|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Stephen Long Inner circle 1481 Posts |
Or why not perform Harris' wonderful "Gambler vs. Mentalist vs. Magician"?
It uses NO false shuffles and yet the cards are clearly seen to be shuffled face up into face down. Harris' "Travelling Triumph" was mentioned. This version is certainly my favourite. The way I present it means that it has three climaxes, each being stronger than the last. There are so many possibilities with this effect - try it. Stephen :carrot:
Hello.
|
|||||||||
Jason Fleming Veteran user Marooned, Hawaii 374 Posts |
Harris' "Gambler vs. Mentalist vs. Magician" is indeed an awesome effect, and the slights aren't obvious during the performance. Especially if people are burning your hands for the false shuffle. If you're interested, it's on page 191 of Art of Astonishment Book 1. (Can you tell I like it?)
And...... of course laypeople have seen playing cards before and handled them often. I taught magic to middle school students last summer and I couldn't walk down the hallway without stepping into or onto some card game. There is no shortage of retired military guys vacationing here in Waikiki who will tell me a story about some guy they played poker with on a destroyer back in the war who could do this thing with the Aces... at which point I can launch into a Triumph avec shuffle-de-slop and rip their faces off. So yes, I do honestly believe that it's possible to get the same response. I love, absolutely love, learning new handlings, skills, sleights, and thinking about how to apply them to real-world routines. I just hope that we aren't suggesting that a complicated handling will take the place of streamlined, creative, and entertaining presentation. Laypeople are impressed by the effect, not the method... Happy shuffling! :pepper: |
|||||||||
Scott F. Guinn Inner circle "Great Scott!" aka "Palms of Putty" & "Poof Daddy G" 6586 Posts |
Use what works for you. If you don't like a certain sleight or move, don't do it--but what do you care if someone else does? Perhaps their presentation or persona allows them to pull off things that you can't.
If we strive to be the best magican we can possibly be, focussing not just on methods, but performing persona, presentation, and audience management, there will be times when you could virtually do the move completely openly and no one would notice. I think it's good to try to learn more advanced methods. But some people, at this point in their development, simply can't do the more difficult moves. And that's fine, because all of us were in that same place at one time in our development. Use a Slop Shuffle if that's all you know or if that's what works for you. But consider that maybe another shuffle could be more convincing, and if you decide there is a chance it could, continue using the Slop Shuffle until you learn the other method. Or stick with the SS if you want. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter that much. It's just a bloody shuffle!
"Love God, laugh more, spend more time with the ones you love, play with children, do good to those in need, and eat more ice cream. There is more to life than magic tricks." - Scott F. Guinn
My Lybrary Page |
|||||||||
Jason Fleming Veteran user Marooned, Hawaii 374 Posts |
Well said, Scott.
It's all in the presentation... |
|||||||||
Thomas Wayne Inner circle Alaska 1977 Posts |
Quote:
On 2002-04-16 21:16, DocFleming wrote: Um, that's not exactly what Scott said. The message he was conveying was that there must be a balance between focusing on method and focusing on presentation; that's not the same as "It's all in the presentation...". And based on what I know about Scott, I doubt he would settle for less than his very best when it comes to method. I would agree that presentation is important, and would further argue that presentation is measurably MORE important than method, BUT - and this is a very big but - a WEAK method will usually result in a WEAK presentation. There is no trick, routine or act that cannot be improved by the application of careful analysis, with an eye toward pursuing excellence. I didn't say that, Alan Wakeling did. and he's absolutely right. In other words, there's always room for improvement. For that reason I never consider a routine "perfected"; I'm always looking for a cleaner, better more magical result. To do otherwise is just plain sloppy; there's a good reason it's called the "slop shuffle". For example, when I first learned Larry Jennings' "The Visitor", I performed it as he had performed it, with the four Kings. During one performance, a year or two later, I noticed a glint in the eye of one of my audience members at a crucial point in that routine. Afterwards I approached him and asked him about it and he pointed out a discrepancy that had escaped my (and apparently Larry Jennings') notice: at one point the audience is asked to believe that the non-pip corner of one King is actually the corner of a King of the opposite color. My astute audience member turned out to be a weekend poker player, and he had noticed that what was supposed to be a tiny corner of the King of Clubs was actually a tiny corner of the King of Hearts. You see, the King of Hearts is a "suicide King", a fact well known to most poker players, and the