I just thought I'd ask this quick question to you all -

I saw the preview for the Malone Meets Marlo DVD's - which was a performance of this effect.

I love the effect, but didn't care at all for the method behind the spectators "mixing" of the cards. It just seemed way too obvious to me. Does anyone else agree?

I could see it fooling most people, but I could see the analytical types seeing right through it.

Anyone have experience with or thoughts on this?

Depends on the presentation. He goes over what to do twice, slowly at first then another time more quickly. The person doing the counting is probably more focused on not screwing up or looking too foolish. In other words, she probably couldn't tell you later what she even did.

Malone presents the "randomizer" shuffle in a manner in which I think the layman would never understand the true conditions. We, as magicians, tend to look more closely, study, analyze and to us it is more obvious.

By the time he is finished showing all of the matches I doubt that she remembers anything other than "I shuffled the cards".

Awesome effect!

Jules Lenier showed me a similar routine some time way back. He expounded on a concept called "Selling the Lie". As well posted as I was at the time, the procedure left me dumbfounded. It's a very clever way to demonstrate to the spectator that the "Randomizer" Shuffle really does what it purports to do. As I recall, it was something Jules dug up from a dusty old book.

This is a great effect. I would never do this as a one on one trick. As Tortuga was saying, I think the additional pressure on the spectator shuffling the cards really adds to the illusion of the cards being shuffled. I have to admit, it fooled me.

Ed

The shuffling procedure is Paul Curry's "A Swindle of Sorts" and is very deceptive if you do it like Curry described it - using demo deals first that clearly shows how the procedure mixes the cards. Add this to "Leipzig would have loved this" instead of the faro like alternating shuffle and you'll have a much more deceptive trick.

Curry's trick can be found in Worlds Beyond.

/Tomas

"I'd like you to shuffle the cards, but make sure you shuffle them in this particular way."
"Why can't I just shuffle them any old way?"
"Errrr..."

I hear you Ross ;o).

Tomas - I'll have to look up that reference to the demo deal - if there's a way to show them mixing, then I would think the real thing would fly, as long as it looked the same.

For some reason on the Malone demo it just looked obvious to me. Whether you deal the two cards singly, or reverse them and put them down - it looked too much like the same procedure.

I'll have to look up an old VHS tape I have - I think it was either Sal Piacente (sp?) or Rich Marotta that had a trick that may have used this - and it fooled me at the time.

For those who are interested.The routine is written up in Marlo Without Tears by Jon Racherbaumer page 95. That is, if people still read to learn magic.

Surely all the debate misses the central point; if it fools the laity - and it does appear to - then perhaps its not really worth agonising over. The cross cut force appears too simple and obvious to us as magicians, and yet it fools even observant, analytical and informed audiences if blocked correctly into a routine.

For those who really don't like it, I might suggest showing the spectator the mechanics of a charlier shuffle and utilising a pencil dot in order to return to the desired position. This kind of proceedure can be easily justified in terms of the "offical small packet shuffle" or some other nonsense, as overhands or riffles are impractical.

The Curry procedure is subtle and deceptive. In live performance it is psychologicaly invisible.

Beyond that is a lack of understanding of what the effect is (vs. the perceived method).

The trick does not rely ONLY on the mixing procedure. The magician's set of cards has been shown to be IN ORDER. The effect is that order changing AS THE SPECTATOR WATCHES. The fact that it matches the one they held, and mixed, is the focus of the effect.

Shodan is correct. Magician's forget that they were fooled by things like the Cross Cut force before they learned to recognize them.

Heck, the cross cut force still gets me sometimes!

Ross, I understand your point, but I think that part of the safeguard against that sort of thing is in choosing your spectator carefully.

For example, I wouldn't choose an aggressive type or a drunk, etc. In Bill's case, the woman was obviously playing along nicely, which is what one would hope.

To me the key is that Bill is demonstrating a special shuffle, even giving it a name. Pure bluff and Chutzpah, but that is vintage Marlo.

Mr. Duncan hit the nail on the head. After the mixing, all attention is really on the magician's packet. This effectively takes some of the heat off of the spectator's packet and the shuffling sequence.

Not to mention the fact that the spectator also believes their cards to be in order when they get them, and the proof that the shuffle "shuffles" follows as they deal a clearly mixed packet during the denouement.

As has been pointed out to me, the magician demos the randomiser shuffle before the spectator gets the cards, however the cards are initially shown to be in numerical order, and after several "randomisers", are no longer in numerical order. The audience must therefore conclude that the shuffles really DID mix the cards.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the procedure DOES mix the cards. I would however recommend against calling the procedure a "shuffle."

Point of clarification - the first shuffle, the "alternating deal" shuffle does indeed mix the cards. The "randomiser" does not of course. What I like about the randomiser is that it involves lots of spectator choices, a theme which is carried through to the reversal of the card at the end of this phase of the trick. The spectator is then in a position to think that the number of variables in play is impressively large, as they made lots of choices, rather than "just two" - the shuffle then the reversal.

When doing routines of the sort, IMO, it is important to put them later in the show, after you have the time to interact with a few spectators and can see which ones handle cards neatly and which do not.

I would not have a person assist me with this who was a regular card player that shuffles well. I would use someone who was a bit uncomfortable with cards, hesitant to do anything with them until instructed to so by me. Such a person would be a perfect unknowing accomplice, and no one else would be likely to analyze the procedure--it seems like you're being helpful and instructing them so they don't have to worry about it. In such conditions, the routine slays.

Oh, and TopChange... I'm with you--I still like to read the books. Gives you an awful lot of KILLER stuff the video-only crowd simply doesn't have access to! Or at least not for a while in most cases.

I have performed Malone's "Leipzig would have loved this" around 50 times in the last 10 days and the randomiser fooled the audience everytime! Just try and get the confidence doing it

Just an illustration of how it'd look if you use Curry's original strategy to sell the mixing procedure of "A Swindle of Sorts". You can start looking at 0:39 unless a different initial display might be of interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hydpk7u5eGA

/Tomas

This piece of advice could be marketed to magicians on a DVD for $30.00..........or they could just read it (and remember it) here.

Most salient fact I've read on the Café in months.