How to shuffle your deck with one hand?

65 posts / 0 new
Last post
Does anybody have any ideas? Cause I injured my left hand today and it got bandaged really good, so I can hardly use it now. The prerelease is almost upon us and I really want to participate, I will not let such a handicap get in my way.
Here's what I've found. It may be kinda difficult with card sleeves on thoughtCry
Or you could just pile shuffle one-handed. That should be easy to practice to get good at dealing out quickly with one hand. Then you can stack them up and do it a second time.

Cutting with one hand is remarkable easy with a table. I suggest setting the deck down for it. Reach over and grip half the cards. Set them to the side. Take the remaining half and pick them up, carefully placing this half on top of the new stack you just made... WARNING: keep the cards facing the same direction. People hate it when their cards get turned upside down! 

IMAGE(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/syreal94/SIGNichecopy.png)

Fix your Forum Experience here: http://community.wizards.com/forum/new-site-feedback/threads/3925861

Boasts?

2011 States Top 4
Multiple 2013 IQ Top 4/8 Finishes
Designer of Top 8 States finishing MBC decks in 2011, 2010, and 2009 
Standard Forum - Iron Deck Builder Season One Champ

Favorite Quotes

"Against logic there is no armor like ignorance." - Laurence J. Peter 
"It is the province of knowledge to speak, and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes

@Niche:  You can't just pile shuffle, as it doesn't actually randomize the deck.

I would suggest either table shuffling (like they do in poker, or how you first shuffled as a small child).  You're likely to break a lot of sleeves, so it's not ideal.

You could also cut your deck, place both halves right next to each other, then push them together using your good hand and the other arm as a back-stop.  It would mimick a mash shuffle, so it shouldn't be too difficult.

Or you could just explain the situation to a judge at the event and ask them for assitance...
$10-$12 for an automatic card shuffler. Or look for one with multiple settings that can be set to "random".

Of course, it doesn't do sleeves, and there's a chance it'll scuff the cards. But it will let you shuffle, provided you don't mind the horrified stares from collectors.
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.
If my opponent was injured they pile shuffle twice and I would do the rest for them, no worries.

3DH4LIF3

Flipping a chaos orb with the off-hand might be hard though.

3DH4LIF3

Ask your opponent. You're at a prerelease. If he refuses, call a judge and ask the judge to shuffle because yoru opponent refuses.

Rules Advisor

Quotes
76783093 wrote:
56957928 wrote:
58331438 wrote:
56945988 wrote:
Rancor dies to in-response removal.
Yeah... Until next game, where it'll be right back. Seriously, there's no way to deal with Rancor in any format. It should be banned, except Gleemax is a lobbyist for the Rancor party, so that'll never happen.
You can't ban rancor, it just returns to your deck.
58331438 wrote:
57461258 wrote:
You might want to actually talk to the Flavor & Storyline Board people... since, you know, our whole reason for playing Magic is the flavor. I'm willing to bet you'll get a lot more interest there than in General.
Indeed, both posters down there would be thrilled.
57817638 wrote:
I think I wasn't direct enough in my last post. I'll try to fix it now. Ahem... NO ONE CARES there you have it.
57471038 wrote:
When talks about banning Jace first started, I was thinking that I would see him banned come June 20th. But as I think more about it, I don't really think that Jace is the problem anymore. Sure his power level leaves very little to the imagination (opening Jace is like opening a refrigerator box with a naked girl on the inside), and sure his price does have a strong impact on what players choose to play (playing Jace is like being intimate with a woman and she doesn't charge you in the morning), but it is not the source of all the problems in Standard.
76973988 wrote:
How do people think saving room to print more abilities on cards is dumbing down the game?

