Card Cheats

Card Cheat or Mr Cheat

Posted by Tom Ace on January 14, 2006 at 14:10

Hi all,

It's been awhile since my last post.
Lot's has happened and I also noticed that my last video was from summer 2005.

I've taped a new one yesterday and I'd like to share it with you all.
They cal me "Mr. Cheat" and this was just for fun in the beginning but now they still call me that way. That's why you see the title in the clip.
It is a mix of different sleights. I also included a move that I've seen in the move Shade. It's were Stuart Townsend (Vernon) places four aces in a Bicycle deck. He then shuffles and cuts, and the aces are on the top again. A stripper deck would be usefull in this place but I came up with a sleight that makes it possible to do without the stripper deck. "Came up" with is a big word. It is very possible that someone else on this planet thinks the same thing. Still, I'd like to include, since it is not finished yet and maybe it will be after you guys checked it.

I hope you will enjoy the clip and comments are, as always, more than welcome.


http://media.putfile.com/MrCheat



Thanks for watching.


Regards.

Tom.

Posted by enigma on January 14, 2006 at 14:52

I enjoyed that clip. I could see the first bottom deals, but only because I was looking closely for them. As for the aces in the different parts of the deck, I'm pretty sure that was a variation that can be found on Ellusionist.com. Some of the shuffles I saw seemed like variations of Brian Tudor's shuffle, also. It seemed like more of the original stuff was the second half of the movie, though. Or perhaps I just haven't seen them yet. Great job, keep it up.

Posted by Waterwings on January 14, 2006 at 14:56

Very nice video. Everything flowed great and you performed everything extremely smoothly. The only thing I can say otherwise is that your bottom deal needs just a bit more speed. But otherwise, great video.

Posted by Maverick on January 14, 2006 at 14:57

very fast very smooth gj mr cheat

Posted by Apoptygma on January 14, 2006 at 15:43

Nice! I enjoyed watching it! Although I have a question;

Was one of your tricks the "Multiple Shift" (Arthur Buckley)? I belive it was your second trick where you put the 4 aces in random spots in the deck. You shuffled them around a bit and BEHOLD, we see 4 aces drawn from the top of the deck! It looked like you did but I couldn't tell. I've been trying to attempt this trick and I have it down, but I don't have the speed like you do. That was very nicely executed

Posted by Drey on January 14, 2006 at 16:05

I should probably start by saying that the angle you used made covering the false deals extremely difficult, so the fact that they were quite obvious doesn't really mean much, though I didn't like your pause before dealing the cards off in the second bottom deal (the one with the cards face up)...actually, now that I rewatch it, there is a slight pause in the first bottom deal clip as well, so you might want to work on smoothness.

As for the four aces in different parts of the deck, you executed it well, though I personally feel the presentation used on Shade was superior. In other words, I felt you had too much cutting and not enough shuffling. If I recall correctly, in Shade he did two riffle shuffles and a tabled hindu shuffle. I tend to feel that going directly into the riffle shuffle from the insertion makes it more effective, than starting off with the cuts. If you consult my ebook, which you should have a copy of, you'll find a method for doing something more like the Shade presentation in the second part of the book under the title Casino Shuffle. You also might want to watch your jog size and cover a bit, though your presentation was smooth and deceptive, you could benefit from slightly better control.

You did a good job on the false shuffle cut combination, though again, I'd say you'd be more deceptive if you were to go with more shuffling action, in particular a tabled Hindu shuffle as opposed to some of the cuts. But for what you did, good job.

The stacking was well done, it seemed quick and fair, though you might consider using a block transfer on the last shuffle in order to help avoid the final block, especially if you're going to go into a cutting sequence later.

The ace production was well executed, as was the rest of the material.

Thanks for sharing.

Posted by Scott on January 15, 2006 at 03:58

not bad man, well done

Posted by ace_o_spades on January 15, 2006 at 09:51

Wow fantastic cardwork there! Although I agree with everyone else about the bottoms (they're still way better than mine ). IMO you should place more of your thumb on top of the deck to enhance the illusion. Then again... I am in no way an experienced bottom dealer!

Top job

Posted by ace_o_spades on January 15, 2006 at 09:51

Wow fantastic cardwork there! Although I agree with everyone else about the bottoms (they're still way better than mine ). IMO you should place more of your thumb on top of the deck to enhance the illusion. Then again... I am in no way an experienced bottom dealer!

Top job

Posted by Sreename on January 15, 2006 at 11:33

Ahh T.

Long time no see,
Nice movie there! No wonder they call you Mr.Cheat
I really like the "Shade" move

Sreen

Posted by Midget Drummer on January 15, 2006 at 12:35

Wow! very nice video, fast and very smooth. I liked that ace production, very cool . Well done!

Posted by pokerfanatic on January 15, 2006 at 12:55

Nice work however a few things could make your bottom bettor...

Your bottom would be easy to spot, lead off a top card when you do it or button out to another player and tops to yourself...

I personally don't like using the mechanics grip to much sound I have never heard a not make any sound... so that's a problem laymen wouldn't know the difference but magicians and well knowledge poker players do...

Really it looks like you have the skill not to even use a bottom; it is less likely to get caught if you don't have to do crocked deals...

however watch the amount of times you cut the deck and handle it, if it looks fancy it might send up a red flag to even players who don't know much about cheating or magic...

I'm not saying to cheat anyways, but for demonstration purposes these things well help your effects...

You can beat the game straight up just ask me how...

I’m one of those poker players you don’t want to try to cheat, I know all the cheating methods and magic methods, plus I play solid… know that’s tough company…

Posted by Drey on January 15, 2006 at 14:58

I’m one of those poker players you don’t want to try to cheat, I know all the cheating methods and magic methods, plus I play solid… know that’s tough company…

Anyone can get cheated, I'd be careful saying you know ALL the methods, a lot of the best methods don't tend to get exposed and there are indeed a lot of methods out there, many that are virtually impossible to spot.


On a related note for Tom Ace. With your bottom deals, as he mentioned, the top card push-off can be helpful, but I don't feel it's terribly effective in facilitating a variety of other deals (though certainly you can adapt it to address this point). One of my big recommendations would be deck hand movement to go along with dealing hand movement, as well as slight wrist turn. The wrist turn needs to be something you play with carefully, because, while some people make their technique look good with a wrist turn, they a) exaggerate it so it doesn't seem natural and/or b) they end up creating what looks like a good deal from a couple angles while inadvertently exposing the deal to some other angle. The key of the wrist turn is to accomplish two things. The first, is to make the top card pull back less obvious (and frankly, a top card push-off definately makes the deal look better from above). The second, is to minimize the opening of your deck hand fingers, and allowing them to close in a more natural manner, one that is more consistent with dealing tops as the card is pivoted around somewhat. This also has the advantage of decreasing the distance between the top and bottom cards, thereby making the deal more effective from a front view. Hope that helps.

