(Close Window)
Topic: Kennedy Center Deal
Message: Posted by: DavidGold (Feb 16, 2012 06:41PM)
So I finished reading The Magician and the Cardsharp yesterday and I have to say I really enjoyed the book, and of course after all the talk about the Kennedy deal I am super enthusiastic about starting to learn the deal, I have always kind of put it off beacuse the deal comes with so much baggage (finger conditioning ect)altough I don't think that will be to big a problem considering I have been a rock climber for about 5 years :). So I payed up for Revalation (2008) and am looking forward to the book getting here but I had a couple of questions on the deal in the meantime. First is I heard that the deal uses a weird grip and I was wondering if this is true. Second in my experience with center deals the first 6 months of practice make you feel like a kid picking up a deck of cards for the first time and I was wondering if that is also true with this deal. Lastly I have strong fingers but the book really hyped up the finger strength requierment to do the deal and I was wondering if you really do need that much strength for the deal. An answer to one or all of the questions would be much appreciated.

Respectfully
David
Message: Posted by: iamslow (Feb 16, 2012 06:46PM)
If you're a rock climber, you have way more than enough finger strength...
Message: Posted by: cartouche7 (Feb 16, 2012 07:28PM)
The grip is not weird at all. You have the deck beveled with four finger at the right side. You need just enough strength for squeezing the bottom half of the deck. But you have to know that this technique is not good for cheating.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 16, 2012 08:10PM)
There is more than one way to skin a cat. You could for example make something up and write a book or would that be cheating. :)
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Feb 16, 2012 08:29PM)
What I like with the Kennedy CD, is the look of the deck after the deal... (no way someone figures out something has happened, lol).
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 16, 2012 09:03PM)
The big advantage to the Kennedy Center Deal grip is you can also use it to throw a discus, which is a big advantage if you have any interest in entering the Olympics.

Also, in New York City, I noted that some of the guys who throw the pizza dough up in the air and spin it to make the pizza crust platform sometime use the Kennedy Center Deal Grip on the toss.

Other than that, if you are planning on using a center deal for a demo, there are much better and simpler ways to duplicate the deal. If you are planning on using it in a game, make sure you have a paid up life insurance policy for a large amount of money. Your beneficiaries will love and remember you for a long time. :)
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 16, 2012 09:56PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-16 21:29, AMcD wrote:
What I like with the Kennedy CD, is the look of the deck after the deal... (no way someone figures out something has happened, lol).
[/quote]
I like that also. The only problem is the look of the deal DURING the deal...(no way an observant player can't figure out SOMETHING has happened). ;)
Message: Posted by: Bobbycash (Feb 16, 2012 11:47PM)
Sorry I can't attach a direct link, but if you want to see the deal done fairly well in my opinion there is a video by Jared Kopf on YouTube shot by Jack Carpenter doing the deal. I believe it is under the title 'Jared Kopf and Kennedy'. The grip looks pretty natural IMO
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 17, 2012 12:23AM)
Perhaps this is the link Bobbycash is referring to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a6KoN-OLI4

It is okay for a magician move. Note he is standing up and we are looking down at the deck. Sitting down in a game and looking across the table, or from the sides while sitting, would not be so forgiving.

It is okay to learn something like this for demonstation purposes. Takes a lot of work to come up with a fair center deal for demos. The reason it survives to this day is because it was heavily promoted by Dai Vernon. Although I greatly respect Vernon for his advancement of close-up magic and his great contributions in this regard, he was not a hustler nor was he able to get the money himself. He was a magician's magician if you will, which is great. But he definitely was not an expert on real world gambling methods. He tried to learn as much about gamblers' sleight of hand "moves" as he could because in his day those moves were much better than the moves that magicians were using.

There are much better, simpler, safer and more deceptive methods to get the money in a game than the center deal. The Kennedy Center deal is really more of a demonstration move rather than a "get the money" move.

If someone is looking for a challenging demonstration move, I'm sure the Kennedy Center Deal will fit the bill.
Message: Posted by: Bobbycash (Feb 17, 2012 12:43AM)
Yep, that's the video was on my phone couldn't post the link.

In all honesty, I prefer the Wimhurst technique though the video still stands as the best kennedy deal I've seen.
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Feb 17, 2012 05:21AM)
Yes, for demonstrations, for the challenge, etc. For real play it's a different story.

The CD is one of the few moves I don't do (and I won't do, too old now). Oh, I can deal one or two for demo but it's absolutely unnatural for me. The grip, the take, the deal... Besides, it's difficult to use in actual games as procedures may make the setup impossible (I've played games where the dealer wasn't allowed to complete the cut for instance).

There are some manuscripts that worth it I think, like Wimhurst. Sampalis was supposed to release one, but I'm afraid he's as slow for writing as I am :P. Jason has a cool video too.
Message: Posted by: LoďcJ. (Feb 17, 2012 08:06AM)
For a magic demo, the goal is to entertain spectators. You want to create the perception that you can do everything with cards. You can deal from everywhere, you can know any card at any position, you can win at any game, etc...

For example, the Steve Forte's demo for the tv show "hidden secret of magic" is perfect. In 5 minutes, spectators think that Steve Forte can realize anything at anytime (and he really can do ! lol)

For a magician, in my opinion, you have to show a absolute full deck control. And the center deal is perfect for that. BUT you are a magician. You can chose between a real center deal or a fake center deal...
Peronally, I don't like to do a center deal (but I like to watch some great center dealer) and I don't want to loose time with this move.
Ask you if this move is really important for you or if you just want to entertain spectators with it. Ricky Jay for his show "Ricky Jay and his 52 assistants" presents a wonderful "center deal" because he has a great story. The acting is great too.

My english is so bad, I hope it's comprehensible.
Message: Posted by: silverking (Feb 17, 2012 09:02AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-17 09:06, LoďcJ. wrote:
For a magic demo, the goal is to entertain spectators.........
[/quote]
Which is why, [i]for magic[/i], you don't have to do a center deal at all.
There are a number of routines from high-profile card men that use a pseudo-center deal to great effect.

To learn a legitimate center deal in order to [i]expose it in a magic demo[/i] may not be, (IMO) the best use of ones time.
Message: Posted by: LoďcJ. (Feb 17, 2012 09:30AM)
Yes. That's why I said : "BUT you are a magician. You can chose between a real center deal or a fake center deal".

He is free to learn a center deal if he has some fun with it, or it's possible to work with a fake center deal.

I agree with you. It is just a personnal choice about what he wants to learn or not and what he wants spectators to remember.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 17, 2012 09:42AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-17 09:06, LoďcJ. wrote:
My english is so bad, I hope it's comprehensible.
[/quote]
Don't worry about your English. You did a nice job, made some good points and I enjoyed your post.
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Feb 17, 2012 09:44AM)
Also, do not forget that more and more people play cards. More and more people have some basic understanding about actual card games. Sure, the percentage of people able to detect a nicely done deuce or a correct stacking is very low but at the same time, don't hope to fool them with a grip coming from planet Mars (like for CDs in general).

It reminds me a long time ago when I saw a Magician performing a "gambling" demo, it was sort of familial meeting. In the middle of the demo one guy around the table asked the Magician "I don't know about you, but we cut the deck in our card games". Trust me, it was embarrassing, to say the very least. 2 or 3 years ago I've seen more or less the same thing happening with a french guy performing a Hold'Em demo. The guy knew apparently nothing about cuts, burn card, etc. Around the table was a former casino dealer. Another funny moment, lol.
Message: Posted by: LoďcJ. (Feb 17, 2012 10:20AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-17 10:42, Cagliostro wrote:
Don't worry about your English. You did a nice job, made some good points and I enjoyed your post.
[/quote]
Cool ! Thank you Mister online dictionary ! ;)
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 17, 2012 12:34PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-17 09:06, LoďcJ. wrote:
For a magic demo, the goal is to entertain spectators. You want to create the perception that you can do everything with cards. You can deal from everywhere, you can know any card at any position, you can win at any game, etc...

For example, the Steve Forte's demo for the tv show "hidden secret of magic" is perfect. In 5 minutes, spectators think that Steve Forte can realize anything at anytime...[/quote]
That is a good example. Even though I am not a magician I would think that a magician would or should use any subterfuge necessary to create the desired effect of fooling and entertaining his audience.

For example, Steve Forte is about as skillful a card manipulator of gambling type moves that one can imagine, yet in the show mentioned above, “Hidden Secrets of Magic," Forte used a pseudo center deal rather than a real center. Even with his exceptional skill and ability, the pseudo deal was no doubt more deceptive than any real center deal that even he could do. In fact, in addition to fooling layman, I’m sure he fooled many magicians also with that deal. Further, he did not hesitate to use about three-quarters of a deck rather than a full deck for the demonstration to facilitate use of the bottom deal during that fake center deal. I might add however, that it takes considerable skill and ability to do this pseudo deal the way Forte demonstrated it.

Darwin Ortiz also has a pseudo center deal where he apparently deals the Aces from different parts of the deck. That deal is clever and very deceptive.

Generally speaking, I think a good pseudo deal is easier, more deceptive and far superior to an actual center deal when it comes to entertaining an audience.
Message: Posted by: silverking (Feb 17, 2012 01:09PM)
A brief aside:

I've never seen a card performance (gambling or otherwise) that even [i]comes close[/i] to the one Steve Forte gives in the [b]"Hidden Secrets of Magic"[/b] portion of his DVD set.

From Forte's performance personality, his open and polite interaction with the specs, his ability to put across the impression he can do absolutely [i]anything[/i] he wants to with a deck of cards, up to and including his ability to use a psuedo-center deal such that it's even more deceptive than an actual center deal........his is the finest card performance I've ever seen.

Anybody who does any sort of presentation with a deck of cards would do well by themselves to spend a few hours of repeated viewings of this Forte footage.
It's a graduate course in what a gambling demo should look like.

It's often repeated by pundits that Forte [i]wasn't[/i] a public performer, nor was he a magician.......and although that wasn't his primary undertaking, the evidence put forth in [b]"Hidden Secrets of Magic"[/b] is that he could have (at any time of his choosing) stepped in and immediately assumed a position at the top of any field he choose.
Message: Posted by: LoďcJ. (Feb 17, 2012 02:09PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-17 14:09, silverking wrote:
A brief aside:

I've never seen a card performance (gambling or otherwise) that even [i]comes close[/i] to the one Steve Forte gives in the [b]"Hidden Secrets of Magic"[/b] portion of his DVD set.
[/quote]
Have you seen the Derek Delgaudio's performance in spanish tv show ? For me, it is in the same vein of the Forte's demo. I love it. He uses same concepts to leave a feeling of absolute control.
(Cagliostro : for the joke : Derek Delgaudio is the exception which proves the rule. He uses a real center deal !)
Message: Posted by: Piqsirpoq (Feb 17, 2012 03:03PM)
If you are talking about the show with Daniel Radcliffe as a guest, Derek does a pseudocenter.
Message: Posted by: LoďcJ. (Feb 17, 2012 03:38PM)
I'm talking about this one : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK_O8G5V_Tc
Message: Posted by: silverking (Feb 17, 2012 04:32PM)
I've seen the Delgaudio videos quite a few times. There's no doubt he has some serious chops.

It's completely subjective on my part, (an "IMHO" as it were)....but for what he does with a [i]deck of cards[/i] in public performance, I simply don't think Forte [i]has[/i] any contemporaries.

The only other performer I've seen that I think puts across a remotely similar "vibe" with a deck of cards in his hands is Jack Carpenter.

Again, these are highly subjective, personal opinions.......your millage [i]will[/i] vary.
Message: Posted by: LoďcJ. (Feb 17, 2012 05:09PM)
In my mind (It's very subjective on my part too) this demo is very similar with the Forte's demo. That's why I wanted to be sur that you know it. Now I perfectly understand your point of view.

I think Steve Forte hasn't any contemporaries too. But here, if a layman watches these two tv shows, I think it's very hard for him to clearly distinguished both.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 17, 2012 05:16PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-17 15:09, LoďcJ. wrote:
Derek Delgaudio is the exception which proves the rule. He uses a real center deal.
[/quote]
One can certainly use a “real” center deal during a demonstration. It can be done either “real” or pseudo, they both have their pros and cons. Looking at it from the top down is a very forgiving angle, which is why it is shot from that angle. Pretty much like the Jared Kopf video above which is viewed from the same direction.

As I said, I am not a magician so this is really not of much importance to me except for my casual entertainment. Delgaudio is skillful and does nice card tricks but if he tried his center in a game, without the forgiving angles, he would definitely have to wear that blindfold so as not see the bullets coming at him. That is not a criticism of his work. He is a good magician, sees things from the eyes of a magician and performs as such, but this is strictly to wow an audience and excite magicians. I doubt that a room full of hustler would be impressed by his center deal.

For a demo, I would still say that in general a good pseudo center has much better angles than a “real” center deal, possibly more forgiving and perhaps even more deceptive. Based upon many years of experience, in game situations I cannot think of anything more useless than a center deal and have never seen a “real” hustler waste his time on this move. There are just so many far better ways to beat a game.

In my opinion, center deals are strictly for magicians, make-believe hustlers and protection gurus who like to demonstrate moves under the guise of it being the “real” work. Nothing wrong with that but it is not going to make me titillate with excitement. I would need a beautiful or exciting woman for that, but to each his own. :)

Thanks for sharing the link.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 17, 2012 06:09PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-17 14:09, silverking wrote:
I've never seen a card performance (gambling or otherwise) that even [i]comes close[/i] to the one Steve Forte gives in the [b]"Hidden Secrets of Magic"[/b] portion of his DVD set.

From Forte's performance personality, his open and polite interaction with the specs, his ability to put across the impression he can do absolutely [i]anything[/i] he wants to with a deck of cards, up to and including his ability to use a psuedo-center deal such that it's even more deceptive than an actual center deal...

It's a graduate course in what a gambling demo should look like.
[/quote]
Forte certainly is a consummate artist when it comes to presenting gambling demonstration moves - crisp, fast and effortless. One of the great lessons of this video is even with his exceptional skill he is not above using clever subterfuge to achieve his objectives, re the pseudo center and using a confederate to request four sevens be culled from the deck.

That is very clever and somewhat like what John Scarne liked to do in a former era. Scarne was considered a great sleight-of-hander but also would incorporate subterfuge in his work, like duplicate cards, and it drove the magicians crazy trying to figure out some of his “sleight of hand” work. They were all looking for moves when he was not using moves and that is what fooled them.

LoďcJ. point is well taken above comparing the Forte with Delgaudio demos. We watch this material with a different eye than the layman. To him a good performance is simply a good performance. I think some of the subtle nuances are lost on most spectators.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 18, 2012 07:33AM)
The narrow minded fellows here who think magic can't be used in the pasteboard jungle are of limited experience. Anyone who tells you a hustler should never demonstrate his skill is wrong.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 18, 2012 12:21PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-18 08:33, tommy wrote:
The narrow minded fellows here who think magic can't be used in the pasteboard jungle are of limited experience. Anyone who tells you a hustler should never demonstrate his skill is wrong.
[/quote]
Once again, the voice of knowledge and experience. [b]LOL[/b]

The comment is too cryptic and ephemeral for discussion – a “tommy” one-liner.
Message: Posted by: cartouche7 (Feb 18, 2012 01:41PM)
I am sorry for my "idiot" question, but I don't understand how Derek Delglaudio do his final tricks (I know near nothing about magic). The deck is in order but at the beginning, the deck was washed. Please, somebody can explain that for me?

About his center deal, the break is very very large... If he can't do a "good" center deal, I don't understand why he doesn't do a pseudo center.. It's a magic show after all...
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Feb 18, 2012 03:07PM)
I find this video nice but the bottom deals are so-so and the center deal has a huge break (plus he misses one card). Zarrows are not great too.

IMHO, I think Derek is skilled and that routine is pretty, but he's far, very far from Mr Steve Forte.

@cartouche,

It's pretty obvious how he did. Ask yourself why so many blinds. Another tip, HCDS :).
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 18, 2012 03:36PM)
Not too cryptic for some of the more experienced and perceptive guys here but for the benefit of Cagliostro, who obviously hasn't got a clue, I guess I will have to educate him. Think in terms of gambling confidence tricks rather than beating a card game. There is more than one way to skin a cat there are 101. ie

The crew first finds a mark with money, who in private is shown a litle game called find the lady, in which by a demosration of skill it is proven to his satisfaction that he nor anyone else can possibly win. He is then asked if he is interested in financing a score in which they with the little game are going to take a lot money from a sucker who they have lined up. If he goes for it the score goes wrong and the mark loses his dough, in nut shell. Such cases are as a matter of fact on public record as there have been trials and so can be proven. These things are as old as the hills and still going today for your information. That is one, would you like another example or do get it now?

Arabs and other people who should not gamble according to their religion often make the best marks for these scams for they are more recuctent to run to the cops if they smell a rat after they have been took, incidently. Its hard to prove a case but where there is more than one the pattern can tell the jury the story and when one mark hears the same thing happened to someone else he can put two and two together and reailize he too was had. This can result in other marks coming forward to make a string of simular complaints.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 18, 2012 06:59PM)
Regarding tommy’s incredibly perceptive and informative post above.

WOW. You really [i]are[/i] an experienced and knowledgeable guy. I’m very impressed and overwhelmed. Please keep this good stuff coming - a virtual fountain of worthwhile information gleened from the newspaper.

[quote]
On 2012-02-18 08:33, tommy wrote:
The narrow minded fellows here who think magic can't be used in the pasteboard jungle are of limited experience. Anyone who tells you a hustler should never demonstrate his skill is wrong.
[/quote]

Because you are so knowledgeable and experienced I have a homework assignment for you.

Since you have quoted Erdnase on one of your posts I assume you have a least read portions of the book (probably the magic section), and maybe even have borrowed a couple of DVDs on gambling exposes. Open the book and read the section entitled, “Display of Ability.” Then write this section out, word for word, 100 times by longhand. After you have done that, post what you have learned on this thread.

By the way, unfortunately I have gotten unfavorable reports about you from your potty training instructor. Seems like you are just not catching on to the basic potty training concepts. Please try to apply yourself as these concepts will be important to you, and the people around you, later in life.

Finally, just out of curiosity, do you have any idea at all that mentally you don't seem to be dealing with a full deck.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 18, 2012 08:03PM)
Temper temper. You can keep talking about things you have never done, can't prove and plagiarising Phantons of Card Table and it might just help you sell a few more of your pirate DVDs here to keep you going but the only elite high stakes private games that is going to get you to are the ones you dreamt up.
Message: Posted by: silverking (Feb 18, 2012 08:25PM)
I'm not seeing the correlation between roping a mark by whatever means a particular con calls for, and an actual card or dice hustler openly displaying his skill.

Roping a mark being a requirement of the con in order for it to work to the advantage of the con-man.

Displaying ones skill openly not at all a requirement of the hustler..........and as per Erdnase, completely frowned upon if one is considered a professional.
Message: Posted by: bishthemagish (Feb 18, 2012 09:22PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-18 21:25, silverking wrote:
Displaying ones skill openly not at all a requirement of the hustler..........and as per Erdnase, completely frowned upon if one is considered a professional.
[/quote]

I agree however I have had conversations and it depends on if they are "retired" professionals or not.

The center deal is in interesting argument - Robert Kennedy has been said to have used it. However the protocol of many of the games that were played were different in those days in many games. And from what I have read on the subject Robert Kennedy used it in 5 card stud - a game not as popular as it was back then. And as I understand it the deck must be tabled now (today) between each deal.

The method of the Robert Kennedy deal as allegedly shown to Vernon is written up in the Magic and Methods of Ross Bertram. Vernon’s hands are used in the pictures.

Jack Pyle center deal was this method. However often he did a pass (shift - hop) and often he did bottoms in a show. I also use this method and like Jack Pyle I also often shift and deal bottoms.

As a magician doing a show or a demo - my job is to entertain the audience. Magicians like Jack Pyle and Jay Ose often used magic moves instead of gambling moves just because they were doing a show and the gambling moves are out of context - Steve Forte (as Silverking already pointed out in this thread) also did a Pseudo center deal.

Why? Most likely entertainment reason's and fitting it together into a routine - for the agreed performance time on a TV show - would be my guess.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 18, 2012 11:00PM)
In the game I spoke about one must prove to the marks satisfaction that one can do the business with the cards, one must display ability to him to convince him that one can get the money so that he thinks he can't lose so to get him to finances the game. When Erdnase said one should never display ability to friend or foe he was wrong as this example proves, as its the very fact of displaying ability that gets the marks hooked. The mark in effect is betting a lot of dough on your ability. In this game its no good just telling the mark a story, you have to show him something he can have confidence in. The principle is the same no matter what the move is or the game, even though I have never heard of anyone demonstrating a middle deal to prove to a mark he can get the money to finance a score. The point is that one could as its a very impressive move to the lay man.

Glenn makes a good point anyway about the protocol of many of the games being different in those days. There are many things that do not fit the bill for todays poker games that were practical back then and not so long ago. Even self dealt poker games are not practical at the Holden tables which are communally used today. These tables are in fact casino tables that are designed for dealers not for players to do the dealing, as anyone who has tried to deal from the long end of an Holden table knows. If you look at the hundreds of private poker game advertised on the internet you will see that most say they have dealers. When we played draw it was played on smaller, round tables often, as fewer players could play due to th amount of cards used. More players can play a Holden game because of the use of community cards obviously.
Message: Posted by: cartouche7 (Feb 19, 2012 09:13AM)
[quote]@cartouche,

It's pretty obvious how he did. Ask yourself why so many blinds. Another tip, HCDS .[/quote]

I am sorry I still don't understand how he do that.
Message: Posted by: LoďcJ. (Feb 19, 2012 10:28AM)
I don't want to be heavy... but the gambling spot, especially this thread is not the area for this kind of question ?! Use your brain, I'm sure you will understand.
Message: Posted by: cartouche7 (Feb 19, 2012 10:59AM)
Why you don't just answer to my question? Why do you play this game with me? I have re watched the video dozen of time, with the tip from Arnold too, but I wasn't able to find how it's done.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 19, 2012 12:41PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-19 00:00, tommy wrote:
In the game I spoke about one must prove to the marks satisfaction that one can do the business with the cards, one must display ability to him to convince him that one can get the money so that he thinks he can't lose so to get him to finances the game. When Erdnase said one should never display ability to friend or foe he was wrong as this example proves, as its the very fact of displaying ability that gets the marks hooked.
[/quote]
This is a double cross play and it is a con using playing cards and completely different from hustling a game. We are comparing apples to oranges here. As usually, you still don’t seem to get it.

I have gotten to the point where your posts (in response to my posts), are good for a laugh a day. It seems that what I write is completely over your head most to the time given your bizarre and “left field” responses. You really don't get it at all as is obvious to most.

Keep ‘em comin.’ LOL
Message: Posted by: The Dowser (Feb 19, 2012 01:01PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-19 11:59, cartouche7 wrote:
Why you don't just answer to my question? Why do you play this game with me? I have re watched the video dozen of time, with the tip from Arnold too, but I wasn't able to find how it's done.
[/quote]

You have 13 posts... you need to restate the question...

37 more times.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 19, 2012 02:56PM)
This is a double cross play and it is a con using playing cards and completely different from hustling a game.

Duh
Message: Posted by: JordanB (Feb 19, 2012 03:38PM)
Jared Kopf's center deal looks as good as it gets and he has spent a lot of time working on it. The odd grip and tension are noticeably absent and his take doesn't look odd as is sometimes seen. I think if you saw it in person you would agree. However, I think (and I think Jared would agree) a legitimate center deal is what Charlie Miller would refer to as an "intrigue move", with very little practicability for both the magic and hustling worlds. As with any difficult move; however, there is satisfaction in answering the call.

I think Cagliostro's observation about Dai Vernon keeping the move alive for so long is probably accurate. I have always found it interesting that as much as the Professor expounded the deal that he he no (or none that I know of) tricks that utilized the center deal as the method. In my opinion, this is rather telling... at least as to its usefulness in magic. My own personal theory is that the story had far more value than the actual move.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 19, 2012 03:42PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-19 15:56, tommy wrote:
This is a double cross play and it is a con using playing cards and completely different from hustling a game.

Duh
[/quote]
Fantastic. You finally got it - at least that one time.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 19, 2012 03:49PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-19 16:38, JordanB wrote:
I think Cagliostro's observation about Dai Vernon keeping the move alive for so long is probably accurate. I have always found it interesting that as much as the Professor expounded the deal that he (or none that I know of) tricks that utilized the center deal as the method. In my opinion, this is rather telling... at least as to its usefulness in magic. My own personal theory is that the story had far more value than the actual move.
[/quote]
That is a good observation. It is my understanding the Vernon liked playing a little "one-upmanship" with the others at the Magic Castle and enjoyed telling them about the new gambling move he was privy to that the others did not know. He would toy with them for a while and then eventually "tip" the move. It was all part of the "fun" game with him.

He liked to refer to Georgio as a "tin-horn" gambler to get his goade and say that his moves were too crude and lacked finese. Then Georgio would sometimes smile, lean over and kiss the Professor on the head, "Italian style" with love in his heart.
Message: Posted by: iamslow (Feb 19, 2012 04:30PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-19 11:59, cartouche7 wrote:
Why you don't just answer to my question? Why do you play this game with me? I have re watched the video dozen of time, with the tip from Arnold too, but I wasn't able to find how it's done.
[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Must be comedy night...
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 19, 2012 06:54PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-19 11:59, cartouche7 wrote:
Why you don't just answer to my question? Why do you play this game with me? I have re watched the video dozen of time, with the tip from Arnold too, but I wasn't able to find how it's done.
[/quote]
Cartouche, please look at the situation this way. The secrets of magic are just that, secret. The fact that someone signs up on this BB, for free, does not entitle him to have the more knowledgeable members on the BB divulge the secrets of another magician. The fact that you have watched this repeatedly tells some of the members that you are not sufficiently knowledgeable to have the method divulged to you.

It might be best if you spend your time learning how to do magic on your own and become proficient at the art. That would be much more productive that shouting on the BB that no one is “helping” you. No one has to help you with something like that nor is anyone obligated to do so.

That is the reality of the situation, like it or not. Complaining or shouting further on the BB is not going to benefit you any further.

Hope this helps you somewhat and lays the matter to rest.
Message: Posted by: cartouche7 (Feb 19, 2012 07:12PM)
I completely agree with you. All I have to say for my defense is, we are in the gambling spot, I know nothing about magic but I read and research a lot about cheating at cards and dice (and more), and I was thinking that my demand was legitimate. If his technique is pure magic, you are right, I haven't the right to ask for help, and I am sorry for my previous post. If he use a "gambling technique" I am just blind and I have to re re re watch the video.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 19, 2012 08:12PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-19 20:12, cartouche7 wrote:
If his technique is pure magic, you are right, I haven't the right to ask for help, and I am sorry for my previous post. If he use a "gambling technique" I am just blind and I have to re re re watch the video.
[/quote]
Delgaudio is a magician and his work, in my opinion, would classify as magic trickery. It was a TV performance to entertain under the guise of him being able to beat any game because of his ability. In a TV performance the tape can be stopped, started anew, etc.

Magic trickery with a gambling “flavor,” gambling expose demonstrations and getting the money with gambling “methods” are distinct and different endeavors although they can sometimes have some overlap.

Once gain, Delgaudio is a magician and nothing I have seen him do would fly in a game. It does not have to because he is entertaining, not cheating people.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 19, 2012 08:18PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-19 16:42, Cagliostro wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-19 15:56, tommy wrote:
This is a double cross play and it is a con using playing cards and completely different from hustling a game.

Duh
[/quote]
Fantastic. You finally got it - at least that one time.
[/quote]

Well yes it is fantastic, it only took you three days to get this one. You will soon be in fast company at this rate of improvement.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 19, 2012 09:27PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-19 21:18, tommy wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-19 16:42, Cagliostro wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-19 15:56, tommy wrote:
This is a double cross play and it is a con using playing cards and completely different from hustling a game.

Duh
[/quote]

Fantastic. You finally got it - at least that one time.
[/quote]

Well yes it is fantastic, it only took you three days to get this one. You will soon be in fast company at this rate of improvement.
[/quote]
You are the one who gave the absurd example and now you are trying to pretend you didn't by "reversing" the situation. Do you realize how stupid you sound to anyone who has been paying attention to your posts?

By the way, I see that you said "Duh" when you realized what your error was. That is one of your better reponses, at least at your level of comprehension.

I have two files on my desktop, "Tommy's Laugh a Day" file and "The Idiot File." Can you guess what file your posts go into. Okay, I know that is too much of a challenge for you. The correct answer is they go into Both.

Incidentally, I have been meaning to ask you, in that very low stake poker room that you work in, does it have one or two tables and are you now a full time dealer or still "breaking-in?" Also, I see you avoided my question as to whether or not you can deal the Big Six wheel. Seems like you maybe you cannot even do that well?

I am glad you finally checked Erdnase about the "Display of Ability" section in [b]The Expert at the Card Table[/b] but unfortuntely decided Erdnase was wrong in this regard. It seems that not only are you not dealing from a full deck mentally, it seems like we might be talking about only one-quater deck, and that is giving you the benefit of the doubt.

This is hilarious and I am patiently waiting for your next "Duh" response. It seems like you just keep putting your foot in your mouth. Remember, "It is better to be thought a fool and keep you mouth shut than to open it an remove all doubt." However, I think you passed that point some time back.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 20, 2012 12:55AM)
Information gleened from the newspaper.

What newspaper?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 20, 2012 05:44AM)
No news is good news?

First you make the claim that you go to the highest stakes private poker games in the world, where the rich people don't use dealers for fear of the dealers letting it be known there is millions in cash there on the table to be robbed, that you know the greatest dice and card hustlers in the universe and tell us real hustlers never demostrates skill nor use fancy magic moves. Then when I tell you, as a matter of provable fact, they use cheques in high stakes private games and not go to and from them with suitcases full of cash. That as a matter of fact, of provable fact, husltlers can, have and do demonstrate fancy magic moves to get the money, you say that is too cryptic for your brain and when I explain how it works to you you that its done in gambling confidence games you say that is not hustling but confidence game with cards and not hustling and I don't get it and as for high stakes poker games you claim I only know about them from being a dealer. In the meantime you offer pirate DVDs to the public and to top it all you call me names when I thought we were friends.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 20, 2012 12:56PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-20 06:44, tommy wrote:
...I thought we were friends.
[/quote]
We are friends mostly because you obviously need a friend but I regret to inform you that through continuous use you have worn out the cushion that you sit on at the foot of my chair and I have sent it in for repairs. Unfortunately, you will have to sit on the floor for a while.

