If shuffling my deck, and my opponent shuffling my deck AND a judge shuffling it isn't enough, than what is? I used riffle, pick and clump shuffling, alternating during each shuffle.
I don't know what "pick and clump" is. But if your results track over the long term with those numbers and each of those results had those 3 people shuffling it, they are doing poor shuffles.
So the judge of the event shuffled my deck poorly after my opponent shuffled it poorly after I shuffled it poorly? I highly doubt that. When was the last time a judge shuffled your deck poorly?
If shuffling my deck, and my opponent shuffling my deck AND a judge shuffling it isn't enough, than what is? I used riffle, pick and clump shuffling, alternating during each shuffle.
I don't know what "pick and clump" is. But if your results track over the long term with those numbers and each of those results had those 3 people shuffling it, they are doing poor shuffles.
So the judge of the event shuffled my deck poorly after my opponent shuffled it poorly after I shuffled it poorly? I highly doubt that. When was the last time a judge shuffled your deck poorly?
One anecdote is not sufficient. Did you, your opponent, and a judge each shuffle your deck over at least 50 fresh games? One time of the judge shuffling is not enough to form a statistically sound or relevant hypothesis.
There are people that get hit by lightning 2 or even 3 times in a row, so statistics are fine, but for that people it doesnt matter if the chance is like 1 in a million.
So here its the same, chances are he got a very bad run of chance, its part of a "random" deck to give you 100 *****ty hands in a row, even if that is unlikely, its the nature of randomness that it is indeed possible.
A good way to check your shuffling might be to simply shuffle face-up not face-down for testing and after short shuffles, check how your deck actual "changed" by your shuffling, just for you, to make sure theres nothing totally wrong.
A good way to test your shuffling methods might be to stack a deck sorted by cards and lands-no-lands , then shuffle and look how it changed (if the deck is still quite sorted after you shuffled, you know you shuffle poorly).
If you do that, you might discover the secret of your poor luck, or you might find out that its just your imagination.
If you're really having that much trouble with randomizing your deck, just order it before the shuffling starts. If you go SSLSSLSSLSSLSSLSSL... and you end up drawing a 7 land opener, you have exactly nothing to blame besides bad luck.
If you land seed, then get an opening hand of 7 lands, that means you shuffled PROPERLY.
If you land seed and get good hands, then you're CHEATING.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
If you're really having that much trouble with randomizing your deck, just order it before the shuffling starts. If you go SSLSSLSSLSSLSSLSSL... and you end up drawing a 7 land opener, you have exactly nothing to blame besides bad luck.
If you land seed, then get an opening hand of 7 lands, that means you shuffled PROPERLY.
If you land seed and get good hands, then you're CHEATING.
Um, no. If you land seed and don't shuffle and get good hands, you cheated. People's inability to understand how probability works at this basic level baffles me.
So, what does land seeding do to change probability? Why suggest land seeding at all?
The "oh, it's ok to land seed, as long as you shuffle afterwards" crowd has yet to come up with a logical explanation why land seeding suddenly improves the chances of not drawing crappy hands, and yet is not cheating because, hey, they shuffled.
Um, no. If you land seed and don't shuffle and get good hands, you cheated. People's inability to understand how probability works at this basic level baffles me.
If you dont shuffle well-enough to re-randomize the deck after stacking it, then you are cheating.
Its the same as if you put a card on top, and then did some half-assed shuffle that still keeps that card in the top 10 or so cards. You havent shuffled enough to make the deck random again.
If the act of stacking the deck provides any meaningful benefit after you shuffle, thats not random.
If you shuffle the deck properly so that stacking it first doesnt provide a meaningful benefit... then why are you doing it in the first place if it literally serves no purpose?
TL;DR If stacking your deck has some meaningful effect on the game, thats cheating. Throwing a shuffle in there that fails to entirely undo the act of stacking your deck doesnt suddenly make it not cheating.
You completely misunderstood the entire post. If you stack your deck 24 lands on top of 36 spells and shuffle it and get an unusual amount of 0/7 land hands, it's a sign that you're not shuffling well. If you weave it SSLSSLSSL... and get them, you're shuffling fine and just getting unlucky. I never even remotely implied that you should be land weaving and then not shuffling adequately.
what does land seeding do to the probability of not having a 7 land hand? If you're not trying to imply anything, why suggest land seeding at all? Why not skip the land seeing part and just shuffle?
If you stack your deck 24 lands on top of 36 spells and shuffle it and get an unusual amount of 0/7 land hands, it's a sign that you're not shuffling well.
Who on earth deliberately stacks decks like that?
If you weave it SSLSSLSSL... and get them, you're shuffling fine and just getting unlucky. I never even remotely implied that you should be land weaving and then not shuffling adequately.
The implication there is that if you land seed and your luck is average, the you shouldn't get them.
You are "baffled" that people are "don't understand probability", then you should be able to answer the questions above.
God I love the Magic community. Every card game seems to have a bunch of people advocating pre-sorting the deck, but this is the only one where I've found that the idea consistently gets shot down as BS. OT: Welcome to the crap end of the bell curve, population us. Give it time, it will either even out, or you can set a world record.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
L1 judge since 1/30/12 (lapsed as of 1/30/13)
My Friend Code is: 0146-9645-8893
what does land seeding do to the probability of not having a 7 land hand? If you're not trying to imply anything, why suggest land seeding at all? Why not skip the land seeing part and just shuffle?
If you stack your deck 24 lands on top of 36 spells and shuffle it and get an unusual amount of 0/7 land hands, it's a sign that you're not shuffling well.
Who on earth deliberately stacks decks like that?
If you weave it SSLSSLSSL... and get them, you're shuffling fine and just getting unlucky. I never even remotely implied that you should be land weaving and then not shuffling adequately.
The implication there is that if you land seed and your luck is average, the you shouldn't get them.
You are "baffled" that people are "don't understand probability", then you should be able to answer the questions above.
If you go 24/36 and then shuffle poorly, clumps are more common. I was offering him a test to help him see that it's just bad shuffling (or a small sample size with some bad luck). I never even remotely implied that you can't get 0s/7s if you weave lands, but if his percentage of them decreases from however he was stacking his deck before and he tested both adequately, it's a good sign he's awful at shuffling. Your ability to misunderstand simple posts is even more baffling than the forum's lack of understanding in regards to probability.
If you're really having that much trouble with randomizing your deck, just order it before the shuffling starts.
Oh my, you're right. You just implied that his draws will be better.
It's important to take this quote in its proper context.I don't Jermo suggesting weaving as a practical way to improve your draws, but as a way to test a hypothesis about the effectiveness of shuffling. The OP believes that he's shuffling using proper techniques and that his deck is clumping to 0/7 land hands from nothing but random selection. The simplest explanation is that he's not actually shuffling effectively, and that land clumps present at the beginning of the shuffling are the same ones he's drawing into after the shuffling.
The OP doesn't believe this is the case, so Jermo suggests a way to test that idea. By mana weaving before shuffling, you can eliminate initial clumps and guarantee that if you draw a seven-land hand, it's not because there were seven lands together to begin with. It must be something else (be it bad luck, worn lands, or some unknown factor) that's causing the problem, and not poor shuffling. It's a diagnostic test, not a suggestion on solving the problem.
If you want to test how well you shuffle use a standard deck of playing cards. Start with them in ascending order for each suit. Stop where you normally would in a magic game and look at the deck. Are there significant (statistically speaking) number of runs remaining? Record the information and repeat (if you want statistical relevance, i.e. good data, repeat at least 50 times). With the full data set you can analyze if your shuffling actually sufficiently randomizes the deck. You could even sleeve the cards if you wanted to closer simulate magic cards (or you could just use 60 unique magic cards and notate the order).
If you're really having that much trouble with randomizing your deck, just order it before the shuffling starts.
Oh my, you're right. You just implied that his draws will be better.
It's important to take this quote in its proper context.I don't Jermo suggesting weaving as a practical way to improve your draws, but as a way to test a hypothesis about the effectiveness of shuffling. The OP believes that he's shuffling using proper techniques and that his deck is clumping to 0/7 land hands from nothing but random selection. The simplest explanation is that he's not actually shuffling effectively, and that land clumps present at the beginning of the shuffling are the same ones he's drawing into after the shuffling.
The OP doesn't believe this is the case, so Jermo suggests a way to test that idea. By mana weaving before shuffling, you can eliminate initial clumps and guarantee that if you draw a seven-land hand, it's not because there were seven lands together to begin with. It must be something else (be it bad luck, worn lands, or some unknown factor) that's causing the problem, and not poor shuffling. It's a diagnostic test, not a suggestion on solving the problem.
Exactly right. I'm obviously not suggesting cheating as a way to fix his poor shuffling, but as a way to demonstrate that his issue is poor shuffling (or, of course, not accurately gathered data or a small sample size). If you're shuffling in a legitimately random way, how you stack your deck is completely irrelevant.
If we treat the deck of cards as an array we can preform a systematic method for randomization which is Uniformly distributed.
Generate a random integer I in the range of 1 to N where N is the number of cards in the deck. Then locate I by counting from the top of the deck till you reach I. Remove I from the deck and place it at in another pile. Repeat this process until your first pile is empty. Your removing 1 card every operation so you N-- every time you repeat. Your deck has now been randomized. You could do this simply by randomly taking cards out of your deck and placing them into another pile, but it may not be truly random because you might has a bias towards the middle or top or whatever. You could make it faster by making small piles and performing the same process as before. It'll be less random for individual elements but still randomized. Chop shuffling and rifle shuffling are much faster but you need to preform them a few time to say its random, where this you only need to do it once.
