I assume you're talking about two different scenarios. I will have to work on croupier standard shuffling procedures before even claiming to have a Z that works in gaming situation (which I never did). For magicians changing their grips just for the Z... well, I think the circumstances are a bit loose.
Yes, I don't normally shuffle with an open grip, as long as the result is achieved with the maximum efficiency I don't see the problems with using the open grips for one or two magic effects. But I will work on that, thanks.
I will have to learn also a proper grip used by professional dealers too.

@cbharrelson: couldn't follow quite well, but I understand that my cover is weak, well I think it too. I haven't seen Steve Forte's Zarrow, I am curious to see it (or I have and I forgot).

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeEMaZqMRp0

I am talking about the difference between the way you are riffle shuffling and how that croupier is riffle shuffling.

Erdnase describes how to riffle shuffle.

Your thumbs are at the wrong end. You are doing an open shuffle.

When I say wrong I merely mean it is not the way it is done by pro croups.

Cag knows how to make a zarrow in detectable he gave the answer .when he can look Ina mirror and not see any difference in his regular shuffle and his zarrow wit will be wonderful..

Marco Steve forte has his zarrow on you tube it is in quicker than the eye

Owing to the fact that regular poker players see cards riffle shuffled in the regular closed way, regularly, regular poker players will find your open riffle shuffle, irregular. He that rejects this will never know the entrance to the temple.

If Cags regular shuffle does not fit the regular procedures of the game, no matter how close his Z is to his regular shuffle, it will be no use or ornament except to magician.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVyu6VWTfoU

Cag here is a little more food for thought. Take the table faro I would not use it in a game . Steve forte on the other hand does a partial on the bottom that is identical to his regular shuffle. Partial is the key you are right erdnase said there was no need for a full deck false shuffle in hustling you may already have an I detectable zarrow.

Marco one last thought for you my goal right now for my own pleasure is to do the greatest gambling card trick the ultimate card shark for my own amuse the but with my own 4 ace production and using the push throug for the false shuffles but using the bottom deal in the poker sequence. I do a lousy bottom deal my hands are dry. Adam learning Richard turners bottom. The reason I use the push through is because it and the bottom deal are knuckle buster sleights. Other magicians know what you are doing but they enjoy seeing other card men doing those sleights. I think the push through is the perfect magicians false shuffle if you do it well other magicians will enjoy watching you do the sleight laymen will be fooled.

The difference between a magician and sharp is that unlike a magician a sharp cannot make up his own procedures but must conform to the regular procedures of the game. If your “regular shuffle” does not fit the bill then your regular shuffle will have to change in first place. The perfect Z for professional poker is that which looks like a casino shuffle. Herb Zarrow says one should make the Z look like your own regular shuffle. So we have magicians doing all different sorts shuffles. When we say to them, look that open shuffle of yours, it is not the way should be, they say well that is the way I normally shuffle. When the worlds of magic and gambling there always confusion. If you are playing in a self-dealt game then might get away with it. If you are playing Gin with naive sucker you might well get away with an open Z. I am not sure why you would want to, when there are better ways but you could as opposed to would.

I would have to disagree with that observation. While it is true that casino dealers and poker dealers use a closed shuffle that is not always the case. I have seen poker dealers use a more open shuffle from time to time but that is not correct.

One cannot compare the way casino dealers' shuffle and the way most "non-professional" people do so when playing privately. In fact, in many poker and private games in which the players handle the cards themselves, using a closed "professional" shuffle looks too skillful and indirectly implies that the shuffler may be more proficient with cards that most other people.

So while many players nowadays know enough to shuffle on the table, there are many variations in which they do so and which are different from the "professional" closed shuffle. One has to fit in with the other players and being too slick i.e., closed shuffles, running cuts, mechanics grip and so on is not desirable if one is "doing something" or if one want to fit in as an average player.

Of course, any student of Erdnase would know this already.

And still no video, gentlemen?

Thanks for posting your shuffle on video. It is a decent but standard "magician" type Zarrow. Although the video lighting is somewhat dark and it is performed at a favorable angle which hides the shuffles deficiencies to a certain degree, it still has sufficient tells to the informed that it is a Zarrow. However, I agree it no doubt has many applications in doing card tricks, which is what it was initially designed for, i.e., a simple shuffle magicians could use when doing their tricks that was not as difficult to master as a push-through or strip-out shuffle.



No disagreement here.



A breakout shuffle is similar to a Zarrow without the initial "setup" and without the cover/movement of the top cards on the square-up. If is faster, can be covered more easily and partials work very well. In my opinion it is far superior to the Zarrow but not as good as a professionally performed push-through or strip-out. However, in the right circumstances has certain advantages over both the push-through or strip-out shuffles.

