The Seven Queens stack is the easiest acaan calculation of the good looking tetradistic stacks?

Does anyone know of a tetradistic stack that is:
1. easier to learn to do?
2. and quicker to calculate the position?

Note that the Seven Queens stack requires no memorization of any card position.

The Eight Kings stacks are good looking tetradistic stacks but I have not found any Eight Kings variant that can quickly calculate the position of any named card.

Offset number:
In order to do the acaan calculation the really important feature of these good looking (better looking than Si Stebbins) stacks is how fast can the magician determine the offset number (0 or 13 or 26 or 39). That's really the holy Grail for a tetradistic stack to do acaan.

The final step of adding the value of the Harry Riser twin pair is pretty much the same concept in most of these stacks.

How fast can the Seven Queens method determine the offset number. Very fast.
Add the card value and it's suit (SHCD) value (this will give a number 1 through 17).

Now divide by 4 giving a remainder of 0 or 1 or 2 or 3. Note: instead of actually dividing by four I mentally just think of how many notches above the nearest multiple of four.

This tells the offset number.
0 equals 0
1 equals 13
2 equals 26
3 equals 39

I have seen postings about the Karma stacks and suspect that they may use this same technique? Don't know? Am thinking about purchasing the Karma Pro version just to find out.

Below is the Eight Queens stack which uses SHoCkeD as the suit values:

7S, QD, 8D, KC, 10H, 9C, AC, 3S, 6H, 5C, JS, 2H, 4D
7H, QS, 8S, KD, 10C, 9D, AD, 3H, 6C, 5D, JH, 2C, 4S
7C, QH, 8H, KS, 10D, 9S, AS, 3C, 6D, 5S, JC, 2D, 4H
7D, QC, 8C, KH, 10S, 9H, AH, 3D, 6S, 5H, JD, 2S, 4C

Your response is welcome.
glowball

Oops, I said "Eight Queens" when I should have said "Seven Queens".

This link has a description on how to do the difficult "number to card" calculation.

https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view......orum=205

It is in shuffled not stirred.

Hi Glowball,
When you refer to an "acaan calculation" you seem to mean just calculating what position a card is at, or vice versa.
The easiest way to do this is surely to memorise a stack.

Nikodemus,
This is not for me, I have been using Aronson for about 20 years.

I'm trying to find the easiest stack that a bunch of my local magic club members can quickly learn and use that meet my 3 criteria:

1. Better looking than a Si Stebbins.
2. Can quickly calculate the position of a named card.
3. Can quickly calculate the next (top) card after glimpsing the bottom card.

The "quickly learn and use" overriding criteria rules out a memorized deck for our group.

But more specifically I am trying to find the fastest good looking tetradistic stack that can calculate "card to number".

Note that with a tetradistic stack we should later be able to come up with mnemonic methods to address the "next card" calculation if none currently exist.

Therefore my immediate focus is to find the fastest easiest to learn "card to number" calculation amongst the good looking tetradistic stacks.

The Doug Dyment DAO (Dyment, Aryes, Osterlind) Stack is hands down the fastest and easiest to learn of the good looking "next card" stacks that I have seen, but it was not designed to calculate a card position.

So far my Seven Queens stack appears to be the fastest easiest of the good looking tetradistic stacks that meet my criteria, but am open to other stacks.

As always thanks for your input.

This design is a trivial modification of my own QuickStack, originally published over twenty years ago. But QuickStack features a considerably simplified calculation process (with no multiplications, divisions, or difficult additions/subtractions; 75% of the cards can be located with at most one single-digit addition). So considerably faster than what is described here.

Doug, here is my rebuttal:
I disagree with your statement that the Seven Queens stack is a "trivial modification" of your QuickStack.

It is true that they are both tetradistic stacks (so are a lot of other stacks).
It is true that they both use the Harry Riser pairs concept (that's been around a long time).
It's true that they both add the pair value to the offset.

But that's where the similarities end.
Your QuickStack methodology requires the memorization of 13 key cards whereas the Seven Queens stack does not require any such memorization.

The Seven Queens stack adds the card value and the suit value and does a mod 4 to almost instantly reveal the offset number (the QuickStack does not use this technique).

I disagree with your statement:

"So (QuickStack) considerably faster than what is described here."

Both stacks require the final addition of the paired value to the offset so there is no difference in the speed of the two stacks for that part of the calculation (of course I give a nod to QuickStack for the 25% of the time the spectator names one of its 13 memorized key cards).

I believe if we each took a Joe Blow club magician and taught them to perform our respective stacks (your QuickStack versus Seven Queens stack) that I could teach my Joe Blow to perform the Seven Queens stack three times faster than you could teach your Joe Blow to perform QuickStack (mainly because they have to first memorize 13 key cards).

I believe that at performance time my Joe Blow would arrive at the offset number every bit as fast (maybe faster) than your Joe Blow.

I like your stacks (especially DAO) and your book.
Respectfully, glowball

Globall and I shall have to agree to disagree about the relative simplicity of the two stacks in question. I will not attempt a detailed response, as I am confused by the rebuttal claims in any case.

QuickStack does not have any key cards, nor does it require memorization of any cards, so I'm not sure what is being referenced above; perhaps glowball is unclear on its construction. QuickStack requires no divisions, and 75% of the cards can be located with at most one single-digit addition. I don't think Seven Queens comes even close to such simple conversions (and most people are uncomfortable performing mod 4 calculations -- which require a division -- on the fly.

So I'll stand by my claims, and leave it to others to decide which approach they find easier to use.

My rebuttal number two:
Doug,
Some clarifications needed: are we talking about the same QuickStack?

I'm comparing my Seven Queens stack to your QuickStack 3.0 as specified in your book Calculated Thoughts.

I maybe used the wrong term "13 KEY cards", however let's just say there are 13 relationships that must be memorized to do QuickStack 3.0.

From your book, and I quote:

"the suit associated with each value in the 13 xxxxxxxxxxxxx; the suits in the other xxxx are defined in relationship to these xxxxxxx, so they - like the numerical positions - must be thoroughly memorized. ... To reiterate then this is a list of all 13 cards in xxxxx: when given any of these card names you should be able to respond rapidly with its stack position...".

Note that I put in xxxxxxxx in several places to protect your method.

Notice that you say these 13 relationships "MUST BE THOROUGHLY MEMORIZED".

The Seven Queens methodology does not require such memorization thus making it much faster to learn.

The key to both of these stacks is how fast the magician can determine the OFFSET number.

I maintain that the Seven Queens methodology (mod 4) is probably faster. I agree that division is undesirable therefore the way I teach my friends to do the calculation instead of dividing is just to think "how much am I above the nearest multiple of 4". For example: how much is the number 9 above the nearest multiple of four? Well, eight is the nearest multiple of 4 therefore the answer is 1 (1 equates to 13).

Mod 4:
Reminder to everyone out there that the only multiples of four that we have to know are 0, 4, 8, 12, 16. That's it! How hard is it to know that 7 is 3 above four? Pretty easy I would say.

Seven Queens methodology:
Let's say the card value times the suit value is equal to 14 (as in the case of the Queen of Hearts):
The magician should know instantly the mod 4 result is 2 (14 is two above the nearest multiple of four). And 2 equates to 26.

This calculation is lightning fast!

Theories about which methodology is faster are interesting but as they say the proof of the pudding is in the eating therefore I'm going to thoroughly learn QuickStack 3.0 and later get one of my friends that knows the Seven Queens stack methodology to bone up on it and then get someone with a stopwatch to time us. We'll do a lot of cards.

I will legitimately try to win the competition using your QuickStack 3.0 (regardless of who wins I believe the difference will be negligible).

