riffle stacking

[Jonathan Townsend]

Seems a pretty good idea from way back when - getting a/the volunteer involved directly and as close to the moment the card is returned as possible. The LePaul flourish and a pass seems pretty direct about it too.

[NicholasD]

My pet peeve with regard to the DU in the hands as a control is the large break that is visible when many magicians perform it. If they think that a non-magician doesn't see that and wonder about it, then, I submit that they need to wake up.

Don't get me wrong, I use the double cut sparingly, with the above always in mind.

[Richard Kaufman]

You'll learn the proper way to perform this in Mr. Jennings Takes It Easy so NO break is visible from any angle.

[Cugel]

The way around the weakness of the double under cut is to use the Ken Beale variation. It looks like a straight cut in the hands (pause), then a third cut to the table, another third to the table and the final third on top of the other two as you scoop them up.

Of course, all of that assumes you have a table...

[Pete McCabe]

I have to admit that I don't quite get the idea of choosing whether to shuffle or not based on the control you're going to use. If the effect is stronger without shuffling, don't shuffle. If it's stronger with shuffling, shuffle. Choose a control to suit.

I tend to agree with Ian and other magicians -- Jerry Andrus comes to mind -- that after the card goes into the middle of the deck, you should not openly change the positions of the cards. However I have seen many magicians have a card inserted and go right into a shuffle, and it just looked like the card was being thoroughly lost. Daryl does this extremely well, using what I believe is a LePaul fan control and in-the-hands riffle shuffle. Tom Mullica does a wonderful overhand shuffle control that I think he credited to Jim Ryan, but I can't be sure.

I have to say, part of my dislike for the DU is that I have seen many excellent magicians -- including some of the best and most skilled magicians in the world -- do the move, and it always looks awkward and suspicious. Partly because cutting a deck of cards twice in a row is nonsensical on the face of it. Cutting the cards is designed to lose the top and bottom cards. Two cuts runs the possibility that you'll cut the deck right back to its original position.

While I'm being my usual dogmatic self, I have to say that in all my years of playing cards I can't remember seeing anyone cut the deck in their hands. Cutting the deck is either done on the table, or from the hands to the table. So an in-the-hands cut is already an unusual thing.

All of this can be covered by scripting, of course. I insert your card near the middle and ask "you don't know where your card is, but you know it's somewhere near the middle, right?" Now you cut, then say "how about now?" Cut again and say "now?" When the spectator admits they don't know where the card is, you are done.

But for most of the tricks in my repertoire, it makes no difference if the spectator knows where the card is.

[Jeff Haas]

Look up Devant's substitute for a pass in Greater Magic. That may be what Jim Ryan did. I know it was what Eddie Tullock did.

[AMCabral]

What happened to the discussion on riffle stacking?

-T

[Richard Kaufman]

It jumped the track.

[AMCabral]

Apparently.

Then again, there's plenty of room for double-undercutting in riffle stacking demonstrations. Emphasis on "demonstrations", of course. Martin Nash does something like that on volume...5?...of his L&L videos (or the old Hans Zahn tapes, depending on which side of the generation gap you fall). I think he credits the routine to Vernon: "The World's Fastest Run-up".

Oh, and speaking of double-undercuts: I think where some of the problem lies with the move is when folks use it to control a card from the middle of the deck to the top or bottom. It looks suspicious because that's what your audience is expecting you to do at that moment. Contrast that with "Cutting The Aces", where the Ace is placed on the face of the pack and you appear to cut it INTO the deck, when you really control it to the bottom/rear. It looks like what you're supposed to be doing. Or moreso, anyway. Of course, if you're using crappy technique you're screwed either way.

-T

[Harry Lorayne]

Am I missing something here? When and if I use the DU to bring a card that's been placed to center to top, I immediately go into an overhand shuffle (most often my own Status Quo Shuffle) keeping the card on top. Doesn't that solve the problem or problems? HL

[Richard Kaufman]

Yes, Harry, it does--see my post above.

[Cugel]

There is a theory in magic, subscribed to by many magicians, that says that it's okay if a magicians handles cards differently from a normal person. It's okay because the audience expects you to handle cards differently, because you're a magician.

I don't agree. In fact, I think this reasoning is exactly backwards.

Are you meaning having obviously more skill than a layman? If so, then I disagree with you. Handling the cards with exquisite professional grace (including a few flourishes that demonstrate your skill) never hurt Mike Skinner, Rene Lavand, Ricky Jay, Darwin Ortiz, Del Ray, Bill Malone or any number of other greats.

Or are you talking about something else? If so, sorry for getting the wrong tack.

[Ian Kendall]

I believe that the people cited about do handle cards as would a layman, but with infinitely more finesse. A comparison might be Mike Close on piano, compared to my hacking around a keyboard - both involve the same basic actions, but with varying degrees of style.

Pete's statement refers to cards being handled in a completely different manner, with unnatural grips and actions. Continuing the analogy, it could be Mike's piano with my blues harp - both are music (perhaps) but they look completely different.

I've never seen a real person cut the cards twice in their hands. It's that incongruity that is in question.

Take care, Ian

[Michael Close]

If a table is available I highly recommend the DU method in Card College.

If a table is not available, I recommend Allan Ackerman's DU, which looks like a single cut, and brings the top card to the bottom. It is very deceptive. This is on a recent video from Mike Maxwell.

[Jeff Eline]

Tyler Wilson has the DL on the DU HERE

[AMCabral]

If a table is available I highly recommend the DU method in Card College.

That's got it. I think it's the triple cutting action that helps the illusion, like the Ken Beale thing Cugel mentioned. There's a lot of cuts done in the hands or on the table that use cutting a series of small packets to mask what is in essence the mechanics of the double undercut. Actually, most any false cut fits the bill.

-T

[Richard Kaufman]

Most folks don't Double Undercut, but usually Triple Undercut precisely because it makes the deck look more mixed. Marlo claimed this idea, but many others (including Vernon, I'm sure) had thought of this.

[Pete McCabe]

Cugel,

I feel the same way Ian does. I don't think you have to pretend that you can't do a riffle shuffle (although that can be effective). I think you can shuffle with facility and not arouse suspicion. I know lots of card players who shuffle cards very adroitly.

What I think it really comes down to is, does the audience know why you're doing it? If I put a coin in my left hand and stick my right hand in my pocket, people might well wonder why. If I say "I'll need my wand" and stick my hand in my pocket, they won't think twice about it. Since there is no natural reason for cutting the cards twice, there's no way the audience will know why you are doing it.



Harry Lorayne,

I'm sure your technique is very effective. But from my perspective, following a DU with an overhand shuffle would not solve the (to me) problems inherent in the DU itself.

I do wonder, though: if you are going to do an overhand shuffle anyway, why do a DU first? You can hold a break, overhand shuffle to the break, and toss on top. Then do a Status Quo shuffle (a great move, btw). This would, to my way of thinking, be more natural than a DU followed by the SQ.

Again, this is not to criticize what you do -- just trying to explain my point of view more clearly.



Everyone,

If you're using the DU as a control, try this instead. Have the card returned to the deck and hold a break above it. Go into an overhand shuffle, turn the cards so the faces are facing to your left, lift everything above (i.e. to the right of) the break, and shuffle off. The selection is on top.

This is the I-think-it's-by Jim Ryun control that Tom Mullica taught at a lecture 20 years ago. It's incredibly easy to do, and more important, it's incredibly easy to do without paying any attention at all. Even if you don't agree with me about the DU, it's still a great move you should have in your arsenal.

[Jim Maloney]

Everyone,

If you're using the DU as a control, try this instead. Have the card returned to the deck and hold a break above it. Go into an overhand shuffle, turn the cards so the faces are facing to your left, lift everything above (i.e. to the right of) the break, and shuffle off. The selection is on top.

