Shuffling

[Zir]

I was wondering how you guys shuffle. I pile-shuffle (7 piles) three times, than take two piles and shove them into eachother for a few times. I've been having trouble with this technique lately, so what do you guys do and what are the results?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Well, for starters, if I'm pile shuffling, I don't use the same number of piles each time. Since, y'know, I'm trying to randomize the order. That's the first thing. I generally think one pile shuffle and a good thirty seconds of riffling should be enough unless you recently broke down the decklist, in which case I'd spend a minute riffling (or shoving them together if they're sleeved).

[Jaynel]

I pile shuffle 7 piles, then 10 piles, then 7 piles, followed by a few riffles.

[cdr]

This may be obvious, but pile shuffling does not randomize your deck. Seven piles are popular because usually not many things in your deck are divisible by seven, which gives you less chance of outright (accidentally) stacking your deck.

The important part is the riffle shuffle - 5 riffles gives you a very good degree of randomization, and even 3 can be sufficient if you're riffling correctly.

[MattH]

I riffle/smush maybe 5-8 times, 7pile, then riffle/smush another 3-5 times. When I want to win.

For casual games I don't bother with all that.

[Vardaman]

I pile shuffle into 10 piles once (easy check to make sure you still have 60) and then riffle for 2 minutes or so.

[calosso]

I make a pile of 7, then I rifle.

[Machinus]

I put my Lackeys next to my Siege-Gangs.

[Iranon]

When shuffling an opponent's deck... pile shuffle it using 3 stacks... if he tried to spread out his mana, he won't be happy :)

[bigbear102]

Yeah, my opponent at Jersey wasn't happy when i pile shuffled 3 piles, is that a bad thing? I only did it cuz he shuffled for longer than i did, and i just wanted to do it quick so i did 3 piles, then he made a comment and proceeded to shuffle my deck for like another minute.

[cdr]

He thinks that by 3-piling, you're trying to screw him, which is probably true.

Keep in mind that if you 3-pile your opponent's deck and it ends up stacked, you can be DQed.

3-piling your opponents deck is on the same level as mana-weaving.

[tivadar]

He thinks that by 3-piling, you're trying to screw him, which is probably true.

Keep in mind that if you 3-pile your opponent's deck and it ends up stacked, you can be DQed.

3-piling your opponents deck is on the same level as mana-weaving.

Ok, I'm calling bullshit on this one. When your opponent hands you his deck, it should be randomized. This means that there is an equal probability of each card being any card in the deck. This means that any permutation you make of those cards will still result in every card having an equal probability of being any card in the deck. If you 3-pile your opponent's deck and it ends up stacked, that means he gave you a stacked deck to begin with.

[My Name Is Scott]

Ok, I'm calling bullshit on this one. When your opponent hands you his deck, it should be randomized. This means that there is an equal probability of each card being any card in the deck. This means that any permutation you make of those cards will still result in every card having an equal probability of being any card in the deck. If you 3-pile your opponent's deck and it ends up stacked, that means he gave you a stacked deck to begin with.
OK, you can cut Calosso down the middle. Logically speaking, he shouldn't get lackey into gang bang. Have fun!

[tivadar]

My point was that you should never be disqualified if you 3-pile an opponent's deck and it winds up stacked. If it does it's because THEY stacked it not you. 3-pile shuffling an opponent's deck should do absolutely nothing to the randomness if it's already randomized. You're probably right that this isn't always the case, but then who's fault is that? Not yours.

[Parcher]

"Stacked", and "not sufficiently randomized" are two completely different things.

One is not subjective, and is grounds for immediate disqualification with a following DCI investigation. The other usually takes all floor judges 20-30 minutes in toto to determine.

And just for clarification, the "3-pile shuffle" is a term specificallly reserved for an illegal way of weaving your opponent's deck. Not simply counting off the cards in three equal piles.

You can thank Casey McCarrell for bringing this practice to light, as he was made famous by being caught doing this twice in one Pro-Tour.

No shuffle is completely "random" except on some computer programs. Ideally you want a good mixture of lands and spells. In a 40/20 mix of these, 2 spells, one land is the desired result. With a deck bulit this way and a standard shuffle, this will occur throughout a large section of the deck without an inordinate amount of randomization. Judges know this, and it is commomly accepted as long as no knowledge of the order is pre-determined. It actually causes less problems, as they do not want games to be determined by mana-screw, especially in the higher level events.

Since I thought pretty much already knew about this after the Long and McCarrell incidents, I'll describe how the "3-pile" takes advantage of it. Assuming a deck set as previously described, with the majority of decks being somewhere around a 40/20,(or in limited 23/17) mix, you start with three piles. But, in the first plie you lay three cards, two in the second, and one in the third. This pattern is continued until the deck is depleted. The intent is to have all of either lands or spells in the first pile. This is then placed on top of the other two, with the smallest on the bottom as it is usually a good mixture, and presented. Even if cut afterwards, you will have large clumps within the deck. This is not intended to get a DQ, as any judge would recognize it. Nor is it intended to even be played, as a judge can be called mid-game to investigate(which happened with Harvey-McCarrell after he muliganed twice game one, and had to again before calling). It is intended to force a mulligan. Afterwards, if the player was smart, they would not do it again, as it becomes absurdly noticable, and they have already garnered a huge advantage. Two-Pile does this even better, but has always been illegal.

God that was long. I've just played a lot with the old Pros, and stuff like this used to happen constantly.

[cdr]

My point was that you should never be disqualified if you 3-pile an opponent's deck and it winds up stacked. If it does it's because THEY stacked it not you. 3-pile shuffling an opponent's deck should do absolutely nothing to the randomness if it's already randomized. You're probably right that this isn't always the case, but then who's fault is that? Not yours.

Your opponent stacking his deck (intentionally or unintentionally) does not excuse you stacking his deck back (intentionally or unintentionally). Trying to "get him back" is just as bad as him doing it in the first place.

If you really think your opponent did not sufficiently randomize his deck, call a judge after he presents it. Otherwise, shuffle normally (a "pile shuffle" is not shuffling, and I would personally avoid it while shuffling an opponent's deck).

This situation has occured, and both players ended up disqualified in every instance I have heard of.

[calosso]

How did you know?