Do you think this is real? Or is it a stooge?

Discussion in 'Magic Forum' started by UnknownMagician93, Sep 25, 2010.

  1. Well, honestly I think that it is just a stacked deck and he cut to the nines before the false shuffle. I believe it is not a camera cut as you could do it yourself with as much skill.
     
  2. I think he probably did cull the nines legitimately, but I'm fairly sure there's an edit right before he says "Let's see if we can find some nines for you", so we're not actually seeing the full culling sequence. Presumably the producers needed to cut it down and, as he was ostensibly just doing normal shuffles, they thought it wouldn't be worth leaving in.
     
  3. The guy gives no obvious signs of being a stooge, so it's either legit or they at least went to the length of getting someone that can deliver a line convincingly. Given that it's Steve Forte, I'd guess that it's legit skill.
     
  4. I'm pretty sure that it was a setup so that a spectator calls nines because you can see that he controls a larger slug than four kings during the false shuffle expose and I think nines were under the kings so he would cut the kings to bottom ,show the nines and then do a bottom deal.
     
  5. At beggining, when I saw the video for the first time, I believed that was a stooge.
    But after have heard about different riffle culling methods, I think he use one for get nines, and I think also that all the firt riffle shuffles was full deck controls. But Nevertheless, it is incredibly clever.
     
  6. I would have to say it was legit. In GPS he demonstrates shuffle control in a to Jason England. He used a half deck contol and seperated all the high cards from the low cards.

    I have watched this clip time and time agian and I believe is legit. but Im not always right
     
  7. His friend is a stooge. The beginning of the demo has a set up of two four of a kinds, which unknown to the audience (the people watching on television and in the theater via a screen) was being controlled the entire time. Before he asks the "Spec" in the room to name a four of a kind he controls the four kings to the bottom of the deck while also retaining the top and bottom four cards getting ready to move on through the rest of the demonstration.

    If you feel this is exposure, I will giggle at you, even though I think I know what is going on doesn't mean it is the actual method. However, what I described is the most plausible explanation onto how the demonstration worked.
     
  8. Most plausible, yes. But magic is not plausible. It is a dream that extroardinary guys makes appear in minds of peoples. And in the present case, even if it is not magic, it's the same thing.
     
  9. This isn't a magic presentation it is a gambling presentation, huge difference. Not sure what exactly you are trying to say.
     
  10. Having some idea of the kind of work Steve seeks out and practices, the most plausible explanation is most definitely not stooging.
     
  11. Is that guy's favorite four-of-a-kind really nines?
     
  12. Knowing how good Steve Forte is... even if this one was stooged.. he could do it legit too. But i doubt this was stooged. He really is just that damn good
     
  13. I dont know man let me read his mind quick.
     
  14. Okay are you Steve Forte?

    I've actually studied many gambling cheat shows such as the ones that air every now and then on Travel Channel and have viewed the entire Steve Forte Gambling Series and many other cheat/con dvds. I know for a fact that crooked dealers used to use confederates at certain bases to either flash cards to, special deal to, etc. So I do not rule out the possibility of a confederate sitting among the sharply dressed audience.

    The reason why I do not believe for a second that it is an edit to hide a cull. One reason being, I am not aware of a cull being done with a face down ribbon spread. Not saying that there isn't one out there, just that I am not aware of one. The other reason is this, after he shown the four kings being false shuffled the first time. He places them on top of the deck once, then again after a camera cut. Now this could be just a continuity mistake. Now when he does a replay and the control is slowed down, knowing a good cheat, they wouldn't let such a big stack of cards ride on top if they were only controlling four cards.

    Now after he deals the four kings the second time at about 51 seconds into the video, you will notice a smoother transitioning between camera to camera suggesting one continuous shot. Which I believe is legitimate, Now when he asks the guy for his favorite four of a kind he proceeds to do one riffle shuffle, one ladder and one table cut. In those movements he is supposed to had controlled the four cards in the four of a kind. I know Steve Forte is good, but he isn't that good, I do not even think it is possible. However, you can in those movements false riffle, undercut (via stepping or ladder cutting, not sure of the technical term) four kings to the center, which will be cut in a moment to the bottom in preparation for the bottom dealing. Not only do I believe this to be plausible but I feel this is the method behind the madness.

    Also I find it odd that he uses the same guy for all the audience interaction.
     
  15. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67dcfjhbps0
     
  16. That doesn't look like the sequence of events that transpire to the four of a kind in the Secrets of magic special.
     
  17. No, but then neither are you.

    I wouldn't assume that because cheats sometimes have partners that Steve Forte would necessarily use a stooge in a magic routine. It's comparing apples to oranges.
     
  18. Face Desk

    "If you feel this is exposure, I will giggle at you, even though I think I know what is going on doesn't mean it is the actual method. However, what I described is the most plausible explanation onto how the demonstration worked." Quote from my original post.

    I do not need to be Steve Forte or as good as Steve Forte to pitch the most plausible explanantion to how something is done. However, you said this:
    "Having some idea of the kind of work Steve seeks out and practices, the most plausible explanation is most definitely not stooging. "

    You can't be this confident in your statements without having verified intel from either Steve Forte or being Forte himself. This provoked my question because no where do I state I know without a shadow of a doubt how Forte does the first part of the gambling demonstration.

    I'll assume whatever the hell I want. I'm not even really assuming but pitching a theory! I just replicated what I saw Forte doing, right here, in front of my computer. Though not as fast, I still ended up with a control of two four of a kinds and an end with one four of a kind on the bottom and one four of a kind on the top. Steve Forte is a casino cheat catcher, I forget the technical term for it. He knows the methods that vegas cheaters who basically stole from the mob back in the day. If you are going to stone face tell me that Steve Forte is too high and mighty to not use a confederate in a GAMBLING DEMONSTRATION, then I will flat out call you a liar and possibly even a fan boy.

    Even if I am wrong with what I proposed, it was an excelllent excorcise for me. It stimulates my curiosity, makes me use critical thinking and use my creativity to develop a plausible method. If more people would think outside of the box more often I truly feel they will be the next creative genius.

    Dare to question reality I suppose.
     
  19. i just want to throw out, in Fast Company by Damian Nieman at the end of the explanations for some of the moves.
    He says he's going to show you the "riffle cull" with the 4 9's. but then some guy comes in and points a gun at him at says he can't teach that.

    just throwing that out there, seems to be related.
     

Share This Page

Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results