Paul Hayward wrote:Also Glenn uses his adaptation of the Stevens to cut the aces from a shuffled deck. Despite some criticisms of the method expressed on the internet, Glenns ace cutting plays well to an audience in the right frame of mind.
Thanks for the kind words Paul. One of the things that I have tried to do is simplify this table riffle cull to make it less top heavy - so I can use it under a real time performing situation. As I see it the technique exists - to be used in order to get from point A to point B to Point C in a routine.
In this case it is a cull. I hit on this idea by watching Jack Pyle work. He used to shuffle the deck four or five times between each trick with a table riffle shuffle. While watching him it hit me - I thought I could cull an ace in the same amount of time he shuffled the deck. This led to my experimenting with using a table riffle cull to cut the aces as I published it on my first DVD. As I think you already know.
Paul Hayward wrote:I developed a much simpler non Stevens approach and this has worked much out much better for me. Its also a heck of a lot easier to do and allows me to concentrate on the presentation and raporte with the audience.
That is the reason of why I worked out a more simplified method as well. To make it less top heavy so I could add bits of business working the idea into a piece of entertainment. However I find the triumph cull even more useful in regards to magic. Not only can I cull on the fly with it I can cull and stack up to three hands of four of a kind.
This is useful to me because I have used the technique in another challenge cutting the aces routine - using the Zingone idea that was in expert card technique. I consider it a better routine than the one that was on my first DVD just because the challenge - like in Scarne's aces - gives me the opportunity to have fun with the helpers and it adds a lot more entertainment in the way of a situation comedy.
When the audience is in the mood to see ace cutting and gambling themed magic that is.
Paul Hayward wrote:The trouble is you can perfect superb sleight of hand and your audience will never know. Whereas the simple pseudo handling can often be just as convincing. Under these conditions, it is really showmanship that is the most important ingredient.
I don't know if it is true for every magician. But I find that the harder a technique is - the harder it is to add that showmanship and hone a technique into a piece of entertainment.
That is why I like and will use a simplified method over a harder technique that I may work on in practice. Because for me I have found that what looks good when I am practicing the outcome can be very different when I take it out and try it in front of an audience in a venue.
I find faro work and other work hard to do in dark bars and night clubs and the dim lit venues that I am often performing in this modern day world. Also at outside gigs - the wind and humidity and damp performing conditions - dry hands in the winter time also play against card effects.
And under the hot lights and under ventilated rooms of a studio when working TV or video. All of these things can work against some technique in magic that the magician may choose to use in a card effect or a gambling routine.
When we practice it is often under better performing conditions than what we are paid to perform under - often in this modern show business world of ours.
So lets wrap up all these thoughts with my opinion of whatever works for you - that is the best method in my opinion. Each to their own method - if it works.
Thanks for the kind words Paul and Happy Holidays!