Anecdotally, I find that certain card games are more enjoyable with the imperfections of human shuffling: when clumps naturally arise after playing, packing, and unpacking the game several times. An element of organic personality arises when you see a sequence of cards from a previous game. That human element is lost when a computer perfectly shuffles a deck into a never-before-seen orientation.
Seven Perfect Shuffles Randomize a Deck of Cards. But How Many Sloppy Ones?
11–20 of 65 posts
Re: Seven Perfect Shuffles Randomize a Deck of Cards. But How Many Sloppy Ones?
#12Shouldn't a perfect shuffle just reorder the cards without adding entropy? You would need sloppy ones to introduce randomness.
You misunderstood because the title is ambiguous.
This talks about seven consecutive riffle shuffles ("cut the deck and interleave the piles"): Those are not a "perfect shuffle" (i.e. same probability for every permutation) by themselves, only after doing them several times consecutively (which is kinda suprising by itself).
Re: Seven Perfect Shuffles Randomize a Deck of Cards. But How Many Sloppy Ones?
#13And 8 perfect shuffles resets it back to starting order (perfect being cards interlaced 1 by 1)
[deleted]
Re: Seven Perfect Shuffles Randomize a Deck of Cards. But How Many Sloppy Ones?
#14Shouldn't a perfect shuffle just reorder the cards without adding entropy? You would need sloppy ones to introduce randomness.
[flagged]
Re: Seven Perfect Shuffles Randomize a Deck of Cards. But How Many Sloppy Ones?
#15TL;DR "roughly 14"
Re: Seven Perfect Shuffles Randomize a Deck of Cards. But How Many Sloppy Ones?
#16Shouldn't a perfect shuffle just reorder the cards without adding entropy? You would need sloppy ones to introduce randomness.
A "perfect shuffle" according to the article:
>The riffle shuffle has to follow a realistic but strict model where cards are randomly interleaved from the left or right pile one by one. (Each card gets dropped from either the left or the right pile with a probability that’s proportional to the number of cards remaining in that pile. This means that the cards don’t simply alternate between left and right, which would result in a predictable structure; instead, the order might go “left, right, right, left, right, left, left.”)
Re: Seven Perfect Shuffles Randomize a Deck of Cards. But How Many Sloppy Ones?
#17"...unique tracking label for every card in the deck"
I'd like more details on how this was accomplished on a practical level. Got me thinking about how to embed trackers thin enough to go into a playing card that would operate like a mesh network then the deck could self report once it's properly randomized making a green light go off indicating play may begin.
Re: Seven Perfect Shuffles Randomize a Deck of Cards. But How Many Sloppy Ones?
#18And 8 perfect shuffles resets it back to starting order (perfect being cards interlaced 1 by 1)
[deleted]
Re: Seven Perfect Shuffles Randomize a Deck of Cards. But How Many Sloppy Ones?
#19Anecdotally, I find that certain card games are more enjoyable with the imperfections of human shuffling: when clumps naturally arise after playing, packing, and unpacking the game several times. An element of organic personality arises when you see a sequence of cards from a previous game. That human element is lost when a computer perfectly shuffles a deck into a never-before-seen orientation.
Games that sort the cards are the worst / most interesting for this. Gin rummy, etc, where the end result of a game is sorted groups of same-numbers and runs. You can really tell when then shuffling has just transposed a few cards.
Re: Seven Perfect Shuffles Randomize a Deck of Cards. But How Many Sloppy Ones?
#20And 8 perfect shuffles resets it back to starting order (perfect being cards interlaced 1 by 1)
So just do -1 shuffles and save yourself a lot of effort?