What the hell. This isn't conventional wisdom. More than once I've heard something along the lines of "I hear Jerrys suck for magic but are good for xcm" or "Remember wynns and jerrys are for flourishing mah friend told me they suck at magic".
Where does this come from? I can't think of any reason cards wouldn't be good for some basic sleights but are good for flourishing. I do raise rise with my wynn deck all the time and it's great. Your friend says they suck? Let me explain:
Person A is friends with Joe. Joe is one of a hundred people that bought a deck of Jerrys. 90 of the people have no problems, but Joe is one of the ten people who have really oily and sweaty hands and don't wash them every morning when they wake up. Joe ends up mistreating the deck and keeping it in a humid room. Person A says all Jerrys suck at handling because Joe's deck is having problems.
Ofcourse, that still doesn't explain the "Good for flourish bad for magic" crap. I am baffled. Just because there's hype about how well they flourish doesn't mean they suck at… well I'm confused. What does "magic" mean in the sentence "They're great for flourishes but suck for magic"? Does it mean a certain sleight, or what? Tell me, if you own a pack of Jerrys or Wynns, do they suck for any magic effects you practice or do? If so, tell me how.
I know Jerrys are meant for flourishing ever since Dan and Dave started announcing how great they handle, but I mean is there a reason they aren't as good for magic? I have to admit I have noticed that I don't see the Bucks doing magic on the trilogy with Jerrys, except maybe a Molecule spring card production which is mainly a flourish anyway. But is there a reason? Am I missing something?
I'm sure if you went to some remote casino in some remote city and it was that special night where money isn't bid and people just have fun, you might think about doing some magic. What if ten years later the decks you used for doing magic there are stopped being produced and a magic site says they're the next best thing for flourishing?
In the mean time, I'll be enjoying my Wynns. They are full of win.
Where does this come from? I can't think of any reason cards wouldn't be good for some basic sleights but are good for flourishing. I do raise rise with my wynn deck all the time and it's great. Your friend says they suck? Let me explain:
Person A is friends with Joe. Joe is one of a hundred people that bought a deck of Jerrys. 90 of the people have no problems, but Joe is one of the ten people who have really oily and sweaty hands and don't wash them every morning when they wake up. Joe ends up mistreating the deck and keeping it in a humid room. Person A says all Jerrys suck at handling because Joe's deck is having problems.
Ofcourse, that still doesn't explain the "Good for flourish bad for magic" crap. I am baffled. Just because there's hype about how well they flourish doesn't mean they suck at… well I'm confused. What does "magic" mean in the sentence "They're great for flourishes but suck for magic"? Does it mean a certain sleight, or what? Tell me, if you own a pack of Jerrys or Wynns, do they suck for any magic effects you practice or do? If so, tell me how.
I know Jerrys are meant for flourishing ever since Dan and Dave started announcing how great they handle, but I mean is there a reason they aren't as good for magic? I have to admit I have noticed that I don't see the Bucks doing magic on the trilogy with Jerrys, except maybe a Molecule spring card production which is mainly a flourish anyway. But is there a reason? Am I missing something?
I'm sure if you went to some remote casino in some remote city and it was that special night where money isn't bid and people just have fun, you might think about doing some magic. What if ten years later the decks you used for doing magic there are stopped being produced and a magic site says they're the next best thing for flourishing?
In the mean time, I'll be enjoying my Wynns. They are full of win.
