Q: do you unrandomise before randomising your deck??

I noticed a lot of players (especially on tournaments) who put cards, that form combos in their decks, together (unrandomising) so the chance of a handjam while playing is minimalised. Am i just stupid by not doing that, does everybody do it? Reactions please!

[ quoted text not captured ] If the unrandomising has any effect after you again randomise the deck, it is cheating IMO.

[ quoted text not captured ] this is allowed as long as you do sufficient randomizing afterwards. i don´t "unrandomise" because : - it tends to piss people off - you don´t know their stacking technique so it´s worthless anyway - it´s probably forbidden anyway but i ensure myself that their decks are correctly randomized by shuffling them quite extensively. -- johannes walch

[ quoted text not captured ] They are either wasting their time (if it doesn't work) or cheating (if it does work). I take advantage of the V:EKN rule that lets you shuffle the library and crypt that is presented to you to be cut. It takes less than half a minute, and protects everybody at the table from deck stacking. I am always annoyed when my grandpredator declines to even cut my predator's deck...glad you like to look magnanimous, jerko, thanks for letting me take the risk he's cheating.

[ quoted text not captured ] I always "unrandomize" when first constructing the deck. After that it is shuffle, shuffle, shuffle. That way I don't start off by clumping all 12-18 masters together in one spot before shuffling. Dorrinal Blackmantle Chronicler of Clan Tremere Filthy Cheating Deck-stacker.

No I do not. However, if a deck was just broken down and all the masters are together, all the actions, etc, then I pile shuffle it into 5 different piles, twice. This will evenly distribute all the different cards. From there I just shuffle as normal.

Dorrinal Blackmantle wrote: > René wrote: > > I noticed a lot of players (especially on tournaments) who put cards, > > that form combos in their decks, together (unrandomising) so the > chance > > of a handjam while playing is minimalised. Am i just stupid by not > > doing that, does everybody do it? Reactions please! > > I always "unrandomize" when first constructing the deck. After that it > is shuffle, shuffle, shuffle. That way I don't start off by clumping > all 12-18 masters together in one spot before shuffling. After doing a decklist, for example, I sometimes forget to break up the groups enough so that a quick shuffle can provide sufficient randomization--causing me ot lose pretty badly usually. Oops! Note that René is talking about players putting combos together in their deck. There's no reason to do this if you are intending to properly randomize afterwards. Sounds like cheating to me. This game has lots of room for cheaters to take advantage of you. And while a decision to not join them in their cheating probably makes you less likely to win, it doesn't make you stupid--just honest and decent. -Robert

Emmit Svenson <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I take advantage of the V:EKN rule that lets you shuffle the library > and crypt that is presented to you to be cut. It takes less than half > a minute, and protects everybody at the table from deck stacking. > I am always annoyed when my grandpredator declines to even cut > my predator's deck...glad you like to look magnanimous, jerko, > thanks for letting me take the risk he's cheating. So get a judge to "randomize" your predator's deck. What's the big deal? He wants to kill you, so what difference does it make to upset him? ;) Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Robert Goudie wrote: | Dorrinal Blackmantle wrote: |>René wrote: |> |>>I noticed a lot of players (especially on tournaments) who put | cards, that form combos in their decks, together (unrandomising) so the |>chance of a handjam while playing is minimalised. Am i just stupid by not |>>doing that, does everybody do it? Reactions please! Are they deliberately setting Torn Signpost, Immortal Grapple, and Blur together? Or are they just doing what is typically called a 'table shuffle', where you deal out your cards face-down to 7 different piles, stack them back together, and then begin riffle/overhand shuffling as normal? If you see someone stacking their deck face up, bust them on it; it's outright intentional cheating. Table shuffling isn't usually intentional cheating, but it also doesn't randomize the deck either. |>I always "unrandomize" when first constructing the deck. After that |>is shuffle, shuffle, shuffle. That way I don't start off by clumping |>all 12-18 masters together in one spot before shuffling. This is what most people do; see explanation below of why this is wrong. | After doing a decklist, for example, I sometimes forget to break up the | groups enough so that a quick shuffle can provide sufficient | randomization--causing me ot lose pretty badly usually. Oops! Ooops, indeed. You deliberately DErandomized your deck, and you probably didn't even realize it. =) This is an accurate definition/example of "random", as applied to a deck with 16 cards AAAA, BBBB, CCCC, and DDDD: "No matter what the initial state of the deck, after shuffling, the probability of each of these orders: #1: AAAABBBBCCCCDDDD #2: ABCDABCDABCDABCD #3: DCBADCBADCBADCBA #4: DDDDCCCCBBBBAAAA should be equal." Note that two of these are as clumped as you can get, and two of these are "ideal" for V:TES. "Sufficient randomization" doesn't mean that #1 and #4 should never happen; it means no matter what you start from, the chances of #1 and #4 occurring are the same as the chances of #2 and #3. Table shuffling after a decklist typically takes state #1, turns it into state #2, and then commences actual randomization via riffle shuffling. ~ If your riffle shuffling is adequate (many repetitions), whether you started from state #1 or state #2 should not matter. If table shuffling DOES matter, then you are not performing enough randomization on your deck. =) In practice, humans are simply not skilled enough (read: manual dexterity) to properly shuffle a 90-card deck. If you play poker at all (and what V:TES player would even CONSIDER such a thing?), you will notice that the dealers do what is called a "rough mix" before shuffling the deck between each hand. The rough mix is more effective at randomizing than any riffle shuffle will ever be, even in the talented hands of these dealers. The rough mix combined with several riffles is not perfect randomization, but it's close enough considering that the difference between AAAKKK and AKAKAK is not as significant in a poker game as it is in V:TES due to the shared nature of the deck. Most V:TES players would refuse to rough-mix their cards, and some believe that 2-3 riffle shuffles is sufficient randomization. It's not, and it maximizes the benefit of that pre-shuffle table shuffle -- but it's also common practice, and I don't typically see much need to complain about it during games unless it is blatant; see below. | Note that René is talking about players putting combos together in | their deck. There's no reason to do this if you are intending to | properly randomize afterwards. Sounds like cheating to me. See above. Face-up aligning of combos is a big no-no. | This game has lots of room for cheaters to take advantage of you. And | while a decision to not join them in their cheating probably makes you | less likely to win, it doesn't make you stupid--just honest and decent. I also agree with this. Although I would prefer to see no table shuffling at all, and to see V:TES players do a rough-mix of their cards at the start of their shuffling routine, I recognize that this is not going to happen; there are enough other issues to worry about that this doesn't hit the threshold of my radar. However, I will shuffle my prey's library if I feel they've made only a token effort at randomization. I think it's everyone's personal call; I'd just like to make sure everyone is aware of the facts behind what's happening. =) - -- Derek mostly randomized -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCdnJetQZlu3o7QpERArVdAJoCK9aDrheESNnJOVzivTOR1GNs0wCg67P4 RB2/fT7L2jnhoC3KmD3SRnc= =5Zw3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"René" <rene.d...@hccnet.nl> wrote in message news:1115024499....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] If someone does that and then shuffles and randomizes their deck sufficiently afterward, then it's an obsessive-compulsive waste of time. People get therapy to stop themselves from doing things like that. If someone does that and then DOES NOT randomize their deck afterward, it's cheating. A judge should be summoned. (Seriously. If you observe someone doing this and then not seeming to shuffle very well afterward, you need to summon a judge to discuss the issue.) Fred

Derek Ray wrote: > If you play poker at all > (and what V:TES player would even CONSIDER such a thing?), you will > notice that the dealers do what is called a "rough mix" before shuffling > the deck between each hand. The rough mix is more effective at > randomizing than any riffle shuffle will ever be, even in the talented > hands of these dealers. What does a "rough mix" consist of? Several overhand cuts?

(snip randomization stuff) We've gone over this before, all your information is correct. I'd like to consider my method, which is to build the deck unrandomized and just shuffle away until next time I reconstruct the deck due to major modifications. In fact, let's just talk masters. Just holler if I've gone wrong here :) We know that manually shuffling a deck is not completely random. So we can't guarantee that all permutations will have equal probability. And so the initial state of the deck will in some (small) way affect the outcome of the shuffle. I build a 90-card deck with 15 masters in it. Like most people, I have different card types in different piles to account for ratios. When it's time to put it all together I can shuffle it in a way that may give a greater chance for master hand jam (pile o' masters) or a greater chance for evenly spaced masters (15/90 -> every sixth card). Neither is truly random, but one is good for other players, the other is good for me. So with everything else just about equal, I'd like to see everyone benefit from lower chances of master hand jam. Then shuffle the hell out of your deck and your prey's before each round of a tournament :) To your other points: Combo-stacking in between rounds is blatant cheating. Rough-mix sure would be nice, but I don't think it's necessary. Dorrinal Blackmantle Chronicler of Clan Tremere Deck-stacking Cheater of Salt Lake City!

[ quoted text not captured ] Spread the deck out on the table face-down in a rough pile and mix them around with your hands. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1115061732.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Rough Mix Derek Ray, Mike Perleman, and David Cherryholmes sitting at breakfast the next morning staring at their plates of food through bloodshot eyes..... -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr XZealot Archon of the Swamp

[ quoted text not captured ] Correct! BTW, "sufficient randomization" is what happened the evening before that led to the "Rough Mix". -Robert

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dorrinal Blackmantle wrote: | (snip randomization stuff) | | We know that manually shuffling a deck is not completely random. So we | can't guarantee that all permutations will have equal probability. And | so the initial state of the deck will in some (small) way affect the | outcome of the shuffle. Perfection isn't possible in this case (even automatic shufflers screw up). However, an achievable goal is to render the initial state of the deck largely meaningless after the shuffle. | So with everything else just about equal, I'd like to see everyone | benefit from lower chances of master hand jam. Then shuffle the hell | out of your deck and your prey's before each round of a tournament :) I'd rather see nobody table-shuffle, because then everyone is still on the same footing and we don't have to worry about whether or not the deck has been stacked between rounds so that the table-shuffle produces an "ideal" circumstance. If nobody table-shuffled, the incentive would be on the individual to provide enough randomization to overcome the effects of his original unfavorable initial state. =) | To your other points: | Combo-stacking in between rounds is blatant cheating. | Rough-mix sure would be nice, but I don't think it's necessary. I think it's probably the only way to _ensure_ a 90-card deck has "sufficient randomness". I don't see it happening, because many people are too into the "collectible" portion as opposed to the "game" portion, and would complain that it damaged their cards. Fair enough, I guess. As I mention in my original message, this issue isn't high enough on my radar to be worth complaining about, unless I see someone obviously doing a face-up stack job on their deck before pretending to shuffle. In practice, after the first round, cards are all whacked out of order anyway, and while a table shuffle DOES separate the Masters and equipment that you stuck on your minions, it also serves to put all those nice combos that were in your ash heap back together, making the table shuffle moot in the end (as it should be). This is part of why I don't really give a damn. I do, however, prefer to make sure people understand what's happening. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCdpaYtQZlu3o7QpERAiwrAJ9i/kDePD/7Q3aqzHS/N6GMZY2lqACeKrPA no+L5E5iU4pDl0IQr5xcMj8= =2vJb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Dorrinal Blackmantle wrote: > René wrote: > >>I noticed a lot of players (especially on tournaments) who put cards, >>that form combos in their decks, together (unrandomising) so the > > chance > >>of a handjam while playing is minimalised. Am i just stupid by not >>doing that, does everybody do it? Reactions please! > > I always "unrandomize" when first constructing the deck. After that it > is shuffle, shuffle, shuffle. That way I don't start off by clumping > all 12-18 masters together in one spot before shuffling. Remember that if the unrandomizing has any effect on the clumping probabilities of the final "shuffled" deck, then you're not shuffling enough. -- LSJ (vtesr...@TRAPwhite-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep (remove spam trap to reply) Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Robert Goudie wrote: | XZealot wrote: | |>"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message |>> |>>What does a "rough mix" consist of? Several overhand cuts? |> |>Rough Mix |> |>Derek Ray, Mike Perleman, and David Cherryholmes sitting at breakfast | the next morning staring at their plates of food through bloodshot | eyes..... | | Correct! | | BTW, "sufficient randomization" is what happened the evening before | that led to the "Rough Mix". You know, this really doesn't rule out "several overhand cuts". Although it would be more properly phrased as "several overhand swallows". Or, in the case of the growlers from GenCon, over-shoulder swallows. (thumb in jug, rest jug on shoulder, raise elbow and turn head to drink.) But I'll have you know I ate the entire plate of breakfast that day. (I had to. The grease was all that would cut the booze.) - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCdpeVtQZlu3o7QpERAiogAKClm/O//VBCB5hYFk7UYaDF4cBctACg1l7y f3UcKA1NLT+i4nYjQ90fQuk= =sgUV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Unrandomised shuffles, be it for combo spreading, or card type spreading, or what have you is entirely valid for a new deck before sitting at their first game table. Between games it will be done, and cannot be policed. However if done at any time during a tournament it should be and is considered blatant cheating. I personally have used the unrandomised shuffles for library and crypt during construction. But have always randomised my deck before each game I play (social or otherwise). However I can state the following based on observation. If your unrandomised shuffle method is based on hand-size (for example in a "perfect" hand I will have my 4 card combat combo, my wake/flick combo, and an action/master/other card) then you will be able to "seem" to randomise your deck without actually doing so. If you know your unrandomised mix was 7 cards, then you lay your cards out in piles of 7 as you "shuffle" in front of people. During a tournament, shuffling should be performed by someone else to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen. David

