To return back to the biggest point of the post, which is about your opponent only table-cutting your deck instead of shuffling, it has been decided that it's not enough because it does nothing against mana-weaving.
Is it possible to have a ruling such that each player shuffles their opponent's deck through a few riffle-shuffles (no piles) and then table-cuts it? The shuffling breaks up mana weaving the other player might have set up, and cutting breaks up the shuffling player's ipothetical deck-stacking, assuming they shuffle while not looking at the deck, which is something everyone should always do already.
I myself used to just table-cut the opponent's deck, especially in casual environments like LGS tournaments and such, because shuffling could imply you don't trust them; after some thought, I think it's probably just fine to shuffle your opponent's deck and then table cut it, especially if you shuffle while looking the complete opposite direction of the deck so that you can't even get a look at their cards.
First you want to make it as simplistic to players as possible.
As less extra rules and extra steps as possible.
You are supposed to shuffle a deck yourself, present it, the opponent shuffles it again (can be quick, doesnt need to be excessize) and you get it back.
In a regular world this means the deck is shuffled by both players. Its assumed that someone would cheat on his own deck, stacking the "opponents" deck requires more effort in the shuffling itself, its mainly faced by the fact that you shuffle a deck without starring at it.
If someone wants to badly cheat and knows his craft, theres no way to you can avoid it, its a sad fact, but thats just how it goes.
The non-expert and the way more common cheats involve stacking "your own" deck, either by marked sleeves, or by some shady shuffling. All of that is dealt with if the opponent shuffles the deck in a serious manner and the player is NOT allowed to touch it again.
That system in general works, unless someone really puts in effort to cheat (in which case your only hope is to have an eye on suspicious shufflers, mainly judges should be concerned with that, a player should play the game and not care too much how the opponent will cheat them).
To return back to the biggest point of the post, which is about your opponent only table-cutting your deck instead of shuffling, it has been decided that it's not enough because it does nothing against mana-weaving.
Is it possible to have a ruling such that each player shuffles their opponent's deck through a few riffle-shuffles (no piles) and then table-cuts it? The shuffling breaks up mana weaving the other player might have set up, and cutting breaks up the shuffling player's ipothetical deck-stacking, assuming they shuffle while not looking at the deck, which is something everyone should always do already.
I myself used to just table-cut the opponent's deck, especially in casual environments like LGS tournaments and such, because shuffling could imply you don't trust them; after some thought, I think it's probably just fine to shuffle your opponent's deck and then table cut it, especially if you shuffle while looking the complete opposite direction of the deck so that you can't even get a look at their cards.
The whole problem is that only 30-50 percent of the player base is able to riffle shuffle.
So just revert to mash shuffle right ? Well then the mtg players go all soft and whiny about how rough that is on sleeves and cards.
And in the end we have the "random" pile shuffling, which is ok for the cards and sleeves.
It is ok to do that if you just shuffle properly afterwards, and were at the beginning again where only 30-50 percent of the player base is able to riffle shuffle...
This circle is often debated at mtgsalavation, and all the threads make the same points over and over again.
Quick (hopefully) question: how on earth is riffle shuffling randomizing the deck? The top and bottom hardly change. If you riffle shuffle over and over again, when, and how, does the very bottom cards EVER move away from the bottom to be randomly distributed throughout the deck?
Even if the riffle isn't perfect, those cards don't move that much and aren't going to jump 10+ spaces up the deck. Maybe I'm missing something, because I don't see how keeping parts of your deck on the bottom is "randomizing" your deck at all.
I haven`t read through all of this, but yes sleight of hand does exist, and the skill level is crazy. A few years ago I had the opportunity to a watch master magician at work. He was shuffling a card deck and managed to deliver quads of aces, kings, queens, jacks and tens to 5 dedicated people, himself obviously getting the aces. He did that repeatedly, and also demonstrated how fine-tuned his ability to shuffle was. Precise like a machine, crazy!
I am pretty sure I have been cheated on in Magic. There are people out there who do it all the time, in particular if they can get away with it. In casual or on a more pro level.
If there is a guy who can point out what ot watch out for, let`s hear him out. Cheaters suck and ruin the game, and I certainly have no clue how to see cheaters at work
Admitting yo cheating should just get this user banned from the DCI for life. Anyone caught cheating should be banned from DCI for life.
Look at Major spots; they have lists of banned substances, but players still use them because the punishment isn't severe enough. Imagine that if you tested positive for a banned substance in a Pro sport, that players contract was immediately terminated and banned for life.
Ban the cheaters, no matter what level they cheat on.
Can you ask your opponent to just cut and not shuffle? If it's such a concern...could you ask a judge to come to your table, and then ask the judge himself if you can only have your deck cut? Then the judge would be there hovering over your opponent to make sure he doesn't shuffle it.
Or is it required that you let your opponent shuffle your deck?
I don't do anything big...FNM's are the biggest events I ever attend in my small town, and I guess I'm lucky because that's all anyone around here does...cuts their opponent's decks. None of us ever shuffle each other's decks.
At Regular REL, your opponent may cut or shuffle your deck as he pleases when you present it. You can ask your opponent to only cut the deck and not shuffle, but he is under no obligation to obey you. At Competitive and Professional REL, your opponent must shuffle your deck when you present it.
You can ask a judge to assist with the shuffling process (and they can replace your opponent doing it), but they may or may not help depending on how busy they are, and they probably won't help with shuffling in the middle of the game (after searching your deck, etc.)
Quick (hopefully) question: how on earth is riffle shuffling randomizing the deck? The top and bottom hardly change. If you riffle shuffle over and over again, when, and how, does the very bottom cards EVER move away from the bottom to be randomly distributed throughout the deck?
Even if the riffle isn't perfect, those cards don't move that much and aren't going to jump 10+ spaces up the deck. Maybe I'm missing something, because I don't see how keeping parts of your deck on the bottom is "randomizing" your deck at all.
Because the top card is not guaranteed to stay on top after the riffle; cards from the other half of the deck (what was the middle) may end up on top of the topmost card. Good riffle shuffles make this result random as to whether or not it happens.
I posted a simplistic model of the shuffling process earlier demonstrating how a card on the top of the deck can potentially quickly make its way towards the middle. The simple model was essentially, "on average, 2.5 cards land on top of any other given card". With that simple model, it take 4 riffles to move the top card roughly to the middle of the deck.
Ok, thanks for that explanation, but what about the bottom cards? The bottom card of one half (the original bottom and not the halfway point) will stay at the bottom, even if it does move around slightly
Ok, thanks for that explanation, but what about the bottom cards? The bottom card of one half (the original bottom and not the halfway point) will stay at the bottom, even if it does move around slightly
The explanation is the same as how the top card moves. Imagine if you riffle shuffled with the bottom facing up. The effect of how a card on the edge of the deck moves towards the center would be the same.
Maybe I'm not picturing it correctly. Wouldn't the bottom card jump between the last position and 2nd last position?
Like to me, it just seems like the top and the middle of the deck are getting mixed up, but never the bottom. The cards that are on the bottom would never be drawn.
Maybe I'm not picturing it correctly. Wouldn't the bottom card jump between the last position and 2nd last position?
Like to me, it just seems like the top and the middle of the deck are getting mixed up, but never the bottom. The cards that are on the bottom would never be drawn.
Once the "bottom card" becomes the 2nd last, it'll become the 3rd or 4th last card in the next shuffle. It won't go back to the last card again in the next shuffle.
I also want to point out that a riffle shuffle intended for deck randomization should not be a "perfect riffle" where your two halves are laid one card after another. The imperfection of sometimes having two or three cards dropping from one side is an important component of the randomization process. In fact, if you're able to do "perfect riffle shuffles" a number of time, you can get back the starting deck sequence.
Right, I definitely understand the need for it to be an imperfect shuffle for that very reason.
Well, I believe you lol. Just an odd thing to picture I suppose. I've also watched someone - inadvertently - keep the same card on the bottom when they riffle shuffled.
1. You shuffle
2. Opponent shuffles
3. Opponent asks "do you want me to cut?" If yes, opponent cuts approximately half-way.
Giving the player the option prevents the opponent from trying to stack the opening hand by controlling the middle of the deck (which is what hand-stacking cheaters would do if they knew they had to cut from now on after their shuffling).
If the rules required this, it would probably add a completely negligible amount of time to the shuffling procedure.
1. You shuffle
2. Opponent shuffles
3. Opponent asks "do you want me to cut?" If yes, opponent cuts approximately half-way.
Giving the player the option prevents the opponent from trying to stack the opening hand by controlling the middle of the deck (which is what hand-stacking cheaters would do if they knew they had to cut from now on after their shuffling).
If the rules required this, it would probably add a completely negligible amount of time to the shuffling procedure.
If your opponent is able to stack while shuffling without you noticing, they can stack both the middle and the top. Each one might be slightly less stacked, but it wouldn't matter that much. A trivial way to do this is to just focus on pushing all your land to the very bottom of the deck; then top-hands and middle-hands are equally bad.
Does everyone else not realise the OP is blatant bull*****?
"I'm a master cheater and I'm here to warn you about cheating."
It's attention-seeking tripe, written by a teenager with an over-active imagination.
Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IaPNRPgbkY It's old yes, but this proves he doesn't have an over-active imagination. What he said in the above post is true about cheaters. He fixed that shuffle so hard and he won.
1. You shuffle
2. Opponent shuffles
3. Opponent asks "do you want me to cut?" If yes, opponent cuts approximately half-way.
Giving the player the option prevents the opponent from trying to stack the opening hand by controlling the middle of the deck (which is what hand-stacking cheaters would do if they knew they had to cut from now on after their shuffling).
If the rules required this, it would probably add a completely negligible amount of time to the shuffling procedure.
If your opponent is able to stack while shuffling without you noticing, they can stack both the middle and the top. Each one might be slightly less stacked, but it wouldn't matter that much. A trivial way to do this is to just focus on pushing all your land to the very bottom of the deck; then top-hands and middle-hands are equally bad.
This is true but, surely it at least makes it harder to cheat than otherwise. And the process of putting all the land on the bottom is a much more time-consuming one than trying to simply make the top 7 cards a bad hand. If the opponent were spending that long shuffling your odds would be much greater of catching what he is doing, and you might be inclined to call the judge simply for how long he's taking.
1. A deck can be pre-stacked the whole way through the deck, and then shuffled in such a way that does not affect that stacking. Therefore a cut will do no good.
2. Its possible through a shuffle, but not through a cut, to stack a deck, if only the top few cards.
So rather than having the player shuffle his own deck and the opponent cut it, why not just first let the opponent shuffle the deck, then allow the player to cut his own deck. Seems like that would solve both problems.
1. A deck can be pre-stacked the whole way through the deck, and then shuffled in such a way that does not affect that stacking. Therefore a cut will do no good.
2. Its possible through a shuffle, but not through a cut, to stack a deck, if only the top few cards.
So rather than having the player shuffle his own deck and the opponent cut it, why not just first let the opponent shuffle the deck, then allow the player to cut his own deck. Seems like that would solve both problems.
It is very easy to mark a card somehow and cut to it every time.
1. A deck can be pre-stacked the whole way through the deck, and then shuffled in such a way that does not affect that stacking. Therefore a cut will do no good.
2. Its possible through a shuffle, but not through a cut, to stack a deck, if only the top few cards.
So rather than having the player shuffle his own deck and the opponent cut it, why not just first let the opponent shuffle the deck, then allow the player to cut his own deck. Seems like that would solve both problems.
It is very easy to mark a card somehow and cut to it every time.
However, as opposed to with shuffling, one can reasonably complain about the opponent touching and looking at his deck too much before doing a simple cut. That is after you have had the opportunity to both look at and touch his deck in lengths.
1. A deck can be pre-stacked the whole way through the deck, and then shuffled in such a way that does not affect that stacking. Therefore a cut will do no good.
