You can count without pile shuffling. It's probably faster anyway.
What makes doing piles so good for counting is that you dont need to do it active, you just pile the cards looking for damage in a passive way (and other sleeves etc.) , and if you end up not at the same spot you end up every time, you know you are missing a card.
Just counting the cards in a stack , mistakes happen a lot. You miscount, or you present a deck with a damaged sleeve, or even a sleeve with a different color, which you could easily spot if you pile them.
Its a very good way and its totally fine as a means to do 1 time at the very beginning of a match before you shuffle in any other way (if you see theres a missing card, you have the best amount of time to search for it and still shuffle the deck afterwards).
----
Thats the only realistic and feasable thing why doing piles in the process of shuffling is a legit thing (its still terrible slow, but it does what it wants to do, which is NOT shuffling).
I posit that a top-in shuffle is a shift, just like a pile shuffle is, and that its effect on the subsequent riffles can be similarly studied.. If top-in shuffles contribute to increasing the variation distance, then is it not logical than a number of shifts (pile sorting) might as well?
You can count without pile shuffling. It's probably faster anyway.
What makes doing piles so good for counting is that you dont need to do it active, you just pile the cards looking for damage in a passive way (and other sleeves etc.) , and if you end up not at the same spot you end up every time, you know you are missing a card.
To be clear, I'm all for counting 1-10, 11-20, etc. and making stacks out of them. It serves the same purpose as far as looking for damage in a passive way.
What I dislike is things like the video I linked to earlier.
Pile shuffling alone was never a sufficient way to shuffle, this just makes it more explicit. The main legitimate reason someone may wish to pile shuffle is just to count their deck. It should always be followed up with riffles / mashes / overhand shuffles.
Or, to be more accurate, to let the opponent count. But most often it's just used as a mana weave.
The riffle is the only legitimate way to randomize. (Which, the rules have always required riffles.)
Strictly speaking, the closest you'll get to true randomization is achieved with 1.5(log(n))/(log(2)), or 8 shuffles in a 40-card deck, 9 in a 60-card deck, and 10 in a 100-card deck. But the rules don't go that far.
That is incorrect. You can approximate a riffle with a mash and still comply with the randomization required by the rules. Riffles are not the only approved shuffle and if that ever becomes the case, I will quit immediately.
This may come as a shock to you, but if I don't know you, I don't want you bending my cards. I don't care how good you think you are at it; all it takes is one asshat who makes a mistake that ends up ruining my cards, and as long as the rules don't include a section detailing how you are financially responsible for any damage caused, don't riffle anyone's cards other than your own. Not even if I riffle my own deck! I may trust myself to do it safely, but that doesn't mean I trust you to do it safely.
Even one more reason pile shuffling is complete crap that should have been banned ages ago. By pile shuffling you are forcing your opponent to shuffle the hell out of your deck negating the mana weave you performed. This is not something I feel comfortable doing even if it's a mash shuffle. I don't want to be responsible for damaging so much as a damn sleeve (let alone a card) in a tourney. The practice of pile shuffling is at best a pointless excercise that exposes your cards to excessive shuffling from an unknown person. Against an ignorant opponent (one that doesn't shuffle well after your weave) it is cheating plain and simple. Sure you can blame your opponent for not doing his/her part but an attempt to present a mana woven deck is cheating period. It's not even debatable and yet the debate continues...
That being said, if I am presented with a woven deck, I will shuffle the hell out of it every time.
You are using the terms "pile shuffle" and "mana weaving" interchangeably here, and they don't mean the same thing. A person can pile shuffle a deck without mana weaving it. I usually do this once at the beginning of the game before I mash / overhand the deck sufficiently to ensure I am presenting 60 cards.
You are correct, they don't mean exactly the same thing, but it is the goal of the pile shuffle even if it is to a lesser extent than an true weave (heaven't seen someone sit down and weave right in front of me very often). Let me restate; attempt to distribute lands, spells, and creatures somewhat evenly. Mostly applies to after a long game with lands stacked or right when they sit down which throws a big red flag for me. Even a 5 turn game with 5 lands stacked post game, the pile shuffle is obviously to distribute those lands evenly. Otherwise there is not reason to pile shuffle at all. As far as counting, it can be done any number of ways without pile shuffling, it's actually a tad more efficient to count the stack without the shuffle. I usually see a pile shuffle following a mana flood/screw game, in which case the intent is obvious.
You can count without pile shuffling. It's probably faster anyway.
What makes doing piles so good for counting is that you dont need to do it active, you just pile the cards looking for damage in a passive way (and other sleeves etc.) , and if you end up not at the same spot you end up every time, you know you are missing a card.
To be clear, I'm all for counting 1-10, 11-20, etc. and making stacks out of them. It serves the same purpose as far as looking for damage in a passive way.
What I dislike is things like the video I linked to earlier.
You literally just ignored everything he said. When you do what you are suggesting, you actually have to count in your head (1, 2, 3, ... 10, ok, next stack, 1, ...) as opposed to just dealing cards to piles. It's more mentally taxing and is more prone to mistakes than doing it our way.
I didn't ignore what he said. I don't actively have to count to 10, I look and see 5 cards twice and put them in a stack.
Maybe it's just me, but doing it this way is significantly easier than remembering which of 5-7 piles I started on. And if you're about to say "Just do it the same way every time!" people don't. I've seen multiple times a person varying the number of piles in a single game, let alone a match.
Correct, which is why using pile IN ADDITION TO OTHER METHODS improves THE OTHER METHODS and since we DO NOT KNOW THE ORDER BEFORE, we also DO NOT KNNOW THE ORDER AFTER. Are you sure you read what I wrote? Yes? Absolutely sure? Positively sure? Because you do not seem to have done so.
You are making the claim that pile shuffling improves other methods of shufflng. The only way this could be true would be if piling were somehow increasing entropy/randomness of the deck and then it would be shuffling.
Now if you hadn't decided to apparently stop reading after that sentence and actually read the sentence directly following it it should have been clear to you. I'll even throw in my original quote here without cutting it off midway for you to read.
It is very simple, you are making the clam that pile sorting somehow is a way to shuffle the deck (since you claim it is a beneficial step when shuffling a deck).
Or are you claiming that pile shuffling is not shuffling but somehow still can be used for shuffling? Because that seems a "tad" conspicuous.
I posit that a top-in shuffle is a shift, just like a pile shuffle is, and that its effect on the subsequent riffles can be similarly studied.. If top-in shuffles contribute to increasing the variation distance, then is it not logical than a number of shifts (pile sorting) might as well?
The quote from the paper deals with randomly putting cards in the deck. That is the entire runnig point about shuffling, it needs to be random. Sorting your deck in piles and rearranging them is not random. There is zero connection between sorting cards in piles and randomly inserting two piles into eachother.
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
You are correct, they don't mean exactly the same thing, but it is the goal of the pile shuffle even if it is to a lesser extent than an true weave (heaven't seen someone sit down and weave right in front of me very often). Let me restate; attempt to distribute lands, spells, and creatures somewhat evenly. Mostly applies to after a long game with lands stacked or right when they sit down which throws a big red flag for me. Even a 5 turn game with 5 lands stacked post game, the pile shuffle is obviously to distribute those lands evenly. Otherwise there is not reason to pile shuffle at all. As far as counting, it can be done any number of ways without pile shuffling, it's actually a tad more efficient to count the stack without the shuffle. I usually see a pile shuffle following a mana flood/screw game, in which case the intent is obvious.
That is still incorrect. It's not that they don't mean exactly the same thing, it's that they mean entirely different things. Pile shuffling a bunch of randomized cards does absolutely nothing in regards to fixing floods / screws because it doesn't affect randomness. If you see someone mana weaving, then yeah, you should probably be suspicious of that. However, pile shuffling has nothing intrinsically to do with mana weaving, and is often used (legitimately) just as a way to quickly review sleeve condition / count the number of cards in the deck. Just because you saw some guy mana weave then pile shuffle doesn't make both actions bad. It's like saying you saw a guy punch someone in the face and then eat an ice cream cone; only one of those two things is actually a problem.
