|
mfcrocker posted:I am on the floor for this GP and it is stone cheating. But that is a judgement call right? He didn't admit to points 2 and 3.
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:But that is a judgement call right? He didn't admit to points 2 and 3. Admitting to 2 admits to 1.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
I'll just say that I really hope he was cheating because if he loses worlds and his reputation on a judgement call and he wasn't cheating that would be loving horrible.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:How many times? 3? 4? 5? It's not cut and dry. With fewer than 6 mash shuffles, the initial order of the cards in your deck cannot be reversed. Since not all orderings of cards are even possible, the deck 100% objectively isn't randomized.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
He. Was. Cheating. He broke the rules knowingly, and gained an advantage by doing so. There's no element of judgement here: he was, by definition, cheating.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:But that is a judgement call right? He didn't admit to points 2 and 3. This is one of the most slam dunk cheating calls ever and that Facebook post admits to all 3. You're very wrong on this. Funnily, if he eats a ban, one of my friends gets his World Magic Cup spot 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
The dude literally said "sometimes I didn't even shuffle my deck".
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
anglachel posted:Thats 7 riffle shuffles. He doesn't address mash shuffles. Mash shuffles are either a poo poo riffle shuffle or are just poo poo, there's much more variation from how you actually do the shuffle than in other methods (ie it is much more likely to be clumpy than a riffle shuffle and therefore pretty terrible, but if you do it "properly" then it's essentially the same as a riffle shuffle).
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
mfcrocker posted:This is one of the most slam dunk cheating calls ever and that Facebook post admits to all 3. You're very wrong on this. Who's that? Saito?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:No. You're allowed to do whatever you want with your deck and the order of the cards in your deck as long as you shuttle afterwards. If X+Y=Z, and Y must equal Z, then X has to equal 0. Thus, if you remove X it does nothing to the equation (and can stop loving puttering about with your deck). If X has any other value, then Y != Z and you are by definition cheating as you are doing something that has an undue (i.e. any) effect on the final state of your deck, such that it cannot be considered random. I know it's hard, but you're just going to have to stamp out your insecurities and superstitions about the fickle hand of fate. Yes, you will get mana flooded and mana screwed sometimes because random chance includes that. It is a fact of this uncaring universe. Do whatever you want between rounds; pray to whatever deities you like, have a cigar and a shot of rum, sacrifice a bucket of fried chicken for all I care. But doing anything but shuffling when you should be shuffling is either slow play or cheating and you should avoid both.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Who's that? Saito? Autumn Burchett; Fabrizio is English as far as his DCI registration is concerned
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:No. That is perfectly within the rules. What if you have a Chromatic Sphere in play and you need to use it to cast a Panglacial Wurm? Now what if that Panglacial Wurm is your top card?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
suicidesteve posted:What if you have a Chromatic Sphere in play and you need to use it to cast a Panglacial Wurm? Now what if that Panglacial Wurm is your top card? I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:I read somewhere that 7 (proper) mash shuffles is statistically enough for sufficient randomization, but that number might have been from someone's rear end just like any other.  Y axis is distance from a perfectly random distribution (1.0 being a stacked deck), X axis is number of shuffles. This is for a 52 card deck but the extra 8 cards in an MTG deck don't matter too much. reference
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Static Equilibrium posted:
I don't know, that graph and math looks pretty subjective to me. Please stick with the facts here. mcmagic I'm surprised at how dense you're being on the subject of how many shuffles it takes to successfully randomize a deck (and saying it's "subjective" lmao), when it's been brought up in this freaking thread with linked statistical references at least once every few months.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Yawgmoth posted:Okay, let me explain this to you in math terms. We'll call "loving with the starting order" X, "shuffling to be sufficiently random" Y, and "acceptable end state of deck" Z. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that if his intent wasn't to gain an advantage that it's a warning and not a DQ.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Maaan I should have mana weaved. Went 5/2/1 at Manchester with BW Control. Some high points: Keeping an opening hand G1 with both my Hallowed Moonlights, then finding I was against Bant Company. The look on the face of every opponent I cast Reality Smasher against Getting better against GW tokens and Company because I barely played against any bastard thing else Thinking I might Day Two when I beat GW Tokens round 8 in 20 minutes I think I played Bant company 3 times, GW Tokens 4 times and Naya ramp once. Guy I talked to who made day two said he didn't hit any archetype twice. Had to deal with Evolutionary Leap a couple of times, it suuuuucked. It just let them keep up card advantage, but I was able to keep removing what they played, got really close to winning in spite of it but didn't make it. Missed a Chance to Unmake one in favour of a Nissa and I think it was a mistake.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that if his intent wasn't to gain an advantage that it's a warning and not a DQ. A player is caught with the best card in his matchup in his lap by a judge. The player says he didn't intend for it to be there but that it fell in his lap during shuffling and he was afraid to say anything. Do you take him at his word and give him a warning?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that if his intent wasn't to gain an advantage that it's a warning and not a DQ. mcmagic posted:What if he mashes twice? Three times? IDK it seems very subjective and not something you should be getting DQ'd for without a warning. I think we've all broken up clumps of lands in our decks especially after a long game 1 where you have a lots of lands in play...
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Mash shuffles are either a poo poo riffle shuffle or are just poo poo, there's much more variation from how you actually do the shuffle than in other methods (ie it is much more likely to be clumpy than a riffle shuffle and therefore pretty terrible, but if you do it "properly" then it's essentially the same as a riffle shuffle). So in other words 7 mash shuffles is just bullshit people are saying. I personally can't riffle shuffle with sleeves, so I have to mash. But I'm gonna guess you probably need to do it more than 7, sense like you said it's a lovely riffle shuffle. But I'm willing to bet it's not quite as much as the overhand shuffle.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I have no idea. I'll give you a hint: you don't get to move cards around so you can draw whatever card you want with the Sphere.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
I personally do a wash of my cards every time I need to shuffle. I bring a folding card table with me to every tournament so I have enough space and I go to time any time I play a deck with fetchlands, but it's the only way to be sure.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Sickening posted:A player is caught with the best card in his matchup in his lap by a judge. The player says he didn't intend for it to be there but that it fell in his lap during shuffling and he was afraid to say anything. Do you take him at his word and give him a warning? I don't think that is slimier to this situation.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
anglachel posted:So in other words 7 mash shuffles is just bullshit people are saying. I personally can't riffle shuffle with sleeves, so I have to mash. But I'm gonna guess you probably need to do it more than 7, sense like you said it's a lovely riffle shuffle. But I'm willing to bet it's not quite as much as the overhand shuffle. Rifling is no different than mashing. Both can be done terribly in sleeves and both can be done very well in sleeves. Both depend totally on the condition of the sleeve and the person shuffling. I don't know why this weird debate keeps coming up. mcmagic posted:I don't think that is slimier to this situation. It certainly is because both are major game violations and both players are admitting to knowing that they did them. Asking them to be downgraded to a warning because of "intent" is dumb in both situations. Sickening fucked around with this message at 00:00 on May 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
anglachel posted:So in other words 7 mash shuffles is just bullshit people are saying. I personally can't riffle shuffle with sleeves, so I have to mash. But I'm gonna guess you probably need to do it more than 7, sense like you said it's a lovely riffle shuffle. But I'm willing to bet it's not quite as much as the overhand shuffle. 10+ is good if you're not clumping cards too much, and takes no time at all. No point in not shuffling the deck more. Exactly the same as riffle shuffling. If you can't riffle shuffle and can't mash shuffle well then either you do the spready-outy-mixy thing on the table for a minute or two or you accept that your shuffling will be poo poo and do the best you can.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
anglachel posted:So in other words 7 mash shuffles is just bullshit people are saying. I personally can't riffle shuffle with sleeves, so I have to mash. But I'm gonna guess you probably need to do it more than 7, sense like you said it's a lovely riffle shuffle. But I'm willing to bet it's not quite as much as the overhand shuffle. The graph that static equilibrium posted seems to indicate you (general you) want to go at least 11, and probably a few more since you probably aren't perfect at mash shuffling. Really mash shuffling takes so little time that 12-13 of them isn't meaningfully more of a burden than 7.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:Really mash shuffling takes so little time that 12-13 of them isn't meaningfully more of a burden than 7. It is if you're happy with your land distribution after manually de-clumping lands after a long game 1 and don't want them getting all clumped back together!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Our line for cheating is 50% ie we are more certain than not. I can imagine no reality where I'm investigating this and it's falling down on the intent clause.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
