Triumph

[El Mystico]

I didnt say that, Cugel.
My opinion, from my experience, is that presentation is more important than whether you use slop or riffle.

[Glenn Bishop]

And then again there are some that might say - it isn't triumph unless they use "the triumph shuffle".

My dad learned the original slop shuffle or as he called it the flip flop shuffle from Jay Ose and he credited the trick to him. However in the Jimmy Grippo book I think I read that the trick is credited to Jimmy Grippo and it said something like that Jimmy Grippo showed Jay Ose the trick and he got a reputation for doing the trick.

The trick - the flip flop shuffle or the slop shuffle may be the same basic effect of the face up face down triumph that Dai Vernon did in the book the stars of magic. But the method is very different.

Both methods of doing almost the same effect have advantages and I use them "both".

By the way Kent - great video!

Just my opinion.

[Richard Kaufman]

If it hasn't already been mentioned in this thread, the Slop Shuffle is Sid Lorraine's and was published in the late 1920s, 1929 I think.

[Harry Lorayne]

I know that I published a Johnny Benzais handling of the Slop Shuffle somewhere, but darned if I can find it. Perhaps a good researcher out there can find it for me? I don't think it has anything to do with the current discussion, I was just reminded of it and wanted to check it out, etc. HL.

[Glenn Bishop]

And if I may add there is a great face up and face down shuffle triumph like trick in the Harry Lorayne book Personal Secrets.

Where a spectator names a four of a kind. That four of a kind is removed from the deck and then placed into different parts of one half of the deck.

Then the two halves are shuffled face up and face down using the riffle shuffle.

The deck is spread and the cards are all facing the same way except the four of a kind.

It is a neat card effect that is often overlooked by many of today's card magicians.

Just my opinion

[pixsmith]

Brad thinks the slop shuffle is too easy to backtrack; while I've been using it for 25 years and never had anyone sniff it; and I would guess mrgoat is in a similar situation, otherwise he would have stopped using it.
(Although, as an aside, years ago for a while I performed a version of the trick which used Daryl's six cut display, to show the mixed condition...until I realised people assumed this was the point when the cards got straightened out...it made no sense, but it was the only thing they could think of).

My understanding of what Brad said was that the shuffle, because it looked unusual, stood out and became, like the display you mention, the point that the audience thought "something" happened to straighten out the cards.

If I am incorrect in my assumption, I feel confident that I will be corrected. (no offense to Brad, or anyone for that matter)

I really liked the rest of what you had to say too. Connecting with the audience, doing something they can care about, being consistent and having a, dare I say it, uniformity of action, really goes a long way toward the magic. I think that's the point that a lot of folks have been making, directly and indirectly, throughout this thread.

[El Mystico]

Harry; you're referring to the Modernized Slop shuffle in Decksterity - you left it out of The Classic Collection.

[Tom Gilbert]

I really liked Kent's version and will check out the November 07 Genii. Looking forward to Kent's version being written up.

Tom

[Jeff Eline]

Nice Kent!

[Harry Lorayne]

Thanks, El Mystico.

[Pete McCabe]

One of the Ron Bauer booklets details his slop shuffle handling. It has a tip I've never seen anywhere else which, to me, improves the illusion considerably. Well worth tracking down.

[Jim Maloney]

Pete is referring to "Fair and Sloppy", and the slop shuffle handling described there is pretty nice.

-Jim

[mrgoat]

I will add that I think Mr Goat is missing the point. Just because "most people when asked to shuffle a deck will do an overhand shuffle" doesn't mean you are off the hook as a performer. Even people who do overhand shuffles realize that riffle shuffles are more complete randomizations (this isn't strictly true, I know, but it is true enough to be the common perception).

Sir, you miss my point I fear. Not sure how I can make it more clear for you.

In the UK, when a spec is given a deck and asked to shuffle them, 99% of the time they do an overhand shuffle. I do not therefore, ever do a riffle shuffle of any kind.

I do not want to appear to be clever with my hands, to have skills with cards that are above and beyond those that the speccy has.

The reason for this is that I do not want someone to think I am 'clever with my hands'. This could create a feeling where the spec thinks I can just do anything with a deck because I'm clever with my hands. I want them to think I do magic, not juggling. Therefore I'll stick to an overhand shuffle control and a slop shuffle.

