Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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

Or you could shuffle their deck too.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.....

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.

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? 

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. ).