| Author |
Message |
Drey
Straight Flush
Joined: 06 Feb 2005
Posts: 696
|
|
 Perfect Pass? |
 |
I read something a few days ago that struck me and has led to further considerations than normal on the subject of the pass. We are told again and again that the classic pass is a very difficult move. Then we are told, it isn't meant as a move you perform when the heat is on your hands but rather occurred traditionally during some misdirection and cover. The author's question, and I think it's a valid one, was "If you're meant to perform the move when the audience isn't looking, what makes it so hard? You could perform a Charlier cut under misdirection."
He makes a valid point and one that leads, in many regards, to a re-evaluation of the classic pass. First, I might suggest that the classic pass as it is generally taught was probably never used. It's interesting how many of the subtleties we learn and employ everyday never get passed on. I know I was teaching someone a pivot cut the other day. I'd never learned it based on a description, I'd just watched a performance on the internet. I remember struggling with the reach and pressumed (apparently mistakenly) that my hands had simply stretched and grown accustomed to the action. The individual in question had small hands and was struggling, I figured he'd get it given time. But he had me slow down and repeat the action slowly over and over, eventually he noticed something I'd never been aware of, I was using some of my fingers to twist the one packet and create additional space, this was a revolution, and after learning the correct technique he picked it up in a matter of minutes.
These are both points I've frequently discovered. First, having the correct technique is of paramount importance. There are numerous occassions when I attempted to perform a feat and struggled with it for ages, but discovered I was doing one simple thing wrong and when I made a change it became much easier. For example, some of the dealing techniques Marlo uses, the Curry Turn-over, and perhaps most notably, many hand mucking techniques, which I used to try performing from a classic palm before I learned the gambler's palm and variations. Time and time again I've discovered that you miss out on little things and those little things make a big difference. Here's a hint, for the most part, with perhaps the exception of flourishes, card technique isn't that difficult, most people simply lack the right technique. Second, often the experts develop subtleties they don't know existed, simply because they're doing what feels right and it happens to work, as in the case where I learned the pivot cut, or when I first was learning the faro shuffle. Sadly, because we don't realize what we're doing, we fail to pass these tips on to others. Or in cases where we do realize, we often forget. (I should qualify this statement, there are a lot of techniques I use at times when I'm learning (a push-off second deal is a good example) that I later discard when I get good at the basic technique.)
This brings me back to the pass. First, is the expectation that one could really perform a classic pass under scrutiny a realistic one? Second, does this only apply to certain circumstances? Third, should we really look for the cover actions and the like which are largely compensation for poor technique?
I'll start by stating I've been working quite a lot lately, once again with the plain classic pass in front of a mirror from a variety of angles, and yes, I think it is realistic to perform the move deceptively without distraction or cover under fire. At the same time I'd like to qualify that statement. I don't believe anyone who employed the pass effectively ever did so as it's generally taught. I'm a harsh critique of pass tutorials as I don't feel they teach the subtleties necessary and I've noticed more recently, they don't even teach the ideal basic action. So when I say you can perform the classic pass under fire, I'm referring to what I would call the correct handling, which is essentially invisible from almost all angles. Does it require blazing speed? Absolutely, but the speed isn't as difficult as one might suppose. Does it require cover action? No, but it does require positioning, which I don't feel is unreasonable (hint, don't try performing it with the deck level). This struck me as somewhat unbelievable when I reached this conclusion, but on reflection I don't suppose it should have. My pass technique is quite good, even when I was first learning the move and didn't recognize many of the subtleties and tip offs the response was largely unbelievable. I recall demonstrating the move to someone who was learning, they saw a slight flash and asked me to do it again. I obliged them several times before they asked what exactly I was doing and I broke it down for them slowly. They called me a liar, it was unbelievable that the action they saw, barely saw, was the two fold action of cutting the deck as I'd demonstrated. Another response I once received was simply "you're fast at that". In spite of these, in practice, I always used the move with one means of cover or another, a spread pass, a turnover pass, a combination pass. Even as recently as the article I posted here on the forum about common pass mistakes and how to correct them, while I recognized that you could almost perform a classic pass slowly and make it invisble I didn't quite recognize the potential of the move. And this brings me back to that earlier point, we often don't recognize what we're doing. I overlooked a few clues that gave the technique a phenomenal edge.
This brings me to the second question, does the technique only work in certain situations? I'm not sure I can answer that because I haven't worked with it enough. I will admit that I've often criticized the use of the classic pass as well as the Herrmann pass and their variants at the card table due to awkward action. I've also virtually obsessed as I understand Erdnase and others did, with the idea of developing a perfect pass. There's a technique I worked out that I call the Angle Free Pass, you can perform it with someone looking over your shoulder, watching from the front or either of the sides and you can perform the action slowly, though you can also do so more rapidly, which I feel is more natural. I developed another technique and a few variants called the Gambler's pass, specifically for working at the card table and these have traditionally found their place as the sole techniques I use at a card table. The first because it's virtually motionless and frankly quite nice, the second because the natural cover, angles and handling all work so well for the card table environment. You won't see me use a float pass or combination pass (two of my other favorites) at a card table. But knowing what I know now, I can't help but wonder, was the original classic pass actually the perfect technique for those who mastered it? The problem with most techniques at the card table is they suffer from poor angles given the environment, the cover isn't natural, and the cover action is awkward when seated at a table. A classic pass doesn't really suffer from these problems. Well executed, it appears virtually motionless, that's the point of the tight action, the angles are seemingly open, yet miraculously, virtually non-existant. (This reminds me of watching Sal Piacente perform the likes of a Mexican Turn-over, or the flash move at the shell game. You watch it in slow motion and you say "that's awful, he's flashing, he needs to work on his technique". But when he does it at speed you can't see anything, it looks simply flawless.) Somehow, you can sit and execute the pass slowly and have a ton of flash, but at speed it will seem like nothing at all, even the flash disappears in most cases. I have to wonder, was the original technique already the culmination of earlier ideas rather than the foundation of later superior ones?
Should we develop natural covers? Sure...for bad technique. As I implied at the beginning, as we've all been told since we started working with cards, the pass is a tough move. There was a time when I might have argued with you on that, told you it could be learned in 3 weeks, mastered in 3 months, I dispute that claim now. I've read comments by people who talk about mastering a move in a day, generally all I can say is they don't realize how many mistakes they are making, they don't see the flaws and areas of improvement. I've seen a lot of bottom deals or second deals by a lot of pretty good cardicians, but I don't think I've ever seen perfect technique yet, it isn't without cause that we're told these things are hard. They are, but there are things you can do to solve that problem, things you can do to improve it, make it easier, allow you to work in a limited sense until you can master the ideal. Just like neck tying covers most of the worry with a second deal but Walter Scott and Charlie Miller learned to deal under scrutiny you can do the same with the pass, history is your witness.
|
|
| Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:28 am |
  |
 |
enigma
4 Of A Kind
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 218
|
|
| |
|
thanks for taking the time to type that whole thing out, man. appreciated
btw, i did read the whole thing, its just too hot for me to type out an intelligent response to it
_________________
http://www.geocities.com/thetango5000/index.htm
A magician is one who can stand a few inches from you and with a borrowed coin, a lemon, a knife, a tumbler, or a pack of cards convince you he performs miracles. |
|
| Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:44 pm |
 |
|
Drey
Straight Flush
Joined: 06 Feb 2005
Posts: 696
|
|
| |
|
Glad you read it.
Another side of the issue arises when considering the pass and I believe it is this, rather than the mechanics that cause the move to fail in most cases. The classic pass is a great move, I highly doubt if there is a faster method of cutting the deck. Unfortunately, the psychology of the pass is all wrong. How so? You pick the packet up only to put it back down.
Consider the set up, your hands come together, this in itself isn't a huge problem so long as it is minimized. However, you immediately separate your hands (it is absolutely impossible to perform the pass without doing so in one way shape or form, it's essential to the mechanics). In theory, you can make the one action natural, but somehow you have to bring the packets back together. You have this awful situation where psychologically, the right hand is holding the deck, but what on earth is the left hand doing? This is why a riffle or dribble pass is so wonderful. Because it offers rationale for separating the hands, and a means of bringing the packets back together. The reason such passes fail is because the covering action isn't suitable for certain environments and situations. Of course you can perform a classic pass fast enough that ideally no one notices the logical disparity, but such things tend to stand out.
I've been working with a technique lately that I call the "Pass Pass", it's a method of performing a pass as you bring the hands together in the act of passing the deck from the right hand to the left. It still needs some work, but so far the technique is quite decent. I filmed it today so with some luck I'll post a video of it in the next day or two.
The point of interest though is the question. You can examine passes from the psychological standpoint as well as the physical and then again, the psychological aspect of the physical. For example, the combination pass. Psychologically, the action makes sense. Physically, the action is excellent when performing it properly. But the psychological aspect of the physical fails in the same manner most classic passes do. In other words, if the action was legitimate, the right hand wouldn't release the deck. Especially if only to re-grip it. Unfortunately, virtually all Herrmann pass variations fail on this account. It is perhaps one of the big advantages of a float pass or variant, the move is psychologically sound...I'm not sure if, aside from a well executed riffle pass, I can think of another example where the psychology is flawless. The pass pass is close, but suffers slightly. The gambler's pass is very close, close enough that you can cover the psychological flaw. The angle free pass a slight disparity. I suppose a direct dribble pass is logically sound...the only problem is that the angles are awful. Come to think of it the Light Reft Pass actually uses the principle in reverse, justifying the action with the psychology rather than attempting to justify itself...I always liked that pass. But then again, it does so in a brazenly false sense so I'm not really sure it qualifies. The jiggle pass works on a good theory but ultimately fails due to excessive action. The infinity pass is on the right course. If two phase passes weren't so contrived they might make the cut.
It's a worthy goal for those of you who study the technique, come up with a pass that isn't only technically perfect, but psychologically perfect as well.
|
|
| Sun Jul 16, 2006 2:51 am |
|
|
nim.ble
4 Of A Kind
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 181
Location: Canadada |
|
| |
|
Yeah, I understand what you're saying.
Most of the passes you mentioned I haven't even heard about or seen. All I know are the Herman, Classic, Riffle, Dribble and maybe a couple others.
I have recently been practicing my riffle and dribble pass not because they look more natural and cause less suspicion, but because they are more effective imo than the regular classic pass movements.
And like you said, they can cover the down movement after the pass.
Anyways, you seem to know you're passes extremely well and not only have you been experimenting with them, you have created your own which, from the sound of it is a great idea. Can't wait to see the video.
Thanks for all the informative tips and advice. 
_________________
[Justin] |
|
| Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:25 am |
  |
|
machinator
4 Of A Kind
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 86
|
|
| |
|
I preface this with the fact I solely use a riffle, combination, dribble, jiggle, spread and turnover passes. Primarily however two handlings of the riffle pass - Fred Robinson‘s and a finger tip riffle pass similar to Derek Dingle’s handling (this I learnt first and am unlikely to continue using it), I know some consider this to be a completely different beast to the classic pass.. I have never learnt the classic pass, nor do I have any intention of doing so..
