(Close Window)
Topic: Memorizing 2nd deck
Message: Posted by: Steve Crossley (Dec 20, 2013 11:30AM)
A few months ago I took the time and trouble to memorize the Aronson stack using mnemonics along with the journey method. I now would like to memorize the mnemonica stack but am worried that if I do, I will lose the Aronson stack or just get the two mixed up. Has anyone managed to memorize and work with more than one stack and are there any tips or words of advice?
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Dec 20, 2013 02:42PM)
There is no need to memorize two stacks. Instead do this: Use Si Stebbins: (e. g. knowing the Aronson stack) replace each card in the stack with that card that precedes the original card, e. g. #1 JS is replaced by the 8H because in Si Stebbins the JS would follow the 8H (CHaSeD order) a. s. o. Jan
Message: Posted by: Illucifer (Dec 20, 2013 04:43PM)
And I would say there's no reason not to. I use both Aronson and Tamariz. There is no concern about confusing the two. Memorizing a stack is child's play to what, say, a musician commits to memory.
Consider all the routines you've commited to memory (script, presentations, moves, sequences), or all the songs you can recite.
It's not difficult. Why bother with the calculations necessary with Si Stebbins?
Or get Andy Nyman's 'The Code'. You'll learn the Tamariz stack over time just by using it.
Message: Posted by: Cain (Dec 20, 2013 05:02PM)
I've used three memorized stacks, but not concurrently. I noticed how quickly I forgot my previous stacks (granted, this is without making any effort to retain two simultaneously), so I think the possibility for confusion is a valid concern.

"There is no need to memorize two stacks" > "there's no reason not to"

Steve-- [i]Why[/i] do you want to memorize the Tamariz stack? I'd say stick with Aronson to discover which properties you like and actually use.
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Dec 20, 2013 07:11PM)
Although it's certainly possible to learn more than one stack using classical mnemonics, a better choice (i.e., one less likely to result in confusion) is to use one of the other [url=http://www.deceptionary.com/aboutstacks.html]memorized stack techniques[/url] (rote, rule-based, or algorithmic) for the second stack.
Message: Posted by: Waterloophai (Dec 21, 2013 02:42AM)
I agree with Jan Forster and Ddyment. IF, with the emphasis on IF, you need a second MD, use a rule-based or algorithmic method for the second one.

Another, very easy method (I believe it was Aronson who came up with it) is to make a stack where the colours and values are just the opposite of the stack that you usualy have.

The hearts become diamonds, the spades become clubs, the diamonds become hearts and the clubs become spades.
The values are the result of the subtraction with 13: the 7 becomes the 6, the 2 becomes the Jack, the Ace becomes the Queen, the 5 becomes the 8, and so on.

Example:
1.) They say "6 of spades". You make the reversal: the 6 becomes the 7 and the spades becomes the clubs = 7 of clubs. You know that in your "normal" stack the 7 of clubs is on the for example 8th place. Now you know that in your "second MD" the 6 of spades is on the 8th place.

2.) They say "number 20". You know that for example in your "normal" stack the 3 of hearts is on the 20th place. You now know that in your "second stack", the 10 of diamonds is on the 20th place.

Hope you got it with my bad English grammar :)
Message: Posted by: websmith2000 (Dec 21, 2013 06:15AM)
I also learned Aronson, then Mnemonica. I worried about getting them mixed up but it's just like phone numbers - no problem. I go through two quick drills every day to keep them in place. Drill 1: Go through each card in a shuffled deck, reciting first the Aronson stack position, then the Mnemonica stack position. Drill 2: Go thru each card in a shuffled deck, reciting the Aronson position, then the corresponding Mnemonica card from the same position. Pretty soon the pairs jell into memory and the one stack actually helps you with the other stack. Now, if I could just remember where I put those keys ...
Message: Posted by: websmith2000 (Dec 21, 2013 06:16AM)
I also learned Aronson, then Mnemonica. I worried about getting them mixed up but it's just like phone numbers - no problem. I go through two quick drills every day to keep them in place. Drill 1: Go through each card in a shuffled deck, reciting first the Aronson stack position, then the Mnemonica stack position. Drill 2: Go thru each card in a shuffled deck, reciting the Aronson position, then the corresponding Mnemonica card from the same position. Pretty soon the pairs jell into memory and the one stack actually helps you with the other stack. Now, if I could just remember where I put those keys ...
Message: Posted by: Illucifer (Dec 21, 2013 09:01AM)
While there's certainly nothing wrong with learning an algorithmic or progressive stack of some kind (Si Stebbins or Eight Kings probably being the easiest), I don't see why you'd want to have to bother with doing calculations. I find it's much easier to simply have them committed to memory. No need to do computations while performing. I simply know that card and its position. The information is immediate..

