How did you shuffle and build packs before that it wasn't actually random? I'll admit that in the past I was seeding packs to guarantee a mana fixer in every pack, and that was a bit of a disaster when some players figured it out, drafted every mana fixer they could get in the first pack and built 5c control decks. So I do realize that there's some risk involved with seeding packs. However, I can't really see a way that this can be abused even if my players do know that there will never be more than 3 of the same colored card in any given pack. If I'm missing something here, I'd really like to know.
When my packs were just randomized, though, any clumping seemed like a sign I hadn't shuffled enough, when I was probably spending more time shuffling for pure randomness than I am with my color-balancing system. It saves time, it feels more like a retail draft, and everyone gets a fair draft.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
465 card Unpowered cube thread. Draft it here and I'll be happy to return the favor.
450 card Peasant cube thread. Draft it here.
Basically the colors and sections of the cube were kept divided and separate, and we had a formula of how many to take from each one. Once we built that pool, we would shuffle them together and make the packs with the number of cards selected.
Now, say I take green cards at first in a 3-4 player draft and then it seems like it dries up--we'll say hypothetically I took 4, and saw another 4 go by and thats it. If during the course of the second pack I see a TON of green, I make a inference that the color is open and that it wasn't actually being taken at first and that I should move in, as the color would be a bit drier most likely if there actually was another green drafter. OR if I continue to not see green in the second pack I can make another inference that the last pack will probably not be packed to the brim full of green. This is certainly just a basic draft-reading concept when you break it down, but if you're choosing X of each color it's a lot easier to solve the draft at that point. I can kind of figure out who is actually taking what by counting the colors seen during the booster draft. By knowing the numbers of each color included in the draft, there are moments when you can see who is taking what if you're paying close enough attention.
While it make seem crazy to pay that close attention to the colors in the draft as there so much to think about during a draft, if you can there's no reason not to as it can give you an edge over everyone else.
This has been less of a thing for two reasons now: 1) we randomize everything from the beginning, including number of colors included, and 2) we glimpse draft, meaning we see a large percentage of the cube and a large amount of those cards are burnt, meaning less cards from the ones chosen actually seen.
Also technically wouldn't a completely random pack be bad distribution? This is only applicable if you go down the line making packs, but if I have 5 green cards in a row that prob means one out of every X cards that Im choosing from were green. Of course this is entirely dependent on how you make the packs, but in the method we do if there is a clump it means the stack was random and the odds just worked in that random distribution's favor.
Also technically wouldn't a completely random pack be bad distribution? This is only applicable if you go down the line making packs, but if I have 5 green cards in a row that prob means one out of every X cards that Im choosing from were green. Of course this is entirely dependent on how you make the packs, but in the method we do if there is a clump it means the stack was random and the odds just worked in that random distribution's favor.
I know this is true, but a surprising number of my players don't seem to see it that way and are more inclined to assume it means there's a problem with how I've shuffled. I think if they knew that card distribution system were determined by a random number generator like the MTGO cube they'd just accept clumping as randomness. When they know it's being done by hand by little old me, they're more inclined to doubt. However, if I get the impression drafts are getting too easy to solve I'll find a way to change it up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
465 card Unpowered cube thread. Draft it here and I'll be happy to return the favor.
450 card Peasant cube thread. Draft it here.
Something like 25x for each color, 25x artifacts/colorless, 15x multicolored. The numbers were definitely different, but you probably get the gist of how we did it from that.
How did you shuffle and build packs before that it wasn't actually random? I'll admit that in the past I was seeding packs to guarantee a mana fixer in every pack, and that was a bit of a disaster when some players figured it out, drafted every mana fixer they could get in the first pack and built 5c control decks. So I do realize that there's some risk involved with seeding packs. However, I can't really see a way that this can be abused even if my players do know that there will never be more than 3 of the same colored card in any given pack. If I'm missing something here, I'd really like to know.
When my packs were just randomized, though, any clumping seemed like a sign I hadn't shuffled enough, when I was probably spending more time shuffling for pure randomness than I am with my color-balancing system. It saves time, it feels more like a retail draft, and everyone gets a fair draft.
450 card Peasant cube thread. Draft it here.
Now, say I take green cards at first in a 3-4 player draft and then it seems like it dries up--we'll say hypothetically I took 4, and saw another 4 go by and thats it. If during the course of the second pack I see a TON of green, I make a inference that the color is open and that it wasn't actually being taken at first and that I should move in, as the color would be a bit drier most likely if there actually was another green drafter. OR if I continue to not see green in the second pack I can make another inference that the last pack will probably not be packed to the brim full of green. This is certainly just a basic draft-reading concept when you break it down, but if you're choosing X of each color it's a lot easier to solve the draft at that point. I can kind of figure out who is actually taking what by counting the colors seen during the booster draft. By knowing the numbers of each color included in the draft, there are moments when you can see who is taking what if you're paying close enough attention.
While it make seem crazy to pay that close attention to the colors in the draft as there so much to think about during a draft, if you can there's no reason not to as it can give you an edge over everyone else.
This has been less of a thing for two reasons now: 1) we randomize everything from the beginning, including number of colors included, and 2) we glimpse draft, meaning we see a large percentage of the cube and a large amount of those cards are burnt, meaning less cards from the ones chosen actually seen.
Also technically wouldn't a completely random pack be bad distribution? This is only applicable if you go down the line making packs, but if I have 5 green cards in a row that prob means one out of every X cards that Im choosing from were green. Of course this is entirely dependent on how you make the packs, but in the method we do if there is a clump it means the stack was random and the odds just worked in that random distribution's favor.
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic
I know this is true, but a surprising number of my players don't seem to see it that way and are more inclined to assume it means there's a problem with how I've shuffled. I think if they knew that card distribution system were determined by a random number generator like the MTGO cube they'd just accept clumping as randomness. When they know it's being done by hand by little old me, they're more inclined to doubt. However, if I get the impression drafts are getting too easy to solve I'll find a way to change it up.
450 card Peasant cube thread. Draft it here.
Also, follow us on twitter! @TurnOneMagic