You can perform this effect with any stack if you truly have memorized it. If using a cyclical stack such as Si Stebbins then you don't have to memorize anything.

On 2002-06-16 16:13, Joe M. Turner wrote:
I actually put together a short discussion of some of these issues which I am using for a mini-lecture to Ring 9 tomorrow.

I use Bob Klase's memorized deck, because the built in features are more applicable to the kind of card magic I like to do.

Make sure you visit the JoyalStack.com web site because it has a lot of information on the differences between systems and stacks, etc.

I have some notes on systems & stacks, plus a discussion of how to apply a mnemonic memory system to remembering a stacked deck (among other things). I give the various mental images I use for remembering my stack, much as Aronson did in "A Stack to Remember" for his stack.

Feel free to email me if you're interested in these.

JMT

On 2002-06-23 11:32, ddyment wrote:
As Dennis has noted, there is some confusion here between two very different types of stacks.

Sequential stacks, such as the venerable "8 Kings" and "Si Stebbins", permit one to determine the card following (or preceding) any given card. There are mnemonic sequences other than "8 Kings" (such as "hungry jackass"), but the notion is the same. The basic "8 Kings" and "Si Stebbins" stacks show an alternating colour sequence that is not very desirable, but there are schemes for dealing with this. Probably the best sequential stack, though, is Richard Osterlind's "Breakthrough Card System"; this is easily learned and displays no obvious ordering.

The second type being referenced is the so-called "memorized deck", in which you know the position of every card, and -- conversely -- the name of the card at any location). Clearly, this can be used for anything that a sequential stack can do, but it opens a much wider realm of possibilities. There are two approaches to learning such a tool...

The first solution is to use a truly memorized deck, where you have learned every card and its corresponding position by rote, and can recall the association instantly. This is generally considered the "best" solution (as it allows for the most random appearance, and also permits a stack that has been "wired" to perform certain effects, such as poker deals and the like), but it is not a simple thing to master (indeed, an impossible task for some), and unless you are regularly doing a lot of memorized deck work, it is easy to forget an association in the heat of performance (in which case you're in trouble, as there's no backup). Probably the best currently available such stack is Aronson's, described in a couple of his books. Tamariz' stack is also a contender... it has been published, but not yet with much description of its functionality.

The second solution is an algorithmic one, in which a formula of some kind is used to relate card values and positions. This approach is popular among those who want to do memorized deck work, but not make it a life's work (particularly mentalists and others who don't do a lot of card work, but recognize the miracles that can be performed with a memorized deck). Although it's possible to compute card positions with Si Stebbins, it's not very easy, so few consider using it as such. Probably the best three candidates here (any of which can be learned in half an hour) are the Bart Harding stack, the Charles Gauci stack, and my own "QuickStack" (not just my opinion... see the many "testimonials" at the Website listed in my signature). They compare as follows:

Harding: most random-appearing, greatest number of calculations necessary
QuickStack: middle ground, almost as random as Harding, but significantly easier to do
Gauci: easiest to do, but least random (alternating colours, rotating suits, detectable sequences)

Note that the recent Boris Wild stack (which is an algorithmic "memorized deck" stack) described in his marked deck book is (in my opinion) quite poor, comprised as it is of 13 four-card groups, each in strict sequence, both numerically and with respect to suit; it is thus unlikely to survive any but the most cursory examination. This is not necessarily a showstopper (Wild apparently uses it successfully); any card arrangement can be hidden by a sufficiently skilled performer. But the computations necessary for the name/position conversion are no simpler than those for "QuickStack", which offers a considerably more random presentation.

An algorithmic solution always works; and if you use it regularly, you'll find that you soon "know" all the card positions anyway, but it's nice to be able to calculate them if you forget!

For the sake of completeness, I should also note that if you don't need to "memorize" the complete deck, both Barrie Richardson and Lewis Jones have published systems that are extremely easy to learn, but only cover half the deck (either all the odd or even cards, or all the black or red ones, depending on the system).

... Doug