Do you really think, say, Akroma would ever be printed if she said, "Akroma can block by creatures with this ability and cannot be blocked by creatures without this ability.  If a creature without this ability would deal combat damage by Akroma would be destroyed, prevent all combat damage that creature would deal to Akroma this combat.  Attacking does not cause Akroma to tap.  If Akroma is blocked and deals lethal damage, it deals the remainder of its damage to the defending player.  Akroma may attack and use abilities that require tapping in the casting cost the turn it enters the battlefield.  Akroma cannot be damaged, enchanted, equipped, blocked or targeted by black or red sources" rather than her "dumbed down" wording she has?  No freaking way.  Keywording and shorthand allows them to make complicated cards easy to play with, allowing them to be printed in the first place.
57817638 wrote:
The creation of praetors was worth it just because now amoeboid changeling is a praetor.
57140668 wrote:
1. cast frankie peanuts2. ask opponent "will you concede the game this turn"? if they say yes, you win; if they say no, play a staying power
3. subsequently ask "will you attack this turn"? and "will you cast a spell this turn"? (using a Teferi, Mage of Zhalfir for the second question if necessary) to ensure they can't disrupt the combo
4. donate them a platinum angel
5. play a mox lotus and braingeyser them for every card in their library. play an opalescence and donate them a glorious anthem and a blacker lotus, then play enchanted evening. play and activate a mindslaver and then donate them a fastbond and the mox lotus (returning one of the donates to your hand with eternal witness or whatever)
6. during their turn, play every permanent in their hand (playing lands with fastbond) then (as yourself) cast mirrorweave on the blacker lotus, so every permanent becomes a copy of it. proceed to tear up every card they control, and hopefully do it before they notice that they aren't bound by staying power's ability anymore and can concede
82423538 wrote:
57471038 wrote:
82423538 wrote:
One part of the statement being true=/=the whole statement true.
Whatever. I'm still here about ten minutes away. Whenever you want to get destroyed in Magic, I'm available.
I would like to get destroyed in Magic, actually. Do you know anybody good enough?
57617478 wrote:
Please format your statements in a way that doesn't look like a baboon hit its face on your keyboard.
57140668 wrote:
why did Garruk Relentless lose a loyalty counter
Show
to get to the other side
89522235 wrote:
You're such an obvious troll that you have hexproof and : Regenerate.
56957928 wrote:
56776038 wrote:
Dark Ritual being overpowered is determined more by what is done with it than the card itself.
True, but the fact that it enables so many ridiculous things is pretty telling. It's like, sure I can use a shotgun as a bludgeoning instrument, but that doesn't make it not a shotgun.
79035425 wrote:
Shortly before Serra died, she transferred her spark into an angel whose full name was Asha Avacyn Bolas. Her dragon father groomed her for her positions in Alara and Innistrad, and she's also been getting help from her uncle Ugin in the form of Urza, who was resurrected as Marit Lage to be the avatar as which she projects herself into material realms. Grieslbrand is a split personality who sometimes wanders the planes disguised as a human woman named Liliana Vess.
97610188 wrote:
Yeah that (Content Removed) really annoys me. Moderated by MY_self right about naahowwww!
93446159 wrote:
Dilleux_Lepaire just won the thread.
57461258 wrote:
And, as usual, Dilleux wins the entire thread. Nice work, sir, nice work.
99113151 wrote:
They need to make 9 layers of zones where cards go when they "die". Much like Hell.
56778328 wrote:
Wow, holy doggy poop, kids, obvious statement is obvious.
56776038 wrote:
122053101 wrote:
i don't think your geting it WotC is trying to kill the comption to make it so that there shity app is the only one left.
I haven't tried the app. How is its use of English grammar? Cheers!
57471038 wrote:
Everyone's life would be easier if players would, instead of coming to the 'net for help with a deck, just netdeck and be done with it. And I'm not talking about some Top 8 lists, for the Casualists, too, can benefit from netdecking. I've netdecked plenty of decks from the Casual Play forums from users such as Mown, Raedien, Floopfoot, and a few others. I snatched straight the heck out of my web browser. Yes, people, your original idea fell victim to a savage netdecker. You have been assimiliated. Suppose I wanted a Zombie deck. Why on earth would I spend time searching Gatherer for a decent list of Zombie cards when Raedien already did it for me? Taking time to be creative or waiting on people on the forums to tell you why your deck sucks or 'go to Casual forums' is a disasterous waste of time (to me).
56957928 wrote:
82423538 wrote:
If WotC started putting $100 bills in packs, the players would complain that they folded them wrong.
No, they just spam them with ban requests. That being said, Magic was ruined back in Alpha when they added all that rules and cards [Debutantes avert your eyes]. My friends and I still like playing it the "pure" way (Basically we go into the woods and hit eachother with wiffle bats while shouting made up obscenities. You know, the way Garfield wanted it to be played).
56957928 wrote:
Don't worry about it. I've come up with a list of changes to fix EDH. -First off, there's no commander. -The minimum deck size is 60 cards, and each deck can have up to four of each card, save basic lands and relentless rats. Also decks have no color identity. -Starting life total is 20. And voila, now things are balanced.
89522235 wrote:
Here's a clever play you can try yourself: -Convince friend to run relentless rats.dec in legacy tournament -Get a deck with lots of mill, yixlid jailer, and humility -Drop humility and jailer, wait for him to dump his hand, mill him out -All his rats now have no abilities. Call a judge because he's playing an illegal deck with more than 4 of a single card. -Get him/her banned from competitive magic play
142055101 wrote:
But how to mark them without making the individual sleeve different! You could buy a skunk and slam it's butt on you deck (pardon the french) Then after the game just sniff at your opponent's pile of cards and you will know if any of your cards are there!!!
141434757 wrote:
In Soviet Russia, Sorin opens You
71235715 wrote:
L, is for the leather gloves you weaaaar. O, is for the organs that guy could spaaaare. V, is very very, extraordinay. E, is for every vagrant i butchered in a wine cellar befooooore.
57052258 wrote:
The outer layer of the Magic: the Gathering box, the carton, or crust, is fairly thin and light, and contains largely aluminosilcates. Within that lies the middle layer, consisting of the familiar booster pack. Although solid, the booster packs' high temperatures allow them to acutally move around within the booster box. This flow, sometimes called convection, is cited by frustrated box mappers as one of WOTC's most genious uses of thermodynamics since the Ravnica block. No one knows what lies at the core of the booster box, but scientists theorize that it must be especially dense in order to make up for the large amount of fluff distributed amongst the booster packs.
58232598 wrote:
88993869 wrote:
Torpor Orb is absolutely godawful against Vexing Devil.
whoever is playing vexing devil is probably losing anyways
56957928 wrote:
I imagine [Ajani 3's] second ability involves him hurling the creature at your opponent Brion Stoutarm style, then the guy is just like "Okay, that may have worked, but don't- GOD DAMN IT!" as he does it again because cats don't give a **** :33.
56957928 wrote:
"Do or do not, there is no try." - Albus Dumbledore, The Lord of the Rings.
89522235 wrote:
68978039 wrote:
Its like that one time Elves broke out in a field of Jund. Elves became a resurgent hit, then died off again once Jund adapted to the rest of the field of G/W that it required mass removal that inherently pooped on Elves too. Submit to the menace. Delver can, and will blot out the sun.
Then we shall play in the shade.
89522235 wrote:
I'm sorry, this forum isn't for getting bad advice on mediocre decks, that's standard deck help. This forum is for starting ****storms.
97820278 wrote:
139359831 wrote:
Your advice would only lead me to make generic, boring, and unworthy content. It's of no use to me.
I just got this image of you as an architect, having finished a building suspended by only a small pole in its southwest corner, saying it's original. Then the building collapses.
56957928 wrote:
I for one love the flavor of legendary lands. "I remember my days as a youth at Tolarian Academy." "Wow, small multiverse, I actually went there too." "WAIT, DON'T- Well ****, there's $200,000 in student loans well spent."
56957928 wrote:
And flavor goes out the window when you cast a second copy of a planeswalker right after the first one dies, so... "Hey Nissa, I need a favor." "You just asked me for a 'favor' like thirty seconds ago, and it turned out to be having Sarkhan Transmogrify my only follower into a dragon like 5 times -which dickery aside also violates some laws of causality - and then you let me get beaten over the head by that hedron crab." "...I'll give you " "...Well all right then."
57150868 wrote:
GM, I don't think Dill is better than you. I KNOW it. Even if he wakes up every morning, clubs a baby seal, steals all the TV remotes from within a block's radius of his house and then robs hungry orphans of their food he'd be better than you, for the simple reason that he learns from his mistakes.
143211137 wrote:
57033358 wrote:
Tamiyo vs. Gideon
What would they have to fight about? Like, all I can think of now is Gideon going "Hey, long-ears! I'm gathering a group of 'Walkers together to fight some tentacle monsters.....you want in?" and Tamiyo going "Ew! Hentai no bakka Gideon-desu desu!" and flying away.
76783093 wrote:
I open 4 packs just to be on the safe side. Not only do I get more cards than everyone else, but I also get to spend the rest of the night off. Win Win.
191752181 wrote:
MaRo has a thing for people opening boosters with bad cards. But since he can only get so many bad cards printed in each set, he has found a devious way of getting more bad cards into circulation: He makes entire print sheets with just bad rares, then puts them onto the assembly line. He proceeds to wring his hands and twirl his evil mustache that he grew for twirling purposes as a lightning bolt strikes in the background. Afterwards, he goes to make sure that the good cards are only opened by everyone's friends, and that we all only get to open bad cards. He does this by memorising each booster, than switching them around accordingly. Whenever someone complains about a card, he immediately jumps out from behind a chair to yell "WELL, IT'S NOT FOR YOU!" before merging back into the shadows in order to devise new ways in which he can screw over players, then claim that he has valid reasons for doing so.
97820278 wrote:
192729031 wrote:
You open a booster pack, and staring back at you from the rare slot is a Lotleth Troll? At least I can stick him in my EDH deck and still have four for my standard constructed.
Because lol troll
56874518 wrote:
It helped that I more or less skipped most of GM_Champion's longer diatribes. I only have so many brain cells I'm willing to sacrifice each day.
192931349 wrote:
Mark Rosewater is sitting in a seemingly innocuous cable TV van, outside of Bankaimastery's house. Sitting nearby are two hardened criminal hackers, fresh out of prison, and filled with resentment at their lack of physical fitness. "Have you managed to hack his brainwaves yet? The set deadline's coming up fast." "We're almost through. It should be coming up on the screen any second." The hacker presses a button, and Kevin's thoughts flash onto the screen. Mark and the hackers stare in amazement at the sheer beauty, the elegance, and the raw truth of what they see. It's like the ending to 2001: A Space Odyssey. Brilliant light shines across the screen, the truth of existence is made clear to them, and they despair at their own foolishness, their own ignorance, their own inadequacy. And then they steal his ideas. As they return back to R&D, Mark sneers at a haggard old man chained to a cast-iron sphere. The man looks up from his laborious task of breaking rocks in the dungeon of Wizards of the Coast headquarters, and asks a question: "Kevin, my greatest student. He - he's all right, isn't he? You didn't hurt him?" Mark deals him a weighty blow with his boot. "Know your place, Richard. Get back to work."
57023768 wrote:
Now show me on the Garruk doll where Zac Hill ruined your enjoyment of Magic...
63711769 wrote:
I'm only opposed to it because it bears so little relation to how people actually play the game. The example of Miracles is actually a much better one then the Clone example I was trying to use. From the game's perspective, the card can move instantly from face down in the library to revealed in the hand and that's fine for the rules. But in real life, we can't actually do that, so the card spends a good bit of time in locations that are neither where that player's library is nor where that player's hand is. And that's fine for real life. What I don't want is the disconnect to be explicitly codified. Along the lines of
183664.697 A game of Magic as laid out by these rules exists only as a pure Platonic ideal, utterly unrealizable by fallible mortals limited by the confines of physicality and the ravages of evil and sin. 183664.698 The cake is a lie, too.
I know it's true, but I don't want the rules to actually straight-up tell me that.
147137503 wrote:
77120821 wrote:
Pfft this cant be serious can it? If it is please delete your account OP. Its not even close to ban worthy, considering what JTMS and stoneforge had to accomplish to get banned i see the WotC selling magic to aquire Pokemon before that ever happens.
I'm trying to imagine sorin markov as a gym leader in one of those pokemon games which you have to beat him to get his badge... somehow I imagine that he would stab you in the chest with his sword before giving you the badge, even if you beat his pokemon....
196239043 wrote:
Personally, I'd be fine with tea time but then I'm not gonna waste the mana summoning Emrakul, the Aeons Torn. He always takes all the sugar, drinks the whole pot of Earl Grey and doesn't even say thank you. SO. RUDE.

 

JustTerrorIt wrote:

 

JuliusPringle wrote:

All I want to do is sit down and play magic, but when I walked in yesterday, (since I didn't talk to anyone) nobody talked to me and I silently bought what I wanted and walked out.


If you don't talk to anyone, that increases the odds that no one will talk to you.

 

JuliusPringle wrote:

So how do I just... introduce myself? "Hi, my name is Adam, wanna play magic with me?" Do I go to the counter and talk to the cashier?


