Dad Stevens question

Discuss the historical aspects of magic, including memories, or favorite stories.

Postby Guest » 11/30/06 11:47 PM

I'm reading David Ben's Vernon biography -- outstanding so far -- and have a question about Dad Stevens. On page 68 there's a description of Stevens showing Vernon his riffle cull and culling four of a kind to the top of the pack. However, didn't Vernon state on one of the Revelations tapes that Stevens would only cull three of a kind to the top, and when he (Vernon) asked if he could do four Stevens asked why in hell anybody would want to do four? Just curious about which is correct.

Postby Guest » 12/01/06 01:16 AM

Just a few days ago I talked to David Ben about this very point. The truth is that the move was used in Faro where only three would "get the money." Those unfamiliar with faro and into poker don't see this.

Postby Guest » 12/01/06 02:30 AM

In the old 'pass the deck' crew scams used for poker games in places like Gardena up until the seventies and in private games, trips was the hand scufflers most often went for.

Saying that culling three of a kind is usable for faro but not for poker is simply incorrect.

Postby Guest » 12/01/06 01:02 PM

I was going to save this for another publication I am working on but here goes...

I believe that Dad Stevens used the Riffle Cull to assemble 'three of a kind' on the top of the deck to add an additional split to the Faro deal.

I believe that the magic community has misunderstood his line 'three will get you the money' because we/they automatically assume he was talking about poker rather than Faro.

If you study faro, you will discover that one of the ways, an ingenious way, to create a split - a point in the deal where both cards appear of the same value - is to bring three cards together. That, I believe, was Steven's advantage in dealing the game.

Of course, the expression 'three will get you the money' applies in poker. Few, if any, have noticed up until this point, however,that the Stevens Riffle Cull was designed primarily for Faro.

This is more than I wanted to say about it at this point in time, and as Derek now knows, I wasn't particularly thrilled that he posted the reference on the Forum. But, now that it is out there, I hope this brief explanation will help clarify things until such time as I release a larger work that includes an exploration of Stevens' work in more detail.

Postby Guest » 12/01/06 01:34 PM

Thank you for the clarification, and Im sorry that I inadvertently raised a topic which youre currently reluctant to discuss. Ill be looking forward to the other publication in which you can elaborate further. In the meantime Ill go back to enjoying your excellent book.

Postby Guest » 12/01/06 02:52 PM

Please, there is no need to apologize for asking the question or posting your opinion. If you don't ask, you don't know.

Return to Magic History and Anecdotes