Triumph

Discuss your favorite close-up tricks and methods.
Tortuga
Posts: 85
Joined: April 4th, 2008, 12:55 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Triumph

Postby Tortuga » March 17th, 2009, 5:47 pm

Mike, you are correct. The starting condition of the pack is 'similar' to Ortiz' situation, but different. At least that is if I'm correct in my assumptions. What I like about Kent's work is that it 'amplifies' the strength of the Ortiz display. When I read Ortiz' book I immediately took advantage of the seemingly guileless fan display and incorporated it into the routine that I had learned from Fleshman's book. What Kent has done, I think, is to take that idea and massage it into what you see now, which is about the cleanest, seemingly moveless Triumph that I can recall. He gets a finish that looks to only be possible with gaffs.

I like his routine a lot!

And finally, it can be done all in the hands and still be effective, but the table spread and the spread of the two packets prior to shuffling is just too juicy to not use.
It's never crowded on the extra mile.....

Kent Gunn
Posts: 753
Joined: May 15th, 2008, 2:05 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Kent Gunn » March 17th, 2009, 8:01 pm

Tortuga,

Actually, with a one-handed display in each hand, it looks better in the hands. It is NOT 100% repeatable (by me) so I shot the version I can do. Hopefully RK will give enough space in Genii to explain both handlings and its antecedant:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_oGxY1zgfA

Jared Kopf
Posts: 2
Joined: December 31st, 2008, 4:58 pm

Re: Triumph

Postby Jared Kopf » March 23rd, 2009, 11:15 pm

Ah, youtube, wonder of wonders . . .

Jared

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4547
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Triumph

Postby Brad Henderson » March 24th, 2009, 1:34 am

Seems to me to be an overhandled version of Jared's Triumph. Watched a video of Jared doing it this weekend. So much cleaner , clearer, and more open. Kent is running way too fast when no one is chasing him.

And Jared's version can be adapted to an in the hands Triumph (which I have developed/used), though for cleanliness and naturalness you cannot beat Jared's original handling.

This isn't even a step sidewise, it's a giant "mother may I" step backwards.

Brad Henderson

Steve Hook
Posts: 835
Joined: October 21st, 2008, 11:50 am
Location: Raleigh, North Carolina, USA

Re: Triumph

Postby Steve Hook » March 24th, 2009, 2:51 am

Brad Henderson wrote:Seems to me to be an overhandled version of Jared's Triumph...
This isn't even a step sidewise, it's a giant "mother may I" step backwards.


And yet, many here stepped forward to express that they enjoyed it, with nary any noxious negativism, young Brad.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4547
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Triumph

Postby Brad Henderson » March 24th, 2009, 3:58 am

Steve Hook wrote:
Brad Henderson wrote:Seems to me to be an overhandled version of Jared's Triumph...
This isn't even a step sidewise, it's a giant "mother may I" step backwards.


And yet, many here stepped forward to express that they enjoyed it, with nary any noxious negativism, young Brad.



Which is why so much magic remains derivative and hackneyed, Old Steve.
Last edited by Brad Henderson on March 24th, 2009, 4:02 am, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: Where does the circle start and who has the cracker?

El Mystico
Posts: 1087
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Leamington Spa
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby El Mystico » March 24th, 2009, 5:05 am

For me, this thread has really brought home the truth of the old saying about hiding stuff in print. Kent's effect fooled me completely, because I'd merely glanced at Jared's handling in the magazine without thinking about it. After seeing Kent's video, I went back to look properly at the write up of Jared's handling. And I wasn't the only one.
mind you, I'll continue with my current handling of this effect - but it was a pleasant diversion.

Kent Gunn
Posts: 753
Joined: May 15th, 2008, 2:05 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Kent Gunn » March 24th, 2009, 4:06 pm

Brad Henderson wrote:Seems to me to be an overhandled version of Jared's Triumph. Watched a video of Jared doing it this weekend. So much cleaner , clearer, and more open. Kent is running way too fast when no one is chasing him.

And Jared's version can be adapted to an in the hands Triumph (which I have developed/used), though for cleanliness and naturalness you cannot beat Jared's original handling.

This isn't even a step sidewise, it's a giant "mother may I" step backwards.

