A long time ago on Mindfreak, Angel did an ACAAN that seemed impossible. Two dudes were used, whom I assume were not stooges (or else ignore the following question). I'm a little shakey on the details, but what I remember is that one selected any card and the other selected any number. Angel counted the cards either from the top or bottom, seemed to be a selection left up to the volunteer, face up and one at a time. Needless to say, the mentally selected card was at the freely chosen number. What made it particularly interesting was the face-up counting seemed to preclude and prearranged order to the deck. My question is whether this trick is available (or have I remembered it incorrectly)? Any help will be greatly appreciated, either in directing me to instructions for the trick or in refreshing my memory about what really happened.

Magical things,
Zipper

That's an amazing trick. Sounds vaguely familiar...

Not sure why you think that counting face up would preclude an arrangment of the deck? Are you assuming that the face up counting would show an arranged deck, or do you mean the free selection of face up counting vs. face down counting would change the outcome?

I ask becuse a stacked deck would not (or should not) have a noticable arrangment nowadays (nobody really rocking the si-stebbin anymore). Also, if the magician is the one dealing the cards, there can me an assortment of moves that would make the effect feasaable.

Billy

Michael Weber would beg to differ.

Nobody's rocking the Si Stebbins?!?

We're a collective bunch of fools if this is the case.

Lol,

Well, I stand corrected.....but why the hell are you still using Si Stebbins?

Billy

For the same reasons you'd use any cyclical stack.

Um,

There are many benefits of using a mem deck over a mathamatical stack....I cant see any benafits of using the SS other then its easier (lazy) for the "performer". With that said, I don't use a mem deck so I may be wrong.

Billy

Given the number of people who (a) use their own deck, (b) don't do a hard sell of the randomness of a deck when working FASDIU, and (c) don't let spectators shuffle the deck anyway, I'd argue that NOT using at least SS is due to laziness.

Yeah,

But Im saying that if your doing stack work, why not go all the way and use a mem deck?

billy

Couple of quick points. First, the stack you use is independent of the fact that it is memorized. Just because someone is using the SS don't assume its NOT memorized. (Just ask Youell). Second, and more to the point, there are things you can do with a cyclical stack that you can't do with a more traditional mem deck like Aronson or Tamariz.

It's also nice to be able to slip into SS from a shuffled deck as well. Very easy and casual. Thanks, Darwin.

Mr. Keyl,

The Aronson and Tamariz stack is cyclical. I don't disagree that the SS stack is good, but any mem deck will be better as it can do any and everything the SS stack can plus more. I cant imagine anyone would argue that fact, that is unless those arguing are not fully aware of the capabilites of a mem deck.

Billy

Because not all stacked deck material calls for the qualities of a mem deck? Let's say there's only one trick that I would ever do that requires a full deck stack, yet doesn't require a mem deck. Just that one trick. Everything else I do is fasdiu. So why put in the work?

Memorized deck work is massively useful, but if there are other avenues that accomplish the very same goals, it is not essential.

Besides, anyone that works with a cyclical stack (I prefer Eight Kings over SS) knows that you can and should spread the deck face up. Hamman had it right.

And believe me, I am fully aware of the capabilities of a mem deck.

Justin,

I agree that you don't need to use a mem deck. In fact, I use the BCS but what Im saying is that if you are looking to use a stack for more then one purpose a mem deck is the way to go. One, it can be fully examined )not important in a lot of cases). Two, the ARE cyclical and can do anything a SS stack can. Three, it allows you to know not only the information that SS allows but also more detail.

Again, I don't use mem deck work but I fully understand its capabilites and would reccomend the use if you are willing to put in the time versus SS, eight king, or any other in that ilk.

The OP seems to preclude that a stack could not have been used due to the face up nature of CAs effect (although I doubt that's the solution he employed).

No one claimed otherwise.

I just thought "Why the hell are you still using Si Stebbins?" was an exceptionally silly question.

Justin,

Yeah, your right, I stand corrected.

Billy

Incorrect. Pick up an 8 Kings or SS and deal them into four piles. Do the same with Aronson or Tamariz. Notice a difference?

Second, if one wants to get into stack openly from a new deck, it's much more feasible to do it going into SS than it is Aronson or Tamariz. Yeah, you can substitute faros and jog shuffles with a deck switch, but at that point you're altering the way the whole she-bang is perceived by the audience, and it's up to individual magicians to figure out if that alteration fits their vision for the effect.

I'm not going to argue that a memdeck doesn't offer more opportunities, methodologically-speaking, than a SS deck, but indulge in that philosophy too much and you start sacrificing your choice of effects because your Swiss Army Knife can't do them. That hurts your repertoire.

Is that your definition of cyclical? In that case, no the mem deck stacks are not cyclical. However, if you consider cyclical as Tameriz and Aronson do then their stacks are in fact cyclical. In that they have no beggining nor end and one leads unto another not unlike a recuring cycle.

Billy

It's the traditional definition. Cycling banks of cards.

I don't recall Tamariz ever referring to his stack as cyclical (at least not in Mnemonica), but if he has I'm not sure why. Yes, if we're going by your latter definition the order of a deck of cards is cyclical. But that applies to ANY order, not just a stack. This is the first time I've ever encountered someone specifically referring to a mem deck as cyclical.