(Close Window)

Topic: On second thought

Message: Posted by: Wesley James (Aug 30, 2011 1:51am) While you may not have been aware of it at the time, Riffle Stacking and the Push-thru shuffle were both being successfully employed by "advantage players" in some parts of the world--notably the U.K.--at the time you wrote your book, yet you were dismissive of the viability of such technique, if only by inference and omission. You are also dismissive of the utility of the Cold Deck, except in situations when working with the house. As you may be aware, in the years since your work many "advantage players" have earned their livelihood almost solely through use of the Cold Deck. In light of these facts, on second thought, would you alter your statements on the utility of these types of techniques? Wesley James

Message: Posted by: S.W.Erdnase (Aug 30, 2011 5:56am) Mr. James, Your comments regarding our apparent dismissal of stocking with the riffle shuffle, preserving the complete order of the deck at a card table, and the utility of a cold deck are excellent ones. It does appear that we owe the fraternity an explanation does it not? We shall attempt to provide one, but a bit of clarification regarding a portion of our treatise is in order before we can embark on a more complete explanation. Please refer to p. 14 of our work. There, a line that has apparently become somewhat popular amongst our readers appears. The full quotation is, “We betray no confidences in publishing this book, having only ourselves to thank for what we know.” Many readers have taken the “betray no confidences” portion of this sentence to mean that we were not revealing any techniques that were shown to us “in confidence” by other professional gamblers. Some have even used this line of reasoning as a rationale for why techniques such as the spread and the countdown do not appear in the work. Of course, the second part of that quotation is equally important: “…having only ourselves to thank for what we know.” In our day, we felt this sentence was as clear as glass. Today, we know better. If we were to rewrite that line for today’s readers we would state it thusly: “We are betraying no confidences in publishing this book, because we alone have developed the techniques within, receiving no direct aid from other professionals.” As a side note, further down the page we reveal that “the sum of our present knowledge is proffered in this volume.” This line, taken in conjunction with our failure (?) to mention the spread and/or the countdown would seem to indicate that we were not aware of these procedures. That is one possibility. We’ll return to this line of thinking momentarily. Before we address the specifics of your question(s), we need to turn your attention to one final item in our treatise, the title page. More specifically, the sub-title of the work: “A Treatise on the Science and Art of Manipulating Cards.” Our treatise is not, as is commonly supposed, a complete description of every known advantage playing (I believe the modern term is the rather crude, “cheating”) stratagem of the day. Very specifically, it is a complete description of all of the manipulative techniques that we were able to observe and learn, read about, or develop entirely on our own. Remember, “we have only ourselves to thank for what we know.” With this clarification in mind, a “cursory review” (or near omission) of certain categories of advantage playing techniques makes complete sense. We find little art in the use of a “mechanical contrivance” to aid in secreting extra cards about the person. It’s true that the operation of many such holdouts requires careful setup and a modicum of skill and we even stated as such. However, the skill lies in the operation of the device, not in the manipulation of the cards themselves. The “breakoffs” need to be performed smoothly and quickly, but beyond that there is little to interest us within the technique. As with holdouts, “prepared” (marked) cards are briefly included only because they were so prevalent in our day; there is little to no manipulative skill required to use them. We felt then, as we feel now, that they had no place in a treatise on artistic manipulative techniques. Immediately following the prepared cards section of our Card Table Artifice section is our “dismissive” treatment of cold decks. The reason for our apparent lack of enthusiasm for the cold deck should by now be obvious: we find no art in the techniques. It was our experience that cold decks were invariably either introduced with the aid of club room attendants and then openly switched, or in private games, switched using a secret but ultimately artless technique when none of the other players (save those that were in on the scheme) were looking. In neither scenario can there be found any manipulative merit. Of course, in the modern era this is no longer the case. Were we compiling our treatise today, we would of course include a great many specialized and artistic cold deck switches that have been devised in the intervening century. We are especially taken with the number of beautiful deck switches demonstrated by the modern hustler known as “Doc.” Although we have never had the pleasure of meeting the Doc, his brazenness and willingness to discuss his occupation on an open forum such as the Café has several of us here in the great beyond expecting his arrival any day. In short, we were never dismissive of the effectiveness of the cold deck (or marked cards or collusion for that matter). These subjects simply did not meet our criteria for in-depth inclusion in the work. We shall now return to the subjects of the spread and the countdown. Rather than end 100 years of speculation on these “missing” techniques, we shall instead provide the reader with some food for thought. It is certainly possible that we were not aware of these techniques; although both ideas were already in print by the time our book was released in early 1902. However, today’s students must also consider the possibility that we didn’t feel there was enough artistic merit to the execution of the spread (it involves laying a single palmed card onto a pile of four already on the table) or the countdown (a small stock of cards is in a known position from the top of the deck) to warrant inclusion. We have no desire to spoil the mystery, but at least the student has something new to think about regarding the apparent oversight on our part. The last item that requires clarification is our handling within the text of stocking with the riffle shuffle and preserving the complete order with the same. With regard to preserving the complete order with a riffle shuffle, we must remind the reader of our lack of enthusiasm for the cold deck, at least with regard to its inherent artistic qualities in our day. As the cooler was dismissed, so goes the need to preserve the entire order of the deck at the card table. The desire to preserve the entire order within the realm of the conjurer is another matter, but this concept was largely developed after our treatise was released. The same can be said of specialized cases at the card table where out of expediency, full-deck controls are used to maintain a large stock. It is with mild embarrassment that we admit the one place where we didn’t see the inherent possibilities of the technique is within the area of manipulation known today as “riffle stacking.” Although we acknowledged the possibility of stocking with the riffle, at the time our treatise was being prepared for publication, we felt that the technique was “limited.” It is clear after over a century of hindsight that this is incorrect. Although the techniques are extremely difficult, there is as much art in modern riffle stacking methodologies as any other area of card manipulation. If we may borrow a phrase, the above is "just our opinion." S.W.E.

