(Close Window)
Topic: Found a secret to riffle stacking large hands without looking. (video)
Message: Posted by: Cliff Rusnick (Jan 15, 2018 06:27AM)
I know riffle stacking is supposed to be done without looking, and anyone who is a skilled stacker can do so. this is much easier when you're only stacking two cards for hold 'em.
recently though I found a trick to stacking larger hands without looking and am curious if anyone else has tried stacking with ends? I pulled out a random deck a few months ago and realized the stacking was working almost automatically, took me a while to realize what deck I was using, but when I did, it was a revelation! I CAN stack 6 and 7 handed games without this advantage, but using this deck is so much more fun.

secondly, I'm curious if anyone practices, or has seen the cut nullification I performed sloppily at the end of the shuffle sequence? I realize I didn't use cover for the shuffle and it looks vastly different from my other shuffles, but this nullification is still new for me and I don't even have a year under my belt with it. I can do it much more convincingly when I have more patience and it's not extremely late at night/morning. I worked out the maneuver on my own while doing stevens drills. there's no breaks or crimps, and the previous advantage I mentioned for stacking is not used for this in any way (it can be done with a completely normal deck). I found it to be a very interesting/useful move since an other player can cut the deck normally and complete it on their own if they wish, yet the deck can still be restored. I heard Forte mention in the GPS series that "the dealer reserves the right to shuffle again after the cut" and figured this type of maneuver could be used in game as it abides by the rules. this could be used if you did not expect the player/spectator (in the case of demos) to complete the cut, (eliminating the possibility for any hops or passes) after performing a lengthy and tedious stack.

feedback is welcomed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRK5CZRkFDo&feature=youtu.be
Message: Posted by: CARDTALK (Jan 15, 2018 12:12PM)
I enjoyed watching you, for what reason when dealing the aces at the end are you holding the deck like you are about to preform a Gene Maze bottom deal?, just curious!.
Message: Posted by: Cliff Rusnick (Jan 15, 2018 03:06PM)
Thanks!
the reason for the grip is consistency. it's such a drastically different grip than my normal deal, that when I do go to deal a bottom, or set up for dealing base, it's apparent that something else is happening. so I got into the habit of always dealing with a mechanic's grip; or at least 99% of the time.
Message: Posted by: CARDTALK (Jan 15, 2018 03:27PM)
I think the "ends" idea is great. Ripping would be a much better impromptu way of getting the same result in my eyes.
Message: Posted by: Cliff Rusnick (Jan 15, 2018 09:29PM)
I'm not positive if you're using the term "ripping" in reference to collecting ends or not (don't want to assume), but how would you stack them using this process? I understand I could have "ripped" 'em from a shuffled deck to give a more impromptu feel, but I can't use them well enough to make it look natural; and I still would have had to stack after that anyway. care to elaborate?

i'm positive there's plenty of easier ways of doing most of the things I practice, like using a breather to cut aces. but why use a breather when you can practice the real deal culling techniques for decades!? lol. at least if I go the long way around, I'll always have something to work on.

i don't do demos or perform these for people, it's just about learning the work. so if I were to use some other technique to accomplish the same thing, it's kinda beside the point for me. very open to hearing alternative methods though!
Message: Posted by: Cliff Rusnick (Jan 15, 2018 09:50PM)
Just a few corrections: I realized the place that forte mentions that the dealer reserves the right to shuffle after the cut was not in the GPS series, but rather the youtube video "hand quicker than eye"

