Marke Cards/Stacking (LSJ) (rules team)

If a player was to put numbers, from 1-90, on the play side of his cards, inside the sleeve, which he would use to "reset" his deck, before shuffling, would that qualify as marking cards or stacking his deck?

> If a player was to put numbers, from 1-90, on the play side of his > cards, inside the sleeve, which he would use to "reset" his deck, before > shuffling, would that qualify as marking cards or stacking his deck? I don't know about marking cards, but assuming that your shuffling process is sufficiently randomized (i.e. 20 or more shuffles), it should not matter at all which order the cards were in prior to beginning the shuffling process. In fact, if such a stacking were to create "better shuffles" for the player in question, then it's almost certainly not being sufficiently randomized. Bottom line: Randomize your deck sufficiently, and initial ordering does not matter. If it does matter, you're not random. Ankur Gupta Prince of West Lafayette

[ quoted text not captured ] All well and fine, but would it count as stacking/marking, yes or no? need a ruling here cos someone is gonna do this at the next tournament and io need to know what to tell him.

[ quoted text not captured ] If you're the judge, you decide. It's that simple. If he was going to brazenly mark the underside of his deck like that, I'd probably stand right behind him and make sure the deck was shuffled sufficiently (like 20+ times) before starting the round. If he's bending the rules, you can stiffen up the rule-enforcement. Jeff

jeff...@pacbell.net wrote: > > If he was going to brazenly mark the underside of his deck like that, > I'd probably stand right behind him and make sure the deck was shuffled > sufficiently (like 20+ times) before starting the round. If he's > bending the rules, you can stiffen up the rule-enforcement. > > Jeff so not illegal per se, but unorthodox, maybe even unethical

[ quoted text not captured ] So long as the sleeves are identical and the nature of the cards cannot be discerned except by looking at their faces, sure. While legal themselves, the numbers would indicate a high likelyhood of a breach of the randomization rules, as others have noted, though.

[ quoted text not captured ] See, what started this: Person in question would stack their deck making sure that there is an even spread of masters, combat cards, etc... Then shuffle the deck, quite wekll if i may add, even offerring to let anyone else shuffle if they felt like it. Eventually he said that seeing as each time he has to figure out in his head what order they need to be put in before they are shuffled top ensure an even spread of card types, he would just number the little blighters and have done with. so as the shuffling is being done properly, i cannot see a break with the rules here myself. howeever, as others have objected, i thought i wisest to get a ruling. thanks anyway. still confused as to whether this is legal though

Blooded Sand wrote: > LSJ wrote: > > While legal themselves, the numbers would indicate a high likelyhood of > > a breach of the randomization rules, as others have noted, though. > > See, what started this: Person in question would stack their deck > making sure that there is an even spread of masters, combat cards, > etc... Then shuffle the deck, quite wekll if i may add, even offerring > to let anyone else shuffle if they felt like it. Eventually he said > that seeing as each time he has to figure out in his head what order > they need to be put in before they are shuffled top ensure an even > spread of card types, There's the problem. If being shuffled "quite well" is well enough to meet the "sufficiently" requirement of the VEKN rules, then the cards don't "need" to be in any particular order, sub-order, partial-order, or spread. That is, the final arrangement (clumping, spread, and all) of the deck is independent of whatever the original order is if the deck is being shuffled "sufficiently". If the starting arrangement is having a noticeable (and intentional) effect on the final arrangement, then the V:EKN rules on sufficient randomization are being violated.

thanks boss rule adjudicator rules type guy. you quite on the ball hey? lol!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Blooded Sand wrote: > jeff...@pacbell.net wrote: >> If he was going to brazenly mark the underside of his deck like that, >> I'd probably stand right behind him and make sure the deck was shuffled >> sufficiently (like 20+ times) before starting the round. If he's >> bending the rules, you can stiffen up the rule-enforcement. > > so not illegal per se, but unorthodox, maybe even unethical I'm somewhat surprised this is being asked... it seems common sense to me that deliberately ordering one's deck prior to play is an obvious attempt to subvert any randomization from shuffling. Kick him in the nuts, hard, and say "stop cheating, catfucker." - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFELheJtQZlu3o7QpERArHrAJ9dbdNSbqWwH6Oz8gc4jKhJQhIogwCg50UF 6voUU9uvotth8SvP14K21Jg= =veSK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In message <1143856138.2...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> writes: >Eventually he said >that seeing as each time he has to figure out in his head what order >they need to be put in before they are shuffled top ensure an even >spread of card types, he would just number the little blighters and >have done with. so as the shuffling is being done properly, i cannot >see a break with the rules here myself. You're contradicting yourself here. If what he does before shuffling is done to "ensure an even spread of card types" then the shuffling is not being "done properly". With a proper, thorough shuffle, it is entirely possible that all the master cards go to the bottom. Or that the deck stacks itself in alphabetical order. Or that it stacks itself in alphabetical order by artist name. A deck that is always shuffled to provide "an even spread of card types" is being shuffled by a cheating catfucker, to borrow Derek's elegant phrasing. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

"> If what he does before shuffling is done to "ensure an even spread of > card types" then the shuffling is not being "done properly". > > With a proper, thorough shuffle, it is entirely possible that all the > master cards go to the bottom. Or that the deck stacks itself in > alphabetical order. Or that it stacks itself in alphabetical order by > artist name. > > A deck that is always shuffled to provide "an even spread of card types" > is being shuffled by a cheating catfucker, to borrow Derek's elegant > phrasing. The thing is, however, that something like a 'perfect shuffle' does not exists. If I put all my cards sorted by what card it is (like, when you first construct it) and then shuffle it 'sufficiently' for like 20 times, I end up with a crappy spread of cards. Like stacks of 4-5 masters in a row etc simply because of the starting position of the cards. One might argue that I haven't shuffled properly, but nobody shuffles his deck 70-80 times because it's inconvenient and time-consuming. Hence, in any given game, the cards are not entirely randomized; they're randomized based on what order they were in before you started shuffling. That said, the starting position of the cards DO have influence on the order they end up and putting your cards evenly spread through the deck is blatantly cheating IMO; even if done without markers. If I out all my 5-card combo's together in stacks of 5 before shuffling, those same combo's are very likely to end up close together even after shuffling 'sufficiently' simply because in practice the shuffing is far from sufficient to actually randomize the deck. This is also why you see players lay out the cards in 6 or 7 stacks between games before shuffling instead of shuffling right away.

Izaak wrote: > The thing is, however, that something like a 'perfect shuffle' does not > exists. If I put all my cards sorted by what card it is (like, when you > first construct it) and then shuffle it 'sufficiently' for like 20 times, I > end up with a crappy spread of cards. Like stacks of 4-5 masters in a row > etc simply because of the starting position of the cards. One might argue > that I haven't shuffled properly, but nobody shuffles his deck 70-80 times > because it's inconvenient and time-consuming. Hence, in any given game, the > cards are not entirely randomized; they're randomized based on what order > they were in before you started shuffling. > > That said, the starting position of the cards DO have influence on the order > they end up and putting your cards evenly spread through the deck is > blatantly cheating IMO; even if done without markers. If I out all my 5-card > combo's together in stacks of 5 before shuffling, those same combo's are > very likely to end up close together even after shuffling 'sufficiently' > simply because in practice the shuffing is far from sufficient to actually > randomize the deck. This is also why you see players lay out the cards in 6 > or 7 stacks between games before shuffling instead of shuffling right away. You are confusing "people are too lazy to shuffle properly" with "it is impossible to shuffle properly". Now, if those people are putting cards into those stacks <i>randomly</i> (or even seemingly randomly), they are, in fact, shuffling. And that form of shuffle provides a good deal of both "declumping" and actual randomization. And people snicker when I use a die to shuffle my Crypt... -- - Gregory Stuart Pettigrew

LSJ wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] In which case, the numbering of the cards isn't the problem --- his randomization algorithm is faulty, and it needs to be corrected whether or not the deck has a known initial permutation.

[ quoted text not captured ] Part of the problem is that "sufficiently randomized" isn't well-defined. In practice, people evaluate the randomizing algorithms subjectively --- out of necessity, since the correct definition of randomizing algorithm involves it passing several statistical tests. But there's the rub. One man's random arrangement is another man's stacked deck.

Izaak wrote: > The thing is, however, that something like a 'perfect shuffle' does not > exists. If I put all my cards sorted by what card it is (like, when you > first construct it) and then shuffle it 'sufficiently' for like 20 times, I > end up with a crappy spread of cards. Like stacks of 4-5 masters in a row > etc simply because of the starting position of the cards. If you shuffle 20 times and a group of 5 cards has managed to stick together through each of those 20 shuffles, then the cards or sleeves are faulty (sticky) or the shuffling method for your individual shuffle needs to be examined to find the flaw and remove it. If you just overhand the deck a few times (equivalent to six to ten stacks that are then reversed in there ordering), then, yes, 20 shuffles is not sufficient. If, however, you're doing a reasonable riffle shuffle or pile shuffle, then 20 would certainly be sufficient. That said, you can expect some clumping in a "random" arrangement of cards. If you can validly expect little to no clumping, then your shuffling isn't random. > One might argue > that I haven't shuffled properly, but nobody shuffles his deck 70-80 times > because it's inconvenient and time-consuming. Hence, in any given game, the > cards are not entirely randomized; they're randomized based on what order > they were in before you started shuffling. No matter how well shuffled, the cards are never technically entirely randomized. The point is that they be sufficiently randomized -- meaning any pre existing arrangement of the cards has no predictable effect on the final arrangement of cards. > That said, the starting position of the cards DO have influence on the order > they end up and putting your cards evenly spread through the deck is > blatantly cheating IMO; even if done without markers. If I out all my 5-card > combo's together in stacks of 5 before shuffling, those same combo's are > very likely to end up close together even after shuffling 'sufficiently' > simply because in practice the shuffing is far from sufficient to actually > randomize the deck. Not true. If you shuffle sufficiently, then those combos are no more likely to be together than any other set of 5 cards are. > This is also why you see players lay out the cards in 6 > or 7 stacks between games before shuffling instead of shuffling right away. Pile shuffling *is* shuffling (assuming it's done with the cards face down).

[ quoted text not captured ] Very well. Assume this: I have a 90-card deck that consists of 15 different cards of which I have 6 copies each. Also each card is stacked upon the 5 other copies of it. I pile shuffle it face down in 6 piles. Obviously every pile will contain one of the 15 cards when I'm done and each pile will have the exact same order. I then loosely shuffle it 2-3 times, hand it over to my predator to cut it and start playing. Did I cheat?

