Shuffling

24 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anyone else have trouble with this game and its lack of randomness at times? My experience has consistently been if I have an opening hand with say 5 to 6 lands, I can pretty much guarantee that my next 3 to 5 draws are land also. Now the inverse seems to be true as well, if I get a hand with no land or 1 land I can pretty much bank on not drawing one for 3 to 5 turns maybe more.
Yep

DOTP 2012 was like that as well

I've also noted that when I am playing someone who is running a bloated deck of 70 cards plus, the game will consistently land flood me to make up for their deck being full of crap
Is the game trying to deal out punishment for accepting a bad hand?
Anyone else have trouble with this game and its lack of randomness at times? My experience has consistently been if I have an opening hand with say 5 to 6 lands, I can pretty much guarantee that my next 3 to 5 draws are land also. Now the inverse seems to be true as well, if I get a hand with no land or 1 land I can pretty much bank on not drawing one for 3 to 5 turns maybe more.



Brewsky, do you believe me now? I know that this is true....
And to add, mulligans under the conditions I mentioned previously are painfully predictable. No land in opening hand? Mulligan 3 to 4 times to see 1 to 2 land and if it's a multicolored deck typically only mana of 1 color. Hand full of land? Moar land, moar land etc.

Yep

DOTP 2012 was like that as well

I've also noted that when I am playing someone who is running a bloated deck of 70 cards plus, the game will consistently land flood me to make up for their deck being full of crap



I've had similar trouble on that end too playing people will well beyond the minimum deck size.
The mana screw on opening hands is brutal, nothing like drawing a single land after 4 mulligans. >.>
May I see your documentation, or shall I simply file this thread under "People who don't know how randomness works" subheading "Confirmation bias" ?
Thanks to Long_Con for the avatar.
River Guide
56756068 wrote:
58147568 wrote:
121816979 wrote:
56819178 wrote:
147112461 wrote:
Hi everyone,I have two questions. 1. If my opponent already controlled a planewalker , then he cast avacyn,angle of hope ,and resolved on battlefield.Now his planewalker in indestructible right?
[c]Avacyn, Angel of Hope[/c] -> Avacyn, Angel of Hope
No need to be so obtuse, maybe he's just trying to complement her. That's not too radical of a concept, I mean she is pretty acute, right?.
This right here should be a bannable offense :p
No, not an outright banning, that's too easy. He should be punished ... ... by degrees.
May I see your documentation, or shall I simply file this thread under "People who don't know how randomness works" subheading "Confirmation bias" ?


When I'm bored, I'll spreadsheet out a land count of opening hands and first mulligan draws. That's the only way to confirm.

That said, generating true random numbers on any computer program is incredibly difficult. Most are pseudo-random numbers.
You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
That said, generating true random numbers on any computer program is incredibly difficult. Most are pseudo-random numbers.


Well yeah, true randomness is impossible and all that, but I'd say we've long since gotten to the point where the difference between computer random and true random is negligible.

Generally when a player goes from real magic to online or duels, they're surprised to find that the shuffler actually randomizes their deck far better than three riffles after a mana weave, and as such attribute their 12 land dragon deck getting mana screwed to the shuffler not working properly.

And of course, human nature being what it is, this misconception is reinforced by them remembering the 4 times they drew one land the entire game while odric curved perfectly into his aggro BS, and forget the 12 games where their deck performed fine with nothing out of the ordinary occurring. Although it's quite possible that duels is wonky, but it's worked fine overall in my experience, so I'd need to see some actual research to believe it (Though I suppose you could just make up some numbers and I'd never be the wiser, but if somebody fabricated numbers to win an online argument about a childrens' card game with me, I'd say that'd still be a pretty high point in my life :33).
Thanks to Long_Con for the avatar.
River Guide
56756068 wrote:
58147568 wrote:
121816979 wrote:
56819178 wrote:
147112461 wrote:
Hi everyone,I have two questions. 1. If my opponent already controlled a planewalker , then he cast avacyn,angle of hope ,and resolved on battlefield.Now his planewalker in indestructible right?
[c]Avacyn, Angel of Hope[/c] -> Avacyn, Angel of Hope
No need to be so obtuse, maybe he's just trying to complement her. That's not too radical of a concept, I mean she is pretty acute, right?.
This right here should be a bannable offense :p
No, not an outright banning, that's too easy. He should be punished ... ... by degrees.
May I see your documentation, or shall I simply file this thread under "People who don't know how randomness works" subheading "Confirmation bias" ?