also I guess I was under the wrong impression about what a mechanic's grip is. back when I was starting to learn this stuff over a decade ago, I had thought that the mechanics grip was where two fingers were above the deck and a dealers grip was just one finger. now I'm unsure of everything. I have never learnt these things from sources other than the gps series and ortiz on card cheating (my first cheating video [which, if you noticed, also explains why I stack like I'm left handed, when indeed I am not]) both of which do not explain much other than to briefly show you how things work. I did not learn a bottom deal from any of these videos, I just adapted my grip until I was able to access the bottom card. sorry for my lack of knowledge on the terms.
Message: Posted by: happy003 (Jan 16, 2018 07:20AM)
I don't think too many people know about ripping. Isn't it fairly new?
Message: Posted by: CARDTALK (Jan 16, 2018 10:00AM)
I was slightly confused to why you was mentioning a mechanics grip at the end of your video when it was not. I think you have clarified that though. The grip at the end looked like you was preparing to do a bottom deal and actually drew more attention to your dealing, especially when you was just dealing normally!!. Your stacking looked great although their are ways to reach the same outcome a lot quicker with fewer shuffles.
Message: Posted by: Cliff Rusnick (Jan 16, 2018 04:09PM)
Ah, that's also the other half of the reason for the grip. I knew people "in the know" would be expecting something else to happen. I was going to actually make the deal look slightly fishy as to bring question to if the stack really happened or not, like make the dealt aces noisier, and not make it apparent that they were coming off the top...which would be the ultimate test as to if the stacking was actually detectable. but I decided against it in the end as I didn't want to have to defend myself or explain that it was a real stack lol.

as for stacking in fewer shuffles, is there any way you can elaborate without giving up info you don't want to? sources? names? maybe a pm? also care to point to a direction for what "ripping" is?

i've seen people stacking large hands in fewer shuffles, and I've considered looking into it, however in a real game. I never shuffle less that 5 times anyway... possibly more. as most of us know, it takes 7 shuffles to legitimately mix the deck, so I figured it's ok. the only place where I would need to stack in fewer shuffles is if I were to cull every card I needed before the stack, like a completely cold stack... in which case, it might be useful to know something like that.
Message: Posted by: SimonCard (Jan 18, 2018 09:55AM)
Thanks for sharing.
but I'm not sure what sloppy move you are talking about.
Message: Posted by: Cliff Rusnick (Jan 18, 2018 04:21PM)
Maybe I was being too critical on myself, however, after I cut the deck - the last shuffle seemed sloppy to me. it's a restoration of a legitimately cut deck using a stevens variation I've never heard mentioned anywhere, but my knowledge of all things stevens is... not vast. I just stumbled upon it myself one day and was quite curious if anyone more knowledgeable has seen it done? or in print (less likely) or even just heard it mentioned somewhere?
Message: Posted by: SimonCard (Jan 18, 2018 07:50PM)
That looks like a regular push through probably with a blockoff to the previously cut position?
Message: Posted by: Cliff Rusnick (Jan 19, 2018 02:40AM)
Pretty much, I'd hardly say it was a regular push through though. the blocking off is much like a stevens control; you have to find the top card in the shuffle, then the break is transferred after the push through.
Message: Posted by: SimonCard (Jan 19, 2018 08:44AM)
If it's so, it's not a new idea. Forte did one in 52.
Message: Posted by: Cliff Rusnick (Jan 19, 2018 03:48PM)
Did he? I've watched that thing dozens of times. care to give a time stamp or something so I could check it out?
also I know the general attitude of people saying they haven't seen something before is so they could claim they invented it. however I tried to carefully word it as to not portray that attitude. I said I stumbled upon it, never mentioned or indicated at all that I thought it was new...more like I thought it might not be in print, or sources would be scarce, which is why I asked if anyone has even heard it mentioned anywhere.
Message: Posted by: Cliff Rusnick (Jan 21, 2018 09:35PM)
So where's the information here? you're all saying things but nothing to back it up!? help a guy out! lol
Message: Posted by: Cliff Rusnick (Jan 22, 2018 05:39AM)
I reviewed forte's 52 again, and the only thing I found is a slug control where it starts out with the setup for the classic stevens control (shuffling a few cards on top of the deck [4 in this case])then uses a push through to bring them back to the top. this is fairly similar, but wouldn't say is the same as I was showing. having the deck cut cleanly means having to look for the top card during the shuffle, whereas forte only had to block off at a known position (4 cards down) the control in this form wouldn't be possible under the same circumstances as it has to be done in the mechanic's hands. I was more so looking for the move used in a culling manner. but the premise is there. thanks for the tip.
Message: Posted by: SimonCard (Jan 22, 2018 07:46AM)
That's the one I was talking about. Same sleight: push through with blockoff, but with a different application.
Message: Posted by: SimonCard (Jan 22, 2018 07:48AM)
I shipped my all my DVDs and books to Detroit so I don't have them with me right now. Sorry for the late reply.
Message: Posted by: Cliff Rusnick (Jan 23, 2018 04:17PM)
That's alright. thanks, it's the closest thing I've seen to what I did, anyway.
Message: Posted by: Cliff Rusnick (Mar 10, 2018 07:54AM)
This has been bugging me for a while, so I thought I should clarify. when I originally heard about Ns people were calling it all sorts of things, including "ends" as I guess a slang term for Ns? which I realise now is a different thing all together.
i am using Ns for this demo. not sure how well ends would work for this, but Ns really work great and are quite fun to use in this way outside of their conventional use. anyone who can riffle stack, ought to try it with Ns and see how it feels. almost like it was gimmicked on purpose for stacking!
Message: Posted by: Expertmagician (May 11, 2018 08:11AM)
Very cool .... I believe that riffle stacking technique is probably the best I have seen in a long time !
Good work :-)
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (May 11, 2018 12:22PM)
[quote]On Jan 15, 2018, Cliff Rusnick wrote:
I know riffle stacking is supposed to be done without looking, and anyone who is a skilled stacker can do so. [/quote]

I disagree. It is unnatural to not look at the deck at all while shuffling. You cannot "gun" the deck, but glancing at the deck while shuffling is natural.

[quote] I heard Forte mention in the GPS series that "the dealer reserves the right to shuffle again after the cut" and figured this type of maneuver could be used in game as it abides by the rules. this could be used if you did not expect the player/spectator (in the case of demos) to complete the cut, (eliminating the possibility for any hops or passes) after performing a lengthy and tedious stack.[/quote]

I think you are misinterpreting the statement by saying "the dealer reserves the right to shuffle again after the cut." More correctly the statement is, the dealer reserves the right to shuffle last prior to the final cut. The Final Cut is a straight cut by the non-dealer.

To clarify, the dealer [i]cannot[/i] shuffle after the Final Cut. If he passes the deck to a player for the cut, and the player then re-shuffles the cards and then cuts, the dealer can now reshuffle the cards (because the player shuffled and did not just cut the cards). The dealer can now pass the deck back to the player, again, for a final cut. But after the final cut, the dealer cannot shuffle the cards again. He must deal the cards at that point.

This applies to any standard game that I have ever seen or heard of.
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (May 11, 2018 01:34PM)
[quote]On May 11, 2018, Cagliostro wrote:
[quote]On Jan 15, 2018, Cliff Rusnick wrote:
I know riffle stacking is supposed to be done without looking, and anyone who is a skilled stacker can do so. [/quote]

I disagree. It is unnatural to not look at the deck at all while shuffling. You cannot "gun" the deck, but glancing at the deck while shuffling is natural.

[quote] I heard Forte mention in the GPS series that "the dealer reserves the right to shuffle again after the cut" and figured this type of maneuver could be used in game as it abides by the rules. this could be used if you did not expect the player/spectator (in the case of demos) to complete the cut, (eliminating the possibility for any hops or passes) after performing a lengthy and tedious stack.[/quote]

I think you are misinterpreting the statement by saying "the dealer reserves the right to shuffle again after the cut." More correctly the statement is, the dealer reserves the right to shuffle last prior to the final cut. The Final Cut is a straight cut by the non-dealer.

To clarify, the dealer [i]cannot[/i] shuffle after the Final Cut. If he passes the deck to a player for the cut, and the player then re-shuffles the cards and then cuts, the dealer can now reshuffle the cards (because the player shuffled and did not just cut the cards). The dealer can now pass the deck back to the player, again, for a final cut. But after the final cut, the dealer cannot shuffle the cards again. He must deal the cards at that point.

This applies to any standard game that I have ever seen or heard of. [/quote]



Cag and I don't always agree, but this is two times when we do. Right on both points, although you don't run into the latter except in private games and even then it's not terribly common for the "cutter" to suddenly riffle behind the dealer. It happens, but most people just cut when the deck is passed to them.

