent a cheater, he'll probably have the same opinion of you that I do. > Shuffling needs to take place face > DOWN. Do whatever you want while it's face down, even pile shuffle it > three or four times if you must, but when you look at the cards and > manually sort them, you remove all the effects of prior shuffling, and need > to perform a NUMBER of riffles afterwards to re-introduce the randomness. > More than 'three'. Disagree with the "all the effects of prior shuffling." I have no strong feelings about the proper number of final shuffles or when the de-clumping excercise should happen, but I tend to do a mix of riffle and overhand, and I tend to shuffle more than anyone else I know. - Jason Bell

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > Derek Ray wrote: > >> Read what I said again. Specifically, how does a 75-card deck that > >> can gain 3VPs while not running out of cards gain "enhanced > >> performance" from having a bunch of extra cards in the deck that > >> it'll probably need to get rid of, and two copies of a card that's > >> likely to be contested at some point in the game? > > > > Flammable, again on account of it being made of straw. > > Jason, I've often found that people who blather about "straw man! straw > man!" are simply ducking the question. And you're doing it right here. > Every bit of this question is relevant; you simply don't have an answer for > it, so you yap up your "straw man" nonsense. > > Keep yapping, but understand that I KNOW you are simply avoiding a made > point. Sigh. "having a bunch of extra cards in the deck that it'll probably need to get rid of" is a straw man. It is a straw man because it creates its own assumption that the deck in question has cards it does not need and knows which cards those are. There is no point addressing such an argument, as it has answered itself through its own inapt or limiting assumptions. Of course one should dispose of those cards or replace them with better choices. Your scarecrow also avoids or pretends to settle part of the larger discussion, where those extra cards were useful parts in existing ratios or specialized cards with enormous game effects, with a better overall chance of sifting the deck to reach the most time-appropriate cards. The only counter I've seen to this is the ever-so-slightly increased chance of getting particular cards or card-combos, not enough to counter the bonus of decreased fear of running out of cards and the opportunity of discarding critical cards when they arrive in hand at inopportune moments. - Jason Bell

"Peter D Bakija" <pd...@aol.comANTISPAM> wrote > Which is the deck's greatest flaw--too many Rush cards, and my hand gets jammed > with them. Too few, and I am totally useless. Perhaps I'll build the all > inherrent Attack deck. Lets see...3 Taco Bell, 3 Ebaneezer La Roush, 3 > Rooooooooxane, and, um, well, hmm. The Beast! - Jason Bell

On 23 Aug 2001, Brad Ward wrote: [snip] > . > Lets start with something simple, like two sacks of marbles. One sack has 5 > marbles the other sack has 10. The sack with 5 marbles has only 1 red marble > the sack with 10 marbles has 2 red marbles, So both sacks have 1/5th red marble > content. > . > Here's the question: If you draw 2 marbles from a bag, what are the chances of > that marble being a red marble? erm, "that" marble? i thought you drew two. now is it "at least one marble is red" or "all marbles are red" or "exactly one marble is red"? > Here's the Answer: > 5 marble bag: 1-(4/5)*(3/4)*(2/3)=50% erm, the formula you site comes to 3/5, which i beleive is 60% > 10 marble bag: 1-(8/10)*(7/9)*(6/8)=41.7% or, using "calculator" in windows, i seem to get 53.33% > Now on the surface, you seem to be right derek. The smaller bag has a 8.3% > greater chance of pulling the red marble. But now lets take this example into 6.67% assuming your formaulas are correct (because your answers weren't). let's see. small bag. > Jyhad comparing your 60 card with 2 assault rifles, to my 90 card with 3 > assault rifles: > . > Chances of drawing an assault in first hand (7 cards) > . > 90 card deck: 1-(58/60)*(57/59)*(56/58)*(55/57)*(54/56)*(53/55)*(52/54)=19.46% i got 22.15%, and it's actually the 60 card deck. > 60 card deck: 1-(87/90)*(86/89)*(85/88)*(84/87)*(83/86)*(82/85)*(81*84)=19.09% i got 21.79%, and it's the 90 card deck. and the formulas are "chances of drawing _at least one_". > . > Oh well look here, Now the difference is less than half a percent. this conclusion is still correct. _however_, the chances of drawing _exactly_ one will probably be quite different. personally, i don't really care one way or the other, so what those probabilities are i leave for the interested reader. just thought i'd shed some light on the stats here.... salem.

Pat Ricochet wrote: > > >>> Well, it's not THAT abstract. If I can make a 90-card of, well, ANY > >> type, I can try to make a 75 card version of it, right? All I have to do is > >> take out cards. > > > > Only if you don't count on running out of cards during the game as a > > result. > > (Hey, hey, watch the context, there! I was replying to the outrageous > and untrue "assuming you have 90 of every card" statement you snipped.) > Yes and no. If I run out of cards and still get 3 or more VPs, that > deck is success. As far as "counting on it," I elaborate on that below: I think we're basically in agreement here, more below. > > > >> The premise is this: for most 90 card decks, those the win lots and > >> those that don't win lots, you usually end up with 20+ cards left over in > >> your library at the end of the game (especially in 2-hour timeout > >> tournaments). Not only that, but every player has spent time discarding > >> cards they didn't need, whether duplicates of uniques, or just cycling to > >> get to "that card you need." > > > > Ending up with x cards should actually be counted only in those games > > where you achieve your goal, which should be to get a minimum of > > 3 VP and preferably to sweep. For simplicity, never count a game > > where you're not the last man standing. > > I disagree there. Last man standing with 2 VPs and cards left in a 5 > player game is a failure. All I should care about is 3 or more VP. Sure, > I'll try to sweep, but if I get 3/5 VP, I win, right? Yep, I never aim for last and 2VP, but I always aim for last and 3VP+, so I think we can agree upon what we disagree upon ;) > > Somewhat of a sideline to other posts: If you have a crypt that > requires duplicates, consider putting in some weenies instead of duplicates. > If you get an opening crypt of all weenies, even, you're not in BAD shape; > you can bring them out quickly, maybe grab an Edge, and go fishing for the > minions you need. And, I'd rather have Smudge and Andrea Giovanni in my > opening draw of 4 over 2 Andrea's. =) We're all in agreement here. I never duplicate weenies, and always include a few even in decks based on biggies, just to avoind sitting on my hands during the start-game. > > > >> But, to be honest, it's not totally unrelated. If you build a deck to > >> run through all it's cards by the end of the game, you have most all your > >> permanents in play, and you probably got them earlier on. And, since you DO > >> have less cards (undisputable fact), you are certainly more capable of > >> running out of cards, so you might toss in a .44, say, when designing the > >> deck. > > > > I partially agree here. I think the question to ask is how many cards will I > > be playing in average per action/reaction, and then start counting > > minions. If we assume an 12 round game the math should be pretty > > straightforward. > > Now, I've tried this one before, but never taken it to it's conclusion. > You kind of have to write off the first couple of turns as you get out > vampires, and ramp up the actions/reactions. Sure, you could make an > "average," but I think that's the wrong way to go. There's usually a few > turns of setup, and then you have out all the vamps you're going to have for > a while (till you get pool gain going enough to outstrip your pool loss), > and then you can use an average number. But, since that "mid game" is where > all the action is, it's a good place to look. I split all games into three phases. Start-game, middle-game and end-game. Just as in chess. You WILL be forgiven a mistake during the start and end-game, which also happens to be the phases players are most concerned about. You win or loose the game during the middle-game, and this is the phase most players play by routine without thinking. I believe this is what divides good players from bad ones. It's here that you hear the complaints about a bad deck - a deck that in the hand of another player will perform beautifully. > > > It's very deck dependent, of course, but let's try a basic bleeding > deck, maybe with some stealth or bruise. You expect to get out 3 or 4 > small-to-mid-caps, depending on your crypt draw or what's behind you. > > Turn 1: transfer 1-4 on a vamp. No one comes out. Discard? (1 card cycled) > > Turn 2: transfer 4 more, vamp comes out. Discard again. (+1=2 cards cycled) > > Prey/Predator turn 3: play 2 reactive cards (not neccesarily reactions, but > reaction, combat, etc.) (+2=4 cards cycled) > > Turn 3: Master, bleed with stealth or bruise, playing 3 cards. transfer 4, > get another vamp. Discard. (+5=9 cards cycled) > > Prey/Predator turn 4: (+2=11 cards cycled) > > Turn 4: Master, 4 active cards, transfer a third vamp out, discard (+6=17 > cards cycled) > > Ok, from here on, you can expect to cycle at least EITHER a Master OR a > Discard (if I've got no Master to play, I'm discarding to look for one, > usually), and probably 2 active and 1 reactive card per each of 3 vampires, > for about 10 cards each "full turn." > > Do this for turns 5,6,7,8,9 and 10, and you've cycled 77 cards, say. > You can probably bring out another vamp if you're still alive by then, and > so play 13 cards a turn (2 more active, and 1 more reactive card per turn), > so by turn 12 you've cycled 103 cards. The beginning-game ends after 22 transfer-points (ok 20 - 24 if we don't want to seem too exact). By this time a normal player either have that amount of vampire-cap-total on the table, or a weenie-deck is desperately bringing in vamp number five and six from the crypt. You then enter the middle-game you're describing above and below. > > > Anyone believe that? > Well, no, of course. Vamps get torporized and get rescued. Hand jam > happens, and you sit tight some turns, etc. Cardless actions happen; people > stop blocking you, so you don't get to play your bruise or your stealth. If > your deck actually flowed 10 cards perfectly each time around the table with > a bleed deck, you'd have already swept the table *before* turn 11 (the magic > 90 cards cycled turn, for this construct). > BUT, the question is, when "sh*t happens", do you lose out on action > cards or reaction cards? Both? > > (The idea of "averages" gets all messed up when you're playing an > Embrace weenie deck, of course, because your number of ready minions is > constantly changing. Or something like the "Turbo-Arika" deck, that does > nothing for 3 turns, and then ousts the table. =) > > I've seen a deck that won tournament finals once that was !Ventrue > counting on this kind of card flow. Lots of reactive cards all played when > not it's turn (Deflection, intercept, prevent), to fill it's hand with > active cards. Most decks do this to some degree, this was just tuned to the > right amount and kinds of cards to keep flowing right. > The deck can be found here: > http://people.atl.mediaone.net/intj/jpa/decks_Stu.htm > and be sure to read the descriptions and decks on "Bi" and "It's All > About the Flow (Bi 2.0)" before clicking on the links. > I've called the above 'green wave' 'blue wave' earlier, simplifying anything you play during your turn as a 'green' card, and everything you play during reactions as 'blue cards'. > > > >> The only one I've really hammered on is that in a 12 turn game, you get > >> 12 Master Phase actions, (usually 11, since so many Masters can't be played > >> on turn 1) and 12 discards. You can build a deck around the Parthenon and > >> the Barrens to get around these, introducing some fragility and > > > > I personally don't like discard-enhancers as they make me feel that I've > > failed during deck-construction somewhere else. I do have a fondness > > for mastercards and often play with Anson and the Parthenon, but that's > > because I can make good use of two masteractions. > > Which is somewhat of the type I'm thinking about, a Master-heavy deck, > but being open to Rumors of Gehenna, the World(of Darkness)'s Most Passable > Vote, since I'm tired of playing Anson. =) > ;) > > > > There's one obvious deck-type that'll make VERY good use of discard- > > enhancers, and that's a massive Embrace/Progeny -deck. You pour in > > far more diciplinecards than what's good for you and throw them away > > as they come, but in this case we're not discarding an unwanted card. > > An interesting variant I've seen is a Potence Shock Troops decks with > mostly Thrown Gates, but also with Cailean and Relentless Pursuit, so when > Cailean blocks, he can press, gain 2 cards, and be full of Potence skill > cards on his turn to drop the Shock Troops. Dreams is obviously good to > have, here, too, but not as a discard-enhancer as it's often seen, but > *truly* for it's hand-size increase. That's pure evil ;) Sten -- NetGuide Scandinavia AB http://www.netg.se/ Tankegangen 4 in...@netg.se 417 56 Goteborg Phone:+46 - (0)31 - 50 79 45 Sweden Fax: +46 - (0)31 - 50 79 39

[ quoted text not captured ] None other than the main, quoted above. > Does moving cards within your deck based upon whether they have the same > title constitute shuffling? Irrelevant, since "shuffling" must be done without seening the face of the cards. If pressed for an out-of-VEKN answer, I'd say "no" - stacking the deck in any form is the antithesis of shuffling. > How strict is the "cannot be seen" provision, considering the difficulty > of shuffling in sleeves? Strict. It is just as easy to shuffle in sleeves without seeing the faces as it is to shuffle in sleeves with seeing the faces. If a player has difficult properly shuffling a sleeved deck, she or her opponents are free to ask the judge to randomize her decks. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jason Bell wrote: > LSJ, I need VEKN's official position on this before I play > a tournament game. When and under what circumstances > will I be allowed to inspect the card faces in my deck > between games? I've read VEKN 3.2, but it is unclear > whether de-clumping should be considered "shuffling" > as defined there. You may look at the cards before beginning to shuffle them. De-clumping is non-random, by definition. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jason Bell wrote: > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > > It is assuredly NOT a randomization technique; it is a technique to ensure > > a lack of clumping. Whether or not everyone accepts it without > > understanding it fully is one thing, but it is definitely not "random". > > No, it does not ensure a lack of clumping, it merely increases the > chance that the deck is randomized, by removing obvious ordered > card arrangements within the deck. If a "randomizing" process is "sufficient" (as required by the VEKN rules), then it won't matter how clumped or not the deck is prior to the process. The deck has the same probability of being "clumped" afterward in either case. This is inherent in the idea of a "randomized" deck. > An inspection of the card faces > can be useful to detect and dissipate obvious orderliness within > the deck (multiple cards with the same name together, a great > number of a certain card type together, repeated Torn Grapple > Undead from last game's ash heap) which was not dissipated by > regular shuffling or might not be dissipated in later shuffling. If a given "randomizing" process benefits from de-clumping prior to the process, then the process is not "sufficiently" random. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2001 03:43:52 GMT, Jason Bell wrote: >I first invite you to talk to any Level 3 or better Magic judge for >clarification on the rule you've cited, before you get your foot any >farther down your throat. I remember this issue coming up about seven years ago on MTG-L. Folk with your point of view went down in flames then but maybe they have all grown up to be level-3 judges as smarter folk have moved on to other games. But the game itself has changed quite a bit in this time. Is there now an official source of guidances to judges, which amplifies the DCI rule? I used to study a handbook of this sort when I was a softball umpire but Magic used to have comparatively primitive rules - it was one reason I quit the game. >Next, I submit that if you present your deck for cutting without >assuring that you have re-distributed your ash heap, hand, and >cards in play from your last game into your library (or in the case >of Magic, lands, graveyard, hand, and in play), you are >in violation of the rule above. You do this by shuffling. You may not look at the cards while you're shuffling. >The original poster, who has had >a run of low probability outcomes (not seeing a card for half >his deck when he has 8 or more copies in the deck), is clearly in >violation of the "sufficiently randomized" rule, so is he doomed >to be called a cheater by you for this Catch-22? A run of low probability outcomes is not proof of cheating - quite the opposite in this case. Players don't want their cards to be clumped so clumping is a sign that players are not cheating. Instead, to call someone a cheat, you need to catch them manipulating the cards, e.g. by stacking their deck. >> The idea of randomisation is that the cards are equally >> likely to be in any position in the deck. It should be possible, if >> unlikely, for all of one type to be together. If the >> stacking/shuffling procedure is designed to prevent this then it is >> not random. > >This is only true if no shuffling occurs after the de-clumping. The shuffling should be "sufficiently random". This means that any prior declumping ought to be a waste of a time. If you think there's a point to it, then it demonstrates that you think that your shuffling is not sufficiently random. So, either you are wasting time or you are not randomising your deck. Either way, you are breaking the rules. Andrew

In message <sDii7.184347$J37.46...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> The original proposition did not make sure that "3 or more" riffle >> shuffles were in order after de-clumping. (As I recall, the optimum >> number in Poker etc. is usually 7.) Indeed, there were only 2 >> guaranteed riffles. > >This has to be some sort of bad joke. Surely you aren't trying >to parse "then riffle some more" into an absurd one riffle short >back-door criticism of this randomization technique? Given that during this process, the face up technique would be used, it's quite possible that it would be during this "riffle some more" anyway, which doesn't equate to what you later stated. And if you mean "riffle several times" write that. 2 riffles will *not* randomise a deck which has been part stacked. >> >In Magic, the Canadian players began this >> >tradition on the Pro Tour, and it has been upheld as an appropriate >> >randomization technique, and is widely called the "Canadian >> >Shuffle." >> >> It is useful to recall that the body for upholding such a decision in >> Magic and the body that would arbitrate such a decision in V:TES are not >> the same. > >It is also useful to recognize that Magic has been a successful Deckmaster >tournament game for at least 7 years, far longer than Jyhad/V:tES. So? They get many things wrong, like claiming that foils weren't marked cards when they clearly were. (See many threads on such in Magic groups everywhere, from some time back.) >The V:EKN can disregard the hard learned experiences It could. It is also useful to note the apparent change of heart in the Universal rules quote given elsewhere in the thread. By not allowing it, we would indeed be learning from such experiences. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <Ylji7.184499$J37.46...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >Before you wade into this, with your accompanying accusations, >I first invite you to talk to any Level 3 or better Magic judge for >clarification on the rule you've cited, before you get your foot any >farther down your throat. If Level 3 judges are deviating from the written rules, this is the DCI's problem, not ours. [ quoted text not captured ]

> With 4 Parthenon in your deck, 3 of them are cards you NEED to discard. > Stealth and/or intercept may be things you WANT to discard, but I would > much rather have the option to discard those than have all my late-game > discard phases locked up with cards that HAVE to be got rid of. > Sounds like fuzzy logic to me. The idea behind this thread was: "if you haven't used almost all your cards when you're ousted or win, make a smaller deck." Consequentely, If you put those 4 Parthenons in a 90card deck that after a full game only sees 45 cards, you've only used up 1 discard, you'll almost never see the other 2. I can happen of course, but the odds are not so bad. In a 60 card deck that's decked after most games, you will have to discard your second Parthenon too. AND having 2 Parthenons in a 60 card deck, gives a lower chance of drawing it early in the game compared to 4/90. Besides, making a 60 card deck into an 90 card one, makes room for other cards. These cards have over the course of the many years I play this game saved me more than they jammed my hand.

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > Jason Bell wrote: > > > > How strict is the "cannot be seen" provision, considering the difficulty > > of shuffling in sleeves? > > Strict. It is just as easy to shuffle in sleeves without seeing the faces > as it is to shuffle in sleeves with seeing the faces. But that's not what the rule says. It says "cannot be seen." which means by yourself or any other, presumably. In this case, shuffling in sleeves can be very difficult indeed, as even those who are adept at sleeve shuffling face to the table still often must place the cards on their sides to even the new interleaved stack. Try it, you'll quickly see what I'm talking about. Even if turning the faces outward is acceptable, it is not advisable, as the opponents may get a preview of what your deck does before play begins. > If a player has > difficult properly shuffling a sleeved deck, she or her opponents are > free to ask the judge to randomize her decks. But can a warning be assessed to the player whose shuffling is unacceptable to her predator, due to glimpse violations of the "cannot be seen" provision of 3.2? - Jason Bell

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote > Jason Bell wrote: > > >The original poster, who has had > >a run of low probability outcomes (not seeing a card for half > >his deck when he has 8 or more copies in the deck), is clearly in > >violation of the "sufficiently randomized" rule, so is he doomed > >to be called a cheater by you for this Catch-22? > > A run of low probability outcomes is not proof of cheating - quite the > opposite in this case. Not when the rule requires that the player assure the randomization of his deck. Repeated low probability outcomes provides evidence that the player is in violation of that rule. > >> The idea of randomisation is that the cards are equally > >> likely to be in any position in the deck. It should be possible, if > >> unlikely, for all of one type to be together. If the > >> stacking/shuffling procedure is designed to prevent this then it is > >> not random. > > > >This is only true if no shuffling occurs after the de-clumping. > > The shuffling should be "sufficiently random". The difference between "should" and "is" is quite a bit of acreage, and the entire thread began between those words. > This means that any > prior declumping ought to be a waste of a time. Ought to be, but I've played enough Deckmaster games to know that it is not a waste of time. Shuffling is not a perfect randomization technique, and if done perfectly is not a randomization technique at all. My solution is a mix of techniques (de-clumping, stacks of 7 on the table, riffle shuffling, overhand shuffling, etc.) to best assure my only goal, a random draw of cards. > If you think there's > a point to it, then it demonstrates that you think that your shuffling > is not sufficiently random. Precisely. In my experience, many people's shuffling (much like that of the original poster) is not sufficiently random. Since deck randomization is my responsibility as a player, I must do everything I can to ensure it. > So, either you are wasting time or you > are not randomising your deck. Either way, you are breaking the > rules. I disagree with this. I believe that shuffling a deck which has no visible order is more effective than shuffling a sorted deck, since standard shuffling is not guaranteed to separate adjacent cards, and cards recovered between games often are adjacent in non-random ways. So I inspect the deck for evidence of order that I can easily detect, and attempt to break those card arrangements before further attempting to randomize the entire deck. - Jason Bell

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote >, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes > >Before you wade into this, with your accompanying accusations, > >I first invite you to talk to any Level 3 or better Magic judge for > >clarification on the rule you've cited, before you get your foot any > >farther down your throat. > > If Level 3 judges are deviating from the written rules, this is the > DCI's problem, not ours. If the DCI found that it must augment its written rules in accordance with fair game play, and if the V:EKN imported vast segments of the DCI rules verbiage without noting the other lessons, it is certainly the V:EKN's problem, or will become so. Shall the V:EKN become like some banana republic, which imports all the trappings of democracy, but none of the guidance or widom of how to implement it? Does the V:EKN intend to sanction players for attempting to ensure the randomization of their decks? - Jason Bell

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > Jason Bell wrote: > > "Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > > > It is assuredly NOT a randomization technique; it is a technique to ensure > > > a lack of clumping. Whether or not everyone accepts it without > > > understanding it fully is one thing, but it is definitely not "random". > > > > No, it does not ensure a lack of clumping, it merely increases the > > chance that the deck is randomized, by removing obvious ordered > > card arrangements within the deck. > > If a "randomizing" process is "sufficient" (as required by the VEKN rules), > then it won't matter how clumped or not the deck is prior to the process. > The deck has the same probability of being "clumped" afterward in either > case. This is inherent in the idea of a "randomized" deck. > > > An inspection of the card faces > > can be useful to detect and dissipate obvious orderliness within > > the deck (multiple cards with the same name together, a great > > number of a certain card type together, repeated Torn Grapple > > Undead from last game's ash heap) which was not dissipated by > > regular shuffling or might not be dissipated in later shuffling. > > If a given "randomizing" process benefits from de-clumping prior to the > process, then the process is not "sufficiently" random. Then perhaps you would like to advise Steve Bucy on the proper solution to his randomization problem. I know an answer, because I've had to solve the problem myself, but if you want to offer him suggestions from your perspective, have at it. I must not cease de-clumping my deck, because I know from experience that failing to do so increases the chance of an obviously non-randomized deck (without regards to the amount of shuffling, I assure you), and I am responsible for ensuring that my deck is randomized. If I must be in violation of one of two rules, I must choose to obey the rule which is in service of the larger goal (a randomized deck). The same is true of the "cannot be seen" provision. If I find it impossible to properly shuffle my deck without occasional glimses of a card or two, I must disregard that provision in my attempt to ensure that my deck is shuffled, so long as I take action (overhand shuffles) after those glimpse shuffles to change the position of any glimpsed cards. - Jason Bell

Jason Bell wrote : >So I inspect the deck for >evidence of order that I can easily detect, and attempt to >break those card arrangements before further attempting >to randomize the entire deck. > You're making another simple mistake here, Jason. When you go through your deck to eliminate clumps of, say, Master cards, you are removing randomization. By "inspecting the deck for evidence of order that you can easily detect", you are destroying randomization. Randomization does not imply that the master cards must be equally distributed throughout the deck. If your deck ends up clumped after you perform a good, quality shuffle (without looking at the faces), that doesn't mean that the randomization was poor. Now, at the completion of a game it is certainly a good idea to go manipulate your deck, to ensure that your permanents aren't clumped. This is a sensible thing, but it is not randomizing the deck. After doing this, and before proceeding to the next game, you must then sufficiently shuffle your deck. Pausing in the middle of this to look at the faces and de-clump again, in the name of "randomization" is wrong. The very nature of randomization says you can't manipulate the order of the deck. Which leads to the one other confusion I see. You mistake two definition of "order". One is the way in which the cards themselves are organized in an enumerated list. The other is some subjective idea that order must consist of equally distributed masters, combat cards, reactions, etc. The first definition is the one involved in randomization; randomization is meant to ensure that no artificial order is present in the deck; i.e. that means that you don't get to set this order yourself. The second is completely divorced from randomization, seeking this type of order is cheating.

In message <P7Ai7.188498$J37.47...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >> If Level 3 judges are deviating from the written rules, this is the >> DCI's problem, not ours. > >If the DCI found that it must augment its written rules in accordance >with fair game play, and if the V:EKN imported vast segments of the >DCI rules verbiage without noting the other lessons, it is certainly the >V:EKN's problem, or will become so. V:EKN imported very little. The DCI rules did, of course. (Right down to "duels" in early versions.) [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:dEzi7.188327$J37.47...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... > > If a player has > > difficult properly shuffling a sleeved deck, she or her opponents are > > free to ask the judge to randomize her decks. > > But can a warning be assessed to the player whose shuffling > is unacceptable to her predator, due to glimpse violations > of the "cannot be seen" provision of 3.2? Yes, even if the seeing is accidental. [V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. Item 122.] -Robert Robert Goudie Chairman, V:EKN rob...@vtesinla.org

Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9107B1D1...@198.99.146.10>... > "Bradly Ward" <br...@jakescrane.com> wrote in > >> And then someone Arsons or contests your Barrens, and you die. I > >> have removed a weak point from my deck by not requiring the Barrens; > >> you have ADDED a weak point to yours. And what happens if you don't > >> draw the Barrens? With 2 in a 90-card deck, you still only have a > >> 75% chance of drawing one in your first 45 cards. > > > > Here you go again throwing out unrelated scenarios to make some type > > of weak counter argument. If you were to take your suggestions you'd > > Oh, no, not unrelated at ALL. The Barrens is a location. There are a lot > of new locations that have just entered play with Sabbat War and Final > Nights; location-destroyer cards are very common to see right now, as a > result. If you can't understand or don't accept this, then you're even > more of a damn fool than we all thought you were already. So now that locations are so succeptable to being destroyed and stolen have you stopped playing with them? Im not going to stop using the barrans just because some people finally discovered the value of Arson. Every deck will be susceptable to some form of attack. Also above you counter oone of your previous points about what to do with the extra copy of the barrens that you put in your deck. If your barrens gets arsoned you have a Backup copy in your deck to PUT INTO PLAY!. > > You have also missed the major point. The barrens is only there to > > help you get through most of your 90 card library since you dont have > > the ability to design (or play) a deck that can get through all its 90 > > in 10-15 turns. If you dont get the barrens fine, you just wont run > > out of your library is all. We both have seen the math a 90 deck > > Bradley, your entire point has been "take your good 75-card deck and add 13 > cards plus two Barrens, it'll run better". If I add in 13 cards that I > didn't need in the first place, and a location that I now DEPEND on to get > rid of those 13 cards, how the FUCK is this EVER going to be an > improvement? Because your deck cycles better, can last longer and still clumps almost identically to the 75 card version. Thats why its better you fuckwit. > That's right. IT'S NOT. All I will have done is add points of attack to > my deck and reduce its reliability. Boy, is THAT fucking dumb, huh? Your wrong, it is better and the math supports it. Boy you are fucking dumb. > Now, if I have a 75-card deck and it runs out of cards without getting 3VP, > then I damn well OUGHT to add more cards into it. But right now, I find > that I have no trouble building 70-80 card decks that gain 3VP or more, and > do not run out of library. And I don't have to include the Barrens or > Fraggie, and I NEVER include more than one Dreams of the Sphinx. I know you claim not to care about tournaments or ranking (because you suck) but in a tournamnet setting 5VPs is WAY better than 3 VPs even if in both cases you won the game. The goal is to get as many VPs as possible, not to get 3 and fizzle out and die. Even in fun games I notice most people have a desire to sweep the game, not just get 3 and then give up. > >> And until you've cycled 26 cards on > >> your own, you have LESS than a 50% chance of seeing one. That's more > >> than a quarter of your deck that you're going to have to burn through > >> on your own before you even can beat a coin flip! Really, Bradley, > >> the Barrens is a nice card, but hardly a be-all, end-all for the > >> game. > > > > Yup, exactly this means half the games of which you last 5 turns you > > will be putting the barrens into play. You dont have to put it out > > the first turn. > > "Number of cards played" looks like the left side of a bell curve, Bradley, > not a diagonal line. In the early game, everyone has fewer minions to even > PLAY the cards, play is moving a lot slower, and fewer cards get used. > It's only later in the game when people start to take actions with 4+ > minions and react to lots of actions that large numbers of cards start to > hit the table. And, you fail to address the issue that relying on the > Barrens and WITH 13 extra cards in your deck, if you get early-game hand > jam you'll be UNABLE to cycle through 26 cards to even reach that "50%" > point. What do you only play with IC members in your crypt? I usually have a minion out after turn 1. I start playing master cards on the second turn if not the first. Generally my games go something like this: turn 1: draw 7 cards +1 master played, +1 discard turn 2: +1 master, +1 action card, +1 action modifier, +1 discard turn 3: +1 master, +2 action, +2 modifiers, +1 discard turn 4: +1 master, +2 action, +2 reactions/modifier, +2 combat,+1 discard 26 cards before turn 5, and thats Fairly conservative (no barrens, parth, frag, dreams etc). Perhaps you should think a little before you spew raw BS, then again that just wouldn't be the good ole derek way. > We aren't even going to go into what happens to people who rely on a 50% > chance of something happening, by the way, other than to say that I sure > like playing them for money. The 80% point for getting 1 of 2 Barrens into > play is 49 cards, and you will DEFINITELY have noticed its absence by the > time you've moved over half your deck. I never said you had to rely on the barrens. You made this claim that by adding 13 cards you must get the barrens to discard them. You and your straw men. You put in 13 VALUABLE cards, not trash. If the barrens never comes up, no matter the deck would still play the same as a 75 card deck (1% variance). You also have contradicted yourself on your opinion of percentages. You think that 1.5% is such a wonderful advantage that you would pull 15 cards out of your deck and now you say you wouldn't use somthing that was 50% likely to happen. > > AGain you dont have to RELY on the barrens, the barrens is just a > > bonus dynamic power booster to any deck that sacrafices cards for > > enhanced performance. The Fragment is a double edged sword and I > > wouldnt put it in a deck that couldnt protect it. Dreams of the > > Sphinx would still work in this situation. > > You have totally failed to indicate how a 75-card deck that doesn't run out > of cards gains any sort of "enhanced performance" from gluing on 13 more > cards plus two Barrens. All it gains is a weak point and a bunch of fluff, > and a NEED to rely on the Barrens to get rid of its fluff. AGAIN, the enhanced performance is having an EXTRA discard every turn from the barrens. ANY deck would benefit from having an optional discard 1/turn. And again (trying to penetrate thick skull) dont glue on 13 crap cards, PUT IN 13 more "right cards". > I'd rather have more of the "right cards" in hand in the first place, so > that I only have to make use of my free discard. I'd rather judge my deck > carefully and ask myself "How many times will I REALLY need to play Carrion > Crows?", instead of blindly throwing in 12 of them and trusting to my > Barrens to dump them out of my hand when they clog up. You still should make these judgment calls when designing a deck with a barrens or without one. > correction: four. Such a statement is valid, because it indicates that 80- > card or less decks can indeed be effective without running out of cards. > Such a statement is made even more valid because I'm playing with some VERY > good players down here. You've already admitted Robyn, and whether or not > you admit it, Tatu is one as well. Such a statment is NOT valid because the caliber of your playgroup was UNKNOWN. Now *if* your finally saying you were playing with robyn you have finally added some validity to your point, thank you. > > I said "Big deal, for all I know you are playing with 14 year olds > > whom you are teaching the game too." > > You said a lot of other things too, Bradley. More backpedaling. And id say them again. > > Is this spewing bull shit about people I dont know? I'm just pointing > > out that winning a game of ping pong with your dog doesnt mean you are > > the ping pong champ of the world. I dont know who you played with > > that weekend. > By making and repeating all these statements, Bradley, you are both > assuming and DIRECTLY implying that the people I play with are poor players > and not "worthy tests" of my theories. If you believed they WERE suitable > tests, then you wouldn't have said anything at all, now would you? Sheesh. From reading your posts, I would assume that the players in your group are just as Mediocre as you are. It only makes since that if you want to qualify your wins in your backyard, the burdon of proving it was a stiff competition lies on your shoulders. > > You bragging about winning some games in your backyard means that you > > are only besting the level of competition in your backyard. > > This is correct: I'm only besting the level of competition in my backyard. Your concession is accepted. > >> It's fun to watch you cry and backpedal like a maniac. > > > > It was you who was crying when you thought I was talking bad about > > your jyhad buddies. > > What, you don't have friends who'll stand up for you? I know that I sure > as fuck will stand up for MY friends... and if you won't back up yours when > someone talks bad about them, then you really ARE a worthless piece of > shit. Who cares? My friends are irrelevant to this conversation and so are yours except to the level of compeitition they provide. > > Right, who is in your group? I still don't know who these poeple are. > > Is it Tatu and Robyn? > > Maybe if you put a little more substance rather than just bragging > > about winning some backyard games with 75 card decks. > > More criticism, even though you claim to not be talking bad about us. > Bradley, do you realize what a hypocrite and fool you're being here? Not until now have you finally come out of your closet and said who you have been playing with. It's amazing you would even try to use the word hypocrite. > > I think if you came to LA you would get your ass handed to you and > > almost never make it to a finals of a tournament. Have you ever made > > it to a final in a tournament? > > Multiple times, actually. It's one of the reasons I happen to somehow be > ranked ABOVE 3000. Your concession is accepted. I figured you would have had your ass handed to you multiple times. Also explains why you aren't in the top 100. :) > My worst finish so far when playing at least a semi-serious deck in a > constructed tournament is .. hmm. 6th place, in the Atlanta qualifier. I > have reached the finals of two others (tzimisce intercept, crypt machine), > and exploded gloriously with 0VP in one (Brujah flung-sewer-lid Rush), > which is why I qualify the above statement with "semi-serious"; I was > OPENLY out to have fun with that one. Hey you are capable of producing substance. Good job derek *applause*. You did leave the loophole in your statment "when playing at least a semi-serious deck" Do you regularly enter tournamnets with just crappy silly decks? How many semi-serious decks have you played in tournaments? Then again, I would probably consider all your decks crappy and silly. > I don't feel like I'm very good at sealed at all, > really, but fortunately that's not under discussion. I will accept your concession that you are no good at playing sealed decks. It is a sign of lacking intellegence to not to be able to quickly adapt to new situations. Or in this case to be able to quickly design a deck with limited cards in 30 mintues. > You've won a tournament with a 60-card deck -- supporting my point. Actually this supports my point. See derek, I actually *WIN* tournaments. I know what im doing. I specifically told you already that this deck was one of those corner cases of wanting a small library. It was a Waste managment deck that would re-compose the library to handle the current table set up. >How > many other finals appearances and wins do YOU have, Bradley? I'm sure that > such a ratings-conscious person as yourself will be able to quote from > memory. Ive attended about 9 tournaments last year. I can only remember not being in the finals once, one other time I missed getting into finals because I tied VPs with Robyn and she had 5 player tables when I was forced to sit at 4 player tables and recieved less table points as a result. So far I have generally *won* a little more than 1/3 of the tournaments I enter. This weekend I will be going to LA for the 4 tournaments they hold out there. I predict I should win at least 1 (maybe 2) of them if my history remains true. > I would also love to visit LA sometime. I think I would get along with all > the players there, and have some very enjoyable games and a hell of a lot > of fun. I hope to be able to manage a trip out someday. Alright, I would LOVE to play a game with you. Keith Thompson is holding a tourney out here in Las Vegas soon. Why dont you try your luck? Airfairs to and from Vegas are awesomely low. They have all kinds of specials for hotel rooms too. > > My point is that im not saying everyone sucks except me. Im saying > > that only you suck. > > Oh, I dunno, you're doing a LOT of saying that my entire playgroup sucks. > You're trying to disguise it thinly, but really, nobody is fooled. True, if I didnt know Robyn was in your playgroup I would go out on a limb and say they sucked just like you. Afterall Misery loves company. > My, this is a HUGE change from your previous attitude on Tatu's play. > Let's go back and quote, shall we? Bradley Ward said, in response to my > citing recent local wins with short decks: > > "That doesnt speak well for your playgroup. [...] Was it Tatu that blocked > all your equips? Ive had Tatu as my prey before, he sure could block a lot > of stuff. He didn't last too long that game though. [...] Saying you win > in your playgroup doesn't say much toward your caliber as a player. [...] > Maybe if you put a little more substance rather than just bragging about > winning some backyard games with 75 card decks." Yep, thats all pretty accurate. Tatu, played a malk deck that just seemed to block a lot. Didn't seem to do anything else. I quickly wiped him off the table with what you might call a silly deck. It was a Tremere weenie Burst deck and of course, it was 90 cards. And again you did just brag about winning in your backyard, never said who you were playing with. Guess you just have such a high opinion of me that I would just *know* who you play with. > While you've definitely done a LOT of backpedaling, you went and shot > yourself in the foot a couple times in this past message too. If I were > you, Bradley, I would just shut the fuck up about this and hope like hell > people forgot that I ever opened my mouth. Boy, your just an Ass arent you derek. No backpedeling here, none at all. You are still an Ass, Tatu is still nothing special (to me), and robyn is a great player. > > As far as Table games go, yes if you play perfectly you can edge the > > house to a 1.5% advantage when playing blackjack. If you play sloppy > > and I when I visit the tables most people do play incorrectly, the > > house gets more like a 25% advantage. I taught myself to count cards > > and have been able to push the odds to my advantage to date (4 years > > of gambling) ive taken $400.00 from the vegas casinoes. Not nearly > > enough to make a living, but the advantage is obviously in my favor. > > *snort* Uh, that's it? I made $400 at the blackjack tables last May, when > I visited Vegas for the BCA Nationals. I made $500 the year before that. > Each trip lasted for 10 days. And I'm a "cautious" gambler; I don't take > too many risks. I can't believe you BRAG about your ignorance in probability. Why dont you try playing Black Jack on and off for 4 years and keep track of how much you lose. Im sure your feeble mind couldnt count a 1 card deck, let alone a 5 deck shoe. If you do come out to vegas again, let me know. If you dont mind getting proved wrong in person, we could set up some games. > > High rollers and whales can sink a casino if they get lucky one > > weekend. Last month the Rio hotel and casino reported losses due to > > high stakes gambling. > > Yep. I bet they're just crying in their beer over it, too. The casinos > have plenty of cushion to soak the occasional bad run of luck. The Of course they do, since they take %10 of the money you put into their machines. > individual players don't, and that's why they always end up losing if they > stay at it long enough. Here you support me again, pointing out that winning $400 in 4 years of Black jack is *WAY* better than winning $400 in 10 days. It means I know how to work the probability of winning into my favor. As when you won, it was more likely due to dumb luck. > > I think I have joined the team that's willing to buy you a pint or pay > > you to shut up. Add another beer to that list. > > 'Fraid I'd hafta turn yore beer down, Bradley, unless you came up with an > apology fer some thangs you've said 'bout mah friends. Them pesky > Southerners, they shore got such weird PRIII-orities, don't they? Well, what can I say. I wish I could make you shut up since you rarely have anything good to say. but since you wont take my beer, ill just have to drink it myself and try to tolerate your blatherings. -Brad

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:ClAi7.188581$J37.47...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > If a given "randomizing" process benefits from de-clumping prior to the > > process, then the process is not "sufficiently" random. > > Then perhaps you would like to advise Steve Bucy on the proper > solution to his randomization problem. I know an answer, because > I've had to solve the problem myself, but if you want to offer > him suggestions from your perspective, have at it. Steve never said he had a randomization problem. You've restated his problem with clumping and a rough year of tournament results as a randomization problem. In his post he rightly prescribes his own treatment to the ill he has correctly identified as *variance*. -Robert

In message <e5b93701.01082...@posting.google.com>, Brad Ward <wa...@nevada.edu> writes >I know you claim not to care about tournaments or ranking (because you >suck) but in a tournamnet setting 5VPs is WAY better than 3 VPs even >if in both cases you won the game. The goal is to get as many VPs as >possible, not to get 3 and fizzle out and die. Note for reference: This may change in a re-write of the rules, whereby 5VP and 3VP will be similar on a per-round basis. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F They don't need to see you cry B457CA213D7E6 I can't promise I will heal you, but if you want to I will try 68C3695D623D5D

"Brad Ward" <wa...@nevada.edu> wrote in message news:e5b93701.01082...@posting.google.com... > Ive attended about 9 tournaments last year. [clip] >So far I have generally *won* a little more than 1/3 of the > tournaments I enter. Of the 8 tournaments we've held at L.A. conventions in 2001 , you've won one tournament. > This weekend I will be going to LA for the 4 tournaments they hold out > there. I predict I should win at least 1 (maybe 2) of them if my > history remains true. ????? -Robert

Jason Bell wrote: > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > If a given "randomizing" process benefits from de-clumping prior to the > > process, then the process is not "sufficiently" random. > > Then perhaps you would like to advise Steve Bucy on the proper > solution to his randomization problem. I know an answer, because > I've had to solve the problem myself, but if you want to offer > him suggestions from your perspective, have at it. Suggestion: randomize the deck. > I must not cease de-clumping my deck, because I know from > experience that failing to do so increases the chance of an > obviously non-randomized deck (without regards to the > amount of shuffling, I assure you), and I am responsible for > ensuring that my deck is randomized. If I must be in > violation of one of two rules, I must choose to obey the rule > which is in service of the larger goal (a randomized deck). De-clumping is a separate and unrelated process. Take any deck, clumped or not, and randomize it sufficiently and you will be unable to determine it's state (clumped, etc.) before the process. That's the nature of "sufficient" randomization. Your experience is merely indicating that the randomizing process you implement is not sufficient. > The same is true of the "cannot be seen" provision. If I find > it impossible to properly shuffle my deck without occasional > glimses of a card or two, I must disregard that provision in > my attempt to ensure that my deck is shuffled, so long as I > take action (overhand shuffles) after those glimpse shuffles > to change the position of any glimpsed cards. Ask a judge - she'll be happy to randomize the deck for you without seeing the card faces. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jason Bell wrote: > "Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote > > If you think there's > > a point to it, then it demonstrates that you think that your shuffling > > is not sufficiently random. > > Precisely. In my experience, many people's shuffling (much like > that of the original poster) is not sufficiently random. Since > deck randomization is my responsibility as a player, I must do > everything I can to ensure it. De-clumping does not make the shuffling process more random. More shuffles (of various types), as you say you perform, is what increases the randomness of the process. > > So, either you are wasting time or you > > are not randomising your deck. Either way, you are breaking the > > rules. > > I disagree with this. I believe that shuffling a deck which has > no visible order is more effective than shuffling a sorted > deck, since standard shuffling is not guaranteed to separate > adjacent cards, and cards recovered between games often > are adjacent in non-random ways. So I inspect the deck for If true then the "standard shuffling" is not sufficiently random. > evidence of order that I can easily detect, and attempt to > break those card arrangements before further attempting > to randomize the entire deck. ... before beginning to randomize the deck. A process which should render any prior de-clumping moot. [ quoted text not captured ]

wa...@nevada.edu (Brad Ward) wrote in news:e5b93701.01082...@posting.google.com: <nothing important ...snipped> Brad, I've already proven my point in a different thread, while talking to someone who is FAR more capable of coherent thought than you'll ever be (Peter Bakija, and others). It's also worth noting that you continually avoid putting any substance behind your babble, instead preferring to froth at the mouth with rabid, meaningless personal attacks worthy only of a five-year-old, while refusing to actually -read- anything I say. And you appear to have represented your tournament performance much differently than others remember it... not to mention your game with Tatu, where you seem to have had all your vampires put in torpor and had to get them rescued by your predator? Yeah, you really kicked ass there, kid. Blather as much as you'd like, but frankly, after speaking to a number of people who are familiar with you, I see no need to continue to respond; you're just a bag of hot air with no actual substance, much as I suspected. You yap and yap about tournaments, yet you fail to mention that you totally failed to qualify for the NA Championships. Everyone from our playgroup who entered (8 of us, i believe) a tournament qualified, including three players who qualified twice in two different locations. Clearly, we suck. I intend to continue this discussion with others who are willing to debate the actual issues involved; indeed, I already am. You may respond or not, and say what you please; but I'm done leading you around on a hook; you aren't really capable of a functional debate.

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in news:G%zi7.188454$J37.47735347 @typhoon.southeast.rr.com: > "Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote >> Jason Bell wrote: >> >> >The original poster, who has had >> >a run of low probability outcomes (not seeing a card for half >> >his deck when he has 8 or more copies in the deck), is clearly in >> >violation of the "sufficiently randomized" rule, so is he doomed to >> >be called a cheater by you for this Catch-22? >> >> A run of low probability outcomes is not proof of cheating - quite the >> opposite in this case. > > Not when the rule requires that the player assure the randomization > of his deck. Repeated low probability outcomes provides evidence > that the player is in violation of that rule. from www.m-w.com: Main Entry: random Function: adjective Date: 1565 2b: being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence <a random sample> The set in question is all the possible arrangements of the cards in your deck, from all-clumped to all-separate. "sufficiently shuffled" is supposed to select one arrangement from that set at random. Let's take an extremely simple example. Suppose I have a deck of six cards, three of which are Minion Tap, two of which are Fifth Tradition, and one of which is Lost in Crowds. A truly random shuffle would ensure that the deck order of: {MT, MT, MT, 5th, 5th, Lost} ...would be equally as likely to occur as: {MT, 5th, Lost, MT, 5th, MT} One is totally clumped, one is totally non-clumped. BOTH should be equally likely. If you use ANY method to give yourself a greater chance of having a non-clumped deck, then your shuffle is not random. It's that simple. If you have shuffled sufficiently (facedown pile shuffle, plus many riffle shuffles/overhands), and your deck STILL turns up clumped, congratulations; you have just proven why "random" means "random". It's supposed to be possible for this to happen.

>>> I partially agree here. I think the question to ask is how many cards will I >>> be playing in average per action/reaction, and then start counting >>> minions. If we assume an 12 round game the math should be pretty >>> straightforward. >> >> Now, I've tried this one before, but never taken it to it's conclusion. >> You kind of have to write off the first couple of turns as you get out >> vampires, and ramp up the actions/reactions. Sure, you could make an >> "average," but I think that's the wrong way to go. There's usually a few >> turns of setup, and then you have out all the vamps you're going to have for >> a while (till you get pool gain going enough to outstrip your pool loss), >> and then you can use an average number. But, since that "mid game" is where >> all the action is, it's a good place to look. > > I split all games into three phases. Start-game, middle-game and end-game. > Just as in chess. Which is really how I should have done it; I guess I basically got up to the "middle-game" and then extrapolated "mid-game" out to the end, not really accounting for a "end-game" except to cover up my own result as erroneous (since, well, it disputed my own claims =) > You WILL be forgiven a mistake during the start and end-game, which also > happens to be the phases players are most concerned about. You win or loose "lose" Sorry, pet peeve. =) > the game during the middle-game, and this is the phase most players play > by routine without thinking. I believe this is what divides good players from > bad ones. It's here that you hear the complaints about a bad deck - a deck > that in the hand of another player will perform beautifully. Well, I hear about that more when a "good deck" (one that does well) gets handed to a not-as-good player and it does poorly. And that's also a function of playing your own deck that you know well, both simple number counting of cards you know up to ideas of how to best agitate the table to your advantage. What's bizarre is the "here, try this"...*SWWEEEP* effect that happens when you take a deck that you THINK should do well and give it to someone else to play and it runs *perfectly*, just like you planned it to. Could be environmental, etc. but it happens eerily often, IME. Like, if you can't make a "good deck" go like you think, it's just bad mojo that you will never do well with it, but others will. (Or it could be some bizarre effect of making a deck that you *don't* play well for some reason, like you "made someone else's deck," and then tried playing it, and then you "gave it back" to "the right person." I dunno, it's just odd. =) >> Ok, from here on, you can expect to cycle at least EITHER a Master OR a >> Discard (if I've got no Master to play, I'm discarding to look for one, >> usually), and probably 2 active and 1 reactive card per each of 3 vampires, >> for about 10 cards each "full turn." [contextually appropriate and only slightly misleading snip] > I've called the above 'green wave' 'blue wave' earlier, simplifying anything > you play during your turn as a 'green' card, and everything you play > during reactions as 'blue cards'. Well, except that some aren't so easy. I'm playing Change of Target as "green," certainly, and "Obedience" as "blue," but designing a deck I can't classify "Spiritual Intervention" (or really, most any combat card) as either. It's descriptive, but I'd really like a method for predicting about how many of each card I'm going to play in a game, right? =) -- Pat Ricochet Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta

[note to self: It is infuriatingly difficult to write a post thinking your words will be taken the wrong way, no matter what you say, including, but not limited to "this is a serious question" and "It is infuriatingly difficult to write a post thinking your words will be taken the wrong way..." , well, you get the point. You go in circles, adding clarifications and then erasing them and then putting them back, and so on. Either this preface will make the entire following post "stinky troll bait," or the post itself might be taken as such unless I include such a preface. Quite the Catch-22, really.] > "having a bunch of extra cards in the deck that it'll probably need > to get rid of" is a straw man. It is a straw man because it creates > its own assumption that the deck in question has cards it does not > need and knows which cards those are. There is no point addressing > such an argument, as it has answered itself through its own inapt > or limiting assumptions. Of course one should dispose of those > cards or replace them with better choices. I'm not sure which you're arguing toward here: There are two ways this discussion can evolve, that I think you'll agree are both to beaten horse corpses: 1) Toolbox vs. Focus: Pretty dry ground, interesting as it is. 13 cards that might help you and might not. Some games you'll choke on them and die, some games they'll save your ass. YMMV. 2) Larger/Smaller is Always better: When you're thinking about straight ratios of increase (7 Deflections in a 70 card deck vs. 9 in a 90 card deck that you almost never see the bottom 20 cards yada yada), and the math has come down on the marginal favor of smaller decks, assuming you continue to not run out of cards. > Your scarecrow also avoids or pretends to settle part of the larger > discussion, where those extra cards were useful parts in existing > ratios or specialized cards with enormous game effects, with a better > overall chance of sifting the deck to reach the most time-appropriate > cards. In light of what I've said above, that sentence doesn't make any sense to me. What does "part of the larger discussion" mean? * "useful parts in existing ratios": See (2), above. Mathematically comes down on one side. * "or": makes "the larger discussion" an inappropriate phrase, since you go on to mention 2 different discussions. * "specialized cards with enormous game effects": See (1), above. Again, fascinating regional differences of deckbuilding styles, but it's settled down (so far) that neither is inherently better, but people stick by their guns since they'll play best what they build themselves, yada yada. > The only counter I've seen to this is the ever-so-slightly > increased chance of getting particular cards or card-combos, Assuming we agree on the definition of "marginal," it IS a counter that we agree exists. > not enough to counter the bonus of decreased fear of running > out of cards "Fear" isn't really quantifiable. As far as "decreased *chance* of running out of cards," nothing really proves that on either side, so far. All the evidence is anecdotal, at best (in that sense, "fear" is really a better word for it. =) My personal experience is that when I take a deck that keeps jamming or having 20+ cards left over, and take out 10 or 15, it doesn't suddenly start running out of cards. Furthermore, whenever I build a deck at 80 cards, it also doesn't run out of cards, even getting 3+VPs, and yes, even sweeps at 5 player tables. Again, I'm talking about ~2 hour games with an average game length of 12 turns (though recent counting has been pushing the number down to 11 or 10, locally), YMMV, and damn well will if you like 7-player, 6-hour marathons. (Personally, I'm also in the camp that doesn't care about the 90-card deck limit: IF you believe 90 is too big, WHY would you care about 100+? You shouldn't, and I don't.) > and the opportunity of discarding critical cards when > they arrive in hand at inopportune moments. This is perhaps quantifiable, but is currently anecdotal, so far. If you'd like to shore up that with proof, I'm all ears. My gut feeling is that it's the opposite side of the variance curve: With 9 Deflections in a 90 card deck, if I have 2 in hand early on, it's okay that I discard one if I smell votes behind me, "I've got 7 left." But, with the 7 in the 70 card deck, I'm less likely to HAVE 2 in my opening hand, simply by the variance. Now, a better example might be something showing up early that you only want later on, like Smiling Jack, the Anarch. But the smaller deck wins out there, since you can discard the fewer multiples of the extra copies in fewer discards, freeing up you discards for "stuff you just don't need this game/turn/etc." But now we're back to the "critical card in hand at inopportune moments" part, and I'm going in circles by myself. Help me along here: specific example of decks with such cards, and the numbers of those cards in the say, 90 and 75 card versions? (heck, 90 and 60 if you want to go nuts and make it clear, just keep in mind I think 60 is too little except in extreme cases.) [ quoted text not captured ]

>> With 4 Parthenon in your deck, 3 of them are cards you NEED to discard. >> Stealth and/or intercept may be things you WANT to discard, but I would >> much rather have the option to discard those than have all my late-game >> discard phases locked up with cards that HAVE to be got rid of. >> > Sounds like fuzzy logic to me. The idea behind this thread was: "if you > haven't used almost all your cards when you're ousted or win, make a smaller > deck." Basically, so long as "smaller" doesn't mean "leap down to 60 cards." =) > Consequentely, If you put those 4 Parthenons in a 90card deck that after a > full game only sees 45 cards, you've only used up 1 discard, you'll almost > never see the other 2. It can happen of course, but the odds are not so bad. Okay. I think this deck cycles pretty badly, or has highly efficient "oust-per-card-ability." =) But seriously, "full game" I assume means you lasted till near the end, right? Not getting ousted quickly? > In a 60 card deck that's decked after most games, Hold it right there. That's not really a good comparison, is it? A 90 card deck that cycles 45 cards vs a 60 card deck that cycles all 60 cards? > you will have to discard > your second Parthenon too. But if your 90 card deck was ALSO cycling 60 cards you'd see 2/3 of 4 Parthenons, which is...well, 8/3 of a Parthenon, or almost 3. That means you'd be "using up" 1 extra discard every third game, but using up *2* extra discards the other 2 games, neh? > AND having 2 Parthenons in a 60 card deck, gives > a lower chance of drawing it early in the game compared to 4/90. Sure. But, given how poor the analogy is, that's kind of unimportant. If you fill in "3 Parthenons in a 90 card deck that cycles ~60 cards each game" and "2 Parthenons in a 60 card deck that cycles all it's cards each game" THEN it's a relevant comparison. Except that the results completely change to irrelevancy. =) > Besides, making a 60 card deck into an 90 card one, makes room for other > cards. These cards have over the course of the many years I play this game > saved me more than they jammed my hand. YMDV, then. I've never turned a 60 card deck into a 90 card one, myself; I usually start at 80 or 90 and then pare down those cards that "jammed my hand" and keep the ones that "saved me" often enough. =) Assuming "other cards" means not just 1.5 more of everything in the 60 card deck, but means new stuff added to the deck to help it out in multiple situations, then we're discussing toolbox vs. focused decks. Such decks are harder to trim down, of course (taking out one of 2 Delaying Tactics is half your "vote defense," say) but all the results of (slightly) increased reliability still hold if you can find, say, 10 cards to take out. [ quoted text not captured ]

> Shall the V:EKN become like some banana republic, which imports > all the trappings of democracy, but none of the guidance or widom > of how to implement it? I'm curious how you'd reply to your own post here. I've got a guess or two as to what you'd say. > Does the V:EKN intend to sanction players for attempting to > ensure the randomization of their decks? Loaded question, Jason. (See: "Have you stopped beating your wife?") You are attempting to ensure that your deck doesn't clump between games, which is at odds with "randomization," which several other posts have stated in a variety of ways in hopes you'll understand.[0] IF you want to INCORRECTLY identify such as "ensur[ing] the randomization of [your] deck," then I'm quite sure a competent judge will sanction players such as yourself for this behavior. But, it is quite unfair to the judges to accuse them in those words, since they're entirely misleading. Curiously, this entire belief system calls into question *any* opinion you have on the effect of variance of smaller vs. larger decks, since you artificially reduce the naturally larger variance of the larger deck using your shuffling method.[1] [0] Here's one more: If you tell a person to make a pattern of random dots in a square, they'll get it wrong. They won't put as many dots close to each other or the edges as true randomness does, they'll go for roughly evenly spaced dots, really, which is more a representation of an ensemble average of many samples than of an actual random sample. [1] Again, I'm not quite the first to say this, but I also missed that Robert was touching on this in an earlier post, and only truly understood his point when I realized it myself. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Besides, making a 60 card deck into an 90 card one, makes room for other >> cards. These cards have over the course of the many years I play this game >> saved me more than they jammed my hand. > > Assuming "other cards" means not just 1.5 more of everything in the 60 > card deck, but means new stuff added to the deck to help it out in multiple > situations, then we're discussing toolbox vs. focused decks. Such decks are > harder to trim down, of course (taking out one of 2 Delaying Tactics is half > your "vote defense," say) but all the results of (slightly) increased > reliability still hold if you can find, say, 10 cards to take out. Sorry; forgot a key phrase there that got lost between the brain and the keyboard: "...but all the results of (slightly) increased reliability..." should go on to say "...of the decks core strategy/combos..." before saying "...still hold if you can find, say, 10 cards to take out." That is, your Vote/BO/Voter Cap will show up in your hand with more reliability (assuming no change in ratios of "core combo cards"), but if you took out one of your only 2 Sports Bikes (all your intercept), certainly your intercept reliability will decrease. [ quoted text not captured ]

Pat Ricochet wrote: > > > I've called the above 'green wave' 'blue wave' earlier, simplifying anything > > you play during your turn as a 'green' card, and everything you play > > during reactions as 'blue cards'. > > Well, except that some aren't so easy. I'm playing Change of Target as > "green," certainly, and "Obedience" as "blue," but designing a deck I can't > classify "Spiritual Intervention" (or really, most any combat card) as > either. It's descriptive, but I'd really like a method for predicting about > how many of each card I'm going to play in a game, right? =) > > -- > Pat Ricochet > Soul Jar'rn Fool of Atlanta Herein lies the beauty ;) Several arguments about good/bad cards end up in if the card in question is a multipurpose card. These are generally considered to be GOOD. Now, most designers seem to consider only those cards that are explicitly having two distinctly different effects as multipurpose, but several other cards that have only one effect can be played for good usage in several situations. People don't refer to these as multipurpose, only accept that they (almost) never jam your hand. Any card that can be used in (almost) any situation is a multipurpose card, and they also tend to be support-cards. You decide what you want to do, pick those cards, and then you add support-cards to help you doing it. I'll happily say that Majesty is a multipurpose card (until I'm stuck with an Immortal Grapple or Thoughts Betrayed *grin*) as it either leaves me with a bonus blocker/bouncer or gives me an additional action. So I try to build a deck counting how many card-consuming actions or reactions I'll probably do during a game (that I win), and then I add the support-cards. Admittedly I start out deciding the D-rating I'll be able to handle and inflict. Sten -- NetGuide Scandinavia AB http://www.netg.se/ Tankegangen 4 in...@netg.se 417 56 Goteborg Phone:+46 - (0)31 - 50 79 45 Sweden Fax: +46 - (0)31 - 50 79 39