Brad Henderson


Brad,

Your dismissive comments were mean-spirted. I like that. I hope you have a sense of humor to match your arrogance.

I'm in my fifties, I weigh nearly 300 pounds. I don't ever run. The last person who chased me, I sat on 'em.

I haven't seen Jared's version. I'm sure it's lovely. I haven't seen the write-up in Genii. The entire magic universe does not revolve around the body of work you're familar with.

I've been toying with my version for a few years. I think the basic idea has been around longer than anyone involved in this discussion. (Unless we can get Harry Lorayne to chime in!!)

Precedence not being all that darned important, I will share my source of inspiration. Expert Card Technique . . . the reverses chapter. I'm pretty sure that was published before Jared came up with his version.

Your assumption that one routine, you happened to be familiar with, was my inspiration is presumptuous, to say the least. I'm not terribly well-read when it comes to magic periodicals. Genii, although world-renowned, does have an immense amount of card work in it's storied pages. Nobody is familiar with that entire body of work.

I chose to post the handling I use on YouTube so world-renowned experts, like yourself, could pontificate and show the rest of us poor amatuers how under-educated and mis-informed we all are.

Actually I'm glad you don't like the handling I put on youtube. It re-inforces that differences of opinion are good things. The version you so despise was concocted as a piece of entertainment for magicians. You were not entertained. For you I failed. It was supposed to be funny too. You didn't laugh.

I do realize you're a full-time professional magician Brad. I know you've released some popular effects for the magic community. In the grand scheme of things that may give your opinions some gravis, in your eyes; I would've hoped success allowed you some modesty and the good grace to not be so quick to jump to conclusions. You pontificate where you should simply remain mute.

I have exactly the same failings.

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4547
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Triumph

Postby Brad Henderson » March 24th, 2009, 4:37 pm

Magicians act like little girls. We have that problem here locally. You make a comment about a "thing", and the person associated with that "thing" takes it as a personal affront - like saying they had bad breath or murdered small children.

The rule many follow is that the person who gets the idea into print first (ethically) gets the credit. Submarine sailors aside (inside joke) it ceases to matter how long someone else may have been doing it. The new work will be compared with the one established in the printed record - and by that measure, Kent's trick seems an overhandled version of Jared's Triumph.

I think the tone of some of these posts resulted from the magic lecturer classic ruse: "So, did any of you guys see the switch?" format the thread seemed to take.

Most people just smile and keep their hands in their lap and the magician thinks he fooled everyone with a stripper deck. He didn't. We just didn't care enough to raise our hands.

You asked if someone was doing something similar. The answers is "yes." And, as many have commented on the merits of your handling as it related to others, I feel it reasonable to continue that line of criticism.

You can spend your life learning every handling of every trick out there - or you can choose to invest your time with the best of what is available.

When it comes to Triumph's of this ilk, Jared's routine is cleaner, clearer, and more magical. Kent's has extraneous moves that do nothing but point to the method. If that's what you want - go for it. If you want something that is far more natural yet uses the same concepts, look up Jared's.

Or don't.

Not everyone is a thirsty horse.

Brad Henderson

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27056
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Richard Kaufman » March 24th, 2009, 4:50 pm

It's my turn to curtsey.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

skmayhew
Posts: 99
Joined: October 6th, 2008, 3:58 pm

Re: Triumph

Postby skmayhew » March 24th, 2009, 5:59 pm

I don't understand what Brad is saying.
Last edited by skmayhew on March 24th, 2009, 6:03 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: literacy

Bill Duncan
Posts: 1639
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 11:33 pm

Re: Triumph

Postby Bill Duncan » March 24th, 2009, 9:54 pm

I understand what Brad is saying. He's saying "My friend's trick can beat up your friend's trick."

I don't understand what Jared Kopf is saying.

User avatar
NCMarsh
Posts: 1223
Joined: February 16th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Devant, Wonder, Richiardi, Benson, DeKolta, Teller, Harbin, Durham, Caveney, Ben, Hoy, Berglas, Marceau
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby NCMarsh » March 25th, 2009, 12:49 am

This thread started:

Kent Gunn wrote:Is anybody out there doing Triumph quite like this?


