riffle stacking

[mrgoat]

mrgoat - Cugel - El Mystico - Nikodemus Siivola - Denis Behr

Please let me know if you ever come up with anything that in my opinion is this practical to use to cull and stack cards on the fly - from a slug - or to cull and stack three or more different poker hands from a slug!

Just my opinion!

Glenn, I specifically asked you a question, which you seem to have missed.

Let me try again...

Is the only time you will listen to criticism when someone has actually created a control that allows one to deal multiple hands from a slug?

I mean, there are several people here trying to let you know your triumph shuffle is really bad. That you actually are exposing the method because your handling is so poor.

I just want to know if this is the case, because I don't want to waste any more time trying to explain to you that your working of the push through move is totally obvious.

I understand the argument that unless you can't do better you have no place in criticising. I disagree with it entirely, but I understand it.

Thanks

Damian

[Lemniscate]

The triumph shuffle is a false shuffle that in my opinion has fallen by the wayside in magic.
...
One more comment about my video - IT IS "NOT" A PERFORAMCE!

Only a "SHORT DEMOSTRATION" TO SHOW WHAT IS POSSIBLE. When using the triumph shuffle to cull and stack three different hands from a slug!

NOT USING IT AS A FALSE SHUFFLE!

It would be my guess that no one seems to be able to pick up on that!

Thank you all very much for your opinions!

We'll go from the bottom up:

You are quite welcome although your earlier posts showed the exact opposite sentiment.

You keep saying you are not using it as a false shuffle, and that baffles me. So, you are using a false shuffle (you call it a false shuffle) as what then? Are you toying with the cards? What do the spectators think you are doing? If they "think" you are shuffling, then it is a false shuffle (more like a reverse Zarrow since you are putting cards on, as previously mentioned). In ANY case, you aren't doing what you say you are.

So, simple question, what does your audience think is going on? Very simple, very direct, because whatever it is, I would love to know the justification for doing something so unnatural over and over again. You might as well just have aces on top, Kings in the center and do two faros if you are going to handle the cards that much.

I know that it was a demonstration only. I stated that AND gave you the benefit of the doubt. However, in a rather political manner, you deleted what I said and replaced it with what you said. Rather something like this:

Me: It's A
You: It's B
Me: The evidence proves it is A, I am sorry.

You, later, talking to me: You know, the evidence is really that it's A.

So utterly reprehensible and sad, really.

Finally, you sure as hell implied you were an expert compared to everybody else. Check all your posts if you haven't edited them if you don't believe me. Read the actual words you wrote (not what you meant since you claim it is different).

Basically, you are the type of person I despise, you change the past so you don't look as stupid as you were, you take credit for other's ideas, and, the worst, you can't handle any opinion that doesn't match yours.

I stand by every letter and word I wrote, almost everybody else seems to have some issue with what you are doing, but it is all us who are wrong. Very, very interesting. Not for me, I've seen a-holes up close, but for some others I am sure.

Lem

Edit: replaced "ss" with "-"

[Glenn Bishop]

Let me try again...

Is the only time you will listen to criticism when someone has actually created a control that allows one to deal multiple hands from a slug?

I mean, there are several people here trying to let you know your triumph shuffle is really bad. That you actually are exposing the method because your handling is so poor.

I just want to know if this is the case, because I don't want to waste any more time trying to explain to you that your working of the push through move is totally obvious.

Sorry but I do not agree. The reason I do not agree with "everyone" is because it is only video of a short demonstration to show what is possible with this shuffle.

In performance - that is crunch time in a real show it is different. I know because I have been there. I will also add that I have seen many magicians do magic that are well known on the web. Some of them on you tube. And some I have gone to their web sites. I know of one magician that is posting in this thread. I watched video of a Zarrow shuffle that he had at his web site. Everything that "the group" said about my video of the triumph shuffle I could say about this person's Zarrow shuffle. And there is more I could say if I were the kind of person that wanted to rip this person apart.

However I choose to take the high road and would not rip this person apart in a public forum. Even when this person has taken several shots at me.

Now the reason I did the camera shot the way I did it was that I wanted magicians to "know" that I was "doing" a triumph shuffle and using it for culling and stacking. I did not want them to see everything involved with this culling and stacking from a slug. But enough to let them see that this was going on.

If I wanted to fool magicians or make the shuffle look better on the video I would have picked a completely different camera angle and shot the footage in a different way. Plus tightened up on the shuffle and doing it cleaner.

The reason I shot the footage this way was to show the shuffle to sell a book - where I wrote up all this up.

What I did not want was video of the shuffle of magicians thinking that I was using just a stacked deck - and then did the triumph shuffle as a false shuffle and then - saying falsely that I was culling and stacking from a slug. And the hands were stacked and I was just false shuffling the deck.

So the point was to honestly show - the shuffle - and the point of the shuffle is that I really am stacking and culling three different hands from a slug using the triumph shuffle. And this is what I teach in the book. And if they buy the book and "read it and use it" it is up to them to make the moves clean and do it as clean as they want to do it.

Such as the reality of learning a new idea or a new technique and then making it work for each and everyones different style and under the different performing conditions that each of us have.

So in short the point of the video - as in my triple duke triumph and the punch cull and my cull cut the aces is to show magicians that I am really doing what I say I am doing with the technique.

As for who does the triumph shuffle better? Or the Zarrow shuffle better? Or a jog shuffle cull better? I leave it up to others that enjoy arguing such things.

Like is a red close up mat better than a green close up mat? Or is a read deck better than a blue deck?

Better - best - only an opinion.

I understand the argument that unless you can't do better you have no place in criticising. I disagree with it entirely, but I understand it.

Thanks

Damian

I understand and respect your point of view. However in my opinion there is a right time and a wrong time to give criticism. I grew up around quite a lot of the old school acts. These people were people like Don Alan, Jay Marshall, Jack Pyle, Tony Marks and a lot more.

If this point of view is given without being asked to one of these old school showman at the wrong time - like if they were involved in some business at the time - like doing a show - getting ready to go on - setting up - with an agent talking business - with a client talking business.

Let me tell you because it is a business they would not take it lightly.

Magic for me is also a business. For some it is a hobby or a semi profession - or a business.

Let me go back to what I said about my triple duke triumph video and the business reason that I put the video up the way I put it up. So the magician could see that I am using the triumph shuffle to do what I say I am doing (culling and stacking three different hands from a slug). And not using short cards, belly strippers, or any other culling edge or have the hands stacked in advance and using the triumph as a false shuffle.

You may not agree with my video - and that is OK - but it is my web site - my business and I will do my business my way because it is my business!

When I posted the first video of my cull cutting the aces routine I had magicians e-mail me thinking that the aces were crimped - some had no idea that I was using a cull - so I changed the video to show the cull a little more and then magicians said in message boards - stuff about my handling of my slant on the Steven's cull.

I understand - there doesn't seem to be any way to please everyone but I think that if I were going to buy a book about a technique I would like to know a little bit about what is in the technique - of a book or a DVD that I am interested in buying. So I can make a choice.

So I have tried "unsuccessfully" it seems to let a little bit of information go - letting magicians in on it - but not to much - in the video's that I have posted at my web site.

And If I may add to this one more opinion that is "old school" and one that I learned growing up around these professionals. That in my opinion there is a right way and a wrong way to give criticism in magic.

I dont think that the right way to do it is in public - like in front of their audience - or a client - or an agent. Or in a public forum.

In my opinion there is a right time and place for criticism in magic and in my opinion "this isn't the place". Especially because - I never asked!

I hope this answers your questions.

[Cugel]

There's only one other person in this thread who may have a Zarrow on a website: Denis Behr. Is that who you were talking about?

[El Mystico]

I find it interesting that Mr bishop considers the camera angle to be one that reveals the gist of what is going on, because the angle to me seems to be that of someone sitting opposite him at a card table.

However - Mr Bishop has made the point that his posting was not about ihs performance of the Triumph shuffle, but to demonstrate that he has found a 'practical' use for the Triumph shuffle to cull and stack four aces.

to bee fair to him, most of the criticisms here are of his shuffle technique, and there has been little comment on whether, in our opinion, his technique is practical.

So, play fair, guys - focus on Mr Bishopp's core point; do you think that eight successsive riffle shuffles would be practical in a card game?

[Kent Gunn]

I, for one, would be genuinely interested in, say a table of contents from Mr. Bishop, from his new book on riffle stacking. I see, on his website he wants 75 dollars for it.

Perhaps his body of work has wonders we've only dreamed of. There is precious little information on the punch deal available. I know nothing of its intricacies. Glenn, I know we've had our differences in the past. Could you share with us a table of contents? I think that might go miles toward a positive dialogue from all corners.

You've obviously spent considerable time on the shuffle sequence that you are so proud of. I think sharing the TOC could go miles to repairing some bridges, on this forum. I'd genuinely like to know the topics you're going to share with the magic community that you know to be worth 75 dollars.

[Glenn Bishop]

I am very sorry but I have answered all the questions that I am going to answer at this time. If you will now excuse me - I have a business to run.

I wish everyone good luck with their magic and I hope that they make all their own personal magic goals and dreams.

Just my opinion.

[mrgoat]

Ah. All is now clear.

He was DELIBERATELY exposing the shuffle.

If only he'd thought of that explanation 3 pages ago some time could have been saved.

[Glenn Bishop]

After re-reading this thread all I see mostly in my opinion is - how not to be a magician. And that has nothing to do with riffle shuffle stacking.

Just my opinion!

[El Mystico]

On that we can agree!

[Sebastien L.]

Kent, sorry I forgot about your message here. The table of contents of Glenn Bishop's newest book is as follows:

- How to cull cards using the triumph shuffle
- Culling after a multiple shift
- Glenn Bishop's Triumph Stack
- The Gem Triumph Stack Poker Deal
- Glenn Bishop's Triumph Cull - Stack Method One
- Glenn Bishop's Triumph Cull - Stack Method Two
- Glenn Bishop's Triumph Cull - Stack Method Three
- Glenn Bishop's Triumph Cull - Stack Method Four
- Tips and Cool Tricks to culling and stacking on the fly
- Glenn Bishop's Triumph Cull - Stack from a slug
- Glenn Bishop's Triumph Cull Stack - A Demonstration
- Glenn Bishop's Triple Duke Triumph
- Glenn Bishop's Double Duke Triumph and a Four Hand Duke idea
- Glenn Bishop cuts the Aces using the Triumph Cull
- Glenn Bishop's Slant on the Stevens Cull (and Glenn Bishop Cuts the Aces)
- Glenn Bishop's Slant on Scarne's Aces
- Glenn Bishop's Challenge Ace Cutting
- Another Look at Marlo's Miracle Aces


There is some interesting material in the book. However Mr. Bishop dearly needs an editor (and knows it I am sure). He has claimed that the book was first written as a series of articles for a magazine. As a result it suffers heavily from repetition. For example, in the first 11 pages, the up-the-ladder cut is described 8 times using essentially the same copy-pasted text, and repeats the same sequence of pictures twice. The same pictures and descriptions are again repeated throughout the text, I did not care to count how many more times.

Now not taking care to edit this as a book may be a questionable decision, but I still think that describing the same move in the exact same way 4 times in 4 pages is unnecessary. Maybe that's just me.

The book also suffers from copy-pasteitis. For example both the Triumph Cull - Stack Method Three and the Triumph Cull - Stack Method Four are said to be "the one I use most often that I use to cull cards (aces) on the fly and stack them for a five handed game of poker".

I think Denis Behr had noted that Glenn's Triumph shuffle is not the same handling as in the Stars of Magic -- this book makes this explicit. I believe Glenn's method is less deceptive although easier to accomplish. However some of the blocking might require such handling or at least call for it, I have not worked enough of this to make a decision.

As far as contents if you're interested in the Triumph shuffle and possible applications for stacking and culling you might want to check it out. At $75 it seems a bit expensive to me, but it's your call. I also think this could have been edited down from its 64 pages down to 30 or so and been better for it. So far I have not worked it in depth but I have not found anything revolutionary. If you have the Fulves materials and other similar works you probably have enough to satisfy. The Triumph shuffle has shortcomings that zarrow shuffles and other blocking methods overcome, at least in my opinion. However if you are interested in it you might find something of value and the ideas may serve as platform for your own work.

If you have any interest in the Triumph shuffle you probably ought to get it.

[El Mystico]

Richard;
at the start of this thread you commented how rare it was to see riffle shuffle work done well.
How would you rate Jennings?

[Richard Kaufman]

I didn't see Larry do that much table work. By the time I met him in 1983, after he had returned from Lake Tahoe, he did almost all of his magic while standing. His interest in riffle shuffle work was from an earlier period, in the mid 1960s to mid 1970s. You can find some of it in vol.1 of The Castle Notebooks.

What I did see him do, which was to take a shuffled deck and cull the Aces and magically cut to them (not in print) was amazing to watch. He did it easily and without great effort. He didn't hold the deck tightly and feign any effort in pushing the halves around. Many people you see doing riffle shuffle work and riffle stacking look like they're on the toilet having a bowel movement while holding the deck. Heavy-handed, looking down, and making a face as if something smells bad.

[Kent Gunn]

Sebastien,

Thank you for the table of contents and review. I hope your disclosing this information doesn't bother Glenn, since he wasn't willing to share.

I know if I had spent a lot of time, lovingly and carefully preparing a document that I felt had meaning to the magic community, I would be very protective of it. I hope he sells just as many copies to the serious cardmen out there, as are willing to buy it.

I will not be purchasing a copy of Glenn's document. My skills with a deck of cards are not on the same level as Glenn's. I will freely admit that!

[Glenn Bishop]

Hey Sebastien thanks for posting that. I would like to add that I am not making any excuses for the length or the way that I did the lay out.

However one of my pet peeves in reading a book and trying to learn what is in it is - That often the book will refer to a technique, slight or a picture that was already explained in the book earlier on.

One of the things that I hate is being in mid-trick trying to learn and then having to go back in the book and look it up and try to find it - part of the trick that was explained earlier in the book (or a picture). I often think - it would be easier to learn if they just put that information here - the part of the book I was reading - and now I have to go back and look it up. Learning from a book for me is hard enough.

Often I would think that publishers do that just to save money on paper and ink when printing.

As for the question of other methods and what is better Zarrow or the triumph. I don't know. I like the triumph shuffle because when stacking deep there is a problem when culling and stacking on the fly with the riffle shuffle. Because as each card is stacked in turn they go deeper into the deck.

As each card is stacked in turn when stacking deep with the riffle shuffle there is a chance of losing the hand or hands that were stacked before it. Add a cull - finding a card and then stacking it in turn and it becomes more of a problem.

When stacking more than one hand from a slug I have found that the triumph shuffle works very well because when culling and stacking more than one hand - stacking deep - you can lose a hand or goof up the stack. I have found that using the triumph shuffle helps to solve those kind of problems.

That is what I have found that is revolutionary about it. The stacking deep part and the problems that go with stacking deep.

The revolutionary part in my opinion is the idea to use the triumph shuffle itself for this kind of work. And because I am using it as a stacking and a culling method - I found that I had to change the handling.

I agree The Triumph shuffle has shortcomings and I have found that many things - techniques - ideas have their shortcomings - however for me and this is only my opinion the advantages of stacking and culling on the fly - from a slug - and the ability of being able to cull stack three different hands from a slug.

Plus stacking deep - The advantages in it's simplicity outweigh the shortcomings in my opinion.

You will notice that I re-Pete a lot when I write. Where I come from repetition is the engine of education. I would like to add if I may that keeping things simple is one of the things I try to do in my work.

The other thing about using the triumph shuffle in my opinion is a cool thing is - that it can make some of what some might consider the "harder" or more complicated things like culling and stacking on the fly - easier to do making it more practical for a magic performance.

That is part of what I learned from magician and punch deck pro from Chicago Jack Pyle.

I also tried to write the book in a way so that an intermediate card worker - that is up on and can do the triumph shuffle - push through shuffle - up the ladder cuts - false cut and table Hindu shuffle and knowing how to hold a break - would perhaps be able to learn it without to much trouble. The years ahead will tell if I did a good job on that. My goal is that if magicians buy the book I would like them to be able to do what is in it. That is the same goal I had when I was doing DVD's. I wanted the magician buying it to be able to learn the material.

But like anything - my ideas may not be their or your cup of tea. As we all seem to find our own ways of doing things and the way we like to do things - not better but different!

Just my opinion and Thanks for posting.

[Bill Duncan]

You will notice that I re-Pete a lot when I write. Where I come from repetition is the engine of education.

Nice.

[Chris Aguilar]

You will notice that I re-Pete a lot when I write. Where I come from repetition is the engine of education.

Where I come from unnecessary, mindlessly used repetition is often referred to as "padding". ;)

[Glenn Bishop]

You will notice that I re-Pete a lot when I write. Where I come from repetition is the engine of education.

Where I come from unnecessary repetition is often referred to as "padding". ;)

Where I come from "what" might be considered "unnecessary" is only an opinion a magician might have that "buy" the book!

And I might add what might be considered unnecessary might be mindlessly silly posting by magicians that don't own or never read and are not interested in the product.

Just an opinion.

[Chris Aguilar]

"Padding is Padding
So why should it be
You and I should get along so awfully" ;)

(Apologies to Depeche Mode)

A bit of silliness, sure. But nowhere near the joke of you posting up a clip that is pure ass and then going on about how you're somehow above criticism.

Glenn Bishop whined:

That in my opinion there is a right way and a wrong way to give criticism in magic.

I dont think that the right way to do it is in public - like in front of their audience - or a client - or an agent. Or in a public forum.

Then don't post your [censored] on internet forums if you don't expect critical comment and then cry like a little girl (ok a rather pudgy, slow little girl) afterward.



Patiently awaiting the inevitable "Not worth replying to! Just my opinion!!!" rejoinder from the ever tedious "Bish the Magish".

[Glenn Bishop]

From where I come from - the goal of writing a book is to write it - or at least attempt to write it so the person reading it - has the best chance or opportunity to learn the material.

If I cut the book down that in my opinion would benefit me more than the reader in the cost of ink jet cartridges it would certainly lower the expense.

I do not know if it would benefit the magicians interested in buying the book. I have thought about cutting the book down ever since Sebastien sent me his opinion by e-mail. However I am not sure if it would improve the content. I have tried very hard to lay it out to make it an easy read!

[Chris Aguilar]

That why it's important to get books edited before they're published eh?

So when will we see a formal review of your book in Genii or Magic Magazine Glenn? For something you're obviously very proud of, submitting it for that kind of review would seem a "no brainer".

[Glenn Bishop]

That why it's important to get books edited before they're published eh?

So when will we see a formal review of your book in Genii or Magic Magazine Glenn? For something you're obviously very proud of, submitting it for that kind of review would seem a "no brainer".

Nope - not interested.

[Chris Aguilar]

So when will we see a formal review of your book in Genii or Magic Magazine Glenn? For something you're obviously very proud of, submitting it for that kind of review would seem a "no brainer".

Nope - not interested.

Not surprised that you'd be so cowardly in that regard.

You don't even have enough faith in your product to put it up for knowledgeable public review, yet expect people to throw down $75.00 to purchase it?

Meh. What a joke.


(What Glenn is really itching to post right now:

"Not worth replying to! Just my opinion!"

Fight the urge Bish! ;) )

[Glenn Bishop]

Man it is amazing what can spark or jog a memory. Please accept this a hearsay because the masters of magic that I am going to talk about are no longer with us. And they have passed on.

I learned the shuffle Triumph from my Dad (Billy Bishop) when I was eight years old. Since it was out of his act he made sure I did it right and what you could say "his way". That is that the top card slid over - not the deck sliding under so to speak.

Later I learned that my Dad learned triumph from Dai Vernon when he was the President of the SAM. My dad and Jerry Andrus booked Dai Vernon to lecture for the Portland OR. SAM. The dates were around 1954 just after he came back to Portland after he did his New York big time show business move.

I have a Bobo coin book dated at that time that the Portland OR. SAM gave to my dad - I guess for being the President that year. It is signed by a lot of the members.

One of my fond memories of the Old magic shop days was when my Dad booked Jerry Andrus to lecture at our shop when it was at Old Chicago. The lecture was great - however the conversation between my dad and Jerry Andrus was even greater as they talked about their early club days together - and the lecture that they both saw Dai Vernon do in their early years.

Dai Vernon showed my Dad how to do Triumph and the Travelers and they were two trick that my dad did in his act all his life.

One of the stories was how the Dai Vernon lecture was on Dai Vernon's birthday and my dad - and perhaps Jerry Andrus loaded up the cake with re-lighting birthday candles. The re-lighting birthday candles were a "new" novelty at the time. Dai Vernon was said to have been blown away by Jerry Andrus and his linking pin routine.

According to my dad in "his" opinion the write up in the way Triumph was written up in the stars of magic was wrong. However I can't claim that the way that my Dad did it - sliding the top card over was his idea. It might be - because it could have evolved that way over the 50 years and thousands of times he did it in his show - but it might be Vernon's and it might be a Jerry Andrus idea.

However on a video tape I think I remember Bruce Cervon saying something like that Dai Vernon was not happy with the way his cut the aces routine was written up in the stars of magic. And I think - I am not sure if the information is right but I think he said something like Vernon had another way that he preferred performing it over the method that was in the stars of magic.

Well right now the story should be just hearsay because I can't talk to the people involved - because they are no longer with us. I can only show what I have learned - say who showed it to me and show what I have worked out using the ideas since then.

Just my opinion.

[Chris Aguilar]

Dang Bish, that was a lot of verbiage (some might even say non sequitur) to avoid the rather simple question I posed to you.

Why do you not have enough faith in your book (which you seem proud of) to submit it for informed public review?

If your book is worthy of the $75.00 your asking for it, why wouldn't you want it reviewed by knowledgeable reviewers in magazines that reach thousands of potential customers?


What, exactly, are you afraid of here?




(Ok, will Bish bless us with another long, rambling attempt to change the subject again (see last post or many other GB posts) or the patented curt dismissal "No worth replying to!)

[Glenn Bishop]

Dang Bish, that was a lot of verbiage (some might even say non sequitur) to avoid the rather simple question I posed to you.

Why do you not have enough faith in your book (which you seem proud of) to submit it for informed public review?

If your book is worthy of the $75.00 your asking for it, why wouldn't you want it reviewed by knowledgeable reviewers in magazines that reach thousands of potential customers?


What, exactly, are you afraid of here?




(Ok, will Bish bless us with another long, rambling attempt to change the subject again (see last post or many other GB posts) or the patented curt dismissal "No worth replying to!)

Name call all you want - still not interested!

[Chris Aguilar]

Ah, the curt dismissal it is! (in this case the rather petulant "Not interested!") Did I call it or what? ;)

Say Bish, whether or not you're interested, wouldn't you agree that informed buyers might be interested in seeing an informed review of this $75.00 manuscript?

