Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - eHalcyon

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: 1 ... 473 474 [475]
11851
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzle
« on: February 28, 2012, 06:39:10 pm »
I see a way to hit 143 net VP assuming I am interpreting the constraints properly. This solution could probably also be tweaked to get even higher results.


Trash your Colony with an Apprentice to draw 4 King's Courts, 6 Goons and a Festival (the math doesn't work out with the KCs to draw another Goons and actually play it you could probably replace this with something better like a Grand Market, but I didn't feel calculating that).
Play Festival-KC-KC-KC-KC-Goons-Goons-Goons-Goons-Goons-Goons giving you $38, 20 buys and a net of -10 VP. Buy 3 Colonies, a Duchy and 16 Coppers for a net gain of 143 VP.


I think the puzzle is meant to ask how you can gain those VP only from the act of trashing, before the Buy phase.

If were talking about just the act of trashing your own colony (no other cards played) I can get 24:

Assuming you have 8 Gardens, 8 Fairgrounds, At least one other colony and no silver and 9 or 14 unique cards.
Trash Colony with Trader. Net Increase of 1 unique card and 10 total cards.

8 Gardens = +8
8 Fairgrounds = +16

Total = +24.


But you also lose the Colony, so your net total is 24-10 = 12.

11852
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzle
« on: February 28, 2012, 06:37:32 pm »
I think I got it.

Trash Colony with a TFB card like Remodel to gain a Border Village, which you use to gain the last Silk Road.  The Border Village puts you up to a multiple of 3 action cards, powering up your Vineyards.  Colony into Border Village + Silk Road means your deck has 1 more card overall, and it just so happens that this bumps you up to a new multiple of 10, powering up your Gardens.  Also, that Border Village was the first one you got, bumping you up to a new multiple of 5 differently named cards.

Suppose you previously had 8 Fairgrounds, 8 Vineyards, 7 Gardens and 7 Silk Roads.  (It works just as well if you reverse the number of Vineyards vs. Gardens, but you definitely need 8 Fairgrounds.)

-10 VP from losing a Colony
+8 VP from powering up Vineyards
+7 VP from powering up Gardens
+16 VP from powering up Fairgrounds


= +21 VP net gain.

But you also get more VP from gaining the Silk Road.

Silk Road's worth stays the same because you lost a Colony and gained a Silk Road, so the total number of VP cards remains unchanged.  The exact worth of the final Silk Road is variable though.

With this last move, you already have 8 Fairgrounds, 8 Vineyards, 7 Gardens and 8 Silk Roads and at least 1 Colony (to keep Fairgrounds powered up) = 32 or more VP cards. 

That means the newly gained SR is worth at least 8 VP
for a minimum of +29 VP net gain. It could be worth much more though, especially if there are even more alternative VP cards in the Kingdom, or if we have more than 2 players so we can get more of each VP card.  I don't want to work out the maximum though! :)

11853
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Easy Puzzle
« on: February 28, 2012, 06:07:16 pm »
I can hit 35 VP, but I may be interpreting "net gain" rather loosely:

Play a bunch of KC-Bridge so that Colonies cost 0.  Swindle opponent's Colony into a Curse.  This also drops them from having X victory cards to X-1, where X is a multiple of 4.  Also, that Colony was the only Colony they had, and they already had some Curses in their deck.  Losing the colony drops them from Y differently named cards to Y-1, where Y is a multiple of 5.

From losing the Colony: -10 VP
From gaining the Curse: -1 VP
From 8 devalued Silk Roads: -8 VP
From 8 devalued Fairgrounds: -16 VP

Total: -35 VP to the opponent.

so by trashing your opponent's Colony, you cause them to lose 35 VP which gives you a net gain of 35 VP.  This could be more in a 3p+ game, since that player could have more than 8 SR/Fairgrounds.


But if you have to trash your own Colony, I'll need to think about it some more...

11854
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Shuffle Definition
« on: February 28, 2012, 04:54:21 pm »
Doesn't make the rearrangement-with-intent-to-manipulate-post-shuffle-order okay.

On what basis is it not okay?  If it doesn't affect the game state, who cares?  Can't a person have a superstition that doesn't harm someone else?  As above, if I play Mine correctly while believing I'm cheating, is that not okay?  On what basis? 