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 quetzalcoatl wrote: | Unrandomised shuffles, be it for combo spreading, or card type | spreading, or what have you is entirely valid for a new deck before | sitting at their first game table. Sorry, it's not. The intent of shuffling is to produce a random order to the cards -- not a "set" order of any kind. Anything else is cheating, plain and simple. It is a very minor form of cheating that is widely ignored in the interest of efficiency, but it is still in violation of the rule that your deck must be adequately shuffled prior to play. As has been said repeatedly, if your "unrandomised shuffle" has any effect on the final order of the cards after shuffling, then you're not shuffling enough. | Between games it will be done, and cannot be policed. It can very easily be policed; force players to shuffle sufficiently once they sit down at the table, including the very first time. Most tournament directors choose not to do this, as few players care enough to even complain. | However if done at any time during a tournament it should be and is | considered blatant cheating. It's ALWAYS cheating unless you shuffle sufficiently afterwards. If you shuffle sufficiently afterwards, it doesn't matter how the cards started out. | I personally have used the unrandomised shuffles for library and crypt | during construction. But have always randomised my deck before each | game I play (social or otherwise). It is likely that your definition of randomization does not match the actual definition. See previous posts -- I doubt you are rough-mixing the cards followed by a number of riffle shuffles. However, I do believe that your intent is good. | However I can state the following based on observation. If your | unrandomised shuffle method is based on hand-size (for example in a | "perfect" hand I will have my 4 card combat combo, my wake/flick combo, | and an action/master/other card) then you will be able to "seem" to | randomise your deck without actually doing so. A player who is deliberately shuffling poorly will be spotted quickly by anyone who cares enough to be looking. Currently, nobody really cares enough -- but that doesn't mean it's correct. | If you know your unrandomised mix was 7 cards, then you lay your cards | out in piles of 7 as you "shuffle" in front of people. Laying your cards out in piles of 7 isn't a shuffle and shouldn't be confused with one. It's setting your deck in a predetermined order. After doing something like this, you should riffle-shuffle your cards many times, repeatedly, in order to assure at least some degree of randomization. A few overhand shuffles afterwards wouldn't hurt, either. | During a tournament, shuffling should be performed by someone else to | ensure that this kind of thing does not happen. This of course will not happen, as many players are anal-retentive in the extreme about letting anyone else touch their cards, much less shuffle them. Last time this subject came up, people were hysterical about the thought of riffle-shuffles somehow "bending" the card -- I doubt the prevailing view has significantly changed. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCds8EtQZlu3o7QpERAvcqAJ9nbmpurC7YoRhWalxWK9XGXd3YEgCgpRt1 AGPgawdDLPZOz5cFJbg5+Lg= =wOFe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > quetzalcoatl wrote: > | Unrandomised shuffles, be it for combo spreading, or card type > | spreading, or what have you is entirely valid for a new deck before > | sitting at their first game table. > > Sorry, it's not. The intent of shuffling is to produce a random order > to the cards -- not a "set" order of any kind. Anything else is > cheating, plain and simple. It is a very minor form of cheating that is > widely ignored in the interest of efficiency, but it is still in > violation of the rule that your deck must be adequately shuffled prior > to play. > You seem to have misunderstood what I meant ... I was discussing my initial deck construction whereby I need to seperate Masters from each other, actions, etc. I normally do this by going through and ensuring my piles are sufficiently mixed. Thereafter I shuffle properly (being one who does not care if he bends his own cards or not I am quite rough with my shuffling). > | Between games it will be done, and cannot be policed. > > It can very easily be policed; force players to shuffle sufficiently > once they sit down at the table, including the very first time. > > Most tournament directors choose not to do this, as few players care > enough to even complain. > True enough ... it is a situation where players do not want to waste time and thus shuffling isn't brought up. > | However if done at any time during a tournament it should be and is > | considered blatant cheating. > > It's ALWAYS cheating unless you shuffle sufficiently afterwards. If you > shuffle sufficiently afterwards, it doesn't matter how the cards started > out. > I stated that I believe. > | I personally have used the unrandomised shuffles for library and crypt > | during construction. But have always randomised my deck before each > | game I play (social or otherwise). > > It is likely that your definition of randomization does not match the > actual definition. See previous posts -- I doubt you are rough-mixing > the cards followed by a number of riffle shuffles. However, I do > believe that your intent is good. > You have misunderstood my post again. You would have note from my post that I unrandomise after construction then shuffle from then on. The initial unrandomisation occurs only once, nowhere near a game. > | However I can state the following based on observation. If your > | unrandomised shuffle method is based on hand-size (for example in a > | "perfect" hand I will have my 4 card combat combo, my wake/flick combo, > | and an action/master/other card) then you will be able to "seem" to > | randomise your deck without actually doing so. > > A player who is deliberately shuffling poorly will be spotted quickly by > anyone who cares enough to be looking. Currently, nobody really cares > enough -- but that doesn't mean it's correct. > Incorrect as to the spotting. For example: it is accepted practice in my neck of the woods to face down shuffle in piles. Since it is acceptable, anyone who does the N-card layout will not be caught out unless the shuffling method is not acceptable. During a social game it matters not how you shuffle - if you cheat then that is your choice. But social play generally dictates tournament behaviour and thus acceptance of certain things carries over. Yes the judge should be harsh and enforce certain things, but that is not as easy as some people would like to believe if the local community has aceepted certain behaviours. > | If you know your unrandomised mix was 7 cards, then you lay your cards > | out in piles of 7 as you "shuffle" in front of people. > > Laying your cards out in piles of 7 isn't a shuffle and shouldn't be > confused with one. It's setting your deck in a predetermined order. > > After doing something like this, you should riffle-shuffle your cards > many times, repeatedly, in order to assure at least some degree of > randomization. A few overhand shuffles afterwards wouldn't hurt, either. > See above. I personally don't care if cards get bent, but other players do. If you even insinuation they should riffle shuffle (even in sleeves) they get crazy. > | During a tournament, shuffling should be performed by someone else to > | ensure that this kind of thing does not happen. > > This of course will not happen, as many players are anal-retentive in > the extreme about letting anyone else touch their cards, much less > shuffle them. Last time this subject came up, people were hysterical > about the thought of riffle-shuffles somehow "bending" the card -- I > doubt the prevailing view has significantly changed. > Well maybe its a judge thing. Perhaps judges should look to enforcing rules completely neutrally, ignoring locally accepted behaviours. D

In message <1115086785....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, quetzalcoatl <da...@vega.id.au> writes: >You seem to have misunderstood what I meant ... I was discussing my >initial deck construction whereby I need to seperate Masters from each >other, actions, etc. I normally do this by going through and ensuring >my piles are sufficiently mixed. > >Thereafter I shuffle properly (being one who does not care if he bends >his own cards or not I am quite rough with my shuffling). If you shuffle properly, you don't need to separate anything at all in the first place. The shuffle will take care of your masters being randomly distributed throughout your deck, which may mean clumping, all being at the top, all being at the bottom, being exactly evenly distributed, or anything else. If creating piles so that cards are "sufficiently mixed" has any bearing on the outcome, you're not doing it properly. It is supposed to be entirely possible (though rare) for you to be able to draw 7 master cards in a row, and have all your action modifiers at the bottom of the deck. -- James Coupe "Why do so many talented people turn out to be sexual PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D deviants? Why can't they just be normal like me and EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 look at internet pictures of men's cocks all day?" 13D7E668C3695D623D5D -- www.livejournal.com/users/scarletdemon/

quetzalcoatl wrote: > Derek Ray wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > quetzalcoatl wrote: > > | Unrandomised shuffles, be it for combo spreading, or card type > > | spreading, or what have you is entirely valid for a new deck before > > | sitting at their first game table. > > > > Sorry, it's not. The intent of shuffling is to produce a random > order > > to the cards -- not a "set" order of any kind. Anything else is > > cheating, plain and simple. It is a very minor form of cheating that > is > > widely ignored in the interest of efficiency, but it is still in > > violation of the rule that your deck must be adequately shuffled > prior > > to play. > > === i am so glad someone is addressing this issue. i've seen it done, known of players who do it, and never understood how anyone could just decline a cut or shuffle of their prey's cards. (the old adage is "trust everyone, but cut the cards." i usually say, "go ahead and shuffle a bunch more, and that'll keep me from having to do it." then you can easily tell whether the shuffling is half-hearted, or trying to preserve some form of stacking/cheating. then, i'll shuffle them till they wear away, if i suspect foul play. noting that this doesn't make one popular, i'll just say, i'd rather lose because someone got sore and tried to vendetta on me (also illegal,) than lose to a stacked deck. as far as a good measure of randomization is concerned, i shuffle until i have no idea where any card in my deck is, and no idea of any preservation of order, removal of clumping, etc. i almost always use more than one form of shuffling. i start with a combination of riffles and over/under-hands. then i often do count out into piles (way more than 7...) and the clumping that i feel this gets rid of is physical clumping. (6 cards are stuck together by moisture or shaping of the deck laying on it side since the last time i used that deck.) i pick up the stacks in random order, then continue to riffle/over-under. once in a while i count 25-40 cards out in a single stack, reversing their order, and changing the whole deck around by riffling these in even more. sometimes i start this whole process with the aforementioned smooshing of all the cards around on the table. if a card flips at any point in the process, i keep shuffling until, again, i have no idea where any card is. does this make me obsessive/compulsive? no. (it's merely an indication of a pre-existing condition. heehee.) but i can be truly surprised each time i draw a card, and feel good when something does go right, because i know my deck is randomized. another point i'd like to make is that certain cards allow you to go into your library (or crypt, possibly the nastiest place for non-randomization.) for a cheater, these are an opportunity to again "unrandomize" their deck. i've seen seriously half-hearted shuffling in these cases, and non-cuts seem even more common (in the interest of time-saving, i assume.) an incomplete list of vamps and library cards that enable such roguishness follows: bindusara, cristos mantigo, dan murdock, husamettin, ivan krenyenko, lambach (adv), thomas steed, ur-shulgi, zahir, and lord ashton (who doesn't even have the text or clarification that the library is shuffled afterwards.) al's army app, arms dealer, magic of the smith, muricia's call, path of death and the soul (as well as any other ways that search out master disciplines, such as making certain "action" vampires, or diablerizing an older vamp,) sibyl's tongue, summoning, terrorists, all mechanisms gaining a trophy (trophy:retainer and trophy:progeny actually let you go in there twice,) and anything that lets you search your crypt as well. (alastor, bauble, deviki, fortschritt library, gift of experience, and virolax all also lack the reminder text to shuffle after the peek-a-boo {see lord ashton, above.}) -spore mage john ps to anyone who reads all this, especially derek ray's superior exposition, and still tries to get over by doing this form of cheating: (in a very hostile voice) screw you.

On Mon, 02 May 2005 21:08:20 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> wrote: > This of course will not happen, as many players are anal-retentive in > the extreme about letting anyone else touch their cards, much less > shuffle them. Last time this subject came up, people were hysterical > about the thought of riffle-shuffles somehow "bending" the card -- I > doubt the prevailing view has significantly changed. I've heared an opinion on why someone doesn't like to have his deck shuffled (and always asks a judge to do the shuffling if his predator would like to shuffle). For many people, shuffling your prey's deck is usually done with considerable less care for the condition of the cards (or deck protector sleeves) than shuffling your own. If you shuffle in a careless or rough manner, you may actually damage the cards (or the sleeves) in the process. Now I know sleeves are deck protector sleeves, and their function is to preserve the cards, but an almost identical randomization can be achieved by shuffling carefully, which also preserves the sleeves. -- Bye, Daneel

"Daneel" <dan...@eposta.hu> schreef in bericht news:opsp6ytk...@news.chello.hu... [ quoted text not captured ] I just lack the required dexterity for a good riffle shuffle of a 90 card deck: I can only do it right in say 50% of the times I try. :( While I'm willing do try it on my own deck, I don't like to subject other people's cards to it.

Personally, i like a face-down pile shuffle to un-stick those cards that might have a bit of moisture or grease or whatever slicking them together, which is a problem i only seem to have with sleeved cards. i don't do it everytime i shuffle, just when i think there might be some stickage. after that, a bunch of riffles (i thought i read on this group some time ago someone stating that 7 riffles is enough to randomise a 52 card deck....so i usually go with 8 for my 60-90 card decks...). By riffles, i mean the gentler corner-falling method. not the end-to-end followed by the fancy arcing riffle-back-up step, if you can visualise the difference i mean. then i overhand a few times, riffle once more, and cut. seems to give me plenty of master jam just when i don't need it. :) salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

salem wrote: > after that, a bunch of riffles (i thought i read on this group some > time ago someone stating that 7 riffles is enough to randomise a 52 > card deck....so i usually go with 8 for my 60-90 card decks...). By > riffles, i mean the gentler corner-falling method. not the end-to-end > followed by the fancy arcing riffle-back-up step, if you can visualise > the difference i mean. A "table riffle shuffle" vs. a "riffle shuffle". See http://www.pokerology.com/articles/howtoshuffle.htm for more terms and videos. BTW, it takes about 1.5 * log2(n) riffle shuffles to randomize a deck of n cards (D. Bayer and P. Diaconis, Annals Appl. Prob. 2, 294 (1992).). So 9 for 52 cards, 10 for 90 cards (if I'm manipulating my calculator correctly). Their measure of randomness was stricter than others (who put the number of recommended shuffles for 52-card decks at 6 or 7), so 7 or 8 will also do, if your measure of randomness is lower too. Hunter -- http://www.hunterandlori.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 salem wrote: | Personally, i like a face-down pile shuffle to un-stick those cards | that might have a bit of moisture or grease or whatever slicking them | together, which is a problem i only seem to have with sleeved cards. | i don't do it everytime i shuffle, just when i think there might be | some stickage. this is a good point, actually -- I don't use library sleeves so I typically don't have moisture problems, but if you're in a humid environment I could see this making a lot of sense. It doesn't change the fact that the pile-sort should have no positive effect on the outcome (increasing randomization is of course OK), but it does bring up a good side note, that cards which are stuck together also "unrandomize" things. | after that, a bunch of riffles (i thought i read on this group some | time ago someone stating that 7 riffles is enough to randomise a 52 | card deck....so i usually go with 8 for my 60-90 card decks...). By Eh, that "7 riffles" crud is a stylish piece of statistical fiction. There have been some studies done, but all the studies depend highly on using a skilled-but-not-perfect shuffler... because of course a perfectly interleaved riffle is not random at all. Plus, it's kind of hard to verify since the only way to check output from a random number generator is by examining the series... and serieses of 52-card decks take a LONG time to generate, and a longer time to analyse. Most people aren't anywhere near the category of "skilled-but-not-perfect", especially for a 90-card deck. What it comes down to is that the correct amount of shuffling is "lots". - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCd5C0tQZlu3o7QpERAvTHAKCe143IU+ZQ5nLVrIekHbwfE8xWOACdGY2q NAcy/kMw0mAOApC6rp4hF/Q= =Q12K -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Slumming? ;) jhun...@gmail.com wrote: | A "table riffle shuffle" vs. a "riffle shuffle". See | http://www.pokerology.com/articles/howtoshuffle.htm for more terms and | videos. | | BTW, it takes about 1.5 * log2(n) riffle shuffles to randomize a deck | of n cards (D. Bayer and P. Diaconis, Annals Appl. Prob. 2, 294 | (1992).). So 9 for 52 cards, 10 for 90 cards (if I'm manipulating my | calculator correctly). Their measure of randomness was stricter than | others (who put the number of recommended shuffles for 52-card decks at | 6 or 7), so 7 or 8 will also do, if your measure of randomness is lower | too. ...Assuming you shuffle the same way Bayer and Diaconis did, which I suspect is impractical for most people who aren't professional casino dealers. ;) - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCd5FRtQZlu3o7QpERAqWFAKCUIWs2mdZaz1ubZ7cgzoVHNLbrHQCeNecj m0HonJsk5Dc/moCO54IxEmY= =Fryi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

LSJ wrote: > Dorrinal Blackmantle wrote: > > René wrote: > > > >>I noticed a lot of players (especially on tournaments) who put cards, > >>that form combos in their decks, together (unrandomising) so the > > > > chance > > > >>of a handjam while playing is minimalised. Am i just stupid by not > >>doing that, does everybody do it? Reactions please! > > > > I always "unrandomize" when first constructing the deck. After that it > > is shuffle, shuffle, shuffle. That way I don't start off by clumping > > all 12-18 masters together in one spot before shuffling. > > Remember that if the unrandomizing has any effect on the clumping > probabilities of the final "shuffled" deck, then you're not shuffling > enough. But the initial state of the deck always affects the probabilities of the final deck. We're just trying to get the effect of the initial state as close to zero as we can before a tournament round starts. But all other things equal I would like to err on the side of caution (no master hand jam) when first constructing the deck. It's a moot point after the first game anyway :) Dorrinal Blackmantle Chronicler of Clan Tremere Does not work with statistics for a living.

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > salem wrote: > | Personally, i like a face-down pile shuffle to un-stick those cards > | that might have a bit of moisture or grease or whatever slicking them > | together, which is a problem i only seem to have with sleeved cards. > | i don't do it everytime i shuffle, just when i think there might be > | some stickage. > > this is a good point, actually -- I don't use library sleeves so I > typically don't have moisture problems, but if you're in a humid > environment I could see this making a lot of sense. I do a face-up table "shuffle" every few games too, both to air out sticky cards and to make sure I haven't ended up with extraneous cards in the deck. "What's this Dementation master doing in here? Oh, yeah, someone played it on Arika cross-table...hmm, guess I'd better find out whose Disarm this is."

Derek Ray wrote: > Slumming? ;) Slumlording. :-) > jhun...@gmail.com wrote: >> A "table riffle shuffle" vs. a "riffle shuffle". See >> http://www.pokerology.com/articles/howtoshuffle.htm for more terms and >> videos. > >> BTW, it takes about 1.5 * log2(n) riffle shuffles to randomize a deck >> of n cards (D. Bayer and P. Diaconis, Annals Appl. Prob. 2, 294 >> (1992).). So 9 for 52 cards, 10 for 90 cards (if I'm manipulating my >> calculator correctly). Their measure of randomness was stricter than >> others (who put the number of recommended shuffles for 52-card decks at >> 6 or 7), so 7 or 8 will also do, if your measure of randomness is lower >> too. > > ...Assuming you shuffle the same way Bayer and Diaconis did, which I > suspect is impractical for most people who aren't professional casino > dealers. ;) Well, it is for riffle shuffling in particular, but it should apply to both riffles and table riffles. While a "regular" riffle with a 90-card deck apparently takes a bunch of practice, the table riffle can be mastered with relatively little practice. IMO. But I can also agree with the "lots" answer. Or "more than you've done so far" whenever the question is asked; if you have to ask, it isn't enough yet. Hunter -- http://www.hunterandlori.com

On Tue, 03 May 2005 10:54:44 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >salem wrote: >| Personally, i like a face-down pile shuffle to un-stick those cards >| that might have a bit of moisture or grease or whatever slicking them >| together, which is a problem i only seem to have with sleeved cards. >| i don't do it everytime i shuffle, just when i think there might be >| some stickage. > >this is a good point, actually -- I don't use library sleeves so I >typically don't have moisture problems, but if you're in a humid >environment I could see this making a lot of sense. > >It doesn't change the fact that the pile-sort should have no positive >effect on the outcome (increasing randomization is of course OK), but it >does bring up a good side note, that cards which are stuck together also >"unrandomize" things. it's because if i don't manually 'unstick' these cards, then there is usually close to 0 probability of them coming apart during riffle or overhand shuffling. i don't insist that they NOT be next to each other, but i insist they have a _chance_ to NOT be next to each other. :) >Most people aren't anywhere near the category of >"skilled-but-not-perfect", especially for a 90-card deck. What it comes >down to is that the correct amount of shuffling is "lots". yup. i tend to find my lots is more than others' lots, though. however, my sister being a croupier (sp?) for many many years and me nagging her to share some shuffling skills makes me kind of enjoy the shuffling bit. [ quoted text not captured ]