Posted by Tom Ace on January 15, 2006 at 16:43

Thanks for the nice comments!

Apoptygma

I don't know this shift, but if you mean shift as in sort of a pass than I can say that I don't use this.


Drey
The pauses in the bottom deals are not good. I'll try to make this less obvious. Maybe I can pitch the other cards a bit slower..?

Nice to hear that the shade sequence was quite good. I shall try to make it more deceptive.
More shuffling is a good idea. A few cuts are enough.
I feel such an ass, I believe I haven't spoke to you about your e-book?
It is worth discussing as the material in it is really great. I haven't read it all yet, but all the stuff looks promising. I shall read the Casino Shuffle.
In fact, I think you're book is wonderful and that it would be great in print.
Although you said why you've chosen to make an e-book. If you have the opportunity, the time, the money it would be great for all of us to see it standing next to the big books. A lot of , forgive me for the word, "crap" comes into print but I hardly see any good books like this one.


To come back to the subject of shuffling. The tabled hindu shuffle is something I haven't tried yet. I hope to acomplish this soon.

The block transfer is something you've said to me before. You mean just undercutting the bottom half to the left instead of the right when performing the last shuffle?

@Pokerfanatic
Being a good poker player is wonderful. I'm not that good unfortunately.
This clip was pure for entertainment and I hoped you ejoyed it.

Dealing bottoms with thumb movement. Thos are great bottom deals but I haven tried it hard enough I guess. I shall further experiment.

@Drey
The wrist motion is something I'd like to master yes. Maybe this replaces a bit the thumb movement that normally is recuired.

This all helps me and I want to thank all of you who took the time to watch the clip, ánd to place some comments even if I didn't leave you a personal note.

Thanks!

T.

Posted by pokerfanatic on January 15, 2006 at 16:52

Drey wrote:

I’m one of those poker players you don’t want to try to cheat, I know all the cheating methods and magic methods, plus I play solid… know that’s tough company… Anyone can get cheated, I'd be careful saying you know ALL the methods, a lot of the best methods don't tend to get exposed and there are indeed a lot of methods out there, many that are virtually impossible to spot. On a related note for Tom Ace. With your bottom deals, as he mentioned, the top card push-off can be helpful, but I don't feel it's terribly effective in facilitating a variety of other deals (though certainly you can adapt it to address this point). One of my big recommendations would be deck hand movement to go along with dealing hand movement, as well as slight wrist turn. The wrist turn needs to be something you play with carefully, because, while some people make their technique look good with a wrist turn, they a) exaggerate it so it doesn't seem natural and/or b) they end up creating what looks like a good deal from a couple angles while inadvertently exposing the deal to some other angle. The key of the wrist turn is to accomplish two things. The first, is to make the top card pull back less obvious (and frankly, a top card push-off definately makes the deal look better from above). The second, is to minimize the opening of your deck hand fingers, and allowing them to close in a more natural manner, one that is more consistent with dealing tops as the card is pivoted around somewhat. This also has the advantage of decreasing the distance between the top and bottom cards, thereby making the deal more effective from a front view. Hope that helps.

Posted by Drey on January 15, 2006 at 19:33

Tom Ace

The pauses in the bottom deals are not good. I'll try to make this less obvious. Maybe I can pitch the other cards a bit slower..?

Yes, that would definately be one of my recommendations, probably more in terms of the delay between real deals than actually slowing down the toss itself if you know what I mean. Again though, while speed can cover a lack of smoothness by reducing the length of the delays, smoothness is really a goal unto itself, that is to say, no delay, it should be just like dealing normally. So if I were you, I'd try altering your real deals slightly, not so much in terms of the actual speed, but the rhythm. Again, I discuss this in the ebook, so if you want to consult the early dealing sections up to around the strike second deal (I believe it's actually considerably before that), where I discuss dealing extremely rapidly, but creating the illusion that you aren't dealing nearly so fast.

I believe I haven't spoke to you about your e-book?

No, actually, you haven't, I haven't spoken with you in quite some time.

To come back to the subject of shuffling. The tabled hindu shuffle is something I haven't tried yet. I hope to acomplish this soon.

I'll look forward to that, I know for a fact that in some shape or form this is the technique used in Shade, as the one behind the scenes piece where Jason England is commenting on making an instructional video shows a bit of the technique which is really quite a simple shuffling control once you've reached the appropriate point.

The block transfer is something you've said to me before. You mean just undercutting the bottom half to the left instead of the right when performing the last shuffle?

No, not at all. The block transfer is the principle that largely formed the basis for Marlo's "Riffle Shuffle Systems", so if you're interested you can look for it there, otherwise, I'll be writing some other material that will include a detailed look at the subject as well as variations and applications. Essentially, it boils down to being a partial strip-out shuffle, thereby allowing you to freely mix random cards with your stack during the last shuffle and, at least in some regards, take the heat off the disparity that typically arises when you try to stack numerous cards over a large series of shuffles. Naturally, this requires a very refined strip-out technique, which is another matter entirely. If you're available sometime we can discuss the matter privately.

The other alternative to a block transfer is of course simply to perform the stack in fewer shuffles, which tends to be my preference, but go with what works best for you.

The wrist motion is something I'd like to master yes. Maybe this replaces a bit the thumb movement that normally is recuired.

I'll look forward to seeing that.



pokerfanatic01

dude, belive me if i think something is even miss placed i just don't play the hand...

Sounds like a good approach, but then again, that returns to the fact that you might not catch them, or at least not catch them until it's too late.

using "all" wasn't exactly true but it's all about tells of moves, it's hard to misderect someone that knows that you are trying to misdirect them

Who says it's about misdirection? I find it unlikely that you'd catch Darwin Ortiz stacking, or Doc deck switching, you get the idea. Added to which, there are other methods such as using marked cards, using signalling between players, using various other methods to know what cards you're holding, or heck, simply hand mucking can be an issue. The reality is if there are 5 players at the table you can't be watching them all at the same time.

Your comments are interesting though, they raise a fundamental question about real cheating, namely, how does a cheat avoid suspicion in the first place?

it's hard to cheat me when i'm not playing the hand you rigged up...

Absolutely, but then again, it doesn't have to be a rigged up hand, there are other methods of cheating. Added to which, sometimes it just takes one hand to upset the balance of play. Add again to this fact that you probably aren't the only person in the game. If say I could cheat 3 others out of their money that would likely give me a sufficient chip advantage that, if I was a good player, I could beat you without cheating.