However, moving onto the perfect pass.. Let me have a rant first. I am for ever hearing the pass is a relic, something left over from the 1800’s with absolutely no use in modern conjuring, which is as idiotic as the view held that “you must do x number of passes a minute to be consider a ‘magician‘ or ‘card man‘”. There is this propaganda mill of the “magic forum” that spews out and never ending stream of gob shite, where an opinion held by many is deemed to be correct. You get all sorts of drivel talked about the pass, most often is that the pass is only ever learnt so magicians can gain esteem amongst their brethren, use a double under cut instead it’s just as deceptive with misdirection, or that it is a move that can never be done invisibly.
Ultimately the pass is a tool, that achieves a specific objective - there are alternatives and other methods for achieving the same result, few are as elegant, direct or useful as a good pass. The objective of the pass is for it to be a invisible move otherwise, as you mention - why not do anything else. A method for invisibly transposing two halves of the deck, without misdirection - for the pass to be a burnable move.
Another question is that of invisibility, how do we gauge whether a move is or isn’t invisible? It’s actually a far more complex topic than one might originally think. I can detect most passes, without question I can instantly tell when a classic or riffle pass has taken place. Now this isn’t a reflection upon the visibility of the move so much as the get readies, the distinct noise, sound and action the riffle pass has. Conjurers know these little tells, in the same way I can spot most double lifts.. So the fact a pass is perceptible to use does not reflect what an audience will see.
First, I might suggest that the classic pass as it is generally taught was probably never used. It's interesting how many of the subtleties we learn and employ everyday never get passed on.
A while ago I became acutely conscious of how true this was with the riffle pass in terms of pure technique. The problem is this, the average magician who has put the time into the riffle/classic pass executes it fast - very fast. Once they’ve nailed the mechanics about a hundred hours of practice ensues until they’ve a really solid pass that borders upon the invisible. By that time the pass is being executed at such a speed they simply don’t know what the hands are doing. Now the hands naturally make changes to a move, they’ll by increments modify something because its easier or improves the pass.
It is almost a sub-conscious thing, for example I handle the pass quite differently to anyway taught in any book I‘ve read. Now it took me six months to discover this, for six months I was practicing a move on a daily basis for an hour or more a day and I had absolutely no idea what my hands were doing - I knew the pass was improving dramatically and I knew it worked well. It was only when I was giving someone handling hints and tips that I became conscious of the changes I’d made. They noticed that my pinky wasn’t behaving as one might expect from the classic pass.
What had happened, sometime during my practice is I had shifted to using straddling the top stock as the pass was executed. I’ll briefly describe what I now know I do - I use the index finger and pinkie to straddle the top stock out, the pinky doesn’t take quite such a conventional break, it just sits at the very corner of the top stock at the first knuckle with the tip of the finger protruding out. As the pass is executed it and the top stock is gripped principally by the index and pinky snaps inward far quicker than with the classic handling of the pass. Now, this only happens the very instant the pass is executed - so the sides remain perfectly square throughout as with the conventional handling of the pass.
Now I don’t have the worlds greatest pass, now if I don’t know exactly what my hands are doing during a pass what hope do the true masters of the pass have of explaining to use the subtleties and handling finesses they use with a fast pass.
First, is the expectation that one could really perform a classic pass under scrutiny a realistic one?
Yes absolutely - I do it all the time and I haven’t been “caught” since I put in the many, many hours of practice. It is primarily about three things, primarily speed, secondly smoothness and finally the performers confidence in their pass.
A fast pass can be invisible, however a fast pass has absolutely no deceptiveness when done brutally. Sure, people have absolutely no idea a pass took place, however they’ll spot that some action occurred (un-squared stocks, massive disproportionate body movement etc..) . Ultimately a smooth pass that is nearly invisible is better than a very aggressive pass that lacks fluidity and gentleness.
Moving away from the actual mechanics, there is the question of being confident in your pass and using it in a natural manner. Until you’re completely confident in your pass and can execute it naturally, within the frame work of a routine (so the pass isn’t just natural, but getting into and out of the pass are equally as natural - you‘ve a reason to riffle the cards etc.. the action has been established etc..).
You have to become confident in your pass, not worry about “being caught”, which is far harder than you might expect. You have to be able to do the pass without thinking such thoughts, without hesitation, relaxed and confidently. Otherwise, it shows. I spent about four months getting to the point where I did this - I since have been accused of being a pass “egotist”. Insofar as I’ll extend my hands right forwards, bring the deck towards the people seat and say “it’s somewhere in there” - giving it a gentle riffling action - pause a beat then execute my pass with something like the words “right down near the middle”. It may be considered “dangerous” or go against conventional wisdom - but it certainly works.
Second, does this only apply to certain circumstances?
To a certain extent, I wouldn’t for example use a riffle pass while playing cards for cash or when standing and performing for a very small child. For 95% of all “conjuring” type situations that might arise - the pass is an extremely useful and burnable move.
Third, should we really look for the cover actions and the like which are largely compensation for poor technique?
Hmm, I’ve heard that argued about the riffle pass.. Now I disagree strongly with that, as whilst the riffling action isn’t the worlds most natural a genuine riffle pass (not the classic pass with a riffle) adds a very significant handling change that speeds up the pass dramatically - in fact a genuine riffle pass (ala Fred Robinson - a pass I have since fallen in love with and use in place) is a completely different type of action to the classic pass. It also masks most of the flash points that occur with the pass at the side (the disappearing top stock, which in my experience simply cannot be disguised with speed). It also gives the hands a reason, as you mention, to come together.
