Honestly I think banning fetchlands would go along way toward helping the issue with cheating currently in magic. By causing so many extra shuffles per game they create repeated opportunities for cheating. Of which both Jared and Trevor took full advantage off. With the side effect of saving many minutes of time per match as well as making tops and brainstorms more fair.
That is absolutely infuriating to watch. Ban that ********. LIFETIME. My God, why are we supposed to put up with this nonsense?
And yes, I will 100% cut any deck handed to me from now on. Very glad indeed I only really play with friends. What an utterly loathsome thing to do to an unsuspecting and naive opponent in a game of Magic.
Honestly I think banning fetchlands would go along way toward helping the issue with cheating currently in magic. By causing so many extra shuffles per game they create repeated opportunities for cheating. Of which both Jared and Trevor took full advantage off. With the side effect of saving many minutes of time per match as well as making tops and brainstorms more fair.
While I see the logic of this position, just imagine how it'd go over: "You know those cards you bought packs/boxes/cases of KTK to get? Yeah, we're banning them in all sanctioned formats. Have a nice day."
Suppose you put a specific card on the top of your deck and then perform seven "good riffle shuffles". In practice, the card cannot end up on the bottom of the deck (those riffle shuffles would not be "good" if the card got that deep).
Actually, it can. Suppose that on average 2.5 cards from one half of the deck are shuffled on top of a specific card from the other half of the deck. To start, you'd have your Grizzly Bears at position 0 (top) of the deck. After one shuffle, it would be around position 2.5. After a second shuffle we would expect it to be around position 6.25, then 15.625, then 39.0625 after the fourth shuffle, at which point it could be on the bottom of a deck after a cut.
This is an extremely simplistic representation of what's happening, and a given card may move up or down in the deck with equal probability. However, as you can see, the further towards the middle of the deck a card is, the greater chance it has of moving farther from its starting position after a single shuffle, and even if you begin at the very top (or equally, the very bottom), you can quickly reach a position where the card is free to move quite far in a single shuffle.
Even if it is possible to get to the bottom of the deck, it is not as likely to get to the bottom as it is to end up somewhere nearer the top. That is: it is not equally likely to show up at every spot 1 through 60. I believe (I could be wrong) that "sufficiently random" in the sense of shuffling means that information cannot be determined from the appearance of a single card, that is something like: if I shuffle and then reveal the top card, I have not gained any information about the next card (other than it is not the first card).
Sufficiently random is exactly what it sounds like: a sufficiently random permutation of the cards in the deck. If you are shuffling properly, regardless of the original ordering of the cards in the deck, the final result is random, which each card having an approximately equal chance of being at any given position in the deck.
Here we use words like "sufficiently" and "approximately" because in practice, humans aren't prefect shufflers, and are in fact quite bad at comprehending the nature of randomness. So, we do the best that we can.
As an aside: I can mana weave if I follow that with a sufficient shuffle, right? Suppose I am fetching and notice three specific cards in a row, I would separate them, grab my land, and then shuffle. I wonder if I am doing something wrong.
When I sideboard, I put the cards that are coming in approximately equidistant from each other in the deck and then shuffle. I could put them all on top and then shuffle. Maybe I should.
After a long game, I pick up the cards in play and start shuffling. If I am not careful, I am likely to start this shuffle with 10+ lands all clumped together (and probably a bunch of mostly non lands clumped together that were once in the graveyard). Does this initial clumping affect things?
So long as you are shuffling properly, nothing you do to the deck's order prior to the shuffling has any marked effect on the final order of the deck. However, it is inadvisable to do anything which may be perceived as cheating anyway, because it's much easier to shuffle your deck than it is to stack your deck (eg, mana weaving), shuffle your deck, have your opponent call a judge on you for stacking your deck, slog through the judge investigation, and most likely shuffle your deck again.
Suppose you put a specific card on the top of your deck and then perform seven "good riffle shuffles". In practice, the card cannot end up on the bottom of the deck (those riffle shuffles would not be "good" if the card got that deep).
Actually, it can. Suppose that on average 2.5 cards from one half of the deck are shuffled on top of a specific card from the other half of the deck. To start, you'd have your Grizzly Bears at position 0 (top) of the deck. After one shuffle, it would be around position 2.5. After a second shuffle we would expect it to be around position 6.25, then 15.625, then 39.0625 after the fourth shuffle, at which point it could be on the bottom of a deck after a cut.
