The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » Invisible deck in stack order anyone? (5 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page 1~2 [Next]
Herr Brian Tabor
View Profile
Special user
West Virginia
726 Posts

Profile of Herr Brian Tabor
Tonight I got bored and decided to build a new invisible deck. This time, instead of adding to thirteen and such, I went mad and tried it in Stack. It's awesome! I couldn't find anything from a search, so I thought I'd share.

First, there's no remembering suits or adding/subtracting to thirteen (not that basic arithmetic is hard but still)...Only have to determine if the card is odd or even.

Second, the deck truly looks random.

Third, and this is my favorite, it fixes the problem of the card being too close to the top or bottom. Because I know where it is before I pull out the deck, I can cut or pass it closer to the middle if I had too.

Anyone else try this? I know I can't be the only one. Also I'm aware of Michael Close's routine using a normal stack deck to create the same effect, but I wanted to try it with a regular old ID. Works great.
Herr Brian Tabor
View Profile
Special user
West Virginia
726 Posts

Profile of Herr Brian Tabor
I'm also thinking of trying out a Magician's insurance policy with numbers to count down to instead of the cards...
Waterloophai
View Profile
Inner circle
Belgium
1197 Posts

Profile of Waterloophai
Indeed, there is no objection for using your MD order in a inv. deck.
But ... why should you use a gimmicked inv. deck when you master a mem. deck?
It is very simple to do it with a normal deck (in MD order).
Herr Brian Tabor
View Profile
Special user
West Virginia
726 Posts

Profile of Herr Brian Tabor
Quote:
On Jun 18, 2014, Waterloophai wrote:

But ... why should you use a gimmicked inv. deck when you master a mem. deck?


I like it for an out. What if a spec grabs my cards and shuffles? (sometimes they are bigger than me! Smile ) Also sometimes you don't keep your stack, and so on. I like it because I can use ID as an out even when I'm not doing mem stack work.
Waterloophai
View Profile
Inner circle
Belgium
1197 Posts

Profile of Waterloophai
You were just ahead of me with your post Smile.

Personally I have removed the ID from my repertoire (as I did for the card to wallet too).
Maybe the two most beautiful classics in card magic. Alas, it is overused and everybody does it. Go to a big event where there are 5 magicians or more. 4 of them use one of those two tricks. I don't want to come second at a table with the same trick.
However, as a life saver and possible "out", the ID stays an ideal trick as you rightly wrote.

And yes I know: that is a typical magicians' standpoint, there are many laymen that didn't see the MD yet and so on and so on... Smile
It is only my opinion.
SteveFromSpokane
View Profile
Regular user
155 Posts

Profile of SteveFromSpokane
Interesting in that I happen to be in the middle of making my ID with my MD. I got the idea from a lecture from Mark Elsdon who also talked about making an ID deck and avoid using the adding to thirteen formuala.

In the stacked form as you said once you know the card you know the deck location of that card. That should avoid the careful thumbing card by card one sometimes does with an ID.

Of course you won't fool fellow magicians but the general population is ripe for this trick.
Steve Suss
View Profile
Inner circle
1193 Posts

Profile of Steve Suss
The ID in MD order has been used for ages. I first read about in one of Michael Close's Workers books if my memory serves me correctly. I've been using it for many years.
Steve
ddyment
View Profile
Inner circle
Gibsons, BC, Canada
2127 Posts

Profile of ddyment
Steve is correct. I also discussed this in the descriptions of "QuickerStack", which first appeared in Mindsights more than a dozen years ago.
Doug Dyment's Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More
lcwright1964
View Profile
Special user
Toronto
569 Posts

Profile of lcwright1964
Quote:
On Jun 18, 2014, Herr Brian Tabor wrote:
Tonight I got bored and decided to build a new invisible deck. This time, instead of adding to thirteen and such, I went mad and tried it in Stack. It's awesome! I couldn't find anything from a search, so I thought I'd share.

First, there's no remembering suits or adding/subtracting to thirteen (not that basic arithmetic is hard but still)...Only have to determine if the card is odd or even.

Second, the deck truly looks random.

Third, and this is my favorite, it fixes the problem of the card being too close to the top or bottom. Because I know where it is before I pull out the deck, I can cut or pass it closer to the middle if I had too.