A covering action however shouldn’t seem contrived or lack spontaneity, it shouldn’t be out of place. Now, I use the dribble pass a lot in routines where it is a natural action - where I would dribble the cards naturally, similarly, I will use the Marlo combination pass when it is appropriate - when that squaring action is a natural occurrence (I prefer this pass to the jiggle - it‘s more natural). I’ve several handlings of the Hermann pass that I use when they’re appropriate, when they naturally have a place in the routine.
I could talk endless about the pass, but shall stop here..
|
|
| Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:54 pm |
|
|
Drey
Straight Flush
Joined: 06 Feb 2005
Posts: 696
|
|
| |
|
I know some consider this to be a completely different beast to the classic pass.. I have never learnt the classic pass, nor do I have any intention of doing so..
I'll reference this statement later, be warned.
Ultimately the pass is a tool, that achieves a specific objective - there are alternatives and other methods for achieving the same result, few are as elegant, direct or useful as a good pass.
I think you're a bit off here. Yes, the pass is a tool and the pass is an excellent tool when carefully crafted, refined and disciplined. However, it is suited to a particular application. As the famous expression goes "there is a tool for every task and a task for every tool". This application is as an invisible control. It's stupid to use a pass as a visible control. There is more though, the pass is an invisible multi card control. I remember during my earliest periods working with cards, reading an article that was in my view quite observant, using a pass to control one card is like taking a sledge hammer after a mosquito. I for one will argue with you that in most cases, if you are merely controlling a single card, a side steal of some variation or incarnation is superior to a pass, assuming you can perform it well. Am I suggesting that a pass shouldn't be employed or can't be employed? Not at all, I learned a pass before I learned a side steal and I used to routinely use it as my invisible control. Today, I use it as a control in only a limited number of circumstances. Though I should mention, I find direct control is rarely necessary. Continuing with what exactly a pass is best at. It is a multiple card control yes, but it is a card control for cards located together, it doesn't replace a multiple shift terribly effectively. A pass is ultimately an invisible means of cutting the deck and at this it is arguably far better than any other means.
Now I'm sure you realize this, but I was merely clarifying the point that what the pass is used for and what it achieves or achieves best are two different things...though interestingly enough, the pass is a term which applies specifically to what it achieves best and thus by definition achieves it best, the question is simply, which pass is superior in which circumstance?
Another question is that of invisibility, how do we gauge whether a move is or isn’t invisible? It’s actually a far more complex topic than one might originally think. I can detect most passes, without question I can instantly tell when a classic or riffle pass has taken place. Now this isn’t a reflection upon the visibility of the move so much as the get readies, the distinct noise, sound and action the riffle pass has. Conjurers know these little tells, in the same way I can spot most double lifts.. So the fact a pass is perceptible to use does not reflect what an audience will see.
These are all valid points. I think it is also worth noting though, that the audience detects more than the audience sees, just as the same holds true for magicians, magicians, or cardicians, merely have the advantage of knowing what this something the performer is doing is.
You're right though, there is a lot involved in detecting a pass. First, the visible action itself, but even this is deceptive and questionable. I remember teaching someone the pass, I did it a few times for them, they could see a flash but nothing else. Then I slowed it down to teach it showing how I was cutting the deck within a small motion...they called me a liar, said I wasn't doing what I said I was doing, that there was no way I could be transposing the packets that fast. Along with this point there are other visually deceptive aspects of the open action, for example when using the pass as a false cut. So even a visible action doesn't ensure it will get detected as any kind of control. Best however to create the illusion that nothing at all has occured and thus never raise suspicion with a flash.
Second, there is the covering action used. For example, using the squaring action of the combination pass when the deck is square is going to tip off the action. This becomes a big problem for people using the riffle pass, or a classic pass with a riffle since I'm not familiar with the variants you use. The riffling action simply isn't natural for most people in most cases. This becomes a huge problem within the context of gambling, most covering actions aren't natural at a gambling table.
Third, you have the psychology associated with the covering actions, or the action in general. As I mentioned above, the really big problem as I see it with both the classic pass and Herrmann pass, is that the hand actions are not psychologically sound. This means either the action is obvious on psychological grounds, or you have to cover the physical actions that are psychologically wrong. For example, most Herrmann pass variants involve covering the left hand and it's actions. Why? Because they don't make any sense at all, the left hand simply wouldn't behave like that if the action was legitimate. Unfortunately, the consequence is that typically the angles become very problematic.
Fourth, you have the general psychology. As Wesley James mentioned, having your hands together for too long. Like you mentioned, the get ready etc.
The combination leaves a lot of ways a pass can get detected, and unfortunately, trying to avoid them all is difficult at best.
What had happened, sometime during my practice is I had shifted to using straddling the top stock as the pass was executed. I’ll briefly describe what I now know I do - I use the index finger and pinkie to straddle the top stock out, the pinky doesn’t take quite such a conventional break, it just sits at the very corner of the top stock at the first knuckle with the tip of the finger protruding out. As the pass is executed it and the top stock is gripped principally by the index and pinky snaps inward far quicker than with the classic handling of the pass. Now, this only happens the very instant the pass is executed - so the sides remain perfectly square throughout as with the conventional handling of the pass.
Now I thought you'd never learned the classic pass. I know what you're saying though, which is partly why I think it's valuable to write down your insights as you have them, rather than trying to teach something after you've mastered it. On the other hand, I've also noticed that sometimes you learn things when you're somewhat more inept and later change those things when you become more proficient. For example, when I first learned the push-off second deal I used to have a problem with the lower right corner of the card straying to the right slightly during the squaring action with the top of the deck and corrected it with my left pinky. However, as I've become more proficient I've learned that I don't need to do this, in large part because I can control the top card more effectively. I have a myriad of examples like this. Unfortunately, we often develop bad habits while learning due to early inability and never correct the problems later.
Just a quick comment on your handling. I tried it now, I don't find it's as quick for me, though that could be a lack of practice. I could see the potential in using the straddle grip to move the top packet out, though I don't personally find it terribly comfortable and I'm not sure I'd ever consider using it.
Yes absolutely - I do it all the time and I haven’t been “caught” since I put in the many, many hours of practice.
I thought you don't use the classic pass, if so, how can you have used it under close scrutiny many times?
Having said so, I'd agree that most pass variants, if not all can be employed under close scrutiny under the right circumstances, angles being a big one.
It is primarily about three things, primarily speed, secondly smoothness and finally the performers confidence in their pass.
I think you need to factor method into this equation, that and angles. Virtually no pass is angle free, with a couple possible exceptions. Some passes are invisible even when performed quite slowly, a float pass as an example.
Moving away from the actual mechanics, there is the question of being confident in your pass and using it in a natural manner. Until you’re completely confident in your pass and can execute it naturally, within the frame work of a routine (so the pass isn’t just natural, but getting into and out of the pass are equally as natural - you‘ve a reason to riffle the cards etc.. the action has been established etc..).
This is a very good point. Jay Sankey is I think a good example of this, it's very hard to detect his pass when you don't know it's coming. Ironically, I find it is generally the riffle that gives it away.
Otherwise, it shows. I spent about four months getting to the point where I did this - I since have been accused of being a pass “egotist”. Insofar as I’ll extend my hands right forwards, bring the deck towards the people seat and say “it’s somewhere in there” - giving it a gentle riffling action - pause a beat then execute my pass with something like the words “right down near the middle”. It may be considered “dangerous” or go against conventional wisdom - but it certainly works.
Sounds impressive.
Hmm, I’ve heard that argued about the riffle pass.. Now I disagree strongly with that, as whilst the riffling action isn’t the worlds most natural a genuine riffle pass (not the classic pass with a riffle) adds a very significant handling change that speeds up the pass dramatically - in fact a genuine riffle pass (ala Fred Robinson - a pass I have since fallen in love with and use in place) is a completely different type of action to the classic pass. It also masks most of the flash points that occur with the pass at the side (the disappearing top stock, which in my experience simply cannot be disguised with speed). It also gives the hands a reason, as you mention, to come together.
You're making me very interested in this, tell me more. Do you know of a source where it can be learned?
A covering action however shouldn’t seem contrived or lack spontaneity, it shouldn’t be out of place.
I'm going to throw out a piece of advice here. You shouldn't come up with an action to cover the pass. Instead, you should meld the pass into your actions. The difference is subtle but unbelievably significant. The pass should occur as part of something you're already doing anyway, rather than inserting an action, no matter how natural, for the sake of performing the pass.
|
|
| Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:11 am |
|
|
machinator
4 Of A Kind
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 86
|
|
| |
|
I preface this with - the differences and similarities the classic pass and riffle pass - whether they are comparable. As it is something you as you warned make mention of several times. The riffle pass in my view is sufficiently close to the classic pass that you can make meaningful comparisons between the two. However, certain aspects of the riffle pass are quite different in method - most people these days will to a varying extent use the bottom stock to knock the top out of the way to facilitate speed.
The riffle as a cover, whilst it is slight does help shade certain aspects of that pass that not matter how fast you perform it will flash - the jolt of the top stock disappearing from the left and it is gives as justification for the hands coming together as you have also alluded to.
I remember during my earliest periods working with cards, reading an article that was in my view quite observant, using a pass to control one card is like taking a sledge hammer after a mosquito.
A Ken Krenzel quote if memory serves me correctly, I agree up to a point. The pass needn’t be a full deck control, it needn‘t be a method of merely cutting the deck. Single card, block and block cover passes all control the areas of the deck that need controlling, nothing more and are exceptions to that rule.
I for one will argue with you that in most cases, if you are merely controlling a single card, a side steal of some variation or incarnation is superior to a pass, assuming you can perform it well.
I agree up to a point - the conventional side steal is not without it’s problems, certain more esoteric side steals go some way to over coming the various problems associated with the move (but there are still aspects of these side steals that remain problematic - primarily that of replacement). In my view the side steal is also overkill in the extreme - you are palming out then replacing a card when you merely want to control a card to a given position. The side steal is a palm and ought be treated accordingly - a good analogy I heard was this - you wouldn’t use a top palm to control a card to the bottom. There are plethora of card invisible card controls I will use which are neither the side steal or pass.
I will also use the conventional pass as a single card control on occasions where it is necessary to quickly and invisibly control a card to the top of the deck with minimal handling of the deck - there are undoubtedly alternatives perhaps better ones - but I find this both is more effective than many of the alternatives (spread cull, side steal, one card passes, block passes).
First, the visible action itself, but even this is deceptive and questionable. I remember teaching someone the pass, I did it a few times for them, they could see a flash but nothing else.
Whilst that is true I personally think we ought have very stringent requirements on sleights - there cannot be a flash - there cannot be any perceptible action of the sleight as any suspicion is well on the way to ruining a routine. A favourite quote of mine, from Gary Kurtz is this - “only when there is no suspicion can there be a suspension of disbelief. Only when there is a suspension of disbelief, can there be magic”. I think it sums it up well, there are better alternatives to a bad pass and unless you’ve a genuinely invisible pass you ought either employ heavy misdirection or no pass at all.
This becomes a big problem for people using the riffle pass, or a classic pass with a riffle since I'm not familiar with the variants you use. The riffling action simply isn't natural for most people in most cases. This becomes a huge problem within the context of gambling, most covering actions aren't natural at a gambling table.
Certainly true, it is something I was conscious of when I moved to the Fred Robinson style riffle pass as I modified the handling dramatically to take this into account. The riffle pass as I currently execute it entails giving the inner end of the deck a gentle and smooth riffle, nothing more nothing less. It has required heavy modification of the existing pass and some concerted effort and attention in learning it as it’s easier to give it a riffle at either end as many people do when executing the riffle pass - which as you mention isn’t that natural.
Third, you have the psychology associated with the covering actions, or the action in general.
One of the reasons I favour the riffle pass as I currently use it - it is a psychologically sound action. A spontaneous gentle riffle will fly past even the most astute spectator .
On the other hand, I've also noticed that sometimes you learn things when you're somewhat more inept and later change those things when you become more proficient..
…Just a quick comment on your handling. I tried it now, I don't find it's as quick for me, though that could be a lack of practice. I could see the potential in using the straddle grip to move the top packet out, though I don't personally find it terribly comfortable and I'm not sure I'd ever consider using it.
I personally wouldn’t ever have deliberately used this technique, but that is as it happened - that is what my hands started doing and I found it worked rather well.. Or at least the pass worked well for certain situations.
I thought you don't use the classic pass, if so, how can you have used it under close scrutiny many times?
I used to at any rate, use a pass that is almost identical in method with and had added only a gentle riffle - they are similar enough to compare the two in my opinion. But it is true - the pass variant I currently execute cannot really be compared to the classic pass. With speed the angles get better - for example my pass is invisible from most angles - top down to a certain extent - right and left. The only weak angles are looking down from the right when you can see the pinky dipping and jumping about and naturally looking up at the hands. However, for almost all circumstances that arise when performing it is an invisible pass.
You're making me very interested in this, tell me more. Do you know of a source where it can be learned?
You can find a description in Routined Manipulation - Lewis Ganson. Another more detailed and accurate description will be found in Peter Duffie’s upcoming book detailing many of Fred Robinson’s false deals, pass and routines which is I’m told currently with the editor and should be published sometime this year. It’s actually a fiendishly simple pass - you just pull the bottom stock up through the top (rather than making any attempt at moving the top stock down - the fingers merely act as a hinge).
I'm going to throw out a piece of advice here. You shouldn't come up with an action to cover the pass. Instead, you should meld the pass into your actions. The difference is subtle but unbelievably significant. The pass should occur as part of something you're already doing anyway, rather than inserting an action, no matter how natural, for the sake of performing the pass.
Apologies, that is exactly what I meant. Certain covering actions arise naturally within the context of a routine. For example, I’ve one trick where I like to emphases the chaotic and uncontrolled nature of the cards and dribble them and use various of Lennart Green’s more esoteric shuffles and here the use of the dribble pass is natural.
I’ll endeavour to film my pass sometime this week, obviously you won’t be able to make any really assessment of the speed - but it will give you an idea of the handling and context in which I use it.
|
|
| Mon Aug 07, 2006 3:45 am |
|
|
Drey
Straight Flush
Joined: 06 Feb 2005
Posts: 696
|
|
| |
|
However, certain aspects of the riffle pass are quite different in method - most people these days will to a varying extent use the bottom stock to knock the top out of the way to facilitate speed.
Yes, that is of course bad technique. I've worked a lot with the very fine details of the pass lately, one thing you do need to account for is the hand size of the person in question, but in practice both hands should remain perfectly still, the entire action occurs with the fingers, while most people tend to either raise the right hand, or lower the left, or a combination. Likewise, what you are suggesting is that the initial action is the lifting of the bottom packet which raises the top packet, this is also wrong in my view. Rather, the lifting of the top packet should be the first action and if the hands are positioned correctly this actually automatically lifts the bottom packet (it has to do with the fact that the right hand finger positions don't allow the top packet to move far enough), which causes the change to occur without any sound, as opposed to the alternative which makes for a noisy pass. Likewise, this actually makes for a faster pass because there is a two-fold action. Most people in my experience have very poor economy of motion for their pass.
There is the question of small hands though, in which case you can "cheat" and pivot the top packet backwards slightly so it clears the right hand, this accompanied by lifting the lower right corner of the bottom packet slightly more (it creates a flash, but still leaves a handling that is drastically superior to what most people use and is tolerable if you follow it up with an apparent left hand squaring motion) creates almost as strong an illusion with virtually no resistance, but the economy of motion is slightly off (the action is slightly larger) and thus not ideal, you also generally have slight finger flare to contend with. The appeal of the classic pass is that it is in fact a perfect move, meaning that executed correctly, the action is the smallest possible movement you could use to cut the deck...unfortunately, most people compromise this reality and make it bigger so they'd be better off with some other method.
The riffle as a cover, whilst it is slight does help shade certain aspects of that pass that not matter how fast you perform it will flash - the jolt of the top stock disappearing from the left and it is gives as justification for the hands coming together as you have also alluded to.
Indeed, the problem for me is that when 99% of people use a riffle pass they perform an action that doesn't look like anything they would do unless they were doing a riffle pass. I've been looking a lot at the mechanics of a genuine riffle lately and trying to mirror it with a pass...it isn't going so well, but the experiment is interesting.
I will say though, that you can essentially eliminate concern of the top flash enough that it isn't noticeable...the same cannot be said for the lower packet flashing too high if you do that, or the flash below the right hand.
The pass needn’t be a full deck control, it needn‘t be a method of merely cutting the deck. Single card, block and block cover passes all control the areas of the deck that need controlling, nothing more and are exceptions to that rule.
Good point, I'll have to keep that in mind, it reminds me a bit of Oliver Macia's one-card pass, if you're familiar with that.
(but there are still aspects of these side steals that remain problematic - primarily that of replacement)
Well, my view is generally that most magicians have awful palm replacements in general...but you have a point, Guy Hollingworth has his all round square up version that is quite interesting, it also depends on the side steal variant and where you are replacing the card to. For example, I find Tenkai steals with a replacement to the bottom is quite nice...but at the same time there are direct bottom placement methods that are often superior.
In my view the side steal is also overkill in the extreme - you are palming out then replacing a card when you merely want to control a card to a given position.
Very good point, and I think part of the issue for me is that controls themselves aren't that practical, how many effects really use them, especially invisible control? A scant few I'd say and most of the time you'd be better served by using some kind of a switch. I can't dispute the validity of your statement, on reflection, when I do side steals I often make it a two-fold action, I steal the card and then replace it later because it's often very awkward to replace it directly, the squaring motion has to go too far right to be natural. There are of course alternatives and again, it depends on the type of side steal, a lateral side steal for example is quite different, then again, the angles aren't nearly as good as with a classic palm side steal. I actually find I have some of the best luck with Tenkai side steals.
The side steal is a palm and ought be treated accordingly - a good analogy I heard was this - you wouldn’t use a top palm to control a card to the bottom. There are plethora of card invisible card controls I will use which are neither the side steal or pass.
Yes, interesting point. Regarding the other controls, are there actually any that aren't side steals or passes masquerading as something else? Basically, just considering the ones I'm aware of. You have side steals and passses, you also have switches (be it in the form of a convincing control (which is really a switch), or a double lift, or some double lift variant, or top change etc.), you have open controls (obviously these serve a different purpose), finally, you have direct bottom placements such as the Kelly to Bottom control, or I have another variant of my own that I use. I can't actually think of any that don't in some regard fall into one of these categories. I suppose you could argue for a half pass or reversal, but those serve a very different purpose. If you look at a lateral palm shift, it's really a side steal of sorts. If you look at a one-card pass, it is very much a one-card pass. If you look at the subtle control, or a fan steal, they are really side steals. I suppose you have the WOW control though it is certainly flawed in some regards, Marlo's dribble control is really a side steal, multiple shifts fall into one of the earlier categories. Now that I think of it, a bluff pass might be the closest to a genuine control to the top of the deck that falls outside those parameters...that or perhaps Aaron Fisher's Illusion control. Ernest Earnick has the Bow to Stern control, which is nice, but is really a convincing control to a greater extent than the Illusion control. Marlo's tilt is I suppose an example of a more direct control. I don't know, can you think of any others that really qualify as being direct controls?
I will also use the conventional pass as a single card control on occasions where it is necessary to quickly and invisibly control a card to the top of the deck with minimal handling of the deck - there are undoubtedly alternatives perhaps better ones - but I find this both is more effective than many of the alternatives (spread cull, side steal, one card passes, block passes).
Well, I'd have to know of the context to determine whether I thought there was anything better, but you do have a point...though I think part of that comes from the fact that you're comfortable with the pass, whereas someone who isn't comfortable with the pass but is comfortable with say a side steal would find that more expedient. Obviously, there are a lot of factors, such as whether you want to preserve a stack, the nature of the control in question etc. I will say that in most cases I prefer switch methods as I find they are just much cleaner, typically more elegant and easier to give the appearance of magic with zero handling.
Whilst that is true I personally think we ought have very stringent requirements on sleights - there cannot be a flash - there cannot be any perceptible action of the sleight as any suspicion is well on the way to ruining a routine. A favourite quote of mine, from Gary Kurtz is this - “only when there is no suspicion can there be a suspension of disbelief. Only when there is a suspension of disbelief, can there be magic”. I think it sums it up well, there are better alternatives to a bad pass and unless you’ve a genuinely invisible pass you ought either employ heavy misdirection or no pass at all.
Extremely good points. The times when it seems like real magic occurred are those times when you seemingly did nothing, which is why I often advocate switch controls.
Certainly true, it is something I was conscious of when I moved to the Fred Robinson style riffle pass as I modified the handling dramatically to take this into account. The riffle pass as I currently execute it entails giving the inner end of the deck a gentle and smooth riffle, nothing more nothing less. It has required heavy modification of the existing pass and some concerted effort and attention in learning it as it’s easier to give it a riffle at either end as many people do when executing the riffle pass - which as you mention isn’t that natural.
Indeed, I must say, the Fred Robinson book is probably the only book on my eagerly anticipated list, it seems like I keep hearing about all this great material from him that people simply love (his center deal, his greek deal, his riffle pass etc.) and yet while they all know it I am left in the dark, the stuff sounds good, I hear the book is supposed to be out this year.
I do find riffling the deck at the front end alone is quite naturally, namely for magic where magicians will do it as a magical gesture.
One of the reasons I favour the riffle pass as I currently use it - it is a psychologically sound action. A spontaneous gentle riffle will fly past even the most astute spectator .
I think the key word there is "gentle", not this violent action that passes for most people these days. Mind you, Jay Sankey uses a gentle action and the action gives his pass away, so like you pointed out, it can't just be gentle, it has to be natural as well.
