|
anglachel posted:Thats 7 riffle shuffles. He doesn't address mash shuffles.
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
Procrastinator posted:When I want to count my cards, I pick up my deck and count my cards. You are legit a superhuman if this consistently provides accurate results. Go call up Xavier about his school.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:You are legit a superhuman if this consistently provides accurate results. Go call up Xavier about his school. This and it also takes 3x as long.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
I think this just boils down to mcmagic not understanding what constitutes "random."
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:A mash shuffle should do exactly the same thing to your deck as a riffle shuffle would. Is there actual math/science behind this claim, or is everyone just assuming this?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:Is there actual math/science behind this claim, or is everyone just assuming this? It's the same thing. There's nothing to do math or science on because it is the same thing.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Which is easier, shuffling Jace the Mind Sculptor into a deck or shuffling Liliana of the Veil into a deck? Can anyone cite at least three peer-reviewed studies to corroborate their claims?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Which is easier, shuffling Jace the Mind Sculptor into a deck or shuffling Liliana of the Veil into a deck? Can anyone cite at least three peer-reviewed studies to corroborate their claims? Is the Jace FTV because if so it's probably curled and a lot harder to shuffle properly.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:It's the same thing. There's nothing to do math or science on because it is the same thing. It's clearly not though. With a good rifle shuffle, you'll end up with each card from one half deck on top of a card from the other half. You'd have to perfectly align the halves to get this when mash shuffling.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:It's clearly not though. With a good rifle shuffle, you'll end up with each card from one half deck on top of a card from the other half. You'd have to perfectly align the halves to get this when mash shuffling. So what you're saying is that they're the same thing except when they're not? Agreed.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:It's clearly not though. With a good rifle shuffle, you'll end up with each card from one half deck on top of a card from the other half. You'd have to perfectly align the halves to get this when mash shuffling. Are your riffle shuffle piles perfectly halfed? How in the hell would a mash have to be any more perfect then your riffle? How is this concept so incredibly hard for people to understand?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:It's clearly not though. With a good rifle shuffle, you'll end up with each card from one half deck on top of a card from the other half. You'd have to perfectly align the halves to get this when mash shuffling. If you're alternating the cards perfectly when you riffle, you're not shuffling at all. (It's the reverse of a two-pile pile shuffle.)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
What is so controversial about my question? The shuffling process to me looks meaningfully different, ergo one might be more efficient than the other (in terms of how many shuffles are required for sufficient randomization).Sickening posted:Are your riffle shuffle piles perfectly halfed? How in the hell would a mash have to be any more perfect then your riffle? Who's to say one factor isn't more important than the other? Sickening posted:How is this concept so incredibly hard for people to understand? Because this stuff is really loving complicated?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:What is so controversial about my question? The shuffling process to me looks meaningfully different, ergo one might be more efficient than the other (in terms of how many shuffles are required for sufficient randomization). Its not complicated at all. Mashing two piles of sleeved cards together has the exact same effect as riffling two piles. They both randomize the deck just as effectively as the other. Just do what you like and stop spreading this superstition.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:What is so controversial about my question? The shuffling process to me looks meaningfully different, ergo one might be more efficient than the other (in terms of how many shuffles are required for sufficient randomization). It's only that complicated if you're really dense or a troll, at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
MiddleEastBeast posted:It's only that complicated if you're really dense or a troll, at this point. The gently caress?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:It's clearly not though. With a good rifle shuffle, you'll end up with each card from one half deck on top of a card from the other half. You'd have to perfectly align the halves to get this when mash shuffling. This is where you're either being really dense or trolling. You can't just hand-wave away a perfect riffle shuffle as being trivial to achieve, then say "but to do the same with a mash shuffle you'd have to have the stars align and everything go perfectly according to plan!" The same is obviously true for a perfect riffle shuffle. Why do you believe a perfect riffle shuffle is so easy to achieve compared to a perfect mash shuffle? For individual people, there is obviously some difference in dexterity that will make one easier to perform than the other, but there's no obvious reason why one should necessarily be more consistently executed across the grubby hands of all magic shufflers around the globe, given that both shuffles attempt to accomplish the exact same thing (interweave two halves of the deck card for card).