difference in weapon position was instantly apparent to this guy. Now, taking the "slop shuffle" approach, I could just say to myself: "He's just one guy and most laypeople don't know anything about playing cards and it'll just be easier to keep doing it the way I already learned; after all, that usually rips their faces off...", and if I were a "slop shuffle" advocate, I would probably do just that. But I'm not. Instead, I examined just exactly how I could correct the problem, first by planning the order of the Kings and calculating how to force the choice of Kings on my victim. But I also talked to several poker players and discovered that they all knew the Jacks (some have only one eye, don't you know) and Kings, but NONE of them knew the differences between the QUEENS! I now use the Queens for that routine (and several others) and I have the confidence of knowing that even an astute poker player will be fooled. None of this effort to improve "The Visitor" had anything to do with presentation, yet the final result ensures that the presentation will not be ruined by settling for the easier, original method I learned. I don't care how many laypeople you've fooled (or THINK you've fooled) with the "slop shuffle", I'm absolutely sure that some percentage of them have seen right through the charade, and that some others in the future will also see through it. It's been said that most magicians spend the bulk of their time fooling themselves, and believing in "good enough" is an obvious example of that exercise. My question is, why would you ever want to settle for "good enough", when GREAT is just a little practice, study and analysis away? Don't you want your magic to be the strongest it can possibly be? Cleave to the "slop shuffle" if you must, but be aware that MOST of what magicians think "goes right by them", doesn't. Regards, Thomas Wayne
MOST magicians: "Here's a quarter, it's gone, you're an idiot, it's back, you're a jerk, show's over." Jerry Seinfeld
|
|||||||||
Stephen Long Inner circle 1481 Posts |
Quote:
On 2002-04-16 20:51, Scott F. Guinn wrote: Is it, though? I'm sure not all would agree with that. But I do have to say that the first time I was shown the slop shuffle, I was mildly bemused. I pulled out a deck a few minutes later, did exactly what the chap who showed me the slop shuffle did, and realized exactly what was going on. I think you'll find that the slop shuffle isn't a tricky one to figure out for anyone who really wants to (not least of all poker players). Good magic should live on as just that in the minds of the spectator for long after you have shown them the effect. (Incidentally, I have just come off the phone with a friend's mother, to whom I showed the invisible deck about a month ago. The conversation lasted about 20 minutes and was based on her complete lack of any idea as to how it was done - the effect lived on long after it was seen. I don't know if the same could be said of an effect involving a slop shuffle.) Anyhoo... Who am I to question what works for you and what doesn't? It is just my belief that the mystery of the slop shuffle is not too difficult to solve for those who would seek its secret. Then again, rather an excellent slop shuffle than a hideous pull through or Zarrow. Going back to Scott's "It's just a bloody shuffle" quote, I believe he was probably implying that on the greater scale of things, it doesn't really matter. In that context, I would be the first to agree with him. A person dies of hunger every 6 seconds. Doc Fleming uses a slop shuffle. :hmmm: Some thoughts, Stephen :carrot:
Hello.
|
|||||||||
Scott F. Guinn Inner circle "Great Scott!" aka "Palms of Putty" & "Poof Daddy G" 6586 Posts |
Thomas makes some valid points. Mine was simply that not everyone can do the more difficult moves. I personally do use the slop shuffle on occasion, but...
I do it as I am giving the puchline of a joke, and everyone is laughing and relaxed. Like the Flushtration Count, I don't use it as a "selling" move, but rather as one that happens in the periphery of their concentration. It works very well for me in that case. I add "convincers" AFTER the SS, which help to sell it (for example, Daryl's display). Thus, I am "underselling" the shuffle itself, and "selling" the condition of the topsy-turvey deck after the fact. I do believe that, properly executed, Vernon's pull-through or the Zarrow are superior, but, like the SS, they, too, are often butchered. In conclusion, I feel that a well-executed Slop Shuffle is better than a poorly-executed anything else shuffle, and that it is imperative that, regardless of which you use, that you have good routine construction, a good presentation, and good execution of whatever technique you decide to use.
"Love God, laugh more, spend more time with the ones you love, play with children, do good to those in need, and eat more ice cream. There is more to life than magic tricks." - Scott F. Guinn
My Lybrary Page |
|||||||||
Stephen Long Inner circle 1481 Posts |
Quote:
On 2002-04-16 23:24, Scott F. Guinn wrote: BINGO! Good Lord, I'm buying one of your books, Scott. I've just decided. :banana:
Hello.
|
|||||||||
Damion Corbett Regular user 115 Posts |
Hollingworth has a great Triumph routine in his book which utilises a nice in-the-hands strip out shuffle.
Incredibly fair looking. |
|||||||||
Mark Ennis Inner circle Raleigh, NC 1031 Posts |
Please do not take this as an insult or a personal attack (this is not my intention), but I (personally) would rather not perform an effect like Triumph than use a less than convincing sleight (like the slop shuffle) to accomplish the task.
There are many gambling routines I would love to perform but I have yet to master the bottom deal or the second deal and doing it poorly is not an option for me. I have seen many magicians try to do a gambling demo for someone, only to perform one of the worst bottom deals in the history of man. When the spectator asks himself "Would this go past me in a game?" and his immediate answer would be "absolutely not" he will be less than impressed. They may be polite but definitely not impressed. It may take a bit more practice and study to make your magic stronger and more memorable but I think you will get more mileage out of your magic if you analyze your effects (analyze everything from the structure of the routine, the patter, the timing and the sleight of hand) and evolve these effects into "magic". Your audience will thank you for it.
ME
|
|||||||||
Geoff Williams Special user St. Pete Beach, FL 617 Posts |
Quote:
On 2002-04-17 07:34, Mark Ennis wrote: Hmmm, I used Lorraine's marvelous Slop Shuffle twice last night and got gasps at the revelation of the face-up card. I suppose even a technique as simple as the SS can be done incorrectly and unconvincingly. As a side note, I challenge kids who are regular customers to come back some time and show ME a trick. Last night, one kid (probably all of 8 years old) used the Cross Cut Force on me (he didn't do it justice). It's not in my repertoire, anyway, but it was surprising to see such a move used by a layperson (although he might be a budding magician).
"Saját légpárnás tele van angolnák."
(Hungarian for "My hovercraft is full of eels") |
|||||||||
Scott O. Inner circle Midwest 1143 Posts |
Quote:
On 2002-04-16 14:10, Thomas Wayne wrote: I whole heartedly agree. I liked the triumph effect, but never "got my hands" on one that I cared to work on--until I saw Larry Jennings 'Out-Standing Triumph'. It really does fry magicians who know the Vernon method and the slop shuffle method. Of course I was fried by the slop shuffle method the first time I saw it performed. So I really can't say one is better than the other. I will say that that the best one is the one you like to perform. . . but do take a look at Jennings' version. It really is out-standing. Scott .
Do not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time you will reap a harvest, if you do not give up. Galatians 6:9
|
|||||||||
Jim Morton Veteran user 361 Posts |
Yeah, the slop shuffle is a lousy move. I guess that's why Eddie Tullock has used it for so many years.
While certainly not on a par with a good push-through shuffle, the slop shuffle can be as convincing as all get out in the right hands. Jim |
|||||||||
prawn_head New user 45 Posts |
Hi guys,
Being quite new to magic, I have only seen Ammar's version of Triumph on ETMCM 1. I am still having some trouble making the false shuffle that Ammar does look convincing. I read throught this thread hoping to find some suggestions/tips on performing this great effect. There seems to be alot of debate regarding the Slop shuffle and the Zarrow shuffle. Can someone please explain to me how to do these shuffles or are they marketed (like Karl Hein's Heinstein Shuffle)? Pat. |
|||||||||
Adam V Special user 603 Posts |
Maybe people use the story of a drunken spectator grabbing the cards and shuffling themselves to sell the trick. I don't know of too many drunkards who would perfectly riffle-shuffle the cards together. Find the method that fits your presentation of the effect the best.
Adam V - 9 out of 10 dentists recommend him.
|
|||||||||
Sybilmagic Loyal user England 275 Posts |
I feel every magician would have there tuppence worth on this thread. I found a great in the hands triumph on a Guy Hollingworth Video. It is called "The London Collection". His handling is outstanding. There are two phases one of which is standard triumph. The second phase has a revelation of not only having one card face down but the 3 mates of that card also. No force at the beginning either.
Intrestingly this could be the version by Sadowitz on show although i believe the second phase could be a larry Jennings idea. The second phase also has a in the hands display of face up face down. It isn't easy but wouldn't be beyond the work of the average lover of cards. |
|||||||||
Scott F. Guinn Inner circle "Great Scott!" aka "Palms of Putty" & "Poof Daddy G" 6586 Posts |
So it would seem that while there may be several differing, definite opinions on the shuffle used to accomplish the effect, we all agree that it is a great trick!
"Love God, laugh more, spend more time with the ones you love, play with children, do good to those in need, and eat more ice cream. There is more to life than magic tricks." - Scott F. Guinn
My Lybrary Page |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » The card trick: Triumph (Dai Vernon) » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 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 < |