The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » Favorite area... (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page 1~2 [Next]
Cohiba
View Profile
Special user
Michigan
749 Posts

Profile of Cohiba
Ok, I admit it - "Shuffled Not Stirred" is my favorite part of the Café (or at least the topic that intrigues me the most at this time). So it's usually the first stopping place for me as long as there's new posts available since my last visit. However, this forum is not nearly as active as I would like it to be. So c'mon people, start talking MD's!!

In an effort to help the activity of "Shuffled Not Stirred" along, a question popped into my head that I thought I would present as a project / thought process for MD users:

There have been numerous posts and questions about taking a deck from NDO to Aronson stack order. Some people use a stack that can be easily obtained from NDO. Some people make the valid point though that they rarely open a new deck in performance. So maybe a better question would not be how to get to your favorite MD stack from NDO, but from MUO (mixed up order).

It's a similar question as to what is the fastest way to go from MUO to NDO. In going to NDO though, the spectators have a good chance of seeing what you're doing, because they also are familiar with NDO. If you're going to your MD order, they won't have a clue (by seeing the face of the cards, at least).

In a recent thread, Pnielan made some good points, one of them being that when you have the MD down cold, you should be able to get from MUO to MD order in the same time it would take you to go from MUO to NDO. My question is - what is the fastest way / method to achieve this? Rather than limiting it to an in-the-hands sorting though, I'd like to leave it open, so it can be brought together over the course of an effect or three.

For example, when I want to go from MUO to NDO, I'll often separate the colors first, then the suits, and then quickly order the suits numerically in a pile on the table. Is there a faster way than that? And that uses the table, which I want to stay away from unless it's hidden in the course of an effect.

There's several methods in print of how to sort the colors and / or suits in the process of running through the deck. But how do you go from reds / blacks or even separated suits to the final order? I'm jumping around between NDO and MD order as the final goal here to illustrate what I'm trying to say - but the goal is to end up in MD order. So rather than reds / blacks, I should probably be saying stack #'s 1 - 26 and 27 - 52. Or maybe the Even stack #'s and the Odd stack #'s, after which you faro the two together.

Hopefully this makes a little sense. I know the effect "A Subtle Game" is probably the most efficient way to accomplish what we're trying to do here, but I thought I'd throw this out there to see what we can come up with. For the most part, I think it should be stack independent, because essentially with a MD we're all working with cards 1 - 52. However, it's possible that after an initial sorting of some kind, certain effects might require specific cards, which could be tailored to a particular stack to accomplish part of the organization.

So have at it! I want to see some thoughts posted next time I log on!

:o)

P.S. I just thought I'd add that I've done what I'm talking about here in the past by spreading through the deck and culling card number 52 to the back. Repeat, culling card 51. Go through the entire deck this way and you end up in MD order. However, this was done hanging out with magician buddies, chatting for a while. It's a clunky, slow process. What's a faster / more efficient / streamlined way to accomplish the same thing?
the dealer
View Profile
Regular user
las vegas
190 Posts

Profile of the dealer
I'm sorry, maybe I'm not reading right...but...whats your question, or questions exactly?...thanks!
ryesteve
View Profile
Regular user
196 Posts

Profile of ryesteve
Quote:
On 2010-01-13 23:39, the mnemonist wrote:
I'm sorry, maybe I'm not reading right...but...whats your question, or questions exactly?...thanks!

"you should be able to get from MUO to MD order in the same time it would take you to go from MUO to NDO. My question is - what is the fastest way / method to achieve this?"
Doug McKenzie
View Profile
Veteran user
New York City
363 Posts

Profile of Doug McKenzie
Do you want fastest method or something you can do in front of spectators?
Waterloophai
View Profile
Inner circle
Belgium
1251 Posts

Profile of Waterloophai
Deckswitch: 0,5 seconds
Cohiba
View Profile
Special user
Michigan
749 Posts

Profile of Cohiba
Quote:
On 2010-01-14 12:37, Doug McKenzie wrote:
Do you want fastest method or something you can do in front of spectators?


Actually both are of interest to me. My original intent was for during performance (broken up between effects), but I often have to go from MUO to MD order, so I'm interested in "out-of-performance" methods as well.
Cohiba
View Profile
Special user
Michigan
749 Posts

Profile of Cohiba
Quote:
On 2010-01-14 18:03, Waterloophai wrote:
Deckswitch: 0,5 seconds


This post is more of a fun challenge than anything. Possibly something cool could come out of it. I'm not at a loss for how to perform here.
Cohiba
View Profile
Special user
Michigan
749 Posts

Profile of Cohiba
After my OP, I remembered that Dennis Loomis and some others had a similar thread specifically for the Aronson Stack (piecing it together using various effects). My intent with this thread was to consider a more stack independent method. If you can at least get in the ballpark generically, then specific effects could be developed or used to tweak it in to final MD order.
Dennis Loomis
View Profile
1943 - 2013
2113 Posts