Yeah. Talk to the cashier. Tell him/her that you want a Black Lotus, and if they don't have one tell them that the store isn't on par with what you expected.

 

Reach into your back left pocket. Pull out a deck list that you copied directly from some ChannelFireball top 8 Standard discussion, and ask for all the cards, as is, on that list. Then, ask for some random, probably terrible cards from whatever set is Standard legal. Say it's tech for the upcoming changes in the metagame.

 

Pull out a deck, and tell some random dude you wanna test (you have to use the term "test" for this to work) for Standard. Make sure that deck contains Kitchen Finks and Alluring Siren. Maybe throw in Nyxathid for good measure.

 

Finally, before you leave, spill (make it look like an accident) one hundred singleton, random cards onto the floor. Pick them up, put them in a pile, and say "EEE-DEE-AYCH".

 

I know this sounds dumb at first, but it will work. With the method outlined above, you will draw the attention of players that play older formats by asking for cards that no one on Earth can reasonably afford. You will get the attention of the wanna-be pro, Stomp-n00bz players by pulling out a well known decklist and declare that you have "tech" to make it better. You will get the attention of all the kind, helpful players by seemingly not knowing the most common format by having non-Standard legal cards in a deck that you claim is Standard legal. Finally, you catch all the rest of the Magic players by saying "EEE-DEE-AYCH" (EDH (or Commander)).

And there you have it. You will be talking to more people than you would have wanted to talk to in no time.

 

Smoke_Stack wrote:

EDH is the best format anyway


See, it's starting already.

 

Break the Card
What is Break the Card?
Break the Card is a regular thread in the Cards and Combo Forum. Quite simply, the participants are given a Johnnystatic card (e.g. Xenograft) and are asked to build a deck around it. The winner and honorable mentions are sigged below. Get brewing!
Week 1 : Xenograft
This week's Break the Card was based around Xenograft. Thread : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27681049/Break_the_card_:_Xenograft?pg=1 Winner : Axterix with his Vampdrazi deck. Finalist : Vektor480 with his Ally/Golem/Plant deck. Honorable mentions : Zammm for the Turntimber Ranger combo and TinGorilla for suggesting Sarkhan the Mad.
Week 2 : Mindlock Orb
Here's the link to the Mindlock Orb contest : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27697565/Break_the_Card_:_Mindlock_Orb?sdb=1&pg=last#497536269 Winner : Axterix with his Maralen of the Mornsong deck. Honorable mentions : Void_Elemental.
Week 3 : Bludgeon Brawl
Here's the link to Break the Card : Bludgeon Brawl : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27715169/Break_the_Card_:_Bludgeon_Brawl?sdb=1&pg=last#498208797 Winner : Vektor and his Grab the World deck. Finalist : Crandor with his Awesome Aliteration deck. Honorable mentions : RP Jesus with his Wat deck and Zix200 with his Signet Renewal deck.
Week 4 : Followed Footsteps
This week was Followed Footsteps : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27748677/Break_the_Card_:_Followed_Footsteps?pg=1 Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Exponential Growth deck. Honorable mentions : Zix with his Carbon Copies deck and Escef with his Fungus of Speed and Time deck.
Week 5 : Delaying Shield
This week's card was Delaying Shield : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27790101/Break_the_Card_:_Delaying_Shield Winner : Tevish_Szat. Finalist : Vampire_Bat. Honorable Mention : Zix200.
Week 6 : Painter's Servant
This week's card was Painter's Servant : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27940861/Break_the_Card_:_Painters_Servant?pg=1 Winner : Tevish_Szat with his Paint it Black deck. Finalist : Wprundv with his Tiger, Tiger Painted Bright deck.
Week 7 : Venser, the Sojourner
This week's card was Venser, the Sojourner : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/27977489/Break_the_Card_:_Venser,_the_Sojourner Winner : Izzett with her "Venser, Trickster Trader" deck. Finalist : Wprundv with his "Tactical Sojourner Action" deck.
Week 8 : Personal Sanctuary
This week's card was Personal Sanctuary : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28005461/Break_the_card_:_Personal_Sanctuary Winner : MrQuizzles. Honorable mention : Vampire_Bat and UbberSheep
Week 9 : Sundial of the Infinite
This week's card was Sundial of the Infinite : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28038277/Break_the_card_:_Sundial_of_the_Infinite Finalist : Izzett with her "Afterlife Trespassers" deck. Winner : Xeromus with his "Fortune 500" deck.
Week 10 : Jace's Archivist
This week's card was Jace's Archivist : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/28063377/Break_the_Card_:_Jaces_Archivist. Finalists : Jentaru with his "Consecration of the Draw" deck and HereticSmitty with his "ADHD: The deck" deck. Winner : JaxsonBateman with his "The Archives Are Endless!" deck.
Week 11 : Search the City
This week's card was Search the City : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29518555/Break_the_Card_:_Search_the_City Finalist : Mown with "A Thousand Footsteps". Winner : Desolation_masticore with "Burn the City".
Week 12 : Fiend Hunter
This week's card was Fiend Hunter : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29530975/Break_the_Card_:_Fiend_Hunter Winner : Yuyu63 with "Carnival Hunting". Honorable mention : Dknowle's "Champion the Fiend".
Week 13 : Clock of Omens
This week's card was Clock of Omens : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29541549/Break_the_Card_:_Clock_of_Omens?pg=1 Winner : Dknowle's "The Myrs Go Marching".
Week 14 : Light of Sanction
This week's card was Light of Sanction : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29607219/Break_the_Card_:_Light_of_Sanction?pg=1 Winner : Zauzich's "Divine Plague".
Week 15 : Assemble the Legion
This week's card was Assemble the Legion : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29662307/Break_the_Card_:_Assemble_the_Legion Winner : JBTM's "Some Assembly Required".
Week 16 : High Tide
This week's cards were High Tide and/or Bubbling Muck : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29760427/Break_the_Card_:_High_Tide Winner : Mown's "Puppet Strings".
Week 17 : Illusionist's Bracers
This week's card was Illusionist's Bracers : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29776943/Break_the_Card_:_Illusionistss_Bracers Winner : Enigma256's "Tezzeret's Bracers"
Week 18 : Savor the Moment
This week's card was Savor the Moment : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29787235/Break_the_Card_:_Savor_the_Moment Winner : POSValkir's "A Savory Filibuster!"
Week 19 : Grinning Ignus
This week's card was Grinning Ignus : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29795547/Break_the_Card_:_Grinning_Ignus Winner : dknowle's "Luren' and Laughin'".
Week 20 : Transcendence
This week's card was Transcendence : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29806481/Break_the_Card_:_Transcendence Winners : Mown's "Transcending Timing Restrictions" and Dknowle's "Blinded by Greed", tied for the win.
Week 21 : Mortus Strider
This week's card was Mortus Strider : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29818471/Break_the_Card_:_Mortus_Strider Winner : SimonGlume's "Mortus Head".
Week 22 : High Priest of Penance
This week's card was High Priest of Penance : http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29917231/Break_the_Card_High_Priest_of_Penance Winners : JBTM's "Two Clerics and a Goblin walk into a (Bom)bar(dment)..." and POSValkir1's "Choke Their Rivers with Our Dead!".
Week 23 : False Cure
This week's card was False Cure :http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/29964239/Break_the_Card_:_False_Cure Winner : Dknowle's "When Hippos Fly".

Week 24 : Akroan Horse

This week's card was Akroan Horse : http://community.wizards.com/forum/cards-and-combos/threads/4024821.

Winner : Dknowle's "Indian Giver".

Week 25 : Leylines

This week saw multiple cards being in the contest : all of the Leylines! http://community.wizards.com/forum/cards-and-combos/threads/4067621

Winner : POSValkir1's "Laying the Battle Lines".

Find the head judge and explain your situation on the day of the prerelease. Until then, practice pile shuffling/table shuffling in an efficient fashion.
Learn to shuffle with your feet.

IMAGE(http://i1.minus.com/jbcBXM4z66fMtK.jpg)

192884403 wrote:
surely one can't say complex conditional passive language is bad grammar ?
You could also cut your deck, place both halves right next to each other, then push them together using your good hand and the other arm as a back-stop.  It would mimick a mash shuffle, so it shouldn't be too difficult.


This so far seems to be the best idea to me. I'll be practicing this and see how it works out. If it doesn't, I'll likely have a judge be a rather permanent spectator to my games.