Izaak wrote: > Very well. Assume this: > > I have a 90-card deck that consists of 15 different cards of which I have 6 > copies each. Also each card is stacked upon the 5 other copies of it. I pile > shuffle it face down in 6 piles. Obviously every pile will contain one of > the 15 cards when I'm done and each pile will have the exact same order. > That's not a pile shuffle. That's a pile cut, a simple reordering of the cards. A pile shuffle requires you to place the cards in each pile "at random". > I then loosely shuffle it 2-3 times, hand it over to my predator to cut it > and start playing. > > Did I cheat? You broke the rules. If you do it again after this post, then yes, it will be cheating, since you would be knowingly breaking the rules. Especially considering that by "loosely shuffle" you probably mean a poker shuffle, which is just another cut. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Izaak" <.> wrote in message news:442e9998$0$32456$ba62...@nova.planet.nl... > Very well. Assume this: > > I have a 90-card deck that consists of 15 different cards of which I have 6 copies each. Also each card is stacked upon the 5 > other copies of it. I pile shuffle it face down in 6 piles. Obviously every pile will contain one of the 15 cards when I'm done > and each pile will have the exact same order. > > I then loosely shuffle it 2-3 times, hand it over to my predator to cut it and start playing. > > Did I cheat? Of course. Why do you ask? Was there anything on this thread that would give you the idea the above would be considered to be "sufficient randomization"? Fred

Izaak wrote: > > Pile shuffling *is* shuffling (assuming it's done with the cards face > > down). > > Very well. Assume this: > > I have a 90-card deck that consists of 15 different cards of which I have 6 > copies each. Also each card is stacked upon the 5 other copies of it. I pile > shuffle it face down in 6 piles. Obviously every pile will contain one of > the 15 cards when I'm done and each pile will have the exact same order. > > I then loosely shuffle it 2-3 times, hand it over to my predator to cut it > and start playing. > > Did I cheat? Of course. Pile shuffling should be done as "randomly" as possible. Stacking a deck so that a methodical pile shuffle will move certain cards together is not a shuffle at all. And even so, a real pile shufle should be followed by real riffle shuffles, not loose ones. Preferably alternating between them (real pile shuffles and real riffle shuffles). For more on this topic, see http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1d7d6d2ab6808242 and surrounding posts. In any event, if you hand a deck to your predator to cut when you know the deck is not sufficiently randomized (regardless of the motions you may have put the cards through, and especially if you put them through motions desined to effect a particular outcome, clumping, spread, etc.), then you are, by definition, cheating.

"Brett" <shugNOo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:NgwXf.7388$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... > gpett...@gmail.com wrote: >> You are confusing "people are too lazy to shuffle properly" with "it is >> impossible to shuffle properly". Now, if those people are putting cards >> into those stacks <i>randomly</i> (or even seemingly randomly), they >> are, in fact, shuffling. And that form of shuffle provides a good deal >> of both "declumping" and actual randomization. > > Part of the problem is that "sufficiently randomized" isn't > well-defined. In practice, people evaluate the randomizing algorithms > subjectively --- out of necessity, since the correct definition of > randomizing algorithm involves it passing several statistical tests. But > there's the rub. One man's random arrangement is another man's stacked deck. Sure. But some people manage to mangle the hell out of logic without seeming to realize it. As has been pointed out a number of times in this thread, if the starting arrangement of your stack of cards affects something noticeable about the final product, then it can be no man's random arrangement. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] I don't dispute that. But demonstrating one method that does not produce randomization doesn't answer the question of what IS a randomization method. How are judges to determine when a deck is sufficiently randomized? The OP wrote that he thought the shuffling was proper, and that the player offered the deck up for others to shuffle. If it was sufficiently randomized (by objective criteria) then there is no problem with numbering the faces. If it wasn't randomized, then not only is the player's shuffling algorithm flawed, but the judge has demonstrated his inability to determine whether or not a deck has been randomized. That is my whole point.

<gpett...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1143905519....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... [ quoted text not captured ] Of course I did. Actually, this was just an example to point out why pre-ordering cards would be cheating. I never do this kind of stuff and would forbid it if I was a judge.

"Brett" <shugNOo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:5BxXf.7406$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> "Brett" <shugNOo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> news:NgwXf.7388$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... >>>Part of the problem is that "sufficiently randomized" isn't >>>well-defined. In practice, people evaluate the randomizing algorithms >>>subjectively --- out of necessity, since the correct definition of >>>randomizing algorithm involves it passing several statistical tests. But >>>there's the rub. One man's random arrangement is another man's stacked deck. >> >> Sure. But some people manage to mangle the hell out of logic without seeming >> to realize it. As has been pointed out a number of times in this thread, >> if the starting arrangement of your stack of cards affects something >> noticeable about the final product, then it can be no man's random arrangement. > > I don't dispute that. But demonstrating one method that does not produce > randomization doesn't answer the question of what IS a randomization > method. How are judges to determine when a deck is sufficiently > randomized? In order to know what "randomization" is, look at the _point_ of what you're doing. The point of shuffling your deck before a game is so that you won't know anything about what order the cards will appear in. If you have some knowledge (or if others at the table have some knowledge) (and it isn't based on illegal marking, of course) of what cards are going to come up in which order, then your deck isn't randomized. Of course, this includes knowledge based on what cards have appeared previously and it also includes mere suspicions or non-equal likelyhoods. So, if you've drawn a master card and you're thinking this indicates the likely of another master card appearing immediately behind it, something's wrong with your randomization. If you've drawn a master card and you feel fairly confident that it will _not_ be followed by another master card (that is, more confident than you should given the odds of the remaining number of master cards divided by the remaining number of cards in the deck), then something's wrong with your randomization. All of these points seem quite obvious to me. I'm wondering what your actual issue is here. I don't really understand what the thrust of your question is. > The OP wrote that he thought the shuffling was proper, and > that the player offered the deck up for others to shuffle. Sure. But that was, of course, incredibly illogical. If his shuffling was "proper", then he should not have needed any order printed on his cards to put them in so that he would feel them any more or less "randomized" when he got done shuffling. Either his perception was flawed or his method of shuffling was. There's no third option. And offering the deck to others to shuffle is beside the point. Others shouldn't need to shuffle his deck in order to assure that they're randomized. If they do, he's cheating. > If it was > sufficiently randomized (by objective criteria) then there is no problem > with numbering the faces. Agreed. It's simply an illogical, unnecessary act - by definition. > If it wasn't randomized, then not only is the > player's shuffling algorithm flawed, but the judge has demonstrated his > inability to determine whether or not a deck has been randomized. That > is my whole point. Sure. Judges are limited in their ability to have total knowledge of whether a deck is truly randomized or not - but they have to make rulings about it anyway. There are many issues judges have to rule on without the ability or knowledge to make a flawless ruling. I fail to see what point you're making beyond this. We already knew this. Fred

