This exactly how I learned my deck and was really surprised at how easy it was. Give it a TRY.
Eric

I learned the Aronson first, then memorized one of my own. Admittedly, my mastery of the Aronson is a bit stronger, but the other is coming nicely.

As mentioned, the Osterlind Card System is just awesome. If you want to do some memory work, read Harry Lorayne's books on the subject.

Actually, if you are already familiar with the names of every card in the deck, then it's only 52 things to learn.

But why quibble?

So, if you also know the numbers from 1 to 52 then you have nothing to learn?

;)

"So, if you also know the numbers from 1 to 52 then you have nothing to learn? "

hahaha, people also forget that not knowing %^!+ is not the same as knowing that one doesn't know !!#$

Wait - if you don't know the numbers 1 - 52, and you don't know the cards either, are you saying you need to learn 156 things or 104? Do you see what I'm saying? Just following your logic...

Or maybe not.

But, hey, why quibble?

:P

Here's another thread on the subject:

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......2&26

Well...I have the Aronson Stack so I KNOW what every card is if somebody gives me a number from 1 to 52!! That's GOOD!!! But...and I'm having trouble seeing some cards and knowing what number they are!! That's bad!!
I guess until I LEARN it both ways (two goods!!!) I'll have to stick to effects where "just" knowing them by number is good enough!!!
But there ARE some in Simon's books where this is enough!! His one effect from "Bound to Please" is a KILLER and, like he says...as close to mindreading as you'll get!!
Imagine handing out 5 cards to 10 people and having them mentally select ANY card in their group of 5 that they want!!! Then all the packets are collected and totally SHUFFELED by another spectator...then you thumb through the cards and name 'em in groups of ten...and if they hear their card after each ten...you tell them what the card IS!!!!!!! Think about this!!! I can't wait 'til my magic group has another "mental night"....so I can KILL with this...unless they have Simon's book!!!

FTAMagician, this is exactly one of the systems Harry Lorrayne teaches in his memory books, connecting numbers through associations to anything...cards inclusive. And much more.
You can learn a decks order by number after shuffling after say, 10 minutes. go to harrylorayne.com to see some fun demonstrations or go to your library for any of his memory books..you will be amazed by yourself.

Learning a *memorized deck* takes a fairly large initial time investment, AND a lot of maintenance if you want to be able to use it at a moment's notice -- you have to quiz yourself on a nearly daily basis to really stay snappy with the stack.

Remembering a card *system*, on the other hand, takes a few minutes, and you're not likely to forget how it works. Ever.

That said, there are probably more effects that you can do with a memorized deck (including the previously mentioned gambling demos), but I would submit that they are no more impressive to a lay audience than the effects you can do with a card system.

I mention this distinction because your initial post includes the word "easiest", and a card system is definitely much easier to mentally acquire than a memorized deck.

FTAMagician, in a recent Smoke and Mirrors article, Dennis Loomis talked about the six requirements to truely know your stack cold. 1) stack position (number) to equivalent card value; 2) card value to equivalent stack position; 3) stack position to next card value; 4) card value to next stack position; 5) stack position to previous card value; and 6) card value to previous stack position.

I have incorporated this thinking in the latest version of my StackView software. It has a full featured quizzer (called "StackView Test" in the tools menu) that you can use to fully test your knowledge of your stack. It works with any stack, including your own.

Nick

Jason Bay wrote:
"Learning a *memorized deck* takes a fairly large initial time investment"

Hi Jason,

I completely disagree with your statement.

First, have you learn a memorized deck?
(if so which one?)

Because, I do use a memorized deck, and it did NOT require any large initial time investment. Especially, if you compare the time you need to learn many sleights (false deals, different passes, double-lifts, etc...)

I knew my memorized deck after less than 3 hours and with 5 other practice sessions of about 20-30 minutes, I knew it cold (just like Nick Pudar says in his post)!
And I still know it cold to this day!

And as for your second argument ("lot of maintenance if you want to be able to use it at a moment's notice") is also completely false. Mostly because if you recite it only once a day it is enough to keep it fresh in your memory since you already know it by heart. Try forgetting something you already know!
(I still remember my time tables I learned when I was a kid, and even though I do not use them every day, I still remember them very well.) The best part is that you can recite your memorized stack during "down times", by which I mean when you are stuck in taffic, in the shower, while waiting in line at the bank, in a boring class, etc... When on the other hand, it would be almost impossible to practice card or coin sleights during these moments!

And about your third argument; "Remembering a card *system*, on the other hand, takes a few minutes, and you're not likely to forget how it works. Ever. "

Well I learned never to say "ever", but I will not go into that. Please we must not compare apples with oranges, because a system and a memorized stack are 2 totally different things. With a system you do NOT know the position of every card in the deck at all times!!!

Now, I am not saying that systems are not good, because I do use some (Si Stebbins mostly) and there are excellent routines with them.

But then again, it is all the better for me if people keep (falsely) thinking that memorized deck magic is out of their reach, as this way I can keep those gems for me!!!

Ronnie Lemieux
Montreal
Canada

Nick,

If you already have Stackview downloaded, do you need to upgrade it to receive this feature? Thanks!

Initially learning a good memorized deck stack (I use Aronson) will certainly take an investment of time and effort. But, I think a lot of magicians think it's harder and more time consuming than it is. If you just jump in and get started, I think you will find that it will be easier and less time consuming than learning the Zarrow Shuffle, for example.