Gary Plant demonstrates an example of a breakout shuffle in his booklet on the Zarrow Shuffle. He calls it the "Oeinsk" Shuffle or something like that.

One common claim is that the Z does not beat various angles but in a heads-up card game, there is only one. IF it looks good enough in a tipple mirror it ought to work for heads up games against suckers.

Well I think it is very good to have a forum like this where card men can come and discuss different moves and the willingness to offer advice to up and coming card men. I enjoy it because I have learned I will never know everything. I learn new twists everyday I think you guys have a wealth of knowledge.

Cbharrleson:

Glad to know some of us have been a little helpful but it is not free of charge.

Please check you mailbox for the invoice. You can pay through PayPal.

Thank you all.
I will try to learn a Zarrow for a professional shuffle, and I will pay more attention to the angles.
Maybe the breakout shuffle is also known as a Shank shuffle? Or is it another thing?
I'm curious about Gary Plants handling, as well, I will check it out in the future.

Cag my friend you are a gentleman and a scholar I will check my mailbox. You know cag I saw a video of Rene Levantd tthe one armed wonder magician do a one handed stripout shuffle but he also used what you would call a one handed breakout shuffle in a routine. He did it well. Also there are 27 cards run out in 10 handed holder a partial zarrow would work fine. You could even do a legit strip cut. More food for thought.

In my opinion, this is a ridiculous magician variant of a breakout shuffle and quite terrible. Fanning the top cards of one half over the other half to conceal what is occurring. Ugh!

Trying the Shank shuffle in a game would definitely get you "shanked."

Like the Zarrow, it looks best when the deck is blindfolded with a large opaque cloth.

Well to be perfectly honest we are in the age of technology today way beyond this old fart and you need a crew not a zarrow.

I respect that the Zarrow shuffle is a valuable move for card magic, but I don't think it's a deceptive move.

When I first started learning sleight of hand, I watched a video performance of a Triumph effect by a well respected performer using the Zarrow (I don't want to name names). On my first viewing, having never seen a Triumph before, I spotted the Zarrow, though I didn't know what it was called. I was able to reverse engineer the effect in minutes.

That Zarrow was not poorly executed. Instead, it may have been the Triumph presentation, which draws attention to the fake shuffle when the performer shuffles the face up cards into the face down cards (which has always struck me as a great weakness to the effect). Whatever the reason, I wasn't fooled.

Since then, I don't think I've been fooled by a Zarrow once. Jason England has said in one of his live lectures (I think it's the At The Table lecture) that it's nearly impossible to fool anybody with a Zarrow if they understand the basic concept. I think he's right in this.

Incidentally, I learned to do a Zarrow from Jason's Foundations series.

I think as a full deck false shuffle, there are serious flaws inherent to the move. A single shuffle requires a slip cut or center cut, which are not natural actions. The two shuffle sequences eliminate this problem, but the viewer will has another chance to spot the block replacement.

I think the move is at its most deceptive when used to retain control of a stack while adding a known number of cards, or when it's used to place a crimped card from the bottom of the deck above a stack from the top while losing a known number of cards.

I don't feel that the move would be viable in a game situation, especially with the standard handling. The Zarrow is most deceptive with an open riffle and a covered square-up, while poker dealers typically use a closed riffle with an open square up. It's anathema to correct procedure.

I think if an open riffle and a covered square up are acceptable, Steve Reynolds handling is probably as good as it gets. I'm sure if that had been the Zarrow used in that first Triumph I saw, it would have flown right by me unnoticed. Steve Forte apparently has an excellent Zarrow too, but to my knowledge I've only seen him perform it at about 2:25 in the following video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Zx90tBX21g

I was able to recognise the Zarrow here also, though it's true that the shuffle is being performed in a section of the video called "False Shuffle," announcing what is about to happen. Still, it's shot from over his shoulder, which is probably the best possible angle for the move. To my knowledge, I've never seen Steve Forte perform a Zarrow from any other angle. If I have, then he has fooled me, and I think that speaks to Steve Forte's ability, instead of validating the Zarrow.

In comparison, I think the push-through is much more deceptive. I think a casual observer naturally assumes that when the woven cards are pushed together, the shuffle is complete, and thus they are convinced that the shuffle is fair. Also, the deceptiveness of the push-through is much less dependent on the grips used for the riffle and the square-up.

Those who know will very seldom be perplexed by what is exhibited.

Note that nobody has ever exhibited anything here that has perplexed all the experts.