|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
hellohiashley New user 50 Posts |
Hey all
I have been reading a lot recently about how to memorize a stack and think I have it down but the only question is What one? Create my own? I heard a lot about The Aronson Stack wondeering if this is a good one to get down? thanks all! |
|||||||||
ddyment Inner circle Gibsons, BC, Canada 2499 Posts |
A great deal has already been written on this topic; a little research on your own in this forum will save others from having to regurgitate their previous comments.
I've written an essay on the topic: it can be found here.
The Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More :: (order "Calculated Thoughts" from Vanishing Inc.)
|
|||||||||
Dennis Loomis 1943 - 2013 2113 Posts |
For a truly memorized stack I suggest you consider these three:
1. Aronson Stack because there has been so much written about it and so many effects worked out for it. 2. Tamariz' Mnemonica. Again, a lot of supporting material. If you just learn the routines in Mnemonica you'll have a lifetime supply of great card magic. 3. Create your own. If you have some effects which require a set-up that you want to perform often, build them into your own stack and they will always be available. Dennis Loomis
Itinerant Montebank
<BR>http://www.loomismagic.com |
|||||||||
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1550 Posts |
Most people will tell you the best memorized deck tricks are stack independent, and that's true. But some of the strongest tricks in all card magic use a stacked deck, one that does NOT need to be memorized.
I'd say start with a tetradistic stack or the Tamariz stack. See which features you like or don't like, then move on to something else. Aronson's observed the second stack one chooses is the one that's kept. In the end, I always suggest someone should adopt a stack that has one incredibly powerful built-in trick. The Tetradistic stack has at least three (see Ackerman's work for details). The Tamariz stack can do a number of things. Skinner says he used two stacks: one that included his two favorite tricks -- "Mental Speller" from THE AMATEUR'S HANDBOOK and "Vernon's Poker Deal," neither of which requires you to memorize the order of the pack. His other stack was five out-faros from NDO, so three more faros and he could show all the cards in order. The only caveat about a stack based on a trick with a large set up is that it does not EASILY betray a pattern (you can't have A-K suited for "The Bannon Triumph," for example). Still, you could set up your stack in a manner that allows you to faro to other tricks. Maybe you're two faros away from a "Sam the Bellhop" type of story routine. Bob Klase has a stack that's, I believe, four faros from Daryl's "Double-Dazzler Triumph." So, pick a trick you would love to perform more often but can't because it requires an elaborate set up. Hopefully the trick you want to perform more often can be achieved with either the Tetradistic Stack or the Tamariz stack.
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."
Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!" |
|||||||||
Steven Keyl Inner circle Washington, D.C. 2630 Posts |
As Cain alludes to, combining a faro with a tetradistic stack can achieve some dramatic results. As an example, I use a tetradistic stack myself (in fact, I use Doug Dyment's QuickStack) and am a single faro away from all cards being next to their mated pair. One more faro and all the cards are set up in 4-of-a-kind groups.
There are a lot of effects in the literature that can take advantage of those configurations. A few more faros and I'm back to my starting stack. Very powerful stuff.
Steven Keyl - The Human Whisperer!
B2B Magazine Test! Best impromptu progressive Ace Assembly ever! "If you ever find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause, and reflect." --Mark Twain |
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
After fooling around with the Doug Dyment's DAO stack, Mick Ayres' stack, and Richard Osterlind's BCS stack, the more I work with it, the more I like Doug Dyment's QuickerStack, a newer version of the QuickStack, although I have slightly changed it myself to suit my own particular tastes (I like palindromes). I have also learned the first half of the Juan Tamariz Mnemonica. The order of the tetradistic stacks is very appealing to me, and I think will allow a number of astonishing specific effects, such as are described in the posts, above. However, I have one question. One effect I wouold particularly like to use is Simon Aronson's Histed Heisted, and I am concerned that working it would be too revealing of the order of a tetradistic stack. Any experience with that one? Thanks.