I'm sure you're more difficult to cheat than some, and caution is good, but like I said, anyone can be had.

Posted by halcon on January 17, 2006 at 19:42

pokerfanatic, good christ almighty! You are dillusional if you feel you can not be cheated. everyone, and I mean everyone, can be cheated.

there are way more methods of cheating than you can shake a stick at. do you for one second believe that sleights are the only way to cheat? Have you ever even seen a pro run-up man do work? you can't even tell a stack from a standard shuffle. Are you familiar with collusion? how about marked decks? I'm not talking about the crap you buy at a magic shop.

your diluted line of thinking would make you an extremley easy mark for other ruses.

your post obviously shows your naivety when it comes to cheating.

god damn! I hope you were kidding

Halcon

Posted by larrylum on January 18, 2006 at 00:21

Oh oh oh, Watched Tom's video, I should say its sweet. Consider the fact that i am a magician but i not a sleight of hand master. So his moves are consider smooth to me.

I read some of the reviews by members here, but in actual fact, i will like to say that Tom place the video not to know whether he can cheat people using the skill he have, but able to use this skill as an act.

I always talk to him online, whenever we are online at the right time, and discuss about the kind of routines that he can do, and so that we can first, further our skills and second, explore new ways of handling stuff.

And seriously, both of us feel that we have lots of room for improvement, esp me.

Posted by An0n on January 18, 2006 at 00:23

Halcon, that's a bit harsh. I think Pokerfanatic was simply explaining that to any trained magician or card player for that matter, the sleights used (especially in the video) would grow more obvious as the hands passed. Even using marked decks, after a few hands, any experienced card player would know something wasn't right. It's hard to say that one could NOT be cheated. But he did not say he could NOT be cheated. He said it would be hard to cheat him, due to his knowledge of cheats/sleights. As a poker player and a beginner magician myself, I now know what types of things to look for when I see someone dealing, because I know if I was cheating what I would do, what I would look like, what I would be thinking. With enough experience, anyone could catch a cheater. The situation would depend on the "cheater", and the "cheated". Because visa versa, with enough experience, anyone can cheat.

Tom,

great video man! I loved it. I thought your transitions were very smooth. I love your ace productions! I'm not very good at them myself, but I'm working on them. As the others mentioned, your bottom deals were obvious, even to the "untrained" eye, seeing as how I am a beginner. But by watching the video closely, even the first time, I could tell simply by the movement of your hands. Granted that in a real-world scenario, you would be making small talk, probably not staring blankly at your hands the whole time you were dealing, thus adding a sense of subtlety to the deal. Thanks for posting the vid, all the 21Ace vids give me something to look forward to when the day comes that I can do some of this stuff too.

Posted by halcon on January 18, 2006 at 02:42

AnOn, I stand by my words... Harsh? my F*&%(*^ ASS

I'm not here to flame but god damn! this guy's ego has to be knocked down a few pegs.

Pokerfanatic wrote

	Quote:
	I know all the cheating methods and magic methods

	Quote:
	I personally don't like using the mechanics grip to much sound I have never heard a not make any sound... so that's a problem laymen wouldn't know the difference but magicians and well knowledge poker players do...

Posted by BaZ on January 18, 2006 at 03:00

Tom, entertaining to watch.

A credit to your self and practice,

Congrats my friend

Posted by Tom Ace on January 18, 2006 at 07:07

Ofcourse these sleights are not used for earning money from honest poker players. They are obvious in a game and it's better to be casual when shuffling, dealing and to cheat in that way. Dustin D. Marks' video : Cheating at Blackjack shows some moves done in casino's.
Most of the moves are bold and also shade/ misdirection is very important.
I started practicing those deals/ shufflles because I like them. Cheating other people has never been my intention. Like Larrylum's sais, I'm looking for sort of a routine, for entertainment value that has a gambling related subject. Maybe a bit of exposé etc. I think if I practice good enough the deals, shuffles and stacking will be good for this.
Still working on it

Pokerfanatic and Halcon

I also think that anyone can be cheated as Drey said before. I think pokerfanatic wan't to say that he is more aware of the situation than other people can be. And I also think that if someone is doing those moves like the clip shows it will be obvious that there is something going on. Altough most cheating methods are very bold and are done under misdirection as said above. Also, it is very hard to compete against two players working togehter at a card table as Erdnase sais in his book. Their chances are doubled. As Halcon said, there are many ways of cheating. I hope to learn them all but I already know this is impossible. It's just too much to know and especially to learn. Leaving the table if you suspect something is indeed the best thing to do I think.

Anon

Thank you for the comments. The ace production is not something I wanted to include in the video at first, as are the little flourishes. But it's still a bit of sleight of hand, so I let it in.
The bottoms are noticible, I'm aware of that. I hope it will be good enough when people are not expecting me to deal bottoms, and when there is as you said talking, misdirection. If I were about to deal bottoms, I would not do this all the time. Maybe twice an evening, and if the deck is running low on cards. Also the angle is something I'd would keep in mind, if I were doing these bottoms. A deck of Bee's would make it complete for me. I still hope to master this false deal one day, and I know it will take me some time and dedication, but eventually I need to succeed.

Baz,

Great to hear that you liked it.
I'm glad to hear a lot of positive comments. This will make further practice even more enjoyable as it is.


Thanks.

Posted by ace_o_spades on January 19, 2006 at 18:40

	halcon wrote:
	AnOn, I stand by my words... Harsh? my F*&%(*^ ASS I'm not here to flame but god damn! this guy's ego has to be knocked down a few pegs.

Posted by Drey on January 19, 2006 at 22:39

Tom

I'm looking for sort of a routine, for entertainment value that has a gambling related subject.

Gambling routines can be fun and certainly get a great reaction. Somewhat ironically, they can also be extremely easy and demonstrate feats that are essentially impossible in real gambling, hence what is, or has been, for me the real contrast between gambling routines and demonstrations.

The routines I find are no problem...at least normally. But I like to set challenges for myself and over the past little while one of those has involved trying to create an superb, even ideal totally impromptu gambling routine. That key of totally impromptu is always a big one for me, because mostly I don't like to carry gimmicks or maintain set ups, at best I carry one or two plain decks of cards and you have to be able to perform with that. But what I much prefer, is being able to borrow a deck and cards and perform, which for a powerful gambling routine is tough. Sure, you can perform basic demonstrations, but anything really impressive or impactful generally seems to involve some kind of prep work. Compare some of Lennart Green's routines with totally impromptu routines, generally there is no comparison.

But I wanted to come up with something really good and recently I came up with something quite satisfying, though I still want to improve the last phase for you. I'll describe the phases for you and maybe it can give you some ideas for your own work.

The whole concept of the routine is to play it like a series of real games, in other words, the spectators (a small number, but hopefully more than four), sit down at a table to play cards.

Phase One: Blackjack
You borrow a deck that is shuffled in advance as much as any of the spectators want, this is the only deck you will use for the entire routine. At this point you pretend to be a blackjack dealer dealing to the players and ask them who should receive the winning hand. You then take the deck and without skipping a beat give it a couple quick shuffles, then proceed to deal blackjack hands to each player. You can play the game with bets if you like, but ultimately it is revealed that the chosen play has a perfect 21.

Phase Two: Ace Cutting ala Scarne
You now gather up the cards and hand the deck out to be shuffled, before taking it back, giving it a single riffle shuffle, squaring it up and pushing it over to one of the players to cut, mentioning you'll cut to the high card, they cut to any card and give the deck back to you and you cut to an ace. You now repeat this procedure and cut to another ace, then (perhaps not having another player cut to a card), cut to the last two aces.

At this point you spread the deck to prove there are no other aces in the deck (obviously, since it's borrowed), insert the aces into the spread, close it up and hand it out to be reshuffled.

Phase Three: Draw Poker
You now take the deck back and give the deck two or three shuffles and deal draw poker hands to everyone instructing them to play as though it is a real game. At the end you turn over your hand revealing all four aces in your hand.

Phase Four: Texas Hold'em
You point out that this level of control is not surprising considering the deck was in your control and so you hand the deck to the player next to you, asking them to shuffle as much as they like, which they do. They pass the deck to you, you cut it and pass it back to them and they deal off Hold'em hands to everyone including you. Again, everyone is instructed to play like an ordinary game and the game proceeds with the flop, the turn card and the river. At the end of the game you turn over your cards and between the cards in your hand and the common cards, you are holding a royal flush.


My only problem with this, is I want a double duke in the last phase, but coming up with a handling to accomplish this without making it tedious is troublesome. Anyway, it gives you an idea of something to work at.

Posted by halcon on January 19, 2006 at 23:09

ace o spades, I would very much like to know what offended you. was it my use of adjectives? Was it that I pointed out there is no way he knows every cheating method? I'm not sure why you were offended as it was not directed towards you.

As far as arguing my point "in a polite, CIVIL manner," I will conceid.

With so many methods of cheating, it is impossible to know all the methods.

Marked cards for example, there are countless ways to mark cards. most professionally marked cards are done by the operator. So, that being said, it stands to reason that those cards are uniquely marked. Meaning, unless Pokerfanatic sat there and watched the cards being marked, he wouldn't know what the mark looked like. Again, because the marks are unique to the operator. Now with all the cheats around the world, the chances are nil that he has met with all of them and knows their work. I can quantify that further by saying he hasn't met me therefore he doesn't know it all... not that I do!

Cheats, by nature, aren't in the habit of disclosing their secrets, but to a select few who have gained their trust.

I believe it was Vernon who was given a marked card and asked to locate the mark... he failed! why? the card was juiced. Understand, a professionally juiced card is not going to have the value and suit denoted by say a 7 and a club drawn on the back. Instead, it might have a line running across it at a specific position. that line if caught will seem harmless, a factory error.

Collusion is another form of cheating. with so many different ways to signal, it would be impossible to know everyones signals.

Run ups are next to impossible to detect if the mechanic is any good. I know at least two people who can run up a hand, while holding a conversation and not look at their hands.

I've seen footage of someone dealing the punch while having a conversation with three people.

on the topic of magic. It has nothing to do with playing cards. I have never seen a magic move that lends itself to the card table... Please don't chime in with false shuffles, deuces and bottoms. those are all gambling moves.

the difference with false shuffles is a strip out is a magic move, a triumph shuffle is a magic move and no matter how imperceptable they are, just the manner in which the shuffles were performed will give way to the fact that something just happened. The Zarrow is the only shuffle that came from the Magic World into the cheating world. that being said, most people still don't perform it right. Gary Plants and some of his students, are the only ones that can make it look identical to a real shuffle. but then again, the refinements he has done to the shuffle weren't part of the original zarrow. the caveat to the false shuffle is why would you need to do a full deck false shuffle? you only need to control a slug either on top or the bottom. I know what you're going to say. how about coolers? those are brought in after the shuffle.

I can go on, but I have to go.

Halcon

Posted by Michael Marino on January 20, 2006 at 00:00

	halcon wrote:
	on the topic of magic. It has nothing to do with playing cards. I have never seen a magic move that lends itself to the card table... Please don't chime in with false shuffles, deuces and bottoms. those are all gambling moves.

Posted by achern33 on January 20, 2006 at 00:49

ok ive tried what you did around 3:30 in the movie where you flip a card to your other hand like that hows it done.

Posted by halcon on January 20, 2006 at 01:16

	Quote:
	I can guarantee you that magicians were palming objects (and later, cards) long before there were card games to cheat at.

Posted by ace_o_spades on January 20, 2006 at 22:58

	halcon wrote:
	ace o spades, I would very much like to know what offended you. was it my use of adjectives? Was it that I pointed out there is no way he knows every cheating method? I'm not sure why you were offended as it was not directed towards you.

Posted by halcon on January 21, 2006 at 00:36

Ace o Spades, I didn't mean to "religiously" offend you.

Ironically enough I went to catholic school all my life and my mom is a devout catholic. the only faith I have is being worm food when I die.

Not to start a topic on religions, I've already had that battle with the priests at my moms church who said I would go to hell for not having faith. my answer to them was, take your religious bull sh*t and sell it to someone else. there is no higher power, be it god or the devil. I have constantly punched holes in catholic religion and for the most part the priests have sat there slack jaw, with no rebuttal.

Again, I apologise if it offended you. however, I will not refrain from using words that offend religious people, when in all honesty are not directed at anyone specifically. this is a public forum. And, being a public forum it is open to anyone regardless of their faith.

I respect your beliefs, so please respect mine. I'm sure you're a good guy but in all honesty using religion as a defense for feeling offended is, pretty petty. Especially, since the post was never directed towards you.

Halcon

Posted by ace_o_spades on January 21, 2006 at 13:00

Well I hope you enjoy what's left of your life, Halcon.

P.S. that's not meant to be mean, seriously, I hope you have a wonderful and enjoyable life

Posted by halcon on January 21, 2006 at 16:11

	ace_o_spades wrote:
	Well I hope you enjoy what's left of your life, Halcon. P.S. that's not meant to be mean, seriously, I hope you have a wonderful and enjoyable life

Posted by barnzee on January 22, 2006 at 16:18

[offtopic/">

Posted by Drey on January 29, 2006 at 00:27

Halcon

I have never seen a magic move that lends itself to the card table... Please don't chime in with false shuffles, deuces and bottoms. those are all gambling moves.

I'd argue that there is no clear distinction between gambling moves and magic moves, a move is a move, gambling or magic are simply how you apply them. If you want to get sticky about it, many false shuffles were invented by magicians for the purpose of magic and thus could apply. But many other magic techniques such as a multiple shift or certain cut variations can be applied effectively to the card table, same goes for different types of marking, peeking etc.

the difference with false shuffles is a strip out is a magic move, a triumph shuffle is a magic move and no matter how imperceptable they are, just the manner in which the shuffles were performed will give way to the fact that something just happened. The Zarrow is the only shuffle that came from the Magic World into the cheating world.

Arguably not true, for example, a block transfer was arguably originally a magic concept between it was a gambling concept.

that being said, most people still don't perform it right. Gary Plants and some of his students, are the only ones that can make it look identical to a real shuffle.

There is a problem with this statement, namely, there is no definate look of a "real shuffle". Sit down 100 people, have them each shuffle and the shuffles will vary, try to vary it and you can do so further. I'd frankly be very surprised to see a Zarrow shuffle performed that looks exactly like a strip-out shuffle minus the strip-out.

how about coolers? those are brought in after the shuffle.

Not always, again, there's no definite point of play at which you bring in a cooler. In fact I've heard of it being done before you ever finish the previous hand, while the heat is on the players.

One of the earliest, general references to card tricks is an article from 1408 which tells of a card cheat in Paris who sought to gain advantage by manipulating the cards he was playing.

Again we come back to this distinction between cheating and magic, both involve deception. The reality is that palming predates cards, thus applications of palming in terms of magic predate palming cards for gambling. That having been said, palming for the purpose of cheating (perhaps with bones etc.) also predates palming with cards so you run into a dilema. The reality is probably that originally it wasn't used for either, it was probably used for the purpose of theft, but that's just a logical deduction.

the gamblers flat palm and cop are meant to give a more natural appearance. A standard magicians palm doesn't allow you to have your hands flat on the table, in a relaxed looking manner, while holding out.

Frankly, I don't consider a gambler's palm holdout to be particularly natural, most people don't keep their hands flat, just like it is unnatural in magic to let your hands drop to your sides, performers just don't do it unless they are engaged in something suspicious. A slightly curled hand is much more natural, that or a hand that is doing something, which is why you'll find a lot of material written on holding out with thing like pipes, cups etc. Honestly, I'd have to say a lateral palm is one of the most natural hold outs I've seen to date, with the exception of awkward palm and working palm since they allow almost full natural hand movement.

it is easier to switch cards, clip them into holdouts and other things.

Often very true, but it depends a lot on the methods you're using.

try keeping your hand on the table, with a regularly palmed card, and make it look natural

Again, you run into a problem, there is no fixed standard of "natural", there is just "regular" or "common".

try to perform muck switches from a regular palm

I have and I do, many different variations, some of which look extremely natural, and others that look no less natural than many of the gambler's palm switches.

Posted by halcon on January 29, 2006 at 13:48

I have never seen a magic move that lends itself to the card table... Please don't chime in with false shuffles, deuces and bottoms. those are all gambling moves.

Quote:

I'd argue that there is no clear distinction between gambling moves and magic moves, a move is a move, gambling or magic are simply how you apply them. If you want to get sticky about it, many false shuffles were invented by magicians for the purpose of magic and thus could apply. But many other magic techniques such as a multiple shift or certain cut variations can be applied effectively to the card table, same goes for different types of marking, peeking etc.

	Quote:
	Arguably not true, for example, a block transfer was arguably originally a magic concept between it was a gambling concept.

	Quote:
	There is a problem with this statement, namely, there is no definate look of a "real shuffle". Sit down 100 people, have them each shuffle and the shuffles will vary, try to vary it and you can do so further

	Quote:
	I'd frankly be very surprised to see a Zarrow shuffle performed that looks exactly like a strip-out shuffle minus the strip-out

	Quote:
	Not always, again, there's no definite point of play at which you bring in a cooler. In fact I've heard of it being done before you ever finish the previous hand, while the heat is on the players.

Quote:

The reality is that palming predates cards, thus applications of palming in terms of magic predate palming cards for gambling. That having been said, palming for the purpose of cheating (perhaps with bones etc.) also predates palming with cards so you run into a dilema. The reality is probably that originally it wasn't used for either, it was probably used for the purpose of theft, but that's just a logical deduction

	Quote:
	Frankly, I don't consider a gambler's palm holdout to be particularly natural, most people don't keep their hands flat

	Quote:
	just like it is unnatural in magic to let your hands drop to your sides, performers just don't do it unless they are engaged in something suspicious.

	Quote:
	A slightly curled hand is much more natural, that or a hand that is doing something, which is why you'll find a lot of material written on holding out with thing like pipes, cups etc.

	Quote:
	Honestly, I'd have to say a lateral palm is one of the most natural hold outs I've seen to date

	Quote:
	Again, you run into a problem, there is no fixed standard of "natural", there is just "regular" or "common".

	Quote:
	I have and I do, many different variations, some of which look extremely natural, and others that look no less natural than many of the gambler's palm switches.

Posted by Drey on January 29, 2006 at 15:53

Halcon

Drey, I know you know what I mean. There is a certain look and style to those shuffles that are undeniable. I don’t know about you, but if I saw someone handling cards like a magician, I would stop playing.

Most of the time I'd definately agree, though it does depend to some extent on the move, for example some of the Hindu or overhand shuffle variations tend to fit considerably better than the riffle shuffle variations.

Another point, I don't believe we're really accounting here for the techniques that were developed simply for the sake of technique rather than magic or gambling. I don't know what percentage of techniques this is, but I do know for a fact that often I just fiddle around with cards and come up with techniques without having any real application for them, I come up with applications after the fact. This also becomes relevent where some of the shuffling techniques are concerned, particularly, as you mentioned, the drastically underused partial deck false shuffles.

I hold to my point when it comes to multiple shifts though, they seem in my opinion to most certainly be magic techniques, but they can be quite effective in gambling and without any suspicious moves.

Maybe, maybe not. I can’t prove it one way or the other.

Agreed, especially when the actual origin of techniques is very difficult to determine (often the first to publish the technique isn't the original creator).

Yes, but sit down with a hundred magicians and have them do a strip out and they will all look very similiar.

Which is just one of the reasons I don't particularly like strip-out shuffles. Mind you, to be fair, there are cases where you can make strip-out shuffles look extremely good. Actually, in my experience one of the big areas magicians screw it up is with up the ladder, since it has a very distinct look to it, which, though deceptive to a lay person, is a very obvious tip off to someone in the know.

Why would you want a zarrow to look like a strip out? A zarrow should look like a real tabled shuffle. Here’s a question, what comes closer to looking like a real tabled shuffle performed in a casino?

Well, to clarify, I was referring to the ordered nature of the strip-out shuffle. Frankly, the strip-out looks more like a casino shuffle. Why? Because the Zarrow shuffle has the flaw of the top card canopy cover (oh yes, everyone makes a big deal about the riding block, but at the end of the day, people don't generally perform semi messy shuffles like the zarrow shuffle, if you watch professionals shuffle (or anyone who's worked with cards for any length), you'll find the shuffle is quite organized, you don't have that top card, or top block that goes forward first and provides the cover). So the ideal Zarrow shuffle doesn't concern itself so much with the riding block, frankly I can cover that to degrees that you will never notice it, especially since you can use additional hand cover, angles etc. The flaw lies in the disorganized nature of the shuffle, it looks a bit sloppy, and it shouldn't, hence the reason for my pursuit of and sometimes use of different shuffles.

Now, what are the problems inherent of the zarrow? Once you answer that you will know what Gary Plants fixed.

Well, while we're on the subject I could suggest that the block transfer (less than full deck false shuffle) or center cut outs are flaws (you tend to have one or the other.

There is one final point in light of the fact that I spent a lot of time this past week playing cards with laymen and observing them. Laymen don't do dovetail riffle shuffles, so right there you stand out.

Which takes it back to cheating not magic.

Well, we're arguing semantics at this point, I'd argue that theft isn't necessarily cheating, though cheating is most surely theft. Something like pick pocketing someone and palming or coping the object you've stolen, that to me isn't cheating, but again, it's semantics.

Most people keep their hands flatter and with fingers slightly spread in a relaxed manner.

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't think holding a card in classic palm is necessarily more natural (again, with the possible exception of when you're holding something), I just don't think gambler's palm is terribly natural either. Try looking at John Scarne when he does a hole card switch or Richard Turner when he does a blackjack switch, frankly, though it's smooth, it doesn't ressemble the normal manner in which people check their cards or turn over their cards, or, to a large extent, how they hold their hand. Like you said, the fingers are normally slightly spread, which makes most palms difficult as they expose the card through the fingers. Another flaw, particularly with gambler's palm and tenkai palm, is the thumb, it isn't normally kept close to the side of the hand like that.

in my original post I stated without having your hand wrapped around an object.

Yes you did, I was simply pointing out that most people don't have their hands flat, and unoccupied. Of course this is part of what makes two hand switches so effective, among other reasons. I repeat, the hand position for lateral palm is one of the most natural going.

sure is. To bad it has bad angles. Then again so does the cop.

For gambling, yes it does have bad angles, it also isn't great for performing the switches themselves, so you have to switch palming methods depending on what you're doing. Still, if you have the right table environment (you sitting at the head of a table for example) you can make it work. The cop is also just plain a nice technique, especially for getting cards off the bottom of the deck, and if your hold out time is minimized and you're able to use the edge of the table it's not bad.

I disagree, there is a natural look and it differs from person to person. A flat palm allows someone to have more of a natural look.

A flat palm more so than a gambler's palm in my opinion, though the gambler's palm is more flexible. While we're on the subject, a rear palm can at times be effective, though again we begin to run in to angle issues. To me the advantage of the flat palm and rear palm lie in the fingers, namely, you can get away with a lot more finger spread, though depending on how many cards you're working with I still prefer working palm and awkward palm in most cases.

So, what you’re saying is that from a regularly palmed card, not clipped between the fingers, and not switching to finger clipped, you can muck switch cards? And we are talking about switching cards that are mucked. Not, cards that you are holding in your hand, still in play?

Ok, you lost me somewhere there so rather than try to interpret that I'll explain what I'm talking about. You palm cards, obviously this isn't a difficult procedure, though making it look really good is another matter, you can do whatever you want with these cards, but as I interpret it we're going to talk about switching cards, so obviously you'll interchange them with other cards, so I'll give you a few examples (and yes, these are without finger clipping), you pick your hole card up to check it, then put it back down, in the process, with just one hand, you're switched it out. You go to check two cards on the table ala a gambler's palm blackjack switch and in the process you switch the cards out (again, just one hand). You turn over your card or cards (you can pull off packets of four or five here) and in the process you palm the tabled cards while tabling the palmed cards face up as though you just turned over the tabled cards (again, one hand). In each case you are palming the former cards while replacing them with the palmed card or cards. Now if you want to get into two handed mucks or mucks involving lapping then the whole process is child's play. All from classic palm or classic palm variations as personally I make a great number of distinctions between the subtle details of classic palm in order to make the process more natural, facilitate some of the switches etc.

Now if you're not referring to stuff like that then please let me know, describe the process and I'll let you know accordingly.

As I read it, you may be talking about cards that other players have mucked (hence the not still in play), but please do explain.

Posted by halcon on January 29, 2006 at 17:36

Halcon

Drey, I know you know what I mean. There is a certain look and style to those shuffles that are undeniable. I don’t know about you, but if I saw someone handling cards like a magician, I would stop playing.

	Quote:
	Most of the time I'd definately agree, though it does depend to some extent on the move, for example some of the Hindu or overhand shuffle variations tend to fit considerably better than the riffle shuffle variations.

Quote:

Another point, I don't believe we're really accounting here for the techniques that were developed simply for the sake of technique rather than magic or gambling. I don't know what percentage of techniques this is, but I do know for a fact that often I just fiddle around with cards and come up with techniques without having any real application for them, I come up with applications after the fact. This also becomes relevent where some of the shuffling techniques are concerned, particularly, as you mentioned, the drastically underused partial deck false shuffles.

	Quote:
	I hold to my point when it comes to multiple shifts though, they seem in my opinion to most certainly be magic techniques, but they can be quite effective in gambling and without any suspicious moves.

	Quote:
	Which is just one of the reasons I don't particularly like strip-out shuffles. Mind you, to be fair, there are cases where you can make strip-out shuffles look extremely good.

	Quote:
	Actually, in my experience one of the big areas magicians screw it up is with up the ladder, since it has a very distinct look to it, which, though deceptive to a lay person, is a very obvious tip off to someone in the know.

	Quote:
	Well, to clarify, I was referring to the ordered nature of the strip-out shuffle. Frankly, the strip-out looks more like a casino shuffle. Why? Because the Zarrow shuffle has the flaw of the top card canopy cover

	Quote:
	oh yes, everyone makes a big deal about the riding block, but at the end of the day, people don't generally perform semi messy shuffles like the zarrow shuffle

	Quote:
	if you watch professionals shuffle (or anyone who's worked with cards for any length), you'll find the shuffle is quite organized, you don't have that top card, or top block that goes forward first and provides the cover)

	Quote:
	So the ideal Zarrow shuffle doesn't concern itself so much with the riding block, frankly I can cover that to degrees that you will never notice it, especially since you can use additional hand cover, angles etc. The flaw lies in the disorganized nature of the shuffle, it looks a bit sloppy, and it shouldn't, hence the reason for my pursuit of and sometimes use of different shuffles.

	Quote:
	There is one final point in light of the fact that I spent a lot of time this past week playing cards with laymen and observing them. Laymen don't do dovetail riffle shuffles, so right there you stand out.

	Quote:
	Oh don't get me wrong, I don't think holding a card in classic palm is necessarily more natural (again, with the possible exception of when you're holding something), I just don't think gambler's palm is terribly natural either.

	Quote:
	Another flaw, particularly with gambler's palm and tenkai palm, is the thumb, it isn't normally kept close to the side of the hand like that.

Quote:

For gambling, yes it does have bad angles, it also isn't great for performing the switches themselves, so you have to switch palming methods depending on what you're doing. Still, if you have the right table environment (you sitting at the head of a table for example) you can make it work. The cop is also just plain a nice technique, especially for getting cards off the bottom of the deck, and if your hold out time is minimized and you're able to use the edge of the table it's not bad.

	Quote:
	As I read it, you may be talking about cards that other players have mucked (hence the not still in play), but please do explain.

Posted by Drey on January 29, 2006 at 21:01

Halcon

Yes I agree. However, there are still the undeniable characteristics of a strip out or push through shuffle.

Absolutely, the trick is just minimizing these. Actually, there's an interesting concept I've played around with that complicates this process for a review, a strip-out shuffle where you don't strip out between shuffles, it's a bit difficult, but kind of an interesting idea.

One of the things Gary Plants fixed.

Excellent to hear.

Have you played with people who don’t know how to handle a deck… very sloppy indeed!

Very true, but you won't see them doing dovetail shuffles and so their handling doesn't blend well with a Zarrow shuffle. Meaning that the consistency between the regular and false shuffles doesn't exist in those cases.

another area Gary has fixed.

Fantastic, where can I get a copy of this Gary's work?

I understand completely. However, there are times where you don’t want to look as polished

True.

Many times I play and we don’t even have a felted table top. So I overhand shuffle. I blend in to look like I have the same amount of experience as the others seated at the table

Makes sense.

No it isn’t. but, it certainly looks more natural than a classic palm.

Fair enough, provided again, you don't have some other occupation for your hand while classic palming a card or cards.

I agree. But, to a greater degree it is easier to hide. The simple act of bending your elbows, while resting on the table, will pull your hands in, so as to keep the thumbs on the inside.

Very true.

It is far easier to bend the rules when doing magic than playing cards.

Yes and no, Marlo has some interesting comments related to this subject in "The Riffle Shuffle Systems". He points out that at least when manipulating the deck while shuffling, you are in fact doing something with the deck and so, unlike some of the techniques in magic which must be totally invisible, you can perform many shuffling techniques in a sort of "open" manner.

There is also the simple reality that you can get away with a lot at the card table, most people generally aren't paying much attention in low stakes games.

Finally, we have the validity of your point when it comes to natural action. Mind you, this is where some regular unconventional behavior is helpful. Take for example the scene from "The Sting" where they are playing poker and the con man in the game acts very suspicious, allowing him certain liberties that the handling of regular individuals might not otherwise afford them.

There is more of a delicate balance needed when playing cards.

The stakes are also generally higher. As someone told me last week "remember, if you cheat me, I'll kill you", he was joking to a large extent, but the point remains, there are people when gambling who will actually kill you.

While I can’t prove who created a flat palm, rear palm, or gamblers palm. It stands to reason, by their sheer nature, they were, more than likely, first used by a card cheat. After all, cards were played with before they were performed with.

Probably true, I wish I understood more german, there was a good history on playing cards at the Gutenburg museum when I was there.

Posted by halcon on January 29, 2006 at 22:18

	Quote:
	Absolutely, the trick is just minimizing these. Actually, there's an interesting concept I've played around with that complicates this process for a review, a strip-out shuffle where you don't strip out between shuffles, it's a bit difficult, but kind of an interesting idea.

	Quote:
	Very true, but you won't see them doing dovetail shuffles and so their handling doesn't blend well with a Zarrow shuffle. Meaning that the consistency between the regular and false shuffles doesn't exist in those cases.

	Quote:
	Yes and no, Marlo has some interesting comments related to this subject in "The Riffle Shuffle Systems". He points out that at least when manipulating the deck while shuffling, you are in fact doing something with the deck and so, unlike some of the techniques in magic which must be totally invisible, you can perform many shuffling techniques in a sort of "open" manner.

	Quote:
	There is also the simple reality that you can get away with a lot at the card table, most people generally aren't paying much attention in low stakes games.

	Quote:
	Finally, we have the validity of your point when it comes to natural action. Mind you, this is where some regular unconventional behavior is helpful. Take for example the scene from "The Sting" where they are playing poker and the con man in the game acts very suspicious, allowing him certain liberties that the handling of regular individuals might not otherwise afford them.

	Quote:
	The stakes are also generally higher. As someone told me last week "remember, if you cheat me, I'll kill you", he was joking to a large extent, but the point remains, there are people when gambling who will actually kill you.

	Quote:
	Probably true, I wish I understood more german, there was a good history on playing cards at the Gutenburg museum when I was there.

Posted by Drey on January 30, 2006 at 00:21

Halcon

I am very intrigued to say the least.

Yeah, I thought it was an interesting concept, one of the many ideas I've been playing with in an attempt to develop the ideal tabled shuffle, I've played around with a few variations of the technique, I felt the primary appeal was for someone who is aware of strip-out shuffles and yet can clearly watch you cleanly cut the deck after the shuffle and begin another. I have a bunch of notes I made up on concepts like this but they still need some refinement and really aren't satisfying to me.

If they were not doing dovetails, I wouldn't expect them to be doing Zarrows either. it would be very bizarre to see someone doing overhand shuffles and then move onto dovetails. that would immediately send up a red flag in my opinion.

Exactly.

you would laugh if I told you the stuff I've gotten away with. Not because I was being reckless, but the situation made it possible. sometimes playing the part of a fool gets you less noticed than being a serious player.

Oh I could most certainly believe it. It doesn't help that standard (or as Marlo calls it, non-standard) card playing procedures are pretty lax and give plenty of opportunity for all kinds of subterfuge.

unconventional behavior sometimes. acting suspicious, to risky for my tastes. then again it was only a movie.

