ERDNASE

[lybrary]

This week my newsletter will reproduce a portion of a newspaper article which mentions one circus/sideshow work Edward Gallaway was involved with during 1896. I will also further explore the Gallaway/Harto connection now that I have read up on Jim Harto's biography.

[Bill Mullins]

Just checking to make sure I understand what you are proposing:

That Ed Gallaway, who is known to have grown up in Delphos, and moved to Chicago some time before Jan 23 1896, when he was documented as having run a printing business at 57 Washington St (see Chicago Trib of that date), and isn't otherwise known (until these revelations) to have lived in any other city until his death; and who is known to have worked in the printing industry and related fields from his youth at the Delphos newspaper, to print shops in Chicago in the late 1890s and early 1900s, on to his own printing estimating school starting in 1924, and isn't (until these most recent revelations) known to have worked in any other field, particularly not the circus --

You are suggesting that this same guy, who lived a straight-as-an-arrow middle-class white-bread life, essentially ran off and joined the circus? That he spent some of Sept 1896 working at the fair grounds in West Lebanon IN managing the entertainment of the West Lebanon Fair, including Couch's Little World (what appears to be a mechanical miniature automaton exhibit), and boy juggler Frank Mortimer, and eight-year-Clara the snake charmer; and that he spent part of 1924 (the same year he founded his school) performing at some venue as "Bustin Homes".

Am I getting this right?

Ed/Edw/Edward Gallaway/Galloway isn't a particularly unusual name, and Ancestry.com shows dozens of men with that name in the 1900 census. Why do you think Ed Gallaway the Delphos/Chicago printer and Ed Gallaway the 1896/1924 show biz guy are the same guy?

[lybrary]

Bill, you are correct, that is what I am saying.

You are wrong in your statement that we only know Gallaway lived in Delphos and Chicago. We also have him in Fort Payne, AL (also a place his older brother lived) and Fort Wayne, IN.

BTW, his name is Gallaway with an 'a'. Occasionally one can find it misspelled with an 'o', but for the most part it is written correctly with an 'a'. For the record, the name Gallaway is about 200 times rarer than say Andrews. Richard Hatch once commented that Andrews is not that common a second name. So if Andrews is already not that common, then we can clearly say Gallaway is a fairly uncommon name.

[Roger M.]

For the record, the name Gallaway is about 200 times rarer than say Andrews.

These are the kinds of statements that seem to be factual upon casual reading, but 5 minutes of research indicates that the name "Gallaway" is (approximately) the 108.000th most common surname on earth, and the name "Andrews" is the 2500th most common surname.

Indeed the resultant math would indicate that the name Gallaway is approximately 43 times "rarer" than Andrews (not 200 times).

It can seem at times that an abundance of statements related to Gallaway as a candidate are being presented as heavily researched and factual, but aren't facts at all, and are more often misleading or simply wrong.

[Bill Mullins]

I stand corrected with respect to his having lived in other cities. Shame on me, especially since I have discussed the Ft Payne situation with you off line recently. Slipped my mind.

But I still find him to be an unlikely candidate for having written Expert. I think the life that Gallaway is known to have lived up until 1902 -- that of a newspaperman/printer, well known in his profession and apparently respected as well -- would not have allowed the time or the opportunities to become as skilled as Erdnase seems to have been. I see Erdnase as a man who spent many hours/days alone in a room with a deck of cards, developing skill, and Gallaway does not seem to have been that sort of person. Further, if Erdnase was an active cheat, that also is not consistent with a guy who has a public persona -- anonymity works for the cheat, and celebrity works against him (not that Gallaway was known as well as a Kardashian, but neither was he living in the shadows). If you throw in the contention that he also had a second career under the big top, it just doesn't match up in my mind.

But I look forward to seeing evidence that suggests otherwise. I'd like to see anything that shows that Edward Gallaway, the Chicago printer, had any skill whatsoever with a deck of cards (magic or cheating); and I'd like to see anything that shows that EG the Chicago printer was also the same person as EG the circus guy. I trust all will be made clear when your book is released.