Pile shuffling does create randomization, so long as you don't mana weave while you're doing. You need to do it more than once, and you should not use 5 stacks of 12. You need a number that divides oddly into 60. I use 7 stacks. Then randomly restack the stacks before doing the second pile shuffling. Pile shuffle face down, obviously.

Since the honus to provide randomization now rests on you and your opponent an opponent cannot claim a deck is insufficiently randomized; they are required to shuffle your deck, not just provide a cut.

However if you are disabled you can indeed tell the HJ at an event you need assistance shuffling each round and a judge will be provided to assist you. This happens at SCGO's, PTQs, etc. The judge may not be thrilled but its a thing.

 

IMAGE(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/syreal94/SIGNichecopy.png)

Fix your Forum Experience here: http://community.wizards.com/forum/new-site-feedback/threads/3925861

Boasts?

2011 States Top 4
Multiple 2013 IQ Top 4/8 Finishes
Designer of Top 8 States finishing MBC decks in 2011, 2010, and 2009 
Standard Forum - Iron Deck Builder Season One Champ

Favorite Quotes

"Against logic there is no armor like ignorance." - Laurence J. Peter 
"It is the province of knowledge to speak, and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Pile shuffling is not random because people cannot do anything "randomly".  It doesn't matter if you mana weave or not.  It's not random because you can tell where a certain card ends up because you know where it starts and the pile shuffling doesn't disrupt that.

You must present a randomized deck.  There is no requirement that the opponent randomizes your deck for you, nor that they actually shuffle.  Remember, pre-releases (and most events) are conducted at Regular REL.  The requirement to shuffle your opponent's deck is only for Competitive REL
Pile shuffling is not random because people cannot do anything "randomly".  It doesn't matter if you mana weave or not.  It's not random because you can tell where a certain card ends up because you know where it starts and the pile shuffling doesn't disrupt that.

You must present a randomized deck.  There is no requirement that the opponent randomizes your deck for you, nor that they actually shuffle.  Remember, pre-releases (and most events) are conducted at Regular REL.  The requirement to shuffle your opponent's deck is only for Competitive REL



I would like for you to explain to me if you're using unmarked sleeves and pile shuffling face down into un-even stacks how you would keep track of a card with 100% consistency. Rain man could probably do this because it requires establishing a count and incrementing, then decrementing, then multiplying based on the quantity of stacks you've used. However that is only possible if you pile shuffle into each stack in a consistent manner. If you randomly distribute the cards so your stacks end up un-even, using no pattern itd be impossible to handle the math without someone sitting beside you making notes as you went. Finally, if you pile shuffled face down and had no knowledge of the prior order of cards then there is no way to establish you have insufficiently randomized. The quickest test to evaluate your randomization technique would be to review the deck after you've performed the pile using steps above... note the card order... then ask you to randomize again. Review the contents and order again. If it ends up the same, or mostly the same then indeed you failed at randomizing your deck. A judge might make a snap decision based on card distribution but you could appeal to the head judge and make your case.

As far as competitive versus regular REL, you're right. Opponents can just cut in regular REL. That's a mild issue in this circumstance and as everyone agreed should be vetted out in advance with the HJ.

IMAGE(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/syreal94/SIGNichecopy.png)

Fix your Forum Experience here: http://community.wizards.com/forum/new-site-feedback/threads/3925861

Boasts?

2011 States Top 4
Multiple 2013 IQ Top 4/8 Finishes
Designer of Top 8 States finishing MBC decks in 2011, 2010, and 2009 
Standard Forum - Iron Deck Builder Season One Champ

Favorite Quotes

"Against logic there is no armor like ignorance." - Laurence J. Peter 
"It is the province of knowledge to speak, and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes

It's pretty simple to track the card.  Let's say it's card #1 (i.e. the top card before you pile).  #1 becomes the bottom of it's given pile.  When you pile into 7 piles, the first 3 piles have 8 cards, the last 4 have 7.  Number the pile from 1-7.  #1 is the 8th card down in pile 1.  Now, put those piles together "randomly", for instance 5, 2, 6, 1, 7, 3, 4.  #1 is the 31st card down (7+8+7+8=30).  Now, pile them again.  #1 is the 4th card down in the 3rd pile.  Now put the piles together gain, perhaps in this "random" order: 3, 4, 1, 5, 7, 2, 6.  #1 is the 4th card in your deck.

You give me how you put the cards back together into a single deck both times, and I can tell you where any card in the deck is located when you present.  Obviously, you have to be really good if you want the entire order of the deck, but tracking a few cards is very easy.

If I know that you started with a Sphinx's Revelation as your top card, which could be determined by how you piked up your cards, I can observe how you pile shuffle and immediately know where that card is in your deck.  You present, I call a judge, tell them where the card is, and you get DQed.
It's pretty simple to track the card.  Let's say it's card #1 (i.e. the top card before you pile).  #1 becomes the bottom of it's given pile.  When you pile into 7 piles, the first 3 piles have 8 cards, the last 4 have 7.  Number the pile from 1-7.  #1 is the 8th card down in pile 1.  Now, put those piles together "randomly", for instance 5, 2, 6, 1, 7, 3, 4.  #1 is the 31st card down (7+8+7+8=30).  Now, pile them again.  #1 is the 4th card down in the 3rd pile.  Now put the piles together gain, perhaps in this "random" order: 3, 4, 1, 5, 7, 2, 6.  #1 is the 4th card in your deck.


There's been a misunderstanding. You're assuming after establishing 7 stacks I distribute cards to stacks in order 1,2,3,4,5,6,7. Now, that has to be done to seed the stacks of course. Since this is a game 2 scenario (alleged in your example that you determined they put a certain card in a certain position while collecting the play stack) how about if the opponent took their play cards into a stack and placed this under the old library. Top X cards are unknown, but if you stopped and took notes you could estimate position where the play stack begins and lets say it was made obvious what card was at the top of the playstack, etc.

Now we have a library with x% unknown and random, and x%... kind of known, kind of not random. At this point we're where every deck starts before randomization post-game, to be fair.

I seed 7 stacks from the top x% of unknown and random cards. The quantity of which is also potentially unknown unless you counted the deck during initial shuffling (I could be blowing you out with a 61 card deck). Now this is where you missed a critical piece of information. I begin randomly distributing cards to the 7 stacks, in no order. Let's say I take 7 cards off the top next and hand them out 2,5,3,4,1,7,6. Then I collect 5 cards and distribute them 6,7,3,5,1. Then I grab 3 cards and  go out to stacks 2,3,4. And so on I take a random number of cards off my old merged library and apply them to 7 stacks. I'm not careful to avoid returning to the same stack, nor could I keep track of which ones I've been to unless I stop and count them. Now I pick up the stacks in any order, and its true that this isn't really random and is very easy to account for. I then create another series of stacks of any number that isn't 7. I could make 3,4,5,6, or even a crazy 9 stacks. I distribute cards again by grabbing a handful of cards off the top of the new library. Its important to note I'm not counting the pickup. I apply them again in random. Pick back in up some arbitrary and not really random order. Let's say I provide a few cuts to the deck where I just grab and re-stack it.

At this point can you solve the location of the original top card of the played stack without asking me to slow down during each step and writing everything down? I don't think so, and any judge observing this shuffle technique from a one-handed player would be satisfied. I know I would if I lost count during the randomization process, and I during college I aced quantitive methods (100s) and I'm a DBA for a living. Keeping track of large volumes of numbers is something I get paid a lot of money to do.

You give me how you put the cards back together into a single deck both times, and I can tell you where any card in the deck is located when you present.  Obviously, you have to be really good if you want the entire order of the deck, but tracking a few cards is very easy.

If I know that you started with a Sphinx's Revelation as your top card, which could be determined by how you piked up your cards, I can observe how you pile shuffle and immediately know where that card is in your deck.  You present, I call a judge, tell them where the card is, and you get DQed.



Do you still think you could do this in the above example easily enough? Or would you be happy I've randomized?

Also, above technique can be applied one handed. 

IMAGE(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/syreal94/SIGNichecopy.png)

Fix your Forum Experience here: http://community.wizards.com/forum/new-site-feedback/threads/3925861

Boasts?

2011 States Top 4
Multiple 2013 IQ Top 4/8 Finishes
Designer of Top 8 States finishing MBC decks in 2011, 2010, and 2009 
Standard Forum - Iron Deck Builder Season One Champ

Favorite Quotes

"Against logic there is no armor like ignorance." - Laurence J. Peter 
"It is the province of knowledge to speak, and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes

OP: please dont listen to anyone trying to trick you into thinking that pile shuffling randomises your deck - it doesnt.