Profile of Dennis Loomis
There is a procedure in print which sort of does what you are looking for. You actually start with the deck in Aronson Stack and remove it from the box. You can show the faces and comment that they are in quite a random order, but just to be sure the deck can be shuffled. (I usually say: the Magician's Union says that we MUST shuffle the deck or have it shuffled before doing any card tricks.) Then I ask for a spectator that can Riffle shuffle the cards. I pantomime this with my hands. I hand the spectator the deck and ask him to give it one good riffle shuffle. I take it back and do the Face Up Slop as described on page 104 of Eric Mead's book A Tangled Web. In the process of the shuffle, which can be done as a demonstration of a simple Triumph Effect, the cards are returned to Aronson Stack Order.

This is not quite the same as what you want since you can't do it with a truly randomized deck, but it's a great way to have a spectator shuffle your mem-deck stack either at the start of or even during a set. You reconstruct the the stack right in front of them while performing a nifty little trick. Be warned, this will take some practice and you have to really be on top of the mem-deck order.

I'm very grateful to Eric Mead for sharing his work on this.

Dennis Loomis
Itinerant Montebank
<BR>http://www.loomismagic.com
BarryFernelius
View Profile
Inner circle
Still learning, even though I've made
2532 Posts

Profile of BarryFernelius
There's a stack independent way to get into any memorized stack from MUO (mixed up order) in the Encyclopedia of Card Tricks by Hugard. It's in the Nikola Card System section, and it's called A Subtle Game.

You can get the whole thing for six bucks from Lybrary.com. Check it out!

(Juan Tamariz also has a few interesting thoughts about this matter in Mnemonica, but I bet that you already knew that. Smile )
"To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan and not quite enough time."

-Leonard Bernstein
Waterloophai
View Profile
Inner circle
Belgium
1251 Posts

Profile of Waterloophai
Quote:
On 2010-01-14 18:03, Waterloophai wrote:
Deckswitch: 0,5 seconds

The goal of my post was not to ridiculize the initial question, but to let us think also in terms of efficiency and economics.
To put a deck from shuffled order to MD-order in front of an audience will demand allways a certain time plus the fact that you must look at the faces of the cards. Meanwhile you have to say something to fill up the time needed. That don’t make the action easyer… In the real world, performing as a tablehopper, a simple deckswitch between two tricks seems to me more economical and saver. (one mistake in your arrangement can be catastrophic)
To master the skill of putting a random deck in MD-order (under the pressure of a looking public) in a minimum of time, demands a lot of practice.
So we have to ask ourself: is the time to master such an action not better spend on the practice for a good and convincing false shuffle?
Because,I allways would ask myself the question of what the public would think while I was doing such an arrangement (how fast it may be) before their eyes. “What is he doing now? Why he is looking at the cards? ect.”
I think when I take (bewteen two tricks) another deck (in MD-order) in a relaxed, casual and unconspicuous way and do then a truffle- or Heinsteinshuffle plus some innocent looking false cuts, that my public will be more convinced then when I was sorting some cards.
So my consideration is: Is the time spend on the practice of such an arrangement not better spend on the practice of a good false shuffle?
hcs
View Profile
Elite user
Germany, Magdeburg
432 Posts

Profile of hcs
Stephan Gruber from Germany is the world record holder in "putting a random deck in MD-order" without a table. In his hands it takes about 45,2 sec for a shuffled 52 card deck.
Melencolia I - Magic Squares for the Mental Entertainer * Smart Methods for 4x4, 5x5 and 6x6 Magic Squares * 172 A4-pages * version 3.40
Waterloophai
View Profile
Inner circle
Belgium
1251 Posts

Profile of Waterloophai
Quote:
On 2010-01-15 15:00, hcs wrote:
Stephan Gruber from Germany is the world record holder in "putting a random deck in MD-order" without a table. In his hands it takes about 45,2 sec for a shuffled 52 card deck.


That is what I am trying to say. For someone who can do this in approx. 45 seconds I bow deeply and have the biggest admiration, but..... what is the public thinking when you go 45 seconds through the cards? Then 45 seconds become incredibily long.
So its an interesting problem in "theory" but in the real world (in performing conditions) it is not on option. At least not for me.
Cohiba
View Profile
Special user
Michigan
749 Posts

Profile of Cohiba
This is what I'm talking about!! :o)

Great discussion, and good points made. Dennis, thanks for sharing that - it's a great idea.

Waterloophai - you make a very good point. In the real world, I think you're absolutely correct. I guess I'm looking not so much for real-world application as just to learn (or invent as a group) a new technique. How often do you have to take a shuffled deck and get it into MD order? For me, quite often, because I interchange MD work and non-MD work. So in a table-hopping scenario, to be able to right a deck in 45 seconds between tables - that seems pretty feasible. Or in a session with your buddies - at a lull in the magic, to be able to assemble your stack in a minute would be pretty cool.