Brad answered that

a.) someone is
b.) that someone published it and
c.) to Brad's tastes the published version is stronger

Kent Gunn
Posts: 753
Joined: May 15th, 2008, 2:05 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Kent Gunn » March 25th, 2009, 1:09 am

Mr. Mayhew,

I suspect Mr. Henderson's words appear cryptic to you because he chooses not to write in complete sentences. I found it initially distracting as well. I can only commiserate with you on that point, sorry. Mr. Henderson alludes to some graduate school on his website. Thee and I shall have to conclude he did not major in English.

Mr. Duncan,

Allow me translate. This one I got. Mr. Kopf was saying, "there's some jerk taking credit for my great trick on you tube."

Mr. Kopf, I've already PM'ed you. If you'd be good enough to let me see or read through your write-up I would greatly appreciate it. I suspect by your number of posts here, you can't really be all that bothered. Nonetheless, this old man would like to see how close the two routines are. As I stated in the PM. I would never knowingly claim the work of another person. Also I've not read your version yet. I do look forward to it!

Alpen,

It is not customary to print PMs sent to you in the open forum. You left out all the funny stuff I wrote and posted only the mean stuff. Don't disburse PMs. I hope we're still pals though!


Brad,

No one has ever compared me to a little girl before. How cute! I'm right around 270 pounds, ugly as sin and have a beard. I'm afraid of the little girls you hang out with. Apparently you live in Austin. I always thought the girls in Texas were pretty.

I have bad breath. I drink about two pots of coffee a day. I pushed around nuclear weapons for twenty years. My karma is far worse than a mere killer of children.

I took affront at your original posting because you said:

Seems to me to be a overhandled version of Jared's Triumph. Watched a video of Jared doing it this weekend. So much cleaner, clearer, and more open. Kent is running way too fast when no one is chasing him.

You implied and I certainly inferred that I was directly deriving my handling from your pal's routine. I shared how I thought you were an arrogant lad for assuming everyone's bank of card knowledge somehow mirrored your own. This led you to an incorrect assumption. You never responded. I'm a little hurt. I thought we had a dialogue going. You see, I read your post and respond to each part, in kind. This used be called correspondence.

As for the overhandled crack; You really didn't understand that what I put on youtube was intended to be consumed by magicians. If it went by Harry Lorayne and some of the others who gave the video some minor accolades, perhaps it accomplished what I intended. The only part of that routine, the display right before the shuffle is the only thing I thought was original to me. The rest is all, every single drop of it, in print. It's in print long before Mr. Kopf's publishing date too, by the way.

Brad I realize you're an outstanding card man. You're way better than I'll ever be. I'd just like you to acknowledge that you come across as a very arrogant man. You offend people far more often than you need to. You were offensive in your response to Mr. Bryant. He's a treasure. Why be flippant? Ah . . . you don't care how others see you. You speak the truth. I got it. :)

Now I suspect you're pals with Alpen and Jared. I also guess you are leaping to their defense. For that I give you credit. I too will tilt at windmills in defense of my magic buddies. I try really hard these days not to come off as an arrogant putz. As, you no doubt have already surmised, I often fail.

If anybody thinks what they've come up with for a handling as researched and tweaked as Triumph that is completely original, they're a deluded nutjob. My research staff is still looking for the appropriate issue of Genii. I really am anxious to see the write up of Jared's routine. You have uber-cool video footage of your pal's handling. Thanks for sharing it with us. I'll assume Jared is too cool to openly share his performance. That's certainly up to him.

I didn't need credit for the handling. I'm not amassing a reputation for any nefarious means. I've no DVDs nor books of my work to shill. I do magic because I love it. I will admit the thought of something with my name on it, in Genii, remains an exhilirating prospect. Thanks Brad, for helping to shoot down my dreams!

I still think the credit belongs to the team of Hugard and Braue. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Hey guys. The routine Jared Kopf claims he invented is in Expert Card Technique. He just overhandles the original, written by the masters!

That was offensive, wasn't it? I don't know where Jared got his routine ideas. I haven't read it nor seen it. I don't give two shakes of a lamb's tail if he goes down in history as either the creator of a great Triumph routine or not. I suspect he doesn't either.

I must say you make odd allusions to small children often enough in your replies that I'm worried about you. :/

RK,

Nice curtsey. (I thought it was curtsy. Apparently you've chosen the more archaic spelling: nice!) Oh, and should my routine be adjudged far too close to Mr. Kopf's, I shall understand you not printing it in Genii.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27056
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Richard Kaufman » March 25th, 2009, 1:22 am

It's time for me yet again to please ask everyone to be calm.

While Brad may think Kent's routine is not as good a handling as Jared's (which I obviously liked a lot because I published it), I still find merit in it and would like to publish it in Genii as well.

I don't want to see any more carrying-on in this thread.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4547
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Triumph

Postby Brad Henderson » March 25th, 2009, 1:57 am

Kent,

I implied nothing. You inferred. And if you felt I implied theft, then please know that was not intended. As I wrote, I was comparing your work to a similar routine that was already established in the printed record. (And yes, one that I found superior on multiple levels.)

I have no idea what my reply to "Mr. Bryant" refers to. I think you are mistaken.

As to the display you reference, I would suggest you look at Jared's routine. All I intended with my post was to point people to that reference. Apparently we'd rather talk about it and get defensive than actually look. That's cool.

As to the "secret video," it's no secret. I just can't talk about it.

It seems as if you are taking this personally. This is the "little girl" behavior I refer to. It is endemic to our field and is one of the reasons growth in our art is stunted. At one time, as I understand it, both national fraternal magazines had bylaws which prevented the publication of "controversial" material. (I believe they still stand.) This included critical comments about performances. And so - at every convention - every act killed and a good time was had by all.

This is exactly what magic needs to thrive: brotherhood at the expense of honesty.

You asked a question, and I answered it.

I am sorry I hurt your feelers.

I was talking about your trick. Not you.

And I'm pretty sure most of my sentences were complete. PM me with the ones that weren't. I will rewrite each 5 times and send them back to you.

Brad

User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 441
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Overworld

Re: Triumph

Postby Cugel » March 25th, 2009, 4:16 am

Brad, Brad, Brad. Stop being disingenuous. It's about the tone and the way you express yourself. It's a trap we all fall into occasionally. Yes, even me, despite that I am well-known for being flawless.

User avatar
Dustin Stinett
Posts: 7259
Joined: July 22nd, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Sometimes
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Dustin Stinett » March 25th, 2009, 4:47 am

Two things:

First
Kent Gunn wrote: I always thought the girls in Texas were pretty.


Quite some years ago my work took me to several states, many cities, and hundreds of grocery stores. There are usually lots of woman in grocery stores. And while I appreciate the beauty of all of them all around this here country, I can say without any hesitation that the most beautiful women Ive seen were in Texas. And they all had the same quality: Natural beauty. Theyd be at the store in their jeans, a tank top (or T-shirt), hair tied up in a ponytail, and no makeup; it looked like they were ready to leave home in five minutes and still look absolutely stunning. Im convinced that the Beach Boys never made it to Texas before they wrote that song about California girlsand Im a native Californian.

Second (and will all due respect for there are many great versions out there): Aint nobody ever going to come up with a version of Triumph better than a simple slop shuffle version. It can be done standing, with no table, and completely surrounded. Real people are just as amazed by it as any other version I have performed or even seen performed. Ive been doing it since high school (thats better than 30 years). It killed then and it kills today.

Say Good Night Dick.

Good Night Dick!

Dustin (not Dick)

(Its a dang shame that word gets censored now. Its such an innocent little word.)

User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 441
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Overworld

Re: Triumph

Postby Cugel » March 25th, 2009, 7:09 am

Dustin Stinett wrote:
Second (and will all due respect for there are many great versions out there): Aint nobody ever going to come up with a version of Triumph better than a simple slop shuffle version.


[censored].

But ah shore lak yer folksy delivery. Yew lak onea thaym good ol' boys, incha?

Ian Kendall
Posts: 2631
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Ian Kendall » March 25th, 2009, 7:17 am

[censored] back.

The slop shuffle is one of the best versions for real world work. Dustin mentioned the good points, but to a real person the effect is exactly the same - a card is selected, the cards are mixed face up and face down, and then they all right except the selection.

Now, if you are doing a formal show, or just doing tricks for someone at home you may want to go into one of the many table versions, but for a working magician the slop shuffle is hard to beat.