That said, a valid point was raised a few comments back: why do you wish to learn two stacks? Do you have a particular use in mind? I wouldn't do it simply to do it, unless you just want to exercise your memory muscle, in which case go for it! Learn 3 or 4. :)
Websmith2000's right. It's like learning phone numbers (anyone remember those days?).
Message: Posted by: Steve Suss (Dec 21, 2013 12:56PM)
[quote]
On 2013-12-20 12:30, Steve Crossley wrote:
A few months ago I took the time and trouble to memorize the Aronson stack using mnemonics along with the journey method. I now would like to memorize the mnemonica stack but am worried that if I do, I will lose the Aronson stack or just get the two mixed up. Has anyone managed to memorize and work with more than one stack and are there any tips or words of advice?
[/quote]it sounds like you're just getting started with using a memorized deck. I have the same question as others have asked. Why would you want to memorize two decks. Why not utilize your time knowing one deck cold. Can you go through your stack quickly backwards and forwards. Can you run through a deck as quickly as you can and recite the stack numbers as you do so? Can you recall your stack without having to go back to your mnemonic associations?

I would suggest making sure you know your stack cold before even entertaining the idea of learning a new stack and then think long and hard if it is worth all the effort to practice and rehearse the few effects that might require a second stack.
Steve
Message: Posted by: Illucifer (Dec 21, 2013 01:37PM)
Good advice from Steve.
Message: Posted by: Steve Crossley (Dec 21, 2013 03:35PM)
Firstly, I must say thanks for all of your helpful replies. It's great to be able to feel a part of such a community. The main thing that prompted me to consider learning a 2nd MD and the Mnemonica stack in particular was my recent purchase of Andy Nymans The Code. I couldn't help wishing he'd put it out in Aronson stack order, feeling that the deck would be a more powerful tool if I had the stack memorized as well.
Message: Posted by: Steve Suss (Dec 21, 2013 04:53PM)
Steve, I haven't purchased The Code but from the trailer I didn't see anything that could not be done with any ordinary deck in stack order. Regardless, I would stick with one stack only if you really want to become proficient with it. If there is a particular effect that you have in mind to do with The Code please PM me and I'll try to guide you to a method using any stack.
Steve
Message: Posted by: Steve Crossley (Dec 21, 2013 05:07PM)
[quote]On 2013-12-21 17:53, Steve Suss wrote:Steve, I haven't purchased The Code but from the trailer I didn't see anything that could not be done with any ordinary deck in stack order. Regardless, I would stick with one stack only if you really want to become proficient with it. If there is a particular effect that you have in mind to do with The Code please PM me and I'll try to guide you to a method using any stack.Steve[/quote]

Steve, (great name by the way ;-), I think you're right that it's best to become proficient in one stack and stick with it. With so many ideas, techniques and methods it's too easy to flit from one thing to another without mastering any of them. I was just watching a Simon Aronson video and am still blown away by a lot of what can be done with his stack and I'll take your advice and continue using it. I'll also have another look at The Code and will PM you if I come up with anything interesting. Thanks again!
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Dec 21, 2013 05:58PM)
Illucifer wrote:[quote]While there's certainly nothing wrong with learning an algorithmic or progressive stack of some kind ... I don't see why you'd want to have to bother with doing calculations.[/quote]
This (oft-voiced) concern comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of learning mechanisms. Nobody with any experience in these matters is suggesting that one replace a memorized deck with one that needs to be calculated, or have its rules figured out, or go through the steps of a series of mnemonic associations.

The goal is a memorized stack, pure and simple: the end result is always the same. Everything else is a discussion about which is the best learning mechanism. There are strong arguments for each of the three non-rote learning techniques, and people's learning styles differ. All of this is discussed in some detail [url=http://www.deceptionary.com/aboutstacks.html]here[/url] for those who have an interest.
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Dec 21, 2013 06:19PM)
Some "detail" when someone who wrote 17 books (or more) on the shubject of trained memory, including the remembering of cards - was on every national TV show, and etc. etc., is known all over the world as the "World's foremost memory-training specialist" and who the NY Times referred to as "The Yoda of memory training" [b]isn't mentioned at all[/b]. Really great detail. Someone once wrote to the NY Times when there was a short article about memory and I wasn't mentioned - paraphrasing: "Writing anything about trained memory without mentioning Harry Lorayne is like writing about the theory of relativity without mentioning Albert Einstein." The above is an excellent example (of what? Lack of knowledge? Ya' got me). Sorry - my obviously biased opinion, folks. HL.
Message: Posted by: Steve Suss (Dec 22, 2013 10:15AM)
[quote]
On 2013-12-21 19:19, Harry Lorayne wrote:
Some "detail" when someone who wrote 17 books (or more) on the shubject of trained memory, including the remembering of cards - was on every national TV show, and etc. etc., is known all over the world as the "World's foremost memory-training specialist" and who the NY Times referred to as "The Yoda of memory training" [b]isn't mentioned at all[/b]. Really great detail. Someone once wrote to the NY Times when there was a short article about memory and I wasn't mentioned - paraphrasing: "Writing anything about trained memory without mentioning Harry Lorayne is like writing about the theory of relativity without mentioning Albert Einstein." The above is an excellent example (of what? Lack of knowledge? Ya' got me). Sorry - my obviously biased opinion, folks. HL.
[/quote]i can only speak for myself but I don't know why anyone would not pick up a Harry Lorayne memory book. I read my first Lorayne memory book over 40 years ago and used it not only for magic and memory demonstrations but throughout my schooling up until my final year in law school. I now use it every day memorizing names, numbers,cards , dates and just about anything else. There is a reason why Simon Aronson himself teaches Loraynes system when teaching his stack in his book. Richard Osterlind does the same when teaching his memorized Break Through Card System.

Learning Loraynes mnemonic system will take a little time but once you've learned it you will have a tool you can use the rest of your life. When I first learned my stack it took me less than one hour. Once I memorized it to the extent I could run through it with the help of mnemonics it took me several months to gain the confidence in using it for performance. A couple of months later I knew the stack well enough that I no longer needed the mnemonics. Now days I try to run through my stack at least once a week and have no trouble recalling it just as fast as the actual card itself.

Regarding the original question in this thread you could certainly learn more than one stack using Lorayns system but I would again question why you would want to.
Steve
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Dec 22, 2013 10:24AM)
Thanks, Steve, for helping me make my point. And - happy to have been of help. Best - Harry L.
Message: Posted by: Cain (Dec 22, 2013 12:38PM)
[quote]
On 2013-12-21 19:19, Harry Lorayne wrote:
Sorry - my obviously biased opinion, folks. HL.
[/quote]

Apology accepted. Continuing on...
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Dec 22, 2013 01:01PM)
That was NOT an apology, Mr. Cain, as you well know - and we WERE continuing on smoothly before your silly interruption. Sorry. (Now THAT'S an apology!)
Message: Posted by: duanebarry (Dec 22, 2013 03:01PM)
[quote]
On 2013-12-21 19:19, Harry Lorayne wrote:
Some "detail" when someone who wrote 17 books (or more) on the shubject of trained memory, including the remembering of cards - was on every national TV show, and etc. etc., is known all over the world as the "World's foremost memory-training specialist" and who the NY Times referred to as "The Yoda of memory training" [b]isn't mentioned at all[/b]. Really great detail. Someone once wrote to the NY Times when there was a short article about memory and I wasn't mentioned - paraphrasing: "Writing anything about trained memory without mentioning Harry Lorayne is like writing about the theory of relativity without mentioning Albert Einstein." The above is an excellent example (of what? Lack of knowledge? Ya' got me). Sorry - my obviously biased opinion, folks. HL.
[/quote]

The insecurity on display here is amazing.

Harry, do you have a date for that NY Times letter? I searched the nytimes.com website's archive (which does include letters to the editor) for both "Harry Lorayne" and "Einstein" in the same letter or article and came up empty. (Or was the letter perhaps written/sent, but not actually published?)
Message: Posted by: Lundonia (Dec 22, 2013 03:53PM)
[quote]
On 2013-12-22 11:15, Steve Suss wrote:
I can only speak for myself but I don't know why anyone would not pick up a Harry Lorayne memory book.
[/quote]

Oh, I don't know.... Because of posts like the one above yours?
Message: Posted by: Cain (Dec 22, 2013 04:15PM)
[quote]
On 2013-12-22 14:01, Harry Lorayne wrote:
That was NOT an apology, Mr. Cain, as you well know - and we WERE continuing on smoothly before your silly interruption. [/quote]

So when you said you were sorry, you weren't actually sorry, and MY post took things off course, not yours. I see. And up is down, ignorance is strength, war is peace, and Harry Lorayne is a great human being.
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Dec 22, 2013 04:33PM)
And psychobabble is your forte. And if you don't see that your stupid posts are taking this thread off course - you really should get some help. Those who've followed over the years know that you have his lovely habit of "coming in" when it has to do with me, with your put-downs. Stop with your obvious obviousness, will you? Stop with your silly/stupid interruptions - spend more of your time under your moist rock pulling wings off flies instead of wasting everyone's time here - and bringing in the other time-wasters, like Mr. brainbury, also as usual. Good Lord, you guys are sooooooo obvious, and you don't see it. No, Mr. brainbury, no idea - I don't keep those things, but keep searching. We'll breathlessly await your next, your usual, load of wit.
Message: Posted by: Cain (Dec 22, 2013 05:42PM)
I posted to this thread first. Maybe you missed it since I clearly failed to mention your name.
Message: Posted by: Waterloophai (Dec 22, 2013 05:50PM)
To all good-natured, kind-hearted, unobstrusive, humble and modest magicians:
A very happy Christmas :) ....
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Dec 22, 2013 07:08PM)
Cain: Again, what the **** are you psychobabbling about? Your first post had to do with subject of this thread, and that's fine; I certainly didn't come in and put you down in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM FOR THAT. It was AFTER my post - that also had to do with this thread - that you came in with your jealousy-ridden nonsense and INTERRUPTED THE THREAD. Stop trying to kid a kidder, Cain, the Brain - repeat, go back under your most rock - and stop being sooooooooooooooo obvious, and stupid. So, I guess we'll just have to wait for your next load of wit. GET HELP.
Message: Posted by: Cain (Dec 22, 2013 10:43PM)
You are moon-barking mad.
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Dec 22, 2013 11:44PM)
There's that load of wit! Incredible.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Dec 23, 2013 12:25AM)
For the best way to memorize multiple decks- and KEEP them memorized forever, seek out the written works of Harry Lorayne.
Message: Posted by: Steve Crossley (Dec 23, 2013 06:02AM)
Harry Lorayne wrote
[quote]
On 2013-12-21 19:19, Harry Lorayne wrote:
Some "detail" when someone who wrote 17 books (or more) on the shubject of trained memory, including the remembering of cards - was on every national TV show, and etc. etc., is known all over the world as the "World's foremost memory-training specialist" and who the NY Times referred to as "The Yoda of memory training" [b]isn't mentioned at all[/b]. Really great detail. Someone once wrote to the NY Times when there was a short article about memory and I wasn't mentioned - paraphrasing: "Writing anything about trained memory without mentioning Harry Lorayne is like writing about the theory of relativity without mentioning Albert Einstein." The above is an excellent example (of what? Lack of knowledge? Ya' got me). Sorry - my obviously biased opinion, folks. HL.
[/quote]

Harry, Although I didn't learn the mnemonic system usde to memorize the Aronson stack from one of your books. I'd be grateful if you would give a specific recommendation as to the best way of using such systems if one were to want to memorize a 2nd stack.
Message: Posted by: Sean Giles (Dec 23, 2013 06:59AM)
The guys on here that bait Harry should be ashamed. He is 87 years old and we are so lucky to have him post on here. So what if he gets cranky sometimes, don't we all? He deserves some serious respect for what he's acheived.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Lorayne

best,
Sean
Message: Posted by: Lundonia (Dec 23, 2013 10:21AM)
[quote]
On 2013-12-23 07:59, Sean Giles wrote:
The guys on here that bait Harry should be ashamed. He is 87 years old and we are so lucky to have him post on here. So what if he gets cranky sometimes, don't we all? He deserves some serious respect for what he's acheived.
[/quote]

Of course he does, but don't we all? I have a tremendous amount of respect for his work, believe me - I really do, but I also feel that beginners or anyone who isn't familiar with Harrys' work have the right to come here and ask questions [b]without[/b] being informed that someone has written tons of books on the subject with a dash of rudeness and no further information whatsoever.