Agreed, but it just demonstrates that you can alter your basic actions and persona in order to facilitate some things you wouldn't otherwise get away with in other personas.

exactly why you wouldn't want to draw suspicion. you never know who the stranger is, or the extent of his knowledge. you're better off safe than sorry

True, but there's always a way to cheat, like in this case, I was in fact cheating the guy at the time, he had also been warned by a friend of mine not to play cards with me and he replied "oh it's ok, he doesn't cheat"...kind of amusing for me actually, though I wasn't doing anything too brazen, it's amazing the benefits that come from just simple advantages and how the chips begin to stack up over the course of several hands.

Posted by halcon on January 30, 2006 at 01:11

Quote:

True, but there's always a way to cheat, like in this case, I was in fact cheating the guy at the time, he had also been warned by a friend of mine not to play cards with me and he replied "oh it's ok, he doesn't cheat"...kind of amusing for me actually, though I wasn't doing anything too brazen, it's amazing the benefits that come from just simple advantages and how the chips begin to stack up over the course of several hands.

Posted by nutorious on January 30, 2006 at 08:24

I just started with the card tricks and stuff, i thought it all looked pretty good apart from the botom deals

Posted by Aos on January 30, 2006 at 18:04

You cant escape that, you need the weird hand position.

Posted by Drey on January 30, 2006 at 23:36

You cant escape that, you need the weird hand position.

What weird hand position? What?

Posted by Aos on January 30, 2006 at 23:51

Before the dealing he presses the deck way too firmly into his hand. The Index finger protrudes way over the front of the deck. The thumb is extremely stretched and never moves, and the rest of the hand is extremely tense. If that's not projection I don't know what is. He doesnt even do the proper one, I dont think. He doesnt even push over the top card with the thumb. The thumb stays stationary, he just takes the bottom or the top cards realy realy fast. It looks like instead of making his fake deal real looking, he made his real deal fake looking.

Posted by Aos on January 30, 2006 at 23:55

I think the real way utilizes the middle finger on the corner of the deck a lot more. This gives an even weirder looking hand, but alows for the hand to be relaxed, and for the top card to be slid back and fourth comfortably when the bottom deal needs to be made. In fact, the thumb work is the hardest part of the deal, once you get past pushing the bottom card from underneath the middle finger. Something that he completely escaped by not even using his thumb.

Posted by Drey on January 31, 2006 at 00:58

Before the dealing he presses the deck way too firmly into his hand.

Ok...but you don't need the hand position he's using so I fail to see how your point about not being able to escape the hand position is relevent.

He doesnt even do the proper one, I dont think.

He doesn't do the proper what? The proper deal? There is no such thing as a proper deal.

He doesnt even push over the top card with the thumb.

So? You don't have to push over the top card with the thumb, that is merely one method of dealing.

The thumb stays stationary, he just takes the bottom or the top cards realy realy fast. It looks like instead of making his fake deal real looking, he made his real deal fake looking.

Well, making his regular deal stand out could be a fair and definately a good concern, then again, a person makes their technique natural rather than adopting a truly natural technique.

Case in point, the shift to a mechanic's grip. I remember reading comments by a magician who would watch his wife deal and she used, as I recall, roughly, a standard grip, but because he used the mechanic's grip, and because it is a more secure and comfortable grip if you use cards to any extent, she, without being taught, naturally shifted to it.

I think the real way utilizes the middle finger on the corner of the deck a lot more.

Ok, there is no "real" way, but if you want to get down to it, no, definately not, the Erdnase grip, which employs that method tends to be quite unnatural when you consider initial comfort and general use on the part of a layman.

This gives an even weirder looking hand, but alows for the hand to be relaxed

The hand can be relaxed either way, and the weirder looking hand is something you're generally trying to avoid.

Frankly, a master's grip deal is drastically superior in many regards (control and natural feel as well as look) to the Erdnase grip I believe you're referring to.

for the top card to be slid back and fourth comfortably when the bottom deal needs to be made

Again, a top card push-off isn't necessary, in addition to this, there are different types of push-off, for example, you can perform an angled push-off (pivot), which requires different mechanics again.

In fact, the thumb work is the hardest part of the deal, once you get past pushing the bottom card from underneath the middle finger. Something that he completely escaped by not even using his thumb.

I'd argue otherwise when it comes to the "hardest part of the deal", but then again, that depends how much you want to refine it etc. But the fact remains actually on both accounts, a top push-off isn't necessary and I'd argue a bottom push-off is even less necessary, in particular because it introduces a ton of tip offs that don't exist with a strike bottom deal and are almost impossible to eliminate, most notably, knuckle flash.

Posted by Aos on January 31, 2006 at 11:15

It realy depends on how much you want to argue. But my opinion is that if you do want to execute some form of trickery you have to mask it in a very natural maner. Even if you would naturaly deal that way, you should switch to the common grip and finger position to make it less suspicious looking. Again, imo.

Posted by Tom Ace on January 31, 2006 at 11:21

Drey

Haven't been able to visit this site recently. My computer had some problems with internet.

I have just read your tips for a gambling demonstration. I will think about what you've said and maybe I will be able to perform this also.
We certainly need to talk more about it

I see there are new posts, and mainly about the bottom deal.
It is an iteresting deal, and worth the discussion I think.
Aos is talking about "the funny grip" (Erdnase grip)
I've read that this grip is indeed a very funny one and at first it can look unnatural. But making the real deals the same makes it natural, as Drey sais.

About my bottom deal. I certainly agree that it is not the best out there, and this is also due to my performance. I can say I haven't mastered the bottom deal yet. I hope to master it one day.

"The thumb must move" is what I've heard in te clip from Doc.
I think the push off bottom deals look wonderful. The knuckle flash is indeed a thing to avoid. Moving your thumb is a hard part.
I believe I've seen something on the vernon revelations series about the thumb not moving. Something about a straddle grip variation. Aos is correct to say that when the thumb is not moving, speed must cover this.

I've taped some bottom deals again, and I exectuted them with some minor changes. One with more speed, one with slower speed, different pitch, placing down and one dealing the bottom cards to another player.

Hopefully the video will be clear enough for you all to get a good look and maybe if you have the time and patience you will share again your thoughts with me. I didn't add the music so it will be clear to hear the sound of the cards. Also again the Bicycles are used, using Bee's is in my opinion real cheating Just kidding. It is better to see the bottoms when using cards with borders.
Maybe you can tell me which of these bottom deals you like best? And why (not) ?

http://media.putfile.com/Mr-Cheat--Bottoms-


Tom.