Nice one for the obsessed Bicycle collectors.

LOL, Now there's a backhanded compliment if i ever heard one! Not that i disagree, mind you... 

Quote from: TheBadJoker on March 08, 2014, 10:23:33 PM

My book has been 5 years in the making.  Follow the arrows:
http://www.squashpublishing.com/product_info.php?cPath=4&products_id=263

How about a preview?

Agreed! Sounds fascinating, but not much to see at that web link...

Terrific work as always Sparkz!

Would something like Alloys Peafowl belong here?

I'm kind of curious about why they put the Cyrillic "D" on the mitre the King is holding.  That letter is used in Russian decks on the index for the Queen (dama).  (It's that thing that vaguely resembles an A.)

Seems clear that they *are* using it as an "A", since they use it as such twice in the name of their deck right below the image you are referring to, no? 
So, I'm seeing the letter on the card as a reference to the title of the deck...

Even if it is technically a Cyrillic "D", it wouldn't be the first time someone used an "odd" character in place of the standard one.

But perhaps there is a "deeper" meaning behind it...? Guess we'll have to ask the designer if/when they come around...

Well, i'll be darned... looks like this could be the .01% exception to the rule...

They must be going for a very slow reveal on this deck.

As for the courts... not so much a fan of one way, or monochrome, so i guess it's a pass for me anyway.

UC has been "Restored" to approximately December 21st for most users!!!

Some of the older topics are weirdly missing... but i think it's as good as we're going to get considering where we were. We're working to at least restart the recent "New & Custom deck" threads...

If you created a temporary account in the interim... you'll want to go back to using your old username and password again.

 

Good God, Jackson! You were clearly born to design playing cards.

If you make a life-long career of this, they are going to erect a museum for your work alone...  and the rest of us are going to go bankrupt!

I was quoting the source of the photos.  Found it on Pinterest.

God forbid we question the reliability of Pinterest as a source...   
In any case, the images you posted would be impossible to create by simply folding.

Cardazine, forget all the math and price comparisons...

I really like your project. Your deck is well designed. Above average even. But it is not an exceptional "i gotta have it now!" deck. And that's not just MY opinion...

The bottom line is, you are nowhere near funding. And if you don't fund,.. you make ZERO money. How are you going to pay yourself and your artist then?

You simply will not fund unless and until you relaunch at an acceptable price point. Sorry! 

Quote from: th4mo on January 11, 2014, 03:45:45 AM

Nice explanation! It's implied in your example that the one same (evidently indestructible) deck of cards is used throughout the 100 year lifespan.
But what if you always start with a deck where the cards are in the exact same order to begin with? Say, the order of a standard deck of Bicycle cards when it is first opened?
If you took every deck of bicycles, for however long they have been packaging their cards in the same order, that has ever been opened (I'll let you calculate what that number might be)
and then shuffle each of those decks only FOUR times (as he does in the video), i bet you might get more than a few repeated sequences.

Now, I won't claim that he started with a brand new unshuffled deck, since he flashes the four of spades on the bottom before he starts shuffling. But i would wager that it takes shuffling any new deck more than four times to achieve the full range of values of 52 factorial.... 
just sayin'...

Edit: Couldn't resist googling this myself, and apparently people much better at math then myself have determined that 7 shuffles is the minimum number to "approach" true randomness.
And this is only true for "good" shuffling methods...  One author says quote "By the way, the overhand shuffle is a really bad way to mix cards: it takes about 2500 overhand shuffles to randomize a deck of 52 cards!"
The reason for this has to do NOT with the total possible number of permutations, but with the number of "rising sequences in the permutation"...
Here's a link to the full math explanation for those of you who can handle it (Not me!)
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/Mann.pdf

Actually, there's no such implication at all.  It need not be the same deck with every shuffle.

Well, when you say "shuffle a deck more than a thousand times a day" i kind of think it does imply shuffling the same deck over and over, whether you meant it that way or not. I'm sure you'll be quick to correct me, but assumptions will be made by your audience if you don't stipulate, and it's always easier to "clarify" after the fact. In any case, that's not the point...
 
My point was that one cannot say that "no two shuffled decks in the history of cards have ever been in the same order". Which is actually a subtly different point from what they said in the video.
I still say that if you always start with the "new deck sequence" and you shuffle only four times, and you repeat this process millions of times, it is probable that you will have some non-unique sequences.

It doesn't matter the condition in which the deck started.  You could reorder the deck every single time to "factory-fresh" order, but as long as you completely randomize the deck, the odds of repeating a previous shuffle are still the same.

You say it doesn't matter what order the deck starts in as long "as you completely randomize the deck", which you later say requires at least seven shuffles...?
So in other words... it does matter what order the deck starts in, if you are only shuffling it four times... 

All I am trying to say boils down to just this: "I bet most people who open a new deck of cards don't shuffle it well enough the first time to achieve a truly random permutation...i.e. seven times or more...".

And to my knowledge, Professor/Magician Persi Diaconis of Stamford University was the first to discover that a deck required at least seven thorough riffle shuffles in order to be randomized, preferably more.

Yes, Diaconis. The link I included refers to the analysis by Bayer and Diaconis on the first page, and is an extensive exposition of the math involved. It's kind of fun to try to follow along...
And while 7 is Diaconis' preferred number of shuffles, he does claim that as few as 4 may be enough for games like blackjack where the suits are inconsequential. Other mathematicians have come up with even higher numbers of shuffles than 7, based on different ways of measuring and quantifying "randomness".

Cheers!

Quote from: splice42 on January 10, 2014, 01:10:04 PM

Quote from: Don Boyer on January 10, 2014, 01:01:46 PM

In fact, you'd probably have a better chance of two people losing a coin toss with a 2013 US quarter - one bets head, the other bets tails and the coin lands on a hard surface on its edge, remaining in that state.

I'm not sure about a quarter, but a nickel has been calculated to land on its side 1 out of 6000 tosses (not flips) (approximate).

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993PhRvE..48.2547M

A traditional coin toss is either flipping the coin in the air, catching it in your hand, flipping the coin onto the back of the opposing hand and reading the result OR flipping the coin in the air and letting it land on a hard surface, such as a table, the floor, the sidewalk, etc.  Nickels aren't of the same design - they have a wide, smooth edge and a lower center of gravity.  And I did mention it was a QUARTER, right?  Not a nickle.

The point being, it's not impossible to shuffle the deck the same way twice in your lifetime, but the odds of that occurring makes it a statistical impossibility, in that the chances are infinitesimal.

Even the most avid magician, cardist or card playing likely doesn't shuffle a deck more than a thousand times a day - not without having a raging case of carpal tunnel syndrome.  But let's assume that you could and do just that.

That adds up to:
365,000 shuffles a year (we'll pretend there's no leap years, for simplicity).
3,650,000 a decade.
365,000,000 over the course of a 100-year lifespan.

Now look at the number below.  That number I'll call X for the moment.
You have X:1 odds of hitting the same shuffle twice in the course of that entire 100-year lifespan.  Don't forget the bit at the end: "x 10^59", or ten to the fifty-ninth power.

Nice explanation! It's implied in your example that the one same (evidently indestructible) deck of cards is used throughout the 100 year lifespan.
But what if you always start with a deck where the cards are in the exact same order to begin with? Say, the order of a standard deck of Bicycle cards when it is first opened?
If you took every deck of bicycles, for however long they have been packaging their cards in the same order, that has ever been opened (I'll let you calculate what that number might be)
and then shuffle each of those decks only FOUR times (as he does in the video), i bet you might get more than a few repeated sequences.

Now, I won't claim that he started with a brand new unshuffled deck, since he flashes the four of spades on the bottom before he starts shuffling. But i would wager that it takes shuffling any new deck more than four times to achieve the full range of values of 52 factorial.... 
just sayin'...

Edit: Couldn't resist googling this myself, and apparently people much better at math then myself have determined that 7 shuffles is the minimum number to "approach" true randomness.
And this is only true for "good" shuffling methods...  One author says quote "By the way, the overhand shuffle is a really bad way to mix cards: it takes about 2500 overhand shuffles to randomize a deck of 52 cards!"
The reason for this has to do NOT with the total possible number of permutations, but with the number of "rising sequences in the permutation"...
Here's a link to the full math explanation for those of you who can handle it (Not me!)
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/Mann.pdf

Wow, did nobody in this thread actually back the "Mazing Deck"?

Here's the update where he "spilled the beans", or laid all the beans out...

OK, I just launched my 2nd project - The Different Deck.


As a valued backer of my first project I want to let you in on a secret. This deck has been in the works for quite a while. I was actually hoping to launch it on Kickstarter a year ago this month. The truth is I did the Mazing Deck to give me something to do while my artist was working on this deck.

I absolutely love this deck - each card is a unique piece of art filled with symbolism and fun and mystery.

In some respects the project is very simple but in other respects there is a lot going on - in fact there is even a secret backer level.

When you check out the project you will see pretty typical rewards and backer levels and then there is a $37 level for a H.O.P.E. sticker. This might seem strange, and that’s the idea - because it is a secret backer level.

I wanted to let you, my Mazing backers, in on the secret. It is limited to 620 spots (the number of backers my first project had) and if you back it, you will not only get the really cool H.O.P.E. decal but you will also get 2 of every deck produced by this project.

So for $37 you get 4 decks and a sticker - and if we hit the stretch goal and unlock the black deck, you will get two of that deck as well. Not too shabby if you ask me.

Mostly I am doing this for fun and just to do something... well, Different. But it is only fun if we keep it a secret so while it is ok for you to tell your friends (heck, that is encouraged), I do ask that if and when someone asks in the comment section on Kickstarter, "What the heck is up with the sticker reward and why are people backing it?" that you don't spoil the fun.

Again, thanks for supporting this Mazing adventure and I hope you will join me on a Different one.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/872009742/different-deck-playing-cards-reinvented

Best wishes for 2014,

Brian Daniel South
Creator of the Mazing deck

Did you know that in Chinese 8 is a lucky number?

I think what he's doing is pretty darn fun, and obviously the word is spreading... 291 out of 581 backers have pledged for the sticker as of right now... though amazingly, no one has ruined it in the comments section yet...

You see red flags, but i see someone who is well "outside of the box", and only just beginning to show us his talent and creativity. 

edit: BTW, his website link works fine for me too, and he has backed over 60 projects going back to May 2011, which is not typical of scammers.
Still you can't be too careful, so caveat emptor and all that...

 

Congrats on perplexing Pierre! lol....
I can just imagine him sitting there staring at his screen! (like me...)

that kind of makes my day. 

the cards... unfortunately... not so much.