Message: Posted by: Wesley James (Aug 30, 2011 10:35am) S.W., Thank you for your fullsome, albeit proscribed answer to my query. While there would have been no point in you addressing systems of marking cards, it has been asserted by Busby/Whaley that you personally used "readers" in conjuncion with the Second Deal. The use of the Second Deal in conjunction with the "prick"--a form of marking--is both artful and was in use before your time. You address neither. Artful Cold Decking techniques were in use long before "Doc," both employing devices and without. The Cold Deck had been a common means of expediting the removal of funds from the uninformed on the river boats for more than fifty years at the time you were writing your treatise. It is largely true that these techiques were almost always worked in conjunction with a partner, but so too are some of the techniques you offer for beating cuts. You may be reluctant to admit you were unaware of these artful techniques, but you may rest assured that they were in use and have merely been refined over the years. Even if you decline to acknowledge the artistry, utility or viability of the Cold Deck in the advantage play venue, its utility to the conjuror is undeniable. Your own use of the Eight-Kings stack--notwithstanding the error you or your printer made in describing it--is endorsement of the conjuring benefits of the Cold Deck. Your writing argues that you endeavored to be fully honest in your treatise, I'm surprised by your demure in this subject area. Sir, while I can appreciate you being unwilling to clarify your identity, I would like you to authenticate or refute George Johnston's account of a meeting between you and he, in Colorado, many years after your departure from Chicago. Did that meeting occur? Finally, did you, like President Lincoln, suffer from Marfan Syndrome. As you may know, Busby/Whaley maintain that you did, but the illustrations of your hands, as drawn "from life" by Marshal Smith, don't support that contention. Thank you for your response, whatever it may be, Wesley James

