Mythical Pokemon — Dispelling Myths in the Pokemon TCG Community

[cardimg name=”Hitmonchan” set=”Evolutions” no=”62″ align=”right” c=”custom”]Let’s give these myths a one-two punch.[/cardimg]

In the 1990s, the Pokemon franchise was a worldwide phenomenon, yet the internet had still not fully evolved, resulting in wild rumors, outlandish hoaxes, and seas of lies that would put today’s “fake news” to shame. When applied to the Pokemon franchise in particular, this tendency to spread lies over the internet expressed itself in two ways: fake next-gen Pokemon known as “Poke Gods,” and fake cards claimed to be future releases. Although the release of actual new Pokemon and cards began to kill — ahem, “knock out” — these rumors, we had established a precedent of believing untruths. Even today in competitive Pokemon Trading Card Game, numerous myths surrounding the game, its players, and its mechanics persist.

Today, I would like to “knock out” as many of these rumors as I can. Part of maximizing your potential as a competitive player requires letting go of certain mindsets, misconceptions, and outdated ideas — something I always hope to help you guys with for as long as I write these articles.

Randomization

I find that the one subject with the wildest, most numerous amount of myths in the Pokemon TCG is randomization. This isn’t uniquely our fault, since people in general seem to struggle with randomization. Humans are thinking creatures, so we are wired to offer explanations where there are none. However, we are just as wired to reject new ideas when we are convinced that what we believe is the truth!

“PTCGO Hands”

Since the rise of the Pokemon Trading Card Game Online, Pokemon TCG players have coined a name for their ridiculously bad online hands: “PTCGO Hands,” or the sort of hands they think are impossible in real life. To understand if PTCGO hands are really a thing, though, let’s break down the randomizing method the developers use:

To determine random outcomes, games such as PTCGO use what’s called a random number generator, or RNG. These can either be generated with complex codes (“pseudo-RNG”) or with physical phenomena like noise (“true RNG”). The form we see on PTCGO is pseudo-RNG, which theoretically means you could trigger a random action if you did the right things.

So why are PTCGO hands at least somewhat mythical? For starters, there’s a good chance the code might have been improved since it became a running gag to call your bad hands “PTCGO hands.” From my anecdotal experience dealing out thousands of games on their program, I feel (emphasis on “feel”) like my absurdly improbable situations like four prized [card name=”Double Colorless Energy” set=”Shining Legends” no=”69″ c=”name”][/card] are…absurdly improbable. Contrast this to the old days of the program where strange hands and Prizes were pretty common. Additionally, the source of the randomness isn’t as important as simply having the knowledge of the deck order. That’s the goal of all randomization in Pokemon, after all — to not know what comes next!

Finally, real-life shuffling has even more limitations than pseudo-RNG codes do. A lot of the miserable hands that occur on PTCGO can and will occur in real life, so in those instances PTCGO succeeded as being an accurate reflection. Yet whereas PTCGO’s randomization quality is only limited by the RNG method, real life shuffling is a skill you must develop, or else you will always be presenting non-random decks.

On that note…

Best Practices in Shuffling

Shuffling is hard, no question, and it’s even harder to shuffle hundreds of times over the course of a long tournament. However, good shuffling is our responsibility as good players because to play Pokemon cards, we need to destroy any knowledge we have about the deck’s order. Knowing the order of your deck or your opponent’s is called stacking and is cheating.

That said…shuffling is hard! So hard, in fact, that we’ve developed a million methods to do the same thing, and not all of those methods randomize decks the same way. Listed below are some common shuffling/rearrangement techniques and their appropriateness for competitive Pokemon cards:

Riffle Shuffle/Side Shuffle

Rating: It’s super effective!

Riffle shuffling is when you take two halves of a deck and let them go into each other, mixing the two halves; side shuffling involves you mashing one half of a deck into the the side of the second half, achieving the same result. These are the two most common methods of randomization you will see at tournaments.

Riffling has a lot of actual research backing it up as a supreme shuffling method in terms of knowledge destruction. Side shuffling is less effective and requires more instances to achieve the same effect but is still a worthy substitute. The physical limitations in playing Pokemon cards make a bunch of riffle shuffles difficult, so a lot of quickly-executed, quality side shuffles are perfectly acceptable.

Wash Shuffle

[cardimg name=”Wash Rotom” set=”Ultra Prism” no=”40″ align=”right” c=”custom”]Do not wash.[/cardimg]

Rating: Effective but inappropriate

Wash shuffling is when you spread the cards face-down and rapidly move them around, mimicking a “washing” motion. This is actually a really good way to randomize the deck, but because we have large fields of prizes and in-play cards, it’s impossibly impractical. Even when setting up at the beginning of a game it’s a poor option because the fronts and backs of Pokemon cards aren’t symmetrical like with a deck of playing cards.

Hindu Shuffle

Rating: Not very effective and conditionally appropriate

Hindu shuffles are when you take the bottom half of a deck, move it to the top, and then repeat the same motion with that original half of the deck with smaller halves. This is a poor method of randomization in itself, but when combined with better methods helps diversify the process. I personally include a couple of these in my shuffling technique, but they’re sandwiched between other methods — I would never “only” do this method.

Pile Shuffle

Rating: Not very effective and conditionally appropriate

Pile shuffling is when you take your deck and deal it out into smaller piles. This actually isn’t true “shuffling” so much as mere rearrangement of the deck, and like the Hindu shuffle should never be executed by itself. Pile shuffling has a long history in Pokemon cards, but it’s a history that needs to die. I will nowadays only pile shuffle at the beginning of a match to show my opponent I’m playing with exactly 60 cards.

Sub-conclusion: Hindu and pile sparingly; do lots of riffles and mashes. Don’t wash!

[premium]

Cheaters in Pokemon TCG

Cheating itself is not a myth. Where the “myth” part kicks in is the prevalence of cheating. How frequent is cheating, who does it, and what approaches make the most sense? To answer these questions, let’s consider broader issues about the way people view honesty and dishonesty. On one extreme are the people who assume every top player cheats, and on the other extreme are the people who think our player base is infinitely pure. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, although the exact truth is almost impossible to determine without hard data. I believe my opinion below should be close to accurate.

To start, cheaters are never the majority of our player base, but they are likely a significant minority. I believe that a solid 25% of all people will approach just about any activity dishonestly, whether it’s breaking your promise to keep your hands out of the cookie jar or playing an unclean game of Pokemon cards. So how do you handle an environment where most people are honest, but there are still a lot of jerks? You make verification of your opponent’s honesty a habit. By that I mean you shuffle your opponent’s deck, don’t hesitate to call the judge when something fishy happens, and any other steps necessary to verify your opponent is playing a clean game.

Also, you will find that with blurrier, poorly enforced rules, players will be more likely to push those rules to their limits. A big reason for this is that many players may disagree a particular act is even cheating. For example, declumping. Declumping, or the rearrangement of cards in your deck while searching, is currently becoming less and less acceptable because this action is irrelevant at best, and stacking at worst. Yet many players will inanely insist on a “right” to declump because they aren’t directly prohibited from doing it. The same goes for varying degrees of stalling, a topic that until recently has been poorly enforced. It’s these fringe issues where you should be on highest alert.

Finally, I don’t think incentive strongly determines a player’s likelihood to cheat. Some of the most egregious cheating I’ve heard of happened not on a stream or a tournament, but at a lowly pre-release or local tournament where the prizes were only a few booster packs. Certainly when an important prize is close to obtaining, a person may feel more inclined to bend the rules if they aren’t likely to get caught. But the ultimate determining factor is how much a player respects the game and its participants. A respect-based approach to predicting cheating helps explain a lot, including why even “reformed” cheaters who are temporarily banned can stay dishonest, or why corrupt local tournament organizers apply “house rules” to keep outsiders from winning. Look to the players who actually respect this game and its people, and they’re generally going to be more trustworthy during a match.

Playstyle

Playstyle is the idea that every player has a way they prefer to play — and win — at the Pokemon Trading Card Game. You will often see many players refer to their playstyle by a variety of words: “aggressive,” “control,” “conservative,” and so on. But does playstyle actually exist? If it does exist, then is it actually worth anything? Below are what I broadly define as the pro-playstyle and anti-playstyle camps.

