John Lovick wrote:Brad,
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.
El Mystico wrote: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...
Actually, no.
I do think the randomization process is part of the effect. A faro is not a random shuffle, it is a controlled shuffle. In my mind, part of the impressiveness of the condition is the fact that there is/was apparently no control over which cards are face up/face down and where they may be distributed. If you knew every other card was face up, straightening them out would be far less of an impressive task.
So, I do think the randomization factor - "He couldn't know what cards were where or how they were" - is important. And I completely understand how some people may find these issues irrelevant or uninteresting. To them I would suggest reading and posting on another thread.
I do think value can come out of these discussions.
David Alexander wrote:
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.
Of course, theory must be tested in practical performance. But one could easily throw up the straw man argument that "practice" MAY lead to improvement. It doesn't always. But it might.
The key is in practicing wisely. Likewise, analysis can get overblown and lead to impractical ideas, but isn't it better to have several ideas to try and test than none at all?
Finally, I meant to comment on this:
Tom Stone wrote: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.
Tom is shifting the argument to how an effect is seemingly accomplished as opposed to the conditions of that effect under which it is accomplished. I think a false transfer, done smartly, can be just as convincing if not more so than the laser scenario.
(Having said that, I think if you pointed a laser at the closed fist, no one would believe for a moment the laser annihilated the coin. They would still be impressed at your skill. If you wanted them to believe the laser ACTUALLY accomplished the vanish, then I think you might need to have it visibly disintegrate OR allow me to conclude on my own that the laser was the motive force (more on that later). But even without the visible disintegration, you have a good and deceptive trick and your audiences will be amused with tale you tell. But I don't think anyone but a child will buy into the notion that the laser did it.)
And this is where theory and practice become important. There are times when a condition is too good - too perfect, dare I say - where it detracts from the impact of an effect.
Being convinced that a dollar bill is in an envelope that is on fire is probably better than setting the dollar bill aflame uncovered. Tom is right - people do add
missing parts - and when they do this on their own volition, those conclusions are the most powerful which we can build on.
By making something visible, they are not required to participate in the deception. It either "is" or it "isn't". And when the impossible occurs, they may conclude that it "wasn't" even if they saw that it "was". Because, afterall, that is the only possible explanation.
How much better then to set up a situation where their conclusions - which they drew themselves - reinforce the core beliefs on which the conditions are based. When they draw them on their own conclusion, they cannot backtrack and doubt them. They are working from a set of conditions which they have never had the chance to question - they created those conditions in their own mind. They have skewered themselves.
So, if you want me to believe that a laser made the coin disappear, you might actually need to show me. Of course, then I might attribute it to science and not magic.
But if you want me to believe the dollar is really burned, then you need to lead me to draw that conclusion on my own.
Brad Henderson