Is there an optimal way for shuffling a magic deck?
>>46624161
Put all the cards into a stack. Sort it out into 5 or 7 piles. Stack the piles together. Sort them out into 5/7 piles again (same number). Put them together. Shuffle as desired.
This helps break up the clumps of cards, especially sets of 2-4 that Magic frequently gets. The reason for 5 or 7 stacks is to separate those clumps, but also so that similar cards won't be next to each other. If you had 6 stacks, then you would start to see patterns in the cards as you go through them after sorting. For Magic: The Gathering specifically, I prefer 7 stacks and doing it twice for a proper randomization. 7 spreads out the lands quite a bit, and doing it twice ensures that they're distributed throughout the deck.
Be sure to give the deck a good shuffle afterwards. That method is really just a way to spread your cards out throughout the deck and avoid clumping. It is not an actual "shuffling" method.
The rules state that "washing the dishes" is the best way to randomize your deck.
>>46624161
>>46624567
this is bait, but I'll bite
shuffling your deck in an optimal way would be against the rules, as randomized, does not in fact mean 'equally distributed'
see also: 'mana weaving'
>>46624653
That's why I specifically didn't call the method shuffling, and said that the deck needs to be shuffled afterwards.
Most of the time, when people want a "better shuffling method", they really just want a way to distribute their cards evenly throughout their deck without shuffling the damn thing for three hours. And that is, basically, the idea behind the method.
If an opponent has some objection to it, then they are free to shuffle the deck as well. In fact, in tournaments, I think that your opponent is allowed to call an official over to do the shuffling. After all, if they think that their shuffling will properly randomize the deck, then why would it matter what someone does to the card organization beforehand?
>>46624727
So, getting rid of the clumps, either via >>46624567 or more standard mana weaving, is more of an insurance against imperfect shuffle rather than an attempt to cheat?
>>46624748
That's how I see it. Unless you're doing lots of weave shuffles (which a lot of people are uncomfortable doing with expensive cards) you can potentially end up with a chunck of your lands never getting randomised through standard shuffling.
I pile "shuffle" the deck exactly once to count the cards and to make sure no sleeves are sticking together. Then riffle or mash shuffle ten times or so and present. Definitely "sufficiently random", as per MTR.
Also a reminder that "clumps", or runs of lands or non-lands simply are a normal product of chance you will sometimes see even when you randomize your deck as you should.
I pile shuffle once, riffle shuffle for about 2-3 minutes, cut, riffle shuffle for about 30 seconds, then im done. Shuffle all the time when not in a match at a tournament or something. Learn how to do it efficiently.
>Opponent puts deck down to be cut
>Tap it instead of cutting it
>They cut it afterwards
I cut my own deck because I don't want any greasy fa/tg/uys touching my cards
Deal with it
>>46625272
Maybe you should use sleeves you cocksucker
>>46625272
You don't play in sanctioned tournaments, then.
>>46624161
After I'm done deck building (like in limited), I typically mash shuffle a few times, then pile shuffle once to count cards and kill any clumps that might remain, then mash shuffle a bunch more times.
My mash is usually this: Cut into halves, mash the bottom half of the bottom half into the top half of the top half. Do it again, then overhand shuffle a bunch, and repeat. This makes sure the same cards aren't getting mashed in the same cards over and over, while avoiding the clumpiness that happens with overhand shuffle.
>>46625049
>image
I dunno, good luck charm? It doesn't help anything, but it makes me feel like I have a little control over complete randomness. Even if it's a lie, it gives me some peace of mind.
>>46625324
It's actually against the rules to mana weave at all in your shuffling process.
>>46625332
I only play kitchen table magic, so it's not like it matters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxJubaijQbI
shut up all of you, this is simple math.
Riffle shuffling (which is funtionally the same as simple sleeved mash shuffling) is the one and only way to efficiently randomize
>>46624161
Probably riffle or mash shuffling. Be aware if you mana-weave, your opponent can call a judge over for trying to stack your deck, or they can reverse your weave and give you just clumps of lands or spells
>wonder what this mana weave talk is about
>look it up through Google
I remember one guy who did mana weave his decks, then INSISTED that nobody could touch, shuffle, or cut his deck afterwards. I think we pointed out that if nobody can shuffle it, then the deck isn't properly shuffled, but he didn't listen. Given that it was just casual play (and he didn't win with any particular regularity) we just choose to ignore it.
I think he eventually did get over that, thankfully.
>>46624727
>the deck needs to be shuffled afterward
Negating everything you did before shuffling. If your piling in any way affects the distribution of cards in your deck you haven't shuffled sufficiently and are per definition cheating.
>a way to distribute their cards evenly throughout their deck without shuffling the damn thing for three hours
That's not what shuffling does. Shuffling randomizes the deck. It doesn't distribute cards evenly.
>then they are free to shuffle the deck as well
It's not your opponent's job to shuffle your deck for you. If you present an insufficiently shuffled deck to him or her he can call a judge on you and get you DQd.
>>46624748
"Prearranging the deck so that imperfect shuffle will end up with desired situation" is pretty sketchy.
Just fucking shuffle good. Spend the time you would manaweave on regular shuffling. It'll get randomized just fine.
>>46625272
Met a dude once who was more or less obsessed that nobody should touch his deck.
Tho he seemed skittish enough to imply he might have actual problems.
He was fine when we both agreed that this is OK if I give instruction on how to cut.
on side note do you have specific cut you just happen to use?
I cut deck in into small, med and large pieces and stack from bot to top small, big.
>>46626059
not him but I randomly pick few from the top, center, few from the bottom or not cutting between matches.
>>46626065
I'll usually move the top 8 to the bottom and call it done.
Don't really know why people give a shit about mana weaving. I usually spend a good minute or two mash-shuffling my opponents deck before each game. No one seems to complain.
>>46626503
It's just annoying.
If the guy feels the need to manaweave it means he shuffles shittily, but if instead of weaving he shuffled for longer, he would've gotten a well-shuffled deck.
>>46626503
It's not your job to shuffle his deck for him. Call a judge instead.
Mana weaving serves exactly one purpose, and that's to cheat.
>All this hate for mana weaving.
Drawing nothing but lands/spells for 7-8 turns is an instant loss, it doesn't matter what deck you're playing.
>>46626543
>>46626565
Yea, and what if that shuffled deck has huge pockets of 10 land/spells in a row? I always mana weave(every third card is a land), then shuffle, because it means I have FAR less of a chance of getting a required mulligan draw.
>>46626791
If the deck is shuffled properly and you get manascrewed, then such is fucking life. RANDOM happens. And your manaweave didn't help because proper shuffle negates it entirely.
If it's shuffled improperly, shuffle it properly.
By manaweaving and then shuffling badly, you stack odds in favour of getting the draw you want. That's cheating.
>>46626791
mana weavers are either cheating or don't understand what random means
deal with it
>>46626791
>it means I have FAR less of a chance of getting a required mulligan draw.
If you do that only means you aren't shuffling sufficiently.
>>46626791
Because losing because of a terrible draw is so much FUN.
Having your opponent cut your deck should be good enough, in my mind.
No need to inject the Friday Night Magic scene with any more douche-baggery then there already is.
>>46625494
That was pretty cool, thanks anon.
>>46626847
As a statistics tutor, I can confirm that most people don't really get what random means.
>>46627123
Well, statistically, most people are retarded.
>>46624161
You shuffle them as to ensure the deck is randomized. Any "method" you perform without a randomizing shuffle is cheating. Any method you perform that ensures the cards are in a more desirable pattern after shuffling is not randomization, and therefore cheating.
Either accept it's a card game--so chance plays a part in it--and build your deck as to best mitigate the effects of chance, or accept that you are playing against both the letter and the spirit of the rules and cheating.
>>46627183
Statistically speaking, on average, people are of average intelligence.
You may consider the average to be too low in absolute metrics, but that's not a statistical part.
>>46627206
Hey, OP question was legit. On the plain reading it's just "what shuffle method gets quality random quickly". Manaweaving shit is separate injection by other guys.
>>46627213
Statistically speaking, you're metrically retarded.
>>46627224
I answered OP's question with
>you shuffle them as to ensure the deck is randomized
and then provided my reasoning for such a terse answer.
