If you have it, how good is it?

http://www.lybrary.com/karma-deck-p-703810.html

I heard it is quite similar to QuickerStack, both in terms of appearance, randomness and basic MO (without spoiling, the term "pairs" should say enough to those in knowledge).

However, they differ in determining the suits, but I have no posssibility to compare.

I can compare them. It's easy to see why the author ("Unknown Mentalist") chooses to remain anonymous. And anyone who thinks that the core method of this technique is "... based on a very clever and innovative principle which is not known to have been used before" is very poorly informed. It is one invented by me, first published in 2002, lauded by top card folk, and used in other effects since then. Of course it is completely uncredited in "Karma Deck".

The author doesn't fully understand the implications of the idea, however, so the version used in "Karma Deck" is inferior to that used in "QuickerStack" and other effects in my repertoire. And the suit method is not very deceptive: "Karma Deck" uses simple rotating suits in CHaSeD order, so looks no more random than a Si Stebbins stack. Neither of which is true in "QuickerStack".

So even if we are to allow for "reinvention" by the author (and merely assume a limited understanding of contemporary methodologies), it is very poorly thought through, and consequently both more difficult and less random in appearance than "QuickerStack".

The Karma Deck shows no random in appearance:
... 10, 9, 8 ... *, *-1, ... 4, 3, 2, *, *-1 ...

What Doug and Hans-Christian have pointed out is true and a fair criticism, however they have left out the one thing that makes this so interesting in my opinion. The way the pairs are setup is completely intuitive and immediately known by anybody who reads it. That is the innovation here and is definitely new. The pairing concept is Doug's and he should have been credited, which I think is being addressed by the author.

Is it better than any of the other algorithmic stacks? Well, that depends on how you define 'better'. Each one has its pros and cons. The Karma Deck is more intuitive and visual than other algorithmic stacks. In my opinion it is one of the most visual and simple to learn. The randomness and suit order are certainly not its strengths. Depending on what is important to you in a stack it may or may not be the right one for you. But if you are interested in algorithmic stacks it certainly is worthwhile to check it out.

Actually Harry Riser use the idea of pairs in his No Memory Stack back in 1988. It was in a M-U-M magazine.

Magico offered:

All of which goes to show that there's rarely anything new under the sun.

I have for more than a decade believed that the card-pairing idea was mine (a belief confirmed by several quite knowledgeable card guys, whom I will not embarrass by naming!), and here it is, hidden in an old copy of M-U-M!

I have advanced the idea beyond what Harry proposed in a couple of important ways (in fact, what he published is more or less what I started out with), but the basic notion is unquestionably his. Sincere thanks to magico for the enlightening reference.

And as has been noted, this is the fundamental idea in the Karma Deck as well, though it now appears that he owes credit to Harry, not me. I find both Harry's and my approaches to be considerably superior to the Karma Deck, for reasons of stack randomness alone. (And there are other advantages as well, which I won't elaborate here.)

In the latest edition of The Karma Deck, the author gives credit to Harry Riser.

"Karma Deck is a big leap forward in stack magic. I am not aware of any other stack where the same principle gives out 6 different stacks. That too with an innovative way to use CHaSeD to make the suits random and not just red/black alternating pattern."

...says who?

Its me sir

Okay. I was asking because of the quotation marks in your post.

It gets good words from JHeff...

The suit idea also belongs to Harry Riser.

OK, a few years later and besides credit or no credit issues, I will ask the same - "If you have it, how good is it?" this author has pretty much taken over the "top ten lists" on Lybrary and I am looking for some stack material and different stacks (I currently do a little with both Stebbins and Aronson).

ddyment,I have read over your essays several times in the past and do find them to be a resource to go back to from time to time but I am looking for - stack, applications, effects... all rolled up into one. This is why I am looking into a couple of his "bundle deals" (and grabbing the newest one that goes off it's $6 intro price (Tonight or Tomorrow I believe - the wording is unclear so I will grab it tonight to be safe). http://www.lybrary.com/fun-stacks-p-856015.html

I am not a mentalist but I am a card magician who does stack deck work and do have a few effects that I present as "pseudo-mentalism". this is why some of his stack work has my interest.

Do yourself a favor and whether you get the Karma Stack deal or not pick up Quickerstack from Doug directly. It's brilliantly structured and you have direct access to the creator!in fact all of Doug's works are brilliant. Sorry different thread.

[quote]On Sep 4, 2016, Poof-Daddy wrote:

OK, a few years later and besides credit or no credit issues, I will ask the same - "If you have it, how good is it?" this author has pretty much taken over the "top ten lists" on Lybrary and I am looking for some stack material and different stacks (I currently do a little with both Stebbins and Aronson).

This guy intrigues me. Got some of his stuff over the past few months and the ideas simply rock. As long as I've been visiting lybrary, he's always the top author on the hotlist. That can only mean nobody seems talking about his stuff but everyone is buying it ! Planning to review some of the books I bought as soon as I can, including the Karma Deck Pro.

I realized after I posted it was only a little over a year. Anyway, I picked up a couple of his e-books and a very impressed with what I have read so far. I mostly picked up Stebbins material though. If what I have seen so far is any indication, I answered my own question.

How is his Stebbins material?

Curious about this myself--primarily regarding the +3 related material (as that's what my memdeck, Redford, is based on.) I believe his +3 stuff is in 13mm? Would like to hear opinions regarding that (or other +3 related ones he has.)