Rather than feeling 'off the hook' on doing a more technically difficult move, I am deliberately making a decision not to do anything that appears it might need physical skill to achieve.

Hope that makes more sense for you.

[El Mystico]

Also, it seems from what he has written that Leminscate is missing the point slightly; Triumph is, to the audience, about cards which have been mixed face up and down magically righting themselves. It is not a trick where the benefits of 'more complete randomisations' is a feature.
Maybe he is has in mind a red and black separation effect?

[Harry Lorayne]

Glenn: I agree (biased opinion) that that's one of the best effects os that kine that I know. I kill with it. It's re-written, upgraded, etc., in THE CLASSIC COLLECTION, Volume 1. HL.

[Richard Kaufman]

Harry's trick is indeed good: I used to do it all the time when I did stuff on the table.

[Brad Henderson]

Thanks Pix for translating Bradspeak.

I guess I try to be a "don't let them suspect, let alone detect" kind of guy.

iVernon talked about avoiding flourishes which gave the appearance of skill (although that didn't stop him from using the wand spin!)

. . . or a riffle shuffle when performing Triumph. Herb Zarrow once told me that Vernon used his shuffle when he actually performed it. Perhaps others can confirm this. Herb told this to me at a Buffalo Gathering 4 or 5 years back.

Mr. Goat's advocacy of eschewing visible skill is a wise course of action - but I am not convinced (at least in the states) that riffle shuffling qualifies as skillful. 6 year old kids riffle shuffle. It's what we do - I suppose. (Of course, any Asian performers care to comment? Their "Hindu Shuffle" style seems fairly ubiquitous. How would they do Triumph?)

Kent, the thing that struck me about Jared's handling was how clean and natural it looks. Hopefully you will get to see him present it some day. It looks exactly like what you should be doing - nothing else at all. Perhaps his fluency conveys that?

The other thing I like is how he uses convincers only as often as he needs and no more. One well placed display transports the watcher from belief to conviction. Being bombarded with 5 or 6 only leads someone to ask - why is he doing that? What's he got to prove/hide?

Hence my comment about running when being chased.

I think the best magic resides in the mind of the audience. We have to anticipate their conclusions and insure we don't point them to dark corners where they need not be peering.

Less is more.

Simple is good.

Truth, justice, American way.

Long live the Riffle.

Brad

P.S. Thanks, Glenn. For two seconds I almost forgot your dad was Billy Bishop. That was a close one.

[Larry Horowitz]

So, I'm giving a show and I turn to the little ole' lady on my right and I ask her to shuffle the cards. I then turn to the person on my left to explain what they will do when I hand them the shuffled deck.

Before I realize what is happening, the shuffler, who has been listening to me as she shuffles, takes half the deck, turns it face up, and cleanly shuffles it into the face down half. Before I can stop her she fully pushes the two halves together....

"Now for a coin trick!"

moral: Who gives a damn how they shuffle as long as THEY BELIEVE the cards are shuffled.

[Brad Henderson]

moral: Who gives a damn how they shuffle as long as THEY BELIEVE the cards are shuffled.

Exactly.

So, which shuffle looks more shuffley?

Seems like casinos would know.

Apparently, instinctively, you favor a riffle too. How else will you cleanly push halves together.

They shuffle in their hands, right?

[Tom Stone]

So, which shuffle looks more shuffley?

Seems like casinos would know.

Which version of Elmsley Count is favoured by Casinos? And what is their stand on Sponge Balls?

Isn't questions like this more within the realm of Plot and Persona? Or should a Triumph look identical, no matter if it is performed by Sylvester the Jester or Darwin Ortiz?

If the line is "I don't like to brag about my card technique skills, but you should know that I'm barred from all the casinos i Las Vegas", I'd be very tempted to follow it with a Slop Shuffle while screaming "Aaaaah, aaaaah, aaaaah!!!", rather than a neat and relaxed table riffle shuffle.
(Though, I'd probably add the cutting display from Daryl's triumph)

[Brad Henderson]

Which version of Elmsley Count is favoured by Casinos? And what is their stand on Sponge Balls?

Are we talking strip or downtown?

Of course, there are always ways to justify a procedure. Sometimes one can even make a routine's weakness it's strength. (Which your suggestion accomplishes.) However, Kent's routine is about the conditions. If you are going to prove a condition, then everything one does should go to establish the conviction of that condition in the audience's mind.

If, however, the goal of one's performance is something other than the impossibility of the moment - for example a character or plot driven piece - then all resources should go to reinforcing those elements in the mind of the audience.

If one is going to add several displays in order to focus on the conditions, then EVERYTHING should be directed to the same goal. Likewise, one must be careful not to "protest too much" for then they will begin to doubt the conditions or worse, be pointed in the direction of the hidden falsehood.

In my mind, straightening out playing cards is - even removed from all presentation - fundamentally about skill. That seems to me to be the nature of the thing. Of course, we can massage that, but should we try to force round pegs into square holes?

If the trick is about accomplishing a skill, then the presentation should highlight the conditions that make the skill most impressive.

If the trick is about something else - character, for example - then one should not pick a trick which seems out of context (he's a bungler but still accomplished something very difficult).

ok, I can't sleep. This may be woefully unclear.

Basically, I think one should look at the essence of the "thing" and try to make choices which work congruently with that essence. In my mind, the clarity of the riffle works best with the essence of the highest possible incarnation of the triumph effect - it is the most impossible condition.

While there can be great benefits from doing interesting things in interesting directions, we need to be aware what we sacrifice.

I think the slop shuffle sacrifices the essentially qualities that make Triumph as a phenomena powerful.

Is it wrong to take Tylenol PM at 6 in the morning?

Brad

[Jonathan Townsend]

You spread the pack on the table and they take one. You square the spread into two packets. You turn one packet face up. You ask them to put their card back in the face down part spreading that packet in your hands. You give them that packet and then ask them to shuffle the cards. As is. You encourage them to shuffle the cards face up into face down. Okay then they cut the pack a few times.

Magic time?

When you are handling the cards, the triumph winds up framed (once this guy ...) or risks diminishment due to the contrivance of the procedure.

Now about accounting for the magic - the last person I saw do that was Cyril who put the pack into a cocktail shaker to make the cards shuffle.

I happen to like Kent's routine as it runs with the false premise from the start and messes with what book-learned or magic-club magicians might expect as doable.

Next question for those who perform for peope: Does the magic register as stronger if you turn the pack over before doing the magical moment? (even if you just use a paddle move)

[Ian Kendall]

Since this discussion (or one thread, anyway) concerned the viability of the slop shuffle _for working_, where there is no table, all the benefits of a riffle become moot.

Take care, Ian

[Brad Henderson]

Or - do a different trick. Why set a diamond inside a turd? If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.

[Jonathan Townsend]

The triumph is not the shuffle, it's the outcome of the story where a drunk took the magician's cards and shuffled them like this...

[Tom Stone]

In my mind, straightening out playing cards is - even removed from all presentation - fundamentally about skill.

That's one way to look at it. Someone else might look at it in a more surreal way. Like placing the Guarantee card on top of the mess, and instantly the deck is straightened (borrowed from Paul Harris Unshuffling Rebecca).
I, myself, is perhaps not that keen on letting some casinos in a foreign country on the other side of the world dictate how I should interact with my audience, especially since I find gambling excruciating dull. Say "poker deal" and I'll fall to sleep instantly. I'm unable to even fake an interest in such topics. Watching paint dry is a rollercoster ride of fun, in comparison with any gambling related plot or effect.

I'm not saying that you are wrong, just a tad dogmatic.

[Jonathan Townsend]

If one wanted to make it about skill one could present it as such - apparently doing the work under a hank in a few seconds or by taking the deck behind the back, the proof that the performer did not merely switch out the pack is in leaving the selected card reversed.

Clearly some stop thinking way too soon.

[Glenn Bishop]

Or - do a different trick. Why set a diamond inside a turd? If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right.

Yes - I get that Kents method is not your cup of tea. But that doesn't make it wrong for him or others if they choose to use his ideas or method.

Did some research on the slop shuffle or the flip flop shuffle. In the Jimmy Grippo book there is a chapter called a favorite of Jay Ose. It is a routine using the slop shuffle and a one handed cut to right the deck. it seems that Grippo showed Jay Ose his way of doing it using the one handed cut.

There is also a routine in the book The Magic Digest by George B. Anderson page 165 - magic or mind reading - where the flip flop shuffle is used to find a thought of card.

However the slop shuffle is not credited to anyone else in both of these two books.

If I may add that the Harry Lorayne routine using the riffle shuffle and four of a kind has been one of my favorite card tricks for more than twenty years. It is in Personal secrets and in my opinion another one of Harry's hidden gem's.

Just my opinion.

[Glenn Bishop]

The triumph is not the shuffle, it's the outcome of the story where a drunk took the magician's cards and shuffled them like this...

That may be your way of looking at it Jon. But in my opinion the "triumph" is the shuffle. Because it is also a "false" shuffle that can also be used to cull and stack cards.

And in my opinion it seems to have fallen by the wayside - as it seems that magicians favor other riffle shuffle work. And often use a "different" shuffle to do the "effect" of triumph.

However I find the shuffle "Triumph" great and useful to my own needs - and in my opinion it should have it's rightful place in the history of magic and riffle shuffle work.

Just my opinion.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Glenn, kindly refer to the trick as published in The Stars of Magic.

When Vernon wanted to publish "a coin vanish" he did so without the fuss of a trick or presentation to distract the reader (see Bobo's) - so if he wanted to publish a false shuffle for its own sake ...

The shuffle itself, "The Triumph Shuffle" as taught in that trick is not so much the subject here as we are discussing approaches to accomplishing and presenting the effect and Kent's offering in particular.

[Glenn Bishop]

Glenn, kindly refer to the trick as published in The Stars of Magic.

When Vernon wanted to publish "a coin vanish" he did so without the fuss of a trick or presentation to distract the reader (see Bobo's) - so if he wanted to publish a false shuffle for its own sake ...

The shuffle itself, "The Triumph Shuffle" as taught in that trick is not so much the subject here as we are discussing approaches to accomplishing and presenting the effect and Kent's offering in particular.

I "was" Jon.

As I said before - some may not consider the effect of shuffling face up and face down cards - and then righting the deck except the selected card - to be called "triumph" unless it "uses" the triumph shuffle.

The slop shuffle - or flip flop shuffle - in my opinion is not "triumph" although it does mix face up and face down cards. In my opinion it is not "triumph" unless it uses the "triumph" shuffle.

There is another triumph called "Marlo's Triumph" in the book Marlo in spades. However it does not use the Vernon triumph shuffle it uses a shuffle that Ed Marlo came up with to do the effect.

It is called "Marlo's Triumph" and is very different than Vernon's Triumph because it doesn't use the "triumph shuffle".

Just my opinion.

[NCMarsh]

Since this discussion (or one thread, anyway) concerned the viability of the slop shuffle _for working_, where there is no table, all the benefits of a riffle become moot.

Take care, Ian

That simply is not true. Hollingworth has a direct, workable riffle shuffle (NOT a faro-type) that is in the hands, does not require a table, and is imminently practical (I performed it for several years).

N.

[Pete McCabe]

Not that choice of shuffle isn't important, but I think a more important question to ask is: how are the cards being straightened out? I don't mean literally how, I mean what are you presenting to the audience as the ostensible means for the cards becoming rearranged? Are you presenting it as magic? Or as skill? A curse on the cards? Time travel back to before the mix? Tom Stone alone probably has more than a hundred possible answers.

It seems to me that you the best results are achieved if you answer this question first, and then let it inform everything else. Different answers to this question will lead to different choices of shuffle, etc.

[Kent Gunn]

Segue,

Which, for y'all is better?

Showing the denouement with the cards face down, so the selection appears or:

Showing the face-up deck spread with a single face down card . . . and then, for a second effect, showing that card is their selection.

Jonathan, I think this is what you were referring to. I'd like to know which is stronger. I prefer to show both "effects" at once.

Pietro/Cabester,
Since I don't really perform for real people. (I don't think of magicians as real people) Does what I'm doing in the video make sense, scriptorially, to you? My intent was to lead the non-real audience into believing I was doing Grant's "Cheek to Cheek". For me, in this performance, I intended to have the denoument, for those in the know, to be the showing of the faces of the deck.

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!

[Jim Maloney]

Which, for y'all is better?

Showing the denouement with the cards face down, so the selection appears or:

Showing the face-up deck spread with a single face down card . . . and then, for a second effect, showing that card is their selection.

It's tough to decide. On the one hand, I like the potential for a one-two punch in the latter approach, where you let the suspense build a tiny bit before the reveal of their card.

On the other hand, the first approach presents a cleaner stage picture with the uniformity of the back design across the whole spread (rather than the mish mosh of varied face-up cards).

Ultimately, I think the cleaner stage picture wins out.

-Jim

[Pete McCabe]

Kent,

I saw your video with the sound off, so I'll have another look when I'm home.

Re the ending: 15 or so years ago I saw a magician do it this way. He held the deck face down, with the face up selection secretly side jogged. Then he spread the deck, showing all the cards face down (with the selection hidden in standard fashion). Then he gathered the deck, turned it face up, and respread, showing there is now one card reversed. Finally he showed the reversed card was the selection.

This three-effect climax played extremely well. I wish I could remember his name.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Segue,

Which, for y'all is better?

Showing the denouement with the cards face down, so the selection appears or:

Showing the face-up deck spread with a single face down card . . . and then, for a second effect, showing that card is their selection.

Jonathan, I think this is what you were referring to. I'd like to know which is stronger. I prefer to show both "effects" at once.
...

Please, no. I was suggesting an experiment. 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...

Same experiment format as with the spectator cut, how about if you turned over the pack at some point?

As to the reveal - IMHO that depends on just what you are supposed to be showing you did and how you supposedly did it. In my experience doing the Tabled Palm off of the top face down card before spreading a face up pack seemed to get the largest gasp.

[Curtis Kam]

I'm pretty sure we've gone the rounds on the presentation of the ending here, in some long-forgotten thread. And regarding that, I hold the following truths to be self-evident:

1. The trick in question is not primarily about finding the selected card. It's about righting the deck.

2. You've got other locations that are more impressive, and you very likely are doing one of them in the same set as your "triumph". It's a good idea to end as few routines as possible in the same way (i.e. "Is that your card?")

3. The usual "two-step" presentation therefore usually proceeds in the wrong direction, i.e. one discloses the "righting" and then follows up with the revelation of the selected card. Not optimal.

4. The usual "one-step" presents all the information at once. This can dilute the impact of the ending for some audiences, who may "see" only the righting, and not fully appreciate the fact that the only card that is still reversed is the one they chose. I mean, they understand that that took place, but the impact of it is lost in the stronger effect. In other words, if this is the climax you're shooting for, then try the trick without the selection and compare. You may find that there's no difference in reaction.

There is another way, and I believe it's published in Genii. Allen Okawa always does it this way, and I think it's the way to go, all other things being equal. You reveal the selction first, (in Allen's case by dead cutting to it) and then reveal that the deck has been righted. The "third-and-a-half" way is to gaze solemnly at the deck, and announce the name of the selection, getting that part out of the way, then revealing the condition of the deck.

[NCMarsh]

The core of triumph, for me, is in the title.

It is one of the few tricks that has a built in conflict, with a strong dramatic resolution.

Making order out of chaos is a basic human desire. It's why pitchers have elaborate rituals, it's why we make wishes, knock on wood, throw salt over our shoulders...

whether or not we have a literal belief that this behavior influences the world or not, we still do it. This behavior creates a sense that there is order underlying the chaos around us and that we can exert some control over that chaos.

Triumph, as Vernon wrote it up, is about a guy losing control of a situation and then being able to...well...triumph...it is control over chaos

For me, that's the understanding of the effect that frames all of the other choices...maximize the sense of chaos, the tension in the script, and then making the finale as clear as possible...

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...

For me, there has to be the conviction that what the spectator did really did put you in a bind...or else, who cares? And if it really did put you in a bind, you can't just produce the selection without first fixing the problem...

Were I doing the trick now, I think I would experiment with the following for the finale:

-Have the reversed selection side-jogged so that it is concealed when the deck is spread...that way you can first show that the entire deck has righted itself...then have the spectator close the spread...make a magic moment...then immediately re-spread to show that the selection has appeared face up...

I haven't tried it...but I thought I would throw it out as a thought-experiment/option...I have tried having the spectator actually shuffle the cards after replacing the selection, and it does immensely amplify the impact of the trick

N.

[Cugel]

In my mind, the clarity of the riffle works best with the essence of the highest possible incarnation of the triumph effect - it is the most impossible condition.

Bingo.