When I'm bored, I'll spreadsheet out a land count of opening hands and first mulligan draws. That's the only way to confirm.

That said, generating true random numbers on any computer program is incredibly difficult. Most are pseudo-random numbers.



I would appreciate it as I know many others would! I know it's an irregularity but hard fact would be lovely.

I riffle shuffle and don't pull mana this predictibly poorly irl. I get mana screwed / starved but not 6+ lands in a row after pulling 5 to 6 lands in an opening hand, predictably. That's just strange.

This happens to me all the time in paper Magic.

No matter how many times I shuffle, cut, reshuffle, pile shuffle, cut, and shuffle again, I always end up with a bunch of the same card clumped together.

Just last night I took an opening hand with two Aether Figments, and drew a third one on turn two.
Not that I complained at the time.
I think people are quick to discount the mana weaving they do in real life. After all, if "setting" your deck the way you want it (with land dispersered evenly throughout) before shuffling had no effect, people wouldn't do it.

Furthermore, the rules state the deck has to be sufficiently randomized before play. Again, if people are mana weaving then shuffling enough to make the deck sufficiently random, the shuffling makes the mana weaving pointless.

Personally, I don't know for sure if there's some coding behind DotP's shuffling that makes certain things happen, but I do know of a lot of people (not anyone I can name-drop, just people that have brought it up in discussion) that have said DotP does it wrong because "Magic players set their decks properly before shuffling" and to be completely frank, those people are cheating.
Edit: People keep bringing up manaweaving. I personally don't do that at all, it's essentially cheating. After a game or before I cut my deck and just hammer it together or "smash" it together. Then riffle 6 or 7 times that's it.

This happens to me all the time in paper Magic.

No matter how many times I shuffle, cut, reshuffle, pile shuffle, cut, and shuffle again, I always end up with a bunch of the same card clumped together.

Just last night I took an opening hand with two Aether Figments, and drew a third one on turn two.
Not that I complained at the time.



I'm not talking about clumping, that's totally normal. I'm talking about the ability to have an opening hand with a ton of mana and say okay i bet I pull 3 or 4 land in a row if not more, and have that happen predictably.

Start a new game, be mana starved in the opening hand, 1 or fewer lands. Start with the hand anyways and still draw no land most of the time after 3 or 4 turns if not more. That has been my experience anyways.

In a real life game, if you have proper mana distribution (33-40% in a deck) a randomized shuffle will almost always give you a decent initial hand and draws.

I do a seven stack distribution then pile them up and "squash shuffle" (riffle without bending the cards) eight times. Then pull a stack from the middle, put it on top, pull a stack from the middle, put it on bottom, and squash shuffle at least three more times to fully randomize a deck. Usually works pretty well, though on occasion I don't draw all the lands I need. Of course, that may be due to deck composition more than bad draws.

It may be just me only remembering the bad draws, but in two-color decks for DotP 2013, I'm short the needed mana color about 40% of the time. I will do a spreadsheet if I can sometime, though a good sample size (100+ draws) will take a heck of a long time. And it won't matter if I prove the shuffling's off anyway. After all, when's the last time the developer fixed a bug that didn't crash the game outright (i.e. mana distribution in two-color decks, which is, from what I hear, a holdover from the 2012 version of this game.)
You are Red/Blue!
You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
Yawn...this thread again.

Seriously people. It is as random as it can be. That is why you see weird stuff. Random = anything is possible.

I know, I know...computers can't do "true" random, but it is more random than any human brain could possibly discern from non-randomness.  

Unless someone gives any type of "proof" on this topic, it is a total waste of time.  


Yawn...this thread again.

Seriously people. It is as random as it can be. That is why you see weird stuff. Random = anything is possible.

I know, I know...computers can't do "true" random, but it is more random than any human brain could possibly discern from non-randomness.  

Unless someone gives any type of "proof" on this topic, it is a total waste of time.  





Yawn...defenders again

We all know how random works. But there is seriously a problem with DOTP randoms. Mulligan 3 times to see the same opening hand +/- 1 land.How many times do we see that? Certain deck builds(especially CW) mean you get consistently mana screwed or mana flooded. I have to run cards i don't wan in CW just to avoid the mana screw

I've lost count of how many times i've had to concede due to not drawing a land for 7+ turns.

Where as i very very rarely get land screwed with AW/OD/BoF     
I rarely if ever get manascrewed in CW, GG, OD, BoF

I sometimes do in mill, but carddraw and cantrips fix it usually.

