|
You shouldn't pile shuffle more than once every time you sideboard, technically.
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
Death Bot posted:Pile shuffles are insufficient because it doesn't randomize your cards but rather distributes them. If a player shoves all their lands into one pile then puts them on one of of their deck, then pile shuffles once, then they've basically just mana weaved. Assuming you do it correctly. You can very easily just make a mash shuffle or even a riffle look like you're doing it right when you aren't. The ultimate point, I think, is that the likliehood that the average player's paper shuffles are more random than the MTGO shuffler is extremely low.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Magic: The Gathering: Megathread: Every Day I'm Pile Shufflin'
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Angry Grimace posted:Assuming you do it correctly. You can very easily just make a mash shuffle or even a riffle look like you're doing it right when you aren't. Well yeah, I'm just saying that if you're honestly asking how you're supposed to shuffle, 7-8 Riffles is correct and a pile is useful to make sure cards aren't sticking and that you've got 60
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Death Bot posted:Well yeah, I'm just saying that if you're honestly asking how you're supposed to shuffle, 7-8 Riffles is correct and a pile is useful to make sure cards aren't sticking and that you've got 60 Sure, I wasn't trying to suggest you were wrong, just kind of bringing it all back to the MTGO shuffler because its an important topic of the day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Death Bot posted:Pile shuffles are insufficient because it doesn't randomize your cards but rather distributes them. If a player shoves all their lands into one pile then puts them on one of of their deck, then pile shuffles once, then they've basically just mana weaved. The real number for reasonably randomizing a 52 card deck is probably closer to 11 or 12 shuffles; the wide quoted 7 shuffles is from a paper where they used a very generous definition of "sufficiently random". The AMS put up a good article here that gives a pretty good overview of the math quote:Is it in fact true that seven shuffles suffice to adequately randomize a 52-card deck? ... After seven shuffles, the total variation distance from stationarity is approximately 0.3341. That is, after 7 riffle shuffles the probability of a given event can differ by as much as 0.3341 from its value under the uniform distribution. Indeed, Peter Doyle has described a simple solitaire game for which the probability of winning when playing with a uniform random deck is exactly 1/2, but whose probability of winning with a deck that has been GSR [riffle] shuffled 7 times times from its standard order is 0.801 (as computed in van Zylen and Schalekamp (2004)). 
fomo sacer fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
One if the guys at my LGS just cracked open a DD:A and one of the decks was almost entirely miscut:  Anyone else seen something like this? edit: I just realized there is a miscut Daze in there. Peepers fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
must be nice to open a box full of money
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Mr. Peepers posted:One if the guys at my LGS just cracked open a DD:A and one of the decks was almost entirely miscut: I've seen a lot of the green commander decks like that. Are the corners square? It's hard to tell on my phone. If they're round, they're tournament legal and I'd bet the Counterspell and Daze at least are pretty valuable. I'm pretty sure Ancestral Visions is in that too, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Anyone else watching Joe Lossett's stream? He used his reanimator brew to beat another reanimator player in the daily, and his opponent got mad called him a netdecker because he saw the same deck on SCG decktech. I guess he didn't know Joe's modo handle but it was still pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
quote/edit
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Mr. Peepers posted:One if the guys at my LGS just cracked open a DD:A and one of the decks was almost entirely miscut: Entire miscut decks are very common in supplementary products, but not usually that extreme.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:I've seen a lot of the green commander decks like that. Are the corners square? It's hard to tell on my phone. If they're round, they're tournament legal and I'd bet the Counterspell and Daze at least are pretty valuable. I'm pretty sure Ancestral Visions is in that too, right? Yep, also fact or fiction, willbender, terrain generator, and mindstone, all of which might have someone who'd like a miscut. The islands are probably the easiest of the miscuts to move, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Fingers McLongDong posted:Anyone else watching Joe Lossett's stream? He used his reanimator brew to beat another reanimator player in the daily, and his opponent got mad called him a netdecker because he saw the same deck on SCG decktech. I guess he didn't know Joe's modo handle but it was still pretty funny. To be fair I wouldn't know Joe's handle either if it wasn't for this thread, but still, lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Net deck as a pejorative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Snacksmaniac posted:Net deck as a pejorative. I talked a new player down from that ledge recently. I just explained to him that if i was a new scientist, instead of having to figure out every single aspect of gravity, I could just read what Isaac Newton and Einstein have done before, then build on that. I literally saw a light bulb go on in his head, and he said "I wish someone would have told me that weeks ago." There are of course the other extremes, the "If your exact 75 wasn't in a top 8 its wrong." Those people are stupid too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
My buddy who taught me hates net decks because to him they're taking the fun out of one of the best parts of the game. He also hates the idea of tournament magic as a result of some bad beats back when the only store here kinda sucked so maybe the two are related.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
If you hate "netdecks" play limited. Kind of weird that everyone who hates them really wants to play constructed with special rules as opposed to a format where you can't possibly "netdeck."
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
My favorite thing to tell people who complain about netdecks is the time I tried building a homebrew when Theros rotated in. I started building with all my favorite cards in standard, Stormbreath Dragon, Purphoros, the combination of BTE, Reckoner, and Nykthos, etc. Then a week later I saw Mono-Red devotion in the top 8 of some event on the mothership, and realized I built the exact same deck but with a handful of worse cards. It helped me realize that netdecking and building a good deck are actually just the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:I talked a new player down from that ledge recently. I just explained to him that if i was a new scientist, instead of having to figure out every single aspect of gravity, I could just read what Isaac Newton and Einstein have done before, then build on that. tl;dr it's the difference between "I built this deck because it's the best" and "I built this deck based off of [list] but I changed X to Y because [reason]." The former is the guy no one wants to talk to or play with, not the latter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
I was going through some old cards for someone. There was nothing too exciting in it (mostly 4th, CHR, IA). However, I do believe there is a Alternate Fourth Edition Counterspell in it. Passes on the no black light test and feels different from the others. Jackpot !! (A whole $14.99 on SCG).
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
whenever someone complains about netdecking i can't help but feel like they feel like they should get rewarded for spending more time (and specifically spending more time, not making better choices) on picking out cards than their opponent rather than anything related to play skill.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
rabidsquid posted:If you hate "netdecks" play limited. Kind of weird that everyone who hates them really wants to play constructed with special rules as opposed to a format where you can't possibly "netdeck." Yup. And the best part, is if your a decent deckbuilder, and take something similar to a pro-brew, they'll still shout you down. As someone below pointed out it happens. I built a GB nemesis of mortals nighthowler deck last standard that was very similar to the one Conley Woods tinkered with a bit. It was an alright deck, but not great. Honestly some decks are fairly simple and obvious if you've played magic for a while you can throw a list together that is probably 80% match to a deck that has or will do well in a tournament environment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:Yup. And the best part, is if your a decent deckbuilder, and take something similar to a pro-brew, they'll still shout you down. As someone below pointed out it happens. I built a GB nemesis of mortals nighthowler deck last standard that was very similar to the one Conley Woods tinkered with a bit. It was an alright deck, but not great. Honestly some decks are fairly simple and obvious if you've played magic for a while you can throw a list together that is probably 80% match to a deck that has or will do well in a tournament environment. Especially in Standard, there aren't enough competitive decks you can even build without having it look substantially similar to a popular deck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:Yup. And the best part, is if your a decent deckbuilder, and take something similar to a pro-brew, they'll still shout you down. As someone below pointed out it happens. I built a GB nemesis of mortals nighthowler deck last standard that was very similar to the one Conley Woods tinkered with a bit. It was an alright deck, but not great. Honestly some decks are fairly simple and obvious if you've played magic for a while you can throw a list together that is probably 80% match to a deck that has or will do well in a tournament environment. Like this standard! 4 Sylvan Caryatid 4 Courser of Kruphix 4 Siege Rhino 4 Thoughtseize Land. small changes to the rest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
The only person that actually brews original decks is Greg Hatch.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
I used to hate netdecking. Now I still do, but for a very different reason. In theory there's nothing wrong with the practice, but in reality I think it breeds a hellish opponent to face. Reliance on netdecking from early on shortcuts a new Spike to the top tier, and they focus JUST on winning. They're the ones who will most often complain that luck was the biggest element of their losses but proclaim their boundless skill after they themselves get a god hand that can't be stopped. They will learn the mechanics of the game and memorize a lot of "clever plays" for that particular deck, but I don't feel like they ever really develop the same depth of understanding surrounding WHY that deck functions the way it does. It's infuriating when I want to have a discussion about a deck I faced and ask, "So why did you decide to run just 2 copies of this instead of the usual 4?" I get a blank stare and the answer, "I dunno, _____________ made top 8 with this last weekend." This feeds back into the conversation about the term "grinder" a while back....this is where they're born. They think they can go pro after 3 months of borrowing decks and then netdecking their own, get an overinflated opinion of their skill level because they