it shouldn't matter if all 23 lands in your deck are on top of each other before you start shuffling. if you've shuffled properly your deck will be in a random order no matter how it started. If it isn't, you didn't shuffle properly. period.
it shouldn't matter if all 23 lands in your deck are on top of each other before you start shuffling. if you've shuffled properly your deck will be in a random order no matter how it started. If it isn't, you didn't shuffle properly. period.
You are 100% incorrect. You are also the second person on here who has had this notion
You all need to go read up on what i am talking about because apparently some of you have the wrong idea of the meaning of expected variance, or expected mean, or sufficiently random. Or the concept that different initial conditions will produce different results after a randomization.
What you are missing is the difference between random order( i have no knowledge of the order because i shuffled several times) and 100% random which even with a shuffling machine would take longer than 3 minutes to achieve. Go look up zenos paradox if you dont believe me
There is a reason wizards drew the line where they did. Because 100% random is unrealistic. And more importantly impossible to achieve in a timely manner. Imagine going to a tourney where it took several minutes to resolve each shuffle trigger. Now have fun with your 2 hour long game 1's
Edited: i changed archers paradox to zenos paradox because thats the one i was trying to cite
it shouldn't matter if all 23 lands in your deck are on top of each other before you start shuffling. if you've shuffled properly your deck will be in a random order no matter how it started. If it isn't, you didn't shuffle properly. period.
You are 100% incorrect. You are also the second person on here who has had this notion
You all need to go read up on what i am talking about because apparently some of you have the wrong idea of the meaning of expected variance, or expected mean, or sufficiently random. Or the concept that different initial conditions will produce different results after a randomization.
What you are missing is the difference between random order( i have no knowledge of the order because i shuffled several times) and 100% random which even with a shuffling machine would take longer than 3 minutes to achieve. Go look up archers paradox if you dont believe me
There is a reason wizards drew the line where they did. Because 100% random is unrealistic. And more importantly impossible to achieve in a timely manner. Imagine going to a tourney where it took several minutes to resolve each shuffle trigger. Now have fun with your 2 hour long game 1's
i'm pretty sure there is a deck that involves making your opponent shuffle his deck a lot.
full spoiler is up...basically nothing for us right?
it shouldn't matter if all 23 lands in your deck are on top of each other before you start shuffling. if you've shuffled properly your deck will be in a random order no matter how it started. If it isn't, you didn't shuffle properly. period.
You are 100% incorrect. You are also the second person on here who has had this notion
You all need to go read up on what i am talking about because apparently some of you have the wrong idea of the meaning of expected variance, or expected mean, or sufficiently random. Or the concept that different initial conditions will produce different results after a randomization.
What you are missing is the difference between random order( i have no knowledge of the order because i shuffled several times) and 100% random which even with a shuffling machine would take longer than 3 minutes to achieve. Go look up archers paradox if you dont believe me
There is a reason wizards drew the line where they did. Because 100% random is unrealistic. And more importantly impossible to achieve in a timely manner. Imagine going to a tourney where it took several minutes to resolve each shuffle trigger. Now have fun with your 2 hour long game 1's
i'm pretty sure there is a deck that involves making your opponent shuffle his deck a lot.
full spoiler is up...basically nothing for us right?
I didn't really see anything that great. This set is pretty meh except for 3-4 wowza cards. Although I do appreciate that there's plenty of tribal action.
I'm wondering what this set will do to the meta and how that affects us. Harsh Mentor in particular looks aggressive as hell.
Now that we have seen the whole set, the most appealing card to me for this deck is Galestrike but even then i think we would rather just run Repeal, which is already barely not good enough.
I think he is a mean dude and is gonna see alot of modern play in burn. Maybe just in the side?
He might even make White-Red hatebears better than the White-Green version finally.
I also think that similar to origonal innistrad several years ago, this set is gonna warp modern a little more then the average one does. There is alot of strong synergy with the core mechanics of the set and some old mechanics like the -1/-1 counters and proliferate. All the extra graveyard shennagins in aftermath and embalm will become a compliments to good old flashback. Living end just got a whole new set of toys to think about using...