We will do "card to number" contests and then we will do "number to card" contests.

I suspect that the Seven Queens will win the "card to number" contest, but I also suspect that QuickStack 3.0 will win the "number to card" contests.

It may be a few months (holidays coming up) before I and a friend can do this. This will be fun, and I will be honest either way it turns out.

Respectfully, glowball

Oops,

As one of my examples I said:
"Let's say the card value times the suit value is equal to 14 (as in the case of the Queen of Hearts):"

Instead of "times" I should have said "plus".

So the correct wording should have been:

Let's say the card value PLUS the suit value is equal to 14 (as in the case of the Queen of Hearts):

I said that I would avoid any kind of detailed response, and I intend to honour that, but I see now how glowball is interpreting things. QuickStack is a fully algorithmic stack: there is no need to memorize any cards or positions. But it is necessary to learn some things (I refer to this in the book as "memorizing"; arguably I should just have said "learned"). One must learn the mirror pair structure. One must learn how the suits are computed. This is the same for Seven Queens.

Indeed, this is true in some sense with any memorized stack. The difference with an algorithmic stack is that one is never exclusively dependent on having memorized the value/location pairings: in case of difficulty, it is always possible to go back to first principles (which will not be as quick, but will be better than failing). That said, with the continued use of any algorithmic stack, card value/position associations will, over time, become memorized.

It is, of course, extremely difficult to do any sort of A:B comparison with matters of this sort. The experiment proposed by glowball cannot prove anything. It may suggest that one person is better than doing mental arithmetic than another. It may suggest that one has a better memory than another. It may suggest that one person has a different learning style than another (this is why there are four different methods of learning a memorized stack, the algorithmic approach being but one of them). But it can provide no significant A:B evidence. Again, though, based simply on the numbers and types of actions required by the two methods, I stand by my original comments.

I second Glowball because the 7 Queens stack is a shadow stack. Any card points directly to the card's bank. Of course, QuickStack 3.0 could easily be converted into a shadow stack as well.

Guys, not for nothing, and if you just like calculating things to produce the magic, then I say go for it as a bit of it is quite interesting to say the least. I do enjoy the bit of memory work and stacks I’ve been through on my journey, they are indeed clever inventions. But if you don’t want to do all that math or any math or memorization, etc., to perhaps concentrate more on just the magic to present an amazing ACAAN type of effect, then I implore both glow and dd to check out “Berg FAST,” part of the F.A.S.T. Project by Daniel Johnson. It uses these similar concepts but makes it all work more automatically for you, sorta in the way an elevator just works taking you more automatically up or down with a push of a button and you’re there. Nothing to calculate, nothing to memorize. Leaves much more time for a good casual presentation, much in the manner of The Berglas Effect.

I do hope you take a look at it if you haven’t already or perhaps take a good look at it again (but of course as it is shown above right here in debate, people will always find something that they don’t like about most things as mileage may vary), but F.A.S.T. Is very, very clever and much more so easier to do, IMHO. Sorta the difference between taking the stairs or an elevator, or something like that.

Happy New Years, fellas!

I think the Shadow Sequeira by Hans-Christian Solka should be a contender.

This excellent formula-based stack was developed in 2015 well before the Seven Queens stack. To calculate the position of "card to number" the two stacks both use the mod 4 plus a pair value (they use a different pairing scheme). Therefore the speed and ease to mentally do this calculation is very fast on both stacks.

To do the "next card" calculation the Shadow Sequeira method can be learned much quicker.
The Seven Queens method of determining the "next card" using the 13 stories takes longer to learn, but once learned is just as fast as Shadow Sequeira.

Look at the thread below and go to the bottom two or three posts where it starts with "I immediately bought the Shadow Sequeira" to see a more complete comparison:

https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view......forum=99

This stack was mentioned by hcs.

I just did a facepalm! I thought that hcs was a third party observer, wrong, hcs must mean Hans Christian Solka!