Well, do you?
>>47501886
Of course not.
In any situation in which it's helped, you've cheated.
>>47501886
>sometimes I manaweave and just forget to shuffle
What a retard.
>>47501886
I don't mind mana weaving ad a superstitious ritual, as long as it's not actually done in front of the opponent and keeps them waiting. If it makes you feel better, and you sufficiently shuffle after, I don't mind if you do it before the tournament, or if you finished your game and the other people are still playing, but if your opponent is sitting in front of you, don't waste his damn time with that shit.
As a background:
Current Magic GP leaderboard leader (and thus eligible for Worlds) Fabrizio Anteri was DQ'd yesterday at GP Manchester round 4, for deck manipulation. "He repeatedly used a shuffling technique which made his deck have a beneficial distribution of lands and spells. Based on our investigation, we came to the belief that Fabrizio Anteri was doing this on purpose to gain an unfair advantage in game play."
>>47501965
What a cock
>>47501965
>Magic GP leaderboard leader (and thus eligible for Worlds)
I didn't realize he was such a big deal. Dumbass should be life banned as a warning to other retards. "Oh, I just get so ahead of myself that I stack my deck and then forget to shuffle."
between rounds, sure
it's not like I have anything else to do with my time after removing the sideboarded cards
Anteri's comments:
>I got DQ from GP Manchester. I was sorting lands between games while checking my maindeck configuration and not shuffling properly or even at all afterwards. I sort lands because I am a control freak and it just hurts my sigh to see them together but it creates a big advantage if I don't shuffle properly afterwards. I do this without thinking about it and I know it happened before. I can see my big mistake now and I paid for it with a DQ and potential suspension. I feel awful right now, but I will stay around in the venue, in case someone would like to talk or ask about it
>EDIT: it looks like I wasn't clear. I would almost always shuffle my deck after looking through it, but it happened sometimes that I wouldn't shuffle enough (or at all) after looking through and this is NOT right to do. I would do this without putting attention and today after it was pointed out by the judges I realize and recognise my mistake.
>>47502052
..cont
>I've been reading the reaction from people and would like to reply some general questions and points in common: I never look through my deck before G1 because there is nothing to check. After sideboard I normally check if the configuration is the optimal one for the match (make sure there are not undesired cards), while I am looking through and checking I am also moving my lands to separate them. Once I am done looking, I will carry on shuffling. Sometimes (maybe 0.1% of the time, maybe 1%, maybe 10%, I don't know the right number, I can just remember and recognise it had happened) I will be concerned of the time left in the round and out of the rush for presenting my deck I would not shuffle properly or won't even shuffle at all after looking through. My head is somewhere else when this happens, I am thinking how to play my next game or maybe I am just thinking what to eat for dinner, I am just not thinking about my deck having an ideal balance of lands and spells. Today, after a judge noticed this and I was called for investigation and got everything explained, I understand the unfair advantage I was getting from doing this. I completely agree this is not right to do and I will put attention now on and make sure it doesn't happen again. I can't prove it wasn't unintentional and I know it looks bad enough, so I don't blame anyone who doesn't believe me.
>>47501965
By now, I wonder if there are any Magic "Pros" that AREN'T cheating scumbags. We've reached the point where cyclists look more upstanding than MtG players.
>>47502052
>>47502059
At least he's admitting he fucked up instead of going full damage control, I have to respect that.
>>47502052
>>47502059
This is either full-on damage control, or he's plain retarded.
If you don't have a lot of time, don't fucking prioritize mana weaving over properly shuffling.
I manaweave when assembling decks and postgame if I got more than 70% of my lands on the board
You can say muh randomization all you like, but losing a game due to shuffle RNG isn't what this game is about.
>opponent mana weaves and doesn't shuffle properly afterwards
>instead of saying anything, take his deck and shuffle it in a way that ensures he's got huge clumps of land and spells
You mulligan to 5? How unfortunate.
>>47501886
I mana weave the first time I need to organize a deck. I think it's very reasonable to do so, particularly in drafts or sealed sets. After manaweaving, I manashuffle twice, then usually manashuffle a third time in front of my opponent before letting them cut. I want everything to be as fair as possible, both for myself and my opponent, which means transparency. I even tell them and will let them shuffle any way they'd like once I've done my thing.
>>47502106
Hope you like your dq, you should have called a judge when your opponent presented.
>>47502119
>manashuffle
What new memery is this?
>>47502099
>>47502119
If you shuffle properly, Mana Weaving is unnecessary.
Riffle 7 to 9 times and it'll be as fair and random as it ever gets.
>>47502129
Just teaching FNM scrubs a lesson.
>>47502129
>Hope you like your dq
What for? You can re-shuffle opponents deck before play. It might only be issue when stalling, but one round of 3 pile shuffle takes under minute easily (assuming 60 cards deck).
>>47502135
I don't think it's new memery? You shuffle your deck the same way anyone would, then divide your deck into piles. In EDH I make 9 piles of 10 and one pile of 9, and in drafts/limited I make 8 piles of 5, by laying out cards from the top of deck individually face down on each stack. Then once the piles are organized, I grab them in a random order, then casually shuffle before asking someone to cut. I think the principle is by dividing the cards evenly into piles, you should theoretically have an even mana distribution among the piles. I'm pretty sure I do it because I have OCD more than anything.
>>47502137
How do you shuffle properly? I tend to struggle a lot, so I try to divide things into piles and randomize them as much as I can without doing fancy card tricks.
>>47501886
As usual, OP pic sums it up.
If you manaweave you're either wasting time or cheating.
>>47502154
There is such a thing as mutual cheating, just because your opponent cheats doesn't give you the right to counter-cheat to nullify his original cheat, it just makes you both guilty.
>>47502154
I can't find it in the current version, but an older version of the infraction procedure guide listed that specific scenario as an example under Unsporting Conduct - Cheating. Maybe things have changed since then but I'd still call a judge if I thought my opponent wasn't sufficiently randomizing their deck, knowingly or not.
>>47502172
Riffle Shuffle. It's really not that hard, just practice it a few times and you are golden. It's also incredibly quick, making it easy to achieve a very randomized deck in less than a minute by just doing it a few times.
Fags will tell you that it'll damage your cards, but any kind of shuffling will do that, especially if you don't do it properly. You don't have to bend your cards that heavily, just enough to riffle them.
Using sleeves and just riffling the empty sides further decreases the chance of damage.
Personally, when I'm not pressed for time, I usually do this
>1 Riffle
>1 Pile Shuffle by randomly distributing the cards on a random number of piles
>7 to 9 Riffles
>Mash until the game starts
The Riffles should be more than enough, but if I have the time I just do it for fun.
I'm absolutely shit at riffling (a shuffled deck, especially 60 card one) and can't seem to pick that skill up. My bridge playing buddies obviously handle it like pros.
My usual pre-game procedure:
Pile the deck once face down to count the cards and check the sleeves. (Pile, not pile shuffle, because a shuffle it is not.)
Give the deck a dozen good mashes or so.
Present.
At FNM level I just cut the opponent deck, unless I felt they were shuffling too little. Elsewhere half a dozen good mashes will do.
>>47502216
>Riffle Shuffle
Fuck I had to google what the heck you were talking about. I see people doing that all the time and I can never seem to do it properly without spraying cards all over the place like some kind of sperg. I'll just buy a cheap deck of cards and practice until I'm good at it.
