|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Darren Kidby Loyal user UK 291 Posts |
Almost there
|
|||||||||
Darren Kidby Loyal user UK 291 Posts |
Done
|
|||||||||
Daegs Inner circle USA 4291 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-08-31 11:02, Josh Chaikin wrote:The Six Hour Memorized Deck . . . technically satisfies your criteria, as the location of each card is arithmetically based, Just a note but this really isn't true. 12 cards(4,7,9)in the deck could be said to be arithmetically based on their value, with another 4(Aces) being arguably so. Another 4(10) follow a pattern. However the rest of the cards in the deck all require straight memorization and cannot be "calculated" by any arithmetic, even if they have simple rules you can remember. Just because the rules have some common-sense basing in numbers, doesn't make them any less pure memory than a mnemonic system or something like Berglas' where you memorize a story. |
|||||||||
reincardation New user 9 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-08-27 19:42, Scott Cram wrote: The interesting Denis Loomis article that Scott Cram referenced highlights the importance of knowing more than just card-to-stack number and stack-number-to card. Commenting on his discoveries during the practice of Simon Aronson's "Histed Heisted" he says, "It’s one thing to just know that the Five of Spades follows the Seven of Spades, but quite a different thing from knowing that the Five of Spades is the nineteenth card and the Seven of Spades is the twentieth card." While there are many considerations when choosing a stack, the point Mr. Loomis is making supports my decision to memorize Richard Osterlind's amazing Breakthrough Card System. Because of it's cyclic nature, it is very easy to determine the next (and previous if desired) card. It's also worth pointing out that in Martin Joyal's analysis of the randomness of more than 30 stacks, the BCS has a lower shuffle index (thus more random) than almost all stacks, including the Aronson stack, and exactly equal to that of the stack that Mr. Joyal teaches in his seriously awesome book.("The Six-Hour Memorized Deck", 1997, The Hermetic Press, p. 215,216). I would recommend consideration of Mr. Osterlind's book "Mystique" for a presentation of Harry Lorayne's card memory system, and his "Osterlind Breakthrough Card System - 20th Anniversary Edition" for the sequential part of it. http://osterlindmysteries.com/store/inde......ts_id=14 http://osterlindmysteries.com/store/inde......ts_id=15 |
|||||||||
Jeff Christensen Regular user 181 Posts |
I purchased the Tamariz book and it suggested many methods for learning the stack. I found that what worked for me was taking an old deck and writing the numbers on the back of the card using a sharpie. Instant flashcards which I can use to practice the location on one side and the card on the reverse. For a real challenge I shuffle half the deck face up and then go back and forth. Worked for me. I keep a study deck beside my bed and I have a habit of going through them when I watch tv.
|
|||||||||
edh Inner circle 4698 Posts |
Quote:
The interesting Denis Loomis article that Scott Cram referenced highlights the importance of knowing more than just card-to-stack number and stack-number-to card. Commenting on his discoveries during the practice of Simon Aronson's "Histed Heisted" he says, "It’s one thing to just know that the Five of Spades follows the Seven of Spades, but quite a different thing from knowing that the Five of Spades is the nineteenth card and the Seven of Spades is the twentieth card." 5S = 20 7S = 19
Magic is a vanishing art.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » Memorizing Numerical order of known stack (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.02 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 < |