skipped a LOT of steps for learning the game thoroughly (but still do well at FNM because not everyone runs tier 1), and then rage that they don't make day 2 of every GP they travel to. Netdecking has its place, but I think every good player I've known started out hating it and trying to figure things out on their own. Not that it can't rarely be done the other way, but generally the type of player who netdecks from the start will just have a very superficial understanding of the game and thinks the choice of deck is the number one factor in determining success. The moment they lose with the deck, they don't start wondering how they can tweak it, what wasn't working, what can be better....they just look for another list to copy. My own story of discovery was very similar to someone talking about red devotion earlier: I discovered Modern and just vaguely knew that Melira was a combo with Persist creatures and Birthing Pod. From that idea I started building and came up with almost card for card the list that won GP Portland when suddenly everyone noticed the deck and it took off. At first I was mad, because who's going to believe me that I didn't netdeck this now, but mostly I was just proud that I came up with something really awesome that actually WAS really awesome. It turns out when you streamline an idea, there are very few ways to build it. I think my own netdecking constitutes more of browsing around for ideas. What new combo is out there I can abuse? Then I build it and see if I came up with the same thing, or maybe I improved upon it because I didn't limit myself with preconceived ideas. I just think it's more satisfying and gives me a much better understanding of the game and, I hope, has helped me grow as a player.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Speaking of brewing, what has Conley Woods been up to recently anyway. He kind of fell off the radar. I know for a while he was sticking more to his teams decks than his wonky Conley Woods(tm) brews.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Just came across this gem: quote:Aoko Goshoku is the president of the student council at Mahochiehi Academy, and she loves to play Magic: The Gathering. In fact, she loves it so much, that she's willing to play under any conditions - even if that means dating the winner if she loses! Aoko never backs down from an interesting challenge, much to the annoyance of her fellow student council members. But when one challenge drags the whole council into hot water, will Aoko's Magic skills be enough to save her friends?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
But do they wear
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:Just came across this gem: Nowhere near as good as Cock Magic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:Just came across this gem: By the looks of her skirt, she loves draft.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:Just came across this gem: I think I may have read this already lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
BaronVonVaderham posted:I used to hate netdecking. Now I still do, but for a very different reason. In theory there's nothing wrong with the practice, but in reality I think it breeds a hellish opponent to face. Agree. I think most decks have a base, as someone above illustrated, 4 courser, 4 caryatid, 4 siege rhino (other stuff). I think that the real take away to reading decklists is to see what is the core of the deck, and then what parts are changeable. I like my version of GR monsters better than some others, I prefer to keep 4 rabble 3 xenagos and less removal. I think the deck doesn't require lightning strike, I just keep playing out threats until they take over the game. i also like fliers to close out with, standard seems a little soft to them, so I run 4 stormbreath, 2 ashcloud, 2 sarkhan. I generally finish the game with one of those or a crater's claws after a few early jabs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:Just came across this gem: No her skills won't be enough because she plays loving stormtide leviathan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Whatever this poo poo is, I need to read/watch it. edit: Best guess for this image: mtg rule 34
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Netdecking is also helpful if you don't have a variety of cards to brew with; I'm OK with taking a deck that has won a big event (that I also find interesting or cheap to build) if it means I can focus on just acquiring those cards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Ramos posted:Whatever this poo poo is, I need to read/watch it. http://myanimelist.net/manga.php?id=52243 Magic: The Gathering - Magic Gakuen Seitokai (One Shot) http://mtg-jp.com/publicity/003584/
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Just to be clear, you guys have no chance. This is Joe Losset's waifu:
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:21 |
|
|
When we started playing a few months ago, a friend net decked his first rhino whip deck. I blew 20 quid on the KTK event deck and managed to make a few trades from gimmes at our LGS. I think I'm now more consistent in my mardu-brew purely as I play against our meta in additions and tweaks. Not that I'm pro by any means, but understanding synergy etc most often beats net-decking surely? It's like handing a monkey a set if car keys.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 20:00
|
|