|
|||||||||
bblumen Special user Baltimore 987 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-10-07 15:37, Woland wrote: Then you might like STACK CATS from Phil Goldstein's REDIVIDER, pp. 26-28. Brian
"Lulling the minds of your company is more important than dazzling their eyes." Ed Marlo
|
|||||||||
Steven Youell V.I.P. 3866 Posts |
I humbly submit my stack: The Hacker Stack
It's Si Stebbins-- which means it has some very powerful stuff built in. It's memorized-- so I can do all the mem work. AND I can shuffle a new deck into Si Stebbins in less that 30 seconds. (Darwin Ortiz' Method) So: 1) Open New Deck 2) Shuffle for 30 seconds 3) You have all the power of Si Stebbins AND a memorized stack. SEY P.S. I'll just answer it now: No. In 15 years of using this, doing face up ribbon spreads and even letting a spectator stare directly at the faces of the cards have I EVER had someone notice a red/black pattern. |
|||||||||
Marcus Selle New user Berlin, Germany 58 Posts |
During the last years I used Doug Dyment's QuickStack with good success. Recently I ordered his new QuickerStack, which will probably arrive here during the next days. I suppose, I will then use that.
Especially if you don't use memorized deck effects on a regular basis, his stacks are preferable, because you can very quickly fresh up your memory. |
|||||||||
Dennis Loomis 1943 - 2013 2113 Posts |
Let me pick a nit here, in this thread. Remember, hellohiashley asked about MEMORIZED stacks. To me, sequential stacks based on rules or algorithms and doggerel verses are not memorized stacks. With a true memorized stack, you could create it by putting the cards in any order you like. For example, in the Aronson Stack there are many built in effects that Simon used because he wanted to be able to perform them. There's a ten card block of cards which allows you to do the venerable 10 card poker deal. The entire Zensational stack is there for you to use, there is a run of six cards (positions 10 to 15) which can be accessed by spelling their names from the home position, and a lot more. If your deck has to follow a set of rules or algorithms then it's almost impossible to build in any of the the effects/principals I mentioned above.
Yes, the rules stacks certainly can be memorized, but having to use and apply the rules slows you down in performance. Many of these stacks are excellent concepts with brilliant thinking. I particularly admire the Osterlind Breakthrough stack and Doug Dyments Quick and Quicker stacks in this regard. But to me they are compromises from the power of a TRUE memorized stack like Aronson and Tamariz. To clarify one thing: yes, when I first learned the Aronson Stack I used mnemonic associations. But I do NOT have to go through those associations in my mind when I perform today. That's because those associations were a tool to help me get the stack numbers into my long term memory. Today, I just know that the Seven of Clubs is Stack number 28, for example. I don't have to think about it, and I certainly don't have to apply any rules or algorithms or run through any doggerel verses (Like Eight Kings) to get from the card to the stack number and the reverse. For me, this is what memorized deck work is all about. But then I'm a full time professional and have worked with memorized decks for many years. Granted, if you only occasionally want to do memorized deck magic, then you may be better served by using an algorithm based system such as Quicker Stack. (My favorite) But you will be deprived of the many built in effects that stacks like Aronson provide, and you will never match the speed that users of TRUE memorized decks can achieve. Dennis Loomis
Itinerant Montebank
<BR>http://www.loomismagic.com |
|||||||||
ddyment Inner circle Gibsons, BC, Canada 2499 Posts |
I think that Dennis is misunderstanding the situation here, and creating a false dichotomy as a result. A memorized stack is a memorized stack: it is either memorized or it is not. With any (non-rote) memorized stack approach, you are faced with a two-step process: (1) learning the associations, and (2) committing those associations to long-term memory. The first step varies in difficulty, depending on the chosen stack. The second step is pretty similar for all stacks, and comes (mostly) with practice.
Claiming that stacks like Aronson's and Tamariz's are "true" memorized stacks, while stacks like mine or Joyal's are not is simply nonsense. In any of these examples, if the stack is memorized, it is a memorized stack. If you have to "figure out" the associations in performance, then you have not memorized the stack. To quote from my essay on the topic: Quote:
If you want to know the card at position #46 in the Aronson stack, you either just “know” that it’s the Eight of Hearts, or you apply the various mnemonic rules to work it out: four is an “R”; six is a soft “J”, “SH”, “CH”, or “G”; that suggests a “roach”; that reminds you of a hive filled with roaches; the “H” in “hive” indicates a “Heart”; the “V” is an “Eight”. In QuickerStack, you either “know” that #46 is the Ace of Diamonds, or you use an algorithm to work it out: forty-six denotes bank four, the seventh (6+1) card, an “Ace”; the natural suit of an Ace is Spades; in the fourth bank, it is one less, a “Diamond”. Neither approach is “better” in any absolute sense; they are just different. The differences among memorized stacks are generally twofold: the ease with which step 1 is performed, and the functionality of the resulting stack. Stacks like Aronson's have built-in effects, but they are effects chosen by and for Simon, reflecting what constitutes good performance material for his character. And step 1 takes a lot of work, enough that many people eventually abandon the effort (I know: I hear from them). A stack like QuickerStack makes it very easy to complete step 1. And while QuickerStack contains no arbitrary built-in effects, it does incorporate a specialized stack ordering (a tetradistic one) that enables a considerable variety of extremely strong effects. Many ( myself included ) argue that this is superior to methodologies that only support a handful of very specific, predetermined effects. Alan Ackerman, no slouch when it comes to card magic, has written, “I personally feel the tetradistic stack is the strongest of all stacks.” And the truth is that the best effects with memorized stacks are not the ones that make use of their specific stack orders anyway. So these issues are not as simplistic as some would suggest.
The Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More :: (order "Calculated Thoughts" from Vanishing Inc.)
|
|||||||||
Steven Youell V.I.P. 3866 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-11-01 09:55, Dennis Loomis wrote: Mr. Loomis-- you "pick a nit" every time I've brought up this stack, so I'm used to it. I would rather not have discussed this with you, however your entire post makes claims regarding the stack that are simply not true. Had you read the manuscript, you would not have made these mistakes. So unfortunately I'll have to correct your misconceptions. This will be my last response to you regarding The Hacker Stack. Here's what the OP asked: Quote:
On 2011-10-04 13:53, hellohiashley wrote: The Hacker Stack is memorized. Period. Once the deck is stacked, there are no calculations. The 42nd card is always the same. The 19th card is always the same. I memorized it using the same mnemonic system that nearly everyone uses: Peg words for both numbers and cards. Quote:
On 2011-11-01 09:55, Dennis Loomis wrote: Rules and algorithms have nothing to do with "The Hacker Stack". It's a memorized stack just like any other. Please see above. Quote:
On 2011-11-01 09:55, Dennis Loomis wrote: Aronson Stack: Every card is in a particular place. Hacker Stack: Every card is in a particular place. Quote:
On 2011-11-01 09:55, Dennis Loomis wrote: In the Hacker Stack, there are many built in effects that I wanted as well. That's why I use it. Quote:
On 2011-11-01 09:55, Dennis Loomis wrote: The Hacker Stack has hundreds of effects/principles built in. That's why I chose the order. And there are no rules or algorithms. Quote:
On 2011-11-01 09:55, Dennis Loomis wrote: The Hacker Stack does not use any rules. In fact, I can use it just like any other memorized stack OR I can choose to take advantage of the Si Stebbins system. Therefore I get the advantages of both. Quote:
On 2011-11-01 09:55, Dennis Loomis wrote: The Hacker Stack is a TRUE memorized stack. Name a number and I'll tell you the card. Name a card and I'll tell you the position. All of this with no calculations. Memorized just like the Aronson Stack. And probably with the same exact method of memorization used with ANY memorized stack. Quote:
On 2011-11-01 09:55, Dennis Loomis wrote: To clarify, I used mnemonic associations to learn The Hacker Stack. I DO NOT have to go through those associations in my mind when I perform today. Quote:
On 2011-11-01 09:55, Dennis Loomis wrote: Again, there is no difference here. The Hacker Stack does not use any rules, algorithms or doggerel verses. It uses the same exact mnemonics you use for any other memorized stack. Quote:
On 2011-11-01 09:55, Dennis Loomis wrote: With the exception of built in effects (since those are specific to each stack) I defy you to name ONE memorized stack trick that cannot be done with The Hacker Stack at the same speed. I will gladly provide the manuscript free of charge to anyone who PM's me so they can verify that you are incorrect.So if anyone wants to verify what I've just said, please PM me. And please-- the next time you wish to criticize anything I've put out, read it first. SEY |
|||||||||
Steven Youell V.I.P. 3866 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-11-01 11:15, ddyment wrote: Exactly. Alan personally said the same thing to me while we were discussing "The Hacker Stack"-- and he really liked the ideas behind it. SEY |
|||||||||
Steven Keyl Inner circle Washington, D.C. 2630 Posts |
Doug hit the nail on the head here. Whether mnemonics or algorithm, these are just steps in the process of ultimately memorizing a stack. Given that, there is nothing inherently superior in Tamariz or Aronson stacks as opposed to Doug's QuickStack. In fact, and I've said this before, given the nature of QuickStack there are several built-in effects that I use which wouldn't be possible with Tamariz or Aronson, and of course, the reverse is true as well.
In the final analysis, as long as you're content with the stack you've memorized that's all that counts, REGARDLESS of the stack specifics.
Steven Keyl - The Human Whisperer!
B2B Magazine Test! Best impromptu progressive Ace Assembly ever! "If you ever find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause, and reflect." --Mark Twain |
|||||||||
Dennis Loomis 1943 - 2013 2113 Posts |
The method of memorizing a stack is not the point. The fact is that you can memorize any deck order and many magicians have favorite effects which they would like to built into their stacks. Simon Aronson did exactly that when he created his particular stack. I regularly use some of those built in effects in my work.
My main point is that a magician that chooses to create his own stack which incorporates the set-ups for some of his favorite effects probably can't achieve that if the deck has to follow certain rules. To Steve and Doug: you guys are brilliant and I admire your work and your thinking. But Steve insists that there are NO RULES to the Si Stebbins stack. That's simply not true. The rule is that the value of each card in the stack increases by 3. (Or decreases by 3 depending on whether you are moving up or down in the stack.) That's what I consider a "rule." I perhaps chose bad terminology when I said that it's not a "true" memorized stack. I was simply trying to express that the algorithms which make it easier to learn a stack like Doug's Quicker Stack places limitations on the order of the cards. If Steve Youell was able to overcome this and to incorporate many effects into his Hacker Stack, I salute him. Steve, I'll happily accept your offer to send a copy of the hacker stack. I'll put that into a PM. But, I'd like to send you my newest marketed effect in return. I did not mean to open a hornet's nest, and I promise all of you that I will study the Hacker Stack as soon as I get it from Steve. I was trying to make a legitimate point. I still feel that my point is valid and perhaps this time I've expressed myself better. I hope so. Dennis Loomis
Itinerant Montebank
<BR>http://www.loomismagic.com |
|||||||||
Steven Youell V.I.P. 3866 Posts |
Quote:
On 2011-11-02 10:49, Dennis Loomis wrote: If you mean it's a mathematical pattern, yes. However I *don't have to use the deck as a Si Stebbins deck!!* I can use it as a memorized stack without using Si Stebbins. I can use it as a Si Stebbins deck without using it as a Mem deck. OR I can leverage both at the same time. AND I can set it up in 30 seconds. Let me give you an example: I have an effect in which a spectator chooses from a pile of legitimately sealed decks. I take whatever deck they choose and I'm in a memorized order within 30 seconds. I can book a show at a house, have the host purchase a few decks. When I get there, I take that deck and in 30 seconds I'm in a memorized stack. This setup has advantages that (to my knowledge) no other stack has-- although I don't know how other stacks (like Osterlinds or QuickerStacks). And the reason I don't know about those other stacks is because I know I won't change. I think and study a lot before I pick something like this and almost without exception, once I choose, I use it exclusively. Finally, Mr. Loomis has been extremely gracious and we've been communicating via PM regarding this stuff. He is a knowledgeable professional and even if you don't agree with him (or me), his opinion is always worthy of consideration. SEY |
|||||||||
Dennis Loomis 1943 - 2013 2113 Posts |
I have already received the write up on the Hacker Stack from Steven Youell. I thank him very much.
It's terrific. If it's not in your library... it should be. You can do many wonderful mem-deck effects with it and you can do anything that can be done with the Si Stebbins stack. And, Steven is right... it's very fast to set up. I certainly concede that I can't set the Aronson stack that fast. That said, I'll add that there are also advantages to the Aronson or Tamariz Stacks. But I've said enough about that. Remember this... you don't have to pick one or the other. There are some routines I do which use the Si Stebbins Stack. And, of course, many things I do with the Aronson Stack. These are different tools, and there is NO reason you can't have both of them in your arsenal. I just packaged up my new effect, and it will go out to Steven today. It will be generally available in about a month. I won't plug it any further, but if you just can't wait contact me privately and I'll tell you about it. Dennis Loomis
Itinerant Montebank
<BR>http://www.loomismagic.com |
|||||||||
ddyment Inner circle Gibsons, BC, Canada 2499 Posts |
Dennis responded:
Quote:
I perhaps chose bad terminology when I said that it's not a "true" memorized stack. I was simply trying to express that the algorithms which make it easier to learn a stack like Doug's Quicker Stack places limitations on the order of the cards. Agreed; it's just not the downside that some claim. It's a choice between whether one prefers (as some do) a fixed set of built-in tricks, or (as others do) a stack structure that allows for more open-ended choice in such effects. Quote:
I did not mean to open a hornet's nest ... Not a problem; I have always had great respect for Dennis. But I always try to jump on these nonsensical claims (often spouted by those who should know better) that an algorithmic stack is not a "real" memorized deck. It's like claiming that an automobile with an automatic transmission is not a "real" racing car.
The Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More :: (order "Calculated Thoughts" from Vanishing Inc.)
|
|||||||||
Dennis Loomis 1943 - 2013 2113 Posts |
You're right of course, Doug. Understand that I have been using the Aronson Stack for a long time and some of my favorite effects are the built-in ones. Ever since Try The Impossible came out, I've used Aces Awry regularly. And, I'm fond of the ten card poker deal and it's right there in the stack for me when I want it. I also frequently spell to the cards that Simon picked for positions 10 to 15 because you can spell to them.
The use of the term "real" was ill advised and a poor choice. Any stack you have committed to memory is, by definition, "really" memorized. Your Quick and Quicker stacks are "really" memorized. And you can do many, many mem-deck effects with them. And, as far as I can tell, your claim that you can learn it in a half hour is absolutely true. For that reason, there will be, no doubt, many that will use it and they will have a most valuable tool. I supported your efforts by buying a copy of Quicker Stack from you and it was worth every penny to study it and to follow your thinking and to marvel at your ingenuity. Alas, I don't see how I could get into the ten card poker deal from it as I do with the Aronson stack. I probably should not make that statement, because you and Steve Youell will probably show me how I can find the necessary ten cards in the Quicker Stack and the Hacker Stack. (It's probably closer to do-able with the Hacker Stack, but if I have to eat crow again... I'm getting used to it.) Dennis Loomis
Itinerant Montebank
<BR>http://www.loomismagic.com |
|||||||||
Woland Special user 680 Posts |
The ability to shuffle into any memorized stack quickly and apparently effortlessly is one way -arguably the best way- of proving that the deck is in what will be accepted as a random order. Juan Tamariz explains how to do that with his stack, in his book Mnemonica, and Steven Youell uses Darwin Ortiz's method for his stack. So this kind of shuffling-into-stack-order is possible for both an ordered (tetradistic) stack and a seemingly-random stack. Unfortunately, Darwin Ortiz's method is out-of-print.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » What stack? (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.09 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 < |