I believe they are tendencies you derive from playing a subset of games.

Think of it as an ocean, there are random waves and sometimes they go high, and sometimes they feel like they consistently wanna topple your boat.

But if they didn't happen, it would be truly... less... random.

I'm gonna run away now, I don't play well with fire...

Yawn...defenders again

We all know how random works. But there is seriously a problem with DOTP randoms. Mulligan 3 times to see the same opening hand +/- 1 land.How many times do we see that? Certain deck builds(especially CW) mean you get consistently mana screwed or mana flooded. I have to run cards i don't wan in CW just to avoid the mana screw

I've lost count of how many times i've had to concede due to not drawing a land for 7+ turns.

Where as i very very rarely get land screwed with AW/OD/BoF     


Seriously, if you're going to make this claim you need to bring some data to the table or shut up. And are you actually trying to say that certain decks are less random than others? I would be fascinated to see any actual data to support your statements.

Yawn...defenders again

We all know how random works. But there is seriously a problem with DOTP randoms. Mulligan 3 times to see the same opening hand +/- 1 land.How many times do we see that? Certain deck builds(especially CW) mean you get consistently mana screwed or mana flooded. I have to run cards i don't wan in CW just to avoid the mana screw

I've lost count of how many times i've had to concede due to not drawing a land for 7+ turns.

Where as i very very rarely get land screwed with AW/OD/BoF     


Seriously, if you're going to make this claim you need to bring some data to the table or shut up. And are you actually trying to say that certain decks are less random than others? I would be fascinated to see any actual data to support your statements.



It sounds crazy, but I kinda get the same vibe when I play the game. When I'm playing Crosswinds, land is always in abundance. When I'm playing Exalted Darkness, I always seem to get mana-screwed. I know it's not the case, but it sure feels that way. 
Yawn...this thread again.

Seriously people. It is as random as it can be. That is why you see weird stuff. Random = anything is possible.

I know, I know...computers can't do "true" random, but it is more random than any human brain could possibly discern from non-randomness.  

Unless someone gives any type of "proof" on this topic, it is a total waste of time.  





Prove it

You're a lose cannon.

 

 

"I played 70 card decks before it was cool to play 70 card decks." -Random M:tG hipster

Bottom line, we would need to see how the shuffling is implemented/programmed/coded. Anyone have the means to do that?
Because otherwise, this discussion amounts to nothing more than "Is so! / Is not!"
I want to remind people I'm not voicing concern on the overall shuffle in every instance. Only when mana shows up in the patterns I listed. Otherwise if you get 2 to 3 lands in a hand you typically draw creatures, spells and land with what I would consider expected results. IE: sometimes well sometimes poorly.

Yawn...defenders again

We all know how random works. But there is seriously a problem with DOTP randoms. Mulligan 3 times to see the same opening hand +/- 1 land.How many times do we see that? Certain deck builds(especially CW) mean you get consistently mana screwed or mana flooded. I have to run cards i don't wan in CW just to avoid the mana screw

I've lost count of how many times i've had to concede due to not drawing a land for 7+ turns.

Where as i very very rarely get land screwed with AW/OD/BoF     


Seriously, if you're going to make this claim you need to bring some data to the table or shut up. And are you actually trying to say that certain decks are less random than others? I would be fascinated to see any actual data to support your statements.



Condescending douche much?

Everybody who plays DOTP and puts lots of hours into a variety of decks knows the shuffling is janky and screwy. CW is the main culprit that i've seen so far. Even moving some cards around in the deck (keeping it at 61 with a good mana curve) affects how much/often you get land screwed or flooded.

But it isn't just me, i've seen it happen to countless opponents as well. 

Condescending douche much?


Only when talking to people worthy of condescension. So, yeah, quite a lot.


Everybody who plays DOTP and puts lots of hours into a variety of decks knows the shuffling is janky and screwy. CW is the main culprit that i've seen so far. Even moving some cards around in the deck (keeping it at 61 with a good mana curve) affects how much/often you get land screwed or flooded.

But it isn't just me, i've seen it happen to countless opponents as well. 


Refer to Dapper's post on the front page.

To everyone who is claiming that this is a "is to/is not" argument, you are missing the point. I'm not saying that there is definitely no problem with the randomness, I'm saying that without real data nobody can know whether there is a problem with the randomness. Until someone provides a reasonably large, reliable data set this conversation is completely meaningless and a total waste of time.