~ Tim 
I am Blue/White Reached DCI Rating 1800 on 28/10/11. :D
Sig
56287226 wrote:
190106923 wrote:
Not bad. But what happens flavor wise when one kamahl kills the other one?
Zis iz a sign uf deep psychological troma, buried in zer subconscious mind. By keelink himzelf, Kamahl iz physically expressink hiz feelinks uf self-disgust ova hiz desire for hiz muzzer. [/GermanPsychologistVoice]
56957928 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
That makes no sense to me. If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed? ~ Tim
Yup, just like you can have Birds of paradise in a mono green deck but not Noble Hierarch. YAY COLOR IDENTITY
56287226 wrote:
56888618 wrote:
Is algebra really that difficult?
Survey says yes.
56883218 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
You want to make a milky drink. You squeeze a cow.
I love this description. Like the cows are sponges filled with milk. I can see it all Nick Parks claymation-style with the cow's eyes bugging out momentarily as a giant farmer squeezes it like a squeaky dog toy, and milk shoots out of it.
56287226 wrote:
56735468 wrote:
And no judge will ever give you a game loss for playing snow covered lands.
I now have a new goal in life. ;)
I know that very well.
OP: please dont listen to anyone trying to trick you into thinking that pile shuffling randomises your deck - it doesnt.

~ Tim 



I agree that the typical way pile shuffling is performed is not random.

You have the burden to prove you could invalidate a pile shuffling effect where disregard is given to the volume being distributed each time you move to do so from the source stack, provided there are no marked cards and its being done blindly. 

IMAGE(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/syreal94/SIGNichecopy.png)

Fix your Forum Experience here: http://community.wizards.com/forum/new-site-feedback/threads/3925861

Boasts?

2011 States Top 4
Multiple 2013 IQ Top 4/8 Finishes
Designer of Top 8 States finishing MBC decks in 2011, 2010, and 2009 
Standard Forum - Iron Deck Builder Season One Champ

Favorite Quotes

"Against logic there is no armor like ignorance." - Laurence J. Peter 
"It is the province of knowledge to speak, and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes

I don't know how badly hurt your hand is, but you could also try doing the mash shuffle similar to what someone above suggested only use your good hand to push the cards into the other half thats just being kinda held in place with your bad hand so they don't slide on the table, or even just use both hands to kinda slide them together on the table.
I agree that the typical way pile shuffling is performed is not random.

You have the burden to prove you could invalidate a pile shuffling effect where disregard is given to the volume being distributed each time you move to do so from the source stack, provided there are no marked cards and its being done blindly. 


Even if you rolled a dice to decide which pile to put the next card on (lets forget Stalling for now...), that still wouldnt be random.

Sorry, but Pile Shuffling is as random as shuffling my feed (and I always know where they are).

~ Tim   
I am Blue/White Reached DCI Rating 1800 on 28/10/11. :D
Sig
56287226 wrote:
190106923 wrote:
Not bad. But what happens flavor wise when one kamahl kills the other one?
Zis iz a sign uf deep psychological troma, buried in zer subconscious mind. By keelink himzelf, Kamahl iz physically expressink hiz feelinks uf self-disgust ova hiz desire for hiz muzzer. [/GermanPsychologistVoice]
56957928 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
That makes no sense to me. If they spelled the ability out on the card in full then it would not be allowed in a mono-black Commander deck, but because they used a keyword to save space it is allowed? ~ Tim
Yup, just like you can have Birds of paradise in a mono green deck but not Noble Hierarch. YAY COLOR IDENTITY
56287226 wrote:
56888618 wrote:
Is algebra really that difficult?
Survey says yes.
56883218 wrote:
57799958 wrote:
You want to make a milky drink. You squeeze a cow.
I love this description. Like the cows are sponges filled with milk. I can see it all Nick Parks claymation-style with the cow's eyes bugging out momentarily as a giant farmer squeezes it like a squeaky dog toy, and milk shoots out of it.
56287226 wrote:
56735468 wrote:
And no judge will ever give you a game loss for playing snow covered lands.
I now have a new goal in life. ;)
It's pretty simple to track the card.  Let's say it's card #1 (i.e. the top card before you pile).  #1 becomes the bottom of it's given pile.  When you pile into 7 piles, the first 3 piles have 8 cards, the last 4 have 7.  Number the pile from 1-7.  #1 is the 8th card down in pile 1.  Now, put those piles together "randomly", for instance 5, 2, 6, 1, 7, 3, 4.  #1 is the 31st card down (7+8+7+8=30).  Now, pile them again.  #1 is the 4th card down in the 3rd pile.  Now put the piles together gain, perhaps in this "random" order: 3, 4, 1, 5, 7, 2, 6.  #1 is the 4th card in your deck.


There's been a misunderstanding. You're assuming after establishing 7 stacks I distribute cards to stacks in order 1,2,3,4,5,6,7. Now, that has to be done to seed the stacks of course. Since this is a game 2 scenario (alleged in your example that you determined they put a certain card in a certain position while collecting the play stack) how about if the opponent took their play cards into a stack and placed this under the old library. Top X cards are unknown, but if you stopped and took notes you could estimate position where the play stack begins and lets say it was made obvious what card was at the top of the playstack, etc.

Now we have a library with x% unknown and random, and x%... kind of known, kind of not random. At this point we're where every deck starts before randomization post-game, to be fair.

I seed 7 stacks from the top x% of unknown and random cards. The quantity of which is also potentially unknown unless you counted the deck during initial shuffling (I could be blowing you out with a 61 card deck). Now this is where you missed a critical piece of information. I begin randomly distributing cards to the 7 stacks, in no order. Let's say I take 7 cards off the top next and hand them out 2,5,3,4,1,7,6. Then I collect 5 cards and distribute them 6,7,3,5,1. Then I grab 3 cards and  go out to stacks 2,3,4. And so on I take a random number of cards off my old merged library and apply them to 7 stacks. I'm not careful to avoid returning to the same stack, nor could I keep track of which ones I've been to unless I stop and count them. Now I pick up the stacks in any order, and its true that this isn't really random and is very easy to account for. I then create another series of stacks of any number that isn't 7. I could make 3,4,5,6, or even a crazy 9 stacks. I distribute cards again by grabbing a handful of cards off the top of the new library. Its important to note I'm not counting the pickup. I apply them again in random. Pick back in up some arbitrary and not really random order. Let's say I provide a few cuts to the deck where I just grab and re-stack it.

At this point can you solve the location of the original top card of the played stack without asking me to slow down during each step and writing everything down? I don't think so, and any judge observing this shuffle technique from a one-handed player would be satisfied. I know I would if I lost count during the randomization process, and I during college I aced quantitive methods (100s) and I'm a DBA for a living. Keeping track of large volumes of numbers is something I get paid a lot of money to do.
...



This is all pretty meaningless.  It doesnt matter if it seems unreasonable to do the math in your head on the fly.  Your opponent doesnt know whether you are choosing piles randomly or not.  If you actually practiced this enough and worked out the math ahead of time you could place a card wherever you wanted.

The point that this argument always comes down to, is that there is no good reason to use a pile shuffle for randomization (because it doesnt randomize).

Some people might use it before their first game simply as a method of counting their cards, but thats before continuing on to properly shuffle.

If someone hands you a deck after pile shuffling, that deck isnt randomized. 

Of course they may not be trying to cheat, and indeed they most likely do not know where any of the cards are.  However as an observer you have no way of knowing whether they do or not, thus the deck is not sufficiently shuffled.

 

I agree that the typical way pile shuffling is performed is not random.

You have the burden to prove you could invalidate a pile shuffling effect where disregard is given to the volume being distributed each time you move to do so from the source stack, provided there are no marked cards and its being done blindly. 


Even if you rolled a dice to decide which pile to put the next card on (lets forget Stalling for now...), that still wouldnt be random.

Sorry, but Pile Shuffling is as random as shuffling my feed (and I always know where they are).

~ Tim   



So if you're alleging any human interaction doesn't produce a random effect, then neither does bridging and riffling. Also, from an observation perspective its very easy to watch a bridge and follow a card along. The only reason people claim its random is not because its random, but they believe it to be an action the human eye cannot follow. Fairly ludicrous.

Also, your foot reference isn't relevant. Your feet are attached and you have these sensors hooked to them that tell you their location at all times.

IMAGE(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/syreal94/SIGNichecopy.png)

Fix your Forum Experience here: http://community.wizards.com/forum/new-site-feedback/threads/3925861

Boasts?

