I have been reading up on stacks and wanted to see if they worked for me. I took a Si Stebbins setup to a party last week and tried a few tricks that went over well. I have a few specific questions.....

1) Are any of these other stacks cyclical or just memorized decks? (ie: Aronson, Osterlind, Mnemonica, Ayers). I like the ability to cut the deck and keep the setup intact. Any other cyclical stacks worth looking into?

2) What are some good references for Stebbins stack material?

3) What are your favorite or strongest NON-mentalism tricks that can be done with a Stebbins stack?

4) Which stacks (cyclical or not) provide a good range of gambling and other non-mentalism type of effects.

Some quick answers:
1) Actually all memorized decks are cyclical since Stack Value 1 follows Stack Value 52. However, if you are referring to a formulaic cyclicality, then Osterlind's stack works. The unique aspect of Si Stebbins is that each 26th card is a matching value and color. A GREAT variation on Si Stebbins is "Si Stebbins Pro" by Dr. Hans-Christian Solka (http://www.memdeck.de.ki/). It is a really excellent Stebbins setup that does not have the tell-take red-black alternating sequence.

2) This one I'm not sure about.

3) The hands-down best Si Stebbins routine is Al Koran's "Encore Card Stab" from his book "Al Koran's Professinoal Presentations" edited by Hugh Miller. It was published by Harry Stanley in London, England, and I think the year was 1970 (for some reason a lot of my older British books do not have a publication date.)

4) Aronson and Tamariz stacks have some great gambling routines built in.

Nick

A very good ebook - SI STEBBINS UNPLUGGED:

http://www.trickshop.com/stebbins.html

As Nick said, Osterlind's stack is a formula-based cycle -- a 52-card cycle -- and has the advantage of not being red-black-red-black. It has a couple of built-in gambling effects, a blackjack effect and a draw-poker effect, but it seems that these were more discoveries than purposely built into the stack. Still, what works works whether intended at first or not.

On the other hand, I found Osterlind's formula a bit complicated for performance, so I went ahead and memorized the darned thing.

Bill

TIP.
When I use a Si Stebbins System Stack I spread the cards "randomly" in groups on the table to hide the obvious pattern.
I rather drop the cards around the surface, the normal way to spread the card is bad if yo use this kind of system stack.

Thanks. I will look at the e-book referenced.

Nick, does the SS Pro keep the numeric order of the cards and only change the suit order? Is it easy to calculate the next suit?

I understand its weakness vs other stacks when it comes to showing the cards to the spectator, but that is not a primary concern for me. I basically patter while doing a false shuffle then ask them to cut the deck for me. Depending on the trick, I will do a quick open and shut spread to show they are mixed before asking them to cut, and then continue. I like the simplicity of the system.

I want to develop a routine that starts with 2 or 3 good stack-based tricks before breaking up the stack and going on to other tricks, so I am looking for recommendations.

Redeagle,

Yes, SS Pro does keep the numeric order of the sequence, and mixes up the colors with one very simple rule. It is quite brilliant, and easy to remember. In fact, I believe this approach will become the de facto standard once it becomes better known.

Regarding stack based tricks, I strongly recommend learning a memorized deck (any will do) -- and then study Aronson and Tamariz.

Nick

Si Stebbins und Si Stebbins Pro

http://www.memdeck.de.ki/

Did yo know?

Its possible to discover the identity of a card at any position with a Si Stebbins System Stack: The Rules of Four.
Its four separate formulas to find any card named in the deck.

Very clever and useful, almost like a memorized deck.

Thanks. I have been thinking about mnemonica, but am not quite sure I want to go to a mem deck right now. I think I will start with an easy, cyclical stack and see how I like working with it. If I like it, I guess the next logical step would be to memorize a good deck with built in routines. I think I will be getting the SS Pro e-book based on the above feedback.

Has anybody had any experience with the Mick Ayres stack? It is fairly new so there is not much info on it in the Café. It seem to be presented as not too complex, cyclical and with no repeating number or suit patterns.

Red Eagle,

Here's another stack to think about. It's Doug Dyment's 'QuickStack--the 30 minute memorized deck' and it too is a cyclic stack. Unlike Si Stebbins (or SS Pro) the values do not increment (or decrement) in a deterministic fashion. The suits are well mixed as well. You can very quickly get up to speed on the stack and do many memdeck type effects. The more advanced memdeck effects may have to wait until you have the deck truly memorized. But the beauty of this stack is that you can be productive and produce miracles for spectators even before you completely memorize the stack.

Another benefit that I've never heard discussed is that it will give you a real sense for the power of memdeck work so can you truly decide if putting in the time for rote memorization is even worth it to you.

The biggest downside is that there are no built-in gambling type effects. However, there are other effects available that you cannot do with a completely 'random' stack like Aronson's or Tamariz's stacks.

