One of the first things I ever learned to do with a deck of cards was to stack it!

The other day I decided to stack a deck again, purely out of boredom.



Do any of you use stacked decks?

If so for what effects?

(Simply naming a chosen card doesn’t do it for me.)



And, how do you get over the spectator not being allowed to shuffle or even examine the cards for too long? That’s assuming you use it at all!



If you don’t, why not? What are its disadvantages?



I would appreciate your comments!



Thanks,

Gonz



_________________

"All the world’s a cookie jar,

The people merely crumbs.

I happen to be one of the chocolate chips"

-Garfield

There are some stacks, like Aronson’s and Osterlind’s, that they can examine all they want and not find anything. Someone else, I think ’twas GreatScott, mentioned in another section forum? topic? (what’s the correct term?) Darwin Ortiz’ handling for getting into the Si Stebbins stack from a new deck that was brought by the person who hired him. That’s something that works great, and you can false shuffle and let the audience people cut the deck and stuff, because the stack is like an endless chain so it doesn’t matter where it stops and starts (meaning what cards are at the top and bottom). Then after you do a few stacked deck miracles you let them shuffle and go on with tricks where you don’t need a stacked deck.

I really like the Si Stebbins set up. I know what you mean about the pick a card part, but it works well for mental miracles

You’re right. It is pointless stacking a deck if all you are going to do is ask someone to pick a card.



There are some incredibly strong stacked deck effects out there and if you shuffle the deck after the trick and destroy the stack, they can handle it all they like before you do other stuff.



It really depends on where and what type of performance you are doing. Some people stack a deck and don’t want to destroy it because they will have to set it up all over again, they treat it as a trick deck that should be kept separate, duh!



In the last Aronson book it details how his stack can be used to find four fives. Then how it can be used to find four nines, then how to.. Shucks, if I want to find four of a kind I have ’em on top to start with.



However, there are great, strong effects to be done with stacked decks. Thankfully they have not been put on easy to master videotapes, you still have to search them out.



Keep reading, then you can dig out gems not so many others are doing, and certainly fool the heck out of the razzle dazzle boys.



p.s.

To say some stacks can be examined all they want is not really correct.

If they were looking at a spread they may not spot anything, but if the cards were handed out for examination they would probably mix or shuffle the cards destroying the stack anyway.

And you are never going to spread the cards and say, "Examine these - but you mustn’t touch!"

For me, it's all about being nonchalant with the cards, and doing some false table riffles.



If you're gonna use stacks, you should be adept at false cuts and shuffles.



I also believe that you should never say, NO when someone asks if they can shuffle the cards. Just forget about your stack and blow them away with TRIUMPH.

I like the Nikola stack. But stacks are not everything. Given that it's not very magical to refuse somebody's request to shuffle the deck, I reckon a good magician should always be ready to switch into 'impromptu' mode. And if you've been doing a couple of stack miracles, your impromptu effects had better be pretty d**n good! So if you use a stack, don't forget to practise a nice routine or two where the spec gets to shuffle

Stacks are great.

Fan them in front of someone to verify they're mixed. Have them cut it a few times. Have 3 people pick up the top 3 cards and you can perform a minor miracle.



AA

I’ve seen some incredible things done with stacks and I even play with them a little myself. I don’t use them much in performance though because they’re just too much trouble. I don’t mind keeping control of the deck, because I don’t hand my stuff out anyway, but there’s just so much I can do without stacking. Still, my hat is off to the stackers that put the time into setting up. They really do pull off some phenomenal effects.



Sable

Again, the Stebbins stack from a new deck (using Ortiz’ "Si Stebbins Secret") takes about half a minute, and I have some entertaining patter to cover it.

I do lots of stuff with unstacked decks as well, but as Dr. Zola said to Bert Allerton: "You can take a stacked deck and follow any great artist with cards, and your spectators will think you are the better magician."

I’ve just read Boris Wild’s new book "The Complete Boris Wild Marked Deck" which also explains his stacked deck. I learned it in 2 minutes but if you failed math then you’ll have to work a little harder than most.

It allows you to know what card at a given number and what position in the deck every card is at. The book has several excellent routines including a diabolical use of the marked/stacked deck using the Si Stebbins stack.

If you are looking for a stack that can be spread face up and looked at closely, then this is not the ideal one. However, if you are looking for a good, simple stack to learn, I would recommend it.


Regards,

Jon

I agree with Gilbreth about being nonchalant, that's probably why I like Harry Lorayne's 'Lazy Man's Card Trick' so much.

Lorayne's Lazy Man's Card Trick?

Paul.

Paul's surprised question is due to the fact that Al Koran is the creator of "The Lazy Man's Card Trick," not Harry Lorayne (or even Michael Ammar! )

The following, relating to the ’Lazy Man’s Card Trick’, is based on information published in a column that Jon Racherbaumer posted on GeMiNi a few years ago.



In Harry Lorayne’s "Close-Up Card Magic" (1962) the trick is credited to Jack Miller and Al Koran. Koran apparently fooled Lorayne with his presentation, but the principle was published earlier in Rufus Steele’s "50 Tricks You Can Do, You Will Do, Easy To Do" (1946). The effect, ’That Number Down’, is credited to Doc Miller in the Steele book.

Actually, the principle is much older than that. According to the arcane book, "Magic for our Modern Times," by Elbert Hamilton (a book of magic for the general public released at the turn of the last century), almost this exact same principle (with a different presentation) was being used by many magicians in both the States and England.



However, the routine, "Lazy Man’s Card Trick" is Al Koran’s.

Working with Simon Aronson's Stack will give you some of the strongest close-up card magic ever created.

If you need any convincing, please read Michael Close's essay "On the memorized stack" page 122 of Workers Vol 5.

Talking about the "Lazy Man's Card Trick", Simon Aronson's "Everybody's Lazy" page 167 from "Simply Simon" is a killer

Is it possible to post on a thread like this that's over six years old? Probably not, but I don't really care. Just saw it, and it'd make me feel better. Just for the record - the presentation of The Lazy Man's Card Trick that I teach, have taught since 1962, and popularized - is mine. Interesting that no one above mentions that. I feel better now! HARRY LORAYNE.

The question is that once you learn a stack, you keep it for life. People may state otherwise but, believe me, it's the case. Or don't believe me and ask Claude Rix.

Stacks may or may not have purposes. Some are built with gambling routine in minds, some with mentalism or memory feats purposes...

I built mine to use the little known mirror stack principle, and to make it easy to remember (it's not the only one) and to have no detectable color permutations.
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......start=30
February 4 2009 5:13
Mine is not better than any other, it just gets into rarely shown series of effects which, along the act, cannot lead the spectators towards any suspicion of stacking. That's what I needed for a specific card act which climaxes with Juan Tamariz's Total Coincidence, and that's what I did build it for.

Thus I would suggest before any lifetime commitment to buy Martin Joyal's book on stacks: he explains very well how to compare the aims, the pros and cons of many stack types and you'll be able to make up your mind according to your taste and personality: don't jump too fast on gambling stacks (it's somethig that spectators suspect in gambling even when they don't detect it)

Now whatever stack you chose, you cannot avoid Studying Juan Tamariz's Mnemonica and, as suggested by other members, Simon Aaronson's work on stacks. They took even the revised Oesterlind's one to a further step (IMHO).

Then why in Close-Up Card Magic (copyright 1962) did you credit the presentation to Al Koran? After describing the presentation in considerable detail, you say, “The above is exactly how Al Koran fooled me.” Did he fool you with your own presentation?

Count: Because I was young, and didn't feel it was right to say that it was all my presentation when dealing with someone so much more important than I at that time - my first book, and thrilled that someone like Al would even talk to me! It simply didn't occur to me, as it didn't with much of the other stuff in that book where I added my presentation to effects others showed me and gave me permission to use. I can tell you now that the original I saw was a bore; but I did see the value of it, as I did with other contributions for that book, all those years ago. Okay? I did straighten all this out in Lorayne: The Classic Collection, Vol. 1 when I re-wrote and updated Close-Up Card Magic along with all the other books. Take a look at it, and you'll see. And, did he "fool me with my own presentation?" No, he did not; honestly, there was no presentation. Hope I've answered your question, Count. (Frankly, when I first saw your post, the first answer that came to my mind was -"Because I felt like it!" But then I thought that your post, which I originally felt was uncalled for, deserved a legitimate response. All the best. HARRY LORAYNE.