| Author |
Message |
Heretick
3 Of A Kind
Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 27
Location: Norwich, UK |
|
 A grip I've been playing with |
 |
For the last couple of weeks, I've been experimenting with a grip that's kind of halfway between straddle-grip and mechanic's-grip. My aim is to come up with a routine where I deal any hand called for from an apparently shuffled deck, so I wanted to be able to deal from any position without having to have held a break. (Obviously, this involves perfect estimation, which I'm getting better at, but will still take some work.)
Essentially, my thumb is laid along the left side of the deck, my first finger is curled across the front, my second and third fingers grip the right side of the deck very close to the inner end, and my fourth finger is on the inner right corner, just a millimetre or so onto the short end. The inner left corner is tucked under the base of my thumb, and the cards are bevelled from the outer left corner across my hand, leaving only the tips of my second and third fingers protruding. That explanation is probably indeceipherable, but I hope you get the general idea. I don't know the name of this grip, or even if it has one, so perhaps someone could enlighten me.
Essentially, it means there is very little scope for finger flashing, as only the very tips of two fingers will have to move on bottoms, centres or Greeks, plus these two fingers are very close to the inner end, so very well covered if your right-hand first and second fingers come in to take the card from between the left-hand first and second fingers. Additionally, the fourth finger at the inner end of the deck provides stability, and can hold a break if required. The bevel of the deck means that only very slight push-off movement can create a sufficient brief to deal a card from any position.
I'll try to get a video up over the next couple of weeks, but in the meantime, if anyone understands what I mean, do they have any comments?
|
|
| Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:22 am |
  |
 |
machinator
4 Of A Kind
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 86
|
|
| |
|
Could you just clarify the grip for me - is it a little like this - the deck is gripped principally between the pinky and base of the thumb along the inner short edge - to the extent the three other fingers can be removed and the deck remains securely in the hand. The first, second and third fingers play no major role in gripping the deck other than keeping it in the bevelled position and held securely.
In which case, it’s a grip I’ve played with a great deal primarily in conjunction with the centre and bottom deal. I came up with it when attempting to develop a centre deal where the break wasn’t held open along the long edges, thus eliminating one of the problems I find with the centre deal. The deal I ended up with involved the pad of the index finger holding the break and the hand opening up the break as a card was took and it then closing again.
Whilst the bottom deal worked, the take wasn’t as clean as I would have liked and now favour dealing from master grip. I found the grip did have the advantage that it was tremendously efficient in eliminating finger flashes.
I know Drey too has played around with this grip and developed various deals around it. However, I was recently told Gene Maze was the first to get it into print - so whilst the applications may be new the grip in and of itself isn’t. As for the name of it - modified mechanics grip seems the most appropriate.
Oh and finally, the estimation centre deal.. It’s been a fantasy of mine for a while - I use estimation a lot - primarily for stacking and can accurately cut of any block of cards I desire up to fifteen (I use this in the course of a strip cut to stack with). I’d be interested to know what you’d found. Lennart Green has a estimation centre deal which involves a small top block and it works well - I’ve tried expanding upon this to give an effect where any card named is dealt (a little preliminary byplay to position a desired suit then mentioning something about a flush would limit you to 13 cards but give the audience the impression of having dealt any card named) but since given up.
Anyhow, I’ve found estimation very difficult from a dealing position as I can’t ever seem to gauge the depth in the same way you can when cutting cards (I.e. there isn‘t a constant to compare it with so much).
|
|
| Mon Jul 10, 2006 8:33 am |
|
|
Heretick
3 Of A Kind
Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 27
Location: Norwich, UK |
|
| |
|
If I understand you correctly Machinator, then the grip isn't quite as you've described, as my little finger is actually on the short edge, just past the corner. Rather than try to explain it further, which would probably just get confusing, I'll post up a video of some dealing, or a photo of the grip itself over the next few days.
There are a couple of methods of estimation I'm playing with. One of them only really works if you're dealing slowly, and is basically to bring the right hand towards the deck with a motion similar to taking the whole deck out of your left hand, with your thumb on top and your first and second fingers on the face. You then quickly riffle up the side of the deck with your right-hand second finger, using the first finger as cover. Although you wouldn't be able to actually count the cards, you can get a sense of how many cards have been riffled by feel, as in riffle-stacking. The second is simply to roll the left-hand thumb, as you would in a push-off second deal to push off two cards, except varying the position to push-off the required number. If the deck is bevelled in the hand already then this minimises the amount of pushing-off required, so it would never be too obvious. Of course, it's only really necessary to be able to accurately estimate up to 26 cards by touch, because for packets larger than this, you can feel the stock that are left.
|
|
| Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:55 am |
|
|
Drey
Straight Flush
Joined: 06 Feb 2005
Posts: 696
|
|
| |
|
Now this is an interesting topic!
I have experimented quite a lot with this concept, though from the perspective of gambling rather than magic, in other words, the deck is genuinely random. The concept of being able to deal any named hand has been a fantasy of mine for quite some time, basically since I first read the "Phantom of the Card Table" manuscript. Mostly though I've centered around using the technique to deal a specific hand (four aces, a flush, royal flush etc.) from a random order deck.
In describing grips, aside from describing deck and finger placement, the primary concern involves describing grip pressure so you might consider that. As Machinator mentioned, I've worked extensively with pressure between the pinky and base of the thumb in a variety of configurations. I wasn't aware of the Gene Maze approach, I'll have to look into that. I employ essentially four variations of that particular grip from which various dealing techniques arise. However, your description gives me an idea for another grip that I'll have to play around with, more similar to what you just described.
Now in the case of what you're describing I assume you're talking about using a stack to determine the location of the cards. As for the method you're describing, I've used frequent variations on the concept to deal from multiple center positions and yes, it has some advantages. I found the problem for me was dealing cards sequentially. In other words, there was a preparation phase between each of the deals, a sort of get ready and thus it required either by play between the cards, or dealing off rounds with particular cards directed to yourself, a fluid switch was nigh impossible. Another problem I encountered was switching to seconds. Dealing tops was no problem, dealing bottoms, greeks and centers was no problem, in fact centers using this method pass as some of the best. Unfortunately, the problem was you had to alter your thumb position for seconds which I disliked, the same goes for double dealing. Another concern was the naturalness of the deal. I worked on it until it was nigh impossible to detect even with a very strong retention of vision and virtually no finger movement. The problem was a flaw existed in the approach to the take that made it less than ideal. I corrected this by altering the handling and the take, also allowing for a snap deal, benzais cop and a few other similar variations. Unfortunately, this made the dealing action somewhat awkward and slightly abnormal, so I've worked more with an alternative lately that I call the Namtla center deal based quite heavily on a master's like grip where the deck mostly remains square and you can gesture your hands, open your fingers etc. without concern. Dealing from multiple locations in this manner is difficult though and I'm still working on it.
Back to estimation, if you know the location of the card and have the necessary time for the get ready it isn't that difficult. In fact, you can actually make it work quite effectively with a one-handed center deal under those conditions. If you're interested you can private message me and we can discuss some ways of improving the estimation.
For me the problem remains locating any named card. A suit isn't bad, specific cards chosen in advance aren't bad, but any card is quite difficult, I haven't figured out a way of doing that yet.
|
|
| Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:17 pm |
|
|
Tom Ace
4 Of A Kind
Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 209
Location: Maastricht, the Netherlands |
|
| gambling |
|
Indeed interesting.
About the any named card.
Haven't figured it out yet how to get the deck in the right stack from a new deck order. Trying to make it work with some faro shuffling.
The set up is a bit of a disapointment, but you will be able to get any card from a (suposedly) shuffled deck, and also the other related cards.
I put the cards in spade/hearts/clubs/diamonds order. This is simple for me to understand. If you are familiar with the breakthrough card system than you understand why I do it this way. But it doens't matter which order the cards are in as long they are all in the same order.
So all the aces are : spade, hearts, clubs , diamonds
All the deuces are: spade, hearts , clubs , diamonds
etc
The 4 aces lie on top of the deck and at the bottom you have the four kings.(king of diamonds at the face in this example, and the ace of spades on top)
So everything is in numerical order. Aces count as 1, deuces as two, threes as three etc. The Jack as 11, the Queen as 12, the King as 13.
If you can perform some false shuffles it will make it all more believable that the deck is actually shuffled.
A deck switch is also a good option.
If you ask a person to name any card in the deck, except for the joker, she can actually name any card.
Say she names the 7 of hearts. You will explain to her that you will find her card in two shuffles.
This is true, you can do this in two shuffles.
All you do is multply the number 7 by 4. 7x4=28
Why by four? Because there are four cards of each 7. Remember the order?: the 7 of spades, 7 of hearts, 7 of clubs, 7 of diamonds.
The number you know now is 28. You always arrive at the position of the diamond card. In this case is the seven of diamonds the 28th card from the top. You know estimate this. You know that 26 is the half of the deck, so two more cards will cut to the 28th position. It sounds hard but you don't need to cut to the seven of diamonds persé. As long as you are able to cut in to the sevens you are ready to go. It is also possible to do it if you cut deeper (eights) or lower (sixes)
Say you cut (with your right hand) to the seven of clubs (that's the 27th card from the top) and you cut that portion to the right. In doing so you twist your right hand so that you can glimpse the bottom card of the right hand packet (the seven of clubs) and you make the tapping action as if to straigthen the halfs. You now have the top half in your right hand (with the seven of clubs at the bottom, the 27th card) and in your right hand you have the lower half with the 28th card on top, the seven of diamonds.
You do a false shuffle ( I use the push through shuffle) leaving at least three cards at the bottom of the right hand packets (the three sevens)
Push the right half through the left. Now is the left packet projecting to the right. You can simply grasp this packet and slap in on top. Or you can do some false running cuts, holding a break , and then cut that packet to the top. You can now take the top card and show it to her. It's the seven of diamonds. Since you have a little set up, the other sevens are now at the bottom. I then say I'm going to shuffle for the second time and that during that shuffle I find the other sevens. You can make up your own story. I use a revelation I'm not aware how it is called. Richard Turner uses this pretty revelation to reveal the aces.
It's where you project the bottom card to the right, cut the lower half to the top and then you can turn the halfes counter clockwise and the card apears to come from the center of the deck and lands on the table face down. You can do this flourish many times as long you hold the break when you cut the lower half to the top, and as long as you cut that break to the bottom again.
It sounds a bit confusing I think.
You can do this from a "new" deck order. Although it isn't actually a new deck order. The audience will not know this. Instead of the real new deck order that is from ace of hearts to king of hearts, ace of clubs to king of clubs, king of diamonds to ace of diamonds, king of spades to ace of spades. You now use the fake "new deck order" ace of hearts to king of hearts, ace of clubs to king of clubs, ace of diamonds to king of diamonds, ace of spades to king of spades.
Now with two faro shuffles you also have the deck in a stacked order.
After two shuffles all the cards lie in pairs. If you use the "new deck order" above from ace to king you can do the following:
2 out faros:
All the card have now this order instead of the spade, heart, clubs, diamond order:
Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades
2 in faros: spades, diamonds, clubs, hearts
1 out and 1 in : clubs, hearts, spades, diamonds
1 in and 1 out: diamonds, spades, hearts, clubs
You can also try another "new deck order": 2-A of hearts, etc
If you then do the faros you get the aces on the bottom and the deuces on top.
I use the first "new deck order" from ace to king.
The principle is the same you need to learn the order by heart. If you always use the two out faros learn the hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades order. You must know that below the clubs lies the diamond etc.
I do not use this often but I find it useful with the idea that a new deck can be shuffled twice in advance (faro shuffle) and that a spectator can name any card. And after one shuffle the card is located and show. And after the second shuffle the other cards are located and show so that a four of a kind lies at the table. It can be presented with a gambling theme.
