Post round shuffling?
General forum
Posted on Feb. 4, 2014, 4:22 p.m. by Servo_Token
Hey guys,
So over this past weekend, there was a small dispute at my LGS between two people and a judge.
The situation was that Player A, after finishing their match round 1, began to take apart his deck at the table and shuffle it. He sorted through his deck, pulled out all of the land cards, then shuffled up the non-lands, then separately the lands, then he shuffled them together. Player B was watching this, and before round two had started he called the judge with the claim of "Deck setting".
Player A's claim was that the technique was used to eliminate any chances of mana-pockets that were left from the previous game, and that there would be no difference than if he had shuffled the deck up for the first time after sleeving it up, whereas player B's telling him that he is setting the deck by using a method that did not truly randomize the deck.
The judge had told him openly that he wasn't to do it anymore, though I had heard from him later that night that the judge later came by and told him that it was not really a big deal.
What do you guys think about this? Who's right in this situation? What are your practices for shuffling before / between rounds of an event?
Epochalyptik says... #3
If you "mana weave" your deck, you must shuffle it sufficiently afterward. The point of shuffling is randomization. If you mana weave a deck and don't shuffle it afterward, then you are stacking your deck, which is cheating. Your penalty will be assessed accordingly.
It's easier to just not mana weave.
February 4, 2014 4:30 p.m.
Sounds very much like mana weaving, which is illegal. A single shuffle of the lands into the nonlands is not sufficiently random. At the very least, if you can guarantee no mana pockets, then you are not sufficiently random, as a truly random deck will include at least the possibility of mana pockets. If he then shuffled the combined deck two or three more times, then it would be alright, but a single shuffle is not sufficient.
Its worth noting that the Judge may have meant that it wasn't a big thing to be told to shuffle differently, rather than that shuffling that way was not a big deal. It's very easy to misinterpret comments like that.
Personally, I tend to perform at least 4 good riffle shuffles before presenting my deck, sometimes interspersed with other minor shuffles. I occasionally mana weave a new deck before shuffling it, but in that case I ensure at least 7 good shuffles before playing, so its more of a good luck thing than having an actual effect (in theory).
Side note: Is anyone else's view of this page messed up? Mine is not formating correctly, I think.
February 4, 2014 4:31 p.m.
Depends on the tournament structure, that could be a major offense. The MTR does state that you present your opponent a sufficiently randomized deck. If your opponent doesn't feel like the deck was sufficiently randomized, then they can request the judge shuffle it. Enough times and it's a warning, then dq. Pile shuffling alone is not sufficiently randomized either as it can be used to stack the deck.
At the end of the day it's just better to not do that and sufficiently shuffle your deck. Player A's claim is dumb, because a sufficiently randomized deck will have mana pockets at places or may not, but the start order doesn't help fix either. I never mana weave and rarely hit mana pockets that are dangerous.
February 4, 2014 4:33 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #6
The short answer: "seedin is cheatin"
The caveat: if you "sufficiently randomize" your deck after seeding, it is fine. It then begs the question though, why seed at all. People don't seem to understand the definition of randomization. Stacking your deck is cheating, making sure your land is evenly spaced is cheating and not shuffling your deck enough is cheating.
If you shuffle your deck for 30-45 seconds after picking up your cards it should be good. If you don't feel like it is, practice more. Random means just that, not predictable (or necessarily even desirable.)
This isn't directed at anyone though, I say "you" in the larger sense. I used to seed, but then I just decided "why bother?" I occasionally pile shuffle but still end up shuffling my decks. I play a lot of combo with lots of digging and filtering so stuff gets clumped. It's just a matter of shuffling...lots.
February 4, 2014 4:34 p.m.
Servo_Token says... #7
Yeah, mine was messed up for a minute as well. Back to normal now though.
From what I saw, he gave it 2-3 mass-shuffles after weaving. Didn't see if he did anything before presenting it for round two.
Personally, I do this same process, but after the weave I 7 card pile shuffle twice and give the deck 3-5 mass-shuffles. I have hit pockets with this technique, but they do seem to be more rare. Could also be that I play mono blue, and I just ignore when I scry through a pocket, but hey.
February 4, 2014 4:37 p.m.
Rhadamanthus says... #8
You said the player "shuffled" the 2 piles together. If by that you meant "actually shuffled" then there's no problem. If you meant "mashed together once or twice" then that's not shuffling.
Clumps are to be expected in a randomly distributed deck of cards. If a player thinks his method of shuffling is reducing clumps, he's either unknowingly cheating (his method doesn't actually randomize, and isn't a shuffle) or is experiencing a placebo effect.
February 4, 2014 4:42 p.m.
TurboFagoot says... #9
The biggest thing is it ultimately doesn't matter. After you shuffle, you present your deck to your opponent, who then has the opportunity to also sufficiently randomize it.
So if you mana weave, great, I still get to shuffle your deck and undo your work.
This is such a non-issue.
