|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
awimagic New user 96 Posts 
|
Thank you so much PaulH for that wonderful write up... this piece is sure to coax any lazy bone in to putting hours of practice in to learning the CD. as for its utility, I m with stoneunhinged on this one... sometimes and for some ppl its not any more about real cheating or gambling expose in a magic act... its more about the chase. its like a an extremely long and time intensive scientific experiment... the rewards of which is just knowledge at the end(if any) of a holy journey.
|
|||||||||
|
ASW Inner circle 1879 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-04-23 18:04, Paul H wrote: I didn't feel maligned, lol. I was just saying it works for me. I'll let you know when I'm next in the UK, Paul.
Whenever I find myself gripping anything too tightly I just ask myself "How would Guy Hollingworth hold this?"
A magician on the Genii Forum "I would respect VIPs if they respect history." Hideo Kato |
|||||||||
|
NJJ Inner circle 6437 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-04-22 09:08, Doc Dixon wrote: I agree 100% except for the bit about 5 card draw. I think that 5 card draw is superior to Texas hold 'em for magicians and most gambling demonstrations. 1) It's easier for non-poker players to understand 2) Finales are clearer to see and understand. There is no pause while the audience checks the different hands 3) Five card poker, while played less for money, is still more well known. It's the game people played as children for matchsticks. 4) We have 100 years of five draw effects to draw on. While some can be translated into texas hold 'em, five card still has a much stronger foundation. I have a couple of texas hold 'em routines that I do when I know the audience are hardcore players but, for a straight audience, you can't be a simple five card routine. As for the centre deal, in Phantoms of the Card Table, Walter Scott says... Quote:
The middle deal, I don't accept it. I wouldn't give it 10 cents. It doesn't work when the money is on the table. |
|||||||||
|
silverking Inner circle 4574 Posts
|
I wouldn't give any "last words" to Walter Scott when it comes to hustling, and certainly not when it comes to the center deal.
His true legacy (the one not manipulated by Eddie Mcquire) is hardly established, and although the book (both with an "s" and without) is a must have addition to any library, it's most definitely not the source when looking for credible information on a center deal. Mcquire is seen by many as simply finding a magician who could deal a good second, and creating the rest of the story as pure B_S. There's still lots wrong with the Walter Scott story, and good reason to call much of what he apparently said (including his center deal comment) into question. |
|||||||||
|
AMcD Inner circle stacking for food! 3078 Posts
|
Silver,
I'm really happy to read that at least someone else feels more or less the same than I do about the Walter Scott affair. Indeed, it's something that puzzles me for years now. McGuire and other have manipulated the facts so much... Generally speaking, magicians amaze me a lot when talking about card cheats. They worship guys we have never known or never seen performing any move! Who but Vernon has met Kennedy? Who has ever seen Scott actually cheating? Not to mention Erdnase... Chances are great Scott's story was a big swindle fabricated to hassle Vernon. Of course, we have to trust Gazzo and the magician who have seen Scott performing, the guy was really good. But as far as I know, only a mechanic can appreciate a mechanic. If I remember well, Scott made his living as a musician. If I remember well, Gazzo was unable to perform his SD in public, and so on. A lot of questions remain! About Draw vs Hold'Em for magic tricks, shows, etc. I agree with the fact that five cards offer much more opportunities and require less understanding from the audience. Plus the fact that Draw is still played. But I'd like to add that we're living in 2K10 now and it's probably time to dust all the old routines. The next generation won't know what Draw poker is or was. About CD, well... Of course context. But my advice is that there are much more efficient tools to get the chips! Last, we old timer players, I strongly doubt any CD could get the money  . |
|||||||||
|
NJJ Inner circle 6437 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-05-01 09:55, silverking wrote: Agreed. I do find Scott's arguments for why he prefers seconds over middles and bottoms quite compelling though. |
|||||||||
|
Paul H Inner circle UK South Coast 1135 Posts
|
On the other hand, the Scott system may be also have problems. For example, the punch depends on marking a specific combination of cards such as 8's and 5's. How many full houses, trip's and two pairs can occur in a game for the dealer and/or his partner before suspicion is aroused? This kind of repetition does not occur with a bottom deal or middle for that matter. The method also depends on constant use of the second deal and the technique has to be almost flawless under fire which is not easy. After so much effort, you may deal out a great hand only to find everyone else folds. The deal does not guarantee action on the hand and there are other easier methods such as the double duke. For a full discussion of the pro's and con's, I recommend a look at the chapter on false deals from Steve Forte's Poker Protection book.
Nick, I also agree with you that draw poker is more easy to grasp for the audience. Having said that there are a number of hold'em deomonstrations coming through that can be entertaining. David Ben has a good one in 'The Pennumbra' called Bertrum, Braue and Ben. Interestingly, the great strength of Hold'em, its unpredictability, can work against a gambling demo. For instance, after dealing youreself trips, lady luck deals the winning straight or flush to another player/spectator. Awimagic, thank you for your thoughtful comments. Sources I have found helpful are Jason Englands center deal taught here, http://www.theory11.com/1on1/#new/page:6......video:81 Andrew Wimhursts excellent 'Down Under Deals' are advertised here, http://www.michaelvincentproductions.com......ets.html Last time I checked, the page does not appear to be working and the manuscript is not indicated on the 'Michael Vincent Productions main site. It may be possible to contact Michael Vincent directly. Finally, for the definitive write up of the Kennedy Center Deal I heartily recommend Revelation by Dai Vernon Edited by David Ben. His chapter on 'The Kennedy Deal Revisited; is key. Hope this helps. Hi Andrew, I will be on standby. Best wishes, Paul |
|||||||||
|
Howard Hamburg New user 94 Posts
|
Very nice paul,you're post.i got heat on the #2 center deal page but so what?you have written a fair intelligent piece on the subject.as for cheating,there are better ways to skin a cat.
|
|||||||||
|
bishthemagish Inner circle 6013 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2010-05-03 02:24, Paul H wrote: If I may add - using the punch with the center deal as a demo of sorts - I have used the punch cull to cull the cards to the bottom - the deck is cut and then center deal the hand as a demo - but often at times I have just used a bottom deal and shifted the cut. I have used this as a successful demo style challenge having the audience shuffle and cut the deck - then I shuffle and deal the hands cold (using the punch cull to get the cards to the bottom) then center or bottom deal the hand. Under certain performing conditions (using in magic as a card sharp demo) the demo can be quite strong. I hope this helps.
Glenn Bishop Cardician
Producer of the DVD Punch Deal Pro Publisher of Glenn Bishop's Ace Cutting And Block Transfer Triumphs |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The Gambling Spot » » Some Thoughts on the Center Deal (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Posted: Apr 30, 2010 07:23 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 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 < 
|