On 3 May 2005 08:11:20 -0700, "Dorrinal Blackmantle" <john.m...@gmail.com> scrawled: > >LSJ wrote: >> Dorrinal Blackmantle wrote: >> > René wrote: >> > >> >>I noticed a lot of players (especially on tournaments) who put >cards, >> >>that form combos in their decks, together (unrandomising) so the >> > >> > chance >> > >> >>of a handjam while playing is minimalised. Am i just stupid by not >> >>doing that, does everybody do it? Reactions please! >> > >> > I always "unrandomize" when first constructing the deck. After >that it >> > is shuffle, shuffle, shuffle. That way I don't start off by >clumping >> > all 12-18 masters together in one spot before shuffling. >> >> Remember that if the unrandomizing has any effect on the clumping >> probabilities of the final "shuffled" deck, then you're not shuffling >> enough. > >But the initial state of the deck always affects the probabilities of >the final deck. no. no it doesn't. if it does, then you haven't 'randomized' your deck sufficiently. this is the key to the word 'random'. if you want some bayesian stuff where the posterior distribution effects somethingblah blah *snooze* (sorry, that lecturer at uni was crap), then you're not really giving it a good shuffle. > We're just trying to get the effect of the initial >state as close to zero as we can before a tournament round starts. But >all other things equal I would like to err on the side of caution (no >master hand jam) when first constructing the deck. It's a moot point >after the first game anyway :) first game 5vps GW can make a hell of a difference in a tournament. >Dorrinal Blackmantle >Chronicler of Clan Tremere >Does not work with statistics for a living. but stats is magagical! Hmmm...new Thaumatury path: Path of Statististicalness. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dorrinal Blackmantle wrote: > | (snip randomization stuff) > | > | We know that manually shuffling a deck is not completely random. So we > | can't guarantee that all permutations will have equal probability. And > | so the initial state of the deck will in some (small) way affect the > | outcome of the shuffle. > > Perfection isn't possible in this case (even automatic shufflers screw > up). However, an achievable goal is to render the initial state of the > deck largely meaningless after the shuffle. I hear you but let's be clear about your choice of words. Do you mean to say "largely meaningless" or "so damn close to zero it IS meaningless". Because in the former case, I would still like everyone to err on the side of no-master-jam just for the sake of fun. That would still make deck-stacking "largely" a waste of time except for the piece of mind it brings... but we're still talking significant non-zero values here, right? Dorrinal Blackmantle Chronicler of Clan Tremere And Just Plain Curious.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dorrinal Blackmantle wrote: | Derek Ray wrote: | |>Perfection isn't possible in this case (even automatic shufflers | screw |>up). However, an achievable goal is to render the initial state of | the |>deck largely meaningless after the shuffle. | | I hear you but let's be clear about your choice of words. Do you mean | to say "largely meaningless" or "so damn close to zero it IS | meaningless". Because in the former case, I would still like everyone The latter. | to err on the side of no-master-jam just for the sake of fun. That Alternately, use fewer Masters and include ways to cycle them =) | would still make deck-stacking "largely" a waste of time except for the | piece of mind it brings... but we're still talking significant non-zero | values here, right? Depends on what you mean by significant. You can have a non-zero value in this slot that still doesn't have an effect on gameplay. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCeALttQZlu3o7QpERAvhNAJ9cfimNx3T+TaIkOBXp16rPGUmGEwCgqpBL WRLeWFSi0soeqg8rGnNw6Gs= =VKz7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 quetzalcoatl wrote: | Derek Ray wrote: | |>Sorry, it's not. The intent of shuffling is to produce a random | order to the cards -- not a "set" order of any kind. Anything else is |>cheating, plain and simple. It is a very minor form of cheating that |>widely ignored in the interest of efficiency, but it is still in |>violation of the rule that your deck must be adequately shuffled | prior to play. | | You seem to have misunderstood what I meant ... I was discussing my | initial deck construction whereby I need to seperate Masters from each | other, actions, etc. I normally do this by going through and ensuring | my piles are sufficiently mixed. No, I understood perfectly. The above is exactly what I'm talking about in my prior paragraph. | Thereafter I shuffle properly (being one who does not care if he bends | his own cards or not I am quite rough with my shuffling). At which point, if you have shuffled sufficiently, there will have been no need to do what you describe above -- the Masters, actions, etc. will have been separated, re-joined, and re-separated many times. |>| However if done at any time during a tournament it should be and is |>| considered blatant cheating. |> |>It's ALWAYS cheating unless you shuffle sufficiently afterwards. If | you shuffle sufficiently afterwards, it doesn't matter how the cards | started out. | | I stated that I believe. You can state that you believe the sky's green too. | You have misunderstood my post again. You would have note from my post Not at all, frankly. | that I unrandomise after construction then shuffle from then on. The | initial unrandomisation occurs only once, nowhere near a game. As long as there is plenty of shuffling between the initial unrandomisation and the first game you play with the deck. If there is, the initial unrandomisation was totally unnecessary. |>A player who is deliberately shuffling poorly will be spotted quickly | by |>anyone who cares enough to be looking. Currently, nobody really | cares |>enough -- but that doesn't mean it's correct. | | Incorrect as to the spotting. For example: it is accepted practice in | my neck of the woods to face down shuffle in piles. Since it is Bunch of cheaters you have there, then. That's not shuffling, that's setting your deck. It's ineffective in a number of ways -- do it more than once, for example, and you put a bunch of stuff back together that you just separated. Not very tidy. Better to shuffle properly. | acceptable, anyone who does the N-card layout will not be caught out | unless the shuffling method is not acceptable. During a social game it The shuffling method you describe is unacceptable from the perspective of actually providing randomization in the deck order. Whether or not people care enough to complain is another story. | But social play generally dictates tournament behaviour and thus | acceptance of certain things carries over. Yes the judge should be | harsh and enforce certain things, but that is not as easy as some | people would like to believe if the local community has aceepted | certain behaviours. Sounds like you're letting social pressure change the rules of the game. ~ This is of course a problem with any game, multi-player or not (the push not to play 'cheese' decks, etc), but it should be quite clear to all that a tournament is different than casual play, and a judge should be capable of enforcing this easily. |>Laying your cards out in piles of 7 isn't a shuffle and shouldn't be |>confused with one. It's setting your deck in a predetermined order. |> |>After doing something like this, you should riffle-shuffle your cards |>many times, repeatedly, in order to assure at least some degree of |>randomization. A few overhand shuffles afterwards wouldn't hurt, | either. | | See above. I personally don't care if cards get bent, but other players | do. If you even insinuation they should riffle shuffle (even in | sleeves) they get crazy. Well, honestly, they should get over it. None of these cards will ever be worth even as little as _three_ figures -- I can understand collectormania over some Magic cards that are a grand a pop, for example, but V:TES? Come on. Overhand shuffles don't bend the cards either. Hunter has described the "table riffle", where you only lift the corners and riffle those together instead of the mega-mondo-full-on approach. Either of these should be sufficient for even the most anally retentive among us. |>This of course will not happen, as many players are anal-retentive in |>the extreme about letting anyone else touch their cards, much less |>shuffle them. Last time this subject came up, people were hysterical |>about the thought of riffle-shuffles somehow "bending" the card -- I |>doubt the prevailing view has significantly changed. | | Well maybe its a judge thing. Perhaps judges should look to enforcing | rules completely neutrally, ignoring locally accepted behaviours. This is absolute poppycock. Judges should enforce the rules as the rules are written, not alter the rules just because they happen to be playing in town "X" and people don't like to follow the rules there. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCeAWYtQZlu3o7QpERApO6AJ0QxNV8D4IcGGu8W7qouk0xiz4dxgCeNmZ4 3XnXlWB9g1SOIiMsZPniKlk= =cUSZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> > At which point, if you have shuffled sufficiently, there will have been > no need to do what you describe above -- the Masters, actions, etc. will > have been separated, re-joined, and re-separated many times. > > As long as there is plenty of shuffling between the initial > unrandomisation and the first game you play with the deck. If there is, > the initial unrandomisation was totally unnecessary. > Okay, yes, I can agree with that. Done. > > Bunch of cheaters you have there, then. That's not shuffling, that's > setting your deck. > > Sounds like you're letting social pressure change the rules of the game. > ~ This is of course a problem with any game, multi-player or not (the > push not to play 'cheese' decks, etc), but it should be quite clear to > all that a tournament is different than casual play, and a judge should > be capable of enforcing this easily. > Not really cheaters. Social engineering. If you start playing the game, and everyone is doing this kind of shuffle, then you will mimic it. Its easier for a sleeved deck. Not social pressure. Accepted behaviour. There is a difference. I could quote psychology books here, however the gist is that your social group conditions you to a degree. I'm not saying its a justification to the behaviour, but it explains it somewhat. > Well, honestly, they should get over it. None of these cards will ever > be worth even as little as _three_ figures -- I can understand > collectormania over some Magic cards that are a grand a pop, for > example, but V:TES? Come on. > It doesn't have to be collectormania. Some people may only be able to afford a limited number of cards (say 1 booster per week), or they take pride in their best deck, and they just don't want it damaged. > Overhand shuffles don't bend the cards either. Hunter has described the > "table riffle", where you only lift the corners and riffle those > together instead of the mega-mondo-full-on approach. Either of these > should be sufficient for even the most anally retentive among us. > I've been looking at this type of shuffle to enforce it at tournaments as a judge, I'm currently experimenting with different types of sleeves. The problem here is that some players once again don't want their sleeves bent at the corners, so any suggestions on the table-riffle shuffle? Anyone? > This is absolute poppycock. Judges should enforce the rules as the > rules are written, not alter the rules just because they happen to be > playing in town "X" and people don't like to follow the rules there. > The rules as written state sufficient randomisation. They don't state how that is to be achieved. So a judge allowing the piling method is doing his/her job as long as they cannot predict/detect an attempt at cheating. Enforcing a multiple piling increases the randomisation UNLESS the player knows that 7 piles by 7 piles puts his cards into the right order. David

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 quetzalcoatl wrote: | | Not really cheaters. Social engineering. If you start playing the game, | and everyone is doing this kind of shuffle, then you will mimic it. Its | easier for a sleeved deck. Cheaters. Rules say "X". Players do "Y" intentionally. Cheating. I come to play game, I call all your players out for cheaters. New players say "but we always do it this way". I say "You always do it wrong, then. Time to learn, cheaters." Call a spade a spade, or call it a shovel if you must, but don't call it a longitudinal earth rearrangement device. | Not social pressure. Accepted behaviour. There is a difference. I could | quote psychology books here, however the gist is that your social group | conditions you to a degree. I'm not saying its a justification to the | behaviour, but it explains it somewhat. You're attempting to justify it right now. It's social pressure. New players who question it, saying "that's not a shuffle" (correctly) will be pressured into letting it slide, and then they will start mimicing it too. After awhile, everyone does it, and nobody knows why. Sure it's easier -- but that doesn't mean it's not dead wrong. |>Well, honestly, they should get over it. None of these cards will | ever |>be worth even as little as _three_ figures -- I can understand |>collectormania over some Magic cards that are a grand a pop, for |>example, but V:TES? Come on. | | It doesn't have to be collectormania. Some people may only be able to | afford a limited number of cards (say 1 booster per week), or they take | pride in their best deck, and they just don't want it damaged. Sorry, it's collectormania/paranoia. I riffle my cards every time I play, I play with no sleeves (except on crypt), and I haven't yet had a deck be damaged from ANYTHING, much less from shuffling. The trick to getting things done is to simply kick down all the tired old excuses people throw in your way, and say "DO IT RIGHT." With sleeves, you don't even have the fear of edge wear, although you may have to shuffle a little more carefully. |>Overhand shuffles don't bend the cards either. Hunter has described | the |>"table riffle", where you only lift the corners and riffle those |>together instead of the mega-mondo-full-on approach. Either of these |>should be sufficient for even the most anally retentive among us. | | I've been looking at this type of shuffle to enforce it at tournaments | as a judge, I'm currently experimenting with different types of | sleeves. The problem here is that some players once again don't want | their sleeves bent at the corners, so any suggestions on the | table-riffle shuffle? Anyone? Tell 'em to get over it. It is possible to table-riffle without bending the cards. It's possible to RIFFLE without bending the cards, for that matter. They're just throwing up excuses because they don't understand; MAKE them understand. Show them (you may have to tone down your own shuffling technique at first, since it sounds like you're like me) the corner, show them the overhand. Both can be done without causing permanent damage. |>This is absolute poppycock. Judges should enforce the rules as the |>rules are written, not alter the rules just because they happen to be |>playing in town "X" and people don't like to follow the rules there. | | The rules as written state sufficient randomisation. They don't state | how that is to be achieved. So a judge allowing the piling method is ...is failing miserably at enforcing the rules. | doing his/her job as long as they cannot predict/detect an attempt at | cheating. Enforcing a multiple piling increases the randomisation | UNLESS the player knows that 7 piles by 7 piles puts his cards into the | right order. I guarantee that pile shuffles NEVER, EVER, EVER produce sufficient randomization. You don't have to prove an attempt at cheating; you just have to come over and say "shuffle the cards correctly, please." Then, you can refer them to numerous sources. I bet I could make 'em do it without even raising my voice. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCeCm6tQZlu3o7QpERApRgAJ0XfM57gq/hV0JK5yfERMS1oVOzHwCfbzvz KYzJccPpiOSGcRWWVjnpJtc= =XuTI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 03 May 2005 21:47:38 -0400, Derek Ray <lor...@yahoo.com> scrawled: >I guarantee that pile shuffles NEVER, EVER, EVER produce sufficient >randomization. You don't have to prove an attempt at cheating; you just >have to come over and say "shuffle the cards correctly, please." Then, >you can refer them to numerous sources. > >I bet I could make 'em do it without even raising my voice. but could you make them do it with your pants on? that aside, what about pile shuffling into a number of piles determined by a roll of a dice? you roll your d8, place into that many piles. pick them all up, cut. roll dice, put into that many piles. pick them all up, cut. roll d8....etc... table riffling's much easier, though. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dorrinal Blackmantle wrote: > | Derek Ray wrote: > | > |>Perfection isn't possible in this case (even automatic shufflers > | screw > |>up). However, an achievable goal is to render the initial state of > | the > |>deck largely meaningless after the shuffle. > | > | I hear you but let's be clear about your choice of words. Do you mean > | to say "largely meaningless" or "so damn close to zero it IS > | meaningless". Because in the former case, I would still like everyone > > The latter. > > | to err on the side of no-master-jam just for the sake of fun. That > > Alternately, use fewer Masters and include ways to cycle them =) Designing your deck to overcome an obstacle? You're MAD! :) > | would still make deck-stacking "largely" a waste of time except for the > | piece of mind it brings... but we're still talking significant non-zero > | values here, right? > > Depends on what you mean by significant. You can have a non-zero value > in this slot that still doesn't have an effect on gameplay. So we have this small non-zero value... by "largely meaningless" do you mean it has an effect on gameplay? [ quoted text not captured ]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dorrinal Blackmantle wrote: | Derek Ray wrote: | |>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |>Hash: SHA1 |> |>Dorrinal Blackmantle wrote: |>| Derek Ray wrote: |>| |>|>Perfection isn't possible in this case (even automatic shufflers |>| screw |>|>up). However, an achievable goal is to render the initial state of |>| the |>|>deck largely meaningless after the shuffle. |>| |>| I hear you but let's be clear about your choice of words. Do you | mean |>| to say "largely meaningless" or "so damn close to zero it IS |>| meaningless". Because in the former case, I would still like | everyone | |>The latter. (snip) |>Depends on what you mean by significant. You can have a non-zero | value |>in this slot that still doesn't have an effect on gameplay. | | So we have this small non-zero value... by "largely meaningless" do you | mean it has an effect on gameplay? See response in previous message, left unsnipped above. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCeP7QtQZlu3o7QpERAtCxAJ99fzZxVJ8Hs4JGcjRYwuM/kZ6vFgCg2MF5 hB2r9oY2uSs0uJrSF/ruXR4= =CSWG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Derek Ray wrote: > |>Depends on what you mean by significant. You can have a non-zero > | value > |>in this slot that still doesn't have an effect on gameplay. > | > | So we have this small non-zero value... by "largely meaningless" do you > | mean it has an effect on gameplay? > > See response in previous message, left unsnipped above. Just making sure that's what you meant. I guess I'm having a hard time believing that a non-zero value has no effect on game play. [ quoted text not captured ]

Derek Ray wrote: > Tell 'em to get over it. It is possible to table-riffle without bending > the cards. It's possible to RIFFLE without bending the cards, for that > matter. They're just throwing up excuses because they don't understand; > MAKE them understand. Show them (you may have to tone down your own > shuffling technique at first, since it sounds like you're like me) the > corner, show them the overhand. Both can be done without causing > permanent damage. While I am totally on board with everything you are saying, I gotta say that I am always incredibly wary of opponents who want to shuffle my deck. I'll shuffle it a hundred times if you want me to, but I'm not so hot on *you* (i.e. the generic "you" not the "Derek" you, although if you, Derek, asked to shuffle my deck, I'd be perfectly fine with it...) shuffling my deck, as you (i.e. not me) are much more likely to actually do damage to my cards through bad shuffling skills or grubby, grubby hands. I'm not, like, super neurotic about the condition of my cards or anything, but I'm never pleased by some random yahoo badly shuffling my (never sleeved) cards with pizza stained hands. So if you don't like how my cards are shuffled, I'll shuffle again in front of you. 10 times if you want. But I don't want other folks shuffling my deck. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot, easily spilled liquids to naked people." -Brittni Meil

On 4 May 2005 13:24:49 -0700, "Dorrinal Blackmantle" <john.m...@gmail.com> scrawled: > [ quoted text not captured ] saving you from master jam for just one specific turn, out of 38 billion games, is still a non-zero value. but i'd be impressed if you even knew it was happening. but it would be, as stated, meaningless. buried in the depths of the other complexities that go into making cardflow. [ quoted text not captured ]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dorrinal Blackmantle wrote: | | Just making sure that's what you meant. I guess I'm having a hard time | believing that a non-zero value has no effect on game play. Two Blood Dolls out of 10 are left stuck together in your 90-card deck, instead of all being separated by at least one card. Is this going to make the difference between a win or loss for you? Of course not. =) Many other factors weigh in far, far heavier than if you happen to draw two Blood Dolls in a row. :) - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCeUk9tQZlu3o7QpERAhEfAJ90zayy4lTIfUUWgeJihQsDRG+xYwCg3qyT jgqxp1blFka9iXVfK8Ke/j4= =rxdT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Peter D Bakija wrote: | | through bad shuffling skills or grubby, grubby hands. I'm not, like, super | neurotic about the condition of my cards or anything, but I'm never pleased | by some random yahoo badly shuffling my (never sleeved) cards with pizza | stained hands. Well, yes. That starts to drift into Grubby Gamer Syndrome, where you really want to pull a Milholland and start handing out little wrapped soap packets along with the How To Instructions. | So if you don't like how my cards are shuffled, I'll shuffle again in front | of you. 10 times if you want. But I don't want other folks shuffling my | deck. Of course this would be perfectly acceptable as well. =) - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCeUoktQZlu3o7QpERAns9AJ46/oQNNkfBWEo0QAB8pwOupbyNJQCg1LKz wklNrnNXE+Z/knm3/cf+IoM= =V33u -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Derek Ray wrote: > Well, yes. That starts to drift into Grubby Gamer Syndrome, where you > really want to pull a Milholland and start handing out little wrapped > soap packets along with the How To Instructions. That, and bad shuffling. Man. I have seen people strip gears while shuffling like you wouldn't believe. > Of course this would be perfectly acceptable as well. =) I'd like to think so :-) In my history of competetive VTES, I don't think I have ever had someone request to shuffle my deck. I'd like to think that if they did, they wouldn't argue if I offered to do so myself. [ quoted text not captured ]

Now you see this is where my point about accepted behaviour comes in again. By the tournament rules, someone else has the right to shuffle your deck. You, Peter, have an issue with someone else shuffling. Of course you're a "personality" in the VTES world so I'm sure people would let you get away with that - its accepted behaviour - but if Derek's statements are to be acted upon (and he is 100% correct that his way is the rules abiding way) then your deck could in fact be shuffled by a grubby faced grubby handed imp and you would have to smile and bear it. So using Derek's argument, you don't get a chance to "get used" to someone else shuffling, you just have to let it happen. Now because I do believe in accepted behaviour syndrome (as opposed to peer group pressure), this is something you have to "train" people to accept. But hey, I've taken Derek's comments on board, and am going to keep on with my city-wide cleansing program whereby I am slowly undoing years of socially accepted behaviur during VTES games. David

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 quetzalcoatl wrote: | Now you see this is where my point about accepted behaviour comes in | again. By the tournament rules, someone else has the right to shuffle | your deck. Yep. Someone sure does. I doubt anyone would insist that they personally be allowed to shuffle Peter's deck, because the whole point of that rule is to ensure a sufficient amount of shuffling. But if someone did insist, it would be correct to hand the deck to them. Rules. As a judge, I would also allow Peter to request that the person wash their hands first. Not mentioned in the rules. And I would support Peter's complaint if the person were shuffling his deck in a damaging fashion (bending cards 90 degrees, etc) and ask him to cut it out. The rules say you have the right to shuffle your prey's deck -- not to get sticky crap on it or to damage the cards. So as long as Peter's predator ONLY shuffles the deck, all is well. | Now because I do believe in accepted behaviour syndrome (as opposed to | peer group pressure), this is something you have to "train" people to | accept. Dude, I don't accept ANY of this "syndrome" crap. It's all excuses for not taking personal responsibility. Peter doesn't want people to shuffle his deck, and he's stated why. I see no reason with enforcing the rules consistent with Peter's concerns. However, failure to shuffle your deck properly violates the rules, plain and simple. Accepted behavior that violates the rules still violates the rules. If Peter were to totally refuse to allow his predator to shuffle his deck, that would be wrong. But he can certainly ask if it's OK if he just shuffles it more himself, and he can certainly ask that the person wash their pizza off their hands first. | But hey, I've taken Derek's comments on board, and am going to keep on | with my city-wide cleansing program whereby I am slowly undoing years | of socially accepted behaviur during VTES games. Good plan. I bet you get fairer, more enjoyable games as a result. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCeW4dtQZlu3o7QpERAggUAJ9knRzX77HujgFL7WSXIx/z3CvjcgCeMSRn ciJxq3cR/kl3vsWLF6BvPpY= =GTNE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> In practice, humans are simply not skilled enough (read: manual > dexterity) to properly shuffle a 90-card deck. If you play poker at all > (and what V:TES player would even CONSIDER such a thing?), you will > notice that the dealers do what is called a "rough mix" before shuffling > the deck between each hand. The rough mix is more effective at > randomizing than any riffle shuffle will ever be, even in the talented > hands of these dealers. Hey! A subject area I might actually be considered an authority in. The rough mix is an exceptionally good way of breaking up cards that appear in lumps, such as when a standard deck is first opened and is ordered by suit (or a jyhad deck is ordered by card type), and all things considered is not as hard on the cards as you'd think. While on a poker table dealers will do it fairly quickly in a more damaging way (mostly because the players that beat the hell out of the cards far worse than the dealer ever could), but a deliberate, slower mix won't damage cards. > Most V:TES players would refuse to rough-mix their cards, and some > believe that 2-3 riffle shuffles is sufficient randomization. It's not, > and it maximizes the benefit of that pre-shuffle table shuffle -- but > it's also common practice, and I don't typically see much need to > complain about it during games unless it is blatant; see below. Absolutely true - a rough shuffle isn't sufficient in a casino, nor are simply a few riffles. Standard procedure is rough shuffle, riffle, strip, riffle, riffle (RSRR). For my own curiosity's sake I have left out the rough shuffle, and only done the later. Unless I make a mistake I have never had more than 2 instances of 2 continuous cards. It works surprisingly well. The strip, or box shuffle is particularly imperative to ensure a good distribution, since in a riffle cards that begin at the top tend to stay at the top, and blocks of cards tend to remain in blocks. The strip moves blocks around and makes those blocks' relative positions change. My Jyhad shuffle procedure is to rough shuffle (if the deck was in a non-shuffled state), break the deck in two, do two RSRR's (using half of each pile each time), then cut the deck into quarters, Riffling the first and last together once, as well as the second and third. > I also agree with this. Although I would prefer to see no table > shuffling at all, and to see V:TES players do a rough-mix of their cards > at the start of their shuffling routine, I recognize that this is not > going to happen; there are enough other issues to worry about that this > doesn't hit the threshold of my radar. However, I will shuffle my > prey's library if I feel they've made only a token effort at > randomization. I think it's everyone's personal call; I'd just like to > make sure everyone is aware of the facts behind what's happening. =) I've heard stories of people who table shuffled, and did nothing else in magic, then an accute player would unmake their table shuffle so that all of their land (this was that M word game) was put back together, and their combos eliminated. Yes. Shuffling is about randomizing, those that shuffle to gain an edge are cheating, regardless of the hinky methods they use. The Other Derek (DR)

quetzalcoatl wrote: > Now you see this is where my point about accepted behaviour comes in > again. By the tournament rules, someone else has the right to shuffle > your deck. Sure. But if I was like "hows about I shuffle the deck 18 times while you watch instead of you?", unless the guy in question was a tremendous dick, that'd be fine. Although if someone really pressed the issue, I'd inevitably lose out. > You, Peter, have an issue with someone else shuffling. Of course you're > a "personality" in the VTES world so I'm sure people would let you get > away with that - its accepted behaviour Not necessarily. That people know who I am doesn't really help if someone wants to be a dick. > - but if Derek's statements are > to be acted upon (and he is 100% correct that his way is the rules > abiding way) then your deck could in fact be shuffled by a grubby faced > grubby handed imp and you would have to smile and bear it. Well, I wouldn't have to smile. And I could certainly attempt to pursude him that me shuffling 53 times in front of him would be sufficient. But if he decided to be a dick and demand to shuffle it himself, he'd shuffle it himself. > So using Derek's argument, you don't get a chance to "get used" to > someone else shuffling, you just have to let it happen. Unless I can rationally convince someone otherwise. > Now because I do believe in accepted behaviour syndrome (as opposed to > peer group pressure), this is something you have to "train" people to > accept. No, it isn't, really. If someone really, really is set on shuffling my deck, they are going to shuffle my deck. This doesn't mean I can't try and convince them otherwise. > But hey, I've taken Derek's comments on board, and am going to keep on > with my city-wide cleansing program whereby I am slowly undoing years > of socially accepted behaviur during VTES games. Sure. But what you are trying to undo is, essentially, cheating--"sort shuffling" is cheating (assuming that there is not sufficient shuffling afterwords--when I shuffle after a game, I'll pile sort a few times to break up clumps of cards, and then riffle shuffle 4 or 5 times to randomize). I teach in a high school, and occasionally I end up playing Magic with kids. And explain to them that sorting their decks into piles of 1 land and 2 non land cards (in a deck that is, preumably, 33% land cards) and then not shuffling afterwords, is cheating. They usually buy that. Me not wanting someone else to shuffle my deck isn't cheating. It is just me being a neurotic. And as long as I actually, sufficiently shuffle my deck (and I'll willingly shuffle my deck 20 times in front of someone if they want me to), trying to convince them to not shuffle my deck and instead let me do it more to their satisfaction, isn't breaking the rules at all. But then, this is all academic on my end, as it has never come up in reality. [ quoted text not captured ]

Peter D Bakija wrote: > quetzalcoatl wrote: > > > Now you see this is where my point about accepted behaviour comes in > > again. By the tournament rules, someone else has the right to shuffle > > your deck. > > Sure. But if I was like "hows about I shuffle the deck 18 times while you > watch instead of you?", unless the guy in question was a tremendous dick, > that'd be fine. Although if someone really pressed the issue, I'd inevitably > lose out. > The point was that the rules state that someone else has the right to shuffle. If they allow you shuffle they are declining their right and thus you do not have to go ahead and shuffle. So using Derek's "it is against the rules" concept, you may not (in theory) suggest shuffling your own deck instead. Personally I would let you, but once again using Derek's statements, its against the rules. > Well, I wouldn't have to smile. And I could certainly attempt to pursude him > that me shuffling 53 times in front of him would be sufficient. But if he > decided to be a dick and demand to shuffle it himself, he'd shuffle it > himself. > Now you see you're using the concept of "if he wanted to be a dick". But can you really make that statement since the rules implicitly state that it is his choice/right to shuffle. Enforcing the rules that would make him "a dick" and the judge "a dick" in your terminology, however they're doing the right thing. And this is where I was trying to get to with the socially accepted behaviour. You see a person claiming his right to shuffle your deck as "a dick". Your local playgroup let you shuffle your own deck for them, so you have set a standard for your local play, and anyone you have played against. However if you went to say ... Australia ... and someone wanted to shuffle your deck and you said "I'll do it instead", and they said, "actually I think I'll have a go at it" you would go back home stating "god Australians are dicks" or some variation of that. > Sure. But what you are trying to undo is, essentially, cheating--"sort > shuffling" is cheating (assuming that there is not sufficient shuffling > afterwords--when I shuffle after a game, I'll pile sort a few times to break > up clumps of cards, and then riffle shuffle 4 or 5 times to randomize). I > teach in a high school, and occasionally I end up playing Magic with kids. > And explain to them that sorting their decks into piles of 1 land and 2 non > land cards (in a deck that is, preumably, 33% land cards) and then not > shuffling afterwords, is cheating. They usually buy that. > I never saw it as cheating because it is the accepted behaviour during social play. I don't think people go out of their way to cheat using this method here (in my situation), just that it has been accepted - yes it is the wrong way to do it but it has been done for so long. > Me not wanting someone else to shuffle my deck isn't cheating. It is just me > being a neurotic. And as long as I actually, sufficiently shuffle my deck > (and I'll willingly shuffle my deck 20 times in front of someone if they > want me to), trying to convince them to not shuffle my deck and instead let > me do it more to their satisfaction, isn't breaking the rules at all. > No it isn't breaking the rules IF you convince them to give up their right to shuffle. If however they said "no I want to do it" you will label them as "a dick", which is entirely unfair since they have the right to do so. David

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 quetzalcoatl wrote: | | The point was that the rules state that someone else has the right to | shuffle. If they allow you shuffle they are declining their right and | thus you do not have to go ahead and shuffle. So using Derek's "it is Not true. The player may say "look, you need to shuffle more; either you do it, or I'll enforce my right under the rules to do so." Thus, Peter shuffles his deck more, and his predator chooses not to shuffle. | against the rules" concept, you may not (in theory) suggest shuffling False. You may suggest anything you want. If your opponent chooses to forgo his right to shuffle your deck provided you do so yourself, then he is allowed to do that. Discussion of the manner in which the rules will be followed does not preclude the rules from actually being followed. | Now you see you're using the concept of "if he wanted to be a dick". Peter is entitled to his opinion. | But can you really make that statement since the rules implicitly state | that it is his choice/right to shuffle. Enforcing the rules that would Sure. Peter doesn't like other people touching his cards. | make him "a dick" and the judge "a dick" in your terminology, however | they're doing the right thing. Wrong. They don't HAVE to shuffle your deck. The purpose of shuffling is to randomize the deck sufficiently. The clause about "your predator may shuffle your cards" is there to ensure that even if an individual player wishes to attempt to feign incompetence in shuffling, that the most-interested party can ensure randomization. There are two right things here. One is for your predator not to shuffle your deck. One is for your predator TO do so. | And this is where I was trying to get to with the socially accepted | behaviour. You see a person claiming his right to shuffle your deck as | "a dick". Your local playgroup let you shuffle your own deck for them, Which is, of course, well within the rules. | so you have set a standard for your local play, and anyone you have | played against. However if you went to say ... Australia ... and | someone wanted to shuffle your deck and you said "I'll do it instead", | and they said, "actually I think I'll have a go at it" you would go | back home stating "god Australians are dicks" or some variation of | that. And he would be within his rights to do so. The request to shuffle your prey's deck implies that you do not believe your prey has done a sufficient job of shuffling. If Peter thinks he HAS, in fact, done a sufficient job, then it is not unusual for him to believe that his predator was/is being a dick. Let us contrast with your example. Your prey pile-sorts his deck (not a shuffle, in violation of the rules). You point out that the rules state that he MUST shuffle, and what he's doing isn't a shuffle. No matter who shuffles your prey's deck, he is going to think you're a dick -- but that is an unjust characterisation, as you are simply requiring him to follow a rule that he was currently violating. See the difference? Probably not; this whole "accepted behavior" thing is a big old crutch/excuse. | I never saw it as cheating because it is the accepted behaviour during | social play. I don't think people go out of their way to cheat using Excusing not following the rules, aka cheating, by calling it "accepted behavior" merely encourages the behavior, without improving the situation any. I'm sure very few people are intending to set their deck in a particular order, but the fact remains that they are doing so. | this method here (in my situation), just that it has been accepted - | yes it is the wrong way to do it but it has been done for so long. Another enabling crutch: "It's been done this way forever." | No it isn't breaking the rules IF you convince them to give up their | right to shuffle. If however they said "no I want to do it" you will | label them as "a dick", which is entirely unfair since they have the | right to do so. Perhaps a bit unfair, but then again, Peter has admitted that it's just him being neurotic. However, what is COMPLETELY unfair is someone complaining about someone else correcting their violation of the rules. ~ In Peter's example, he violates no rules -- he shuffles his deck in a way that will increase randomization. In your example, players are violating rules constantly by only sorting (instead of shuffling) their deck. - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFCeZbdtQZlu3o7QpERAppwAKCfnDoafloF0gWitCjCCnlV2h5alQCeOs8r gDSSGTBFwR/LSZhSfr/dB7E= =3+7e -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> > Not true. The player may say "look, you need to shuffle more; either > you do it, or I'll enforce my right under the rules to do so." Thus, > Peter shuffles his deck more, and his predator chooses not to shuffle. > > | against the rules" concept, you may not (in theory) suggest shuffling > > False. You may suggest anything you want. If your opponent chooses to > forgo his right to shuffle your deck provided you do so yourself, then > he is allowed to do that. Discussion of the manner in which the rules > will be followed does not preclude the rules from actually being followed. > Quoting the online tournament rules. Here you will note that the player MUST present his deck to his predator who may shuffle/cut as he desires. The judge has a choice to change this to himself shuffling. He must present the deck to his predator. Yes in Peter's situation his playgroup would probably go along the lines of the predator declining the shuffle/cut of his deck because they know Peter shuffles really well and he hates people touching his cards. However he must still present the deck to the preadator and if they decide to shuffle/cut then he can't do anything about it. He can't even ask the judge "look I hate it when people touch my cards, can I shuffle the deck and you supervise?". The judge's only choice in the matter is to have himself shuffle instead of the predator, no other choice. === 3.2. Pre-Game Procedure The following steps must be performed in order before each game begins. Players shuffle their decks. Players present their decks to their predators for additional shuffling and cutting, if desired. Each player draws seven cards from his or her library and four vampires from his or her crypt. 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. === > > Wrong. They don't HAVE to shuffle your deck. The purpose of shuffling > is to randomize the deck sufficiently. The clause about "your predator > may shuffle your cards" is there to ensure that even if an individual > player wishes to attempt to feign incompetence in shuffling, that the > most-interested party can ensure randomization. > They don't have to but they have that choice/right to do so. And if they choose to do so, you cannot stop them. You can attempt to suggest to them that it is unecessary however they can still do so. > And he would be within his rights to do so. The request to shuffle your > prey's deck implies that you do not believe your prey has done a > sufficient job of shuffling. If Peter thinks he HAS, in fact, done a > sufficient job, then it is not unusual for him to believe that his > predator was/is being a dick. > It does not matter if you believe that you have randomised correctly. The rules require you to present the deck to your predator for them to make the choice. I by habit at least cut a prey's deck when presented. Now if my habit was to give it one last shuffle/cut no matter who you were ... I would be "a dick" under this argument. Which of course I don't think I am because I do it for everyone ... no exceptions. > Let us contrast with your example. Your prey pile-sorts his deck (not a > shuffle, in violation of the rules). You point out that the rules state > that he MUST shuffle, and what he's doing isn't a shuffle. No matter > who shuffles your prey's deck, he is going to think you're a dick -- but > that is an unjust characterisation, as you are simply requiring him to > follow a rule that he was currently violating. > You are obviously someone who does not see that society does have grey areas. I agree that the pile shuffle is not as randomising as some other methods, however it is not banned under the rules as long as it "randomises sufficiently". The final arbiter of that decision is the judge. Social acceptance is not a cop-out. If the judge has decided that pile shuffling is random enough for his tournament then that is that. In fact re-reading the tournament rules I quoted above, there is nothing in there that explicitly disallows a pile shuffle or any other method that randomises less than any other. Of course I agree with your ascertion that pile shuffling may not be random enough, however if that limited randomness was accepted by the head judge then you cannot do anything about it. David