> Of course. Then pre-stacking would be cheating. > Pile shuffling should be done as "randomly" as possible. Stacking a > deck so that a methodical pile shuffle will move certain cards together > is not a shuffle at all. Okay, so I "randomly" pile shuffle. Ie, I put my 90 cards in a certain order and then pile shuffle them seemingly random, while in fact it is a pre-determined pattern putting my cards in the optimal playing order. Sure, I'm cheating, but it's an undetectable way to cheat if pre-stacking cards in a certain order is allowed. > And even so, a real pile shufle should be followed by real riffle > shuffles, not loose ones. Preferably alternating between them (real > pile shuffles and real riffle shuffles). With a loose shuffle I mean a 2-3 riffle shuffles using fairly big clumps of cards with each motion. Dunno if that makes sense, but it's how people tend to shuffle cards in tournaments. > For more on this topic, see > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1d7d6d2ab6808242 > and surrounding posts. > > In any event, if you hand a deck to your predator to cut when you know > the deck is not sufficiently randomized (regardless of the motions you > may have put the cards through, and especially if you put them through > motions desined to effect a particular outcome, clumping, spread, > etc.), then you are, by definition, cheating. Yes, of course. That's not the issue at hand IMO. By allowing pre-stacking of a deck you're also taking a very big assumption that every deck is completely randomized before starting a game. That in itself is simply not the case. Another example: I play a deck with 25 Thefts of Vitae, 25 Apportations, 20 Conditionings and 20 permanents. Naturally, after the first round, my ashpile will consist only the Thefts, Apportations and Conditiongs. I gather my cards from the table, add them to the ashpile and reshuffle the for the next round. Not too surprisingly, the next round most of the permanents will be close together in the deck, even though I didn't even try to accomplish that and shuffled 'sufficiently' Incidentally, exactly this is also what causes people to master jam a lot on second and third rounds, but that ofc might be just my experience in recent tournaments. I personally always make a point of it to make sure my masters are spread fairly well through the deck before starting to shuffle it to decrease the chance of them being clumped together when I'm done shuffling. In a way, this might be considered cheating too now that I think of it...

Izaak wrote: > I play a deck with 25 Thefts of Vitae, 25 Apportations, 20 Conditionings and > 20 permanents. Naturally, after the first round, my ashpile will consist > only the Thefts, Apportations and Conditiongs. I gather my cards from the > table, add them to the ashpile and reshuffle the for the next round. Not too > surprisingly, the next round most of the permanents will be close together > in the deck, even though I didn't even try to accomplish that and shuffled > 'sufficiently' > > Incidentally, exactly this is also what causes people to master jam a lot on > second and third rounds, but that ofc might be just my experience in recent > tournaments. I personally always make a point of it to make sure my masters > are spread fairly well through the deck before starting to shuffle it to > decrease the chance of them being clumped together when I'm done shuffling. > In a way, this might be considered cheating too now that I think of it... By definition, if you can expect your permanents to be close together, you have not shuffled sufficiently. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Izaak" <.> wrote in message news:442eb218$0$514$ba62...@nova.planet.nl... >> Pile shuffling should be done as "randomly" as possible. Stacking a >> deck so that a methodical pile shuffle will move certain cards together >> is not a shuffle at all. > > Okay, so I "randomly" pile shuffle. Ie, I put my 90 cards in a certain order > and then pile shuffle them seemingly random, while in fact it is a > pre-determined pattern putting my cards in the optimal playing order. This is a contradiction in terms. > Sure, > I'm cheating, but it's an undetectable way to cheat if pre-stacking cards in > a certain order is allowed. No it's not. You can't take half of Scott's instructions and ignore the other half (doing some form of random ordering between pile shuffles; he mentioned riffle shuffles but I think just cutting the cards a few times might even suffice) and make any worthwhile point. If you mean that a person could show up with his deck stacked and do a few pre-formulated pile shuffles in order to arrive at a final product which is also predetermined (and favorable to play; totally unrandomized), sure. We know that. So take from that the point that if you see a player trying to get by pile shuffling his cards ONLY and representing the result as 'random', that should not be accepted. >> And even so, a real pile shufle should be followed by real riffle >> shuffles, not loose ones. Preferably alternating between them (real >> pile shuffles and real riffle shuffles). > > With a loose shuffle I mean a 2-3 riffle shuffles using fairly big clumps of > cards with each motion. Dunno if that makes sense, but it's how people tend > to shuffle cards in tournaments. Actually, I beleive what you're saying would be fine as long as it were followed by another pile shuffle. The intervening "loose" shuffle seems to me that it would make the final order absolutely impossible to predict. I believe a difference of a single card in a cut will affect an ensuing pile shuffle massively. ... > Another example: > > I play a deck with 25 Thefts of Vitae, 25 Apportations, 20 Conditionings and > 20 permanents. Naturally, after the first round, my ashpile will consist > only the Thefts, Apportations and Conditiongs. I gather my cards from the > table, add them to the ashpile and reshuffle the for the next round. Not too > surprisingly, the next round most of the permanents will be close together > in the deck, even though I didn't even try to accomplish that and shuffled > 'sufficiently' No, you didn't. If you had shuffled "sufficiently", by definition you could predict nothing about in what order the permanents or any other cards arrived in. Folks, what is it about the definition of "random" some of you fail to understand? > Incidentally, exactly this is also what causes people to master jam a lot on > second and third rounds, but that ofc might be just my experience in recent > tournaments. What makes you think there's an inordinate about of master card hand jam on the second and third round of tournaments? I strongly suspect that's just your perception and that it doesn't describe reality. If it does, then whoever is suffering from it needs to learn to shuffle their cards better. > I personally always make a point of it to make sure my masters > are spread fairly well through the deck before starting to shuffle it to > decrease the chance of them being clumped together when I'm done shuffling. > In a way, this might be considered cheating too now that I think of it... Have your read nothing else in this thread? Once AGAIN (like a broken record), no, spreading your masters "fairly well through the deck" - whatever you mean by that - before staring to shuffle in and of itself is NOT cheating. However, your perception that doing so prevents master card hand jam in the ensuing game can indicate ONLY ONE OF TWO POSSIBILITIES: #1) Your perception that you need to do this for this reason is fallacious. #2) Your method of shuffling is insufficient and THAT would be cheating. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] False. As an extreme example, I build a library of 90 blood dolls. Whether I shuffle the deck 0 times or 1000 times, I will be able to accurately predict the next card drawn. > Of course, this includes > knowledge based on what cards have appeared previously and it also includes > mere suspicions or non-equal likelyhoods. So, if you've drawn a master > card and you're thinking this indicates the likely of another master card > appearing immediately behind it, something's wrong with your randomization. > If you've drawn a master card and you feel fairly confident that it will > _not_ be followed by another master card (that is, more confident than > you should given the odds of the remaining number of master cards divided > by the remaining number of cards in the deck), then something's wrong with > your randomization. As in the example I gave above, this criteria cannot distinguish between good and poor randomization methods. > All of these points seem quite obvious to me. I'm wondering what your > actual issue is here. I don't really understand what the thrust of your > question is. > My question is: How does one practically determine if a deck has been "sufficiently randomized"? All this commentary about being able to predict which cards are going to be drawn next is irrelevant, because the player's predictive ability cannot be measured.

