Man, that worn deck table faro is just crazy, both Arnold's and tegib's. I tried it so many times after watching AMcD's video, but only hit it twice....Did yall cheat and buffed the worn deck??

On Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, etc., I run across fake videos all the time. And when it's not faked, they cheat very often (prepared decks for instance, that's why I use facing up cards when I stack for videos). I have never understood the point of it.

Me, I never use any artifice. I shoot a video of me doing a sleight, period. And most of the time, it's one or two attempts only (hence the not so good looking video style).

I think that new generations are just sick in their minds. What is the point to fake a video, to cheat? What is the point to make people believe you can do something that... you can't? I just can't get it.

I got to practice a variety of tabled faros, and I would like to add some other to the thread, while some are just me practising the one shown by Arnold.

Closed Grip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtNgcuA3KBQ
Very nice handling, it keeps the wrists close to the table which I think is nice.

Richard Turner Grip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-kQ8wN5E94
(it's a very accurate technique, it rarely makes a mistake in the middle, but the drawback is it misses the riffling action with the thumbs)

Sharps & Flats:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l96_CnrZOFw
I used plastics for that one, trusting Rod the Hop's handling. I think that a modern cut deck would be best to mesh the cards this way, but anyway it felt a bit out of control overall.


Now I would like to add:

ECT method #1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvHZ_JHxf5g
It uses a offset of the packets that I don't like, but the gentle "push thru" action is somehow clever in some situations.

ECT method #2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb2auCKNI5Q
I think it's a very solid and practical technique, maybe it forces the wrists to be a bit too high (at least for me), but it's excellent also for older decks.
Close to Mr. England's handling I believe.

Open Grip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIU2IBCCox4
Nothing much, same as the Closed Grip, but with (you guessed it) an open grip for riffle shuffling.


That's about it, my opinion is there aren't easier or harder version, but just methods that fits the circumstances and context in which they are applied, and most of all the time and practice put into it.
My most accurate is the Turner version, but honestly I wouldn't go for it. Speaking of a "riffle" one, I'd go on the closed grip (awesome and very very similar to a closed riffle shuffle) or the ECT #2 (it's very good too).
I got a decent understanding of the tabled faro in general, although I'm nowhere near to be consistent at a perfect one, but I find a bit of relief knowing it's not an easy move.

Well, I spammed you a bit (this is my study on the Tabled Faro), hope I shared with you something useful, added something to the thread, or at least entertained this Sunday on the Gambling Spot.

Nice work!
It's good to have a neatly compiled list of some of the major techniques and even better to have video alongside to help compare and contrast them, so thanks for this.

I think my preference, purely in terms of aesthetics, would be either the open or closed versions (I believe the closed version is closer to how casino dealers are taught). The Sharps and Flats and Turner techniques are a little too overt for the card table, though perfect for a display of skill. Also, the slight offset of the two halves in the ECT technique does look a bit unusual to those accustomed to and expecting a normal riffle shuffle.

TH

Nicely done Marco!

Nicely performed. You have evidently put in some time on this, the shuffles look very pretty and thanks for sharing.

Here are a couple of thoughts that come to mind and this is certainly not meant as a criticism.

It has been many years since I read Expert Card Technique, but as I recall with Method #1, when the deck is split for the shuffle, one half is placed in the forward stepped position initially and not moved to that position after the split. That is an extra move. Then the cards are weaved in the blink of an eye when the far portion is moved back to even with the other portion and THEN the cards are simulated riffle up the sides after they are meshed.

I could be wrong but that is what I recall. It may not make sense technically, but it gives more surety to the move and the riffle after the mesh enables one to check if a desired portion or the entire deck has been perfectly meshed depending on what is needed. That particular technique deviates from all other techniques used for the simulated perfect riffle shuffle move.

On the Sharps and Flats shuffle, you are doing it magician style and adding an extra move, which is okay but not the normal way of doing it. Placing the cards flat on the table prior to the butt is an extra move, doesn’t really accomplish anything and doesn’t look right to me. Also, you lose a little control doing it that way since it seems you have to grip the cards for the split and then re-grip the cards again after placing them flat on the table for the butt-in. The way it is usually done is to split and go right into the butt shuffle. Sometimes the two ends are tapped together slightly prior to the butt, and sometime the cards are moved a little to and fro during the weaving action. That is the way any gambler would do it, including I presume Rod the Hop, and the cards are bowed slightly. The big bow is okay and used only for magician or demo moves.

Finally, do you prefer using paper cards? It seems like plastics work better for these type moves.

