Ye Olde Magick Blogge

Chapter 10, False Shuffles and Cuts

This is a weird chapter for me. For one, if you remember all the way back in the annotations on the first chapter, you’ll remember that I talked about how the G.W. Hunter shuffle is, from my vantage point, one of the real gems of the book. Obviously, the real test of the utility of a sleight is what it can help you accomplish, but again, let’s recap what it is that the G.W. Hunter shuffle allows you to do.

Now, to be clear, the G.W. Hunter shuffle wouldn’t be my tool of choice for this sort of thing — we’ll get to that in a second — but even this alone will fool the pants off a lot of people. Why? Because all the sleight of hand that you’re doing is being applied in a non-intuitive, indirect way. Remember how Darwin Ortiz talks about the Critical Interval of the trick, which is the period from the point the spectator believes that the trick starts, to the point that the spectator thinks that the trick is over. All of the real sleight-of-hand in the above video is accomplished before the card is even selected — which is going to be the starting point of the Critical Interval for most people — and keep in mind that they get a truly, legitimately free choice. The one thing that you have to do, you have perfect cover for, because it happens right at the point that they’re looking at the card, or showing it to everybody else, or whatever. This is the real power of combining a false shuffle with a full deck stack. Simply naming that card alone is going to baffle a lot of people, and if you take it to the next level, such as letting them put the card back themselves and guiding them towards cutting and/or shuffling the deck so that the card is truly lost, now you’re coming really close to approaching the ideal situation for any basic pick-a-card trick — they have a free choice of a card, they get to put it back where they want, they get to shuffle, and you can still find the damn thing using any number of techniques that you like. You’re obviously not out of the woods yet, but you’re at a point where you can really sell the card as being lost, and that’s a good thing. It doesn’t even matter if you take some of the crappiest revelations that Karrell Fox had — if the audience is convinced that the card is lost, you’ll have a minor miracle.

Which brings me to my frustration about this chapter of Royal Road… the authors don’t talk about any of this! Gah! What’s more, the things you can do with what’s described in the previous paragraph will outweigh all but maybe a dozen tricks in the entire book, but there’s no mention of any of it. And to make matters worse, some of what’s taught here technique-wise is nowhere near as good as what was in Erdnase’s Expert at the Card Table, several decades prior to the publication of Royal Road.

Anyways, I’ll bitch more about this later in the “General Thoughts” section below. For now, taking into account the techniques that are taught…

“Optical Shuffle”

This isn’t bad. When I was first researching false shuffles on the internet, this shuffle was highly rated amongst magicians, and while I’m not sure it’s quite as good as the people there were raving about it, it’s still not bad. Some people really do shuffle in this manner, and any time you can perform a false shuffle in a way that appears identical to the way real people shuffle, it’s worth noting. Ackerman has touches on this as well if I remember correctly from his Advanced Card Control series which you might want to check out, if you like it.

“Charlier Shuffle”

If you go back to your Erdnase and read the false shuffles section, you’ll notice that the technique that the authors describe here is one that Erdnase mentioned as something that self-respecting magicians might want to avoid. In truth, I’m not a big fan of this shuffle, but again, it is one that approximates what regular people might do from time to time, and Daryl, on his Encyclopedia of Card Sleights DVDs, actually uses this shuffle to good effect in small packet work — there’s something about his particular rhythm and sloppiness that makes it look like it’d be difficult to control cards in those actions. I think it’s weak to use it for a full-deck false shuffle because it’s difficult to keep it from looking ponderous, but it can look alright for small packet work. All in all, though, I agree with Erdnase that there are better shuffles out there, and this is even taking into account what was available during Erdnase’s time, rather than all the good stuff that’s become available since.

“The Cut”

Four methods for false cutting are taught here. The first two keep the entire deck in order, whereas the second two keep blocks in order. The first method is ok — whenever I see cuts like this I always shudder, because they seem so damn blatant, but I also know that plenty of magicians employ such cuts and they do consistently fly. One thing to keep in mind is something that Bill Malone says, which is that what really sells the cut isn’t so much the cutting action, but a big slap of the packet on top of the other packet at the end. That’s a weird piece of psychology, but I can sort of understand how it applies. It’s a nice punctuating moment that in and of itself seems to communicate that a cut took place. In any case, I’ve always thought that it would be great to replace something like the first method with a Classic Pass as a false cut, but in the end, sometimes it’s better to go with a bold discrepancy than to try to get away with a sneaky move.

The second method isn’t bad either, although I don’t think I’d go so far as to use six packets. It’s sort of working with the same principle that makes the Jay Ose false cut deceptive. I think the Jay Ose cut is slightly better — three packets seems like just right, whereas six strikes me as turning what should be a cursory action into an event, and events invite scrutiny. You might want to sit down and take a look at what’s taught here in Royal Road, as well as the explanation for the Jay Ose false cut, and try to figure out your own false cut choreography based on the ideas. Consider things like changing the placement of the packets you lay down, as well as changing the hand that cuts off the packet versus the hand that reassembles them. These touches, combined with a casual indifference to the proceedings as well as the old Bill Malone slap, should allow you to come up with a nice false cut sequence that works for you.

The third method for retaining top stock would probably fly if you had the even rhythm that the authors talk about. One thing that’s worth considering is the idea of trying to get into this sort of action after a jog shuffle. So, for instance, you’ve got your stack on top — next, undercut a large portion of the deck (ideally about two-thirds or more, taking care not to cut into your stack), injog and shuffle off, making a bit of a mess. Set the deck down to patter for a bit, and then later, take the deck, attaining the break at the injog in the way they talk about in the text before continuing with the small packet cutting action — this will eliminate the somewhat fishy (to me, anyway) sequence where you cut, only to square up, only to start cutting again. That’s just my two cents, though.

The fourth method reads much better to me. Again, I’d want to try to get into that rapid cutting action directly out of a shuffle, rather than cutting, only to square up, only to start cutting again. Another option might be to — rather than cutting two-thirds off and then squaring and then entering the strip cuts — instead cut off several small packets in succession and stacking them in front of you, then terminating with the bottom packet containing the stock you want to maintain, and then moving into the strip cuts sequence. Again, just my two cents. It’s worth noting that I don’t do this sort of thing alot — maintaining a slug can be really useful in some instances, but I don’t really do any tricks that need it, and I tend to work in the hands primarily.

“Palm Cut”

I like this. If done well, this sort of action has the potential to simulate an actual cut, with none of the open discrepancies in the preceding techniques. It does require you to do a move, though. This is really the tricky thing about sleights versus discrepancies… if people are hip to the fact that you’ve got card skills, they’re going to look for tells on sleights, which can bring heat to bad moments for you. If you can properly sell a discrepancy, though, then now you don’t have to worry about getting caught on a secret move. Tyler Erickson and Benjamin Earl (if I’m correct in what I’m intuiting from his Past Midnight DVDs as well as a conversation we had in Blackpool once that I’m sure he’s forgotten) both are really good with cards, and while both of them can do the sublime finger-flinging stuff, both of them will also go for the discrepancy if they think they can get it. If you’re a real bona fide sleight-of-hand artist, you want them to miss the moves you do, and if that’s what you’re going for, sometimes a discrepant move is a greater ally than a well-done sleight, because now there’s no move to conceal.

Still, even taking into all that into account, I’m partial to the Palm Cut. If nothing else, it’s a good moment for replacing palmed cards on the deck.

“An Incomprehensible Divination”

You don’t see many people doing tricks like this these days. I’m not entirely sure if this sort of trick rises above the puzzle level, but if you can hit that Joker climax talked about in the Royal Road write-up, then you’ve got a pretty good moment. If you’re intrigued by the trick, then Erdnase has a write-up of it as well.

“Circus Card Trick”

Some people swear by this trick. I think this falls into the category of trick that is improved by making things as fair as possible for the spectator. The key card isn’t a bad method for this situation since they can have a free choice of the card as well as where to return it, but if I was going to try to turn this into a show-piece, I’d probably want to take it to the next level and use a full deck stack, since they can have a legitimately free choice and shuffle the deck afterwards. Glimpses strike me as weak for this particular trick. In any case, since they don’t talk about using a full deck stack, I have no idea why this trick is included here in this chapter, when it would have been a suitable addition to the Key Card section.