Take care, Ian

User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 441
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Overworld

Re: Triumph

Postby Cugel » March 25th, 2009, 7:19 am

Hay thar. You tak care yo'self, mister. Hoik Ptui.

User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 441
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Overworld

Re: Triumph

Postby Cugel » March 25th, 2009, 7:26 am

Ian Kendall wrote:[censored] back.

The slop shuffle is one of the best versions for real world work. Dustin mentioned the good points, but to a real person the effect is exactly the same - a card is selected, the cards are mixed face up and face down, and then they all right except the selection.

Now, if you are doing a formal show, or just doing tricks for someone at home you may want to go into one of the many table versions, but for a working magician the slop shuffle is hard to beat.

Take care, Ian


Anyway, to be serious. There is a key difference between a slop shuffle and a strip out shuffle when working for a lay audience. A difference that makes the strip out superior. Do you know what that difference is? I admit that for a drunken audience the difference is irrelevant, but nonetheless...

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Jonathan Townsend » March 25th, 2009, 7:50 am

Does the triumph effect increase if you let them cut the cards before you do the magic?
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

Denis Behr
Posts: 416
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Munich
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Denis Behr » March 25th, 2009, 8:34 am

Good question.

User avatar
mrgoat
Posts: 4242
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby mrgoat » March 25th, 2009, 11:00 am

Cugel wrote:
Ian Kendall wrote:[censored] back.

The slop shuffle is one of the best versions for real world work. Dustin mentioned the good points, but to a real person the effect is exactly the same - a card is selected, the cards are mixed face up and face down, and then they all right except the selection.

Now, if you are doing a formal show, or just doing tricks for someone at home you may want to go into one of the many table versions, but for a working magician the slop shuffle is hard to beat.

Take care, Ian


Anyway, to be serious. There is a key difference between a slop shuffle and a strip out shuffle when working for a lay audience. A difference that makes the strip out superior. Do you know what that difference is? I admit that for a drunken audience the difference is irrelevant, but nonetheless...


Here in the UK, most people when asked to shuffle a deck will do an overhand shuffle. To that end, I never, ever do even a regular riffleshuffle when working for laypeople.

To me, the slop shuffle is vastly superior to any pushthrough/pull out riffle shuffle.

No table.

Surrounded.

And (and this is key for me) you don't look like you are 'being clever with your hands'.

But I'd love to here why you THINK other shuffles are superior.

Ian Kendall
Posts: 2631
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Ian Kendall » March 25th, 2009, 11:12 am

With a push through or strip out shuffle the cards are _seen_ to be pushed together in the mixed state.

However, in the action of the slop shuffle the cards are _seen_ to be mixed up as well. Also, how many times in a typical strolling gig do you get to perform a table riffle push through?

I said the slop shuffle is the best solution for a working situation. I'd be interested to hear how a table riffle fits in.

Take care, Ian

User avatar
NCMarsh
Posts: 1223
Joined: February 16th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Devant, Wonder, Richiardi, Benson, DeKolta, Teller, Harbin, Durham, Caveney, Ben, Hoy, Berglas, Marceau
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby NCMarsh » March 25th, 2009, 12:06 pm

Table or no table isn't a part of "slop v. push/strip." There are a number of fine riffle handlings (I used Hollingworth's for years) that do not require a table...it also allows you to block the shuffle so that the action happens at chest level, while the slop-shuffle -- in practice -- is often framed by the crotch.

My own sense is that most display moves that involve the hands being palm up are worth avoiding...when you're standing, the action drifts to crotch level -- which makes it difficult to connect (there is a large distance between the action and your eyes)...when you're sitting, it is difficult to keep the wrists down so the medium-short people can see the cards

With the right attitude, the slop shuffle can be very convincing. But the same is true of the riffle handlings...it's an issue of experimenting and finding which works best in the context of your routine

I haven't tried having the spec. cut...there is a very particular rhythm to the trick...but I have had the spectator shuffle the selection into the deck, then comment on how "the last guy" did it...having them shuffle the deck after the selection is replaced did up the impact tremendously...because the trick is about chaos becoming ordered, and the more chaos you start with, the stronger the impact at the end

N.

Kent Gunn
Posts: 753
Joined: May 15th, 2008, 2:05 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Kent Gunn » March 25th, 2009, 12:11 pm

Brad,

This will get lost in the dross. I did have the wrong Steve. Point to Mr. Henderson.

Jared's routine is getting some well-deserved attention out of all of this. That is very, very cool. The best stuff in magic is hiding in print.

Thank you Brad, Alpen and especially Mr. Kopf for leading me and many others to an awesome Triumph routine, hiding in our favorite magic magazine. Should any of my smarmy posts above this have taken any of the three of you aback, on any level, you certainly have my apologies. I, more than anyone I know, can get my panties in a wad over slights unintended and sleights over-handled.

Here's a toast to card magic and those who perform it well.

Huzzah!

Oh, I saw some of Brad Henderson's work on video recently. That man is a top-flight card guy, top-flight!!

As for my two cents on slop vs. riffle:

I do a slop shuffle version. I learned it from a kid named Dave Greiner. I have had smart spectators work it backwards. I have never had a smart spectator work my tabled version out. I know some folks who have riffle shuffle skills that would blow right by any spectator as well. (Spectator, in this discussion means a non-magician spectator. ed.)

I firmly believe showing the two halves, clearly face-up and face down, stressing the fairness of that moment is key. If the audience belives that moment, they'll assemble the picture of a scrambled deck, in their minds to the point of certainty.

For me, doing magic that the audience simply cannot work backwards in the minutes after the magic is really important. That's why I post stuff on here. That's why I practice.

KG
Last edited by Kent Gunn on March 25th, 2009, 12:23 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: I didn't want to leave an incomplete sentence!

Lemniscate
Posts: 37
Joined: April 8th, 2008, 3:16 am

Re: Triumph

Postby Lemniscate » March 25th, 2009, 12:21 pm

Kent,

I enjoyed watching your video, very nicely done. I look forward to seeing it in Genii but I'll say the following:

I think it is a great effect regardless of the audience. It has built-in throw-offs for the magi in the house but has a emotional hook for non-magicians. Keep it up, man!

I first ran into the effectiveness of the slop shuffle as it pertains to Triumph effects on my own in my attempts to modify John Bannon's Last Man Standing. I think it has it's uses but really offers its most when combined with some sort of riffle type shuffle.

In regards to Ian's fair question about table riffles, Bannon's approach uses an in the hands faro-type shuffle (for the optical revolve, which is soooo satisfying), so I never (and never have) need to do anything outside the hands.

While I refuse to say anything about what shuffle is superior (it's a silly point of contention anyway), I will add that I think Mr Goat is missing the point. Just because "most people when asked to shuffle a deck will do an overhand shuffle" doesn't mean you are off the hook as a performer. Even people who do overhand shuffles realize that riffle shuffles are more complete randomizations (this isn't strictly true, I know, but it is true enough to be the common perception).

In my particular routine, all in the hands, there is an overhand, slop, and faro-type shuffle (although not an actual faro, just trying to put an image into your minds). It is all motivated and is quite fun. However, as mentioned, I am really looking forward to seeing Kent's version in the mag, I like what I see.

Ian Kendall
Posts: 2631
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Ian Kendall » March 25th, 2009, 12:48 pm

Riffle shuffles are becoming more widely known in the YooKay, but there is still an issue of naturalness with an in the hands faro type of shuffle. It all comes down to presentation anyway; my script talks about someone very deliberately _not_ doing a normal shuffle (as, I would imagine, does a lot of others'). I have one overhand and one slop shuffle.

Take care, Ian

El Mystico
Posts: 1087
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Leamington Spa
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby El Mystico » March 25th, 2009, 1:35 pm

I will often use the slop shuffle, and haven't noticed the audience eyes straying to my crotch. No more than usual, anyway.

User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 441
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Overworld

Re: Triumph

Postby Cugel » March 25th, 2009, 3:56 pm

Lemniscate wrote:
While I refuse to say anything about what shuffle is superior (it's a silly point of contention anyway)


Being somewhat oblique, can I ask another question? What's more convincing to the uninformed viewer - Wile E. Coyote ending up covered in ash when the TNT goes off, or CNN footage of a roadside bomb in Basra detonating next to a Humvee?

If you don't think different actions/events/conditions are perceived differently, then how can you be discerning about anything?

User avatar
Ryan Matney
Posts: 978
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Abingdon, Va
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Ryan Matney » March 25th, 2009, 5:36 pm

My vote is for Bannon's last man Standing, although I have used and still do use the slop shuffle.

The Bill Goodwin display and Bannon handling provide a more elegant, clean, and deceptive handling than the slop shuffle for my taste.

While the slop shuffle is just as good as any technique and better than many for laymen, it does have a look to it of someone who has no particular proficiency
handling cards and that's why I stopped doing it and use the Bannon routine.

Although, I have some good luck by routining both versions together. Using one method to cancel the other out.
Get the Dirty Work - Available now at http://www.ryanmatneymagic.com

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 27056
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Richard Kaufman » March 25th, 2009, 6:18 pm

The "Goodwin" display should accurately be credited to Goodwin and Jennings. I believe that Bill told me this or wrote this someplace within the last year.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Brad Henderson
Posts: 4547
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: austin, tx

Re: Triumph

Postby Brad Henderson » March 25th, 2009, 7:48 pm

First, if my curtness in reply made my post seem accusatory, I apologize.

as to the slop v. riffle debate - Wonder said it best when we referred to the difference between belief and conviction. When I was young, I saw the triumph effect (unaware of what it was) performed both ways. I remember seeing the slop and thinking - it's all in the way he shuffled. I did not know how it worked, but I knew that the cards were mixed in a special way.

Why? Well, everyone in my family always riffle shuffled. To me, that was a real shuffle. So, I knew this was some "special process." Vernon was right, natural is always better.

I distinctly remember the first time I saw Triumph with a riffle shuffle. I was stunned. Admittedly, I was a magic fan in both cases - but I was still in my magic kit phase and both routines were well out of my depth.

So, perhaps, I think Cugel's analogy goes further than even he intended. When one is young, both scenarios he describes are equally real. With information and experience, we learn more of the "truth." I am sure for some people, there will be no difference in their perception of slop v. riffle. But for those with experience and knowledge, there is a difference. And I'm not talking about magician's knowledge. I am talking smart lay person/card player/just paying attention knowledge.

I agree that the slop shuffle is too easy to backtrack - even if they don't know how it worked - they know the secret was the shuffle.

Having said that, I was once fooled by the slop shuffle - but not in the Triumph aspect. No, this man - and he frequents this forum - used the slop to set up a follow up effect during the Triumph phase. The reversal aspect was unimpressive, but I had no idea how he got into the second trick.

As always, one should avoid making the method the effect.

Perhaps Opie will choose to tip - or not.

Kent Gunn
Posts: 753
Joined: May 15th, 2008, 2:05 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby Kent Gunn » March 26th, 2009, 12:07 am

I read through Mr. Kopf's routine tonight. Thank you to my research team who loaned me a copy of the proper issue.

Wow, the routines are strikingly similar.

If I'd published mine first, I'd swear that rat Kopf, stole it from me. That's obviously not the case.

Somewhere on yet another magic board is a routine called Triumph Aces. I don't know when I posted it. I'd like to think it pre-dates the publication of Mr. Kopf's routine. In the grand scheme of things though that just doesn't matter a whit.

The folks here can judge which routine is superior, for them. I still think a solid strip-out, done with aplomb would triumph over either Mr. Kopf's routine or mine. For me, my false shuffle technique is not strong enough for insertion at such an important point in this effect. I know this guy in Australia that could pull it off though.

In my own defense, I feel the fans and my display of face up and face down cards (that don't leave a guilty slab of cards unspread: boo, hiss!) provide far better and more subtle reinforcements of the condition of the deck than Mr. Kopf has chosen. Brad, I've run through Mr. Kopf's handling. There are way more motions, more cuts and just more stuff. Some day, when you're up to it, I'd like to discuss what you felt I over-handled. I could well learn something from your thoughts! For me, show the halves as cleanly as you can; face-up and face-down. Shuffle them together without artifice. Go directly to Go and collect $200.

The thing I liked best in the Magicana write up was a handling of a reverse I'd read in a Jennings book. (The card trick rocked, but I already do a version!) It was good to work that through again. Great call on bringing that gem up from the archives. I have an original half-pass written up in what I sent to RK. It's not as good, by half, as the technique quoted from '67!