This is an extremely simplistic representation of what's happening, and a given card may move up or down in the deck with equal probability. However, as you can see, the further towards the middle of the deck a card is, the greater chance it has of moving farther from its starting position after a single shuffle, and even if you begin at the very top (or equally, the very bottom), you can quickly reach a position where the card is free to move quite far in a single shuffle.
I don't think it is accurate to say that on average a card, specifically the top card, will get "covered" by 2.5 cards. We have to assume that half the time, the top card remains the top card, is it really covered by an average of 5 cards the other half of the time?
Even if it is possible to get to the bottom of the deck, it is not as likely to get to the bottom as it is to end up somewhere nearer the top. That is: it is not equally likely to show up at every spot 1 through 60. I believe (I could be wrong) that "sufficiently random" in the sense of shuffling means that information cannot be determined from the appearance of a single card, that is something like: if I shuffle and then reveal the top card, I have not gained any information about the next card (other than it is not the first card).
Sufficiently random is exactly what it sounds like: a sufficiently random permutation of the cards in the deck. If you are shuffling properly, regardless of the original ordering of the cards in the deck, the final result is random, which each card having an approximately equal chance of being at any given position in the deck.
Well, as I stated before, "sufficiently random" is different for different game; whether you draw an initial 7 from 60 for Magic or deal out all 52 for bridge makes a big difference to what you'd consider sufficiently random.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Because we cannot prevent draws in paper Magic we allow IDs. If we could prevent draws we would not have IDs in paper Magic. " Scott Larabee.
I don't think it is accurate to say that on average a card, specifically the top card, will get "covered" by 2.5 cards. We have to assume that half the time, the top card remains the top card, is it really covered by an average of 5 cards the other half of the time?
That's actually not very far outside the realm of possibility. You certainly can shuffle a deck repeatedly without moving the top card, but doing that intentionally would be cheating, and we're talking about mathematical models for the act of shuffling here, so we're assuming things are actually random, not a player trying to cheat.
As I said, my presentation above is an extremely simplistic model, meant for illustrative purposes only, of how a card on top of the deck can quickly reach the bottom.
Sufficiently random is exactly what it sounds like: a sufficiently random permutation of the cards in the deck. If you are shuffling properly, regardless of the original ordering of the cards in the deck, the final result is random, which each card having an approximately equal chance of being at any given position in the deck.
Well, as I stated before, "sufficiently random" is different for different game; whether you draw an initial 7 from 60 for Magic or deal out all 52 for bridge makes a big difference to what you'd consider sufficiently random.
The nature of the game alters how a given deck order affects the game, but it does not alter the definition of either "sufficiently" nor "random". The level of play (eg. professional vs. casual) can change the bar required to meet "sufficiently", but "random" stays the same.
The nature of the game alters how a given deck order affects the game, but it does not alter the definition of either "sufficiently" nor "random". The level of play (eg. professional vs. casual) can change the bar required to meet "sufficiently", but "random" stays the same.
Words depend on context. In this context, random doesn't mean completely uncertain but containing uncertainty. Sufficient means enough uncertainty for a given purpose. If I only care about the top card then a single theoretical cut will give a suficiently random deck.
Suppose you put a specific card on the top of your deck and then perform seven "good riffle shuffles". In practice, the card cannot end up on the bottom of the deck (those riffle shuffles would not be "good" if the card got that deep).
Actually, it can. Suppose that on average 2.5 cards from one half of the deck are shuffled on top of a specific card from the other half of the deck. To start, you'd have your Grizzly Bears at position 0 (top) of the deck. After one shuffle, it would be around position 2.5. After a second shuffle we would expect it to be around position 6.25, then 15.625, then 39.0625 after the fourth shuffle, at which point it could be on the bottom of a deck after a cut.
This is an extremely simplistic representation of what's happening, and a given card may move up or down in the deck with equal probability. However, as you can see, the further towards the middle of the deck a card is, the greater chance it has of moving farther from its starting position after a single shuffle, and even if you begin at the very top (or equally, the very bottom), you can quickly reach a position where the card is free to move quite far in a single shuffle.
I don't think it is accurate to say that on average a card, specifically the top card, will get "covered" by 2.5 cards. We have to assume that half the time, the top card remains the top card, is it really covered by an average of 5 cards the other half of the time?
2.5 is probably not the right number, but the concept still holds. The idea is that once the top card stops being the top card, its position in the deck starts to accelerate downwards quickly. A card in position #1 from the might only be likely to end up in position #1-4 after 1 shuffle, but once it reaches position #4, the next shuffle could take it all the way down to #16. Try taking a deck of cards, flipping the top card so it's face up, then tracking its position as you do riffle shuffles. Be careful that you aren't subconciously always ending the riffle on the "top" hand so the top card never changes -- that's a problem of your riffle technique, not riffle shuffling in general.
This only works if you allow your opponent to look at your deck. You can't possibly stack a deck through shuffling when you don't know what's in it. Looking at your opponent's eyes is the right way to aver this. If they look anywhere near your deck while shuffling, they're liable to be cheating.
And yes, I will 100% cut any deck handed to me from now on. Very glad indeed I only really play with friends. What an utterly loathsome thing to do to an unsuspecting and naive opponent in a game of Magic.
Honestly I think banning fetchlands would go along way toward helping the issue with cheating currently in magic. By causing so many extra shuffles per game they create repeated opportunities for cheating. Of which both Jared and Trevor took full advantage off. With the side effect of saving many minutes of time per match as well as making tops and brainstorms more fair.
While I see the logic of this position, just imagine how it'd go over: "You know those cards you bought packs/boxes/cases of KTK to get? Yeah, we're banning them in all sanctioned formats. Have a nice day."
You do want to add a dose of practicality to that. But it's possible to do so: If WotC let fetches rotate out of standard, and swapped mechanics like Diabolic Tutor and Rampant Growth over to Wish (e.g.Burning Wish) functionality, they could create a standard format with only initial deck randomization (like we have a standard format with no graveyard ordering significance since Nether Shadow and like were allowed to rotate out and not reprinted).
With only three shuffles per set of Magic, it could very well then become feasible to have a third party at the event perform all the shuffles (a nearby player from a different match) of the set without the time delay and interruptions obliterating round times.
There would be a trickle benefit for Legacy/Modern too: players that excelled at competitive Legacy but weren't performing well in Standard would then become suspicious. Players who cheat at online chess by using software programs can often be identified when their rating at Blitz speed skill rating is too dramatically different from their skill rating at slower settings.
So I read the post and I don't get it. How exactly is he cheating by shuffling the opponent's deck?
By peeking at the bottom card(s) as he shuffles his opponent's deck, he can maneuver the unfavorable ones to the top and keep them there, even while continuing to shuffle. The end result is that you put a few crappy cards on the top of the deck which stall your opponent. The argument here is that since the player is unable to touch their own deck last, they are at the mercy of their opponent.
I will be honest, I didn't read all of the posts in here, but I will agree with many in here.
This shuffling/cheating issue seems like one that can't really be resolved without other issues springing up. Mana weaving is still an issue if the deck is only cut. To combat this, after the deck is shuffled by the opponent, allowing the owner of the deck to cut it could allow him/her to cut it to a possibly marked card. If we make the opponent cut after a shuffle, he/she could still cut to where ever they marked a card, essentially still stacking your deck like that fellow in the video. It seems like the only way to resolve the issue is to simply be more vigilant. But now I'm paranoid after watching that video, that is one slick dude. Haha.
OP probably could've worded his post a little differently, perhaps leaving out the story, but I get what he/she is saying. Or maybe I'm just biased because he has a great name. However, the effort may have been wasted. Certainly displaying the information the way he did kind of takes away some of the credibility.
I think making it mandatory to cut your own deck after an opponents shuffles would go a long way to negate this. The main issue I see is a marked sleeve that makes the deck cut to particular card. Perhaps at top eights a neutral third party is responsible for all deck manipulation.
Strudel, I am gonna avoid calling you all sorts of names while at the same time try to make you understand something. In any game where a prize is on the line there will be cheating. Every sport has some ppl that cheat in it. A lot of them do it for a long time before getting caught. The problem therein is that the penalty they receive once they do get caught is that their reputation is destroyed. Look at what happened with Barry Bonds for instance. Look at the case of Pete Rose. Look what happened to Shoeless Joe Jackson, who Ty Cobb called the purest hitter he ever saw. Shoeless Joe Jackson had a .350 plus lifetime average all ruined by the specter of cheating in the black sox scandal. Even FIFA was caught in the specter of cheating. If there is an advantage to gain, and there is in just about any game of chance, then there will be people willing to cheat to gain that advantage. Changing it so they can only cut simply means the deckholder can gain a significant cheating opportunity. Furthermore, let's talk about the DISINCENTIVE to cheating. You get a lengthy ban from the game of Magic. Maybe you get away with it for a while, but in the end run it is not likely worth it for the vast majority of players. That, plus the vast majority of players that play this game would never consider cheating. There is simply no way to completely remove cheating from the game. Only allowing a table cut doesn't get rid of it.