Brett wrote: > My question is: How does one practically determine if a deck has been > "sufficiently randomized"? All this commentary about being able to > predict which cards are going to be drawn next is irrelevant, because > the player's predictive ability cannot be measured. By shuffling well and often. It's the only way. Riffle Shuffle several times. Pile Shuffle, then Riffle Shuffle the piles together. Then Poker Shuffle a little. Then Riffle Shuffle several more times. Then Pile Shuffle again. Then Riffle Shuffle the piles together. Then Poker Shuffle a little... I believe someone stated that 9 *good* Riffle Shuffles were required to sufficiently randomize a 90-card deck. Most people shuffle 2-4 times and call it a day. [ quoted text not captured ]

"Brett" <shugNOo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:NQyXf.7419$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... > Fred Scott wrote: >> "Brett" <shugNOo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >> news:5BxXf.7406$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... >> In order to know what "randomization" is, look at the _point_ of what you're >> doing. The point of shuffling your deck before a game is so that you won't >> know anything about what order the cards will appear in. If you have some >> knowledge (or if others at the table have some knowledge) (and it isn't >> based on illegal marking, of course) of what cards are going to come up in >> which order, then your deck isn't randomized. > > False. As an extreme example, I build a library of 90 blood dolls. > Whether I shuffle the deck 0 times or 1000 times, I will be able to > accurately predict the next card drawn. Dude, if I have to make obvious qualifications of what I write to prevent you from deliberate evading the point, I'll be forced to write encylopedias that you'll never bother reading. I'm pretty sure people think my writing is far too voluminous as it is. It's mainly to prevent stupid responses like the above but I guess that's silly. When someone wants to evade my point, it really doesn't matter how thoroughly I cover or qualify it. If your shuffles were sufficiently random then you actually couldn't predict _which_ Blood Doll you'd draw. It's just that in the context of a CCG, which copy of a card you draw doesn't matter. So you've constructed a scenario in which randomization doesn't matter at all. Big deal. Please try to stick to subject at hand or you'll just waste both of our time. (Perhaps that was the intent in the first place?) > My question is: How does one practically determine if a deck has been > "sufficiently randomized"? See the explanation I gave in my previous post. > All this commentary about being able to > predict which cards are going to be drawn next is irrelevant, because > the player's predictive ability cannot be measured. Huh?!? Why does that matter? What makes you think that the quality of a player's predictive ability has to be measurable in order to understand what the definition of 'randomization' means? The point of randomizing your deck prior to play is and always will be to prevent all players from predicting its order in any way, shape, or form. If you have achieved that goal, you have satisfied the point of the rule. Period. Fred

In message <442eabec$0$518$ba62...@nova.planet.nl>, Izaak <?.?@?.?.invalid> writes: ><gpett...@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:1143905519....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> You broke the rules. If you do it again after this post, then yes, it >> will be cheating, since you would be knowingly breaking the rules. >> Especially considering that by "loosely shuffle" you probably mean a >> poker shuffle, which is just another cut. > >Of course I did. Actually, this was just an example to point out why >pre-ordering cards would be cheating. No. Even with the cards in a pre-determined order, a sufficiently random shuffle will mean that the pre-ordering doesn't matter. The problem here is that the pre-order is followed by moving the cards around in a pre-determined fashion. The cards haven't been randomly, thoroughly shuffled. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1143914456.8...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, "gpett...@gmail.com" <gpett...@gmail.com> writes: >By shuffling well and often. It's the only way. Riffle Shuffle several >times. Pile Shuffle, then Riffle Shuffle the piles together. Then Poker >Shuffle a little. Then Riffle Shuffle several more times. Then Pile >Shuffle again. Then Riffle Shuffle the piles together. Then Poker >Shuffle a little... For those of us who can't riffle shuffle to save their lives, I've often found the tactic of "spread the cards out, mix them around a bit, then pick them back up in any order, possibly with other people choosing cards for you" to work not so badly as one step. This requires either sleeves or non-messy surfaces, though. It's the tidier, and less revealing, version of "Take deck, throw it into the air, pick it up." Of course, when picking them back up, you can pick them back up into several piles and shuffle those piles, and so on. I just really, really suck at riffling. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <5BxXf.7406$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, Brett <shugNOo...@sbcglobal.net> writes: >I don't dispute that. But demonstrating one method that does not >produce randomization doesn't answer the question of what IS a >randomization method. How are judges to determine when a deck is >sufficiently randomized? By using their judgement. While any number of guidelines can be given, it essentially boils down to that. If a judge has any reason to believe that a given deck has been insufficiently shuffled, they can just pick up the deck, shuffle it and award a table extra time if necessary. Though if the table lacks any "Look at the top three cards" sort of effects, the judge could just continue shuffling while play continues, and hand the player a card whenever he needs to draw. That is aside from any judgements on whether the infraction was intentional or not. If you're particularly worried about this, hand each table a die with a reasonable number of faces on it - perhaps 6 to 10. Get each player to roll the die, add a small number to it (say, 2) and then get their predator to pile shuffle into d6+2 piles. Repeat as necessary until everyone thoroughly shuffles their decks in front of the other players anyway. For the players who are particularly worried about their preciouses being touched by other people, tell them to bring sleeves or get a/the judge to do it. A judge is going to need the authority to go through their deck in some circumstances anyway, such as if the judge is trying to satisfy himself that a given deal is play-to-win because the player protests that he's trying strategy X, or if a player alleges that certain cards have been discarded to the top of the library, or whatever. In any event, many players will often ask to have a look through an ash heap. And pile shuffling is probably the best form of randomization that doesn't involve people with no co-ordination (such as me) trying to riffle shuffle. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Coupe wrote: > In message <1143914456.8...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, > "gpett...@gmail.com" <gpett...@gmail.com> writes: > >By shuffling well and often. It's the only way. Riffle Shuffle several > >times. Pile Shuffle, then Riffle Shuffle the piles together. Then Poker > >Shuffle a little. Then Riffle Shuffle several more times. Then Pile > >Shuffle again. Then Riffle Shuffle the piles together. Then Poker > >Shuffle a little... > > For those of us who can't riffle shuffle to save their lives, I've often > found the tactic of "spread the cards out, mix them around a bit, then > pick them back up in any order, possibly with other people choosing > cards for you" to work not so badly as one step. This requires either > sleeves or non-messy surfaces, though. It's the tidier, and less > revealing, version of "Take deck, throw it into the air, pick it up." > Casinos call that a "wash". Have you tried it with sleeves? I always figured the sleeves would prevent it from being effective. And if your surface is so messy that you can't lay your cards out on it, you really ought to complain to the tournament organizer. [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <1143920186.7...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "gpett...@gmail.com" <gpett...@gmail.com> writes: >Casinos call that a "wash". Have you tried it with sleeves? I always >figured the sleeves would prevent it from being effective. Depends on the sleeves. Some aren't very sticky at all. >And if your >surface is so messy that you can't lay your cards out on it, you really >ought to complain to the tournament organizer. There's a difference between laying cards on a table and laying them face down and smearing them round in circles on a table. [ quoted text not captured ]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Brett wrote: > My question is: How does one practically determine if a deck has been > "sufficiently randomized"? All this commentary about being able to > predict which cards are going to be drawn next is irrelevant, because > the player's predictive ability cannot be measured. Why, the judge uses his judgement, of course. That's first and foremost, what he's there for... and second, that is why the rule is written so vaguely, so the judge can kick people in the nuts as it becomes necessary without having to listen to a bunch of rules-lawyer whining about "but the rules say...". With the current wording, the judge's response to any question starting with "but the rules --" is simply "It's sufficiently randomized when *I* say it is. Now keep shuffling, and stop looking at the faces or I'll make you start over." - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFELvuptQZlu3o7QpERAt/XAKDj9GJae2ktQq39ojD7gVEhuFeAZACgoQCP 3cTXqaaUs+P4zRm6iF13Sxk= =iQYP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Izaak wrote: > > Of course. > Then pre-stacking would be cheating. Not in-and-of itself, no. On top of the underlying infraction (failure to sufficiently randomize the deck), it could be cause to increase the penalty for the infraction, though. > > Pile shuffling should be done as "randomly" as possible. Stacking a > > deck so that a methodical pile shuffle will move certain cards together > > is not a shuffle at all. > > Okay, so I "randomly" pile shuffle. Ie, I put my 90 cards in a certain order > and then pile shuffle them seemingly random, while in fact it is a > pre-determined pattern putting my cards in the optimal playing order. The "i.e.," above is not appropriate. "i.e." means that the thing that follows is equivalent to the thing that went before. But "randomly" is clearly not equivalent to "causing to become arranged in a pre-determined pattern". Indeed, they are complete antonyms. > Sure, > I'm cheating, but it's an undetectable way to cheat if pre-stacking cards in > a certain order is allowed. Non-sequitur. The discussion is about what is cheating, not about how to detect cheating. You are cheating, as you say. QED. > > And even so, a real pile shufle should be followed by real riffle > > shuffles, not loose ones. Preferably alternating between them (real > > pile shuffles and real riffle shuffles). > > With a loose shuffle I mean a 2-3 riffle shuffles using fairly big clumps of > cards with each motion. Dunno if that makes sense, but it's how people tend > to shuffle cards in tournaments. If you mean some method that fails to sufficiently randomize the decks, then the people who tend to use that method need to be instructed to use some other method so as to conform to the rules. > > For more on this topic, see > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/1d7d6d2ab6808242 > > and surrounding posts. > > > > In any event, if you hand a deck to your predator to cut when you know > > the deck is not sufficiently randomized (regardless of the motions you > > may have put the cards through, and especially if you put them through > > motions desined to effect a particular outcome, clumping, spread, > > etc.), then you are, by definition, cheating. > > Yes, of course. That's not the issue at hand IMO. ? It is exactly and directly the issue -- the quote above is a direct response to that exact issue. > By allowing pre-stacking > of a deck you're also taking a very big assumption that every deck is > completely randomized before starting a game. That in itself is simply not > the case. A deck is always pre-stacked prior to shuffling. Of course it is allowed -- it cannot be disallowed. In other news, taking that stack and taking time to manipulate the arrangement into some other arrangement (looking at the faces -- not shuffling), while allowed, is pointless if the subsequent shuffling process generates a sufficient randomization. So manipulating the deck prior to shuffling is a signal to everyone that the shuffling that will follow should be carefully scrutinized for signs insufficient randomization. > Another example: > > I play a deck with 25 Thefts of Vitae, 25 Apportations, 20 Conditionings and > 20 permanents. Naturally, after the first round, my ashpile will consist > only the Thefts, Apportations and Conditiongs. I gather my cards from the > table, add them to the ashpile and reshuffle the for the next round. Not too > surprisingly, the next round most of the permanents will be close together > in the deck, even though I didn't even try to accomplish that and shuffled > 'sufficiently' Then your shuffle is insufficiently random if it allows this sort of predictable outcome based on the starting stacking of the deck. > Incidentally, exactly this is also what causes people to master jam a lot on > second and third rounds, but that ofc might be just my experience in recent > tournaments. I personally always make a point of it to make sure my masters > are spread fairly well through the deck before starting to shuffle it to > decrease the chance of them being clumped together when I'm done shuffling. > In a way, this might be considered cheating too now that I think of it... Yes, indeed.

So in short: if I stack my cards in whatever way I like, even using numbers to do so. and then rifle shuffle it 9 times, as suggested a 90-card deck takes to be 'sufficiently shuffled' I'm ok? If I saw a player at my table do that I'd call a judge. If you were that judge what would you do? Allow it?

Izaak wrote: > So in short: if I stack my cards in whatever way I like, even using numbers > to do so. and then rifle shuffle it 9 times, as suggested a 90-card deck > takes to be 'sufficiently shuffled' I'm ok? If your 9 riffle shuffles sufficiently randomize the deck, then you're OK. If your 9 riffle shuffles fail to sufficiently randomize the deck (e.g., they're "perfect" riffles, or they're less-than-adquate riffles), then you're not OK. In short: it does't matter what method you use, so long as you sufficiently randomize your deck. > If I saw a player at my table do that I'd call a judge. If you were that > judge what would you do? Allow it? I'd make sure the player sufficiently randomizes his deck. And I'd explain the fruitlessness of pre-stacking to the player while I was at it.

LSJ wrote: > In other news, taking that stack and taking time to manipulate the > arrangement into some other arrangement (looking at the faces -- not > shuffling), while allowed, is pointless if the subsequent shuffling > process generates a sufficient randomization. So manipulating the deck > prior to shuffling is a signal to everyone that the shuffling that will > follow should be carefully scrutinized for signs insufficient > randomization. For me the issue is different. Does doing something, that only makes sense if i am cheating, is sportmanslike behaviour and therefore allowed? IMO a player preordering his deck makes a message. He communicates, i want to cheat. Even if it is simple to prevent the cheating actual happening, do i have to accept that unspoken message. (Preordering done before game private is a different thing, because nobody knows.) Frank

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 x5m...@gmx.de wrote: > For me the issue is different. > > Does doing something, that only makes sense if i am cheating, is > sportmanslike behaviour and therefore allowed? IMO a player preordering > his deck makes a message. He communicates, i want to cheat. Even if it > is simple to prevent the cheating actual happening, do i have to accept > that unspoken message. This sounds like a judgement call. Who you gonna call? - -- Derek insert clever quotation here -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEMDObtQZlu3o7QpERAjm7AJwKH+ZtADv5iYlZUFZq+zxZ/Z+3ZACg8N0+ n5TNPQNMXHi5PLQZ7Y93V48= =Xta0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In message <1144007052.0...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, x5m...@gmx.de writes: >Does doing something, that only makes sense if i am cheating, is >sportmanslike behaviour and therefore allowed? IMO a player preordering >his deck makes a message. He communicates, i want to cheat. Even if it >is simple to prevent the cheating actual happening, do i have to accept >that unspoken message. (Preordering done before game private is a >different thing, because nobody knows.) Let him order it. Then take the deck off him, and order it into a fashion that would be bad if the deck wasn't thoroughly randomized first, such as putting all the Blood Dolls together at the bottom, or no combat in the top fifty cards, or alphabetised in a fashion of your choice, or with all the key "gateway" cards stuck at the bottom. Then hand it back to him and allow him to shuffle it. He can't complain, as his thorough shuffling will, of course, remove any effects of pre-ordering, such as his own stacking. If it doesn't, he isn't shuffling properly. [ quoted text not captured ]

Blooded Sand wrote: > If a player was to put numbers, from 1-90, on the play side of his > cards, inside the sleeve, which he would use to "reset" his deck, > before shuffling, would that qualify as marking cards or stacking his > deck? It should make no difference, as has been stated ad infinitem. In fact 7 riffle shuffles are sufficient to fully randomize a 52 card deck (see http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20001014/mathtrek.asp, not sure if a 90 card deck would need more or less shuffles my guess would be less). Casinos, where time shuffling is wasted time as no one can bet, often settle on 5 or 6. This however, is with a decent shuffler using the riffle technique. There is an added problem, card sleeves. These prevent a deck being shuffled successfully as the increased friction between cards and the increased thickness of each card prevents a clean shuffle. If I were in your position I would not allow the the guy to number his cards if he uses sleeves. If he wants to foresake his sleves and write on the front of each of his cards with a magic marker ... then that's fine.