On 28 Aug 2001 05:30:34 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: >from www.m-w.com: > >Main Entry: random >Function: adjective >Date: 1565 >2b: being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose >elements has equal probability of occurrence <a random sample> That's naughty - you just have picked just one of several explanations of the word. My dictionary also gives "irregular" as a meaning for the word which would fit the way Jason sees this. Given that this is a common misconception, the VEKN rules could help by defining the matter more rigorously. Continuing to parrot the DCI rules is dangerous as it implies that the game will follow Magic's precedent and practise. Andrew

"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:B7B0BA7D.6C0F%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu... > >> With 4 Parthenon in your deck, 3 of them are cards you NEED to discard. > >> Stealth and/or intercept may be things you WANT to discard, but I would > >> much rather have the option to discard those than have all my late-game > >> discard phases locked up with cards that HAVE to be got rid of. > >> > > Sounds like fuzzy logic to me. The idea behind this thread was: "if you > > haven't used almost all your cards when you're ousted or win, make a smaller > > deck." > > Basically, so long as "smaller" doesn't mean "leap down to 60 cards." =) > > > Consequentely, If you put those 4 Parthenons in a 90card deck that after a > > full game only sees 45 cards, you've only used up 1 discard, you'll almost > > never see the other 2. It can happen of course, but the odds are not so bad. > > Okay. I think this deck cycles pretty badly, or has highly efficient > "oust-per-card-ability." =) > But seriously, "full game" I assume means you lasted till near the end, > right? Not getting ousted quickly? > Yup, sweeping even. The deck has a REALLY long build-up, a variation on the GNSP deck. (Hey, Pat, a Pre-FN Giovanni-based deck that swept ;-) ) > > > In a 60 card deck that's decked after most games, > Hold it right there. That's not really a good comparison, is it? A 90 > card deck that cycles 45 cards vs a 60 card deck that cycles all 60 cards? > I know. Using extremes to make a point is easy, but I'm a lazy, lazy man. ;-) <snip stuff I know is about right, my probability math is very rusty> >>Besides, making a 60 card deck into an 90 card one, makes room for other >> cards. These cards have over the course of the many years I play this game >> saved me more than they jammed my hand. >YMDV, then. QUE? I've never turned a 60 card deck into a 90 card one, > myself; I usually start at 80 or 90 and then pare down those cards that > "jammed my hand" and keep the ones that "saved me" often enough. =) > Assuming "other cards" means not just 1.5 more of everything in the 60 > card deck, but means new stuff added to the deck to help it out in multiple > situations, then we're discussing toolbox vs. focused decks. This is the real issue here, IMO. (look below) Such decks are > harder to trim down, of course (taking out one of 2 Delaying Tactics is half > your "vote defense," say) but all the results of (slightly) increased > reliability still hold if you can find, say, 10 cards to take out. That's why I build my decks the other way around. I try to make a 60 cards extremely focussed deck (which I hate to play more than 1 game with, BTW), then try to inflate to 90 cards. With the right kind of rounding down (say everything above x.5) and tuning there's now room for other cards, who will make for a better rounded deck. A little extra oompf to minimise the R-P-S thing. The addition of 1 Island of Yaros and 1 Death of My Conscience and 2 disarm in my Nossie prince deck have saved it on numerous occassions. If i was to trim it down to 75 cards, there wouldn't be room for them. But, IMO, it all comes down to deck- and playstyle. If you're playing a focussed deck, by all means go as low as you can (cardwise, that is.) If you like playing toolboxy affairs, I'd say go as close to 90 as you can. Jeroen

"Pat Ricochet" <sp...@socrates.gatech.edu> wrote in message news:B7B0AAD3.6C00%sp...@socrates.gatech.edu... [ quoted text not captured ] Other Point: Having 6 Minion Taps in your 90card deck makes i less likely to have them all SR-ed than having 4 MT in an (I know extreme) 60 card deck. In this case, the different variance of drawing the same card more than once in your hand will be in your advantage. Note: I play in an 'High SR' metagame. Some people here will pack 4 SR in almost every deck. That's 8 for your prey and predator combined. And BTW, our average game lasts 14-16 turns, not 10-12, probably a case of too much "I won't damage you next turn if..."-dealmaking. jeroen

Derek Ray with 2 ">" > > correction: four. Such a statement is valid, because it indicates that 80- > > card or less decks can indeed be effective without running out of cards. > > Such a statement is made even more valid because I'm playing with some VERY > > good players down here. You've already admitted Robyn, and whether or not > > you admit it, Tatu is one as well. Brad Ward with 1 ">" > Such a statment is NOT valid because the caliber of your playgroup was > UNKNOWN. Well, lets fix that little problem for you then. First off, Derek plays in Atlanta. Atlanta has had a website advertising its players for at least the last 3 years that I remember, including examples of their decks (out of date), strategy articles that have inspired decks in other countries (Aggressive Intercept, Basic Deck Building Concepts), and a player listing among other things. http://people.atl.mediaone.net/intj/jpa/index.htm Atlanta is the: Home of Todd Bannister, one of the Final Nights Designers. Home of David Davila, Elder Library Deck Builder Programmer, winner of the Atlanta Qualifier for the North American Championship. Home of Robyn Merrill, 1 of only 6 players to qualify multiple times for the North American Qualifier, qualified in Atlanta and at Origins. Home of Mike Perlman, 1 of only 6 players to qualify multiple times for the North American Qualifier, qualified in Atlanta and Dallas. Home of Jeff Thompson, 1 of only 6 players to qualify mulitple times for the North American Qualifier, winner of the Seattle Qualifier and qualified at GenCon. Home of David Tatu, qualified for the North American Qualifier at Origins. Home of Patrick O'Shea, qualified for the North American Qualifier at Atlanta, author of the Giovanni Newsletter. Notice also that three of the above people judged Qualifier tournaments. (Todd - Atlanta, Robyn - LA, Jeff - Dallas) Yeah, we are probably just 14 year olds that Derek is teaching. Pretty clear from a web-based perspective, nothing hidden, no rug pulled over your eyes. > Now *if* your finally saying you were playing with robyn you have > finally added some validity to your point, thank you. > > > > I said "Big deal, for all I know you are playing with 14 year olds > > > whom you are teaching the game too." Nope. Not a single one under 25 would be my guess. Not a single one playing for less than 3 years either. > > You said a lot of other things too, Bradley. More backpedaling. > > And id say them again. Because you pay so little attention to who is speaking and what their backgrounds are as to not care, or just because you like to insult people who didn't find you particularly offensive at a distance? > > > Is this spewing bull shit about people I dont know? I'm just pointing > > > out that winning a game of ping pong with your dog doesnt mean you are > > > the ping pong champ of the world. I dont know who you played with > > > that weekend. > > By making and repeating all these statements, Bradley, you are both > > assuming and DIRECTLY implying that the people I play with are poor players > > and not "worthy tests" of my theories. If you believed they WERE suitable > > tests, then you wouldn't have said anything at all, now would you? Sheesh. > > From reading your posts, I would assume that the players in your group > are just as Mediocre as you are. It only makes since that if you want > to qualify your wins in your backyard, the burdon of proving it was a > stiff competition lies on your shoulders. Yep. We are clearly mediocre. Hope your playgroup gets to be so mediocre at some nationally competitive level sometime in the future. > > > You bragging about winning some games in your backyard means that you > > > are only besting the level of competition in your backyard. > > > > This is correct: I'm only besting the level of competition in my backyard. > > Your concession is accepted. And your ignorance revealed, again. > > >> It's fun to watch you cry and backpedal like a maniac. > > > > > > It was you who was crying when you thought I was talking bad about > > > your jyhad buddies. > > > > What, you don't have friends who'll stand up for you? I know that I sure > > as fuck will stand up for MY friends... and if you won't back up yours when > > someone talks bad about them, then you really ARE a worthless piece of > > shit. > > Who cares? My friends are irrelevant to this conversation and so are > yours except to the level of compeitition they provide. Now you know. > Ive attended about 9 tournaments last year. I can only remember not > being in the finals once, one other time I missed getting into finals > because I tied VPs with Robyn and she had 5 player tables when I was > forced to sit at 4 player tables and recieved less table points as a > result. So far I have generally *won* a little more than 1/3 of the > tournaments I enter. Really, you won 4 of 9. (As this is the only quantity more than 1/3, ie 3, that is not also more than 50%.) That's pretty amazing. Shall we take a look at the decks you have been willing to admit to? One tournament with Malk Stealth Bleed with Pranks, http://vtesinla.org/deckMalkPrank.htm, and one deck that supports the idea that a well designed deck can do well with less than 90 cards, http://vtesinla.org/blackcat.htm. Good for you. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

The Lasombra wrote: > Derek Ray with 2 ">" > Brad Ward with 1 ">" > [Cutting away loads of adolecent ravings above] Ok, I don't care who's insulting who. I don't care about who's right or wrong. I do care about watching almost all interesting threads on the newsgroup going down into a stupid flamewar. I'm 35 years old, so I no longer need to feel welcome into a forum as long as I can eventually digest useful information and communication from it. Fifteen years ago, I'd be either scared shitless or simply incredibly pissed off. No matter what, I would have (with VERY good reason) told my entire playgroup that the international VTES-community is of negative to low interest for any players interested in the game. The newcomers of today are tomorrows playerbase and we don't need to isolate them unless we desperately want to keep the playground to ourselves, which I honestly don't believe that any of you do. 1) Only a few players ever get to the newsgroups, and those that do tend to become something of local authorities, no matter the subject of interest is programming, westafrican history or VTES. We need those to stay. 2) You soon start to recognize who are contributing to the community, and if the contribution starts spiraling down into a "don't listen to that idiot" it'll rapidly become increasingly difficult to trust anyone. 3) Spewing out stupidities is only marginally more stupid than responding by fueling them. 4) These are in no way my 'humble opinions'. I run an outsourcing-departement. If my personel (me included) starts behaving this way to our customers we'll soon run out of those, and I happen to like to continue raising my salary. 5) It's pure coincidence that it's this response with the above names. Almost all threads here go down this way with a wide variety of authors verbally abusing each other. [ quoted text not captured ]

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in news:78020ADEA39B1FF6.6B3FC76F...@lp.airnews.net: > On 28 Aug 2001 05:30:34 GMT, Derek Ray wrote: > >>from www.m-w.com: >> >>Main Entry: random >>Function: adjective >>Date: 1565 >>2b: being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose >>elements has equal probability of occurrence <a random sample> > > That's naughty - you just have picked just one of several explanations > of the word. My dictionary also gives "irregular" as a meaning for > the word which would fit the way Jason sees this. Given that this is Other selections from m-w: - at random: without definite aim, direction, rule, or method - 1a: lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern b: made, done, or chosen at random I couldn't find anything giving "irregular". 1a's 'lacking a pattern' would be the most likely to be misread by some. In their mind, adjacent duplicates form a pattern, which must be removed. But NO duplicates is also a pattern, and ensuring that by sorting faceup also breaks the definition, not to mention breaking the definition of "at random", since you have used a definite method. Pile shuffling face down is an indefinite method because you can't see the faces of the cards, and have no idea where you're sorting them and into what piles. I can agree with Jason's assertion that you need to ensure that you achieve separation of cards that were played during the last game, as otherwise you have a non-random, RECOGNIZABLE situation; pile shuffling once, facedown, with 7 or more piles will ensure this. 6+ riffle shuffles afterwards will then return the deck to a near-completely random state; whether that state then includes large numbers of adjacent cards or not is irrelevant. > a common misconception, the VEKN rules could help by defining the > matter more rigorously. Continuing to parrot the DCI rules is > dangerous as it implies that the game will follow Magic's precedent > and practise. The VEKN rules have been diverging from the DCI rules slowly, as the need arises. This seems to be one more instance where an "improved" paragraph should be inserted. I'll agree that following Magic's precedents would be an excellent way for the VEKN to shoot themselves in the foot, however.

> > What exactly is "riffle?" > > The "standard" shuffle; you know, where you split the deck in half and > riffle :) the two halves back together? > I've never been able to do this. :o( The cards tend to form groups of 5-10 when I try. Instead of a professional trrrrrrrrrrrrrr -sound, it sounds something like trrr-bwab-bwab-bwab. Jeroen

In message <8XOi7.22482$6x5.4...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, jeroen rombouts <jeroen....@pandora.be> writes >I've never been able to do this. :o( The cards tend to form groups of 5-10 >when I try. Instead of a professional trrrrrrrrrrrrrr -sound, it sounds >something like trrr-bwab-bwab-bwab. If you're feeling brave, you could buy a card shuffler. They tend to be fairly cheap. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F They don't need to see you cry B457CA213D7E6 I can't promise I will heal you, but if you want to I will try 68C3695D623D5D

Andrew S. Davidson <a...@csi.com> wrote in message news:<78020ADEA39B1FF6.6B3FC76F...@lp.airnews.net>... [ quoted text not captured ] What is the purpose of this discussion?(<-serious) I might be missing the point? If any player wants to sort out all of their master cards(as an example) then sift them in between every 5th minion card. Then shuffle as outlined in the rules how can that be any more or less random as sorting all your cards and shuffling, or not sorting at all and shuffling? After sorting out my masters and inserting them, if I follow VEKN shuffling rules, and present my deck to my predator whats the problem..or is there a problem and you guys are talking about something else? LSJ has commented that the idea of shuffling is not truly random. Are people trying to qualify something as more/less random? Or just get better shuffling rules instated?(ie you have to shuffle 10 times before a game?) Maybe we should just pull cards out of a sack, instead of having decks! :) Aaron

> Other Point: Having 6 Minion Taps in your 90card deck makes i less likely to > have them all SR-ed than having 4 MT in an (I know extreme) 60 card deck. > In this case, the different variance of drawing the same card more than once > in your hand will be in your advantage. Well, yes and no. If you're cycling all 90 cards in a game, then you'll see 6 MT, which requires 6 SR. If you're cycling 60 cards of that 90 card deck, you'll likely see only 4 MT. (You can change the numbers to 75 and 5 and the point still holds) At your point (cycling 90 cards), the solution is to have more than 6 MT, and probably add a Parthenon and a Rumors, not reduce the deck size. =) > Note: I play in an 'High SR' metagame. Some people here will pack 4 SR in > almost every deck. That's 8 for your prey and predator combined. And BTW, > our average game lasts 14-16 turns, not 10-12, probably a case of too much > "I won't damage you next turn if..."-dealmaking. Well, then it sounds like your deckbuilding has adapted appropriately to your local metagame. No beef with that, certainly! =) [ quoted text not captured ]

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:fxYnxFcL...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <8XOi7.22482$6x5.4...@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>, jeroen > rombouts <jeroen....@pandora.be> writes > >I've never been able to do this. :o( The cards tend to form groups of 5-10 > >when I try. Instead of a professional trrrrrrrrrrrrrr -sound, it sounds > >something like trrr-bwab-bwab-bwab. > > If you're feeling brave, you could buy a card shuffler. They tend to be > fairly cheap. > My gran is a member of a bridge club. They have shufflers I could use, but they can't handle a 90 card deck in sleeves. Another argument for smaller decks ;-) Besides, if you press the wrong button, it shreds the cards. I have to be feeling VERY brave before I use one of these.