T.
_________________
"Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today"
-James Dean- |
|
| Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:17 am |
|
|
Drey
Straight Flush
Joined: 06 Feb 2005
Posts: 696
|
|
| |
|
Tom, out of curiosity, if you're going to use a shuffle to apparently locate the cards anyway, why not simply locate them genuinely using the shuffle?
Also, doesn't using a shuffle seem to defeat the concept of dealing the cards directly?
|
|
| Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:37 pm |
|
|
Tom Ace
4 Of A Kind
Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 209
Location: Maastricht, the Netherlands |
|
| story |
|
True,
but you can tell a story about a cheat who was able to spot the index of the cards when he did a riffle shuffle. I mostly say I'm not that good, but that I will try to demonstrate how it works.
I believe there are many methods out there which are superior to this one. Still, I'd like to experiment with this effect.
T.
_________________
"Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today"
-James Dean- |
|
| Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:54 pm |
|
|
Drey
Straight Flush
Joined: 06 Feb 2005
Posts: 696
|
|
| |
|
but you can tell a story about a cheat who was able to spot the index of the cards when he did a riffle shuffle. I mostly say I'm not that good, but that I will try to demonstrate how it works.
I tend to do a semi instructional routine I'll include in the monthly newsletter sometime soon where basically you get them to practice along with you and do something like that, but actually cull the cards accordingly. Of course, because you explain it as being more complicated than it actually is they come away quite impressed.
|
|
| Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:40 am |
|
|
Tom Ace
4 Of A Kind
Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 209
Location: Maastricht, the Netherlands |
|
| newsletter |
|
Culling is indeed a better aproach for demonstrations. Many effects Ortiz explains in his books also use culling. I still need to become good at it.
Looking forward to that effect in your monthly newsletter!
T.
_________________
"Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today"
-James Dean- |
|
| Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:17 am |
|
|
machinator
4 Of A Kind
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 86
|
|
| |
|
@Tom
Hmm.. To advance the idea of having a stacked deck and working with that to cull cards during a shuffle, why not have the stacked deck legitimately shuffled and approximate the position of each card- it is something I played with a lot when I was starting out with the various forms of culling for magical purposes.
It is extremely simple and effective - have the deck stacked as your mention then hand it out to be shuffled. You can then track the approximate positions of the cards by following the method of shuffling. A single overhand shuffle usually will retain about 50% of the sequences within the cards (so I’ve just shuffled a deck once overhand and the order runs 3 aces, 2 deuces aces, ace, two deuces etc.. etc..) on top of which the groups are unlikely to stray more than five cards from their original positions (however the order will be reversed - so a deck running KKKK, QQQQ - AAAA will run AAAA). Two overhand shuffles is unlikely to cause the original groups to stray more than 6-8 cards from their original position - which makes culling awfully easy.
A couple of psychological points worth mentioning - ask someone shuffle a deck “thoroughly” they’ll shuffle it “more” - i.e. they’ll draw off smaller packets in the course of a shuffle. This is of course desirable as it retains far more sequences (think about it - running cards singularly does nothing but reverse the order, the closer you can get someone to shuffle the deck like that the more usable sequences are retained). Equally it stands for a riffle shuffle, people will shuffle slower and genuinely more thoroughly when asked to - which in some circumstances is desirable.
Another rather useful thing is that you can force a shuffle on someone in a very subtle manner - either mime the actions of the shuffle you desire them to do or actually do that same shuffle (but false). So, when I want someone to shuffle a deck overhand style I’ll ask them “can you shuffle these cards up for me?” as I give it a quick G.W. Hunter false shuffle. It’s so effective that when someone can’t perform that shuffle they’ll turn to another spectator and ask them to. However, as it’s a implicit instruction as opposed to a explicit instruction and consequently shan’t be remembered as an instruction - I use it a lot when working with Gilbreath and riffle shuffle chains.