Edit: Setting aside the extreme situation in which the person looks like they are cheating/slows down the game.

I suppose you didn't actually look at the link, even though you said you were trying to introduce those ideas earlier?

According to the law, factual impossibility is still wrong.  To quote from the site:

Quote
Factual Impossibility: Factual impossibility has not to my knowledge ever been recognized as a defense to an attempt charge by any American court. The common law did not consider factual impossibility as a defense to attempt. Thus, one would be liable for attempted theft when, with intent to steal another's wallet, he places his hand in the other's pocket only to find it empty. The MPC does not recognize factual impossibility as a defense to attempt, nor does Texas.

In the context of Dominion, this is parallel to reordering your discard to try to give yourself an advantage.  In the end, shuffling means that you really don't get an advantage, but your attempt at getting an edge is still wrong.

Your example about trying to cheat with Mine but ending up playing it correctly is an example of True Legal Impossibility, which is distinct from Factual Impossibility scenarios.  Again, from the linked site:

Quote
True Legal Impossibility: The common law, the Model Penal Code and Texas, indeed every jurisdiction, will certainly recognize so-called true legal impossibility (Dressler calls it "pure") in attempt cases when it is simply not a crime to do what the defendant intended to do. In other words, an intent to commit an act which is not characterized as a crime by the laws of the subject jurisdiction can not be the basis of a criminal charge and conviction even though the actor believes or misapprehends the intended act to be criminalized by the penal laws. For example, if a fisherman believes he is committing an offense by possessing over five perch when in fact there is no limit on the number of perch one may catch, it is legally impossible to convict the fisherman of possessing more than five perch. The fisherman's conduct would be perfectly legal despite the fact that he believes and intends to possess more perch that he is entitled to possess. Since the conduct would be perfectly legal, the fisherman could not be held accountable for attempting to violate a law that did not exist. Again, I believe Professor Dressler in his UCL book calls this "pure legal impossibility."

So even though you play Mine with the intent to cheat, your play is still perfectly legal and is fine (despite being, perhaps, morally questionable).

Now in the context of your particular discard habits, you say you have no intent to cheat, so you are also in the clear.  The only question then is, why care about your discard order at all?  As others have stated numerous times, at best it has no effect and at worst it is stalling, or cheating, or appearing to cheat.

11855
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Worst Kingdom Design Thread!
« on: February 28, 2012, 02:41:02 pm »
I don't think we've had a thread like this since Hinterlands. I challenge anyone to come up with a kingdom half as annoying as this one

Probably not the same kind of annoying as your example, but...

Border Village
Goons
Adventurer
Harem
Nobles
Fairgrounds
Possession
King's Court
Forge
Expand

(No colonies)

I think it would be pretty annoying if every kingdom card was $6 or $7.



Vineyard
Tunnel
Throne Room
Island
Quarry
Golem
Royal Seal
Contraband
Harem
King's Court

Quarry, TR, KC and Golem, where the only other action is... Island.... awesome.



Masquerade
Swindler
Ambassador
Militia
Sea Hag
Bureaucrat
Saboteur/Ghost Ship
Torturer
Ill-Gotten Gains
Peddler

Peddler is in there solely for Swindler.  Maybe Possession can replace something too, for Ambassador and Masquerade "fun".

11856
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Shuffle Definition
« on: February 28, 2012, 01:44:16 pm »
I'm saying nothing whatsoever about proof.  Though, that being said, if you can prove that me plugging in my phone to charge it while hoping and intending that this results in the death of another human being, more power to you.  Proof implies that act A caused B, which, in this case, it did not and could not.  I've said nothing about murder not being murder because you can't prove it; I've said it's not murder if the action taken could not possibly result in the consequence desired, which is entirely different.

I'd still say that the intent to murder someone is morally wrong, even if the way you try to go about it is absurd and unprosecutable.

That said, your analogy does not fit the question at hand.  Charging your phone might not have any real way of causing someone to die, but ordering your discards definitely CAN have influence.  Shuffling more and shuffling better is a way to correct for that, but it doesn't remove the possibility of successful cheating if you have the intent.  This is why I prefer that spectacularly over-the-top loaded gun analogy -- it embodies the intent.

11857
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Shuffle Definition
« on: February 28, 2012, 01:37:19 pm »
I don't think that's how magicians work.  I saw a snippet of an interview from Teller the other day, of Penn and Teller (and I probably spelled his name wrong) discussing a classic card trick, and he noted that the deck itself is stacked and the cards that are revealed have been removed from the deck itself.

Honestly, it never occurred to me to keep one card at the bottom because (a) it would probably miss the next shuffle, but, more importantly, (b) that would be cheating.   ;D

But again, this is what is described in the OP -- a player has two witches, placing one on the bottom of the discard pile and the other on the top.  If I had the intent, I could easily keep a card on the top and a card on the bottom through any number of riffle shuffles.  I am no magician, but it is almost trivial to manipulate that. For my last riffle shuffle, I could ensure that the one on the bottom ends up a few cards away from the bottom to ensure that it doesn't miss the next reshuffle.  Voila -- I thus ensure that my two terminals won't collide.

As far as magic tricks go, there are many different kinds and many different ways of doing them.  Depending on the trick, that may involve rigged decks and/or false shuffles.

Oh, and regarding that "loaded gun" analogy.  Yes, I'd feel uncomfortable if you were purposefully ordering your discards/pointing a loaded gun at me.  It would not make me feel better if you said you weren't trying to cheat/going to murder me.  And as you say, it would indeed be OK if your perfect shuffling erased any lingering order of the deck/removed the bullets from the gun.  But since you're the one doing the shuffling, it still remains suspicious.  You can say all you want that you've removed the bullets from your gun, but if you keep pointing it at me I'll still be suspicious.

I really enjoy how SERIOUS this analogy is. :P

11858
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Shuffle Definition
« on: February 28, 2012, 04:03:42 am »
However, concerning the randomness. I know that a "preprocessed" deck is in no way "more" random as than starting with mixing from C7E3. As is a pile-shuffled deck, but nevertheless it was proposed here.
The point is that you don't need to have every permutation of it equally likely. For first, you can swap every Copper with every other Copper, and every other Estate with every other Estate. Than you can swap the Estates with the Coppers in each hand. The only thing you care about is if it's 4/3 or 5/2, and only in some Hinterland settings you care on the the order of them.
So the point is to get the best possible approximation on the probabilities of 4/3 vs 5/2, and I'm quite sure that this can be achieved faster (or you get a better approximation for a given amount of shuffles) if you don't start with a sorted deck, but distribute your Estates.

But I will ask a sim...


* Have only skimmed it, but Theorem 2 (p.4) and Table 4.(p.16) seems to point into this direction. Oh and Table 3 (p.16)of course.
* depending on what you want \theta to be.

Ohh, you were specifically referring to the first shuffle and not just giving a random example.  In that case... this is really interesting.  Looking forward to hearing what you find from the simulator. :D

11859
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Shuffle Definition
« on: February 28, 2012, 03:26:00 am »
Attempting to "compensate" for poor shuffling technique is in my opinion cheating.

I'm not sure here. It's signigicantly harder to get a good shuffled deck from a bad starting state than from a good one. For example, in the starting deck, I always manually mix the 3 Estates with the Coppers before shuffling.  Now that probably is also no cheating under your definitions, before there is no definition how the starting deck has to look like before shuffling, other than it has to contain 3 Estates and 7 Coppers. But it's done for the same reason, to compensate for poor shuffling or (experessed positively) to improve the shuffling.

I am not certain, but it sounds like you are using an incorrect definition of "random" here.  What do you mean by "a good shuffled deck"?  If it is well shuffled (that is, near-perfect randomization), the starting state has absolutely no bearing on the final state.  A "bad starting state" and a good one would both have an equal probability of reaching any possible shuffled state. 

This is why I ask your definition of a "good shuffled deck".  Is it a deck where your hands all tend to be average, rather than having some amazing hands and some worthless hands?  Because with perfect randomization, both the former and the latter are possible.  Again, true randomness means that any possible set of cards may end up together.  If you had five 5 coppers and 5 estates, there is just as much chance of you drawing ccccc as there is of you drawing ccece, even if one "looks" more random to the human mind. 

This concept of compensating for poor shuffling by changing the pre-shuffle order simply doesn't work.  The only real way to compensate for poor shuffling is to shuffle more.  Arranging the cards to try to compensate is arranging the cards with the expectation that it will make some non-random arrangement more likely -- even if that non-random order is what we perceive to be "more random".

11860
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Shuffle Definition
« on: February 28, 2012, 01:40:47 am »
snip

If you read the OP, he describes a player putting one witch on top and another on the bottom of the discard pile, which would violate the rule of discarding only to the top of the discard pile.

The arguments that have followed deal with the intention behind a strange discard order.  Ideally, the order in which you discard should not matter (aside from strategically hiding which card your opponent can see) since your shuffle will randomize the deck anyway, meaning that the starting permutation should not make a difference. 

However, we acknowledge that our shuffling is imperfect.  The discussions of cheating revolve around this fact, and how someone might purposefully change the order of discard to improve their draws after imperfect shuffling (such as in the OP's example where someone tried to space out their witches to lower the chance of terminal collision).  Even if it has no effect, the intention is there and is tantamount to cheating.  However, given bad shuffling, it very well COULD have an impact on draws.

11861
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Shuffle Definition
« on: February 27, 2012, 10:13:23 pm »
From reading the last few pages, it looks like the main confusion is what randomness really entails.  ftl explained it a few times but it seems like there is still misunderstanding.

If you were to randomize the digits from 0-9, there is just as much chance of you getting 0123456789 as there is of you getting 3749182605.  However, the human brain sees a pattern in the former and not in the latter, and we naturally assume that patterns = not random. 

Likewise, drawing a hand of all actions, then a hand of all treasures followed by a hand of all greens seems really non-random to us.  But with perfect randomness, there is just as much chance of drawing these clumps as there is of getting three hands each with mixes of all three.

The human notion of chance and randomness is actually really interesting.  Consider the Gambler's fallacy. :)

11862
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Most points with no VP chips.
« on: February 25, 2012, 02:10:44 am »
Also, the buying is even easier if you TR a KC and use it to play Bridge and Highway thrice, and also play princess. The bridges will themselves give you enough money to buy the last platinum and colony, and everything else will be free.

Highway doesn't interact with TR/KC that way.  Bridge reduces costs from being played so it will stack with TR/KC, but Highway and Princess reduce cost from being in play, so playing Highway thrice via KC will still only reduce costs by $1.  :)

11863
Rules Questions / Re: Trader and gaining multiple cards at once
« on: February 24, 2012, 01:35:25 am »
Although this is already overkill on this question (since Donald X. weighed in and all) I noticed something about the wording of Trader:
"when you would gain a card." So even if we interpreted the action of the embargo as sending you two curses simultaneously, you couldn't reveal Trader, because then it wouldn't apply -- you'd be gaining two cards, not one.

But none of that matters given what was already said.

I think even with that wording it would still apply -- it's just semantics.  Gaining two cards is eqivalent to gaining a card twice. :)

11864
Rules Questions / Re: Trader and gaining multiple cards at once
« on: February 23, 2012, 10:02:12 pm »
What happens when there are zero of something that you should gain?  For example, if you buy a cache and there are NO coppers left, could you still reveal Trader to gain two Silver?

Order of events could be something like:

Buy Cache.  Gain Cache.
You would gain Copper --> Reveal Trader --> Gain Silver instead.
You would gain Copper --> Don't reveal Trader --> No Coppers available to gain, so gain nothing.

This fits with the wording on Trader. Or it might go:

You would gain Copper --> No Coppers available to gain, can't reveal Trader.

I think the former makes more sense though.  Thoughts?

11865
Dominion General Discussion / Re: What to Prioritize?
« on: February 23, 2012, 04:17:19 pm »
You can NOT ignore Familiar on this board.  You have to open Potion/Swindler and hope that your Potion does not get Swindled.  Then, basically:

Familiar when you get a chance.
Phil Stone if you're at $3-5+P and there's no point in Familiars.
Scrying pool if you're at exactly $2+P
Silver at $3
Tournament at $4
Venture at $5
Gold at $6
Standard greening rules, just using Tunnel for its VP value, not trying to combo it.

Is Gold always better than Adventurer in this case?  With a few Ventures in the deck, I'd have thought Adventurer would do very well.

11866
Dominion General Discussion / Re: What to Prioritize?
« on: February 23, 2012, 02:55:48 am »
I was thinking that Margrave would be good primarily for the +Buy, since with Adventurer/Venture/Philo Stone and Gold from Tunnels, I was hitting $12+ fairly consistently.  Granted, this was against a not-so-great AI.  But the Margrave detour would be slower than just getting Adventurer/Venture running... so I see the merit of choosing Swindler.  Besides, with all the treasure and deck cycling it might be hard to line up Margrave with lots of cash.

If you end up with 5p or 6p, what would you buy?  Philo Stone, Adventurer, Venture?  What's a good number of Adventurers to have, if playing that strategy?

11867
Dominion General Discussion / What to Prioritize?
« on: February 23, 2012, 01:47:27 am »
I don't really have much time to play on isotropic (and when I do, it's just with friends) but I tend to spend spare minutes zipping through games on Androminion.  I'm still fairly amateur but I feel like I know enough to come up with a decent plan on most boards, if one exists.

Playing on Androminion, I ran into a set where I really didn't know what to prioritize:

Scrying Pool, Philosopher's Stone, Familiar, Swindler, Tunnel, Tournament, Margrave, Library, Venture, Adventurer

Library doesn't seem all that great to me here.  It would sort of counter Margrave, but the only source of +Actions is Trusty Steed so you can't turn it into an engine.  Similarly, I don't really like Swindler here because I feel Margrave and Adventurer are both better to have as terminals.

Venture and Adventurer looks like a really fun combo, and Tunnel looks really attractive due to Margrave, Venture and Adventurer; it could actually end up a fairly consistent source of Gold.  Throw in Philo Stone and there is a very real chance of double Province turns.  Margrave would be the main source of +Buy but it's terminal.  There is also Princess, where the price reduction effect would make those big money turns even sweeter.

Since I think this is more of a Money kind of board, Scrying Pool doesn't seem all that great.  I still want the Potion though, because Familiar will be important and Philo Stone can be great later on.  If I'm unfortunate enough to hit 2p instead of 3p, Scrying Pool is an alright consolation prize since it helps power up Philo Stone and it is a cantrip at worst.

All that said though -- I have no idea what to prioritize.  On a 4/3 split, Potion/Silver?  Would Swindler actually be a decent opening?  I can see Swindler being useful to turn Coppers into Curses even before someone gets Familiar, and also potentially changing Familiar to Philo Stone early (and back again late, when Curses are out).  I still think Silver is better though.

On 3, Tunnel or Silver?  I suppose there's no point grabbing a Tunnel until the opponent picks up a Margrave or you have an Adventurer or Venture.

On 5, should you take Margrave or Venture?  One Margrave and then Ventures after that?  Two Margraves?

On 6, Gold or Adventurer?

How many Familiars should be bought and when should I switch over to Philo Stone?

Given the synergy between Adventurer and Venture, and the fact that Philo Stone can be worth much more than Gold, is there a point when you'd rather not reveal Tunnel for Gold?

And finally, when you manage to align Tournament with a Province, would you prefer Princess or Trusty Steed?  Or Maybe even Bag of Gold to get more cards in the discard for Philo Stone, and to top-deck Gold for Aventurer/Venture?  I believe Diadem would be useless given lack of +Actions cards, and Followers would be redundant with Familiar and Margrave.

A lot of questions, I know, but I'd be really interested in insights.

Thanks!

11868
For this puzzle, are we ignoring that the game would have already ended if you have 10 Hoards, 10 Hagglers, 10 Horns of Plenty and 10 IGG?  And how do you draw all 40 of those cards into your hand at the same time?
You can gain the final several cards into your deck with something like Ironworks and then draw it later.

You posted a potential Kingdom here:

Unfortunately this also raises some problems of how big this Kingdom is.  I suppose you could always get your KC and Trader out of a BM though.

Venture / Tunnel / Hoard / Haggler / IGG / Farmland / Cache / Black Market (KC, Trader) / Embargo / [+Actions that also gains cards into your hand?]


But that has no way to draw 10 each of Venture, Hoard and IGG (and HoP is missing now?).  Shouldn't the solution take into account how to draw the required cards?  Allowing a Kingdom larger than 10 would fix that though.

Edit: Or can you pull everything you need to draw everything out of BM?

11869
Am I overlooking anything important in this suggestion?

Yep. your suggestions don't cause you to gain Silver in the buy phase.

Ah, I missed the part in the problem saying in the buy phase.  My bad.  :-[

11870
For this puzzle, are we ignoring that the game would have already ended if you have 10 Hoards, 10 Hagglers, 10 Horns of Plenty and 10 IGG?  And how do you draw all 40 of those cards into your hand at the same time?

If ignoring those constraints of a regular game, perhaps a solution could also involve 10 KC'd Develops gaining 2 cards each that get Trader'd into Silver?  That could get you 60 Silvers rather than the 30 Silvers from KC'd Embargo.

Or even better:

What if you had more than one Trader in your hand?  KC Trader to trash 27 high cost cards for piles and piles of Silver (leaving 1 Trader in hand for its Reaction during the Buy phase).  10 Colonies, 10 Platinums and 7 Provinces/Peddlers would give 10*11 + 10*9 + 7*8 = 256 silver.

Am I overlooking anything important in this suggestion?  I am not sure about the optimal way to fit it in with other suggestions in this thread (if we conform to a 10 card kingdom).

Edit: Missed the part about only gaining during the buy phase!

11871
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: 3 Provinces, X Cards
« on: February 10, 2012, 05:59:09 pm »
Unfortunately, Princess doesn't stack, so that set can't even gain Provinces.

I realized this today and I came to correct myself, but I see it's been done already. :P

11872
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: 3 Provinces, X Cards
« on: February 07, 2012, 06:02:49 pm »
A 4 card solution of TR-KC-Princess-Feast will net 3 Colonies and a Duchy without assuming anything about the opponent, mats and tokens, e.g. with Pirate Ship or Trade Route.

11873
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: Equilibrium
« on: February 07, 2012, 02:12:04 pm »
Tie game. There's one province left, and one estate left which will end the game on a three pile. The copper pile is empty, and both players' decks consist of two cards: a governor and a bank.

You have to specify that the other empty pile is curses, or else the first player should buy a curse and then Governor it the next turn to gain the Estate.

Or... wait.  Scratch that.  You don't even need to specify that copper is empty.  If someone tries to buy copper/curse and then use Governor to get the Estate, the opponent can choose to trash their Bank and get the last Province.

Edit: Wait no, you could buy copper and play it with Bank to grab the Estate.  I am not thinking. :P

11874
Puzzles and Challenges / Re: 3 pile in 7 turns
« on: February 07, 2012, 02:04:15 pm »
You can't buy cards?  OK, following alll of the new constraints:

Starting hand: King's Court, Throne Room, Workshop, Feast, Watchtower

Throne Room King's Court, KC Feast and Workshop. 

With the KC'd Feast, gain 1 Feast and 2 Duchy.  With the KC'd Workshop, take 3 Estate.  Trash every card gained with Watchtower except for a single Feast.  You will be trashing 6 cards each turn and draw the same starting hand each time.  When the Estates run out, go for Feast instead.


Sample:

1: Gain and trash 2 Duchy, 1 Feast, 3 Estate
remaining: 6 Duchy, 5 Estate 8 Feast - note that there are 10 Feast total, 1 was in starting hand and 1 was gained.

2: Gain and trash 2 Duchy, 1 Feast, 3 Estate
remaining: D duchy, 2 Estate, 7 Feast

3: Gain and trash 2 Duchy, 2 Feast, 2 Estate
remaining: 2 Duchy, 0 Estate, 5 Feast

4: Gain and trash 2 Duchy, 4 Feast
remaining: 0 Duchy, 0 Estate, 1 Feast

5: Gain last Feast (trashing is optional)
remaining: 0 Duchy, 0 Estate, 0 Feast


3-pile ending thus achieved in 5 turns.

It could probably be done faster by gaining and keeping some throne rooms and more feasts and Workshops along with some drawing card to draw the entire deck, but I don't want to work it out without perfect shuffle luck.

Pages: 1 ... 473 474 [475]

Page created in 0.141 seconds with 18 queries.