The rest of your post is so bizarre and exaggerated, even for you, I am not going to waste my time re-explaining. Inasmuch as you are dealing mentally from a quarter deck, you just don’t get it and never will.

By the way, how were the tokes last night or don’t the players tip in those low stake poker games you deal? You had better hope that the small joint you work in never goes to raking the pot. You would be in deep trouble trying to figure that out.

In any event, keep on pumping and keep those cards a'flying.

I know you are curious and will probably PM me for the answer but I will give you the information here. As usual, your last post went into both files, the [i]Tommy Laugh a Day File[/i] and the [i]Idiot File.[/i] You posts are good to read at parties for a big laugh.

I guess it is now back to the drawing board for you for another 12-24 hours to figure out what to say on your next “duh” post.
Message: Posted by: Bobbycash (Feb 20, 2012 09:02PM)
Trying to get the thread back on topic, I've found that with my work on the kennedy center that I like how the deck isn't 'smeared' for lack of a better term in the hand. In the book 'finding the center' the center described has the smear attribute that I don't particularly enjoy and to a much lesser extent, Jason England's deal has a smear as well.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 20, 2012 10:45PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-20 22:02, Bobbycash wrote:
Trying to get the thread back on topic, I've found that with my work on the kennedy center that I like how the deck isn't 'smeared' for lack of a better term in the hand. In the book 'finding the center' the center described has the smear attribute that I don't particularly enjoy and to a much lesser extent, Jason England's deal has a smear as well.
[/quote]
Actually we should get the thread back on topic if possible. When you refer to the “smear” of the deck, I assume that you mean that the deck is beveled or fanned to the right over the left fingers, assuming one is holding the deck in the left hand while dealing. If that is what you mean then I have some comments regarding “smearing” to the right you might find interesting.

First be aware that I am writing from a position of someone who has no practical interest in the center deal since I don’t do demonstrations or magic tricks. However, I notice that for the bottom deal, most literature on the subject holds the deck in a squared up, block like grip. Also, some second deal techniques use the same squared up grip. However for me, and in my opinion, GENERALLY SPEAKING, both those deals look better when done with the deck fanned or beveled a little to the right.

One of the big tells on a bottom deal is the left finger flash when the bottom is taken. By fanning the deck to the right, the left fingers are extended and the deal has less finger flash. With the 2 deal, fanning the deal somewhat give better control of the cards and tends to conceal the upper left corner gap.

The Kennedy Center deal uses a right side squared up deck, although the deck is beveled forward. In order not to have any finger flash, the middle, ring and little finger must be moved well back from the left forefinger. That is why so much finger strength is needed to buckle the lower half of the deck. If all four fingers of the left hand are close together, then it is much easier to buckle the bottom half of the deck but the left fingers will flash more on the take of the center card. In other words, one cannot have his cake and eat it too.

On the other hand, under game conditions it is prudent to have the most relaxed looking holding of the deck as possible. While I think a center deal is a useless move in a game, I did develop a move to deal myself one Ace in a Hold’em game using a center. It was based upon a move I read in [b]Genii[/b] magazine many years ago. As the right hand was completing the cut, the bottom few cards of the packet being placed on top of the cards on the table were hinged out to the right with the right little finger, somewhat like the Mexican Joe move for his bottom deal hop. On the square up, the small packet was briefed to the right and the remainder of the deck was “smeared” over the briefed or jogged packet to conceal it. The problem I found with this move was getting out one card at a time from the center. (This was at a time when I was still somewhat of a move junkie.)Since you mentioned the "smear" for center dealing, than I assume more modern literature has described something similar to this.

The center deal for Hold’em is the same except that only one card is jogged to the right on the completion of the cut. The deck is fanned over this one card and if the deck is held correctly, the players cannot see the extended card from any of their viewing angles. The deck looks a little sloppy and somewhat casual and dealing the one card is very deceptive, more so than even a bottom deal. To give yourself an Ace every time you deal in a private game is a nice edge to have. A good center dealer can do it every hand to his agent or “A” (confederate) but there are better ways for a center dealer to work with an “A” in Hold’em.

I only look at moves from the standpoint of game practicality. For someone like yourself, what I mention here may or may not have any value for your purposes.
Message: Posted by: Bobbycash (Feb 20, 2012 11:00PM)
Sorry, had an absolute mind blank in regards to the smearing of the cards. The technical term is indeed the bevel of the cards. I agree that when I'm dealing strikes seconds and bottoms that I use a bevel in the cards. However when I was reading through 'Finding the Center' and watching Jason's 1 on 1 on the subject of center dealing, an element of the deal I didn't particularly fancy was the exaggerated bevel of the deck to hide the Jim Cooper element of both of these center deals. Whilst re watching the both of the videos now, the bevel is no were near as bad as what I remembered it to look like. So my apologises do go out to Jason and Antonio Zuccaro as my post above was going off my memory which wasn't entirely accurate.
Anyway, to give people some more videos of centers I'll attach the trailer for Jason's 1 on 1 and Antonio's Center deal, when I compare it to the Kopf deal, I can't help but see some of the strengths and weaknesses of the Kennedy technique and the other two techniques


Antonio's Center Deal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtyLrm0I9iw
Jason England's center deal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkMPxIbG_DI
Message: Posted by: LoďcJ. (Feb 24, 2012 05:46PM)
And what do you think about this one ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKEdfRkoX1o&feature=plcp&context=C31a140aUDOEgsToPDskKjgQ71F2otOdiTTrYJWxVK

another angle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW9Tt--fP4Y&feature=plcp&context=C3291507UDOEgsToPDskIt_E7U8qk9ZHM8xHxJ1Gp3

I don't know if these videos have already uploaded here.
But for me (I'm a magician), I have the feeling that this king of deal is possible at a card table. (I just talk about the move not about the cojones that you need to try this...)

I can't wait to read your different opinion !
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 24, 2012 06:43PM)
Not quite perfect but quite acceptable at first sight. I'll have a closer look later, thanks.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 24, 2012 08:50PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-24 18:46, LoďcJ. wrote:
And what do you think about this one ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKEdfRkoX1o&feature=plcp&context=C31a140aUDOEgsToPDskKjgQ71F2otOdiTTrYJWxVK

another angle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW9Tt--fP4Y&feature=plcp&context=C3291507UDOEgsToPDskIt_E7U8qk9ZHM8xHxJ1Gp3

...I have the feeling that this king of deal is possible at a card table. (I just talk about the move not about the cojones that you need to try this...)
[/quote]
Nicely performed and you are a very skillful young man.

Almost any move or gaff is possible at a card table, it depends upon the timing, the company you are playing against, how it is applied, the courage required, how much heat it will generate, etc.

The reason the center deal is rarely attempted, if ever, in knowing company or in a tough game is because it requires a great amount of practice to end up with a [i]passable[/i] move compared with other methods which can achieve similar results (i.e. getting the money), more safely and more deceptively, especially with a deck that is getting worn or with plastic cards.

With a new deck under ideal conditions, on video (which is somewhat forgiving because of the angle shot at, picking the best deal from a number of shots taken, being warmed up, etc.), your [i]demo[/i] looks very nice. It is possible to nitpick but such nitpicking IMHO would be mostly academic.

I think something like this would require tremendous guts to try in a tough money game, and would probably fly until you got a bad hanger, or two cards came out, or the deck got sticky, or someone started to “burn” you and your execution became flawed due to extreme nervousness, or the deck got cut too high or too low, etc., etc., etc.

Most card cheats who really hustle would rarely if ever consider spending time on something like this. There are too many “if” considerations to effectively employing this over time in different games and it takes a lot of practice to get it to possibly “passable “execution under game conditions, and even then it is not certain and quite dangerous.

If you someday get in a game for serious money against reasonably astute opponents, the answer to your academic question will hit you, in no uncertain terms, in a “New York second.”

However, you do this very nicely and it certainly can be sold to an audience as being the most effective, most highly coveted method only used by the most skillful super cheats in the world - and of course you can do it too.
Message: Posted by: jackouille07 (Feb 25, 2012 06:38AM)
Wow, beautiful Center Deal LoďcJ!
Message: Posted by: cartouche7 (Feb 25, 2012 08:27AM)
I don't think it's LoďcJ who is performing the center deal in this video...
Message: Posted by: LoďcJ. (Feb 25, 2012 11:19AM)
Exactly, it's not mine. I just want to have your opinion about it. I have the feeling that this center deal will be possible at a card table ?!
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 25, 2012 11:50AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-25 09:27, cartouche7 wrote:
I don't think it's LoďcJ who is performing the center deal in this video...
[/quote]
Wasn't aware that it was not LoďcJ dealing when I posted my comments about the efficacy of the deal,but my thoughts still apply regardless. It simply is not a "solid" move like a second deal and just doesn't stand up under all the conditions that one encounters in various game settings.
Message: Posted by: cartouche7 (Feb 25, 2012 04:15PM)
LoďcJ, this move can fly in a game, depending on the situation. I understand, this move in fascinating, but it's not a cheater's move. It's very good for demonstration, and you are magician so, you can certainly use the center deal in your demo (why don't use a pseudo center?), but if you want to know if it will fly in a game, the answer is, maybe, but it's useless. It's also depending on the game, for texas hold'em, 2 pocket cards, let's say 10 player, 3 burn card and 5 open card, for a total of 28 card dealt. If the cut was too deep, your middle slug is dead.

Cagliostro, as usually, I learn a lot of thing just by reading your post, and I second you, the video was great.
Message: Posted by: LoďcJ. (Feb 25, 2012 09:58PM)
Well. I understand. Thank you.
[quote]
On 2012-02-25 17:15, cartouche7 wrote:
why don't use a pseudo center?[/quote]
Actually I use it ! It was just a little question about the video. The move is so good, I don't understand why it could be possible to use at a card table. Now I have an answer.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 25, 2012 10:34PM)
Going back a while it was common to play draw poker with a strip deck and I am just wondering if that would make a middle deal more practical, as you would be handling a 32 card deck?
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Feb 26, 2012 07:37AM)
I find it so-so.

The cut is completed in the hands, there is a very noticeable setup at the beginning and I'd like to see it from the front. Besides, each time he gets the deck back in the hands the setup takes ages. I'd like to see it with the cards sailed away too.

The take is nicely done though.
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Feb 27, 2012 12:28AM)
Just thought I'd clarify a few things from this thread.

1. Forte showed the pseudo-center deal routine to the producer of Hidden Secrets (Gary Ouellet) a few days before the taping. Ouellet had his world rocked by the demo and loved the "magician-fooling" aspect of the method. He insisted Steve include it in the show - it wasn't Forte's idea to include it. As someone who has practiced false deals for 20 years, I think it's 10 times harder to do than a regular center deal would have been.

2. It was the 9's that the guy on tv named, but he wasn't a stooge. There are other ways to skin that cat.

3. Derek's Spanish tv spots are not recorded. It's a live TV show going out to 3,000,000 people. The host (Pablo) has no idea what's going on. You see exactly what you see on television. How do I know? I was there for the most recent one with the bills. Just got back from Madrid an hour ago. Paul Wilson and Christian Engblom were also in attendance as Derek and Luis's guests. It was great.

4. Cagliostro is spot on about the practicality of the center deal in a real game. I'm not saying it's never been done, but the conditions must be just right for it to be a reasonable option (think a "7 pluck 1" scenario with the sucker in just the right seat to see nothing). The problem with the center is that if the conditions are right for it, then the conditions are usually right for a dozen easier moves as well. The center loses out to economy of effort in most cases.

5. It's Allan (Bill) Kennedy, not Robert Kennedy. Bish - Robert Kennedy was uh, someone else.

6. Anyone saying Forte is in a league of his own is absolutely right. I've never seen his equal when it comes to gambling moves.

Jason
Message: Posted by: Tony45 (Feb 27, 2012 03:22AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-27 01:28, JasonEngland wrote:
6. Anyone saying Forte is in a league of his own is absolutely right. I've never seen his equal when it comes to gambling moves.

Jason
[/quote]

Besides me you mean ! :)
Message: Posted by: Bobbycash (Feb 27, 2012 04:26AM)
Jason,
Just wondering if you had any specific thoughts on the Kennedy center? I know you covered your thoughts and opinions of it in your 1 on 1, but was there anything you didn't put in that video that you wouldn't mind sharing?
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 27, 2012 09:16AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-27 04:22, Tony45 wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-02-27 01:28, JasonEngland wrote:
Anyone saying Forte is in a league of his own is absolutely right. I've never seen his equal when it comes to gambling moves.

Jason
[/quote]

Besides me you mean ! :)
[/quote]
You are too being much too modest, Tony. I think you mean you are in a “world” of your own, not a "league" of your own. Forte definitively comes in a distant “second” in this regard. :)
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 27, 2012 11:22AM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-27 01:28, JasonEngland wrote:
Just thought I'd clarify a few things from this thread.

2. It was the 9's that the guy on tv named, but he wasn't a stooge. There are other ways to skin that cat.

Jason
[/quote]
I sure you are right about that, Jason. I was writing from distant memory and you would have more direct knowledge of that magic performance than I. However, as I recall the four 9s were on the top of the deck and retained there during the shuffles and cuts, plus the camera cut away [i]after[/i] the spectator called out the 9s. After the camera cuts away, and before the shuffling sequence starts, there are a number of ways of getting the 9s to the top.

As I also recall there was a magician (I think it was Bill Malone) who did something called the “Scarne Aces” after having one unopened deck selected from many. After the new deck was selected the camera cuts away before the magician goes into his Scarne Aces routine. The Aces at that point, from what I could see on the tape, were on top of the deck with some type of prepared card (crimped or otherwise) on the bottom. So the placing of the Aces on top had to be done during the time the camera was not recording the performance.

The point being it is hard to get an accurate viewing on a taped performance, especially when there are camera cuts in between and the angles of viewing are revised. But all of this is more in the province of magic trickery rather than practical gambling chicanery.

[quote]6. Anyone saying Forte is in a league of his own is absolutely right. I've never seen his equal when it comes to gambling moves.[/quote]
Forte certainly is a virtuoso when it come to manipulating the tickets, that is right after Tony45 of course. Got to give credit where credit is due. ;)

Your low profile just got blown, Tony. Next we will probably be seeing you on YouTube demonstrating your moves like all the other "real" hustlers do. LOL
Message: Posted by: Tony45 (Feb 27, 2012 12:56PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-27 12:22, Cagliostro wrote:

Your low profile just got blown, Tony. Next we will probably be seeing you on YouTube demonstrating your moves like all the other "real" hustlers do. LOL
[/quote]

Im working on that project right now as we speak, right after I get through cleaning up the Middle East that is. :)
Message: Posted by: bishthemagish (Feb 27, 2012 12:56PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-27 01:28, JasonEngland wrote:
5. It's Allan (Bill) Kennedy, not Robert Kennedy. Bish - Robert Kennedy was uh, someone else.

[/quote]
Your right - my mistake - thanks for the correction.

I think the book I was talking about was the magic and methods of Ross Bertram. This has the Kennedy center as I remember and some interesting copy written about Kennedy also.
Message: Posted by: 900nm (Mar 1, 2012 07:28AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf0F7f0c4N8 these centers are so great !
Message: Posted by: Vincero (Mar 1, 2012 02:40PM)
I watched the Greek Deal, but the video wouldn't load enough for me to see the others... The take looked good, but the thumb was dead!!!!!
Message: Posted by: jfquackenbush (Mar 5, 2012 04:57AM)
Just to note, it's ridiculously easy to get the aces on top of the deck from new deck order without doing anything at all odd looking to a brand new deck of cards. The move required is well within the ability of much lesser card magicians than Bill Malone.
Message: Posted by: cartouche7 (Mar 6, 2012 11:59AM)
I am far to be skilled at this and I don't like this move for the reason that we spoke, but here is a little video of center deal training. If you have some thought...
Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tt413RQCzc&feature=youtu.be
Message: Posted by: Gulyás Imre Miklós (Mar 14, 2012 04:39PM)
[quote]
On 2012-03-05 05:57, jfquackenbush wrote:
Just to note, it's ridiculously easy to get the aces on top of the deck from new deck order without doing anything at all odd looking to a brand new deck of cards. The move required is well within the ability of much lesser card magicians than Bill Malone.
[/quote]

I guess so..
but in that particular performance one of spectators shuffled the deck thoroughly before it was handed to Mr. Malone.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Mar 14, 2012 05:18PM)
[quote]
On 2012-03-14 17:39, Gulyás Imre Miklós wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-03-05 05:57, jfquackenbush wrote:
Just to note, it's ridiculously easy to get the aces on top of the deck from new deck order without doing anything at all odd looking to a brand new deck of cards. The move required is well within the ability of much lesser card magicians than Bill Malone.
[/quote]

I guess so..
but in that particular performance one of spectators shuffled the deck thoroughly before it was handed to Mr. Malone.
[/quote]
Check back. Didn't the camera break between the spectator shuffling the cards and Malone going into his routine? I would have to check but am almost positive it did. In any event, the Aces were on the top of the deck for the routine to work as presented.
Message: Posted by: Michael Landes (Jun 23, 2012 03:18PM)
[quote]
On 2012-02-19 16:38, JordanB wrote:
"... However, I think (and I think Jared would agree) a legitimate center deal is what Charlie Miller would refer to as an "intrigue move", with very little practicability for both the magic and hustling worlds. [/quote]

A small aside for a very interesting thread: Charlie did indeed state openly that he had no faith in the Kennedy Center Deal as a practical tool for the card thief.
However, he was to eventually change his mind about this TYPE of sleight. In the early 60's Charlie had been planning to write a book of the material of Artanis. These
plans were dashed when Artanis died. But sometime after, Charlie met a protege of Artanis' who demonstrated to Charlie a Center Deal that, for the first time, convinced
Charlie that he was looking at the real thing, a practical tool in the card thief arsenal. He described the method in print in 1965. Charlie warned that mastering it would take a good year, but this was the real thing.
By the way he also described what he considered THE approach to a card table shift. Again, the source was this protege of Artanis. It is neither the Erdnase nor the clever shift described under Charlie's name in Ultimate Card Secrets. but it's in print and the fact that Charlie wrote them up should make these things easy to findfor those interested.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jun 23, 2012 05:20PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-23 16:18, Michael Landes wrote:
Charlie met a protege of Artanis' who demonstrated to Charlie a Center Deal that, for the first time, convinced Charlie that he was looking at the real thing, a practical tool in the card thief arsenal. He described the method in print in 1965. Charlie warned that mastering it would take a good year, but this was the real thing.[/quote]
Well I guess that is pretty definitive. If Charlie Miller (who was essentially a magician) was convinced this Center Deal was the real “thing” (i.e., the real “work”), ;) and that it was in fact a practical, workable and undetectable method to be used at the card table, presumably against tough and observant players, than who could doubt that assertion. Surprisingly though, Tony Giorgio, who was a confidant of Miller and probably the only “magician” at the Castle who actually worked under fire and knew more about the “practical” real work than perhaps all the magicians at the Castle put together, never changed his opinion about the Center Deal being a useless and impractical move. Perhaps Miller coveted this method so greatly he did not show it to Giorgio, even though he evidently wrote about it for everyone else to see.

On the other hand, it may very well have been a visually deceptive center deal. But that means very little since there are many methods of getting the money that don’t require a year of practice and are more deceptive, less likely to be detected and have more practical application. A Center Deal is impractical on more than just the visual level, but that is usually the only level that most enthusiasts rate a gaff by.

As an example, a case in point would be the Walter Scott punch deal. This came out in manuscript form in the 1930s or thereabouts and was subsequently published in booklet form by Gamblers' Book Club, entitled "The Phantom of the Card Table" by Eddie McQuire. This method excited many magicians because it was difficult to do, titillated the imagination and had to be the ultimate work because Scott was after all, “The Phantom...” Wow, you can’t beat that. However, in the real world of hustling, for the most part this is all largely BS.

About that time another manuscript (which was also later published by Gamblers’ Book Club), entitled "Poker to Win" by Al Smith, described a “practical” ploy to be used in Draw Poker which Smith called the Three Card Trick. This method was not difficult to master, was very powerful, could bust any draw poker game over time, and was virtually impossible to detect. Additionally, there was no proof of cheating as there would be with a punched deck. I would say this method described by Smith, although not exciting, titillating or glamorous, and the concept behind it, has made more money for more hustlers than all the Walter Scott would be hustlers (and make-believe hustlers) lined up backside to belly button from here to the moon.

No disrespect meant to anyone here, but it seems like magicians (because they are hobbyists and have no practical experience in hustling) gravitate to the exotic moves and concepts which are mostly impractical and unworkable, at least the way they do them, and the hustlers just keep chugging along with the practical and workable and keep getting the money and therein lies the huge difference between the two.

---As an aside, don't take my response the wrong way, Michael. It was a good post on your part. However, you might want to reference where some of the things you allude to can be found which would add more credibility to your post.---
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Jun 23, 2012 09:31PM)
The student of Artanis's that Michael alludes to is Dom Paolino. Charlie wrote up some of Dom's stuff in [i]Genii[/i] magazine in his Magicana column. I think Michael got the year wrong (it was 1966, not 1965 that the center deal appeared), but other than that minor mistake his post is a good one.

Incidentally, Charlie may have been 95% magician, but the other 5% was card hustler. He messed around here and there and only narrowly missed getting caught up in a huge jackpot in the 1960s.

Jason
Message: Posted by: bishthemagish (Jun 24, 2012 11:45AM)
Apparently, Ross Bertram thought that Allen Kennedy and his center deal was the real deal. As he says something like this in his book, the magic and methods of Ross Bertram - Allen Kennedy did the center deal better than anyone else and he was successful, made a lot of money and he was successful in beating all the leading card hustlers. However he stops there and goes on with the written text of how to do it.

This book is where I learned the center deal, however I got some tips on how to perform it from another magician/card sharp!

I hope this helps.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jun 24, 2012 12:41PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-23 22:31, JasonEngland wrote:
The student of Artanis's that Michael alludes to is Dom Paolino. Charlie wrote up some of Dom's stuff in [i]Genii[/i] magazine in his Magicana column. I think Michael got the year wrong (it was 1966, not 1965 that the center deal appeared), but other than that minor mistake his post is a good one.[/quote]
I agree Michael wrote a good post but simply needed further reference. Jason’s additional clarification really jogged my memory on some of this. I have acquired so much information and knowledge over the past 50 plus years, salted away in the dim recesses of my mind, that until someone writes or mentions something to bring it to the fore, it remains dormant.

As I recall from distant memory, Miller did write about a center deal in Magicana in the 60s and the name Dom Paolino vividly comes to mind. (It is not a name easily forgotten.) The center deal I remember went something like this: the bottom few cards were jogged to the right by the right little finger on the completion of the cut, they remained jogged to the right during the deal, the remainder of the deck was spread to the right to cover the jogged cards and the left forefinger was covering the front end of the deck to hide the jog or breaking from that angle giving the deck a somewhat “disheveled” appearance.

[i]IF[/i] in fact that is the move in question, I did play with it for a while out of curiosity and decided, with respect to Charlie Miller, that it was a questionable move to employ in a worthwhile game. This is not to say it could not be employed in a game. Any move can be used depending on the game. In my opinion, Miller’s statement regarding the efficacy and implied practicality of this move is not definitive, except perhaps to other magicians, but certainly not to professional hustlers.

I recall it was a very difficult move and I had a hard time trying to control dealing the cards from the center one card at a time. That would take considerable practice and for me the end result was not worth the effort. There were so many better and more practical ways to get the money than using something like this in a game.

It seems like magicians in general seem to rate the efficacy of a move based upon how exotic or difficult it is to master. In my opinion, that concept is one thousand percent incorrect for practical gambling application. Although hustling a game can require some manipulative skill, in most cases it does not require extraordinary or great manipulative skill. Other, more important “skills” are required.

The jogging concept, in modified form, appears to have been subsequently written about by Marlo and others over the years.

@Jason: [quote]Incidentally, Charlie may have been 95% magician, but the other 5% was card hustler. He messed around here and there and only narrowly missed getting caught up in a huge jackpot in the 1960s.[/quote]
Although I don’t know much about the “Castle” crowd and who if any tipped his proverbial toe into the gambling side on occasion (successfully or unsuccessfully), I recall that Giorgio wrote at one time that Miller could not get the money. He included in that category Vernon, Ose, Scarne, McDougall and others. He felt that the only magician that was capable, in his experience, was Francis Carlyle. Giorgio subsequently changed his opinion regarding Miller at a later date and as I recall said Miller did some hustling and was capable to some degree.

I also recall from Giorgio’s writings that he and Miller were going to write a book on gambling moves but Miller backed down. Evidently Miller was afraid of repercussions from some gamblers.

Additionally someone wrote (and I don’t remember where I got this from), that Miller worked in the “peek” for a while, upstairs at the Friars’ Club in Los Angeles with the guys that orchestrated and played the big Gin Rummy scam at that club and “took off” a number of Hollywood big names with that ploy. When the play was discovered it subsequently hit the national media. I personally don't know if this allegation is true or not, but if so it may have been Miller's biggest “hustling” money score.

Jason, thanks for jogging my memory on this.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jun 24, 2012 01:31PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-24 12:45, bishthemagish wrote:
Apparently, Ross Bertram thought that Allen Kennedy and his center deal was the real deal. As he says something like this in his book, the magic and methods of Ross Bertram - Allen Kennedy did the center deal better than anyone else and he was successful, made a lot of money and he was successful in beating all the leading card hustlers. [/quote]
No disrespect meant to anyone, but to me this is all will-o-the-wisp magician hyperbole and nonsense. Once again, and with no disrespect to anyone on this forum, very few magician who study this material have any idea as to what will get the money or not unless they have actual experience along these lines. The nonsense that has been foisted upon the magic community by Vernon and others is monumental in this regard. Not that I don’t respect these gents, I certainly do. But I respect them for their accomplishment in the magic community and their furtherance of the art of card table manipulation.

As far as their claims as to what does or does not get the money in a real game, that is all part of the “story” that “enhances” the moves. To put it bluntly, IMHO it is magician BS to “sell” the move or moves in question.

You can’t sell the moves being explained or the ability of the person being exalted if you say that he (Kennedy and also Walter Scott), were really small time neighborhood gamblers and could not get the money if they went up against the leading hustlers of their era. It has to be embellished to give it believability, glamor and pizazz. Who want to learn a move where the guy who invented it got his head broken five or six times using it. :)

Guys, learn the moves because they are fun to play with and perform. But you might to take many of these stories and statements with a grain of salt, or maybe even with the whole salt shaker.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 24, 2012 02:07PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-24 14:31, Cagliostro wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-24 12:45, bishthemagish wrote:
Apparently, Ross Bertram thought that Allen Kennedy and his center deal was the real deal. As he says something like this in his book, the magic and methods of Ross Bertram - Allen Kennedy did the center deal better than anyone else and he was successful, made a lot of money and he was successful in beating all the leading card hustlers. [/quote]
No disrespect meant to anyone, but to me this is all will-o-the-wisp magician hyperbole and nonsense. Once again, and with no disrespect to anyone on this forum, very few magician who study this material have any idea as to what will get the money or not unless they have actual experience along these lines. The nonsense that has been foisted upon the magic community by Vernon and others is monumental in this regard. Not that I don’t respect these gents, I certainly do. But I respect them for their accomplishment in the magic community and their furtherance of the art of card table manipulation.

As far as their claims as to what does or does not get the money in a real game, that is all part of the “story” that “enhances” the moves. To put it bluntly, IMHO it is magician BS to “sell” the move or moves in question.

You can’t sell the moves being explained or the ability of the person being exalted if you say that he (Kennedy and also Walter Scott), were really small time neighborhood gamblers and could not get the money if they went up against the leading hustlers of their era. It has to be embellished to give it believability, glamor and pizazz. Who want to learn a move where the guy who invented it got his head broken five or six times using it. :)

Guys, learn the moves because they are fun to play with and perform. But you might to take many of these stories and statements with a grain of salt, or maybe even with the whole salt shaker.
[/quote]

Great post.
Message: Posted by: bishthemagish (Jun 24, 2012 04:57PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-24 12:45, bishthemagish wrote:
Apparently, Ross Bertram thought that Allen Kennedy and his center deal was the real deal. As he says something like this in his book, the magic and methods of Ross Bertram - Allen Kennedy did the center deal better than anyone else and he was successful, made a lot of money and he was successful in beating all the leading card hustlers. [/quote]
[quote]
On 2012-06-24 14:31, Cagliostro wrote:
No disrespect meant to anyone, but to me this is all will-o-the-wisp magician hyperbole and nonsense. Once again, and with no disrespect to anyone on this forum, very few magician who study this material have any idea as to what will get the money or not unless they have actual experience along these lines.
[/quote]

Thank you for "your" opinion. Now I am going to give you "my" opinion of what Ross Bertram wrote in his book. It is a discription of how to do a center deal. Possibly the Kennedy center deal as worked out by Dai Vernon as Bertram says that Vernon's hands were used in the photographs.

[quote]
On 2012-06-24 14:31, Cagliostro wrote:
The nonsense that has been foisted upon the magic community by Vernon and others is monumental in this regard. Not that I don’t respect these gents, I certainly do. But I respect them for their accomplishment in the magic community and their furtherance of the art of card table manipulation.

As far as their claims as to what does or does not get the money in a real game, that is all part of the “story” that “enhances” the moves. To put it bluntly, IMHO it is magician BS to “sell” the move or moves in question.
[/quote]

Speaking as a magician in my opinion the center deal "does get the money" when used in a demonstration. Not only can it be entertaining it is also part of magic history and legend if presented right.

However in my opinion to be used in a game "today"? One also has to consider that the rules, games people play and protocols have "changed" since those days when Walter Scott and Allen Kennedy were playing cards. However I would say Walter Scott who was a vaudeville performer - I don't think he would have had a hard time finding a game just because people in vaudeville and show business in those days played cards - often between shows.

I know this to be true because my Dad was a vaudevillian and he played cards.

[quote]
On 2012-06-24 14:31, Cagliostro wrote:
Guys, learn the moves because they are fun to play with and perform. But you might to take many of these stories and statements with a grain of salt, or maybe even with the whole salt shaker.
[/quote]
I learned the move to use in a performance (not to cheat people at the card table). And it does still get the money in the way I use it. However I do not find what Ross Bertram or Dai Vernon or any magician that learned and used the center deal and published interesting story around it to be false.