It is a Fisher-Yates shuffle essentially.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mehungary
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So the judge of the event shuffled my deck poorly after my opponent shuffled it poorly after I shuffled it poorly? I highly doubt that. When was the last time a judge shuffled your deck poorly?
Theros Myth Origins Part 1 WUBRG Part 2 GRBUW Born of the Gods
Beta Client Tutorial
Momir Basic Primer
Full article list
So here its the same, chances are he got a very bad run of chance, its part of a "random" deck to give you 100 *****ty hands in a row, even if that is unlikely, its the nature of randomness that it is indeed possible.
A good way to check your shuffling might be to simply shuffle face-up not face-down for testing and after short shuffles, check how your deck actual "changed" by your shuffling, just for you, to make sure theres nothing totally wrong.
A good way to test your shuffling methods might be to stack a deck sorted by cards and lands-no-lands , then shuffle and look how it changed (if the deck is still quite sorted after you shuffled, you know you shuffle poorly).
If you do that, you might discover the secret of your poor luck, or you might find out that its just your imagination.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
If you land seed, then get an opening hand of 7 lands, that means you shuffled PROPERLY.
If you land seed and get good hands, then you're CHEATING.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Um, no. If you land seed and don't shuffle and get good hands, you cheated. People's inability to understand how probability works at this basic level baffles me.
The "oh, it's ok to land seed, as long as you shuffle afterwards" crowd has yet to come up with a logical explanation why land seeding suddenly improves the chances of not drawing crappy hands, and yet is not cheating because, hey, they shuffled.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
If you dont shuffle well-enough to re-randomize the deck after stacking it, then you are cheating.
Its the same as if you put a card on top, and then did some half-assed shuffle that still keeps that card in the top 10 or so cards. You havent shuffled enough to make the deck random again.
If the act of stacking the deck provides any meaningful benefit after you shuffle, thats not random.
If you shuffle the deck properly so that stacking it first doesnt provide a meaningful benefit... then why are you doing it in the first place if it literally serves no purpose?
TL;DR If stacking your deck has some meaningful effect on the game, thats cheating. Throwing a shuffle in there that fails to entirely undo the act of stacking your deck doesnt suddenly make it not cheating.
what does land seeding do to the probability of not having a 7 land hand? If you're not trying to imply anything, why suggest land seeding at all? Why not skip the land seeing part and just shuffle?
Who on earth deliberately stacks decks like that?
The implication there is that if you land seed and your luck is average, the you shouldn't get them.
You are "baffled" that people are "don't understand probability", then you should be able to answer the questions above.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
My Friend Code is: 0146-9645-8893
If you go 24/36 and then shuffle poorly, clumps are more common. I was offering him a test to help him see that it's just bad shuffling (or a small sample size with some bad luck). I never even remotely implied that you can't get 0s/7s if you weave lands, but if his percentage of them decreases from however he was stacking his deck before and he tested both adequately, it's a good sign he's awful at shuffling. Your ability to misunderstand simple posts is even more baffling than the forum's lack of understanding in regards to probability.
?
Oh my, you're right. You just implied that his draws will be better.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
It's important to take this quote in its proper context.I don't Jermo suggesting weaving as a practical way to improve your draws, but as a way to test a hypothesis about the effectiveness of shuffling. The OP believes that he's shuffling using proper techniques and that his deck is clumping to 0/7 land hands from nothing but random selection. The simplest explanation is that he's not actually shuffling effectively, and that land clumps present at the beginning of the shuffling are the same ones he's drawing into after the shuffling.
The OP doesn't believe this is the case, so Jermo suggests a way to test that idea. By mana weaving before shuffling, you can eliminate initial clumps and guarantee that if you draw a seven-land hand, it's not because there were seven lands together to begin with. It must be something else (be it bad luck, worn lands, or some unknown factor) that's causing the problem, and not poor shuffling. It's a diagnostic test, not a suggestion on solving the problem.
Theros Myth Origins Part 1 WUBRG Part 2 GRBUW Born of the Gods
Beta Client Tutorial
Momir Basic Primer
Full article list
Exactly right. I'm obviously not suggesting cheating as a way to fix his poor shuffling, but as a way to demonstrate that his issue is poor shuffling (or, of course, not accurately gathered data or a small sample size). If you're shuffling in a legitimately random way, how you stack your deck is completely irrelevant.
Generate a random integer I in the range of 1 to N where N is the number of cards in the deck. Then locate I by counting from the top of the deck till you reach I. Remove I from the deck and place it at in another pile. Repeat this process until your first pile is empty. Your removing 1 card every operation so you N-- every time you repeat. Your deck has now been randomized. You could do this simply by randomly taking cards out of your deck and placing them into another pile, but it may not be truly random because you might has a bias towards the middle or top or whatever. You could make it faster by making small piles and performing the same process as before. It'll be less random for individual elements but still randomized. Chop shuffling and rifle shuffling are much faster but you need to preform them a few time to say its random, where this you only need to do it once.
It is a Fisher-Yates shuffle essentially.