Please, inform about your books as much as you want. You have earned the right to put out some shameless plugs here and there, no problem. But you have [b]NOT[/b] earned the right to be rude to people!
If you want to promote some book, the least you can do is name the title. Take the opportunity to be helpful and you might sell another book or two. If you take the opportunity to be rude and patronise people, don't expect anybody to buy the book. Especially when you don't even mention what book you are referring to.

To me, that's just common sense. As well as it is common sense to respect Harrys work. See the difference?

Sorry for being OT.
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Dec 23, 2013 12:10PM)
Thanks so much for your advice, Lundonia. Of course, it's kinda' silly advice for a number of reasons - a)I've written, I think, 29 books for magicians, plus TWENTY YEARS of a magic magazine, so can't "name the title." Up to the individual. And, b) there's my magic website listed right under ALL MY POSTS, so - all ya' gotta' do is go there, click on whatever your interests are, etc. And, it tells you there that if you have any questions ... and tells you to email me, etc. Which people do every day, all the time.

Oh, and let me add c) - would you please point out to me, specifically, where and how I've been rude TO ANYONE HERE? That is, who hasn't been rude to me first? That's my thing, buddy - I AM RUDE ONLY TO PEOPLE WHO ARE FIRST RUDE TO ME, OR ARE INSULTING TO ME - as was the case here. So, anyway, since you took the time to give me that advice (which, incidentally, some may even consider to be RUDE)it's important to me for you to point out where/how I was rude, so that after all these decades, being so rude to people, I may learn from you how NOT TO BE. I'm assuming that part of that "teaching" will also be how and when NOT to give un-solicited, rude, un-knowledgeable, un-called for, WRONG, advice. I'm always willing to learn. Regards, Harry L.
Message: Posted by: Lundonia (Dec 23, 2013 12:36PM)
Mr Lorayne,

I'm not intersted in any long winded debates. If you feel that I have been rude to you I do sincerely apologize, that wasn't my intention at all. I haven't followed all the debates here and I have no idea who called who what and when they did it. That's beside the point. I have seen a few posts from you over the years where I find you to be a bit rude to the OP. Since you are asking me to point it out, here is an example - by no means at all neither the best one nor worst.

[quote]
On 2013-12-23 09:10, Harry Lorayne wrote:
I've "listed those lists" in about 12 different books!
[/quote]

You might not find that rude and maybe it's not if you know the person behind the post. I don't know you personally and I find that post a bit rude. I do understand that you can not remember everything you wrote, which is ironic. (Sorry, bad joke. :) ) I really do understand that. But how do you suppose any newcomer will know the procedure you require to be helpful? Of course they don't.

If you want to market your books it would be better for everyone, including yourself, if you tried to be helpful and nice instead. That's all I'm saying and if that offends you, I'm very sorry.

Happy Holidays! :)
Message: Posted by: Waterloophai (Dec 23, 2013 12:38PM)
Let this be the last post of this thread please.
Not for my sake but for the non-magicians who come here accidently.
What must they think of us?
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Dec 23, 2013 01:17PM)
Waterloophai, this will be my last post, certainly to and about the silliness I'm reading from Lundonia. I mean, c'mon!! - a) he's not interested in long debates - I guess his wonderful posts should just be ignored. Got the wrong guy for that, buddy. And, of course, EXACTLY what bothered me he ADMITS TO. He says, "I haven't followed all the debates here and I have no idea who called who what and when they did it. That's beside the point." WHHHAAAAT?!!! Now THAT deserves specific attention. Buddy - That [b]IS[/b] the point, and if you don't see that, you have a problem. What that says is that you really ought to do two things - a) do a bit of research, and more important - mind your own d*mn business!