February 4, 2014 4:56 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #11
7 complete shuffles is what it takes to sufficiently randomize a 52 card deck so I look for at least 7-8 in a 60 card deck after any sort of weaving or pile shuffling. I weave when I first put together a deck or after making major changes but i also shuffle around 10-15 time minimum before I even go to play and a minimum of 7-8 times between games.
The best way I have seen to minimize pockets from lands being out is to shuffle all cards that have come out of your library together 3-4 times before you do your in between game shuffles.
February 4, 2014 6:28 p.m.
I think it depends on what you're doing and what the intent is. I usually mana weave my deck after a game, but I follow that up with a thorough shuffle (8-10 times). I just do it to ensure the lands are equally spaced throughout the deck before starting to shuffle. You could argue it doesn't really make a difference, and it honestly doesn't, but it makes me feel better about my chances.
February 4, 2014 7:24 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #13
Almost as important to sufficient randomization as the number of shuffles is the manner of shuffling. Mash shuffling and riffle shuffling are the only ways that are sufficient. Pile shuffling isn't shuffling, it is sorting face down and cards can easily be tracked through it. Another one I have seen in videos is an elevator shuffle. There is no reason to shuffle like this unless you are cheating so I would call a judge if I ever saw it in person. For an example of what I mean by elevator shuffle watch this video of the 2012 Magic World Cup Finals. It is someone pointing out the suspect behavior. First elevator shuffle starts at 3:38.
February 4, 2014 8:59 p.m.
This is a very good and important point. There are lots of ways to make it look like you're shuffling when you really aren't. Its a good example of why its always a good idea in any competitive event to give your opponent's deck a few decent shuffles rather than just cutting.
February 4, 2014 9:49 p.m.
( MindAblaze!): "if you 'sufficiently randomize' your deck after seeding, it is fine. It then [raises] the question though, why seed at all[?]"
Just this.
/
It doesn't matter what you do with your deck before you shuffle as long as you actually shuffle.
There are mathematical papers that have been written on the subject of card-shuffling and the concept of 'sufficiently random.' If I recall correctly, one formula was m = 2 ln(n) where m:= number of riffle shuffles (or equivalent) necessary, n:= number of cards in the deck, and ln is the natural logarithm function.
Another, more famously-cited, paper I read used 1.5 log_2(n) [base-2 logarithm] as a lower bound (i.e. minimum number of times you ought to shuffle).
These numbers are based on finding where the entropy (a measure of randomness) becomes asymptotic to some limiting function. (In other words: how many times do you have to shuffle before any more shuffling doesn't really do anything?)
Some examples, for a 52-card poker deck, 2 ln(52) gives approximately 8 riffles to completely randomize the deck. 2 log_2(52) yields an upper bound close to 11 riffles. This represents a range where the function is bounded - meaning that any further shuffling will not significantly increase its degree of randomness. This is why 7 is often cited as the "magic number" for poker deck shuffling. (It's "good enough.")
Side-note: I worked for a few years as a professional poker dealer, and attended a 3-month training course to learn all about cards and poker (followed by additional training in blackjack, craps, and roulette) - I currently teach high school math and science as a profession, including probability and statistics, and physics - just to give you an idea of my background interest in this topic.
At "poker school," I learned the "standard procedure:" Wash, riffle, riffle, strip, riffle, riffle, cut. The riffle, riffle, strip, riffle, riffle portion was often done more than once.
"Washing" this deck did the equivalent of Magic players "pile shuffling" (which isn't shuffling), it helped get cards that were stuck together unstuck. "Stripping" the deck rearranges portions of the deck between riffles so that cards near the top didn't just stay near the top, etc. You can look up videos on Youtube (or where-ever) showing how to do this.
Usually, between each hand of poker, the deck was washed, riffled at least 8 times, and stripped 2-3 times during the riffling procedure before a final cut. All that happened in less than 2 minutes.
Magic cards are more fragile than waxed/laminated/plastic poker cards, so shuffling procedures are slower, and for a minimum 60-card deck ought to involve more shuffling steps.
Using one of the above formulas, a 60-card deck should receive the equivalent of about 8 riffles. 6 seems like a bare minimum, and more than 12 is a waste of time. (So not really much different than for a 52-card deck).
For a 100-card EDH deck, 9-10 riffles is good, but since it is hard to shuffle 100 cards at once (especially in sleeves), it might take 20 total procedures of partial deck riffles, mashes, strips, piling, etc. to really randomize a 100-card deck.
Before a match, this isn't so bad; between games of a match or when complying with a spell effect that requires a shuffle, taking the full three minutes to mash, strip, and riffle a deck 8 times can seem excessive. Anyone who does fewer than 4 shuffling procedures whenever shuffling is required, though, needs to get a visit from a judge.
/
TL,DR? Pile shuffle, mana-weave, stack your deck face-up even - as much as you want - but after doing any of those time-wasting activities, riffle and/or mash your deck at least eight times, and it's all good.
HarbingerJK says... #2
unnecessary I think, even if you do shuffle it again afterward there's still the chance of mana-pockets. I personally wouldn't do it, especially at an FNM
February 4, 2014 4:28 p.m.