Originally posted by Philippe Nol:
However I still think that you are not obliged to "speculate on the method Erdnase might use to replace the "left palm holdout"" because on page 114, Erdnase writes:" Another method is to palm in the left hand face to palm...replacing appearing as a square up...a one handed fancy cut is made with the right hand, and the cards left somewhat scattered,..., taken up into both hands and squared."
How you get into it?
Still written on page 114:"[/As the player who cuts was the last dealer, it usually gives him a good opportunity to hold out". QB]
By speculating, I am referring to the method of replacement, and the blocking, who is where, and doing what? It is important to determine who is doing the cutting, for instance. If it is an accomplice, then who is holding out? If the dealer is holding out while the accomplice cuts, then the replacement makes sense, as the dealer would pick up the deck to square and deal. If the dealer is doing the fancy one-handed cutting AND holding out, then the position of the hands, and the necessary rotation of the pack in preparation for the traditional Erdnase Bottom Replacement, is somewhat awkward. If the accomplice is holding out and cutting, then it is out of the ordinary for him to complete the cut by picking up and squaring the deck, something that is obviously necessary for the replacement.
Erdnase does not spell out the scenario under the "Fancy Cut" heading, and the several problems he mentions under "Replacing Palm When Cutting", which Philippe references, include some of the objections I just brought up. So, the speculation may perhaps be better phrased:
Describe the best scenarios for using this cut and replacement and describe the best replacement in the given scenario, since there are several to choose from...
Several other things to consider: Erdnase seems to suggest that these methods are for the solo operator (...the greater the number [of cards held out] the more probability of the dealer noticing the diminished condition of the deck - page 115), so it appears that both the holdout and replacement AND the cutting are done by the same person, without an accomplice, and that person is not the dealer...
If, in fact, the dealer does the holding out, cutting, and replacement, isn't there an objection, by the rest of the company, to the lack of a cut by someone other than the dealer?
If, as in your last quote, "the player who cuts was the last dealer, it usually gives him a good opportunity to hold out", then how does this benefit the thief? Obviously, knowing the cards that are on the bottom of the deck, and therefore out of play, gives the player a huge advantage. Also, if the player cutting/holding out, is also playing with a partner (the dealer), this sets the cards for a bottom deal.
The initial material in question is on page 47, the conclusions Philippe draws are based on material that appears significantly later in the text. Are we sure the two are related?
With all these variables you can see my request for speculation, yes? The building of scenarios is a useful excercise, and I believe there are many unanswered questions in Erdnase, though others' interpretation of the material is obviously different. But then, everybody likes something different, that's why, as "Buma" used to say, "they make different colored paints!"
Are we having fun yet?