2011 States Top 4
Multiple 2013 IQ Top 4/8 Finishes
Designer of Top 8 States finishing MBC decks in 2011, 2010, and 2009 
Standard Forum - Iron Deck Builder Season One Champ

Favorite Quotes

"Against logic there is no armor like ignorance." - Laurence J. Peter 
"It is the province of knowledge to speak, and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes

I don't know how badly hurt your hand is, but you could also try doing the mash shuffle similar to what someone above suggested only use your good hand to push the cards into the other half thats just being kinda held in place with your bad hand so they don't slide on the table, or even just use both hands to kinda slide them together on the table.


Well, the thumb is restrained and unable to move at all. The other fingers can move but don't have much room to move. Grabbing something with the hand is impossible, the best I can do is to kind of hook something up with it. I also cannot bend it.

This is all pretty meaningless.  It doesnt matter if it seems unreasonable to do the math in your head on the fly.  Your opponent doesnt know whether you are choosing piles randomly or not.  If you actually practiced this enough and worked out the math ahead of time you could place a card wherever you wanted.

The point that this argument always comes down to, is that there is no good reason to use a pile shuffle for randomization (because it doesnt randomize).

Some people might use it before their first game simply as a method of counting their cards, but thats before continuing on to properly shuffle.

If someone hands you a deck after pile shuffling, that deck isnt randomized. 

Of course they may not be trying to cheat, and indeed they most likely do not know where any of the cards are.  However as an observer you have no way of knowing whether they do or not, thus the deck is not sufficiently shuffled.



But how do you prove its a cheat? You cannot simply claim a deck isn't randomized. If the human eye cannot follow a riffle/bridge and we feel its random... then we should be able to present a scenario the human brain cannot follow, despite the fact nothing done with the brain active is truly random, then don't we still achieve a random scenario? When I riffle I carefully split the deck in half as best as I can.. usually subconsciously. Then i deliberately try to intertwine the two halves together in a perfect mix. Again, subconsciously. This isn't random either.

I'm sure we've all shuffled plenty of times and ended up with a deck that is shockingly not randomed. My personal favorite is the 7 lands, 4 spells, 10 lands, 30 spells, 4 lands, 2 spells, 3 lands deck. I look at that and can easily claim that if the deck had received the right cut it was stacked to the dickens.

Unless you can prove the cheat upon review of the deck contents or review of the shuffling then its not a cheat, and is a serious attempt at randomization. If you can follow and reproduce the effect or get predictable and consistent results its a cheat.

According to wizards customer service this is the very essence of why deck randomization is subjective to the head judge at an event. And when a situation comes up the HJ will review the deck contents and work on re-creating the event.

Therefore if I can do something no un-aided human brain can follow and we accept something no human eye can follow it should be considered randomized. Because nothing truly is. 

IMAGE(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/syreal94/SIGNichecopy.png)

Fix your Forum Experience here: http://community.wizards.com/forum/new-site-feedback/threads/3925861

Boasts?

2011 States Top 4
Multiple 2013 IQ Top 4/8 Finishes
Designer of Top 8 States finishing MBC decks in 2011, 2010, and 2009 
Standard Forum - Iron Deck Builder Season One Champ

Favorite Quotes

"Against logic there is no armor like ignorance." - Laurence J. Peter 
"It is the province of knowledge to speak, and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Circling back to the original topic: the head judge will generally make allowance for someone who is unable to shuffle themselves. Simply inform the judge ahead of time. While it's just a pre-release and you could probably get by with having your opponent shuffle, having a judge shuffle or bringing along a shuffling buddy would probably be better.

Magic and Magic Online Volunteer Community Lead. On Strike

I'm trying to make my official VCL posts in purple.

You posted saying my thread was moved/locked but nothing happened.


Show
Unfortunately, VCLs do not currently have the tools necessary to take moderation actions directly. VCLs submit their actions to ORCs, who then actually perform the action. This processing can take between a few minutes and several hours, depending on how busy/attentive the ORCs are.

If you see something that needs VCL attention, please use this thread to make a request and a VCL will look at it as soon as possible. CoC violations should be reported to Customer Service using the "report post" button. Please do not disrupt the thread by making requests of either kind in-thread.

General MTGO FAQ

Yes, the Shuffler is Random!
The definitive thread on the Magic Online shuffler.

Magic Math Made Easy
Draw probabilities, Swiss results, Elo ratings and booster EV

Event EV Calculator
Calculate the EV for any event with a fixed number of rounds and prizes based on record

Dual means two. A duel is a battle between two people. Lands that make two colors of mana are dual lands. A normal Magic battle is a duel.
Thanks to PhoenixLAU for the [thread=1097559]awesome avatar[/thread]!
Quotables

Show
"While a picture is worth a thousand words, each lolcat actually produces a negative wordcount." -Ith "I think "Highly Informed Sarcasm" should be our Magic Online General motto." -Ith "Sorry, but this thread seems just like spam. TT is for off-topic discussion, not no-topic discussion." -WizO_Kwai_Chang "Stop that! If you're not careful, rational thinking may catch on!" -Sax "... the only word i see that fits is incompitant." -Mr44 (sic) "You know a thread is gonna be locked when it gets to the hexadecimal stage." -Gathion "It's a good gig" - Gleemax "I tell people often, if you guys want to rant, you've certainly got the right to (provided you obey CoC/ToS stuff), and I don't even really blame you. But if you see something you think needs changing a well thought-out, constructive post does more to make that happen." - Worth Wollpert

This is all pretty meaningless.  It doesnt matter if it seems unreasonable to do the math in your head on the fly.  Your opponent doesnt know whether you are choosing piles randomly or not.  If you actually practiced this enough and worked out the math ahead of time you could place a card wherever you wanted.

The point that this argument always comes down to, is that there is no good reason to use a pile shuffle for randomization (because it doesnt randomize).

Some people might use it before their first game simply as a method of counting their cards, but thats before continuing on to properly shuffle.

If someone hands you a deck after pile shuffling, that deck isnt randomized. 

Of course they may not be trying to cheat, and indeed they most likely do not know where any of the cards are.  However as an observer you have no way of knowing whether they do or not, thus the deck is not sufficiently shuffled.



But how do you prove its a cheat? You cannot simply claim a deck isn't randomized. If the human eye cannot follow a riffle/bridge and we feel its random... then we should be able to present a scenario the human brain cannot follow, despite the fact nothing done with the brain active is truly random, then don't we still achieve a random scenario? When I riffle I carefully split the deck in half as best as I can.. usually subconsciously. Then i deliberately try to intertwine the two halves together in a perfect mix. Again, subconsciously. This isn't random either.

I'm sure we've all shuffled plenty of times and ended up with a deck that is shockingly not randomed. My personal favorite is the 7 lands, 4 spells, 10 lands, 30 spells, 4 lands, 2 spells, 3 lands deck. I look at that and can easily claim that if the deck had received the right cut it was stacked to the dickens.

Unless you can prove the cheat upon review of the deck contents or review of the shuffling then its not a cheat, and is a serious attempt at randomization. If you can follow and reproduce the effect or get predictable and consistent results its a cheat.

According to wizards customer service this is the very essence of why deck randomization is subjective to the head judge at an event. And when a situation comes up the HJ will review the deck contents and work on re-creating the event.

Therefore if I can do something no un-aided human brain can follow and we accept something no human eye can follow it should be considered randomized. Because nothing truly is. 



First of all, Im not sure what defintion of randomization you are using.  Randomization does not mean even distribution.  A 40 spells followed by 20 land deck is random if that deck state was acheived through randomization.  Random means that every potential card order is possible.

You dont have to prove someone is cheating to say a deck isnt randomized.  You cant say whether they are cheating, but the objective is to minimize the likelihood of that possibility as much as possible.

Try to mash or riffle shuffle 5-8 times while keeping track of a single card.  Now do it on camera and have people compare it to a video of you shuffling while not trying to cheat.  Unless you are an incredibly talented slight of hand artist the cheat its pretty hard to do without being obvious about it.

Pile shuffling is the opposite because it is incredibly easy to cheat while pile shuffling and it is essentially impossible to tell the difference between someone cheating and someone not cheating.  All you have to do to cheat while pile shuffling is memorize a procedure and then act it out.

 

Ah ha, but if I was trying to cheat during a pile shuffle and I was under suspicion I would have to be using the same procedure over and over again.

