No, it nothing to do with any Erdnase methodology. It was based upon the concept of placing say four aces in different parts of the deck and apparently squaring them flush with the deck but instead controlling them to the bottom or top.



Yes but what I am talking about went well beyond the original Triumph Shuffle but that is correct in its most basic form. The original Triumph Shuffle was used for a card trick and therefore was limited to that application.

Ah yes card men dismissed the triumph because it was simpler and this made it inferior in their mind.

Vernon himself touted the push through ala mysterious kid.

Cag,
I loved your take on the triumph!

Thanks for sharing!

Slim

How many pages are you gonna fill without DEMONSTRATING anything? This place looks like, more and more, a retirement home with old guys rambling.

I'm not saying it's not interesting. I just say it's boring to never see anything.

Wake me when this thread is dead.

You're gonna have a long sleep Artie. A looooong sleep... Enough time for studying EATCT.

Arnold you have shown that I am sadly lacking in the video making dept I must do some serious work in that dept it has been a pleasure cag tommy to discuss something we all love.

@cbharrelson,

Sir, I wasn't targeting you in particular. I you think so, please, accept my apology.

You're new in this place. If you dig into the old posts you will understand my views better; there is a looooot of talking in the Gambling Spot, but almost zero displaying/showing. The main reasons that are usually given by the "talkers" are that the readers of this forum are Magicians or amateurs and don't deserve or would not make any benefit from the "true" moves (why do those knowledgeable people hang out here then?); that pros never give their secrets (why do they talk about them though?); and that we know nothing about Gambling because we haven't cheated $250K buy-in tables (myself, I have never seen more than a few grands on my tables).

That said, this place is second to none in the Internet world. There is not the activity we had like 10 years ago anymore, but it still worth to visit it despite the endless fights we have (there are a few strong personalities haunting this place, as you will find out).

It still is nice to have new posters and be assured that you are warmly welcome here.

Arnold I did not take offense. It is that I have never done a video. Picture is worth 1000 words. I really like and appreciate your videos. It really helps communication.

How can a thread can be started in such statement?
Very few moves or techniques are "deceptive" when isolated. Palms, top changes, most false shuffles...
A magician is NEEDED to add something to it and make them really deceptive: like timing, misdirection, etcetera.

Gentlemen, I've seen magicians staring at a spread 25 card packet made of 5 sets of the same 5 cards and NOT noticing it, just because the "frame". I was fooled also, of course.
We SEE a zarrow because we are EXPECTING a zarrow. And that's why sometimes the most simple principle fools magicians. Because our mind is already on what we THINK it's going to happen.

OK, this is The gambling spot, but I needed to say this.

Mr. Cag seems to be a very knowledgeable guy in his own right but if he’s still using a Zarrow or a Undetectable Zarrow shuffle isn’t his moves outdated? I don’t know I’m just asking because the moves that I’ve been seeing displayed on here seems to be more advanced. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

The Gamblingman007

Video example of proper Zarrow Shuffle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwemFZzwYx8

Cute and thanks for posting.

I don't know who the performer is, but the resolution is so poor it is hard to determine some important factors.

Can’t tell if the entire deck is in correct new deck order from the outset. Things are so blurred it is impossible to tell. The angle of the video gives the most favorable view for the move.

At the end of the video, the three of hearts is on the bottom???

Don’t want to struggle with something as poorly shot as this. If you have a better video of this person doing the move, it would be appreciated if you can post that. Then perhaps we can discuss the move more intelligently.

This is Steve Reynolds, best-known among magicians for his Z shuffle. The cards are not in numeric order but segregated in black/red groups. The 3H is at the bottom of the deck from the very beginning. I believe the original order is fully maintained, though I could not ascertain it for sure for the whole deck but only for portions of it.

Uhhh, it's Steve Reynolds ... so "yes" the original order was maintained, and "yes" his Zarrow shuffle is essentially invisible.

Are you guys stoned or something?

If you want more resolution, pony up the cash and buy his disc on the subject matter:
https://www.artofmagic.com/products/the-zarrow-shuffle

Uhhh, sorry. Don't hang with the magician crowd so did not recognize Steve Reynolds nor his apparent significance in the magic community. However, now that his name was mentioned I recall it was written about on some previous posts regarding his Zarow technique.

The link supplied by Bones clearly shows Reynold's technique.

Certainly, his Zarrow shuffle is better than most I have seen. It is cleanly performed in a disarming and casual manner but it is definitely not indetectible in my opinion.

While I value the suggestion, I am not going to "pony up" to get the DVD.

However, the link that Bones supplied clearly tells me what I need to know about the "Reynolds" technique. In my opinion there are much better false shuffles out there and my previous statements about the Zarrow remain unchanged.

I think this technique would be okay while disarmingly shuffling the cards during a magic trick presentation, but in a game with observant players for worthwhile money...??? Good luck with that.

Then one might have to "pony up" for some hospital bills.

To keep in the patronizing tone of the quoted message:

Interesting use of the adverb "essentially". It is or it is not invisible. In this instance it is not, unless you close your eyes while it's being performed. Some of the Zarrow tells are glaringly visible. However, some people will let themselves be deceived when they should know better. There are a couple of cognitive biases at play here.

What do player's notice?

I think the Zarrow works in many instances because most people are not really that observant, only peripherally so. Let me digress.

Some people are naturally "critically" observant and closely watch all that occurs. However, the vast majority of players simply don't notice most things, unless they are glaringly obvious, even things that may be significant.

For example, many years ago I was playing in a poker tournament at the Orleans in Vegas. A young female dealer came to the table to relieve the existing dealer. She shuffled the cards with RRSRC but her riffle shuffle "meshing" was almost non-existent. In fact, about 5 or 6 cards actually were mixed with each riffle using her light-handed shuffle. Of course, I noticed this right away but it appeared no one else did. I did not think she was engaging in any chicanery but simply shuffled that way because it was easier to square the deck after the riffle. (Doing a nice clean riffle shuffle with plastic cards makes squaring the deck more difficult.)

For someone who is practiced at remembering long strings of cards, it proved to be somewhat of an advantage for me from time to time, and I enjoyed her way of shuffling until a new relief dealer came in.

However, the point being is that apparently no one else noticed...at least in this specific instance. I would surmise about 5% of players are critically observant in average sized games. Of course, in the bigger games you will run into some pretty sharp hombres and if you are working that type game, you had better know what you are doing.

As far as the Reynold's Zarrow shuffle goes, it can be greatly improved (as well as all Zarrow's can be made more deceptive), by using Cagliostro's brilliant blindfolded deck technique mentioned in the first post of this thread.

(Sigh...Apparently modesty is not one of my virtues.)

Yes, I used "essentially" in order to not exclude the pedantic magicians who from time to time tend to hang out in this forum, the ones who would go out of their way to yell "I SAW IT - I SAW IT!"

Seems like some folks here need to go back and re-read Road Hustler ... or at the very least buff up on their Erdnase and learn how to "change the moment".