Also, is it socially acceptable to corgi shuffle?
>Also known as the Chemmy, Irish, scramble, beginner shuffle, or washing the cards, this involves simply spreading the cards out face down, and sliding them around and over each other with one's hands. Then the cards are moved into one pile so that they begin to intertwine and are then arranged back into a stack.
>>47502251
>>47502216
Pile shuffling still has a legitimate purpose, but it's to count your cards and make sure you're presenting what you think you're presenting rather than actual shuffling.
Never participated in any real card game tournament. How are cards shuffled before games? Standard riffle-shuffle doesn't exactly give a really random distribution, so I would assume it's not enough.
>>47502260
I think the issue is that if you're playing with sleeves I'm pretty certain a card edge will stick to a sleeve opening somewhere.
>>47502188
>There is such a thing as mutual cheating,
Except 3 pile shuffle is not a cheating. It is not sufficient shuffle on its own, but as a re-shuffle of already randomized deck it should be acceptable.
And I can't counter-cheat if I'm oblivious to original cheating. I think it's called "plausible deniability".
>>47502281
I haven't slept yet, so my brain is moving a little slowly, but are you suggesting that I should go unsleeved, or by virtue of being sleeved it's reasonable to assume someone will fuck up by accident?
As long as your opponent is given the opportunity to cut, your technique is irrelevant.
>>47502263
Of course, yeah.
>>47502018
It can still happen in theory that he just never ran into anyone that would call him out of it or even do the three-pile reverse stack meme on him.
They should have gone "what the fuck do you think you are you doing" on him the first time he tried that and then upon explaining give him auto-loss or something and let him go on in the tourney. Not check videos from his last four rounds and go "uhhhhhhh you are systematically cheating that's a DQ".
They seem pretty convinced and call it investigation though, so idk. It's within accepptable measures, he didn't get a lifeban or anyhting.
>>47502305
>Except 3 pile shuffle is not a cheating.
An older version of the infraction procedure guide had pile shuffling to undo a weave instead of calling a judge listed as an example under Unsporting Conduct - Cheating. So in this case, it is. As for your plausible deniability, that's up to the judge to decide. Why would you even take the risk when you could just get your opponent disqualified?
Dunno if it cou ts as properly mana weaving. But after a game usually take my cards used in the game and interleave through my undrawn deck before shuffling.
Probably just superstition but i feel like possibly getting the same groups of cards again the next game would be boring.
>>47502319
Suspension can still come. They're dealt out later by DCI after reports from the judges and the player.
>>47502315
>what is mana weaving
Your opponent is actually given the opportunity to shuffle, though, which should make your cheat properly irrelevant in theory, but you'd underestimate people's good will if you thought they will shuffle it seven times like they are suppossed to every time.
>>47502305
>And I can't counter-cheat if I'm oblivious to original cheating. I think it's called "plausible deniability".
That's just an excuse, and you might even be able to sneak it by a judge if you're called on it if you're very lucky, but the idea that you "just so happened" to pile-shuffle their deck into an unplayable mess is extremely suspicious and most judges will error on the side of it being intentional. Remember this isn't a court of law, the judge at a Magic tournament doesn't have to convict you before a jury of your peers before he can issue you a penalty.
>>47502052
>>47502059
Bravo for owning up to your mistakes. This is the only reason I can believe it's a mistake.
>>47502085
OCD is a mentally debilitating disease anon. I'm not saying he has it. I'm just saying I have it and I know what can happen.
>>47502275
You see a whole lot of diffent ways to shuffle. Riffle, mash, hindu, overhand, what have you.
Magic Tournament Rules are somewhat subjective about it. Only clear thing said there is that pile shuffle alone is not sufficient for randomization. "Mathematical random" is not a requirement, you just need to bring the deck to state where reasonably you do not know positions of any cards.
>>47502326
Hmm. Good point, I need to check the latest ruling on this. In my experience judge dq doesn't happen very frequently, they usually just handwave it as a warning. But maybe that's just our local judges.
>>47501886
>implying it's possible to "wholly randomize" your deck by doing a cursory shuffling
>implying the only thing with mana weaving isn't the difference in amount of chance that can fuck people who do or don't do it
>implying this wouldn't be avoided if game mechanics allowed discretionary choice whether to draw from spell deck or mana deck
Based on research by mathematician Persi Diaconis, you only need to shuffle a deck of 52 cards 7 times to fully randomize it. Based on his description, 60 cards is also 7 times since 7 is actually overflow at the 52 level.
Meaning as long as you don't waste ALL your shuffle time on mana weaving it's fine. Suggestion: just pull it all out into one pile and mash that in then start shuffling your 7 times. Should take 30 seconds with practice and won't disrupt the game.
For anyone wondering, Persi Diaconis has stated that casino shuffling is objectively and measurably the best method of randomization. This involves:
-Riffle (or "mash" when you have sleeves) once
-Then overhand (also called "stripping the deck) once
Together they are "1 shuffle" and you repeat this process. Overhand by itself is one of the worst possible shuffle methods. Combined with a riffle, it will neuter accidental perfect riffle shuffles and keep the deck random. Always do these two steps seven times and welcome to the average.
>>47502374
>>implying this wouldn't be avoided if game mechanics allowed discretionary choice whether to draw from spell deck or mana deck
Absolutely disgusting, you degenerate.
>>47502066
They don't cheat, they just cast two explores.
>>47502275
The only real requirement is that you randomize it enough that neither player can reasonably know the position of any specific card, or any particular pattern of cards. This should only take a minute or two at most unless you've got such fat sweaty nerd hands that you can't even mash shuffle properly.
>>47502348
>the idea that you "just so happened" to pile-shuffle their deck into an unplayable mess is extremely suspicious
the assumed course of action is that they draw shit hand and mulligan, the overall composition of the deck never comes in question
>>47502363
>I need to check the latest ruling on this
Pile shuffling to turn a mana weaved deck into an unplayable mess is no longer listed as an example under Unsporting Conduct - Cheating, but it still seems pretty clear cut to me.
>Unsporting Conduct—Cheating
>Disqualification
>Definition
>A person breaks a rule defined by the tournament documents, lies to a tournament official, or notices an offense committed in his or her (or a teammate’s) match and does not call attention to it.
>Additionally, the offense must meet the following criteria for it to be considered cheating:
>The player must be attempting to gain advantage from his or her action.
>The player must be aware that he or she is doing something illegal.
You might be able to feign ignorance and get away with some lesser violation if you don't have a history of cheating, but don't expect a judge to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Wouldn't the obvious solution be to have judges come by and shuffle both players decks before a match before handing them back? This would also let them inspect for card marking.
>>47502420
>This should only take a minute or two at most unless you've got such fat sweaty nerd hands that you can't even mash shuffle properly.
Hey, just because I have fat sweaty nerd hands mangled by years of basketball doesn't mean you should make fun of me for it. I just have stubby fingers bent at all sorts of wacky angles from repeated sprains/breaks.
>>47502362
>pile shuffle alone is not sufficient for randomization
Well, mathematically it's the best shuffle is you use plenty of piles and and least attempt to place your cards in random piles, but I guess that at tournament level you cannot put faith in people.
>>47502455
For that you would either need a lot more judges per player or much slower tournaments.