[lybrary]

Roger, I have to question your ability to understand numbers, or perhaps you want to intentionally mislead. Imagine a world where only two names exist, A and B. further consider 91% of the people have the name A and 9% have the name B. in this hypothetical world the name B is 10 times rarer than A. In the way you measure it B would only be 2 times as rare as A, because ranking the names A is 1st and B 2nd. So clearly using ranking is the wrong way to measure rarity.

My number of 200x comes from actually searching through a full text newspaper database. Certainly this is only an estimate. Maybe it is only 180 or perhaps the factor is 250. Either way you want to put it, Gallaway is an uncommon name.

[lybrary]

Bill, do I understand you correctly that if Edward Gallaway the printer is the same one who has a 3 year circus career and performed what appears to be a magic performance in 1924, that you would then consider him a much more likely Erdnase?

[Bill Mullins]

BTW, his name is Gallaway with an 'a'. Occasionally one can find it misspelled with an 'o', but for the most part it is written correctly with an 'a'. For the record, the name Gallaway is about 200 times rarer than say Andrews. Richard Hatch once commented that Andrews is not that common a second name. So if Andrews is already not that common, then we can clearly say Gallaway is a fairly uncommon name.

I realize that "Gallaway", not "Galloway", is the printer's name. I only threw "Galloway" in because of the many times that he was referred to by that name in print. Typos are common.

And how rare "Gallaway" is relative to "Andrews", or how rare it is in any absolute sense, doesn't change the fact that there were enough adult males named Ed/Edw/Edward Gallaway ca. 1900 that it is not reasonable to suppose initially that Ed Gallaway the printer and Ed Gallaway the circus guy were the same person (especially since, until these new revelations, EG the printer wasn't previously known to have had any circus activities, nor was he known to have been in West Lebanon IN in 1896 -- in fact, all evidence indicates that he was living in and was very busy in Chicago during that year, and to suggest without supporting facts that he took time off from the full-time job of running a business to go play circus MC 120 miles away strains credulity). They may have been the same guy, but that should be proven by something other than a common name.

Ancestry.com shows about ten adult males named Edward Gallaway in the 1900 census. There were more than that living then, as many went unrecorded, and Ancestry's indexing isn't perfect. This also does not include men named "Edouard", "Edwin," "Edgar," and other names that would yield "Ed" as a nickname.

Bill, do I understand you correctly that if Edward Gallaway the printer is the same one who has a 3 year circus career and performed what appears to be a magic performance in 1924, that you would then consider him a much more likely Erdnase?

I would consider him a somewhat more likely person, but this doesn't mean much, because it would be like going from a 1 in 1000 chance of being Erdnase, to a 1 in 200 chance. Doing a magic act in a circus doesn't have much in common with the skills described in Expert. If you could show that he had skill with cards, and if you could show a better reason than "he spoke German well" to explain the nickname, I'd like him more, but those are two huge (in my mind) holes in the case for him. If the articles you have discovered solve these problems, I'll gladly revisit my estimation.

I have to question your ability to understand numbers. . . in this hypothetical world the name B is 10 times rarer than A.

Pedantically speaking, as an engineer who makes his living being precise with numbers, this thought should be expressed as "B is one-tenth as common as A." When B is smaller than A, it is poor usage to describe their relationship in terms that say B is "X" times A, where "X" is greater than one. "Joe is twice as short as Jim" doesn't make sense; "Joe is one half as tall as Jim" does. I realize that this is common enough popular usage, but in a thread where some are questioning the numeracy of others, I thought I'd bring it up.

Further, using hit counts of "Andrews" vs hit counts of "Gallaway" in a newspaper archive is a very poor way to ascertain the relative commonness of one name vs another in the general population. Newspaper archives are not neutral with respect to the distribution of names – they underreprepent black people, for example. If there was a person named Andrews who was prominent in the newspaper industry (for example, someone like E. S. Andrews, who published the Williamston Enterprise in Michigan), you would expect that "Andrews" would be overrepresented in such a count.

Far better to use census indices. Ancestry.com's index of the 1900 census has 49,959 peopled named "Andrews" and 2587 people named "Gallaway". By that measure, "Andrews" was about 19 times more common as a last name than "Gallaway" in that year. That's not a perfect number, for various reasons, but is better than a hit count ratio from newspapers.

[lybrary]

As I wrote in my newsletter Edward Gallaway, the printer born in Delphos, is the one with a 3 year circus career. It says so in his biographical sketch. He is also the one performing magic in 1924. This is all backed up by documents. He is also the same who was a traveling typsetter. Again, it says so in his bio. I suggest you accept it as fact. You will be able to independently verify these facts later.

So Gallaway was traveling a lot by train, then he had a three year circus career, working sideshows, and still you think he had no time to practice his skills with cards. Ridiculous.

Gallaway was not only good with German, he typeset for a German newspaper. Again, it says so in his bio. That means his fluency in German is solidly established. The nickname theory thus a good explanation for the name Erdnase.

[Roger M.]

I referenced multiple databases which described the number of folks with any given Surname.
There are dozens of them available online.
Obviously not 100% accurate, but each close enough to the other to get a general idea of how many folks there are with any given Surname.

Applying a reduction, for every 1080 folks named Andrews, there are 25 folks named Gallaway.
Further reduction would give you that for every 100 folks named Andrews, there are 2.5 folks named Gallaway.

Regardless of how you choose to reference your method of measure, by simple reduction it still requires multiplying the lesser by 40 in order to achieve the same number of Gallaway's as there are Andrews, thus establishing clearly the difference in numbers between the two.

The expression of equation used in this comparison is uncomfortable for reasons Bill pointed out in his last post, but however one decides to express it, Gallaway is certainly not 200 times less common a name than Andrews.

It's a relatively unimportant point in and of itself, but it takes on some importance as one wonders what other "facts" as presented are nothing of the sort.
The suggestion that folks reading this thread quit asking questions, and simply accept what's being presented as the last word on the issue is counter to the entire tone of the thread.
The vetting of any given candidate though questioning is not only one of the main points of this thread, it's also highly productive conversation that causes us all to constantly reevaluate our preconceptions, myself included.

To be clear, and although I obviously don't support him to the degree Chris does ... I haven't stated anywhere that I reject Gallaway as a candidate.

[Roger M.]

What possible connection could a circus have with TEATCT or its author?

Simply being a magician in a circus (if indeed Gallaway was such) doesn't in any way mean that playing cards were featured in your act, or that you posses even rudimentary skills with a deck of cards.

Indeed, I might posit that playing cards wouldn't have anything at all to do with a circus magician of that era, if not simply because they would have been all but completely invisible to the audience in attendance.

[lybrary]

Roger, you were very strong in your opinion that Gallaway had no time to practice. Does he now have the time for it?

[Roger M.]

Chris, indeed being involved in an occupation that would put you on a train frequently does imply one would have time to practice with a deck of cards.

BUT ... the frequency Gallaway's train travel is not at all established yet, beyond your comments that it was "a lot".

What was "a lot" - and what documentation supports the frequency of travel, and the total time spent on a train?

But "yes" ... train travel specifically would apply positively to practice time with playing cards if not simply for the complete hands-off nature of that method of travel.

[lybrary]

Gallaway was the orator for various circuses. That means he worked in front of the tent and was heavily involved with the sideshow. That is why he is the sideshow manager in the newspaper article I cited in my newsletter. Sideshows are filled with scam artist, pickpockets, short changers, etc. This means Gallaway socialized with cheaters. That clearly makes him more likely a cheater himself. The magic performance was not in a circus but as a speciality act in a one of a kind theater production. In other words Gallaway is not a professional magician, he simply made magic part of a unique performance he put together. This also fits very nicely with the Erdnase profile many have in their mind.

