I don't mean to be rude, but the utl looked hideous with such a large brief. Its a shame that all these young'uns will now learn it this way.
I don't mean to be rude, but the utl looked hideous with such a large brief. Its a shame that all these young'uns will now learn it this way.
Up the ladder is always taught with a large brief. The nature of the move is such that successive packets appear to be pulled out of the middle of the deck in a haphazard fashion, so perfect squaredness after each cut can, in fact, detract from the illusion. As with false dealing, rhythm is more important than size of the brief.
Also, on the subject of using more that one false riffle shuffle, surely the idea is that a Zarrow, push-through, strip-out, or whatever you use, all simulate the action of a real tabled shuffle. Therefore, unless your technique is poor, your audience shouldn't pick up on any change if you use multiple techniques. In fact, it can be beneficial. If some wise-guy in the audience thinks something was suspicious about your Zarrow, maybe he caught the fact that the packets came apart before being pushed back together, he'll be watching like a well-bred hawk the next time you shuffle. If he sees the cards genuinely being weaved and pushed into each other, as in a push-through, it will allay his suspicions.
I'm thinking about buying this, but I already know the Truffle Shuffle. Anybody actually buy this? If so, can you give a short review?
So,
What are your thoughts on the new 1-on-1?
Personally I think it looks really cool. I might get it.
-manks
Again, people here talk without much experience.
The Push-through shuffle is the basics of all false table shuffling. Very fun to practice and very difficult to make it look good. As much as this is one of the coolest 1on1 that has been released... I still disagree with it. In my opinion, people should actually friggin read the materials instead of them getting their butt wiped. The future of magic... is where people can learn the secrets that has been in text for many decades now being easily learned by just paying 10 bucks and watching it. Sigh.
As you go into riffle shuffle work and its magical applications, you'll find that there are places where the effect demands a push through.
Jason Englad, as expected, does the move very well. People used to pay only to get the move done by an expert. Now you see it AND learn it.
For ten bucks.
Cheers,
One factor is ,it depends on what do you want to emphasis in the effect. The push through allows you to show the card being shuffled in fairly, and the buit-in cuts are nice.I was under the impression that false shuffles accomplish the same thing. I'm curious to know what kind of effects demand any particular one? Did you get this? Recommended?
I'm kinda like Ben whereas I'd rather use a Zarrow than push through in most cases.
One factor is ,it depends on what do you want to emphasis in the effect. The push through allows you to show the card being shuffled in fairly, and the buit-in cuts are nice.
The Zarrow is great, no strip out work, but personally, I don't think doing it when the deck is under fire is a good thing. There are many sublties created for it that makes it extremely convincing, but there is something about the cards really being shuffled that makes the illusion convincing. Also, In card games and gambling demos, its common knowledge that the deck should be shuffled then cut. You could start some a Zarrow, following it up with a push through with a built in single cut.
Take full deck control demos ( where you show a deck back in its original order ), while the Zarrow is used in this alot, a well constructed effect would include touches that the deck is indeed mixed, which is why the Zarrow is usually done after some push-throughs and strip outs, and done quickly as "more quick shuffles", as a throw off.
These are obviously tiny details, but to me are important. But again, this is why people who're not going for deep study of the subject settle for Zarrows
Thats when we're talking about them as full deck controls, the principles are varied as you go into riffle shuffle work ( block transfers ...etc ), which not alot of people take time to study lol
Cheers,
Thats when we're talking about them as full deck controls, the principles are varied as you go into riffle shuffle work ( block transfers ...etc ), which not alot of people take time to study lol
Cheers,
You're right. I admit it. But I still disagree.
My philosophy of magic is that one should be less ostentatious. I never want people to notice me shuffling. Or rather, I never want people to be consciously aware that I'm shuffling the deck. In other words, I try to never put myself in situations in which people are burning my hands as I shuffle.
Probably the one exception is when I do a tabled Triumph. I use a Zarrow shuffle to accomplish this and the point of the trick is for people to see that I'm honestly and fairly coalescing a face up and a face down packet of cards. But again, I don't put myself in a situation in which I force my spectators to look at the fairness of the shuffle. Because there's not supposed to be anything special about it. It's just a shuffle.
I reiterate that I'm a firm believer that one really only needs one false shuffle (and maybe between 2 and 36,000 false cuts). I think that using only one method to shuffle reinforced the idea that it's just a shuffle. It's a natural action and I don't draw attention to it.
I do not understand your statement...
There are different types of learners, Auditory, Visual or Kinesthetic....
Some people learn more effectively by watching a video, whereas some people learn it easier by watching a video...
What is your point?
To be honest, Im dilexic and it takes me ages to understand what is being said through text. That being said, I think I'm able to write quite clearly.
I think the whole Auditory/Vusual/Kinesthetic argument is total rubbish. It's down to pure laziness wether or not someone can learn through reading a book or watching a video. Personally, I prefer learning something by means of a book as it gives you a sense of acheivment.
Watching a video is much easier than learning something by reading about it, people nowadays want things fed to them by the quickest and easiest way method avalable to them. I'm not against instant downloads, I just think some things should be kept how they were first taught.. through books.
I do that too, which is why I mentioned the full-deck control as an example, since the emphasis is on the shuffle itself. Same thing going for Triumph, which I think its vital to SHOW ( NOT SAY, with some exceptions ) that the deck IS interlaced, which you can do with the Zarrow ( if you know the touch ) but I prefer doing a push through because the interlace looks real, and there are added touches that makes it look very very good, which is why I still think the original Vernon Triumph method is one of the very best.My philosophy of magic is that one should be less ostentatious. I never want people to notice me shuffling. Or rather, I never want people to be consciously aware that I'm shuffling the deck. In other words, I try to never put myself in situations in which people are burning my hands as I shuffle.
To be honest, Im dilexic and it takes me ages to understand what is being said through text. That being said, I think I'm able to write quite clearly.
I think the whole Auditory/Vusual/Kinesthetic argument is total rubbish. It's down to pure laziness wether or not someone can learn through reading a book or watching a video. Personally, I prefer learning something by means of a book as it gives you a sense of acheivment.
Watching a video is much easier than learning something by reading about it, people nowadays want things fed to them by the quickest and easiest way method avalable to them. I'm not against instant downloads, I just think some things should be kept how they were first taught.. through books.