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Sickening posted:Its not complicated at all. Mashing two piles of sleeved cards together has the exact same effect as riffling two piles. They both randomize the deck just as effectively as the other. Just do what you like and stop spreading this superstition. This doesn't sound right to me. When you riffle, the position of a card depends on how the previous cards have riffled. This is not the case when you mash. Edit: shuffling is a complicated subject, but it is kind of obtuse to try to compare a perfect riffle to any old mash.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
I'll point out that a perfect riffle is not actually a shuffle, just like counting out cards into separate piles is not shuffling. If there's no randomization, it's not a shuffle. The estimate of 7 riffle shuffles to sufficiently randomize a deck is based on the physical properties of the shuffle, and how typical human imperfections when performing the shuffle affect things. While a mash shuffle looks superficially similar to a riffle, I would not be surprised if in practice it ends up being much closer to "perfect" than a typical riffle, and hence require more iterations to sufficiently randomize a deck.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Jabor posted:I would not be surprised if You could have stopped there and said "I have no basis for anything in my post"
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:This doesn't sound right to me. When you riffle, the position of a card depends on how the previous cards have riffled. This is not the case when you mash. Is this some kind of IRC coordinated meta trolling?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
I've got a question about the interaction between Unbreathing Horde and Death Baron. Am I correct in thinking that Unbreathing Horde is indestructible as long as Death Baron is on the battlefield?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
MiddleEastBeast posted:This is where you're either being really dense or trolling. You can't just hand-wave away a perfect riffle shuffle as being trivial to achieve, then say "but to do the same with a mash shuffle you'd have to have the stars align and everything go perfectly according to plan!" The same is obviously true for a perfect riffle shuffle. Why do you believe a perfect riffle shuffle is so easy to achieve compared to a perfect mash shuffle? For individual people, there is obviously some difference in dexterity that will make one easier to perform than the other, but there's no obvious reason why one should necessarily be more consistently executed across the grubby hands of all magic shufflers around the globe, given that both shuffles attempt to accomplish the exact same thing (interweave two halves of the deck card for card). The larger point isn't that riffle shuffling is easier to perfectly shuffle with (which I don't mean to claim), it's that it's different. That special number 7 (for 52 card decks) came from a statistical deconstruction of the riffle shuffle. So it's not immediately apparent to me why that number should hold for a - to me - meaningfully different method of shuffling. Idk, why the gently caress everybody's so smug about this.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
caiman posted:I've got a question about the interaction between Unbreathing Horde and Death Baron. Am I correct in thinking that Unbreathing Horde is indestructible as long as Death Baron is on the battlefield? It's ability on prevents damage, so it can still be Murdered. But yes, you can remove 0 counters and prevent the damage.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
caiman posted:I've got a question about the interaction between Unbreathing Horde and Death Baron. Am I correct in thinking that Unbreathing Horde is indestructible as long as Death Baron is on the battlefield? It's not indestructible but it can't die to damage.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:The larger point isn't that riffle shuffling is easier to perfectly shuffle with (which I don't mean to claim), it's that it's different. That special number 7 (for 52 card decks) came from a statistical deconstruction of the riffle shuffle. So it's not immediately apparent to me why that number should hold for a - to me - meaningfully different method of shuffling. People are smug because this is the most baby steps concept to understand and its hilarious that people can't grasp it. First it was mcmagic not understanding why stacking your deck in competitive rhel isn't a major thing. Now its folks who can't understand why splitting a deck in two and shuffling them together in different ways leads to the same outcome (randomness). Sickening fucked around with this message at 03:11 on May 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:You could have stopped there and said "I have no basis for anything in my post" Have you actually read the paper on why 7 riffle shuffles is the amount required to randomize a poker deck, or do you just quote chapter and verse? The randomization is based on physical properties of the shuffle. If the shuffle changes, the randomization changes to some degree, even if the ordering of cards after a single iteration looks similar. Is that enough to affect the number of shuffles required for this specific case? I don't know. I suspect you don't know either.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
caiman posted:I've got a question about the interaction between Unbreathing Horde and Death Baron. Am I correct in thinking that Unbreathing Horde is indestructible as long as Death Baron is on the battlefield? quote:9/22/2011 If Unbreathing Horde has no +1/+1 counters on it (but its toughness is raised above 0 by another effect), any damage dealt to it will still be prevented, even though no counter will be removed. Removing the counter is not actually a cost for the ability, just something it tries to do. If there's no counters it'll still prevent the damage.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Sickening posted:People are smug because this is the most baby steps concept to understand and its hilarious that people can't grasp it. [...] Now its folks who can't understand why splitting a deck in two and shuffling them together in different ways leads to the same outcome (randomness). I'm going to quote this because it's hilarious. Here's a puzzler for you to mull over: Does a perfect riffle shuffle introduce the same amount of randomness as a typical human riffle shuffle?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Sickening posted:Is this some kind of IRC coordinated meta trolling? almost no one in this conversation is an irc regular
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Jabor posted:I'm going to quote this because it's hilarious. No, because a perfect riffle shuffle doesn't randomize anything. IE, if you mean perfect being one card from one stack on top of the other in perfect alignment. And I hope nobody is arguing that magic players are out there are doing perfect riffle/shuffles with either method.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
Sickening posted:No, because a perfect riffle shuffle doesn't randomize anything. IE, if you mean perfect being one card from one stack on top of the other in perfect alignment. But I thought you just said that splitting a deck in two and shuffling them together in different ways leads to the same amount of randomness  Do you have any basis for concluding that mash shuffles introduce the same amount of randomness as riffle shuffles?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Jabor posted:I don't know. I suspect you don't know either. The difference is that I'm not stating opinion as fact |^:
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:The difference is that I'm not stating opinion as fact |^: Skyl3lazer posted:If you're 'mash' shuffling correctly it's the same amount of randomization as riffling, so 8 mashes. I suppose you'd have evidence to back up this "fact", then?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Have you actually read the paper on why 7 riffle shuffles is the amount required to randomize a poker deck, or do you just quote chapter and verse? Do you want someone to go "Ok, you win. There has been insufficient research done on the difference between riffle and mash shuffling, so I will fund your proposal to go answer this burning question" or are you happier when someone sees 100+ new posts and reads through this meaningless back-and-forth instead of real content? When you can answer that question, you will be able to figure out whether you are a troll or not.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Jabor posted:But I thought you just said that splitting a deck in two and shuffling them together in different ways leads to the same amount of randomness  Yes. Both puts two piles together is random order and holy poo poo I am not arguing this again. Good night nerd.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Sickening posted:
So in your worldview, any shuffle that introduces some amount of randomness automatically introduces the same amount of randomness? standard.deviant posted:Here's a puzzler: if a poster Many of these same posters were just talking a whole lot of poo poo about basing their shuffling on evidence instead of superstition.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It should be much higher than that. It's been pointed out you're being a daftie but to be clear: this is a Magic the Gathering tournament and the worst consequence from a DQ is that you won't be allowed to play Magic the Gathering tournaments any more. This isn't a bloody court.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
standard.deviant posted:What's your goal here? Otoh, condescending ridicule of the possibility of things being a bit more complicated, is good content?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2016 03:45
|
|