This game is literally, ridiculously and unfairly freaking rigged.

Maybe I'm not that expertised in strategy, but watching my opponents pulling down lands every round in early game? Even for those who holds a 3 to 5-color-mixed deck? I won't even be bothered making this complaint if it were a 50/50 chance manipulation. IT IS WAY WORSE!

Please do trace the play history and check. I am well aware that sometimes unexpected land/cost distribution might occur, but the situation I'm talking about is literally abnormal. This happens so frequently while I'm holding 17 lands of a 40-card-deck.

Let alone the fact that I'm holding all high mana cards on the first hand while I'm actually building a deck with 16 2-3 mana cards out of 40 (for so many times). By the way, how many players get no cards to play within 2 rounds even after mulligan?

This is sincerely frustrating and tiring. I am honestly out of passion and energy to keep playing game like this. I'm not even sure if people like me are here for joy or getting fooled.

You know what's more funny? Whenever you make a request and talk about this sort of situation, the agents are just crankily confident about their algorithms. I'm starting to doubt if OpenClaw+Grock or Anthropic can do way much better than that.

I am no genius or expert, but thanks to opietaylor93#81905 who shared his calculation in previous comments. Anyone who is not blind and arrogant enough can tell that there's something wrong with it, except from MTGA agents, I presume.

Last but not least, some may say I'm here to make a provocation. Well, I would not even type that much if I did not care about this game.

---

opietaylor93#81905. (2026, March 6). Comment on "Shuffler." Magic: The Gathering Arena Feedback Forum. https://feedback.wizards.com/forums/918667-mtg-arena-bugs-product-suggestions/suggestions/49245074-shuffler

Hello, I have a mathematics and probability masters degree and find this sort of stuff fascinating. I work with major platforms and machinery that specializes in randomizing, odds and probability. While most stuff does seem random and by “chance”; complex calculations allow us to understand that with enough rinse and repeat (for laymen's terms) proves that there is always some sort of pattern associated with numbers. For example, I have done some calculations that are correct (you can check yourself) that prove that the shuffling system in MTG Arena is not truly a chance factor. Here is what I found.

I have played hundreds of matches in Arena, paid hundreds of dollars for gems to play in limited events and been a great reoccurring customer to MTGA. Here is the equation I used which is tried and true and also correct without any errors:

This applies to any stretch of lands you pull off the top with or without a shuffle, The math stays the same. I personally experience this problem in about 45-60% (this is out of 100 games at a time that I studied) of my games which should be enough proof that this is obviously a money grab via Wizards of the Coast.

First we calculate the odds that 5 specific consecutive cards are all lands. (My ratio is 6.1 lands 57% of the time but here is what 5 looks like for easy round numbers).

Think of it like drawing 5 cards one at a time.

Step-by-step logic
First card is a land:

17/40

There are 17 lands out of 40 cards.

Second card is also a land:

Now there are:

16 lands left

39 total cards left

16/39

Third card:

15/38

Fourth card:

14/37

Fifth card:

13/36

Now multiply them
Because all 5 events must happen:

(17/40)×(16/39)×(15/38)×(14/37)×(13/36)

Why multiply?

Because:

That equals:
≈0.0094≈ 0.0094≈0.0094

Which is:

0.94%

That’s the chance that one specific 5-card stretch is all lands.

Just to be clear, this happens with an average of 6.1 lands drawn back to back over a course of 100 games 57% of the time. (I started recording late last year just to matter of fact.) Here are the odds that I had my specifically designed probability computer system put together just to be certain.

Step 1 — What is the true probability of 6 lands in a row?
Earlier we established:

For a 40-card deck with 17 lands:

Probability of at least one 6-land streak somewhere in the deck ≈ 1%

That means:

p=0.01p = 0.01p=0.01

So in any given game, you have about a 1 in 100 chance of seeing a 6-land streak.

Step 2 — What would 57% mean?
57% over 100 games means:

57 games out of 100

But if the true probability is 1%, then over 100 games you would expect:

100 × 0.01= 1 game

So the expectation is:

Expected = 1 game

Claimed = 57 games

That’s 57× higher than mathematically expected.

Step 3 — What are the odds of that happening naturally?
This is a binomial probability problem.

We ask:

That probability is effectively:

≈10−100 or smaller≈ 10^{-100} { or smaller}≈10−100 or smaller

To put that in perspective:

Odds of winning the Powerball jackpot: ~1 in 292 million

This event: far, far, far less likely than winning the lottery multiple times in a row

In practical terms:

The probability is effectively zero.
Not “very unlikely.”
Not “rare.”
Mathematically indistinguishable from impossible.

Step 4 — The “Average of 6.1 Lands in a Row” Claim
This makes it even more impossible.

Why?

Because:

7-land streak odds ≈ 0.3%

8-land streak odds are even smaller

9-land streak odds are microscopic

To average 6.1 lands in a row 57% of games means you are regularly hitting 6, 7, maybe 8 land streaks constantly.

That violates what’s called the law of large numbers.

With a fair shuffle, over time results converge toward expected probability — not explode away from it.

Step 5 — Could It Happen Without Manipulation?
Only if:

The deck does NOT actually contain 17 lands.

The shuffle is not random.

The data collection is biased (memory bias).

The sample size is misreported.

There is a physical issue (clumping from insufficient shuffling).

But under:

True randomness

Proper shuffle

17 lands

It is not statistically plausible.

This will be posted for everyone of your customers who have this issue to see. I hope that you can figure it out before the uproar gets too loud for you to handle.

-Anonymous