Graveyard matters sets warp modern
As an afterthought: I may need to buy a third Rest in Peace if things go that direction in the coming months.
And is the best answer for the monoblue version perhaps Grafdigger's Cage?
Now that we have seen the whole set, the most appealing card to me for this deck is Galestrike but even then i think we would rather just run Repeal, which is already barely not good enough.
I think he is a mean dude and is gonna see alot of modern play in burn. Maybe just in the side?
He might even make White-Red hatebears better than the White-Green version finally.
I also think that similar to origonal innistrad several years ago, this set is gonna warp modern a little more then the average one does. There is alot of strong synergy with the core mechanics of the set and some old mechanics like the -1/-1 counters and proliferate. All the extra graveyard shennagins in aftermath and embalm will become a compliments to good old flashback. Living end just got a whole new set of toys to think about using...
Graveyard matters sets warp modern
As an afterthought: I may need to buy a third Rest in Peace if things go that direction in the coming months.
And is the best answer for the monoblue version perhaps Grafdigger's Cage?
This is not about perception, it actually improves the randomness and distribution of your library
Putting the cards back together in a (loosely) specific order does not increase randomness. And trying to achieve an "expected mean" is somewhat of a strange notion, as an even distribution of say, spells and lands is likely when you randomize a deck, but clumps possibly can and will still arise after thorough randomization. So I would find any method that might put you at an advantage over a completely random deck in that regard questionable. Even the judges' blog makes a statement to the extent that you need to shuffle the deck to the point that any previous ordering has no effect. I have no deep insight into whether the widely repeated "7 riffle shuffles for sufficient randomization" (for a 52 card deck) is that accurate, but if it is, 7 (or 8) riffle shuffles don't sound unreasonable in a tournament setting.
"So I would find any method that might put you at an advantage over a completely random deck in that regard questionable" - here is your biggest mistake, your making the assumption that decks are completely random. Those judges (just like the people who put together the series of photos that were cited) don't understand what they are actually talking about. Perhaps instead of consulting the judges blog you should have gone and actually looked up the statistics terms so you would understand the subject we are discussing.
So I am going to have to break it down for you in detail.
Most modern hands end with like 3 or 4 lands in play. We however, can easily be having to pick up 10 to 12 lands when we finish a hand. This makes our land clump roughly 3 to 4 times larger than with a normal deck. Now we have a choice, we can either place them together as a large clump and then shuffle that large clump into our library. Or we can shuffle the lands up with the spells that we used from the hand (this is the correct choice and I will explain to you why), and then shuffle that into your library.
I could reference the tables in the back of my statistic book, but I doubt you have access to those. So I need you to briefly go read "Zeno's Paradox" for this next part to have its full impact. There are effectively three different versions of random for what we are talking about. (previously I was only talking about 1 and 3, but you brought up version 2 so I will include it for reference)
1) Wizards definition of sufficiently random
2) Effectively 100% random
3) Actually 100% random
So before I move into the definitions you need to keep in mind that initial starting conditions affect results at all times, and no matter how many shuffles you have gone through, the way the deck looked when you start shuffling makes a difference as to the results.
1) Wizards wants us to present decks to each other that have been randomized to the point that neither player has knowledge as to the location of any one card, or even the rough distribution of cards. This can be achieved in as few as 3 shuffles, but to be safe most of us do about 4-6 before we feel it's time to offer the cut to our opponents.
2) You can either go look this up in stats tables or you can to look up the logarithmic equation and solve for a 60 card deck. The answer is one we have all been hearing our whole lives (since 60 is close to 52). It takes about 7 shuffles to make a deck effectively random. There are many definitions of effectively random (depending on where you want to draw the line) but I'm going to give you the relevant one for this scenario: When it is possible to achieve any of the options available. Meaning that any possible combination of cards can be achieved within 7 shuffles. This does not mean that the likely-hood of each of the outcomes are going to show up in equal frequency, so the odds of a deck being a certain way vs a different way are not equal.
3) This is what your not understanding so make sure you understand Zeno's paradox. The goal is for a deck to be shuffled to the point that its initial conditions don't matter. This means that both: all options are possible, and the odds of all outcomes are equal in frequancy. Remember this is what many of you tell yourselves that your doing (but in actually you have the false perception you have achieved this state with only a handful of shuffles. The amount of total work needed (hundreds of shuffles?) to get to this state is ridiculously large and wizards only gives us 3 minutes to shuffle so no player will ever achieve this result in a tournament setting.
So here we are, lying to ourselves about how random our deck can possibly be in the handful of shuffles that wizards gives us time for.
Now that you have a better understanding of what I am actually talking about what are you going to do about it? Are you going to keep putting large clumps of lands together and then start shuffling or are you going to do your best to un-clump those 10-12 lands before you start the shuffling process?
Just to be clear I want to make sure you are getting the concept that if two identical decks both clean up their boards in these two respective ways. Then both decks are shuffled 7 times to ensure that they are effectively random. The pilot who broke up their clumps instead of just trying to "shuffle them out" in a mere 7 shuffles is going to have a deck that is more evenly distributed than the deck which had its large clump shuffled in.
Both decks will be effectively random (version 2 from above). both pilots have no knowledge of the distribution of their library (this easily meets Wizards minimum standards). And yet the one who made the effort to spread out his mana before the shuffle will have smoother draws and fewer large land pockets.
So to restate the point I was initially trying to make: By unclumping our lands we bring our deck closer to the expected mean before we start shuffling. This lowers our expected variance post-shuffle and should be done at the end of every hand.
For you to imply that "my methods are questionable" is both insulting and puts a Glaring Spotlight on your ignorance. The rules of this game are set up to make it as fair as possible for all players. If you chose to ignore some aspects of the rules because you don't understand them that's one thing, but by not doing everything within the rules to increase your odds of winning you're effectively handicapping yourself. And since this is a "developing competitive" thread where we share competitive advice, I thought it would be prudent to point out to all of you that we have a land clump issue and this is what you can do to mitigate that. Rather than let you all continue to lie to yourselves that there is no problem because you think you "shuffle enough". You don't have to follow my advice if your not interested in winning, but then, why are you reading a competitive primer.
You implied I was unfairly gaining an advantage because you didn't understand what I was talking about. Stop calling people cheaters who aren't, and they won't get upset at you.
They don't need to update the rules to match your minset, you need to update your mindset to match the rules. Wizards drew the line in a very sensible place.
I'd be happy to let any mumber of judges watch me do this and then shuffle 7+ times. Not a single one of them will consider what I am doing wrong.
Whoever your source is on the "7 shuffles is good enough" has never taken a statistics class, or wasn't paying attention. There is an entire science dedicated to this topic, and I assure you he is wrong in his assumption that 7 shuffles makes outcomes "equally likely".
I agree that the rules are flawed. All we can do is the best we can with what we are given. And we are only given three minutes to do that in.
The arguement that I have additional information is not valid because the same can be said about those who shuffle in a large unbroken clump of lands. They have the same amount of information that I do, only instead of being worried that my lands might randomly reclump, they have assumed the opposite approach where their land pocket will evenly unclump.
Both players start with the same total amount of information. It's merely a matter of point of view weather you think it is possible to shuffle a clump into randomness in 3 minutes.
I make the opposite assumption because I know better, and now that i have informed you of the truth, you know better as well.
I don't see how shuffling could be a problem with this deck, I mean really: the deck demands one truly thorough shuffle at the start of the game. This is a rare and wonderful blessing in the game and a feature shared by a small number of decks. Legacy Dredge is the only one I can think of that requires the same rate of 1 shuffle per game. You guys sound like you've never piloted turns that go like: "Fetch for Savannah.... Green Sun's Zenith.... Stoneforge Mystic... activate Knight of the Reliquary..." and while I'll admit that 4 shuffles per turn is an extreme example and would have been shortcut IRL when it happened, it is rare to get through a single turn of Maverick without shuffling.
