Just wanted to get your opinion on this. If I wanted to do a four card production which move is better Center or Bottom. Help me out by listing the pros and cons of each.
Center Deal or Bottom Deal
- Thread starter Bryant_Tsu
- Start date
From what I have seen, center deal requires quite a bit more practice.
The Greek Deal in the Theory11 shop looks like a deal that may be up your alley. There's another Jason England tutorial that produces 4 cards: Multiple Shift
The Greek Deal in the Theory11 shop looks like a deal that may be up your alley. There's another Jason England tutorial that produces 4 cards: Multiple Shift
I wanted to use a dealing sleight in a trick where the spectator lists four one digit numbers. I would then proceed to deal out said numbers to produce the aces or whatnot. To elaborate I need the aces to be pulled from center or bottom should the spectator give me all high numbers.
Full routine would go as follows:
1) Give spectator deck to shuffle.
Me: Here's a full deck of cards, you can check it out and shuffle it as much as you want.
2) Proceed to do some cuts (while using Sub Rosa move), this would move the cards (aces) to the bottom or middle.
Me: Now that you've mixed it up, I will proceed to mix it up further that way neither of us could possibly know where any of the cards are.
3) Ask for four one digit numbers (1 through 9).
Me: We're going to try something impossible here. I want you to give me four numbers one through nine, pick carefully or this trick might not work.
4) Use a sleight deal method to produce the four cards.
So you gave me four numbers. Now I want to see if you had the power to correctly find a group of cards, let's say the aces. Flip the top card of each pile over for me.
1) Give spectator deck to shuffle.
Me: Here's a full deck of cards, you can check it out and shuffle it as much as you want.
2) Proceed to do some cuts (while using Sub Rosa move), this would move the cards (aces) to the bottom or middle.
Me: Now that you've mixed it up, I will proceed to mix it up further that way neither of us could possibly know where any of the cards are.
3) Ask for four one digit numbers (1 through 9).
Me: We're going to try something impossible here. I want you to give me four numbers one through nine, pick carefully or this trick might not work.
4) Use a sleight deal method to produce the four cards.
So you gave me four numbers. Now I want to see if you had the power to correctly find a group of cards, let's say the aces. Flip the top card of each pile over for me.
I'm not sure why you're even thinking about doing a Center Deal here. Definitely go for a Bottom Deal. The situation you've described is one of the most popular applications of Bottom Dealing in magic and there are dozens of tricks that use it that way. No offense, but I think you're underestimating the difficulty of the Center Deal a bit. Even the Bottom Deal will take you quite some time to get proficient at.
Hope this helps
Joey
Hope this helps
Joey
I hope you're familiar with the bottom deal, since it's a move that requires months to get it done bad.
To match your desires you have to do a perfect bottom, no flash, no miss.
This is not meant to descourage you, on the opposite, you have a lot of work to do and i think it's good.
I have about a year of practise, it's not much, but feel free to ask me anything if you need.
To match your desires you have to do a perfect bottom, no flash, no miss.
This is not meant to descourage you, on the opposite, you have a lot of work to do and i think it's good.
I have about a year of practise, it's not much, but feel free to ask me anything if you need.
I don't mind working on something like this. I'll have this to work on and my ongoing cardistry move.
Bryant,
While I technically agree with Joey on this one (Bottoms over center) there are a few points I would like to bring into the light before you ultimately decide. While bottoms and centers are both viciously hard, each has its place in magic. There are benefits and detriments to either sleight in the case of this effect.
I would also like to point out that the structure you have created is one which is theatrically and technically inferior to some of those which are already in print. (David Williamson, John Carney)
Ascanio's "last action clean" says that the last action of a sequence (dealing a number of cards for example) should be legitimate. The last deal is when the spectator's attention is focused the most.
One final point: having a spectator shuffle the deck only to have them return it and shuffle yourself is a poor strategy. The imagery you are trying to give is great (namely- they shuffle the cards and you deal to the 4 aces) but the execution could be better. Try and think of another way to give this image without destroying the external reality for the inner one.
I would recommend you consider John Carney's book, "Carneycopia" as his thoughts are generally in line with my own.
Edward
While I technically agree with Joey on this one (Bottoms over center) there are a few points I would like to bring into the light before you ultimately decide. While bottoms and centers are both viciously hard, each has its place in magic. There are benefits and detriments to either sleight in the case of this effect.
I would also like to point out that the structure you have created is one which is theatrically and technically inferior to some of those which are already in print. (David Williamson, John Carney)
Ascanio's "last action clean" says that the last action of a sequence (dealing a number of cards for example) should be legitimate. The last deal is when the spectator's attention is focused the most.
One final point: having a spectator shuffle the deck only to have them return it and shuffle yourself is a poor strategy. The imagery you are trying to give is great (namely- they shuffle the cards and you deal to the 4 aces) but the execution could be better. Try and think of another way to give this image without destroying the external reality for the inner one.
I would recommend you consider John Carney's book, "Carneycopia" as his thoughts are generally in line with my own.
Edward
I think I'll just put this on hold indefinitely until if/when I can get a book like that. I'll ditch this step process I was considering if it's inferior.
