|
11 months ago ::
Jul 23, 2012 - 5:18PM
#61
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2006
|
This is still happening?
There was a video posted above about how tournament goers sufficiently randomize their decks.
If you're seeding you're not sufficiently randomizing your deck. If you were, you wouldn't have to seed.
End of story.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 24, 2012 - 5:26AM
#62
|
Date Joined:
Jul 24, 2012
|
I just wanted to say something about shuffle. irl, if i see someone doing cheating shuffle deck (1 land, 1 or 2 cards one land etc) i shuffle it this way : 3 piles, i put one card in each pile, one after one, and then i shuffle 3 or 4 time. If opponent complains, you can call an arbiter to remind him the rules of magic 
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 24, 2012 - 5:36AM
#63
|
|
|
What I'm seeing here, is actually two issues that are at odds with eachother. Some people are defending one side, some the other. To outline:
- After playing a game, cards that have been played are fairly split in two stacks: One is lands, the other is non-lands;
- The deck, after shuffling, has to be fully random, with no card being predictable;
I will start with the latter: statistically speaking, you have a random distribution of which you know about 35-40% are lands. So, whichever card you draw, you know that about 35-40% are going to be lands, or that you have about 35-40% chance to draw a land. Of course, you have a chance of mana starvation when you draw very few lands, or mana flooding when you draw a lot (had both during a private sealed deck tourney recently), but total random distribution has the lands distributed about evenly most of the time.
However, that excludes the first: when after a game, you have a clump of "Lands" and a clump of "non-Lands" that you somehow have to merge into your deck. Now I admit that I have never been in an official tournament, so I am curious how people handle that. How do you merge your non-Library cards into your Library?
If you just bunch them up, then you will need a lot of shuffling to break apart the clumps, otherwise you can predict where you will get a clump of Lands or non-Lands, which - by the rules - is prohibited. If you mana-weave them (a technique I usually apply with my kitchentable games, before shuffling them in my hands a number of times), you know the initial distribution is controlled and thereby also not random - which is also prohibited by the rules.
Is there a shuffle technique that makes sure that neither occurs?
As an aside, even though the rules allow for it: I think it's a fairly cheap and corny way to lose or win a game, when either you or your opponent has to concede a game due to mana flooding or mana starvation.
I gather all the cards I used that game, and shuffle them up 4 or 5 times. Then I split it, put half on top of my library, half on bottom, cut the deck and then riffle shuffle. Then I shuffle another 4 or 5 times for good measure.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 24, 2012 - 8:01AM
#64
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2012
|
I gather all the cards I used that game, and shuffle them up 4 or 5 times. Then I split it, put half on top of my library, half on bottom, cut the deck and then riffle shuffle. Then I shuffle another 4 or 5 times for good measure.
Sounds fair.
Admittedly nothing in life can truly be done "randomly," as there is usually some kind of underlying reasoning for everything, even if you can't see it. Even if you throw the cards all over the floor, it's not exactly random what will land where-- I'm sure someone could practice doing it to the point that they could predict it. Shuffling cards could produce the same effect.
The closest thing to being "random" would be "difficult to predict," and that would probably involve your opponent shuffling your deck for you while you have a blindfold on.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 24, 2012 - 9:42AM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Sep 18, 2011
|
Your math only outwits yourself. In RL yes 60 card deck - 7 cards for opening hand. My current deck is mono blue delver and I am currently running only 18 lands(obsurd I know and I still kick a$$).
I have exactly a 30% chance to draw a land. It only increases as I draw cards. Lets say starting hand is 1 land and 6 spells. I have a 32.1%(rounded up) to draw a land. Mathmatically yes. Lets say I do not now it is 32.7, ok next draw 33.3. Ok wait my chances have now gone to 1 in 3. That sounds like what I said. Most decks run 22 lands and you can do the math but it works out much the same.
It would be a bad game none the less if that is how it works out but it never does for me... just saying. Luck is just as much a part of the game as math, it is true. I am able to manipulate my deck with ponder and draw card. I did say turns not draws.
And maybe going 7 turns in real life with no mana never happens because the other guy dies first or quits because it is no fun?
I'm not sure how math can outwit itself. It's a pretty simple calculation, and not dependent on the number of land you have.
Odds of going X turns of no land at all after N land in the opening hand with a deck of A land cards and B non-land cards.