Oh, again, tell us why that "I've listed those lists in about 12 different books" is rude? Are you out of your mind? People were asking about mnemonic lists to help remember cards and things - "Peg Lists" - AND I HAVE LISTED THOSE KINDS OF LISTS, those that I've refined over 70 years and those that I've devised, IN ABOUT 12 DIFFERENT BOOKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And it was not to one specific person, it was generally to all those in the thread who were interested in that, and asking about JUST THAT! Thanks again for your gratuitous, so-completely-unknowledgeable b*******t. And Happy Holidays to you, too. That's it, Waterloophai, unless Mr. Rudely Un-knowledgeable comes back with another "load of wit" - I sure have no intention of wasting my time with or about him anymore (unless I have to!)
Message: Posted by: Lundonia (Dec 23, 2013 02:59PM)
Merry Christmas Mr Lorayne. I wish you and your loved ones all the best.
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Dec 23, 2013 04:46PM)
Really?
Message: Posted by: Steve Crossley (Dec 24, 2013 05:48AM)
[quote]
On 2013-12-23 11:21, Lundonia wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-12-23 07:59, Sean Giles wrote:
The guys on here that bait Harry should be ashamed. He is 87 years old and we are so lucky to have him post on here. So what if he gets cranky sometimes, don't we all? He deserves some serious respect for what he's acheived.
[/quote]

Of course he does, but don't we all? I have a tremendous amount of respect for his work, believe me - I really do, but I also feel that beginners or anyone who isn't familiar with Harrys' work have the right to come here and ask questions [b]without[/b] being informed that someone has written tons of books on the subject with a dash of rudeness and no further information whatsoever.

Please, inform about your books as much as you want. You have earned the right to put out some shameless plugs here and there, no problem. But you have [b]NOT[/b] earned the right to be rude to people!
If you want to promote some book, the least you can do is name the title. Take the opportunity to be helpful and you might sell another book or two. If you take the opportunity to be rude and patronise people, don't expect anybody to buy the book. Especially when you don't even mention what book you are referring to.

To me, that's just common sense. As well as it is common sense to respect Harrys work. See the difference?

Sorry for being OT.
[/quote]

As the original poster of this thread, I see nothing rude or disrespectful about Lundonia's posts. I believe everybody here recognizes and respects Harry Lorayne's tremendous contributions to magic and memory work but mnemonic systems and memory techniques have been around for thousands of years and nobody can claim exclusivity to them. One of the problems with there being so many books written by one author is where do you start to look for any one particular subject or method. My question was specifically about memorizing a 2nd stacked deck without losing the first one, but nobody seems to have the answer to that, including Harry Lorayne apparently.
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Dec 24, 2013 08:42AM)
Steve: Thanks for your opinion. Now the nitty-gritty - I think I mentioned this, but don't want to go over the whole thread to check. IN MY VERY FIRST BOOK (1956) - I taught how to make up TWO SEPARATE LISTS - so that you could do EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THAT YOU, AND OTHERS, RE ASKING ABOUT HERE. (Caps are for stress, not anger.) So, I guess just a bit of research on your part and you might just find the "specific" answer to your "specific" question. And, I'm so pleased that you see nothing "rude or disrespectful" - good to be able to overlook such obviousness; I envy you. But on the other hand, that rudeness and disrespect was not aimed at you, was it?
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Dec 24, 2013 04:52PM)
Oh, and if you're really interested in how far back memory-training techniques go, you'll something about that if you go to:
memoryimprovement.org . HL.
Message: Posted by: TerrorInt (Apr 6, 2014 01:42PM)
[quote]
On Dec 20, 2013, JanForster wrote:
There is no need to memorize two stacks. Instead do this: Use Si Stebbins: (e. g. knowing the Aronson stack) replace each card in the stack with that card that precedes the original card, e. g. #1 JS is replaced by the 8H because in Si Stebbins the JS would follow the 8H (CHaSeD order) a. s. o. Jan
[/quote]

Try using a different method so you never mix up the two decks.
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Apr 6, 2014 06:27PM)
Tha.t's exactly what I meant by "two separate lists" in my post above
Message: Posted by: Jay Elf (Apr 8, 2014 05:13AM)
[quote]
On Apr 6, 2014, TerrorInt wrote:
Try using a different method so you never mix up the two decks.
[/quote]
Which specifically is the different method? A concrete example will be appreciated.

@Jay@
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Apr 8, 2014 05:51AM)
Read my post and you have the answer :). Jan
Message: Posted by: Nick Pudar (Apr 14, 2014 04:31PM)
Much earlier in the thread, there was a question raised about why would a second memorized deck be needed at all. I have an obscure, but important reason for when you get into cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. (Notice I say "when", not "if" -- but that is for another debate.) There is a concept of "brainwallets" which require a truly random passphrase with more than 140 bits of entropy. A truly randomly shuffled deck of cards has 8 x 10^67 possible combinations, which is more than 225 bits of entropy -- that is plenty for a highly secure passphrase. So, shuffle a deck of cards thoroughly, and memorize it with your favorite technique. Never write it down or divulge it to anyone, and you will have a highly secure passphrase. I did just that. I use the Aronson Stack for my magic, and my second memorized deck as a passhprase (which has never been recorded anywhere except in my mind).

Extreme? Yes. Secure? Absolutely. I keep the second deck fresh in my mind by mentally reciting it when I exercise. Also, (and this was key for me) I visualize my Aronson Stack as having blue backs, and my second memorized deck as having red backs. For some reason that keeps it absolutely clean and separate in my magic.
Message: Posted by: Atom3339 (Apr 17, 2014 10:42AM)
Excellent post, Nick!
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Apr 17, 2014 11:56AM)
Memorizing a 52-card stack in order to obtain a good passphrase is not a very practical approach to the problem.

The number of combinations of 52 cards is approximately 8 * 10^67, a large number when counting objects, but not all that large from a mathematical perspective.

A simple string of 45 letters from the standard English alphabet (including a space and only three punctuation characters) yields a larger number. And 45+ character line of meaningful text (poetry/prose/whatever) is much easier to remember than a card stack!

If you employ upper- and lower-case letters (making 52, interestingly), and throw in the 10 digits (but still no special characters, you only need 38 characters to exceed the possibilities of a shuffled deck. This sentence uses just 38 characters. And it's easier to commit to memory than a shuffled deck. And faster to type.

Of course, it's just as easy to find easily-recalled sentences of 50 characters or more (which is what I use), yielding 10^90+ possibilities.
Message: Posted by: vindar (Apr 17, 2014 05:28PM)
Good point Doug !

This reminds me of http://xkcd.com/936/ ...
Message: Posted by: J-L Sparrow (Apr 17, 2014 07:41PM)
[quote]On Apr 17, 2014, vindar wrote:
This reminds me of http://xkcd.com/936/ ... [/quote]
That's a good cartoon. It certainly changed my way of thinking when it comes to creating new passwords.
Message: Posted by: Nick Pudar (Apr 27, 2014 03:23PM)
Sorry for not staying current on the forum... too much business travel.

This topic of passwords took me a while to truly wrap my head around. The xkcd.com cartoon is a very good one, but unfortunately it misses a couple extremely important points. One is that is the words MUST be random. And second, humans are REALLY bad at generating random things from their mind.

Here are some important points:

1) The important thing about a password is how many bits of entropy it has. That is calculated by taking the base 2 log of the number of possibilities a password format could have. Lets take a simple example of an 8-character password of only lower case English alphabet letters. the number of possibilities is 26^8 or 208,827,064,576. That's a big number; 208.8 billion possible passwords seems like a lot, but that only represents a little over 37 bits of entropy. A computer can tear through all those combinations very quickly. Shuffling a deck of cards has log2(52!) or 225 bits of entropy. And as Doug Dyment pointed out, 38 characters of upper, lower, and numeric characters has log2(62^38) or 227 bits of entropy. The nature of the structure of the entropy is irrelevant, but it is very important that the password is generated randomly. More on this later.

2) In an online account where you have to enter a password that will be checked by a server, small passwords (like the xkcd.com Tr0ub4dor&3) are fine because there are limitations on account access attempts. And more common these days, 2-factor authentications are required. The main point is that you should not use something that an attacker would easily guess (like "password123" or "p@ssword").

3) In situations where attackers can use brute-force techniques, you want to have a sufficient number of bits of entropy so that it takes a very long time to search through all the possible combinations. Current thinking is that a secure passphrase should have more than 140 bits of entropy. Anything less than that can be brute-forced. Computers will keep getting stronger and faster, so that is why I went with the very high level as capable with a deck of cards (225 bits of entropy).

4) Humans are VERY BAD at generating random data. That is why hackers use something called Rainbow Tables to process through in their attacks. Rainbow Tables contain massive dictionaries of passwords that people use. (Recall the hacked Target Company recently, where the attackers only learned the passwords form the customer accounts? Those passwords were added to the Rainbow Tables for other exploits.) No matter how clever you think you are, someone from the other billions of people on earth has likely thought of it. Even obfuscation techniques (like with Tr0ub4dor&3) are generally worthless because those techniques are also in the Rainbow Tables. The recommendation to memorize from some text or poem is not safe, no matter how long. There are password-ripping robots continuously processing known texts. For example, the very long-looking password of "tworoadsdivergedinayellowwoodandsorryicouldnottravelbothandbeonetravellerlongistoodandlookeddownoneasfarasicouldtowhereitbentintheundergrowth" is very weak since all Robert Frost poems in various chunk sizes are already part of the Rainbow searches. Anything that is available online can be checked as use for a password/passphrase. (In fact, the xkcd.com "correct horse battery staple" is one of the first checked passphrases these days because people seem to think it is secure.)

For applications such as crypocurrencies like Bitcoin, where an attacker can continuously apply Rainbow Tables towards Brainwallet creation, it is really important to only use randomly generated passphrases with high degrees of entropy. For me, a memorized random deck of cards is perfect because it has high entropy, and knowing a second stack makes me smile!

Here is one site for secure random password generation: http://world.std.com/~reinhold/diceware.html
Here is another great source for having multiple random passwords at your fingertips: http://www.passwordcard.org/en
Here is some good background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Password_strength

Nick
Message: Posted by: Nick Pudar (May 1, 2014 09:03PM)
I ran across a nice blog post about passwords. It's a good read.
https://medium.com/editors-picks/3a72ab8b17f4

Nick
Message: Posted by: lcwright1964 (May 2, 2014 08:44PM)
Memorizing Aronson was easier than I thought. I just went by brute force and rote memory, foregoing the recommended phonetic-mnemonic associations. Mnemonica's next. With regularly refreshing I don't see any problem keeping the two straight--I will have two position numbers for each card not one. In time 4C will be known to me a A45-M1, AS will be A6-M7, 9D will be A52-M52, etc. I find that even when I am not using a structured mnemonic system I impose idiosyncratic memory "hooks" onto the list, anyway. I really don't think that memorizing and using two different stacks needs to be as onerous as the doubters fear it is.
Message: Posted by: lcwright1964 (May 9, 2014 02:53PM)
I took a few hours last evening to memorize Mnemonica and now have gone back to refresh my memory of Aronson and am more prone to befuddlement, to my great surprise and chagrin. Maybe there is some merit to the suggesting of picking and sticking to one? The alternative is to learn Mnemonica and Aronson stone cold and also review them in parallel and find ways to remember their differences. I obviously have too much time on my hands...
Message: Posted by: pnielan (Aug 13, 2014 12:05AM)
On the Vernon Revelation tapes, Vernon talks about his interactions with David M Roth, who wrote an excellent mnemonic book in 1918 (but lived into the 1970s), and with Harry Lorayne. He is very complimentary to both men and talks about how he and Mr. Lorayne used to cleverly code selected cards back and forth. They used the phonetic alphabet and improvised words on the fly, rather than relying on fixed code words for each card. Great stories. Especially when some wise guy picked a joker.

More to the point of this thread, Vernon cautions (informed by his discussions with Roth), that if you *ever* change your mnemonic word for a card (say going from SEAL for the 5S to SAIL), there will always be some hesitation when dealing with that card going forward. I think the same thing will be true for memorizing multiple stacks----your number to card and card to number associations will be slightly hindered if there are more than one---at least at the speed of performance.. I am on my second stack (it's been 5 years since I made the switch) and that hesitation does happen to me still, but not often. However, I am not trying to maintain both stacks (in fact, trying to forget the first). So, in my opinion, there is a tradeoff to be made here with valid arguments on both sides.

Note that the recall we are talking about here is not about the learning mechanism, but the actual card to number and number to card associations and maintaining multiple sets.