Jason
Message: Posted by: AMcD (May 11, 2018 03:45PM)
[quote]On May 11, 2018, Cagliostro wrote:

I disagree. It is unnatural to not look at the deck at all while shuffling. You cannot "gun" the deck, but glancing at the deck while shuffling is natural.[/quote]

Absolutely. Even professional dealers take a look at the deck while shuffling. The point is not to miss the shuffle. Any mistake and the shuffling procedure must be started over, which means less hands per hour, less bets, tips and so on.

I have never understood those Magicians demonstrating stacking and showing off looking at the camera instead of focusing on their shuffle. It's 100% dumb.
Message: Posted by: Claudio (May 12, 2018 04:05AM)
[quote]On May 11, 2018, AMcD wrote:
I have never understood those Magicians demonstrating stacking and showing off looking at the camera instead of focusing on their shuffle. It's 100% dumb. [/quote]
It’s not dumb, it’s theatre, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Whenever a [b]magician[/b] performs a gambling demo it’s not aimed at genuine gamblers, but at the general public. The few magicians who really think they could cut the mustard at a gambling table are profoundly deluded.

Keeping eye contact and chatting during, sometimes long and fastidious, stacking demos is one way to impress your audience (“Watch! Without looking at my hands!”) and keep it mildly interested.

There are wonderful “gambling demos” performed by magicians that have nothing to do with gambling procedures as it is all theatre. Actually, “authentic gambling demos” (this might well be an oxymoron) would probably be very boring to the public at large.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (May 12, 2018 09:54AM)
[quote]On May 12, 2018, Claudio wrote:
[quote]On May 11, 2018, AMcD wrote:
I have never understood those Magicians demonstrating stacking and showing off looking at the camera instead of focusing on their shuffle. It's 100% dumb. [/quote]

It's not dumb, it's theatre, and there's nothing wrong with that. Whenever a [b]magician[/b] performs a gambling demo it's not aimed at genuine gamblers, but at the general public. The few magicians who really think they could cut the mustard at a gambling table are profoundly deluded.

Keeping eye contact and chatting during, sometimes long and fastidious, stacking demos is one way to impress your audience ("Watch! Without looking at my hands!") and keep it mildly interested. [/quote]

Certainly that is a good point well taken. For magicians, it is theatre and the main objective is to [i]entertain[/i] under the guise of presenting the "real work" of how gamblers cheat. No disagreement here Claudio.

In fact, in one of Darwin Ortiz's riffle stacking video demos he boasted that if you knew how much practice his riffle stacking routine took to master you would bow down in front of him in adoration or some such nonsense. He then ran up four aces for five hands expressly not looking at his hands in that instance, aiming to boost his reputation as a skillful gambling protection expert more so than a magician. Of course, Darwin is first and foremost a magician but the video was expressly presented as a gaming protection expose. His demo was literally, "Look Ma. No hands."

Of course, since it was on video, if he missed it would not be that important as only the video in which he did not miss would be used.

[quote]There are wonderful "gambling demos" performed by magicians that have nothing to do with gambling procedures as it is all theatre. Actually, "authentic gambling demos" (this might well be an oxymoron) would probably be very boring to the public at large. [/quote]

Agreed. Show biz is one thing and not necessarily a reflection of the real world.

However, in the real world, people do glance at their hands casually while shuffling and not to do so might look somewhat "strange."
Message: Posted by: Claudio (May 13, 2018 02:58AM)
[quote]On May 12, 2018, Cagliostro wrote:

In fact, in one of Darwin Ortiz's riffle stacking video demos he boasted that if you knew how much practice his riffle stacking routine took to master you would bow down in front of him in adoration or some such nonsense. He then ran up four aces for five hands expressly not looking at his hands in that instance, aiming to boost his reputation as a skillful gambling protection expert more so than a magician. Of course, Darwin is first and foremost a magician but the video was expressly presented as a gaming protection expose. His demo was literally, "Look Ma. No hands."

Of course, since it was on video, if he missed it would not be that important as only the video in which he did not miss would be used.
[/quote]
I remember watching that and if I recall correctly he was comparing his skill and dedication to those of a surgeon’s.

It was impressive as Darwin ran up the four aces in two shuffles and the “no looking” bit was the cherry on the cake – from his perspective. I believe he can do this without much trouble as it was part of his act (that I never saw live, I must admit) and he describes the effect in his book Darwin Ortiz at the Card Table.

As a magic gambling demo, with his over-the-top patter, it’s entertaining.

[quote]On May 12, 2018, Cagliostro wrote:
However, in the real world, people do glance at their hands casually while shuffling and not to do so might look somewhat "strange." [/quote]
No argument here. What would look perfectly acceptable in performance arts, might look out of place in real life.
Message: Posted by: AMcD (May 13, 2018 08:53AM)
Sorry, but I have never understood that need to do "pseudo" things, even under the cover of Art, Entertainment, Theatre, etc.

When I'm listening a baseball player talking, I wanna hear the real thing, not fancy stories.

Since 2003, hundred of millions of people have played Poker (Hold'em) and are more or less competent. At least, they have the knowledge for laughing at 99.999% of all those Gambling demos. What is the need for a Magician to act in a ridiculous way while claiming he does the real stuff? No cutting, 128 shuffles, demonstrating... 5-card draw, etc.?

I can understand Magic acts, but frankly, those "Gambling" routines put me on my nerves... Maybe those guys suck too much for being creative and doing routines mimicking REAL Gambling? Just asking.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (May 13, 2018 10:29AM)
[quote]On May 13, 2018, AMcD wrote:

Sorry, but I have never understood that need to do "pseudo" things, even under the cover of Art, Entertainment, Theatre, etc...

...Since 2003, hundreds of millions of people have played Poker (Hold'em) and are more or less competent. At least, they have the knowledge for laughing at 99.999% of all those Gambling demos...

...I can understand Magic acts, but frankly, those "Gambling" routines put me on my nerves... Maybe those guys suck too much for being creative and doing routines mimicking REAL Gambling? Just asking. [/quote]

I can understand that opinion from someone like AMcD who a skillful manipulator and a purist at what he does. Therefore, he looks at these type demonstrations differently than perhaps a lay audience might. However, I don't necessarily agree that millions of people would be that discerning as to whether or not the demo was the "real work" performed the way it would be used at the gaming tables.

I think the most successful magician type demonstrators aim to entertain. The reason being they get paid to do so and get paid for the [i]entertainment[/i] value of what they do. Secondly, by creating a "brand name" for themselves, they can now market their material to the magician/demo set. Now they are getting paid at two levels (entertainment and sales) and are doing what they love to do.

I'm sure many of us could name quite a few well known and successful magician/demonstrators who fall into that category.

I would say that 99% of the people who perform entertaining demonstrations of "How Gambler's Win" don't have the ability or even the [i]desire[/i] to cheat others or are capable of making any meaningful money by doing so. So, they "sell" what they can do to entertain and/or teach others.

I could be wrong, but I think that is a better way to go for most who are interested in this field of endeavor if they want to make money doing what they love to do.

But then again, that is just another way to look things.
Message: Posted by: Claudio (May 13, 2018 11:34AM)
[quote]On May 13, 2018, AMcD wrote:
Sorry, but I have never understood that need to do "pseudo" things, even under the cover of Art, Entertainment, Theatre, etc.
...
I can understand Magic acts, but frankly, those "Gambling" routines put me on my nerves... Maybe those guys suck too much for being creative and doing routines mimicking REAL Gambling? Just asking. [/quote]
I understand where you’re coming from. However you have to accept that Magic, first and foremost, is the art of deception, of make believe. It’s acknowledged that magicians will lie to their audience as “real magic” does not exist.

Cinema, theatre etc. command that you suspend your disbelief for you to enjoy the show. When you watch an action movie, for instance, surely you can be entertained without really believing the physical prowess to be real.

One has to approach magic and its sub-branch of "gambling demos" the same way. If one doesn't, one’ll run the risk of sounding like a broken record, or worse a bitter ageing man (more likely than a woman), repeating ad nauseam: “This is not the real work, it’s magician’s stuff.”

This is common behaviour and for example cops will criticise cop or forensic shows, denouncing the huge gaps with reality. The public at large doesn't generally care, as all they want is being entertained.

I have watched some of your excellent, lately stacking, demos. As impressive as they are, they would be utterly boring to a non-gambling audience. Producing 4 aces out of the deck in a very original fashion will more likely than not entertain and generate the impression that the performer could do anything with a pack of cards, for the general public that is.

If you want to enjoy watching real gambling skills, you know very well that magicians won't cut it, for the good reason that their job is magic and not gambling. It's comparing apples and oranges.

Mind you, it does not mean that all magicians lack skill all-together, but perception, more than harsh reality, is what is important to sell an act.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (May 13, 2018 12:33PM)
@Claudio: Nicely stated.
Message: Posted by: AMcD (May 13, 2018 04:02PM)
I'm afraid you didn't get what I meant.

I know perfectly what Magic is, or, should be: a show entertaining people. And a "Gambling" act is almost mandatory in every Magician's arsenal, for Gambling is as old as humanity and is a perfect background for a show.

But I don't clearly see why it should be completely disconnected from reality and imply the performer telling bullcrap. I understand the difference between an expose and a supposedly entertaining routine, thanks! I have demonstrated moves live dozens of times and, sorry to disagree with you, NEVER I had people bored. There is always a card player or two in any audience, always, and they appreciate a lot watching real or, at least, credible stuff.

And no, I'm not a sheep in the herd. I'm not a member of the "general" public and I'm proud of it. What you call the general public is dumb and I don't want to belong to that multitude watching reality TV, talent-less people winning stupid TV rigged contests and so on.

I myself like to be entertained. But I prefer when scenarios are credible. The road is wide and everyone has its own preferences. You are free to enjoy Magicians demonstrating 5-card draw Poker without cutting or hardly shuffling the deck in 2018, an age where everyone can see real Poker on TV. I'm free to find them utterly ridiculous, outdated and non creative. Moreover when they call themselves experts or second to none sleight of hand artists.

In case you didn't get me, once again, they can do all the pseudo-demos they want, I don't give a ***. I deny them the right to claim loudly that it's true Gambling. Mostly because they just sound ridiculous. When I hear a Magician saying "now, imagine I have a Friday game with my friends and that I need to win the money", I don't care at all what the Magician is gonna do, it's a show. But when I hear "now, me, top-notch expert I'm gonna demonstrate you how professionals cheat casinos" and I see the guy hardly able to shuffle, it's another story.

You're right, I'm old. 50 is certainly more than your age, but you'll reach that age yourself, don't worry :).
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (May 13, 2018 04:41PM)
@AMcD: And here I thought I was the only cantankerous old guy on the BB. Whew!!! What a relief.

Well, I'm glad to see I'm not alone.

At least I'm in good company.

Welcome. Join the club. :yippee:
Message: Posted by: AMcD (May 13, 2018 05:13PM)
Cantankerous! That one is gold. Thanks for improving my English.

I don't think I am bad-tempered, for sure I have some "style" of writing. We all know each other now, it's part of the game.
Message: Posted by: Peterson (May 14, 2018 10:41AM)
This is exactly the kind of thing the leftist movement is forcing on people. It is now considered wise to not judge people at all. Passivity has nothing to to with objectivity. I can understand people believing themselves, that they present the real thing. They are just simply misguided as I am. However, when you consciously B.S. your audience and say that you are the best and you have the best moves, even for marketing/selling purposes, you should be publicly scolded. "This is just a performance", "It is art of deception", art of performing you say? **** you!
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (May 14, 2018 01:05PM)
[quote]On May 14, 2018, Peterson wrote:

However, when you consciously B.S. your audience and say that you are the best and you have the best moves, even for marketing/selling purposes, you should be publicly scolded. "This is just a performance", "It is art of deception", art of performing you say?... [/quote]

Absolutely. It is the "art" of deception, the :art" of performing. And if you get really good at this, you can graduate from the magician/demonstrator set and become a professional politician...that is if you truly want to learn and perfect the "art of the con" to the highest degree.
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (May 14, 2018 01:39PM)
Arnold also wants to watch "real" cop movies. The one where there is no car chase and no gun fight and the arresting officer does paperwork for 90 minutes.

What fun.

Jason
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (May 14, 2018 03:55PM)
[quote]On May 13, 2018, AMcD wrote:

...But I don't clearly see why it (a demo) should be completely disconnected from reality and imply the performer telling bull crap. I understand the difference between an expose and a supposedly entertaining routine, thanks! I have demonstrated moves live dozens of times and, sorry to disagree with you, NEVER I had people bored. There is always a card player or two in any audience, always, and they appreciate a lot [i]watching real or, at least, credible stuff. [/i] (Emphasis is mine.) [/quote]

Arnold, what would you describe as "real or credible stuff?" It is May 2018 as I write this. Aside from very small, private amateur games, what constitutes this real work at this point in time - and let's confine it to poker to keep it simple. I'm not even going to get into "casino work" which is almost a world unto itself.

Keep in mind most poker games of any note are played in a casino environment using center dealers. Big private games? Sure, they exist and almost invariably have 1-3 center dealers to deal the cards. Underground clubs of any note have center dealers also. Under real world conditions would dealing seconds and thirds be a credible demo? Dealing bottoms? Hopping the cut? Stacking the deck? Sure, those are real moves, although almost from a different era. How many venues are you able to use these methods and how overexposed are those ploys? Most experienced card players have seen these moves in one form or another during their card playing life.

Professional level collusion and playing top paper. Sure, that is real but what audience wants to watch a demo of collusion and playing paper over fifty demo hands or so to show how it gets the money? And for those that did not fall asleep during the demo, would they really understand the nuances employed.

So, while your observations are worthwhile and have merit, IMO so do the contrary observations focusing on the [i]entertainment[/i] value of demos as opposed to the hard and fast "these are real moves," given in large part they [i]were[/i] the real moves of a former time.

For me, and I can only speak for myself, I have seen most of this stuff employed in the real world and at this point in time, an entertaining demo with a good story line, a little flash and perhaps some razzmatazz BS, might be quite enjoyable and fun to watch.

(Of course, if one of my compadres shows me something new that is currently being used and I haven't seen it before, well...that is a different story. Then I would be [i]very[/i] interested in [i]that[/i] demo.)
Message: Posted by: AMcD (May 14, 2018 04:37PM)
Well Jason,

to be honest, cop movies with people firing more bullets than a destroyer, 1,250 miles long car chases or heroes taking 9 bullets in the leg and yet still able to walk (after losing 25 gallons of blood, of course)... You are obviously free to enjoy them but, personally, I simply hate such movies.

I like sci-fi, therefore, I know what dreaming things or imagining things means. I worship Tolkien for instance, and believe it or not, I know that what's in his books is not real. I like when things sound or look like realistic, but again, that's me.

Frankly, I don't understand why Magicians could not create realistic Gambling acts. I prefer 1,000 times Richard Turner mimicking a so-called casino procedure than clowns juggling with cards or pulling out a Royal Flush out of nowhere. Under the disguise of words Art, Theatre, etc., I should accept mediocrity, lack of creativity and unrealistic acts? Why?

In terms of Gambling acts, I want to see realistic things, again, because we are in 2018! It's impossible not to have a couple of players in any audience. Why demonstrating 5-card Draw? Who plays that game? What's the point of not cutting the deck in a routine when even a 10 years old kid has heard the saying "trust everybody but always cut the deck"? Why doesn't a Magician simply says "and now I'm gonna get, at will, the 4 Aces in that deck" instead of "and now I'm gonna show you how professionals cheat casinos"?

Sometimes, I'm under the impression that, from the very minute they pay for an entertainer, people get suddenly dumb and stupid and accept everything.

I'm certainly not a professional entertainer. But I have demonstrated a few "Gambling" principles dozen of times. I can tell you that they have ALWAYS been delighted to see second dealing, stacking and things on that line. Obviously, it's always something short, around 10 minutes. And never boring things like collusion, how to use a shaded deck or setting up a camera in the ceiling. Contrarily to what most professional Magicians say, some people enjoy to watch technique, skills.

But of course, I do those things in parties, etc. That's probably why I get nice and genuine reactions. I strongly doubt that someone paying 5K for a Magician's act is gonna complain if he is disappointed, certainly not in front of his guests. When some level of money is spent, people have some self-respect.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Bones (May 15, 2018 09:10AM)
I've got no problem introducing some "magic" moves into a gambling demo - as long as those moves remain completely invisible, and the correct routines are followed (burning a card, cutting the deck, etc).

I find nothing more off-putting than a magician masquerading as a gambling expert, when it's painfully obvious his knowledge of the game he portrays himself as an expert at is minimal, or completely unknown beyond that knowledge required to complete his trick.
Jamy Ian Swiss noted in one of his books that a magician who does a gambling demo had better learn the game they're demonstrating inside out, because if an spectator asks a question about the game, and you can't answer it - they'll disavow your entire demo ... and most likely [b]you[/b] along with it.

Most folks in 2018 know Hold'Em well enough to know when they're being shown a phoney poker demo (for example).

Due to pokers over-exposure in the last 25 years, the "demo" game is almost ripe again to go back to some well thought out Bridge or Gin demos.

I have a Bridge demo that portends to demonstrate full deck memorization, second dealing, bottom dealing, centre dealing, and dealing thirds - and gives my partner and I a grand slam with a bid of seven-no-trump (the spec gets to shuffle and cut).
In reality I execute none of those moves, and indeed exercise no sleights whatsoever. However it leaves magicians in the know with their chins down, and the lay-public believing you're skilled beyond words.
... and I don't even need to put down my beer.

Now [b]that's[/b] a demo.
Message: Posted by: AMcD (May 15, 2018 11:32AM)
[quote]On May 15, 2018, Mr. Bones wrote:
I've got no problem introducing some "magic" moves into a gambling demo - as long as those moves remain completely invisible, and the correct routines are followed (burning a card, cutting the deck, etc).

I find nothing more off-putting than a magician masquerading as a gambling expert, when it's painfully obvious his knowledge of the game he portrays himself as an expert at is minimal, or completely unknown beyond that knowledge required to complete his trick.[/quote]
So good to read that someone is on the same line as mine :p.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (May 15, 2018 01:54PM)
[quote]On May 15, 2018, Mr. Bones wrote:

I have a Bridge demo that portends to demonstrate full deck memorization, second dealing, bottom dealing, centre dealing, and dealing thirds - and gives my partner and I a grand slam with a bid of seven-no-trump (the spec gets to shuffle and cut).
In reality I execute none of those moves, and indeed exercise no sleights whatsoever. However it leaves magicians in the know with their chins down, and the lay-public believing you're skilled beyond words.
... and I don't even need to put down my beer.

Now [b]that's[/b] a demo. [/quote]

Yup!. That's IS a REAL demo. I got excited just reading about it.

I wonder how many can do this using the "real work."
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (May 18, 2018 03:49PM)
AMcD,

Maybe you're just not being clear on what you define as "realistic."

When I hear "realistic" I envision you dealing your opponent QQ vs your AKs. They're likely to win the pot 53% (to your 46%) of the time. Now here comes a flop of all blanks, a blank on the turn and a K on the river. You win. (Yawn).

That's as "real" as it gets. Maybe stacking did it, maybe a bottom deal, maybe a peek and a deuce. Maybe just marked cards. Why cares? The point is, dealing yourself a royal flush is more interesting to 99% of the people on the planet, even if it bores you and me because it's so cliched and over the top.

Know your audience. I've performed for some pretty serious poker players (Ferguson and Helmuth to name a few). I can assure you, they [i]didn't[/i] see 4 Aces and royal flush endings. They saw stuff like what I wrote up above. And they loved it. But to foist that type of highly accurate demo on regular people is crazy. They won't understand the significance and you'd be much better off with a demo they can relate to.

Jason
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 20, 2018 02:01PM)
To add to Jason's point if you do Royal Flush/4 Ace endings the audience of non serious poker players (A huge percentage of the population.) they assume you can do anything.

It is about an audience being left with what impression you want and if you can accomplish that. When magicians want to come to gambling places with flashy moves and no real world experience then sure it is something to call them on. But if they are only doing demos for people it isn't a big deal.

Poker and the finer points of same is BORING.