= { ( B - 7 + N ) choose X } / { ( A + B - 7 ) choose X }
What you have to always remember about statistics is that the math is different when looking at multiple attempts. You can say your third turn would be 33.3% chance, but you're only looking at a third turn where the first two both failed. To calculate the odds of one (or more ) lands in the first three turns it's a slightly different formula than just the ends step of one sequence of fails/success.
The odds of a land on draw 3 in your deck is exactly 18/60. That is, the odds of a land in the 10th card position. Those odds are irrelevant of if you draw none, one, or 9 land in the first 9 cards you see. The trouble starts when you only look at the cases where you notice.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 24, 2012 - 10:27AM
#66
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2011
|
Your math only outwits yourself. In RL yes 60 card deck - 7 cards for opening hand. My current deck is mono blue delver and I am currently running only 18 lands(obsurd I know and I still kick a$$).
I have exactly a 30% chance to draw a land. It only increases as I draw cards. Lets say starting hand is 1 land and 6 spells. I have a 32.1%(rounded up) to draw a land. Mathmatically yes. Lets say I do not now it is 32.7, ok next draw 33.3. Ok wait my chances have now gone to 1 in 3. That sounds like what I said. Most decks run 22 lands and you can do the math but it works out much the same.
It would be a bad game none the less if that is how it works out but it never does for me... just saying. Luck is just as much a part of the game as math, it is true. I am able to manipulate my deck with ponder and draw card. I did say turns not draws.
And maybe going 7 turns in real life with no mana never happens because the other guy dies first or quits because it is no fun?
I'm not sure how math can outwit itself. It's a pretty simple calculation, and not dependent on the number of land you have.
Odds of going X turns of no land at all after N land in the opening hand with a deck of A land cards and B non-land cards.
= { ( B - 7 + N ) choose X } / { ( A + B - 7 ) choose X }
What you have to always remember about statistics is that the math is different when looking at multiple attempts. You can say your third turn would be 33.3% chance, but you're only looking at a third turn where the first two both failed. To calculate the odds of one (or more ) lands in the first three turns it's a slightly different formula than just the ends step of one sequence of fails/success.
The odds of a land on draw 3 in your deck is exactly 18/60. That is, the odds of a land in the 10th card position. Those odds are irrelevant of if you draw none, one, or 9 land in the first 9 cards you see. The trouble starts when you only look at the cases where you notice.
Ugh I forgot, what are we arguing about?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 24, 2012 - 12:48PM
#67
|
Date Joined:
Jun 11, 2012
|
Man, I can't WAIT for the expansion! 
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 24, 2012 - 1:11PM
#68
|
Date Joined:
Jul 10, 2012
|
Splattercat: Maybe is end of your story, if you kept misreading and misunderstanding what are we talking here.
That video is an example of how boring this game is with a full random shuffle. Becoz the main factor is luck.. Not real strategy or decisions making.
crb042 and Darkwolfer2002: I guess the chance calculated by crb042 is right. But you can misunderstand what he is saying. He is just saying that the chance of having 7 lands in a row is 1,3%. But that is just an specific chance..
If you wanna know how much is the chance of having mana flooded or starved in your game, you need to calculate and add the chance each time that you draw a land. Then you need to calculate the chance of 3 lands in a row, then 4, then 5, then 8 or 9, etc. Then the same for spells.
So is difficult to see it. There is a easy way.
Imagine that you have 100 coins, then you throw to the air all the coins at the same time.
Then you can expect to see in the floor 50 coins face up and 50 face down aprox.
but if you see the coins more closely, you will find that there are groups of coins all face up, and other groups face down.
You can make circles to inclose this groups, then you will realize how many circles you get and how big are some of these groups.
That is the perfect explanation to see why is common to get mana starved or flooded.
With my way to shuffle (2 piles then shuffle 7 or 8 times, then cut) this does not happen too often. My opponent does the same, and we have a fun game that really speak about how good are you playing and making decks.
The problem in a tornament, is that maybe someone has fast hands to cheat or he is able to kept the card he wanted in the first hand.
But we dont have this problem in the digital game, becoz the computer makes the shuffle.
So if the computer reduce the chance of having many lands in a row (example: for each group of lands, more than 5 in a row, the game has an extra 20% chance of shuffle again) it will improve the gameplay experience. And there is not cheat for anybody.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 24, 2012 - 1:13PM
#69
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2006
|
Splattercat: Maybe is end of your story, if you kept misreading and misunderstanding what are we talking here.
That video is an example of how boring this game is with a full random shuffle. Becoz the main factor is luck.. Not real strategy or decisions making.
Okay.
|
|
|
