|
Mortimer posted:Tell em you have fibromyalgia and/or rheumatoid arthritis problem solved If anything this makes me want to climb to the lofty heights of level 5 judging so I can freely allow 4 Horsemen vs. battle of wits supremacy.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
They already have a card shuffler. It's called MTGO. Put laptops at all big tournaments, get everyone to pre-reg their decks. Problem solved, right guys!? Right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Turn 5 of round 1 GP New Jersey, April 5th 2016: The unlucky horseman player is still coming up with no narc amoebas before Emrakul hits the graveyard. This is an exciting match, folks! Tune in tomorrow, April 6th, and perhaps blasting station will be on the field!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Turn 5 of round 1 GP New Jersey, April 5th 2016: To be fair that would be really unlucky if it took that long.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Imagine the amount of streaming money to be made if you could keep a large audience viewing for that long. Imagine twitch plays Pokemon lasting for a thousand years 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
You could probably make a shuffler that used suction cups to lift cards from one pile into two or three piles, then back from three piles into one. That way cards would never touch each other except by being stacked which ought to be safe for them, and each iteration would resemble a riffle shuffle. It would be slow as poo poo though and take a jillion sorts to get the top card down towards the bottom.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:You could probably make a shuffler that used suction cups to lift cards from one pile into two or three piles, then back from three piles into one. That way cards would never touch each other except by being stacked which ought to be safe for them, and each iteration would resemble a riffle shuffle. It would be slow as poo poo though and take a jillion sorts to get the top card down towards the bottom. The suction would be hell on the sleeves and cause repetitive strain to the cards. Why not just hire blind monks to rearrange the cards in accordance with the Bible code?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Just bring 3 copies of the deck to every tournament and have designated shufflers. This isn't that hard, people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Mathematically speaking, how good is the average FNM shuffle?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
What if when you register your deck and show the judges you actually own the cards they give you proxies printed over cheap playing cards then just use autoshufflers Rinkles posted:Mathematically speaking, how good is the average FNM shuffle? Hmm...well the FNM shuffle is a difficult technique that differs greatly from the hold-em shuffle and the PTQ shuffle. I'd say it's a 3.5/10
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Guys, there's a much easier way. Get a D-X where X is your deck size (probably a D60.) Now arrange your deck in any order. Roll the die. Put the first card from your pile into the position that comes up on the die. Roll the die again. Put the next card into that position, or reroll if the number has already been rolled. Totally randomized, no damage to the cards, and no cheating. It's perfect!
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Mortimer posted:What if when you register your deck and show the judges you actually own the cards they give you proxies printed over cheap playing cards What if we didn't participate in arguments after huffing gas fumes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Mortimer posted:
How is that acceptable!?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Mathematically speaking, how good is the average FNM shuffle?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:How is that acceptable!? While I have no idea which post this is in response to, the answer is math. Obviously. Wadjamaloo posted:It only takes 7 proper riffle shuffles to randomize a deck, this is why people that pile shuffle are the devil. Or counting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:While I have no idea which post this is in response to, the answer is math. Obviously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Wadjamaloo posted:It only takes 7 proper riffle shuffles to randomize a deck, this is why people that pile shuffle are the devil. Been trying to learn this because it looks and sounds so rad. Not very good at it yet, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Dp
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Wadjamaloo posted:Then why do they do it multiple times or on fetch lands? Because people are idiots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Wadjamaloo posted:Then why do they do it multiple times or on fetch lands? Those people are the worst, but not all of us! I always pile-shuffle-count at the beginning of matches and after sideboarding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Applebees posted:There are some fixes in this week's Magic Online downtime notes. The cancel button functioning as "OK" cracks me up. How do you gently caress that up? But I do really hate their system for Convoke and Delve. As soon as a Convoke spell is selected, your creatures get BRIGHT RED BORDERS, and your opponent now knows, "He has a convoke spell in hand he's considering casting." Same goes for Delve, which highlights all graveyard cards. I feel like it's a huge oversight to not make this information only display to the player holding the spell. Wadjamaloo posted:It only takes 7 proper riffle shuffles to randomize a deck, this is why people that pile shuffle are the devil. This. I had an argument with this old guy who was SO loving SLOW once. He actually tried to say that anything beyond 6 shuffles (he even got the number wrong) UNDOES THE RANDOMIZATION and starts to re-order the deck. My response was essentially, "You keep saying that word "randomization". I don't think it means what you think it means." He was using it the way too many magic players do: as a synonym for "uniform distribution". He also had to separate the lands and spells in his deck between every game and basically went back to deck building. Then he mana weaved followed by a pile shuffle and two lazy riffles (unsleeved). I called him on it constantly and he hated me for it since in matches against me where I shuffled his deck for him properly he didn't get perfect hands 
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
pile shuffles are useful if you're worried about the sleeves sticking together. There's a reason pros do it as well. On shuffle chat: it does seem like it would be prudent to use 3rd party shufflers for any top 8/featured matchups to prevent the waves of shuffle cheats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
if I'm feeling lazy can I make my opponent shuffle my deck? Like before a game just riffle shuffle once then offer them the cut. They'll feel real weird unless they really give it some shuffles so mission accomplished?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Wadjamaloo posted:It only takes 7 proper riffle shuffles to randomize a deck, this is why people that pile shuffle are the devil. Yeah I don't really believe this either. In a riffle shuffle the card on top will be on top of one of the two piles, and then will end up somewhere near the top of the combined new pile. It seems crazy that 6 repetitions would lead to a uniform distribution of probabilities of final positions for the original top card. Ditto for the bottom card. I should make a little markhov chain thing with some assumptions about how far individual cards move in a good riffle and see. Hrmmm
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Mortimer posted:What if when you register your deck and show the judges you actually own the cards they give you proxies printed over cheap playing cards Can I get the proxies in foreign languages though?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:pile shuffles are useful if you're worried about the sleeves sticking together. There's a reason pros do it as well. I pile shuffle because double sleeved decks are kind of huge (and there's always some try-hard at FNM who bitches about double-sleeves despite Standard Abzan Midrange costing $600 goddamn dollars).