If Mr. Kopf was willing to post some video, we could have some sort of sophomoric competition. To his credit he has remained mute except for his single cryptic post.

To Brad's and Alpen's credit, I can certainly see how either thought I'd derived my routine from Mr. Kopf's. In retrospect I think, due to the uncanny resemblance of my routine, to one in the printed archive; they both showed remarkable restraint and tact!

Bully for card magic in general. Bully!

KG

PS. My display is subtly different than Mr. Kopf's. It's better.
Last edited by Kent Gunn on March 26th, 2009, 12:17 am, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: Careful check for complete sentences. Jon, I'm off to look at your stuff now.

Bill Duncan
Posts: 1639
Joined: March 13th, 2008, 11:33 pm

Re: Triumph

Postby Bill Duncan » March 26th, 2009, 12:39 am

Brad Henderson wrote:Having said that, I was once fooled by the slop shuffle - but not in the Triumph aspect. No, this man - and he frequents this forum - used the slop to set up a follow up effect during the Triumph phase. The reversal aspect was unimpressive, but I had no idea how he got into the second trick.

Perhaps Opie will choose to tip - or not.

Well the two obvious things are a red/black separation, or an odd/even segregation.

For the former, Out of this World, obviously... or a quick faro afterward to setup for Neither Blind Nor Stupid.

For the latter, any number of impossible locations.

Partial stacks are possible if you're Bob Farmer (or HL) and can memorize a dozen or so cards while doing the slop, and then direct someone to cut into your stack for a "free" selection.

Opie, what you got?

User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 441
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Overworld

Re: Triumph

Postby Cugel » March 26th, 2009, 2:34 am

Brad Henderson wrote:So, perhaps, I think Cugel's analogy goes further than even he intended.


You assume too much.

But nonetheless, I am glad I was able to provide you with some guidance.

El Mystico
Posts: 1087
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Leamington Spa
Contact:

Re: Triumph

Postby El Mystico » March 26th, 2009, 4:51 am

it is threads like this that make me glad to be alive.
mrgoat says he uses the slop shuffle because you "don't look like you are 'being clever with your hands'."
While Ryan shuns it because it has "a look to it of someone who has no particular proficiency handling cards"

Brad thinks the slop shuffle is too easy to backtrack; while I've been using it for 25 years and never had anyone sniff it; and I would guess mrgoat is in a similar situation, otherwise he would have stopped using it.
(Although, as an aside, years ago for a while I performed a version of the trick which used Daryl's six cut display, to show the mixed condition...until I realised people assumed this was the point when the cards got straightened out...it made no sense, but it was the only thing they could think of).

So what is going on here?

I think this raises several things.

There is the question of what image you want to convey to the audience? Do you want to look like you are particularly proficient in handling cards? There are plenty of magicians who do well with such an image - Ortiz springs to mind. Do you want to look like you handle the cards like anyone else? That's fine too. Vernon talked about avoiding flourishes which gave the appearance of skill (although that didn't stop him from using the wand spin!)

Then there is the question of audience expectations - if, as seems to be the case, US audiences are riffle shufflers, there is a strong argument for riffle shuffling. I'm in the UK and I can't remember the last time I saw someone riffle shuffle a pack of cards outside an L&L DVD.

Of course, I've never seen anyone in an audience do a slop shuffle either, but that brings me on to the last point; the patter. Which, to me, is far more important than whether you do a slop shuffle or a riffle. Vernon talked about the benefits of an emotional hook, otherwise it just becomes another card trick. And the idea of a drunk interrupting your card trick to mess up the pack is such a powerful hook, it surprises me how infrequently I see it used these days.

Well, those are my thoughts based on my experience.

User avatar
Cugel
Posts: 441
Joined: January 26th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Overworld

Re: Triumph

Postby Cugel » March 26th, 2009, 7:36 am

El Mystico wrote:
Of course, I've never seen anyone in an audience do a slop shuffle either, but that brings me on to the last point; the patter. Which, to me, is far more important than whether you do a slop shuffle or a riffle.


So method is irrelevant? I think not.


Return to “Close-Up Magic”