Pro-Playstyle

[cardimg name=”Vileplume” set=”Ancient Origins” no=”3″ align=”right” c=”custom”]Some love me, others hate me.[/cardimg]

Those who argue that playstyle is an important aspect of a competitive player’s approach think that you should play a deck that is compatible with your playstyle. Whether playstyle encompasses a general approach trending towards a style of deck, or something as specific as dedicating yourself to a specific type or Pokemon stage (e.g., Basic Pokemon), you will inevitably find the most success with a deck most in line with your approach to Pokemon. I personally am a good example in favor of playstyle working because I’ve seen most of my biggest successes over the years with oppressive lock decks.

Anti-Playstyle

Players against the idea of playstyle, on the other hand, are firm believers that each event has way less subjective means to determine the top play for a tournament. For these players, no particular mechanics, conventions, or types guide their deck choice, so to choose a deck because it “fits your style” is about the same as wanting to play a deck because the main Pokemon looks cute. Because Igor Costa has achieved his success in Pokemon with a wide variety of decks with no real common thread, I think of him as a good argument against playstyle.

What’s the Verdict?

Despite using myself as an example in favor of playstyle earlier, I believe that playstyle is a partial myth. Your starting point as a competitive player should be to seek out the best option for an event — that much ought to be true, even if it’s not completely compatible with the way you most enjoy playing Pokemon. Not being able to play a deck you enjoy is a personal problem that goes bigger than optimal deck choices, but to whether you really want to play this game competitively in the first place. Don’t confuse the two.

Nevertheless, there is certainly a place for playstyle, even if it’s not all that controlling. Some player preferences have ties to direct in-game benefits, such as liking decks without Stage 2 Pokemon leading to more consistent deck choices overall. Additionally, some deck choices make more sense depending on your goal for a particular tournament. An example of this is the upcoming North American International Championship. In a 1,600 person Masters division event where you have zero Championship Points and nothing to lose, why not play the wildest, most Earth-shattering rogue deck possible?

Which Tournament Structure Choices Reward Skill?

Because players have such a strong voice in the Pokemon TCG community, they can oftentimes have an equally strong say on how their local premier tournament organizers run their events. That includes all of you guys, so it’s important you have a clear idea about the implications of requesting a specific approach to the way your next League Cup or League Challenge is run.

Before I go into greater detail, my main point is this: significantly different tournament structure choices will inevitably reward different skill sets. It’s up to you to understand what skill sets are being tested, whether you would like to be tested that way, and if those concerns are outweighed by your indifference or desire for convenient tournament participation.

Single Game vs. Best Two-of-Three Swiss

During a long tournament, I see a better argument for siding with best two-of-three Swiss rounds; however, players adamant about best two-of-three Swiss carry their passion over to smaller events. This results in some serious myth-mongering as to the benefits you may — or may not be — enjoying at your local League Cup dedicated to running its tournament “like the Regionals do.”

The argument anyone in favor of best two-of-three Swiss will make is that it decreases variance, or luck, in Pokemon. One bad start shouldn’t mean the end of your tournament, right? This is true up to a point, but by carrying over the idea that best two-of-three works as well for a tournament with five rounds as it does with nine, they fail to realize the meager difference in luck there actually is. For a player who makes Top 8 at their local League Cup during five rounds of Swiss with a 3-1-1 record, there are precious few additional games added that would sway the result between single game and best two-of-three. Assuming you intentionally drew that tie, then the maximum number of games you would have gained by playing in a best two-of-three is eight. And that’s before remembering that in either case, top cut is best-two-of-three anyways! Add in that extra “variance” created by going up against beginners who play slow and may unintentionally force a tie, and it’s not so clear-cut an answer.

Standard Format vs. Expanded Format

Most of the myths surrounding which of the two major constructed Pokemon formats is “most skillful” are caused by a combination of deck biases and performance biases. If a player is drawn to a particular deck and wants to keep playing it long after it rotates, then there is a chance that player may rationalize Expanded to be a strictly better format. Similarly, if someone always wins in Standard but loses in Expanded, they may dismiss Expanded as an all-luck, no-skill format.

If there’s been a running theme this article, it’s that the real answer lies elsewhere. In general, both formats are still the Pokemon Trading Card Game, even if the tempo, deck variety, and metagames of each feel drastically different. Likewise, one could argue that the two formats test entirely different sets of skills, which could better explain why some people’s success is isolated to just Standard or Expanded.

We could argue for days about the specifics of the skills tested in Standard and Expanded, but my own personal shorthand is to treat Standard more like chess and Expanded more like poker. In chess, you have several default early game moves, get time to plan out a strategy, and then execute; in poker, you have to rely heavily on good probability calculations and accurately predict what your opponent is about to do next. Likewise, in Standard much of your early game is dedicated to setting up [card name=”Zorua” set=”Sun and Moon Black Star Promos” no=”SM83″ c=”name”][/card], [card name=”Inkay” set=”Forbidden Light” no=”50″ c=”name”][/card], or [card name=”Remoraid” set=”Crimson Invasion” no=”22″ c=”name”][/card], whereas in Expanded you could win as soon as turn one thanks to a well-played [card name=”Ghetsis” set=”Plasma Freeze” no=”101″ c=”name”][/card] or [card name=”Hex Maniac” set=”Ancient Origins” no=”75″ c=”name”][/card].

Can You Be a Professional Pokemon TCG Player?

[cardimg name=”Victini” set=”Guardians Rising” no=”10″ align=”right” c=”custom”]To be a total professional, you’ll need A LOT of victory.[/cardimg]

With the greatly increased cash prizes, more and more of us are seriously thinking that this is the case and are doggedly hunting down the top rankings in their zone as a result. As one of the more successful players over the years, I’d like to dismiss this idea in some ways, while also give you genuine hope in other ways.

To be a professional at something, you need to be able to make a living at it. A “living” is subjective and relative to your costs of living, but here in the United States, a Pokemon player would need to make at least $20,000 in profit in order to be considered genuinely professional. That amount by itself might be generous, since cost of living (rent, food, utilities, and all the other costs of life, etc.) is much higher in big cities and in parts of the west coast. Nevertheless, let’s assume that it is $20,000, and break down some combinations of results you would need to earn to maintain that lifestyle:

• Win the World Championships
• Win two International Championships, or an International Championship and two Regionals
• Win four Regional Championships
• Make top 32 at 10 Regional Championships; get four stipends by being among the top in your ranking zone; make top eight at the World Championships

Those are a lot of very difficult, convoluted ways to reach a pro salary. Now let’s look at the costs associated with that line of work:

• Airfare & travel
• Hotel
• Entry fees
• Cards
• The time-cost of all those weekends spent playing

To balance these costs out, you now need even more winnings…perhaps as many as $10,000 more!  After visiting a couple websites that compile players’ lifetime earnings, I find that there are only 10, maybe 20 people I could even begin to consider truly capable of being “professional” Pokemon card players based on profits alone.

Aside from winnings, there are other ways to express yourself as a professional player. Pokemon TCG “coaching” is becoming an increasingly common activity, with prices usually ranging from $20 to $40 an hour. To be a successful coach, you need enough student-clients; otherwise you are still well below that dollar amount to be a professional player. Of course, beyond winning tournaments and coaching, you can also sell cards, but at that point you are becoming something else entirely. Let either activity supplement your competitive tournament playing, though, and you might still be called a pro.

All other players are hobbyists, or people who enjoy the game as a side venture. While being an attorney and writer are two of my “professions,” Pokemon is my hobby, and so I am usually content if I can at least make back the amount I spend. Aside from breaking even or making a bit of a profit, being a hobbyist can have serious professional benefits. Most schools I’ve applied to and employers who have given me job offers have thought that my Pokemon activities are at least a quirky reflection of my confidence, if not something cool and interesting in its own right. In other words, playing this game has helped me pursue my other professional dreams, even if I can’t quite consider myself a bona fide professional. And that’s perfectly fine! Pokemon TCG is a game meant to be enjoyed.

Conclusion

While some answers may be more certain than others, you should now have a better understanding about the facts and myths associated with the Pokemon Trading Card Game. Whether it’s randomization, playstyle, or something else, it’s always important to approach theories with a critical mind!

Got another Pokemon TCG “myth” in mind? Let’s talk about it in the forums!

[/premium]