Here's my situation, and I'd love some feedback.

I've been using Osterlind's Breakthrough Card System for years, and I love it. There are quite a few extraordinarly effective tricks it enables me to do. Of course, it's not a memorized deck.

Recently, I decided that adding a memorized pack to my repetoire of tools would be a fun and potentially very productive thing to play with (no special plans to add it to performance until I've mastered it AND found some effects to do with it that really appeal to me)...so I memorized the BCS as a memorized deck (with the AS on top). This didn't take too long, since I've also been using memory techniques for decades, and although I'm not performing with it yet (as my speed is not all it could be yet), I'm having a lot of fun practicing.

But then I turned to the literature and felt a little stymied. Well, when I say "literature," I mean -- so far -- the Aronson books.

The reason I feel stymied is that so many of the effects I've read are stack-dependent, and I feel as if I've maybe chosen the wrong stack to memorize. I'm not a fan of deck switches (particularly because I don't usually wear a suit coat or sport jacket when performing), so I feel as if I have to make a choice between the BCS or another stack (probably the Aronson stack). I love the BCS's ability to tell me what the next card is, though.

So, I guess my main question is: for people who utilize the Aronson stack, do you find that you're able to discern the next card in the stack, even when the stack has been displaced numerically by cutting?

Just wondering if I should forget the BCS entirely and move to the Aronson stack and thus widen the potential effects I'll have to choose from.

--Josh

Pick up a copy of Menmonica -- there's tons of effects that are stack independant or can be adapted to a different stack with a little thought. Unless there are specific effects using a particular stack that you want to do, I don't think there'a ny reason to change stacks.

-Jim

Thank you, Jim, I'll do that! I know that some of the Aronson effects are also supposed to be stack independent, but I'm getting the feeling it's quite a minority...

--Josh

of course yes!
but I think you don't have to memorize another stack if you've memorized one (BCS), except you want to do a stack dependant routine from aronson

Most of Aronson's work in Bound to Please and Simply Simon are stack independent. However, and forgive me if I'm misreading you, I think you may be under the wrong impression as to what memorizing a stack means. It's not just knowing the cards in order, but being able to instantly go from any card name to card position number, and vice versa. This is true for any memorized stack, not just Aronson's.

So your question, "do you find that you're able to discern the next card in the stack, even when the stack has been displaced numerically by cutting? " is a definite yes. If card 32 is on the bottom, I automatically know card 33 is on top, and the tenth card down is card 42 and so on. This is what you want to be able to achieve for any memorized deck; it is not specific to Aronson's. So once you're able to instantly go from random card position number to the actual card and vice versa, you'll see that many of Aronson's effects are really independent of what particular stack you memorize.

Jack Shalom

You've done yourself (and your audience!) a big favour by memorizing the BCS. That's not a slag against Mr Osterlind's system - I still contend that it's a thing of mathematical beauty. You've simply opened up the door to allow for some pretty cool stuff that can only be done when you know all 52 cards. There are LOTS of things you can do from both Aronson & Tamariz's books that are not particularly stack dependant. From Tamariz's, take a look at Total Memory and Neither Blind nor Stupid, for example.

Have fun with it!

PS: your picture!!!! AAAAAGGGHHH!!!! (cool)

Josho,
I agree with the comments already posted. When you can go from any stack value to its corresponding card value forwards and backwards without thinking, you will be able to do many wonderous things. There are many stack independent routines in the memdeck literature.

I would say that once you fully memorize the BCS, you might actually forget the BCS "next card" rules. With a memorized deck, you can go up or down the deck by however many cards you want. In fact, for the mathematically agile, you can even do it after a faro shuffle.

From your email to me, I know that you use StackView -- so with the BCS deck loaded, go into the StackView Test module under the Tools menu, and set the following parameters:

Deck Range: Full Deck
Stack Sequence: Random
Test Value: Random Mix
Test Card: Current Card

When you can run through that setting in under a minute, you truely know your stack cold. Then you can experiment with the Test Card set at 'Next Card', etc.

Regards,
Nick

Of course, you're all right -- I must've had a senior moment (cripes, I'm only 47) to think that there's any question about knowing the next card even when out of numerical order.

I believe I'll take the advice I've gotten here and stick with the memorized BCS. It seems like a lot of the routines packed in the Aronson stack are related to poker deals, and that just doesn't hold a lot of appeal to me. Besides, I'm fairly far along with the BCS (got it all down, but still way too slow for my own tastes when translating cards into numbers -- much faster the other way 'round). And I think I'll just have to scour Mnemonica and the Aronson books harder than I have been, and flag the stack independent routines.

Thanks to everyone for their guidance and reassurance, and especially thanks to Nick for his terrific software!

--Josh

I would highly recommend Mnemonica. I actually just recently learned it, and have gotten quite good at it and the reactions have been wonderful. I love the effects in the book, shows off Juan's genius. I have not used the Aronson stack, but I have learned the BCS, and I have to say that the effects possible with Mnemonica are worlds stronger. And you can do everything you can do with the BCS, and much, much more. Good luck. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions concerning Mnemonica.

Cody

Hiya, Cody,

Well, I'm tackling Mnemonica right now. Very interesting way of memorizing the stack -- I'm not sure how practical it is for me given that we have a 9-month-old in the house, and clearing 3 hours in a row of personal time is a bit out of the question (though I suppose I could do it late-night).

I may give it a shot just to compare...

Many thanks for the food-for-thought.

--Josh

Simon Aronson's.

I have recently memorized the Aronson stack and although it wasn't easy I am there now.
I have to say that so far I have not used it for stack dependant tricks such as poker deals. I am using it for "jazzing" as Mike Close calls it, with some practice it is possible to find a named card almost instantly.

There are also tricks such as the invisable card and the lukiest card in vegas which are killers. I think some of the Tamariz material such an mnumonosis (or something like that)is mind blowing.

Paul

Of course each child is different, but you may find your 9-month old child responds to the Tamariz method quite nicely as lullaby. Think about it. For most folks singing a child to sleep is a matter of endurance -- how long you're willing to sit there and quietly (and, of course, lovingly) chant the same things over and over again.

But isn't this the Tamariz method? Exactly? (And as a bonus, is your child will grow up knowing the memorized stack as well!)

PS: Regarding memorizing BCS, the problem is Osterlind's method is kinda dual-code. When using it you go from number to item (via code) to related item to that item's "card code." You can't go directly from number to card unless you brute-force-memorize the deck using something like the Tamariz method!

One of the features of the Tamariz stack is the ability, using faros, to go to "new deck setup" as a climax. THAT will be terrific. I'm definitely giving Tamariz a try. Maybe today if I can clear the time!

--Josh

Hello.

Another feature of the Tamariz stack is a built-in stay(mirror)-stack. That means you can easily convert Tamariz stack to stay-stack. This means you have the ability to perform many effects using stay-stack during mem deck rotines without a deck switch.

Great thing is that you already mastered a mnemonic system so that memorization is not a problem for you.

Carefully study built-in features of both Aronson's and Tamariz's. Next, decide which stack appeals you more. Then actual memorization.

Easier said than done. It will take time to understand built-in features of both stacks completely. But, slow and steady wins the race.

Good luck.

The Tamariz Stack will take you to European New Deck Order, not American.
Dennis Loomis

This is true. The book does offer instructions on how to take the cards from American NDO to European NDO.

When finishing up and shuffling out, no spectator has ever noticed the difference between American and European NDO. All they care about is that the cards are back "in order"

I never call attention to the fact that the cards are not in American NDO. I can then put the pack away in ENDO and move on. When I do it again I don't have to convert from ANDO to ENDO.

The only time I have to convert is when I'm handed a sealed American deck.

If you split the deck at 26 and do TWO face-up spreads, one above the other, no one will question the deck being back in PROPER order (instead of one spread which will show all reds together in the middle).