Epic Showdown: Machinus vs. IBA

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Hey Jack -

How about we play 100 games, Goblins vs. Landstill. Whoever loses gets banned forever. Deal?

Perhaps in preparation for the Grand Prix, Machinus has issued this challenge to me, which I have, of course, accepted. We are to play one hundred games, with Machinus playing Goblins and I playing Landstill, and with the loser being banned from the Source.

I'd like to get the Mods to finalize this agreement, and of course start a betting pool. As the challenged party, I'd like to lay some basic ground rules.

1) 50 Pre-Board, 50 Post-Board. I think this is fair, as it puts an equal emphasis on the deck's ability to win the matchup raw and it's vulnerability to potential sideboard hate.

2) I'd like to name Godzilla as the judge for this contest, including looking over the decklists. Machinus (and I) should, of course, be able to use the list he thinks is optimal, but I'd also like Godzilla to make a reasonable judgement that the lists aren't weighted. I'd be skeptical of maindeck Boils, for instance.

3) I want to do MWS for this, but as far as I know it doesn't allow outside observers in. Does Apprentice do this? Alternately, I could have Spatula, or Ob_Freely or someone else from NoVA, watch over my shoulder to ensure a legitimate contest on both sides.

4) Alternate going first/second in sequential order, regardless of who won the prior game.

Well, that's all I can think of. I also, of course, need to know when you'd like to do this, Chris. I'm assuming this will have to be broken up into two or three rounds, as it'd be difficult to get through one hundred games at one sitting.

[Nihil Credo]

Pussies. Real death matches involve 24 hours of Solidarity mirrors.

[TorpidNinja]

Do you guys live too far apart from one another? This seems like the sort of thing that should be played in real life, video-taped, YouTubed and laughed at.

[troopatroop]

I support this without the banning. Instead offer some really flashy title. We need both the contribution from both of you, because you're both big parts of why this site actually gets shit done.

[Tacosnape]

I support this without the banning. Instead offer some really flashy title. We need both the contribution from both of you, because you're both big parts of why this site actually gets shit done.

Agreed. The Source without IBA would be like Coffee without...(thinking)...the mug. It would just go all over the place. And, er, people would get second degree burns.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

How about instead of banning, the loser has to take the title "[IBA/Machinus] is better than me", or something to that effect? You guys can have your pissing contest without the site losing regular contributors.

[xsockmonkeyx]

So is this a straight up contest for the most victories or a "beat the spread" type of contest weighted on a handicapping of the matchup?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

How about instead of banning, the loser has to take the title "[IBA/Machinus] is better than me", or something to that effect? You guys can have your pissing contest without the site losing regular contributors.

Well that's not nearly as exciting. Will there be dramatic music?



No. Real men play Phyrexian Negator.

QFT.

[Bardo]

Wow, the posts in this thread are really weak. Jeez.

Anyway, this is awesome. I like Jack's idea on having Zilla officiate.

As for bets, I'll bet my mint Squee, Goblin Nabob that Machinus wins. Takers? If so, put up something of equivalent value.

[Atwa]

Wow, this is really nice.

I like the idea of this challenge, but I also feel a banning goes too far. Both of you are part of the people who form the backbone of this website, and I would really hate it to see one of you go.

It is really hard however to find something else which is as dramatic as a banning (except if your name is Alex_van_R of course, in that case a banning once a week is the most natural thing for you(just kidding Alex)).

Keep us posted, I really like to know how this plays out.

[Barook]

banning people who are a vital part of the side is retarded.

find another, humiliating (and for the rest very amusing) punishment for the loser.

PS: Real men play Mountain Goat.

[jamest]

I don't like the stakes either. Banning is no fun. How about something like, loser must eat the winner's shoe? Loser can choose the method i.e. with a fork and knife and A1 steak sauce or as a blended smoothie.

[Nihil Credo]

Loser becomes Radley's personal deck coach.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Banning was part of Machinus's terms. If you want the penalty dropped to something less severe, it would be up to him.


Unicorns play Dwarven Grunts.