2. Its possible through a shuffle, but not through a cut, to stack a deck, if only the top few cards.
So rather than having the player shuffle his own deck and the opponent cut it, why not just first let the opponent shuffle the deck, then allow the player to cut his own deck. Seems like that would solve both problems.
It is very easy to mark a card somehow and cut to it every time.
However, as opposed to with shuffling, one can reasonably complain about the opponent touching and looking at his deck too much before doing a simple cut. That is after you have had the opportunity to both look at and touch his deck in lengths.
It doesn't take much touching if you know what you're looking for.
For example, I use Ultra-pro matte sleeves. I don't know if it's the sleeves are getting old and getting bent at the edge or what not, but sometimes one of the sleeves will feel a little wider or sticks out a bit more from the side even though they all came from the same pack. If I noticed it during a tournament, I would replace that sleeve with another but I could've easily cut to that card with the odd sleeve. I could feel that sleeve just by picking up my deck from the side. My opponents never said anything when they shuffle my deck so either they never noticed it or didn't think it was a problem.
... That takes no slight of hand, and in fact is so easy to do that you would find some players doing it by accident (I've seen plenty of casuals who don't understand why mana-weaving is wrong).
Exacty, mana-weaving (stacking the deck so it has 2 cards, 1 land, 2 cards 1 land etc.) is the biggest issue and cutting a deck doesn't solve it at all.
I think it's perfectly fine if an opponent takes my deck and shuffles it. How can he "stack" my deck, if he can't look at the cards? Is OP telling me he can both distract me AND look at the cards in my deck AND cheat the best cards to the bottom half in one swift motion? I don't think so.
He is saying he can do both things, I'm not sure why you think this is so hard. Magicians do this sort of stuff all the time. You must think David Copperfield is a real wizard
First you want to make it as simplistic to players as possible.
As less extra rules and extra steps as possible.
You are supposed to shuffle a deck yourself, present it, the opponent shuffles it again (can be quick, doesnt need to be excessize) and you get it back.
In a regular world this means the deck is shuffled by both players. Its assumed that someone would cheat on his own deck, stacking the "opponents" deck requires more effort in the shuffling itself, its mainly faced by the fact that you shuffle a deck without starring at it.
If someone wants to badly cheat and knows his craft, theres no way to you can avoid it, its a sad fact, but thats just how it goes.
The non-expert and the way more common cheats involve stacking "your own" deck, either by marked sleeves, or by some shady shuffling. All of that is dealt with if the opponent shuffles the deck in a serious manner and the player is NOT allowed to touch it again.
That system in general works, unless someone really puts in effort to cheat (in which case your only hope is to have an eye on suspicious shufflers, mainly judges should be concerned with that, a player should play the game and not care too much how the opponent will cheat them).
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
So just revert to mash shuffle right ? Well then the mtg players go all soft and whiny about how rough that is on sleeves and cards.
And in the end we have the "random" pile shuffling, which is ok for the cards and sleeves.
It is ok to do that if you just shuffle properly afterwards, and were at the beginning again where only 30-50 percent of the player base is able to riffle shuffle...
This circle is often debated at mtgsalavation, and all the threads make the same points over and over again.
Even if the riffle isn't perfect, those cards don't move that much and aren't going to jump 10+ spaces up the deck. Maybe I'm missing something, because I don't see how keeping parts of your deck on the bottom is "randomizing" your deck at all.
I am pretty sure I have been cheated on in Magic. There are people out there who do it all the time, in particular if they can get away with it. In casual or on a more pro level.
If there is a guy who can point out what ot watch out for, let`s hear him out. Cheaters suck and ruin the game, and I certainly have no clue how to see cheaters at work
Look at Major spots; they have lists of banned substances, but players still use them because the punishment isn't severe enough. Imagine that if you tested positive for a banned substance in a Pro sport, that players contract was immediately terminated and banned for life.
Ban the cheaters, no matter what level they cheat on.
WBG Karador GBW
R Daretti R
RG Omnath GR
WRG Modern Burn GRW
WB Modern Tokens BW
DCI Rules Advisor as of 5/18/2015
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/334934-shuffling-the-truth-and-maths-primer
You can ask a judge to assist with the shuffling process (and they can replace your opponent doing it), but they may or may not help depending on how busy they are, and they probably won't help with shuffling in the middle of the game (after searching your deck, etc.)
Because the top card is not guaranteed to stay on top after the riffle; cards from the other half of the deck (what was the middle) may end up on top of the topmost card. Good riffle shuffles make this result random as to whether or not it happens.
I posted a simplistic model of the shuffling process earlier demonstrating how a card on the top of the deck can potentially quickly make its way towards the middle. The simple model was essentially, "on average, 2.5 cards land on top of any other given card". With that simple model, it take 4 riffles to move the top card roughly to the middle of the deck.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
The explanation is the same as how the top card moves. Imagine if you riffle shuffled with the bottom facing up. The effect of how a card on the edge of the deck moves towards the center would be the same.
Like to me, it just seems like the top and the middle of the deck are getting mixed up, but never the bottom. The cards that are on the bottom would never be drawn.
Once the "bottom card" becomes the 2nd last, it'll become the 3rd or 4th last card in the next shuffle. It won't go back to the last card again in the next shuffle.
I also want to point out that a riffle shuffle intended for deck randomization should not be a "perfect riffle" where your two halves are laid one card after another. The imperfection of sometimes having two or three cards dropping from one side is an important component of the randomization process. In fact, if you're able to do "perfect riffle shuffles" a number of time, you can get back the starting deck sequence.
Well, I believe you lol. Just an odd thing to picture I suppose. I've also watched someone - inadvertently - keep the same card on the bottom when they riffle shuffled.
2. Opponent shuffles
3. Opponent asks "do you want me to cut?" If yes, opponent cuts approximately half-way.
Giving the player the option prevents the opponent from trying to stack the opening hand by controlling the middle of the deck (which is what hand-stacking cheaters would do if they knew they had to cut from now on after their shuffling).
If the rules required this, it would probably add a completely negligible amount of time to the shuffling procedure.
If your opponent is able to stack while shuffling without you noticing, they can stack both the middle and the top. Each one might be slightly less stacked, but it wouldn't matter that much. A trivial way to do this is to just focus on pushing all your land to the very bottom of the deck; then top-hands and middle-hands are equally bad.
Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IaPNRPgbkY It's old yes, but this proves he doesn't have an over-active imagination. What he said in the above post is true about cheaters. He fixed that shuffle so hard and he won.
This is true but, surely it at least makes it harder to cheat than otherwise. And the process of putting all the land on the bottom is a much more time-consuming one than trying to simply make the top 7 cards a bad hand. If the opponent were spending that long shuffling your odds would be much greater of catching what he is doing, and you might be inclined to call the judge simply for how long he's taking.
1. A deck can be pre-stacked the whole way through the deck, and then shuffled in such a way that does not affect that stacking. Therefore a cut will do no good.
2. Its possible through a shuffle, but not through a cut, to stack a deck, if only the top few cards.
So rather than having the player shuffle his own deck and the opponent cut it, why not just first let the opponent shuffle the deck, then allow the player to cut his own deck. Seems like that would solve both problems.
It is very easy to mark a card somehow and cut to it every time.
It doesn't take much touching if you know what you're looking for.
For example, I use Ultra-pro matte sleeves. I don't know if it's the sleeves are getting old and getting bent at the edge or what not, but sometimes one of the sleeves will feel a little wider or sticks out a bit more from the side even though they all came from the same pack. If I noticed it during a tournament, I would replace that sleeve with another but I could've easily cut to that card with the odd sleeve. I could feel that sleeve just by picking up my deck from the side. My opponents never said anything when they shuffle my deck so either they never noticed it or didn't think it was a problem.
He is saying he can do both things, I'm not sure why you think this is so hard. Magicians do this sort of stuff all the time. You must think David Copperfield is a real wizard
warning issued for flaming