How To Shuffle | Reid Duke 

I have been playing for 12 years but I’m here cause Reid

This pro gets it.

Why is your opponent shuffling your deck? They should cut it and that's about it.

@@CliffWalrus You should always shuffle your opponent's deck. At some rules levels it is even mandatory.

@@CliffWalrus Always shuffle your opponents feck

Why he looked at the deck…? ¿?

@@CliffWalrus Serious?

That's because it is. It's also not shuffling. As he said right after calling it shuffling it is a way to count your cards. If you were to pile count multiple times as your shuffling method and present that would not be considered sufficiently randomized. You can save a significant amount of time by just counting in stacks of 10 or 20 , if something is off fixing it. The way pile counting is done is showing your opponent that you have the correct number while checking it yourself. If that's not why you are doing it then yes you are wasting time. Practice double checking your deck between rounds if you can. Not only will this help with potential violations from forgetting to deboard but it will safe both players precious match time to actually play the game and let it reach its natural conclusion. Also this is not a dig at you, or anyone who does it. If anything this is judge's (myself included) not being strict enough with slow play enforcement or informing players what qualities as randomization enough. It unfortunately leaves room for bad actors to take advantage of the clock and leaves players frustrated at people who do not know better.

One pile shuffle is straight up allowed.

@@darksteel913 and this is why you are only allowed to pile shuffle once now, section 3.9.

This is correct, and it is actually called pile counting, the term "pile shuffling" although commonly used, is not a shuffling method. If you pile count more than once per game, that is slow play. At competitive REL events, you get a penalty for it.

The original work was by Dave Bayer and Persi Diaconis (Trailing the Dovetail Shuffle to its lair, Annals of Probability 2, 1992). Interestingly, despite the commonly-quoted number, later commentary (as quoted at the end of the American Mathematical Society article 'How Many Times Do I Have to Shuffle This Deck?') suggests 11 or 12 times as more appopriate for actual strong randomization of a 52 card deck.

@@anaphysik Indeed, thank you for the info! Being an ex-croupier, I've scoffed at opponents fiddling with shuffles, and had taken the old article as a definite guideline to stop me stressing about my randomization at all. To quote the article you mentioned: "Ultimately the question of how many shuffles suffice for a 52-card deck is one of opinion, not mathematical fact. However, there exists at least one game playable by human beings [Solitaire] for which 7 shuffles clearly do not suffice. A more reasonable level of total variation distance might be around 1 percent, comparable to the house advantage in casino games. This threshold would suggest 11 or 12 as an appropriate number of shuffles."

@@anaphysik The linear algebra was a little over my head, but the paper essentially defines randomness as the ability of a person with prefect memory to guess cards drawn from the top of the deck. For a perfectly shuffled (completely random) deck of 52 cards, we would expect the number of correct guesses to be 1/52 + 1/51 + 1/50 . . . + 1/2 + 1/1 = 4.54. For a cut deck of 52 cards riffle shuffled 7 times, their monte carlo experiment yielded an average of about 4.97 correct guesses, which means the deck is still a little bit ordered. For 10 shuffles, it went down to 4.57, which imo is more than good enough for all intents and purposes. They recommend 3/2 log (n)/log (2) shuffles for n cards, which gives you about 9 shuffles for a deck of 60 cards. If you're really worried about it, go with 7/4 log (n)/log (2). That gives you about 10 for a deck of 60 or 11 for a deck of 80

