si stebben

Discuss your favorite close-up tricks and methods.

Postby rage » 11/20/05 09:37 PM

i came up with a way to put a deck that is in si stebben order, back to original order, however it is not the cleanest of ways to do it.

my question is this, is there a way in print to do this, and if so, where can i find it?

thanks
with an N
rage
 
Posts: 135
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Bill Mullins » 11/20/05 10:44 PM

Darwin Ortiz published, in one of his books, a method to go from New Deck order to Si Stebbins. It isn't too much of a leap to figure out how to do it backwards.
Bill Mullins
 
Posts: 3143
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Huntsville, AL


Postby rage » 11/21/05 05:40 PM

no that doesnt work. if it used out shuffles it could work, however, it uses in shuffles. that is why you cant just work in reverse.

this is interesting, and ive spent some good time working different ways to do it. im surprised that someone hasnt put a method in print yet.
with an N
rage
 
Posts: 135
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Scott Fridinger » 11/29/05 01:40 PM

What's the point of doing this???

You take a new deck, you shuffle and do amazing tricks with Stebbins, then you shuffle again destroying the stack. Under what context would you want to then turn around and put the deck back to the original order, especially when you don't really emphasize that it is in new deck order to begin with.

Just saying look I have done all this magic and the deck is back to the way it was just seems pointless to me. I guess you could say, "well now I can show the effect again" is pointless because the impact is that the deck is unopened.
Scott Fridinger
 
Posts: 234
Joined: 03/16/08 03:36 AM

Postby Jonathan Townsend » 11/29/05 02:08 PM

I have a glimmer of where this is going artistically. I like the idea. I'm interested in methods. Let me know if you can do this without doing a hefty spread cull sequence, counting out half the deck and similar.
Mundus vult decipi
Jonathan Townsend
 
Posts: 6814
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Westchester, NY

Postby Bill Mullins » 11/29/05 03:43 PM

Start with the deck in the Ortiz Si Stebbins position (4 Clubs on back, Ace Diamonds on face).

Do 6 out faros.
Hold deck face down for overhand shuffles.
Run 4 cards
Run 9 cards
Run 7 cards
Run 6 cards
Hold deck face up in hands.
Cut the Hearts suit (which is in order) to the table, face up.
Cut the Clubs onto the hearts.
Cut the Diamonds onto the Clubs
Cut the J Q K Spades onto the Diamonds.
Cut the rest of the spades onto the JQK spades.

(Instead of cutting to the table, you could just cut from left hand to right hand).

Deck is now face up, in new deck order.

I don't really think that I could work this sequence of moves out is any great sign of creativity. The real creativity with Ortiz' Si Stebbins secret was not the particular sequence of moves that gets you from New Deck to Si Stebbins; it was the realization that there was enough structure in Si Stebbins that a sequence of block cuts and reversals (which is what the overhand shuffles accomplish) and faros could get you there -- everything else was mechanics, albeit very clever mechanics. (This is not to belittle Ortiz. He not only worked out the mechanical moves, he made that final creative jump beyond what Rusduck and others had done). Likewise, since I knew that the moves that took you from ND to SS retained a great deal of order and structure, it was a matter of mechanics (and not so clever, in this case) to reverse the process -- not creativity.

If it is important to you to do this effect (shuffle a mixed deck into new deck order), there is probably a better stack to work from than Si Stebbins.

For example, do two three or four out faros, and memorize the stack. Do your tricks, and retain the stack. Then do five or four out faros and get back to New Deck order (I believe that Michael Skinner, among others, used this stack).

Or use Tamariz' stack.
Bill Mullins
 
Posts: 3143
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Huntsville, AL

Postby rage » 11/29/05 06:54 PM

Scott, im not doing it to get a, "look at how clever i am, i put the whole deck back to original order, wow thats great" type of a reaction. no. i have other more appropriate reasons for doing this.


thanks bill. ;)
with an N
rage
 
Posts: 135
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Bill Mullins » 11/29/05 10:07 PM

Originally posted by rage1:
thanks bill. ;)
So, rage1 (if that's your real name . . .), is this the same method you came up with? Easier? Harder?
Bill Mullins
 
Posts: 3143
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Huntsville, AL

Postby rage » 11/30/05 09:26 AM

your method is more practical for live performance. its not necessarily easier, just a lot cleaner. i took notes on how i did it, when i get home ill take a look at them and let you know what the differences are. there were some other interesting things that i found when working with this, ill let you know about those as well.

thanks again. :genii:
with an N
rage
 
Posts: 135
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Scott Fridinger » 11/30/05 12:45 PM

Originally posted by rage1:
Scott, im not doing it to get a, "look at how clever i am, i put the whole deck back to original order, wow thats great" type of a reaction. no. i have other more appropriate reasons for doing this.


thanks bill. ;)
Ok so what is the point then. I wasn't trying to be negative, but I don't see the point and if you do have one I would love to know. I just wanted to hear your why so that we all could learn.
Scott Fridinger
 
Posts: 234
Joined: 03/16/08 03:36 AM

Postby Countelmsley » 11/30/05 08:48 PM

Couldnt you do a "Back in time " kinda thing with this? A good presentation needs to be worked out but its the first idea that came to my head.

Seb
http://www.geocities.com/larrybarnowsky/kotr1.htm
www.geocities.com/larrybarnowsky
Countelmsley
 
Posts: 56
Joined: 03/11/08 07:14 PM
Location: NY


Return to Close-Up Magic