Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad (
More info?)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Robert Goudie wrote:
| Dorrinal Blackmantle wrote:
|>René wrote:
|>
|>>I noticed a lot of players (especially on tournaments) who put
| cards, that form combos in their decks, together (unrandomising) so the
|>chance of a handjam while playing is minimalised. Am i just stupid by not
|>>doing that, does everybody do it? Reactions please!
Are they deliberately setting Torn Signpost, Immortal Grapple, and Blur
together? Or are they just doing what is typically called a 'table
shuffle', where you deal out your cards face-down to 7 different piles,
stack them back together, and then begin riffle/overhand shuffling as
normal?
If you see someone stacking their deck face up, bust them on it; it's
outright intentional cheating. Table shuffling isn't usually
intentional cheating, but it also doesn't randomize the deck either.
|>I always "unrandomize" when first constructing the deck. After that
|>is shuffle, shuffle, shuffle. That way I don't start off by clumping
|>all 12-18 masters together in one spot before shuffling.
This is what most people do; see explanation below of why this is wrong.
| After doing a decklist, for example, I sometimes forget to break up the
| groups enough so that a quick shuffle can provide sufficient
| randomization--causing me ot lose pretty badly usually. Oops!
Ooops, indeed. You deliberately DErandomized your deck, and you
probably didn't even realize it. =)
This is an accurate definition/example of "random", as applied to a deck
with 16 cards AAAA, BBBB, CCCC, and DDDD:
"No matter what the initial state of the deck, after shuffling, the
probability of each of these orders:
#1: AAAABBBBCCCCDDDD
#2: ABCDABCDABCDABCD
#3: DCBADCBADCBADCBA
#4: DDDDCCCCBBBBAAAA
should be equal."
Note that two of these are as clumped as you can get, and two of these
are "ideal" for V:TES. "Sufficient randomization" doesn't mean that #1
and #4 should never happen; it means no matter what you start from, the
chances of #1 and #4 occurring are the same as the chances of #2 and #3.
Table shuffling after a decklist typically takes state #1, turns it into
state #2, and then commences actual randomization via riffle shuffling.
~ If your riffle shuffling is adequate (many repetitions), whether you
started from state #1 or state #2 should not matter. If table shuffling
DOES matter, then you are not performing enough randomization on your
deck. =)
In practice, humans are simply not skilled enough (read: manual
dexterity) to properly shuffle a 90-card deck. If you play poker at all
(and what V:TES player would even CONSIDER such a thing?), you will
notice that the dealers do what is called a "rough mix" before shuffling
the deck between each hand. The rough mix is more effective at
randomizing than any riffle shuffle will ever be, even in the talented
hands of these dealers. The rough mix combined with several riffles is
not perfect randomization, but it's close enough considering that the
difference between AAAKKK and AKAKAK is not as significant in a poker
game as it is in V:TES due to the shared nature of the deck.
Most V:TES players would refuse to rough-mix their cards, and some
believe that 2-3 riffle shuffles is sufficient randomization. It's not,
and it maximizes the benefit of that pre-shuffle table shuffle -- but
it's also common practice, and I don't typically see much need to
complain about it during games unless it is blatant; see below.
| Note that René is talking about players putting combos together in
| their deck. There's no reason to do this if you are intending to
| properly randomize afterwards. Sounds like cheating to me.
See above. Face-up aligning of combos is a big no-no.
| This game has lots of room for cheaters to take advantage of you. And
| while a decision to not join them in their cheating probably makes you
| less likely to win, it doesn't make you stupid--just honest and decent.
I also agree with this. Although I would prefer to see no table
shuffling at all, and to see V:TES players do a rough-mix of their cards
at the start of their shuffling routine, I recognize that this is not
going to happen; there are enough other issues to worry about that this
doesn't hit the threshold of my radar. However, I will shuffle my
prey's library if I feel they've made only a token effort at
randomization. I think it's everyone's personal call; I'd just like to
make sure everyone is aware of the facts behind what's happening. =)
- --
Derek
mostly randomized
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFCdnJetQZlu3o7QpERArVdAJoCK9aDrheESNnJOVzivTOR1GNs0wCg67P4
RB2/fT7L2jnhoC3KmD3SRnc=
=5Zw3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram