Hi Guys, I'm finally back on the board after a near decade during which time my life took a grim turn down dead mans gulch. Fortunately all is now on a firmer footing and I'm delighted to be back in the card world. I've been overdosing on everything Jason England in order to get back in card sharping shape. So I thought I would share my experience with the above gaffed cards. I'm going to refer to the two gaff's as Sub Rosa and its converse twin as the convex. I'm going to begin with the convex gaff. I do feel that this approach to controlling target cards during a shuffle has sometimes got a bad rap. The criticisms are based on stuff like length of preparation. You have to take time to cut them and then corner round everything etc. The second issue is the ease with which a curious soul can grab hold of the deck and even with rudimentary knowledge of a magicians stripper deck could uncover the secret. Most of which is true. In fact I have been busted by a magician friend using the convex gaff made by an old cheap and cheerful cutter. However, with a more modern instrument from Eoin O'Hare, I have found it possible to produce gaffed packs with very subtle work. This has the disadvantage of making the locating action a challenge while making the work more deceptive and difficult to uncover. A useful tip here is that if someone does get hold of the deck, make sure the target cards are on top of the deck. Its really hard to detect anything if this condition is met. Finally, I think the shape of the target cards can be problem if someone were to look very closely. This shape issue is more noticeable on the convex target card than the sub Rosa equivalent as long as the Sub Rosa works not too heavily applied. Oh Yes and before I forget, for the magi these gaffed cards can throw up problems for the pinkie count if the target cards are randomly placed in the deck. This could throw off a trick and become an unwelcome hurdle for those Pinkie counters among us.

The first thing to say in the convex gaffs favour is the ease of the targeting action. It does take practice but the knack is easily acquired. Also the targeting action can be utilised with the deck on the table during cuts and riffle shuffles. It can also be used in the hands using the Hindu shuffle. In my experience the Sub Rosa gaff is really only suited to tabled work. This ease of action has the additional advantage of ensuring success in drawing the target cards regardless of their position in the deck.

Another advantage of the convex approach is that the target cards are more resistant to a build up of friction within the deck as the pack naturally becomes more used and sticky. Stickiness does introduce issues but they are definitely less problematic that the sub rosa equivalent. I note that the convex approach was favoured by Fast Jack in his recent excellent penguin live lecture and I think Walter Scott also alluded their use by railroad gamblers. I also think they are perfectly serviceable for magician based gambling demo's. I have a feeling they were probably more popular and more well known to gamblers in the past due to there consistency and relative ease of use.

Sub Rosa on the other hand has some powerful advantages. Firstly the action is much more 'nacky' and difficult to acquire. As such it is more difficult to detect. The work is I suggest more disguised than the convex equivalent although both can be spied and pulled by 'those in the know' even when subtly sculpted. Secondly, the Sub Rosa work can be applied within a few minutes and the condition of the whole deck remains untouched and natural. This really is a great advantage for both grifter a magi. In addition, for magi's the pinkie count is not compromised. Finally the Sub Rosa principle is still far less known in spite of Jason Englands best efforts to educate the magical community. Interestingly the difficulty of learning and deceptively applying the technique is likely to keep Sub Rosa below the radar for some considerable time my my opinion. An advantage well worth mentioning is that you can pull at least two different target card groups such as the aces and kings separately. This really does work and its a cool effect. This is not possible with the convex arrangement.

Among some of the disadvantages are precisely the difficulty in acquiring the technique. The big problem is consistency. Drawing all the target cards 100% of the time is not really feasible in my experience. To make matters more challenging, the position of the target cards in the deck determines how easy or hard they are to locate and control. I'm sure those of us struggling to learn the secrets of Sub Rosa have had the delightful experience of the whole deck turning temporarily to a solid unyielding brick. Part of this issue can be due to unfavourable distribution. The other part is of course the build up of of friction within the deck. I recently read a post by good old AMCD in which he wisely described the increasing difficult in controlling the target cards as the deck warmed and became subject to oily handling during a game. There is a way of countering this effect. The magi could put in more work as the cards become older and more greasy. Whereas the gambler could try ringing in a newly made fresh deck. An important help is a good lotion to provide better contact with the side of the deck. The downside here is the lotion can transfer to the cards and increase the greasy stickiness. In addition there are ways of airing the deck in order to reduce the effect of friction and these can be useful but they are not 100% reliable either.

In a recent experiment with the 'build up of friction' problem I applied a recommended car wax to the target cards. Buffing and drying for all I was worth did seem to improve the reliability of the action one the first few weeks of practice. I was encouraged. However, as friction crept I began to notice the cards in general felt more waxy which over time made the action even more difficult and I was back to adding extra work. I have also found some card finishes and thicknesses can help. I recently bought the new penguin marked deck for magicians. They are the kind of marked deck that would wake the dead and send several thousand volts through them. Anyway, the cards have a glossy finish and are thinner than regular bicycle cards. These are actually very good to Sub Rosa with and I have found them more reliable over time than other brands I've tried.

Im sure there are other things but the time has got the better of me and I need to retire. In conclusion, I think both approaches have their place and as always it really depends on what you need to achieve. I actually suspect that many magicians would be more comfortable with the convex gaff simply because of its ease of use and better consistency. You are less likely to be consigned to weird handling and shuffling hell with this approach. For grifters who don't need a 100% pull the Sub Rosa has undisputed advantages. On the other hand it seems Jason England thrives on Sub Rosa I have a strong sense that this is his gaff of choice. I realise I have only scratched the surface here and I hope I haven't given any secrets away unnecessarily. Anyway, see what you think.

Best Wishes,

Paul H

The in ) belly strippers we had made were difficult to pull naturally and we would not use them in a professional poker game for more than one reason. Here today and gone tomorrow amateur games around the Races, in hotels, bars, or heads up games, etcetera, fit the bill.

I like to use a plain old magicians tapered stripper deck when I do card tricks. I only do tricks that I can disguise the stripper principal and only I handle the deck.

I normally use a magic wand made of Hollywood.

Hi Paul, thanks for taking the time to post this, it was interesting to read.

I personally find that all cuts, like the convex, where you are gripping the target cards only, are much easier to pull but certainly more noticeable.

And I agree that the more difficult to pull, sub rosa style gaff is certainly less detectable.

I believe that this difference in detectability is to do with the fact that protruding cards mask some of the card(s) below them, which ruins the image of uniformity along the edge of the deck and subsequently draws the eye. Whereas, the concave style cuts do not, so even though there maybe a slight shading discrepancy, the uniformity of the pattern is maintained and the eye is more likely to skip over it.

TH

Thank you for the nice post!

Additionally I think it also has to do with how much of a card material you are taking away. The convex removes the card material twice as more (4 spots) compared to Sub Nosa (2 spots).

Adding to the reliability concept N seems fine especially for Holdem games, because there is a good chance that two (if you are doing four of a king instead of suit) cards will be in the middle. I remember Arnold demoing this thing a few times.

Good to see you posting here again Paul, your posts were definitely among the ones that have been missed of late.

Something DOC once clarified in the old G and S forum ... and that is his reference to being able to pull 9 different target card groups from a single deck.
Five on the long, and three on the short - put in with a nail file (or Lassen's cutter with a slight adjustment).
Not needed for all games, but possible if required.

I've made up such a deck as DOC described, and it only works for me when the deck is brand spanking new ... essentially unused. Once the deck gets even a bit dirty, my touch isn't fine enough to pull all the sets.
5 target card sets is the max for me, three on the long, and two on the short.

IMO the handling for the short sides is completely unnatural, and easily spotted (for those in the know) as it's so different from the long side handling (which has its own giveaways too).

10 years? Has it really been 10 years since we discussed issues pertaining to the dark arts, mostly on the CARDSHARK website?

I posted as Rasputin on that BB.

Good to see you back with a nice post and still very analytical.

Hi Cagliostro/Rasputin, really great to make contact with you again and thank you for your kind words. I think it has been around a decade but I have been quietly popping in from time to time keeping an eye the gambling spot and your posts in particular. It was on Cardshark that I first learned the break out shuffle from you before it was described by Steve Forte in his Poker Protection book. Although the handling is a little unusual, it is still one of the most deceptive all round well concealed shuffles of its type. I'm currently exploring the possibilities offered by both pulling hands to be stacked and the excellent notion of killing key cards in games like gin rummy etc. I kind of feel I'm still scratching the surface but its appeal remains stubbornly high.

Hi Artie, thank you and its good to be back. I can manage two sets quite well but I found three sets began to interfere with each other and this affected consistency which is crucial for me in handling these cards naturally. You may well have better conditioned skin and a lighter touch. And you are right to point out that the position of the fingers during the Sub Rosa action for a single set can introduce a tell all of its own to those with sharp eyes. Mind you there are also tells when using the convex method but both provide excellent ways of controlling cards quickly and efficiently in a game with a skilled practitioner.

Hi TH10111, thanks and I do agree to a point that the Sub Rosa gaff is the most deceptive. However, it is perfectly possible to produce subtle convex work that can't really be seen with a casual inspection and gets us closer to Sub Rosa levels of deception whist retaining the easier execution.

Hi Tommy, great to talk with you once again. And you are right on of course. I think these gaffs are tailer made of softer spots.

And thanks to all for the warm welcome back.

Kind regards,

Paul H

Certainly the more shallow the cut, the more deceptive the work. But I think that in comparing a like for like depth of cut, the n's would come out on top. Though I would also agree that, once they become fine enough, neither would be detectable to 'the flats'.

I would be interested to hear more on your work on killing cards, if you wouldn't mind sharing, Paul?

TH

WOW, I have been working with negatives for a while and use the Dr. X jig to make them.

But I have not heard about Sub Rosa before. Can you give me some guidance as to what the differences are ?

Are Sub Rosa regular "Bellys" ?

It appears Sub Rosa is Jason England's Negative Stripper video tutorial complete with two N-Stripper practice decks. "Sub Rosa" terminology makes the concept more mysterious and esoteric to those "not in the know."

Here is a link with more info:

https://store.theory11.com/products/sub-......-england

@Paul H: Since the title Adventures with Strippers is so suggestive, does that imply you are going to divulge some adventures with strippers that did not involved playing cards?

Cag, I'm sure you'll attest that what happens in Vegas ...

Hi Cag, sadly not Although I thought the title might attract a knowing crowd.

Hi TH10111, As for killing cards, I havant really gone much beyond the Killing Card thread and some excellent suggestions by Jason England for Gin Rummy. I still play the old draw poker with friends and I'm keen to see how well taking out pairs of aces kings and queens works. Six cards in total making jacks and lower the new aces etc when it comes to trips. The great thing about killing cards is that you can position the slug and legitimately offer the cards for the cut. Its a little risky but if the cutter is known to cut around the middle or a confederate is used then the set up is robust. I play the penny anti draw poker game with the guys and this affords me the opportunity to test my ideas in an arena with low personal risk. One thing I have learned about cheating with friends is that the cheating needs to be very mild and/or targeted otherwise people lose hope and drop out. Anyway its all very absorbing and challenging.

Regards,

Paul H

I think draw is quite a hard game to kill cards in, as so many cards are used; with only four players it is likely that more than half the deck will be in play. This significantly reduces the margin for error when placing your slug for an opponent to cut.
Although, with a confederate this is less of a concern, though the slug still needs to be placed such that the cut looks legitimate, rather than way too big or too small.

Killing pairs of aces, Kings and Queens would be a nice advantage for both trip jacks and jacks full. You also know that if you have an A/K/Q, it is even more unlikely that one of your opponents also has one. Another advantage is that the other players may potentially waste their draws trying to hit that third A/K/Q.

Are you planning to locate the cards to kill from those that are exposed during play?

Let us know how it works out in your penny anti game

A friend mine invented three card poker, which might fit the bill but we have never seen it played outside of a licenced casino.

3 Card Poker is a common casino game. Can anyone suggest how killing cards would be an advantage in that game?

I'm not sure what kind of 3 card poker you are talking about. but in China, there is this 3 card poker which is probably the most popular in private games. I think it's translated as "golden flower" in English.

I may have mentioned this before but "killing cards" is called "location play" or simply "location" by hustlers and some gamblers. The terminology "Killing Cards" is a magician or hobbyist term. The concept no doubt goes back to the beginning of playing cards since it is a logical extension of getting an advantage and mostly benefits good players. It is a well know concept among experienced players and indeed over the course of the years I have encounter many "unskillful" card hustlers and half-smarts employ the ploy in one form or another.

Knowing whether or not certain cards will come into play is a ploy that has occurred to many card players over the years. It is as "old as the hills" to use a cliche and is the simplest, easiest and probably safest ploy one can use. The control and placement of the cards to be located can be done deceptively or clumsily depending upon the skill or lack thereof of the practitioner. The way it is used in most cases delivers a slight advantage, basically in heads-up play and is essentially considered a "grind." It mostly benefits good or "scientific" players; usually the advantage is slight when killing cards from play and it requires a considerable period of time to realize an advantage, if any. If the hustler is not a very good player the advantage is of little value and he is probably just fooling himself. It can be used more strongly and in different ways by pros and in those situations the advantage can be quite significant. Indeed, some ploys like "playing the slug" can be very powerful.