This originally was mentioned because Turns is prone to ending the game with 10, 11 lands in play, which form a land clump if put back in the deck without further attention (the discussion now being if that has any bearing). So in that sense it's relevant, I guess? But yeah, devolving into an argument over freaking shuffling kind of reflects that everyone is pretty content with their list and that the full Amonkhet spoiler doesn't really have anything for the deck.
On this we 100% agree. Amonkhet looks like its going to breathe some much needed life into standard, but theres nothing in the set for us turns players.
"That is not my mindset, but that of Wizards as well. It's why Falling Star and Chaos Orb aren't part of the game anymore, "outside" things like manual dexterity shouldn't have any part in determining the winner of a match. I would very much imagine that includes influencing the randomization of your deck."-pixeleen
I have showed you the math and proven to you that how we pick up our lands at the end of a hand matters.
Putting a clump of 10-12 lands on your deck and not breaking them up is also "influencing the randomness" so thats not really a valid arguement.
I am over here talking about statistical proability and ways we can mathmatically improve our consistency yet you are still comparing what im doing to "using some form of outside skill" math is an outside skill.. I guess? But when they wrote that clause they were talking about people using sleight of hand to stack there deck, not probability.
So, Even after my very detailed explanation about the difference between effectively random and actually 100% random; you went on the internet and found information talking about what it takes for something to be effectively random. Then you came on to the primer and copy pasted what you found in an attempt to incorrectly apply what they are saying to what I am talking about (actually 100% random).
So, then you inform me that you got your information from wikepedia (which is fine I use wikis all the time) and you point out that I am an unknown stranger who credentials you don't know. So let me tell you I am currently working on my 6th engineering degree. I teach physics and circuit analysis to college students, and have testified in court as an expert.
I assure you when it comes to applied math I know what I am talking about. When I tell you to unclump your 10-12 lands, before you start shuffling, you can now weigh my expert opinion against ... the entirety of the internet?
Unclumping your lands before you move into shuffling is not against either the rules as written OR the rules as intended.
If you don't want to have to mulligan a disproportionate amount of times because of too many or too few lands in your starting 7.
When we end hands what do you do with your huge stack of 10-12 lands? Do you leave them as a group when you start shuffling or do you break up the clump and then shuffle?
If you don't want to have to mulligan a disproportionate amount of times because of too many or too few lands in your starting 7.
When we end hands what do you do with your huge stack of 10-12 lands? Do you mix them up before you start shuffling or do you break up the clump and then shuffle?
I break up the lands, I thought that was a given, but I clearly missed the context of the last few pages. :]
Perhaps we are wrong about Amonkhet having nothing for us...
So after thinking about running the Blue/Green version (because ramping into time warps might be fun), and I keep noticing this card that causes damage to opponents during our end steps... not their end-steps but ours. That definitely caught my attention and it's why we don't run cards like Fevered Visions as win conditions because they are a bit of a non-bo with how our deck works.
Its more of a concept than an actual list at this point, but I'm sure if I make this a group effort we might be able to find yet another viable build for this deck. This version sacrifices consistency for speed. It can slip into free turns as early as turn 3 and never pass the turn back if things keep going well. My first thought is that I think we need a few more turn 1 green sources but I want to shy away from Botanical Sanctum because it enters tapped in the late game.
OK I'll put the shuffling thing to bed so we can move on. We don't need essays on that kind of thing here, it just makes it harder to find the posts we really need.
Tl;dr: wizards' definition of what random means simply implies that neither player knows the order of the cards. A few mash shuffles is enough to do this. Unfortunately those mash shuffles won't adequately split up large land clumps or playsets & you'll see this in your draws.
It's best advised when piloting this deck in paper to do a quick pile shuffle before you go to mash shuffling, or jam the lands into the deck every few cards or so when you pick up your deck at the end of a game. Don't stack the deck, just split the lands up is all (you can do this without looking at them, cards facing away from you & it's perfectly legal if you continue to shuffle as normal)
There. That's enough of that.
Anyone currently got any good anti-burn tech they'd like to share?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
Thank you. And sorry for the essays but I had to make clear what was being misunderstood.
"you can do this without looking at them, cards facing away from you & it's perfectly legal if you continue to shuffle as normal"-purklefluff
Actually since its happening in bewteen hands i am pretty sure the regular rules about looking at your library and shifting cards around dont apply because your in your sideboarding phase and none of that matters then? Someone please pipe in on this aspect, id love clarity on this.
Now to answer your question. Ive had alot of success with 4 sea's claim and 4 spreading seas in the mainboard. They never get a second red source to cast eidolon. Often I was able to lock opponents out of all of their red
Both of the times I tried this at FNM's I steamrolled all over tron and burn all night... and lost to decks that already play islands...
But it absolutely solves the burn matchup. If you can handle never beating Merfolk again it might be a viable option
Seas is a beautiful card right now, there is so much greed it's easy to cut off a colour.
I'm 100% on board with that idea.
Gonna sleeve mine up now & test them later this evening.
If you happen to be on the fence about Thassa, running all that extra devotion turns her on extremely easily. It could tip the balance toward running her.
U Merfolk U
WUBRGPeopleGRBUW
U Turbo Turns U
UB Fae BU
WBG Aristocrats GBW
You are 100% incorrect. You are also the second person on here who has had this notion
You all need to go read up on what i am talking about because apparently some of you have the wrong idea of the meaning of expected variance, or expected mean, or sufficiently random. Or the concept that different initial conditions will produce different results after a randomization.
What you are missing is the difference between random order( i have no knowledge of the order because i shuffled several times) and 100% random which even with a shuffling machine would take longer than 3 minutes to achieve. Go look up zenos paradox if you dont believe me
There is a reason wizards drew the line where they did. Because 100% random is unrealistic. And more importantly impossible to achieve in a timely manner. Imagine going to a tourney where it took several minutes to resolve each shuffle trigger. Now have fun with your 2 hour long game 1's
Edited: i changed archers paradox to zenos paradox because thats the one i was trying to cite
Uw Taking Turns
The Bad Moon
Small Mardu Midrange
Big Mardu Midrange
Grixis Waste Not Combo
Bw 8-Rack
Bw Midrange
i'm pretty sure there is a deck that involves making your opponent shuffle his deck a lot.
full spoiler is up...basically nothing for us right?
URW PillowFort Stasis (costruction)
modern:
U Taking Turns combo
pauper:
UB Servitor Control
xenob8 : you know you are going to have a bad time when opponent starts with snow covered island
I didn't really see anything that great. This set is pretty meh except for 3-4 wowza cards. Although I do appreciate that there's plenty of tribal action.
I'm wondering what this set will do to the meta and how that affects us. Harsh Mentor in particular looks aggressive as hell.
I think he is a mean dude and is gonna see alot of modern play in burn. Maybe just in the side?
He might even make White-Red hatebears better than the White-Green version finally.
I also think that similar to origonal innistrad several years ago, this set is gonna warp modern a little more then the average one does. There is alot of strong synergy with the core mechanics of the set and some old mechanics like the -1/-1 counters and proliferate. All the extra graveyard shennagins in aftermath and embalm will become a compliments to good old flashback. Living end just got a whole new set of toys to think about using...
Graveyard matters sets warp modern
As an afterthought: I may need to buy a third Rest in Peace if things go that direction in the coming months.
And is the best answer for the monoblue version perhaps Grafdigger's Cage?
Surgical Extraction?
What is our plan for the non white version to answer a graveyard heavy meta(if it ever happens)?
