|
|
JordanB Special user dallas, tx 626 Posts |
I just finished reading this book. I found it very entertaining and a good read. Has anyone else read this book and what did you think?
|
NeoMagic Inner circle I have... 2017 Posts |
I read it just last week and found it a bit of an anti-climax to be honest. Did nothing for me except to confirm Vernon's statement that:
"Walter Scott could deal a very fine second and that's all he could do, but Eddie McGuire glamorised him by calling him the Phantom of the Card Table and everything. He dealt a beautiful second, [but] that's all he could do though - he couldn't palm, he couldn't false count, he couldn't do anything..." (Revelations, Vol.8) There's certainly little in the book, as far as I could see, that might justify a claim that Walter Scott was "the greatest man ever with a pack of cards". And to quote Walter Scott himself: "Prove that I ever cheated at cards. Prove it. Anybody in the world, prove that Walter Scott's a card cheater. You can't prove nothing." (p.191-192) So what's the point? The book is well written, however, and a relatively easy read. (Incidentally, I believe it's the same David Britland who edited and illustrated Peter Duffie's recent book, Subtle Miracles.) I found the section on Erdnase of most interest.
See and download my latest free card-suits-themed desktop wallpaper | HERE
|
tollamus New user 50 Posts |
I found the book to be very interesting, although I didn't know too much about the subject matter before I read it.
|
JordanB Special user dallas, tx 626 Posts |
I was just saying it was an entertaining read. As far as the validity of its contents, I know nothing. I thought the whole story of Eddie McGuire bring Scott to New York was an entertaining story and how Down's was all part of the plot.
I know nothing about if Scott cheated or not, except to note, that a marked deck in the hands of an expert second dealer is a powerful tool. The Erdnase stuff was great, but can be read in Busby and Gardner's work. All in all, I just thought it was a good book. |
NeoMagic Inner circle I have... 2017 Posts |
Well, I finished it pretty quickly, so I guess I must have enjoyed something about it.
See and download my latest free card-suits-themed desktop wallpaper | HERE
|
Craig Krisulevicz Special user Philadelphia, PA 647 Posts |
What does everyone think about the marked deck that was sent to Vernon to see if he could spot the work? Do you believe the deck was marked or unmarked? It's something we'll probably never find out. I think it was a plain old deck.
Who is John Galt?
|
JordanB Special user dallas, tx 626 Posts |
Of course, it was. They were just screwing with him.
|
NeoMagic Inner circle I have... 2017 Posts |
Just a few lines earlier (p.162) it mentions that McGuire's correspondence with Vernon contained "enough elements of bluff to make a good poker game" and also that he had "faked out Vernon by referring to sleights of Scott's that never existed."
With such tactics in mind, I'd say McGuire sent him an ordinary deck. He probably couldn't run the risk of Vernon outsmarting him if he sent him a genuine marked deck.
See and download my latest free card-suits-themed desktop wallpaper | HERE
|
owen.daniel Inner circle England 1048 Posts |
Thought the book was great. Has anybody tried to learn the techniques taught in the manuscript at the back? is it still practical today? Or would I be better off looking somewhere else for descriptions?
Owen |
Darren Roberts Loyal user 222 Posts |
I'm currently reading this book and haven't quite finished it yet.
I would have to say that the whole point is that Scott was a true cardman! He did "the work". This doesn't mean that he can palm, pass, etc. It just means that he hustled money under fire in real games. While I'm fascinated with this type of card work, I know I could never do it for real. Of course you can't "prove" that he was a card cheater. He got away with it! That's what I'm getting out of this book. There's no real "glamour" to the work of a true card cheat. They do what they do and rarely get caught. No one knows the work they can do. It isn't seen or "shown off". Scott did a few things well enough to cheat at cards. That's it! |
Welshwizard Loyal user Wales 292 Posts |
I think it is funny Vernon said that Walter Scott 'couldn't false count'. How many of you would prefer to see someone deal an invisible second or do an elsmsley count? I know what I would choose.
Walter Scott's performances were also of a different nature to Vernon's. Walter Scott demonstrated his cheating skills whereas Vernon was a magician. If Vernon had performed Twisting the Aces on the 14th of June 1930 after Walter Scott had dealt a Grand Slam from a shuffled deck (which he could do) then Horowitz et al. would have yawned with boredom. As to the claim that "he dealt a beautiful second, [but] that's all he could do though - he couldn't palm, he couldn't false count, he couldn't do anything..." I think Vernon was wrong. Those who have read the book will find references to other Scott talents. For example, he used a holdout device, he used na array of difficult glimpses and he could do two brilliant bottom deals. There is also reference to Scott using the pass during his blindfold deal on 'that night' in New York. It also says in the book that he did not use other cheating techniques like palming because he considered them inferior. I think this is enough evidence to suggest that Vernon was wrong. Walter Scott was not a one hit wonder. |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Books, Pamphlets & Lecture Notes » » Phantoms of the Card Table (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.02 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 < |