Erdnasephile, you have made some very logical observations. Fascinating discussion. Now, if I was proficient at dealing seconds and bottoms (which I decidedly am not), I might very well be loathe to mention either technique in the course of my poker deal routine. And when I say "my," I mean essentially a patchwork quilt of my ideas coupled with those of quite a few other magicians, past and present.
I know we are getting into fine points and distinctions here, but perhaps what I find less off-putting about the false explanation of a bottom deal in a poker deal routine than in the cups and balls, is that (1) in the context of the cups, it is a very important magician's move that is being gratuitously revealed (i.e., a false transfer/vanish), indeed, one which we actually do several times in the course of the routine, whereas in the gambling routine, it is a gambler's cheating move that is spoken of - and, importantly, a move that I never actually do in the routine; and (2) in giving the spectators the false explanation of a bottom deal in the first phase of the poker deal routine, I am actually pre-setting the conditions for a super astonishing finish, as opposed to tipping a move, after the fact, that I've already used to deceive them.
After the pseudo explanation of the bottom deal in phase one, I invite them to bring their highest scrutiny to bear in the denouement (royal flush) phase - i.e., to watch my dealing closely and see if they observe anything out of the ordinary. They are watching very closely to detect any bottom deal, which, of course, never happens. The result is squeaky clean handling, with an incredibly magical ending and/or one for which they credit you with awesome skill.
Incidentally, while spectators do normally logically reason that a coin is "in the other hand" after a "vanish," the same does not necessarily hold true following a vanish in the cups and balls, particularly if a wand is used. (PS i wouldn't think of doing the routine without a wand). When the guilty hand picks up the wand or removes it from underneath the arm, it greatly allays or removes any suspicion. It is uncanny, but they just don't conceive that a hand holding a wand could be secreting anything. Add to this the fact that, with the timing and working of the cups and balls, I (and obviously many others) am immediately cleaning up by lifting up the next cup and taking the ball on top of or under it, and simultaneously ditching the previous ball. In the context of these consecutive, multiple sequences, any theory of the ball being in the other hand after each vanish, if any, is quickly dissipated or implicitly refuted.
Last edited by MagicbyAlfred
on February 20th, 2017, 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.