Uw Taking Turns
The Bad Moon
Small Mardu Midrange
Big Mardu Midrange
Grixis Waste Not Combo
Bw 8-Rack
Bw Midrange
More relic of progenitus
URW PillowFort Stasis (costruction)
modern:
U Taking Turns combo
pauper:
UB Servitor Control
xenob8 : you know you are going to have a bad time when opponent starts with snow covered island
"So I would find any method that might put you at an advantage over a completely random deck in that regard questionable" - here is your biggest mistake, your making the assumption that decks are completely random. Those judges (just like the people who put together the series of photos that were cited) don't understand what they are actually talking about. Perhaps instead of consulting the judges blog you should have gone and actually looked up the statistics terms so you would understand the subject we are discussing.
So I am going to have to break it down for you in detail.
Most modern hands end with like 3 or 4 lands in play. We however, can easily be having to pick up 10 to 12 lands when we finish a hand. This makes our land clump roughly 3 to 4 times larger than with a normal deck. Now we have a choice, we can either place them together as a large clump and then shuffle that large clump into our library. Or we can shuffle the lands up with the spells that we used from the hand (this is the correct choice and I will explain to you why), and then shuffle that into your library.
I could reference the tables in the back of my statistic book, but I doubt you have access to those. So I need you to briefly go read "Zeno's Paradox" for this next part to have its full impact. There are effectively three different versions of random for what we are talking about. (previously I was only talking about 1 and 3, but you brought up version 2 so I will include it for reference)
1) Wizards definition of sufficiently random
2) Effectively 100% random
3) Actually 100% random
So before I move into the definitions you need to keep in mind that initial starting conditions affect results at all times, and no matter how many shuffles you have gone through, the way the deck looked when you start shuffling makes a difference as to the results.
1) Wizards wants us to present decks to each other that have been randomized to the point that neither player has knowledge as to the location of any one card, or even the rough distribution of cards. This can be achieved in as few as 3 shuffles, but to be safe most of us do about 4-6 before we feel it's time to offer the cut to our opponents.
2) You can either go look this up in stats tables or you can to look up the logarithmic equation and solve for a 60 card deck. The answer is one we have all been hearing our whole lives (since 60 is close to 52). It takes about 7 shuffles to make a deck effectively random. There are many definitions of effectively random (depending on where you want to draw the line) but I'm going to give you the relevant one for this scenario: When it is possible to achieve any of the options available. Meaning that any possible combination of cards can be achieved within 7 shuffles. This does not mean that the likely-hood of each of the outcomes are going to show up in equal frequency, so the odds of a deck being a certain way vs a different way are not equal.
3) This is what your not understanding so make sure you understand Zeno's paradox. The goal is for a deck to be shuffled to the point that its initial conditions don't matter. This means that both: all options are possible, and the odds of all outcomes are equal in frequancy. Remember this is what many of you tell yourselves that your doing (but in actually you have the false perception you have achieved this state with only a handful of shuffles. The amount of total work needed (hundreds of shuffles?) to get to this state is ridiculously large and wizards only gives us 3 minutes to shuffle so no player will ever achieve this result in a tournament setting.
So here we are, lying to ourselves about how random our deck can possibly be in the handful of shuffles that wizards gives us time for.
Now that you have a better understanding of what I am actually talking about what are you going to do about it? Are you going to keep putting large clumps of lands together and then start shuffling or are you going to do your best to un-clump those 10-12 lands before you start the shuffling process?
Just to be clear I want to make sure you are getting the concept that if two identical decks both clean up their boards in these two respective ways. Then both decks are shuffled 7 times to ensure that they are effectively random. The pilot who broke up their clumps instead of just trying to "shuffle them out" in a mere 7 shuffles is going to have a deck that is more evenly distributed than the deck which had its large clump shuffled in.
Both decks will be effectively random (version 2 from above). both pilots have no knowledge of the distribution of their library (this easily meets Wizards minimum standards). And yet the one who made the effort to spread out his mana before the shuffle will have smoother draws and fewer large land pockets.
So to restate the point I was initially trying to make:
By unclumping our lands we bring our deck closer to the expected mean before we start shuffling. This lowers our expected variance post-shuffle and should be done at the end of every hand.
For you to imply that "my methods are questionable" is both insulting and puts a Glaring Spotlight on your ignorance. The rules of this game are set up to make it as fair as possible for all players. If you chose to ignore some aspects of the rules because you don't understand them that's one thing, but by not doing everything within the rules to increase your odds of winning you're effectively handicapping yourself. And since this is a "developing competitive" thread where we share competitive advice, I thought it would be prudent to point out to all of you that we have a land clump issue and this is what you can do to mitigate that. Rather than let you all continue to lie to yourselves that there is no problem because you think you "shuffle enough". You don't have to follow my advice if your not interested in winning, but then, why are you reading a competitive primer.
Uw Taking Turns
The Bad Moon
Small Mardu Midrange
Big Mardu Midrange
Grixis Waste Not Combo
Bw 8-Rack
Bw Midrange
They don't need to update the rules to match your minset, you need to update your mindset to match the rules. Wizards drew the line in a very sensible place.
I'd be happy to let any mumber of judges watch me do this and then shuffle 7+ times. Not a single one of them will consider what I am doing wrong.
Whoever your source is on the "7 shuffles is good enough" has never taken a statistics class, or wasn't paying attention. There is an entire science dedicated to this topic, and I assure you he is wrong in his assumption that 7 shuffles makes outcomes "equally likely".
I agree that the rules are flawed. All we can do is the best we can with what we are given. And we are only given three minutes to do that in.
The arguement that I have additional information is not valid because the same can be said about those who shuffle in a large unbroken clump of lands. They have the same amount of information that I do, only instead of being worried that my lands might randomly reclump, they have assumed the opposite approach where their land pocket will evenly unclump.
Both players start with the same total amount of information. It's merely a matter of point of view weather you think it is possible to shuffle a clump into randomness in 3 minutes.
I make the opposite assumption because I know better, and now that i have informed you of the truth, you know better as well.
Uw Taking Turns
The Bad Moon
Small Mardu Midrange
Big Mardu Midrange
Grixis Waste Not Combo
Bw 8-Rack
Bw Midrange
Spirits
Overall record: 139-98-15
Total number of matches: 252
Win percentage ignoring draws: 58.649789
Win percentage including draws: 55.158730
On this we 100% agree. Amonkhet looks like its going to breathe some much needed life into standard, but theres nothing in the set for us turns players.
"That is not my mindset, but that of Wizards as well. It's why Falling Star and Chaos Orb aren't part of the game anymore, "outside" things like manual dexterity shouldn't have any part in determining the winner of a match. I would very much imagine that includes influencing the randomization of your deck."-pixeleen
I have showed you the math and proven to you that how we pick up our lands at the end of a hand matters.
Putting a clump of 10-12 lands on your deck and not breaking them up is also "influencing the randomness" so thats not really a valid arguement.
I am over here talking about statistical proability and ways we can mathmatically improve our consistency yet you are still comparing what im doing to "using some form of outside skill" math is an outside skill.. I guess? But when they wrote that clause they were talking about people using sleight of hand to stack there deck, not probability.
So, Even after my very detailed explanation about the difference between effectively random and actually 100% random; you went on the internet and found information talking about what it takes for something to be effectively random. Then you came on to the primer and copy pasted what you found in an attempt to incorrectly apply what they are saying to what I am talking about (actually 100% random).
So, then you inform me that you got your information from wikepedia (which is fine I use wikis all the time) and you point out that I am an unknown stranger who credentials you don't know. So let me tell you I am currently working on my 6th engineering degree. I teach physics and circuit analysis to college students, and have testified in court as an expert.
I assure you when it comes to applied math I know what I am talking about. When I tell you to unclump your 10-12 lands, before you start shuffling, you can now weigh my expert opinion against ... the entirety of the internet?
Unclumping your lands before you move into shuffling is not against either the rules as written OR the rules as intended.
Uw Taking Turns
The Bad Moon
Small Mardu Midrange
Big Mardu Midrange
Grixis Waste Not Combo
Bw 8-Rack
Bw Midrange
If you don't want to have to mulligan a disproportionate amount of times because of too many or too few lands in your starting 7.
When we end hands what do you do with your huge stack of 10-12 lands? Do you leave them as a group when you start shuffling or do you break up the clump and then shuffle?
Edited: for clarity
Uw Taking Turns
The Bad Moon
Small Mardu Midrange
Big Mardu Midrange
Grixis Waste Not Combo
Bw 8-Rack
Bw Midrange
I break up the lands, I thought that was a given, but I clearly missed the context of the last few pages. :]
Spirits
So after thinking about running the Blue/Green version (because ramping into time warps might be fun), and I keep noticing this card that causes damage to opponents during our end steps... not their end-steps but ours. That definitely caught my attention and it's why we don't run cards like Fevered Visions as win conditions because they are a bit of a non-bo with how our deck works.
4 Arbor Elf
2 Llanowar Elves
4 Noble Hierarch
4 Rites of Flourishing
3 Dictate of Kruphix
4 Temporal Mastery
3 Part the Waterveil
5 Flex cards?
4 Breeding Pool
4 Misty Rainforest
4 Hinterland Harbor
1 Forest
1 Mikokoro, Center of the Sea
9 Island
Its more of a concept than an actual list at this point, but I'm sure if I make this a group effort we might be able to find yet another viable build for this deck. This version sacrifices consistency for speed. It can slip into free turns as early as turn 3 and never pass the turn back if things keep going well. My first thought is that I think we need a few more turn 1 green sources but I want to shy away from Botanical Sanctum because it enters tapped in the late game.
Uw Taking Turns
The Bad Moon
Small Mardu Midrange
Big Mardu Midrange
Grixis Waste Not Combo
Bw 8-Rack
Bw Midrange
Tl;dr: wizards' definition of what random means simply implies that neither player knows the order of the cards. A few mash shuffles is enough to do this. Unfortunately those mash shuffles won't adequately split up large land clumps or playsets & you'll see this in your draws.
It's best advised when piloting this deck in paper to do a quick pile shuffle before you go to mash shuffling, or jam the lands into the deck every few cards or so when you pick up your deck at the end of a game. Don't stack the deck, just split the lands up is all (you can do this without looking at them, cards facing away from you & it's perfectly legal if you continue to shuffle as normal)
There. That's enough of that.
Anyone currently got any good anti-burn tech they'd like to share?
"you can do this without looking at them, cards facing away from you & it's perfectly legal if you continue to shuffle as normal"-purklefluff
Actually since its happening in bewteen hands i am pretty sure the regular rules about looking at your library and shifting cards around dont apply because your in your sideboarding phase and none of that matters then? Someone please pipe in on this aspect, id love clarity on this.
Now to answer your question. Ive had alot of success with 4 sea's claim and 4 spreading seas in the mainboard. They never get a second red source to cast eidolon. Often I was able to lock opponents out of all of their red
Both of the times I tried this at FNM's I steamrolled all over tron and burn all night... and lost to decks that already play islands...
But it absolutely solves the burn matchup. If you can handle never beating Merfolk again it might be a viable option
Uw Taking Turns
The Bad Moon
Small Mardu Midrange
Big Mardu Midrange
Grixis Waste Not Combo
Bw 8-Rack
Bw Midrange
Spirits
I'm 100% on board with that idea.
Gonna sleeve mine up now & test them later this evening.
If you happen to be on the fence about Thassa, running all that extra devotion turns her on extremely easily. It could tip the balance toward running her.
Uw Taking Turns
The Bad Moon
Small Mardu Midrange
Big Mardu Midrange
Grixis Waste Not Combo
Bw 8-Rack
Bw Midrange