|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
cfirwin3 Loyal user Rochester, New York 233 Posts |
I have been messing around with the idea of treating a truly shuffled deck as if it is a prepared stack (with blind controls) so that I can more directly and systematically acquire/cull and cut out desired cards. It looks a little different every time... but it essentially looks like this in one take:
http://bit.ly/acecuttingdemo Has anyone seen anything published that follows this idea so completely? If not... I may write up a manuscript with some photos on the idea. I spoke at greater length about this in the Secret Sessions forum, but I figured that it might help to put a more vague post here, where all the card guys and gals hang out. I am looking to see if I am relatively within my rights to share the details of this idea without stepping on someone's toes. Obviously there would be some conceptual overlap with some other ideas out there, but my idea hinges on treating the deck like a full stack... removing the concepts of mere stock retentions and the complexity of shuffle-tracking/estimation. |
|||||||||
SimonCard Special user 601 Posts |
Looks like you are zarrow culling. If that's the case, Jason England has work on it and also Jerry sadowitz has a manuscript on it.
|
|||||||||
cfirwin3 Loyal user Rochester, New York 233 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 20, 2017, SimonCard wrote: I have never read the Sadowitz... Haven't been able to find it. But I am familiar with England's usage, and this isn't really the same as that. I know that Jason demonstrated a method by which a known location could be sort of "peeled" to (1 to several cards), but that's not entirely what I am doing with the Zarrow (you are correct) here. It isn't merely a cull, and it doesn't accomplish the same thing every time (most of the time it is just a Zarrow that does "nothing" concerning the next card cut). Is England's usage the same as Sadowitz?... or does the Sadowitz concept discuss deck order retention as an aid to ri**le p**king? PM me if that's easier. |
|||||||||
SimonCard Special user 601 Posts |
I never read sadowitz manuscript either. But according to Jason, that manuscript covers a wider and deeper range than what jason teaches. So I'm not sure if it covers your idea. I played with riffle culling too and I think what you are doing is great in that it allows the whole deck to be peeked with few shuffles.
|
|||||||||
TH10111 Regular user 155 Posts |
Full deck retention to aid culling has certainly been spoken about before, but I've only ever used/heard about it with a push-through in the context of a Stevens cull, as opposed to with a zarrow.
Essentially the same principle though; you peek half the deck the push-through and peek the other half. Unfortunately I'm not sure where this is published (if anywhere), but I think it may have been spoken about on this forum before... |
|||||||||
cfirwin3 Loyal user Rochester, New York 233 Posts |
My idea splits up the peeking to smaller packets to make the culling process more accurate and reliable.
I think that I will put this to paper and have a few people check it over and test it. I'm not looking to publish anything for monetary gain... just looking to get the procedure spelled out so that it could be understood by others at some point. I would love to at least reference people who have tangentially or directly talked or written about similar ideas... so please continue to post any that are known. Since you two guys (SimonCard, TH10111) seem to have some experience with similar ideas, would you be interested in checking this out and proofing a .PDF? I can PM a link when I'm done with it. |
|||||||||
danaruns Special user The City of Angels 808 Posts |
If I recall correctly, Ben Earl discusses this technique in his book, Less Is More, in the last couple chapters. https://www.vanishingincmagic.com/magic/......is-more/ At least, I think it's Ben's book. I could be mistaken.
"Dana Douglas is the greatest magician alive. Plus, I'm drunk." -- Foster Brooks
|
|||||||||
cfirwin3 Loyal user Rochester, New York 233 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 22, 2017, danaruns wrote: Thanks. I still need to check out Ben's book. I am aware of much of what he is doing in his video recorded performances... But that appears to be a big, comprehensive book on the subject. So it seems likely that he covers a range of methods well beyond what he presents in performance. Do you have the book? |
|||||||||
SimonCard Special user 601 Posts |
It'd be my pleasure to read your pdf. I got Ben Earl's less is more a few weeks ago, but haven't got a chance to read it through. I will also read Ben's book and let you know how it's compared with your work.
|
|||||||||
dj Inner circle 1177 Posts |
Ben Earl's Cutting the Aces is excellent.
