<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How to Cheat</title>
	<atom:link href="http://fivewithflores.com/2009/05/how-to-cheat/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://fivewithflores.com/2009/05/how-to-cheat/</link>
	<description>Where you learn to love what Mike Flores loves</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:59:22 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: rkm08160</title>
		<link>http://fivewithflores.com/2009/05/how-to-cheat/#comment-962</link>
		<dc:creator>rkm08160</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jun 2009 02:17:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fivewithflores.com/?p=666#comment-962</guid>
		<description>The only thing I can think is that Evan (or whoever tried to explain it to him) misunderstood "Trailing the Dovetail Shuffle to it's Lair" by Bayer and Diaconis.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The only thing I can think is that Evan (or whoever tried to explain it to him) misunderstood &#8220;Trailing the Dovetail Shuffle to it&#8217;s Lair&#8221; by Bayer and Diaconis.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: troelslmunk</title>
		<link>http://fivewithflores.com/2009/05/how-to-cheat/#comment-954</link>
		<dc:creator>troelslmunk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:51:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fivewithflores.com/?p=666#comment-954</guid>
		<description>I just have to get this straight:
The Double Nickel gets your mana distributed evenly over the deck, but is that cheating?
No, the deck isn't randomized by the Double Nickel, but if you shuffle sufficiently before and/or afterwards, is there any point to doing a Double Nickel? And if so, is it cheating?
In other words, should I call the judge if my opponent makes a Double Nickel or only if that is all he does to "randomize" the deck?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just have to get this straight:<br />
The Double Nickel gets your mana distributed evenly over the deck, but is that cheating?<br />
No, the deck isn&#8217;t randomized by the Double Nickel, but if you shuffle sufficiently before and/or afterwards, is there any point to doing a Double Nickel? And if so, is it cheating?<br />
In other words, should I call the judge if my opponent makes a Double Nickel or only if that is all he does to &#8220;randomize&#8221; the deck?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gro0003</title>
		<link>http://fivewithflores.com/2009/05/how-to-cheat/#comment-942</link>
		<dc:creator>gro0003</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 08:27:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fivewithflores.com/?p=666#comment-942</guid>
		<description>@those people arguing against the whole 'a randomized deck looks stacked' thing:
I think Mike may have been simplifying his explanation a little bit.

After all, nothing is completely random.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@those people arguing against the whole &#8216;a randomized deck looks stacked&#8217; thing:<br />
I think Mike may have been simplifying his explanation a little bit.</p>
<p>After all, nothing is completely random.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wills</title>
		<link>http://fivewithflores.com/2009/05/how-to-cheat/#comment-940</link>
		<dc:creator>wills</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:45:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fivewithflores.com/?p=666#comment-940</guid>
		<description>I just want to reiterate what whatisfgh said.  A randomized deck is not a stacked deck.  Sometimes it will have clumps.  There is even the possibility that every single spell end up on the bottom of the deck with every single land on top of the spells.  The advice of this article not to use pile shuffles and to watch your opponent for stacking is sound.  I will add though that I usually do some overhand shuffles and a  couple "random" pile shuffles where I don't just distribute the cards one by one in a circle.  These methods less efficient than riffling, but I am paranoid that my riffling my preferentially follow a certain pattern and so do these other techniques to break it up.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just want to reiterate what whatisfgh said.  A randomized deck is not a stacked deck.  Sometimes it will have clumps.  There is even the possibility that every single spell end up on the bottom of the deck with every single land on top of the spells.  The advice of this article not to use pile shuffles and to watch your opponent for stacking is sound.  I will add though that I usually do some overhand shuffles and a  couple &#8220;random&#8221; pile shuffles where I don&#8217;t just distribute the cards one by one in a circle.  These methods less efficient than riffling, but I am paranoid that my riffling my preferentially follow a certain pattern and so do these other techniques to break it up.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stipes</title>
		<link>http://fivewithflores.com/2009/05/how-to-cheat/#comment-939</link>
		<dc:creator>stipes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:50:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fivewithflores.com/?p=666#comment-939</guid>
		<description>@Jeranimus Rex: As far as I know, you are allowed to cut your deck after getting it back from your opponent, but only if they actually shuffled it. If I stop being lazy some time later today, I'll try to dig up the relevant tournament policy/floor rules section.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Jeranimus Rex: As far as I know, you are allowed to cut your deck after getting it back from your opponent, but only if they actually shuffled it. If I stop being lazy some time later today, I&#8217;ll try to dig up the relevant tournament policy/floor rules section.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: whatisfgh</title>
		<link>http://fivewithflores.com/2009/05/how-to-cheat/#comment-938</link>
		<dc:creator>whatisfgh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:19:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fivewithflores.com/?p=666#comment-938</guid>
		<description>Just a few things.

I notice that most of your examples of why pile shuffling is bad revolve around starting with a known deck, but how about if you just scoop up your cards riffle once or twice and then pile shuffle?  this is in terms of you randomizing  your deck (since you're taking an "unknown" quantity and messing it around more? no idea on this one). Not in terms of catching a cheater who will be starting with a stacked deck.

second 
"Because as we saw with the marbles, the more you randomize, the more mixed the cards become. If you randomize really, really, well… No land clumps. Spells are distributed. Et cetera."

is not random, it's an even distribution (though to be fair, most magic things mean some kind of pseudo randomness that is close enough) .  While not impossible proper randomization can in fact produce large land clumps etc.  taking your marble example only with an infinite number of them and equal probability.  just because it's 50/50 doesn't mean that after some kind of equivalent sample that mirrors 6-7 riffles you won't have huge clumps.


This is probably a huge problem for judges and probably why it is hard to catch cheaters (unless they are blatantly doing stacking/pile shuffling tricks... then umm... watch them or something...)  as unless the judges are deck checking them regularly there is not a reasonable way to tell if the even distribution/clumps is a fluke.

"simply riffling enough will get you to the point that you are nearly stacked"
If riffling does in fact get you to the  point where you are basically stacked I'd say it is stacking... but I suspect that it just gives you basically randomness and that will gives you "normal" draws with regular probability.


not harshing... big fan.  It's just the even distribution = randomness that bothers me</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a few things.</p>
<p>I notice that most of your examples of why pile shuffling is bad revolve around starting with a known deck, but how about if you just scoop up your cards riffle once or twice and then pile shuffle?  this is in terms of you randomizing  your deck (since you&#8217;re taking an &#8220;unknown&#8221; quantity and messing it around more? no idea on this one). Not in terms of catching a cheater who will be starting with a stacked deck.</p>
<p>second<br />
&#8220;Because as we saw with the marbles, the more you randomize, the more mixed the cards become. If you randomize really, really, well… No land clumps. Spells are distributed. Et cetera.&#8221;</p>
<p>is not random, it&#8217;s an even distribution (though to be fair, most magic things mean some kind of pseudo randomness that is close enough) .  While not impossible proper randomization can in fact produce large land clumps etc.  taking your marble example only with an infinite number of them and equal probability.  just because it&#8217;s 50/50 doesn&#8217;t mean that after some kind of equivalent sample that mirrors 6-7 riffles you won&#8217;t have huge clumps.</p>
<p>This is probably a huge problem for judges and probably why it is hard to catch cheaters (unless they are blatantly doing stacking/pile shuffling tricks&#8230; then umm&#8230; watch them or something&#8230;)  as unless the judges are deck checking them regularly there is not a reasonable way to tell if the even distribution/clumps is a fluke.</p>
<p>&#8220;simply riffling enough will get you to the point that you are nearly stacked&#8221;<br />
If riffling does in fact get you to the  point where you are basically stacked I&#8217;d say it is stacking&#8230; but I suspect that it just gives you basically randomness and that will gives you &#8220;normal&#8221; draws with regular probability.</p>
<p>not harshing&#8230; big fan.  It&#8217;s just the even distribution = randomness that bothers me</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TimWilloughby</title>
		<link>http://fivewithflores.com/2009/05/how-to-cheat/#comment-937</link>
		<dc:creator>TimWilloughby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:10:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fivewithflores.com/?p=666#comment-937</guid>
		<description>I loves me a good article on people running the cheats. A few extra thoughts to contend with;

People piling in even numbered piles, or fives, are the ones who are most apt to be doing something dodgy. The reason I'd recommend seven piling if you are looking to pile is that it is the lowest convenient number which is very difficult to create a stacking pattern around. 

While I know that it is quite common, it is a *very very* bad idea to ever do riffle shuffles face up. If you can riffle properly, it shouldn't produce significant wear on cards, such that they need to be bent back into shape. Effectively, one face up riffle completely invalidates all shuffling that happened prior to it, as it leaves you aware of the location of specific cards in your deck. There have already been high profile game losses on this, and they are one of the few areas where judges seem confident in handing out shuffling penalties. 

While shuffling it is considered good courtesy to look away from the deck you are shuffling slightly (so that you can demonstrate that you aren't running the peeks). Learn to riffle such that this isn't a problem, and then spend your time shuffling your opponent's deck shuffling your own. 

Over the course of a match, it is easy to get a feel for the rhythm of your opponent's shuffling. If that rhythm breaks, it will normally be for a reason. I am very wary of opponents whose shuffling routine is different from game to game. Most obviously, some players will be looking for a nice even spread of land and spells for game 1, while in games 2 and 3 they will be trying to control for sideboarded cards. 