David wrote: >The point was that the rules state that someone else has the right to >shuffle. Yes, they do. I'm not arguing this point. If someone is really set on shuffling my deck, there is not a darn thing I can do about it other than get DQed from the event. This being said, there is nothing saying that I can't try and convince them that me shuffling the deck 10 times in front of them is sufficient. But if they really want to shuffle it, then they can shuffle it. >If they allow you shuffle they are declining their right and >thus you do not have to go ahead and shuffle. So using Derek's "it is >against the rules" concept, you may not (in theory) suggest shuffling >your own deck instead. Personally I would let you, but once again using >Derek's statements, its against the rules. No, it isn't against the rules. The rules say they may shuffle my deck. It doesn't say that must shuffle my deck. They have the option to shuffle my deck. Nothing is saying I can't try and convince them to opt out of shuffling my deck--me shuffling my deck instead of them isn't breaking any rule. The rules do state that the deck must be shuffled (sufficiently randomized?). Who does it is immeterial. Yes, my opponent has the option to shuffle my deck. Whether or not they do is not a rules issue, as long as the deck is sufficiently shuffled by someone. >Now you see you're using the concept of "if he wanted to be a dick". Yup. But whether or not I think someone is a dick is immaterial also. The rules say nothing about me thinking someone is a dick or not. Personally, if someone desperately wants to shuffle my deck, and I can't pursuade them otherwise, I'll likely think they are a dick. But I'll be compelled to let them shuffle my deck. >But can you really make that statement since the rules implicitly state >that it is his choice/right to shuffle. Of course I can make that statement. I think someone who really wants to shuffle my deck, even though I have sufficiently shuffled it, and after I offer to shuffle it 15 times in front of them, is being a dick. But the rules say that I lose out in that particular instance. That doesn't mean I can't think they are being a dick. >Enforcing the rules that would make him "a dick" and the judge "a dick" in your >terminology, however they're doing the right thing. The shuffling rules exist to ensure that decks are sufficiently randomized. Who does the randomization is irrelevant. My opponent shuffling my deck is an option, not a requirement of the rules. As the rules work, the option is my opponent's, not mine. And if they really want to shuffle it, I'm not going to fight them. But I'll still think they are being a dick. >And this is where I was trying to get to with the socially accepted >behaviour. You see a person claiming his right to shuffle your deck as >"a dick". Yup. But me thinking that they are being a dick doesn't mean that the rules get broken. The paralell you are trying to draw (me not wanting my opponent to shuffle my deck and think they are a dick if they insist vs. not actually shuffling your deck) is a faulty one. In my instance, no rules are being broken, even if I convince my opponent to let me shuffle over and over again instead of him--it is his option. In the other instance (insufficient randomization by virtue of sorted pile shuffling), a rule is actually being broken. See the difference? >However if you went to say ... Australia ... and someone wanted to shuffle your deck >and you said "I'll do it instead", and they said, "actually I think I'll have a go at it" you >would go back home stating "god Australians are dicks" or some variation of >that. Yes. Yes I would. But still, no rules would have been broken. Someone would be like "I want to shuffle your deck", I'd be like "hows about I do it 10 times in front of you instead?" and if they insisted, I'd have to let them shuffle my deck. I can't for the life of me see why anyone would insist on shuffling my deck when I offer to do it front of them 15 times over, unless they are being purposefully dicky. But that is me, and I know it is irational. But it doesn't mean I won't think they are being a dick. But whether or not I think someone (or a whole country) is being a dick is irrelevant. No rules are being broken either way. >I never saw it as cheating because it is the accepted behaviour during >social play. I don't think people go out of their way to cheat using >this method here (in my situation), just that it has been accepted - >yes it is the wrong way to do it but it has been done for so long. Sure. But it is still cheating. It might be accepted behavior during social play to pick the top 4 vampires in your crypt, or make your own starting hand before you shuffle your deck, or start with 50 pool too. But those are also cheating. I'm not saying that, like, shuffling like that makes you a bad person if everyone in your group does the same thing and no one cares. Just that it is, actually, breaking the rules and as such should likely be discouraged if your group wants to play with people from other groups. >No it isn't breaking the rules IF you convince them to give up their >right to shuffle. If however they said "no I want to do it" you will >label them as "a dick", which is entirely unfair since they have the >right to do so. Not unfair at all. I can label anyone I want a dick.Even if they are following the rules. I'll let them shuffle my deck, as they are allowed to by the rules, but I'll still think they are being a dick. But as that is completely irrelevant, who cares? No rules are being broken anywhere, either by me convincing my opponent to let me shuffle instead or by me being forced to let them shuffle my deck and me thinking they are a dick. On the other hand, me not letting them shuffle my deck, even though they insist, is breaking the rules and grounds for being DQed. Just like not sufficiently shuffling your deck by virtue of pile sorting is breaking the rules and grounds for being DQed. Whether or not I think someone is a dick is completely irrelevant to the situation. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > quetzalcoatl wrote: > > By the tournament rules, someone else has the right to shuffle > > your deck. > > Sure. But if I was like "hows about I shuffle the deck 18 times while you > watch instead of you?", unless the guy in question was a tremendous dick, > that'd be fine. ... And I could certainly attempt to pursude him > that me shuffling 53 times in front of him would be sufficient. But if he > decided to be a dick and demand to shuffle it himself, he'd shuffle it > himself. I understand wanting to protect your cards from Mr. Gorilla Mitts. But on the other hand, there are ways to shuffle a deck in the riffle style that will preserve the order of some cards in the deck (sequences of 5-7 cards on the top and bottom of the deck, for example) through a limitless number of shuffles without being obvious. If your predator shows you clean hands and promises to treat your babies gently, I hope you don't add his picture to your voodoo shrine of hate.

Emmit wrote: >I understand wanting to protect your cards from Mr. Gorilla Mitts. But >on the other hand, there are ways to shuffle a deck in the riffle style >that will preserve the order of some cards in the deck (sequences of >5-7 cards on the top and bottom of the deck, for example) through a >limitless number of shuffles without being obvious. If I am that good of a card manipulator, why, for the love of G'Quan, am I playing VTES for a handfull of boosters when I could be playing poker for money? If someone looks like they are shuffling sufficiently, I'm not going to assume that they are cheating. If someone looks like they aren't shuffling sufficiently, I'll ask them to shuffle more. I'm not going to either demand to shuffle their deck for them or assume that they are somehow manipulating their deck through prestidigtation even though it looks like they are shuffling sufficiently. And even if they are magically stacking their deck through shuffling, a simple cut of the deck will foil it anyway. >If your predator shows you clean hands and promises to treat your babies gently, I hope >you don't add his picture to your voodoo shrine of hate. I can't for the life of me figure why anyone would want to do this. And lemme tell you. My voodoo shrine of hate is quite packed... -Peter

p...@lightlink.com wrote: > If I am that good of a card manipulator, why, for the love of G'Quan, > am I playing VTES for a handfull of boosters when I could be playing > poker for money? You're not playing V:tES for the boosters, are you? An experienced poker player will spot a rigged riffle, and cheating at poker is a good way to earn a whole lot of hurt. Plus the method I describe isn't as useful when people are drawing from a common deck. > And even if they are magically stacking their deck through shuffling, a > simple cut of the deck will foil it anyway. The method I describe is not foiled by a cut. A cut puts the arranged sequence in the middle of your deck, where you will draw into it.

Emmit wrote: >The method I describe is not foiled by a cut. A cut puts the arranged >sequence in the middle of your deck, where you will draw into it. Do you honestly think there are enough people out there that have the ability to shuffle in front of someone, make it look like a sufficient shuffle, and yet still maintain a sequence of cards in the deck that isn't compromised by virtue of cutting the deck? And then do you honestly think that enough of the people who can do this are playing VTES and using this vast skill to gain advantage? Such that it is worth assuming that everyone is doing this an therfore shuffing their deck as a preventative measure? That sounds *far* more paranoid than "I don't want clumsy idiots to mess up my cards by shuffling badly" :-) Even if I (or anyone) could do this, how would it not be remedied by my picking up my deck in front of you, slide shuffling a few times (ya know, hold the deck sideways, pitch slightly so that a random chunk of cards from the top of the deck fall into your other hand, and repeat a few times) followed by a few standard riffle/arch shuffles? Man. All this discussion is making me think all sorts of people are going to demand to shuffle my deck just to turn my crank at Origins. Hey Kevin--, as Judge, you wanna shuffle my deck 15 times? If I trust anyone to shuffle my deck nicely, it's Kevin :-) -Peter

On 5 May 2005 09:36:51 -0700, <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > That sounds *far* more paranoid than "I don't want clumsy idiots to > mess up my cards by shuffling badly" :-) > > Even if I (or anyone) could do this, how would it not be remedied by my > picking up my deck in front of you, slide shuffling a few times (ya > know, hold the deck sideways, pitch slightly so that a random chunk of > cards from the top of the deck fall into your other hand, and repeat a > few times) followed by a few standard riffle/arch shuffles? > > Man. All this discussion is making me think all sorts of people are > going to demand to shuffle my deck just to turn my crank at Origins. > Hey Kevin--, as Judge, you wanna shuffle my deck 15 times? If I trust > anyone to shuffle my deck nicely, it's Kevin :-) Man, you're screwed. It goes like this. Peter: "Wanna cut?" Random Predator: "Think I'll shuffle a bit." Peter: "No, err, I'll shuffle it in front of you, just don't touch the..." Random Predator: "You don't want me to shuffle your deck? Why?" ... 1. Peter: "Well, I hate it when clumsy, dirty bastards touch my unsleeved decks..." Random Predator: "Really? You're calling me a clumsy, dirty bastard?" *shuffles Peter's deck angrily* 2. Peter: "Sorry, can't tell, I just want to do it myself." Random Predator: "Wow, man, are you cheating or something?" *shuffles Peter's deck suspiciously* 3. Peter: "You see, I have this woodoo shrine, and whoever shuffles my decks mystically appears on my "baleful dolls" list..." Random Predator: "Cool, I always wanted to have a doll made after me!" *shuffles Peter's deck merrily* 4. Peter: *hand wave* "You don't want to shuffle. The deck is sufficiently randomized." Random Predator: "These are not the droids we are looking for..." *shuffles Peter's deck distractedly* 5. Peter: "I..." Random Predator: "Oh, you're THAT Peter!" *shuffles Peter's deck with an evil grin* -- Bye, Daneel

p...@lightlink.com wrote: > Do you honestly think there are enough people out there that have the > ability to shuffle in front of someone, make it look like a sufficient > shuffle, and yet still maintain a sequence of cards in the deck that > isn't compromised by virtue of cutting the deck? I could teach it to anyone who doesn't suffer from some kind of palsy in ten minutes. They'd have to practice in front of a mirror for a while, but doing it while playing V:tES would be good practice for doing it in front of people who are looking for card manipulators. > And then do you > honestly think that enough of the people who can do this are playing > VTES and using this vast skill to gain advantage? Such that it is worth > assuming that everyone is doing this an therfore shuffing their deck as > a preventative measure? > > That sounds *far* more paranoid than "I don't want clumsy idiots to > mess up my cards by shuffling badly" :-) You hate bent cards. I hate cheaters prospering. Both are easily preventable by courteous people. "I'm going to help you out with a few quick shuffles here." "Sure, just be gentle, will you?" > Even if I (or anyone) could do this, how would it not be remedied by my > picking up my deck in front of you, slide shuffling a few times (ya > know, hold the deck sideways, pitch slightly so that a random chunk of > cards from the top of the deck fall into your other hand, and repeat a > few times) followed by a few standard riffle/arch shuffles? Slide shuffling the way you describe it is just cutting the deck, which isn't enough. Slide shuffling followed by riffles would foil the method I'm thinking of, however. > Man. All this discussion is making me think all sorts of people are > going to demand to shuffle my deck just to turn my crank at Origins. Heh. No one has ever complained about me shuffling, or criticized the way I do it. And heck, Eric Chiang is in our playgroup. If you think you're protective...

Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > While I am totally on board with everything you are saying, I gotta > say that I am always incredibly wary of opponents who want to shuffle > my deck. I'll shuffle it a hundred times if you want me to, but I'm > not so hot on *you* (i.e. the generic "you" not the "Derek" you, > although if you, Derek, asked to shuffle my deck, I'd be perfectly > fine with it...) shuffling my deck, as you (i.e. not me) are much > more likely to actually do damage to my cards through bad shuffling > skills or grubby, grubby hands. I'm not, like, super neurotic about > the condition of my cards or anything, but I'm never pleased by some > random yahoo badly shuffling my (never sleeved) cards with pizza > stained hands. > > So if you don't like how my cards are shuffled, I'll shuffle again in > front of you. 10 times if you want. But I don't want other folks > shuffling my deck. So when someone asks to shuffle your deck, call a judge over and have the judge shuffle it. Hopefully the judge isn't grubby, though... ;) > Peter D Bakija > pd...@lightlink.com > http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6 > > "So in conclusion, our business plan is to sell hot, > easily spilled liquids to naked people." > -Brittni Meil Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

pd...@lightlink.com wrote: > Man. All this discussion is making me think all sorts of people are > going to demand to shuffle my deck just to turn my crank at Origins. > Hey Kevin--, as Judge, you wanna shuffle my deck 15 times? If I trust > anyone to shuffle my deck nicely, it's Kevin :-) Ya, I can just see it now. Every round of every tournament is going to start like this: Me: <loudly> Is everyone ready? Peter: KEEEEEEEEEEEVIIIIIIINNNNNN come shuffle my deck again!!! Field: <laughter> =) > -Peter [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > So when someone asks to shuffle your deck, call a judge over and have the > judge shuffle it. Hopefully the judge isn't grubby, though... ;) > Yep ... learn to trust at least one judge. Note that there is a distinction between judge and head judge, so if you can trust a single judge you're all set to avoid heartache and pain. David

Emmit Svenson wrote: > You hate bent cards. I hate cheaters prospering. Both are easily > preventable by courteous people. "I'm going to help you out with a few > quick shuffles here." "Sure, just be gentle, will you?" Or "hows about I shuffle sufficiently till you are satisfied?" > Slide shuffling the way you describe it is just cutting the deck, which > isn't enough. Slide shuffling followed by riffles would foil the method > I'm thinking of, however. And consequently, all problems are solved, and no one has to shuffle my deck but me. See--everyone can be happy :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

Daneel wrote: > Man, you're screwed. It goes like this. Man. I *am* screwed. Stupid me talking... [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > So when someone asks to shuffle your deck, call a judge over and have the > judge shuffle it. Hopefully the judge isn't grubby, though... ;) See, I know *you* aren't grubby! :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

> I could teach it to anyone who doesn't suffer from some kind of palsy in > ten minutes. They'd have to practice in front of a mirror for a while, > but doing it while playing V:tES would be good practice for doing it in > front of people who are looking for card manipulators. Just to chime in superfluously (which I do rather well), he's on target. It's not hard at all to do. I know that it seems crazy that vtes players would cheat, but that's more of a knee-jerk reaction based upon the types of people who generally play -- namely the well-adjusted normal sort of folks. Well, for varying definitions of "normal". Anyway, perhaps it's just me, but I find the mucous and pizza-stained hands and people who haven't bathed in months group to be less common for vtes. Can't we all just bathe and get along? Ankur

Kevin M. wrote: > Ya, I can just see it now. Every round of every tournament is going to > start like this: > > Me: <loudly> Is everyone ready? > Peter: KEEEEEEEEEEEVIIIIIIINNNNNN come shuffle my deck again!!! > Field: <laughter> > > =) Have we mentioned recently that I'm screwed? :-) [ quoted text not captured ]

On 5 May 2005 07:27:42 -0700, pd...@lightlink.com scrawled: >David wrote: >>The point was that the rules state that someone else has the right to >>shuffle. > >Yes, they do. I'm not arguing this point. If someone is really set on >shuffling my deck, there is not a darn thing I can do about it other >than get DQed from the event. This being said, there is nothing saying >that I can't try and convince them that me shuffling the deck 10 times >in front of them is sufficient. this is the bit that might no be so good. if i sit down at a tourney with a complete stranger as my prey, and he does this amazing cool fancy looks like he knows what he's doing shuffle, and then i ask if i can shuffle and he tries to convince me not to, i'm probably going to assume he's _such_ a good shuffler he can shuffle his Dreams to the top 7 cards of his deck or what-not. the better he is, the more likely it is he can cheat by shuffling. i'd like to reduce the chance that he actually is by shuffling. does that make me a dick? you can't say you don't know any gamers who are a but suspicious in their integrity, can you? salem http://www.users.tpg.com.au/adsltqna/VtES/index.htm (replace "hotmail" with "yahoo" to email)

Salem wrote: >this is the bit that might no be so good. if i sit down at a tourney >with a complete stranger as my prey, and he does this amazing cool >fancy looks like he knows what he's doing shuffle, and then i ask if i >can shuffle and he tries to convince me not to, i'm probably going to >assume he's _such_ a good shuffler he can shuffle his Dreams to the >top 7 cards of his deck or what-not. Yeah, see, I'd just assume that he didn't want me, a random yahoo, to mess with his cards. And then I'd cut his deck, so that the Dreams that he might have cleverly shuffled to the top hof his deck ended up in the middle or the bottom, and we'd move on. >the better he is, the more likely it is he can cheat by shuffling. i'd >like to reduce the chance that he actually is by shuffling. does that >make me a dick? No, but it does make you even more paranoid and irrational than me. And I'm pretty parinoid and irrational. See, this is all mostly academic. I have been playing competetive VTES for a long time. In that time, I have felt it was necessary to shuffle an opponent's deck exactly zero times. I have never shuffled an opponents deck in a game. Ever. I have never felt the need. I have never had the desire. I have never looked at someone shuffling their deck and thought either "That is an insufficient shuffling technique!" or "Huh. That guy is clearly shuffling in such a way that he is cheating somehow". Ever. Nor has anyone ever asked to shuffle my deck. I shuffle my deck. I say "hey--cut my cards". I get cut and we play. All this talk of stacking decks and tricky shuffling is mostly completely preposterous. >you can't say you don't know any gamers who are a but suspicious in >their integrity, can you? Of course I do. But none are so sketchy that I don't believe simply cutting their deck won't fix whatever needs fixing. I don't want to shuffle anyone else's deck any more than I want them to shuffle my deck. If it looks like they are shuffling sufficiently, and I then get to cut the deck, I don't belive anything else is necessary. -Peter

quetzalcoatl wrote: > So do you at least offer the deck to your predator? Sure. Someone cuts my deck every game. My crypt too. I'm actually quite agresisve about getting people to cut my deck ("Dude! Cut my deck! Dude! Cut my deck! Dude! Cut my deck!") But no one has ever shuffled it. If they wanted to, I'd either convince them to let me do it, or call the judge to do it--I really have no need for someone who is doing their best to kill me to man-handle my cards, especially as I don't get to man-handle their cards in return. Do people actually shuffle their opponent's decks in actual practice? As mentioned earlier, I have *never* seen this happen. No one has ever shuffled my deck. No one has ever asked to shuffle my deck. I have never shuffled anyone's deck. I have never asked to shuffle anyone's deck. And I play a lot of VTES. A few times I have been playing with someone who shuffled their sleeved deck in a hurry and it didn't look like they did that good of a job, and I asked them to shuffle better (i.e. I said something along the lines of "Hey--could you shuffle better? No problem--we can wait."), but I'd never presume to shuffle it for them. I mean really--are there people who regularly shuffle their opponents decks? Like such that this is actually an issue? [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 07 May 2005 11:55:56 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> scrawled: >I mean really--are there people who regularly shuffle their opponents decks? >Like such that this is actually an issue? yup. i do. usually just a few quick and gentle overhands. most people i have played against seem to thnk the tourney rules only actually allow the predator to cut once, and then that's it. i take a sick joy out of telling them the actual rule. i give my prey's deck a quick shuffle, and then tell them they're the ones allowed to do a final cut. on the rare occasion that i have been scoffing some messy food just prior to that opportunity, i'll just give their deck a tap* with the clean back of a knuckle and say 'done' (and carefully dust off the sugar grains that fell onto their deck when i tapped it ;) * "tap" here meaning sort of poking it short and sharp. not turning it 90 degrees. [ quoted text not captured ]

"salem" <salem_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote > on the rare occasion that i have been scoffing some messy food just > prior to that opportunity, i'll just give their deck a tap* with the > clean back of a knuckle and say 'done' (and carefully dust off the > sugar grains that fell onto their deck when i tapped it ;) > > * "tap" here meaning sort of poking it short and sharp. not turning it > 90 degrees. So not requiring a "Direct Intervention" from a paniced Meth. :)

On Sun, 8 May 2005 14:06:20 +1200, "carl" <mist...@hotmail.com> scrawled: [ quoted text not captured ] well, if it was peter i'd probably reach for the deck, pretending to not notice my grubby cinnamon and sugar coated fingers, and only stop reaching when his heart stopped. :D [ quoted text not captured ]

I remember this dirty "trick" for M-game tournaments with expensive cards involved: There's at least one card that forces other players to shuffle - force the other player to play without sleeves and then have him shuffle a lot. He'll surrender quickly...