>>47502455
Realistically unfeasible for general tournament play, and at the finals tables I'm pretty sure you've got judges watching like hawks at all stages anyway.
>>47502467
You can never assume people won't cheat, that's general human nature. In any situation where winning matters someone will eventually cheat if they think they can get away with it, that's true for any competitive activity on the planet.
>>47502353
>OCD is a mentally debilitating disease anon.
I know, but being sick is no excuse to violate the rules at a tournament. Get your shit together, or get out.
>>47502455
This should be standard practice at high-stakes tournaments anyway, but at lower levels it's just not feasible.
>>47502507
This, i'm a super ethics fag but I recognize when it comes to cheating you have two competing instincts/adaptations - Reciprocation and Opportunism. Both are survival tactics ingrained into our species.
>>47501886
Yes, because you have to riffle and cut like 50 times to randomize a deck after it's been sorted out. I usually collect my cards after a game in a way that puts all of my lands in a row, all of my creatures in a row, etc. I've taken to piling everything together and then weaving in the lands before shuffling. Getting a pile of creatures or enchantments isn't ideal, but as long as it comes with lands I'll play it and not waste time with a Mulligan.
>>47502353
>>47502083
Claiming that he just didn't know IS damage control. He has a potential suspension looming; he literally only has two options. He can admit he was cheating, or he can claim to be a retard. He deserves absolutely zero respect for trying to cover his ass.
Riffle shuffle 7-9 times for a 40 card deck, 9-11 times with a 60 card deck. Magic cards are playing cards. They are made specifically to bend and warp, then going back to the origianl shape. Thats why the bend test works. Real magic cards will bend back. And shuffling like that is even easier with sleeves ( I pefer dragon sheild matte, with KMC perfect fit), just shuffle them together at the corner.
>>47502752
It always bothered me how badass the genie is when doing gag magic, but how hilariously incompetent and helpless he becomes when shit comes down.
>>47502099
>You can say muh randomization all you like, but losing a game due to shuffle RNG isn't what this game is about.
How to sum up the Spike mentality in a sentence.
Sure, getting mana screwed or flooded isn't fun but, it happens. This is the risk you agree to accept when you deal with the RNG element of card draw. If Wizards wanted everyone to draw the exact card they needed at every turn they'd print more tutors.
You can say that Magic (or any game with a random element involved) is about managing and reducing the effects of randomness of which mana weaving (read: cheating) is an extreme expression but, the bottom line is if you feel the need to cheat then you're not confident enough in your own ability and you have no business playing at that point.
>>47501965
there is a small sub-branch of math dedicated to deck shuffling, OF COURSE all the people at the top tables are cheating.
mana weaving, making sure you'll draw at least 1 or 2 sideboard cards, it's all maths. it's part of how magicians do card tricks (but without the sleight of hand).
>>47501886
Yes.
>>47502614
>Yes, because you have to riffle and cut like 50 times to randomize a deck after it's been sorted out.
You really don't, not for a game of magic at least.
>>47502614
>Like 50 times
More like nine. And even if that were the case, you can riffle fifty times no problem in the time it takes to Mana Weave.
>>47502260
This "whirlpool shuffle" as I've always heard it called is usually too slow to be used in tournament play. I do use it, but only to mix up a pre-sorted deck (ie writing down my decklist) before round 1 starts. Doing it during a match is right out.
>>47504938
Not if you've got sleeved cards, sleeved cards are very prone to perfectly interleave one card over another meaning there's no effect on the randomness of your deck
>>47502411
Whatever happened to that guy? did he quit or get banned?
>>47506327
Suspended. Big names can't be banned, that's reserved for nobodies.
This game is a fucking joke.
>>47506225
This is not true at all and you have to be a manaweaving retard to believe it.
Nope. I have sleeves so I just cut the deck, shove the two together, repeat as necessary.
The British always cheat at games.
I don't understand, why is this cheating?
Your opponent gets to shuffle your deck after you are done...
>>47506454
>That ancient British name Fabrizio Anteri
Look at that name m8, just look at it. Dude's a Venezuelan-Italian apparently.
>>47502083
He's passing it off as him forgetting to shuffle though. He's a pro player. Is that likely? How often do you forget to shuffle?
>>47506491
He's a British citizen.
>>47506624
Except for the whole "cheating" part, that's almost correct.
How is obtaining better randomness through weaving cheating?
>>47506464
Because you yourself are required to set the deck into an unknown state.
>>47506671
Then why let your opponent shuffle? Isn't that just pointlessly allowing them to cheat like all the pro's who put your lands to your deck bottom?
>>47506609
According to his MTGSalvation page he's not got British citizenship. in fact he's specifically listed as 'currently living in London' which suggests his residence is temporary.
MTGSalvation are not the most stringent source but then again Mario Huehue isn't important enough to be on a real wiki.
To counter the original point though, everyone cheats at games at a high enough level. Honestly the length casinos have to go to to stop cheaters is unreal and I don't think there's been a fair race run in over two decades.
>>47506664
Because if you shuffle the way you are supposed to, the starting state of the deck is irrelevant. If you shuffle properly, it doesn't fucking matter wether you mana weave, or the lands are neatly separated from the other cards.
>>47506682
Because, unless you are mana weaving like a retard, it's pretty fucking hard to put all the lands to the bottom, especially when somebody is starting at you while you are doing it.
Just a reminder: There is no requirement that a deck be "totally randomized" or even "randomized as much as possible" for REL Magic (or any TCG). The requirement is only that a deck be "sufficiently randomized" meaning that no person should be able to determine which cards or which type of cards may be located in any discrete portion of the deck after the shuffle is completed.
By this definition mana weaving is absolutely allowed even though it provides an advantage. Because you cannot determine exactly where the lands are (or even how many lands are in any discrete portion of the deck) beyond "probably somewhat uniform" the deck is "sufficiently shuffled" and you are fine.
If you ever suspect that your opponent is stacking their deck in such a way that provides them advantage you are always allowed to either shuffle or cut their deck and as a general rule I always cut my opponent's deck. If on the other hand you are booty bothered by your opponent having high probabilities of silky smooth land drops more often than you perhaps you should consider mana-weaving as it is perfectly legal.
>>47506664
Mana weaving reduces randomness. You're organizing the pattern of the deck.
>>47506799
no person should be able to determine which cards or which type of cards may be located in any discrete portion of the deck
>which type of cards may be located in any discrete portion of the deck
Except mana weaving does exactly that. It let's you know which type of cards (lands) are where in the deck (evenly dispersed)
The whole game should be played with a land deck and a normal deck, you get to choose which deck to draw from at the beginning of your turn.
>>47506799
>By this definition mana weaving is absolutely allowed even though it provides an advantage.
Tell that to a judge and see what happens.
>>47506982
Build better decks or play a different game.
>>47506799
But that's not the rules, anon.
>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. Pile shuffling alone is not sufficiently random.
>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.
>ANY
Also, you 100% can and should call a judge.
>If the opponent does not believe the player made a reasonable effort to randomize his or her deck, the opponent must notify a judge.
>MUST
>>47502455
>>47502473
Why no just let the opponent shuffle your deck?
>>47507009
Everybody gets manascrewed from time to time. It never really bothers me, but it might cut out some of the whining to do it with two decks.
>>47506982
The entire game is built around this mechanic. If you ensure that you get lands 100% when you need them, it'd make for a completely different and way more greedy game.
