On Dec 17, 2023, Cain wrote:
Well, it depends on what you want to get out of either. What features do YOU desire? As Aronson remarked, the stack you use is generally the second one you choose. I regard both of these stacks as pretty similar in terms of costs/benefits. If I had to choose, my own preference would lean toward Redford because I like finishing in NDO, and it seems easier to get there with Redford than Mnenomica. However, there's more work available for Mnenmonica, so just pick one, use it, and find out which tricks you want to do.

As for me, I don't use either Redford or Mnemonica. I think some of the most advanced thinking on mem-decks comes from Michael Skinner, who built his first stack built in two tricks that he loved to perform but could rarely do because they had elaborate setups. His next stack involved taking a brand new deck and giving it five out-faros. Or, even better, take a brand new deck, and swap the Spades for the Diamonds so that it's a stay-stack, then give it four out-faros (this is the mem-deck used by Darwin Ortiz). In one of Redford's books (I believe) he talks about a debate/discussion with Fleshman about underlying patterns in stacks. Both Redford and Mnemonica have a deep underlying, patterned structure, but I think both go off the rails by trying to disguise it. In Mnemonica there's a partial faro; in Redford, there's an elaborate overhand shuffle. If you perform tricks where spectators are able to scrutinize the order, then either of those stacks would be better than a straight faro-based stack (and Aronson would be best of all). However, If you want to get to NDO with Redford or Mnemnoica, you have to undo the overhand shuffle or reversed-partial faro. I prefer to just remove the stoplights. Of course, a faro-based stack is sort of pointless if someone cannot do faros, or has little interest in presenting something that resembles NDO. So we're back to the advice of Aronson and Skinner.

On Dec 18, 2023, PapaG wrote: Originally I was going to go for Mnemonica: all the books I have — apart from the Aronsons obviously — gravitate towards Mnemonica but the new kid on the block seems to be getting a lot of converts from Tamariz. I was also under the impression that Tamariz's stack was more ideally suited to the NDO of Spanish decks rather than USPCC.

Out of interest, what stack do you use?

I've used Mnemonica religiously for the last decade. I've put in so much work with Mnemonica... memorizing the quartets; figuring out the plop technique for various setups, sussing out all various ways to get to good Hold'em setups, working up many situations for Behr's "finding the way home" principle, worked up routines to get to NDO, and so much more... I've put a lot of my life into it.

Having said that, I got the Redford stack committed to memory and up to a performance-acceptable level of recall speed (read: instantaneous) and I'm now 100% switched over to the Redford stack. It was a tough decision, given all the work I've put into Mnemonica--not to mention the fact that nearly everyone I know uses Mnemonica. But the benefits of the Redford stack are simply too great to pass up.

There had always been a few "holy grail" things I wished Mnemonica could do that I was trying hard to figure out. To name a few: more streamlined way to get back to NDO, quick way to non-sequential/pattern red black alternating, quick way to get to memorize stay stack (either the first or second half still in stack, and the other half mirroring it), better way to get into stack from a borrowed shuffled deck without dealing or faros (as sometimes I've given a waterlogged old bar deck), among others. Well, the Redford stack has all that baked in.

Given the fact that I can do all my favorite effects from Mnemonica (like Mnemonicosis) with any stack, it made good sense to move to one loaded with utility features that I'd always wanted. This doesn't even take into account the built-in effects the stack has, which are many and pretty dang excellent (they're available on video in other threads, so I won't belabor that point here.)