Also mentioned here earlier, EATCT has a trick with a circus theme, which we have to assume is original with Erdnase, because we don't know any prior publication of a card trick with that patter. That makes sense for somebody with a circus career, making Gallaway a better fit.

First you guys cited the fact that he is a printer as something that excludes him from being Erdnase. Now we know he travelled a lot by train, worked 3 years at circuses, and later performed magic for a one of a kind theatre production, and still you somehow try to claim that this excludes him from being Erdnase. Ridiculous.

[lybrary]

What about his three years at the circus? You don't think that three years at the circus gives him plenty of time to practice? Traveling circuses only toured during the summer. this gave Gallaway plenty of time to practice and gamble. When you add it all up more than enough time for Gallaway to become as good as Erdnase with cards.

[Roger M.]

Not trying to be confrontational or negative at all Chris, but we don't know anything of the sort.

You've simply posted this information here in the forum, and in more detail in your newsletter ... but you've offered nothing in terms of documentation to back it up or support it.

I'm eager to read the material you're using to support these claims you're making ... and if that involves purchasing your book, I'll likely be one of your first customers.

I'm not sure that I'd place circus folk, pickpockets, short change artists, and other riff-raff in the same league as what Erdnase is presenting to us in EATCT, which is probably the single largest advance in cheating with playing cards that we'll ever see.

As to practice time, I noted in a past post that I thought that, because most of the material Erdnase came up with was utterly original, and never before seen by any living person ... I'd put the time he needed to invent the moves, practice the moves, and become proficient at the moves at much more than three years.
And that three years would have been part-time, his job being the actual business of the circus.

[lybrary]

Roger, you simply don't know how awesome some people can be.

[Bill Mullins]

I've got another candidate in mind.

Like Gallaway, he spent his youth in the midwest (in a town, as it happens, closer to Chicago than Delphos OH)
Like Gallaway, he spent time in the circus in the 1890s
Like Gallaway, he spoke German fluently
Like Gallaway, he was a published author
Like Gallaway, he is known to have spent time in Chicago in the years immediately before the publication of Expert in 1902
Like Gallaway, he is known to have owned a copy of Expert
Like Gallaway, he was not a tall man (he was 5'6" and clean shaven, matching Smith's recollections)

In addition to the above, however, there are reasons to like him much more as a candidate for Erdnase than Gallaway:

He was known to have used a pseudonym in his adult life (in fact, more than one)
As a youth, he performed on the trapeze (providing a stronger explanation for the "Acrobatic Jacks" than merely working at a circus)
As an adult, he lived in New York, explaining M. D. Smith's letter to Gardner "He came from the east and N.Y."
He went abroad for several years immediately before the publication of Expert, explaining why Jamieson would sign the copyright application in his stead
He was known to have concealed his true identity on numerous occasions
He was known to have been an expert with cards
- he performed, on occasion, a gambling expose act
- he performed the three-card monte as entertainment, as suggested in Expert
- he performed the card stab, as described in Expert
- he was known to have performed, and thought possibly to have invented, a sleight which appears in Expert

Harry Houdini is a stronger candidate for Erdnase than Gallaway is.

[performer]

It wasn't Houdini. I can tell from the writing style. And his ego would not have been able to keep secret the fact he wrote one of the most iconic books on card technique ever published. And although he was pretty good at card magic he didn't have the breadth of knowledge contained in Erdnase.

Besides in my capacity as a psychic reverend I have been in touch with him in the spirit world and he denies he had anything to do with it.

[lybrary]

Bill, except you are forgetting the most important point which only Gallaway satisfies to this day. Gallaway writes like Erdnase. No other candidate does.

Gallaway is also a much better candidate on the published record side, because he self published his books, registered the copyright and puts the price on the title page. All things Erdnase does, too. Houdini doesn't.

Houdini also didn't have any known contact with the printer James McKinney. Gallaway had.

But now that you are reminding me of the move possibly by Houdini, that one Gallaway could have learned from his circus friend Harto, who was in close contact with Houdini. That actually makes sense. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Roger M.]

Bill, except you are forgetting the most important point which only Gallaway satisfies to this day. Gallaway writes like Erdnase. No other candidate does.

Gallaway is also a much better candidate on the published record side, because he self published his books, registered the copyright and puts the price on the title page. All things Erdnase does, too. Houdini doesn't.

But now that you are reminding me of the move possibly by Houdini, that one Gallaway could have learned from his circus friend Harto, who was in close contact with Houdini. That actually makes sense. Thanks for pointing it out.

If you reject Houdini as Erdnase, it could seem equally as likely that Houdini (if he indeed invented the move) showed Erdnase the move personally, and Erdnase simply wrote it up and published in in EATCT.

I quite like Houdini as Erdnase, and Bill's list as presented actually states a surprisingly strong case for just that!

Gallaway writing in the same voice as Erdnase is a highly subjective opinion, one that I personally don't see, and one that hasn't received much support to date.

[lybrary]

I am really sorry Roger, but you will have to do better than your own opinion or the ones from a dozen other non-linguist experts. Dr. Olsson who is perhaps the most respected forensic linguist today disagrees with you.

[performer]

I actually own a book by Houdini. A very boring one. I think the title is "Miracle Mongers" or something like that. The writing style is quite tedious and nothing whatsoever like the very readable text in Erdnase. The idea that Houdini had anything to do with the Erdnase book is an extremely daft one.

[performer]

Here you are. Study Houdini's writing style for yourself. If you can keep awake that is:

https://www.amazon.com/Miracle-Mongers- ... 1482595273

[Bill Mullins]

Bill, except you are forgetting the most important point which only Gallaway satisfies to this day. Gallaway writes like Erdnase. No other candidate does.

As I have demonstrated here, Gallaway and Erdnase do not write alike. If you want to convince me otherwise, you have to give me something more objective than your opinion, or state that someone else thinks so (see: logical fallacy "argument from authority"). I have refrained, out of courtesy, from contacting your expert directly, but I'd love to see his response to the comparisons I've made, and to see any quantifiable arguments he can make that suggest similarities in the writings styles of the two.

Gallaway is also a much better candidate on the published record side, because he self published his books, registered the copyright and puts the price on the title page. All things Erdnase does, too. Houdini doesn't.

Houdini was indeed a self-published author. Houdini did in fact register his own copyrights. More than once. (He even entered them at Stationer's Hall.) He puts the price on the title page.

But this is all meaningless, because Houdini didn't write Expert. (I can't believe I actually am having to state this.)

You have a set of arguments that you say proves he is Erdnase. The same arguments (and more so!) apply to Houdini. We know that Houdini was not Erdnase, ergo the arguments do not prove the identity of Erdnase. Therefore we have no proof that Gallaway is Erdnase. Reductio ad absurdum. (You have a technical degree, don't you, Chris? Did you not take a class in formal logic?)

Gallaway is a guy who is on the periphery of the Erdnase story. There are a couple of minor coincidences in his life and what we know, or surmise, about Erdnase. That is all.

[Roger M.]

Dr. Olsson who is perhaps the most respected forensic linguist today disagrees with you.

Apparently he does (actually it is I who disagree with him, but semantics aside).

The good Dr. hasn't actually typed a word in this thread, nobody here knows what he thinks.

You claim to be his messenger, but the Dr. hasn't introduced you to date as having the authority to speak on his behalf.

I'd dearly love to read anything related to Gallaway that equaled the evidence on the table in support of Sanders or Andrews ... alas there has been nothing of the sort yet put to paper.

[Richard Kaufman]

Maybe Houdini hired Galloway (or however you spell it) to write "Expert" for him.

[performer]

Yes, but I can't see Houdini writing it or having it written for him anonymously.

[lybrary]

Gallaway is a guy who is on the periphery of the Erdnase story. There are a couple of minor coincidences in his life and what we know, or surmise, about Erdnase. That is all.

Sure Bill, Gallaway is the only one with a documented contact to the printer of the book, James McKinney, at the exact right time, and he is the only one who has been shown by an independent expert to write like Erdnase, and you think these are a couple of minor coincidences. Ridiculous. You might want to check if you haven't won your engineering degree in the lottery.

The core of any investigation would include 'having been at the crime scene at the time of the crime'. Gallaway was. Sanders, ES Andrews or any other of the favorite candidates cannot be placed at James McKinney in 1901/1902. Any investigation would also include a match with our prime evidence for Erdnase, the book he wrote. The expert witness is called to testify and he agrees that Gallaway is a solid match, and all the others aren't.

[Bill Mullins]

The core of any investigation would include 'having been at the crime scene at the time of the crime'. Gallaway was. Sanders, ES Andrews or any other of the favorite candidates cannot be placed at James McKinney in 1901/1902.

Not to get all Perry Mason on you, but . . .

The core of an investigation would be "means, motive and opportunity". You are making much of opportunity, but Sanders and Andrews (and Houdini, for that matter) also had opportunity. A circumstantial case does not require that we show the presence of the purported author at the exact location on a particular date, just that it was plausible that he was there.

You've ignored motive and means completely, though. Why would Gallaway have written it? Houdini was known to have exposed and debunked those who would cheat the gullible public -- he had motive. And did Gallaway have the technical (card-playing) skills to write it? No. Houdini did.

Any investigation would also include a match with our prime evidence for Erdnase, the book he wrote. The expert witness is called to testify and he agrees that Gallaway is a solid match, and all the others aren't.

Objection, your honor. Inadmissible on the grounds of hearsay. There has been no expert testimony entered into the record, only second-hand accounts. Olsson's testimony must be subject to cross-examination.

[Bill Mullins]

It wasn't Houdini. I can tell from the writing style.

Houdini, although an intelligent man, was uneducated and wrote in a very unsophisticated style. Everything that ended up published in his name was either heavily edited, or ghost-written (by one of his secretaries, or H. P. Lovecraft, or Walter Gibson). Style comparisons may not be useful, because a known Houdini exemplar may not have actually been written by Houdini.

And his ego would not have been able to keep secret the fact he wrote one of the most iconic books on card technique ever published. And although he was pretty good at card magic he didn't have the breadth of knowledge contained in Erdnase.

Recall that in 1899, he placed his career in the hands of Martin Beck. It may have been that Beck would not have let him publish a book with such notorious content (how to cheat at cards) under his own name. Or it may have been that Beck wanted Houdini to get away from the "King of Kards"persona (card magicians were a dime a dozen), and focus wholly on escapes, and thus did not want him to put out a book on card sleights for that reason. But Houdini's ego would not let the book go unpublished, so he got one of his friends in Chicago to usher the book through the printing process under the pseudonym.

You know, if we could show that Houdini travelled on a train that E. S. Andrews worked on, we'd have something here . . . [I've got to stop this -- I'm starting to convince myself!]

[lybrary]

Gallaway had a very good motive/reason to write the book and end his cardsharking days. He got married and started a family. That is a perfectly good motive to end your gambling and cheating times, write up everything you know about it, publish it to derive some financial benefit from it, and then be a good husband and father and advance your printing career. Plenty of motive.

On the means side Gallaway has plenty on the writing skill side. Newspaper editorials since age 17. His later books are testament for his writing skill and style matching Erdnase. On top we have others commenting on his whit, silver tongued speaking browess, and polysyllabic fondness. All things Erdnase has been accused of, too. I agree that we don't know anything about his skills with cards. But we know that just being skillful with cards isn't enough by a long shot. Look at MFA who clearly was not Erdnase. And with E.S. Andrews and Sanders all we know is that they played cards, no information of any cheating skills or card handling skills. And since half the male population at that time played cards it is not a particularly strong piece of evidence to know somebody played cards. Where is Sanders and Andrews matching Erdnase's writing style? Where are their motives and means? Make a fair comparison, not a biased attack leaving out the most important pieces of evidence.

[Roger M.]

But we know that just being skillful with cards isn't enough by a long shot.

It's actually the primary consideration Chris, probably 98%+ of the requirement for any given candidate to be seriously considered as Erdnase.

As previously noted, the contents of the book reflect the creations of a card handler and thinker practicing somewhere in the top 1% of all active card handlers in existence at the time.

In the many side roads we go down looking for Erdnase, this can be easy to forget ... but the candidate has to reflect consummate excellence with a deck of cards, and that excellence has to be confirmed for any given candidate to assume the mantle of Erdnase.

I actually line up with you on one bit of thinking, and that's the bit that notes that neither Sanders nor Andrews have been shown to have anything more than a simple deck of cards in their hands ... but nothing indicating the advanced skills and thinking with that same deck, as demonstrated by Erdnase in EATCT.

The same thinking has to apply to Gallaway, whose hands (if being absolutely honest) we really haven't even put a deck of cards into yet, let alone shown any skills whatsoever with that deck.

[lybrary]

It's actually the primary consideration Chris, probably 98%+ of the requirement for any given candidate to be seriously considered as Erdnase.

I don't agree that it is 98%, because that would be ignoring the writing of the book. Ideally you want both, somebody proven to be good with cards AND writing like Erdnase. But with half the male population playing cards there were many advantage players who would look like they could be Erdnase. Finding somebody who writes like Erdnase and who fulfills the basic appearance and time/location requirement is a much harder requirement to fulfill. Olsson has looked at several people with obvious card skills and none writes even remotely like Erdnase.

The other problem is that skills with cards is not something that is recorded anywhere, so you will never really know how good a cheat really was, even if you knew he was a card cheat. They didn't go around advertising their skills or objectively comparing them. The best cheats will be the least known ones. That is why it is likely that Erdnase did not leave any footprint as cheater other than the book he wrote. On the other hand writing can be put to rigorous tests and scrutiny. Once Olsson's new broader and deeper linguistic study is published you can check his reasoning and the things he found. Other experts can do their own analysis and compare it with Olsson's. It allows for a much more objective test for Erdnasehood than the card skill angle.

[performer]

I am highly suspicious that whoever wrote it wasn't a card cheat in the first place. Just some magician pretending he knew all about it. That sort of thing happens nowadays too. I have met various nefarious characters in my wanderings and of course that includes card cheats. They don't know a fraction of what is in the Erdnase book and I bet you ten to one they have played more card games than Erdnase ever did. They might know three moves at the most and one or two is actually more likely.

There is too much in the book. Just too much.

And of course there is a legerdemain section in the book which rather gives the game away.

I have a vibe about this book. No evidence whatsoever. Just a vibe. A psychic vibe and after all that is one of the things I do to make a living. My vibe is that someone should do a THOROUGH investigation as to the year the book was written. I smell a rat and I have no idea why. Something tells me the book was written much later than generally accepted despite all the documented evidence to the contrary.

Nope. I cannot substantiate this. However, one day you may all get a surprise.

[Richard Kaufman]

Mark, I believe that Expert at the Card Table is advertised in some newspaper or magazine (The Sphinx?) near to its publication year.

[performer]

Yes, Richard. I know that but I am still getting the vibe. Metaphysics do not necessarily have anything to do with logic. Things don't make sense at the time but make sense later. When the discovery is made you will remember I mentioned it.

[Rick Ruhl]

Richard

Sphinx 1902

http://lookingforerdnase.com/img/eatct- ... r-1902.jpg

[Roger M.]

The focus on self-publishing and writing style ignores the fact that the contents of the book are, quite simply, the work of a genius.

Although Erdnase obviously writes in a uniquely intelligent voice, that voice is merely the method Erdnase uses to communicate his "system" of cheating to those interested in learning it, it certainly isn't the major element in this story.

The self-publishing angle is interesting, but seems ultimately unrelated to the search for Erdnase. His books subject matter was vertical in nature, not of great interest to established publishers (who probably didn't even know what they were reading), so Erdnase published it himself.
Those steps play out regularly even today when writers have no success finding an established publisher. It seems it's nothing unique to Erdnase.

As well, the concept that Erdnase would have worked in complete obscurity, unknown to anybody, requires that one overlook the numerous times that Erdnase mentions in EATCT the advantages of working with an ally, and the fact that to prevent a table of cheats sitting down together with no suckers, to prevent unnecessary violence, and to prevent too many hustlers working too small a geographic area ... cheats generally knew each other, and knew each others crew.
There may not have been "lots" of folks who knew who knew of Erdnase's skill with cards, but certainly some.

One could even posit that the first hundred of so first editions of EATCT were sold to Erdnase's "friends", or folks who otherwise knew exactly what they were buying, as they indeed knew the author personally, and admired his skills.
Perhaps after the initial round of purchasers (those who knew of Erdnase's skills, or knew him personally) the complexity of EATCT causes book sales to slow down, and (as we know) the book then becomes quite difficult to sell.

Although there were lots of writers in 1902, and lots of self-published books on the market ... there was only ONE man on earth who knew what Erdnase knew before the book was released for sale.
Focusing on that ONE man, and what he created from nothing to become the most advanced cheating system ever invented certainly can't be tossed aside as lacking importance, to focus then on the self-publishing or writing style angle as paramount?

[lybrary]

Nobody proposes to toss aside the card skill angle. But it is certainly not the only important means we have to look at. Erdnase's writing skill is extremely good. There are not that many who can write that well. Just look for example at Sanders who writes a boring science and engineering style. Not even a spark of Erdnase.

I am also sure Erdnase had friends, colleagues, perhaps even cheating partners, but none of that would be found in any records. And even if you know he was a cheat you would have pretty much no way to know if he was on the level of Erdnase. Take MFA. We know a good deal about him. He definitely was a card advantage player. But what information do we have that we can say he was on a level of an Erdnase? I don't see anything that would tell me he had the genius of Erdnase.

That means focusing on the card skill angle is in my opinion pretty much a lost cause, because at the most you might find out that somebody was accused or found of cheating, but it would not tell you if the cheat was on the level of Erdnase. I would even go so far as to say that if you are on a level of Erdnase you would probably not be found out. We know that Erdnase was cheated himself, but there is no indication in the book that he ever was accused or detected cheating. That means the guy we are looking for does not need to be known as a cheat. Don't forget that Erdnase published under a pseudonym. He wanted to stay under cover. He did not want to be known or identified as a cheat.

The linguistic record is very different. It is often available (see Sanders, see Gallaway, see MFA, see Hilliar, etc.) and it can be analyzed in multiple ways, objectively, and with scientific methods. That is our best and most realistic way to actually identify Erdnase.

A comment to Bills critique that I make much of Gallaway's opportunity to write the book and thus be Erdnase. My point is that Gallaway is the only serious candidate who had opportunity, because just being in Chicago at the right time does not clear any investigative threshold. Can you imagine a detective who is working on a case to say: "Listen up people. Everybody in Chicago at the time of the crime is a suspect." it is not narrow enough to be of any value. But that is the only level of opportunity all other candidates can offer. Gallaway is the only one with a real opportunity since he worked at James McKinney. That is why detectives first look at family, friends, associates, acquaintances, and anybody who was at the crime scene during the time of the crime. On top of this Gallaway has a perfect motive since he got married and started a family. Also his means of writing the book is proven. The only piece missing is his means on the card skill side. So we have almost everything in terms of means, motive and opportunity, and the linguistic match allows for a very good positive identification that Gallaway is indeed Erdnase.