We need a "just shuffle" version of  I really think the game would benefit from a rule specifically outlawing mana weaving and also a rule declaring that pile shuffling is slow play.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:The graph that static equilibrium posted seems to indicate you (general you) want to go at least 11, and probably a few more since you probably aren't perfect at mash shuffling. 11 sounds right, sense 7 was the stated number for 52 cards. 8's probably good for limited then. BJPaskoff posted:We need a "just shuffle" version of A single pile shuffle is good sense it lets you count your deck or immediately know if something is up with your deck size. Like for example an opponents card got mixed in with yours, or one of yours with theirs. (everybody has seen this before) Or to make sure you sideboard properly. I've also seen at least one incident where a guy admitted to me that he kept a card of his opponents and knocked it on the ground, so he could call a judge on his opponent at a PTQ a few years back. Of course I could name a billion slimy stuff people have done at PTQs before. I personally do a single pile shuffle and then mash shuffle until my opponent is done pile shuffling, doing whatever the gently caress. That typically ends up being about 15 to 20 mash shuffles minimum though. If the first pile shuffle comes up weird I will investigate though and repeat the process.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
mfcrocker posted:Our line for cheating is 50% ie we are more certain than not. I can imagine no reality where I'm investigating this and it's falling down on the intent clause. It should be much higher than that.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
anglachel posted:11 sounds right, sense 7 was the stated number for 52 cards. 8's probably good for limited then. For riffles, it asymptotically trends to 3/2 * log2(n) where n is the deck size in cards.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It should be much higher than that. It's the same level of proof required for a civil court case (which ya know this would be if being judged by ya know an actual Judge) I mean realistically speaking, you can only have really have 5 ways a judge can think about an incident. For sure did it (90+), probably did it (above 50), not sure (exactly 50 very rare they call another judge at this point or give benefit of the doubt), probably not (below 50), and for sure not (below 10). I don't think your gonna see "beyond a reasonable doubt" criminal court standards for judging magic the gathering tournaments brah. anglachel fucked around with this message at 00:22 on May 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
There are precisely two good reasons to pile shuffle, preferably between rounds: 1) To count your deck. It's a quick way to make sure you've got exactly 60 and didn't drop a card on the floor, or forget an aura, or miscount when sideboarding. 2) To make sure your sleeves aren't physically sticking together. Anything else is superstition at best and cheating at worst.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
By the way the two-sigma or whatever it's called for a 60 card deck is 8 riffle shuffles. If you're 'mash' shuffling correctly it's the same amount of randomization as riffling, so 8 mashes.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
He 100% was cheating, this shouldn't be a discussion. There's no way he didn't know that what he was doing was wrong or had the potential to be wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
BJPaskoff posted:We need a "just shuffle" version of Seriously. Why is pile shuffling allowed? Is it just under the pretense that people want to count the number of their cards?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
clamiam45 posted:Seriously. Yes because I've had games where I dropped a card on the floor without realizing it or kept one of my opponent's cards by accident or where I accidentally boarded one too many cards in/out and I'd rather not lose a game to something that stupid. it takes 15 seconds.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
anglachel posted:I personally do a single pile shuffle and then mash shuffle until my opponent is done pile shuffling, doing whatever the gently caress. That typically ends up being about 15 to 20 mash shuffles minimum though. If the first pile shuffle comes up weird I will investigate though and repeat the process. I do a single pile when I create my deck, because too many times I've miscounted and sleeved up 39 or 41, but I never pile shuffle at a match. Too much risk my opponent will see me do it and it'll trigger their drat minds to pile shuffle a bunch of times.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:15 |
|
|
When I want to count my cards, I pick up my deck and count my cards.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 01:32
|
|
