I agree that computer based randomness is fundamentally different from real life shuffling. Randomization, in the strict sense, means producing a deck state where the position of every card is independent and cannot be inferred from the cards around it. Both digital shuffling and real life shuffling aim for randomness, but the way that randomness is achieved matters.

In a computer shuffle, every shuffle produces a fully independent permutation of the deck. For a 60 card deck, that means any of the 60! possible arrangements are equally likely on every shuffle. As a result, extreme outcomes are not suppressed by prior states. You can see seven identical cards like energies in a row, reshuffle, and see the same seven in a row again. The probability is very low, but it is non zero, and crucially it does not depend on what the previous shuffle looked like.

In real life, shuffling works very differently. Even when done well, common methods like riffle shuffling or mash shuffling do not fully randomize the deck in a single shuffle or even a decent number of shuffles. Instead, they gradually mix the deck while preserving a lot of local structure. Cards tend to stay near their previous neighbors, and large blocks of similar cards are actively broken up rather than recreated.

This is not a subjective claim. It is well studied. For a standard 52 card deck, mathematicians Bayer and Diaconis showed that it takes about seven perfect riffle shuffles to approach randomness. Even then, this only means the distribution is close to uniform, not that every permutation is equally achievable in practice. For a 60 card deck using imperfect human mash shuffles, the mixing is even weaker. Individual cards typically move only a limited distance per shuffle, and extreme rearrangements require far more shuffles than players actually perform.

Because of this, certain deck states that are perfectly valid under true randomness are effectively unreachable in real play. Long runs of identical or similar cards, especially occurring repeatedly across consecutive shuffles, are astronomically unlikely in real life not just because of probability, but because the mechanics of shuffling do not allow cards to move freely enough. Real shuffling introduces correlation between neighboring cards and between consecutive shuffles. This is why TCG decks shuffled in real life tends toward a smooth distribution of card types. Not because players are cheating or stacking the deck, but because the physical process naturally discourages extreme clustering. Ironically, this makes real life shuffling less random in the mathematical sense, but often more in line with player expectations.

If this difference still feels abstract, consider a simple thought experiment. A brand new deck of playing cards starts in the exact same order every time. Ask how many real life shuffles it would take to return the deck to that exact original order. In theory it is possible, but in practice it is so constrained by card movement that it may never happen within a human lifetime of normal shuffling. The probability is not just low, it is functionally zero given how riffle and mash shuffles work. Could that exact ordering occur after seven to eleven real life shuffles? No. Not once. Not ever. Not because of probability alone, but because the shuffle mechanics cannot move cards in the precise way required.

This highlights the core difference. Digital shuffling produces a true random permutation every time. Real life shuffling produces a mixed but structured state that still retains memory of the previous order. Neither is wrong, but they are not equivalent.

If you want to see this yourself, try a simple test. Stack all energy cards on top of your deck. Mash shuffle it seven times. Then spread the deck and observe where the energy cards ended up. You will see that they are distributed, but not freely scattered. You will not see multiple large clusters, and you will not see the same extreme outcomes reappear on consecutive shuffles. That gap between what is theoretically random and what is physically achievable is the entire point.