I originally said I was looking for a way to get there in performance. After this discussion, I think that that's probably not what I care about so much. But to be able to get there quickly and efficiently is still a very nice utility.

hcs - I am amazed that it can be done in 45 seconds! I would love to know what technique he is using. There's no way I could get a deck to NDO (in the hands) in 45 seconds. Is his method in print?

Let's change the original question to:

What's the fastest / most efficient way to get a randomized deck into your MD order?

I still would like to keep it an in-the-hands method so it could be done between sets, for example.

45 seconds?????
hcs
View Profile
Elite user
Germany, Magdeburg
432 Posts

Profile of hcs
I wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-01-15 15:00, hcs wrote:
Stephan Gruber from Germany is the world record holder in "putting a random deck in MD-order" without a table. In his hands it takes about 45,2 sec for a shuffled 52 card deck.

You see this way is not an option. The only clever way I see is a deck switch.

BTW: Mr. Gruber is not a magician, nothing is in print. He is only a man who wants go into the Guiness Book of Records.
Melencolia I - Magic Squares for the Mental Entertainer * Smart Methods for 4x4, 5x5 and 6x6 Magic Squares * 172 A4-pages * version 3.40
Dennis Loomis
View Profile
1943 - 2013
2113 Posts

Profile of Dennis Loomis
To Regular User,

You sing the praises of a deck switch and I agree. I use deck switches myself. But we are not required to make a choice between a deck switch and ways to stack the deck in front of the audience. It is possible to use both in your work. One advantage to being able to set up a deck under fire is if/when you are handed a deck.

Harry Lorayne used to do some high paying gigs doing only close up card magic. (Like $10,000.00 a night!) He would have the person who hired him go to a store and buy a couple of decks of cards. When he started to work, he opened one of the decks and had at it. (Maybe Harry Lorayne still does this kind of work, but my impression is that he is semi-retired from this. Perhaps he'll jump in and tell us.

In Europe it's quite common for bars to sell decks of cards. Many magicians will purchase a brand new deck which is delivered to the table they are working still sealed.

In both of the above cases it would be great to have a way to stack the deck while performing. The Subtle Game, as mentioned above, is one good way. And I use that. But a group of us here on the Café have been working on others. My approach is not to try to do it all at once, but to do a series of effects and with each one, as the cards are gathered up, the deck gets closer and closer to a full deck stack. I believe that this certainly can be done deceptively. (False Shuffles along the way help, of course.) The disadvantage is that you will have to perform a certain series of effects. But I've tried to choose good effects... so why not?

I've not yet perfected this, and have not used it publicly, but I'm hopeful that I will be able to in time.

Dennis Loomis
Itinerant Montebank
<BR>http://www.loomismagic.com
Dennis Loomis
View Profile
1943 - 2013
2113 Posts

Profile of Dennis Loomis
To hcs,

If Stephan Gruber is not a magician how does he even know about a memorized deck?

Dennis Loomis
Itinerant Montebank
<BR>http://www.loomismagic.com
Double J
View Profile
Veteran user
331 Posts

Profile of Double J
Quote:
On 2010-01-16 11:03, Dennis Loomis wrote:
To hcs,

If Stephan Gruber is not a magician how does he even know about a memorized deck?

Dennis Loomis


Reasonable question.
pnielan
View Profile
Regular user
Northern California
151 Posts

Profile of pnielan
I think about going from MUO to MD order as a drill for measuring how well I know the stack. But there's also a dexterity component involved as you get under 120 seconds, especially if you do it in the hands.

As others have posted, I never thought of this as a useful performance skill directly. There are many more subtle ways for getting a MD in play during a performance.

It's still interesting to think about techniques for doing this as a drill. You don't find card 1, then find card 2, then find card 3 and so on. That turns out to be very slow (at least for me).

Also, this is only one of many ways to practice the MD. But it's a good one--- you can't fool yourself---the second hand doesn't lie. If it takes you longer than going from MUO to NDO, then you still have work to do on your mastery of the MD.

Lastly, 45 seconds is really great. I can't even go to NDO that fast.
Cohiba
View Profile
Special user
Michigan
749 Posts

Profile of Cohiba
Dennis -

You had some good ideas of working towards the AS in another thread. I'm wondering if we can come up with a way to get ANY stack closer to where we want to be before resorting to specific effects.

As an example, I've always thought that a red/black separation by Lennart Green was clever and subtle. I'm not talking about the Angle separation, but another one that requires 3 run-throughs of the deck. (The name escapes me.) Then again going through the deck 3 times (separated by effects) would require a set that is pretty long to get to MD order. So maybe The Great Divide is a better option - just one run-through.

Is the best strategy to first separate 1-26 from 27-52, then further break it down to 1-13, 14-26, 27-39, and 40-52? Or is there a different strategy altogether? I'd like to know the technique used by a world record stacker...
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » Favorite area... (0 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.25 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL