What do you think the argument was over? http://www.foxla.c

>>54581880
Mana weaving

What was on the stack

File: file.png (2MB, 756x1056px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 756x1056px

someone tried to claim his planeswalker waifu

"Traps are gay yo"

>>54581880
>counterspell is totally fair tho

>>54581883
>But it doesn't do anything.
>My lands, they clump together.
>Then you're stacking the deck.
>No, I shuffle it after, see?
>Then why are you mana weaving?
>The backs of the cards, they just, like, stick.
>Then you're stacking the deck. Why don't you just play with sleeves?
>Look, you can cut it however much you want, so I'm not stacking it. I just want to keep them from sticking each other.
>Fine. Fine! But I'm gonna cut it like THIS!
>Yeah, whatever. ...Are you done yet? ...Hey, what the hell are you doing!?
>I'm taking out the lands and putting them all in one clump!
>What the fuck, quit stacking my deck you fucking asshole!
>But it's OK, LOOK HAHAHA I'M SHUFFLING IT AFTAAARRRRGGGHHH

>>54581929
god damn this artist needs to learn to scale detail with intended focus

I swing for lethal.
GG, that was a close game, you know this is actually a pauper deck and -argh!

>>54581883
>>54582102
Mana weavers deserve to be stabbed. Either it does nothing and you're wasting everyone's time or it does something and you're cheating.

>>54581880
He was playing lands in front

>>54581880
Tore a card to see if it was fake.

File: 1500149819683.jpg (12KB, 180x217px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 180x217px

I feel better about the saltiness in my group.

>>54581880
Is that fucking Melissa DeTora?

>>54581880
I bet he tapped his permanents counterclockwise. Stabbing was too good for him.

>>54581880
He played a card that was banned, but didn't know it was banned.

File: 1498289337480.jpg (59KB, 415x500px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 415x500px

>>54581934

>>54582198
>preventing mana screw is cheating

The land system is just garbage. There's a reason Pokemon decks only have 10 or less energy cards out of 60 cards nowadays.

>>54582565
How are you recovering?

>>54582260
This. The tap symbol shows you which way to turn the card

>>54582596
It's an awkward motion compared to turning it counterclockwise.

>>54582694
Not for lefties

But subhuman scum should just adapt

>>54582565
>preventing mana screw is cheating
Objectively yes.

>>54581883
Let's settle this once and for all:
>no mana weaving = purely random
>mana weaving = pseudorandom
Some people like one, some like the other, but when you are at the tournament, you abide by its rules.

File: 1492233845435.jpg (22KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x360px

>>54581880

>play Magic
>get stabbed

The absolute state of MTG

Read that as police in an argument about MTG and stabbing some guy.

>>54582565
>there's a reason Pokemon decks have 10 or less energy nowadays

Because every Pokemon deck is based around exploiting a single Pokemon's attacks and there are a million and one ways to tutor and draw through your deck to hit the energy cards you need?

File: Gwyn.jpg (7KB, 296x201px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 296x201px

>>54582377

>>54584866
Well, if it were YGO, he might have gotten shot instead.

>>54582694
I have no idea what motion you are calling awkward. I can instinctively rotate a card clockwise and counter clockwise with either hand.

>>54585129
Nah. His stuff would have just been stolen.

>>54582102
If they get super autistic about it I just call a judge and have him shuffle my deck to shut them up. It also looks very good on me to the judge since I'm trying to move the game forward and not waste time.

File: Snapchat-345418997.jpg (360KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 1080x1920px

I saw him at our FLGS once

ama

>>54585159
What colors does he play?

>>54585191
It was a standard night I think, so he probably netdecks (I base this off of the stabbing part and my experiences with these people).

I also deliver food and the apartment cluster he's in is a fucking crack zone on one side and pretty okay on the other. I'm going to assume he was on crack side with the octoplexes. All degenerate grease stains in this city live in octoplexes for some fucking reason.

https://www.faceberg.com/elija.creech

Found is profile page. Jesus fucking christ.

>>54582102
Yup

>>54582228
Not funny

I bet he didn't use a coaster.

File: red_letter_media_shocked_content_aware_scale.gif (1MB, 200x166px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 200x166px

>>54585230
>his surname has REE in it

It's like poetry. It rhymes.

>>54584806
Well said.
It's settled.

Now, to be unsettling:

>>54582198
>Mana weavers wasting everyone's time deserve to be stabbed.
FTFY
I never do it if it would make my opponent wait.
I usually do it when chilling with friends or halfassedly between opponents at tourneys.

>it does something and you're cheating.
>>54582947
>>preventing mana screw is cheating
>Objectively yes.
Citation needed.
It is only cheating if it is an unfair advantage.
Nothing is preventing my opponent from doing it too.

>>54582102
>>But it doesn't do anything.
It does, lands and other cards clump together.
People who say that are idiots.

>>Then you're stacking the deck.
>>No, I shuffle it after, see?
>>Then why are you mana weaving?
Because, randomizing the deck from a state of uniform dispersal then using an imprecise and imperfect shuffling method yields a more even result than from randomizing the deck from a state of extreme clumps of segregated order then using an imprecise and imperfect shuffling method.
Both approaches yield imperfect results, one is more likely to generate a poor game.
Ideally, a more thorough and effective shuffling method should be used, but they are far too time consuming.

>>play with sleeves
I do.

>>Cut it however much you want
>>Fine. I'm taking out the lands and putting them all in one clump!
>>But it's OK, LOOK HAHAHA I'M SHUFFLING IT AFTAAARRRRGGGHHH
Okay fine, no problem. I'll just take the extra time to thoroughly shuffle afterwards.
Did you bring a snack?

>>54585348
>It is only cheating if it is an unfair advantage.
It is an unfair advantage to stack your deck to prevent mana screw. Different decks are more reliant on drawing mana consistently than others. You can build your deck around a smoother mana ramp.

>Nothing is preventing my opponent from doing it too.
This is a fallacious argument. Just because your opponent can also cheat doesn't make it not cheating. Even if your opponent is fine with it mana weaving is still breaking the rules. If you don't make it very clear what you're doing and ask for permission it's cheating by definition.

>>54585348
>It is only cheating if it is an unfair advantage. Nothing is preventing my opponent from doing it too.

>It isn't cheating because my opponent can cheat too

>I'll just take the extra time to thoroughly shuffle afterwards. Did you bring a snack?

You don't get to shuffle again after your opponent cuts. Even if you could I could just call a judge on you for slow play.

File: das right.png (77KB, 469x180px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 469x180px

>>54585129
>>54585150
as a former yugioh player, I can confirm this.

>>54584866
I mean, there was also that one dude who got murdered over a bunch of magic cards

>>54581880
Who cares, another dead cardfag is always good.

>>54585526
>dead
The guy lived.

>>54585533
We gotta fix that.

>>54581880
>St. Cloud

MN guy here, not surprised at all

>>54585413
>Different decks are more reliant on drawing mana consistently than others.
Fair point.
But that's a pretty subtle line.

>If you don't make it very clear what you're doing and ask for permission it's cheating by definition.
What are the guidelines for what you can and cannot do to your deck before bringing it to the game and shuffling it?

>>54585455
>>It isn't cheating because my opponent can cheat too
And if everyone cheats the same way for long enough, the conventions, and then the rules, change.

>>I'll just take the extra time to thoroughly shuffle afterwards. Did you bring a snack?
>You don't get to shuffle again after your opponent cuts. Even if you could I could just call a judge on you for slow play.
You realize that this would taking place after my opponent dug out my land and put them into a clump in my deck, right?
That's not exactly kosher "cutting" either.
We're just hammering out how he wants me to randomize my deck.
He gets to cut after I thoroughly shuffle the deck.
If he calls the judge over, I will ask him about the whole "clumping the land" thing.
The judge might stab both of us.

If someone were to get stabbed at your table what wouldn't be the most likely reason?

>>54585884
Treating his sideboard like a Vegas brothel.

>>54585880
You've never played competitive magic have you? Mana weaving may not be looked down upon at your kitchen table, but any unfair advantage is a huge deal for grinders and pros over the course of 15< rounds.

>>54586075
I'm actually about to go to my first real competitive event. What should I know?

File: 1501170403445.jpg (174KB, 630x768px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 630x768px

>>54581880
Proof that Magic players are psychopaths

>>54586120
Don't let your wife come along. It makes things.... uncomfortable.

File: hotline_miami.jpg (93KB, 650x842px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 650x842px

>>54586169
N-noted.

>>54586075
>You've never played competitive magic have you?
See
>>54585348
>I usually do it when chilling with friends or halfassedly between opponents at tourneys.
Mostly prereleases.

>>54581880
Trying to netdeck in Commander.

>>54585117
You. I like you.

>>54585348
>Nothing is preventing my opponent from doing it too.
Uh yes there is
It's called the rules

Looks like a typical MTG loser.
I never really cared one way or the other about magicfags until the local gaming store started hosting tournaments every weekend.... everyone there acted like autistic children and they all got so worked up over everything. Literally the most annoying 'people' I've ever been around.

>>54586128
>Proof that Magic players are psychopaths
>An article about a Magic player who's murdered by a psychopath

With all of the arguments it starts, I'd have thought there'd be some definitive study on manaweaving by now. It'd be easy as fuck to do - grab a pro card player, pay him few hundred dollars for an afternoon or two of his time, get him to shuffle woven and non-woven decks a couple hundred times, analyze the results for size and number of clumps.

>>54587019
It does prove that at least one Magic player is a psychopath.

>>54587111
That's playing games, and you're not allowed to play games in MtG.

>>54581880
Which member of the Gatewatch was the best waifu. It's Gideon

>>54585348
You know that greentext was a hypothetical conversation between the people involved in the stabbing, right?
I wasn't actually talking to you or anybody in particular.

>>54581883
Mana weaving is fine in exactly one condition:
>Playing edh, your deck is already sorted into nonlands vs lands, or by mana cost, or however you do it
>You are allowed a single mana weave followed by a pile shuffle and a couple of mashes, and then your opponent may cut your deck

Pile shuffling is objectively fine. Mashing isn't random, it's pseudo randomization relative to pile composition. Cards in groups will remain in groups unless they get broken up.

>>54588758
Oh yeah, totally.

It just framed the points against manaweaving nicely, so I addressed it directly.
Because that's what I wanted to talk about, rather than speculating on why Pokey McStabberson shanked a dude.

Near as I can tell, the only real reason not to manaweave
(when it won't waste other people's time) is because some, as yet unquoted, rule says so.

If a tag on my mattress bothers me, I'm tearing it off.

Opponent forced him to discard Murderous Compulsion.

>>54585559

At least it didn't happen here in ths Twin Cities or else the cops would have ptobably shot them both.

>>54586346
>prereleases

Yeah so you've not played actual competitive magic.

>>54587231
But it never says the dude played magic, just that he murdered the guy to steal hos cards.

It seems to me like Mana Weaving is cheating because you're shuffling a pre-arranged deck rather than shuffling a fully randomized deck.

>>54588916
I'll explain it one last time you mouth breather. There are only two possibilities from mana weaving. Either the shuffling afterwards makes the weaving irrelevant and you've just wasted your opponent's time or the weaving affects the randomization of the subsequent shuffling and you're cheating.

Which result is true is irrelevant.

>>54591312
If you say so.
I can't sink hundreds of dollars into building whatever netdeck is winning all the time, no.

THAT'S MY

PURPLE

PLATYPUS

>taps for 3 toots and casts a double blindside

>>54591467
How much shuffling does it take to achieve a fully randomized deck?
How do you achieve a fully randomized deck?

>>54591508
You fully randomize a deck by throwing it on the floor and then putting the cards together, then shuffling.

If you put the cards in a specific order, knowing the chances of how shuffling will affect that order, you are stacking the deck.

>>54591484
Prereleases are literally, as stated by wizards, the most casual sanctioned event.

File: mana weave.png (15KB, 842x689px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 842x689px

>>54585348
>>54585880
>>54588916

>>54591474
>you've just wasted your opponent's time
See
>>54585348
>I never do it if it would make my opponent wait.

>weaving affects the randomization of the subsequent shuffling
>>54585348
>Randomizing the deck from a state of uniform dispersal then using an imprecise and imperfect shuffling method yields a more even result than from randomizing the deck from a state of extreme clumps of segregated order then using an imprecise and imperfect shuffling method.
>Both approaches yield imperfect results, one is more likely to generate a poor game.
>Ideally, a more thorough and effective shuffling method should be used, but they are far too time consuming.
If my opponent chooses an imperfect shuffling method that is more likely to generate a poor game, that is certainly their choice.

Would you like me to explain it one more time?

>>54591508

Using a standard riffle shuffle, 7 times is pretty much fully randomized.

>>54591354
This is a valid point.

Depending on what those cards were, it could have been a murder to sell thing.

>>54591532
Okay.
What if, try to follow me here, you put the cards in a specific land dispersal then you fully randomize a deck by throwing it on the floor and then putting the cards together, then shuffling.
Now you are ensured of both land dispersal, to prevent randomizing resistant clumps, and the best possible randomization.

>>54581880
Proxy cards.

We had an incident where someone took sharpie to already pretty good cards, not just lands, and would try to play them as the unsharpied card. Claiming that "I bought it online and got screwed" only after I was annoyed. the sharpie proxy clearly would be a good fit in his deck, he may have already had one. I personally had to make a stink about banning proxies, unless you go out and buy blank front ones or use the advertisement cards. Pretty much stopped it, they were real cheap basterds and didn't even like buying 35-50 cent cards.

I don't remember if he used that specific proxy before, and it bother me to this day. He knew that I don't like proxies. Brendon you dirty cheater. He'd always be really really picky about people rolled dice and shuffled too, that's a guilty mind. And he was the guy who we always had to work around, so I think his older friends just let him do what he wanted because he would always complain.

>>54591569
Woohoo!
I'm a filthy casual!

>>54586128
Head like a fuckin' orange.

File: Iona shuffling.webm (241KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1280x720px

Mana weaving works?

>>54591648
Not even close to remove land clumps.

>>54591671
>you are ensured of proper land dispersal

This is stacking the deck

>the best possible randomization

If it was randomized properly there shouldn't be an effect.

>>54591714
Shuffling afterwards randomizes it enough that it varies, but yeah.

>>54591751
Either you can shuffle perfectly every time to achieve a perfectly randomized result that reduces the likelihood of land clumps or you, at least sometimes, can't manage to shuffle perfectly and the land dispersal reduces the likelihood of land clumps

This is not that hard.

>>54591467
>>54591599
>>54591648
>>54591671
>>54591722
>>54591714

Am I the only one who simply makes sure to put my cards back in random places in my deck as I clean up a game? the amount of time you spend weaving or pile shuffling you can just make sure to avoid creating clumps in the first place.

>>54591599
So you admit it affects the outcome of the shuffling. You're cheating.

>>54591860
land clumps sometimes happen when you randomize a deck perfectly. more regular does not mean more random.

>>54591683
Casual isn't necessarily bad, prereleases are awesome

>>54591508
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxJubaijQbI&t=51s

Watch this video. This professor explains the math behind a shuffled deck of playing cards, which isn't far off from a constructed Magic deck and uses the same principles. A fully randomized deck is a deck where you cannot predict the order of the cards.
Most players use a mix of different shuffling techniques in order to achieve randomness, usually riffle and mash, sometimes pull shuffling as well. Learn to shuffle without looking at your deck, because it's possible to tell which cards can go where if you do.
In addition, the little mistakes you make when shuffling, like your two piles not being even when riffle shuffling or varying the number of cards you grab when you mash/pull shuffle, make it more likely you'll randomize your deck than if you try to be 'perfect' at it and do it the exact same way every time. If you riffle shuffle with thirty cards in each pile and interleave them the exact same way twice, it will most likely return the deck to the order it was in before you shuffled it in the first place.
Shuffling is one of the cornerstones of the game, because the better you are at it, the less time you take between rounds or when you have to manage your library during a game, not to mention learning how to randomize your deck. Practice it when you have downtime, it makes a difference.

>>54591905
These chucklefucks will tell you that you're stacking the deck.

>>54591907
Still waiting on that citation of what you can and cannot do to your deck before bringing it to the game.

>>54585880
>And if everyone cheats the same way for long enough, the conventions, and then the rules, change.
Yeah, just look at the change they made to pile shuffling.

>>54591934
Agreed.
See
>>54591765

But it decreases the likelihood of land clumps.

>>54592318
Because pile shuffling doesn't randomize, and neither does the faro shuffle that most idiots use because they're afraid a riffle or mash will damage their cards.

>>54592012
>prereleases are awesome
Yes they are, but please don't tarnish my fresh status as a filthy casual.

>>54585156
>mana weaving
>not wasting time

>>54592083
Well said.

>>54592376
My point is that the majority of people who did pile shuffle actually thought it randomized. The time constraint was part of it, but just as much of that new rule was about letting people know that it didn't do anything but let you count your deck before you present.
This just goes back to Wizards not having a good centralized hub of knowledge about the game, and relying on current players to teach new ones.

File: 75896431.jpg (32KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x375px

>>54591905
>if I affect the outcome of shuffling my deck at the end of the last game rather than at the beginning of the next one it's magically not stacking the deck!

>>54592376
>faro shuffle
wtf is that

>>54592726
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbfJ7oTh5qA

I've never seen anyone do this in Magic because card sleeves will tear or snap because one end of them is open. I guess people can do it to unsleeved cards, but this seems more advanced than a casual would know.

>stab someone over tg argument

thats why everyone should go here to /tg/ to sharp his self control powers to make things like this not happen.

visit "melee vs casters" threads, "when I discovered d&d sucks", "alingment threads" and if you endure enought pain to be able to control yourself when it happens at real life

>>54591583
You could change the beginning of the chart with literally anything.

- Does shuffling affect your odds of winning?
- Does having mana affect your odds of winning?

>>54593183
Shuffling has the purpose of preventing deck stacking. It prevents cheating if done properly. Mana weaving either has no purpose or is deck stacking so the chart applies.

>>54593183
Actually, you can't.
>Does shuffling affect your odds of winning? -> Yes -> In your favor? -> Yes. -> Then you're not really shuffling, are you? Go back and do it again, please.
>Does shuffling affect your odds of winning? -> No/I don't know -> Then why are you doing it? -> Because it's in the rules, and if you don't shuffle your deck you get DQ'd
>Does having mana affect your odds of winning? -> Yes -> In your favor? -> Yes. -> Everything looks all right here. Carry on!
>Does having mana affect your odds of wining? -> No/I'm not sure (let's just assume they're playing manaless dredge here) -> Then why are you doing it? -> I'm not.
So neither of those actually fits in here.

Also, is it just me, or shouldn't that be "Effect your odds of winning," instead of "affect"? I get that one wrong all the time, so I'm not sure.

>>54593339
It's "affect your odds of winning"

>the judges effected changes
>the changes had an affect

>>54593332
>no purpose
It has the exact same purpose of shuffling; trying to randomize your deck. It just happens that sometimes simply shuffling is not randomizing it.

Let me put it this way as well: there is more than one way of having 25% chance. By definition, you could try a thousand times and it could never happen, however there is a different way of having EXACTLY 25% chance. That is by making it so 25% happens 1 in 4 times every time.

That means that if it doesn't happen on the first try, the second one will have 50% chance of happening, and the third one will have 75% chance, and so on. This is made when full random doesn't work.

>>54593339
No, "effect" is the noun, "affect" is the verb. i.e. "shuffling has an effect on your odds of winning; shuffling affects your odds of winning."

>>54593415
>It has the exact same purpose of shuffling; trying to randomize your deck
An even distribution is not random. If you played 3 billion games then roughly the following should happen
>1/3 average mana draw
>1/3 below average mana draw
>1/3 above average mana draw
Having average mana draw most of the time is not random.
>it makes it more random
Shuffling, if done properly, will completely randomize your deck, making the effort of mana weaving meaningless. The only reason you would want to spend time mana weaving is if you are improperly shuffling your deck.

>>54593380
Ah, you're using effect in a confusing way. "Effect" (noun) relates to "affect" (verb) in the sense of a consequence of something else.

"Effect" as a verb means to deliberately bring something about.

"Affect" is never a noun. "The changes had an affect" is just wrong.

A judge could effect changes, and those changes could have an effect, something could be affected by the changes.

>>54593492
>Having average mana draw most of the time is not random
As i said in my "1 in 4" example, there are more than one way of making things random. If you have 1 chance in 4 of something happening, and make it so it definitely happens every time inside this 1 in 4 rule, it still randoms.

It is actually more mathematically correct. THIS is what 25% is. That in 4 chances, in one of those it WILL happen.

>>54593597
>THIS is what 25% is. That in 4 chances, in one of those it WILL happen.
So you admit that it's cheating then? Randomizing is not about getting the results that you want. If you manipulate your deck to fit the averages perfectly that's still deck stacking.

File: 1480954639388.png (49KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 500x501px

>>54593715
Just don't reply.

>>54582565
>preventing mana screw is cheating
>having to stack your deck to prevent mana screw

Watch a pro-tour some time and see how often "mana screw" actually happens. If you're getting screwed consistently, you built a shitty deck. End of argument. Shuffle your deck like a non-retard, according to the rules, or maybe don't play magic?

>>54585348
>citation needed
>nothing prevents my opponent from doing it too

Except for, ya know, the rules.
https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/mtr3-9/

Also, if you mana-weave on me, I'm calling a judge for stalling, which is also against the rules. Shuffle like a non-retard, please.

>>54593438
They're both nouns and verbs, but effect is most common as a noun and affect is most common as a verb.

>>54593526
Affect can be a noun, but only it has a psychological meaning. It means something similar to "demeanor" or "mood."

>>54593597
>>54593415
>Let me put it this way as well: there is more than one way of having 25% chance. By definition, you could try a thousand times and it could never happen, however there is a different way of having EXACTLY 25% chance. That is by making it so 25% happens 1 in 4 times every time.
>That means that if it doesn't happen on the first try, the second one will have 50% chance of happening, and the third one will have 75% chance, and so on. This is made when full random doesn't work.

>As i said in my "1 in 4" example, there are more than one way of making things random. If you have 1 chance in 4 of something happening, and make it so it definitely happens every time inside this 1 in 4 rule, it still randoms

No, this is not how statistics works

If a given event has a 25% likelihood of occurring, then that means that every time you run the event there is a 25% chance of it occurring. If you have a bag with three green balls and one red ball the odds of drawing the red ball is 25%. If you don't draw the red ball the next draw will not have a 50% chance of being red; if you replace the green ball you drew then there are 3 green balls and 1 red ball, hence a 25% chance, but if you didn't replace the green ball there are 2 green balls and 1 red ball, hence a 33% chance.

True randomness does not include things like "1 in 4 times every time" this would actually be an extreme statistical anomaly. As an experiment find a coin and flip it 10 times. Did you get heads 5 times? You might have. That's not too unlikely if you did, but it would be a bit rare. Was every other flip heads? No, it wasn't. I can say no with confidence because the actual chance of getting heads every other flip for ten flips or "1 in 2 times every time" would be ~00.1%

>>54582565
The land system is a resource meant to limit how often you can do things in the game. Have you seen Vintage decks in action? Do you know why Channel Fireball is called that?
Imagine you don't need any land or mana to play cards. You can just cast everything for free. Suddenly every deck has 56 tutors and 4 wincons because all that matters is beating your opponent as quickly and consistently as possible.
Managing your land base is a skill found in deckbuilding, and it's a part of the game. Have you ever asked any of these questions?

>How many cards will I draw before I see the third land I need? Should I mulligan?
>What's the chance my next card is the topdeck I need to stabilize?
>How many copies of X does my opponent have? Can I beat that?

Everything in Magic is a resource. Your life total, the time left in round, the number of cards in your deck. How much removal you run, how much card advantage you have, how many creatures you can hit with.
Magic is a strategy game. If you can't understand that and continue to blame mechanics for your losses, then that's on you and you need to get good.

>>54592811
I used to do it and then my Jund all creatures deck ended up with like three card sleeves jammed into each other because I had split the sleeves with the corners without noticing.

Faro: not even once

>>54593715
> Randomizing is not about getting the results that you want
You're not getting the result you want, you're getting "1 in 4".

All this ruckus over mana-weaving. Guess what... if you shuffle using the overhand method properly, you still need to shuffle about 1000 times to achieve proper randomness. So if you're mana-weaving because you get fucked by clumped up cards, stop using the overhand method. Your deck will never really be random. However, 7 proper riffles will do it as your cards aren't clumped together when shuffling with that method.
>in b4 riffling damages cards.
You do it sideways using gravity instead of pressure should be fine. As long as they weave into eachother.

>>54594572
Forcing your deck to have a guaranteed mana draw every 4 draws is not random. It is pseudorandom.

MTG rules require that a deck be randomized for play. Using a pseudorandomized deck is not using a randomized deck and is therefore in violation of the rules.

>>54594045
Are you really implying the chance of getting the red ball doesn't increase when you take away green balls?

>>54594639
>if you didn't replace the green ball there are 2 green balls and 1 red ball, hence a 33% chance
I dunno, are you really too retarded to read?

>>54594612
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I've never seen anyone overhand shuffle a deck unless they just finished a draft and aren't using sleeves, but that's pretty casual anyway.
Are you confusing overhand with mash? The mash shuffle isn't as good as the riffle, but it's a lot better than every other method.
Also, you should be less contradictory next time you post, maybe read the thread instead of skimming it.

>>54586128
You're drawing the wrong conclusion from that. You missed the part where it states this happened in Florida. This is simply more evidence that people who live in Florida are psychopaths. This one just happened to be into MtG.

>>54594727
Yes, it would be mashing that I am suggesting. My background is in poker and didn't know what the term for mashing was until you mentioned it.

Thing is, if you aren't mashing properly, it's no better than overhand.

File: olivia_voldaren_begone.jpg (29KB, 223x310px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 223x310px

>>54581934
Well, he wouldn't be wrong...

>>54594870
>Thing is, if you aren't mashing properly, it's no better than overhand
Thanks, Captain Obvious. The same thing could be said for any other type of shuffling.
Also, you're exaggerating how inefficient mash shuffling is. It's no riffle shuffle but it's still hundreds of times better than overhand, which would actually take about a thousand repetitions.