Message: Posted by: S.W.Erdnase (Aug 31, 2011 5:21am) Mr. James, You wrote, "The use of the Second Deal in conjunction with the "prick"--a form of marking--is both artful and was in use before your time." You are of course allowed your opinion on the artistry of second dealing with a prepared deck. In our treatise, we did mention that the technique was used virtually exclusively with such cards. However, we find little artistry in any mechanical devices or prepared cards. Our feelings extend to dealing the "burr" (as it was so called in Sharps and Flats) in conjunction with the second deal. The deal itself is artistic and warranted inclusion in our treatise. Its combination with punctured cards is merely one form of prepared cards, something we eschew at all costs. As for the Busby/Whaley conjecture - how exactly would they know this? The question is rhetorical; you needn't answer for them. Furthering our discussion, you provide, "Artful Cold Decking techniques were in use long before "Doc," both employing devices and without." A bit further you add, "...you may rest assured that [artful techniques] were in use...." We are aware that cold deck techniques were in print prior to our treatise. One notable example, written by "A Retired Professional" may be found in How Gamblers Win: Or the Secrets of Advantage Playing. This book was put into wide release in 1868, but was still available at the time of our treatise. Within this text, the standard manner of making the exchange is described by the author as "clumsy." We agree with this assessment. He then explains a fluid technique that apparently gives the illusion that the deck never leaves the opponents' sight. While we admit this is an improvement over the standard, we still feel that no professional worth his salt would have anything to do with a technique that encumbers him with hard evidence of cheating. For us, that eliminated holdouts, prepared cards and prearranged packs at the card table. Although no outside authority compelled us to continue this philosophy into our Legerdemain section, the astute reader will notice that we dismiss similar devices and manipulative aids, even when used for solely for conjuring purposes, in the opening sentence under the 'Card Tricks' heading at the rear of our work. The technique related in Card Sharpers: Their Tricks Exposed or the Art of Always Winning, is viewed by us to suffer the same problems as all other methods: irrefutable evidence remains upon the person performing the exchange. Incidentally, although we have more than a passing familiarity with the French language, we prefer Forster's translation of the Robert-Houdin work. The story related towards the front of the Devol book is but a story. No techniques are described. With an eye towards your "rest assured" comment, if you know of other, properly described, and artful techniques that predate our work, and can provide citations in the literature of our day, we would be happy to look at them. Our suspicion is that we may disagree with the assessment of "artful." Before we leave this subject, let us address your comment about my inclusion of techniques requiring a partner. It's true that such techniques were included, but none leave concrete evidence of illicit activity upon either party. This is one of our main objections to a great many "techniques" and the philosophy is consistent throughout our book, as we've already stated. "Even if you decline to acknowledge the artistry, utility or viability of the Cold Deck in the advantage play venue, its utility to the conjuror is undeniable." As we so clearly stated in our previous reply to you, we do NOT dispute the utility or viability of the cold deck. The techniques are profitable to be sure; our only reservations lie with the lack of artistry at the time our treatise was written. With regard to conjuring, we agree that the ability to switch in a prearranged deck is a strong advantage. However, we feel that conjurers, not being encumbered by card table procedures, have greater latitude in creating the moments for casual exchanges. We may say with some certainty that we never met a "George" Johnston in Colorado. We may also say that we did not suffer from Marfan syndrome. Recent evidence suggests that President Lincoln didn't either, but that is another story. S.W.E.