Thanks to everybody. I have been working with the SS stack. I got the SS Pro e-book. Some nice things there. I have been reviewing all the SS stack tricks to see which effects I like best or if I can string some together into a routine. I will post an update once I get it all straight.

I believe Steven Youell uses Si Stebbins as his Mem Deck. I believe Bob King also has some good Si Stebbins material in some of his books. Then you also have to remember Darwin Ortiz's method for getting into the stack from new deck order, which can also be a useful tool to have at your disposal.

Thanks. You are right. Now I only need to learn how to faro.... Actually, a faro shuffle was never big on my hit list until I read Steven Youell's notes about how he uses Darwin's method to get into SS from a new deck. Once I learn that, I will spend the money on Darwin's book for the secret method.

In the thread about Juan Tamariz's Total coincidence, I was asked about my own stack.

It uses a phrase like the "Eight kings threatened to save ninety-five queens for one sick knave" (8, K, 3, 10, 2, 7, 9, 5, Q, 4, A, 6, J). The mirroring system also called "palindromic" stack calls for half of the deck to be stacked in that order and the other half to be stacked in the opposite (symmetrical) order.

Thus the classic Rosary system should be reversed for the second half of the deck.
Thus the stack (8, K, 3, 10, 2, 7, 9, 5, Q, 4, A, 6, J) in reverse would start with the last card "jack" and then the one before last in the stack: the 6. Then the previous one: A; etc to end up with half of the deck stacked twice as stated
(8, K, 3, 10, 2, 7, 9, 5, Q, 4, A, 6, J) and the second half twice as (J, 6, A, 4, Q, 5, 9, 7, 2, 10, 3, K, 8). Thus after the first half as "Eight kings threatened to save ninety-five queens for one sick knave", the second half keeps on as "Jack see as four Queens, five mines' thieves to tend three kings hate" (not making a lot of sense but easy to remember)

Now in order to avoid seeing a repetitive rotation like the CHaSeD order in the colors, the suites are arranged as follows in the first half: if the card is odd go one step further in CHaSeD order and if the card is even go two steps further in the same CHaSeD order. (Credit for this fantastic idea to Docc Hilford in Son of Killer Mentalism with Cards video: very easy to use and looks random). The principle is applied symmetrically starting with the last card for the second half.

This very unusual stacking system and its modification allows special effects which are not possible otherwise.

The deck is marked with Boris Wild’s variant of Ted Lesley’s marking, on a League Back Bicycle deck to be able to use Anneman’s discovery about this rarely used one way deck which can be read from a long distance.

The combination of these tools supplies an extended number of possibilities which are rarely gathered and enable to perform totally different effects within the same act.

Combining a marked deck with the mirror principle allows really impossible possibilities: a mirror deck can be faro shuffled as many time as desired without destroying its symmetry.

It is possible to match a card's value and position in two halves after the spectator having selected one of them...

Does this give you any idea?

It will take you less time to learn this than to do a Faro shuffle and Steven Youell uses so many new deck in his act that it gives him a very good reason to get into it like this, but do you intend to always burn a new deck at each and every one of your shows? Because if you don't, Steven's otherwise interesting discovery might lead you to the wrong stack.

M. LawrenceO,

Your feedback, as ever, is greatly appreciated. Almost all the reading I have been doing in the past month is on stacks and memorized decks. I have two of Aronson's books and a borrowed copy of Mnemonica, which now that it has been returned, I must go purchase a personal copy.

You make a good point, and I have considered that this method is only good when you are working from a fresh deck. I like the possibilities, but grant that it is only of partial utility to me. I read about your stack in the secret sessions area, but thank you for posting in this thread. The mirror stack principle is interesting and I experimented with the SS stack that way but at the end found it easier to stay with the std formula since I didn't have any effect that takes advantage of the mirror feature.

If you were a spectator at a show what effect would impress you? I don't mean one that you already know. Think about it and then figure out a way to do it. If it impresses you what would it do to your audience? In other words don't rely on what others have done. Make a path that no one else has traveled.Think of the satisfaction of being a creator of you own special effect.

Really? How so? Just because you CAN get the deck in Si Stebbins order from a new deck order doesn't mean you HAVE to use a new deck. If you don't use a new deck, what's the difference between setting up Si Stebbins and any OTHER memorized stack? The Hacker Stack lets you do both. And in all the years I've used it, not a single time has the audience detected alternating cards. And that includes the times I spread them face up oo the table.

Maybe I misunderstood you, my friend-- could you clarify?

SEY

One way of overcoming the 'apparent pattern' problem is to not allow the spectator to see the cards. Some fine mentalizt effects can be performed by allowing a card to be selected from the deck. You "get a glimse" of that card by cutting to the bottom or hold a break and peaking later. either way you know the drwn card and can repeat several times. Using a "one ahead" prediction approach allows for you to predict what card the spectator is thinking of before they find it in the deck. No one catches on since they never see the faces. Have the deck shuffled before you draw your card at the end to close the prediction note writing loop. Very impressive. PM if this is not clear.