They are not a "bunch of randomized cards", you can argue semantics all day. The reality is after a game, especially a particularly long game, there is a significant portion of lands grouped together and in the case of an aggro deck, likely a large cluster of critters too. Slapping those together and pile shuffling distributes said clusters into a pattern. It's is not even debatable. The resulting order might be subtle in it's affect on the game but it exists.
But your opponent should be shuffling their deck using non-pile shuffling methods afterwards, which completely invalidates any "feeling" you have about how random their deck is. It sounds to me like you don't believe that riffle/mash shuffling X times actually works, because if you did, you would understand that the initial state of the deck is not relevant whatsoever as it will be sufficiently randomized afterwards. It wouldn't matter if I literally took all the lands out of my deck, put them on the top half, and then riffled properly, because the end state would be sufficiently randomized. THAT is what's not debatable. If you still think pile shuffling before riffling/mashing the deck the proper number of times has any effect whatsoever on the randomization of the deck, you are just plain wrong.
It might be that he looks at the riffle as a 1 time event.
The riffle shuffle wont do "much" to a deck if you perform it 1 time.
It will also do not much after 2 or 3 times.
The effect increases with each iteration (to a point where the deck is completly random, and then further shuffling wont make it "more" random).
He is not wrong to assume that a pattern in the deck can still exist after riffle shuffling.
If you have a stack of lands and non-lands and you riffle 1 time, it wont really do anything to the deck and it absolutly wont allow the deck to be in any possible order, as that 1 riffle has a small effect.
The math only works that well if you perform 7 or 10 riffle shuffles (40/60 deck) , at that point its very very random, but also only if they dont perform "perfect" riffles and only if they dont cheat in any other way (like ignoring the top X cards in the riffle process, so they stay in place no matter how often they perform a riffle).
----
If someone shuffles poorly, a deck that is stacked with a group of 10+ lands in one place will very very likely still have that group of lands, as the shuffling does so little to change anything in the deck at all.
Thats a thing with newbies that shuffle extremly bad (like performing overhand mash shuffles, but sliding just a bunch of cards in, and not the stacks).
For these players, it makes SENCE to mana-weave first, then perform a bunch of shuffles, as the result of doing that benefits them. Its plain cheating, but a newbie wont understand that right away, as they wont intuitively see that they shuffle that terrible.
----
If a newbie does the mana-weaving a lot, if they get told thats cheating, its a bad process for them to learn to not do it anymore. It feels strange to shuffle a deck quickly and often , and they WILL get terrible hands of 0 lands and 7 lands , they have to learn that a properly random deck will have any form of draws, and they will initially not enjoy that (which is the breaking point in which they either decide to knowingly cheat again, or become a better player).
That problem is so common among magic players, that i would say its a very important part in each players process of learning.
Some players will simply get stuck and cannot accept or understand why or what they are doing.
(You could even say that is a common thing in life in general, some people simply cannot accept what is correct and choose a different approach that is proven to be wrong, but they will so strongly believe they are right, that they ignore any facts and logic ; which becomes a problem as soon as its plain cheating)
You are correct, they don't mean exactly the same thing, but it is the goal of the pile shuffle even if it is to a lesser extent than an true weave (heaven't seen someone sit down and weave right in front of me very often). Let me restate; attempt to distribute lands, spells, and creatures somewhat evenly. Mostly applies to after a long game with lands stacked or right when they sit down which throws a big red flag for me. Even a 5 turn game with 5 lands stacked post game, the pile shuffle is obviously to distribute those lands evenly. Otherwise there is not reason to pile shuffle at all. As far as counting, it can be done any number of ways without pile shuffling, it's actually a tad more efficient to count the stack without the shuffle. I usually see a pile shuffle following a mana flood/screw game, in which case the intent is obvious.
That is still incorrect. It's not that they don't mean exactly the same thing, it's that they mean entirely different things. Pile shuffling a bunch of randomized cards does absolutely nothing in regards to fixing floods / screws because it doesn't affect randomness. If you see someone mana weaving, then yeah, you should probably be suspicious of that. However, pile shuffling has nothing intrinsically to do with mana weaving, and is often used (legitimately) just as a way to quickly review sleeve condition / count the number of cards in the deck. Just because you saw some guy mana weave then pile shuffle doesn't make both actions bad. It's like saying you saw a guy punch someone in the face and then eat an ice cream cone; only one of those two things is actually a problem.
They are not a "bunch of randomized cards", you can argue semantics all day. The reality is after a game, especially a particularly long game, there is a significant portion of lands grouped together and in the case of an aggro deck, likely a large cluster of critters too. Slapping those together and pile shuffling distributes said clusters into a pattern. It's is not even debatable. The resulting order might be subtle in it's affect on the game but it exists.
But your opponent should be shuffling their deck using non-pile shuffling methods afterwards, which completely invalidates any "feeling" you have about how random their deck is. It sounds to me like you don't believe that riffle/mash shuffling X times actually works, because if you did, you would understand that the initial state of the deck is not relevant whatsoever as it will be sufficiently randomized afterwards. It wouldn't matter if I literally took all the lands out of my deck, put them on the top half, and then riffled properly, because the end state would be sufficiently randomized. THAT is what's not debatable. If you still think pile shuffling before riffling/mashing the deck the proper number of times has any effect whatsoever on the randomization of the deck, you are just plain wrong.
If they mashing/riffling 7-10 times plus my shuffle obviously the stack is random. The point is that pile shuffling followed by a few riffles is a red flag and I have seen it regularly. Perhaps this doesn't occur at major events but I haven't had the pleasure of attending a very high level tourney. Now I am the one that has to randomize the deck by shuffling adequately which shouldn't be my responsibility as I am to be presented with a sufficiently randomized deck per the rules. Which makes the whole process excessive and a waste of time. I generally don't buy the counting cards thing as it doesn't require 6 piles to do so. I know for a lot of people it's a habit kind of like repeatedly reordering ones cards rapidly, both of which have been disseminated over years so they are things, whatever. I believe you are just being defensive. The circumstances which you are describing aren't the ones I am referring to. If you present me with a pile shuffled deck, riffled 10 times, good, I will not feel obligated to give it more than a couple mashes to keep you honest.
The smooshing is actually best: sadly it damages sleeves & cards but I feel that's another problem and maybe we should enforce this - game integrity is more important than collection of cards. (You place all cards on the table, and then just shuffle them around like they do in poker tournaments).
In tournaments I always do that when I start a game, with my and opponents deck.
This is ridiculous. You definitely wouldn't be doing that to my deck.
The fact is that Magic cards cost money; in some cases a great deal of money. I don't know how you think it's okay to use a shuffling method that will "damage the sleeves & cards" when they don't even belong to you.
As far as pile shuffling goes, I do it once before every game before a bunch of mash shuffles to check the condition of my sleeves and make sure I have the right amount of cards*. I can't see Wizards putting a hard ban on something like that. You can equate pile shuffling with cheating through manaweaving, but as has been said above: inadequate (and sometimes seemingly adequate!) shuffles always leave room for cheaters to maneuver, whatever kind of shuffling it is.
*An aside: not having 60 or more cards in your deck can get you a loss in tournament play if noticed. What a *****ty way to lose.
I don't know how you think it's okay to use a shuffling method that will "damage the sleeves & cards" when they don't even belong to you.
...
I do ... a bunch of mash shuffles
So you don't know how it's okay to mash shuffle someone's cards... and then you use a mash shuffle to shuffle your own cards?
You realize that at Competitive and Professional REL tournaments, you are required to shuffle (not just cut) your opponent's deck, right?
If a newbie does the mana-weaving a lot, if they get told thats cheating, its a bad process for them to learn to not do it anymore. It feels strange to shuffle a deck quickly and often , and they WILL get terrible hands of 0 lands and 7 lands , they have to learn that a properly random deck will have any form of draws, and they will initially not enjoy that (which is the breaking point in which they either decide to knowingly cheat again, or become a better player).
They might also decide to stop playing.
Thats fine.
If they know they are cheating and stop playing, thats completly valid.
Its for sure better than someone that is cheating and still plays.
The overall majority however will accept logic and learn to properly shuffle, and become a better player in all the learning process. Anyone else, might be playing YuGiOh
FALSE! And I have had it. If you will not be reasonable, then you will lose the chance to talk to me. I have presented studies, I have been quite clear, specific and detailed in what I am saying, and you look at words where X is not present and say "THERE IT IS. THERE IS THE X!". Ridiculous.
Lose the chance to talk to you? Oh what a letdown THAT would be...
You are making the claim that nonrandomly sorting cards helps when shuffling. If it helps with shufling and is a technique that can be used to some effect while shuffling then how is it not part of shuffling?
You also need to clarify that claim. How exactly do you propose that nonrandomly sorting cards can in any way increase randomness in a deck? You seem to make the claim that it helps because it moves the deck away from what you started with. But the goal of shuffling is not to have a deck that is as far from what you started with as posible.
OBVIOUSLY this is what I am claiming. It is not shuffling. It however, being a series of shifts, not only serves to count cards, not only serves to ensure sleeves are not sticking together, but also directly increases variation distance as shown in those three studies I linked.
It's funny how you bring the studies up again, studies wherein you have quoted randomly inserting cards and compared that to sorting them in piles. It is extremely simple actually. You are making the claim that sorting cards in nonrandom piles helps with randomizing the deck by increasing variation distance. You have yet to show how that is connected to randomizing the deck. Again, the goal of shuffling the cards is not to get a deck that is indistinguishable from the deck you started with. You can have a very well shuffled deck that happens to be identical to what you started with, although unlikely.
Am I, or instead are you?
You are, the quote you talk about deals with randomly inserting cards.
The quote from the paper does NOT deal with randomly putting cards in the deck. It deals with MOVING THEM TO PRECISE SPECIFIC SPOTS. It analyses what would happen if you were to move the top card to the X-1 Bottomth position at each Xth step. This is not random. This is precise. Specifc. Predetermined.
So, the quote from the paper does not deal with randomly inserting cards? That is a rather peculiar claim indeed. Let's look back at your quote of the paper shall we?
We begin by first looking at a simpler case, that of the top-in shuffe, where the top card is taken oÆ and reinserted randomly anywhere into the deck(...) Clearly as this process continues the tagged card either stays in its position in the deck, or it moves up one position; and when this happens, all orderings of the cards below the tagged card are equally likely. Eventually the tagged card gets moved up to the top of the deck by having another card inserted underneath it. Say this happens on the Tth 1st top-in shuffle (...)Now take the tag of the top card and top-in shuffle for the Tth time. The deck is now completely randomized, since the formerly tagged card has been reinserted uniformly into an ordering that is a uniform choice of all ones
possible for the remaining n-1 cards. (...) It is a particular example of a stopping time, when all orderings of the deck are equally likely. (...) T'
is good for other things as well. It is a theorem of Aldous and Diaconis [1] that P[T'>k] is an upper bound for the variation distance between the density on Sn after k top-in shuffles and the uniform density corresponding to true randomness. (...)
Did you read the very first sentence of that paragraph you quoted? Let me bold it for you to make it clearer:
"We begin by first looking at a simpler case, that of the top-in shuffe, where the top card is taken oÆ and reinserted randomly anywhere into the deck"
So, how exactly do you propose that the quote in question does not deal with randomly putting cards in the deck? Keep in mind that we are talking about a quote that literally talks about randomly putting cards in a deck.
A follow up question to that: Do you have any basis for your claim that (paraphrased) "reinserting (cards) randomly anywhere in the deck" is the same thing as "MOVING THEM (the cards) TO PRECISE SPOTS"? Because to me there seems to be a rather big difference between moving cards to randomly chosen spots and moving them to precise specific spots. I would love to see any kind of evidence for this claim.
Looking forward to your reply, especially your reply to my last question.
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
... What? The MTR says what I quoted here. It does not deal with statistical analysis of what increases or decreases variation distance!!! Is this some sort of joke?
It doesn't have to delve into statistical analysis. It says, factually, that pile shuffling isn't sufficient to establish randomization.
According to your paper, it would be.
Therefore, your paper isn't relevant because what it says is contrary to what the MTR establishes.
There's two elements to any scrambling process: "confusion" and "diffusion". "Confusion" is the inability to determine the original configuration due to the introduction of "entropy", from an encryption key (or true natural entropy from imperfect technique for riffles/mash). As many forms of confusion are statistically uneven, "diffusion" is necessary to spread the confusion throughout the entire ciphertext (or deck).
Consider this process:
1. Flip a coin
2. If heads, swap the top 2 cards
3. Put the top card on the bottom
4. Goto step 1
Given enough time (a very, very long time), this will result in a fully randomized deck. However, if you eliminate the very deterministic step 3, the process would clearly only randomize the top 2 cards.
Pile counting doesn't add any confusion to the deck, but it can add diffusion and thus improve the scramble similarly to how step 3 does in my example. That being said however, the amount of diffusion from pile counting isn't really that much compared the diffusion already inherent in the riffle/mash technique and it's still mostly a waste of time relative to just riffle/mashing more.
It doesn't have to delve into statistical analysis. It says, factually, that pile shuffling isn't sufficient to establish randomization.
According to your paper, it would be.
Therefore, your paper isn't relevant because what it says is contrary to what the MTR establishes.
You are insane or a troll. You have to be. The paperS (plural) do not say anything about using pile shuffling as sole method of randomization. They study shifts' effects on OTHER methods which are ACTUAL randomization. No one, NO ONE is arguing for pile being the only method used or that it even randomizes anything. Not me, not the papers, no one. Only you. ONLY YOU. See what that tells about you?
Here's the thing though.
According to the papers you've linked, enough shifts can end up with a randomized deck:
We begin by first looking at a simpler case, that of the top-in shuffe, where the top card is taken oÆ and reinserted randomly anywhere into the deck(...) Clearly as this process continues the tagged card either stays in its position in the deck, or it moves up one position; and when this happens, all orderings of the cards below the tagged card are equally likely. Eventually the tagged card gets moved up to the top of the deck by having another card inserted underneath it. Say this happens on the Tth 1st top-in shuffle (...)Now take the tag of the top card and top-in shuffle for the Tth time. The deck is now completely randomized, since the formerly tagged card has been reinserted uniformly into an ordering that is a uniform choice of all ones
Literally all that's being done here is shifts - there's no other shuffling being done. You even said as much:
I posit that a top-in shuffle is a shift, just like a pile shuffle is, and that its effect on the subsequent riffles can be similarly studied.. If top-in shuffles contribute to increasing the variation distance, then is it not logical than a number of shifts (pile sorting) might as well?
The MTR says that pile "shuffling" alone isn't sufficient for randomization. So arguing that one shift method is okay when another distinctly isn't doesn't make sense.
The Mann paper you brought into the conversation and you quoted says that enough shifts can randomize a deck. The MTR says otherwise. As far as Magic is concerned, the MTR wins - which means the Mann paper (at least) doesn't support your argument.
ENOUGH ALREADY. If you do not know or care what is being discussed, stay out of it. I have been extremely specific since the start, provided studies, papers, reasoning and kept trying to bring this discussoin to order and all you and the other guy do is try to get it to go offtopic and divert it with things no one said! Enough. Be reasonable and rational or be quiet!
One of us is being combative and insulting. The other is being calm and reasonable. I'll let you figure out which is which.
One of us is being combative and insulting. The other is being calm and reasonable. I'll let you figure out which is which.
One of us is right. One of us is wrong. **** calm! I HATE, positively HATE this modern world where being "nice" and "polite" is more important than being correct. It is an abomination. I wish we were back in the late 80s or early 90s where moderation slapped the ***** out of people who acted like you. Bah.
Enough. Want to stay ignorant, do so. I am out.
The running point here is that you are abusive and rude and to top it all off you are also wrong and have so far refused to post any credible source supporting your statements.
By the way, I am till dearly awaiting your response to my last question.
Do you have any basis for your claim that (paraphrased) "reinserting (cards) randomly anywhere in the deck" is the same thing as "MOVING THEM (the cards) TO PRECISE SPOTS"? Because to me there seems to be a rather big difference between moving cards to randomly chosen spots and moving them to precise specific spots. I would love to see any kind of evidence for this claim.
Could it be that you simply lack arguments and then regress to the state of yelling ignorantly at the people who's besting you stating things like "bye" and "I am out" rather than actually admitting you are wrong? So much for talking about studies, one of the biggest principles of science is to be able to adjust your viewpoint when you are proven wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
I don't know how you think it's okay to use a shuffling method that will "damage the sleeves & cards" when they don't even belong to you.
...
I do ... a bunch of mash shuffles
So you don't know how it's okay to mash shuffle someone's cards... and then you use a mash shuffle to shuffle your own cards?
Here's what I know about shuffling having played silly collectible card games for decades.
1) Yes, people cheat. If they do so through mana weaving and then pile shuffling to attempt to maintain that unfair mana distribution, it's easily spotted and easily handled.
2) A lot of card gamers are almost superstitious in their shuffling practices. Much as a football player uses the same lucky socks, card gamers, especially pros, seem to have a predilection towards repeating their process each and every time. I am not superstitious but do have a specific "flow" to shuffling. I start with a 7 pile "shuffle" - note I don't do the piles in order, I do seven cards in a random order, as long as I have 4 cards for the last distribution, I am happy (to ensure that there are 60 cards), I then take random pile (a) and mash/riffle it in to random pile (b), and repeat with (c) and (d), etc ... then new pile (A) gets riffle/mashed with new pile (B), etc. After this, I overhand shuffle 4 times, then riffle shuffle 4 times, then overhand 2 times, riffle 2 times, cut and offer to my opponent. This is done only to begin a game. For mid-game randomization, I riffle 2 times, overhand 2 times, riffle 2 times, cut and present. It's perhaps a little OCD. But it's what I have done years. It's second nature, so to even think about shuffling feels a bit weird at this point.
I have never, myself, pile shuffled at any point other than prior to the start of a game, but I do admit to doing the exact same "starting" shuffle post mulligan. I have rarely seen anyone pile shuffle mid game... maybe 2 times in 20 years. So this rule change does seem like rules housekeeping rather than addressing an actual concern.
The point of all of this is... with enough experience, you simply can look at what a player is doing, and you can tell they are not interested in controlling the order of their deck, they simply wish to shuffle and play the game.
Final note: Shuffling an opponent's cards.
A few rules to live by:
1) You should do it.
2) Learn how to shuffle.
- This includes shuffling in a way that doesn't reveal the bottom card ... I have, and always will, call a judge if your shuffling reveals any card in my deck. If you can't shuffle without turning cards sideways or face up, then ask a judge to shuffle for you, or ask your opponent to riffle shuffle one more time and cut... I don't care, but if you reveal information about the deck, I will assume you are cheating.
3) Don't shuffle cards you don't own as if they are yours. Shuffle them as if you will have to replace any that you damage, and given that some cards cost hundreds of dollars, this will never backfire on you. Also remember, you are simply *ensuring* randomization with shuffling of an opponent's deck, not re-randomizing it. It's already random, or they are cheating. One or two shuffles and a cut is ALL you need to do! I cannot tell you how many times I have sat for 60 seconds while my opponent is shuffling my deck after a fetch land. Shuffle, shuffle, cut... done. 10 seconds, if that.
I don't know how you think it's okay to use a shuffling method that will "damage the sleeves & cards" when they don't even belong to you.
...
I do ... a bunch of mash shuffles
So you don't know how it's okay to mash shuffle someone's cards... and then you use a mash shuffle to shuffle your own cards?
Is that what I said? I don't think it is...
Then tell me how it isn't, because it certainly looks like what you said.
For the purposes of this post, I'm going to define a "deterministic shift" as a shift where a predetermined card is placed into a predetermined position, and a "random shift" as a shift where either the card or the destination is random.
If we know that the fact that we perform imperfect shuffles adds to the randomization, or better the assurance that the end result is unrelated to the initial state, and imperfect shuffles are nothing but riffles with shifts, then how can you, without a decent study, state that a pile, which IS A SHIFT does not do the same? Please explain. Thanks.
Because a random shift is not the same thing as a deterministic shift. This is the one consistent flaw throughout your entire argument: a shift of cards that is not random does not help to randomize a deck.
I read the first study you posted, and wasn't able to find anything in it that supports your argument. I still need to go through the other two, but since I admit to not being the best at following math papers, would you mind posting the sections that you believe are relevant here? (The excerpt you did post, as has been pointed out, does not support your position.)
B) Doing pile sorts after a couple of riffles is a shift during the process of rifle shuffling? Yes or no?
C) Does a shift during rifles increase the variation range? Yes or no?
D) Does increasing the variation range mean a lesser likelyhood of the final state being related to the initial state? Yes or no?
E) Could we say that a deck that has been "sufficiently randomized" is one where the final state cannot be traced back to the initial state? Yes or no?
If you answer no to any of the above, I expect a detailed explanation with maths or actual substance, not your preposterous examples with dogs and cookies. You are not speaking to a 12 year old nor one which is ignorant of these matters.
F) Also, bonus question, mathematically, is it possible that you get the same variation range with X shuffles and with Y shuffles and Z shifts where Y < X. What are your thoughts on this?
a) Yes, but it's a deterministic shift. It has the same amount of influence on a deck's randomization as putting the top card of a deck on the bottom.
b) No, it's exactly what you said it is: a shift of cards between riffles. This isn't terribly relevant, though, since again, it's a deterministic shift.
c)No. A random shift during riffles increases variation range. It just so happens that riffling is designed to create random shifts. Deterministic shifts, such as those that occur during pile shuffling, only affect which variations, or orderings, are possible; they do nothing to change how many are now possible. Variation range is unaffected by pile shuffling, while it is increased by riffle shuffling. Though, judging by your other posts, you already know this.
d) It means that more configurations of the deck are now possible. Pile shuffling does not help achieve this, since as I stated, it does nothing to increase variation range.
e) A better definition of randomness, which was given in the first study you linked to, is that randomness is a state where every possible configuration of the deck is equally likely.
f) If the shifts were deterministic, then the variation range is exactly the same. If the shifts were random, and not enough shuffles were performed to sufficiently randomize the decks, then Y will have a higher variation range. If both decks were sufficiently randomized by shuffling, then under my previous definition of random, their variation ranges are exactly the same, and the shifts were irrelevant.
b) Piling does not introduce randomness. That's a fact. If the order of cards before piling is known, the order after it is known as well.
Correct, which is why using pile IN ADDITION TO OTHER METHODS improves THE OTHER METHODS and since we DO NOT KNOW THE ORDER BEFORE, we also DO NOT KNNOW THE ORDER AFTER. Are you sure you read what I wrote? Yes? Absolutely sure? Positively sure? Because you do not seem to have done so.
Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "improves?" If a process does not achieve any sort of randomness on its own, how can it contribute to randomization?
We begin by first looking at a simpler case, that of the top-in shuffe, where the top card is taken oÆ and reinserted randomly anywhere into the deck(...) Clearly as this process continues the tagged card either stays in its position in the deck, or it moves up one position; and when this happens, all orderings of the cards below the tagged card are equally likely. Eventually the tagged card gets moved up to the top of the deck by having another card inserted underneath it. Say this happens on the Tth 1st top-in shuffle (...)Now take the tag of the top card and top-in shuffle for the Tth time. The deck is now completely randomized, since the formerly tagged card has been reinserted uniformly into an ordering that is a uniform choice of all ones
possible for the remaining n-1 cards. (...) It is a particular example of a stopping time, when all orderings of the deck are equally likely. (...) T'
is good for other things as well. It is a theorem of Aldous and Diaconis [1] that P[T'>k] is an upper bound for the variation distance between the density on Sn after k top-in shuffles and the uniform density corresponding to true randomness. (...)
I posit that a top-in shuffle is a shift, just like a pile shuffle is, and that its effect on the subsequent riffles can be similarly studied.. If top-in shuffles contribute to increasing the variation distance, then is it not logical than a number of shifts (pile sorting) might as well?
The excerpt here explicitly defines a top-in shuffle as randomly reinserting a card back into the deck. Pile shuffling has to do with placing specific cards into specific positions, so the process is unrelated to the one described in this example.
To answer your question, no, it isn't logical to equate pile shuffling with top-in shuffling, because one is a series of deterministic shifts and the other is a series of random shifts. That's why the top-in shuffles contribute to an increase in variation range: because they're random.
The quote from the paper deals with randomly putting cards in the deck. That is the entire runnig point about shuffling, it needs to be random. Sorting your deck in piles and rearranging them is not random. There is zero connection between sorting cards in piles and randomly inserting two piles into eachother.
The quote from the paper does NOT deal with randomly putting cards in the deck. It deals with MOVING THEM TO PRECISE SPECIFIC SPOTS. It analyses what would happen if you were to move the top card to the X-1 Bottomth position at each Xth step. This is not random. This is precise. Specifc. Predetermined.
Unless you omitted something crucial when you posted the quote, that's not what it says. And again, the word "randomly" is used in the very first sentence of that quote, so no, it's not talking about putting the top card in a predetermined position; it's talking about putting it in a random position. I've read it over several times, and I can't find anything that says what you're saying it says.
One of us is right. One of us is wrong. **** calm! I HATE, positively HATE this modern world where being "nice" and "polite" is more important than being correct. It is an abomination. I wish we were back in the late 80s or early 90s where moderation slapped the ***** out of people who acted like you. Bah.
Enough. Want to stay ignorant, do so. I am out.
In terms of what is being debated, no one's feelings matter. Emotions have no place in a debate setting. Requesting that someone be calm in such a context has nothing to do with being "nice" or "polite." It's about maintaning intellectual integrity and productive discussion. You've been hostile since the first page of this thread, which is not conducive to uncovering actual facts.
Here are the questions I have about your argument:
a) How do the studies you posted support your claim that pile shuffling improves actual shuffling methods?
b) I've gathered that when you say pile shuffling "improves" other methods, you mean because it increases variation distance and therefore more quickly alters the deck's ordering away from its original structure. (Please correct me if I'm mistaken about what you're saying here). Given that pile shuffling demonstrably can't increase variation range, how does this contribute to the randomization of a deck?
c) Which definition of "random" do you think is better, and why: a deck where every possible ordering has an equal probability of occurring, or a deck whose ordering cannot be traced back to is original state? I assume you prefer the latter, based on your posts, but I'm mostly curious to know why. (Especially since I currently disagree.)
Please calm down in this thread. There is nothing so exciting about shuffling that should cause anyone to get so worked up that they need to argue and flame other users.
Correct. A deterministic shift. Exactly the same amount of influence on a deck's randomization as putting the top card of a deck on the bottom. Precisely. And since that does increase variation distance when applying rifle shuffles as proven by the paper I quoted and the section I quoted (which mind you, the other poster was WRONG in his assessment as I have explained), it is obvious that the same applies here.
You haven't quoted any paper supporting that claim
Read above.
read above.
This is incorrect.
Wrong
Again, incorrect.
wrong
Again incorrect.
wrong
Really, has no one in this bloody world heard of synergy? Is shining ultraviolet light on something refrigerating that thing? No? Okay then. So why does refrigerating broccoli and in addition shining ultraviolet light on them helps the broccoli stay proper for consumption for a longer time? Oh, because it potentiates the refrigeration? It enhances its effects, while not being refrigeration? Is this really such an unknown scenario?
What does broccoli synergy have to do with your case? UV light helps preent unwanted growth, refrigeration helps with unwanted growths. But to have that comparison even somewhat valid you would need to mean that shining UV light on something helps it cool down when refrigerated, that is not true. Shining UV light on something has a measurable effect on its own regarding keeping broccoli clean, pile sorting does not in regards to shuffling.
Then I will find a better one. Is dark ritual a spell that reduces your opponent's health? No? Yet, combine it with a tendrils of agony and voila, tendrils has now double the effect.
Synergy! The value of the whole is greater than the sum of the value of the parts. This is what happens in this scenario.
Again a completely irrelevant example. A flashlight doesn't help you see during daytime, but combine it with a pitch black cavern and voila! You can now use the flashlight to see in it.
Again, I must insist that you read the paper. It starts by analyzing a random shift, and then proceeds to analyzing what effect specific predetermined shifts would have!
No it doesn't. Either you have problems with comprehending what you read or you are simply blurting out blatant lies on top of the abuse.
I did not equate those two.
More lies. You quoted a paper trying to use its result to support your claims. You did that by stating that:
"I posit that a top-in shuffle is a shift, just like a pile shuffle is, and that its effect on the subsequent riffles can be similarly studied.."
Indeed. When studying how a random shift affects the process they decided it would be interesting to also study what effect a non-random shift would have.
Lies, the section you refer to an quote does not deal with nonrandom shifts.
This is not a debate. In a debate, that other poster would be forced to present proper arguments. He or she did not. He or she took no effort. It would be unacceptable in the old days, and he or she would be mocked and punished for it.
You have had valid counterarguments presented to you each step of the way and you have yet to provide any arguments not immediately countered. From any point of view you are the one without proper arguments.
I disagree. If more people acted like I do, less people would act like he or she did. And we would all gain from it.
If more people acted like you do we would have an even bigger fecal slinging contest where facts and reason wouldn't matter. Your arguments boils down to lies, aggression and misinterpreting studies. I much prefer to keep the number of people simply blurting out nonsense to a minimum.
Neither is the lack of effort and lack of respect demonstrated by the other poster. I believe my behavior is much more conducive to uncovering facts than his or hers. Want me to change my behavior? Prove to me that there is a better way to change his or hers.
You have had logical valid counterargumets presented to you, in response you have started yelling out lies. And you feel lies and ignorance are more conducive to uncovering facts? Now there's another statement that needs some solid proof to be taken seriously.
A direct study of how a non-random predetermined shift would affect a process of rifle shuffles.
Then show us such a study.
I have a bit of problem with that "demonstrably" part. Specially since it has not been demonstrated at all. And apparently won't be demonstrated as unlike me, NO ONE GAVE A ***** ENOUGH TO FIND A PAPER OR PERFORM THE CALCULATIONS THEMSELVES.
Agin, you are the one with teh burden of proof. As proof for your claims you have so far presented nothing but studies that doesn't have anything to do with your claims.
Think it is demonstrably false? Then demonstrate its falsehood. Why has it not been done?
Russel's teapot yet again. I propose that there are ten billion undetectable species living inside your eyes. If it isn't true, then why haven't it been disproven yet? You have the burden of proof, live up to it.