As an aside to the cheating, over the last couple of decades, tournament bridge has switched from primarily human dealt hands to primarily computer dealt hands. The initial reaction was that computer dealt hands contained wilder distributions: more short suits and more long suits. Organizers claimed that this was anecdotal, players tended to remember these hands because they were special and connect them to the "new" dealing methods.
Analysis showed that the computer generated deals fit very close to the theoretically expected distributions. Still, people claimed that computer dealt hands were wilder than human dealt hands. And, they were right. Further inspection showed that human dealt hands tended to be be "flatter", less wild, fewer long suits and short suits, than the theoretical expectations.
The conclusion is that human shuffling as done in practice is not sufficient to randomize a deck of 52 cards such that the distribution of cards is nearly random. The "seven riffle shuffles is sufficient" conclusion is well known by bridge players. Some don't care and short cut the shuffle, others surely shuffle seven (or more) times, but produce less than "good" riffle shuffles.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Because we cannot prevent draws in paper Magic we allow IDs. If we could prevent draws we would not have IDs in paper Magic. " Scott Larabee.
This only works if you allow your opponent to look at your deck. You can't possibly stack a deck through shuffling when you don't know what's in it. Looking at your opponent's eyes is the right way to aver this. If they look anywhere near your deck while shuffling, they're liable to be cheating.
As a casual shuffler you might need to directly look at the deck to see some cards, but if you train your eyes you can see the bottom card of a deck you shuffle, even while looking directly in your opponents eyes, simply because its in the bottom part of your eye vision, which is totally enough information.
Basicly, as a normal player, you have no chance to see a good cheater cheating you, they will cover the actual thing and no matter what, you can only really call a judge and the problem of assuming all your opponents are trying to cheat you, is that you will quickly dislike the game and its not enjoyable at all.
As an aside to the cheating, over the last couple of decades, tournament bridge has switched from primarily human dealt hands to primarily computer dealt hands. The initial reaction was that computer dealt hands contained wilder distributions: more short suits and more long suits. Organizers claimed that this was anecdotal, players tended to remember these hands because they were special and connect them to the "new" dealing methods.
Analysis showed that the computer generated deals fit very close to the theoretically expected distributions. Still, people claimed that computer dealt hands were wilder than human dealt hands. And, they were right. Further inspection showed that human dealt hands tended to be be "flatter", less wild, fewer long suits and short suits, than the theoretical expectations.
The conclusion is that human shuffling as done in practice is not sufficient to randomize a deck of 52 cards such that the distribution of cards is nearly random. The "seven riffle shuffles is sufficient" conclusion is well known by bridge players. Some don't care and short cut the shuffle, others surely shuffle seven (or more) times, but produce less than "good" riffle shuffles.
This is a common problem for humans to simply have a bad idea of what "random" is.
You will allways look for patterns, even if there are no patterns, you will try to see patterns and you have your own expectation of what is random, like if you see any pattern, you simply assume its not random, but every pattern is just part of random aswell.
The problem you state is also present in magic online. In normal card magic people get used to how they shuffle, how they put the cards after a game in the deck (some put them all on top and shuffle, others put them 1by1 in the deck, others manaweave them and then shuffle ; in the end, if all "would" shuffle really well, it would not matter, but huamns simply dont).
With magic online "shuffler" people had to take way more mulligans, as they suddenly had a wider range of opening hands, which they would rarely get in paper magic.
Another funny story is Apples "random" for songs. At first it was a true random method, but then, if some equal songs of the same album are played after another, humans assume its not random or bugged, while its totally legit random.
So the "solution" was to make it less random, but for the customer, it "feels" more random, as you artificially manipulate the random result.
In paper magic theres even the reverse of advantage shuffling. Some have a habbit to extremly poorly shuffle a deck and "produce" land clumps.
For example, they put a big land clump on top of the library and then shuffle a little around, and the result is, that clump pretty much still exists.
And these people are simply not aware of that, they think they are unlucky, while they actual do it themself.
*If i see such a player i tend to show them some proper shuffling methods, and most of them start to enjoy the game right after, its like enlightenment.
This only works if you allow your opponent to look at your deck. You can't possibly stack a deck through shuffling when you don't know what's in it. Looking at your opponent's eyes is the right way to aver this. If they look anywhere near your deck while shuffling, they're liable to be cheating.
As a casual shuffler you might need to directly look at the deck to see some cards, but if you train your eyes you can see the bottom card of a deck you shuffle, even while looking directly in your opponents eyes, simply because its in the bottom part of your eye vision, which is totally enough information.
Basicly, as a normal player, you have no chance to see a good cheater cheating you, they will cover the actual thing and no matter what, you can only really call a judge and the problem of assuming all your opponents are trying to cheat you, is that you will quickly dislike the game and its not enjoyable at all.
Plenty of ways to avoid this. Decks have to be shuffled face-down. Players have to look away from the deck and have their arms opposite the way they're looking. You could even say you have to shuffle with your eyes closed. Preventing people from looking at the contents of a deck while shuffling is easy to do.
This only works if you allow your opponent to look at your deck. You can't possibly stack a deck through shuffling when you don't know what's in it. Looking at your opponent's eyes is the right way to aver this. If they look anywhere near your deck while shuffling, they're liable to be cheating.
As a casual shuffler you might need to directly look at the deck to see some cards, but if you train your eyes you can see the bottom card of a deck you shuffle, even while looking directly in your opponents eyes, simply because its in the bottom part of your eye vision, which is totally enough information.
Basicly, as a normal player, you have no chance to see a good cheater cheating you, they will cover the actual thing and no matter what, you can only really call a judge and the problem of assuming all your opponents are trying to cheat you, is that you will quickly dislike the game and its not enjoyable at all.
Plenty of ways to avoid this. Decks have to be shuffled face-down. Players have to look away from the deck and have their arms opposite the way they're looking. You could even say you have to shuffle with your eyes closed. Preventing people from looking at the contents of a deck while shuffling is easy to do.
Its all unncessary bs and simply makes the game not enjoyable anymore.
Everyone is free to shuffle in the manner you want it, to avoid potential bad ideas, but you really cannot and should not force it on people, especially not as a wide spread rule.
If theres signs for something fishy going on, judges and spectators, especially in high level events should have an eye on that person.
The assumption that "everyone" is cheating is just wrong and makes the game miseraly annoying, so all that isnt a solution, its just a hassle.
*Btw. this is a very common problem of overreaction and fight a potential rare problem with measures against everyone. In general such overreaction pseudo fixes should not be done, as they add just more problems or make the experience much less enjoyable (think about air traffic and the idea to not allow fluids and such, its a joke and as stupid as it gets).
I think making it mandatory to cut your own deck after an opponents shuffles would go a long way to negate this. The main issue I see is a marked sleeve that makes the deck cut to particular card. Perhaps at top eights a neutral third party is responsible for all deck manipulation.
Yeah I think most of us know just how easy it is to get sleeves that aren't properly cut. Having just one in your otherwise identically sleeved deck could ensure you always cut to a specific card.
Logistically having judges shuffle all the decks at the top tables is a nightmare especially in a format with fetchlands/other tutors.
When I play at competitive REL events I do the look the opposite way technique/card fronts facing to the right and my head facing far left/I couldn't possibly cheat as I don't know the positions of any of the cards in the deck. I would argue that making this a rule eliminates stacking the opponents deck completely as you could be a master at sleight of hand but if you don't know where any card is in the deck you can't possibly stack it to be disfavorable to the opponent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Yawgmoth," Freyalise whispered as she set the bomb, "now you will pay for your treachery."
-Freyalise
Currently Playing:
Retired
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That is absolutely infuriating to watch. Ban that ********. LIFETIME. My God, why are we supposed to put up with this nonsense?
And yes, I will 100% cut any deck handed to me from now on. Very glad indeed I only really play with friends. What an utterly loathsome thing to do to an unsuspecting and naive opponent in a game of Magic.
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
While I see the logic of this position, just imagine how it'd go over: "You know those cards you bought packs/boxes/cases of KTK to get? Yeah, we're banning them in all sanctioned formats. Have a nice day."
This is an extremely simplistic representation of what's happening, and a given card may move up or down in the deck with equal probability. However, as you can see, the further towards the middle of the deck a card is, the greater chance it has of moving farther from its starting position after a single shuffle, and even if you begin at the very top (or equally, the very bottom), you can quickly reach a position where the card is free to move quite far in a single shuffle.