When shuffling an opponent's deck, it is worth it giving the deck a few cuts, both at the start and the end of the shuffling process. These are the easiest way of feeling for marked cards, and by finishing on a cut, you deny your opponent the opportunity to cut their deck after you have shuffled it - just in case they know something you don't.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I loves me a good article on people running the cheats. A few extra thoughts to contend with;</p>
<p>People piling in even numbered piles, or fives, are the ones who are most apt to be doing something dodgy. The reason I&#8217;d recommend seven piling if you are looking to pile is that it is the lowest convenient number which is very difficult to create a stacking pattern around. </p>
<p>While I know that it is quite common, it is a *very very* bad idea to ever do riffle shuffles face up. If you can riffle properly, it shouldn&#8217;t produce significant wear on cards, such that they need to be bent back into shape. Effectively, one face up riffle completely invalidates all shuffling that happened prior to it, as it leaves you aware of the location of specific cards in your deck. There have already been high profile game losses on this, and they are one of the few areas where judges seem confident in handing out shuffling penalties. </p>
<p>While shuffling it is considered good courtesy to look away from the deck you are shuffling slightly (so that you can demonstrate that you aren&#8217;t running the peeks). Learn to riffle such that this isn&#8217;t a problem, and then spend your time shuffling your opponent&#8217;s deck shuffling your own. </p>
<p>Over the course of a match, it is easy to get a feel for the rhythm of your opponent&#8217;s shuffling. If that rhythm breaks, it will normally be for a reason. I am very wary of opponents whose shuffling routine is different from game to game. Most obviously, some players will be looking for a nice even spread of land and spells for game 1, while in games 2 and 3 they will be trying to control for sideboarded cards. </p>
<p>When shuffling an opponent&#8217;s deck, it is worth it giving the deck a few cuts, both at the start and the end of the shuffling process. These are the easiest way of feeling for marked cards, and by finishing on a cut, you deny your opponent the opportunity to cut their deck after you have shuffled it - just in case they know something you don&#8217;t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Monday Night Magic #157 - Hrbek the Planeswalker&#160;&#124;&#160;MTGCast - Magic the Gathering Podcast Network</title>
		<link>http://fivewithflores.com/2009/05/how-to-cheat/#comment-932</link>
		<dc:creator>Monday Night Magic #157 - Hrbek the Planeswalker&#160;&#124;&#160;MTGCast - Magic the Gathering Podcast Network</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 04:52:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fivewithflores.com/?p=666#comment-932</guid>
		<description>[...] Nocturnus) and confirm the use of the term &#8220;battlefield&#8221; for being in play. There is a great debate article on fivewithflores.com discussing some topics brought up in the latest The Magic Show regarding table shuffling and deck [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Nocturnus) and confirm the use of the term &#8220;battlefield&#8221; for being in play. There is a great debate article on fivewithflores.com discussing some topics brought up in the latest The Magic Show regarding table shuffling and deck [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Five With Flores &#187; Cut and Paste</title>
		<link>http://fivewithflores.com/2009/05/how-to-cheat/#comment-930</link>
		<dc:creator>Five With Flores &#187; Cut and Paste</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 02:34:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fivewithflores.com/?p=666#comment-930</guid>
		<description>[...] How to Cheat, and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] How to Cheat, and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeranimus Rex</title>
		<link>http://fivewithflores.com/2009/05/how-to-cheat/#comment-928</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeranimus Rex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:31:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fivewithflores.com/?p=666#comment-928</guid>
		<description>@ The Dream, while staking the opponent's deck is bad, you do have the option and right to shuffle it for him. So you could pile 3 to count the deck, and then shuffle his deck apropietly. If my understanding of tournament play rules are correct, your opponent cannot reshuffle or cut the deck after presenting it to you, so they'll be stuck with what you give them.

Granted, if they 5 pile shuffled (with no riffling) and you 3 piled shuffled in response, the only way they could possible call you out would be by implicating themselves, at which point it  all depends on the judge/opponent.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ The Dream, while staking the opponent&#8217;s deck is bad, you do have the option and right to shuffle it for him. So you could pile 3 to count the deck, and then shuffle his deck apropietly. If my understanding of tournament play rules are correct, your opponent cannot reshuffle or cut the deck after presenting it to you, so they&#8217;ll be stuck with what you give them.</p>
<p>Granted, if they 5 pile shuffled (with no riffling) and you 3 piled shuffled in response, the only way they could possible call you out would be by implicating themselves, at which point it  all depends on the judge/opponent.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
