I repeat: the shuffler is broken

[erutan2099]

I've said it before, I will say it again. The shuffler in this game is not good.

Case and point - I am literally winning bets consistently with my friends about what card I will draw next. If it were shuffled properly, I would not be able to do that.

[Skipspik]

Charge of proof is on the attack.
Please give us a statisticall analysis of the shuffler with the protocol you used to make such claim.

Some people did, not statisticall anomality - outside the two annouced tricks of quick play and BO1 hands

EDIT tricks in question are :
- there's a soft matchamking in Quick Play with the amount of rare/unco/mythic your deck have
- In BO1 (all mode) two hands are drawn, the sufflers keeps the one with the spell/land ratio closer to 50/50

[erutan2099]

Originally posted by Skipspik:

Please give us a statisticall analysis of the shuffler with the protocol you used to make such claim.

Protocol? Statistical Analysis? Dude, it's a card game and that is way too much effort. All I know is I can win money off of betting what kind of card I will pull next, land, creature or otherwise.

[erutan2099]

Originally posted by Skipspik:

Charge of proof is on the attack.

I assume you mean burden of proof. Never heard it put the way you phrased it, but whatever.
My proof is the $100 bucks currently sitting in my pocket.

[glennlanderson3]

did they ever say why they rig the games? what was wrong with random like in paper?

[Ha 何豪源]

you know whats broken? the patience of the devs, they live in a dream world with bots

[ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ]

I feel like it's more predictable what the enemy will top deck. Exactly the card they need to turn the match.

[ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ]

Human intuition isn't developed over very large numbers so how many games do you think it took to start noticing these kind of things

[erutan2099]

Originally posted by ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ:

Human intuition isn't developed over very large numbers so how many games do you think it took to start noticing these kind of things

I have only played the color challenge using the starter decks, and I have played for around 300 hours. Shrug.

[DontMisunderstand]

You know your deck, what cards you've already drawn, and what cards you've got left. You SHOULD be able to win bets about the top card on your deck somewhat regularly. This isn't proof that the shuffler is broken, it's proof that you have object permanence.

[its a prank]

The goal of cientific method which includes evidence is to predic an event, if you can predict an event you dont need any evidence whatsoever.

[DontMisunderstand]

Originally posted by its a prank:

The goal of cientific method which includes evidence is to predic an event, if you can predict an event you dont need any evidence whatsoever.

No... the scientific method BEGINS with the prediction, and then tests that prediction. Repeatedly. And the consistency of the results is what lends credence to the idea behind the prediction, not a single concurring result, but many.

[erutan2099]

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

Originally posted by its a prank:

The goal of cientific method which includes evidence is to predic an event, if you can predict an event you dont need any evidence whatsoever.

No... the scientific method BEGINS with the prediction, and then tests that prediction. Repeatedly. And the consistency of the results is what lends credence to the idea behind the prediction, not a single concurring result, but many.

DontMisunderstand is right, you know.

[erutan2099]

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

You know your deck, what cards you've already drawn, and what cards you've got left. You SHOULD be able to win bets about the top card on your deck somewhat regularly. This isn't proof that the shuffler is broken, it's proof that you have object permanence.

You may be correct. However, I have built these same decks in real life, and when I shuffle thoroughly, my odds of winning the bet drops dramatically. If not definitive, I still offer that as evidence for my case.

I realize that trying to prove a negative is a logical folly (ie "the shuffler does NOT work as it should") However I still strongly opine that there is mischief going on here.

[Kurt Angle's Neck]

Originally posted by erutan2099:

I have built these same decks in real life, and when I shuffle thoroughly, my odds of winning the bet drops dramatically. If not definitive, I still offer that as evidence for my case.

Many people have shown up and claimed that the shuffler is rigged in some way. When asked for evidence, most refuse; However, when the data is provided and the math done, it shows every time that the shuffler is operating well within the expectations of a "truly random" shuffler. If you think you can offer something new that hasn't been presented, please do so, otherwise this is actually more of an indicator that you're not properly shuffling IRL than it is an indication of the shuffler being rigged.

[ʍolɟ ǝɥʇ ǝsɹǝʌǝɹ]

Originally posted by Kurt Angle's Neck:

Originally posted by erutan2099:

I have built these same decks in real life, and when I shuffle thoroughly, my odds of winning the bet drops dramatically. If not definitive, I still offer that as evidence for my case.

Many people have shown up and claimed that the shuffler is rigged in some way. When asked for evidence, most refuse; However, when the data is provided and the math done, it shows every time that the shuffler is operating well within the expectations of a "truly random" shuffler. If you think you can offer something new that hasn't been presented, please do so, otherwise this is actually more of an indicator that you're not properly shuffling IRL than it is an indication of the shuffler being rigged.

You want 100,000 matches as evidence. It's legit done in bad faith