Author Topic: Just a thought for Rob (Read 33274 times)

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #200 on:** July 14, 2009, 02:40:55 PM »

Just did a test with 56 playing cards, 7 being inverse color ones so they're easy to spot. I bridge shuffled four times, with all 7 souls starting together on the bottom.

Test 1: all spread equally through the deck, top card was a soul. No bunches.
Test 2: spread well, no bunches.
Test 3: Spread well, but two bunches of two.
Test 4: Spread well, two near the top that were seperated by one card.
Test 5: Spread a little more towards the bottom, but there are still 3 within the top 50% of the deck. 2nd to last card was a soul.

Just from these 5, I think 4 bridge shuffles is a good way to avoid clumping AND mix souls throughout fairly evenly.

STAMP · « **Reply #201 on:** July 14, 2009, 03:49:18 PM »

I watch my opponents' shuffles. If they do not seem sufficient then I cut their deck.

Korunks · « **Reply #202 on:** July 14, 2009, 03:52:03 PM »

but sometimes a cut isn't enough, if they have a run of lost souls all on the top, you cut it to the bottom it doesn't help you.

Ironica · « **Reply #203 on:** July 14, 2009, 03:52:13 PM »

Or you could shuffle their deck too.

Quote from: reg

Start by thoroughly shuffling your deck. Your opponent(s) may also shuffle your deck.

The Guardian · « **Reply #204 on:** July 14, 2009, 03:53:57 PM »

"Stack shuffling" also seems to work pretty well. Start each stack with a LS, mix the rest of the deck and then place the cards in the stacks. Pile up the stacks and do a couple hand shuffles. If your deck was sorted previous to starting the process, maybe do a second stack shuffle.

Korunks · « **Reply #205 on:** July 14, 2009, 04:01:11 PM »

I know opponents may shuffle, but in tourneys is enough time given to shuffle well? I like the idea of a Shuffling station where you can get your cards shuffled. Maybe we should make it mandatory so it would be fair. Poor shuffling seems to be rampant in the tournament scene.

WillBake · « **Reply #206 on:** July 14, 2009, 04:07:24 PM »

well if people have good decks then there should be a way to make your opponent draw alost soul, cause there are plenty of cards and other combos to make your opponenet get a soul

The Schaef · « **Reply #207 on:** July 14, 2009, 04:15:14 PM »

I like stack shuffling more and more, the more I do it. Bridge shuffles tend to take a while to really randomize the cards; mine always come in clumps after a mere bridge(s).

Also, there are some people who do not wish to bridge their cards or have another person bridge for them. As much as we all want to help, be on the lookout for people who will feed your deck to you if you try this with their cards.

Korunks · « **Reply #208 on:** July 14, 2009, 04:20:41 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on July 14, 2009, 04:15:14 PM

I like stack shuffling more and more, the more I do it. Bridge shuffles tend to take a while to really randomize the cards; mine always come in clumps after a mere bridge(s).

Also, there are some people who do not wish to bridge their cards or have another person bridge for them. As much as we all want to help, be on the lookout for people who will feed your deck to you if you try this with their cards.

But would mandating a stack sort be something people would support? I would support it because I already do it, because I know a good shuffle helps me as much as it helps my opponent.

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #209 on:** July 14, 2009, 04:23:06 PM »

The piles method works the best. From a sorted deck, I put it a deck in 7 piles, pick them up randomly, and do hand 4+ hand shuffles. Then I do another 7 piles method, and pick them up randomly before doing another 4+ hand shuffles. I repeat the process once more. I find this is one of the best ways to shuffle from a sorted deck.

Before each of the following games, in which one game has been played so the deck isn't sorted, but cards will be clumped from how I cleared my cards off the table, I do some hand shuffles, a piles method, more hand shuffles, another piles method, and more hand shuffles.

Kirk

Korunks · « **Reply #210 on:** July 14, 2009, 04:28:04 PM »

I like that shuffle too, but will any mandatory shuffling styles be accepted by tourney players?

sk · « **Reply #211 on:** July 14, 2009, 04:36:30 PM »

The piles method is generally accepted as the better method for shuffling. It makes a statistically well-shuffled deck, and is very gentle to the cards.

STAMP · « **Reply #212 on:** July 14, 2009, 04:47:13 PM »

Dragon sleeves can be merge-shuffled very easily, including T2 size decks. This is how I shuffle during a game. At the start of a game, I do pile shuffling.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #213 on:** July 14, 2009, 04:53:47 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on July 14, 2009, 03:53:57 PM

"Stack shuffling" also seems to work pretty well. Start each stack with a LS, mix the rest of the deck and then place the cards in the stacks. Pile up the stacks and do a couple hand shuffles. If your deck was sorted previous to starting the process, maybe do a second stack shuffle.

This method of shuffling--which is the most common one I have seen--is no where near being random. The first pass artificially forces an flat distribution of LS. At this point you are creating a situation that is entirely equivalent (putting aside to a single card that might get messed up by a cut) to the idea of using a separate LS stack that gets fed into the main game. This artificial distribution is not--in general--going to be undone by the couple of hand shuffles.

Let me point out that this is precisely why many people have the mistaken belief that RTS shuffles poorly. The problem isn't with RTS (which appears to actually generate a random card distribution). The problem lies with the fact that the method of shuffling we do by hand are no where near random. So when RTS actually does shuffle randomly we blame the program.