[Bardo]

In terms of stakes, I like the banning idea. Not that I want IBA or Machinus to be banned from The Source, personally. But, fuck, if you're going to make a 100 game competition, banning is the way to go.

Though, if Jack lost, he'd pretty much be exiled to MTGSalvation or something. Now those are high stakes!

Let the games begin.

Also - Any takers on my bet (my mint Squee) that Chris rolls Jack over like a drunk being rolled over for their cigarettes?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

What the fuck is all of this "real men" shit about? We play a freaking fantasy-themed collectible card game.

Real men? Motherfuckers, please.

It's not like this is a cage-fight to the death where the only weapons at hand are icepicks and blow-torches.

Real mean use Lightning Bolt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_ekugPKqFw


I'll see your Squee and raise you a Maddox (http://maddox.xmission.com/) signed Pernicious Deed.

[Machinus]

Though, if Jack lost, he'd pretty much be exiled to MTGSalvation or something. Now those are high stakes!

That was my intention. However, there's no way I would play these games online. They would have to be real life.

I'd just like to recall for you Jack that last summer at D4D we played a match of Goblins vs. GBW control and I remember you losing. Wasn't your deck 25 land and 35 hate cards? How do you expect to win with blue cards?? Or are you a masichist?

I'd be willing to accept surrender - for lesser stakes of course.

[Peter_Rotten]

OK, enough with the "real men" bullshat. It's like Erkle with crutches - annoying and lame. I deleted most of that stupidity.

Man, site ban is harsh. Maybe it should be site ban for a month. Or maybe you should just man-it-up and go balls out.

Screw it. Play for the perma-ban.

[Lanfeng]

Also I'm curious, are you going to be playing 4c landstill or a traditional UW landstill, or some kind of funky other hybrid. Also I see no way of this being fair, you can tilt things in your favor in little ways (darkblast over diabolic edict, more removal over disenchant, whatever) if you use standardized list, goblins is gonna pwn, on top of that your gonna have a 15 card anti-other deck sideboard, I mean where do you draw the line?

[Zach Tartell]

I'll see your Squee and raise you a Maddox (http://maddox.xmission.com/) signed Pernicious Deed.

Are you serious? post that shit in the pimp deck forum.

[Di]

Just for all of those who don't know this, IBA has been banned before. And the site functioned perfectly fine without him.

[Bardo]

I'll see your Squee and raise you a Maddox (http://maddox.xmission.com/) signed Pernicious Deed.

Sure. I'd shake on it, but you know... ;)

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

That was my intention. However, there's no way I would play these games online. They would have to be real life.

I'd just like to recall for you Jack that last summer at D4D we played a match of Goblins vs. GBW control and I remember you losing. Wasn't your deck 25 land and 35 hate cards? How do you expect to win with blue cards?? Or are you a masichist?

I'd be willing to accept surrender - for lesser stakes of course.


You mean with the list that I said had a bad Goblins matchup? Wow, what are the fucking odds?

I suppose the difference is I actually know when I lose to Goblins or not, unlike 98% of the people in the format.

So come up to Virginia for the GPT or something and we'll play 100 games the night before. Or maybe drop it to 40-50, 100 might be difficult to actually do in one night.


Also I'm curious, are you going to be playing 4c landstill or a traditional UW landstill, or some kind of funky other hybrid. Also I see no way of this being fair, you can tilt things in your favor in little ways (darkblast over diabolic edict, more removal over disenchant, whatever) if you use standardized list, goblins is gonna pwn, on top of that your gonna have a 15 card anti-other deck sideboard, I mean where do you draw the line?

UW, possibly a third splash but probably not, based on the Lille top 8 list, but with some modifications. And Godzilla, Anwar or ObFreely can judge the lists to see if they've been overly tilted for the matchup. I'm not going to maindeck Chills or some shit.



Just for all of those who don't know this, IBA has been banned before. And the site functioned perfectly fine without him.


For all of a day and a half before you came crawling back.

[Machinus]

You mean with the list that I said had a bad Goblins matchup?

The only way to make Landstill have an acceptable Goblins matchup is to change it from Landstill into GoblinHate.dec. There's no way a tournament-quality Landstill deck can have an acceptable Goblins matchup. This is why you are foolish to accept my challenge. Any aribtration will immediately conclude one of two things:

1) The contest is heavily in Goblins favor, and likely pointless, or
2) You have cheated by making a non-tournament viable deck.


So come up to Virginia for the GPT or something and we'll play 100 games the night before. Or maybe drop it to 40-50, 100 might be difficult to actually do in one night.

Why don't you come down to Raleigh so I can win 51 games and call the contest?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

The only way to make Landstill have an acceptable Goblins matchup is to change it from Landstill into GoblinHate.dec. There's no way a tournament-quality Landstill deck can have an acceptable Goblins matchup. This is why you are foolish to accept my challenge. Any aribtration will immediately conclude one of two things:

1) The contest is heavily in Goblins favor, and likely pointless, or
2) You have cheated by making a non-tournament viable deck.

I'm sure you think so.


Why don't you come down to Raleigh so I can win 51 games and call the contest?

Because Richmond is approximately equidistant between Northern Virginia and Raleigh, and you have a good excuse for driving up anyway for the GPT. Also, you issued the challenge and you're the one who refuses to play online.

[Volt]

50 games (25/25 or 20/30) should be quite sufficient to determine which deck is favored.

I don't really want to see IBA* get banned. Find different terms.


*Oh, or Machinus, either. But he's going to win, anyway.

[Machinus]

Because Richmond is approximately equidistant between Northern Virginia and Raleigh, and you have a good excuse for driving up anyway for the GPT. Also, you issued the challenge and you're the one who refuses to play online.

I don't consider the location relevant. My challenge is that you play games IRL at my convenience (the challenge was also that you would play a tragically inferior deck but I don't think this has dawned on you yet).

You're the one who is banned from competitive magic - I have actual Legacy events to prepare for. If you have extra time on your hands you can come to Columbus, and lose some games when the tournament isn't happening.

[Tacosnape]

Just for all of those who don't know this, IBA has been banned before. And the site functioned perfectly fine without him.

You can get unbanned?

...Doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of the stakes?

[Parcher]

You're the one who is banned from competitive magic - I have actual Legacy events to prepare for. If you have extra time on your hands you can come to Columbus, and lose some games when the tournament isn't happening.

Which is exactly the reason Jack will win. He has plenty of time to test what has become a completely irrelevant match-up.

Plus, I'll always bet on rage over reason...for my own aesthetic reasons. If this thing goes down, Bardo, you're on.

Sidenote: I agree that a perma-ban is unfair to the community at large.

[Anusien]

Instead of just playing 100 raw games, what about something like 30 matches? Alternate who starts each match, and play them like tournament matches. That gives you a better idea of "If they face in a tournament, who would win."

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I don't consider the location relevant. My challenge is that you play games IRL at my convenience

No, the challenge was to play the matchup; trying to rearrange it to your convenience, which coincidentally attempts to make it as inconvenient as possible for me to meet your challenge, is simply your attempt to back out of a poorly conceived idea.


(the challenge was also that you would play a tragically inferior deck but I don't think this has dawned on you yet).

Yeah, yeah, I know you think this is the case. Maybe instead of continuing to talk smack about it and make hollow threats, you could actually try proving it? Just an idea.

[Getsickanddie]

I have $20 on IBA, any takers?

[Jak]

I am cheap so I will bet a Chimney Imp on IBA.

[frogboy]

I have $20 on IBA, any takers?

Done. Escrow through Zilla or some other admin?

[Machinus]

No, the challenge was to play the matchup; trying to rearrange it to your convenience, which coincidentally attempts to make it as inconvenient as possible for me to meet your challenge, is simply your attempt to back out of a poorly conceived idea.

Actually, it's because driving to Virginia to play magic with you is about the most worthless thing I can think of. Since you apparently have no life (and certainly dont have any magic to practice for) you can pursue it at my convenience. I also have no doubts about the outcome so there's really no hurry.

Perhaps in the interim you will realize just how lopsided this matchup is and save these people from giving away their money.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Actually, it's because driving to Virginia to play magic with you is about the most worthless thing I can think of.