I decline, vehemently and strongly. Screw calm. The truth is more important. And disrespecting the truth is far worse than disrespecting a user. I am sick and tired of these moderation standards. Why do you (plural) care more for one which is apparently calm even if that one is being unreasonable and not conducive to progress? Why is an amicable yet pointless discussion better than a passionate discussion held with conviction on something that can get somewhere ? I will never understand it. It simply is not logical to me. It is an atrocity, an abomination that goes against everything I believe in, and every method and guideline I followed in my professional and personal life. It is anathema to what I see a discussion forum should be, and what the concept of a discussion forum once stood for. Have we really dropped this far? Have we devolved so much, resigned ourselves to atavism and mediocrity? Good grief.
I might be too old for this, I might be spoiled by better times, but this just is not something I can take. If my behavior is unacceptable, the only recourse is a permanent ban, as my attitude and behavior on this will not change unless I am shown this stance is better. Which no one ever does, because no one ever takes the effort of doing anything well. Just like demonstrated in this thread. *sigh*
I am somewhat onfused. You claim that disrespecting the truth is worse than disrespecing a user so how come you throw out so many lies hoping to not get caught?
As for the moderation standards. My guess it that they are there for situations like these. We have you, who tosses out lies and irrelevant papers responing with aggression when you get called out on said lies and their irrelevance. Seems like a pretty good reason for having people debate more calmly.
There is nothing wrong with passionate discussions. There is, however, wuite a big heap of problems with passionate discussion turning to mudslingingfests with nothing but lies and abuse.
You claim taht it goes against everything you elieve in but you just stated that you abhor disrespecting the truth? I could use an explanation for this. You demontrably tend to throw out lies when you start yelling in allcaps and tossing out abuse. I see a connection between not keeping calm and disrespecting the truth.
The better times where you weren't called out on your lies and failure to prove any of your statements? Yeah, I understand that you miss those times.
I also cannot help but notice that you seemed to not notice my question to you so I'll restate it hoping for an answer.
Do you have any basis for your claim that (paraphrased) "reinserting (cards) randomly anywhere in the deck" is the same thing as "MOVING THEM (the cards) TO PRECISE SPOTS"? Because to me there seems to be a rather big difference between moving cards to randomly chosen spots and moving them to precise specific spots. I would love to see any kind of evidence for this claim.
where the top card is taken oÆ and reinserted randomly anywhere into the deck(...)
It deals with MOVING THEM TO PRECISE SPECIFIC SPOTS.
You obviously really believe that the quote deals with moving them to specific spots so I would love an explanation as to why you think that is the case seeing how the paper states it moves the cards randomly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
To answer your question, no, it isn't logical to equate pile shuffling with top-in shuffling, because one is a series of deterministic shifts and the other is a series of random shifts. That's why the top-in shuffles contribute to an increase in variation range: because they're random.
I posit that a top-in shuffle is a shift, just like a pile shuffle is, and that its effect on the subsequent riffles can be similarly studied.. If top-in shuffles contribute to increasing the variation distance, then is it not logical than a number of shifts (pile sorting) might as well?
You did equate them. "just like"
It's right there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What makes doing piles so good for counting is that you dont need to do it active, you just pile the cards looking for damage in a passive way (and other sleeves etc.) , and if you end up not at the same spot you end up every time, you know you are missing a card.
Just counting the cards in a stack , mistakes happen a lot. You miscount, or you present a deck with a damaged sleeve, or even a sleeve with a different color, which you could easily spot if you pile them.
Its a very good way and its totally fine as a means to do 1 time at the very beginning of a match before you shuffle in any other way (if you see theres a missing card, you have the best amount of time to search for it and still shuffle the deck afterwards).
----
Thats the only realistic and feasable thing why doing piles in the process of shuffling is a legit thing (its still terrible slow, but it does what it wants to do, which is NOT shuffling).
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
All else being equal, no.
Because the MTR says so.
To be clear, I'm all for counting 1-10, 11-20, etc. and making stacks out of them. It serves the same purpose as far as looking for damage in a passive way.
What I dislike is things like the video I linked to earlier.
You are correct, they don't mean exactly the same thing, but it is the goal of the pile shuffle even if it is to a lesser extent than an true weave (heaven't seen someone sit down and weave right in front of me very often). Let me restate; attempt to distribute lands, spells, and creatures somewhat evenly. Mostly applies to after a long game with lands stacked or right when they sit down which throws a big red flag for me. Even a 5 turn game with 5 lands stacked post game, the pile shuffle is obviously to distribute those lands evenly. Otherwise there is not reason to pile shuffle at all. As far as counting, it can be done any number of ways without pile shuffling, it's actually a tad more efficient to count the stack without the shuffle. I usually see a pile shuffle following a mana flood/screw game, in which case the intent is obvious.
I didn't ignore what he said. I don't actively have to count to 10, I look and see 5 cards twice and put them in a stack.
Maybe it's just me, but doing it this way is significantly easier than remembering which of 5-7 piles I started on. And if you're about to say "Just do it the same way every time!" people don't. I've seen multiple times a person varying the number of piles in a single game, let alone a match.
Gladly.
You are making the claim that pile shuffling improves other methods of shufflng. The only way this could be true would be if piling were somehow increasing entropy/randomness of the deck and then it would be shuffling.
Now if you hadn't decided to apparently stop reading after that sentence and actually read the sentence directly following it it should have been clear to you. I'll even throw in my original quote here without cutting it off midway for you to read.
Or are you claiming that pile shuffling is not shuffling but somehow still can be used for shuffling? Because that seems a "tad" conspicuous.
You are also completely missing the point here:
The quote from the paper deals with randomly putting cards in the deck. That is the entire runnig point about shuffling, it needs to be random. Sorting your deck in piles and rearranging them is not random. There is zero connection between sorting cards in piles and randomly inserting two piles into eachother.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
They are not a "bunch of randomized cards", you can argue semantics all day. The reality is after a game, especially a particularly long game, there is a significant portion of lands grouped together and in the case of an aggro deck, likely a large cluster of critters too. Slapping those together and pile shuffling distributes said clusters into a pattern. It's is not even debatable. The resulting order might be subtle in it's affect on the game but it exists.
It might be that he looks at the riffle as a 1 time event.
The riffle shuffle wont do "much" to a deck if you perform it 1 time.
It will also do not much after 2 or 3 times.
The effect increases with each iteration (to a point where the deck is completly random, and then further shuffling wont make it "more" random).
He is not wrong to assume that a pattern in the deck can still exist after riffle shuffling.
If you have a stack of lands and non-lands and you riffle 1 time, it wont really do anything to the deck and it absolutly wont allow the deck to be in any possible order, as that 1 riffle has a small effect.
The math only works that well if you perform 7 or 10 riffle shuffles (40/60 deck) , at that point its very very random, but also only if they dont perform "perfect" riffles and only if they dont cheat in any other way (like ignoring the top X cards in the riffle process, so they stay in place no matter how often they perform a riffle).
----
If someone shuffles poorly, a deck that is stacked with a group of 10+ lands in one place will very very likely still have that group of lands, as the shuffling does so little to change anything in the deck at all.
Thats a thing with newbies that shuffle extremly bad (like performing overhand mash shuffles, but sliding just a bunch of cards in, and not the stacks).
For these players, it makes SENCE to mana-weave first, then perform a bunch of shuffles, as the result of doing that benefits them. Its plain cheating, but a newbie wont understand that right away, as they wont intuitively see that they shuffle that terrible.
----
If a newbie does the mana-weaving a lot, if they get told thats cheating, its a bad process for them to learn to not do it anymore. It feels strange to shuffle a deck quickly and often , and they WILL get terrible hands of 0 lands and 7 lands , they have to learn that a properly random deck will have any form of draws, and they will initially not enjoy that (which is the breaking point in which they either decide to knowingly cheat again, or become a better player).
That problem is so common among magic players, that i would say its a very important part in each players process of learning.
Some players will simply get stuck and cannot accept or understand why or what they are doing.
