gambling demo

[mountaineer]

forgive me for the nature of this "dumb question" but it is a question I have wrestled with in the past much. I am relatively new to the forum here and I had an important first question for those of you who do perform a gambling demo (and perform it well). How do you go about successfully presenting something like that without leaning too far towards a magic trick, and yet still maintaining an essence of technical superiority? And of course, making it interesting and entertaining.

[Dowser]

I think you need first to decide what your priority is and what you are trying to get across. Is it necessary to maintain "an essence of technical superiority"? Is entertaining them the highest priority? These two do not have to go together to make a "successful" gambling demo... and by "demo", perhaps your goal is to educate and inform. There are many ways to approach it. The inherent interest in gambling routines, believe it or not, is not in the skill of the performer. Many magicians feel otherwise and think that the interest comes from the spectator living vicariously through them. This can be a factor but most often this approach, when not handled artfully, comes across as showing off.
Here is something that I see in the casino where I work every day. People flock to see a large jackpot when it gets hit on a slot machine and the bells start ringing... they all stand around and stare and comment and a crowd builds with a level of interest that many magicians could not beg for. This is because they all believe they are witnessing a "rare event".
If you do your gambling "demo's" with an air of superiority, your audience, just as many magicians audiences, may come to the correct conclusion that you will always get the pat hand, or that you will always win the bet. It may be somewhat impressive when and how you do, but it is no surprise and they assume that you will do the same at every performance.
If you can somehow convince, even temporarily, that a spectacular result was unplanned (like flipping a coin and having it land perfectly on end) and that you, as well as your audience were witness to something special and rare... then you have real entertainment.

[Bob Cunningham]

"The inherent interest in gambling routines, believe it or not, is not in the skill of the performer."

I have used Harry Lorayne's Poker Deal from "Close Up Card Magic" This is ridiculously easy to do. This effect uses 5 players.

I also do an identical effect (from the spectator's perspective) using a shuffled deck and 4 players. The second method involves some simple culling, an overhand control and a couple of faro's.

The reaction I get from spectators is very strong irrespective of which of these techniques I use. These days I ask them if they want there to be 4 or 5 players (so the game is not too small making it easy for me or too bug making it boring for them). And I choose the method depending on their choice.


In any event, as Dowser pointed out, from the spectator's point of view it's the effect - not the method.

[Richard Kaufman]

It doesn't matter what you do: a successful performance is the result of entertaining your audience ... with sleights or without them.

[Bill Duncan]

Get the videos of Martin A. Nash, and Darwin Ortiz (esp. Scams and Fantasies), and compare and contrast the performing styles.

Both accomplish the goal you are seeking in different ways. How you get there will probably be somewhere in between.

[Glenn Bishop]

To answer your question - as doing a show. I have found it very good to bridge the gap between the two subjects of magic and gambling.

In a formal close up show I do magic first - the show runs sort of like this.

Chop dice cup, Magic card tricks, matrix, ring on a stick, the shellgame, poker deals (punch deck routine) three card monte, cups and balls.

The shell game is a bridge to bring the subject of magic into the subject of gambling and con games and poker deals.

Jack Pyle used to open with magic - then he would start doing gambling routines by spreading the deck face up and having the audience pick out a hand. He called this "do it yourself poker".

This got a laugh - then he would deal himself and the audience "this hand" over and over again - as a running gag as the same hand was mixed up into the deck - several times - shuffled by Jack and at times the audience - they would still get the hand.

Then he would close with his bridge deal.

Jack Pyle "looked" like a card shark magician. And the way he handled the deck and talked - like he played cards - was part of that image. Plus the way he worked the deck - from the audience point of view he looked like he hand complete control of the deck and could win at any time - that was his "image" when he performed.

That is the difference between a magician doing a poker deal and a magician that has the "image" that at one time he might have been a card cheat at one time.

I have seen Jack Pyle perform his show many times. However one of the best performing this kind of entertainment today is in my opinion Ricky Jay. I suggest that you go over to youtube and search his name and perhaps see him perform some of his work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu-6FBisg5I

Just my opinion and I hope this helps.

Cheers!

[erdnasephile]

I think this is a very interesting question from the OP, with many helpful responses in this thread.

One fundamental issue is you have to carefully decide what type of character you wish to play: for example: are you going to be a hustler, casino expert, victim of a swindle, an extremely lucky person, a person who has the power to subtly shift odds in their favor, a polymath, or a person who just knows a few cool skills, etc.?

Unfortunately, most of the gambling demos I have seen put little thought into this question.

For example, there are those who attempt to pass themselves off as true experts, yet they continually make basic errors in procedures, gaming rules, etc.--it just reeks of phoniness that even lay persons can sense. Either that, or their age, appearance, SES, or other personal characteristics just don't support the notion they really spent time with grifters, consult for casinos, etc. IMHO, once an audience senses inauthenticity in your character, your performance is generally dead.

In addition, it takes real acting skill to pull off the expert with "technical superiority" role and not be seen as a "know it all" or a "show off" (Mr. Nash was known as the charming cheat--watching him is a treat because he knew how to strike a wonderful balance between overt acts of skill and likability.) Many magicians lack those dramatic skills, so they must ideally either choose to improve their acting chops or pick another character. To paraphrase Darwin Ortiz, if you want to portray a gambling expert, it helps to actually be a gambling expert.

I wish you much luck on your quest...you are on the right track by carefully considering such questions!

[Jonathan Townsend]

E* what if one plays with the distribution of "luck/fortune" as the effect and does the shuffle/deal procedure as if merely duplicating what people do in card games or casinos?

[Glenn Bishop]

This is just my opinion - but I have seen some magicians have the technical skill - but they lack the ability to entertain the audience.

Jack Pyle told me a story (and his son also talked about this at one time) about how he spent "money" on cheating tools such as hold outs to do a gambling act as sort of a lecture - and present it as a "gambling expert".

The act/lecture did not get booked because it was not entertaining.

So Jack (as I was told) cut out the gambling lecture part and instead he entertained with card tricks and became a magician that perhaps may have been a card cheat at one time. With this as his image and with that he was "entertaining his audience" instead of "lecturing" - he was off and running.

I myself don't play the part of a gambling expert - however I have played cards in my past and I am a magician. And since I can take a shuffled deck that is shuffled by an audience member and I can run up a hand at any time - I like to let my audience think - perhaps I cheated.

http://www.mrhypnotist.org/video/glennb ... lstack.wmv

Good luck with your gambling demo.

Just a few more thoughts and opinion.

Cheers!

[Jonathan Townsend]

Glenn, since you have plenty of performing experience doing this material and also seen many of the best doing gambling demos -

what do you think of the idea of playing the part of a fair-deal casino skilled performer who can give a volunteer or a specific volunteer from a comitte "luck" - rather than overtly demonstrating skill? The person holding the lucky ring gets the winning hand. If they give that ring to another person even after you deal out the cards, the other person is found to have a better hand?

Workable?

[Glenn Bishop]

Jonathan I would put that presentation in the same file as cheating or winning by magic. Rather than winning by skill. In my opinion winning by magic is strongest by having the win as a "magical happening".

Giving a member of the audience or a spectator a "good luck charm" is a very good idea. However for who I am and the way I like to work - I want the audience to know about and think that I have the skill.

My dad was a student of Erdnase and did a card cheating expose. In the old days his close friend was Rolland Hamblen. Rolland Hamblen was a demonstrator for Thayer magic - and from what I heard wrote a gambling expo act for Thayer - and invented Jailed card among other things.

Some of his coin ideas are in the Bobo book and Charlie Miller used to mention Rolland Hamblen at times in Genii in his column.

Rolland from what my Dad told me was doing the strike second - the side steal - and many other moves long before they were published by others. And he did one heck of a gambling cheating expo - so I have been told.

Yes I think your idea is very workable. And a great idea.

However for me - I want the audience when I do magic and my card shark stuff to think that I am a magician that may have been a card cheat in his past. For booking and business reasons that image seems to work with me and the way I like to work.

Just a few more thoughts and opinion.

Cheers!

[Glenn Bishop]

Here is another opinion about presenting gambling magic or card shark demo's for a lay audience. In my opinion many that do this kind of work that I have seen over the years - are in my opinion way, way to technical.

I don't consider real card cheating overly complicated.

The harder and more technical things become - the harder it is to be entertaining when it is presented before an audience.

Just a few more thoughts and opinion.

Cheers!