Then logically, you shouldn't have issued the challenge. Perhaps you should either agree to play online or simply admit that you were bluffing and never willing to actually carry through on your offer.


you apparently have no life


Indeed. (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/No_life)



Alright, since you're obviously a very important person with very important things going on, I'll save you some time: We can go down to one game. You can play first.

[Obfuscate Freely]

Banning would work fine for this as long as it isn't an IP ban. That way, the loser just has to start a new account, which would probably suck plenty.

Since, obviously, the winner gets to come up with the new username.

[Belgareth]

Assuming he get's to choose which version of landstill he plays , IBA can just play the Red version with maindeck pyroclasms etc.
This absolutely decimates goblins but loses to pretty much everything else (which is why it sees no play).
Knowing ahead of time you are only playing vs goblins , is A huge advantage.

[georgjorge]

@IBA: I recommend maindecked Engineered Explosives for this match. They kill Vial easily, and should not be considered as reducing the decks competitiveness (I play four of them in Uwr because they also kill Chalice and many many annoying creatures, and because first turn Explosives for one, followed up by Standstill on the play is nice).

[Adan]

The only way to make Landstill have an acceptable Goblins matchup is to change it from Landstill into GoblinHate.dec. There's no way a tournament-quality Landstill deck can have an acceptable Goblins matchup.

Well, it can if IBA simply plays UR Landstill. Imo UW Landstill is a littlebit to slow for Goblins.

And yea, EEs are very good. Wait, it's the best answer to a 1st Turn Aether Vial when you are on-the-draw.

Maybe you won't agree with me, but UR Landstill is definitley better against Goblins and has got an acceptable good Matchup against Grow or other strong Decks like Hanni's Fish. And EEs are insane against each of those decks.*

But against Goblins, UR Landstill is the best Landstill variant.

*= Maybe you won't agree with me because I'm more in teh european Metagame, that's why also some of you can't understan dsome cardchoices like BTS in NQG/r or the reason to play UR Landstill.

[C.P.]

I am cheap so I will bet a Chimney Imp on IBA.

I'm in. I'll bet a foil mudhole on machinus.

[URABAHN]

If Machinus and IBA will both be at the GP, then they can play some of those matches then.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

What's Machinus's excuse for not playing online?

[Awesomator]

If it's a really lopsided matchup then just play online! Doesn't need to be a real live game if it's a horrible matchup for him

[Pinder]

I'm in. I'll bet a foil mudhole on machinus.

To even things out, I guess I'll put my foil Squire on IBA then.

[Bardo]

What's Machinus's excuse for not playing online?

I'd like to hear a good answer for this too. If the two of you were like a 30 minute drive apart, sure, play in person. But you're both further away than that. Also, from personal experience, I know that Machinus knows his way around MWS and I can guess the same for IBA given his logs in the "shitty/insane things people do on MWS/Appr thread."

Re: EE. I don't get it. The casting cost of Goblins' guys are all over the place. Also, tempo-wise, Vial costs 1 and EE + detonate costs 3. Maybe I'm wrong about that card in the Gobs match-up, but I always board it out. Hrm. Didn't mean to make this into a strategy discussion.

Please continue with the penis-waving.

[Belgareth]

Yup I think online is best answer , I can't see any reason not to do it on MWS considering Machinus did make the challenge (and thinks it's 1 sided).
I actually strongly favour both UR and UWr landstill against goblins.
Hermut's GP list with maindeck bolts/stp's/pithing needles , along with pyroclasms swapped in should totally devastate goblins.

[scrumdogg]

If it's a really lopsided matchup then just play online! Doesn't need to be a real live game if it's a horrible matchup for him

You refuse to playtest/play online, so suggesting it is hypocritical. Skewing the results with the MWS shuffler, 'random' disconnects, truly random disconnects from the bug infested server(s) would be a monumental waste. Besides, it would be a highlight match (long match) at a premium event, worthy of more coverage than a lot of the Pros dabbling in our format. Assuming, of course, that IBA mans up & shows up (my money is on him delaying ad nauseum with trivialities & semantics). As for the Landstill version, any version that has made Top 4 at 2 50+ person tournaments should be acceptable...failing that, judges get involved on 'balance' of the deck. As for the penalty....it should be a nameban, not an IP ban, with the winner getting to choose the new nick & title. The loser would obviously have to start off as a member & work up to adept status again - which if they are truly an adept they will accomplish.

PS and Getsickanddie....if you're willing to stake another $20, my money is on Machinus.

[Volt]

IBA was talking about UW Landstill (http://mtgthesource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=125144&postcount=5), so his list needs to be UW. No red for pyroclasms, etc.

And, yeah, what's the problem with playing online?

[CynicalSquirrel]

I also think this could easily be done online. MWS really doesn't disconnect at all if you have a halfway decent internet and choose a decent server, and blaming the shuffler on losses is the equivalent of the lame excuses little kids make like "he started it". It's not like one player is struggling having to use the MWS shuffler, while one player has the advantage of using a different shuffler. They're both dealing with the alleged crappiness of it, so it sounds pretty fair to me.

The other alternative would be to draw out your whole deck, play every card face down, then move each one to your library one by one. But I don't think anyone really wants that.

[Belgareth]

Over 100 games the shuffler effect would be removed :) yes in a best of 3 1 player may get screwed over more than other , but in 100 it's negligble.

[Volt]

Over 100 games the shuffler effect would be removed :) yes in a best of 3 1 player may get screwed over more than other , but in 100 it's negligble.

Bah. Not to get this thread off track here, but I don't believe in the so-called "shuffler effect." Seems random enough to me.

[Belgareth]

I agree :) I'm just stating any apparent effect that would make machinus want to do IRL over online statistically would not exist.

oh and


UW, possibly a third splash

I believe that allows red ;)

[Nihil Credo]

You can avoid any possible server issues by just directly connecting to each other.

[Di]

Re: EE. I don't get it. The casting cost of Goblins' guys are all over the place. Also, tempo-wise, Vial costs 1 and EE + detonate costs 3. Maybe I'm wrong about that card in the Gobs match-up, but I always board it out. Hrm. Didn't mean to make this into a strategy discussion.



Because Black sucks and EE is the next best sweeper. Idc what you guys think, running Landstill with black is no good. Screw Ghastly Demise, it sucks.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

No, it will be UW Landstill. No Explosives.

[Bardo]

Bah. Not to get this thread off track here, but I don't believe in the so-called "shuffler effect." Seems random enough to me.

Seriously, the MWS shuffler algorythm is not purely random. This is all by way of third-hand knowledge, but as Rich Shay (TheAtogLord) told me that Randy Buehler told him, that the guy that wrote the algorythm did so for forty card decks, not sixty. Somehow or the other, this is why you're much more likely to see your 4-ofs, and sometimes all 4 of than you would in a fully-randomized deck. You'll also see your 1-ofs statistically less times too.

In short, the MWS shuffler is fucked; but it's fucked for everyone.

[Volt]

Seriously, the MWS shuffler algorythm is not purely random. This is all by way of third-hand knowledge, but as Rich Shay (TheAtogLord) told me that Randy Buehler told him, that the guy that wrote the algorythm did so for forty card decks, not sixty. Somehow or the other, this is why you're much more likely to see your 4-ofs, and sometimes all 4 of than you would in a fully-randomized deck. You'll also see your 1-ofs statistically less times too.

In short, the MWS shuffler is fucked; but it's fucked for everyone.

It's impossible to make a "purely random" shuffler. However, it is quite possible to make a shuffler that is more random than, say, most shuffling methods that are actually employed by humans.

Idk about the 40- vs. 60-card thing. Sound like hooey to me, to be honest. All I know is that I haven't perceived any bias in the MWS shuffler.

[Adan]

Re: EE. I don't get it. The casting cost of Goblins' guys are all over the place. Also, tempo-wise, Vial costs 1 and EE + detonate costs 3. Maybe I'm wrong about that card in the Gobs match-up, but I always board it out. Hrm. Didn't mean to make this into a strategy discussion.

He begins, you are on-the-draw. He drops Aether Vial.

Your Turn, EE set on 1. In his Turn he sets his Aether Vial on 1.

So when it's your Turn you play a second Land and blow up that thing (and it doesn't matter if he puts in a Goblin with CC1 in resp because it would die along with the Vial).

EE just saves my ass at least 4 times when I was playing Legacy in Frankfurt.
And out of 4 Landstill players I was the only one who went Top8 with UR Landstill playing against Goblins (Loss due to Armageddon), Epic Storm (Win), NQGwr (Win), Goblins (Win), then ID against a random kid that i could have smashed, but I was too hungry, so I rather IDed and went out to eat something.


No, it will be UW Landstill. No Explosives.

Then you will fail and banned forever. xD
AND I wouldn't play 1000 games with a pure-control as it takes a lot of time.
Ok, it won't take long if the Goblin just smashes your face in within 5 Minutes per game, though.

I still recommend UR Landstill.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

You refuse to playtest/play online, so suggesting it is hypocritical. Skewing the results with the MWS shuffler, 'random' disconnects, truly random disconnects from the bug infested server(s) would be a monumental waste. Besides, it would be a highlight match (long match) at a premium event, worthy of more coverage than a lot of the Pros dabbling in our format.

Bullshit. The shuffler hurts everybody equally, so over 100 games, it'll even out. And if it's as one-sided as Machinus claims, the slight edge it might give one party over the other would be mitigated.

And disconnects just make it take longer, they don't skew it.


Assuming, of course, that IBA mans up & shows up (my money is on him delaying ad nauseum with trivialities & semantics).

Why don't you read the fucking thread? I don't care what your beef with my brother is, if you were even half-way honest with yourself, the one thing you would NEVER accuse Jack of is avoiding confrontation.


@IBA: If you are really going to do thing, you will lose if you play UW Landstill.
I really can't understand that. If you would play BHWC Landstill, ok, but UW landstill, c'mon! I recommend UR Landstill.

I disagree; I don't think U/W is heavily favored, and other versions are better in this match-up(although I don't know about UWBG; the mana base is tragically fragile), but I would still estimate U/W as 55-60% against Goblins pre-board.

Although I do have some qualms with the particular list he's basing it off of.

[KillemallCFH]

If the MWS shuffler is a problem, why not just use Apprentice? I've never had any troubles with it and it seems perfectly random to me.

Also, I agree with everyone saying that a permanent ban is just stupid. If you want the loser to be humiliated, fine, but having to lose a valued member of The Source for such a petty reason is just ridiculous.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Seriously, the MWS shuffler algorythm is not purely random. This is all by way of third-hand knowledge, but as Rich Shay (TheAtogLord) told me that Randy Buehler told him, that the guy that wrote the algorythm did so for forty card decks, not sixty. Somehow or the other, this is why you're much more likely to see your 4-ofs, and sometimes all 4 of than you would in a fully-randomized deck. You'll also see your 1-ofs statistically less times too.

In short, the MWS shuffler is fucked; but it's fucked for everyone.


I'm not going to lie, my opinion is that MWS Shuffer sucks. But then, I've seen some remarkably unlilkely hands IRL, too, so I'm not sure how much of that is people simply not understanding how averages work. I was playtesting ***** the other night and went through a Brainstorm, a Serum Visions and three Portents without seeing a second land.

Anyway, I'm comfortable with whatever, but the online thing does seem like a copout, as it's not like the shuffler would fuck anyone over particularly, as you say.

If it's at Ohio, we'd probably have to drop the game count to ten or twenty for reasons of time. This would actually increase the chances of the games being unrepresentative, which is what Machinus should want to avoid if he really thinks he's favored.

I would prefer the nameban over the siteban, but it's Machinus' choice on that one. I have no real problem with the guy other than the fact that he randomly picks fights with me on unrelated threads, so I don't really want to see him permabanned from the site.


Why don't you read the fucking thread? I don't care what your beef with my brother is, if you were even half-way honest with yourself, the one thing you would NEVER accuse Jack of is avoiding confrontation.

I love you, man.

[Nihil Credo]

Settling the "MWS shuffler suxx0rz!!!111" argument once and for all. (http://www.magi-soft.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5690)

[Anusien]

Seriously, the MWS shuffler algorythm is not purely random. This is all by way of third-hand knowledge, but as Rich Shay (TheAtogLord) told me that Randy Buehler told him, that the guy that wrote the algorythm did so for forty card decks, not sixty. Somehow or the other, this is why you're much more likely to see your 4-ofs, and sometimes all 4 of than you would in a fully-randomized deck. You'll also see your 1-ofs statistically less times too.

In short, the MWS shuffler is fucked; but it's fucked for everyone.
The arguments the guy is presenting would be more convincing if he put the algorithm up. I know Rich (who is a CS graduate student) talked to the guy, and the guy said that he was crippled by a poor RNG. Rich offered to give him provably random algorithms that work even under a less random PSRNG. At one point, it was proven that certain deck combinations were more likely than other. In that circumstance, the poor randomness does not "balance out". Depending on the way you set up your deck file, you can be more likely to draw Ringleaders than Fanatics or something. In the case of the algorithm listed, it looks like it implements Knuth Shuffle, assuming Move() swaps the elements. In this case, it's down to the PRNG algorithm, with the knowledge that the shuffler falls apart EXPLICITLY on decks greater than 60 cards. (Also, assuming I'm reading the bounds right; feel free to compare http://www.magi-soft.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27847#27847 and http://www.stanford.edu/~blp/writings/clc/shuffle.html.

Read Rich explain what I just said: http://www.magi-soft.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27952#27952

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

Then why not simply allow a percentage for error? If one party beats the other by fewer than 10 games, for example, it would be considered a draw? And if its possible to tell what decklists skew the shuffler more, why not have someone with such knowledge check the decklists before hand?

Also, what's the apprentice shuffler like?

[Machinus]

Then logically, you shouldn't have issued the challenge. Perhaps you should either agree to play online or simply admit that you were bluffing and never willing to actually carry through on your offer.

Talk about trying to find the easy way out, Jack. You're just crying inside because you know you will never get another chance to lose to me in a real magic tournament because you screwed yourself out of them. No, I issued the challenge, and that means I decide what it means. It means real life games, and when it's convenient for me. Why don't you start coming to D4D? I would be happy to shame you after the touranaments. I have more important things to do than kick the shit out of losers on MWS.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Talk about trying to find the easy way out, Jack. You're just crying inside because you know you will never get another chance to lose to me in a real magic tournament because you screwed yourself out of them. No, I issued the challenge, and that means I decide what it means. It means real life games, and when it's convenient for me. Why don't you start coming to D4D? I would be happy to shame you after the touranaments. I have more important things to do than kick the shit out of losers on MWS.

Wow, you really do sound like you're in middle school.

MWS is perfectly convenient for you when you actually want to play, it's simply not when it might create the chance of you embarassing yourself by being unable to actually validate your claims.

If you want to drop to ten games at Ohio, I'm okay with that. But I would advise you to drop the petty attempts to insult me. They make you seem juvenile, frankly, and it's simply digging yourself a deeper hole. You know as well as I do that you have no desire to actually carry through with this, and that I'm not the one trying to back out.

It would be better for you to acknowledge your mistake in this instance and to retreat from the challenge. If you do actually want to carry through with this, you will lose, and you'll appear the worse for it for your unwarranted bravado beforehand.

[Nihil Credo]

You know, this could have been pretty interesting, but once a challenger begins calling the other names, I start wondering if it wouldn't be better to simply lock the thread and call it a night.

[Volt]

Now, kids, if you can't say anything nice... aw screw it. Fight! Fight!

Btw, somebody pm me to tell me why IBA can't play in sanctioned tournaments anymore.

[Machinus]

MWS is perfectly convenient for you when you actually want to play, it's simply not when it might create the chance of you embarassing yourself by being unable to actually validate your claims.

Actually, no, it isn't. MWS is shit and that's not part of my challenge.


If you want to drop to ten games at Ohio, I'm okay with that. But I would advise you to drop the petty attempts to insult me. They make you seem juvenile, frankly, and it's simply digging yourself a deeper hole. You know as well as I do that you have no desire to actually carry through with this, and that I'm not the one trying to back out.

Actually, no, you are. I am looking forward to highlighting your lack of deckbuilding ability and magic skill.


It would be better for you to acknowledge your mistake in this instance and to retreat from the challenge. If you do actually want to carry through with this, you will lose, and you'll appear the worse for it for your unwarranted bravado beforehand.

You are desperate for me to concede, but unfortunately I have no intention of doing that. You should have just agreed that Landstill is shit and left it at that. See you in Ohio.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Actually, no, it isn't. MWS is shit and that's not part of my challenge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_duello


A morally-acceptable duel would start with the challenger issuing a traditional, public, personal grievance, based on an insult, directly to the single person who offended the challenger.

The challenged person had the choice of a public apology or other restitution, or choosing the weapons for the duel. The challenger would then propose a place for the "field of honour". The challenged man had to either accept the site or propose an alternate. The location had to be a place where the opponents could duel without being arrested. It was common for the constables to set aside such places and times and spread the information, so "honest people can avoid unpatrolled places."

As tradition and the ancient laws of combat dictate, as the challenged party, the final say on the field of combat used is in fact mine.

It'll be MWS. I want this information out before the Grand Prix to let the masses know that Landstill is perfectly viable and a strong contender in the metagame.

But we can drop to ten games to save you having to deal with MWS for an excessively long period of time.

[Machinus]

an irrelevant and frankly stupid post

This isn't a duel. I don't know what kind of sick homosexual fantasy you're imagining, but I didn't accept your challenge, you accepted mine. I dictate the terms. If you don't show at Ohio, I'll just delcare myself the winner and you can continue playing Yu-Gi-Oh or whatever it is you do.

[xsockmonkeyx]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_duello


LOL @ the picture of the Irish apology. Seems a lot more satisfying than a "jeez, I sure am sorry."

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

This isn't a duel. I don't know what kind of sick homosexual fantasy you're imagining, but I didn't accept your challenge, you accepted mine. I dictate the terms. If you don't show at Ohio, I'll just delcare myself the winner and you can continue playing Yu-Gi-Oh or whatever it is you do.

I'm aware that you wish to dictate the terms because to do so helps you to compensate for the manhood you feel you have lost in actually being called on your ridiculous boast. However, as the tradition on such challenges is very clear, the terms are mine to set.

You can, of course, back out of this if you want, since you've more than adequately demonstrated your unwillingness to behave in a dignified manner anyway.

If, after opting out of actually settling your challenge in the correct manner, you still wish to play at Ohio, and are able to behave with a bare modicum of dignity and civility, we can settle this there. If, however, you continue to act in an abusive and childish manner, I'm going to consider dealings with you beneath my dignity. This will be your last warning on this subject. I'm not going to squabble with someone who behaves like a child

Have a nice day, sir.

[Machinus]

I eat my own shit

You quite foolishly accepted my challenge without being clear about the terms. You can now face the consqeuences of losing embarrasingly in a test of magic however I decide, or admit defeat and accept a lesser punishment.

[frogboy]

This isn't a duel. I don't know what kind of sick homosexual fantasy you're imagining, but I didn't accept your challenge, you accepted mine. I dictate the terms. If you don't show at Ohio, I'll just delcare myself the winner and you can continue playing Yu-Gi-Oh or whatever it is you do.

God, you're a nit.

[Nihil Credo]

Whatever may happen during any actual games that might be played (and I'm fairly confident Goblins >> UW Landstill), as far as I'm concerned Machinus has already lost as a person.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

You quite foolishly accepted my challenge without being clear about the terms.


Perhaps you should consult the first post in this thread again.

[Volt]

Whatever may happen during any actual games that might be played (and I'm fairly confident Goblins >> UW Landstill), as far as I'm concerned Machinus has already lost as a person.

I agree. I expected better.

[troopatroop]

You quite foolishly accepted my challenge without being clear about the terms. You can now face the consqeuences of losing embarrasingly in a test of magic however I decide, or admit defeat and accept a lesser punishment.

You're such a dick. God, get over your shit.

[Nightmare]

That's enough.