As I said the rules, games and protocol have changed quite a bit since Walter Scotts and Allen Kennedy's day. I think one should take the time difference and what games were popular then and now and how they played them into the consideration when talking about things like the center deal.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jun 24, 2012 06:34PM)
@bishthemagish above, June 24th 2012, 5:57pm:

Sorry if I offended you. My comments were not directed to you personally, but to Vernon’s (and other magicians’) hyperbole that surrounds these somewhat legendary "greats." I remain firm in my statements and that conclusion and would write the post exactly the same way again. If your opinion is otherwise, that’s fine with me.

Did Scott and Kennedy play cards? I’m sure they did. Did they employ chicanery when they played cards to get the money? I’m fairly certain they did.

Did they both “take-off” all the top card hustlers that they encountered with their moves? I find that very doubtful in the extreme. In fact, I find it absurd. However, if you believe otherwise, that’s okay with me also.

Just to clarify. The slang expression “Getting the Money,” in the gambling context refers [i]only[/i] to cheating to obtain money, not to “earning” money working at a job or doing demonstrations for pay. If you want to use it in a different context, that's okay with me also.

As you can see, I'm a very agreeable guy.

Cheers. It is time for a Martini. You might want to loosen up and have one too. :)
Message: Posted by: bishthemagish (Jun 24, 2012 08:11PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-24 19:34, Cagliostro wrote:
Sorry if I offended you. My comments were not directed to you personally, but to Vernon’s (and other magicians’) hyperbole that surrounds these somewhat legendary "greats." I remain firm in my statements and that conclusion and would write the post exactly the same way again. If your opinion is otherwise, that’s fine with me.
[/quote]
I am not offended, I find your posting interesting and I just added my opinion as food for thought.

[quote]
On 2012-06-24 19:34, Cagliostro wrote:
Did Scott and Kennedy play cards? I’m sure they did. Did they employ chicanery when they played cards to get the money? I’m fairly certain they did.

Did they both “take-off” all the top card hustlers that they encountered with their moves? I find that very doubtful in the extreme. In fact, I find it absurd. However, if you believe otherwise, that’s okay with me also.
[/quote]
Did they "take off" all the top card hustlers that they encountered? Good question and if I may add - how many really good card hustlers were there in those days? Thousands, hundreds under 100? In the book Illusion show David Bamberg talked about card hustlers he saw and how crude the methods were back in those vaudeville times.

If Walter Scott had the punch and could make it work just as Allen Kennedy if he could do the Center deal and make it fly in the games of his day - during a time when many other card hustlers were using crude methods that David Bamberg talked about. I think that this should also be considered in the conversation. We are talking about days that have gone by - a time long ago.

I find the stories of Vernon, Bertram, and others about culling, Dad Stevens, Walter Scott and Allen Kennedy and the center deal to be interesting. Perhaps exaggerated at times but no less interesting and I do not find them false. Taking into consideration the time in which these people were suppose to have been doing these techniques.
[quote]
On 2012-06-24 19:34, Cagliostro wrote:
@bishthemagish above, June 24th 2012, 5:57pm:

Just to clarify. The slang expression “Getting the Money,” in the gambling context refers [i]only[/i] to cheating to obtain money, not to “earning” money working at a job or doing demonstrations for pay. If you want to use it in a different context, that's okay with me also.

As you can see, I'm a very agreeable guy.

Cheers. It is time for a Martini. You might want to loosen up and have one too. :)
[/quote]

Cheers also thanks for a good conversation.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jun 24, 2012 09:11PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-24 15:07, critter wrote:
Great post.[/quote]
Thank you. I glad you enjoyed the post and appreciate your compliment.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jun 24, 2012 10:08PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-24 21:11, bishthemagish wrote:
Did they "take off" all the top card hustlers that they encountered? Good question and if I may add - how many really good card hustlers were there in those days? Thousands, hundreds under 100? In the book Illusion show David Bamberg talked about card hustlers he saw and how crude the methods were back in those vaudeville times. [/quote]
Interesting comment. One could also ask, do top card hustlers (not stumble bums or make believe low level hustlers and has beens, but top hustlers, spend their time associating with magicians and explaining their ploys?

In 1953 I read a series of articles in the "National Police Gazette" written under the pen name of Tony Marone. He alluded to be a hustler during prohibition, and hustled during the late 1920s up to the mid-1940s. Based upon what he wrote and the knowledge he conveyed, he was definitely not a crude or low class hustler. He was a real pro.

Additionally, in "Sharps and Flat," which Maskelyne had published in 1894 or thereabout, the methods he described were anything but crude. In fact, he described some top gaffs and work with cards that are still being used today. The lowest level, or the crudest level of hustling in his opinion, were the sleight of hand manipulators, those who dealt second, bottoms, (and by extension center dealers and punch dealers), ran up hands and used various forms of manipulation. He stated these people ALWAYS got caught.

It has been my experience that what he stated in the late 1900s, has become more and more true over the years. Further, Maskelyne stated that a smart hustler that used marked cards does not deal seconds to take advantage of the knowledge conveyed. Rather they use their superior playing ability and the knowledge the marked cards convey to win the money. Even the magicians’ hero, Steve Forte, stated in "Phantoms of the Card Table" that the punch is used to give information as to the value of the top card in professional games, not to use a Walter Scott type punch second deal.

I also want to add that I personally knew and trained with some of the top Vegas hustler in the 1960s. These were the guys who were ripping and tearing in the 20s, 30s and 40s. Based upon the methods I saw them using under fire, and the methods they had employed in the past and conveyed to me, and comparing them with the methods alluded to have been used by Kennedy and Scott, I would have to say these guys would not only NOT been fooled by these two guys, but instead would have eaten them alive.

I can state categorically, top hustlers, those that are active and have really been there, don’t use these sleight of hand methods alluded to by Vernon et al, and further don’t associate with, or hang out, with magicians or gambling hobbyists/enthusiasts.

My background is in gambling, both in casino as well as private game gambling, not in doing magic tricks, demonstration or learning about gambling ploys in theory. Whether anyone agrees with my observations or not is irrelevant to me. But what I write about has been my experience over 50 + years around professional level gambling, both casino and private. I’ve known and learned from some of the absoulte best, but you won’t read about any of these guys in Genii magazine or similar publications.

Those that believe otherwise, that’s okay too. I am not here to convince anyone of anything. My posts are only meant to be of some benefit to a very small minority on this board, not for the majority.
Message: Posted by: bishthemagish (Jun 25, 2012 08:18PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-24 23:08, Cagliostro wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-06-24 21:11, bishthemagish wrote:
Did they "take off" all the top card hustlers that they encountered? Good question and if I may add - how many really good card hustlers were there in those days? Thousands, hundreds under 100? In the book Illusion show David Bamberg talked about card hustlers he saw and how crude the methods were back in those vaudeville times. [/quote]
[quote]
On 2012-06-24 23:08, Cagliostro wrote:
Interesting comment. One could also ask, do top card hustlers (not stumble bums or make believe low level hustlers and has beens, but top hustlers, spend their time associating with magicians and explaining their ploys?
[/quote]
I don't know about the past - but the observation was made by David Bamberg. And his info was from observation rather than meeting them and learning their secrets. Before he made a living as a magician and an illusionist he worked doing cold readings and making money doing that.
[quote]
On 2012-06-24 23:08, Cagliostro wrote:
In 1953 I read a series of articles in the "National Police Gazette" written under the pen name of Tony Marone. He alluded to be a hustler during prohibition, and hustled during the late 1920s up to the mid-1940s. Based upon what he wrote and the knowledge he conveyed, he was definitely not a crude or low class hustler. He was a real pro.

Additionally, in "Sharps and Flat," which Maskelyne had published in 1894 or thereabout, the methods he described were anything but crude. In fact, he described some top gaffs and work with cards that are still being used today. The lowest level, or the crudest level of hustling in his opinion, were the sleight of hand manipulators, those who dealt second, bottoms, (and by extension center dealers and punch dealers), ran up hands and used various forms of manipulation. He stated these people ALWAYS got caught.

It has been my experience that what he stated in the late 1900s, has become more and more true over the years. Further, Maskelyne stated that a smart hustler that used marked cards does not deal seconds to take advantage of the knowledge conveyed. Rather they use their superior playing ability and the knowledge the marked cards convey to win the money. Even the magicians’ hero, Steve Forte, stated in "Phantoms of the Card Table" that the punch is used to give information as to the value of the top card in professional games, not to use a Walter Scott type punch second deal.

I also want to add that I personally knew and trained with some of the top Vegas hustler in the 1960s. These were the guys who were ripping and tearing in the 20s, 30s and 40s. Based upon the methods I saw them using under fire, and the methods they had employed in the past and conveyed to me, and comparing them with the methods alluded to have been used by Kennedy and Scott, I would have to say these guys would not only NOT been fooled by these two guys, but instead would have eaten them alive.
[/quote]
That again is your opinion. I met and knew a person that dealt the punch, he was also a pool hustler. He would use both methods. He would use the punch (nail) as readers most of the time because that was enough. But every once and a while if it was worth it to him he would use the second deal. Also he would use a second not to improve his hand - but to blow another hand in the game so they wouldn't get the hand.

By the way you would have never found this guy's name in Genii mag as well.

[quote]
On 2012-06-24 23:08, Cagliostro wrote:
I can state categorically, top hustlers, those that are active and have really been there, don’t use these sleight of hand methods alluded to by Vernon et al, and further don’t associate with, or hang out, with magicians or gambling hobbyists/enthusiasts.
[/quote]
I already said that I met a punch worker that did deal the punch in games. And he did know his stuff.
[quote]
On 2012-06-24 23:08, Cagliostro wrote:
My background is in gambling, both in casino as well as private game gambling, not in doing magic tricks, demonstration or learning about gambling ploys in theory. Whether anyone agrees with my observations or not is irrelevant to me. But what I write about has been my experience over 50 + years around professional level gambling, both casino and private. I’ve known and learned from some of the absoulte best, but you won’t read about any of these guys in Genii magazine or similar publications.
[/quote]

My background is in magic however because I am in show business (45 + years) I played cards for a number of years. I also knew a lot of magicians that also played cards. I have never gambled in a casino I have only played cards in privet games. Or in a privet game after a show in the bar.
[quote]
On 2012-06-24 23:08, Cagliostro wrote:

Those that believe otherwise, that’s okay too. I am not here to convince anyone of anything. My posts are only meant to be of some benefit to a very small minority on this board, not for the majority.
[/quote]

I still think that one must consider the time in which these people worked. As I said above things can change over the years.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jun 25, 2012 10:24PM)
Okay bishthemagish. Let me put it this way one last time.

I really don’t understand what the point of contention is here. I did not say that one cannot use a punch deal in a game and successfully do so if one has the grift sense to apply it properly. It depends on the game and the people involved. One can still do that today. One can do almost anything, including some very crude things. Depends on the game, the people involved, the stakes and how frequently that person wants to get caught.

My contention was the quote, not made by you but by Ross Bertram that: “Allen Kennedy…was successful in beating all the LEADING card hustlers.”

I’m not saying he did not beat [i]some[/i] card hustlers. Hustlers come in all shapes, sizes and degree of knowledge and ability. Some are complete stumble bums and would not know a second deal from a pink elephant; others are triple sharp and can go over almost anyone’s head.

Since I have personally known and associated with a number of top card hustlers, I don’t believe Kennedy could fool TOP card men with a center deal or could they be fooled for very long with a punch deal. I seriously doubt you would fool me with that nonsense and I’m fairly certain there are some on this forum who would not be fooled either. Why? Because these are NOT top moves or gaffs. You may not understand that, but they are not.

So to clarify one last time, Scott or Kennedy could not fool top card men with their ploys for very long. If they did encounter any card men of this ilk, it would probably be a wink and a nod in the game and no one would get hurt. That’s how it works in the real world.

Could they beat some local games and so forth? They probably could, depending upon the game. Have times changed somewhat since then? Of course, mostly because there is less opportunity to use these type gaffs because of the widespread availably of casino and card room games where one does not deal the cards himself. But once again, taking off top card hustlers with that nonsense is silly. If anyone would be taken off in encounters of that type, it would no doubt be the center or punch dealer that got “creamed” and they would probably conclude they played unlucky.

Vernon, Bertram and others had an agenda to bolster their image that they really knew the real work and were on the leading edge of top gaffs and moves that other magicians did not know about. It was almost a game with them. Vernon loved to play this one-upmanship game. Others magicians simply followed suit so they could show they were also "in the know."

I really don’t want to be impolite but there is no other way to say it. If you were actually acquainted with top card hustlers and the methods they were using back then, and are currently using now, we would not be having this conversation. You background did not give you that type exposure and knowledge. That is pretty obvious based upon our conversation here.

But if you think otherwise based upon you’re your extensive experience of 45 years in show business and playing cards for a few years, that’s okay with me. We have different knowledge bases and experience in this area and apparently never the twain shall meet. Just don’t play in private games for big money. ;) Oh c’mon. Just joking.

There really isn’t much else to say except, “cheers.”
Message: Posted by: critter (Jun 26, 2012 12:50AM)
Just something to throw in here-
From what I've read, Vernon didn't tell gamblers that he was a magician. He often claimed to be a riverboat gambler because he knew they wouldn't talk to him if they knew he was "just a magician."
Well, take that for what it's worth anyway.
Message: Posted by: bishthemagish (Jun 26, 2012 02:47PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-25 23:24, Cagliostro wrote:
Okay bishthemagish. Let me put it this way one last time.

I really don’t understand what the point of contention is here. I did not say that one cannot use a punch deal in a game and successfully do so if one has the grift sense to apply it properly. It depends on the game and the people involved. One can still do that today. One can do almost anything, including some very crude things. Depends on the game, the people involved, the stakes and how frequently that person wants to get caught.

My contention was the quote, not made by you but by Ross Bertram that: “Allen Kennedy…was successful in beating all the LEADING card hustlers.”

I’m not saying he did not beat [i]some[/i] card hustlers. Hustlers come in all shapes, sizes and degree of knowledge and ability. Some are complete stumble bums and would not know a second deal from a pink elephant; others are triple sharp and can go over almost anyone’s head.

Since I have personally known and associated with a number of top card hustlers, I don’t believe Kennedy could fool TOP card men with a center deal or could they be fooled for very long with a punch deal. I seriously doubt you would fool me with that nonsense and I’m fairly certain there are some on this forum who would not be fooled either. Why? Because these are NOT top moves or gaffs. You may not understand that, but they are not.

So to clarify one last time, Scott or Kennedy could not fool top card men with their ploys for very long. If they did encounter any card men of this ilk, it would probably be a wink and a nod in the game and no one would get hurt. That’s how it works in the real world.

Could they beat some local games and so forth? They probably could, depending upon the game. Have times changed somewhat since then? Of course, mostly because there is less opportunity to use these type gaffs because of the widespread availably of casino and card room games where one does not deal the cards himself. But once again, taking off top card hustlers with that nonsense is silly. If anyone would be taken off in encounters of that type, it would no doubt be the center or punch dealer that got “creamed” and they would probably conclude they played unlucky.

Vernon, Bertram and others had an agenda to bolster their image that they really knew the real work and were on the leading edge of top gaffs and moves that other magicians did not know about. It was almost a game with them. Vernon loved to play this one-upmanship game. Others magicians simply followed suit so they could show they were also "in the know."
[/quote]
In my opinion Vernon's interest in gambling was how to use whatever he used in magic. And in my opinion that is the interest that many magicians have in gambling or card sharp moves. It is also my interest as well as the "history" of it as it relates to magic. However I still feel that one must take into the consideration of the techniques (center, second deal, the punch) - the games that they were playing back then - where they played - and the way that they played them because the protocols of the games and what games were popular were different.

For instance, Vernon once said on a video tape that when Allen Kennedy demonstrated his center deal, Kennedy dealt it out on the his kitchen table in five card stud. And he dealt himself the dealer three aces (two face up one in the hole).

For a magician telling the story I find it interesting. But to little information because it says little about how Kennedy moved with the center in a real game. However the story talks about that doing a center deal “is possible”.

However if Kennedy used it in a real game, for money the story tells little of what games he used it - and how, when. In my opinion there could be more to the story that what was told.
[quote]
On 2012-06-25 23:24, Cagliostro wrote:
I really don’t want to be impolite but there is no other way to say it. If you were actually acquainted with top card hustlers and the methods they were using back then, and are currently using now, we would not be having this conversation. You background did not give you that type exposure and knowledge. That is pretty obvious based upon our conversation here.
[/quote]
My background has given me a wide knowledge of the subject matter. From the way that you have been posting I would say a lot more than you think!

As I said I am not interested in the top hustlers of today and if they think what magicians do or say is BS. My interest today is in the classic moves of a by-gone time, the history and how they were used and if they were used a long time ago.

[quote]
On 2012-06-25 23:24, Cagliostro wrote:
But if you think otherwise based upon you’re your extensive experience of 45 years in show business and playing cards for a few years, that’s okay with me. We have different knowledge bases and experience in this area and apparently never the twain shall meet. Just don’t play in private games for big money. ;) Oh c’mon. Just joking.

There really isn’t much else to say except, “cheers.”
[/quote]
I wouldn't assume that.

Cheers!
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jun 26, 2012 03:21PM)
On 2012-06-26 15:47, bishthemagish wrote:[quote]
In my opinion Vernon's interest in gambling was how to use whatever he used in magic. And in my opinion that is the interest that many magicians have in gambling or card sharp moves. It is also my interest as well as the "history" of it as it relates to magic. However I still feel that one must take into the consideration of the techniques (center, second deal, the punch) - the games that they were playing back then - where they played - and the way that they played them because the protocols of the games and what games were popular were different.[/quote]
I have no disagreement with any of that.

On 2012-06-26 15:47, bishthemagish wrote:[quote]For instance, Vernon once said on a video tape that when Allen Kennedy demonstrated his center deal, Kennedy dealt it out on the his kitchen table in five card stud. And he dealt himself the dealer three aces (two face up one in the hole).

For a magician telling the story I find it interesting. But to little information because it says little about how Kennedy moved with the center in a real game. However the story talks about that doing a center deal “is possible”. [/quote]
Once again, I have no disagreement with that. (This is getting boring, all we do is agree.)

On 2012-06-26 15:47, bishthemagish wrote:[quote]However if Kennedy used it in a real game, for money the story tells little of what games he used it - and how, when. In my opinion there could be more to the story that what was told.[/quote]
There could be more to the story. There also could be less. (We only half agree here).

On 2012-06-26 15:47, bishthemagish wrote:[quote] My background has given me a wide knowledge of the subject matter. From the way that you have been posting I would say a lot more than you think!

As I said I am not interested in the top hustlers of today and if they think what magicians do or say is BS. My interest today is in the classic moves of a by-gone time, the history and how they were used and if they were used a long time ago.[/quote]
Okay. I have no problem with any of that. We are not in that much disagreement. However, we definitely have different knowledge and experiences and that is [i]not[/i] an assumption. However, this is good because we can get give friendly opinions and perceptions from both sides of the aisle so to speak. Those are the elements that make a forum of this nature beneficial and enjoyable.

Rather than my continuing on with my further elaboration, I am going get use some additional comments from a gambler who turned magician and was acquainted with other hustlers of that era. This gentleman really had “been there” and was acquainted with many old time hustlers of that era. That follows below.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jun 26, 2012 03:37PM)
I don’t want to belabor the point or engage in overkill, but Tony Giorgio wrote an interesting article in the May 2005 issue of Genii magazine entitled, [i]Did Walter Scott Go for the Money?[/i] I wrote a review and commentary on this article shortly thereafter and while a number of readers of this forum have seen the Giorgio article, I’m sure many have not.

In any event, here is my review for those who may have an interest. Keep in mind this is Giorgio’s opinion with my specific comments in parentheses. My posting of this review is not meant in any way to criticize other peoples’ opinions or beliefs. These are all just opinions based upon our individual experiences and presented to further the discussion. Take it for what it is worth.

[quote]Giorgio’s states his conclusions about Scott are “based up the tapes and transcripts of the Gazzo/O’Connor interviews with Scott; the transcript of a filmed interview with Scott; and (Giorgio’s), personal acquaintance with Gazzo, John Scarne, Mickey MacDougall, Dai Vernon, Charlie Miller and Francis Carlyle; and approximately 70 years of associations with gambling cheats, grifters, and magicians."

(The concept of “getting the money” refers to being able to effectively cheat “under fire” in serious money games, or stated another way, “being capable.”)

Giorgio believes that “the plethora of gambling experts and bedroom hustlers spawned by videos, books, and the Internet are generally misinformed and have no concept of how to get the money.

Further, Giorgio mentions that Scarne, MacDougall, Vernon, and Miller were not capable of getting the money. Miller evidently was the most knowledgeable of the group, but lacked the audacity to move under fire, although Giorgio refers to Miller working at one time “tipping dukes” in a “peek joint” for a notorious gin rummy hustler.

(Interestingly, Charlie Miller and Giorgio started writing a book which they believed would be a definitive treatise on card cheating, however, Miller expressed an irrational fear that his revelations would be met with violent retaliation by card and dice hustlers and the work was abandoned.)

According to Giorgio, after meeting with Scott, Miller concluded that Scott was just another magician exposé artist who probably never went for the money. At another point in time, Miller concluded that Scott may have been a card hustler, but not a major leaguer.

Dai Vernon had the same opinion of Scott and observed that Scott’s reputation was not created by card cheaters but by magicians. Further, both Miller and Vernon concluded that no serious card hustler would put on a blindfold before demonstrating his work, and that Scott’s presentation of the blindfold poker deal would only have fooled magicians.

Giorgio next deals with inconsistencies in many of Scott’s statements, such as traveling from coast to coast at age 17 (in 1912), fruitlessly searching for someone who could do a second deal (the second deal was well known in the 17th century and there was no scarcity of second dealers in 1912); Scott said he always worked alone but later said he worked with partners; Scott said he never wanted anything to do with a card cheater or a thief, but later said he only robbed the rich and no one else.

Scott also stated that Vernon brought card men to “defeat him.” Francis Carlyle was one of the visitors brought by Vernon to meet Scott, and according to Giorgio, Carlyle was the only magician/card man he ever met who actually moved under fire. Scott then claimed that he gave Carlyle a “good beating.” Giorgio questions what the term “good beating” means, but concludes that if Scott meant he fooled Carlyle he would find that unbelievable.

(Scott’s reference to giving other card men “good beatings” seems somewhat irrational and petulant to me and appears to signify a slightly childish personality.)

Scott later talked about buying cold decking machines and using strippers. Giorgio states that throughout the transcripts Scott alleged he cheated the cheaters and repeatedly claimed he never got caught cheating. Giorgio then refers to the hustler’s adage that if someone says he was never caught cheating, then he never moved under fire. Giorgio clarifies this statement by saying, “That is not to say that someone who moved under fire on only a few occasions never got caught, but to employ sleight of hand without ever being caught is a virtual impossibility for a journeyman card or dice hustler.”

(It is interesting to note that Maskelyne wrote in Sharps and Flats (1894) on page 114, “The best gamblers…play with fair cards only; and, by being wonderfully keen card-players, make their brains win, instead of cheating with the pack. They play in partnership (secret), and are invincible… The next best class are those who play marked cards well, many of them using cards that no one not acquainted with the work could find out in a lifetime… Then after these, come the class of ‘second dealers,’ bottom dealers,’ and men who habitually do work with the pack to win (that is to say, use sleight of hand). These men always get caught in the long run.”)

By his own admission, Scott was a magician in his earlier days, and traveled with a musical group which featured Hawaiian guitars and taught guitar in various schools over a period of 47 years.

Giorgio concludes that, “I have no doubt that Walter Scott knew and mingled with card and dice hustlers, and may have actually participated in some card cheating, but based upon his magic background, his blindfold demonstrations, his theatrical flair, his vehement condemnations of card cheaters, his claims of having fooled Charlie Miller and Francis Carlyle and his exaggerations and hyperbole, I do not believe that Walter Scott ever made his living cheating at cards.”

(Previously, in May 2004, I wrote a review of [i]Phantoms of the Card Table[/i] by Gazzo. In it I concluded: “In my opinion, Scott did hustle to a certain degree, but I doubt that he was a top notch hustler. It appears he played in neighborhood games, probably in local clubs and at local affairs, maybe traveled to outlying games occasionally, and so forth, but I personally think he would get ‘creamed’ against top card men in a high stakes game, assuming he could afford to play in such games. They would simply make it impossible for him to use his moves, change the deck every 30 minutes or so, and beat him with techniques he could not overcome. He would either lose his money or be forced to give up and leave the game.”)[/quote]

This is a good article and interested readers may wish to procure a copy of Genii magazine to read it in its entirety.

Given the time, I will locate some further reviews and commentary on the Kennedy Center deal.
________________________________________
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jun 27, 2012 03:27PM)
Here is an interesting addition to the Walter Scott mystique that is little known.

In the GBC reprint of [b]The Phantom of the Card Table[/b] by Eddie McGuire, McGuire raves about how Scott fooled some of the leading magician of his day with his punch deal. It was a demonstration at Al Baker’s house in which Al Baker, Cardini, Leo Horowitz, T. Nelson Downs, Max Holden and Eddie McLaughlin were present. (Vernon was not present at the time.) It was after this “blindfold” deal demonstration, which supposed wowed all these expert magicians, that Max Holden passed the “crown” of being the most expert exponent of wonderful card table magic (or some such designation), from Vernon to Scott. This irked Vernon to no end. (Those who are not acquainted with the story can read about it in McGuire’s book which sells for about three dollars and can be obtained from Gamblers’ Book Club.)

However, there is more to the story than recounted by McGuire. According to Jeff Busby, in his book, [b]The Secret of the Palmettos[/b], Scott’s demonstration for the New York magicians at Al Baker’s house, on June 14, 1930, was a set-up. According to Busby, Scott, McGuire, Baker, Downs and McLaughlin joined together in a plot to devastate their New York targets: Horowitz, Cardini and Holden. It was Baker who introduced the “gaffed” (edge marked and punched), decks for Scott's use.

Evidently, three years before the New York demonstration, in June of 1927, Downs and McLaughlin traveled with Faucett Ross to spend a week with McGuire and Scott, in which they exchanged moves and ideas. So Downs and McLaughlin were in on the methods that Scott used on the night of the “big” New York demonstration.

Scott evidently used scratch (edge work on the cards) plus a punch deal to do the demonstration. The scratch enabled him to see how far down in the deck his desired cards were, and he could anticipate when to go into his punch deal because of the edge work. It the cards were not close enough to the top of the deck to be dealt on the next round, he would have the deck shuffled and then check again to see if his desired cards were close enough to be dealt. If not, he would have the deck shuffled again, "just to be sure they are all mixed." He wore a blindfold to conceal the fact that he was looking down at the deck to see his edge work.

In all fairness, I should mention that back then most magicians were in the dark as to gamblers methods. What was common knowledge among hustlers was a complete mystery to magicians. Of course, in today’s climate, with the tremendous exposure of gambling “moves” and methods, magicians are much more in the know and knowledgeable magicians would not have been fooled by Scott. Bishthemagish’s statement is well taken when he commented, “However, I still feel that one must take into the consideration of the techniques (center, second deal, the punch) - the games that they were playing back then - where they played - and the way that they played them because the protocols of the games and what games were popular were different.” I would further add to this the lack of knowledge magicians and the general public had in those days regarding gambling methods.

Finally, I don’t want to irritate any sensitive magicians on the BB, but if Scott was such a great card hustler, why did he associate with and share his moves and methods with magicians? Almost without exception, active top card hustlers, (not amateurs, stumble bums or make-believe hustlers), both private and casino, don’t want to know or associate with magicians, exposers, demonstrators or erstwhile gambling experts. They would have little or nothing to gain by doing so, and a great deal to lose by such association.
Message: Posted by: ronfour (Jun 27, 2012 03:48PM)
Gazzo said that Scott told him that his real specialty was dice. Anybody else hear that?
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jun 27, 2012 04:32PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-27 16:48, ronfour wrote:
Gazzo said that Scott told him that his real specialty was dice. [/quote]I thought it was Marbles. I heard he was the New England Marbles champion. Anyone have knowledge of that?
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jun 27, 2012 04:34PM)
Tony Georgio wrote this article in the July 2004 issue of Genii magazine entitled, GUSIAS - Master Mechanic and I did a review of it. In it, he comments on the center deal which is why I am including it here.

I should mention that real hustling in knowing company for high stakes is not about having a “magic” or “legendary” move. Certainly you have to have a good methodology, be able to employ your ploy in a proficient manner and be capable enough to apply it in play, but the “magic” is more in the hustler himself, not in the gaff. It is in the “grift” sense the hustler acquires over time, (timing, practicality of method, experience, demeanor, con, likability and a myriad of other factors). The fancy moves and “intrigue” stories are mostly for the magicians and card table aficionados. They make for a great read and I enjoy reading them myself. However, the real work (in total), and its application is oftentimes “different.”

Here is my much shorter review of the article with my specific comments in parentheses:

[quote]The article recounts is the story of William “Bill” Gusias who is noted as being “an extraordinary sleight-of-hand performer and a master craftsman of holdout machines and other arcane mechanical devices used by advantage players.”
According to the article, Bill grew up in Chicago in the 1930’s, where mob controlled gambling flourished. Although illegal, gambling was wide open and drew card and dice cheats and hustlers from all over the country to the area.

Bill got introduced to card tricks at a young age and performed in his father’s trade school and valet shop. Because many of the customers at his father’s shop where card mechanics, they took an interest in Bill and over a period of time taught him how to deal seconds, bottoms, and how to do hole card switches, dice switches and other moves. Bill became very knowledgeable and proficient in doing the “real work” with cards and dice.
Because he was in a machine shop class in high school, one of the hustlers asked Bill to repair his holdout machine. Because a part was beyond repair, Bill not only constructed a working replica of the broken part, but built a duplicate of the entire machine. That led to him building several hundred holdout machines over the years, in addition to “gaffed dice cups, bean shooters, card punches, holdout and cold-deck machines, bugs, punches, Strippers, paper, whip cups, flop boxes, daub, check cop, and many other - some not so well know - devices.”

Although Bill had many offers to join card and dice mobs, he evidently never had any desire to do so. According to Georgio, “Bill Gusias is indeed a master mechanic. He is an accomplished dice mechanic who executes the tip switch and the thumb switch both equally well. He can deal bottoms, seconds, handmuck, play a machine, bean shooter, or slick sleeve as well as any advantage player, and had he not heeded his father’s admonitions (against leading the life of a gambler), he would have stolen enough money to fill many box cars."

In the article, Georgio relates Bill’s response to a number of questions posed to him about card cheating. One question was in regard to the current interest in the center deal, and its efficacy in actual play. Bill said, “I heard entertainers talk about it, and I saw Charlie Miller, Dai Vernon, and Ross Bertram do a center deal; but I have never seen nor heard of a card mechanic who dealt from the center.”

He was also asked whether Vernon’s, Bertram’s or Miller’s center deal would get by in a money game. His response was, “No. First of all, the only reason for dealing from the center would be to over-come the cut. Aside from having a confederate cut to a brief or a crimp, there are far easier ways to overcome the cut. I cannot think of a reason for practicing such a meaningless move.”

(I happen to agree with that statement and so did Giorgio. I have never heard of a center being attempted in any kind of knowing company and there are many far superior ways to “get the money” than using a center that are much more deceptive and far safer. In my opinion, mastering a center deal is a complete waste of time, unless you are using it for gambling expose or demo work. Additionally, even well-known gambling “type” demonstrators like Darwin Ortiz and Steve Forte are not above using a pseudo center deal when giving demonstrations as they apparently do not want to attempt to deal a center under even a [i]layman’s unknowing scrutiny[/i].) [/quote]
All in all a good article and an interesting read. (I could go deeper into my review of the article and hustling concepts, but it seems like the discussion dries up and loses too many people when I go too far into the real application of cheating techniques). If you happen to have access to the July 2004 issue of Genii magazine, you might want to take a look at the article. As a matter of fact, you might want to take a look at anything and everything that Giorgio wrote. He had been there, was capable, knowledgeable and knew what he was talking about.

As a final aside, does anyone really think that these hundreds of hustlers mentioned in this article and whom Guisias came in contact with, cheats who flourished in the 20s, 30s, 40 and 50s and who could hand-muck, deal No. 2, deal base, use holdout and cold deck machines, bean shooters, slick sleeves, card punches, bugs, strippers, paper, daub, check cop and many other “not so well known devices,” would be fooled for very long by someone dealing from the center of the deck. Well…believe what you like gentleman, but I have been around the block too many times and can tell you it just ain’t possible.

Could he fool the average person and magician with this move at that time history. Probably, because it was before the days of massive exposure of the past few years that informed not only magicians, but also the public and card players in general as to what could be done at the card table. Nowadays, many of the magicians on this board who have learned and mastered card table moves would not be fooled by Kennedy’s center deal either. Times have changed in that regard.

I suggest Kennedy originally got his reputation from Vernon who promoted him very heavily for personal reasons. It satisfied Vernon’s agenda of being on the leading edge of card table artifice, knowing more about the subject than the other magicians, employing one-up-man-ship and toying with the other magicians’ heads which he liked to do.

Like Scott, Kennedy’s story was further embellished by magicians that took the tale and ran with it. Kennedy no doubt had a good center deal and probably was able to use it in some games, but not in tough games with top hustlers.

We have to appreciate and recognize Kennedy for developing a center deal to the level that he did, especially back at a time was the concept was probably little known. We also have to appreciate the magicians who have studied the history and development of the center deal and gambling moves down through history. Their comments and observations, like bishthemagish’s, give us important references to what has gone before and enables future generations to build on and improve the methods of the past.

However, in my opinion the Kennedy center deal [i]story[/i] has some elements of truth, some elements of exaggeration, sprinkled with a touch of BS and served tongue in cheek. As Humphrey Bogart, in the persona of Sam Spade said in [b]The Maltese Falcon[/b], “It’s the stuff that dreams are made of.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 27, 2012 06:36PM)
So what is new?
Message: Posted by: bishthemagish (Jun 27, 2012 09:19PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-27 16:27, Cagliostro wrote:
Here is an interesting addition to the Walter Scott mystique that is little known.

In the GBC reprint of [b]The Phantom of the Card Table[/b] by Eddie McGuire, McGuire raves about how Scott fooled some of the leading magician of his day with his punch deal. It was a demonstration at Al Baker’s house in which Al Baker, Cardini, Leo Horowitz, T. Nelson Downs, Max Holden and Eddie McLaughlin were present. (Vernon was not present at the time.) It was after this “blindfold” deal demonstration, which supposed wowed all these expert magicians, that Max Holden passed the “crown” of being the most expert exponent of wonderful card table magic (or some such designation), from Vernon to Scott. This irked Vernon to no end. (Those who are not acquainted with the story can read about it in McGuire’s book which sells for about three dollars and can be obtained from Gamblers’ Book Club.)
[/quote]
I have the book and one of the interesting parts of the book is how magicians argued if Walter Scott was the real deal or not.

One can speculate but the truth if he was a real card cheat could be lost in time. And if I may add in the paperback that came out years later, it was talked about that Walter Scott was a member of a music group (if I remember right he played a string instrument) and he performed in Vaudeville. In this book it was also said that he was an amateur magician and did his punch work in some close up contest and did not win.

Also if I may add, that if he was a vaudevillian and he did deal the punch or use the punch or edge/work as an advantage player. He could be speculated to have played in many games with show business people. According to my conversations with Jay Marshall and my Dad (both performed in vaudeville). The stage hands, agents and acts, a lot of them played cards before and after shows. I speculate that Walter Scott if he played cards this was where he did it - while he was performing in vaudeville that is.

[quote]
On 2012-06-27 16:27, Cagliostro wrote:
However, there is more to the story than recounted by McGuire. According to Jeff Busby, in his book, [b]The Secret of the Palmettos[/b], Scott’s demonstration for the New York magicians at Al Baker’s house, on June 14, 1930, was a set-up. According to Busby, Scott, McGuire, Baker, Downs and McLaughlin joined together in a plot to devastate their New York targets: Horowitz, Cardini and Holden. It was Baker who introduced the “gaffed” (edge marked and punched), decks for Scott's use.
[/quote]

Busby wrote a lot of things including the Man who was Erdnase. I take this with a grain of salt.
[quote]
On 2012-06-27 16:27, Cagliostro wrote:
Evidently, three years before the New York demonstration, in June of 1927, Downs and McLaughlin traveled with Faucett Ross to spend a week with McGuire and Scott, in which they exchanged moves and ideas. So Downs and McLaughlin were in on the methods that Scott used on the night of the “big” New York demonstration.

Scott evidently used scratch (edge work on the cards) plus a punch deal to do the demonstration. The scratch enabled him to see how far down in the deck his desired cards were, and he could anticipate when to go into his punch deal because of the edge work. It the cards were not close enough to the top of the deck to be dealt on the next round, he would have the deck shuffled and then check again to see if his desired cards were close enough to be dealt. If not, he would have the deck shuffled again, "just to be sure they are all mixed." He wore a blindfold to conceal the fact that he was looking down at the deck to see his edge work.
[/quote]
I have no idea if the above story is true or not. However Downs was very interested in card shark info and wanted to learn the center deal. Which he did learn and use in his close up card work. Greater magic has some info on Downs and the center deal.

Another magician that was very interested in card sharp methods was Louis Zingone who did a comedy magic act in New York. He was one of the first magicians dealing centers. I saw a film of him doing it in the back of Magic Inc. He dealt on a glass table so they could show the center from underneath.


[quote]
On 2012-06-27 17:34, Cagliostro wrote:
Finally, I don’t want to irritate any sensitive magicians on the BB, but if Scott was such a great card hustler, why did he associate with and share his moves and methods with magicians?
[/quote]
My answer to that question is only speculation - Walter Scott could have been a magician too. And having a background in magic as suggested above and the other Phantom of the card table book - I suggest that perhaps Walter Scott was “ego” driven. In my opinion part of the reason magicians session and tip - often to often in my opinion is the be the guy in the know.

It was also talked about in the Phantom of the card table ( the paperback) that Ed Marlo pinched Walter Scotts second and the master grip and his punch system that forms the basic of the last part of the book Marlo in Spades.


[quote]
On 2012-06-27 17:34, Cagliostro wrote:
Tony Georgio wrote this article in the July 2004 issue of Genii magazine entitled, GUSIAS - Master Mechanic and I did a review of it. In it, he comments on the center deal which is why I am including it here.

I should mention that real hustling in knowing company for high stakes is not about having a “magic” or “legendary” move. Certainly you have to have a good methodology, be able to employ your ploy in a proficient manner and be capable enough to apply it in play, but the “magic” is more in the hustler himself, not in the gaff. It is in the “grift” sense the hustler acquires over time, (timing, practicality of method, experience, demeanor, con, likability and a myriad of other factors). The fancy moves and “intrigue” stories are mostly for the magicians and card table aficionados. They make for a great read and I enjoy reading them myself. However, the real work (in total), and its application is oftentimes “different.”

Here is my much shorter review of the article with my specific comments in parentheses:

The article recounts is the story of William “Bill” Gusias who is noted as being “an extraordinary sleight-of-hand performer and a master craftsman of holdout machines and other arcane mechanical devices used by advantage players.”
According to the article, Bill grew up in Chicago in the 1930’s, where mob controlled gambling flourished. Although illegal, gambling was wide open and drew card and dice cheats and hustlers from all over the country to the area.

Bill got introduced to card tricks at a young age and performed in his father’s trade school and valet shop. Because many of the customers at his father’s shop where card mechanics, they took an interest in Bill and over a period of time taught him how to deal seconds, bottoms, and how to do hole card switches, dice switches and other moves. Bill became very knowledgeable and proficient in doing the “real work” with cards and dice.
Because he was in a machine shop class in high school, one of the hustlers asked Bill to repair his holdout machine. Because a part was beyond repair, Bill not only constructed a working replica of the broken part, but built a duplicate of the entire machine. That led to him building several hundred holdout machines over the years, in addition to “gaffed dice cups, bean shooters, card punches, holdout and cold-deck machines, bugs, punches, Strippers, paper, whip cups, flop boxes, daub, check cop, and many other - some not so well know - devices.”

Although Bill had many offers to join card and dice mobs, he evidently never had any desire to do so. According to Georgio, “Bill Gusias is indeed a master mechanic. He is an accomplished dice mechanic who executes the tip switch and the thumb switch both equally well. He can deal bottoms, seconds, handmuck, play a machine, bean shooter, or slick sleeve as well as any advantage player, and had he not heeded his father’s admonitions (against leading the life of a gambler), he would have stolen enough money to fill many box cars."

In the article, Georgio relates Bill’s response to a number of questions posed to him about card cheating. One question was in regard to the current interest in the center deal, and its efficacy in actual play. Bill said, “I heard entertainers talk about it, and I saw Charlie Miller, Dai Vernon, and Ross Bertram do a center deal; but I have never seen nor heard of a card mechanic who dealt from the center.”

He was also asked whether Vernon’s, Bertram’s or Miller’s center deal would get by in a money game. His response was, “No. First of all, the only reason for dealing from the center would be to over-come the cut. Aside from having a confederate cut to a brief or a crimp, there are far easier ways to overcome the cut. I cannot think of a reason for practicing such a meaningless move.”

(I happen to agree with that statement and so did Giorgio. I have never heard of a center being attempted in any kind of knowing company and there are many far superior ways to “get the money” than using a center that are much more deceptive and far safer. In my opinion, mastering a center deal is a complete waste of time, unless you are using it for gambling expose or demo work. Additionally, even well-known gambling “type” demonstrators like Darwin Ortiz and Steve Forte are not above using a pseudo center deal when giving demonstrations as they apparently do not want to attempt to deal a center under even a [i]layman’s unknowing scrutiny[/i].)
[/quote]

The above is interesting and they are interesting opinions. But if I may add we still don’t know enough about “how Allen Kennedy worked the center” If he did work the center that is.

I speculate that one of the games Allen Kennedy perhaps played was five card stud. However if he did use the center I would also have the opinion that he dealt at the most two centers on the first two deals. Giving him two of a kind. The reason I think this is the deck (might have been tabled) is tabled after the first two cards are dealt.

This is only speculation after hearing Vernon say that when Kennedy did his center for him on Kennedy’s kitchen table. He dealt out hands of five card stud. This adds more questions because Kennedy may have worked alone. Also how many times would he have done this in a game - and if it would have gotten past them - back then? Also what kind of games did he play - and what kinds of people did he play with? Did he play in big money games or not? Was he playing (and Walter Scott) during the depression era?

However a good two of a kind in a game of five card stud would be an advantage to someone that knew how to play the game in my opinion.

[quote]
On 2012-06-27 17:34, Cagliostro wrote:
I suggest Kennedy originally got his reputation from Vernon who promoted him very heavily for personal reasons. It satisfied Vernon’s agenda of being on the leading edge of card table artifice, knowing more about the subject than the other magicians, employing one-up-man-ship and toying with the other magicians’ heads which he liked to do.

Like Scott, Kennedy’s story was further embellished by magicians that took the tale and ran with it. Kennedy no doubt had a good center deal and probably was able to use it in some games, but not in tough games with top hustlers.

We have to appreciate and recognize Kennedy for developing a center deal to the level that he did, especially back at a time was the concept was probably little known. We also have to appreciate the magicians who have studied the history and development of the center deal and gambling moves down through history. Their comments and observations, like bishthemagish’s, give us important references to what has gone before and enables future generations to build on and improve the methods of the past.

However, in my opinion the Kennedy center deal [i]story[/i] has some elements of truth, some elements of exaggeration, sprinkled with a touch of BS and served tongue in cheek. As Humphrey Bogart, in the persona of Sam Spade said in [b]The Maltese Falcon[/b], “It’s the stuff that dreams are made of.
[/quote]

Thanks for posting all the info and for a great conversation.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jun 27, 2012 10:49PM)
Well you can test the Walter Scotts system, which is more or less what Doc did and from all accounts it worked for him. You will never know until you test it at the table. Least you will know if it does what it says on the can or not.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jun 28, 2012 06:34PM)
Bishthemagish’s comments on vaudeville and the assumption that Scott played in those game is certainly likely and a fascinating read and a possibility I was unaware of. However, given the premise of Scott being in show business, it makes a lot of sense.

I want to clarify a couple of things that are important and rather than going back to specific references, I am going to make it easy on myself and just clarify some areas and state some conclusions.

There is a distinction between two publications with [i]similar[/i] names. The original manuscript penned by McGuire, and subsequently reprinted by Gamblers Book Club is entitled, [b]The Phantom of the Card Table[/b]. The word “Phantom” is singular. The second book came out at a much later date and is entitled, [b]The Phantoms of the Card Table[/b] by Gazzo. The word “Phantoms” in this instance is plural. These are two different books and contain similar but not the same information. For example, the bottom deal in the McGuire book was evidently Scott’s original bottom deal and is different than the bottom deal in the Gazzo book. Also the McGuire book has a very detailed description of the punch deal, bottom deal and slick ace preparation used by Scott and was originally written for a very small and select group in manuscript form. It was not meant for public consumption like the Gazzo book. Both books should be in the library of anyone interested in the Phantom “legend” and card table chicanery in general. In the post, both books are referred to individually depending upon point being made.

Bishthemagish (hereinafter “Bish), refers to Marlo taking the Scott’s bottom deal grip, written about by Gazzo, and calling it the Master Grip. Let me further clarify this. Laurie Ireland was the first to describe this grip for the bottom deal in his excellent booklet, [b]Lessons in Dishonesty[/b]. It was subsequently described for the bottom deal in [b]Expert Card Technique[/b] with reference to [b]Lessons in Dishonesty[/b] therein. The card hustler Artanis also wrote a booklet on the bottom deal using this grip, so as Bish stated previously, Marlo’s use of the grip is original in name only (the Master Grip), not in the grip itself. In fact, it is very likely that Scott himself got this grip from one of the above three mentioned books since that was not his original bottom deal grip. (His original grip was somewhat of a “straddle” type grip with a “fanning” or “spreading” of the cards to reduce finger flash and make pulling of the bottom card easier.)

I also believe that Five Card Stud was THE money game during that era. Old timers that I knew played a great deal of Five Card and I believe it was more of a skill game than say Seven Card Stud or Hold’em. I was privy to some of the moves and gaffs used in Five Card and they are very clever and dynamite in play to say the least. A good Five Card Stud player could beat any lesser opponent “on the square” because the game is more skill than luck and further someone using a center deal or punch deal could not overcome this. He might not lose his money but he would not be the big winner.

Further, using paper (whether it is a punch deal or any other form of paper) in conjunction with a second deal will get the money. That has been proven over and over again throughout the years. There is nothing magic about punching the card. It goes back well over one hundred years and nowadays there are much more deceptive and modern ways of getting the top card’s value rather than a punch (or scratch) for that matter.

Also, as Bish alludes to, the conditions of play and knowledge of the players was different in those days. That is a key point. Playing on a round table with four to six players is not quite the same as playing on a modern poker table with ten players. Also, “stopping” the top card in a modern full table round game is not the best use of a punch deal nowadays. It is better applied to games like Blackjack, or games in which a card does not have to be repeatedly “stopped” all around the table.

Using a second deal with paper (any kind of paper), is not really the best application of paper. As Maskelyne stated over one hundred years ago in [b]Sharps and Flats[/b], being a good player and using knowledge the paper imparts, will not only get all the money over time, but the hustler will last forever if he is capable at playing the work. In FAST company games for HIGH stakes, stopping the top card around the table or dealing from the center will not fly for very long. In “lesser” games with more casual players is a different story, although in even tough games, an “occasional” No. 2, in the [i]right[/i] hands at the [i]right[/i] time, will usually fly.

What has started out as a relatively simple and innocuous post has developed into a great thread imparting some unusual and little know information (especially from the show business angle), which has shed further light on:

...“The stuff that dreams are made of...” :)
Message: Posted by: bishthemagish (Jun 28, 2012 09:51PM)
Cagliostro

Let me start off by saying thank you for your time and the information that you have put into this thread. It has made it one best threads in my opinion.

I would just like to add a few more thoughts on Vernon and Charlie Miller. Lets start with Vernon. He seemed to have met two important gamblers. Allen Kennedy and the center deal story. And Old Dad Stevens and the riffle shuffle culling system that was published in the book Revelations. What I find interesting about both stories is that they have become "legend" in magic.

What I found interesting about the stuff written in the Walter Scott book - the second one. Is that it is supposed that Vernon was not interested in seeing Walter Scott demo his deal. He was said to have been invited to see him demo but he refused and walked out. I find this story interesting because in Revelations Persi Diaconis who traveled with Vernon for a while and was with him when he hunted down some advantage players - it seems that Vernon had a need to see these people do what they do.

Charlie Miller at one time worked in Las Vegas as an eye in the sky. Geno Munari told me this a few years ago and Geno met Charlie at this time. Jay Marshall also told me an interesting story about Charlie Miller. He said that he was booked to do a lecture in England somewhere. A lot of card magicians were looking forward to seeing Charlie Miller do his card stuff and lecture on cards. Well he ended up doing his magic act stuff, chinese sticks the rice bowls.

Jay Marshall said it was because Charlie Miller was a nervous wreck before a lecture and he got so nervous doing the card sharp stuff in front of a larger lecture room audience - he changed the lecture to magic at the last minute. As I understand (Jay said) this upset a lot of guys that came to the lecture that wanted to see Charlie do his stuff.

I look at it as an interesting story and it could be why some magicians would not make it as advantage players. It is just not in the cards for them.

Cheers!
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jun 29, 2012 05:50PM)
[quote]
On 2012-06-28 22:51, bishthemagish wrote:
Cagliostro

Let me start off by saying thank you for your time and the information that you have put into this thread. It has made it one best threads in my opinion.

I would just like to add a few more thoughts on Vernon and Charlie Miller. Lets start with Vernon. He seemed to have met two important gamblers. Allen Kennedy and the center deal story. And Old Dad Stevens and the riffle shuffle culling system that was published in the book Revelations. What I find interesting about both stories is that they have become "legend" in magic.[/quote]
Ditto to you also, Bish, and thank you for the kind words. It has been a pleasure for me to impart what little knowledge I have in the hopes that it proves to be somewhat interesting and perhaps even educational to some of the members.

Lest I create the wrong impression based upon my post herein, we cannot forget the tremendous contribution Vernon made to the field of close-up magic, close-up card work and doggedly tracking down gamblers at every opportunity to glean whatever information he could from them. At that time, gamblers moves were superior to the moves used by close-up magicians and he primarily wanted to incorporate these moves into his card magic. His legacy and contributions were monumental in this regard and I had a great deal of respect for him. At one time I had read and studied everything he had written, even going back to the old booklets, like the $20 manuscript, first edition of Revelations and Revelation tapes – you name it I had it.

[quote]
On 2012-06-28 22:51, bishthemagish wrote:
What I found interesting about the stuff written in the Walter Scott book - the second one. Is that it is supposed that Vernon was not interested in seeing Walter Scott demo his deal. He was said to have been invited to see him demo but he refused and walked out.[/quote]
I think Vernon had a strong resentments toward Scott because Max Holder had passed the title of “Exponent of Wonderful Card Table Magic” (or some such title), from Vernon to Scott which was unfair and unjustified. All Scott could do was some gambling moves. Vernon was a giant in close-up magic and development at that time. However, Vernon did eventually get to see Scott’s work and his comments were covered elsewhere.

[quote]
On 2012-06-28 22:51, bishthemagish wrote:
Jay Marshall said it was because Charlie Miller was a nervous wreck before a lecture and he got so nervous doing the card sharp stuff in front of a larger lecture room audience - he changed the lecture to magic at the last minute…I look at it as an interesting story and it could be why some magicians would not make it as advantage players. It is just not in the cards for them. [/quote]
Most demonstrators nonchalantly make their moves with equanimity not realizing that if they tried moving in a game, they would either freeze up or their move would fall apart on them. Moving under fire, under the watchfull eyes of people who have serious money at stake, is not something to take lightly. Most people can’t do that regardless of their skill level with cards.
Message: Posted by: Stromberg (Jul 18, 2012 07:11PM)
First of all thanks a lot for taking so much time and effort to give such valuable information, this is a brilliant thread.

[quote]
On 2012-06-29 18:50, Cagliostro wrote:
Most demonstrators nonchalantly make their moves with equanimity not realizing that if they tried moving in a game, they would either freeze up or their move would fall apart on them. Moving under fire, under the watchfull eyes of people who have serious money at stake, is not something to take lightly. Most people can’t do that regardless of their skill level with cards.
[/quote]

This is absolutely true, and furthermore, add a LOT of money to that and the pressure will be even higher. I mean, raising the stakes is something high stakes gamblers use all the time to put their opponents off guard. Andy Beal almost succeeded with this very ruse against the top poker players a while back, but failed in the end.

Also, which is related to this, it is important to realize two important things: (1) the edge you need to get the money is very small, thus small edges are often more important than straight out false dealing. A small edge with a large number of iterations is a safer way to get the money than a one shotter. This connects to the second important thing (2): "you can shear a sheep many times, but only skin it once". True hustlers want to keep the money stream coming, rather than do a "one shot wonder", more often than not. Keeping the fish happy is vital for any live hustling, which in turn means that skinning someone is uncommon, and that - in turn - means that false dealing is even more uncommon.

That said, the false dealing is very interesting from a card mans perspective, especially if he is likes card magic. The stories about "real life use" is nice, and it gives it a certain flair. And I doubt that anyone who have read "the Magician and the Card Sharp" hasn't felt inclined to find out more about the Kennedy deal... ;)

I am sorry if I have repeated some things that has already been mentioned, I just felt there was a need to clarify it a little further.

/Stromberg
Message: Posted by: Bobbycash (Jul 24, 2012 04:17AM)
I'm on university holidays at the moment and I thought I would share a video of me demonstrating the Wimhurst Center Deal. Still needs some work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wNJFvEGqgE
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jul 24, 2012 01:34PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-24 05:17, Bobbycash wrote:
I'm on university holidays at the moment and I thought I would share a video of me demonstrating the Wimhurst Center Deal. Still needs some work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wNJFvEGqgE
[/quote]
Obviously this is strictly a demonstration move and for that purpose it is okay. (You can do almost anything in a demonstration.) However, in a real money game, you would be at a serious disadvantage, regardless of the power of your hand, if your hand was face up and the other players’ hands were face down. Lol :)

Seriously though, you might want to set up the break by having the deck cut normally and then complete the cut as you would in a game. I think it would have more credibility done that way. Even if you cannot do that well, you could complete the cut normally and then, ostensibly to show the Jacks are really in the center, get the break on the square-up.
Message: Posted by: Bobbycash (Jul 24, 2012 06:40PM)
You are absolutely correct. As I said in the video I was just following the patter from the Wimhurst Poker Deal in down under deals. You are correct in that I could have done the cutting with a crimp etc but in all honesty I kind of rushed it, one take to get it out before I caught up with some mates. Cheers anyway for the critique! Very valuable.
Message: Posted by: KardSharp89 (Mar 4, 2021 09:23PM)
I've enjoyed this thread. I too have been card player my entire life. I have played in some of the biggest games in the country, and played in both casinos as well as private games for high stakes with the likes of Ivey, Hellmuth, Russ Hamilton, Phil Laak, Antonio Esfandiari, Durr... pretty much everybody. In all of my years of playing I agree with Cagliostro about the simple fact that its the skilled card player who gets the money. Any edge beyond that, even the slightest edge... be it playing the punch, marked cards or sleight of hand is an added edge. I don't necessarily agree with the notion that everyone who uses sleight of hand eventually gets caught. You could say the same thing about any form of cheating and I feel be just as accurate. There were hold out men in Vegas in the 70's and 80's working all the time. and at the same time, there were bottom dealers and second dealers working the clubs in Los Angeles. I've seen old security footage or some of the worst second deals ever... but no one at the table had a clue. This is because the greatest cheats no when to pick their spots, no matter what form of cheating they use.

When I was coming up in the cornfields of the midwest, I didn't have a mentor turning me out so to speak. Everything I learned in terms of "Getting The Money" came from whatever books I could find combined with whatever just made sense to me. Sure, I got popped trying moves in the family rummy game, or in the church basement game as a teenager. But those were the perfect place to learn what works and what doesn't. but anyone who has played a significant amount of poker for money will tell you... there's no need to beat the heat when the next hand is right around the corner.

Having said this, I would like to propose some thoughts about Walter Scott and Allan Kennedy. And some of these thoughts might differ from yours Cagliostro or from Steve Forte's who is a mentor and dear friend of mine. So... Here goes, food for thought. Every great hustler I've ever known has been very good in the art of "Never giving you the full story"/. Consider this... What if Scott and Kennedy really were professional card cheats who for whatever reason became amused with fraternizing amongst top sleight of hand artists and fooling them. I can totally see this being viable. That doesn't mean they would give them what magicians might call, "The Real Work." I can totally see Scott explaining the punch to be used for second dealing, and not even bothering to address the fact that it was really used to keep tab of high value cards and play accordingly. Let's face it, the later would be boring to a room full of magicians. And if these guys were true hustlers, I would think they would get a kick out of hustling a bunch of guys like Vernon and Scarne etc.

I personally spent a couple years trying to perfect Allan Kennedy's center deal when this very thought occurred to me. Maybe Allan Kennedy was using the center deal in a completely different way than he explained to Vernon. Of course I could be completely wrong about all of this. But if you believe me when I tell you that a world class hustler who is a true master of deception under fire rarely tells you the full truth... then this might shed some light on the matter that is worth considering.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 5, 2021 03:18PM)
Anybody who uses the Glenn Bishop Scissor Base has to be the real deal.
Message: Posted by: KardSharp89 (Mar 8, 2021 03:24AM)
After making this post I randomly got a call from Steve Forte the day after. (it had nothing to do with the post.) Steve was checking up on me because I was recently hospitalized for a heart condition. during the call I mentioned my recent post here and he urged me to read the most recent article in Geni magazine "One Night in Brooklyn" that lays out a very strong opinion about Walter Scott. And while I think my theory about some of these near mythical characters like Scott, Kennedy and even Erdnase might hold some weight, youou can't deny the research. After reading the article I was convinced that Walter Scott's profile as a cheat was most likely blown way out of proportion by Eddie Maguire as a means to gain insider status with other magicians whom he wanted to learn secrets from. that doesn't take a way from some of the contributions Scott made...but in the end, it appears Scott probably was a magician who enjoyed fooling other magicians. When Forte told me about getting his hands on some of Scott's punch work, that settled it for me. If the deck Forte was given was really from Scott... and Steve dismissed it within 5 minutes (which is also mentioned in the article and in Steves new books... Then I don't need any ore convincing.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Bones (Mar 8, 2021 11:17AM)
There are lots of threads in this forum, and elsewhere, that posit the likes of Kennedy, Scott, and Erdnase weren't hustlers at all, but rather magicians posing as hustlers.

Lots of information out there one can use to make their own decision ... and lot of folks who put stock in the old Joe Louis/Jimmy Hoffa quote, which notes that [b][i]"if you have to say you is ... you ain't"[/i][/b].
Message: Posted by: Gamblingman007 (Apr 25, 2021 02:59AM)
A lot of you guys don't even know what you are talking about especially you KardSharp89. Walter Scott was the real deal because I'm living the life and I use his teaching techniques all the time while in play. Everything that he speaks about in his book I've experienced in one way or another. I'd go up against anyone here who speaks differently. If you don't live it, how can you explain it? Steve doesn't live nor do this technique (Unless he just started). You don't even know how to make a punch nor do you know what needle size to use.

Respectfully

The Gamblingman007
Message: Posted by: 5ggg (Apr 26, 2021 01:35PM)
Guessing SF knows how to make a punch, and already has a few.
Message: Posted by: Gamblingman007 (Apr 27, 2021 02:12AM)
[quote]On Apr 26, 2021, 5ggg wrote:
Guessing SF knows how to make a punch, and already has a few. [/quote]

I don’t know how he would know how to make one because I never taught nor showed him; and yes he does have at least one or two punches because I gave them to him and Sal upon meeting them when they were helping and teaching me.
Message: Posted by: 5ggg (Apr 29, 2021 02:01PM)
[quote]On Apr 27, 2021, Gamblingman007 wrote:
[quote]On Apr 26, 2021, 5ggg wrote:
Guessing SF knows how to make a punch, and already has a few. [/quote]

I don’t know how he would know how to make one because I never taught nor showed him; and yes he does have at least one or two punches because I gave them to him and Sal upon meeting them when they were helping and teaching me. [/quote]


oh wait...now I have an idea of who you are I think, the best cheater in the country? The guy who does a lot of stuff no one else can do, or that's what you say? I would never think someone like Forte would have learned or gotten anything from anyone other than you. I know you are The One everyone goes to for wisdom.
Message: Posted by: Gamblingman007 (May 2, 2021 11:13AM)
Thank you.
Message: Posted by: 5ggg (May 2, 2021 03:38PM)
I was more being sarcastic
Message: Posted by: Gamblingman007 (May 3, 2021 01:32AM)
I wasn't
Message: Posted by: 5ggg (May 3, 2021 01:59PM)
Thanks for thanking me for sarcasm :)