I don't know much about the Turner method; however the Sharps and Flats method, without the big bowing of the cards, is used at the card table somewhat frequently. It is actually used by many, especially dealers, as a real shuffle and not always meshing the deck card for card. In fact, all the other methods would be the rarity at the card table and in fast company look "out of the ordinary," especially if cutting at 26 and doing the shuffle "magician" or "demo" style. At least that has been my experience.

That's interesting Cag, I think personally I would instantly pay attention to a shuffle like the Sharps and Flats technique, but purely because I would associate it with a full or partial faro shuffle and then become suspicious.

And yes, in fast company I imagine that a perfect split and then interlacing the cards one by one would be noticed. But if the intention is to disguise the faro as a normal riffle shuffle, then I would think that using something like the closed grip technique demonstrated above is best.

TH

@TH: Yes, I agree, although as Cag mentioned, the Maskelyne type of faro is somehow used. The Turner faro is unbelievably accurate, I can't explain why... If you pay attention just to the bottom pair of cards, you're done. But, again, you can see it differs from a riffle shuffle.

@Arnold: Thanks!

@Cag: criticism is good, that's why I'm posting stuff of my studies. In fact you're right, I didn't pay much attention and just moved them back kind of after the split.
The Maskelyne Faro, I regripped while I flattened the top of the halves, to assure that no card could miss. It is a "safety" measure to achieve a perfect faro, but I admit (as in the case of the #1 ECT) that I don't like that particular handling.
Also in this case it's true that an extra move is added and it's a good thing to note for future developments.

I'll toy around a bit more with plastics, I can't tell if there is a traditional/modern cut distinction as in papers. When I'm handled a decent paper deck I can now tell which way is cut (basically where it table faros good), but with plastic I can't and I don't even know if it makes sense to speak about cut. Also I noticed that they don't mesh slowly as in papers, but they most of the time spring all toghether at one point! The edges are very resilient to the meshing action.
I have a lot to learn in that field...


One more thing:
Two things that slow the tabled faro a lot, in order to achieve a perfect shuffle, are:
- the split
- the bottom cards (if you miss those, the perfect shuffle is ruined)

But, if a perfect faro is not needed, namely just the middle cards need to be intertwined, that speeds up the process significantly.
I can split the deck faster, because I am allowed to miss one or two cards (i always get in range of 25 to 27 cards), and I can faro without too much care about the bottom cards.
This way with any grip, even my funky grip for riffle shuffle, I can get the faro at an acceptable level for the purpose without making it a funny move at the same rhythm as a regular riffle shuffle.

I'll work on it!

When I was in dealing school I concealed my abilities with playing cards the entire course. My instructor had dealt poker for 28 years (and I think is still dealing in town). One day during class, I absent-mindedly did a fairly standard (not a S&F-style) tabled faro with the plastics. He saw me do it out of the corner of his eye and yelled, "Don't do that! Don't ever shuffle cards that way." I asked him why. He said, "That's called a 'faro' shuffle and you're never supposed to shuffle like that." Acting like I didn't know any better, I asked for clarification, "Really, sorry about that. Why aren't we allowed to do that?"

His reply was priceless: "I have no idea. I just know you're not supposed to shuffle like that."

In other words, he knew the shuffle was forbidden because he'd been told so, but he had zero understanding of the underlying mathematics of the shuffle and its possibilities.

So much for being around a poker table for decades making you smart.

Jason

Great story Jason.

Good point. It is assumptive on the part of many that dealing these games, or being in the gambling business itself in some capacity, makes one knowledgeable or "smart."

When I was in the gambling business as a young man, it amazed me how little most on the inside knew about gambling and cheating, except for the occasional old-time thief.

Dealing is a job, like working in a factory on the assembly line. Aside from learning the procedures surrounding the game and mastering the digital ability to shuffle and deal competently, one really needs to know little else. And quite frankly, most don't bother to learn more than what is needed to perform the job.

They follow the procedures they are taught by rote and often have no understanding as to the reason for these procedures or what they are designed to accomplish.

So would I but I think it also depends on the games you actually play in and the people you play with. Keep in mind the S&F Shuffle is actually called the Butt Shuffle in gambling parlance and not usually done magician or demo style. The deck is not cut at 26 and perfectly meshed card for card but rather there are often clumps of two or three cards meshing. It is usually done more with a butt-in, sometimes moving the cards laterally to and fro slightly, rather than a fancy big bowing of the cards with a flourish cascading meshing move upward. It can be falsified, but so can the riffle and overhand shuffle and they can be falsified even more. I think the main point is that in some games it might be too "out of the ordinary" rather than suspicious.

For example, in your average home or amateur game it might be far too "different," especially if it is a game where most people riffle shuffle the cards in their hands or use overhand shuffles. Amateur or home type games, even if they are in a local club or bar where they hold regular games, are still not professional games. But if 3 or 4 people use a Butt Shuffle in a more "professional" type game as part of their riffle shuffle sequence, it usually creates no problem or viewed out of the ordinary. It is really not that uncommon in games frequented by dealers or casino personnel. Two or three riffle shuffles with a butt somewhere in between is not really suspicious in these games and it is usually done "on the square." I will say however that using a Butt Shuffle in a casino dealt poker game, or casino table game like Blackjack should not be done and would probably be a violation of procedure, although a perfect riffle shuffle would go unnoticed if it were done correctly. Go figure‼



If the perfect riffle shuffle is used as part of a regular riffle shuffle sequence, if the shuffle is done at the same speed and looks very much like one's natural riffle shuffle, if the grip is the same as one's regular riffle shuffle and there is no careful cutting at 26 that is okay and would definitely fly. I would limit it to one perfect shuffle interspersed in the shuffling sequence because if one is "doing something" one perfect riffle is all one needs as the rest of the work is done with the regular riffle shuffle itself. As long as the perfect shuffle is not done in a flourish magician "demo" style manner, it definitely is workable.

Rod the Hop used the S&F shuffle all the time when working as a house dealer in very serious private games. He occasionally got questions about it, but always replied that using that shuffle "broke up the pairs" from the previous hands better than any other shuffle. The half-smart suckers (smart enough to notice the odd shuffle but not smart enough to defeat Rod's logic) always nodded in agreement with him after he "explained" that feature of the shuffle. Not one of them ever mentioned the potential for stacking lurking within the perfect interlacing.

His shuffles were typically perfect weaves but he often missed a 26/26 split. Didn't matter, since he was holding a break while he faroed (good luck with that) and didn't need a perfect split. In his hands it was a thing of beauty.

I personally witnessed one of his run-ups with his S&F shuffle win a single pot of over $10,000 with a former Main Event winner as the victim.

Jason

Yes, it was a beauty but I have never understood why he used such a complicated method for stacking cards. Besides, his method breaks many rules, mainly the NOT two hands released cut paradigm.

Well, it was effortless for him for one thing. Why change something if it's working so well?

As for the two-handed cut, he had a few ways around it. Some involved a single gaffed card that he really liked (he called it a "fly" card), and others were sleight-based methods. But the biggest thing in his favor? No one ever said a word when he violated procedures - even when there was serious money on the line.

Part of that was undoubtedly his personality - Rod was extremely likable and was always very polite at the table. Meanwhile he was running up hands left and right, peeking and dealing deuces and the occasional bottom deal when cut cards weren't in use. He had a great ploy for getting around using the cut card that seemed so natural. It's not much to us, but he told me it worked for him on dozens of occasions: He would start off using a bridge-sized deck with a cut card. At some point, he would damage a card intentionally but without anyone seeing him do it. He'd call attention to the damaged deck and request a deck swap. The brand new cards were invariably the "wrong" size for the cut card - they were poker sized. So, he'd pick up the cut card in an effort to use it, apparently "discover" that it was the wrong size and set it aside. He did all of this in full view of the other players. His acting ability was so good that no one ever suspected the entire thing was a ruse to get him into a position where he could bottom deal.

Again, nothing Earth-shattering, but with his personality and unassuming manner it worked beautifully.

Jason

Thanks Jason.

Yup...grift sense, con and likability that enables one to "get things on" that others might not think would fly - the difference between theory and practice.

Good explanation, Jason. Evidently Rod was very skillful, but his grift sense, timing, con and likability was evidently a big part of his "success." This ability is present in all the bigger or "better" plays.

In some hustles, especially the casino or professional plays that don't use sleight of hand or maybe a simple "move" that really isn't a move at all, it can be the "tail that wags the dog," that part of the play that is on an instinctive and visceral level that enables the ploy to come to successful fruition, or more successful fruition.

However, with all those moves being used by Rod (peeking, seconds, bottoms, run-up), over his career he evidently got caught and suspected of cheating from time to time...an occupational hazard for someone that does serious hustling and takes dead aim like he evidently did. After all, skillful or not it does take some doing to get into the Nevada Black Book.

He evidently had no fear.

Nice post.

Thanks for the information Jason.
I know it wasn't the point of the story, but I must admit that I'm now quite interested in that run up technique...he was holding a break with the S&F faro? Interesting.

Harry,

Don't even think of it, it's very difficult. I miss it 70% of the time lol. It works better with plastic cards though. I think it's not worth the pain to learn such moves because they are not very versatile. For instance, if you wanna stack cards for an odd seat at the table, you need to use second deals, which turns things even more difficult.

It's a nice technique to watch though. I think it was in a DVD called "Hit the Road" where he demonstrates it. But I'm not 100% sure.