I posted about this with the card tricks but didn't get much help. Any of you math guys out there count cards? If so I know that it is possible to tell what card they have chosen from the deck by counting. I need some help if anybody has ever done this trick.

Thanks

Magicman123,

In the "Pick a card...any card" forum, you wrote:

"I know how to count cards, and I know it is possible to tell what card the spectator has by going through the deck 2 times. Does anybody do this or even count cards? IF so I could use some help."

Perhaps you could ask a more specific question. When you say you count cards,
do you mean "count cards" in the sense that a blackjack player uses the term?

As pointed out in "Pick a card...", it's possible to tell what card is missing
with just one pass through the deck, although it's much easier to do two
quick runs through the deck.

Did you consult the books you were referred to in the other forum?

By counting cards I do mean in a blckjack sense. (Negative and positive values)
I know how to do other ways by going through the deck. I just wanted to see if anybody does the trick by actually "counting cards". Thanks again

I don't "count cards" but have a few effects that hinge on my being able to estimate the number of cards in a cut. Always fun to work with, bro!

Using modern blackjack card counting technique, it is impossible to tell what card is missing. This is because the values (+1, 0 and -1) only relate to the ranges, not the value or the suit. Using that technique, if you go through a complete deck, you'll only be able to say what range the remaining card is in.

There are mathematical approaches that will allow you to determine the missing card by going through the deck twice.

If you want to be able to go through the deck once, and be able to name the value and suit of the missing card, the only answer is to study memory training techniques.

The only answer?

OK, the only answer that I know of if you want to be able to do it legitimately.

You can, of course, turn to certain magician's techniques if you wish to do this.

Harry Lorayne's Epitome locations and Simon Aronson's Oh-Pity-Me location are some ways to start.

If I recall correctly also Martin Gardner once described somewhere a one-pass system using fingers and foot positions. Anyone know what I'm talking about here? Maybe it was in Magic Mystery Mathematics?

Jack Shalom

There are mathematical approaches that will allow you to determine
the missing card by going through the deck ONCE.

Jack, you're right about Gardner detailing such a system in
_Mathematics, Magic and Mystery_. The reference was given here:
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......2&11
(near the end of the thread).

Both of the Gardner books referenced in the thread above are
readily available in many public libraries.

Using pure memory is great, but if you're only trying to determine
a single card missing from a deck...there's no need to work that hard.
You don't need that powerful of a tool.

Scott, I'm confused by your use of the word "legitimately." Please be
patient with me. Perhaps I'm misreading your post, but it sounds like
you consider the math. method that uses two runs through the deck
to be "legitimate." Why wouldn't the one-pass methods be legitimate?

Confused,
Stan Alger

Magicman123,

I sent you a private message several days ago, trying to
get you started. According to my outbox, it still hasn't
been read. When you sign into The Magic Café, you should
see a flashing box near the upper right corner of the
screen. Click on it to read the private message.

Best wishes,
Stan Alger

...and the above thread will reference yet another thread. Pay special
attention to Hideo Kato's contributions. I've yet to get my hands
on the Jan 2003 MAGIC, but I love the idea of casting out 30's for
"Move a Card."

That is why, when I clarified myself I added and emphasized the phrase "that I know of". I was unaware of Martin Gardner's one-pass method when I wrote that.

I'm confused by your characterization of the memory version as "working hard". Take a few minutes one night and learn Bob Farmer's playing card mnemonics. Once you've got good solid images in your mind of each of those things, and can relate them to the card, pick up a deck, shuffle and set one card aside.

Set one or more cards aside. Each time you see a card, picture it's mnemonic going up in flames. AD? Picture Adam being burned. 3C? Picture a "Throwback" (however you picture that) going up in flames. 7S? Picture a Seashell being burned, and so on...

Once you're done, mentally run through all the clubs, and see if there's any you don't recall being burned. If so, that non-burned card is the missing card. Otherwise, mentally run through the hearts, spades and diamonds until you do.

Being able to do this legitimately for a night's work and the occasional review? I don't think that is too bad.

Probably one of the best things about this approach is not only can you do more than one card, it actually gets easier AND simultaneously more impressive to most lay audiences with more cards.

Whether you use the left brain (math) version or the right brain (imagining the burned images) version, it boils down to personal preference.

I wrote: "there's no need to work that hard." "Hard" in a relative sense.
Using mnemonics to achieve the goal magicman123 is aiming for may not
be hard, but isn't it harder than using the adding method?

I agree that the mnemonic version is more versatile. The math version won't
work if two cards are removed. But if you're trying to determine a SINGLE
card that's been removed (and isn't that what magicman123 wants to be able
to do?), why use a sledge hammer when a tack hammer will do?

How quickly can you deal through the cards when using the mnemonic approach?

Stan

With a little practice, you can easily get to 1-2 cards per second. With more intense practice, you may even be able to do up to 3 cards per second - allowing you to go through all the cards (except for the excluded card, of course) in only 17 seconds!

Scott,
That's impressive!
For someone working to improve their skill at using
mnemonics, I suppose using the "math method"
(for detecting a single missing card) could be
viewed as a missed opportunity to get yet another
mnemonic practice session in.

Stan

This is an easy routine ... that is of course, if it is the same routine of which I am thinking.

I have PM'd you - wulfie

There is that name trick.