Sufficiently random is exactly what it sounds like: a sufficiently random permutation of the cards in the deck. If you are shuffling properly, regardless of the original ordering of the cards in the deck, the final result is random, which each card having an approximately equal chance of being at any given position in the deck.
Here we use words like "sufficiently" and "approximately" because in practice, humans aren't prefect shufflers, and are in fact quite bad at comprehending the nature of randomness. So, we do the best that we can.
So long as you are shuffling properly, nothing you do to the deck's order prior to the shuffling has any marked effect on the final order of the deck. However, it is inadvisable to do anything which may be perceived as cheating anyway, because it's much easier to shuffle your deck than it is to stack your deck (eg, mana weaving), shuffle your deck, have your opponent call a judge on you for stacking your deck, slog through the judge investigation, and most likely shuffle your deck again.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I don't think it is accurate to say that on average a card, specifically the top card, will get "covered" by 2.5 cards. We have to assume that half the time, the top card remains the top card, is it really covered by an average of 5 cards the other half of the time?
Well, as I stated before, "sufficiently random" is different for different game; whether you draw an initial 7 from 60 for Magic or deal out all 52 for bridge makes a big difference to what you'd consider sufficiently random.
As I said, my presentation above is an extremely simplistic model, meant for illustrative purposes only, of how a card on top of the deck can quickly reach the bottom.
The nature of the game alters how a given deck order affects the game, but it does not alter the definition of either "sufficiently" nor "random". The level of play (eg. professional vs. casual) can change the bar required to meet "sufficiently", but "random" stays the same.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Words depend on context. In this context, random doesn't mean completely uncertain but containing uncertainty. Sufficient means enough uncertainty for a given purpose. If I only care about the top card then a single theoretical cut will give a suficiently random deck.
2.5 is probably not the right number, but the concept still holds. The idea is that once the top card stops being the top card, its position in the deck starts to accelerate downwards quickly. A card in position #1 from the might only be likely to end up in position #1-4 after 1 shuffle, but once it reaches position #4, the next shuffle could take it all the way down to #16. Try taking a deck of cards, flipping the top card so it's face up, then tracking its position as you do riffle shuffles. Be careful that you aren't subconciously always ending the riffle on the "top" hand so the top card never changes -- that's a problem of your riffle technique, not riffle shuffling in general.
Yeah you can't really do that at events...
You do want to add a dose of practicality to that. But it's possible to do so: If WotC let fetches rotate out of standard, and swapped mechanics like Diabolic Tutor and Rampant Growth over to Wish (e.g.Burning Wish) functionality, they could create a standard format with only initial deck randomization (like we have a standard format with no graveyard ordering significance since Nether Shadow and like were allowed to rotate out and not reprinted).
With only three shuffles per set of Magic, it could very well then become feasible to have a third party at the event perform all the shuffles (a nearby player from a different match) of the set without the time delay and interruptions obliterating round times.
There would be a trickle benefit for Legacy/Modern too: players that excelled at competitive Legacy but weren't performing well in Standard would then become suspicious. Players who cheat at online chess by using software programs can often be identified when their rating at Blitz speed skill rating is too dramatically different from their skill rating at slower settings.
Edit: I looked at the video and I get it now. The solution is just to cut the deck yourself if it looks like your opponent did something funny.
none
Modern
UBG B/U/G control
BBB MBC
WUR Control
WWW Prison
RRR Goblins
Legacy
BBB Pox
UBG B/U/G Control
UWU StoneBlade
UW Miracle Control
By peeking at the bottom card(s) as he shuffles his opponent's deck, he can maneuver the unfavorable ones to the top and keep them there, even while continuing to shuffle. The end result is that you put a few crappy cards on the top of the deck which stall your opponent. The argument here is that since the player is unable to touch their own deck last, they are at the mercy of their opponent.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
I will be honest, I didn't read all of the posts in here, but I will agree with many in here.
This shuffling/cheating issue seems like one that can't really be resolved without other issues springing up. Mana weaving is still an issue if the deck is only cut. To combat this, after the deck is shuffled by the opponent, allowing the owner of the deck to cut it could allow him/her to cut it to a possibly marked card. If we make the opponent cut after a shuffle, he/she could still cut to where ever they marked a card, essentially still stacking your deck like that fellow in the video. It seems like the only way to resolve the issue is to simply be more vigilant. But now I'm paranoid after watching that video, that is one slick dude. Haha.
OP probably could've worded his post a little differently, perhaps leaving out the story, but I get what he/she is saying. Or maybe I'm just biased because he has a great name. However, the effort may have been wasted. Certainly displaying the information the way he did kind of takes away some of the credibility.
I loathe creatures! Praise Prison and Land Destruction!
My Peasant Cube (looking for feedback)
New to Commander? Read the Above article.
Analysis showed that the computer generated deals fit very close to the theoretically expected distributions. Still, people claimed that computer dealt hands were wilder than human dealt hands. And, they were right. Further inspection showed that human dealt hands tended to be be "flatter", less wild, fewer long suits and short suits, than the theoretical expectations.
The conclusion is that human shuffling as done in practice is not sufficient to randomize a deck of 52 cards such that the distribution of cards is nearly random. The "seven riffle shuffles is sufficient" conclusion is well known by bridge players. Some don't care and short cut the shuffle, others surely shuffle seven (or more) times, but produce less than "good" riffle shuffles.
As a casual shuffler you might need to directly look at the deck to see some cards, but if you train your eyes you can see the bottom card of a deck you shuffle, even while looking directly in your opponents eyes, simply because its in the bottom part of your eye vision, which is totally enough information.
Basicly, as a normal player, you have no chance to see a good cheater cheating you, they will cover the actual thing and no matter what, you can only really call a judge and the problem of assuming all your opponents are trying to cheat you, is that you will quickly dislike the game and its not enjoyable at all.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
This is a common problem for humans to simply have a bad idea of what "random" is.
You will allways look for patterns, even if there are no patterns, you will try to see patterns and you have your own expectation of what is random, like if you see any pattern, you simply assume its not random, but every pattern is just part of random aswell.
The problem you state is also present in magic online. In normal card magic people get used to how they shuffle, how they put the cards after a game in the deck (some put them all on top and shuffle, others put them 1by1 in the deck, others manaweave them and then shuffle ; in the end, if all "would" shuffle really well, it would not matter, but huamns simply dont).
With magic online "shuffler" people had to take way more mulligans, as they suddenly had a wider range of opening hands, which they would rarely get in paper magic.
Another funny story is Apples "random" for songs. At first it was a true random method, but then, if some equal songs of the same album are played after another, humans assume its not random or bugged, while its totally legit random.
So the "solution" was to make it less random, but for the customer, it "feels" more random, as you artificially manipulate the random result.
In paper magic theres even the reverse of advantage shuffling. Some have a habbit to extremly poorly shuffle a deck and "produce" land clumps.
For example, they put a big land clump on top of the library and then shuffle a little around, and the result is, that clump pretty much still exists.
And these people are simply not aware of that, they think they are unlucky, while they actual do it themself.
*If i see such a player i tend to show them some proper shuffling methods, and most of them start to enjoy the game right after, its like enlightenment.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Plenty of ways to avoid this. Decks have to be shuffled face-down. Players have to look away from the deck and have their arms opposite the way they're looking. You could even say you have to shuffle with your eyes closed. Preventing people from looking at the contents of a deck while shuffling is easy to do.
Its all unncessary bs and simply makes the game not enjoyable anymore.
Everyone is free to shuffle in the manner you want it, to avoid potential bad ideas, but you really cannot and should not force it on people, especially not as a wide spread rule.
If theres signs for something fishy going on, judges and spectators, especially in high level events should have an eye on that person.
The assumption that "everyone" is cheating is just wrong and makes the game miseraly annoying, so all that isnt a solution, its just a hassle.
*Btw. this is a very common problem of overreaction and fight a potential rare problem with measures against everyone. In general such overreaction pseudo fixes should not be done, as they add just more problems or make the experience much less enjoyable (think about air traffic and the idea to not allow fluids and such, its a joke and as stupid as it gets).
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Yeah I think most of us know just how easy it is to get sleeves that aren't properly cut. Having just one in your otherwise identically sleeved deck could ensure you always cut to a specific card.
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
When I play at competitive REL events I do the look the opposite way technique/card fronts facing to the right and my head facing far left/I couldn't possibly cheat as I don't know the positions of any of the cards in the deck. I would argue that making this a rule eliminates stacking the opponents deck completely as you could be a master at sleight of hand but if you don't know where any card is in the deck you can't possibly stack it to be disfavorable to the opponent.
Currently Playing:
Retired