(Close Window)
Topic: QuickStack v. Si Stebbins Pro v. ?
Message: Posted by: ekgdoc (Apr 12, 2011 06:09PM)
I am looking for an algorithmic stack that allows one to determine the card at a given position and the position for a given card. (I could memorize a deck, but that will never happen.) Two such stacks that seem to fit the bill are Doug Dyment's QuickStack and the Si Stebbens Pro stack by Dr. Solka. I would appreciate any comments on which is easier to use and whether there are any superior alternatives.

DOM
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Apr 12, 2011 06:56PM)
Haven't used Si Stebbins Pro but from what I understand it is the Si Stebbins standard cycle with the addition that the suits are not in strict rotation. Therefore, when spread it looks more random.

If that is the case then I would recommend Dyment's Quickstack which I've used for a couple of years now. I'm unabashedly a fan of Doug's thinking in general, and this stack in particular. What I like about it is that you can really translate card to # and vice-versa in a very short period of time with the "formula." (It's not really a formula as much as a set of very simple rules--in 30 minutes you really will be able to do it).

In fact, after using this stack for so long I no longer use the rules and instead have memorized the full order of the cards like a more traditional memdeck approach. My fear was that if I don't use it for a long time I still want the simple rules to lean on if my memory fails. It hasn't been necessary but it's still nice to know that it is there to fall back on.
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Apr 12, 2011 06:56PM)
"Superior" is a subjective opinion: what is better for one will not necessarily be so for others. But you can certainly find [url=http://www.deceptionary.com/aboutstacks.html]some noteworthy alternatives in this essay[/url].
Message: Posted by: hcs (Apr 16, 2011 09:40AM)
In the Si Stebbins Pro Stack the value and suit of each card defines its position in the stack. This is a built-in hidden feature. I named this feature "the bank label". The bank label works like a invisible card suit. The only - but crucial - difference to the Classic Si Stebbins Stack arises from the so-called bank rule: The suitís value plus the card value equals the bank value. The first 13 cards in the stack have the same bank value or the same invisible suit, cards # 14-26 another invisible suit, cards # 27-39 just another label and cards # 40-52 cards have their own bank label too.

In other words, with the cardís value and suit value, one can so easy as in NDO determine the bank and position in which the card is. The reverse is also possible.
Message: Posted by: edh (Apr 16, 2011 07:17PM)
It is really not that difficult to memorize a stack. If you are committed it takes maybe two weeks to memorize a stack. Once memorized do it everyday for one to two minutes a day. You will have a working stack in no time.
Message: Posted by: hcs (Apr 18, 2011 04:24AM)
The topic was to talk about algorithmic stacks not about memorized stacks! I'm shure that most readers know the difference.
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Apr 18, 2011 10:28AM)
Hcs wrote:[quote]The topic was to talk about algorithmic stacks not about memorized stacks! I'm shure that most readers know the difference.[/quote]
I don't think it's as cut and dried as this comment would suggest. A stack is either memorized or not, of course, but that's not to say that an algorithmic stack can't be memorized. In fact, it offers great benefits in this regard, as it provides a backup should a particular card association be lost in the heat of performance. Or forgotten by someone just in the learning phase. For that matter, many (but certainly not all!) very strong memorized deck effects can be performed without the need for a memorized deck, simply by using an algorithmic stack.

Far too many people confuse the notion of a memorized stack with how the stack is organized in the first place, and this can lead to such uneducated comments as "a memorized stack is better than an algorithmic stack". Some people choose to memorize a random shuffling of cards. Some choose to memorize a stack that has a variety of built-in effects. Some choose to memorize a stack in which the cards are ordered according to some easily-remembered rules/hints. Some choose to memorize a stack in which the order can be represented algorithmically. Each of these approaches has particular [url=http://www.deceptionary.com/aboutstacks.html]advantages and disadvantages[/url] (some of which are specific to the learning styles of the entertainer), and is equally as valid as the others.
Message: Posted by: jrund (Dec 12, 2012 03:20PM)
Richard Osterlind also has a stacked deck that is very random looking. It's called "Osterlind Breakthrough Card System". There is also materials released to use it as a memorised deck.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Dec 12, 2012 06:52PM)
A big difference between Osterlind's excellent BCS and an algorithmic stack like Quick(er)Stack is that with BCS you cannot determine the position of every card in the deck with the applied rules. The rules only apply to knowing the [i][b]next card[/b][/i] in the stack. QuickStack allows one to know the position of every card in the deck given a very simple set of rules.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Dec 13, 2012 08:37AM)
That's an excellent point, Mr. Keyl, and a very clear description. But that limitation can be overcome by [i]memorizing[/i] the BCS stack.
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Dec 13, 2012 10:35AM)
Woland observed:[quote]... that limitation can be overcome by [i]memorizing[/i] the BCS stack.[/quote]
Certainly. But that applies to [b]any[/b] arrangement of a deck of cards: memorize it and you know the position of every card.

The topic, though, was about the application of algorithmic stacks to the problem.

And if one is going to expend the effort to memorize a deck, it seems to me that choosing a stack with other useful properties (beyond those that result from the memorization) makes more sense.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Dec 13, 2012 04:01PM)
[quote]And if one is going to expend the effort to memorize a deck, it seems to me that choosing a stack with other useful properties (beyond those that result from the memorization) makes more sense.[/quote]

It makes a lot of sense! And the O.P. specifically requested a stack that would not have to be memorized . . .
Message: Posted by: reincardation (Dec 15, 2012 09:05AM)
Barry Richardson teaches an algorithmic stack in Act 2. I think he says it takes 10 minutes to learn and can be displayed as random. I already memorized a deck, so I did not look at it in depth. There is also a wonderful method for Any Card At Any Number that is taught, but it can be used with any stack with which you can determine the location of a card. Thought you might like to know about this one too.
Message: Posted by: magicdave56 (Jun 19, 2013 07:11PM)
Dose any one what is the real Si Stabbin stack is ?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 19, 2013 11:32PM)
[quote]
On 2012-12-15 10:05, reincardation wrote:
Barry Richardson teaches an algorithmic stack in Act 2. I think he says it takes 10 minutes to learn and can be displayed as random. I already memorized a deck, so I did not look at it in depth. There is also a wonderful method for Any Card At Any Number that is taught, but it can be used with any stack with which you can determine the location of a card. Thought you might like to know about this one too.
[/quote]
Richardson's useful stack only sets the positions of 26 cards. Seems to me that someone less lazy than I at the moment could do a bang-up job of making very good use of those empty 26 slots...
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jun 19, 2013 11:39PM)
[quote]
On 2013-06-19 20:11, magicdave56 wrote:
Dose any one what is the real Si Stabbin stack is ?
[/quote]
Yes magicdave56. It's very well known and in lots of beginner books so here it is: Begin with AC; skip 3 for the next value and follow the suits in CHaSeD order. So, AC, 4H, 7S, 10D, KC, etc. You know you've got it right if your last card is the JD. There are lots of magical things you can do with such a stack. Because the stack alternates in color, however, some feel that it cannot be shown face up to a spectator without her or him becoming suspicious. Thus, schemes like Si Stebbins Pro which sidestep that problem.
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Jun 22, 2013 10:58AM)
You can download a free copy of the original Si Stebbins book at [url=http://www.deceptionary.com/]The Deceptionary[/url]. You'll find it on the "information" page.