[ quoted text not captured ] Section 3.2 of the VEKN rules has provisions for predators to shuffle and/or cut their prey's deck. I think it goes on to mention judges if the player is uncomfortable with their predator groping their deck. If i knew that someone in my playgroup was numbering his/her sleeves in an attempt to pre-stack his deck i'd shuffle the crap out of his cards if i was his pred. If i was at a table with him and not his pred i'd try to convince his pred to do the same. When all else fails, i'd call the judge. But there are rules in place that can solve this at a table level prior to that last resort, imo. Large tournaments with many out-of-towners could be an issue, i suppose... > James Coupe > PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. > EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. > 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. Merlin

jibbajibba wrote: > If I were in your position I would not allow the the guy to number his > cards if he uses sleeves. If he wants to foresake his sleves and write > on the front of each of his cards with a magic marker ... then that's > fine. The wisdom of Solomon! This one brings a smile to me. -Robert

James Coupe wrote: > Depends on the sleeves. Some aren't very sticky at all. I find mine suddenly become non-stick when someone walking past knocks them, especially if someone else (or indeed myself) has just split a drink of some description for them to fall in. As to learning to riffle shuffle, I recommend History; I got real good at shuffling at the back of my 5th form History class ;)

Shade wrote: > James Coupe wrote: > > > Depends on the sleeves. Some aren't very sticky at all. > > I find mine suddenly become non-stick when someone walking past knocks > them, especially if someone else (or indeed myself) has just split a > drink of some description for them to fall in. I know what you mean they are tricksie little buggers. I suspect they carry a static charge and as they get that nudge they just reverse their polarity so they can escape the confines of their static tower prison.

LSJ wrote: > Izaak wrote: > > So in short: if I stack my cards in whatever way I like, even using numbers > > to do so. and then rifle shuffle it 9 times, as suggested a 90-card deck > > takes to be 'sufficiently shuffled' I'm ok? > > If your 9 riffle shuffles sufficiently randomize the deck, then you're > OK. > If your 9 riffle shuffles fail to sufficiently randomize the deck > (e.g., they're "perfect" riffles, or they're less-than-adquate > riffles), then you're not OK. In normal practice, 10 riffle shuffles are sufficient to randomize a 90 card deck. http://tinyurl.com/lwvqu Ira

Izaak wrote: > So in short: if I stack my cards in whatever way I like, even using numbers > to do so. and then rifle shuffle it 9 times, as suggested a 90-card deck > takes to be 'sufficiently shuffled' I'm ok? No. Your deck is sufficiently shuffled when your predator and the tournament judge are both satisfied that it is. When you present your deck to your predator, he may not only cut it, but shuffle it until he is satisfied it has been randomized. Then the judge has complete authority to decide if it has been randomized, and order further shuffling. There is no hard rule about what constitutes "sufficiently shuffled". > If I saw a player at my table do that I'd call a judge. I'd also encourage the predator to shuffle for a good long time. >If you were that judge what would you do? Allow it? I would certainly keep my eye on the situation, and probably order extra shuffling simply to ensure the player was receiving no statistical benefits.

James Coupe wrote: > Let him order it. > > Then take the deck off him, and order it into a fashion that would be > bad if the deck wasn't thoroughly randomized first, such as putting all > the Blood Dolls together at the bottom, or no combat in the top fifty > cards, or alphabetised in a fashion of your choice, or with all the key > "gateway" cards stuck at the bottom. > > Then hand it back to him and allow him to shuffle it. > > He can't complain, as his thorough shuffling will, of course, remove any > effects of pre-ordering, such as his own stacking. If it doesn't, he > isn't shuffling properly. This is brilliant.

Blooded Sand wrote: > If a player was to put numbers, from 1-90, on the play side of his > cards, inside the sleeve, which he would use to "reset" his deck, > before shuffling, would that qualify as marking cards or stacking his > deck? Let's say you order your deck, then shuffle it. I, as your predator, have a right to re-shuffle your deck. So let's say I order it first by master cards, actions, action modifiers, etc, then riffle-shuffle it 9 times and hand it back to you. If you're not comfortable that the resulting deck is going to be sufficiently randomized, then *I* as your predator cannot be comfortable that your method will leave the deck sufficiently randomized. I would allow the player to do this, with the caveat that after he is done ordering and shuffling his cards, you as tournament judge, will re-order them and re-shuffle them. Then see if he bothers to do it.

James Coupe wrote: > > Let him order it. > > Then take the deck off him, and order it into a fashion that would be > bad if the deck wasn't thoroughly randomized first, such as putting all > the Blood Dolls together at the bottom, or no combat in the top fifty > cards, or alphabetised in a fashion of your choice, or with all the key > "gateway" cards stuck at the bottom. > > Then hand it back to him and allow him to shuffle it. > > He can't complain, as his thorough shuffling will, of course, remove any > effects of pre-ordering, such as his own stacking. If it doesn't, he > isn't shuffling properly. > Damnit James... I shouda read the entire thread before responding, instead of just 9/10ths of it. You stole my brilliant idea! ;)

Chris Berger wrote: > Let's say you order your deck, then shuffle it. I, as your predator, > have a right to re-shuffle your deck. So let's say I order it first by > master cards, actions, action modifiers, etc. You do not have the right to scout his deck. [ quoted text not captured ]

gpett...@gmail.com wrote: > Chris Berger wrote: > > Let's say you order your deck, then shuffle it. I, as your predator, > > have a right to re-shuffle your deck. So let's say I order it first by > > master cards, actions, action modifiers, etc. > > You do not have the right to scout his deck. > True. I have the right to order it and then shuffle it (if he has the right to order it and then shuffle it), but in order to do so, I would have to look at the faces. That's why I suggested the tournament directory do the actual ordering. See original post.