|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
RiderBacks Loyal user 251 Posts 
|
Quote:
On Mar 25, 2016, Cain wrote: Semantic wanking. Alternatively, just a preference for clarity of expression. Quote:
On Mar 25, 2016, Cain wrote: That's fine. I am an expert at handling cards. It makes what I do worthy of someone's time and attention. I can also use the assumption against by people by doing a "self-working" trick. You can be an expert at handling cards without telegraphing that. Being an expert does make what you do worthy of someone's time and attention. But being an expert doesn't entail that you need telegraph your expertise. It's your call if you want to telegraph a lot of that expertise. Maybe that's you're style. (I honestly don't care what your style is.) But I will again state my considered opinion: An expert at card handling can do a better job of pulling off effects which are perceived to be miraculous than someone who lets people know that they're an expert at card handling. Quote:
On Mar 25, 2016, Cain wrote: Different strokes. You're missing out. The faro is the cull's evil twin. It's the engine for some of the most powerful tricks that can be done with a regular pack of cards. Different strokes for sure. And I recognize the faro's power. A cull, however, when done properly, needn't telegraph any expertise. |
|||||||||
|
RiderBacks Loyal user 251 Posts
|
Ok, let's just settle this. The best false shuffle is a set of eight out-faros... And to turn that false shuffle into the best possible fooler, make sure to point out to your audience how well you're mixing the cards! Draw their attention to the perfect interlacing of cards, and then, for extra bonus points, challenge them to pull that off (and don't forget to make sure to remind them to cut the pack just right!)
|
|||||||||
|
RiderBacks Loyal user 251 Posts
|
***. I realize I overlooked the absolute best false shuffle. I'll take you awhile to do it, but I'm sure you're nail them. At 2s per faro, we're looking at a mere 1.7m of shuffling.
|
|||||||||
|
Scott Kahn Special user Clayton, NC 787 Posts
|
(1) Bob King's shuffle from Annotated Erdnase.
(2) Justin Hanes' M.O.S.E.S. (Modified Overhand Shuffle Entire Stock).
Scott Kahn, M.D.
KAHNCEPTUAL CARD MAGIC: MORE DECEPTIVE PRACTICES WITH PLAYING CARDS https://kahnjuring.com/kahnceptual-card-magic/ KAHNJURING: DECEPTIVE PRACTICES WITH PLAYING CARDS https://kahnjuring.com/kahnjuring/ SWINDLES, SCAMS & KAHNS https://kahnjuring.com/swindles-scams-kahns/ |
|||||||||
Waterloophai Inner circle Belgium 1369 Posts
|
Please Mr Riderbacks, have respect for the opinion of Mr Cain.
Please Mr Cain, have respect for the opinion of Mr Riderbacks. When one read the posts of you both regarding this topic (faro), it shows that both of you are passionate people and that can't be wrong. On the contrary. However, it is also very clear that neither of you will be converted to the opinion of the other. There is nothing wrong with that and there is even no need for that. I am (almost) sure that on this topic, Michael Close and Darwin Ortiz will be on the side of Mr Cain and that Lennart Green and Dani Da Ortiz will be on the side of Mr Riderbacks  .
I am afraid that in this particular case, I agree with Mr Riderbacks. That does not mean that I don't respect the view of Mr Cain. I just don't understand his view. To differ (very) strongly from opinion can en MUST be possible without getting personal or sarcastic. Besides, the absolute "truth" does not exist. I too, wrote in 2014 a (passionate) piece about the execution of the faro IN COMBINATION WITH A MEMORIZED DECK and published it in my web eBook "TTT-memdeck". Those who are interested can PM me and I will give them a web address where they can read a copy of that article. P.S.: Excuse me for my miserable English grammar. It is not my native language. |
|||||||||
Davdo Regular user New York 157 Posts
|
For my style, I give another plus one to the Dan Fishman overhand. I also throw in the Charlier shuffle a lot because it's so delightfully sloppy that it just CAN'T be false... But it is...
~Dave |
|||||||||
|
Jerry Danes New user 32 Posts
|
Ky,
I can recommend you to purchase Jack Carpenter´s At the table lecture. In it he shows 2 different in the hands false shuffles, they are both complete full deck retentions. I especially like the Z-break shuffle, and it is a overhand version that is fairly easy to do. It kind of mimmicks the way a layperson shuffles. It´s a mix of block shuffles and a short single run sequences.I Think you will like it. Sincerely, Jerry Danes |
|||||||||
|
Ky New user 7 Posts
|
These are all proving to be great resources! Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far, great stuff. I have looked into/ordered several of your suggestions, much appreciated!!
|
|||||||||
|
RiderBacks Loyal user 251 Posts
|
I don't think I've disrespected anyone. I've just stated my opinion clearly. If Cain wants to telegraph expertise at card manipulation, that's his business. If that's his style, that's fine. He can do whatever he wants. And I have no doubt whatsoever that one can be successful while telegraphing the fact that one is a master card manipulator. If you want to be that kind of guy, go for it. And none of that has anything to do with my point. I have stated, for the record, that the deception is heightened if you don't make available to your audience explanations such as: "Oh, this guy is a a sleight-of-hand artist and master card manipulator!" I stand by that claim and I could, though I won't, point to a fair bit of psychology literature which (plausibly) reinforces it. You'll never catch me using the CP as a color change for these reasons. Can you impress by doing so? Sure. Does opting for that cheap impression diminish the impact of what you might do next? Why yes, yes, it does!
|
|||||||||
|
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1553 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 14, 2016, RiderBacks wrote: Your straw man needs some work... Why eight out-faros? Why not 52 in-faros? Or maybe that's what you meant in your follow-up, where I see that obvious "preference for clarity of expression": Quote:
***. I realize I overlooked the absolute best false shuffle. I'll take you awhile to do it, but I'm sure you're nail them. At 2s per faro, we're looking at a mere 1.7m of shuffling. Quote:
Draw their attention to the perfect interlacing of cards, and then, for extra bonus points, challenge them to pull that off (and don't forget to make sure to remind them to cut the pack just right!) No, it's not advised that you show the cards are perfectly interlaced. Spectators will not detect (let alone suspect) that the cards are perfectly interwoven. The point is that the flourish masks what's actually going on. No one will lean over and say, "Didja see that, honey? The cards are in a foretold order, one that he's probably taken the time to memorize." As I said, the cards will also be given overhand shuffles, and spectators will see what appears to be a random order. Quote:
On Apr 14, 2016, RiderBacks wrote: Do you see the chicken-egg problem you've set up for yourself? Being an expert makes you worthy of time and attention, so how do people know you're an expert? You could tell them. You could have somebody else tell them. You can also show them. Quote:
It's your call if you want to telegraph a lot of that expertise. Maybe that's you're style. (I honestly don't care what your style is.) But I will again state my considered opinion: An expert at card handling can do a better job of pulling off effects which are perceived to be miraculous than someone who lets people know that they're an expert at card handling. Miraculous is miraculous regardless of the performer's background. "Hey, Jesus is going to be in town tomorrow. Are you gonna see him perform some miracles?" "Why bother? That Jesus is always performing miracles. I wanna see Riderbacks!" You might have a point if you're talking about managing expectations (under-promise, over-deliver); a card cascade could be a serious problem if it's by far the most impressive thing you can do. Quote:
You'll never catch me using the CP as a color change for these reasons. Can you impress by doing so? Sure. Does opting for that cheap impression diminish the impact of what you might do next? Why yes, yes, it does You're comparing a flourish to a magical effect. I agree there are some magical effects that can provoke a strong initial reaction, but should be avoided because the method is not deeply fooling. Still, the out-reality of a card cascade is not about fooling the audience. The fact the cards also end up in a particular order is what makes it so diabolically awesome. Quote:
Different strokes for sure. And I recognize the faro's power. A cull, however, when done properly, needn't telegraph any expertise. There are problems with the faro -- it's idiosyncratic, for one -- which is precisely why I like to open with it, as if to say, "this is how I shuffle cards." A bonus of the cascade is that it makes an exposition phase a little more watchable. As mentioned in my initial post, my motive is consistency of action. I've seen other performers do riffle shuffles, but then their technique noticeably changes when they get to a faro trick. It seems you want to turn this into the long-running debate about "showing skill." Some have argued bridging cards is an unnecessarily flourishy display, yet you advocate the Truffle Shuffle. I guess that move telegraphs just the right the amount of expertise, one that's no doubt richly supported by the most cutting-edge literature in psychology.
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."
Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!" |
|||||||||
|
RiderBacks Loyal user 251 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2016, Cain wrote: Why eight out-faros? Why not 52 in-faros? Or maybe that's what you meant in your follow-up, where I see that obvious "preference for clarity of expression". You figured that one out (and pretty easily, I'd imagine). It must have been clear enough. Quote:
On Apr 16, 2016, Cain wrote: No, it's not advised that you show the cards are perfectly interlaced. Spectators will not detect (let alone suspect) that the cards are perfectly interwoven. The point is that the flourish masks what's actually going on. No one will lean over and say, "Didja see that, honey? The cards are in a foretold order, one that he's probably taken the time to memorize." As I said, the cards will also be given overhand shuffles, and spectators will see what appears to be a random order. I agree that it's an abysmal idea to show that the cards are perfectly interlaced. This wasn't directed at you. Just look at what someone else wrote: Quote:
On Apr 11, 2016, magicfish wrote: It has been written and proven in performance, that one of the best ways to mask the perfect faro is to actually point out to the onlooker that all 52 cards are interweaving perfectly. Show them up close. I have done this countless times for intelligent audiences. Quote:
On Apr 16, 2016, Cain wrote: Still, the out-reality of a card cascade is not about fooling the audience. The fact the cards also end up in a particular order is what makes it so diabolically awesome. You can see the cards interweaving perfectly in that cascade. It's obvious. Quote:
On Apr 16, 2016, Cain wrote: Some have argued bridging cards is an unnecessarily flourishy display, yet you advocate the Truffle Shuffle. Bridging cards is hardly unnecessarily flourishy in the States. (It might be unnecessarily flourishy elsewhere.) |
|||||||||
|
Cain Inner circle Los Angeles, CA 1553 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2016, RiderBacks wrote: I had no idea what you were going on about until after I had written and submitted my post. Then I glazed over the thread and quickly edited my reply. No matter... Quote:
You can see the cards interweaving perfectly in that cascade. It's obvious. Except it's not "obvious." As I said, one of the most common reactions is, "do that again!" (partly because they're not exactly sure what happened). In a newer deck, the cards just melt together, and a perfect weave isn't even necessary, let alone observed. A shared trait of some of the excellent false riffle-shuffle mentioned is that the flourish helps obscure the method, and this is pretty much what's happening with a cascade. Quote:
Bridging cards is hardly unnecessarily flourishy in the States. (It might be unnecessarily flourishy elsewhere.) Of course it's unnecessarily flourishy -- it adds nothing to the integrity of the shuffle. Yes, it's a common flourish, and over time just feels "right" compared to squaring the deck, but I thought displays of skilled manipulation were supposed to be bad... What this really seems to boil down to is aesthetics.
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."
Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!" |
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7016 Posts
|
Many expert cardmen have discovered the hidden in plain sight virtue of pointing out the perfect weave. Tamariz does it often. Not for every effect using a faro mind you, But it can be very, very effective.
Onward |
|||||||||
|
stickmondoo Veteran user 306 Posts
|
Has anyone mentioned the dovetailed waterfall shuffle Bill Malone teaches on o e of his Dvd's. That's a great easy convincing shuffle. I'm not sure but I think he said it was Ravelii's shuffle.
|
|||||||||
Danny Archer V.I.P. Philly 607 Posts
|
I use my own in the hands riffle shuffle with a bridge that is highly deceptive, but I feel that you need more than one shuffle to be convincing so I alternate the riffle shuffle with an overhand shuffle. Mead points out in his book, that using only one shuffle technique will start to draw unwanted heat and I agree with him wholeheartedly.
|
|||||||||
|
stickmondoo Veteran user 306 Posts
|
Here's a little wrinkle which I always use with Lew Brooks shuffle from stack attack but works with any false shuffle. If using a mem deck or full deck stack, before you false shuffle put two jokers, one on top and one on bottom of deck. Full deck False shuffle then just bury the jokers without showing them into the centre of the deck. Looks really random like the position of the cards don't matter at all. I always stick them in the bottom half because I use the top half order in my first effect. Then later when I need the full order I notice the jokers and remove them.
|
|||||||||
|
cfirwin3 Loyal user Rochester, New York 233 Posts
|
My favorite is the Heinstein...
It's easier than the Truffle and can look every bit as good. It is essentially a Zarrow shuffle in the hands with a fairly simple false cascade. If you do it with a slip cut at the riffle/separation (Karl Hein published the move as a two phase shuffle, like the Zarrow... as I recall) then you can do it once and be done. It will take practice. I worked on it for about 3 months before I used it. The downside is that the appearance of the shuffle may require you to perform your normal in the hands shuffle differently in order to be consistent. Most people don't riffle the cards together at the back inside corners as required in the Heinstein. Most normal in the hands riffles are done with the front outside corners... the more natural way. It's also harder (but not impossible) to do these types of shuffles while seated at a table. I tend to turn to my right which gives absolute cover of the move while seated... like Lennart Green does with his false. You've got to get it where it is second nature, where you have to think about doing it the right way (a real shuffle) when you want to because you have learned to hit a false one every time. Be absolutely comfortable... if you aren't talking over the top of your shuffle... you're doing it wrong ;-) Also, a big SECOND on the idea that you need more than one false. Make sure that you can run a quick over hand false every now and then... that and a couple of decent SIMPLE LOOKING false cuts. The more complex the shuffle or the cut... then the more fishy it tends to 'smell'. |
|||||||||
Kjellstrom Inner circle Sweden, Scandinavia, Europe 5203 Posts
|
My favorite in hands false shuffle is this, published in Genii Magazine December 2004. Page 22.
"Worlds Greatest Overhand False Shuffle by Bob Farmer. A worker & easy to do. |
|||||||||
|
Imirik New user 28 Posts
|
For some simple overhand shuffle ideas that are easier but work well, take a look at Giobbi's Card College volume 2. It has some full deck retention overhand shuffles and part deck retention shuffles.
|
|||||||||
mtgoldstein Veteran user Houston, TX 325 Posts
|
I too Jared Kopf has an excellent false overhand shuffle at Vanishing Magic. Plus a few routines. Eric Anderson's Shuffelesque in Ah Ha for a riffle.
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » Best in hands false shuffle? (35 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Apr 15, 2016 12:09 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 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 < 
|