Dad Stevens Cull

[Guest]

Hi Denis,

Just a quick note to thank you for the hard work you put into the making such a comprehensive summmery of Fulves available on this excellent thread. You have provided us with an excellent reference that, to my knowledge is not available anywhere else. Many thanks.

Best Regards,

Paul H

[Guest]

Paul I've got to second that! I've used Denis's site extensively in my studying, it appears we have a similar passion in material.

Denis, my hats off to you for the Fulves listing as well as your excellent database. It's like a treasure map! As I'm certain you know, finding and obtaining such a collection is as challenging as mastering the work itself.

I hope that R. Paul Wilson will stoke the riffle shuffle fire and inspire us all with his upcoming work. I look forward to his offerings. Who knows the devil from down under may finally tip his "other" culling methods and the Robinson Deal too!

BTW, did anybody ever figure out which issue of The Crimp contains the Major D'Alby Bragg Stack?

tcb

[Guest]

Hi T.C.

Being a great fan of the 'devil from down under' may I ask the nature of the 'other' culling methods you are referring to. Many thanks in advance,

Regards,

Paul H

[Guest]

Originally posted by T.C. Blalock:
Denis, my hats off to you for the Fulves listing as well as your excellent database.

Thanks for your comments! It is good to hear that other people find the database, useful, too.
I started entering some of Fulves' early riffle shuffle manuscripts, see the update:
http://archive.denisbehr.de/
I thought that might be interesting for some who don't own the material.

Denis

[Guest]

Thanks Denis, that was insightful.

[Guest]

Does anyone know in which issue of Magic I can find Paul Wilson's variations on the Major D'Alby Brag Stack discussed above?

[Guest]

The effects are 'Vested Sand' and 'Canister Jury'. They can be found in the May 1998 issue of MAGIC magazine (Vol. 7 No.9) - Karrell Fox is on the cover. I have just checked over at magicmagazine.com - the issue is still available for sale.

Joe

[Guest]

It's weird how I see some one posting about the Steven's Cull and I just re-invented it tonight. I guess I'm gonna call it "The Doc/Steven's Cull. Why? I know that Steven's is the originator but "The Steven's/Doc Cull doesn't sound right.

Tonight while studying how to beat a 7-Card Poker game I started using Steven's culling technique and the secret suddenly dawned upon me of which I'm not telling because it's a gambling move and not for magicians.

After pulling out my Annotated Erdnase book by Darwin Ortiz of which hold my copies of the Vernon encounter with Dad Stevens I realized something that I and other good hustlers do....we might demonstrate to you a move but damn if we teach it to you. Example my Expose....I show but I don't teach so this made me re-think about the Vernon encounter...

According to the notes why would a hustler who practiced learning a money move for 18 years just teach a sucker/lame like Vernon his secret for nothing, what can he possibly gain by doing this? I wouldn't so why should Stevens?

So I went to the Revelation Series DVD vol. 8 to hear Dai Vernon's encounter with the Mysterious Kid and guess what? Vernon although good was still a kid himself when he met Stevens, as a matter of fact he was in his late 20's.

What we all fail to realize is that even though Vernon was a legend he only became a legend many years later just like Steve F. Yes in Steve's 4 part GPS he's great but I know for a fact that he's way better now than he was then and I have the proof.

When I had my encounter with Steve discussing the Steven's Control/Cull he said that he doesn't think that anyone can do this move perfectly without any hesitation or burning the deck and in my opinion he was absolutely correct in his evaluation.

Vernon clearly state that Dad Stevens just took a deck and culled 3 cards to the top just like that...without all that looking etc confirming what Steve said. Now if any of you don't believe me just re-watch the video and see what he says for yourself.

Now due to the fact that I know that expert gamblers don't tell suckers a thing, plus what Steve said and what Vernon said along with the notes my conclusion is that Vernon with all his experience pieced together what he felt Steven's had did and presented it to the world as the Steven's control.

We have to admit that Dai came up with an excellent idea of how it was done but to me he was absolutely wrong regarding what Stevens did of which I will show yall in the near future. This is the reason why all these years we all never exactly figured out how to perfect the Steven's cull/control because Steven's never actually told Vernon and we had the wrong info.

The 18 years of studying story that was told to Vernon to me was a bunch of crap to throw Vernon off track because I accomplished doing this move within a couple of minutes after knowing the secret.

Doc have you perfected it as of yet? No, I just learned it last night but when I get it to my liking I'll definitely post a video of me doing the technique exactly the way Vernon described "The Mysterious Kid" done it for/on him.

Take Care Everyone.


Respectfully,

Signed

The Doctor

P.S. If I'm wrong in my evaluation then I just re-invented a new cull which will be called Doc's Cull and Stacking Technique.

[Guest]

A great explanation of this can be found in Glenn Bishops DVD "Tested card works for card sharks".
quote= doc:

"It's weird how I see some one posting about the Steven's Cull and I just re-invented it tonight. I guess I'm gonna call it "The Doc/Steven's Cull. Why? I know that Steven's is the originator but "The Steven's/Doc Cull doesn't sound right. "
If its been reinvented why not just leave it its original name as the Stevens cull..

[Guest]

To be honest with you because it may not be the Steven's Cull. Why confuse the readers about The Steven' Cull when it was actually (probably but not sure) what Dai Vernon perceived it to be and by the knowledge he had tried to piece it together and came up with what we now call the Steven's Cull/Control.

What I was thinking about doing is leaving Vernon's "The Steven's Cull alone and name mine after me. Hence there would be no confusion of the two and each individual can study whatever one they choose.

Doc

[Guest]

Yeah I agree, that's not confusing at all.

[NCMarsh]

Doc,

Thanks for your thoughts, and I would love to see the video!

N.

[Guest]

I made of a video of it two days ago but I can't seem to find my cord in order to connect my camcorder to my computer to upload it.

I now have 3 hours to find it before I go out of town.

Doc

[Guest]

Any luck with the cord? Looking forward to watching your demo.

[Guest]

For those whose interested here's the link to my Doc/Steven's Cull

This is my version of the Steven's Control/Cull. I hope ya'll like it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVXTctSrc2c

Doc

[Guest]

Thanks Doc it was worth waiting. Any chance you could share your discovery with us? :)

There is another possibility about the Vernon story that you didn't consider: Dad Steven's could have tipped the work to Vernon. But Vernon only shared the exact work with a selected few (like the ping pong shift).

Your other video (expose) is pretty impressive too, some of those moves will sure get you the money!

[Guest]

The resourceful professional failing to improve the method changes the conditions -- this wouldn't work with the kings pre-shuffled into a ordinary deck. The way the cards are placed in the deck and the deck is cut for the shuffles are give-aways.

Looks good anyway.

[Guest]

Doc- The more I see of your card work the more impressed I am. The video I saw of you doing your deck switch is the best I have seen to this date. And the video of your Stevens cull is the best I have seen to this date as well.

It is a privilege to watch rare and wonderful work on cards - thanks very much.

Glenn Bishop

[Guest]

This is an interesting simulation of the Steven's cull...

[Guest]

To My Readers

If this is a good simulation that I've invented then I'll call it the The Doc Cull/Control and ya'll can keep on trying to perfect The Steven's Cull.

Thanks Again

Doc

[Guest]

Doc

You should take credit for the cull as there is not enough information to say that it is or is not the Stevens Cull. The hallmark of the Stevens Cull, in my opinion, is that it has be started with cards in a randomly shuffled pack. So, inserting the cards before the cull is not allowed. That's the point of the cull. It gathers the cards from where ever they may be on an improvised basis. So, although your cull/shuffle looks terrrific, it can't be classified as a Stevens Cull unless you start with a randomly shuffled pack.

One way to test your chops on this is to say, "I'll cull the sevens", and then do so and then immediately say, "I'll cull the tens," and do so, and then cull another set, etc. Also, after you have culled each set of three cards, you need to give the deck one perfect faro shuffle to destroy pairs. This is not my protocol, but the protocol that was in vogue at the time that Dad Stevens did the cull.

If not, take great pride in your own cull as it looks very good.

[Guest]

Hello David,

Do you really think this is remotely possible using the Stevens Cull, ie to riffle the cards at professional speed with no slowing or hesitation and cold cull three of a kind to the top in precisely three riffle shuffles a la Stevens? I ask this because it seems to me that there are a number of variables which cannot be controlled under these 'cold culling' conditions. The main one of course being distribution. Unless the expert can spot cards from both packets simultaneously as they are riffled together, concentration on one side often results in four or five shuffles. And that assumes an unfailing ability to nail to target cards at speed. Or am I missing something?

Regards,

Paul H

[Guest]

Paul, yes, it is possible to cold cull three of a kind at regular speed in three shuffles. One cannot guarantee, however, that it will always be done in three shuffles. You are correct in that it may take more than three as there are too many variables. Vernon never said, however, that it was 'three shuffles'. In Revelations he wrote "four". In the raw transcripts from the Buffum interviews, however, he actually said that Stevens would give it a series of shuffles, not a requisite number. I can do the cull. I spend 30-45 minutes per day on it, seven days a week, and have done so for about two years now. I'm now just getting it a regular speed. I enjoy practicing the cull because every day - every shuffle is different. It is like sitting down at the piano and going off on some improvisation. Many times, I'll nail it in three shuffles. (There are lots of techniques one develops - sort of rules of improvisation - that facilitate the process and which I am writing up for a book project.) Other times you will be looking for a set and then jump towards a different set, again like a jazz improvisation, and it feels great. So, again, yes, it is possible, but one cannot guarantee it. Hope this helps.

[Guest]

Here is some more information on the Stevens Cull. I was planning on releasing this with some other material later but since there seems to be some interest in this subject, and I have shared this info with a few others privately, I might as well toss it out for everyone.

The shuffle was developed by Stevens for cheating at faro. It was not designed originally for poker. The expression "three will get you the money" has been interpreted by magicians as pertaining to poker. I believe when Stevens told Vernon that there was no need to cull four of kind because "three would get the money", he was referring to faro.

Now, I started out on this quest with question why would Stevens want to cull three of a kind to the top, particularly when Stevens made his money at faro.

That put me on the trail of the rules of faro. The best description that I have found of the rules of Faro, how to deal it, record the plays, etc is in The American Hoyle Revised Edition , 1883 edition by Dick and Fitzgerald.

Played by the rules, Faro was the most fair bank game. The dealers sole advantage was derived from splits. In Faro, two cards appear in each turn, one represents a card for the dealer, the other the players. Players place bets on sort of a roulette-style layout, putting bets on either individual values or in combinations. A split is like a zero or double zero on a roulette wheel. If both cards in a turn are of the same value, that is a split, and the dealer depending on the house rules gets half of all bets on the table all bets, no payouts. That is the house advantage. The players know that a split will occur once, perhaps twice, naturally, in each game.

As a side note, that is the origin of the faro shuffle. The faro shuffle was designed to be perform just once prior to the deal in order to assure and actually demonstrate to other players that all previous splits have been separated. That is why the technique in Expert Card Technique, which Vernon learned from Frank Toby, and I refer to in my biography of Vernon, is so important. It is also why, in my previous post to Doc, I suggested he use a faro to split pairs before executing the cull.

So, the Riffle Cull allowed the dealer, Stevens, to add an extra split to the deal. You should note that, in Faro, only the dealer handles and cuts the cards. I first discovered this fact in Erdnase . Erdnase makes reference to this exact handling procedure. So, Stevens riffle culls three of a kind any three of a kind to the top. (Note the rank of the three of a kind is irrelevant. This also speeds up the cull for him as he does not have to worry about his three of a kind losing to another players three of a kind at the table. He can cull any three of a kind.) He will then finish the shuffle sequence by burying the three cards together somewhere in deck with one more shuffle. This is important as it adds an extra level of polish and misdirection to the shuffle. My own guess is that he would bury it near the top, certainly below the top four cards which would be involved with 'calling the turn' near the end of the deal.

This is very important because, in faro, the deck would be placed face-up in the box, so that the cards near the top would become the cards near the bottom when it comes time to the actual deal.

Deferring this stack until near the end of the deal will focus more bets on these cards, thus improving the take on the 'split' once it appears. You see, in Faro, there is a card counter who tracks the play of each card so that no one will place bets, for example, on a value when all those values have already been played. So, as I mentioned, it forces, in latter stages of the game, people to direct their bets towards a restricted number of options.

Now, with the riffle culled three of a kind buried in the pack, the dealer does not need to know exactly when they will appear. As he has culled three together, he doesnt have to. Either the first two values of the three of a kind will appear on a turn, in which case the dealer has a split, or only one of the values will appear. If only one of the values appears, the dealer knows that he will obtain the split on the next turn. It is absolutely brilliant. (The deck can be hand held of played in the box. It doesnt matter.) Imagine how a house would do if it could secretly add an extra 00 to a roulette wheel?

So, that's a little background that can help provide you with greater insight into the technique, how and why it was executed. It also tells you, for example, on how Stevens could execute the shuffle at regular speed and change course in mid-shuffle because he was unconcerned with the value of the cards, and could alter the shuffle accordingly if a better mix presented itself.

Although the shuffle can be performed 'cold', one can also get a sense of the cards that have been played, note values that are close together as they have been turned and accounted for by the card-counter, in order to facilitate the location and culling of those cards prior to the next deal. All of these things affect speed.

There is SO much more that can be said. It is, however, a start.

Again, hope it helps.

[Jeff Haas]

Since we've gotten into a discussion of the game of Faro, there is actually a free playable version online at:

Wichita Faro

It's quite well-done.

[Guest]

Hello David,

Outstanding posts. The information is excellent and inspirational for me. Stevens use of the cull in Faro is ingenious. I can't wait for your menuscript on the Stevens Cull, the techniques and its roots. Many thanks.

Best Wishes,

Paul H

[Guest]

Paul, I'm pleased that you found the information useful. I just re-read my post and want to clarify one point about the use of the faro shuffle. The procedure at Faro would be to gather the cards at the completion of play, give them a faro shuffle - as described in E.C.T. - pausing after the weave, to demonstrate to the table that pre-existing pairs have been separated. Complete the faro shuffle and then embark on a series of table shuffle (Stevens Cull) while the players place their bets on the table. (I said in my original post that the faro was used prior to the deal, but I meant to say as above, before the series of table shuffles.)

This shuffle sequence also illustrates why it was easier for Stevens to do the riffle cull. He wasn't expected to talk to anyone. He could concentrate on the shuffles as others were placing their checks on the board.

[Bob Farmer]

Does anyone have Dad Stevens' email address?

Thank you.

[Guest]

Scarne On Cards has information about the rules of Faro as it survived in mid-twentieth century Nevada. I went there and looked it up after David Ben's December 1 post on another thread.

The beauty of the cull as a applied to Faro instead of poker, (forgive me if I'm being obvious here) is that once you get your three of a kind culled at the poker table, you then have to do something with them.

You have to stack them, palm them, crimp them, nullify the cut, deal bottoms, switch them in, or whatever your favorite method of getting beaten up if you get caught is.

In Faro, once you've got them together, you do nothing, and you double the amount of money you win in a game.

The cull at Faro is also cut-proof.While the rules don't necessarily allow the players to cut, if they did insist on it, it wouldn't help, it would just move the split to another part of the deck.

[Guest]

Does anyone have Steven's Dad's email address?

Thank you.


(Seriously, this thread has become increasingly more interesting in the past day or two).

[Guest]

I remember the angle pop-out thing from the Fulves book but...

where is the part about watching the cards go by during a riffle? And wouldn't folks notice if you were watching the deck during a shuffle?

Or is this a proper use of a shiner?

[Guest]

Jonathon Townsend asked

And wouldn't folks notice if you were watching the deck during a shuffle?

Depends. If you [censored] your head to one side, and allow the tip of your tongue to protrude, then, yes, very likely.

[Guest]

to David Ben: thanks for your insightful post. I'll be one of the first inline to get your manuscript on the Steven's cull. I just hope you'll find the time to work on the project as I am also waiting for the second volume of Dai Vernon's biography :D (if the first volume wasn't so good we might give you a break... sorry).

[Guest]

Btw, would any one know where I could put my hands on "Down under deals"? Thanks.

[Guest]

http://geniimagazine.com/forum/cgi-bin/ ... 800#000000

Or try Andrew Wimhurst directly. I'm not sure if he's a member of this forum, but you can reach him through the Magic Cafe...

[Guest]

Dben I have to agree with Paul Hayward. I've tried what you asked but when the distribution of the cards is not correct I have the same problem as every one else.

Now if I do a series of shuffles I can do it but not one after the other. I haven't been doing it for 18 years but at the moment it seems impossible. I sometimes grab to of another number but to do three sets consecutively 3 times in a row is impossible for me at this moment.

If you can do two sets in a row I will be impressed.

Ya'll must be trying to trick me or something or ya'll must think I'm a god, either way I'm human just like the rest of you here.

Respectfully,

Doc

[Guest]

Doc

There is no doubt in my mind that, given your general touch with cards, if you were taught the proper technique for the Riffle Cull, you would be able to cull consecutive sets with ease. It would take you a year or two to become proficient, not eighteen. It has taken me a couple of years of steady work to properly understand the mechanics of it. (Although I still discover new things about it all the time.) I just don't think that the Riffle Cull has been described with sufficient clarity so workers can master it. As I said, once it is described in more detail - or you are shown the proper technique - you'll pick it up in no time.

[Guest]

Stop teasing us and get the manuscript finished!

[Bob Farmer]

I'll be seeing DBen on Friday and I will suggest IN THE STRONGEST TERMS that he get this out ASAP.

[Dustin Stinett]

Two Canadian lawyers going toe to toe: This should be a hoot!