Anyone else try this? I know I can't be the only one. Also I'm aware of Michael Close's routine using a normal stack deck to create the same effect, but I wanted to try it with a regular old ID. Works great.


How does this work? I am guessing that the deck is set up in couples--for example, in Mnemonica, 4C is backed with 2H, then 7H is backed with 3C, then 4H is backed with 6D, AS with 5H, etc., all the way to AH backed to 9D. So if the spec names an even positioned card, we pull the deck out odd side up and locate the card before the selection. And if she names an odd positioned card, we extract the deck even side up and look for the card after the selection.

Do I have this right? I agree that knowing where every card is in the back-to-back arrangement makes location the desired couple very swift, and, yes, allows one to do a pass or casual cut if desired to bring the selection closer to the middle.

I like the idea and think I will set up one of my IDs in Mnemonica order right away. Thank you!

Les
Herr Brian Tabor
View Profile
Special user
West Virginia
726 Posts

Profile of Herr Brian Tabor
I figured it'd been done, glad I'm thinking on the right track Smile


lcwright1964 You're correct. #1 and #2 are back to back and so on. Glad you found it useful.
lcwright1964
View Profile
Special user
Toronto
569 Posts

Profile of lcwright1964
Quote:
On Jun 18, 2014, Herr Brian Tabor wrote:
I figured it'd been done, glad I'm thinking on the right track Smile


lcwright1964 You're correct. #1 and #2 are back to back and so on. Glad you found it useful.


Thanks! I just set up one of my IDs in Mnemonica order, which I know pretty cold now, and I can see the advantages you mention. For me there are a couple of others: no more fumbling with the numerical values and parity of court cards (I still have to THINK a second every time when a Q or J is in play), and no more keeping straight which Kings are even and which are odd.

I like the idea of using the ID as a reveal for the Future card in Aronson's Past-Present-Future. Since I have already deduced the stack position for the card, I might as well use it to reveal it in the ID, rather translating the position in a card and deducing its sum-to-thirteen mate in the appropriate cross-suit and making sure I pull the deck out in the right orientation blah blah blah. For those of us who have a stack memorized with great confidence, using it with an ID means one less system of calculations and moves to remember, no matter how simple.

I like it. Thank you

Les
nlokers
View Profile
Regular user
Grand Rapids, MI
143 Posts

Profile of nlokers
Has anyone tried making the pairs either add up to 53 or be 26 apart? I switched over to the 53 one because I thought that there were some noticeable patterns with the Aronson stack in the even/odd pairing.
lcwright1964
View Profile
Special user
Toronto
569 Posts

Profile of lcwright1964
Quote:
On Jun 19, 2014, nlokers wrote:
Has anyone tried making the pairs either add up to 53 or be 26 apart? I switched over to the 53 one because I thought that there were some noticeable patterns with the Aronson stack in the even/odd pairing.


Good point! This doesn't seem to be an issue with Mnemonica. QH/QC (11/13), 4S/4D (40/42), and QD/QS (46/48), but as Richard Osterlind has pointed out in discussing his Breakthrough system, it is perfectly reasonable to see something like this in a shuffled deck.

What specific problems are you seeing with Aronson? I personally would like to avoid more head arithmetic, so the sum to 53 is less desirable. Having 1-26 on one face and 27-52 on the other sounds good though. Instead of remember whether odd or even is flap-side-up in the box, one remembers whether the low or high half of the deck is.

Les
Turk
View Profile
Inner circle
Portland, OR
3546 Posts

Profile of Turk
Quote:
On Jun 18, 2014, Steve Suss wrote:
The ID in MD order has been used for ages. ***
Steve


No doubt true. There is an old saying that "there is nothing new in magic". While that saying may not be 100% accurate, I have been setting up my ID in Aronson Stack order (i.e., 1-52 order/52-1 order) for at least 5 years .

I switched over to this setup for three reasons:

1. I was not comfortable with the visible display of cards in the original ID setup. IMHO, using the Aronson Stack ID setup resulted in a more natural looking setup (in that all suits and all card values are displayed), and,

2. If the cards start out and remain in AS stack order, it was easier for me to find any needed card and also know its approximate location within the deck, and,

3. Being mathematical challenged (regarding subtracting certain number combinations in my head), the AS ID made it easier for me to locate the "sequential card" in order to reveal the chosen card. (I hope this last point made sense. I was deliberately trying to be obtuse enough so as to not give away the ID methodology.)

Anyway, I like the AS ID version and would only go back to the original setup version kicking and screaming. (grin)
Magic is a vanishing Art.

This must not be Kansas anymore, Toto.

Eschew obfuscation.
Mike Ince
View Profile
Inner circle
2014 Posts

Profile of Mike Ince
Quote:
On Jun 18, 2014, Steve Suss wrote:
The ID in MD order has been used for ages. I first read about in one of Michael Close's Workers books if my memory serves me correctly. I've been using it for many years.
Steve


As I recall, the ID routine published in Workers uses an examinable MD.
The secret of deception is in making the truth seem ridiculous.
lcwright1964
View Profile
Special user
Toronto
569 Posts

Profile of lcwright1964
Quote:
On Jun 24, 2014, Mike Ince wrote:
Quote:
On Jun 18, 2014, Steve Suss wrote:
The ID in MD order has been used for ages. I first read about in one of Michael Close's Workers books if my memory serves me correctly. I've been using it for many years.
Steve


As I recall, the ID routine published in Workers uses an examinable MD.


What's the name of the routine in Workers? Which volume?

Thanks,

Les
lcwright1964
View Profile
Special user
Toronto
569 Posts

Profile of lcwright1964
Quote:
On Jun 24, 2014, lcwright1964 wrote:
Quote:
On Jun 24, 2014, Mike Ince wrote:
Quote:
On Jun 18, 2014, Steve Suss wrote:
The ID in MD order has been used for ages. I first read about in one of Michael Close's Workers books if my memory serves me correctly. I've been using it for many years.
Steve


As I recall, the ID routine published in Workers uses an examinable MD.


What's the name of the routine in Workers? Which volume?


Found it. It is in the last volume, the one dedicated to card work.
lcwright1964
View Profile
Special user
Toronto
569 Posts

Profile of lcwright1964
Quote:
On Jun 24, 2014, Mike Ince wrote:
Quote:
On Jun 18, 2014, Steve Suss wrote:
The ID in MD order has been used for ages. I first read about in one of Michael Close's Workers books if my memory serves me correctly. I've been using it for many years.
Steve


As I recall, the ID routine published in Workers uses an examinable MD.


Moreover, for those of us who have gone to the trouble to memorize a stack, Close's handling (now that I have found it, read it, and tried it) seems so elegant and diabolical it makes me wonder whether I need the gimmicked version any more no matter how I set it up. The Close version has just one move and a brilliant subtlety to cover it. But he himself warns in the description that most people won't bother to do it. If that is true, that is a shame. It sounds like an awesome magician fooler, unless it has gotten around more in the years since publication.

Les
Herr Brian Tabor
View Profile
Special user
West Virginia
726 Posts

Profile of Herr Brian Tabor
Quote:
On Jun 24, 2014, Mike Ince wrote:
Quote:
On Jun 18, 2014, Steve Suss wrote:
The ID in MD order has been used for ages. I first read about in one of Michael Close's Workers books if my memory serves me correctly. I've been using it for many years.
Steve


As I recall, the ID routine published in Workers uses an examinable MD.


The MD used for ID in Michael Close's workers is the aronson stack.
lcwright1964
View Profile
Special user
Toronto
569 Posts

Profile of lcwright1964
Quote:
On Jun 25, 2014, Herr Brian Tabor wrote:
Quote:
On Jun 24, 2014, Mike Ince wrote:
Quote:
On Jun 18, 2014, Steve Suss wrote:
The ID in MD order has been used for ages. I first read about in one of Michael Close's Workers books if my memory serves me correctly. I've been using it for many years.
Steve


As I recall, the ID routine published in Workers uses an examinable MD.


The MD used for ID in Michael Close's workers is the aronson stack.


Indeed, and in the Workers description Close's example certainly implies that--JS at 1, QH at 26, 3S at 17, etc. But the handling is entirely stack-independent and I have been working on with Mnemonica just fine. Any MD will do as long as one knows it well enough to locate the selection quickly.

The handling is awesome and not that hard (if a little bold) and I thank the thread for turning me on to it.

Les
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » Invisible deck in stack order anyone? (5 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.14 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL