The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » The Best Memorized Stack for Dyslexics to Learn (7 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page 1~2 [Next]
AlexTheAlrightandOK
View Profile
New user
15 Posts

Profile of AlexTheAlrightandOK
Okay, so my first comments on these here forums were in response to the Ice Cold ACAAN (RIP to that thread), regarding the trailer only showing the trick with the use of a mem deck, but at the same time advertising it as needing no memorization whatsoever with no disclaimer that what you were getting was different than what was shown (L Barnes even said here on the forums that he specifically showed his performance rather than what's being sold on its own "to mislead magicians"). I somewhat digress.

My biggest issue with this was that being dyslexic myself and never having gotten into memorized stacks, I come to find out the most popular stacks were completely mnemonic based and therefore impossible for a dyslexic person with the stereotypical memory recall issues to learn and work into rote memory given just how much had to be memorized just to recall positions OR the other half were all systematic stacks were either easy to find the pattern and therefore impossible to recreate the same effect in the trailer as the spectator could easily figure it out or only allowed you to figure out the next or prior card from the one you were looking at so wasn't really a memorized deck but what I would call a "deduction stack".

While having purchased Ice Cold ACAAN had me believing I was "misled" (mission accomplished) and therefore as though I spent money on something I could never attain (a spectator dealt face-up reveal), I kept researching stacks or trying to think of one of my own that could at least allow the spectator to flip the last three cards over themselves to let them see the stack as being "random" a second time versus only the once if you were to use a deck switch (a second time, even though only three cards, would help us avoid them wanting to inspect the entire deck again).

But then I came across the answer... The Joyal (6 Hour) Stack.

Why this one works for dyslexics is because you're only memorizing and using rules, rather than overlapping mnemonic imagery and number/word associations... meaning that memory recall is not an issue as the rules themselves are designed to be easy to remember (the value of the card triggers the recall of the rule itself). If one of your Dyslexia's "strengths" is interconnected reasoning, you'll learn the stack much faster than 6 hours. Where he suggests 90 minutes a day learning one of four groups of rules each day, I learned them all within 2 hours and was able to stack the deck perfectly. I was truly amazed and look forward to the day the position/card recall is in rote memory just from using the stack often.

The only drawback is that there aren't any built-in effects. Seeing as I got this so I can achieve the effect that Ice Cold ACAAN advertised and knowing I could use it for other mem stack effects in the future and poker hand routines were never on my wishlist, this was a no-brainer.

Where to get it: http://www.joyalstack.com/memorized-deck......zed-deck

I purchased it without the routines ($10 vs $20) due to hearing very mixed (and likely biased) reviews while a Google search can easily help me find the best effects for memorized stacks.

If you found this post via Google/Bing and are looking for effects that can be used with the Joyal/6 Hour stack, the Ice Cold ACAAN (which really costs $19 if you want the advertised effect and go the Joyal route) and this stickied post should be a good place to start.

Hope this helps fellow dyslexics!
ddyment
View Profile
Inner circle
Gibsons, BC, Canada
2252 Posts

Profile of ddyment
There are essentially four methods used to memorize stacks: rote memory, classical mnemonics, rules, and algorithms. Only the mnemonic approach should give particular trouble to dyslexics: the other three methods are unlikely to introduce any particular problems, and there are numerous stacks from which to choose.

You can read more more about these methods in my on-line essay on the topic. There are advantages and disadvantages to each.
"Calculated Thoughts" now at The Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More
AlexTheAlrightandOK
View Profile
New user
15 Posts

Profile of AlexTheAlrightandOK
Quote:
On Mar 22, 2017, ddyment wrote:
There are essentially four methods used to memorize stacks: rote memory, classical mnemonics, rules, and algorithms. Only the mnemonic approach should give particular trouble to dyslexics: the other three methods are unlikely to introduce any particular problems, and there are numerous stacks from which to choose.

You can read more more about these methods in my on-line essay on the topic. There are advantages and disadvantages to each.


Like I mentioned, algorithms didn't provide the same effect of position/card value recall with zero peaks and therefore wouldn't work (especially with Ice Cold ACAAN) and rote memory is the end goal while mnemonics and rules are the means and alternative to rote until you get there.

I'm sure algorithms wouldn't be an issue if that's a tool I'd want at my disposal (as it's even less rules to remember than say the Joyal Stack), but I'm not interested in knowing what card is next to the one we've already revealed or peaked. This difference is why many people don't consider algorithms as a true Memorized Deck, because it only simulates a deck being memorized.

The question is, do you want to know where the cards are in relation to the entire deck and each other (the higher card position minus the lower) or do you want limited knowledge of where the cards are in relation to each other?

If you want to know what card is 24 away from another, you can do that much simpler with rote memory and the mnemonics/rules you use to eventually get there than you can with having to calculate up to 23 card relationships.

The point was simply to offer any Dyslexic people the knowledge that they shouldn't let the idea of deck memorization discourage them, hence the title that someone might actually Google search.
ddyment
View Profile
Inner circle
Gibsons, BC, Canada
2252 Posts

Profile of ddyment
AlexTheAlrightandOK commented:
Quote:
... This difference is why many people don't consider algorithms as a true Memorized Deck, because it only simulates a deck being memorized.

This comment makes the common error of conflating the way in which a stack is initially learned, and whether or not the stack is memorized.

A memorized deck is simply that: a deck that has been memorized. There are four approaches to doing so, but if you don't end up memorizing the deck, then you haven't memorized the deck. If you have to determine the location or value of a card by working through mnemonic images, or recalling rules, or computing an algorithm, then you haven't memorized the deck. These techniques are tools to help with the memorization, not alternatives to same.

Now it's true that some people never have the need to truly memorize a deck, and for such people simply computing an algorithm each time may be sufficient (in fact, this is one of the benefits of this approach, as it gives you an out if memory fails), but then you cannot claim to be using a memorized stack.
"Calculated Thoughts" now at The Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More
AlexTheAlrightandOK
View Profile
New user
15 Posts

Profile of AlexTheAlrightandOK
Quote:
On Mar 22, 2017, ddyment wrote:
There are four approaches to doing so, but if you don't end up memorizing the deck, then you haven't memorized the deck. If you have to determine the location or value of a card by working through mnemonic images, or recalling rules, or computing an algorithm, then you haven't memorized the deck. These techniques are tools to help with the memorization, not alternatives to same.


While you are technically correct, algorithms are such a limited way of recalling a card's position (or vice versa) that it can't dependably serve as a backup for someone who needs to do so (in the case they don't have enough information of the cards around the one in question). People prefer the use of mnemonic and rules, because they are more dependable in the case that rote memory might be in question.

Granted, we shouldn't be performing a trick in the case that it isn't practiced enough.

When I said that many people don't consider algorithms to be a memorized deck, I wasn't including myself. It was just an observation throughout the forum.

If a person hasn't had any of the cards to rote memory yet, but they have the tools of the three systems, only mnemonic and rules can simulate rote memory of cards in any position and this is what most people consider a "memorized stack", even if it's not actually memorized. I believe we're arguing semantics here with the versatile definition of "memorized stack".

Where both right in our points if we're using two different definitions. I was simply explaining the difference between them and in turn people have different standards for the term being used to label a stack.

EDIT: I would like to mention that it was the article you wrote and linked that actually started me on my journey of determining the differences and trying to find what worked the best for my dyslexia. Not sure how much of a coincidence it really is, but still pretty cool all the same.
ddyment
View Profile
Inner circle
Gibsons, BC, Canada
2252 Posts

Profile of ddyment
AlexTheAlrightandOK opined:
Quote:
... algorithms are such a limited way of recalling a card's position (or vice versa) that it can't dependably serve as a backup for someone who needs to do so (in the case they don't have enough information of the cards around the one in question).

I couldn't disagree more. A single, straightforward algorithm (heck, even a slightly complicated one) is dramatically easier to remember than a mnemonic alphabet, 104 word images, and 52 word-pair relationships. And if you forget even one of those relationships, you have no way to reconstruct that particular value/position relationship. Whereas a decent algorithm works the same way for every card in the deck. Not only that, but they provide a precise position/value correlation for every card, so I don't understand the claim of not having "enough information"

And even the best rule-based system (which of the ones I know is Chris Matt's Six Kicks stack) have a fair number of rules that must be learned (13 for Six Kicks, 14 for the Joyal stack) and don't cover every card: they have exceptions, which must be memorized by rote. Which is why I believe that the algorithmic approach yields by far the least amount of memorization in the early stages (prior to the point at which the cards have truly been memorized).
"Calculated Thoughts" now at The Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More
AlexTheAlrightandOK
View Profile
New user
15 Posts

Profile of AlexTheAlrightandOK
Quote:
On Mar 22, 2017, ddyment wrote:
I couldn't disagree more. A single, straightforward algorithm (heck, even a slightly complicated one) is dramatically easier to remember than a mnemonic alphabet, 104 word images, and 52 word-pair relationships. And if you forget even one of those relationships, you have no way to reconstruct that particular value/position relationship. Whereas a decent algorithm works the same way for every card in the deck. Not only that, but they provide a precise position/value correlation for every card, so I don't understand the claim of not having "enough information"

And even the best rule-based system (which of the ones I know is Chris Matt's Six Kicks stack) have a fair number of rules that must be learned (13 for Six Kicks, 14 for the Joyal stack) and don't cover every card: they have exceptions, which must be memorized by rote. Which is why I believe that the algorithmic approach yields by far the least amount of memorization in the early stages (prior to the point at which the cards have truly been memorized).


I don't think you understand my claim, because my claim might have been based on my own misunderstanding. I had believed that algorithmic stacks required the knowledge of a card or more before and after the card in question in order to determine the value of it. If this is only one type of algorithmic stack, then I apologize for my ignorance.

Can I ask, what type is your Quickerstack? Can I think of a position and know the card without rote memory or knowledge of cards before and after it?

Also, I never claimed that algorithmic systems required more memorization than rule systems. In fact, I believe I stated the exact opposite and pointed out that my understanding of algorithmic systems is what led me to believe that they wouldn't work for the effect I was trying to implement them into (ie needing to know what cards are before and after the card in question and/or being too easily recognized as a stack due to patterns).
AlexTheAlrightandOK
View Profile
New user
15 Posts

Profile of AlexTheAlrightandOK
Also, are you manually changing the quote boxes to say "opined/commented" instead of "wrote"?

If so, why? Is it meant as a slight against me? Why not leave it as "wrote"?

It's pretty well known that when a person claims that another is only stating their opinion, that they're implying there's less factual information and in turn others shouldn't consider it as much. Thus, if the changes were intentional, it's a passive aggressive ad hominem. Surely, there's no need for that.

If it was automatically set, how do you change this?
MeetMagicMike
View Profile
Inner circle
Gainesville Fl
3238 Posts

Profile of MeetMagicMike
"Opined" and "commented" are not negative in any way. I think ddyment was just varying his phrasing.

At least that's the way I read it.

And the quote boxes don't add any phrase at all above the quote. You just type that in.
Magic Mike

MeetMagicMike.com



I took the Pledge
AlexTheAlrightandOK
View Profile
New user
15 Posts

Profile of AlexTheAlrightandOK
Quote:
On Mar 24, 2017, MeetMagicMike wrote:
"Opined" and "commented" are not negative in any way. I think ddyment was just varying his phrasing.

At least that's the way I read it.

And the quote boxes don't add any phrase at all above the quote. You just type that in.


I wrote a bunch in reply to this, but am now editing it due to having realized that he might have simply copy/pasted part of my text and entered the BBC shortcode himself (versus using the Quote feature). I assumed he used it versus entered the quote manually.

I overreacted and I apologize.
Claudio
View Profile
Inner circle
Europe
1613 Posts

Profile of Claudio
Interesting question Alex, to which I haven't got an answer though.

I am sharing a thought about the distinction made here between rule and algorithm based stacks. I believe the distinction is not clear cut formulated that way as an algorithm is itself a set of rules to obtain a goal in a deterministic way and does not necessary involve calculations. To be slightly more formally correct, the distinction should be made between arithmetic algorithms and non-arithmetic algorithms (which are referenced here as rule-based).

Alex, I have developped a free Android app, MemDeckPro that might be able to help you learn or practice your stack. You may want to give it a try.
ddyment
View Profile
Inner circle
Gibsons, BC, Canada
2252 Posts

Profile of ddyment
Perhaps there has been some confusion between the notion of sequential stacks and that of memorized stacks; I try to dispel that confusion in my essay on the topic, but may have been unsuccessful in this case.

A sequential stack is one in which, knowing a specific card, it is an easy matter to determine the adjacent cards; it makes no pretensions about knowing the cards' absolute positions in the deck.

A memorized deck is one in which, given a location in the deck, one knows the card at that location; similarly, given the identity of any card, one knows its location in the deck.

Sequential stacks are generally algorithmic in nature, though may have a memorized component (such as "Eight Kings ..."). Memorized stacks are memorized, period. There are four different techniques used to aid in the development of that memory (rote memory, classical mnemonics, rules, and algorithms); each of these approaches has its own particular advantages and disadvantages, and there is no one approach that offers an overall advantage to everyone (otherwise, everyone would be using it). It's also useful to note that some people (who need the functionality, but not the speed, of a memorized stack) choose not to memorize the stack at all, but simply rely on the learning method to work out the answer; this is more than sufficient for many effects, but although such people may continue to call it a memorized stack, it really isn't in such cases. Again, my essay attempts to expand on this summary by covering all of these issues in more detail.

And I did not intend to disparage anyone by my choice of words when using quoted passages. I don't use the automated feature of the Café to construct quoted references, as they do not allow one to comment on specific parts of the quoted passage.

Finally, to answer AlexTheAlrightandOK's question, my QuickerStack is a memorized deck method, not a sequential stack (although of course any memorized deck can be used as a sequential stack). My DAO Stack (for playing cards) and Zenith Stack (for Zener cards) are better examples of the latter.
"Calculated Thoughts" now at The Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More
mtgoldstein
View Profile
Veteran user
Houston, TX
318 Posts

Profile of mtgoldstein
Alex do yourself a favor. Go to Doug's site and pick up Quickerstack. The "algorithm " is so much more logical to me than the Joyal. The more you work it the more it will morph into a memorized stack.
AlexTheAlrightandOK
View Profile
New user
15 Posts

Profile of AlexTheAlrightandOK
Quote:
On Mar 28, 2017, mtgoldstein wrote:
Alex do yourself a favor. Go to Doug's site and pick up Quickerstack. The "algorithm " is so much more logical to me than the Joyal. The more you work it the more it will morph into a memorized stack.


While math is ultimately "logical", the math adds time to the math the effect I'm using it for already requires. The one rule recall of Joyal doesn't require processing of numbers via equation. It quickly narrows down possible positions and then uses a universal rule that chooses which of those it is.
Waterloophai
View Profile
Inner circle
Belgium
1276 Posts

Profile of Waterloophai
In the past I had the (bad) habbit to give to everyone advice in order to try to help them.
In almost all the cases such an advice is ignored and sometimes even not appreciated.
Then, a wise old friend of mine (who is now deceised), once said to me: "Never give an advice, unless someone explicitly ask for it".

Re-read the initial post. He does not ask for an advice. On the contrary, he gives one to his fellow dyslexics.
Besides that, he is a real expert in all sorts of memorized decks (at least he thinks so Smile )
He really does not need our advice.
AlexTheAlrightandOK
View Profile
New user
15 Posts

Profile of AlexTheAlrightandOK
Quote:
On Mar 29, 2017, Waterloophai wrote:
Besides that, he is a real expert in all sorts of memorized decks (at least he thinks so Smile )
He really does not need our advice.