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:Yeah I don't really believe this either. In a riffle shuffle the card on top will be on top of one of the two piles, and then will end up somewhere near the top of the combined new pile. It seems crazy that 6 repetitions would lead to a uniform distribution of probabilities of final positions for the original top card. Ditto for the bottom card.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Zoness posted:Can I get the proxies in foreign languages though? Many autoshufflers have optical sensors. These would detect foreign cards and have mini shredders that destroy foreign cards and use the waste to print out an application for US citizenship and a coupon for rosetta stone - english.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:Yeah I don't really believe this either. In a riffle shuffle the card on top will be on top of one of the two piles, and then will end up somewhere near the top of the combined new pile. It seems crazy that 6 repetitions would lead to a uniform distribution of probabilities of final positions for the original top card. Ditto for the bottom card. LMGTFY https://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/20002.4-6.shtml So for 60 cards, 7 is probably not sufficient. How much more idk, I tried to look into the math and it is way, way, way over my head. http://www.ams.org/samplings/feature-column/fcarc-shuffle ∥Rk−U∥≤P(T>k)=1−∏j=1n−1(1−j2k). = (DAFUQ???) Of course a mash isn't a perfect riffle, so I'd guess 8-10 is probably where a magic player should be at for true randomization.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
You people are all idiots. The best way to randomize is to put all your lands on top, and then pile shuffle in 5 piles twice. Never fails to randomize, trust me I'm a businessman.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Wadjamaloo posted:Then why do they do it multiple times or on fetch lands? Well I've never seen anyone pile shuffle for a fetch, so I suppose the answer is your friends are monsters? Mortimer posted:if I'm feeling lazy can I make my opponent shuffle my deck? Or they'll call a judge and get you a game loss. Edit: Count Bleck posted:You people are all idiots. I just tried this. It works but don't try it outside of a competitive level event or your opponents will be so tilted by your perfect(ly randomized) draws! suicidesteve fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Wadjamaloo posted:It only takes 7 proper riffle shuffles to randomize a deck, this is why people that pile shuffle are the devil. It takes 7 proper riffle shuffles to sufficiently randomize a standard 52 card deck. 60 card decks require 9.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
AlternateNu posted:It takes 7 proper riffle shuffles to sufficiently randomize a standard 52 card deck. 60 card decks require 9. Can't I just mash shuffle so I don't catapult wizard cardboard everywhere with my sausage fingers?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Actually just ban all tutors and shuffle deck cards and then this is never a problem again
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Aha I found a paper that explains it: http://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_1/euclid.aoap/1177005705 Say your deck is 20 cards labeled 1 to 20. After one riffle it will be something like 1 2 10 3 11 12 4 13 14 5 6 etc You have two interleaved sequences of rising cards, 1-10 and 11-20. If you riffle again you have 4 rising sequences, and so on. The number of sequences doubles each riffle and once it outnumbers the number of actual cards in the deck you are halving your 'distance' from a uniform distribution with each additional riffle. So yeah in a 60 card deck 8-10 riffles ought to do it, assuming they are good riffles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Count Bleck posted:Can't I just mash shuffle so I don't catapult wizard cardboard everywhere with my sausage fingers? This is what I do because I'm clumsy and have giant hands. I can mash shuffle an edh deck in my hands without much problem. I mash shuffle a bunch, cut it a few times, and repeat the process a few times. All my decks are double sleeved too so they slide together super smooth and easy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
And you can do approx. 40 riffles or mash shuffles in the same time as one pile, QED.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
My hands are too small to mash shuffle but horizontal riffles are easy enough, even with double sleeved cards. Double sleeved 100 card decks on the other hand are a huge struggle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Zoness posted:My hands are too small to mash shuffle but horizontal riffles are easy enough, even with double sleeved cards. I generally split my EDH deck into two 50-ish card piles. Riffle shuffle the top halves of both piles together. Repeat for the bottom halves. The two newly shuffled piles become your new 50-ish card piles. Repeat this process 4 - 5 times. If it is an in-game shuffle, I'll probably just do a quick mash and have my opponents do a multi-layered cut.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
If nothing was restricted and the only banned cards were ante/conspiracy/other weirdness cards, what would the top Legacy decks be? I'm thinking some sort of blue/black tendrils deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2014 21:05
|
|