>>47507049
Realistically if you're building a deck properly mana screw should be extremely minimal, you're more likely to get flooded. Also, use your mulligans properly, so many people keep crap hands because they don't want to mulligan but then complain about mana screw.
>>47506955
>>47507024
"Evenly dispersed" is a horse shit claim. You might as well try to get your opponent banned for having lands "somewhere" in their deck.
>>47507085
Most people never learn how to Mulligan properly, even though it's an incredibly important part of the game.
>>47507133
Go whine at a judge and get laughed out of the room. Mana Weaving is illegal by definition and that's the end of it.
>>47507133
Which means the Mana weave did nothing, so you were wasting time, which is also against the rules.
What is hard about this?
>>47506799
If mana weaving is a legitimate shuffling technique, if you pay attention to how they do it, you can somewhat effectively de-weave it without looking at the card faces, since you're allowed to "shuffle" as well. Done properly, it puts all their lands back in one part of their deck, and bootybothers the fuck out of them.
Hi, could I ask for a favor from anyone in this thread even remotely defending "pile shuffling"/"mana weaving"? Please look at this image and tell me which array of points is distributed randomly and which was distributed deterministically.
>>47507257
Which is illegal too. Being a cunt yourself only puts two cunts at the table.
Don't be a fag, play by the rules and tell them to shuffle properly. If they don't, call a judge and they'll get a warning. If they keep doing it, keep calling the judge and get them DQ'd.
>>47507271
Left is random, right is someone trying to set something up under the pretenses of being random but habitually spaced everything out too well.I'm not defending weaving, that's just my impression from looking at that picture.
>>47507271
The one on the left has far more 'clumps' of multiple stars, and the clumps tend to be 3 stars as well.
The one on the right lacks the same blanks spaces, and there are only a few clumps, and never more than 2.
Either way, this is irrelevant. If you're trying to say Mana-weaving makes no difference, then there's no reason to so it and its wasting time. If it does make a difference, then its stacking your deck and therefore cheating.
>>47507271
>>47507368 here. Disregard that last bit. Thought you were trying to use that image to somehow argue in favor of mana weaving.
>>47507133
If you mana weave, can you say with absolute certainty that your deck is not 20 lands followed by 40 spells? Yes? You have information about the order of your cards therefore it isn't sufficiently random.
Mana weaving aside, pile shuffling helps you win more games by INCREASING the randomness of your deck.
Playing games of magic naturally causes lands to stick with lands, and spells to stick with spells. All sleeves are at least somewhat sticky; if they weren't, it would be hard to hold a deck together.
Manually separating them and placing them in piles prevents them from sticking together, therefore moving the provability of mana screw or flood closer to random.
It is not, however, shuffling.
>>47507636
Now that's an argument for pile shuffling I haven't heard before, interesting. Do you have anything to back up the sticky sleeves angle?
Either way you should still pile shuffle once between games, if only to make sure that you haven't done something like board 4 cards in but only take 3 out.
What the fuck is mana weaving
>>47508007
Setting up your deck so lands and spells are distributed evenly instead of shuffling.
>>47508107
But you're supposed to shuffle your deck before a match. Why does it matter what its composition was before that?
>>47508225
It doesn't matter, so there is no reason to weave.
>>47508225
Either it's cheating or it doesn't matter. Don't waste time.
Doing it after building a deck or before a tournament starts is fine, between matches is not.
No, >>47507636
>pile shuffling helps you win more games by INCREASING the randomness of your deck
No it doesn't. It changes the sequencing, but doesn't increase randomness. A pile to separate clumps followed by a multitude of riffles/mashes is sufficient shuffling. Mana weaving is just retarded.
I love it when people mana weave across from me.
I can do 7 riffle shuffles in around a minute, but its kind of hard on the cards so I don't like to do it to my decks. Its nice to have the opportunity to show off a bit, and then if they complain about it I get to go into the mana weaving debate with the upper hand.
>be me
>play M:TG for years as a casual scrub
>like, ten of 'em
>thumb through rules as needed bu certainly don't master the game
>never played in a rules strict environment, save for a couple of friendly drafts I parcipated in as a kid
>one day, a more competitive friend invites me to FNM right around the new infect wave
>tells me how fun it will be and how everyone there's really cool
>start the night
>draft, store sets out mana, and I absentmindedly begin to weave
>person who I was going to be up against first fucking LOSES HIS MIND
>starts screaming about how sick and fucking tired he is of "cheating faggots", calls me a piece of shit
>asks me why I'm mana weaving
>"Never played at an event, man, is this against the rules?"
>look around in more or less total shock, every person there except my friend is glaring at me like I just punched a woman in the uterus
>"JUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDGE!!! THE NEW GUY WON'T STOP CHEATING!!!"
>wtf
>judge comes over and tells me that I'm stacking the deck.
>apologize and tell 'em that this is my first "official" event and that I was unaware of randomization rules
>get told I'm lying, asked to DQ'd, asked to leave the shop entirely
>have to sit in the car because my 'friend' was a spineless faggot who wanted to save face to his FNM buddies
And people wonder why I sold all my cards. I used to play for fun. This community has gotten very very far away from 'fun'.
>>47502752
>Machine guns in a Disney movie, even if it IS direct-to-video
For some reason I don't see that happening nowadays.
>>47501886
I think that if you're just finished assembling your deck by yourself you can manaweave, then shuffle thoroughly afterward.
>Then why did you manaweave?
Because it takes for fucking ever to de-chunk a 24 stack of lands. You could shuffle for hours and still get 5+ lands in a row.
>>47502711
Why is it that when it comes to the subject of cheating, every human on earth assumes guilty until proven innocent? You'd fit right in at the Steam user forums.
>>47507271
Left is random, right is organized. With true randomness there are always weird patterns. It gets worse when you have multiple copies of something like 4 of.
>>47512676
He's been proven guilty, he was caught cheating.
>>47512748
And he admitted to doing the act. But accidentally. This is what I'm talking about anon.
>>47512676
Because he's literally claiming that he was forgetting to shuffle. That's absolutely absurd, especially for someone playing pro-level Magic. That he would forget to shuffle AFTER stacking his deck? Bullshit.
>>47512454
Runs of land / spell are exactly what random will mean at times. Pretty often, in fact.
Does the anti-weaving troll realize that if you just scoop up your lands and permanents and hand and shuffle that you are deterministically making the distribution lead to them being closer together in the deck? Sounds like cheating to me.
>>47517527
Only if you don't shuffle properly. It's already established that not shuffling properly is cheating.
>>47517867
No amount of shuffling you can do in that time will undo the bias you insert by just picking up the deck as it was on the table.
>>47518010
Persi Diaconis called and said you were an ignorant faggot.
>>47518385
Are you trying to compare true randomness to a slightly randomized stacked deck?
You cheaters are all the same.
>>47518484
Maybe they should make a handicapable tournament bracket for you cripples and retards incapable of shuffling sufficiently in a timely manner.
>>47501886
>what is mana weaving?
>look it up
>2:1 ratio
>literally stacking the deck
What shyster genius called it a mana weave and convinced people it was a thing?
>>47518724
>i have no argument
ok
>>47518823
Just read >>47502400 and fuck off already.
Remember kids, a mathematician said 7 shuffles will make your decks super optimal shuffled!
Unless you mana weave beforehand, then it doesn't work.
>>47519017
>>47519177
What is it about mana weaving that draws butthurt shitposters like moths to a flame?
hey guys
randomness != even distribution
>>47501886
The rules say you must properly randomize your deck.
It isn't practical to randomize your deck properly and nobody actually does this.
Thus, even if you follow the exact randomization practices everyone else follows, the state of your deck before you randomize will have a potentially significant impact on the state of your deck post-randomization.
Therefore, given that you want to do whatever you can to win, you must manaweave.
It's true that manaweaving is explicitly not allowed, but because it isn't policed, the best strategy is still to always do it, because there is no way you can be sure that all other players are behaving in accordance with the unenforced rules.
What you do know is that the other players probably also play to win, and that the manaweaving rules are unenforced (at least, unless you openly manaweave during a tournament or something.)
Q.E.D.
>>47519538
Randomness tends more strongly toward an even distribution than doing two piles shuffles and a riffle shuffle after assembling a deck with 24 lands in a big clump.
Why don't big events just have mechanical shufflers instead of letting people shuffle themselves?
Just stick it in the machine, let it come out, and don't let the players touch it. If anything requires a shuffle after that, they can just do it by hand.
>>47518724
>shuffling sufficiently in a timely manner.
You clearly have no idea how much work that actually takes.
If everyone did that every time they were supposed to according to the rules, games would take hours
>>47519839
Mana weaving happens before you shuffle, and is probably an even better idea if you know the shuffle is going to be mechanical.
Shuffling machines are shit.
>>47519865
Even so, they wouldn't have time to do anything to their decks between rounds. So they get at most the opening round to fuck with their decks, and then they've got no control over it.
fixed
>>47519886
That's pretty much the way it is already. You shuffle in front of your opponent and let them cut, after all.
You can't mana weave in front of them because it's not allowed, so it only really slightly tilts the game in your favour in the first round or so.
Unless you can get away with mana weaving in the bathroom during a break or something.
>>47502374
>>implying it's possible to "wholly randomize" your deck by doing a cursory shuffling
That's why you don't do a cursory shuffle you fucking mogoloid, you riffle at least seven or eight times. Have you ever actually played a card game in your entire life?
>>47519918
>more evenly distributed
Then you know something about the contents of your deck, which means it's not randomized. There aren't varying degrees of random, it either is or it isn't.
I have no idea what you're even saying with the whole "your deck isn't randomized either" shit
>>47519852
If those disgusting, greasy sausages you call fingers can't manage a riffle in a few seconds, you need to lose some weight or practice.
>>47520124
It's the new go to defense for mana weaving mouthbreathers. They think that because they're incapable of sufficiently shuffling their deck in a minute or two that no one else is.
>>47519918
>By the way, my lands will be more evenly distributed
Assuming someone is properly shuffling their deck afterwards, mana-weaving will have no effect on the way the cards are organized.
Which (again, assuming they know how to shuffle) ultimately means it's just a way of wasting time. It's like asking why people tap their feet while waiting for the bus.
If it's delaying a game, it's a problem. If they aren't shuffling properly afterwards, it's a problem. Otherwise, who cares.
>>47520074
Have you ever splashed blue and had to draw cards and shuffle your deck like once or twice every single turn you take?
>>47520224
>Assuming someone is properly shuffling their deck afterwards, mana-weaving will have no effect on the way the cards are organized.
False.
>>47520293
I can tell you're a retard or a noob because you think splashing blue makes you shuffle more. Anyway, a goof shuffle takes ten seconds tops. If you can't do that, practice it, or stop playing the game.
>>47520306
If you truly can't see why that statement is actually true, you are literally too stupid to argue with.
>>47520306
do you not know how to randomize 60 cards, or what
>>47520124
>>47520203
>>47520224
The way the game is played in real life, nobody ever shuffles enough to technically randomize their deck properly. There's just doing a bunch of shuffles in a row and going "okay i think we did it enough now"
But it isn't. Nobody actually does that amount of shuffling, because that would be extremely obnoxious.
So as long as nobody checks your deck for pre-shuffle manaweaving, it's the best tactic.
And nobody checks.
>>47520348
>>47520354
If you think a good shuffle takes ten seconds, you have no idea what it takes to properly randomize a deck, and I suggest you actually go do some research.
When we play, I'll be doing the same amount of shuffles you're doing. The difference is, I know it's not enough, and you never bothered to find out.
I've heard pile shuffling can be accounted for somehow.
What I'm curious about is if this only works if they shuffle a specific way, IE, one card in each pile piles all even.
If you pile shuffle outside of that fashion, wouldn't it ruin whatever they've attempted to do?
I hear people say that pile shuffling doesn't count as random and I don't understand why
If the cards are not already ordered in a known pattern to begin with, then you can't make them "unrandom" by reordering them in a pattern without knowing what cards you're putting where
I don't pile shuffle after tutoring in game because it's slow but when we play edh, with big unwieldly 100 card decks, if I'm in no rush, pile shuffling seems like the easiest shuffling method and the least likely to result in ripped sleeves or damaged cards
>>47520074
You can riffle for half a hour and your "randomization" will still be shit.
If it wasn't, nobody would care about muh mana weaving in the first place.
>>47520348
Scrying, card draw, and other "and shuffle your library" shenanigans.
>>47520378
>If you think a good shuffle takes ten seconds
Don't put words in people's mouths, dude.
>>47502800
I agree. They could've had a lot more fun than they did when it was him vs Jafar in 2.
>>47520359
>>47520378
>>47520405
It's simple. "Do you have any idea what the order of your deck is?" If you can honestly answer that question with anything other than "no," then it's not random. If yes, then it is. This is what the rules say, not any made-up statistics bullshit you might pull.
>>47520410
Drawing and scrying don't shuffle, idiot. Play the fucking game.
>>47520415
Well he said "goof" shuffle so technically you're correct.
You have to mana weave if you want to play competitively. It's a huge advantage. Otherwise, I think it's kind of gay, but so is MTG desu.
>>47501886
>freshly brewed deck
>drew 20/24 lands vs fuck you control
It's these two scenarios that I mana weave in. No amount of Shuffling gives perfect randomization, and I want to even out the chance of mana flood/screw vs playing the game.
>>47520440
Literally thousands of players have won GPs and PTs by shuffling like a normal person, you fucking retard. I swear people like you don't actually learn about the game just so you can argue about it.
>>47520459
So you're admitting that mana weaving is stacking your deck. Good, then you agree that it's cheating.
Instead of mana weaving I "weave" my 8 and 9 drops so that they don't appear one after the other
I run enough lands that I never get mana screwed but boy do I hate drawing avacyn turn 1 into Iona turn 2
>>47520428
I think there's something fundamental about the world you're not understanding if you think people will just police themselves and lower their own win rates in a competitive setting.
Following that logic, why test for blood doping in sports? I mean they, themselves, know if they're cheating or not so there's no reason to test, amirite?
>>47520465
I always shuffle the legal amount of times afterwards, so no, I'm just satisfying my neurosis. ;^)
>>47520478
I'm not that guy but how the fuck did you draw that ass backwards conclusion from what he said?
>>47520465
You act like you know if they mana wove, but you don't "you fucking retard."
You're just assuming that to be true.
Even if it is, that doesn't change the fact that there's something you can do, which (cheat or not) nobody bothers to check up on, and it improves your win rate.
I think I'll add mana weaving to my list of autism triggers, somewhere between "coasters" and "women are objectively weaker than men"
>>47520521
Wait are you saying coasters themselves trigger you? Or you don't like thinking about coasters because of people not using them and ruining your coffee table
Also are you saying it triggers you when people repeat undeniable facts about the relative body strength of genders? Or are you saying it triggers you when somebody has to bring up that fact in some sort of /tg/ related fantasy discussion?
>>47520497
... i don't know what to say about that? I suggest you read his post?
>It's simple. "Do you have any idea what the order of your deck is?" If you can honestly answer that question with anything other than "no," then it's not random.
Mana weaving is against the rules; the mana weaver is aware that he mana wove. He's actively trying to influence the order of his deck. What's this inane comment doing here and how is it meant to have any relevance to the discussion?
>>47520540
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean "my" personal list of autism triggers. I meant list of things to avoid bringing up (or purposefully bring up) in the interest of keeping the discussion calm (or heat it up, respectively).
>>47520544
He was replying to people who were discussing what properly random means in the context of magic
He gave his definition which you quoted
I mana weave after a game, riffle shuffle five times, 5 stack sort pile (because it looks like the mana color wheel to me) and then continue to riffle shuffle until the next game starts.
Mostly due to autism, as the last two steps basically nullify the first two. Riffle shuffling can still leave clumps depending on how thorough your shuffle technique is, and since I can't do the upswing on a riffle I like to be ocd levels of thorough.
I will say people that nana weave and the dont at least stack shuffle are fucking cheaters and you should knock their decks off the table while screaming about their cheater qualities.
>>47520544
>the mana weaver is aware that he mana wove
That means absolutely nothing if he's randomizing his deck afterwards. The problems arise with people who forget or do not know how to shuffle their deck to be properly random.
>Mana weaving is against the rules
if they aren't randomizing their deck, yes
if they are delaying the game, yes
otherwise, no
actually read the rules, please
>>47520556
Ohhhhh
>>47520465
>So you're admitting that mana weaving is stacking your deck.
If I've established that shuffling doesn't provide perfect randomization, then there's no properly legal way to reorder your deck.
>just shuffle to the best of your ability
Not good enough.
>>47520558
His definition of what "properly random" is, is absolutely worthless in the context of this thread, since the person who knows about it is the person doing the cheating.
>>47520596
Show me that part in the rules where it says your deck has to be "perfectly" random or you reordered your deck "illegally"
There is a random enough and it consists of you not knowing the order of cards in your deck
Whatever it takes to do that is enough
>>47520587
>he problems arise with people who forget or do not know how to shuffle their deck to be properly random.
No, the problems arise when the best strategy is to exploit unenforced rules.
People who mana weave aren't doing it, and then honestly thinking that they really are truly randomizing their deck when shuffling afterwards.
They're doing it, knowing that if they shuffle the same amount as their opponent, they have an advantage.
> shuffling not automated at tournament level play in a twenty plus year game
Literally no fucking excuse at this point for there not to be automated shufflers at high level play.
>>47520621
>you not knowing the order of cards in your deck
Do you seriously expect people to just be honest and never cheat when nobody could possibly know about it?
>>47502066
>cyclists
>cheating
It's not cheating if everyone does it.
>>47520621
>not knowing the order of cards in your deck
and knowing or estimating how homogenous distribution of lands is satisfies this criterion despite giving you opportunity for an advantage.
>>47520598
I'm confused, why does that make it worthless? It seems like that makes it literally perfect
After all, you can't cheat without doing so knowingly, you can gain an unfair advantage by accident but it's not "cheating" unless you do it on purpose
Are you saying we need a definition of random that a player can use to determine if another players deck is random without looking at any of his cards face up?
If so, I sort of get where you are coming from but I don't see why it's not enough to simply shuffle your opponents deck if you suspect they know something about the order and/or distribution of the cards in it
>>47520642
They're not helpful. Shuffling machines are terrible, and stacking your deck before having it shuffled would probably be better with a machine than if doing it yourself.
>>47520642
>automated shufflers
Hope you enjoy watching your hundred dollar cards get devoured by a piece of shit machine.
>>47520657
Sorry I meant to say the order AND/OR DISTRIBUTION of cards in your deck
>>47520649
You're allowed to shuffle your opponents deck to our satisfaction are you not?
>>47520659
How are you this staggeringly stupid?
You can't stop a person from cheating if the only person who knows that they're cheating is themselves.
How is this not obvious to you
>>47520598
>absolutely worthless in the context of this thread
it's literally the official rules on the subject. Quite relevant when talking about whether or not something is against the rules.
>>47520624
>knowing that if they shuffle the same amount as their opponent, they have an advantage
If they're shuffling correctly, they won't. And someone who takes three minutes to shuffle their deck will not know the order of (or distribution) their cards unless they're actually cheating via sleight of hand.
>>47520670
Especially with sleeves. And thanks to MtG's fucked up pricing, no one would stick their several-thousand-dollar decks into something that might chew them up.
>>47520690
>shuffle your opponents deck to our satisfaction
Yes. But people don't actually do that.
Do people lose their shit if you riffle shuffle their decks? Is there supposed to be a standard way to shuffle an opponents deck?
>>47520698
I said that you can shuffle the deck if you suspect your opponent is cheating
You're right I must be missing something, it is simply a fact of reality that the only way to be 100% sure if a player is cheating is to be that player, but if yo see them doing stuff that cheaters do, like reorder their deck between games, then you're welcome to shuffle their deck to your own satisfaction right?
I'm very confused as to why you're so mad at me
>>47520706
> the official rules on the subject
The exact point of this entire discussion is that those rules don't help you catch people who mana weave, because the only one who can know they mana wove prior to the game is themselves.
>If they're shuffling correctly
Nobody shuffles correctly. People don't actually shuffle for long enough. That's the point.
>>47520741
Then it should be standard practice to shuffle under the assumption that your opponent may have mana wove.
>>47520721
riffle, mash, overhand and simple cutting are all perfectly acceptable
I only riffle if the guy didn't really shuffle, though.
>>47520741
>Nobody shuffles correctly.
>People don't actually shuffle for long enough.
I'm not sure why it's so difficult to believe that some people actually do shuffle enough.
>>47520719
People watch each other shuffle though, if they suspect somebody isn't shuffling correctly they CAN shuffle to their satisfaction
The fact that they don't means they didn't see anything suspicious happen with the original shuffling
Are you saying that mana weaving is happening all the time, in almost every game, because people don't shuffle their opponents decks for long enough?
That seems retarded because if everybody was cheating, then surely they would suspect their opponents of cheating, and then they would shuffle their opponents deck properly, and then nobody would be able to cheat effectively
>>47520732
You arrive at a tournament, bringing your deck. Your deck has been mana woven.
You sit down at the table. Both of you shuffle the amount that people shuffle at tournaments (which is insufficient.) Maybe he cuts your deck, whatever. He has no reason to suspect you mana wove, especially if you shuffle exactly the same amount he does, or only slightly less.
You still get a significant advantage during the first round(s).
In a sense, if you wish to play to win, you must do this.
The only thing that people from doing it is their own willingness to hurt their win rate out of some feeling of moral obligation to be "good boys."