I fully acknowledged that I may have misunderstood and asked for clarification.

Why are you painting me as arrogant?
Mary Mowder
View Profile
Inner circle
Sacramento / Elk Grove, CA
3649 Posts

Profile of Mary Mowder
I can't say I've read all the posts but as a Dyslexic I do have some relevant input.

I learned Simon Aronsons Stack.

I learned it by brute force memory because I saw the table and just started work to memorize it with out turning the page for a better method to remember.

I still go through a deck with numbers on the back, face up and face down, to check if I have it, but once you really wrap your head around it, it seems to stick.

We memorized the Alphabet when we were pretty young and this is about twice as hard. I'd use the peg system if I had to do it again. It is helpful for many other uses like just associating the stack with a shopping list LOL.
I did go back and learn the card associated peg words.
I now use the pegs as a basis for one of my favorite book tests.

Being Dyslexic means you have some real advantages too (at least my belief in that seems to bear out for me personally).

-Mary Mowder
AlexTheAlrightandOK
View Profile
New user
15 Posts

Profile of AlexTheAlrightandOK
Quote:
On Mar 29, 2017, Mary Mowder wrote:
Being Dyslexic means you have some real advantages too (at least my belief in that seems to bear out for me personally).
-Mary Mowder


Have you ever read The Dyslexic Advantage?

If so, which "strengths" does your dyslexia include mostly?
Mary Mowder
View Profile
Inner circle
Sacramento / Elk Grove, CA
3649 Posts

Profile of Mary Mowder
I have not read it.

I naturally think "outside the box". One example is there is a card trick where the Magician asks "Is the card under the table or under the table cloth?". My answer for "under the table" was "both". It got a laugh from the performer (a friend) but it was honestly my first thought.

Because I am sooo slow to learn anything new (but later good at it), I am less judgmental about other peoples lapses. I'm a very easy going driver.

Because I'm used to public ridicule ("Your other left" and such. GRRRR!) I'm very unlikely to do that to others.

I think in terms of "how would others feel" because I learn a lot by watching others and then trying it myself. (This might be a result of having two big brothers with radically different approaches to a problem and me always being last to get a turn with the ball, bike, unicycle, etc...). Anyway copying with my own touches has always been easier than reading it.

I'm aware that my first "feeling" try at any juggling stunt will probably work remarkably well, followed by lots of horrible attempts where I'm trying to "think" of how to do it (a necessary step). Knowing your learning curve can take you through the tough times till you are doing better.

I'm kind of vague and not too detail oriented in my view of the world. We need detail people but it is good to have some people who think in terms of "Is this system working on the whole?". Also it is quite a pleasant way to live. I have some friends who are mad all the time. I'm not dumb. I see problems but from my perspective, I see more beauty than most of the people surrounding me.

I'm naturally creative. If I see a still picture I automatically create a story. This can be a problem, because not all the stories one makes up are true but with a little diligence it can be quit diverting without consequence. I can see different ways of manipulating objects that can make tasks easier (once I am familiar with them). I can solve some puzzles just by looking at them differently that others.

Having a visual approach can really help with the peg system.

I think I am more than usually aware of the undercurrents of a social gathering. The little background things going on in a group, who is mad at who, who likes who and such. This can be weird because some people are oblivious to these things. It can be like we were at different events if I talk to some people who were at the same party. (This could be because I have unusually sensitive hearing though. LOL).

Bottom line, I feel like I'm the only me and I choose to take that as an advantage. It always helps to feel you have an advantage. It is like the feeling of being "one ahead". It gives you the confidence to offer a little forbearance to the world at large.

-Mary Mowder
Shikanominarazu
View Profile
Loyal user
244 Posts

Profile of Shikanominarazu
Just out of curiosity, what about mnemonic systems gives people with dyslexia trouble?
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » The Best Memorized Stack for Dyslexics to Learn (7 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.27 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