Joyal stack - questions

[Guest]

So, I got Mnemonica (Tamariz), the memorized BCS (Osterlind), and Charles Gauci's 30 minutes memorized deck. I have to admit that I'm only performing once per month and a few times around christmas, so I have given up on putting in the time to memorize a full deck - because I'm afraid its to much work to keep remembering the stacks just to perform once per month. I use Osterlinds stack without knowing the exact positions of the cards but have some effects in mind where I need to know the positions. So I have been using Gauci's for a while and you can actually memorize the stack in 30 minutes, however you do not want to let the spectators go through the cards - because then they will know its stacked.

I love Osterlinds stack due to its mathematical nature and yet its complete randomness to the spectator, I like Tamariz and Aronsons due to the many effects (poker etc.) you can do from the stack, I like Gauci's because its easy to memorise, but what about the Joyal Stack???

It says it can be remembered in 6 hours. My questions are

1) Is it random lookng - can the spectators go through it without noticing its stacked (like Osterlind where they will never get the system figured out)
2) What makes it possible to memorize it in 6 hours??? Is there a kind of mathematical system in the stack??? or is it mnemonics again? It can't be mnemonics because then it would take more than 6 hours
3) Will I know the cards by numbers, e.g like no 27 I the 7 of spades? and can I also deduct the other way around that the e.g king of hearts is no 17, meaning can I go from a number to a card and from a card to a number???
4) Will I know the top card if I peak the bottom card??
5) Does the stack contain possibilities for poker deals etc.
6) Finally can it really be done in 6 to 10 hours???

Something makes the Joyal stack differ from complete mnemonic memory, and without revealing the stack and the method, I would like to get some pointers, because I don't want to buy yet another stack without the necesarry insights.

Hope someone will give me advice.

Best regards

Jan

[Guest]

I read everything you said and I have this advice for you as a buddy:

Learn the Tamariz or Aronson stack.

In your mind you're making the memorization something more intimidating than it should be!

The benefits of knowing the card and its position instantly is more important and rewarding than the other issues you've raised.

You already have the Tamariz stack and the Aronson stack is available for free on the Internet. Just learn one of those. Do yourself a favor and forget all those other questions and issues.

Signed,

Your pal,

Steve H

[Guest]

First of all, I dont know either the Aronson or Tamariz stack. I did learn the Joyal stack and here are my answers to your questions

1) Is it random looking - can the spectators go through it without noticing its stacked (like Osterlind where they will never get the system figured out) It is totally random looking but why are you asking this? Are you going to hand out the cards and ask someone to find a pattern?

2) What makes it possible to memorize it in 6 hours??? Is there a kind of mathematical system in the stack??? or is it mnemonics again? It can't be mnemonics because then it would take more than 6 hours No mathematics and no mnemonics. There are simple to remember rules.

3) Will I know the cards by numbers, e.g like no 27 is the 7 of spades? Yes!
and can I also deduct the other way around that the e.g king of hearts is no 17, meaning can I go from a number to a card and from a card to a number??? Yes!

4) Will I know the top card if I peak the bottom card?? Someone please correct me if Im wrong but most memorized decks of this nature are not cyclic so this is irrelevant.

5) Does the stack contain possibilities for poker deals etc. Dont know.

6) Finally can it really be done in 6 to 10 hours??? Definitely.

Give it a shot Jan. This stack is easier than you would think. I took my time over a few days and got it. The next step is to find some real good stack-independent tricks. Good luck.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Bobby Plaut:

1) It is totally random looking but why are you asking this? Are you going to hand out the cards and ask someone to find a pattern?

A comment
NO BUT / in some of my mind reading effects the audience sometimes grabs for the deck and I\m not the one to stop them. With Osterlinds stack they can grab all they want, sometimes I leave the deck with them. Check out Osterlinds @two cards to pocket@ effect, they sometimes want to check the deck to make sure it doesnt consist of only the two same cards.

4) Will I know the top card if I peak the bottom card?? Someone please correct me if Im wrong but most memorized decks of this nature are not cyclic so this is irrelevant.

A comment
THIS IS extremely important. If you use the deck as a forcing deck, or if the spectator cuts the deck and pick the top card, you need to be able to know which card he picked from peaking the bottom card. I would asssume in the Joyal stack that if the top card is chosen and I peak the bottom card say 4 of hearts, then I know 4 of hearts is card positioned at number 8, then I should also know that the top card chosen would be card number 9 / being the 9 of clubs. Don\t you think this would be possible with the joyal stack

[Guest]

RE:
I would asssume in the Joyal stack that if the top card is chosen and I peak the bottom card say 4 of hearts, then I know 4 of hearts is card positioned at number 8, then I should also know that the top card chosen would be card number 9 / being the 9 of clubs. Don\t you think this would be possible with the Joyal stack.


This is possible Jan.

[Brian Marks]

I work with the Joyal stack

It looks random. Spectators have taken my deck many times and were unaware it was stacked.

Like any memorized deck, you know the position of all the cards. It's an open card index. Yes if you cut where a card is taken, you are looking at the card 1 position higher in the stack. If you see the card in the 24th position, the spectator took the 25th card and you will know what that card is.

It does not have any built in tricks though. Any memorized deck effect that is stack independant, can be done with the Joyal stack. Any trick you do with the Osterlind system can be done with the Joyal stack.

[Guest]

Thanks friends.

I bit the bullet. I took my Osterlind BCS and did the Tamariz Mnemonica memory system, and I got it now in numbered order after 10 hours practice. I'm exited to get up in the morning to see if I remember the order. I'll keep going at it, and will now promise myself, that I will do a mem-deck trick every time I do a session just to keep me up to speed.

I dont care for build in possibilities for poker deals etc. It's not my style of magic, the BCS will do me great.

[Grant McSorley]

While the Joyal Stack does not have any built in effects, there are 'inadvertant' set ups hiding in there. I don't use the stack personally, but a buddy of mine played with it for a while and found some cool stuff. If you've read Mnemonica, you know how many new set ups can be found by studying a stack or by slightly modifying it on the fly.
Also, it might be worth sending an e-mail to Martin Joyal through joyalstack.com . I'm sure he'd be more than willing to share anything he's found.

Grant

[Guest]

I'd like to make a few personal observations about this subject. The purpose is not to support my BCS (well, maybe that, too) but to mention a few issues that seem to have been overlooked.

Memory systems have been around for as long as men have been thinking. Ancient Greek and Roman orators used such systems for long (hours long) speeches and to remember the names of hundreds of citizens. Memory systems are not based on some type of "artificial" thinking process, but rather on the very way the mind works. They can have a tremendous impact on all phases of one's life.

With a thorough understanding of such a system, the BCS (or any deck order) can be memorized in less than an hour. If you already know a peg list, you can make that about 30 minutes or less. If you already know Harry Lorayne's method of dealing with cards (something all magicians really should be familiar with) you can memorize any deck order in ONE DEAL THROUGH. The benefits of having 2 resourses at your disposal - mathematical and memorized (as in the memorized Breakthrough) - can be a tremendous adjunct and backup to any work you do.

Although I have been working with stacked decks for my entire performing life (Si-Stebbins, 8-Kings, Nikola, etc.) I have personally found the strongest effects to be possible with knowing what the next card in the stack is. I certainly know each card at each number, but use that knowledge much less than the previous. The mental process to do that with a memorized deck requires - spot the bottom card, compute its position, go one higher, compute the new card. With a sequencial stack(BCS, 8 Kings,Si-Stebbins), it is one process. To those who have said that after awhile the memorized deck allows the next card to be known instantly by "true memory", the same can be said for any stacked deck if one works constantly with it.

As for built-in effects, although the BCS has quire a few (I showed just one in the 2nd Guidebook), when matched up against the tremendous array of effects possible with a shuffled deck, I personally don't see the need to use a stacked deck to accomplish what almost certainly can be done with a shuffled deck and which has the added advantage of being instantly repeatable.

My thoughts,
Richard

[Guest]

I disagree Richard, I work with Mnemonica and can instantly tell you which card follows a named card, it is just not as calculated with a memdeck as you make out, now maybe it is because I know the stack fairly well, but I wouldn't say I was expert. As for doing this with any stacked deck I don't think I would ever get to that point with something like 8-Kings or Si-Stebbins no matter how long I worked with it.

I believe it is the type of memory, and learning style that you have, I am a visual learner and struggle with mental maths, so I am more tuned to 'seeing' the cards rather than have to work out some formula to get to the next one, it would take me much longer to use something like the BCS to calculate the value then remember the suit pattern (not one process for me!), than it would just to learn a stack cold, which is what I did and then 'see' the cards as they come up, add onto that any maths that may be required in the memdeck trick to calculate positions etc. and using a math-based stack is just not an option for me.

Another advantage with a memdeck that you know cold, is that you can not only do the following card, you can do the preceeding card, the positions of the four of a kind that match that card, the rest of the suit of that card etc. so much more than with a mathematical cyclical stack.

As for built in effects isn't it nice to have that option to use them in a memorised deck effect, or to follow an effect, yes you probably could do it with a shuffled deck, but when you combine the memdeck principle with the built in features you get a double-whammy, much like putting work into a memdeck, be it locator cards, markings etc. can be used with a normal deck, but put the stack and gaffing together and you get a powerhouse tool.

[Guest]

Rich,

I believe I already addressed all the points you made in your posting.

Whether you learn the BCS as simply a mathematical system or memorized, working constantly with it allows you to know automatically the positions of the cards with incredible speed. (Both forwards and backwards) The "memory system" device becomes so automatic that one isn't even aware of it after awhile.

As for the "type of memory" thinking style we each have, the method taught for the Memorized Breakthrough is exactly how we all remember everything - by association. It is quite visual once you understand it and practice it and soon becomes second nature. In addition, it overlaps into all areas of life and is a tremendous learning tool.

There are quite a few built-in properties in the BCS - the Poker deal I describe in the second Mind Mysteries Guidebook being just one of them.

Finally, I also mentioned the "randomness factor" of the BCS in the above Guidebook. I took this beyond the obvious non-apparent order of the cards to the much more important "real shuffled deck" properties of the deck. Seeing 3 alike cards within a run of 4, Queens next to each other and so many other similar factors subconsciously tell your audience there is absolutely no way the cards are stacked.

Richard

[Guest]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bobby Plaut:
[QB] First of all, I dont know either the Aronson or Tamariz stack. I did learn the Joyal stack and here are my

4) Will I know the top card if I peak the bottom card?? Someone please correct me if Im wrong but most memorized decks of this nature are not cyclic so this is irrelevant.

Bobby, i work with the Aronson stack, and it is cyclical, and i know what card someone picks and/or the top card by peeking at the bottom one. Can cause mystifying effects.

[Guest]

Richard,

I was just addressing the myth that somehow with a memdeck its a multiple step process and that with a calculated stack its a one step process as you say in your post, all I was saying is for me it wouldn't be a one step process with a math-based deck, until I got to the stage of knowing it cold at which point it effectivley becomes a memdeck.

Rich.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Rich Morrell:
Richard,

I was just addressing the myth that somehow with a memdeck its a multiple step process and that with a calculated stack its a one step process as you say in your post, all I was saying is for me it wouldn't be a one step process with a math-based deck, until I got to the stage of knowing it cold at which point it effectivley becomes a memdeck.

Rich.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The ultimate is simply "knowing" the stack cold. The benefit of this, combined with a math stack, is that if your mind suddenly goes "out of kilter" and your memory fails, you can still compute the next card immediately.

Richard

[Guest]

You're assuming that, if your mind suddenly goes "out of kilter" your mathematical faculties will be intact.

[Guest]

The mental process of computing something is entirely different than that of remembering something.

[Richard Kaufman]

And I'm sad to say that I can do neither! hahaha

[Guest]

Download the latest version of Stackview:
http://www.stackview.com/ (Ver. 5)
This is a great tool for any memo deck worker and its free.