>>54594572
If you can safely predict that 1 in 4 results will be a specific result when talking about a group that isn't 4 marbles in a bag not being replaced, it isn't random.

>>54591354
>>54591651
They played Magic and were room mates. I knew all three. The two brothers were regulars along side the victim at TBS Comics, Pensacola.

>>54594616
>Forcing your deck to have a guaranteed mana draw every 4 draws is not random
It is literally the same percentage of chance. In a greater sense, a 60 cards deck with 20 lands is basically "1 in 3".

Let me put it that way: if in 20 cards you got lands only in the last 5 cards, and if you got it them gradatively, the percentage of chance it the same.

>>54594713
I just don't see how that's different from what i said; your chance of getting the ball is increasing as you take away balls.

>>54595149
It's literally the same percentage of chance. As i said in >>54595377 getting your first 10 cards as lands, and getting them separatedly, is the same thing in numbers.

File: I can't be doin with this.png (90KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 700x700px

>>54591699

>>54595377
>>54595506
>It is literally the same percentage of chance
It is literally not.

"1 in 3" does not mean that the event is guaranteed to happen 1 time in every 3 times. What "1 in 3" actually means is that after every trial has been performed the successes (drawing a mana) over the total trials (number of draws) reduces to 1 over 3.

>Shuffle your deck
>Draw cards one at a time until you can no longer draw cards
>How many mana were drawn?
20
>How many total cards (including mana) were drawn?
60
>So you have 20/60
>This reduces to 1/3
>This means 1 in 3 cards is mana

>>54595377
>>54595506
This is masterful bait. It's absolutely retarded but in a believable way. I can theoretically imagine talking to morons who think like this. Here's a couple (You)s.

>>54595854
I've got a master's degree in mathematics and he is driving me crazy.

Holy shit.
Can nobody read in this thread?

>>54593959
>Except for, ya know, the rules.
Nothing in that citation indicates that a player can't manaweave, then shuffle it to randomize it.
Which I explained in the damn thread you responded to that it provides a better result.

I phrased it simpler here:
>>54591860
>Either you can shuffle perfectly every time to achieve a perfectly randomized result that reduces the likelihood of land clumps or you, at least sometimes, can't manage to shuffle perfectly and the land dispersal reduces the likelihood of land clumps
[in your imperfectly randomized deck]

>Also, if you mana-weave on me, I'm calling a judge for stalling
Fuck, can nobody read?
>I never do it if it would make my opponent wait.
Also from the thread you responded to.

>>54595880
Just leave the thread.

>>54591673
I proxy the shit out of some cards. I made a python script to print out quality proxies and I cut them out and slip them in front of a land in a card sleeve. I have a few decks that are 100% proxies. Just makes the game more fun.

>>54595894
>>I never do it if it would make my opponent wait.
I mean, it always makes your opponent wait, so does that mean you never do it? Are you just bored, is that why you're shitposting?

>>54595894
>Which I explained in the damn thread you responded to that it provides a better result.
If it provides a better result then you aren't shuffling your deck correctly and are therefore cheating.

How do I git gud at shuffling so I can have no more or less than a statistically normal frequency of excessive land clumping?

>>54581929
Is she missing a leg?

>>54595971
Practice. The more you shuffle the more you get used to the motions, and then you can worry about technique. Same as any other skill.

>>54582198
Or it does nothing to the DECK, but calms the player's anxieties and nerves through the employment of a ritual, thereby allowing them to relax and play at the top of their game.

>>54595770
>What "1 in 3" actually means is that after every trial has been performed the successes (drawing a mana) over the total trials (number of draws) reduces to 1 over 3
If it gets to zero in that situation (the event doesn't happen), it just means the chance wasnt 1 in 3, or that you still got more to try. After all, you have 60 cards in a deck, you WILL draw the land, you just don't know when.

The fact that you made it so it will happen "1 in 3" doesn't actually change the chance of drawing the land. Again, there is no difference between drawing the land as the last card or the first in a deck with one land; the chance was still 1/60, and as you draw cards the chance increases. Making it so the land will be most likely in the middle does not change this.

>>54596198
If a player has anxiety issues caused by playing a game without cheating, they need to either see a psychiatrist or git gud.

>>54596310
You aren't familiar with the psychological employment of rituals, then. They're behavior patterns that bring relief and calm nerves, despite having no practical effects.

No cheating necessarily occurs. The deck is fully randomized, but the initial step of sorting the cards that were played in the game keeps the player from falling prey to generalized anxiety thoughtforms about clumping--even though they're aware that the step is meaningless.

>>54596269
Again, "1 in 3" just doesn't mean what you continue to insist that it does. You are performing the ad infinitum logical fallacy. Barring further debate in the contrary to >>54595770's points, you have lost the debate.

>>54595955
He probably does it between games.

I do it between games and on the sly during sideboarding.

inb4
>hurr durr I woild notice

No you wouldn't. I'm super good at it and you are not. I've done it in final matches with people watching me sideboard from many angles. You just need to learn a way to do it that is not noticable.

I don't care if it's cheating. I'm mitigating the worst game mechanic in the game and you can't catch or punish me.

Also after searching the rules and the wizrards site all they say is
"Mana weaving without further randomization is deck-stacking, pile shuffling alone is not adequate, and one or two riffle or pile shuffles are also inadequate."
And
"Although the exact order of the cards is not known, there is a pattern of two spell cards and one land card repeating throughout the deck. Left in this state, this is a stacked deck and qualifies as Cheating."

It's not cheating if you do more shuffling afterward.

>>54596648
>It's not cheating if you do more shuffling afterward.

>It's not cheating if I follow the rules
Imagine that. If you undo the thing that was against the rules, you aren't cheating anymore.

Also, aren't you such an internet tough guy, getting away with mana weaving in public.

>>54597068
The toughest.

The fact is that most people don't shuffle perfectly, so I still get an advantage after shuffling properly.

It's advantageous, and not against the rules. And if it was against the rules, it would be super hard to enforce.

>>54597302
By definition, it is. The rules cleaely point out that you have to randomize it afterwards. If it makes a difference, you didn't shuffle well or shuffle enough.

Getting away with cheating is still cheating.

>>54594201

There are more options than "everything is free" and "your ability to do anything ever is entirely dependent upon the shuffle." Lands being in a separate deck with one gained each turn is an obvious and simple way to do the same thing without the inconsistency. A game that randomly determines that players aren't allowed to play is a flawed game, just accept it.

>>54595958
>If it provides a better result then you aren't shuffling your deck perfectly and are therefore cheating by not being a perfect shuffler.
Welcome to humanity, bitch.

>>54596528
1 in 3: that in each 3, there will be 1.

>>54585039

Speaking as a Minnesotan, I know our police are a bit out of hand as of late, but this'd be new even for them.

>>54597531
>A game that randomly determines that players aren't allowed to play is a flawed game, just accept it.
So you think shuffling doesn't matter in Force of Will? I guarantee you it does. At least in that game there's one less excuse between the loss and you.
Look, shuffling is an integral part of any card game, because card games rely on the decks being randomized. Read this article written by Mike Flores. It's about shuffling mechanics and why randomization is so important.

>http://fivewithflores.com/2009/05/how-to-cheat/

Drawing too many lands, or not drawing enough, means that you aren't separating the clumps present in your deck after a game or a match, and thus you're getting 'screwed'. What shuffling is supposed to do is order the deck so you can't predict it, AND spread out your cards so that doesn't happen.
Mike Flores says something important in that article.
>"A fully randomized deck looks stacked."
That's because as you shuffle, cards will inevitably spread out. Mixing up your method helps with this, even though statistically you shouldn't need to.
Variance, on the other hand, is a facet of every card game, even Force of Will. It is the concept that over the course of many, many games, some of them you just won't draw the card you need. Nothing is perfect. Bad players blame the need for lands, good players accept that sometimes the cards will work against them. Good players also understand that skill wins out over luck in the long run.

>>54597785
Oh for fucks fucking fuck.

>>54597785
Ad infinitum fallacy.
You must concede the debate, thus mana weaving is illegal.

Take care.

>>54596648
>>54597302
This

>>54597068
>Imagine that. If you undo the thing that was against the rules, you aren't cheating anymore.
Finally, someone acknowledging that imperfect shuffling, when not done intentionally, is not implicit cheating.

>>54597398
>Getting away with cheating is still cheating.
Damn it, spoke too soon.

>>54598229
>Finally, someone acknowledging that imperfect shuffling, when not done intentionally, is not implicit cheating.
First of all, that second post wasn't me. Second, I was being sarcastic. Seriously, you must be deluded or bored.

>>54581880

So he got raped alla Wizards Duel and got pissed off enough to attack

>>54582565
leave

>>54598105

And now there's a difference between "shuffle doesn't matter" and "shuffling has a more significant than normal chance of instantly losing you the game with zero decisions being made." You're really, really, really, really bad at not making false dichotomies, you should work on that.

>>54598247
>First of all, that second post wasn't me.
Ah, good.

>Second, I was being sarcastic.
>>If you undo the thing that was against the rules, you aren't cheating anymore.
Were you?

>Seriously, you must be deluded or bored.
I am not deluded nor making things up to relieve boredom.

File: shufflecheat.png (62KB, 1844x718px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1844x718px

I made an infograph on the stance wizards has on shuffling. I'm not interested in the "I cheat at FNMs, fight me LMAO" bait, but I figured somebody might want to know this.

Basically, if you look at the top card of your deck and that gives you any information besides that one card, you are cheating. That means if you know your land distribution is about one-in-three, so picking up a land tells you that your next two cards are more likely to not be land, you are NOT sufficiently randomized. If you have a 24 land deck, and you see the top card of your deck is a land, if your next card has a 23/59 chance of being a land, you are (basically) sufficiently randomized. This is a simplification, but this standard should work for most situations.

>>54598652
(continued)

If somebody wants to be wrong about something, that shouldn't hurt your feelings. After all, there are flat earthers and creationists. Just arm the people you know with information so that you might embarrass somebody that tries to cheat you IRL.

>>54598399
>I am not deluded nor making things up to relieve boredom
I doubt that.

>>54598693
You should never ever doubt what no one is sure of.

>>54598229
>Finally, someone acknowledging that imperfect shuffling, when not done intentionally, is not implicit cheating.
But you ARE doing it intentionally. You know that your shuffling is imperfect or else you wouldn't be taking the time to mana weave. You are intentionally stacking your deck in a certain way for the purpose of gaining advantage. That's the definition of cheating.

>>54599365
>But you ARE doing it intentionally.
I am NOT doing it intentionally.
I am intentionally shuffling in order to randomize the cards to the best of my ability.

>You know that your shuffling is imperfect or else you wouldn't be taking the time to mana weave.
I know that my shuffling is imperfect because I am a human being and I am not taking the time to commit to the dozens of repeated shufflings it would take to break up and re-disperse the land clumps.
Because I am not wasting my opponents time.

>You are intentionally stacking your deck in a certain way for the purpose of gaining advantage.
No. As anon put it, I'm "mitigating a game mechanic in the game" flawed by it's dependence on the human ability to shuffle that would give me a disadvantage.
Getting a good night of sleep before a race is not cheating just because most of the other racers choose to stay up all night.

>That's the definition of cheating.
Not according to https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/mtr3-9/
Which, so far, has been the only citation provided.
Also, I pass this chart >>54598652
When I am done, the only thing I know about my land distribution is that l'm less likely to get 7 or 0 land in my opening hand.

>>54599707
>When I am done, the only thing I know about my land distribution is that l'm less likely to get 7 or 0 land in my opening hand.
That is SOME information. You are not sufficiently randomized.

>>54598190
anon, "ONE IN THREE". The possibility that you won't get that one doesn't exist. Otherwise it's not one in three.

File: 1464732017354.gif (2MB, 480x327px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x327px

>this amount of fucking mental hoops to jump through.
Mana weaving is directly influencing the output of your deck. It is intentional, and it is not randomising.
If you are arranging your deck in a way that will increase your odds to make a more even distribution of curve and lands, then you are not playing with a random deck, nor are you actually shuffling.

Yes, getting flooded or screwed sucks, but guess what, chucklefuck? That's part of the game. Not everything will be smooth sailing.

>>54599759
>That is SOME information
Heh.
EVERYTHING is SOME information.

>buy deck of playing cards
>Shuffle it one riffle
>I now know it is slightly more randomized than it was before
>That is SOME information

>get new premade magic deck
>don't look at cards
>shuffle for three weeks straight, nonstop, no breaks
>Know that I can't possibly shuffle any more
>know that the deck is randomized and unfamiliar as possible
>That is SOME information
>The deck is not sufficiently randomized

Please.

>>54599836
What if you are arranging your deck in a way that will increase your odds to make a more even distribution of curve and lands, then you actually shuffle in order to play with a random deck?

To bend the trick that was used earlier:
Either shuffling randomizes the manaweave and undoes the cheating or shuffling cannot randomize effectively and is negatively affecting a key game mechanic in a way not intended by the game designers who assumed shuffling randomizes the cards.

>>54599879
>know that the deck is randomized and unfamiliar as possible
This is the goal. If you know nothing about the order of the cards, the deck is sufficiently randomized.

Fortunately, shuffling for three weeks is not necessary at all. Many players can reach sufficient randomization in three minutes. If you cannot or will not do so, see the image.

>>54581880
some one pulled a knife on me in a basement of a FLGS once.

we were playing warhammer fantasy.

I was 12.

I let him win and didn't get stabbed.

>>54599993
Then why did you need to mana weave in the first place? Because if you are getting distinctly different results multiple times with shuffling after manaweaving and not, then you are doing something wrong and it is, in fact, not random.

If shuffling after mana weaving undoes it, then why did you mana weave?

>>54599993
The problem with this is the amount of time it takes.

If you want to mana weave at home, take your deck to FNM, then shuffle until random that's fine and is your prerogative. But to achieve true randomness takes on average 7 to 10 full riffle shuffles. Mana weaving in between games and then shuffling until random leaves you with a random deck and takes much, much longer than just shuffling, and has no benefit if you're truly randomizing your deck. When a deck is truly randomized no two cards are more likely to appear closer together or further apart from any other two cards. This means that taking all your lands and all your not lands into piles and shuffling them together properly will result in a deck that is just as random as one that was mana weaved and then shuffled together properly.

No matter how you look at it, mana weaving is either taking extra time to do nothing because you use proper shuffling techniques, or mana weaving is cheating because you do not use proper shuffling techniques.

>>54599879
It's a flow chart. You don't need to not have SOME information until you reach that branch.
>buy deck of playing cards
>Shuffle it one riffle
One of the earlier branches ask that you try to fully randomize it.
Which, if memory serves, takes 13+ riffle shuffles for a 54 card deck.

>>54600030
but you know SOME information!
It's TAINTED!
The deck is not sufficiently randomized!
Anon said as much!

Unless... Do you think anon could have been mistaken?
Could such a thing be possible?

>>54600119
>Then why did you need to mana weave in the first place?
To eliminate clumps before randomizing.

>Because if you are getting distinctly different results multiple times with shuffling after manaweaving and not, then you are doing something wrong
This was hard to follow exactly

>it is, in fact, not random.
Shuffling is, in fact, imperfect.

>If shuffling after mana weaving undoes it, then why did you mana weave?
It does not necessarily *undo* it.
It randomizes after eliminating the clumps rather than hoping the imperfect randomizing will eliminate the clumps.
Sometimes, it *does* undo it and makes brand new clumps, but thems the breaks.

File: bf8aaa92f51bad1a88cbf2c4ad15c7ba--weaving-cards.jpg (74KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 720x540px

>>54600494
>>54599993
There is no varying degree of randomness. It either is or isn't. You just have to ask yourself one question: Do you have some idea about the order of your deck? If yes, then it's not random.

Here just read the chart. I seriously cannot believe I still need to keep this around.

>>54600221
>No matter how you look at it, mana weaving is either taking extra time to do nothing because you use proper shuffling techniques, or mana weaving is cheating because you do not use proper shuffling techniques.
Third option: Manaweaving is a safety to prevent mana disaster when proper shuffling techniques are imperfect because human beings are imperfect.
You are arguing that wearing a seatbelt is stupid because it takes extra time and the need for it should be avoided by proper driving techniques.

Otherwise, spot on post.
>The problem with this is the amount of time it takes.
>If you want to mana weave at home, take your deck to FNM, then shuffle until random that's fine and is your prerogative.
Truth.

>>54600494
If shuffling is imperfect then you acknowledge you aren't undoing your mana weave.

I don't understand this argument that lands are flawed, they do exactly what they are supposed to. If you don't like the impact they make on deckbuilding and play then just go play a game you will enjoy more. No one is forcing you to play magic.

>>54600363
I was just illustrating how anon getting flustered over knowing that a mana disaster's "less likely" was SOME information when clearly that's not the kind of information about card order that the chart is concerned with.
Seeing one or more card doesn't change diddly.

File: Sums it up.png (20KB, 727x348px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 727x348px

>>54582102
This sums that entire pasta up nicely.

>>54600557
>seatbelts

You're a fucking moron. That is the worst fucking analogy.

>>54600557
>Manaweaving is a safety to prevent mana disaster when proper shuffling techniques are imperfect because human beings are imperfect
That's the thing though, if it's actually preventing anything you're cheating. If you made a mistake in your shuffling techniques and did not truly randomize your deck then you are meant to lose because you aren't playing with a randomized deck.

>You are arguing that wearing a seatbelt is stupid because it takes extra time and the need for it should be avoided by proper driving techniques.
No, I'm arguing that painstakingly duct-taping yourself into the driver's seat is stupid because it pisses off the poor sod you're taking to work and the need for it is avoided by wearing a seatbelt and driving safely.

>clumps
The only time there should ever be -significant- clumps is if you just unwrapped something like a precon because lands are packaged together in a thick stack of around 24 basics.

>>54600623
Mana disasters are part of the game and are intended to occasionally happen!

What about this is so bloody difficult for you mouth-breathing, bullocked-brained simpletons to understand?

>>54600557
Wearing your seatbelt is more akin to building your deck correctly so that you have the optimal land to spell ratio. Mana Weaving is driving a monster truck over traffic.

This analogy is also pants on head retarded, so there's that.

>>54600664
BUT ANON ONE TIME I DREW THREE LANDS IN A ROW PILOTING MY HOME BREW AND IT TOTALLY LOST ME THE GAME

This is fucking retarded. Do you ever see poker players weave out the decks because all the suits are packaged together?

>>54600730
They'll never admit it because it's looked down upon, but all of them totally do. Honestly, suits are just an inherently flawed mechanic that should be taken out of the game.

>>54600544
Yeah no.
I break that chart in half.
I don't waste others time.
I do shuffle.
It does help.
Shuffling is not 100% effective every time.

>There is no varying degree of randomness.
lolwut

>It either is or isn't.
Okay, if we call it a threshold point of Sufficiently Random.
But a human being cannot reliably guarantee they can achieve that threshold every time they shuffle.
I have played enough games to know this works and that doing it provides me with better games.

>Do you have some idea about the order of your deck? If yes, then it's not random.
I hear what you're saying, but that's not how it works.
An idiot could cut his deck a few times and not have any idea about the order of his deck because he's an idiot, but the cards have not been randomized.

So many people in the thread have this warped perception of shuffling, like it is a perfect sanctifying cleansing of randomness.

>>54600781
You had best be kidding me.

>>54600730
I honestly dislike playing at a table where a player is the dealer.

>>54600494
>It does not necessarily *undo* it.
>>54600582
>If shuffling is imperfect then you acknowledge you aren't undoing your mana weave.
...yes.
I am not undoing it. I am trying my best to randomize after it and acknowledging I'm an imperfect human being.

>I don't understand this argument that lands are flawed
A game where one player can't play because they have too much or too little land, simply because of random chance, is not a game.
It is an unfortunate artifact of the land/mana mechanic.
I am simply trying to avoid randomly being prevented from playing the game.

>>54600628
Manaweaving is a safety measure.

But yeah, that analogy wasn't great. Other drivers, etc.

>>54600798
So if it helps it's fucking cheating jesus christ are you trying to be stupid? You are supposed to understand that a shuffle only needs to sufficiently randomize your deck. What, empirically, is sufficently random? The only reason that's a fucking question is because you're trying to find a way around it instead of just being sportsmanlike and shuffling like everyone else.

I don't even care if you're trolling at this point, if you are then congrats you got me but fuck off.

>>54593597
>It is actually more mathematically correct. THIS is what 25% is. That in 4 chances, in one of those it WILL happen.

ROLL A FUCKING D4 TWO THOUSAND TIMES AND TELL ME IT ROLLS A 1 A 2 A 3 AND A 4, TAKE FOUR CARDS AND DRAW FROM THEM FIVE TIMES AND TELL ME IT DRAWS A CARD ON THE FIFTH TRY EVEN ONCE.

WHY AREN'T YOU IN THE NEWS AS A STAB VICTIM REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE?

silver or bone white skull masks for my Krieg grenadiers?

>>54600892
Then you are cheating. End of conversation, your opinion is invalid.

File: Untitled.png (395KB, 649x829px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 649x829px

>>54586128
>Proof that people from Florida are psychopaths.

>>54600651
>That's the thing though, if it's actually preventing anything you're cheating. If you made a mistake in your shuffling techniques and did not truly randomize your deck then you are meant to lose because you aren't playing with a randomized deck.
It is a safety measure in case the deck was not randomized enough.
It is not my fault if others want to handicap themselves by randomizing land clumps and hoping for the best.

>No, I'm arguing that painstakingly duct-taping yourself into the driver's seat is stupid because it pisses off the poor sod
I don't waste others time

>>54600798
>I break that chart in half.
Do you now? Let's see.

>I do shuffle.
>It [manaweaving] does help.
These are mutually exclusive. Properly shuffling completely, unquestionably, with one-hundred percent certainty removes any and all benefits that manaweaving would give. If you see a marked improvement on land ratio during games where you have manaweaved, then you aren't shuffling properly and are cheating. Full stop. Learn how to properly shuffle so you don't need to resort to cheating.

>>There is no varying degree of randomness.
>lolwut
He's right, there aren't. Something is either random or it is not random. The degrees of randomness stuff that you hear people talking about or mention occasionally in casual conversation isn't actually randomness but rather pseudorandomness. Pseudorandom is just a bit of a mouthful for casual conversation.

>Okay, if we call it a threshold point of Sufficiently Random
You mean random. No qualifier needed.

>But a human being cannot reliably guarantee they can achieve that threshold every time they shuffle.
Then you shuffle again. Obtaining randomness requires on average 7 to 10 shuffles on a 52 card deck. Magic decks are larger and therefore should require a couple of extra. Go hog wild and shuffle 20 times, that should both take less time than mana weaving and randomize your cards.

>I have played enough games to know this works and that doing it provides me with better games.
Then you are cheating. Full stop.

>An idiot could cut his deck a few times and not have any idea about the order of his deck because he's an idiot, but the cards have not been randomized.
If you know that your manaweaved deck has more evenly dispersed lands after shuffling than your deck when it has not been manaweaved then you have information about card order and are cheating. Full stop.

>So many people in the thread have this warped perception of shuffling, like it is a perfect sanctifying cleansing of randomness.
Because it's been proven.

>>54600909
Mana weaving is not a safety measure, it's cheating. Proper deck construction so that even improper randomization will yield a playable deck is a safety measure.

>>54600664
You never play long enough to have a big stack of land in play? All it really takes is one clump of seven or a couple clumps pulling them away from the opening hands.

>>54600689
>Mana disasters are part of the game and are intended to occasionally happen!
Citation Needed.

They are not playing.
They are one player taking action and the other sitting there useless.
That is not the game as intended.
I get that it's an artifact of the land/mana mechanic and sometimes unavoidable.
But don't try to tell me it's a feature when it's a damn bug.

>>54600892
>>54601013
>I don't waste others time
If I lined up to play a bloke and he cheated me, I'd damn well consider it a waste of time. So, yeah, you do.

I do not play Magic.

What is mana weaving?

>>54601013
>It is not my fault if others want to handicap themselves by randomizing land clumps and hoping for the best

That is how the game is meant to be played. Or at most you mash shuffle the cards you used before mashing that pile back into your main deck. Taking the time to mana weave affects your entire deck, not just the cards you used and clumped up during play, that's the core of the issue.

>>54600914
Not sure exactly what angered you specifically.
I wan't asking to define the threshold, just pointed out it's there and isn't always reached.
Shuffling is an analog process, not a digital one.

>>54600934
>Then you are cheating
Citation needed

>>54601084
>If I lined up to play a bloke and he cheated me, I'd damn well consider it a waste of time.
My opponent didn't sit there uselessly! He cheated!

>>54601039
I have literally never, in my 20 years of playing magic, drawn 7 lands in a row. Even in an opening hand. The chance of it happening is a non-factor if you build your deck right.

>>54601019
Actually, I'm taking a probability and statistics course right now and I'd welcome a clarification.

What determines the expected value of shuffles required to obtain randomness, which as I understand it is a state of having no knowledge of the state of the deck? Shouldn't a truly blind shuffle immediately remove knowledge of the decks order regardless of knowledge of the deck pre-shuffle, and if not, why not?

>>54601074
>Citation Needed
It's just a logical process, mate.

>Game is intended to be played with random deck
>Random deck means that the cards could be in any possible order
>Random deck therefore includes possibilities that most or all lands are on top
>Random deck therefore also includes possibility that most or all lands are on bottom
>Therefore, as a consequence of game intended to be played with a random deck, game must also be intended to have matches where one or both players are mana screwed/flooded

>>54601090
"Commonly, players mana weaving will separate their deck into two piles, one for spells and one for land. At this point, they arrange the cards in a set pattern: two spells, one land, two spells, one land, and so on. In a 60 card deck with 20 land cards, this leaves the deck in a nice 2:1 ratio of spells to land and assures that the player will draw plenty of land."

>>54601074
If it was never intended for one person to lose because they drew too many lands then they wouldn't be in the game. Do you seriously think that was not a consideration during design and if it was not how they intended the game it wouldn't have been changed by now?

>>54601111
>Taking the time to mana weave affects your entire deck, not just the cards you used and clumped up during play, that's the core of the issue.
Ah. Well, presuming enough cards were played, I'd manaweave the played cards, quick shuffle them, then shuffle them into the unplayed cards. If I manaweaved and shuffled before the game, then the rest of the deck should be fine.

>>54601131
If it was an intended method of play why isn't it endorsed by Wizards?

>>54601160
A shuffle is typically a riffle or mash shuffle, wherein the deck is split close to in half and the halves are merged close to alternating. The "close to" is where the randomness comes in.
But if you know that your deck was half As and half Bs, and the As were all on top, even after a single shuffle you can be fairly certain that you'll get something similar to ABABABABABAB as your deck composition.
That's why you need more shuffles that just one, the shuffle isn't a complete randomizer by itself.

>>54601146
>every game you don't mana weave you get flooded or screwed

Sounds like you suck at making decks then

>>54601195
>manaweave

So you're a faggot then, should have told me sooner

>>54601211
So it's the mechanic of the shuffle that allows you to retain information from previous order? That would mean as long as your shuffling was a non-random function you would never achieve randomness regardless of the number of times it was done - reproduce the shuffle n times mentally and you will remember the order the cards are in currently, voiding probability entirely.

Captchas are discriminatory.

>>54601019
>Properly shuffling completely, unquestionably, with one-hundred percent certainty removes any and all benefits that manaweaving would give.
see
>So many people in the thread have this warped perception of shuffling, like it is a perfect sanctifying cleansing of randomness.

>Then you shuffle again.
I don't waste peoples time.

>>An idiot could cut his deck a few times and not have any idea about the order of his deck because he's an idiot, but the cards have not been randomized.
>If you know that your manaweaved deck has more evenly dispersed lands after shuffling than your deck when it has not been manaweaved then you have information about card order and are cheating. Full stop.
How is that a response to what you quoted? Anyway, I DON'T have that information. What I have is the knowledge that IF the shuffling did not reach the threshold point of Sufficiently Random so that it is no longer pseudorandom, but actually random, then mana weaving helps prevent a Non-Game from occurring.

>Because it's been proven shuffling is a completely, unquestionably, with one-hundred percent certainty perfect sanctifying cleansing of randomness
You are delusional.
Have a good night.

>>54601035
Mana weaving prevents Mana disaster so it is cheating.
Proper deck construction so that even improper randomization will yield a playable deck prevents Mana disaster so it is cheating.
Gotcha.

>>54601284
The shuffle is a partially random mechanic. But, repeat it enough and the cumulative randomness becomes true randomness.

>>54601154
I know a guy who rolls a 1 60% of the time when he plays Risk.
Luck is a thing.

>>54601090
Basically in Magic, you have Land Cards, Land Cards are basically fuel to do stuff with your cards.
No land cards, no playing. Manaweaving is taking your land cards and spreading them out throughout the Deck. Supposedly because this cuts down on the chance that all your land cards get clumped in one particular section of the deck, that you can't get to before losing all your health.
I say supposedly, because you still have to shuffle.

Its hated because it's seen as either cheating or pointless and time wasting.

>>54601170
>>54601181
>>54601200
Rules Citation Needed

>>54601160
>What determines the expected value of shuffles required to obtain randomness, which as I understand it is a state of having no knowledge of the state of the deck?
Ahh, I see the problem, your understanding of randomness is wrong. Randomness in a closed system (like a deck of cards) is achieved when any element in the system has an equal probability of being adjacent to any other individual element in the system.

As for finding the number of shuffles needed, statisticians have done simulations and experiments on poker decks for decades and have determined that the odds for any single card (say the Jack of Hearts) is as likely to appear adjacent to the Queen of Hearts as it is any other card after 7 shuffles.

Essentially, if any individual mana card has a greater chance of showing up next to another mana card than a spell then the deck is not properly randomized. Likewise if any individual mana card is LESS likely to show up next to a mana card than a spell the deck is also not properly randomized.

>Shouldn't a truly blind shuffle immediately remove knowledge of the decks order regardless of knowledge of the deck pre-shuffle, and if not, why not?
No, for the reasons outlined above. Not knowing the explicit order of the cards is not enough for randomness in a closed system. Randomness implies any order of cards is equally likely. This is the reason why pile shuffling is also not considered random: the cards in the piles are more likely to appear next to each other than they are cards in other piles, even when we don't know what those cards are.

>>54601340
I do not understand. There is no such thing as partial randomness, information is either retained or forgotten. Information is not forgotten via a systematic manipulation of probability due to the determinable nature of the function.

>>54601408
A shuffle causes some information to be forgotten, but not all.
Sufficient shuffles cause all information to be forgotten.

>>54601322
>hurf durf cheating achieves the same result as this legitimate skill so they're either both okay or neither are

>>54601345
Luck is NOT a thing you fucking mouth breather

>>54601461
They're only calling it cheating because they don't like it and don't do it.
If it were really cheating, it would be a terribly lame and ineffective as hell way to cheat.

>>54601501
We call it cheating because WotC says it's cheating.

>>54601440
>>54601378
Trippy...

>>54601484
I shit you not.
Over half his rolls were consistently ones.
It happens in any game with a random determination like dice or whatever.
Risk is the easiest to see it as he whittles larger armies down against much smaller forces.

Don't call it luck, if the word triggers you.
How about consistent statistical aberrations of probability?

>>54601528
Citation Needed

>>54601369
Literally nothing you linked talked about rules, they're all about intent.

Wouldn't you think that if Wizards intended both players to always have a favorable spread of lands and spells they would have implemented rules to ensure that? That all the rules mention is that a "randomized deck" is needed to play implies that any statistical anomalies that follow from the imperfect method of human randomization are intended.

>>54601484
>>54601563
>>54601345

Put it this way, if you saw someone roll a 1 on a d6 60% of the time for 900 throws, you could alter your expected value of them throwing a 1 on a d6 to 60%. You would not alter the defined probability of a d6 throwing a d6 because that's a different set of possible outcomes.

"Luck" is an alteration of expectations post-transpiration.

>>54601563
Luck is the incorrect word for when one person seems to roll poorly on a die, luck implies a supernatural force.

There's also the distinct issue of the potential for confirmation bias, as you're simply more likely to remember "all the times" he rolled a 1.

>>54601613
That is not how statistics work. At all. Take a fucking math class, jesus christ.

>>54601576
>"Mana weaving without further randomization is deck-stacking"

It's on the WotC website man.

>>54601579
>Literally nothing you linked talked about rules, they're all about intent.
I requested citation, they responded with intent, so I repeated my request for rules citation.
You CANNOT claim that someone is cheating and not cite the rule they are cheating.

>>54601378
>This is the reason why pile shuffling is also not considered random: the cards in the piles are more likely to appear next to each other than they are cards in other piles, even when we don't know what those cards are.
To be more accurate, it's why pile shuffling doesn't ADD randomness.
If you take a properly randomized deck and pile shuffle it without looking at any card faces, it's still properly randomized.

>>54601613
>"Luck" is an alteration of expectations post-transpiration.
That would be perceived luck.
Actual luck would be consistent statistical trends of fortune.

>>54601634
Don't think he was talking statistics there champ.

>>54601648
We're discussing "Mana weaving with further randomization"
They say it's cheating because the only way it does anything is if the "further" randomization isn't enough pseudorandomness to be full random.
I say it's a safety measure.

>>54591714
What anime is this?
I need more comfy /tg/ anime, seki-kun is the only one that made it past manga, unlike Quick Start! and Wizard Soul.

>>54593183
I'm shuffling because the rules require me to shuffle.

>>54601746
Wixoss, though it's not comfy.

>>54601714

Rule 3.9
>Decks must be randomized at the start of every game and whenever an instruction requires it. Randomization is defined as bringing the deck to a state where no player can have any information regarding the order or position of cards in any portion of the deck.

If your mana weaving is ensuring that mana is not clumping together then you know that your lands are less likely to be next to each other than to spells. This means you have information about the position of the cards in your deck, specifically: "my mana is not clumped". This is a blatant violation of the rule above.

>>54601772
>it's not comfy
How uncomfy are we talking?
on a scale of Lain-Azumanga.

>moving to battle phase with 2 cards in hand and trying to attack with hazoret

>>54601840
It's about a 6.5/10 uncomfy.
It's not horror-movie bad, but it's not nicehappy cardgame funtimes.

>>54601866
Oh. Shame.

>>54601785
Due to the randomizing shuffling, I do not know that my lands are less likely to be next to each other than to spells. I only know that if the shuffling was less than 100% effective, then my lands are less likely to be next to each other in large clumps, or "my mana probably is not clumped if I didn't shuffle perfectly, which I don't know for certain"

See the difference?
There is knowing your land isn't clumped and there is knowing that steps have been taken to possibly prevent the your land from being clumped, maybe.

>>54601907
When you place cards next to each other before shuffling they are statistically more likely to be next to each other after a partial randomization. This isn't a big deal in instances of like putting your used cards on the bottom of your deck before starting mashes because it's two cards, it's when you have taken measures to tamper with your entire deck in this way before shuffling that it truly starts messing with distribution.

File: 1489624292029.jpg (539KB, 1920x1763px) Image search: [Google]

539KB, 1920x1763px

http://www.fox9.com/news/270725340-story

>The discussion escalated and led to Creech hitting the man in the face with a rubber mallet and stabbing him seven times.

What was the rubber mallet for?

>>54601956
The idea is to pursue full randomization.
The unknown factor is how close is it achieved.
That lack of knowing how partial the randomization is, if it is partial, makes the difference between having information about the position of the cards and knowing only that if the cards are clumped, it is because they have been randomized.

>humans are imperfect

The imperfections in shuffling is what makes it random, it's not systematic because humans are incapable of perfectly arranging two piles in an A-B-A-B-A pattern using the rifle or mash technique

These imperfections cause information to be lost and over the course 7-15 shuffles (depending on the size of the deck) all information is lost. This is a mathematical fact, not an opinion

>muh safety valve

Just mash shuffle 10 times for a 60 card deck, 15 for 100 cards. Quick and easy, and you don't have to fear that you didn't shuffle enough, you did.

It will undo your mana weave as well so you can stop doing that and every one will be happy

>>54602040
>Just mash shuffle 10 times for a 60 card deck, 15 for 100 cards. Quick and easy, and you don't have to fear that you didn't shuffle enough, you did.
>It will undo your mana weave as well so you can stop doing that and every one will be happy
Good idea.
Either doing this shuffle will undo the manaweave so I can keep doing it superstitiously with no worries of being called a cheater or it won't undo the manaweave, which means it wouldn't undo the mana clumps, which means I need to do the manaweave.

Problem solved.
I never really counted how much I shuffled.
Seems to me I did it more than ten, but I dunno.

>>54602040
If it will undo your mana weave, then why did you mana weave in the first place?

>>54602093
>which means I need to mana weave

You are not entitled to an even playable distribution of lands to spells every game. When will you get that through your thick skull?

>>54601994
When slaughtering an animal, you don't just cut its throat straight up, you first smash it between the eyes with a club to knock it out first, and then you cut its throat. Kinder to the animal and a lot safer for you.

>>54602130
>You are not entitled to an even playable distribution of lands to spells every game
I get that.
Just as you, as my opponent, are not entitled to me having an uneven, unplayble distribution of lands to spells non-game.

I want a random distribution of land to spells.
By manaweaving and then shuffling, I am ensuring that by avoiding starting off with clumps, any clumps I encounter are the just, fair, and righteous result of shuffling and not a leftover clump of land from the previous game that passed through an imperfect shuffle.
How hard is it to get that through your thick skull?

Just because everyone else chooses to err on the side of giving themselves a disadvantage, there is no reason I should. Nor is there any assurance of any erring at all.

>>54602227
That is NOT what you are doing though, with mana weaving you are influencing the distribution unless you have perfectly randomized it.

>>54602227
Weaving = DQ and ban for cheating

>>54602227
>I don't follow the rules due to bloated introspection and sophistry.

Grow up or kill yourself.

>>54602476
Before shuffling?
Citation needed

>>54602444
>you are influencing the distribution unless you have perfectly randomized it.
So are those damn clumps.
Why do they get preference over me?
Why is it better to err on the side of clumps than it is to err on the side of even distribution?

>>54602521
1. Cite the rules
2. Why is it better to err on the side of clumps than it is to err on the side of even distribution?
3. You go ahead and do both first.

File: neckbeard laughing.jpg (51KB, 840x672px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 840x672px

>>54582102

>Minnesota

Was expecting a Florida there. Then again, it would have been mentioned in the headline then.

the mother of the victim said that the guy who did the stabbing can't come in the house anymore unless he has a shower that day.
the stabber called the victim's mom a bitch.
the victim said "don't call my mom a bitch."
things progressed naturally from there

>>54602548
The clumps, as you put it, do not get preferential treatment, and no one would bitch if you took your lands from the game and stuck them one by one down your deck before shuffling. It's the fact that you're not just spreading out what you used but also the rest of your main deck that's the issue.

>>54603420
There is a noticeable effect on the quality of games that become more popular and accessible. Why is it unreasonable when longer term fans of a game become dissatisfied with design choices made in the name of accessibility that change their gaming experience?

Also 4/10 bait, got me to respond, but just to the part that might create a reasonable discussion.

>>54602227
LOL BAIT

>>54603470
>It's the fact that you're not just spreading out what you used but also the rest of your main deck that's the issue.
Why would I need to redistribute land that's already been distributed and randomized?
see
>>54601195
>Well, presuming enough cards were played, I'd manaweave the played cards, quick shuffle them, then shuffle them into the unplayed cards. If I manaweaved and shuffled before the game, then the rest of the deck should be fine.

>>54603820
Nah.
Honest opinion delivered in good humor.

>>54600544
>There is no varying degree of randomness.
There is, actually. That's what entropy measures. This is also exactly why the other guy is full of shit; if shuffling increases the entropy of the deck, then manaweaving (or any kind of deck stacking) decreases it, meaning that if you manaweave and then shuffle, your deck is NEVER going to be as well randomized as it would have been if you hadn't manaweaved.

In conclusion, don't manaweave. It's mathematically cheating.

>>54600798
>But a human being cannot reliably guarantee they can achieve that threshold every time they shuffle.
Yes they can, you pillock, it's about seven shuffles.

>>54599775
>>54599775
IT'S NOT A LITERAL THREE YOU DENSE MOTHERFUCKER. 1/3 IS A MATHEMATICAL EQUIVALENT TO 20/60. WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MAGIC DECK WITH 20 LANDS, 20/60 IS LITERAL. 1/3 IS MERELY MATHEMATICAL SHORTHAND.

YOU DENSE FUCK.

>>54599775
IT'S NOT A LITERAL THREE YOU DENSE MOTHERFUCKER. 1/3 IS A MATHEMATICAL EQUIVALENT TO 20/60. WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MAGIC DECK WITH 20 LANDS, 20/60 IS LITERAL. 1/3 IS MERELY MATHEMATICAL SHORTHAND.

YOU DENSE FUCK.

I feel like there should be a mathematics course for gamers. Introductory probability and statistics, some elementary game theory, maybe the simplest graph theory for board gamers/wargamers. People could benefit from it a lot.

>>54604152
>if you manaweave and then shuffle, your deck is NEVER going to be as well randomized as it would have been if you hadn't manaweaved
What if you double the shuffling?
Huh, Mr. Math?

>>54604216
Get that degree and teach it then.

>>54604248
If you manawave and then shuffle a number of times, your deck is never going to be as well randomized as it would have been if you hadn't manaweaved and then shuffled the same number of times.
Happy, Pedant-san?

>>54604186
>it's about seven shuffles.
Is that the precise magic number that activates the sanctifying magic that perfectly randomizes every shuffle ever, about?

You're silly.

>>54604259
>Happy, Pedant-san?
No.

What if you double the shuffling?
Where do we stand there?
And what if the shufflings were only done at 87% perfection?
Is a randomized deck still impossible?

This thread is comfy as fuck.

>>54604279
>math = magic
See the video here >>54592083

>>54604279
No, that's why I said "about", my friend. It's about seven for a standard 52 card deck where all the cards are unique. It's should be about the same for a 60 card Magic deck. Feel free to shuffle a couple times more to be on the same side.

>>54604294
I don't understand what you mean by "doubling" the shuffling. Shuffled the same number of times, manaweaving leads to a reduced entropy. More shuffling means the deck will be randomized even better. If the entropy of the shuffle isn't as good as "the perfect shuffle", you need to shuffle more to achieve the same level of randomization. A "perfect shuffle" (meaning you have no information as to the order of cards) is only possible if you have never seen the order of deck before shuffling. Even if you have, you can get close to a perfect shuffle if you don't set the order yourself (i.e. no stacking) and shuffle enough times.

>>54604321
>any human action being 100% consistent and uniform every time is not magic
Heh

>>54604351
>I don't understand what you mean by "doubling" the shuffling.
My goal has always been randomization after manaweaving to eliminate vestiges of land clumps from previous games.
If I had to shuffle twice as much to offset the manaweave, it's a small price to pay.

>>54604411
Perfect consistency is the opposite of what you want when it comes to shuffling.

>>54604623
Then consistently inconsistent.

>>54581891

this

>>54604444
>If I had to shuffle twice as much to offset the manaweave, it's a small price to pay.

THEN

WHY

DID

YOU

MANA

WEAVE