(You could even say that is a common thing in life in general, some people simply cannot accept what is correct and choose a different approach that is proven to be wrong, but they will so strongly believe they are right, that they ignore any facts and logic ; which becomes a problem as soon as its plain cheating)
----
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
If they mashing/riffling 7-10 times plus my shuffle obviously the stack is random. The point is that pile shuffling followed by a few riffles is a red flag and I have seen it regularly. Perhaps this doesn't occur at major events but I haven't had the pleasure of attending a very high level tourney. Now I am the one that has to randomize the deck by shuffling adequately which shouldn't be my responsibility as I am to be presented with a sufficiently randomized deck per the rules. Which makes the whole process excessive and a waste of time. I generally don't buy the counting cards thing as it doesn't require 6 piles to do so. I know for a lot of people it's a habit kind of like repeatedly reordering ones cards rapidly, both of which have been disseminated over years so they are things, whatever. I believe you are just being defensive. The circumstances which you are describing aren't the ones I am referring to. If you present me with a pile shuffled deck, riffled 10 times, good, I will not feel obligated to give it more than a couple mashes to keep you honest.
This is ridiculous. You definitely wouldn't be doing that to my deck.
The fact is that Magic cards cost money; in some cases a great deal of money. I don't know how you think it's okay to use a shuffling method that will "damage the sleeves & cards" when they don't even belong to you.
As far as pile shuffling goes, I do it once before every game before a bunch of mash shuffles to check the condition of my sleeves and make sure I have the right amount of cards*. I can't see Wizards putting a hard ban on something like that. You can equate pile shuffling with cheating through manaweaving, but as has been said above: inadequate (and sometimes seemingly adequate!) shuffles always leave room for cheaters to maneuver, whatever kind of shuffling it is.
*An aside: not having 60 or more cards in your deck can get you a loss in tournament play if noticed. What a *****ty way to lose.
You realize that at Competitive and Professional REL tournaments, you are required to shuffle (not just cut) your opponent's deck, right?
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Thats fine.
If they know they are cheating and stop playing, thats completly valid.
Its for sure better than someone that is cheating and still plays.
The overall majority however will accept logic and learn to properly shuffle, and become a better player in all the learning process. Anyone else, might be playing YuGiOh
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Lose the chance to talk to you? Oh what a letdown THAT would be...
You are making the claim that nonrandomly sorting cards helps when shuffling. If it helps with shufling and is a technique that can be used to some effect while shuffling then how is it not part of shuffling?
You also need to clarify that claim. How exactly do you propose that nonrandomly sorting cards can in any way increase randomness in a deck? You seem to make the claim that it helps because it moves the deck away from what you started with. But the goal of shuffling is not to have a deck that is as far from what you started with as posible.
It's funny how you bring the studies up again, studies wherein you have quoted randomly inserting cards and compared that to sorting them in piles. It is extremely simple actually. You are making the claim that sorting cards in nonrandom piles helps with randomizing the deck by increasing variation distance. You have yet to show how that is connected to randomizing the deck. Again, the goal of shuffling the cards is not to get a deck that is indistinguishable from the deck you started with. You can have a very well shuffled deck that happens to be identical to what you started with, although unlikely.
You are, the quote you talk about deals with randomly inserting cards.
So, the quote from the paper does not deal with randomly inserting cards? That is a rather peculiar claim indeed. Let's look back at your quote of the paper shall we?
Did you read the very first sentence of that paragraph you quoted? Let me bold it for you to make it clearer:
"We begin by first looking at a simpler case, that of the top-in shuffe, where the top card is taken oÆ and reinserted randomly anywhere into the deck"
So, how exactly do you propose that the quote in question does not deal with randomly putting cards in the deck? Keep in mind that we are talking about a quote that literally talks about randomly putting cards in a deck.
A follow up question to that: Do you have any basis for your claim that (paraphrased) "reinserting (cards) randomly anywhere in the deck" is the same thing as "MOVING THEM (the cards) TO PRECISE SPOTS"? Because to me there seems to be a rather big difference between moving cards to randomly chosen spots and moving them to precise specific spots. I would love to see any kind of evidence for this claim.
Looking forward to your reply, especially your reply to my last question.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
It doesn't have to delve into statistical analysis. It says, factually, that pile shuffling isn't sufficient to establish randomization.
According to your paper, it would be.
Therefore, your paper isn't relevant because what it says is contrary to what the MTR establishes.
Consider this process:
1. Flip a coin
2. If heads, swap the top 2 cards
3. Put the top card on the bottom
4. Goto step 1
Given enough time (a very, very long time), this will result in a fully randomized deck. However, if you eliminate the very deterministic step 3, the process would clearly only randomize the top 2 cards.
Pile counting doesn't add any confusion to the deck, but it can add diffusion and thus improve the scramble similarly to how step 3 does in my example. That being said however, the amount of diffusion from pile counting isn't really that much compared the diffusion already inherent in the riffle/mash technique and it's still mostly a waste of time relative to just riffle/mashing more.
Twitch channel
Here's the thing though.
According to the papers you've linked, enough shifts can end up with a randomized deck:
Literally all that's being done here is shifts - there's no other shuffling being done. You even said as much:
The MTR says that pile "shuffling" alone isn't sufficient for randomization. So arguing that one shift method is okay when another distinctly isn't doesn't make sense.
The Mann paper you brought into the conversation and you quoted says that enough shifts can randomize a deck. The MTR says otherwise. As far as Magic is concerned, the MTR wins - which means the Mann paper (at least) doesn't support your argument.
One of us is being combative and insulting. The other is being calm and reasonable. I'll let you figure out which is which.
The running point here is that you are abusive and rude and to top it all off you are also wrong and have so far refused to post any credible source supporting your statements.
By the way, I am till dearly awaiting your response to my last question.
Do you have any basis for your claim that (paraphrased) "reinserting (cards) randomly anywhere in the deck" is the same thing as "MOVING THEM (the cards) TO PRECISE SPOTS"? Because to me there seems to be a rather big difference between moving cards to randomly chosen spots and moving them to precise specific spots. I would love to see any kind of evidence for this claim.
Could it be that you simply lack arguments and then regress to the state of yelling ignorantly at the people who's besting you stating things like "bye" and "I am out" rather than actually admitting you are wrong? So much for talking about studies, one of the biggest principles of science is to be able to adjust your viewpoint when you are proven wrong.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Is that what I said? I don't think it is...
1) Yes, people cheat. If they do so through mana weaving and then pile shuffling to attempt to maintain that unfair mana distribution, it's easily spotted and easily handled.
2) A lot of card gamers are almost superstitious in their shuffling practices. Much as a football player uses the same lucky socks, card gamers, especially pros, seem to have a predilection towards repeating their process each and every time. I am not superstitious but do have a specific "flow" to shuffling. I start with a 7 pile "shuffle" - note I don't do the piles in order, I do seven cards in a random order, as long as I have 4 cards for the last distribution, I am happy (to ensure that there are 60 cards), I then take random pile (a) and mash/riffle it in to random pile (b), and repeat with (c) and (d), etc ... then new pile (A) gets riffle/mashed with new pile (B), etc. After this, I overhand shuffle 4 times, then riffle shuffle 4 times, then overhand 2 times, riffle 2 times, cut and offer to my opponent. This is done only to begin a game. For mid-game randomization, I riffle 2 times, overhand 2 times, riffle 2 times, cut and present. It's perhaps a little OCD. But it's what I have done years. It's second nature, so to even think about shuffling feels a bit weird at this point.
I have never, myself, pile shuffled at any point other than prior to the start of a game, but I do admit to doing the exact same "starting" shuffle post mulligan. I have rarely seen anyone pile shuffle mid game... maybe 2 times in 20 years. So this rule change does seem like rules housekeeping rather than addressing an actual concern.
The point of all of this is... with enough experience, you simply can look at what a player is doing, and you can tell they are not interested in controlling the order of their deck, they simply wish to shuffle and play the game.
Final note: Shuffling an opponent's cards.
A few rules to live by:
1) You should do it.
2) Learn how to shuffle.
- This includes shuffling in a way that doesn't reveal the bottom card ... I have, and always will, call a judge if your shuffling reveals any card in my deck. If you can't shuffle without turning cards sideways or face up, then ask a judge to shuffle for you, or ask your opponent to riffle shuffle one more time and cut... I don't care, but if you reveal information about the deck, I will assume you are cheating.
3) Don't shuffle cards you don't own as if they are yours. Shuffle them as if you will have to replace any that you damage, and given that some cards cost hundreds of dollars, this will never backfire on you. Also remember, you are simply *ensuring* randomization with shuffling of an opponent's deck, not re-randomizing it. It's already random, or they are cheating. One or two shuffles and a cut is ALL you need to do! I cannot tell you how many times I have sat for 60 seconds while my opponent is shuffling my deck after a fetch land. Shuffle, shuffle, cut... done. 10 seconds, if that.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Because a random shift is not the same thing as a deterministic shift. This is the one consistent flaw throughout your entire argument: a shift of cards that is not random does not help to randomize a deck.
I read the first study you posted, and wasn't able to find anything in it that supports your argument. I still need to go through the other two, but since I admit to not being the best at following math papers, would you mind posting the sections that you believe are relevant here? (The excerpt you did post, as has been pointed out, does not support your position.)
a) Yes, but it's a deterministic shift. It has the same amount of influence on a deck's randomization as putting the top card of a deck on the bottom.
b) No, it's exactly what you said it is: a shift of cards between riffles. This isn't terribly relevant, though, since again, it's a deterministic shift.
c)No. A random shift during riffles increases variation range. It just so happens that riffling is designed to create random shifts. Deterministic shifts, such as those that occur during pile shuffling, only affect which variations, or orderings, are possible; they do nothing to change how many are now possible. Variation range is unaffected by pile shuffling, while it is increased by riffle shuffling. Though, judging by your other posts, you already know this.
d) It means that more configurations of the deck are now possible. Pile shuffling does not help achieve this, since as I stated, it does nothing to increase variation range.
e) A better definition of randomness, which was given in the first study you linked to, is that randomness is a state where every possible configuration of the deck is equally likely.
f) If the shifts were deterministic, then the variation range is exactly the same. If the shifts were random, and not enough shuffles were performed to sufficiently randomize the decks, then Y will have a higher variation range. If both decks were sufficiently randomized by shuffling, then under my previous definition of random, their variation ranges are exactly the same, and the shifts were irrelevant.
Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "improves?" If a process does not achieve any sort of randomness on its own, how can it contribute to randomization?
The excerpt here explicitly defines a top-in shuffle as randomly reinserting a card back into the deck. Pile shuffling has to do with placing specific cards into specific positions, so the process is unrelated to the one described in this example.
To answer your question, no, it isn't logical to equate pile shuffling with top-in shuffling, because one is a series of deterministic shifts and the other is a series of random shifts. That's why the top-in shuffles contribute to an increase in variation range: because they're random.
Unless you omitted something crucial when you posted the quote, that's not what it says. And again, the word "randomly" is used in the very first sentence of that quote, so no, it's not talking about putting the top card in a predetermined position; it's talking about putting it in a random position. I've read it over several times, and I can't find anything that says what you're saying it says.
In terms of what is being debated, no one's feelings matter. Emotions have no place in a debate setting. Requesting that someone be calm in such a context has nothing to do with being "nice" or "polite." It's about maintaning intellectual integrity and productive discussion. You've been hostile since the first page of this thread, which is not conducive to uncovering actual facts.
Here are the questions I have about your argument:
a) How do the studies you posted support your claim that pile shuffling improves actual shuffling methods?
b) I've gathered that when you say pile shuffling "improves" other methods, you mean because it increases variation distance and therefore more quickly alters the deck's ordering away from its original structure. (Please correct me if I'm mistaken about what you're saying here). Given that pile shuffling demonstrably can't increase variation range, how does this contribute to the randomization of a deck?
c) Which definition of "random" do you think is better, and why: a deck where every possible ordering has an equal probability of occurring, or a deck whose ordering cannot be traced back to is original state? I assume you prefer the latter, based on your posts, but I'm mostly curious to know why. (Especially since I currently disagree.)
Misc. EDH Stuff: Commander Cube | Zombies (Horde)
Resources:Commander Rulings FAQ | Commander Deckbuilding Guide
Follow me on Twitter! @cryogen_mtg
You haven't quoted any paper supporting that claim
read above.
Wrong
wrong
wrong
What does broccoli synergy have to do with your case? UV light helps preent unwanted growth, refrigeration helps with unwanted growths. But to have that comparison even somewhat valid you would need to mean that shining UV light on something helps it cool down when refrigerated, that is not true. Shining UV light on something has a measurable effect on its own regarding keeping broccoli clean, pile sorting does not in regards to shuffling.
Again a completely irrelevant example. A flashlight doesn't help you see during daytime, but combine it with a pitch black cavern and voila! You can now use the flashlight to see in it.
No it doesn't. Either you have problems with comprehending what you read or you are simply blurting out blatant lies on top of the abuse.
More lies. You quoted a paper trying to use its result to support your claims. You did that by stating that:
"I posit that a top-in shuffle is a shift, just like a pile shuffle is, and that its effect on the subsequent riffles can be similarly studied.."
Lies, the section you refer to an quote does not deal with nonrandom shifts.
You have had valid counterarguments presented to you each step of the way and you have yet to provide any arguments not immediately countered. From any point of view you are the one without proper arguments.
If more people acted like you do we would have an even bigger fecal slinging contest where facts and reason wouldn't matter. Your arguments boils down to lies, aggression and misinterpreting studies. I much prefer to keep the number of people simply blurting out nonsense to a minimum.
You have had logical valid counterargumets presented to you, in response you have started yelling out lies. And you feel lies and ignorance are more conducive to uncovering facts? Now there's another statement that needs some solid proof to be taken seriously.
Then show us such a study.
Agin, you are the one with teh burden of proof. As proof for your claims you have so far presented nothing but studies that doesn't have anything to do with your claims.
Russel's teapot yet again. I propose that there are ten billion undetectable species living inside your eyes. If it isn't true, then why haven't it been disproven yet? You have the burden of proof, live up to it.
I am somewhat onfused. You claim that disrespecting the truth is worse than disrespecing a user so how come you throw out so many lies hoping to not get caught?
As for the moderation standards. My guess it that they are there for situations like these. We have you, who tosses out lies and irrelevant papers responing with aggression when you get called out on said lies and their irrelevance. Seems like a pretty good reason for having people debate more calmly.
There is nothing wrong with passionate discussions. There is, however, wuite a big heap of problems with passionate discussion turning to mudslingingfests with nothing but lies and abuse.
You claim taht it goes against everything you elieve in but you just stated that you abhor disrespecting the truth? I could use an explanation for this. You demontrably tend to throw out lies when you start yelling in allcaps and tossing out abuse. I see a connection between not keeping calm and disrespecting the truth.
The better times where you weren't called out on your lies and failure to prove any of your statements? Yeah, I understand that you miss those times.
I also cannot help but notice that you seemed to not notice my question to you so I'll restate it hoping for an answer.
Do you have any basis for your claim that (paraphrased) "reinserting (cards) randomly anywhere in the deck" is the same thing as "MOVING THEM (the cards) TO PRECISE SPOTS"? Because to me there seems to be a rather big difference between moving cards to randomly chosen spots and moving them to precise specific spots. I would love to see any kind of evidence for this claim.
You obviously really believe that the quote deals with moving them to specific spots so I would love an explanation as to why you think that is the case seeing how the paper states it moves the cards randomly.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
You did equate them. "just like"
It's right there.