I'm sorry that I don't have all this knowledge and that my combining of moves I've seen is "inferior". I've only been doing this for less than a year. I don't have access to many (if any) magic sources (I am not lying when I say there are ZERO magic shops where I live) and therefore may not "get" things as easily.
Sorry to have to say this but you could've just said to check out (insert trick or move name), it's very similar to what you're referring to instead of saying my process is "theatrically and technically inferior."
Bryant,
It was not a personal attack aimed towards you. I simply commented on the method you devised. There are better methods. I hoped that by sharing where they were faulted you could learn from your mistakes instead of just giving you hard earned secrets for free. To use a metaphor: instead of telling you where to buy a new one I told you where yours was broken and how you could fix it. Again this isn't a personal slam by saying the method you gave is "inferior" it was an objective perspective given by someone who knows how to quantify both theatric and technical structure in magic.
Feel free to shoot me a PM if you would like to discuss this further.
Edward
It was not a personal attack aimed towards you. I simply commented on the method you devised. There are better methods. I hoped that by sharing where they were faulted you could learn from your mistakes instead of just giving you hard earned secrets for free. To use a metaphor: instead of telling you where to buy a new one I told you where yours was broken and how you could fix it. Again this isn't a personal slam by saying the method you gave is "inferior" it was an objective perspective given by someone who knows how to quantify both theatric and technical structure in magic.
Feel free to shoot me a PM if you would like to discuss this further.
Edward
Edward,
P.S.: no doubt that there are more elegant ways of structuring an effect like this. My post is concered with the structure of Bryant and his question which move would better.
Joey
Can you please refer me to a source where the Center Deal is actually used as a secret sleight and not in a demonstration of false deals? I'd love to be proven wrong but from my experience the Center Deal is a fun move to practice and to show off with, but not something that would be workable in a magic setting as a secret move. So in my opinion there really is only one obvious choice for this kind of "Stop" Trick and that is the Bottom Deal. Another possibility is of course Riffle Stacking and Second Deals.
P.S.: no doubt that there are more elegant ways of structuring an effect like this. My post is concered with the structure of Bryant and his question which move would better.
Joey
Edward:
The magician shuffling is necessary because Bryan is using Sub Rosa to locate the cards. I'll have to look at the Carneycopia to see which effect you are talking about... its been a while since I've looked at that book and I love to have a reason to pick up any book again.
Bryan:
I think you can do this effect with some justification and substituting some easier sleights. If the presentation is that you can sense where the cards are simply by shuffling the deck, then that gives you a justification for shuffling it when you get the deck back from the spectator.
A couple of ideas: 1) control the cards to the top through suffling and then do a perfect riffle of the top eight cards, so that the four aces are alternately intermixed with regular cards. Deal two poker hands of five cards and have the aces all appear in one hand; 2) control cards to the bottom and do a perfect riffle for the bottom eight cards so that they are alternating. Explain that you can deal the cards at will from the bottom of the deck. Start dealing cards from the top, deal three cards and then say you are going to deal the next one from the bottom and that the spectators will see that clearly for purposes of the demonstration (but explain that of course if you were really doing this it would be invisible). Ask the spectators if they want you to deal one of the aces or a random card. Use the glide to make whatever they say happen. This is great, because you don't need to know how to make the bottom deal seem invisible because you are telling them you are doing it. Then deal the next card (either the ace or the random card -- whichever they didn't select) from the bottom. Keep dealing the five hands -- every time you get to the last two hands openly deal from the bottom; 3) control cards to to and do any cut to the aces routine.
You can go with a gambler's cop into the bottom deal sequence without shuffling the deck yourself,
or you can go with the Marlo's Punch Deal. The sleight you need is a good second deal, but the process has problem iwht 4 of a kind production, that's why Marlo used it to deal a full house OR a poker hand.
If you want the spectator to shuffle, find a smart one, since the shuffle should be at least a decent riffle.
Use the audience at your advantage!
or you can go with the Marlo's Punch Deal. The sleight you need is a good second deal, but the process has problem iwht 4 of a kind production, that's why Marlo used it to deal a full house OR a poker hand.
If you want the spectator to shuffle, find a smart one, since the shuffle should be at least a decent riffle.
Use the audience at your advantage!
Joey,
The conclusions I have made about the center deal are my own. I have come to them with this line of logic:
1. The center deal is a sleight. Namely, it is a false deal. I.e. - it should give the appearance of dealing the top card while actually dealing a card from the innards of the deck.
2. The position of the substituted card can be known before the deal. That's to say that one isn't dealing a random card from the middle unless he chooses to.
With these two points in mind I see no reason why the sleight couldn't be substituted for any other sleight matching these criteria (all of the false deals utilized as a switch). As I said there are drawbacks; dealing past your spot, harder sleight, etc. However it is still possible. Hope this has opened your mind to the application of the sleight in a way which is much further away from the real method. I would be happy to speak to you about this in greater detail in private.
David,
The magician shuffling in this case is NOT necessary. There are other sleights which could accomplish what he wants.
Working under the constraint of Sub Rosa he may as well just shuffle cut and deal himself. The case I was speaking about was one where the spectator shuffles and the magician deals.
Marco,
I would say that this structure also has a fundamental flaw: What if the spectators look through the deck for the aces while they are shuffling?
Thanks,
Edward
The conclusions I have made about the center deal are my own. I have come to them with this line of logic:
1. The center deal is a sleight. Namely, it is a false deal. I.e. - it should give the appearance of dealing the top card while actually dealing a card from the innards of the deck.
2. The position of the substituted card can be known before the deal. That's to say that one isn't dealing a random card from the middle unless he chooses to.
With these two points in mind I see no reason why the sleight couldn't be substituted for any other sleight matching these criteria (all of the false deals utilized as a switch). As I said there are drawbacks; dealing past your spot, harder sleight, etc. However it is still possible. Hope this has opened your mind to the application of the sleight in a way which is much further away from the real method. I would be happy to speak to you about this in greater detail in private.
David,
The magician shuffling in this case is NOT necessary. There are other sleights which could accomplish what he wants.
Working under the constraint of Sub Rosa he may as well just shuffle cut and deal himself. The case I was speaking about was one where the spectator shuffles and the magician deals.
Marco,
I would say that this structure also has a fundamental flaw: What if the spectators look through the deck for the aces while they are shuffling?
Thanks,
Edward
Edward,
That's why I asked if you know about any sources where the Center Deal is used as a secret move and not in a demonstration. I didn't find any when I was looking for it. And in my opinion that is due to the drawbacks that the Center Deal has.
Joey
Yep, nothing to argue about here.
Here is where I have my problems. The above points are all well and good, however that is the theory. In practice, the drawbacks that you mentioned bring me to the conclusion that it is just no applicable as a "secret move". To admit, I haven't dedicated my life to the Center Deal, however I played around with three of the more popular types of grips/methods (Gene Maze Center, Kennedy Center, Variation of what Jason teaches in his DL) for about two years. And although the methods differ quite significantly from each other, they all suffer from the same problem.
That's why I asked if you know about any sources where the Center Deal is used as a secret move and not in a demonstration. I didn't find any when I was looking for it. And in my opinion that is due to the drawbacks that the Center Deal has.
Joey
I believe thay manipulating the audience at your advantage is similar to a sleight of hand. In a way you try to invisibly convey people toward decisions you make.
It's the magician leading the action, so if the spectator decides to do something on his own, you found an heckler, and that type of person should be avoided or controlled.
i might have talked too much, so here's an example: if you have a crimped card, and need a spectator to cut to the exact point, you choose a woman, since ladies have lighter touch and are most likely to hit the crimp.
on the same line of thoughts, if you need the spectator to shuffle for a punch deal or anything that requires that the deck is not too "messed up" you ask the casual player spectator, and explaining that just a brief mix is enough to destroy any stack in the deck, and even spread the card to convince them. Why wouldn't they believe you? their job is to be fooled.
Marco,
I agree that it's our job to control spectators in every way possible. I can also say with certainty, that you can't control everyone 100% of the time. I have had spectators look for certain cards while they were supposed to be mixing them several times - Aces, favorite cards, jokers, etc. The truth is, no matter how much you give the impression/direction that they should do something, as soon as the prop hits their hands they can and will do what they want. I never hold out while a spectator shuffles for that reason. There are just more cautious solutions.
I have a serious problem with your final statement. Spectators aren't watching you so they can walk away and say," Yep. Fooled the pants off of me" If that was what they wanted they could look at an optical illusion, try to solve a puzzle, etc.
Magic is a unique art form. It's a form of theater which allows someone to experience the impossible. While deceiving someone is a crucial step in this it is not the ultimate goal.
Edward
I agree that it's our job to control spectators in every way possible. I can also say with certainty, that you can't control everyone 100% of the time. I have had spectators look for certain cards while they were supposed to be mixing them several times - Aces, favorite cards, jokers, etc. The truth is, no matter how much you give the impression/direction that they should do something, as soon as the prop hits their hands they can and will do what they want. I never hold out while a spectator shuffles for that reason. There are just more cautious solutions.
I have a serious problem with your final statement. Spectators aren't watching you so they can walk away and say," Yep. Fooled the pants off of me" If that was what they wanted they could look at an optical illusion, try to solve a puzzle, etc.
Magic is a unique art form. It's a form of theater which allows someone to experience the impossible. While deceiving someone is a crucial step in this it is not the ultimate goal.
Edward
totally agree, i get upset when magicians say they do magic in order to fool people. that's not what we do.
The spectator doesn't know what's happening, it's a intrinsec part of them being spectating.
If a person is watching a magic trick you have to lead the pace, otherwise the audience is loose.
Their job is to be fooled: they are here with you to witness something that happens only if you decide to perform.
If i was going to listen a pianist, i shouldn't ask for a specific song to be played, cause my job is to listen, although i don't think of myself that way, because i'm too focused on following the piano notes.
Unfortunately the heckler figure exists, and it's our job to control him. But that's part of the uncertainty of human nature.