|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Atom3339 Inner circle Spokane, WA 3242 Posts |
Nick, I believe Dennis Loomis originally PM'ed me about your system, which is GREAT! I use it with the Mnemonica deck. Thank you!
TH
Occupy Your Dream |
|||||||||
ddyment Inner circle Gibsons, BC, Canada 2501 Posts |
Lcwright1964 opined:
Quote:
Seems like a lot of hassle for blue, and what is basically an aesthetic rather than a functional preference. I guess it depends on what one considers "aesthetic". Blue Sharpies on a blue card will leave an off-colour "smear" that is highly visible under some light angles. So I would deem that "functional".
The Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More :: (order "Calculated Thoughts" from Vanishing Inc.)
|
|||||||||
lcwright1964 Special user Toronto 569 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 27, 2015, ddyment wrote: Indeed. Which is why I will duck the trouble, despite my aesthetic preference for blue, and go for red decks with the red Sharpie. |
|||||||||
stickmondoo Veteran user 306 Posts |
I Don't use a marked deck very often. But when I did I used the Numbers from Mem deck and just scratched the two flowers on a bike with a razor blade. 1-8 going up 9 going in from the top one and 0 don't scratch. It's easy and you can't really see unless you riffle and look.
|
|||||||||
nlokers Regular user Grand Rapids, MI 142 Posts |
In my last deck I tried out using a binary marking system and I found that it seemed to pass the riffle test. I'm assuming that this is due to the fact that since any given mark has a 50% chance of being there, a mark is rapidly blinking on an off so fast that it isn't perceived as movement the same way it would be if it only had a 10% chance of being marked.
|
|||||||||
J-L Sparrow Regular user 167 Posts |
Quote:
On Mar 25, 2015, nlokers wrote: Interesting! One question though: Who administered the riffle test? Was it you, or some spectator that was trying to determine if you were using marked cards? I assume it was a spectator, but I just want to make sure. |
|||||||||
nlokers Regular user Grand Rapids, MI 142 Posts |
It was me administering the riffle test. I was trying to show someone how I marked them so I was going to use the riffle test to help them see the marks, and I found that they were still really hard to see.
|
|||||||||
nlokers Regular user Grand Rapids, MI 142 Posts |
Another thing that I noticed with using binary marks is that if you have a completely mixed deck and you want to get into stack order, you deal the cards face down into 4 different piles based on the smallest two binary marks you are left with 4 piles containing cards in a mod 4 type arrangement. So pile one would have 1,5,9,13... pile two would have 2,6,10,14... pile three would have 3,7,11,15... pile four would have 4,8,12,16.... Because of this setup you can perform "a subtle game" by giving each of 4 spectators a single pack, only instead of just calling out the name of a card and expecting the spectator holding that card to hand it to you, you can actually rotate through the 4 spectators one at a time because you know they will be holding the next card. Hope this makes sense.
|
|||||||||
newguy Elite user 411 Posts |
Harry Anderson published a binary card marking system in his Eight Brass Monkeys notes in 1982
It may have also appeared in Magick. |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » Marlo’s memdeck markings (6 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.01 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |