I memorized this in less than one hour.

It is genius-level memdeck thinking.

Has anyone else been using QuickerStack?

Exciting stuff!

I've been using Doug's QuickStack, but have changed to QuickerStack, as it's even easier to memorize and use than his original memorised deck. If you have QuickStack, you've already learned more than half of QuickerStack. As I'm no longer performing regularly, it's great to have a stack that I can instantly recall without hesitation, even if I haven't thought about it for a month or more. Doug Dyment is a genius!
Richard

Here it is...
http://www.deceptionary.com/quickerstack.html

Can anyone compare this to the Aronson or the Tamariz one ?

Kirjava asked:
There are several points of comparison, so it's neither easy nor fair to provide a trivial answer. A fairly extensive consideration of this and related questions can be found in my online essay on full-deck stacks.

Thanks for taking the time to write the essay. I was aware of the limitations of an algorithmic stack, such as yours, but what I'm really wondering is about the apparent "superiority" of those stack-dependants tricks: it is my understanding that Mnemonica allow to deal any poker hand called for. But, for all I know, it might even be allowed in your stack, so really, as you appeared to have really thought about stacks, do you really think learning a memorized deck (such as Aronson or Mnemonica) is worth it ?

Again, thanks for taking the time to help begginers

In my experience, in having looked at effects that are specific to a given stack vs. effects that are stack-independent, the vast majority of the most powerful effects are the stack independent ones.

Most of the stack-specific effects revolve around dealing any hand called for and myriad derivations of that idea. Not to say that there aren't powerful effects built into any given stack, but on balance, no single stack can lay claim to having "the best" group of built-in effects.

In fact, I use Dyment's QuickStack and have found a number of built-in effects that I use regularly that wouldn't be possible with the Tamariz or Aronson stacks.

So while it may be a good idea to look at the offerings of various built-in effects, in the long run you will likely find that the stack-independent effects are the ones that hold the maximum impact for your spectators.

I have never considered stacks that have built-in trick collections to be superior. For one thing, the tricks tend not to be, for the most part, tricks that I personally would feature in my performances. They are tricks chosen by others for their personal repertoires, and I want my work to be defined by me, not someone else.

It's always made more sense in my view to memorize stacks that have broader functionality (using principles like stay stacks, tetradistic stacks, and the like), rather than just a fixed set of predetermined tricks. You probably noted the quote from Alan Ackerman (a much more capable card man than I ever expect to be), claiming that "I personally feel the tetradistic stack is the strongest of all stacks." And I spent the better part of last weekend with another noted cardician, Robin Robertson, only to discover that he also uses a tetradistic stack for his memorized deck work.

Finally, Steven has made the most important observation of all: the strongest memorized deck effects can be done with any memorized stack!

The bottom line is that there is no "right" answer, only what works best for you.

Duplicate post

Thanks you guys!

Quickerstack it is for me

Doug - In another thread I was asking about an algorithmic stack and someone pointed me to "Richard's Stack" which uses conversions to/from Octal for the algorithm. This works just fine except the math is a little hard to do quickly in your head especially during performance. Is your QuickerStack better - what's the "hardest" part of your calculation?

The math is pretty trivial in QuickerStack, just a single addition (or subtraction, when going the other way). For more than 80% of the cards, that addition involves a value of 4 or less. A few of the cards end up using higher numbers. Off the top of my head, I'd say that the most complicated arithmetic you would ever have to perform is 13+13.

Hope this helps!

Well I have put your book on my shortlist. Thanks for the quick response.

My copy should arrive soon. I'm looking forward to it.

Does the new version looks similar in terms of 'randomness'?

Nicolino wondered:
Yes ... pretty much identical in that regard. Both are tetradistic stacks.

I just received this yesterday and learned it in about 10 minutes. It is that easily done. The reading flows so smooth as well as 'quick'. I have had the previous version many years ago and this is that much "Quicker". I have learned several stacks over the last 23 years of performing and studying. This is almost miraculous in it's construct and practicality. It even serves as a teaching and learning device in itself. I started reading with an open mind but was nevertheless preparing for some stiff challenges in grasping and with calculations. None of that here. If you are even possibly considering getting this, I urge you to do so. You will not regret it. I am neither a math major nor 'left brained' thinker at heart.
This will serve you in so many ways. Yes, even with all those other stacks. The applied thinking and execution is nothing short of inspiring. I can envision extended writings around this in application throughout the entire field of card magic and mentalism in the near future. Have you ever wanted to stumble across the tip of an iceberg for mining and resources ? Here it is !
Thanks Doug

John

Thank you gentlemen for bringing this to my attention!

Order in!

Jon Hackett

Is there a way to get into Quickerstack order from new deck order via shuffles?

No way that I can see. I can't imagine any way faro shuffles or the like would arrive at this order.