Once again, a simple question.

What, exactly, are you afraid of here?

If the book is quality, that should be reflected in reviews by knowledgeable reviewers like those at Genii or Magic Magazine.

And if you won't submit to fair, knowledgeable reviews, why should anyone believe that you truly have any faith in your product at all?

(Ah, what will it be now Bish? Curt dismissal or some more of that rambling about your dear old dad and anyone else you can name drop?)

[mrgoat]

From where I come from - the goal of writing a book is to write it - or at least attempt to write it so the person reading it - has the best chance or opportunity to learn the material.

If I cut the book down that in my opinion would benefit me more than the reader in the cost of ink jet cartridges it would certainly lower the expense.

I do not know if it would benefit the magicians interested in buying the book. I have thought about cutting the book down ever since Sebastien sent me his opinion by e-mail. However I am not sure if it would improve the content. I have tried very hard to lay it out to make it an easy read!

So, for clarification, you are saying the previous poster who accused you of cutting and pasting the same explainations in your book was lying?

What a cad!

I think you should take issue with him.

[Glenn Bishop]

For I hope the last time - not interested.

Why?

As for the reason - not any of the junk you have posted so far I haven't laughed out loud as something so silly in a long time.

My work stands on it's own - watch the video - read what I wrote and what Sebastien wrote because it does have value because he did buy the book.

Buy it or don't.

If magicians don't like the video or the ideas.

I have no problem with that.

I think I have answered all the questions I am going to answer at this time.

Just my opinion.

[Steve Bryant]

Is there a moderator for this thread? This thread has been so antagonistic and mean-spirited from the getgo. The Genii Forum should be better than this.

[Chris Aguilar]

For I hope the last time - not interested.

Ah, repeat the dismissal and hope that people can't see that you've obviously got little or no faith in your product.

If you did have that faith (beyond rather insipidly pontificating that "My work stands on its own!"), you'd wouldn't be in terror of having it submitted for more knowledgeable thorough review. (i.e. Genii or Magic Magazine)

Once again, what exactly is it about submitting your book for that kind of review that scares you so?

Do you not think the reviewers there are up to snuff in reviewing something as "revolutionary" as your current offering?

I think I have answered all the questions I am going to answer at this time.

Just my opinion.

A two-fer! Curt dismissal and the ever inane "Just my opinion!" Maybe next time I'll hit the "Not worth replying to!" response for the trifecta. ;)

[Ken Becker]

I totally agree with Steve!
Ken Becker

[Roger M.]

The Bishop system of culling with the punch, and running near the entire deck twice as individual cards is the single worst card routine I've seen in my lifetime.

The audience would be asleep and un-amazed after about 15 cards, they'd be feeling sorry for you at around 30 cards, and they'd have walked away within 5 cards after that.
........And considering that (as per Bishop's video link in this thread to the routine http://www.mrhypnotist.org/video/glennb ... chcull.wmv ) with a total of approx 90 cards in total being run as singles, you've still got 55 cards to run after there's nobody left watching your trick.

In case you didn't quite get the number, Bishop runs approx. 90 cards singly, yes, that's 90 cards in total!!.......it's absolutely a joke. (perhaps somebody can slo-mo Bishop's video for the actual number, it could be far higher....although I'm not sure that it matters after you've run the 30th card as a single, the next 60 or so cards you're running as singles are going to fool whoever is still watching into thinking you're presenting a comedy routine.)

A guy would literally have to be a moron to do this in front of somebody.

You know, if Bishop is going to post links to this [censored], and then try and put everybody in their places by repeatedly insulting them for calling it for the crap that it is, then my post is totally legitimate in response.

[El Mystico]

This thread started because someone asked for good sources for information on riffle stacking. Mr Bishop then posted a video of his work, with the implication that he was a good source. His subsequent postings have confirmed this opinion.
I think one reason why people have posted here is to point out that, in their opinion, Mr Bishop's ideas and techniques, as demonstrated in his video, are poorly executed and impractical.
In my opinion, given the way Mr Bishop touted his work openly, it is entirely right that these comments should be posted publically.
If Mr Bishop thinks we are all wrong, that is his perogative.

Now, I'm attempting to understand his long post above; I think he is trying to say that the Stars of Magic got the descriptions of Vernon's work wrong, to give justification for Mr Bishop's handling. We've pointed out that what Mr Bishop does is not what is described, so Mr Bishop says: what was described was wrong.
Well,it is true - as I posted very early on in this thread, at leactures, Vernon did stress a slight realignment of the cards, which was not mentioned in the write up. Mr Bishop does not seem to be aware of this, or, at least, he doesn't seem to mke use of it. On the other hand, I haven't seen anywhere, in any write up, or any thing Vernon wrote, or anything on the Revelations videos, any hint that Vernon was dissatisfied with the description in any other way. Maybe I have missed something.
Mr Bishop also says that, from hearsay, Vernon was not happy with his cutting the aces write up in Stars of Magic. I find this comment very revealing. Those who have the Lost Inner Secrets Volume 1 will find the full write up of Vernon's original Cutting the Aces; there it is clearly stated that the version published in Stars of Magic is not how Vernon performed it. It is not an issue of 'hearsay'; it is well documented. So Mr Bishop's attempt to suggest he knows Vernon's intentions better than the rest of us merely serves to illustrate his lack of knowledge of Vernon.

[Cugel]

Is there a moderator for this thread? This thread has been so antagonistic and mean-spirited from the getgo. The Genii Forum should be better than this.

Well the head Genii has contributed to the thread a number of times, so I'd say that's sort of a form of moderation.

[Sebastien L.]

However on a video tape I think I remember Bruce Cervon saying something like that Dai Vernon was not happy with the way his cut the aces routine was written up in the stars of magic. And I think - I am not sure if the information is right but I think he said something like Vernon had another way that he preferred performing it over the method that was in the stars of magic.

Cutting the aces does not use a triumph shuffle. Vernon's preferred way of doing that routine, which is different in how the aces are lost in the deck, is described both on the Revelations tapes and in Lost Inner Secrets Vol. 1.

I can't say much about the Triumph shuffle as my only exposure to it is from Stars of Magic. It certainly must be possible that Vernon had variations of the shuffle, I don't know either way. I still believe that sliding the top block looks less deceptive, but that's just an opinion.

I'm a bit surprised at the attacks over the book. It is what it is. There is a lot of repetition, sure, but there is content as well. I certainly don't think it's horrible, just a bit overpriced for my taste (I paid less for Fulves materials, which may affect my judgment). I simply wanted to let people know what to expect so as to make an informed decision. Glenn doesn't mislead you about the book; what you see is what you get.

[Steve Bryant]

I am not objecting to anyone's pointing out shortcomings of either the stack or the execution. I am objecting to them doing so with the manners and syntax of total [censored]. As I said, it's been that way from the getgo.

[mrgoat]

For I hope the last time - not interested.

Why?

As for the reason - not any of the junk you have posted so far I haven't laughed out loud as something so silly in a long time.

Glenn, I think you misunderstand.

When you submit a book to be reviewed by Genii or Magic, it is the reviewers those titles employ that write the reviews. Not us silly forum idiots that don't know a thing about practical uses of trick shuffles.

So please, rest assured that it will be established and respected reviewers that will tackle your tome.

I hope that explains how it works.

Also, I'm glad we've given you a good laugh. I assure you that's mutual.

Damian

[mrgoat]

I am not objecting to anyone's pointing out shortcomings of either the stack or the execution. I am objecting to them doing so with the manners and syntax of total [censored]. As I said, it's been that way from the getgo.

How does one use syntax like a total [censored]? Not trying to be difficult, just wondering what aspects of grammatical structure sets one out as an [censored]?

[Jonathan Townsend]

Does any language have a tense which combines the presumptive with the rightous?