Triumph

[Dustin Stinett]

I think that Glenn's procedure uses too many shufflesor at least it seems to. Perhaps its because of his rather deliberate pace. Its a bit too slow for my tastes. (This, of course, is just my opinion and should not be considered a personal attack on Glenn.)

Dustin

PS: Thanks for the compliment about my beard.

[Glenn Bishop]

The too many shuffles question has been raised before. Mostly by magicians with little experience in the work. Culling and stacking less cards - as I said in the post above -

"I would not use it to cull and stack four aces. However I might find this info useful because the same technique can be used to cull and stack two or three good cards from the discards - or from the previous deal."

In this demo I use "two" shuffles to cull and stack each ace in turn. So this technique is not just a cull. And it is not just a stacking method. What I am doing is culling AND stacking.

However the advantage is and I am adding this because the question was raised about the work - one of the advantages with two shuffles (besides the simplicity of the triumph shuffle itself) and the triumph shuffle - is the ability of "stacking deep".

As I have said many times in most stacking methods using riffle shuffles that I have worked on to date - there is a problem of losing one of the aces as each ace is stacked in turn. And these stacking methods are "just" stacking methods and the aces are stacked from the top of the deck or the bottom and have "nothing" to do with culling.

That is the other advantage in this technique and that is that this is a "cull" as well as a "stack" - so with this technique I could cull the aces on the fly from a shuffled deck one at a time and stack them in turn as each ace is culled - and then stacked - from a shuffled deck.

I have never seen a single technique in print in magic that does this as "cleanly" as this technique and I have worked on many methods for years.

The art of culling with the riffle shuffle is spotting the card and then bringing it to the top or the bottom of the deck. In most methods of culling I have read - it works against stacking.

That is that when you go to cull the next ace - in most of the methods that I have played with over the past 20 years including the "Stevens cull" there is a good chance of losing the first ace when you cull the next one. That is because the cull and the stack use "different" techniques. And this losing the next ace can happen even if four cards are added before the cull to replace the stack. Because as each is stacked in turn the aces go deeper into the deck.

The triumph shuffle solves these problems in my opinion. Yes I like the two shuffle method because it is cleaner and I get the cards I want - for sure. And when doing shows it is important to get the cards - for sure rather than use a technique where I might accidentally lose one of the aces and come up with three of a kind - when I want and need four of a kind for the climax.

But as I said in another message board - I am not trying to sell anyone this technique. If you do not like it - I don't care because it "works" for me and to me that is all that matters.

And I do not mind leaving magicians that can't see or those not skilled enough to see the advantages of using the simplicity of the triumph shuffle to get the job done - or those that are unwilling to see the advantages - in the dark.

But yes - even with other stacking methods using a riffle shuffle or a jog shuffle. When you cull or stack less cards there is less shuffling.

However I have found very "few" culling and stacking methods using any kind of a riffle shuffle that work as well as this one does (for me).

And I have not found one culling and stacking method that is a cull and a stack "together" - that can cull cards and then stack them - at the same time - as clean and sure fire as this technique does for me - and as I said above - it works good enough for me and my own personal needs.

Just my opinion.

[Kent Gunn]

Glenn,

As I watched your clip. Two questions came to my mind.

Do you perform this as a demonstration of skill for laypeople?

Or . . . are you using the clip to illustrate your points above to us?

I simply don't see how you could explain why you were shuffling so many more times than normal card players do, prior to dealing the cards.

There are stacking sequences that require significantly fewer shuffles. The works of Wimhurst and Ortiz leap to my mind. I worked on all of them over the years. I think my dog-eared copy of "At the Table" has been committed to memory, by me. I'd gladly send it to you, if you're interested. I think with your ability to riffle and cull you might find some ideas that you could add to your arsenal.

I do remember you've written you wanted to develop your own techniques without referring to the works of others. At this point, since you have a technique that works, so well, for you, I'll understand if you feel no need to refine your work.

I am NOT saying your sequence isn't perfect for you. I'm serious about the two questions I asked, up front. I'd like to know if you do this sequence for real, (non-magicians), people.

Thanks Glenn!

[Nikodemus Siivola]

We've all been here before. For those of you who have NOT, this is how it goes.

1. Mr B. posts a video of some crappy shuffle work based on the Triumph-shuffle.

2. People try to more-or-less-gently point out some issues with it.

3. Mr B. tells how he has been working on this for 20 years and how it is not only original, but superior to anything he is familiar with.

4. People point out basic references on riffle shuffle work, and note how using a strip-out & block-transfer is bog standard.

5. Mr B. tells that he has on purpose refrained from looking at those standard references, so as not to pollute his mind with foreign ideas before he publishes his own work.

6. People point out how silly this is.

7. Mr B. tells about his father and how great he was. He also tells how he's all about entertaining the audience, has tons of real world experience, and possibly talks about his work on the punch.

8. People point out how this is totally irrelevant to the subject at hand. (It seems that his father REALLY was a great guy, but in this case the apple has been catapulted from the tree to the orbit.)

9. Mr B. bemoans the personal attacks against him.

10. The thread is locked, or Mr. B. and his commentators are requested not to post on it anymore so that the actual subject can be returned to.

Somehow this is all supposed to be just fine because Mr B. says "Just my opinion." Here's a suggestion: don't respond to Mr B. at all. If you really must, post videos that show decent riffle shuffle work.

Finally, because I cannot contain this any longer: A CULL? After the multiple shift there is no need to cull anything, is there?

[Cugel]

Bravo, Nikodemus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67dcfjhb ... annel_page

[Tom Gilbert]

Years ago Bob King had a Triumph that used some Burling Hull gimmicks that he had Gary Plants make. It was a pretty neat
routine.

Tom

[Jonathan Townsend]

Tom was that the one with the splitback cards?

Any reviews on the "dissolve deck" ?

I can see using strippers for a formal show but that's quite a crew for table hopping unless they are allowed to charge extra for lap dances.

[Glenn Bishop]

Bravo, Nikodemus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67dcfjhb ... annel_page

Since Nikodemus and Cugel seem to miss the point of my little video. My video is about culling and stacking using the triumph shuffle to get the job done.

Although the video on you tube of Nikodemus from a link provided by Cugel is interesting - it seems to be just a cull and no stacking. And what I think makes the technique I am talking about - cooler is that with it I can cull and stack using the same technique at the same time.

I look forward to seeing Nikodemus and Cugel post a video of culling and stacking four of a kind from a slug. And video where they cull and stack three different hands of four of a kind from a slug - as I do in my demo the Triple duke triumph.

http://www.mrhypnotist.org/video/GlennB ... riumph.wmv

I think that they will find doing a cull and a stack at the same time with so many cards using any riffle shuffle technique and have it work every time - a lot harder to do than it shows on my video's.

And Nikodemus the point that you bring up about the shift I mentioned in my first post where I linked the video.

The point of the video is to show what is possible with the triumph shuffle. And most of the magicians that do cards well seem to know that in most card technique has some faults.

The faults we try to cover with shade or as magicians say misdirection. However when I post a video with spot on camera work - and I am not adding any shade or misdirection - well then?

However any weakness that you may find by viewing the video over and over again - to me is not equal to the value of being able to cull and stack at the same time using the same shuffle techniques - and in my opinion - that in itself is a huge breakthrough in riffle shuffle technique. Plus it helps to solve the problem of "stacking deep".

Stacking deep with a cull and a stacking method is a point that is not addressed in Nikodemus video - and it isn't addressed by Nikodemus and Cugel or any of the others that have posted on this subject at all.

However that little breakthrough is talked about in great detail by me and is demonstrated that it is "possible" in both of my video's.

Just my opinion.

[Nikodemus Siivola]

I look forward to seeing Nikodemus and Cugel post a video of culling and stacking four of a kind from a slug.

Right, 'cos no one is allowed to critique things they cannot duplicate. There you go, then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88h646CssHs

It's far from perfect, but at least there should be no danger of dying of old age during the stack -- and I certainly don't posit myself as an expert as you seem to be trying to do.

I'm outta here.

[Glenn Bishop]

I look forward to seeing Nikodemus and Cugel post a video of culling and stacking four of a kind from a slug.

Right, 'cos no one is allowed to critique things they cannot duplicate. There you go, then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88h646CssHs

It's far from perfect, but at least there should be no danger of dying of old age during the stack -- and I certainly don't posit myself as an expert as you seem to be trying to do.

I'm outta here.

Yes you can cull and stack - but you miss the point - you are not culling and stacking at the same time as I do in my triumph video's

Try culling and stacking from a slug - not just stacking from from the top or the bottom. Or try culling and stacking on the fly.

Or try culling and stacking 3 hands of four of a kind from a slug that is not on the top or the bottom of the deck using a riffle shuffle technique. As I do in my triple duke triumph video - I think that if you try this it may be a little harder than you think.

Because in culling and stacking 12 cards at the same time with any kind of a riffle shuffle technique - I have found to have run into problems of stacking deep so many cards.

The breakthrough for me was to be able to do it every time using the triumph shuffle.

Again the video you posted is interesting but as far as I can tell it is just a basic stacking method that stacks the four aces from the top of the deck using a riffle shuffle.

Again it doesn't address anything about "stacking deep" as you don't address in any of your posts - as I address in my video's and in my posts - and I consider that one of the breakthroughs in using the triumph shuffle.

Just my opinion.

[Kent Gunn]

Glenn,

Could you please answer the questions I posed?

Thanks,

Kent,

[Tom Gilbert]

Jonathan,

I believe it was. Bob had called the Hull gimmick, and also mentioned that Marlo had some work with it.

Best,
Tom

[Jonathan Townsend]

Thanks Tom, Ralph Hull's other gimmick, the half roughed card has similar applications when you add double faced or double backed cards to the mix.

[Jonathan Miller]

FWIW what makes culling and stacking difficult is doing it while making it look like you are doing nothing. Since you clearly fail at that goal in the video I fail to see what the whole point of it is. Not only did the actual shuffle work take forever but the strip outs looked godawful. At first I thought you might be intentionally displaying the move but the quality of the cull and stacking was so bad that I tend to believe the rest of your work is as well. Also wtf are you talking about culling when you use a multiple shift (also badly performed) at the beginning of the routine.

[Nikodemus Siivola]

I tried to get out, but they pulled me back in...

Or try culling and stacking 3 hands of four of a kind from a slug that is not on the top or the bottom of the deck using a riffle shuffle technique.

Glenn, it's called a block transfer. It is neither new nor rocket science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGBmJFJdlVs

The action in the clip is a lot more awkward than I would have liked, but I haven't really practiced center block transfers -- just top block ones. Sorry about that. Am I now allowed to make comments? Or can we just go back to talking about the Triumph effect?

[Cugel]

Glad you enjoyed the video, Glenn.

Just my opinion!

[AMCabral]

Before hearing the often flack that often happens when I post a video I would like to add - that if I were to use this technique in a game of cards - I wouldn't do it after the simple shift.

That's a relief!

-T

[Glenn Bishop]

I tried to get out, but they pulled me back in...

Or try culling and stacking 3 hands of four of a kind from a slug that is not on the top or the bottom of the deck using a riffle shuffle technique.

Glenn, it's called a block transfer. It is neither new nor rocket science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGBmJFJdlVs

The action in the clip is a lot more awkward than I would have liked, but I haven't really practiced center block transfers -- just top block ones. Sorry about that. Am I now allowed to make comments? Or can we just go back to talking about the Triumph effect?

In case you did not understand Nikodemus Siivola - you are always allowed to make comments. Like it - don't like it - knock it and me - go ahead it doesn't bug me at all.

However if you choose to knock it or have a different point of view I also claim the right to say my side of things. And here I go again. This video is interesting but again as you stated it is a stacking method - block transfer from the top of the deck.

What I am doing and my goal is very different. What I wanted to do with the triumph shuffle was to be able to cull and stack cards on the fly from a shuffled deck. This is possible using almost the same technique as I use after the simple shift where I cull the four aces and stack them from a slug.

Well that was the over-all goal - however the added extra has been this technique that I put onto video - and that little extra about stacking deep I also find handy.

Do you know why?

Because in every game I have played card in back in the day where I played stud poker and draw poker. Most games had more than five players - often seven to ten - because people that play cards for real - from my experience - want enough players to build a pot.

That is where the stacking deep and the triple duke triumph comes in handy - when I do a demo of stacking and culling three of a kind from the discards - with more hand 5 hands. I use the same technique - but only cull and stack at the same time only three cards - but the stacking deep problem is the same so the technique that I use for the triple duke triumph is just a little different.

Good luck with your card work - I did like it.

It is different that what I was going after - had a different goal but I did like it.

[Glenn Bishop]

Glenn,

Could you please answer the questions I posed?

Thanks,

Kent,

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you Kent. There are two answers to your question. The first one is that yes I use the technique at shows but I often do it very different than what is seen in the video. The video is not a performance. Only a short demonstration of what is possible with the triumph shuffle.

However the subject of many shuffles seems to have hit a strange note here. And I have never gone to a magic show and counted the number of shuffles - a magician did.

This second answer would be easier to explain if you got to see Jack Pyle work. He shuffled the deck a lot with a table riffle shuffle between each trick. Sometimes a lot. While he shuffled the deck he joked with and talked with the audience. This was time filler between the tricks.

So that is my answer - quite honestly if the audience is having a good time and is entertained by a personality - while the magician shuffles the deck - I really don't think that the audience cares or would count - the number of shuffles the magician does.

And to add that - to the technique - in a way - I sort of cull and stack ahead - so I am about three cards culled and stacked - before I go into the trick - so as far as the audience knows the trick has not started - and I have three culls and stacks done. While I just talk and joke with the audience.

Then I start - and I only need one or two card culled and stacked - so as far as the audience - they don't know what I am doing - and I don't tell them. So in a way I am often more than half way there before the audience knows that I have started another trick.

I use the same technique with the punch - in a lot of my work often the cull and stack is half over before the audience is aware I am performing the next trick.

I hope this answers your question.

[Kent Gunn]

You answered the questions.
Thank you Glenn.

Cugel,

Very, very, scary, freakin' impressive. Nice tune selection as well. The mystery guy in the video must like Jack Vance.


Nick,

You can indeed riffle stack. I applaud your posting that sequence. I spent years and years trying to get up to speed on that stuff. It fades quickly. Few attempt the real work. Fewer still have the guts to put it out there.

I gotta go practice, I done been humbled today. Humbled!

[Glenn Bishop]

You answered the questions.
Thank you Glenn.

Quite honestly Kent - I don't think that it would be workable to stack and cull at the same time more than three cards using the Steven's cull. And I don't think that it would be workable to be able to cull and stack at the same time up to 12 cards to give three players good cards as I do in my triple duke triumph.

Because of the problems of stacking deep can be an issue with the riffle shuffle culls and stacks. I have played around with a lot of riffle shuffle stacking and culling methods over the past years and I don't think that a lot of them are very workable when culling and stacking more than three cards at the same time.

You will note that in the video Nick only stacks 4 cards for four hands. Add more cards the cards go deeper into the deck and you can blow the stack as the next ace is stacked - when you cut the deck into two halves for the next riffle shuffle - you might end up shuffling cards into the stack - by doing so the stack would be blown.

Add a cull into that action and the problem that the stack could be blown increases - then add more cards and then you might understand the stacking deep issue that I was talking about and only addressed by me in this thread.

To do my goals - of culling and stacking at the same time - stack and cull 12 cards from a slug - etc. I had to get past the stacking deep issues that can come up - when using a table riffle shuffle to cull and stack at the same time.

I have spent a lot of time trying to work on a solid method to cull and stack - at the same time using the Steven's cull to get the job done - to the goals I have said in this thread - however I ran into the stacking deep issue every time.

Keep in mind that in my opinion using the triumph shuffle to do these things was also breaking new ground.

If you read the stars of magic Vernon used "two" shuffles to complete "one" false shuffle or the righting of the deck. I did not invent the two shuffle triumph shuffle Dai Vernon did. I just modified it to use according to my needs.

When culling and stacking is done together - at the same time - using this shuffle technique it also takes "two" shuffles - one to find the card using the cull and one to place the card. And again as of yet I have not found a method that does the work as cleanly as I can do it with the triumph shuffle - with the goals - stacking deep - using up to 12 cards - culling and stacking on the fly - etc.

So when magicians say they do not like the "lots" of shuffles what they seem to be saying is that they do not like the Vernon method of "two" shuffling.

I think that little bit of info is interesting because in my opinion there are a lot of magicians that I have met over the years that choose the Zarrow shuffle over the triumph shuffle to do the effect. And over the years a lot of magician have come up with some interesting methods to do the "trick" called triumph.

However as I have said many times I think that the triumph shuffle has fallen by the wayside in magic and my point in writing my book about the triumph shuffle was to show what is possible using the shuffle.

If magicians still do not like the Vernon two shuffle triumph shuffle - that is still OK with me - however I like it and it has a lot of advantages over other methods and in my opinion it has it rightful place in the history of magic and the history of block transfer riffle shuffle work.

Just my opinion.

[mrgoat]

RK - would it be possible to have a script on the forum that would change Glenn Bishop's posts to Lorem Ipsum?

Then we can have a competition to see if anyone notices.

It would be fun I think.

Just my opinion.

[Jonathan Townsend]

RK - would it be possible to have a script on the forum that would change Glenn Bishop's posts to Lorem Ipsum?

...

Maybe something using GreaseMonkey?

[Glenn Bishop]

What I would like to see is if any of the magicians that were in this thread could come up with a method of culling and stacking together - doing something like my triple duke triumph - culling and stacking on the fly - etc. And use another culling and stacking method - like the Steven's cull.

I don't think that it can be done - however I would be happy to be proven wrong - as I said above - I ran into stacking deep issues and after a long time I gave up on it.

The closest I came to overcoming the stacking deep issue was to cull with the Steven's cull and stack and place using the Triumph shuffle - still needing two shuffles to get the job done.

However perhaps someone here that is more skilled than I am might want to take up that challenge.

Just my opinion.

[Glenn Bishop]

RK - would it be possible to have a script on the forum that would change Glenn Bishop's posts to Lorem Ipsum?

Then we can have a competition to see if anyone notices.

It would be fun I think.

Just my opinion.

And then sometimes when I read posts like this one it makes me feel that I am doing a poker demo to a pre-school audience.

And to talk this kind of card work to such an audience would be a complete waist of my time.

Just my opinion.

[mrgoat]

to talk this kind of card work to such an audience would be a complete waist of my time.

Just my opinion.

Please stop it then.

Just my opinion.

[David Alexander]

For the most part the Genii Forum is a place of rational discussion about various aspects of magic, both in the amateur community and the professional. Unfortunately, this thread has degenerated into ad hominem posts and childishness by people who know better.

It is disappointing and a waste of time for the adults here who want to benefit from intelligent discussion.

[El Mystico]

Glenn; spot on.
You've got it. no one here is able to appreciate the genius of your work.
Shame on us. Kudos to you.
Please stop waisting your time on us - you could be spending it developing your Triumph riffle work even further; I'm sure future generations of magicians will appreciate it even if we can't.

[David Alexander]

Apparently asking people to post here like adults is wasted bandwidth.

See elmystico's website for further evidence:

http://www.dominictwose.co.uk/

[Jonathan Townsend]

I still like Kent's routine.

And I agree that taking the parent tone and telling others to curb their opinions as if they were not only children but obliged to care what you write is a huge waist.

Got belt?

Okay that's my fat jokes for the day, now back to misreading significance into twaddle.

[Glenn Bishop]

Apparently asking people to post here like adults is wasted bandwidth.

See elmystico's website for further evidence:

http://www.dominictwose.co.uk/

I agree David - and if I may add - I most likely measure magic and success and magic effect by using a "VERY DIFFERENT" yardstick than most of the magicians do here that have posted in this thread.

Because my view point on the triumph shuffle is different but also "tested under fire". And for me when an idea is "audience tested under fire" like my triumph shuffle techniques have been. It really doesn't matter what some magicians or perhaps some people that call themselves magicians may think of it - now does it?

Just for fun I found another thread where I talk about much of the same stuff - please note that a lot of the same people join in and say a lot of the same kind of thing - in the same way as David noted above - that also happened in this thread.

http://www.geniimagazine.com/forums/ubb ... Post174707

Pre-school audience?

Just my opinion.

[Glenn Bishop]

Hi Jim here is the story on Reverso as I remember it.

Jay Marshall taught me punch and judy. As far as I know I am the only one that he gave days of instruction on punch and how to make the punch call or swazzle.

We were in the back room at magic inc and I was leaning how to wrap the swazzle. To do this there is thread and tape. So while trying to wrap swazzles Jay would get board and show me close up magic with cards.

We were talking about Fred Keating and his friendship with Leipzig. As we talked Jay then left the room for a while and then came back with a deck of cards and did a short but strong all backs routine.

He said that it was Reverso and it was Leipzig's. I said cool and continued to make the swazzles. Later on that day I asked Jay about the trick and he showed me that it was an all backs with the svengali principal.

Who showed it to him - I don't know - I never asked. it could have been Fred Keating - I think that Jay knew him but I don't know for sure it never came out in our conversation. And I never asked at the time. My dad met Keating once or twice and that came up when we were watching the movie Eternaly yours. Keating was in that movie.

As to why I don't want the routine to get out was that Jay told me it was hush hush stuff and not to tip it.

Later on I made up a deck and did the routine the way Jay showed me. It is not a hard routine to do - the all backs is the kicker and to get into is just a simple move and to end it is just a color change and the deck rights itself. I have no idea who showed this routine to Jay or if Jay showed it to anyone else.

My relationship with Jay was a very special one - he helped me a lot and gave me more good suff and advice than I can say over many many years.

I hope this helps but that is the Reverso story as I remember it. Now If I can only find the deck and work out the routine again.

I hope this helps.

[Dustin Stinett]

This thread has gone off in so many directions that it is time to recap for those coming late to the party and think that all ten (10!) pages have been a dog pile on Glenn Bishop.

Please to enjoy what we have learned so far:

• Kent Gunn posted a video of a version of Triumphsans gaffusthat fooled the you-know out of many folks, including Harry Lorayne
• Richard Kaufman wants to publish it in Genii
• Kent Gunn is happy to do so
• Alpen is not a dork
• Jonathan Townsendagaincomplained about magic secrets being discussed on the Genii Forum
• Richard Kaufmanagainexplained that its okay with him (as long as they are not marketed/proprietary secrets)
• We learn that there are similar versions to Kents in print
• Brad Henderson sees a similarity among magicians and little girls (in terms that are not as creepy as that sentence makes it sound)
• Dustin thinks the girls in Texas are cute (which is as creepy as the sentence sounds)
• Dustin thinks that the Slop Shuffle version of Triumph is a dang fine version
• Cugel disagrees
• Ian Kendall disagrees with Cugel
• Dustin wonders why they can write [censored] but he cant write Dick
• Cugel thinks Dustin is folksy completely missing the fact that he was talking about Texas girls and was just staying in character during the post
• Cugel knows how to spit over the Internet
• Magicians have philosophical differences about what is an efficient mix of a deck of playing cards
• Brad Henderson thinks the Slop Shuffle is a turd
• Glenn Bishop is convinced that the name Triumph comes from the shuffle described in Stars of Magic and not the effect, therefore any version not using that shuffle is not Triumph
• Dustin and others disagree
• David Alexander reminisces about Jay Ose doing Triumph with the Slop Shuffle (which ought to be good enough for anyone to think that its a good way to perform the effect; but its not)
• Pete McCabe comes up with a practical way to perform Floating Triumpha version that doesnt use a shuffle at all
• David Alexander thinks there is a bit of over analysis going on
• Henry Kissinger is called in (oopsmy badhes merely cited)
• It doesnt matter to Glenn; its still all about the shuffle
• Some people seem more interested in audience conviction over a shuffle than whether or not they like the trick
• David Alexander posts Chris Kenner performing Triumph using a Slop Shuffle
• Cugel seems to believe that whats important is how difficult the sleight of hand is while performing the effect
• Glenn Bishop, still convinced that the name Triumph comes from the shuffle, cites the text in Stars of Magic
• Dustin has an Internet version of apoplexy in trying to explain why Glenn is wrong and is forced to transcribe all the text that proves Glenn wrong
• Leipzigwhose wife was certain that all Dai Vernon wanted were his secretsbecomes part of the conversation, even though it has nothing to do with Triumph (technically speaking)
• Theodor DeLand becomes an unwittingbecause hes deadparticipant in the Genii Forum discussion of Dai Vernons Triumph
• DeLand never did a version of Triumph (the fact that the discussion is moving away from Triumph doesnt matter because soonvery soonthe discussion will turn to Riffle Stacking)
• Brad Henderson briefly analyzes the idea that this whole thing is being overanalyzed
• Glenn Bishop and Jim Maloney discuss the Leipzig effect Reverso which turns out to be Delands Inverto but not the way Leipzig did it according to an unnamed (I thinkI sorta got confused about all that) fourth party where it becomes an all backs routine even though thats not how the printed Leipzig nor the DeLand effects were meant to be
• People reading this (and not participating) are wondering where the following post is (with apologies to the Gershwins): You say Reverso, I say Inverto; You say its the shuffle-o, I say its the effect-o, Reverso, Inverto, Shuffle-o, Effect-o, Lets call the whole thing off
• We learn about Glenn Bishops Life with Father, butI think (still confused)still not the name of the fourth party (not that it matters to anyone except those asking for the name; Glenn makes it clear that he doesnt care, which, of course, is just his opinion)
• Jim Maloney is working on a book on Leipzig (I have two bucks that says either The Miracle Factory or Squash Publishing beats him to it)
• Something called Cheek to Cheek (which, coincidentally, is how my wife and I sleep) is brought up, as are the Cups and Balls; Dustin feels like the AFLAC Duck talking to Yogi Berra
• Glenn Bishopstill hung up on the Triumph Shuffleposts a video of him using it to cull and stack the four aces
• We find out Dustin has a bearded Evil Twin that roams the parallel universe to which the Internet is a portal [Im taking him to see the doctor on Friday; I think he needs to up his meds (signed Dustins bearded Evil Twin)]
• The technical quality and necessity of Glenns demonstration are called into question
• Let the Weenie Measuring Begin! (Weenie inserted because I cant say Dick)
• It turns out that the mystery fourth party was Jay Marshall

Thats pretty much where we are.

Dustin (the beardless one)

[Brad Henderson]

Just FYI, I never said the slop shuffle was a turd.

Someone commented that the slop shuffle was great if you had no table. I said that there was no point in setting a diamond in a turd - referring to magicians who settle for inferior handlings of tricks because of the situation, rather than taking measures to change the situation - or simply WAITING until the time wass right.

So you can add:

Brad Henderson criticizes Dustin's list which should now read:

(insert endless loop here)

[Don Knox]

You know Dustin,

If you would have written this list 28 pages ago, more attention could have been directed to the Criss Angel thread.

Next time, if you use the envelope that has been in plain view from the beginning, things will move faster.

Don Knox

[Richard Kaufman]

Great list, Dustin. Best post in the thread!

[Glenn Bishop]

This thread has gone off in so many directions that it is time to recap for those coming late to the party and think that all ten (10!) pages have been a dog pile on Glenn Bishop.

Please to enjoy what we have learned so far:

• Kent Gunn posted a video of a version of Triumphsans gaffusthat fooled the you-know out of many folks, including Harry Lorayne
• Richard Kaufman wants to publish it in Genii
• Kent Gunn is happy to do so
• Alpen is not a dork
• Jonathan Townsendagaincomplained about magic secrets being discussed on the Genii Forum
• Richard Kaufmanagainexplained that its okay with him (as long as they are not marketed/proprietary secrets)
• We learn that there are similar versions to Kents in print
• Brad Henderson sees a similarity among magicians and little girls (in terms that are not as creepy as that sentence makes it sound)
• Dustin thinks the girls in Texas are cute (which is as creepy as the sentence sounds)
• Dustin thinks that the Slop Shuffle version of Triumph is a dang fine version
• Cugel disagrees
• Ian Kendall disagrees with Cugel
• Dustin wonders why they can write [censored] but he cant write Dick
• Cugel thinks Dustin is folksy completely missing the fact that he was talking about Texas girls and was just staying in character during the post
• Cugel knows how to spit over the Internet
• Magicians have philosophical differences about what is an efficient mix of a deck of playing cards
• Brad Henderson thinks the Slop Shuffle is a turd
• Glenn Bishop is convinced that the name Triumph comes from the shuffle described in Stars of Magic and not the effect, therefore any version not using that shuffle is not Triumph
• Dustin and others disagree
• David Alexander reminisces about Jay Ose doing Triumph with the Slop Shuffle (which ought to be good enough for anyone to think that its a good way to perform the effect; but its not)
• Pete McCabe comes up with a practical way to perform Floating Triumpha version that doesnt use a shuffle at all
• David Alexander thinks there is a bit of over analysis going on
• Henry Kissinger is called in (oopsmy badhes merely cited)
• It doesnt matter to Glenn; its still all about the shuffle
• Some people seem more interested in audience conviction over a shuffle than whether or not they like the trick
• David Alexander posts Chris Kenner performing Triumph using a Slop Shuffle
• Cugel seems to believe that whats important is how difficult the sleight of hand is while performing the effect
• Glenn Bishop, still convinced that the name Triumph comes from the shuffle, cites the text in Stars of Magic
• Dustin has an Internet version of apoplexy in trying to explain why Glenn is wrong and is forced to transcribe all the text that proves Glenn wrong
• Leipzigwhose wife was certain that all Dai Vernon wanted were his secretsbecomes part of the conversation, even though it has nothing to do with Triumph (technically speaking)
• Theodor DeLand becomes an unwittingbecause hes deadparticipant in the Genii Forum discussion of Dai Vernons Triumph
• DeLand never did a version of Triumph (the fact that the discussion is moving away from Triumph doesnt matter because soonvery soonthe discussion will turn to Riffle Stacking)
• Brad Henderson briefly analyzes the idea that this whole thing is being overanalyzed
• Glenn Bishop and Jim Maloney discuss the Leipzig effect Reverso which turns out to be Delands Inverto but not the way Leipzig did it according to an unnamed (I thinkI sorta got confused about all that) fourth party where it becomes an all backs routine even though thats not how the printed Leipzig nor the DeLand effects were meant to be
• People reading this (and not participating) are wondering where the following post is (with apologies to the Gershwins): You say Reverso, I say Inverto; You say its the shuffle-o, I say its the effect-o, Reverso, Inverto, Shuffle-o, Effect-o, Lets call the whole thing off
• We learn about Glenn Bishops Life with Father, butI think (still confused)still not the name of the fourth party (not that it matters to anyone except those asking for the name; Glenn makes it clear that he doesnt care, which, of course, is just his opinion)
• Jim Maloney is working on a book on Leipzig (I have two bucks that says either The Miracle Factory or Squash Publishing beats him to it)
• Something called Cheek to Cheek (which, coincidentally, is how my wife and I sleep) is brought up, as are the Cups and Balls; Dustin feels like the AFLAC Duck talking to Yogi Berra
• Glenn Bishopstill hung up on the Triumph Shuffleposts a video of him using it to cull and stack the four aces
• We find out Dustin has a bearded Evil Twin that roams the parallel universe to which the Internet is a portal [Im taking him to see the doctor on Friday; I think he needs to up his meds (signed Dustins bearded Evil Twin)]
• The technical quality and necessity of Glenns demonstration are called into question
• Let the Weenie Measuring Begin! (Weenie inserted because I cant say Dick)
• It turns out that the mystery fourth party was Jay Marshall

Thats pretty much where we are.

Dustin (the beardless one)

WOW - thank God that is over - what next? I guess you can all start talking about the double cut again as you did here.

http://www.geniimagazine.com/forums/ubb ... Post174707

Just my opinion.

[Hugh Castell]

Fascinating summary,Dustin, that made me wish I hadn't wasted so much time reading this thread. But seriously, man, you need to get a life.

Hugh

[Richard Kaufman]

Dustin does have a very full life. How he makes time for things like that enormously entertaining post I don't know.

[El Mystico]

I'd like to apologise to Glenn for what has been taken as the bullying tone of my last post.
While of some technical interest I don't think his approach is of much practical value for gambling or magic, for some of the reasons others have given here and on previous threads.
But then, I think some of Erdnase's work on stocking 5 cards is not particularly practical either!