Message: Posted by: Wesley James (Aug 31, 2011 10:24am) S.W., Let me begin by thanking you for dispelling the Busby/Whaley theory that your name is/was actually Milton Franklin Andrews, as M.F. Andrews clearly suffered from Marfan Syndrome. Your denial also gives the lie to Busby/Whaley's finding that you were arrested for using marked cards in conjunction with the Second Deal. Frankly, I had never given their theory much credence even prior to your refutive statement. All of the above said, there was no need for Devol to describe techniques; both the Second Deal and the "prick" were known to those in your trade at least as early as the 1850s. I'm not aware of any description of the use of the pick-up stack in conjunction with the Second Deal that early, so I am left to intuit that the Second Deal was used in conjunction with marks, punch or the glimpse. You would be in a better position to confirm that hypothesis. I'm old but not old enough to speak authoritatively about the early 1900s. Turning focus to the Cold Deck, as I'm sure you are well aware, the literature in your era lagged far behind in the description of the techniques actually in use. Old players who were alive in your era have assured me that, published record notwithstanding, "cooler moves"--including but not limited to "jacket moves"--had been in use for nearly a hundred years prior to when you wrote your book. As you travelled in those circles, it is surprising that you would not be familiar with techniques that even you would consider artful. Nevertheless, I accept your assertion that you didn't consider any of the techniques of which you were aware artful enough to meet your criteria. Beyond that, your misgiving about having hard evidence on your person is well placed but taken to its logical extension it would also preclude the use of palming techniques. I suppose that making one move a night, rather than taking risks all night long, is sufficiently persuasive for some to adopt the use of the Cold Deck, while others, apparently like yourself, favor taking many smaller risks. Your reasoning is understandable, albeit of diminishing popularity among your brethren over the years. I have no wish to nitpick but the punctuation of your response to my question about George Johnston gives me pause. As you may know, the story of your meeting was recounted to Jay Marshal many years after the reported event. As I recall, Mr. Johnston informed Jay Marshal that he had been introduced to a man purporting to be you by another performer with whom he was working at the time. Your response, putting the name "George" in quotes, suggests that you might have met someone by a different name in Colorado. If that is the case, I would have hoped that your answer would have been more forthcoming. You wrote and continue to advocate the Bottom Deal as the single greatest accomplishment for the advantage player. I have known a number of exceptionally skilled Bottom Dealers over the years, the best being a Pit Boss from Reno, Nevada, known to his friends simply as "Red"--though his hair had turned white by the time I met him. When asked about the use of the Bottom Deal under game conditions, he said, "It's a fools errand. You have to deal maybe 300 Bottoms a night and, sooner or later, your going to hang one in way that can't be covered. That one human mistake can get you killed." The technique you describe, as you yourself admit, is problematic. Losing control of the deck as it slips inward in your hand creates a genuine vulnerability. How do you reason through this risk/reward equation? Finally, it has been asserted by some that the Legerdemain section of your book was written by a magic dealer name Jimmy Harto. Mr. Harto himself is reputed to have given credence to this story. He even claimed to have had correspondence with you, though no such correspondence were found with his effects after his passing. Can you clarify your involvement with Mr. Harto and any input he may have had to the magic section of your book? I will anxiously await your thoughts. Wesley James

Message: Posted by: Richard Hatch (Aug 31, 2011 11:31am) Wesley, I'd be interested in any reference you can cite in the Busby/Whaley book or elsewhere indicating that Milton Franklin Andrews was arrested for using marked cards in conjunction with the the second deal. I believe they note he was arrested for setting off a firecracker in a mailbox once, and his sister in law made a remark to Jay Marshall that could be interpreted as supporting his use of marked cards, but I don't recall having seen the citation you mention. My guess is that "Erdnase's" use of quotation marks around "George" is because it was Hugh Johnston (and not the better known George Johnstone) who told Marshall he had met Erdnase backstage at the Empress theater in Denver circa 1905. Since that theater was not built until 1907 (and did not change its name to the Empress until a few years later), this meeting does not support the MFA candidacy, since MFA died in 1905.

Message: Posted by: Wesley James (Aug 31, 2011 8:58pm) Richard, Let me start with the simple part of this response. You are correct that Jay's recollection was that Hugh Johnston had told him about the meeting with Erdnase, though I didn't recall the year being in 1905. My recollection, perhaps mistaken, was that Johnston said the man he met was old. I concluded that meant that it had occurred many years after the writing of the book. That, of course, would have made the information about the Empress theater meaningless. While I don't dispute your recollection, my recollection was that Busby/Whaley had located an newspaper article that reported the arrest of M.F. Andrews somewhere in the Southeastern US--I don't recall precisely where--for cheating and the article had offered that he was using marked cards in conjunction with the second deal. I seem to recall thinking that they pointed out that this was in contradiction to what Erdnase had espoused in his writing. I would gladly pull down my copy of The Man Who Was Erdnase and check my recollections but, unfortunately, I'm in the process of moving and almost all of my library is packed in boxes. I'm not sure when I'll be settled enough to be able to check my library but I thank you for your correction regarding Hugh Johnston and I'll look forward to checking my copy of the Busby/Whaley book as soon as it is practical for me to do so. All the best, Wesley James