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<USDi7.160$aC1....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>... > "Brad Ward" <wa...@nevada.edu> wrote in message > news:e5b93701.01082...@posting.google.com... > > > Ive attended about 9 tournaments last year. [clip] > >So far I have generally *won* a little more than 1/3 of the > > tournaments I enter. > > Of the 8 tournaments we've held at L.A. conventions in 2001 , you've won one > tournament. Most recent that I recall winning was one at Westin with my Malk Auspex deck. Another was one at third planet when I played my 60 Card waste managment deck. > > This weekend I will be going to LA for the 4 tournaments they hold out > > there. I predict I should win at least 1 (maybe 2) of them if my > > history remains true. LAst time I went to the westin, I played in three tournies. one of which I won. 1/3 wins. > > ????? > > -Robert

Aaron wrote: > What is the purpose of this discussion?(<-serious) I might be missing > the point? If any player wants to sort out all of their master > cards(as an example) then sift them in between every 5th minion card. > Then shuffle as outlined in the rules how can that be any more or less > random as sorting all your cards and shuffling, or not sorting at all > and shuffling? After sorting out my masters and inserting them, if I It is not. *That* is the point. Some players claim that the stacking you describe (also called "declumping") increases the randomness of the resulting shuffling process. > follow VEKN shuffling rules, and present my deck to my predator whats > the problem..or is there a problem and you guys are talking about > something else? If you "sufficiently randomize" your deck (such that the fact that you declumped, or not, your master cards before the process doesn't matter), then there's no problem. > > LSJ has commented that the idea of shuffling is not truly random. Are I don't believe I have. I welcome citations to any of my posts which indicate otherwise. What I have stated is that *if* the "clumps" present at the start of a "randomizing" process are preserved by that process, then the process is *not* sufficiently random. Try this: I hand you a deck of 52-playing cards that I tell you is randomized. Then I ask you to inspect the top card. You find the Ace of Spades. I then ask you: what is the probability that the next card (the one under the Ace of Spades) is the 2 of Spades? If your answer is anything other than "1 in 51", then that means you either don't believe me when I tell you that the deck is randomized or you don't know how probability works. Note that nowhere in the above experiment does the state of the deck before I "randomized" it come into the picture. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 28 Aug 2001 09:37:26 -0700, Aaron wrote: >What is the purpose of this discussion?(<-serious)... >LSJ has commented that the idea of shuffling is not truly random. Are >people trying to qualify something as more/less random? Or just get >better shuffling rules instated?(ie you have to shuffle 10 times >before a game?) 10 riffle shuffles is about right, IMO. Proving this is non-trivial. See a good general survey of the topic which I copy below. Note that the results mentioned are based upon theoretical models of shuffling rather than physical experiments with real people and cards. And that the studies to date have mainly looked at standard 52-card decks of playing cards. Extending results from these to Vampire is non-trivial because: a) Vampire decks usually have more than 52 cards. Apart from theoretical considerations, riffle-shuffling a 90-card deck is physically difficult and unlikely to be done well, especially if it's in sleeves. b) Vampire decks usually contain many identical copies of the same card. Andrew ----------------------------------------------------------------------- From http://www.sciencenews.org/20001021/mathtrek.asp Disorder in the Deck by Ivars Peterson Card players sometimes get lazy, shuffling a deck fewer times than necessary to randomize the cards. Indeed, persistently sloppy shuffling can have a significant impact on play—an effect that experts (and gamblers) can exploit to their advantage. About 30 years ago, tournament bridge players started using computer-shuffled rather than hand-shuffled decks. Almost immediately, there was an outcry protesting the apparently wild fluctuations in the distribution of cards of different suits in computer-dealt hands. However, the problem lay not in the computer but with human expectations. Subsequent research showed that hands in which suits are evenly distributed, that is, hands with four cards of one suit and three of each of the other suits, are actually more common in games in which people do the shuffling than they should be according to theory. The reason for such a pattern is that cards during bridge play tend to clump together in groups of four of the same suit. Careless shuffling doesn't do enough to break up the groups, and when the cards are dealt out, the four players get a fairly even distribution of suits. In fact, before the advent of computer shuffling, the intuition of bridge players had been shaped by generations of improperly shuffled cards. A close look at books published in the past reveals that some experts had figured out that cards generally aren't shuffled well and had developed strategies that took such quirks into account. When computer shuffling was introduced, many of these strategies had to be revised. How many times must a deck of 52 cards be shuffled before the cards are randomly distributed? It turns out that trying to answer this question raises a number of subtle issues concerning both card shuffling and various measures of randomness. In the May 1986 American Mathematical Monthly, statisticians David Aldous of the University of California, Berkeley, and Persi Diaconis of Stanford University argued that roughly seven riffle shuffles are sufficient to achieve an acceptable degree of disorder in a deck of 52 cards. (In a riffle shuffle, the deck is cut into two, possibly unequal packets, and the two packets are then raggedly interleaved.) Diaconis and David Bayer of Columbia University later refined this result. With five or fewer shuffles, the original order of the standard deck is strongly in evidence. With more than seven shuffles, the original order has virtually disappeared. So, although no finite number of shuffles will ever make anything completely random, it doesn't take long to get close enough for practical purposes. Such abrupt transitions from order to randomness show up in a variety of mixing processes. You might ponder the same sort of behavior in your own kitchen when stirring together white flour and cinnamon. At first, you see thick streaks as the ingredients mingle. After a few more strokes, the whole mixtures suddenly smooths to a tan color. Whether as many as seven shuffles are really necessary, however, depends on how you define and measure randomness, say Nick Trefethen of the University of Oxford in England and Lloyd Trefethen of Tufts University in Medford, Mass. They now argue in the Proceedings of the Royal Society that five shuffles would do a reasonable job of randomization and six would make it practically certain the cards are thoroughly mixed. To determine how many shuffles would adequately randomize a deck, Diaconis and Bayer worked with a statistical measure known as the "total variation norm." This number quantifies the rate at which an ideal gambler could expect to make money, on average, if allowed to place bets against a fair house by taking advantage of any residual pattern among cards in a deck. In this model, the "total variation distance to randomness" falls below 0.5 after seven shuffles. The Trefethens adopted an alternative definition of randomness—one rooted in the telecommunications industry. They considered a deck of cards as a packet of information. If you know the location of every card in the deck, you have all the necessary information about the deck. If the deck is then shuffled until it is truly random, you end up with zero information about the card distribution. For the Trefethens, the issue was how quickly shuffling destroys information about the card distribution. Technically, the researchers looked at a number that "quantifies the rate at which an infinitely competent coder could expect to transmit information, on average in the limit of infinitely long message lengths, if permitted to encode signals arbitrarily in shuffled decks of cards." Using computer simulations of riffle shuffles, the Trefethens found that, according to their measure of the information left about the card distribution, the amount of information (degree of order) decreases steadily with each shuffle, reaching virtually zero information with the sixth shuffle and staying there with each subsequent shuffle. "It is not obvious, even to experts, what the full significance is of the distinction between our two measures of randomness," the researchers conclude. Which measure of randomization is relevant for card players may even depend on the types of games they play. What should be clear, however, to the everyday player is that, no matter which model is relevant, just three lackadaisical shuffles isn't enough. References: Aldous, D., and P. Diaconis. 1986. Shuffling cards and stopping times. American Mathematical Monthly 93(May):333. Ball, P. 2000. Shuffling: What's the deal? Nature Science Update (Oct. 4). Available at http://helix.nature.com/nsu/001005/001005-8.html. Bayer, D., and P. Diaconis. 1992. Trailing the dovetail shuffle to its lair. Annals of Applied Probability 2:294. Berger, P. 1973. On the distribution of hand patterns in bridge: Man-dealt versus computer-dealt. Canadian Journal of Statistics 1:261. Diaconis, P. 1996. The cutoff phenomenon in finite Markov chains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93(February):1659. Folger, T. 1991. Shuffling into hyperspace. Discover (January):66. Keller, J.B. 1995. How many shuffles to mix a deck? SIAM Review 37(March):88. Kolata, G. 1990. In shuffling cards, 7 is winning number. New York Times (Jan. 9). ______. 1985. Prestidigitator of digits. Science 85 6(April):67. Peterson, I. 1990. Islands of Truth: A Mathematical Mystery Cruise. New York: W.H. Freeman. ______. 1984. Mathematical shuffling. Science News 125(March 31):202. Trefethen, L.N., and L.M. Trefethen. 2000. How many shuffles to randomize a deck of cards? Proceedings of the Royal Society, London A 456(Oct. 8):2561. Abstract available at http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/proc_maths/abstracts/2002.htm. A brief outline of the mathematics of card shuffling can be found at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Shuffle.html.

roans...@yahoo.com (Aaron) wrote in news:7ab27d37.01082...@posting.google.com: > What is the purpose of this discussion?(<-serious) I might be missing > the point? If any player wants to sort out all of their master This thread started as a tangent to the "smaller deck" thread. Steve Bucy posted that after his tremendously painful recent experiences with variance, that he will be trying out the short-deck idea as a possible cure, as the math DOES support it. Jason Bell responded, opining that the flaw was probably just in Steve's shuffling, not his deck size. He suggested shuffling in a different fashion to reduce variance, and his details were: "Table shuffle into 7 stacks between EVERY game, then riffle, then overhand, then riffle some more. Sometime during all that, go through the deck face up and separate repeated cards." The predictable hullaballoo has resulted directly from "go through the deck face up" part, and the "separate repeated cards" part. The first objection I have is to ANYONE going through their deck face up. If you do this, you need to shuffle a WHOLE lot (7+ times would satisfy me) to ensure that you are unable to retain any information gained from looking at your deck. A tangent to this objection has been the number of shuffles after the face-up separation; Jason's words on this were "once assured that the de-clumping was followed by 3 or more riffle shuffles", indicating that he considers 3 to be the minimum amount required. However, 3 is noticeably insufficient; if I were inclined to cheat, I would sort my deck out into a perfect order while pretending to 'de-clump', then approach the table, perform three rapid, perfunctory riffle-shuffles, and then hand my deck to my predator to cut, answering any objections with "Ah, but I DID shuffle it three times." It is not difficult to see that many cards that were sorted out will NOT be separated by only three shuffles, due to the difficulty of properly riffling a 90-card deck. Not only that, I know what "key cards" to look for that will predict my next few cards, because I just saw my deck face-up. This is bad. The second objection is to the opinion itself. Separating cards that are identical is a form of deck-stacking, as is the method you describe of inserting your Masters in between every 5th minion card. You are absolutely correct in your statement that if you shuffle your deck sufficiently, this will be no more or less random than shuffling a completely sorted deck. However, if we accept the truth of your statement, clearly Steve's shuffling CANNOT be at fault for his clumping, and we must look elsewhere. The only way Jason's opinion can ever be valid is if he fails to shuffle properly, such that his manually-separated and stacked cards do not ever have a chance of reforming into clumps. This is in violation of the VEKN Rules, which is where all of us have chimed in. > and shuffling? After sorting out my masters and inserting them, if I > follow VEKN shuffling rules, and present my deck to my predator whats > the problem..or is there a problem and you guys are talking about > something else? If the sorting method results in any detectable advantage, clearly you have not followed VEKN shuffling rules, as you have contraverted the randomization effect of shuffling. > people trying to qualify something as more/less random? Or just get > better shuffling rules instated?(ie you have to shuffle 10 times > before a game?) The shuffling rules as they are now are satisfactory, since they allow a player's predator to shuffle what he/she considers to be an insufficiently shuffled deck. I fully intend to start taking advantage of this, and I invite all of my future predators to shuffle my deck as much as they desire; *I* do not fear the random factor, as every additional shuffle simply increases the "randomness".

thela...@hotmail.com (The Lasombra) wrote in message news:<132cdedd.01082...@posting.google.com>... > Brad Ward with 1 ">" > > Such a statment is NOT valid because the caliber of your playgroup was > > UNKNOWN. > > Well, lets fix that little problem for you then. > First off, Derek plays in Atlanta. Stating the obvious, ok... > Atlanta has had a website advertising its players for at least the last 3 > years that I remember, including examples of their decks (out of date), > strategy articles that have inspired decks in other countries (Aggressive > Intercept, Basic Deck Building Concepts), and a player listing among other > things. > http://people.atl.mediaone.net/intj/jpa/index.htm > Thats very nice, there are millions of other websites out there too. derek didnt quote this address until much later, and has never stated exactly who he was playing with when he won those 4 games. Was I just supposed to possess knowledge of this website. Does derek know about my website? Do you know about my website? How am I to know who he plays with. > Atlanta is the: > Home of Todd Bannister, one of the Final Nights Designers. > Home of David Davila, Elder Library Deck Builder Programmer, winner of the > Atlanta Qualifier for the North American Championship. > Home of Robyn Merrill, 1 of only 6 players to qualify multiple times for the > North American Qualifier, qualified in Atlanta and at Origins. > Home of Mike Perlman, 1 of only 6 players to qualify multiple times for the > North American Qualifier, qualified in Atlanta and Dallas. > Home of Jeff Thompson, 1 of only 6 players to qualify mulitple times for the > North American Qualifier, winner of the Seattle Qualifier and qualified at > GenCon. > Home of David Tatu, qualified for the North American Qualifier at Origins. > Home of Patrick O'Shea, qualified for the North American Qualifier at > Atlanta, author of the Giovanni Newsletter. are you implying that derek was playing with all 7 of these people in those 4 games he won? That would be an 8 player game.. So you still havent substantiated who exactly derek played those 4 games with. > Notice also that three of the above people judged Qualifier tournaments. > (Todd - Atlanta, Robyn - LA, Jeff - Dallas) > > Yeah, we are probably just 14 year olds that Derek is teaching. > Pretty clear from a web-based perspective, nothing hidden, no rug pulled > over your eyes. You are starting to convince me that you think at about the same low level as derek. Did he recuit you when you were 14 and teach you to play? Instead of listning to dereks flamitory remarks about me being a tool and a waste of skin. Why dont you read my post? I didnt say everyone in atlanta were 14 year old newbies. I obviously was pointing out that Derek never stated who he was playing with. As an example, I pointed out it was possible that he was just playing with 14 yr olds. Not that I *actually* believed this was the case. but derek never provided any evidence to the contrary. > > Now *if* your finally saying you were playing with robyn you have > > finally added some validity to your point, thank you. > > > > > > I said "Big deal, for all I know you are playing with 14 year olds > > > > whom you are teaching the game too." > > Nope. > Not a single one under 25 would be my guess. Not a single one playing for > less than 3 years either. Thats very informative. If only derek was capable of providing such information in his arguments. > > > > You said a lot of other things too, Bradley. More backpedaling. > > > > And id say them again. > > Because you pay so little attention to who is speaking and what their > backgrounds are as to not care, or just because you like to insult people > who didn't find you particularly offensive at a distance? Derek ray was speaking. As he so often speaks, without much thinking but a strong belief that he is correct. I am more that willing to insult derek since he is more than willing to insult everyone in this newsgroup, especially newbies. > > > > Is this spewing bull shit about people I dont know? I'm just pointing > > > > out that winning a game of ping pong with your dog doesnt mean you are > > > > the ping pong champ of the world. I dont know who you played with > > > > that weekend. > > > By making and repeating all these statements, Bradley, you are both > > > assuming and DIRECTLY implying that the people I play with are poor > players > > > and not "worthy tests" of my theories. If you believed they WERE > suitable > > > tests, then you wouldn't have said anything at all, now would you? > Sheesh. > > > > From reading your posts, I would assume that the players in your group > > are just as Mediocre as you are. It only makes since that if you want > > to qualify your wins in your backyard, the burdon of proving it was a > > stiff competition lies on your shoulders. > > Yep. > We are clearly mediocre. > Hope your playgroup gets to be so mediocre at some nationally competitive > level sometime in the future. Again, not saying that you are mediocre, good or bad. If all I have to go on is derek, I would have to assume that his group plays at his level or below. If he is regularly beating his group, that doesn't speak well for you. > > > > You bragging about winning some games in your backyard means that you > > > > are only besting the level of competition in your backyard. > > > > > > This is correct: I'm only besting the level of competition in my > backyard. > > > > Your concession is accepted. > > And your ignorance revealed, again. These threads have an abundance of ignorance, to which you have added yours. > > > >> It's fun to watch you cry and backpedal like a maniac. > > > > > > > > It was you who was crying when you thought I was talking bad about > > > > your jyhad buddies. > > > > > > What, you don't have friends who'll stand up for you? I know that I > sure > > > as fuck will stand up for MY friends... and if you won't back up yours > when > > > someone talks bad about them, then you really ARE a worthless piece of > > > shit. > > > > Who cares? My friends are irrelevant to this conversation and so are > > yours except to the level of compeitition they provide. > > Now you know. I have known and have been trying to beat it through dereks thick skull. > > Ive attended about 9 tournaments last year. I can only remember not > > being in the finals once, one other time I missed getting into finals > > because I tied VPs with Robyn and she had 5 player tables when I was > > forced to sit at 4 player tables and recieved less table points as a > > result. So far I have generally *won* a little more than 1/3 of the > > tournaments I enter. > > Really, you won 4 of 9. (As this is the only quantity more than 1/3, ie 3, > that is not also more than 50%.) That's pretty amazing. Shall we take a > look at the decks you have been willing to admit to? No i didnt win 4, I won 3, 1/3. Id say in my overall record for every tourney ive ever been in would be slightly over 1/3. > Carpe noctem. > > Lasombra carpe scrotum -brad

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > > > If a given "randomizing" process benefits from de-clumping prior to the > > > process, then the process is not "sufficiently" random. > > > > Then perhaps you would like to advise Steve Bucy on the proper > > solution to his randomization problem. I know an answer, because > > I've had to solve the problem myself, but if you want to offer > > him suggestions from your perspective, have at it. > > Steve never said he had a randomization problem. You've restated his problem > with clumping and a rough year of tournament results as a randomization problem. Because I've seen the problem before, as he described it, among players with whom I've played Magic competitively. I can assure you that it is a randomization problem. It is more difficult to identify it in Jyhad, for a variety of reasons. You are of course free to discount my experience as you see fit. > In his post he rightly prescribes his own treatment to the ill he has correctly > identified as *variance*. I disagree with this characterization. - Jason Bell

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:9lUi7.188968$TM5.34...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... > "Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote > > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > > > > > If a given "randomizing" process benefits from de-clumping prior to > the > > > > process, then the process is not "sufficiently" random. > > > > > > Then perhaps you would like to advise Steve Bucy on the proper > > > solution to his randomization problem. I know an answer, because > > > I've had to solve the problem myself, but if you want to offer > > > him suggestions from your perspective, have at it. > > > >Steve never said he had a randomization problem. You've restated his > >problem with clumping and a rough year of tournament results as a > >randomization problem. > > Because I've seen the problem before, as he described it, among > players with whom I've played Magic competitively. I can assure you > that it is a randomization problem. How is it that you can distinguish between an improbable result and a randomization problem? One year's worth of improbable results in the largely successful career of a player doesn't seem all that amazing. Also, if this is a methodical problem with his shuffling technique, it would be consistent over all of the years that he's shuffled with the same method. -Robert

"Sam Hillier" <sar...@powersurfr.com> wrote > Jason Bell wrote : > >So I inspect the deck for > >evidence of order that I can easily detect, and attempt to > >break those card arrangements before further attempting > >to randomize the entire deck. > > > > You're making another simple mistake here, Jason. When you go through your > deck to eliminate clumps of, say, Master cards, you are removing randomization. I disagree with this. The goal of the de-clumping is to remove predictable sorting that resulted from the organization of the play order of cards. If you often find that your equipment, retainers, and discipline masters often occur in large groups, this is less likely one of the variables of shuffling, and more likely related to how you grab all your cards together between games. Once that sort of order is broken, I have no objection to that order or any other that is imposed by the act of shuffling. But if, after some nominal shuffles after bringing my deck back into one, I find 4 or 5 instances of Torn/Grapple/Undead, it doesn't take a statistician to predict that this is the result of play order sorting, not some random outcome. I think the largest simple mistake being made on this thread is the presumption by players about the extent to which their shuffling regimes are actually randomizing their decks. > Which leads to the one other confusion I see. You mistake two definition > of "order". One is the way in which the cards themselves are organized in an > enumerated list. The other is some subjective idea that order must consist > of equally distributed masters, combat cards, reactions, etc. The first > definition is the one involved in randomization; randomization is meant to ensure > that no artificial order is present in the deck; i.e. that means that you don't get > to set this order yourself. The second is completely divorced from randomization, > seeking this type of order is cheating. I strongly disagree with this. While you are of course correct that unevenly distributed card types are perfectly consistent with randomization, what you miss is the case where many repeated games demonstrate highly uneven distribution, as the original poster suggested was his experience (and of which I have ample experience in Magic). This sort of uneven distribution, of the same character, in repeated games, is evidence of incomplete randomization. That further shuffling is in order after obvious order is broken obviates your characterization of cheating. - Jason Bell

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > Jason Bell wrote: > > > > evidence of order that I can easily detect, and attempt to > > break those card arrangements before further attempting > > to randomize the entire deck. > > ... before beginning to randomize the deck. A process which > should render any prior de-clumping moot. Ideally. If you could point out the shortest directions to an ideal world, I would be greatly appreciative. Until I arrive there, I'll prefer unpredictable non-perfectly random outcomes to predictable non-perfectly random ones. But after all, if the de-clumping is moot as you suggest due to subsequent shuffling, none should object. I don't believe I've ever been asked to shuffle more by a Deckmaster opponent. I've often been asked to stop shuffling or to finish shuffling soon. - Jason Bell

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > One is totally clumped, one is totally non-clumped. BOTH should be equally > likely. If you use ANY method to give yourself a greater chance of having > a non-clumped deck, then your shuffle is not random. It's that simple. > > If you have shuffled sufficiently (facedown pile shuffle, plus many riffle > shuffles/overhands), and your deck STILL turns up clumped, congratulations; > you have just proven why "random" means "random". It's supposed to be > possible for this to happen. Try a more practical example. Take a 90 card deck with 8 instances of a particular card. What are the chances that you play two subsequent games where you do not see a single instance of that particular card after seeing half of your deck each game? Then try blaming it on the vagueries of random outcomes. - Jason Bell

In message <uaVi7.189221$TM5.34...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >I disagree with this. The goal of the de-clumping is to remove predictable >sorting that resulted from the organization of the play order of cards. If your shuffling is sufficiently random, there is no predictable sorting. That's the whole point. You could get, quite literally, any order. Perfectly acceptable orders for random shuffling would be all your master cards, all your action modifiers, all you actions, all your reactions and all your equipment, in that order. What this is all tending to suggest is that: - once you've played a game, you're tending to end up with small batches of master, actions, action modifiers etc. (This happens to many of us) - these then go back into the deck, roughly in those groups - when you're shuffling, your shuffling isn't thorough enough to randomly re-assign these cards to places in the deck, instead keeping those lumps in parts -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D Close your eyes so you don't feel them EBD690ECD7A1F They don't need to see you cry B457CA213D7E6 I can't promise I will heal you, but if you want to I will try 68C3695D623D5D

"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > Try this: I hand you a deck of 52-playing cards that I tell you is > randomized. Then I ask you to inspect the top card. You find the Ace > of Spades. I then ask you: what is the probability that the next > card (the one under the Ace of Spades) is the 2 of Spades? > > If your answer is anything other than "1 in 51", then that means > you either don't believe me when I tell you that the deck is > randomized or you don't know how probability works. What if I found the AS, followed by 2S, 3S, and 4S? What if I knew that the deck was sorted numerically by suit before shuffling began, because you had just won a game of Solitaire. Would that be evidence that your deck is not sufficiently randomized? By separating those cards before completing the shuffling process, you may still not have a perfectly randomized deck, but the lack of randomization is less likely to have its own predictable order that can affect the progress of the game (as the A234 sort would affect a game of Spades or Hearts). If I can't have random, I prefer unpredictable to predictable. When I advise de-clumping of obvious order, I acknowledge that randomization is not a perfect process, and where it is done imperfectly, it should not have a predictable outcome. I advised Bucy to do so because he described a situation that I recognized from my own difficulties in randomizing Magic decks. I have come to hypothesize that the shuffle-resistant clumping in Deckmaster games comes from uneven handling of the cards. Some cards are quickly laid upon the table and left there, others are moved quickly to the discard pile, while others spend a great deal of time in the player's hand. The different handling of the cards leads to different wear or different levels of oil and dirt that can cause some cards to slightly stick together, resisting the casual riffle shuffle. This also corresponds to the experience Bucy described where his problem developed over time, perhaps as his cards began to wear. Therefore, for Bucy, I advised visual inspection for clumping as well as separating the cards into piles on the table by placing them into multiple different stacks one card at a time, in addition to a regular shuffling regime. - Jason Bell

In message <gjWi7.189651$TM5.34...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >What if I found the AS, followed by 2S, 3S, and 4S? Because this is a game of statistics, this is perfectly possible. A random shuffle may well result in clumps. Indeed, it may order your deck alphabetically, by order of artist. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <2FVi7.189402$TM5.34...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >Try a more practical example. Take a 90 card deck with 8 instances of >a particular card. > >What are the chances that you play two subsequent games where you >do not see a single instance of that particular card after seeing >half of your deck each game? Low, but not impossible. >Then try blaming it on the vagueries of random outcomes. This is perfectly possible. That's how randomness works. Random does not mean "no bunching, no repeats, all the cards coming through in roughly useful batches - a master here, an action there etc." Two games are not a statistically valid sample to work with. You need at least 20, preferably 50, and possibly many more. What this is all continually pointing to, however, is that your shuffling process is preserving the clumps you leave in. With only three riffle shuffles, a 90 card deck will suffer from lack of random shuffling. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Derek Ray" <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote > The shuffling rules as they are now are satisfactory, since they allow a > player's predator to shuffle what he/she considers to be an insufficiently > shuffled deck. I fully intend to start taking advantage of this, and I > invite all of my future predators to shuffle my deck as much as they > desire; *I* do not fear the random factor, as every additional shuffle > simply increases the "randomness". I also have no such fear. The only thing I want to avoid is predictable clumping of cards due to incomplete randomization, such as I diagnosed Bucy's experience to be. Predator, please shuffle my deck some more. Get the judge over here, have her do it as well. Let's get everybody into the act. Does the predator wish to shuffle? How about the prey? Any other shuffling attempts? - Jason Bell

On Tue, 28 Aug 2001 22:45:46 GMT, Jason Bell wrote: >and of which I have ample experience in Magic I've just spent an entertaining hour reading the archives of DCIJUDGE-L on the Wizards site. There was an extensive discussion of this matter earlier this year, in which such matters as the legality of "mana-weaving" was discussed (note that that it was explicitly illegal at one time but it's not clear to me how and why this was repealed). There was an interesting technical claim made in support of mana-weaving by one judge but there were counter-arguments too which I preferred. There was no clear consensus on the matter and a fair amount of frustration that there was no official authority to resolve it. The last word went to a newly-appointed netrep for the list and his post is copied below. It's fairly anodyne, IMO, and doesn't really resolve the issues raised. However note that he says, "If you think the player is intentionally ordering his deck with the intent of gaining game advantage this is cheating". That's precisely what you're doing, Jason, isn't it? Like it or not, that makes you a cheat in the eyes of this most senior of DCI judges. Overall, I find it very amusing that, after all this time, the DCI has made little progress in defining such a basic matter as how decks should be shuffled. I always thought that it was an incompetent organisation and am even more convinced of it now. The VEKN has little to learn from them and should have the courage to write its own tournament rules now rather than copying theirs. Andrew ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 15:53:03 -0400 Reply-To: Michael Feuell <e...@crocker.com> Sender: Certified judges Mailing list <DCIJU...@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM> From: Michael Feuell <e...@CROCKER.COM> Subject: NR Re: Shuffling and "Statistics" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > But instead of reading dozens of emails about that, I'd rather hear some > OFFICIAL guidelines about what is punishable and how to > detect/correct/penalize it. That's one of the goals of this list, isn't it? Insufficient randomisation falls into two cases: 1) insufficient shuffling, this is when a player takes a deck in any known configuration and then fails to shuffle it sufficiently. 2) insufficiently random, this is when a deck is in an ordered manner. note: it is possible to take a deck, shuffle it a 'sufficient' number of times and still end up with a deck that by chance is in an ordered manner. From the Penalty Guidelines: Procedural Error-Major A Major Procedural Error occurs when a player performs an unintentional, disruptive action at the tournament. (C) A player does not sufficiently randomize her deck before presenting it to her opponent. The penalty is a warning. This of course can be upgraded based upon multiple offences. If you think the player is intentionally ordering his deck with the intent of gaining game advantage this is cheating and warrent s a DQ without a prize. These of course are the guidelines, as a judge it is up to you to best weigh the situation at hand and the appropriate penalty. You don't want to let players get away with gaining an advantage their opponent does not have intentionally or not. Yet you also don't want to be so pedantic that you start counting the number of riffle shuffles. The floor rules now suggest that a player shuffle an opponents deck. As a judge you should encourage your players to do this. Players will be less likely to invest time in ordering their deck if their opponent always shuffles it. -Michael

"Robert Goudie" <rrgo...@earthlink.net> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > > If a player has > > > difficult properly shuffling a sleeved deck, she or her opponents are > > > free to ask the judge to randomize her decks. > > > > But can a warning be assessed to the player whose shuffling > > is unacceptable to her predator, due to glimpse violations > > of the "cannot be seen" provision of 3.2? > > Yes, even if the seeing is accidental. [V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. Item 122.] This is an interpretation not supported by the information provided in Item 122 of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines, which does not mention any sanction associated with seeing cards while shuffling one's own deck. In addition, the penalty for Item 122 in the Guidelines is a Caution, not a Warning. > Robert Goudie > Chairman, V:EKN > rob...@vtesinla.org I would also appreciate an explanation of why sections 30 and 40, covering application of penalties and repeat penalties are excluded from the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines on the V:tES website, or at least an explanation of what those Guidelines are. - Jason Bell

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:gjWi7.189651$TM5.34...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com... > I have come to hypothesize that the shuffle-resistant > clumping in Deckmaster games comes from uneven handling of > the cards. Some cards are quickly laid upon the table and > left there, others are moved quickly to the discard pile, > while others spend a great deal of time in the player's hand. > The different handling of the cards leads to different wear > or different levels of oil and dirt that can cause some cards > to slightly stick together, resisting the casual riffle shuffle. > This also corresponds to the experience Bucy described where > his problem developed over time, perhaps as his cards began > to wear. > Therefore, for Bucy, I advised visual inspection for clumping > as well as separating the cards into piles on the table by > placing them into multiple different stacks one card at a time, > in addition to a regular shuffling regime. Right. Oily residue and not variance. Got it. If the problem is his randomization technique, wouldn't he occassionally get screwed by the oily residue and get all of the clumps of Minion Tap or Shambling Hordes in the first half of his deck instead of all at the end of the deck? He wasn't just complaining of clumping, but of all the cards being clumped at the *end* of the deck. -Robert

wa...@nevada.edu (Brad Ward) wrote in message news:<e5b93701.01082...@posting.google.com>... > > > From reading your posts, I would assume that the players in your group > > > are just as Mediocre as you are. It only makes since that if you want > > > to qualify your wins in your backyard, the burdon of proving it was a > > > stiff competition lies on your shoulders. > > > > Yep. > > We are clearly mediocre. > > Hope your playgroup gets to be so mediocre at some nationally competitive > > level sometime in the future. > > Again, not saying that you are mediocre, good or bad. If all I have > to go on is derek, I would have to assume that his group plays at his > level or below. If he is regularly beating his group, that doesn't > speak well for you. You have never played him. You have no clue what his level of skill is. You only know how poor his debating skills are. So that you finally get the information you have been begging for in your responses to Derek's posts, I will outline that particular Monday for you. 1 pm Four players play two games. Derek wins one. 5 pm Food 6 pm Eight players play four games, two sets of four player tables. Derek wins two more games. 11 pm Five players play one game. So, as Derek stated, he brought four decks, played five games, and won three. So, of seven games, Derek wins less than half, on one particular occasion, on one particular Monday, against seven particular players. Now, so that you will remember it. The hypothesis is as follows: 1) You are playing a 90 card deck. 2) You regularly win 3 or more vps. 3) You always have 20 or more cards in your deck at the end. You do not need those 20 cards. Skillfully reducing the deck by 10-15 cards will improve the ability of the deck to function, ie it will continue to win with more frequency. If any of 1-3 is not being met, then David Tatu's hypothesis is not applicable, and no math is necessary to prove any of this. Carpe noctem. Lasombra http://www.TheLasombra.com

On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:03:24 GMT, Jason Bell wrote: >I have come to hypothesize that the shuffle-resistant >clumping in Deckmaster games comes from uneven handling of >the cards. Some cards are quickly laid upon the table and >left there, others are moved quickly to the discard pile, >while others spend a great deal of time in the player's hand. >The different handling of the cards leads to different wear >or different levels of oil and dirt that can cause some cards >to slightly stick together, resisting the casual riffle shuffle. >This also corresponds to the experience Bucy described where >his problem developed over time, perhaps as his cards began >to wear. There's something in this. The correct solution is not to start looking at the cards when you're shuffling but to throw the sleeves away and buy a new set. Keeping your hands clean and using a table cloth would help too. Note that the relevant VEKN rule is: "4.6. Card Sleeves Once a game begins, players may request that the judge inspect an opponent's card sleeves. The judge may disallow a player's card sleeves if the judge believes they are marked, worn, or otherwise in a condition that interferes with shuffling or game play." Andrew

Jason Bell wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > Jason Bell wrote: > > > > > > evidence of order that I can easily detect, and attempt to > > > break those card arrangements before further attempting > > > to randomize the entire deck. > > > > ... before beginning to randomize the deck. A process which > > should render any prior de-clumping moot. > > Ideally. If you could point out the shortest directions > to an ideal world, I would be greatly appreciative. > > Until I arrive there, I'll prefer unpredictable non-perfectly > random outcomes to predictable non-perfectly random ones. > > But after all, if the de-clumping is moot as you suggest due > to subsequent shuffling, none should object. I don't believe Yes. As I've said. I only disagree with the assertion that a suffle which is *aided* by prior declumping is "sufficiently random" as required by the rules. > I've ever been asked to shuffle more by a Deckmaster opponent. > I've often been asked to stop shuffling or to finish shuffling > soon. [ quoted text not captured ]

Jason Bell wrote: > > "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote > > Try this: I hand you a deck of 52-playing cards that I tell you is > > randomized. Then I ask you to inspect the top card. You find the Ace > > of Spades. I then ask you: what is the probability that the next > > card (the one under the Ace of Spades) is the 2 of Spades? > > > > If your answer is anything other than "1 in 51", then that means > > you either don't believe me when I tell you that the deck is > > randomized or you don't know how probability works. > > What if I found the AS, followed by 2S, 3S, and 4S? What if you found the AS followed by the 10H, 4D, 8S? The odds are equally likely for either event. > What if I knew that the deck was sorted numerically > by suit before shuffling began, because you had just > won a game of Solitaire. As I said, it wouldn't matter if you believe my statement that the deck was randomized. > Would that be evidence that your deck is not sufficiently > randomized? No. Nor would the AS,10H,4D,8S case. The actual order of the cards is immaterial - all orderings are equally likely. > By separating those cards before completing the shuffling process, > you may still not have a perfectly randomized deck, but the lack of > randomization is less likely to have its own predictable order that > can affect the progress of the game (as the A234 sort would affect > a game of Spades or Hearts). If I can't have random, I prefer > unpredictable to predictable. OK. And in a VEKN tournament, you must also "sufficiently randomize" you deck. So, after de-clumping or not, you must shuffle sufficiently so as to make the prior de-clumping sufficiently meaningless. A few (7 or so, I've heard) riffle shuffles followed by a pile shuffle and a few overhands followed by one or two more riffle shuffles should do nicely. If your process is not satisfactory to your opponents, then they can ask that the deck be further randomized (at least, to the judge's satifaction). > When I advise de-clumping of obvious order, I acknowledge > that randomization is not a perfect process, and where it > is done imperfectly, it should not have a predictable outcome. Right. The VEKN rules take a different approach. The VEKN rules advocate improving the randomizing process (if it is not sufficient) to be sufficient. > I advised Bucy to do so because he described a situation > that I recognized from my own difficulties in randomizing > Magic decks. I would advise Mr. Bucy, if he (or his opponents) feel that his randomizing process is not sufficient, to extend the process so that it is. > I have come to hypothesize that the shuffle-resistant > clumping in Deckmaster games comes from uneven handling of > the cards. Some cards are quickly laid upon the table and > left there, others are moved quickly to the discard pile, > while others spend a great deal of time in the player's hand. > The different handling of the cards leads to different wear > or different levels of oil and dirt that can cause some cards > to slightly stick together, resisting the casual riffle shuffle. > This also corresponds to the experience Bucy described where > his problem developed over time, perhaps as his cards began > to wear. > Therefore, for Bucy, I advised visual inspection for clumping > as well as separating the cards into piles on the table by > placing them into multiple different stacks one card at a time, > in addition to a regular shuffling regime. So long as the randomizing process is sufficient and done without looking at the faces of the cards, then that's fine. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <vQWi7.189670$TM5.34...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >This is an interpretation not supported by the information provided in >Item 122 of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines, which does not mention any >sanction associated with seeing cards while shuffling one's own deck. >In addition, the penalty for Item 122 in the Guidelines is a Caution, >not a Warning. This could come under 5.1 (manipulation) of the rules. This could also come under any of the Procedural Errors of the Penalty Guidelines if, as a result, you fail to sufficiently randomise your deck. A judge has considerable discretion to deal with such matters as a tournament progresses. "Please remember that these are only guidelines. If the judge believes that the situation has significant, extenuating circumstances, he or she is free to modify the penalty as appropriate." [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<2FVi7.189402$TM5.34...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] The probability of drawing 45 cards from a 90 card deck and drawing no instances of a subset of 8 cards: (90-8)! * (90-45)! pr(!A) = ------------------ = 0.278% 90! * (90-8-45)! The two trials are independent (given sufficient randomization between them), thus the total probability would be pr(!A)^2 = 7.7 x 10^-4 percent. Very small. Note 1: This is true for _any_ subset of 8 cards; there will always be a set of 8 cards, in every game, that will satisfy this criterion. How many different sets of 8 cards are you monitoring per game? Note 2: If you play 100 games, the chance of not having pr(!A) occur is: 1 - ((1-pr(!A))^100) = 24.3% Which is just to note the fact that the more games one plays, the more likely one is to see all sorts of improbable behaviors, due to the nature of randomness. > Then try blaming it on the vagueries of random outcomes. I'm not sure what else one could blame it on, after the fact? Probability can only give you likelihoods for each possible outcome. Approaching the limit of large numbers of games, the statistics of your sample should converge to the predicted probabilities; if not, then perhaps you can come to some conclusions about the bias of your shuffling, goo on your cards, or chimerstry usage by your opponents. But two games doth not a significant sample make. Hope that helps, Alex

"Alex Broadhead" <alex.br...@clearband.com> wrote > "Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote > > Then try blaming it on the vagueries of random outcomes. > > I'm not sure what else one could blame it on, after the fact? Well, if you know that after your last game, a bunch of those cards were together in your hand and ash heap, or in play on various vampires, you begin to blame it on insufficient shuffling. If you knew how much I actually shuffle between games (an absolutely absurd amount), you would begin to blame some flaw in the actual randomization behind the shuffling that's being done, or something about the cards that's making them stick together. - Jason Bell

"Andrew S. Davidson" <a...@csi.com> wrote > The last word went to a newly-appointed netrep for the list and his > post is copied below. It's fairly anodyne, IMO, and doesn't really > resolve the issues raised. However note that he says, "If you think > the player is intentionally ordering his deck with the intent of > gaining game advantage this is cheating". That's precisely what > you're doing, Jason, isn't it? If this is a serious question (which I doubt), then the answer is no, that is not what I'm doing. Unless by "gaining game advantage," you mean to imply that a sufficiently randomized deck has an advantage over one which is to some extent still sorted from the play of the previous game. If that is your implication then yes, I want the advantage provided by a randomized deck. I have no fear of variance, clumps of any variety of card, or any other outcome, so long as it is not deterministic. I enjoy Deckmaster games because of the mix of strategy and random events. For these same reasons, I like other card games, such as Poker and Hearts, as well as many games involving dice. I don't cheat at any of them. > Overall, I find it very amusing that, after all this time, the DCI has > made little progress in defining such a basic matter as how decks > should be shuffled. I always thought that it was an incompetent > organisation and am even more convinced of it now. The VEKN has > little to learn from them and should have the courage to write its own > tournament rules now rather than copying theirs. Yes, those buffoons at DCI. Merely able to organize a worldwide professional touring competition out of a seriously flawed trading card game. Will Jyhad ever remove the chip from its shoulder that is associated with WotC's attempted fratricide of the game? - Jason Bell

In message <0_ej7.192624$TM5.35...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Jason Bell <Jason...@mail.com> writes >Yes, those buffoons at DCI. Merely able to organize a worldwide >professional touring competition out of a seriously flawed trading >card game. This does not mean they are infallible. The number of changes they have made back and forth on a number of positions provide sufficient evidence that Jyhad should examine many things on their own merits, rather than taking the DCI's position as "expert" on the matter. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Jason Bell" <Jason...@mail.com> wrote in message news:<YAej7.192615 >..., you would begin > to blame some flaw in the actual randomization behind > the shuffling that's being done, or something about > the cards that's making them stick together. Hi In a game we had a couple of days ago, I borrowed a deck from another player. A gangrel deck Basilia-oriented with 6 Basilia in a crypt of 12. The first 5 vamp i controlled weren't Basilia! (1/132 probability of that situation happening). The player who borrowed me the deck was my predator and very happy to see from the other side the only game (probably) with that deck absolutely useless. If you want a sufficently random shuffle try this: Equip yourself with a complete set of dices; 1) prepare d8+1 stacks 2) on each stack put d4 cards until you've completely stacked your deck 3) use appropriate die to select a first and a second stack to stack togheter 4) riffle d6 times 5)add another stack selected as in 3) 6)repeat 4) and 5) until you have again the complete deck 7)riffle the whole deck d10+1 times 8)pass your deck to your predator 9)stand up, do three turns around the table,clockwise in an odd day, counterclockwise in an even day 10) take the deck of your pray and repeat steps 1-10 until you have again your deck 11) let your predator cut the deck 12) start to play Otherwise do not lose time stacking, de-coupling etc. just riffle a lot and have fun with the draw you got. (BTW i got a VP retreating after i exahusted my cards with the probably-but-not-surely-basilia deck) Anyone ever tried to play a series of games without shuffling in-between? Probably you need different deck-building!?!

On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Jason Bell wrote: > Will Jyhad ever remove the chip from its shoulder that is > associated with WotC's attempted fratricide of the game? personally, if someone attempted and very nearly succeeded in an attempt to kill me, i'd hold a grudge for somewhat more than a few years. especially if it hurt. i mean, attempted murder by putting a cyanide pill in my coffee, and then me noticing my coffee smelled weird and not drinking it. well, i'd probably get over that after a shortish while, although i'm sure i'd have a few mental issues to do with caffeine intake afterwards. however, if someone hacked me up with the jagged edge of a broken plastic card box [0] to such an extent that i had to be hospitalised and only just survived, well, that'd take me maybe 10 years to get over. unless i surrepticiously went and killed the atempted murderer in the mean time, with multiple paper cuts from the edges of some cheap CCG cards. then i'd probably get over it sooner. but, seriously, WotC did seem to, well, only try a little bit to keep the game alive, then thought "dang it, too hard", and then just give up. at least that's the way it looked to me. salem. [0] Trying vainly to stay on topic for this list....

In message <Pine.SOL.3.90.1010831170244.11210B-100000@bohm>, ....salem christ.... <s940...@bohm.anu.edu.au> writes >but, seriously, WotC did seem to, well, only try a little bit to keep the >game alive, then thought "dang it, too hard", and then just give up. at >least that's the way it looked to me. At the very end, they were about to do *something*. Well, the lesser minions were anyway, who just weren't told about the higher up negotiations. At least, that's the official story AIUI anyhow. [ quoted text not captured ]