It's not about doubting whether something is cheating or not. It's that the game is played in a way that makes it easy and nearly undetectable to cheat in this small, but still significant, way.
>>47520758
>I'm not sure why it's so difficult to believe
The reason you're not sure why it's so difficult to believe is because you don't know how much fucking work it is compared to what people are actually doing right now.
>>47520400
Problem is, we don't know at the beginning of the game whether a player's deck is ordered or not. That's why you need to shuffle and piling is not enough to make the deck "sufficiently random".
I'd say that pile shuffle itself is not really the problem.
Slow play is a problem, and there piling can be a problem without realizing it (example: piling after each mulligan while not realizing the time it unnecessarily takes).
Insufficient randomization is a problem, when player doesn't realize pile shuffles alone are not enough.
Stalling is a problem, where piling can play part if the player for example starts doing several slow pile shuffles when 1-0 up and the clock running down.
Cheating is a problem and piling can be a part of it, when a player takes a deck prearranged to a specific pattern, piles it to a still specific pattern a few times, doesn't shuffle and presents hoping that the opponent doesn't shuffle or only cuts.
>>47520763
If someone is mana weaving in front of someone else, they're just flagrantly and obviously cheating.
The point is, when you bring your deck to a game, or in the breaks if you get a chance to do it, it's always best to mana weave so that the deck you bring to your match is pre mana woven.
Everything you do at the table is completely above board and nobody has even the slightest reason to suspect a thing.
>>47520776
First of all, do you have some sort of link that proves that after mana weaving your deck, a pile shuffle and 5-10 mashes and a random cut later, the deck is statistically more likely to have nicely weaved mana than a "truly random" deck?
Secondly, if it is true that typical shuffling habits aren't enough to stop the effect of mana weaving, and every truly competitive player playing to win knows this and does this, then why don't those same players properly shuffle their opponents deck before first round games?
>>47520793
>how much fucking work
Take a few minutes and shuffle your deck, fatso. It's not difficult.
.
>>47520819
>a pile shuffle and 5-10 mashes
Are you seriously implying that this is normal?
How much magic do you play?
>>47520836
The amount that people shuffle their decks is far from enough.
The problem isn't that I'm allowed to mana weave; I'm the guy doing it. I want to shuffle as little as possible to improve my win rate.
The problem is that it's not normal to force your opponent to shuffle for long enough to cancel out mana weaving. (because that takes forever and nobody wants to wait for it.)
So we end up with the issue that everyone can easily improve their win rates by mana weaving if they want to, and the only thing that stops them is themselves.
>>47520895
I was referring only to the beginning of the game shuffle, is that too much? Seems normal in my experience
After that you do just a couple mashes 2-3 then a random cut, since presumably they can't mana weave during a tutor, they don't have time
>>47520923
>because that takes forever and nobody wants to wait for it
It doesn't take forever and people will wait for it whether they like it or not.
I've shuffled my opponent's deck for several minutes in past events, and I've also had my own deck shuffled for several minutes. This is on top of our own thorough shuffles.
have you never been to a proper tournament, or what?
>>47520923
You STILL refuse to answer my simple question
If what you're saying is true, and all the super sly competitive players like you are mana weaving before every FNM, then why the fuck don't you guys shuffle your opponents decks properly, given that you seem to think everybody who doesn't mana weave is stupid
I think this thread could do with some clairification
If you don't purposely order your deck before shuffling, then you can shuffle however you like and as many or few times as you like and it's perfectly random, all that matters is that you don't know the order or distribution, so if you don't know beforehand, then even a regular pattern pile shuffle is sufficiently random
If you want to be CERTAIN that your OPPONENT's deck is sufficiently random, and that any mana weave they might have done has no effect, then you have to riffle shuffle 8 or more times, which translates to like 10-15 mashes depending on how smooth your mashes are
senpai I have a question
After a match, I have in front of me a pile of lands, other permanents and graveyard. How am I supposed to shuffle them together with rest of my library in order to not know the approximate distribution?
If I just take them in a pile, I know lands will be clumped together, if I "weave" the land pile into the other permanents and discard pile, I know they will be spread out bit more. Of course subsequent shuffling will erode any patterns, but will that be enough to have the deck "randomized"?
>>47521425
It takes exactly 8 well done rifle shuffles to achieve true, mathematical, statistical randomness from ANY starting position
You can feel comfortable using this method no matter what you did before, stacking the cards by card type, putting your graveyard on top of your library after the game, etc, anything you can think of
If you riffle shuffle 8 times, it's completely random
However, riffle shuffling a sleeved deck takes practice to not fuck with the cards, so, if you're like me and don't like riffle shuffling, you can mash shuffle, which is essentially just a slower and easier to do, and less likely to bend cards, rifle shuffle
Since it's not quite as perfect as riffle shuffling, you should do more, like 10-15, to achieve true randomness
15 might seem like a lot but you only need to do it between games, during the game it should be sufficient to mash only a couple times since you won't have reordered your deck since the last time you made it sufficiently random
Also if you actively try not to remember anything about the order of the cards (assuming they were properly shuffled at some point) you can get away with less shuffling since all that really matters is that you don't know the position and distribution of cards
>>47502085
There is absolutely no damage control in there bud. Honestly, I think it was just an honest mistake.
>>47506982
go play FoW with the rest of neckbeards
>>47506982
Only for your draw for turn? Or each time you draw for any reason?
Also this would totally break cards like ponder and ancient stirrings that dig through your deck
Obviously you'd choose the nonland deck and get crazy card selection
I think a better solution is (in casual games only) to just let people have free mulligans if they reveal a hand with 0 lands, or 1 if you're playing casual high cmc decks that can't do anything on 1 land
>>47521716
>neckbeards
At my lgs the force of will crowd is skinny Asian manlets not fat neckbeards
The yugioh crowd is negroes and Mexicans
The magic crowd is fat white neckbeards
>>47510265
You SHOULD have been shot. If you can't be assed to read and follow the rules, you had no business being anywhere near a competitive event. If may not be serious to you, but to REAL MtG players who may be testing competition decks and need valid data, their very careers are on the line. Your treatment of their experience as some casual game is hugely disrespectful, and you're lucky to have been able to be allowed to walk back to your car I nstead of crawling on broken kneecaps. Don't fuck with a persons career.
>>47521949
Top baits
Nothing that couldn't have been solved with a quick legal shuffle
I don't allow my opponents to pray to Jesus to literally change the order of cards in their deck so they win.
Of course I don't believe it works, but they do, which means they are willing to cheat and that makes them dishonest people.
The fact that their method of cheating is ineffective doesn't make it okay to cheat, it just adds "gullible" to the list of reasons I don't want to associate with them.
>>47501886
Ofcourse I do. And before your opponent or anyone bothers to say anything you pick up your deck and plop it in front of your opponent and wait from them to shuffle it (or tap it).
Unless your opponent is willing to waste round time (Which few are), generally it gets to keeps some uniformity. Can't be cheating right? You let your opponent shuffle it. No ones fault but theirs.
>>47522068
And then an opponent who has actually read the infraction procedure guide calls a judge and you get disqualified.
>>47506327
Bertoncini got banned for something like 18 months, which seems to be the default ban period for cheaters. It makes sense as a time frame because it isn't so long that they might quit the game entirely, but it is so long that it will mean they will miss one whole season of the competitive tournaments which means they'll be starting from scratch when the suspension expires, no byes or anything.