“Black Jack, Detective”

A trick with a lot of dealing, use of the glide, and the old “detective card” plot. Not really my thing. Pretend for a second that you’ve been bestowed legitimate magical powers. Would you ever in a million years do a trick like this? If I was going to take this plot and really try to make something of it, then I’d want to do two things — first, the spectator would have to be able to shuffle the deck so that conviction is there that the selected card is lost, and second, the challenge would be put on them, or on a second spectator, to place the Jack into exactly the right point. With the claim lowered that much to a level of plausibility, we’ve got something that’s a lot less “magical” then having the Jack jump to the spot where the selected card was, but then again, if I was going for “magical”, I wouldn’t be doing a trick like this in the first place.

“General Thoughts on this Chapter”

Bleah. If you’ve read these annotations at all, then you know I’ve got a fair bit of criticism for some of the contents of the book, but I don’t know of another chapter of Royal Road that’s as disappointing as this one. Not only are we not getting the best tools for accomplishing the things that the chapter promises, but we’re also not getting anything really compelling in terms of effects that make use of those tools.

In some cases, I can understand us not getting all the tools in this text, because they’re either too hard or not even invented yet. The latter half of the 20th century has brought about some major advances in false shuffling, that’s for sure. Still, this represents one of the big voids that needs to be addressed with this book. So, I’ll point out a few here. This isn’t meant to be a comprehensive list, just a sampling of the stuff most decent card guys are familiar with, combined with some things of personal taste on my part. If I’ve left out a shuffle that you feel should be included, let me know in the response section below this article.

For false overhand shuffles, one of the most beautiful that exists is Lennart Green’s adaptation of the Greek Shuffle (described in Erdnase’s Expert at the Card Table), which is called the Joker Shuffle. It’s especially good if you don’t mind leaving a Joker in the deck, and if it doesn’t matter if you’re cutting the deck in the process of shuffling — if you’re using a circular stack, then a cut in the midst of a shuffle is not a problem. For what it’s worth, if you can maintain jogs, then you can do it without a Joker. Another few magicians have come up with interesting ideas for “chop”-style of false shuffles. One I’m not allowed to mention here as a favour to a buddy, but it’s out there in the literature, and another one which also looks pretty good is taught on Eugene Burger’s Exploring Magical Presentations DVD. If you don’t need to maintain an entire deck in order, but instead want to maintain a separation of two packs of cards (such as keeping all the blacks together and all the reds together) then Laurie Ireland’s got a fantastic shuffle to check out.

For false tabled riffle shuffles, there are two major types. The first is Herb Zarrow’s Zarrow Shuffle, and this thing can look exquisite if done well. It’s available in a variety of sources (Genii had a special article on it, there’s a DVD with Zarrow himself, and Ackerman does a decent enough job on his Advanced Card Control DVDs), but if anybody claims to teach the Zarrow and only has a single card cover on top, ignore them, they’re doing it wrong. The second is more of a general style of shuffle where the packets are legitimately shuffled into each other, but are then stripped free afterwards. Different versions of this exist — in Hugard and Braue’s Expert Card Technique, they describe the strip-out shuffle, and various forms of the Push Through Shuffle are taught in a variety of places (Daryl, Ackerman, etc.), and there’s one that was demonstrated to me once by Tyler which he credits to Darwin Ortiz’s Annotated Erdnase which can look really good. These are a bit more difficult to do than Zarrow-style shuffles, but for some people, that extra effort is worth it. I go back and forth in terms of which I like better. It’s worth noting that Dai Vernon’s Triumph Shuffle can be adapted into a regular full-deck false shuffle, and people might find that a bit easier than the preceding types (although maybe not the Zarrow, hard to say).