This is the I-think-it's-by Jim Ryun control that Tom Mullica taught at a lecture 20 years ago. It's incredibly easy to do, and more important, it's incredibly easy to do without paying any attention at all. Even if you don't agree with me about the DU, it's still a great move you should have in your arsenal.

That would be the Mahatma Control and predates Jim Ryan by quite a bit, considering that it was first published, as the name implies, in Mahatma -- I don't recall the exact issue, but I should be able to find out easily enough if you're interested to know.

And yes, it is a very good control.

-Jim

[Kent Gunn]

I used the DU, as written up in Stars of Magic for about 20 years. I listened to my spectators. The feedback I was getting was:

In the context of pick-a-card tricks the DU sucks. I tried doing it with a delay, to the table. I still don't believe, for me, that it is the way to control a selected card. When the effect is all about losing the card, I believe:

You should classic force a crimped card on the spectator and let him shuffle to his or her heart's content. If you miss the force, well then you need to work on your force. Then pass the card to bottom or top, like a real man. I'm a free-turnin' or top-card cover kinda guy myself, thanks for asking.

I do miss once in a great while - I take the card back and do a partial pass, (think top card cover with way more cards)


The magic should happen without overt fussing about with the deck. Card selected - card lost - magician reveals card. All other steps cloud the effect.

A smart guy will go to my lamer tricks on youtube and see me double-undercutting the deck in a trick. Those tricks are not for human consumption but works in progress. When polished enough to present, there will be minimal deck cutting. (I hope!)

[Jim Maloney]

Found the reference for the Mahatma Control: it was in the August 1901 issue.

-Jim

[Pete McCabe]

Jim,

Thanks for that reference. I hope I didn't misrepresent my understanding of its provenance -- the lecture was 20 years ago and I'm just trying to recall what Tom Mullica said. He might well have said that he learned it from Ryun or that Ryun used it, etc.

[Philippe Billot]

Found the reference for the Mahatma Control: it was in the August 1901 issue.

-Jim

Is it the same as described by Hal Merton under Three New Passes in the same issue of Mahatma ?

In this case, "the top packet is simply lifted up and shuffle into the lower packet without interfering with the top card"

I think that it's Hugard who shuffled the top portion on the face of the lower portion. See More Card Manipulation N 4 (1941)

[Jim Maloney]

Philippe Bilot,
Yes, Three New Passes is what I was referring to. If I remember correctly, the control in question was the third of those three.

Victor Farelli definitely predates Hugard's description, as he described it that way in 1933 in Farelli's Card Magic. I would need to go back to the Mahatma description, but I don't recall it deviating from what has been previously described in any way. Not that I'm doubting what you wrote here, I just want to look at the text when I get home tonight.

-Jim

[Philippe Billot]

Thanks for Farelli's reference.

[El Mystico]

hugard seems to have made quite a lot of use of Farelli's books in royal Roaad and Card manipulations.
but I guess since Farelli wrote a column in Hugard's monthly, Farelli was OK with the idea.

[SpringBizkit]

alright guys.. i'll be honest.
i'm alright with cards.. i guess.. comfortable, can perform well, but until recently, i've never thought about cull stacking. sure i think we can all cull and/or stack using erdnase's overhand method, but this.. well it's interesting.
I'd like to know where i can learn a really good riffle cull.
I'll be putting the effort in to learn it. that's not a problem.. but i'd like to be able to riffle through, cull.. lets say 3 of a kind in the minimum shuffles possible, then ofcourse stack it.
Any idea where i can learn this? anyone got a video of them performing it?
i'd love this information.
Thanks a lot in advance.
Sagar.

[Mallakite]

Mr Kaufman, is the unpublished Larry Jenning's method for culling four of a kind from a shuffled deck and cutting to them, that you mentioned in your second post in this thread, going to to released in the two upcoming Jennings book?

PS: Check out the link in Jeff Eline's post just above, it really is incredible thinking by Tyler Wilson on the Double Undercut, by simply changing the hand movements, he has made it look natural.

[Richard Kaufman]

No, I never videotaped the Jennings handling (to my regret).