Quote from: sk on July 14, 2009, 04:36:30 PM

The piles method is generally accepted as the better method for shuffling. It makes a statistically well-shuffled deck, and is very gentle to the cards.

While the second part is true, the first is not. What a pile shuffle does is provide a means of evenly distributing LS in a deck. While this may be desirable from a player's point of view it is distinct from being a statistically well-shuffled deck.

Korunks · « **Reply #214 on:** July 14, 2009, 04:59:55 PM »

I am aware that we don't create a statistical shuffle when we shuffle. However it is superior to having a separate pile of ls. First of all take into consideration all of the errata and play as that would accompany a mechanic change like separate piles, and then compare it to the ease of allowing a few extra minutes in between rounds to allow better shuffling. You said it yourself that they produce equivalent results. Why force a change that is more difficult when there are simpler solutions?

sk · « **Reply #215 on:** July 14, 2009, 05:03:34 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 14, 2009, 04:53:47 PM

While the second part is true, the first is not. What a pile shuffle does is provide a means of evenly distributing LS in a deck. While this may be desirable from a player's point of view it is distinct from being a statistically well-shuffled deck.

If the piles are only done once, yes, the souls are evenly distributed. If it's done three times, which Chris Bany once told me is proper, they will not be evenly distributed.

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #216 on:** July 14, 2009, 05:06:43 PM »

That is why I do several 3 piles methods from a sorted deck and 2-3 after a game. I get clumped lost souls in some games, and others I don't. My draws seem to be pretty random, but not the 7 Lost souls and all enhancement draws that RTS sometimes gives me in T2...

Kirk

adamfincher · « **Reply #217 on:** July 14, 2009, 05:10:58 PM »

Quote from: SoulSaver on July 11, 2009, 11:53:13 PM

I know you've all heard the same story before of poor little jimmy had the perfect draw but couldn't win because bob just wouldn't draw any lost souls during the game. This one thing is super annoying and takes away from the game, and many times determined Nats. I had a couple of thoughts on how to make this problem be less of a game damper. What if we increased the lost soul count to like 10 per fifty cards. Or start the game with the lost souls already out on the board. I think the lost soul issue is something that really needs to be addressed. You're just taking away so much from the game if player A has a better deck, but can't beat player B's noob deck because all his lost souls are on the bottom the whole game. What do you guys think?

my noob friend b eats me a lot cuz of this.....

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #218 on:** July 14, 2009, 05:23:20 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on July 14, 2009, 04:15:14 PM

I like stack shuffling more and more, the more I do it. Bridge shuffles tend to take a while to really randomize the cards; mine always come in clumps after a mere bridge(s).

I did four bridge shuffles in a row on cards and they ended up fairly random and spread apart. Also, I probably did those faster than you can pile shuffle.

However, I understand some people may not want their cards bent.

I think MJB nailed the shuffling issue. I've never had problems with RTS's shuffling because I can shuffle fairly well.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #219 on:** July 14, 2009, 05:41:44 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on July 14, 2009, 04:01:11 PM

I know opponents may shuffle, but in tourneys is enough time given to shuffle well? I like the idea of a Shuffling station where you can get your cards shuffled. Maybe we should make it mandatory so it would be fair. Poor shuffling seems to be rampant in the tournament scene.

That is the main issue at nationals IMO. The timer starts at a set time, so if you weren't at your table quickly (Back of the crowd/forgetting which way your table is) can cut into shuffle time if you wanna start with the others. I believe nationals should wait till everyone has shuffled up. Locals/districts Seem to do this well cuz its not rushed.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #220 on:** July 14, 2009, 05:47:34 PM »

While I've never been there I agree.

Mabye just have everyone who is shuffled and ready hold their hand up, then once everyones hand is up, the clock starts and they all d8.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #221 on:** July 14, 2009, 05:51:48 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on July 14, 2009, 05:47:34 PM

Mabye just have everyone who is shuffled and ready hold their hand up, then once everyones hand is up, the clock starts and they all d8.

Why do they roll eight-sided dice?

D-man · « **Reply #222 on:** July 14, 2009, 06:06:04 PM »

To determine the number of cards they get to draw.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #223 on:** July 14, 2009, 06:10:55 PM »

Quote from: sk on July 14, 2009, 05:03:34 PM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 14, 2009, 04:53:47 PM
While the second part is true, the first is not. What a pile shuffle does is provide a means of evenly distributing LS in a deck. While this may be desirable from a player's point of view it is distinct from being a statistically well-shuffled deck.

If the piles are only done once, yes, the souls are evenly distributed. If it's done three times, which Chris Bany once told me is proper, they will not be evenly distributed.

Sorry, sk. I was thinking your piles method was the same as the one Justin proposed (mostly because I've learned to ignore Kirk.

).

Master KChief · « **Reply #224 on:** July 14, 2009, 06:38:45 PM »

stack-shuffling is the commonly accepted norm for most ccg's. there is no way i will ever let anyone bridge shuffle my deck. i find this point moot anyways, as if you arent satisfied with an opponents shuffle, you are allowed by rule to do it for them.

News:

Author Topic: Just a thought for Rob (Read 33274 times)

Lamborghini_diablo

Ironica

WillBake

The Schaef

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo