|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 | ||||||||||
Chris K Inner circle 2544 Posts |
Charles,
Interesting response. We happen to agree on most of the main points. As such, I am required by law to recommend a CT scan immediately, there may be something seriously wrong with you ;-) The issues with using the BCS, or any stack, for me are graded. Multiple riffle shuffles (unexpected, by the spectator) would be the worst, followed by a single riffle shuffle, followed by multiple overhand shuffles, and so on and so forth. Mentioning the cards are in some order belongs up there, but it's hard for me to identify where. Would I rather have them overhand shuffle than think they were stacked? I would, but I would also rather have the cards riffle shuffled multiple times then simply proceed into an alternate effect. I guess that makes the thought of a "stacked deck" the worst thing, logically then. For ME. With that in mind, it makes sense what I have judged to be my ideal situation (deck switch, after which they can examine the deck forever). Ok, next question for those who are playing: Somebody mentions stacked deck or the idea, let them shuffle or not? I realize this is getting into highly theoretical waters but this is how I learn things, seeing how other people might react and adjusting my reactions when I find something better. Lem |
|||||||||
Andreas S. New user Germany 60 Posts |
I'm a beginner, so maybe someone can correct me, if I'm doing wrong.
It never happened to me, that someone knows the BCS except of me. I can show the cards are totally random. So mostly there are no problems at all. But there are some things that can happen and did happen to me. 1. The spectator just does a few cuts to "shuffle" the cards. Of course, this is absolutly fantastic because you can tell them, that they shuffled the cards before. 2. The spectator does some overhand shuffles. Then I take a close look, how he does it. If he shuffles the cards very poorly, I will continue with it. Maybe I will change the performance a bit, so that I am able to get an explanation, why I missed the card. 3. If the spectator really shuffles the cards, than I will do a similar performace. If I am not able to find it out, then I force it. So to come to your question. Normally I instruct the people in a way, they won't get the idea of shuffle the deck. Mostly there also seems to be no reason for doing this. But if they do, I normally let them shuffle the deck. If someone mentions a stacked deck, I just have to show the cards. They are random. Just some thoughts, Best Regards By the way. I've read, that you can do the BCS backwards. Is there any advantage? |
|||||||||
billm55 Regular user Des Moines, Iowa 144 Posts |
Lemniscate:
With all due respect, as I've seen you do in the past, you're definitely running before you're being chased. I've done this for non-magicians and magicians alike and never has either group had a clue of how it's done. You're over analyzing, my friend. Chill out and have more confidence in your abilities.
Bill Mogolov
The Mental Magic of M |
|||||||||
charlesgmorgan Regular user 199 Posts |
Both Richard's BCS and Mick's MASS can be worked backwards. For some effects, it is nice to be able to go both ways. Take this variant of card calling for example.
You (false) shuffle the deck a few times, and invite a spec to cut to anywhere. Let them take a few off the top. Then you turn the deck over (noting the bottom card as you do so). Tell the spec that of course you have seen the bottom card; but when your back is turned, they should discard the bottom card and take a few off the bottom, and then turn the deck face down again. Then carry on from there. Being able to calculate in both directions makes it possible for you to know all the cards taken. Or if you are doing readings, here is a nice variation. Go through the usual false shuffle and let spec cut ... glimpse the bottom card ... they take the top card for their present card ... use numerology on their birth date to take a card for the past, say at digit np ... and numerology on the current year to take a card for the future, say digit nf. The past card comes off the bottom, np cards from the bottom; the future card comes further down from the top card, nf cards from the top. Now you can calculate all three cards ... you only have to calculate a max of 9 cards in either direction ... stare into your crystal ball while doing the calculations ... jot down some numbers and do the calculation in numbers right in front of the spec ... you are after all doing numerology. Then give a reading and reveal their cards in the process. Sooo, here are a couple of freebies for you that make use of forward and reverse calculations. Cheers .... Charles |
|||||||||
bdekolta Inner circle Texas 1636 Posts |
Andreas - your spectators should not be shuffling the pack. If they are convinced things are random they won't bother. I've performed for close to 35 years and can count on the fingers of one hand the number of spectators that did that. Consult the opening chapters of Erdnase for the simple solution.
Paulo you posting the good stuff. Next thing we know you'll be talking about a donkey with an appetite or some other esoteric info. R/B of the SS is usually not a problem. You won't have a spectator spreading through the pack FU but that is manageable. I use SS frequently because it is so easy to get into while satisfying the Erdnase premise. If anyone ever does notice the R/B just compliment them and comment on how neat they look when they are like that. R/B really explains nothing. Your performance should remove the concept of an arranged pack as a solution from the possible explanations. |
|||||||||
RicHeka Inner circle 3999 Posts |
Just to reiterate my position here:Nobody has ever conveyed to me anything about using a stacked deck[5 years using BCS 3-5 nights a week].If they did I would assume they had some knowledge of the Art..and I would react accordingly to bring things to a successful conclusion.
In my experience...regular folks[I 'personally' dislike the term 'laypeople' ]don't know anything about stacks,DL's,card controls,ID's etc.etc.etc.So why ever bring them up?My performer's guilt is long gone.[Thank god] I think there is a divide here{and I could be wrong}.However,the different philosophies may have something to do with how often a performer 'actually' works in the real world 'night after night'.Anyone here who also works steadily in the trenches should understand my point. Speaking for myself...performing in fast paced Restaurants[which I truly love]...I don't have the time to think about how I am going to justify what I am doing.I just do it as best I can,and use the best audience management and control I can. My only goal is a tight entertaining and fun performance.Then I move on to the next table. Rich |
|||||||||
charlesgmorgan Regular user 199 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-01-21 22:24, RicHeka wrote: Perhaps the difference is not how often you work, but as you note, more the venue in which you work ... "performing in fast paced Restaurants" ... where the primary focus is something other than a magic/mentalism performance. Perhaps one is more likely to be challenged in other venues where there is the time and the inclination for the audience to be a bit more combative. Perhaps in a restaurant setting folks are more inclined to be polite so they can just get on with dinner or whatever else they had planned. Perhaps the frenetic pace at which you work and your spectator management techniques leave no room for a challenge. If you are not concerned about being challenged, then one wonders why you bother with BCS rather than something much simpler. Cheers ..... Charles |
|||||||||
RicHeka Inner circle 3999 Posts |
Good discussion Charles.
The point I was trying to make[which I apparently did a poor job of]is:I believe there is an advantage to performing routines over and over for many different types of guests.It is sort of like intensive training for all possible situations and occurences. 'Restaurant performance' can be fast paced,but not frenetic. quote: "If you are not concerned about being challenged,then one wonders why you bother with BCS rather than something much simpler". That's just the point:Performing BCS routines and other standards of mine so often...makes them fairly 'simple'...which allows for more concentration on the presentation. By the way,of course I do perform my share of private gigs,and the same holds true.Very rare to be challenged,and have little need to justify what I do. I was just wondering why some performers find the need to explain away the possibilities of how an effect was accomplished...that's all.It was mentioned earlier:"why run when you are not being chased". PS.I think it was your statement:"And it makes a nice touch to just hand out the deck and say": "Some magicians use a stacked deck to do this sort of thing".That initally got my 'Irish' up a bit ,and motivated me to respond. I never use the language we use here amongst ourselves with regular folks[but that's just me]. Happy trails. Rich |
|||||||||
sleightofand Regular user London, UK 188 Posts |
I was on the fence about getting the bcs, but my mate matt sheppard tol me to do it and I took the plunge and so happy that I did. I work as a guard and have a lot of time to sit around and got the stack memorized in a day.Now I absolutely fry people with this system. it's excellent. I do however still you the 8 kings set up to for an effect called par otic vison which always get amazing respones. again the bcs can do exactly the same thing.
I think find a stack that works for you and go with it. But with the bcs the cards seem like they are in no pattern what so ever. |
|||||||||
Lord Of The Horses Inner circle 5406 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-01-21 22:17, bdekolta wrote: Dan, Try this one - 4H-KC-7C-3D-10S-2D-8C-5D-JS-QH-AC-6S-9D... This is very esoteric... but VERY GOOD, if you know how to break the code! Good Luck!
Then you'll rise right before my eyes, on wings that fill the sky, like a phoenix rising!
|
|||||||||
Chris K Inner circle 2544 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-01-21 19:10, billm55 wrote: Then you don't understand what I meant by "highly theoretical" but thanks for your opinion. I still think a shuffled deck then a deck switch is the absolute best but I only know how my audiences react, I am sure your audiences are much different. Personally, I consider "running before you are chased" the motto of the lazy. You don't, so it's simply a matter of opinion. More power to you, I wish I could have that same attitude but I'm a bit of a perfectionist. Quote:
On 2009-01-22 09:36, charlesgmorgan wrote: Yup. To ignore the specific situation is quite dangerous. |
|||||||||
RicHeka Inner circle 3999 Posts |
"To ignore the specific situation is quite dangerous".
Ignore a specific situation? Not me...Never! |
|||||||||
charlesgmorgan Regular user 199 Posts |
Quote:
On 2009-01-22 13:31, RicHeka wrote: Indeed, I think we are in basic agreement here. I guess I am just a bit more insecure than you, no doubt because I do not perform as much. And I am just more comfortable if I can forestall the obvious avenues of challenge. As for the language, is there anyone who has not heard of a "stacked deck"? That phrase is in such common usage (unlike T***b T*p or N**l W****r)that I would not consider it a "magician's term", and hence have no qualms using it with lay folk. Well, the spikes and nails have been sorted out, and now we are just "arguing over the needles and pins" Good exchange of viewpoints. Thanks! Cheers ...... Charles |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Breakthrough Card System (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.05 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 < |