And if you want to get semantic about it, you're still interpreting an implication, because
>optimal way for shuffling
does not actually say
>most efficient way to achieve randomness
If you want to get analytic about it (which I skipped and just threw out my accusation), Wizards has provided--at length--guidance for how to shuffle. I can safely assume a few things: OP is too lazy or stupid to perform a basic google search, or even read the rules; OP doesn't understand the concept of random; OP is looking for a method to skirt or outright break the rules. Based on this, I can make a decently safe assumption about OP's intent on making this thread, and I answered and addressed those things in my post.
>>46626565
>Mana weaving serves exactly one purpose, and that's to cheat.
I mana weave out of superstition. I know it has absolutely no effect on the distribution of my deck after shuffling (I pile then mash shuffle for a couple times after weaving), but it makes me feel better.
>>46625494
>is the one and only way to efficiently randomize
That's bullshit, even a 'bad' shuffle will sufficiently randomize a deck after relatively few cycles.
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1351692/how-you-should-be-shuffling-extensive-study-shuffl
Most amusing bout this thread is the mentions of cheating, a though you people don't expect your opponents to pull out all the bullshit to win at big events. Then again I come from a different time, when judges would hand out game losses and DQs for looking at them funny (or missing a trigger).
>>46626413
Pretty disrespectful desu, especially if you count out 8
>>46624161Bridge shuffle
Pile shuffling is a waste of time. >>46625494 tells you all you need to know, but the tl;dr is you only need 7 riffle shuffles for a 52-card deck. Maybe add a couple extra because you're using a 60-card deck and your mash shuffles probably aren't as good as a dealer's riffle shuffles.
>>46624748
If you randomize sufficiently, mana weaving does nothing. If you don't, you are cheating. Don't mana weave.
>>46626413
I do this too.
It puts people on tilt for no reason, and it's great.
One guy accused me of trying to pull one over on him after I moved the top 6 to the bottom, then put a random card from the middle on top of the deck.
People get so accustomed to "split the middle, set on top" that anything else makes them uncomfortable.
>>46625332
It's not. As long as you present a randomized deck in a reasonable time frame you can do mana weaving while handstanding for all the judges care.
>>46628387
What this anon said, you can do any damned thing you want, as long as you don't take too much time, and get a sufficiently randomized deck.
>>46628370
Not so much uncomfortable as suspicious. When your opponent cuts in a very unusual and particular way, that's natural.
Weaving is only useful when you first make a deck or after it has been significantly unrandomized (Such as when most of your land is on the table and most of your creatures are in the graveyard). The idea is that starting off with less clumps means that any clumps that do happen are due to the randomness of shuffling, and not due to shuffling incompetence.
>>46624161
with your hands
>game 1, opponent in limited gets a perfect turns 1-5 and stomps me
>He shuffles as I'm not watching because I'm sideboarding
>game 2, opponent has the exact same opening hand and stomps me with the exact same cards
>Tell the TO afterwards since the odds of getting the same 7 cards twice in a row <<< odds of cheating
I think he pile shuffled and undid the whole thing while I wasn't paying attention.
> guy against me on a tourney is mana weaving
> not call a judge
> "can I shuffle it?"
> pile shuffle into three piles
> their face every fucking time as I explain to them what just happened
Pile shuffle for 6 once (mostly to count and to make sure no cards stick together) then i mash shuffle roughly 10 times, making sure that I move cards from bottom to top and from top to bottom enough times. In limited I usually riffle shuffle a couple of times (don't want to riffle my constructed decks, not even risking damage on that shit) and mash in between a few times.
Also holy shit how much of a baby can one be to defend mana weaving unironically. Even if you undo it afterwards by shuffling you still do it in the hope of having the effect more than without doing it, meaning you want to cheat but are too much of a pussy to properly do it and hope for some leftover effects of your cheating. I've had one dude who literally searched out specific hands and put them together on top, middle and bottom, then presented me the deck. It was kitchen table but still, what is the point in that, might as well play a game without a random factor.
>>46627923
obligatory "you monster"I bridge my own cards and have seen no harm because of it
>>46624161
A lot of people tend to get super anal as soon as I start pile shuffling with less than like, seven piles, at my LGS, if they've never played with me before.
(I only do it with new decks to break up the clumps of the -exact same card- so that I don't have to shuffle for a century directly after brewing, and I always end with a normal shuffle of at least 12 or so repetitions, so once people know that what I'm doing isn't even weaving mana, they're generally okay with it. If they do have a problem with it I just shuffle it longer, since that's the only process that actually randomizes the cards.
I tend to mash the resulting piles together, as well, so it's not like I'm stacking them perfectly either even before I shuffle.
Easy:
Do a double flip flop, then stack pile ruffle shuffle into inverse flapper wash disher clean up cards, into pokershuffle up and power shuffle mid, do a behind the back shufflaroo and a fronter upper shuffle dupple, once done try another ruffle shuffle into double ruffle shuffle shuffle and finish by cutting the other player deck with a one uppity one downity open the umbrella close the umbrella stack them up and mixed down.
>>46624748 Yes, but it's easy enough to not shuffle badly.
Manaweaving is always sketchy. It's pointless if you shuffle well, but even then it looks sketchy.
>>46624567's suggestion is sort-of decent. But if you sort the cards before hand you're stacking the deck.
Which is extremely sketchy is backed up by bad shuffling.
If you follow this advice but distribute the cards without looking at them you are actually shuffling.
This is officially called "pile shuffling", but I usually hear it called "table shuffling". It works pretty well.
Just be sure to do it a lot more than twice.
From wikipedia:
>Cards are simply dealt out into a number of piles, then the piles are stacked on top of each other.
>Though this is deterministic and does not randomize the cards at all, this ensures that cards that were next to each other are now separated.
>For any number of piles, the right number of repetitions will bring the deck back to its original state.
>Some variations on the pile shuffle attempt to make it slightly random by dealing to the piles in a random order each circuit.<-- be sure to do this
Four or 5 times with a single go of a different kind of shuffle is my recommendation.
>>46629282
fun fact: they can call a judge because now YOU are the one stacking their deck. What will probably happen is a double DQ for cheating, but for some people that's worth it.
>>46624161
I tend to hindu shuffle as a way of passing time or watching other matches, so my deck's always pretty random by the time I play. Still will shuffle again after I sit down though, offer a cut.
>>46631535
This is why I don't mana weave even with new decks. The best fair method to appease both your autism about clumps and their autism about a lack of good shuffling is simple:
Mash shuffle a few times (optional), then start pile shuffling in a normal way (usually, this means every pile has an equal distribution of land and spell, roughly; this is bad. Because this is an intermediate step, you can use however many piles you like, but avoid 4-5 piles as people usually think that much is cheaty for some reason.
Step two is to mash shuffle the piles into each other. I like to use more repetitions each time a pile is added- by the time all the piles are in, your shuffling should be adequate, and you can wrap up with a few more mashes and an offer to cut.
You aren't incentivized by this method because you have clumps that need to be shuffled normally, and if you suck at shuffling you -will- notice big clumps of land>spell>land>spell.
>>46633176
>Mash shuffle a few times
This gets some of your card facing the wrong way
which pisses of my autism even more than stacking the deck would
>>46627253
No u
>>46631207
Correct.
>>46633789
That's a weird-ass mash shuffle then. I understand it as taking ~half of your cards and pushing it to the remaining half so that the cards interleave, much like in a riffle shuffle. The orientation of the two halves of the deck doesn't change.
>>46628648
>not
>cutting
>decks
What is wrong with you?
>>46633789
I assumed mash shuffle was simply taking one pile and mixing it with the other, no, I don't shuffle like a mongoloid. Wrong term, sorry.
>>46626791
> actually defending mana weaving
I'd assume this is bait, but due to the inherent personalities in this hobby, u believe it.
seven riffles.
mathematically proven to sufficiently randomize even a 52 card playing card deck.
>>46624727
>and said that the deck needs to be shuffled afterwards
Then why did you do the first part?
Why not just shuffle?
>>46629282
I once was in that position, and when the faggot saw me moving all his lands to the bottom, he tried to argue that I wasn't allowed to shuffle his deck, only cut it.
He even tried to get the store owner to agree with him.
>>46624161
Mash shuffle 9 times.
>>46636920
That's kinda on the low end, although assuming you use sleeves and it's not a new deck (or it's a draft deck) then I probably wouldn't complain.
I really don't get why people don't just learn riffling and use sleeves.
It's not hard and it doesn't wear your cards out any more than mashing them together a huge number of times.
Mashing can be supplemental, but riffling 7 or 8 times should really be required.
>>46637850
This
Game 1 I pile shuffle into 5 piles then riffle 7 times
Game 2 riffle 7 times
Game 3 pile shuffle then riffle 7 times
every mulligan I riffle a number of times equal to my next hand size as a ritual.
>>46624161
RIFFLE THAT SHIT
>>46634016 So basically riffle shuffling without bridging the cards?
In the greater context of cards in general, that's usually called either
weave shuffling (which an unfortunate name, because it has nothing to do with the MtG community's "mana weaving") or
Faro shuffling (which is also an unfortunate name, because the Faro community is all about cheating (often by rigging the deck)).
>>46640705
I have played magic since Weatherlight and never once heard riffle/mash shuffling referred to as weave shuffling or Faro shuffling.
>>46631617
How is he/she cheating in that scenario exactly?
>>46641343
the correct response to 'stacked deck', which is cheating, is not 'counter-stack opponent's deck', which is ALSO cheating for the exact same reason
>>46634015
>round 1
>opponent asks to cut deck as he passes his deck
>do so
>smug ass mutherfucker gets a t1 instawin
>round 2
>do same thing again
>right as i'm about to finish the cut he gets this fuckin smug look on his face
>pause
>"eh, fuck it, like i'm gonna play here again"
>pull knife out
>literally cut deck
>2k snapcaster netdeck
>not a fuck given
>>46641450
You're doing it wrong, the correct play is to eat your opponent's Snapcaster, then call a judge and get him a match loss for having a deck with <60 cards.
>>46641450
Why would you make up a story about being a butthurt asshole?
>>46641524
who said it was fake? I'm not allowed to travel to Minnesota and 15 other states anymore cause of that. Totally worth it
>>46641366
>>46631617
Judge here, no one has ever been disqualified for reverse stacking someone's deck that way. If a deck is properly randomized then it should be impossible to "unshuffle" by simply doing your opponent's pile shuffle in reverse. Mana weaving without a proper traditional shuffle is always cheating.
kinda offtopic here, but ive been sorting out my cards in binders the last few weeks and today i went to go finish them up and i noticed that literally all of my cards have this almost damp like feeling to them and they seem more flexible than usual. how could this happen? my basement that i kept them in is kept slightly cool and dry so i dont know how this could of happened.
even the cards in my sleeves and binder pages all feel like this now. is this just what happens when the weather changes outside? will my cards return to noraml?genuinely confused here
>>46624161
yeah it's called mana weaving, show your opponent how you did it after the match
>>46641597
I don't know which possibility is more sad: that you might actually think anyone believes you did that, or that you think that story was funny enough to say even though you knew nobody would believe you.
>>46628387
If someone manaweaves, I'm calling a judge. First and foremost for slow play, but also because stacking your deck is cheating
>>46628621
I used to believe this, but I've recently started just sufficiently mash shuffling my decks after stacking them. It achieves the same result, try it for yourself.
Why do people pile shuffle? I count my sideboard, but I've never had an issue with losing cards and it eats up so much clock. I've come close to calling a judge to watch more matches for slow play during shuffling, because doing 3-4 pile shuffles can take up multiple minutes for no reason.
>>46628435
>>46628370
i just sort out their starting hand for them.
pick out 7 random cards from their deck and put them on top.
>>46645428
>multiple minutes for no reason
Previously there was a hard limit on the time you could spend in prep, but that's no longer a part of the rules.
chill out, dude
>>46645542
I'm playing events to play magic. I regularly played with a person who would do 6 pile shuffles, then start shuffling their deck. The process would repeat with each mulligan, then they would proceed to play slowly. I'm not going to have my matches go to time because my opponent wants to count their deck 12+ times a match.
In larger events, it's a way to nip slow play in the bud before it becomes a larger issue. Again, if my opponent wants to count their deck an excessive amount, I'm going to notify someone that my opponent is playing slowly. It's an effort to ensure that matches don't needlessly go to time, not an attempt to get a free win or rattle someone's cage.