A riffle shuffle is a far better method of shuffling and consequently you lose a lot of the usable sequences after two shuffles, here is a very simple approach I use a lot with the punch deal. Have the deck stacked as you mentioned before and ask a spectator to shuffle it twice. Prior to having the deck shuffled have them name the cards they want culled and cut them to the top. You will find after two shuffles they’re usually within the top fifteen - twenty cards. You can then cull them using a simple procedure we were discussing on here a while ago - spread the shuffle deck face up and count the in-different in-between each desired card then either block transfer them off or use the Zarrow shuffle to remove them. Alternatively, from a truly random ordered deck you’ll find 9 times out of 10 you can cull a named full house with ease (depending upon your stacking abilities).
Another possibility is to use it to stack named cards, which is a lot of fun.. But that’s a whole other topic of conversation.
@Drey
I've worked extensively with pressure between the pinky and base of the thumb in a variety of configurations. I wasn't aware of the Gene Maze approach, I'll have to look into that.
I’m not entirely sure how accurate it is, someone just mentioned they had come across the grip I use for a center deal in a Gene Maze mss when I was discussing various center deal techniques with them.
Another problem I encountered was switching to seconds. Dealing tops was no problem, dealing bottoms, greeks and centers was no problem, in fact centers using this method pass as some of the best.
Hmm.. Do you need to deal the lot? It has never really troubled me the fact I deal bottoms and greeks from a slightly different grip to my center grip. In my experience the only deal where you have to mix multiple false deals is the center deal, where you will occasionally, depending on the depth of the stock have to mix seconds and thirds. Sure, it’s nice to have all the deals from the same grip, but I’ve found purely from a practical level dealing different deals from different grips often leave you with more deceptive deals than dealing the lot from one grip and having to cut corners or modify them to fit in with the grip and the differences between the grips are marginal in the extreme.
But yes, I too have come across a similar problem when dealing seconds from that center deal grip. It probably could be modified by moving the cards further into the hand to something more like loose or standard mechanics grip, but I’m not hugely concerned with the center deal anymore nor sufficiently motivated to learn or modify another one to rectify this problem. Perhaps in a year or so when I’ve a little more practice time to play with (riffle shuffle work and magic just eats up the practice hours).
Unfortunately, this made the dealing action somewhat awkward and slightly abnormal, so I've worked more with an alternative lately that I call the Namtla center deal based quite heavily on a master's like grip where the deck mostly remains square and you can gesture your hands, open your fingers etc. without concern.
Out of curiosity - Namtla, anything to do with Art Altman?
And on the subject of master grip, what are you thoughts on the Marlo master grip, it’s something I used extensively for ages however I’ve of late become unhappy with the bunched fingers, which seem to me to be very unnatural?
|
|
| Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:11 pm |
|
|
Drey
Straight Flush
Joined: 06 Feb 2005
Posts: 696
|
|
| |
|
Tom
Culling is indeed a better aproach for demonstrations. Many effects Ortiz explains in his books also use culling. I still need to become good at it.
Well, for gambling demonstrations it is appealing, or for real gambling for that matter, though for a lot of effects in magic I think there are better approaches.
machinator
Hmm.. To advance the idea of having a stacked deck and working with that to cull cards during a shuffle, why not have the stacked deck legitimately shuffled and approximate the position of each card- it is something I played with a lot when I was starting out with the various forms of culling for magical purposes.
Along these lines, have you seen Steve Forte's Hidden Secrets of Magic performance? He does a pretty impressive demonstration where he produces a named four of a kind under seemingly very difficult circumstances and extremely quickly.
By the way, I have another application for your strip stacking method related primarily to magic that has nothing to do with stacking.
A couple of psychological points worth mentioning - ask someone shuffle a deck “thoroughly” they’ll shuffle it “more” - i.e. they’ll draw off smaller packets in the course of a shuffle. This is of course desirable as it retains far more sequences (think about it - running cards singularly does nothing but reverse the order, the closer you can get someone to shuffle the deck like that the more usable sequences are retained).
This partially depends on the stack you are using because the inverse is also true. If people are dropping huge packets then nothing is changing within those packets, making it easy to correct, while there is a better chance of small differences using a "thorough" shuffle.
Another rather useful thing is that you can force a shuffle on someone in a very subtle manner - either mime the actions of the shuffle you desire them to do or actually do that same shuffle (but false).
Quite true. Another couple ideas on the subjects, first, have you tried using Ed Marlo's idea of a spectator false riffle shuffle as described in "The Riffle Shuffle Systems"? Two others, are the notion that you can use the Gilbreath principle or stay stacks or the redivider principle to you advantage in cases such as this. Alternatively, if you use only a single riffle shuffle you can use something like angle separation after the spectator has shuffled the deck. Finally, you can use a previous spade shuffle combined with a rough application of the Gilbreath principle to great effect.
Have the deck stacked as you mentioned before and ask a spectator to shuffle it twice. Prior to having the deck shuffled have them name the cards they want culled and cut them to the top. You will find after two shuffles they’re usually within the top fifteen - twenty cards. You can then cull them using a simple procedure we were discussing on here a while ago - spread the shuffle deck face up and count the in-different in-between each desired card then either block transfer them off or use the Zarrow shuffle to remove them.
If you're going to do this, why not just palm the cards off?
Alternatively, from a truly random ordered deck you’ll find 9 times out of 10 you can cull a named full house with ease (depending upon your stacking abilities).
If you're talking about riffle culling, then I have to assert that you have to put in the actual work of culling them, which is troublesome.
I’m not entirely sure how accurate it is, someone just mentioned they had come across the grip I use for a center deal in a Gene Maze mss when I was discussing various center deal techniques with them.
Alright, duely noted.
Hmm.. Do you need to deal the lot? It has never really troubled me the fact I deal bottoms and greeks from a slightly different grip to my center grip. In my experience the only deal where you have to mix multiple false deals is the center deal, where you will occasionally, depending on the depth of the stock have to mix seconds and thirds. Sure, it’s nice to have all the deals from the same grip, but I’ve found purely from a practical level dealing different deals from different grips often leave you with more deceptive deals than dealing the lot from one grip and having to cut corners or modify them to fit in with the grip and the differences between the grips are marginal in the extreme.
That is certainly true, which is of course an argument many people use for stopping their search. In my opinion if people didn't demand more the art and science wouldn't improve so I aim for higher standards and then attempt to implement them. I will say this though. I think in most cases it is important to deal seconds and bottoms from the same grip, even if you don't have to alternate the fact is that these are the two most common deals and using different grips potentially arouses suspicion. After that, there is the concern of possibly requiring Greeks. Most people rarely use a double deal or center deal, or thirds, fourths etc. Still, it is always my attempt to deal effectively from a single grip for all deals, I have yet to arrive at a totally satisfactory solution to this problem. In addition, there are a number of other techniques I feel it is important that you be able to execute from the grip, a simple example would be various types of peeks as well as perhaps a punch deal etc.
Perhaps in a year or so when I’ve a little more practice time to play with (riffle shuffle work and magic just eats up the practice hours).
Indeed, especially the riffle shuffle work, though I've been working on a lot of techniques lately that make things much faster and easier.
Out of curiosity - Namtla, anything to do with Art Altman?
Ah, so you noticed, yes it does have something to do with Art Altman.
And on the subject of master grip, what are you thoughts on the Marlo master grip, it’s something I used extensively for ages however I’ve of late become unhappy with the bunched fingers, which seem to me to be very unnatural?
I personally don't think it's unnatural as a grip at all, in fact I think it's the closest to the standard grip aside from the standard grip itself out of any of the grips. However, I have concerns with the fingers. I for one don't perform the take like Marlo does. Then again, it depends in large part on what you're going for. In my opinion the master's grip works much better for seconds than it does for bottoms, but then that also depends on the handling so...
|
|
| Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:47 pm |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Home
Chip
Card
Pool
Chip
Card
Magic
Pen
Forum
Chips
Poker
Videos