A few years ago I studied Ben's version, I've changed it a little bit. Here is my version of Ben Earl's Cutting the Aces Routine: https://vimeo.com/20117458/comments Darko |
|||||||||
SimonCard Special user 601 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 22, 2017, dj wrote: looks like crimp work for me. The OP is doing a true riffle cull. If it's crimp work, I'm not sure why the false shuffle and cuts are needed. Ben Earl is great but I think his one-handed false cut is one of the least deceptive I've seen. |
|||||||||
cfirwin3 Loyal user Rochester, New York 233 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 22, 2017, SimonCard wrote: The one reason why the blind shuffles COULD be useful for crimp work (on the first part of what he has there) is that it keeps the cards in an assumed/estimated/known location? I do one like that, but with true shuffles and some opportunistic handling that allows me to know the rough location of the crimps. I don't know that he's doing that, but it's a guess as to why blind shuffles are useful even with truly shuffled crimps. Those critters still need a little bit of estimation to make 'em work reliably sometimes. Looks good... but ditto on the one-handed false cut. For such a signature 'move', it's the only thing that I don't like about what I have seen in Ben Earl's routines. |
|||||||||
dj Inner circle 1177 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 22, 2017, SimonCard wrote: No crimp work. Darko |
|||||||||
cfirwin3 Loyal user Rochester, New York 233 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 22, 2017, dj wrote: cool! |
|||||||||
SimonCard Special user 601 Posts |
The only two techniques I know that could achieve a clean cut to aces as shown by Darko are crimp works and Vernon me**cal estimation. So I've been fooled and I'm gonna start reading ben's book.
|
|||||||||
dj Inner circle 1177 Posts |
In my version, I use a different method than Ben in its version, but I don't use a crimp work.
Darko |
|||||||||
Bobbycash Special user Australia 694 Posts |
Cfirwin3,
If you are interested in this type of culling application then you should probably read some old posts from Glenn Bishop (he used the triumph shuffle instead of zarrow). FWIW, you will find a fair bit of push back on the practicality/authenticity of this type of thing. Without much hyperbole these demonstrations can lead to shuffling the deck 16 times, staring at the deck. In the case of showing it to audiences, well I would worry about not making eye contact for that period of time if it was gambling demonstration I would worry it diverges from procedure quite significantly. That isn't to say it isn't worthwhile looking into, it's a fun exercise and does encourage some improvisation and it is something that lots of people play with. Just make sure you are looking into it with the right frame of mind. |
|||||||||
cfirwin3 Loyal user Rochester, New York 233 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 23, 2017, Bobbycash wrote: You are nearly right on all accounts and I stated essentially the same cautions and concerns in the manuscript that I have some people looking at. This is not something that you do as a magical effect so much as you do as an exercise and a demonstration (and an indirect one at that). On the point about length of time and # of shuffles... I have found that the methodical and cyclical nature of the blind shuffle peeking procedure that I am playing with can often yield a hit in just 2 shuffles (sometimes even one). Many "trick" oriented presentations of the Scarne plot have as many shuffles anyway. That's not to say that you can't get unlucky... In that case, I put in some ideas to get out of the rut (mostly dealing with cutting an odd proportion of cards or going face up). The handful of times that I did this in front of people... I didn't direct any attention to a 'start' of the routine or an indication as to what I was doing. I just did it, and that seemed to play out the best. It leaves the spectator to accept the difficulty of the methods (assumptions of peeking or tracking included). It's definitely not a "hey let me show you something!" sort of gag. The cool part of this, however, is that you can follow up with any of the Scarne plot methods that involves "losing" the aces and doing it again more 'magically'... perhaps with patter. The method also presents the possibility of a proverbial 'get out of jail free card' in some cases. I'll definitely check out the post history for Glenn Bishop. Thanks! |
|||||||||
Rupert Pupkin Inner circle 1452 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 23, 2017, cfirwin3 wrote: Interesting, can you explain why you consider this an indirect demonstration of skill? To my mind, it seems fairly direct. In other words, you're doing exactly what you say you're doing. Or, at the very least, what your audience expects you to be doing. |
|||||||||
cfirwin3 Loyal user Rochester, New York 233 Posts |
Quote:
On Aug 23, 2017, Rupert Pupkin wrote: Well I could say to you: "There was this young bellhop at the Crowne Plaza named Sam..." (Or more relevant to the topic) "Have you ever heard of John Scarne?" This would be a direct presentation. OR Much more indirectly... You and I could be sitting with a few friends at a bistro some evening and while conversations are commencing... I can get to shuffling and cutting (maybe a borrowed deck). You and the others would be free to notice and catch up (or not)... If you do, then I'm good to rock on with something more direct after that. I might even "shuffle" those bad boys back in to the deck and say "would you like to see that again?" and then proceed with a more direct and prepared deck version of the same feat... Thereby having my cake and eating it too, as the fates have allowed. I mean 'direct' and 'indirect' as with respect to overt vs. covert engagement. There is the side of the true Scarne challenge, however. That is to say that you are going to do exactly what you are going to do... and then you do it, probably while staring at the deck in silence with nothing else happening on the sidelines. This would be both direct and potentially boring. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Yes... more ace cutting (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |