Triumph

[Curtis Kam]

I think you're confusing the effect with the presentation. The fact is that the "some drunk challenged me the other night" presentation could easily be applied to enhance any trick in which the magician locates a selection, despite the conditions. (You could present Simon Aronson's "Some people think" this way, for instance.) There is nothing inherent in the righting of the deck effect that ties it uniquely to the Vernon presentation. In fact, the righting effect was performed before and after, with both more and less sucess, without the Vernon presentation.

Regarding your reservations along these lines:

My concern with the "Okawa approach" (for lack of a better name) is that the ordering of the deck is not what allows you to get out of the bind...you're able to reveal the card, then right the deck magically to neaten things up...to my mind that neuters the conflict in the plot...

That's easily handled through any number of minor changes one may make to the presentation, for instance, "The guy was so amazed when I found the card that he went away shaking his head. The truth is that I couldn't miss. His card was the only one facing the wrong way." This restores the link between the righting and the revelation.

[Leonard Hevia]

I always thought that spreading the deck, or fanning it in the hands at the end to exhibit the straightened deck except for the selection a bit weak. As Curtis noted, the audience might not be able to notice their reversed selection standing out. The answer arrived in Kaufman's The Amazing Miracles of Shigeo Takagi. God bless this late genius. Mr. Takagi utilizes the pinky card rise to slowly rise the selection. The deck is then given a thumb fan to show the straightened condition of the cards. You end with the fanned deck in front of you at chest height with the upjogged selection clearly visible. What more can you ask for?

Any in the hands method will work fine here. You don't have to emulate Mr. Takagi's strategy to get to the ending. After the moment where you demonstrate that the cards are mixed face up and face down, insert your pinky above or below the selection, as you wish, and proceed from there. I prefer to rise the card with its back to the audience, then turn the deck around to display that it's the chosen card. They see the upjogged face of the card and then a moment later, a nice fan of even back designs. The contrast is striking.

As for the presentation: "Well, the deck was a mess, so I had to find the card with magic. That drunk gentleman was impressed but asked me how long it would take to straightened out the mess he made (You snap ypur fingers and fan the deck at this point). Not long at all."

[Asser Andersen]

There's part of the Vernon handling where you take the top half of the deck and invert it on the bottom half. On some level that must register with the audience - that the cards are so mixed up that it would not matter which way you put the cards down. So...

In the process of illustrating to the spectators the disarranged condition of the deck you do reverse the top half of the deck. However due to Vernons choreography of the "move" this positively goes unnoticed by the spectators.

I perform Triumph excactly as described in Stars of Magic and its direct effect - in my opinion - makes it a masterpiece.

[NCMarsh]

I think you're confusing the effect with the presentation. The fact is that the "some drunk challenged me the other night" presentation could easily be applied to enhance any trick in which the magician locates a selection, despite the conditions.

There is a convergence here between effect and presentation. The effect is chaos becomes order. The presentation is about chaos inserting itself into a performance. They support each other, naturally.

Yes, you can insert a similar script into other card revelations...but this is the one where the two naturally dovetail

I recently saw the portion of the triumph discussion from the Revelations videos that had been edited out of the L and L version I own; Vernon was very adamant in that discussion that presenting the triumph effect without the presentation was cutting the heart out of it...I have the sense from that conversation that Vernon, at least, also saw a convergence here between the effect and the script

[Curtis Kam]

Sorry, not buying it.

Vernon was insisting that the presentation was important to the success of the trick. He was not saying that the presentation was uniquely suited to this effect alone, and he certainly wasn't saying that the presentation and the effect were synonymous.

Besides, it's a relatively simple matter to bring the "Okawa ending" (now perhaps the "Okawa/Takagi ending") into harmony with the Vernon storyline.

[Brad Henderson]

Tom, I am not being dogmatic.

I think there are many choices one can make. However with each choice comes assets and liabilites. Too often, I feel, magicians make choices based on novelty and personal amusement without considering the liabilities these have on the intended effect.

While I said that Triumph is about skill, I should have been more general. I do not mean the trick has to be about sleight of hand prowess.

Pete got close when he said we have to decide how the magic is happening. Absolutely. But that isn't the first step. The FIRST is deciding WHAT is happening.

In the Triumph EFFECT the WHAT is that the cards right themselves. (Of course - there are other ways this can be spun, but unlike many other "tricks" I do not know if there are other convincing choices - more on that later.)

The essence of Triumph is that messed up cards right themselves. Regardless of the motive power, the trick is about this righting which is a mechanically invisible process. I said skill - and that was poor word choice.

Whether we are righting the cards with sleights or whether a guarantee card is righting them with magic - we are not printing faces on back and backs on faces; we are not creating a hypnotic smoke screen which forces us to see the cards righted when they are not - the cards are changing their orientation.

So, in order for that to be effective, the primary condition must be established to the point of conviction - i.e. the cards really ARE mixed.

What shuffle is the most convincing in that regard.

It is the riffle.

And yes, what casinos think matters. Why? Because they know it's the RIGHT answer.

They have spent money to determine this.

Now, you can argue that not all laypeople know that. True - but many do. And to choose to not play to the smartest person in the room is to play to the lowest common denominator and when has that ever been good for magic?

In order for the righting of cards - if that is the effect - to be impressive the audience must have conviction that the cards are mixed.

Now, to Pete's point, many times a "trick" can have many "effects." (I have lectured on this to the 12 people who might care - sadly, like now, there were many more than that in the room.)

[Warning: theory talk. This next section points to larger theory that can be skipped]

Take for example this great moment of magic: I give you cards, you count them, there are 10. I give someone else cards, they count them. Ten. I make magic passes with my wand. When you count yours now there are 7 and the other person has 13. What is the trick?

Many will say cards across, but they are projecting.

Cards Across is the EFFECT. The phenomenon is: You had a packet of 10 cards that became 7 and they had a packet of 10 which became 13.

That is the phenomena or TRICK as I call it. It is the domain of the method. What we do determines what happens.

I could tell a story about cards jumping from packet to packet then it becomes the cards across EFFECT. OR I could show a plastic "matter creator gun", fire it 3 times at one person and have their packet increase by three; switch the setting to "matter destructor", and have the other person's packet decrease by 3. I could offer a demonstration in the sympathy of luck by having a person choose a lucky number and the other an unlucky number. Their packets change to match.

Presentation is the home of the EFFECT. However, the way the "thing" is handled impacts the both the power of the effect as well as the ease and clarity of the understanding of the desired effect.

There is a third domain - the feelingful domain - which are choices that impact how the audience feels about what happened. (example: I give two people each 10 dollar bills. One of them is white, the other black. I tell them that the black person deserves to be paid less. When they count their money, the white guy has $13 and the black guy $7. I know - some of your fingers just lept toward the keyboard to call me a racist. Which is the point. We can make choices that keep the same "Trick", even the same "effect" but can drastically change the "aesthetic."

[END theory]

To Pete's point, let's consider a coin vanish. How is it vanishing - is it dissolving, merely turning invisible and placed on a sky hook, or has it become permanently annihilated. Critical decisions, all. But unless the audience is CONVINCED you have a coin (whether or not that is true, is irrelevant), unless they are convinced that you have a coin - then the condition for any effect to have impact has not been satisfied.

Can the slop shuffle be the correct choice for this type of TRICK (not effect)?

Maybe - when we want to downplay the quality of the shuffle.

What if, instead of the trick being about righting cards - it was about perception? I slop shuffle the cards and then tell you that it was all an hypnotic suggestion because - you see - the deck really is all the same around and has always been.

Now, would people buy this on any level?

Not sure.

In Triumph tricks I think the nature of the beast leads people to automatically SEE the EFFECT as cards righting themselves. And yes, sometimes the strongest magic is when "trick" and "effect" are congruent in that way. (Though often the weakest is when the "method" and "effect" are the same. "Method" and "trick" are related, though not identical.)

Maybe could believe that you had a way of making them perceive that 4 or 5 packets had been flopped around when really they hadn't. I do NOT think they would believe for a moment that a properly riffle shuffled and subsequently displayed deck was ever an hypnotic illusion.

Now, some people are itching to type: but it's magic. We can claim anything.

Yes, and you can look like an idiot.

Had a great chat with Geoffrey Durham about this. Many audiences (he feels UK audiences in particular) recoil once the line of the absurd is crossed. Sure, we can create fantasy for them as fantasy, but magic is fantasy which is occurring in reality. It is tangible, present, dare I say it - real?

Audiences will come along for the ride, but you never want that moment when they snap out of the spell and begin second guessing. People WILL believe you can straighten out a real shuffle with a single cut. People WILL believe you can create hypnotic illusions to a certain degree (depending on how much context you create for them to hang their reality on). But they won't believe a "snap of the fingers" really flipped the cards. They may be amazed - and credit you with amazing skill - but they know the story you are telling is [censored].

The good news is, the story they may fall back on (He turned all of those cards around when I wasn't looking) is still impressive. So, your performance is still succesful.

But which is more impressive - unweaving and reorganizing cards that have been well and truly shuffled in an uncontrolled cascade of chaos, or flipping over a few packets that you just flipped over in a very controlled manner yourself moments ago?

Don't get me wrong. Even if they don't believe your snapping fingers did the trick, they are still amazed at your apparent skill. So, your magic performance is still well received. You did something they could never do or know how you did REALLY. But wouldn't it be more powerful if they believed you could do what you said you did?

And to accomplish that, you need to make sure the logical perception of what happened (the effect) is what they believe happened, and that the phenomena which allegedly occurred (the trick) occurs in it's most clear, concise, and impressive iteration.

With Triumph, the most clear, concise and impressive statement of condition is a riffle.

Or is it?

Casinos also "wash" cards. And I think this way of mixing may be - to a layperson - as impressive of a condition, if not more, than a riffle. EVERYONE has played 52 pickup (intentionally or otherwise) so this procedure may be the most impressive condition one can set forth.

I do not have experience to speak from. Cugel?



Finally:


Glenn, you missed my point entirely re: turd. I am not calling Kent's version a turd. It isn't. Far from it.

I am referring to presenting great tricks (diamonds) in less than optimal conditions (no table is present.) If a trick is worth doing, it is worth doing right.


Brad "looking for a pot to put some of his tempestuous tea" Henderson

[NCMarsh]

Sorry, not buying it.

Vernon was insisting that the presentation was important to the success of the trick. He was not saying that the presentation was uniquely suited to this effect alone, and he certainly wasn't saying that the presentation and the effect were synonymous.

Just to be clear: I'm not saying that the effect and presentation are synonymous; nor am I saying "he presentation was uniquely suited to this effect alone."

Best,

N.

[Dustin Stinett]

As noted by Jonathan Townsend, Triumph is the performer successfully (or triumphantly) discovering the identity of a selected card (or cards) after the deck was mixed face-up and face down. It has absolutely nothing to do with the type of shuffle used. In his book on the subject, Jon Racherbaumer notes that the ultimate version of Triumph [Emphasis as in original.] did not use a shuffleas we know themat all. While this tale of the Floating Triumph might be apocryphal, I believe that the point is well made by a guy who knows what hes talking about.

Dustin

[Tom Stone]

So, in order for that to be effective, the primary condition must be established to the point of conviction - i.e. the cards really ARE mixed.

What shuffle is the most convincing in that regard.

It is the riffle.

And yes, what casinos think matters. Why? Because they know it's the RIGHT answer.

They have spent money to determine this.

No, they haven't spent money to determine what gives conviction to my performances. I'm sure that they would have contacted me if they had.

You do have a point. A riffle shuffle is good, however, that doesn't make the alternatives bad. I do three different versions, depending on the context.

For close-up at banquets etc. I do a bit by Stephen Tucker which start with a Slop Shuffle and end with the four aces, with a convincing false display inbetween.

To amuse myself, I sometimes use a Stripper Deck and let the spectator riffle shuffle it. Then a brief modified Hindu Shuffle to display a mess as I get the cards separated, and a Gravity HalfPass as I ask the spectator to extend his hand. The deck is then "righted" as it is held between his hands.

And for the theatre shows with me and my colleague Peter Rosengren, we use a modified version of Daryl's Triumph.
Starts with snide remarks towards the other's skills, mine being quite nasty, building up to a challenge of attempting something by the legend Dai Vernon.
A signed card is shuffled into the deck by Peter. I raise the stakes, by putting a paper bag over Peter's head - then, when he can't see, I turn half the deck over to sabotage his efforts. etc. etc.
Ending: All the cards suddenly turn right except one card. This card turn out to be blank with a written insult towards me. Then, as I lift the bag from Peter's head, the signed card is found stuck to his forehead. The underdog triumphs at the end, so to speak.

I never found that any of the versions make a lesser impression than the others. The Slop version works just as fine in the conviction department.

[David Alexander]

I saw Jay Ose use the Slop Shuffle on several occasions. He didn't "overhandle" it. He just did it enough to sell the point and then finished the effect. Jay's audiences were always impressed and entertained.

[Cugel]

You do have a point. A riffle shuffle is good, however, that doesn't make the alternatives bad.

Right, but equally it doesn't make them better. Best depends on what level of conviction you desire, balanced against the practicalities and your level of skill. But at the end of the day, all other considerations assumed to be equal, a riffle shuffle is more convincing than a slop shuffle. Bear in mind, I'm not arguing what's best for your subjective requirements, merely what is objectively and honestly more convincing to both a lay audience and an expert audience.

[Pete McCabe]

While this tale of the Floating Triumph might be apocryphal...

I think someone could get a large fish tank into the close-up room at the Castle and do the floating triumph with miniature cards. The cards would go in through a hole in the cover of the tank, which prevents spectators from reaching in on their way out. Maybe put it on the floor so no one can look up from below. I would love to see that.

(By the way, the MC Spread Force is perfect here. Mike has written about this applicationi.e. using these same gaffed cards)

[Brad Henderson]

I think if someone were to post, "They're different, but equally good", we could all share a coke, hug and live happily ever after.

But how often in life are different things TRULY equal?

We say they are, because we want to make nice.

My point is that each choice carries with it assets and liabilities. I have no doubt Tom Stone can make a slop shuffle play, but I am sure his presentation, character, attitude, and plot structure are chosen to compensate/compliment the tools he has chosen.

And while Casinos may not have asked him which shuffles his audience prefers, they have figured out which shuffle really is the best at randomizing cards. Smart people know this. Shouldn't we play to smart people?

David, did Ose use the slop for a Triumph effect where the focus of the phenomena was the straightening out of cards? I have seen the slop shuffle employed wisely in several routines where it served as a secondary layer of deception - meaning, not used for a triumph effect per se. In Tom's example, the slop is used in a four ace production (if I am reading that correctly). So, that effect is not entirely about straightening out cards - it is about card control, in which case a controlled shuffle makes sense, because one is controlling the Aces throughout. (This is of course hypothetical because I do not know exactly where TOm's routine goes.) The other two routines - which seem use riffles and that makes sense for their nature.

But when it comes to an effect where the point is to straighten out truly mixed up cards, I cannot see a good rationalization for using what is objectively known to be an inferior randomizer.

[Pete McCabe]

Dramatically speaking, it might be worth considering how a drunk persona belligerent, magician-challenging drunk personwould shuffle a deck of cards. At first blush, this suggests a sloppy challenge. But then again, perhaps the challenger is another magician, who deliberately shuffles the cards face up into face down, because he knows this is the ultimate magical challenge, etc.


A few months ago I bought a new chest of drawers to hold my magic props. The experience of moving everything over was priceless. There were three tricks that I had worked on more than 10 years ago, and couldn't quite get right, and put aside. In moving the props, I solved three of them.

And then, when I picked up my stripper deck, it suddenly occurred to me that this could be the ultimate Triumph. One of those ideas that leaps full-formed into your head from nowhere. It's not original, of courseI have since heard from guys who were doing it fifty-plus years ago, and it wasn't new then. But I've never read it, or seen it, and couldn't find it on Ask Alexander.

Still, consider the effect. The spectator freely selects any card and shuffles it into the deck. The spectator shuffles half face up into half face down. The cards are spread to show their genuinely mixed state. You take the cards, do your magic, and all cards are the same way but the selection.

I really don't see how you can improve on this. Of course, nobody uses a stripper deck, because... well, I don't know why, actually.

You could also reverse (end for end) the four aces, then hand the deck for shuffling. Take it back, turn one half face up, shuffle face up face down, show the cards genuinely shuffled and mixed fu/fd, etc. Then do your thing, and the deck is all face down except for the aces.

[Tom Stone]

The other two routines - which seem use riffles and that makes sense for their nature.

Not quite. A riffle shuffle, by its nature, looks like a deliberate process. It seldom looks as if you are truely out of control (i.e. body language and emotion). In both routines I had to compensate and add an extra layer of conviction to the shuffle: Letting the spectator shuffle. Adding a paper bag over the head.

But when it comes to an effect where the point is to straighten out truly mixed up cards, I cannot see a good rationalization for using what is objectively known to be an inferior randomizer.

How it is objectively has little to do with an art that is all about imagination.

I guess it is possible to put a small coin on a table, then direct six high-energy lasers towards it, and with a short blast cause the coin to blink out of existence... But a simple false transfer would still be considered equally or more mindboggling, even though it, objectively, is inferior.

People will add the missing parts themselves, and once they've filled in the gaps, their beliefs will carry more conviction than anything else. That's how people work.

[David Alexander]

I'm wondering if there hasn't been a tad bit of over analysis about what is, by anyone's definition, a card trick.

The earlier posts in this thread reminds me of Henry Kissinger's observation that "academic fights are so vicious because the stakes are so small."

[Tom Stone]

I'm wondering if there hasn't been a tad bit of over analysis about what is, by anyone's definition, a card trick.

Of course it has - that's what makes it fun! :)
...and over analysis is still far better than the opposite.

[Glenn Bishop]

As noted by Jonathan Townsend, Triumph is the performer successfully (or triumphantly) discovering the identity of a selected card (or cards) after the deck was mixed face-up and face down. It has absolutely nothing to do with the type of shuffle used.

Stars Of Magic - Please read the quote that Dr. Daley wrote that starts with "False Shuffles have been a prime interest - and ends with - this new simplified method of false shuffling with all its intriguing and inexhaustible possibilities. Truly this is a "Triumph" for the lover of fine card conjuring.

Then it goes on to explain the "Triumph" false shuffle.

Then the section ends with the trick that has come to be known as triumph "using" the triumph shuffle. The trick is explained in my opinion almost as an afterthought.

However in my opinion the suffle has fallen by the wayside and many people seem to like to do the trick that is known as "Triumph" using a different shuffle and different methods.

However - the slop shuffle or flip flop shuffle in my opinion is not triumph even when the effect is perhaps the same the method is very different.

And I do agree with Dr. Daley - "this new simplified method of false shuffling with all its intriguing and inexhaustible possibilities. Truly this is a "Triumph" for the lover of fine card conjuring."

Because I use it to stack and cull cards and I find the shuffle "triumph" very useful for my own needs.

Glenn,
I've never seen anyone do the routine, as written in SOM very well. I've no doubt Vernon could pull it off. If you have some video of yourself doing it, I'd like to see it!

The best guy that I saw do "Triumph" in his close up act was my Dad the late Billy Bishop. He learned it from Vernon and used the same slant on the shuffle that I use - that he may have learned from Vernon.

However - I am in no hurry to post any video - it wouldn't fool you - and I really don't have the time.

Glenn, you missed my point entirely re: turd. I am not calling Kent's version a turd. It isn't. Far from it.

I am referring to presenting great tricks (diamonds) in less than optimal conditions (no table is present.) If a trick is worth doing, it is worth doing right.

That is very funny Brad - In my opinion the worth doing right part - is only an opinion. "Your opinion".

And if I may add - that in my opinion the story a magician tells is only "fill in" that is "between" the "happenings of magic".

So in short and this tip in my opinion is worth it's weight in gold - the happening of magic "is" the story - that they (the audience) tells after they experience the "effect" of the "happening" of magic.

Just my opinion.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Pete, there's a pretty good reason most folks don't use that method for triumph - the audience - usually after a "find a card trick" someone wants to look at the deck just to check that it isn't stripped. IMHO it's side pulling actions like the tabled cut after the Vernon shuffle or a Hindoo shuffle type action which clues them in to that line of thinking.

Next question: Is the magic stronger if they return the card to the back by sliding it into the face down packet?

[Glenn Bishop]

Pete, there's a pretty good reason most folks don't use that method for triumph thinking.

Jon - I have been using the triumph shuffle to do the trick triumph - as my dad showed me - for about 35 - 40 years. I guess we are not "most folks".

However Buddy Farnan does the trick triumph using the Zarrow shuffle and many magicians favor the Zarrow shuffle over the Vernon Triumph shuffle.

- the audience - usually after a "find a card trick" someone wants to look at the deck just to check that it isn't stripped. IMHO it's side pulling actions like the tabled cut after the Vernon shuffle or a Hindoo shuffle type action which clues them in to that line of thinking.

That happens from time to time with pick a card tricks - however in my opinion that would be a very unrealistic reason - not to use - the triumph shuffle - or a hindoo shuffle.

So they the audience looks at the deck - or the deck can be borrowed - and they can't find a gaff - and if the trick is done right - they should be amazed.

Just my opinion.

[Richard Kaufman]

At an essential level, the only thing that matters is:

1) The spectators believe the chosen card is really lost in the deck.
2) The deck is genuinely mixed face up and face down.
3) The cards are all facing the same way at the end except the chosen card.

The methods to accomplish these things are way down on the list of importance.

[Brad Henderson]

I'm wondering if there hasn't been a tad bit of over analysis about what is, by anyone's definition, a card trick.

Of course it has - that's what makes it fun! :)
...and over analysis is still far better than the opposite.

Agreed.

And over analysis often uncovers ideas that may have never been reached otherwise.

Tom brought up a great point about one's attitude during the riffle shuffle. He is right - a careful and controlled attitude when giving the shuffle dilutes the impact the shuffle should have.

Likewise, I am intrigued in following up on the card wash idea. Would that not be the most random, haphazard way of doing it? After all, wasn't that one element of Lennert Green's act that really made it both compelling and amazing?

I think anytime taken to really get inside an effect will pay off - if only when revealing what you never want to do with it!

Brad

[John Lovick]

Brad,

I think I agree with most of your conclusions, but not all of your arguments. You keep talking about which shuffle is the best randomizer, but in Triumph, the point of the shuffle is not to randomize the cards but merely to mix them face up and face down. How efficiently the shuffle randomizes is not a significant factor.

[Richard Kaufman]

I'll repeat, it doesn't matter how you shuffle the cards as long as the spectators believe they are mixed face up and face down. Good presentation dictates that the shuffle be fairly rapid without a lot of farting around. Too much attention devoted to it rings false.

[David Alexander]

Lovick is right... as is Kaufman.

Over-analysis may (and I stress "may") uncover ideas that have not been previously considered, but does not necessarily bring the discernment needed to determine what is practical, commercial, or worth spending the time learning to perform in a professional setting, especially if one loses sight of the reason for performing in the first place. I point no fingers because I've found myself caught up in that same kind of thinking years ago.

The more complicated the method, the more opportunities for the performer to screw up. The more complicated the method, the more the performer must pay attention to the method as opposed to paying attention to the presentation. Simple and direct in both method and effect is, in my view, always better.

Too often methods are improved beyond the bounds of rationality because of some concern that rarely, if ever, enters the heads of lay audiences.

In many cases the use of one addition or another will not help "sell" it to a lay audience any better than Jay Ose's presentation which used the slop shuffle, a simple and direct procedure that lay audiences understand immediately.

If it is "magic for magicians," as is the presentation that began this thread, I have no problem because for Kent magic is a hobby and his post (as best I can tell) was meant as something presented for other amateurs an expression of his approach to an effect that can only be appreciated by people already familiar with the basic effect and the various methods used to accomplish that effect. Having performing both the original Triumph and a version using the slop shuffle, I enjoyed and appreciated Kent's approach, which is think was the whole point.

My nearly 50 year-old memory has Jay doing this as a reveal accompanied by an interesting story following the basic tenants laid out by Kaufman. Jay was charming and was one of the essential ingredients that made the Magic Castle successful from its beginning. Jay had a repertoire of straightforward effects presented in a manner that lay audiences could understand immediately. Jay had chops but chose, intelligently, to keep them well hidden and concentrate on being an entertainer, a model more should emulate.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Even the beginner student in magic knows that "what's right" is a matter of moral context after the fact, "what's correct" is a matter of social context at the moment and what's true is also dependent upon perspective. Linguistic precision and contextual awareness are basic requirements for magic. The example I put out for the youngsters at the magic cafe is the fish's advice to a flustered colleague:
"Just put your head into a nice cool bowl of water for a few minutes and you'll feel better in no time".

How are we doing with answers to those three questions? Hows the audience feedback?

[Cugel]

I'm wondering if there hasn't been a tad bit of over analysis about what is, by anyone's definition, a card trick.

The earlier posts in this thread reminds me of Henry Kissinger's observation that "academic fights are so vicious because the stakes are so small."

Thank God it wasn't a discussion on stage magic, then.

[Cugel]

At an essential level, the only thing that matters is:

1) The spectators [color:#FF0000]believe[/color] the chosen card is really lost in the deck.
2) The deck is [color:#FF0000]genuinely[/color] mixed face up and face down.
3) The cards are all facing the same way at the end except the chosen card.

The [color:#FF0000]methods[/color] to accomplish these things are way down on the list of importance.

And ironically, the level of conviction you might achieve in regards to 1) and 2) depends entirely on the method. What a dilemma!

[Cugel]

You keep talking about which shuffle is the best randomizer, but in Triumph, the point of the shuffle is not to randomize the cards but merely to mix them face up and face down.

So the location of the selected card is not important? Hardly. In the plot of Triumph the deck is randomised in a way that (to a lay audience) seems to guarantee the failure of the performer. And yet he triumphs.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Pete, there's a pretty good reason most folks don't use that method for triumph thinking.

Jon - I have been using the triumph shuffle to do the trick triumph - as my dad showed me - for about 35 - 40 years. I guess we are not "most folks".

Glenn, my comment was directed to a poster above who suggested using a stripper deck as part of the method for the trick. I've watched folks check for the deck being stripped after doing Triumph (Vernon handling) and after much observation found out what cues them into looking for that gaff - the sideways action as part of cutting the pack.
*
How's it going on those questions? How's the audience feedback?

[Dustin Stinett]

So Glenn, everyone who performs the effect using a Zarrow Shuffle is not performing "Triumph," they are performing "Zarrow"? Let's not forget about the decades of magic literature that needs correcting.**

But let's just skip that and just get to why I think that you are absolutely wrong.

The quote your are citing is an after-the-fact "pull quote" by Doc Daley, not part of the actual text of the trick. While it's obvious that that Daley was indeed waxing enthusiastic about the false shuffle, I noticed that you (purposely?) left out where he also waxed enthusiastic about the trick itself. His final sentence is just as applicable to the "amazing trick" as it is to the sleight.

But here's the stuff that really matters (all from George Starkes original text):

"Dai Vernon divulges one of his most astonishing discoveries, and exquisite card miracle entitled 'Triumph.' A revolutionary sleight is involved which will be coveted by every magician." [Emphasis mine.]

Note that there are two clear separate references here: A card "miracle" entitled "Triumph" and a new sleight.

The card miracle is "Triumph" the effect, not the sleight.

If you need further convincingand I suspect that you dosubsequent text refers to the move simply as "Dai Vernon's false shuffle." Nowhere is the sleight ever referred to as "the Triumph Shuffle." In fact, in the explanation of the effect, the sleight is capitalized"False Shuffle."

In other words: In George Starke's opening text, he is clearly referring to the effect which involves a new sleight. Not a new sleight called "Triumph" which allows one to do a nifty trick.

Yes, the description of the sleightand its multiple usesare described first (under the subtitle "Explanation of False Shuffle"). Oh and the trick, which you seem to think is some kind of afterthought, is subtitled "Instructions for Triumph" during which the reader is instructed to use the "False Shuffle."

Apparently you skipped that part, so Ill repeat it: "Instructions for Triumph" refers to the effect, not the shuffle.

"Triumph" is not a false shuffle. "Triumph" is an effect. The proof is in the text.

Dustin

[Richard Kaufman]

Sorry, Cugel, but you'll lose with that argument, since using a Slop Shuffle not only convinces the audience that the selection is lost in the deck, but also that the cards are mixed face up and face down.

[Cugel]

Sorry, Cugel, but you'll lose with that argument, since using a Slop Shuffle not only convinces the audience that the selection is lost in the deck, but also that the cards are mixed face up and face down.

But Richard, if one method is as convincing/good as another, why ever did you publish all of those books?

;)

[Michael Kamen]

I agree with Richard and others that the conviction of the audience is key. However there is instantaneous conviction and long-term conviction. Tamariz deals with this at length in his own words. We may get our initial reaction with a slop shuffle. But there is the reverie later during which the spectator may trip over such weak elements and decide simply that there was something funny about how you mixed the cards. Or not. This depends a great deal on the individual spectator, but causes me to agree with Cugel and Brad, that as a general rule it is stronger with a riffle shuffle. Brad's interest in the washing idea I think is also well founded for the same reason.

[Cugel]

Brad's interest in the washing idea I think is also well founded for the same reason.

As an aside, I would say that Kimlat's allowing the spectator to "wash" the cards creates the strongest conviction of all. But the methodology that follows to achieve the Triumph effect is one of the weakest.

[David Alexander]

Here's Kenner doing his version of Slop Shuffle Triumph. Looks just fine to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgGOWK8- ... re=related

[Cugel]

Here's Kenner doing his version of Slop Shuffle Triumph. Looks just fine to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgGOWK8- ... re=related

Sure it does. It looks fine for a simple, easy version of the effect. Not too taxing, sleight-wise, and very practical for walk around.

[El Mystico]

As I understand it, Cugel and Brad are convinced the riffle has an advantage over the slop shuffle in this effect, because it gives the impression of a more thorough mixing, and hence makes the unmixing seem even more impossible.
But if you follow that logic, why aren't they using the faro shuffle for this effect? Surely that represents a more thorough mixing than the riffle? You can point out that each and every card gets interleaved.
I suspect the answer is, that they feel it doesnt make a damn bit of difference whether it is a riffle or a faro.... which is how a lot of us feel about the slop v riffle debate...

[Ric Carpenter]

My two cents to this very rich post:

Richard Kaufman wrote :

1) The spectators believe the chosen card is really lost in the deck.
2) The deck is genuinely mixed face up and face down.
3) The cards are all facing the same way at the end except the chosen card.

We can "improve" the 3):

No more sleight of hands. Apparently.

You 've shuffled the cards, different ways (may be like a demonstration of how people shuffle the cards in different countries) you finish by the face up and face down shuffle.

and you put the deck in the card case.

End of the trick.

Begin of the trick.

they ask you for the card.

Oops! you forget this part.

Well. you throw the card case in the air. it turns in the air.
it falls in your hand. you get the deck out of the case.

Well, the card is the only one face up.

so:

3 ) The deck revolves in the correct way INTO the card case.

Another mental image: you put the deck FU FD in the card case.
Then the deck is OK.

Don't omitt to look in the cardcase after, to lock the "mecanism" for the next time. They will smile. and smile is good.

[El Mystico]

And as for Glenn's suggestion that Triumph is the name of the shuffle and not the effect; Dustin's covered what was written in Stars of Magic. Here is what Vernon himself has to say, on the Revelations DVDs.
"George Karger said, "Well, show me one of the tricks," and I did Triumph for him. Of course it didn't have any name at the time, and he said, "What can we call that trick?" and my little boy Derek, he was only 7 years old, he was standing watching the proceedings sand he said, "Dad, that's your triumph in't it, why don't you call it Triumph."
Dustin said it, I'll repeat it. Triumph is an effect.