It’s also possible to do false in-the-hands riffle shuffles. We’ve had a major leap forward in terms of published methods over the course of the last decade. Not necessarily in perfect chronological order… Lennart Green finally tipped the work on his Real Green Shuffle, which had a pretty good illusion but a lot of noise to it. Still, at the time it was a real killer. Then came Karl Hein doing the Heinstein shuffle, which looked and sounded great. Then came Benjamin Earl and his Grey Shuffle, which looked really good in his hands. Currently, it seems that the state of the art is Derek DelGaudio’s Truffle Shuffle, which has a really, really nice illusion to it. There are some other false shuffles out there that use a strip-out technique after the weaving of the packets, and you might want to look into those — Guy Hollingworth had one, and I believe Eric Anderson had another — but to me the potential for failure and leaving cards behind after the strip-out was too much. Then again, I really like to handle the cards loosely.

There are some older shuffles that have been put to decent use — Richard Osterlind, when working with his Breakthrough Card System stack, uses some really rudimentary false shuffles. There’s an old shuffle in Erdnase that I think doesn’t look all that hot when tabled, but when Osterlind’s doing it on his leg it actually doesn’t read that poorly. One thing that’s worth considering is that simply changing the angle of the shuffle can make things like the Shank or a one-card-cover Zarrow look pretty good, whereas they don’t seem as nice when tabled (from my vantage point, anyway).

But even with all this, the real question isn’t just which technique to use, but why you’re using it in the first place. These shuffles can all look really good, but what’s the aim of keeping an entire deck in order? That brings me to the second short-fall (in my opinion) of this chapter in the book, in that these topics aren’t addressed — we’re just not given any good effects that rely upon these shuffles. There are some great tricks that require an arrangement but don’t need it to be for the full deck, in which case a shuffle to maintain a stock will have an advantage because in those shuffles, parts of the deck are legitimately being mixed, which aids the illusion. However, for those effects which rely upon a full-deck stack, and there are some good ones, these shuffles should do the trick.

For full-deck stack work, there are three magicians who are at the forefront of developing the best work — Juan Tamariz (“Mnemonica”), Simon Aronson (various books), and Richard Osterlind (BCS stack). All of them have some great ideas, with tricks that range from gambling demonstrations, to “any card called for” effects, to magician-in-trouble style of effects, even to traditional plots (such as “Triumph”) that actually maintain the stack despite all the apparent chaos. With Tamariz’s and Aronson’s stacks, you’ll need to memorize the entire deck stack (although for a large number of the effects, it doesn’t matter which stack you have memorized, only that you do have one memorized). Even given the merits of having those stacks committed to memory, I cannot stress enough the power of just being able to divine a single selected card from a stack of any type, even Si Stebbins or Eight Kings (google those). The one main advantage of using the stacks by any of the three magicians above is that you can false shuffle, before spreading the cards to show that they’re in a random order, because there’s no visible pattern to the cards — but you’ll find with experience that people, if they’re not given tons of time to examine the order of the deck, and if they’re not ready for that technique, will have difficulty picking out the pattern even in Si Stebbins or Eight Kings. Even in Tamariz’s Mnemonica he implores people to focus in on doing a simple revelation of a selected card from a stack, and then jokingly expresses regret in knowing that magicians are going to keep reading looking for the “good stuff”, not knowing just how much good magic there exists just in simply revealing a card in this manner.

If you want to know more about this, Simon Aronson wrote a great e-book on the memorized deck which you should check out. Go here and answer the ridiculously easy trivia question, and then click on “Memorized Deck Magic” and then download the “Memories Are Made Of This” pdf to get more information on the merits of learning a full-deck stack. If you have any trouble with that trivia question, then reread this blog entry, as the answer’s hidden in here.

I suppose, given all this ranting, it might seem amusing to find out that I don’t use a full-deck stack at all in my work. I want to be clear that it’s not because I dislike the idea, it’s just that I like having cards signed and then given away during a trick, and that sort of makes it impossible to do any decent stack work. Remember when I was talking about choosing the dozen tricks that you’re going to do for the rest of your life? Well, the two major cards tricks that I do are both non-stack dependent, and they fit me. Still, when I was messing about with the Si Stebbins + simple divination strategy on my girlfriend, I was reminded of just how powerful this can be, and to be honest, I feel a bit jealous of those who can make that sort of thing a part of their repertoire.

Ok, that’s enough of that. Up next… THE DOUBLE LIFT! Woo-hoo!