I understand very clearly that random does not mean even distribution. Its more a meaning of lack of predictability which I've been backing into over and over again in my previous comments.

I clearly stated the only way to achieve inconsistent results from a pile shuffle is to distribute cards with no mind towards volume. Example, lifting an arbitrary stack of cards from the source and applying them to your piles with no regard to order. Repeat the retrieval from the source with no regards to volume. Apply the stack again. Importantly if you're not aware of the order of the source stack and repeat this procedure to face down piles its impossible to not achieve inconsistent/random results. The point being if I'm just grabbing handfuls and throwing them down on piles... sometimes getting 3, sometimes 5, sometimes 7, sometimes 10... again without counting them out... you're not getting a repeatable or consistent result. HOWEVER if someone was trying to perform this as a cheat someone could review a video and pause while taking notes and then determine they were actually repeating the same procedure over and over again... in an attempt to achieve predictable or consistent results.

Note; I don't shuffle this way. I riffle and bridge for speed. But for the sake of someone who is unable to perform this action I think this is actually a very important discussion to have. No one wants to depend on assistance from a judge or friend everytime they recreate. Handicapped only want to be handi-capable. 

IMAGE(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/syreal94/SIGNichecopy.png)

Fix your Forum Experience here: http://community.wizards.com/forum/new-site-feedback/threads/3925861

Boasts?

2011 States Top 4
Multiple 2013 IQ Top 4/8 Finishes
Designer of Top 8 States finishing MBC decks in 2011, 2010, and 2009 
Standard Forum - Iron Deck Builder Season One Champ

Favorite Quotes

"Against logic there is no armor like ignorance." - Laurence J. Peter 
"It is the province of knowledge to speak, and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes

I'm sure we've all shuffled plenty of times and ended up with a deck that is shockingly not randomed. My personal favorite is the 7 lands, 4 spells, 10 lands, 30 spells, 4 lands, 2 spells, 3 lands deck. I look at that and can easily claim that if the deck had received the right cut it was stacked to the dickens.

random is not the same as evenly distributed.

but you're ignoring the point. the point is, with some pretty basic memorization, I can take a pre-ordered deck and put the cards wherever I want. even if I just seed a few cards, that's a huge advantage. imagine I put, say, my hallowed fountain on top before the game starts. then I distribute them in the following order:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 6 6 5 4 2 7 7 7 3 1 2 5 3 1 4 4 4 2 7 2 6 5 4 2 3 2 1 4 7 5 6 3 3 1 5 6 3 6 4 7 4 5 2 7 7 1 4 6 7 7 6 5

let's say I put them in this order:

3 4 1 7 2 5 6

there's 7 cards in pile 3, 10 in pile 4, and 6 in pile 1. that means my fountain is now the 23rd card from the top. if, the next time I pile shuffle, I place the 23rd card in a pile I make sure I have no more than 7 cards in, then "randomly" put that pile on top, I will have the fountain in my opening hand 100% of the time. this will drastically reduce the rate at which I get mana screwed. and I can do it with any card, which is especially easy if I try to do it with a land, since who'd notice that I happened to scoop up my lands last?

in fact, you don't have to memorize a pattern like above. you can do it pseudorandomly. just count how many cards you put in piles 1 and, say, 5, then put pile 1 second from the top under pile 5 every time. or if you want to be sneakier do it with pile 2, and just make sure you put a land second from the top, which, again, you can accomplish by putting your lands on top of your deck last.

the point is, you don't need to know the placement of every card in your deck to gain a huge advantage, and it's not hard to fake. the sleight of hand necessary to pull off similar tricks with riffle and mash shuffles takes much more work. but more importantly, it takes not actually riffle or mash shuffling properly. what I described above is doing pile shuffles exactly how they're supposed to work, but just happening to track a piece of information that is readily available.

 

120.6. Some effects replace card draws.

 

why are you here when NGA exists and is just better

There's been a misunderstanding. You're assuming after establishing 7 stacks I distribute cards to stacks in order 1,2,3,4,5,6,7. Now, that has to be done to seed the stacks of course. Since this is a game 2 scenario (alleged in your example that you determined they put a certain card in a certain position while collecting the play stack) how about if the opponent took their play cards into a stack and placed this under the old library. Top X cards are unknown, but if you stopped and took notes you could estimate position where the play stack begins and lets say it was made obvious what card was at the top of the playstack, etc.



No, I assumed you piled them in a random order.  That's why I listed which piles went where (my 5, 2, 6, 1, 7, 3, 4 list was the order of the piles being reconstructed, with 4 on the bottom, 5 on top).

I also didn't consider the opponent cutting the deck, because I was saying that you are not presenting a random deck.  It doesn't matter if the opponent could cut/shuffle the deck and make it "random" (and cutting it wouldn't make it any form of random, as it just changes which section is on top, not the actual order of cards).  It only matters if you presented the deck in a random order, where the position of any card could not be known.  Which you aren't.

This is the whole reason the "double-nickle" method of "shuffling" is a known cheat.  It's easier to do this with round numbers (like 5 piles of 12 cards or 6 piles of 10 cards), but if you're really good and attentive, you can do it with other methods.

At this point can you solve the location of the original top card of the played stack without asking me to slow down during each step and writing everything down? I don't think so, and any judge observing this shuffle technique from a one-handed player would be satisfied. I know I would if I lost count during the randomization process, and I during college I aced quantitive methods (100s) and I'm a DBA for a living. Keeping track of large volumes of numbers is something I get paid a lot of money to do.



I can do it very quickly with practice.  All it takes is knowing where the card started, where that pile was placed in reconstruction the first time, and where the pile was placed in the second reconstruction.  I don't ever practice this, but I know basic math.  That allows me to do it quickly on the fly.  The only time I actually need to track the card is in the very first piling.  If you do it in a way that is fast and normal, that will be the same pile for that card's location every time.  It's not about actually tracking a specific card, it's about tracking a card's location.  The part that you have to figure out is what card started where.

Do you still think you could do this in the above example easily enough? Or would you be happy I've randomized?



Absolutely.  If I'm counting the number of cards you drawn that game, which any good player should be doing , as it keeps the opponent from cheating you easily, I can know where the card started.  Another example:

I know from game 1 that the fourth card that was sent to your graveyard was a Thragtusk.  Over the course of the game, you drew a total of 23 cards, leaving 37 in your library.  When you scoop up your cards, you put your hand, land and permanents on top of your graveyard, then put that pile on bottom of your library.  Thragtusk starts as card #27.

The 27th card goes into the 6th pile as the 4th card from the bottom of that pile (or 4th card down as well).  Now, I watch as you reconstruct your piles.  You put the piles in this order from the bottom up:  7,3,4,2,5,1,6.  Thragtusk is card #57 in your new library.  You pile them again.  Card #57 ends up in the 1st pile as the top card.  You put the piles together in this order: 4,1,2,3,7,5,6.  Thragtusk is now card #9.

I prove this is a "cheat" (or at least looks like one) by telling the judge exactly where the card I know ended up.  I explain how you "shuffled", and why you can track a known card through it.  The judge checks that card, sees it's the one I identified, and starts the process of DQing you.

Keep in mind, this is all "difficult" as the opponent.  If you're the player doing the pile shuffling, it's very easy to make something appear "random".  As long as you stick to the same "random" pilings, you can easily know where important cards (like your sideboarded ones) end up.  Your opponent can't tell that you stacked your deck because the piles were "random", but you know they are because you devised this system.
I think the major point is in the second to last paragraph of my post. the rest describes a procedure, but you can get a small advantage out of it in a practically imperceptible way as long as you can count at a decent speed, and you can do it from any position, with any distribution.

 

120.6. Some effects replace card draws.

 

why are you here when NGA exists and is just better

The problem with pile shuffling is that even if you distribute cards "randomly", how is the opponent to know that is what you are doing? Let's say I pile shuffle after a game with my :rwm: control deck. If I track the location of my Sol Ring while shuffling, all I really have to do is have a decent idea of where it is in order to ensure it comes up in my opneing hand. If I put it in stack number two, and make sure that stack is 7 or 8 cards, and then place that stack on top when I'm done, I am almost assured to have it in my opening hand, or draw it on my first turn if my opponent goes first. And any casual observer would have no idea what I was doing, and my piles would appear random, as the piles are being added to in an arbitrary sequence, and the piles are of unequal size. It looks random, but it isn't.

So, it is nothing personal against anyone who pile shuffles, but if you do it against me, I will shuffle the hell out of your deck when you present it to me.

Scope my YouTube channel!

Here's a shout out for Scholars' Books & Games in Bridgewater, MA, and for Paladin's Place in Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany where I was stationed for two years. Support your FLGS!

Attacking the darkness since 1987, turning creatures sideways since 1994.

Very much doubt a card shuffling machine is legal to use at an event - they work by simply taking alternate cards from two piles, and thus are not very random (even with repeated use).
Razorborne explained it much better than I ever could.  Thanks.

The point is better that if it is possible the person not shuffling could track a card, I'm 100% sure that the person shuffling is.  After all, if the method was actually providing a true randomization of the deck, they wouldn't take the extra time to do it over a mash shuffle.  The only time you pile shuffle is to count the deck to make sure you're presenting a legal deck or that your opponent did.
You guys keep creating numerical situations where you can claim to follow the card distribution, but all of your examples keep missing that I'm not gathering consistent quantities from the source stack. You're also assuming you (and I, the shuffler) can keep up with the actions I'm taking. I already know you guys are lost because the examples you're using to try to defeat my approach aren't recreating my verbiage. This is probably a failure on my part to communicate. Let's see if I can take your Thragtusk example (where its the 57th card in the new deck entering game 2) and show you how it'd come out:

We deal out 7 stacks from the unknown old library:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

I grab a set of cards from the top of my deck. I don't count them out. I leave the bulk of the new deck on the table. I distribute these in no particular order:

1,8,9
2,10
3,13
4
5,11,12
6


Turns out I grabbed 6 cards that time. I grab another handful: 

1,8,9
2,10
3,13
4,14
5,11,12
6,15
7,16

Human nature probably makes me notice the stacks with 1 card and I throw cards there. Again, the non-random human interaction. From here it gets sketchy because now the average person cant trust their eyes and unless they're cleaning the stacks up the piles will get out of sync in volume. In order to expedite the example I went ahead and threw numbers down to finish up:

1,8,9,28,29,30,55,56
2,10,17,18,19,51,52,53,54
3,13,23,24,39,40,41,58,59
4,14,20,21,22,42,43,44,60
5,11,12,27,37,38,48,49,50
6,15,25,31,32,33,34,57
7,16,26,35,36,45,46,47

I scoop them up in no particular order and get to this stack:
1,8,9,28,29,30,55,56,7,16,26,35,36,45,46,47,6,15,25,31,32,33,34,57
3,13,23,24,39,40,41,58,59,2,10,17,18,19,51,52,53,54,5,11,12,27,37,38,48,49,50, 4,14,20,21,22,42,43,44,60

Now, as I said each time I break these cards out into a new pile shuffle of number of piles not equal to the first one.

Let's say you were able to keep up with the fact I wasn't uniformly removing cards in even counts from the first source stack (I assume you're not even shuffling at this point and just counting cards to try to claim I'm a cheat). In this case you're ahead of me because I got lost a moment ago seeding source numbers into 7 stacks. Its easy to take 7, and apply the next 7 across the stacks in an orderly fashion to keep up with where the card ends. Normally it'd mean the 57th card would go into the first stack (7*8 = 56 so 8 laps around the piles, and 4 repeats onto the first 4 stacks) but in this example I gave up caring about where the cards went and it ended up in the 6th stack.

Next I make 3 piles. I repeat the process a lot faster now. I stop part of the way through and put the first stack on the bottom of my source and continue dealing, recreating the 1st stack. I pull the 2nd stack into the bottom my source. Continue. Reclaim the first stack. Continue. Grab the third up. Continue... Stop once I've hit 3 minutes on my watch as between round time and pick up whatever stacks I have. I cut my own deck arbitrarily three times.

I present to you. Do you think this is a cheat or recreatable to consistent outcome in the deck?

IMAGE(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/syreal94/SIGNichecopy.png)

Fix your Forum Experience here: http://community.wizards.com/forum/new-site-feedback/threads/3925861

Boasts?

2011 States Top 4
Multiple 2013 IQ Top 4/8 Finishes
Designer of Top 8 States finishing MBC decks in 2011, 2010, and 2009 
Standard Forum - Iron Deck Builder Season One Champ

Favorite Quotes

"Against logic there is no armor like ignorance." - Laurence J. Peter 
"It is the province of knowledge to speak, and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes

I already know you guys are lost because the examples you're using to try to defeat my approach aren't recreating my verbiage.


We don't have to. In the example I cited, all one has to do is track 1 stack. If you can't handle that than it is very doubtful you can tie your own shoes, much less play Magic.

You keep saying you distribute cards in no particular order. What you aren't grasping is that to the opponent watching you do this there is no way to know you aren't cheating or tracking your actions. None.

We aren't saying YOU are cheating, we are saying that the thing you are doing can be used to mask cheating. And that alone creates suspicion.

Scope my YouTube channel!

Here's a shout out for Scholars' Books & Games in Bridgewater, MA, and for Paladin's Place in Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany where I was stationed for two years. Support your FLGS!

Attacking the darkness since 1987, turning creatures sideways since 1994.

And so to come full circle do you think a judge can recreate the process to achieve a consistent result and proof the cheat? If you cannot identify where a card went into a stack during the process how can you even justify calling a judge to claim you're suspicious of my shuffling technique?

I cannot observe a cheat during a riffle and bridge, but it is very possible to perform. Hence this profession referred to as 'magicians'.

Clearly I cannot tie my shoes, I'm one handed. But it sure helps discussion to insult people.  Otherwise I'd be riffling and not trying feebly to present a random pile shuffle to you. You must be the worst kind of opponent to play against during a tournament. Do you also challenge one legged men to butt-kicking contests? You must be a real over-achiever to pick on the handicapped. I'm just trying to help.

IMAGE(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/syreal94/SIGNichecopy.png)

Fix your Forum Experience here: http://community.wizards.com/forum/new-site-feedback/threads/3925861

Boasts?

2011 States Top 4
Multiple 2013 IQ Top 4/8 Finishes
Designer of Top 8 States finishing MBC decks in 2011, 2010, and 2009 
Standard Forum - Iron Deck Builder Season One Champ

Favorite Quotes

"Against logic there is no armor like ignorance." - Laurence J. Peter 
"It is the province of knowledge to speak, and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Which is why pile shuffling only is a no-no. You pile shuffle and present, I call the judge. Your intentions are irrelevant.

3DH4LIF3

And so to come full circle do you think a judge can recreate the process to achieve a consistent result and proof the cheat?



So, because I can't proove my opponent cheated he didn't? Hey, I can't proove he went to the bathroom yesterday, does that mean he didn't?

The entire point is that pile shuffling not only is a means to cheat, but also hides the cheating as well. I'm not saying that everyone who pile shuffles cheats, I'm saying I refuse to take that chance, and also refuse to put my opponents into a position where they have to wonder if I am cheating.

Scope my YouTube channel!

Here's a shout out for Scholars' Books & Games in Bridgewater, MA, and for Paladin's Place in Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany where I was stationed for two years. Support your FLGS!

Attacking the darkness since 1987, turning creatures sideways since 1994.

So if you cannot prove your opponent is cheating is it safe to assume you call a judge on your opponent every round?

Or is it just when your prejudice kicks in towards pile shuffling because you're assuming that the person across the table is smarter than you and must be about to get away with something in the process? 

I cannot prove at any given moment during a match that my opponent is cheating. And yet... I do not call the judge. This cannot seriously be the reason.

IMAGE(http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/syreal94/SIGNichecopy.png)

Fix your Forum Experience here: http://community.wizards.com/forum/new-site-feedback/threads/3925861

Boasts?

2011 States Top 4
Multiple 2013 IQ Top 4/8 Finishes
Designer of Top 8 States finishing MBC decks in 2011, 2010, and 2009 
Standard Forum - Iron Deck Builder Season One Champ

Favorite Quotes

"Against logic there is no armor like ignorance." - Laurence J. Peter 
"It is the province of knowledge to speak, and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen.” - Oliver Wendell Holmes

So if you cannot prove your opponent is cheating is it safe to assume you call a judge on your opponent every round?



Did I, or did I not, already ing say:

So, it is nothing personal against anyone who pile shuffles, but if you do it against me, I will shuffle the hell out of your deck when you present it to me.



Well, did I or not?

Are you done playing victim, yet? Holy .

Scope my YouTube channel!

Here's a shout out for Scholars' Books & Games in Bridgewater, MA, and for Paladin's Place in Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany where I was stationed for two years. Support your FLGS!

Attacking the darkness since 1987, turning creatures sideways since 1994.

Sign In to post comments