|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next] | ||||||||||
ddyment Inner circle Gibsons, BC, Canada 2499 Posts |
To my eye, Ekaterina's shuffle looks like just what it is: a series of running cuts, nothing at all the way a real shuffle appears.
Personally, I have long championed Dan Garrett's "Underhanded Overhand Shuffle", an illustrated description of which can be found in (among other places) his 1992 book, Garrett in the U.S.A., page 20. It's fairly easy to acquire (the same "logic" as the Hunter shuffle, but with no jogs or pauses), and quite convincing.
The Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More :: (order "Calculated Thoughts" from Vanishing Inc.)
|
|||||||||
Bob G Inner circle 2831 Posts |
Thanks to all of you, Kevin, Mike, and ddyment. I'll check these out. There is some genuinely good instruction on youtube, sprinkled among all the embarrassing stuff.
|
|||||||||
ddyment Inner circle Gibsons, BC, Canada 2499 Posts |
I just did a little surfing to see what would be the best of Dan Garrett's publications for acquiring his "Underhanded Overhand Shuffle" (that would be his $10 TOP 10 Lecture Notes) and discovered that Bob Farmer (who, it turns out, agrees with me that "Dan's shuffle is the best full-deck shuffle there is") has added an interesting wrinkle of his own (making it even more foolproof): you can read about it over on the Genii Forum.
I haven't yet tried this myself, but I'm a big fan of Bob's thinking, and expect that it will be excellent.
The Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More :: (order "Calculated Thoughts" from Vanishing Inc.)
|
|||||||||
Bob G Inner circle 2831 Posts |
Thanks! Much appreciated. Coincidentally, when I was checking people's suggestions, I came across this same thread on Genii. It looks exciting -- no need to run cards. Even as a relatively untutored magic fan I can tell that Farmer's work is imaginative. Thanks also for the link to Garrett's lecture notes.
|
|||||||||
chappy Special user 764 Posts |
Hi Bob, here is another alternative to consider:
https://www.instagram.com/p/CCdO2uZnPsK/?igshid=wg5n7l8e8np9
FARO FUNDAMENTALS, DETAILS OF DECEPTION and THE DEVIL'S STAIRCASE at www.thedevilsstaircase.com
|
|||||||||
Bob G Inner circle 2831 Posts |
Hi chappy,
Nice to hear from you. This is pretty cool. The first time I watched I was totally taken in. The second time I started to see what was happening. Do you think this would fly with laypeople? If so, do you know where I can find an explanation? Thanks, Bob |
|||||||||
chappy Special user 764 Posts |
Yes, it'll fool them. It's seeing the early light of day here. There's a section and variations in the works in my next book. It's unpublished at present although I have explained it before in a live session on Instagram. For now you can learn the basic version by watching this back a few times. Or feel free to contact me I'd be happy to show it to you.
Best, Greg
FARO FUNDAMENTALS, DETAILS OF DECEPTION and THE DEVIL'S STAIRCASE at www.thedevilsstaircase.com
|
|||||||||
CardGuyMike Special user 787 Posts |
Looks like it's along the same lines as Ben Daggers' Drop Shuffle.
https://theimpossibleco.com/product/drop-shuffle/ |
|||||||||
Nikodemus Inner circle 1140 Posts |
About 6 months ago I learnt the Joyal 6 Hour stack. I pretty quickly realised I needed to learn a false shuffle. I wanted to start with Overhand, because that is far more "normal" here in the UK than riffle shuffling.
I researched quite a lot, mostly by looking at YouTube videos. I was looking for something that was easy and convincing. I would rather do a basic sleight well than an advanced one badly. I found it very awkward to do any shuffle that involved secretly re-taking packets in the way Ekaterina does. Also the example by 'Biz" which I believe may actually be Patrick Redford's? This led me to reject a LOT that looked really great in the demos - but were too challenging for me at this stage. The one that I settled on was Dan Garrett's. (Which I too found at the Genii forum. This is basically the same as Hunter (running cards) but without the in-jog - uses a different technique to obtain the same result. I had the same problem as Bob at first - not being able to consistently run single cards. My solution was just to practice that skill until my fingers & brain tuned in. Start by putting the cards into any order you will recognise. A stack if you know one. Or just A-K in each suit. Then practice running cards FACE UP. This means you can instantly see when it goes wrong. The goal is for your hands to learn to feel the difference that your eyes can see. For me it helped to focus on what my RIGHT fingers & thumb were feeling as my left thumb pulled off each card. For me it is NOT all controlled by the left thumb. But you do also need to become sensitive to how much pressure the thumb needs to apply. Also it helped to hold the left cards at a flatter angle than the right cards. Practice running the WHOLE deck from right hand to left hand. This is not quite the same as shuffling, but I think is actually a better exercise. Once you get the hang of it, do it without looking. Only look to check when your fingers tell you something has just gone wrong. Also practice correcting problems on the fly, rather than stopping dead. You shouldn't need to look through the deck at the end to check for mistakes. Just count the 52 cards as you run them. If you get LESS than 52 you have run at least one double. Also consider the sound the cards make. Try to avoid the "snap" of single cards, and get a "chukka chukka chukka" noise like shuffling. The flatter angle of the left hand packet really helps with this. |
|||||||||
Nikodemus Inner circle 1140 Posts |
Re OPTICAL SHUFFLE -
6 months ago I had exactly the same feeling that it did not look realistic in my hands. Then I stumbled on it again more recently - and now I like it. I like to do a pattern of 2-3 false drops at the front followed by a genuine one at the back. I like the fact that the packet gets smaller. I don't really care that in a genuine shuffle you are not supposed to drop at the back. So long as it looks relaxed no one will care. And some laymen actually DO shuffle this way. A couple of other things I like to do - I make a conscious effort to "disturb" the left hand cards by rubbing upwards with the right hand packet. This creates the "falling" effect. It also generates the right noise. When you pull off the left hand packet at the start, you need to create a bevelled look in the right hand packet rather than tidily squared. Funnily enough I haven't come across this explicitly stated in any descriptions - even though everyone does it. You need to hold the right hand packet tighter than other shuffles - otherwise it's quite easy to pull off cards by mistake. Hope this is useful! |
|||||||||
Bob G Inner circle 2831 Posts |
Gosh, this is great, Nikodemus! Like you, I started using the Garrett shuffle, and it does make a difference. I bought a pamphlet from Garrett that describes the move.
I also found, on some other forum that I don't remember at the moment, a really detailed description by Bob Farmer, who is a big advocate for Garrett's shuffle, and who has tweaked it in an interesting way: Rather than running a few cards, he "optically shuffles" a few cards. By the way, while practicing the Garrett shuffle, I discovered that it helped to push against the right-hand packet lightly with the knuckle. I emailed Garrett about my discovery, and he told me that that touch is in the Royal Road! So my discovery was original but not new -- no surprise there. My favorite part of your two recent posts is your practice method. I've been setting two memorable cards at the front and back of the deck (e. g., the two red tens), and watching to see if they're still in place at the end of the shuffle. But your method of starting with a stack, e. g., a new deck, *face up* is is much more informative. I'm going to try it. My G. W. Hunter and Garrett shuffles are improving, but I still need to work more for consistency, so your first post is very welcome. I won't forget about your second post, on the optical shuffle. Good for you for adding your own touches. But for me, one thing at a time! Bob P. S. "I would rather do a basic sleight well than an advanced one badly." Well put, and I completely agree. P. P. S. I read in Card College that riffle shuffles aren't that common outside the U. S. I wonder how that came about. |
|||||||||
Bob G Inner circle 2831 Posts |
On looking back at this page of the thread, I realize that it was ddyment who put me onto the Garrett shuffle and Farmer's variation. So thanks again, ddyment!
|
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Two more touches for the optical shuffle that I find make it look more convincing for me:
1) The left hand fingers under the left hand's talon can push the bottom cards upwards along the way, making the shuffle seem more chaotic without actually displacing any cards. 2) This one is hard to describe in words, and it's subtle, but let me try. It's a rhythmic motion of the left forefinger. At the start, the left forefinger is in the front of the deck, curled against the front short end. As the right hand lifts up, the left forefinger extends; as the the right hand comes down with its talon, the left forefinger curls back around the short end. The idea is to simulate a squaring action with the left forefinger that would happen if cards had been actually dropped by the right hand.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
ipe Special user 513 Posts |
I just saw this thread. I rarely need a full-deck false shuffle because I usually only need a false shuffle preserving the cyclical order. But I really like the Farmer's "Optical Underhanded Overhand Shuffle": this will be the only full-deck false shuffle I will ever use from now on.
Thank you, Doug.
What would a real mindreader do?
|
|||||||||
Bob G Inner circle 2831 Posts |
Thanks, Landmark. I'm going to give your first subtlety, along with Nikodemus's ideas, when I try the optical shuffle again. I thought you described your second idea quite clearly. After reading it, I did an ordinary shuffle and discovered that I don't do the squaring action you describe. Not sure I want to, though, because some of the overhand controls are supposed to look better if the cards aren't perfectly square. In my one-shuffle experiment I got a kind of nearly squared deck with the cards sticking out in different directions, but not terribly different. Like someone who will soon need a haircut, but doesn't yet.
Bob |
|||||||||
warren Inner circle uk 4138 Posts |
Another vote for the Optical shuffle there's nothing to think about and done casually it's very deceptive.
|
|||||||||
Tim Cavendish Inner circle 1404 Posts |
Bob G, how often do you change out your decks?
The finish on modern-day Bicycle cards gets sticky relatively quickly, and that directly messes with the ability to reliably run single cards. (To say nothing of how it'll also torpedo your success rate with push-/pull-through shuffles.) Try a fresh deck and see if that dramatically impacts your success with the Hunter shuffle. |
|||||||||
mlippo Inner circle Trieste (Italy) 1227 Posts |
Quote:
On Oct 22, 2020, Tim Cavendish wrote: Absolutely right!!! Any moment a deck that was working fine, can become sticky enough to screw up a push-through or a strip-out! Moment to throw it in the rubbish .... Mark |
|||||||||
Bob G Inner circle 2831 Posts |
My decks seem to start clumping, or at least providing too much friction, within a couple of months -- even though I have decks all over the house and am not using just one deck for the whole two months. So the point about replacing decks is well taken. How long do your decks stay usable, folks? I live in a rather humid area; perhaps that's playing a role in degrading my cards.
Warren and other optical-shuffle fans: Clearly I need to return to this one after I've learned all the other (too much) magic I'm working on. |
|||||||||
Tim Cavendish Inner circle 1404 Posts |
The deck finish doesn't spoil with time; it wears out with usage -- how many times each card surface rubs against another card. It's the cumulative friction that wears out the finish.
So it depends on your activity level with each deck. Each riffle shuffle causes wear to a great many card surfaces. Practicing double lifts or palms or color changes affects fewer surfaces. Overhand shuffles are in between. When you can't reliably run single cards, mark your deck box with an X and reserve that deck for practicing less-sensitive techniques. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Easy full-deck false shuffle? -- Hunter is driving me nuts! :) (45 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 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 < |