I do use Nick Pudar's Stack View Test most every day. I set the parameters to:
Deck Range: Full Deck
Stack Sequence: Random
Test Value: Random Mix
Test Card: Current Card
Test Duration: 1.75 seconds
Show Duration: .5 seconds
And, it takes exactly 3 minutes and 34 seconds to drill every card in the deck in a random fashion. I don't think that's a big investment in time for maintenance... do you?
Additionally, I use little blocks of time that are often wasted to just drill myself. Example: I'm driving and pull up to a red light behind a car. I glance at the License Plate. Let's say it's 4KMC113. The last two digits are 13, and I just recall that number 13 is the Two of Diamonds. The two digits before the last form the number 11, so I just recall that 11 is the Ten of Spades. I reverse the last two digits, forming 31, and recall that 31 is the Four of Diamonds. I look at the initial digit and recall that 4 is the Two of Hearts. If the light still hasn't changed, I'll couple that 4 with the 1 and 3 at the end, and just recall the cards at positions 41, 14, 43, and 34. By now, I'm probably moving again and I drop it for now.
When I'm practicing other card tricks, I'll just recall stack numbers as I work. I may, for example, work on a one handed top palm. I palm the top card, and then put it on the bottom of the deck. But before I do, I glance at it and bring the stack number to mind. Then I palm the next card and do the same thing. It only takes a moment more, and I'm simultaneously practing both the sleight and drilling on the Aronson Stack.
A few random reactions to this thread. The Poker Deals and Bridge Deal in the Aronson Stack are far superior to the ones in Nikola. I see NO POINT in memorizing a randomly shuffled deck. Since you can take advantage of any features that are built in, it makes more sense to me to go with a deck that has some tricks or effects built into the stack. If you have some special tricks or effects that you do a lot and they require a stack, it's a great idea to make your own stack incorporating them. Years ago I decided to learn the Aronson stack and I've NEVER regretted it. Some of the build in effects serve me very well.
Finally, to get a bit technical: Si Stebbins, Eight Kings, and the Osterlind Breakthrough Stack are NOT true memorized decks. They are marvelous tools for many things, but they lack the essential feature of a true memorized deck: each card is associated with a numerical position so that you know where EVERY card is located.
If you haven't worked with a memorized deck, I urge you to just jump in and give it a try. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at how quickly you'll be on your way and at how powerful a tool it is.
Dennis Loomis
http://www.loomismagic.com

I agree that if you have a killer stack effect that you want to do, then it is an excellent idea to make that your mem deck - or the arrangement of your mem deck after giving it a couple of faroes. This idea is presented in Mike Skinner's much maligned (but brilliant) book - he describes the fact that one of his two mem deck sequences left him in position to do Dai Vernon's Poker Deal.

But getting back to the "shuffle any deck" comment that started this thread... I posted the following in another thread, but it really deserves to be here too:

Can I just make an aside regarding the oft quoted (here at least) bit of advice regarding memorised decks? What Darwin said was that he is often asked which stack he uses. His response is "take a deck and shuffle it, then learn that sequence". Since I know Darwin pretty well (he is one of my best friends in or out of magic) I think I can expand on what he was saying.

The thing is, the stack (per se) isn't important to Darwin - it's the effect that's important. All you need is a pack of cards that looks random, but isn't. This is self-evident, but magiciians are always longing for the perfect stack, the holy grail. Just as they want the perfect, invisible (and easy and self-working!) pass. They want it now and they don't want to work for it...

Another issue is that Darwin just doesn't want everyone else using his sequence. Not that it's better or worse than any other stack - I think he feels that performance choices are personal and, in that sense, secret. Darwin doesn't want to create a legion of magicians who use the exact same double lift, pass, shuffle, blind cut, etc, etc. Because that would be boring - and if that happened it is implicit that those magi-clones would probably have similar performing personas and effect choices. Darwin has worked hard at developing his own persona, selecting and developing the effects and sleights that suit him - that sum him up. This extends all the way from the wallet he uses to the clothes he wears, to the stack he chooses to use. He doesn't want to establish a "McDarwin" franchise.

Besides, all of these choices are hard-fought. There is great personal satisfaction in developing your own persona. I imagine that Darwin's view on this is a dichotomy between selfishness and generosity. It's selfish because he doesn't want you to know everything he knows - but it's generous at the same time because, if you get off your gluteus maximus and labour at developing your OWN personality you will be rewarded by learning lessons about performance in a way that is far more meaningful and enduring than if you were handed them on a plate.

That's not to say that Darwin hasn't shared a lot with us. He has - just as people like Whit Haydn, Dai Vernon, Michael Vincent, Juan Tamariz and on and on have shared much that is of value. The problem is that we can develop a "glass half empty" mentality, rather than prizing the information that is available. (Already far too much for us to assimilate in our lifetimes). So we sit around griping that Darwin deflects our interest in his stack (and it is clear to anyone with half a brain that Darwin is merely deflecting interest from HIS stack)...

One more thing - Darwin specifically says that if his advice is not to your liking, you should investigate his survey of memorised deck systems in The Annotated Erdnase. He's not stopping you from coming up with the ultimate stack - just from copying his stack.

So - to summarise - Darwin's advice is not literal. To translate: find a stack that works for YOU.

All the best
Andrew

10cardsdown,

StackView Test first appeared in version 3. I have added many new bells and whistles in version 4. If you have either of these two versions, just select "StackView Test" from the "Tools" menu. You should check out version 4. It is free to download.

Nick

To "George Devol" or Andrew,
Thanks for clarifying this about Darwin's advice on the selection of a particular stack to memorize. I have great respect for Darwin and admire his incredible discipline and creativity, but never understood why he said this. Now I do. I appreciate it.
Dennis Loomis
http://www.loomismagic.com

You're most welcome, Dennis!

Personally I use Osterlind's System, it was very easy to learn, the hard part was mastering the Zarrow shuffle that I taught myself to make it look extra convincing. I like the Aronson stack, I don't know the mechanics of it, but I like the effects I've seen done with it. I guess I'll have to get his Bound to Please book.