lmfaoooo

You've pretty much got it. There is a section of the Magic Tournament Rules for Shortcuts, it outlines that the AP passing priority in the main phase means the non-active player is assumed to be acting in the beginning of combat step, unless they're specifically trying to effect things that trigger on the beginning of combat, in which case it's just before. The same thing is true in the post-combat main phase, NAP is assumed to receive priority during the end step when AP says "go ahead" or similar, unless NAP is trying to effect an EOT trigger, they can say "end step, X" or similar. Also, priority is assumed to be passed after every spell cast or ability activated, unless otherwise stated. Activating several abilities at once or similar, unless priority is held, it's assumed the player waited for the stack to empty before adding a new ability to the stack. If you cast a Leyline Binding and say "Binding, targeting the token" (or similarly make a choice earlier than you should) that's locked in once the spell resolves, unless the other player responds. If you cast it, and the other player asks "targeting what?" (or otherwise asks about choices that aren't made yet) the other player passed priority, so the spell has already resolved. There's also a shortcut that attacking creatures are assumed to be attacking the player, rather than any planeswalker or battle unless otherwise stated. And one that X is assumed 0 unless otherwise stated.

Yup, damages the cards

@@timw9745 False

@@ItsMeowgie tell that to all the people with cards with riffle shuffle damage. It’s well known.

As is often the case, 'it depends'. Done properly a riffle shuffle doesn't cause any damage, but lots of people don't do it properly (it's not dissimilar to the mash shuffling caveat Reid gives). I learnt it for poker years ago but in a match setting I'd personally avoid it to not stress opp out, after all they can't know whether I know what I'm doing or not.

Pretty sure Kibler made that video already many years ago.

As loudly and quickly and constantly as physically possible.

Keep a loser grip. Your off hand could be close to flat. Same idea as edh

@@cassandrasibley228 ok Cassandra damn

@@roofb1612 oops. Looser not loser 🤦‍♀️ i'm sorry 😭

I think according to rules you can't do that.Your opponent has to be the last one to cut/shuffle your deck.

I believe your opponent's cut/shuffle should be the last word on the order of your deck, to prevent cheating on your part, so you're not supposed to be manipulating your deck after they complete their part. Cutting after your opponent hands you back your deck also might suggest that you don't trust your opponent fairly manipulated your deck, so I could see why an opponent might find it rude. For casual games among friends, this shouldn't matter, but I would advise against doing this in any sort of formal tournament settings or when playing with strangers.

That’s a super weird thing to do, not sure why that flies at your LGS

The most underrated comment here.

this. thank you

It's a good time to be like "hey how's your day/matches." Probably avoid staring at them silently though.

50 seconds of shuffling is a bit excessive on every fetch, idk. I would be very irritated if my opponent took that long on every fetch in a modern game

Ok yes but also that sounds fascinating lol

I agree. Elsewhere he's said to watch what they're doing.

My method is to split the cube into two towers, then take approximately equal chunks from each and riffle them one at a time and stack them on top of each other until I have one big tower. (I don't actually stack them as towers lol, they sit sideways in a long box with card faces facing away from me.) Then rinse and repeat. Mathematically speaking, according to the formula (logN/log2)*1.5 that I read about, 13 riffles should be appropriate for a 540 card cube.

This needs to be up top.

Well… it’s meant to break up the pattern of the unshuffled deck, and the piles are randomly put back together…

If you start with a random condition it does indeed randomize it more. But yes you do need another method on top of that.

@@lvl1cpu523 Incorrect. The randomness does not change in any way by pile sorting.

@@Vlad2.47 If pile sorting results in a more even distribution then it's cheating. You're not allowed to sort your deck, only randomise it.

Reid has it because he’s Reid the Bones Duke. No idea why anyone else does.

This is a nonsense take and I don't know why it's being repeated.

@@lvl1cpu523 Has to be repeated because people think wasting time isn't the nonsense take. If if it anything besides counting its either useless or cheating.

@@Smorehead13 Come on, you heard once that it's not a valid replacement for shuffling (which it isn't) and just assumed it's useless. You couldn't answer me before so you have to keep repeating yourself because you don't understand why.

@@lvl1cpu523 Huh? I literally answered you as to why its being repeated. You have a different question that you didn’t write? If its not a replacement for shuffling its a useless time waste. Or its cheating. There isnt an inbetween lmao.