I personally wouldn’t ever have deliberately used this technique, but that is as it happened - that is what my hands started doing and I found it worked rather well.. Or at least the pass worked well for certain situations.
Interesting, I'll definitely experiment more with it, though probably not for the classic pass but rather for some variants.
I used to at any rate, use a pass that is almost identical in method with and had added only a gentle riffle - they are similar enough to compare the two in my opinion. But it is true - the pass variant I currently execute cannot really be compared to the classic pass. With speed the angles get better - for example my pass is invisible from most angles - top down to a certain extent - right and left. The only weak angles are looking down from the right when you can see the pinky dipping and jumping about and naturally looking up at the hands. However, for almost all circumstances that arise when performing it is an invisible pass.
Sounds good, watching myself in the mirror yesterday I noticed that even with a less than ideal variant I can get the pass fast enough that it's virtually invisible from all angles, the problem is that while you can't see the action itself, you can see things that, as a card worker, I know signal a pass. If I do it ideally (which I must admit is hard and takes a lot of practice), those problems are mostly eliminated...somewhat interestingly, I've never seen anyone execute a classic pass that I couldn't detect, they always needed some kind of cover. The problem with the cover was two fold, first, was it natural? And how were the angles?
You can find a description in Routined Manipulation - Lewis Ganson. Another more detailed and accurate description will be found in Peter Duffie’s upcoming book detailing many of Fred Robinson’s false deals, pass and routines which is I’m told currently with the editor and should be published sometime this year. It’s actually a fiendishly simple pass - you just pull the bottom stock up through the top (rather than making any attempt at moving the top stock down - the fingers merely act as a hinge).
I'm eagerly looking forward to the book.
Apologies, that is exactly what I meant. Certain covering actions arise naturally within the context of a routine. For example, I’ve one trick where I like to emphases the chaotic and uncontrolled nature of the cards and dribble them and use various of Lennart Green’s more esoteric shuffles and here the use of the dribble pass is natural.
Yes, exactly, Mr. Green is a master of that sort of thing, things that would never work for anyone else work for him because of his style, handling etc.
I’ll endeavour to film my pass sometime this week, obviously you won’t be able to make any really assessment of the speed - but it will give you an idea of the handling and context in which I use it.
I'll look forward to that, I'll probably film myself performing the classic pass the next time I do filming, whenever that is...I really need to buy a video camera.
|
|
| Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:21 pm |
|
|
-Shade-
4 Of A Kind
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 220
Location: The Darkside |
|
| posts |
|
oh god! this must have the longest posts EVER!  filled with excellent information i might add 
Thanks guy to goin to all the trouble to describe these many moves and enhance my knowledge
be writing back soon
_________________
The Art of Shade, is difficult but can be achived through many different lightings |
|
| Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:56 am |
|
|
OPE
4 Of A Kind
Joined: 28 Aug 2005
Posts: 83
Location: Vancouver BC |
|
| |
|
i used to use the straddle grip, but i recently found out that my left index twitches a bit as i move the top packet down. . which is visible from the front.
after that i changed my grip so that my left index stays curled over the packet. .
i still like the feel of it being infront of the top right corner of the packet though. . 
_________________
 |
|
| Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:05 pm |
|
|
OPE
4 Of A Kind
Joined: 28 Aug 2005
Posts: 83
Location: Vancouver BC |
|
|
| Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:57 pm |
|
|
Drey
Straight Flush
Joined: 06 Feb 2005
Posts: 696
|
|
| |
|
The second one is better, the first one involves your forefinger shooting out a lot which isn't good. You should also watch your break at the left side of the deck.
From this angle your pass looks pretty good. A few little things though, it looks like you're pulling upward with your right pinky, this means you probably have a flash point in the lower right, just below the right hand, it's much better to keep your pinky etc. "glued" to your forefinger to offer cover (avoid the flash point) and use your middle finger to pivot the packet up. However, your action is quite small and controlled, which is good and I'm sure you could cover the issue with angles and audience management in most situations.
Second, there is a brief delay sometimes between when you start to move the top packet and when you actually move it, this creates a lot more of a flash than is really necessary, you'd benefit from making that action smoother, very continuous once it starts.
Really good pass though, better than a lot of those I see.
|
|
| Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:22 am |
|
|
OPE
4 Of A Kind
Joined: 28 Aug 2005
Posts: 83
Location: Vancouver BC |
|
| |
|
thanks drey for your pointers. .
now i see where i need to work on!
_________________
|
|
| Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:56 am |
|
|
J.D.Dyson
2 Pairs
Joined: 07 May 2008
Posts: 12
Location: Johannesburg |
|
| |
|
This is my idea of the perfect card table pass
Rapid Keep Pass
This pass I find is the ultimate card table pass. (No disrespect to the to the S.W.E) I have a few variations for steps 1-2. This can be used as a transformation sort of like the open shift.
The whole point of the half pass is to make the pass easy and quicker with less movement.
S1: Hold a Pinkie break above the card to be passed
S2: Perform a half pass bringing the card to the bottom upside down. (Square up the left side of the deck but still hold break)
S3: Holding a pinkie break between the two packets bring your right hand towards your left (which should have the cards in it)
S4: Your left hand has the cards in mechanics grip with a pinkie brake whilst your right hand comes over placing your thumb on the bottom packet on the left with your thumb closest to you, your middle finger above it on the other edge.
S5: Perform the shift by flipping the bottom to the top, it should be done rapidly and smoothly as to look as the squaring up the deck. As you can see its so fast because there is no need to flip the bottom packet over to be the right way.
_________________
HHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSS totally suck |
|
| Wed May 07, 2008 10:30 am |
|
|
|
|
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