I definitely remember he did go back to tournament Magic for a while after the suspension but never achieved anything noteworthy. I think he was also implicated in another cheating scandal when Jared Boetcher, a friend of his, was caught doing a shuffle cheat at one of the SCG events. I suspect he has decided the smart thing now is to just leave the game because he's so well known for cheating he's just going to get called on it constantly regardless of whether he's doing it or not.
>>47520348
>I can't into basic math
Wow are you stupid. College dropout getting internet at a public library?
>>47520758
It's hard to believe because you can literally watch pro tour videos online...
>>47521939
That's everywhere.
>>47512771
Anon. He's a fucking pro-level player. Mana weaving is bitched about RAMPANTLY in the hobby.
If he seriously got to that level of play and mysteriously was unaware that a thing he apparently did EVERY GAME was cheating, then he's too dumb for life.
>mana weave all the time
>"anon why do you mana weave if it doesn't give you an unfair advantage"
>can you say your deck was truly randomized if you don't?
>it's obviously circular logic but it gets me off the hook every game
>>47507271
>>47507348
>>47512732
>All these people who saw through it.
Holy shit /tg/ might be bad at magic but is easily the best board. Never change.
>>47522846
>It's okay to be a retard if you're only arguing with other retards
>>47521949
Topkek, m8
>>47506664
You don't really understand what random means, do you? Random does not mean equal distribution, it means no patterns at all. Random means that you could end up with a starting hand of all mana, or no mana.
That show Numb3rs actually explained it pretty well, though I can't seem to find a clip.
The math nerd told everyone in the room to stand somewhere random in the room. They then all spread out with an equal space between them. This formed a pattern, even though there were no lines.
For it to be truly random, some people would be so close as to be touching, others would be up against the walls, there could have been a few wide open spaces.
>>47520794
I agree with this. And to a lot of people i would give the benefit of the doubt to if they aren't professional level and such. But pro players is no excuse. And we have seen them cheat many times before which is unfortunate
>>47520465
>So you're admitting that mana weaving is stacking your deck. Good, then you agree that it's cheating.
Well, duh. Of course, literally everyone does it at tournaments and you'll win a lot less if you don't do it. It's kind of ridiculous to play competitively if you don't mana weave.
>>47524601
Then why aren't you calling the Judge on literally everyone and enjoy your free Byes?Oh, right, because most people don't do it.
>>47524601
>hurr literally all the pros do it. there's no way they can consistently beat me, it's not that I suck.
>>47520359
>So as long as nobody checks your deck for pre-shuffle manaweaving, it's the best tactic.
How the fuck would you "check a deck for pre-shuffle manaweaving"? Is there a configuration of deck that you would find insufficiently random BEFORE a shuffle? Is there a configuration of cards that can only be achieved by mana weaving even when all configurations of a deck are possible through random shuffling?
See, this is the big witchcraft claim against manaweaving exposed. It's impossible to positively (or even semi-accurately) identify a deck that's been mana woven from one that is randomly arranged. You can say "But TRUE randomness always has X features" which is such a flat self-contradiction it doesn't even warrant an argument. The very definition of randomness is it's lack of defining features and a deck where cards are more or less evenly distributed is one of the most common (but not universal) features of a properly shuffled deck. Accusing your opponent of manaweaving is like accusing them of witchcraft. You take an otherwise normal observation and create implications and causes for it with no basis in fact other than "muh experience is that usually..."
If you believe it is wasting time for your opponent to mana weave, why not just let them (assuming the time taken is not excessive)? Would you also object if, as a final act of every shuffle they superstitiously took the bottom seven cards of the deck and put it on top? As long as the shuffle is completed to a sufficiently random level you are not harmed. Probably 100% of mana weaving complaints are people fishing for DQs and sadly many lower level judges fall for it.
>>47528952
>If you believe your opponent is cheating, why not just let them? It's impossible to prove
You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Nobody suspects manaweaving when your opponent gets good draws, they KNOW it's manaweaving when people manaweave IN FRONT OF THEM.
>>47528952
>If you believe it is wasting time for your opponent to mana weave, why not just let them
Because matches have a fixed time limit. Games can already end in draws as it is, even more so if one player spends several minutes on stacking his deck.
It doesn't fucking matter anyway. There are clear regulations. If somebody doesn't shuffle sufficiently, call a judge. If the judge is a complete fag, just riffle and cut your opponents deck once, which will completely fuck his mana weave, and then report the judge after the tournament for being a shitty judge. End of story.
>>47529268
>It doesn't fucking matter anyway. There are clear regulations
pretty much
Still not sure why they ditched the time limit for pre-game prep, though. Makes the calls harder on the judges if someone's being a slow faggot.
>>47529238
It's impossible to tell with certainty if with a given deck it's been manawoven.
It is possible, through time consuming repeated checking, to tell if a person has extraordinarily better luck in distribution of lands than average or a reference sample, and even then it can't be completely certain (they can just be that lucky)
In the light of that, "manaweaving" should be not only accepted but encouraged to even the chances - as long as it's followed by shuffling to prevent outright stacking the deck.
>>47529384
So you'll just keep ignoring >>47502400
>>47528952
>It's impossible to positively (or even semi-accurately) identify a deck that's been mana woven from one that is randomly arranged.
And this is why you should always shuffle your opponents deck to or at least close to the specifications in >>47502400 when participating in competitive events.
Since we can agree on this, why would you waste both your and your opponents time by mana weaving?
>>47502400
>Riffle shuffling
>Bending your cards
Give me an alternative that doesn't damage my shit and I will consider it.
>>47530147
Three easy steps:
>Learn how to riffle properly
>Use sleeves and sideriffle at the empty overlaps
>For fuck's sake, you don't need to bend the cards that hard, stop being a retard
>>47530147
Ignoring the fact that you are a huge baby afraid to slightly bend your cards have you never seen a mash shuffle?
Dude, if you sufficiently shuffle them mana weaving serves no purpose. Even if you shuffle 1,000,000 times using a computer program and atmospheric conditions as randomization factors, you'll still sometimes end up with 5 lands in a row or one with no-lands for the first hand.
>>47501886
Huh, in my circles we always called it "seeding". And there are only two reasons to do it: as a sort of calming, zen-like pre-game meditation, or because you're trying to cheat.
I do seed, because it's just one of those rituals that I got into when I was younger that helps center me before a game. These days, though, I don't want to hold up the game so I just slide-shuffle my lands into my non-lands before doing my normal shuffling.
>>47530335
If you do it before a match and not between games, when time is limited, you can weave, seed or build card houses with your deck as much as you want.
It only becomes a problem when time is short and people spend it on pointless bullshit instead of properly shuffling.
>>47520400
The issue is that if your deck is in a known state before a pile shuffle, it's still in a known state after.
>>47530885
Only if you pile shuffle in a set pattern and never break that pattern
>>47530912
You are manually arranging the deck from one state to the next in a slow and methodical manner. It never stops being a known state no matter what pattern or lack thereof you use.
Riffle and mash are acceptable because they are fast and imprecise methods.
>>47531002
That doesn't make any sense
You're right that rifle and mash are superior because they are faster and it requires crazy skill to cheat with them
I'm just saying your totally retarded if you think that first part
It's because of discussions like this one that I always mash+overhand shuffle my opponent's deck before the duel.
