(Close Window)
Topic: Overhand False Shuffle
Message: Posted by: J Christensen (Jun 8, 2015 11:37AM)
My favorite overhand false shuffle is in Fulves' EllisStanyon's Best Card Tricks page 283. With Fulves' improvement there is a great back and forth rhythm. I like it better than Dan Garrett's false shuffle. Does anyone else use the Stanyon/Fulves shuffle?
Message: Posted by: J Christensen (Jun 8, 2015 08:26PM)
Here's a quick description. 1) Chop off a small group of cards, about 25 percent, 2) chop off another 25 percent or so and pick up the first group behind the deck, 3) now you pantomime the first two chops but take no cards, just slide your thumb across the top of the deck, 4) chop off about half the cards In front of the break onto the back of the left hand cards, but in front of those picked up ins step 2, 5) drop the cards picked up in step 2 in front of the left hand's cards, 5) drop the last right hand cards behind those in the left hand. This sequence has a very smooth back and forth rhythm. It makes it easy to perform without looking at the hands.
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Jun 9, 2015 04:36AM)
It's a deceptive and easy OH false shuffle. I've devised two minor variations that I use often.
Message: Posted by: J Christensen (Jun 9, 2015 08:11AM)
Claudio, I'm interested in your improvements. I've never developed any. I combine this with the FT False Cut from Garcia's Super Subtle Card Miracles.
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Jun 9, 2015 08:36AM)
J, they are not improvements but [b]minor[/b] tweaks so that I feel more comfortable with the handling.

Here's the first: In your description, at step 5, you drop the cards behind the break (and as you said picked up at step 2). These cards are of course the very first 1/4 you chopped off the deck. Rather than doing this, ie. dropping them, I actually do another fake take, then I drop all the cards in front of the break to the back of left hand cards and finally I drop all the remaining cards (the first 1/4) on top of left hand cards.

It's just an extra step, but the fact the last cards are dropped at the front, and not at the back, reenforces the illusion - IMHO. I thought it was a pity that, in the original, that last quarter was actually dropped under the cover of a fake take.

So, not earth-shattering, but works well for me.
Message: Posted by: alicauchy (Jun 9, 2015 12:12PM)
[quote]On Jun 8, 2015, J Christensen wrote:
Here's a quick description. 1) Chop off a small group of cards, about 25 percent, 2) chop off another 25 percent or so and pick up the first group behind the deck, 3) now you pantomime the first two chops but take no cards, just slide your thumb across the top of the deck, 4) chop off about half the cards In front of the break onto the back of the left hand cards, but in front of those picked up ins step 2, 5) drop the cards picked up in step 2 in front of the left hand's cards, 5) drop the last right hand cards behind those in the left hand. This sequence has a very smooth back and forth rhythm. It makes it easy to perform without looking at the hands. [/quote]


Perhaps I misunderstood your explanation, but it is quite similar to Erdnase's first method for shuffling maintaining all the deck in order (the final situation is the same as after a "cut and complete")
Message: Posted by: J Christensen (Jun 9, 2015 04:35PM)
The shuffle is very similar also with a nice back and forth motion. However, the Erdnase shuffle ends with the deck having been cut. Alicauchy, a transcendental number?
Message: Posted by: alicauchy (Jun 10, 2015 03:53AM)
[quote]On Jun 9, 2015, J Christensen wrote:
The shuffle is very similar also with a nice back and forth motion. However, the Erdnase shuffle ends with the deck having been cut.
[/quote]

Vernon explains an easy way in which you can finish with the deck in the original orderings.

[quote]On Jun 9, 2015, J Christensen wrote:
The shuffle is very similar also with a nice back and forth motion. However, the Erdnase shuffle ends with the deck having been cut. Alicauchy, a transcendental number? [/quote]

Well, there are two transcendentals in the equations.
Message: Posted by: J Christensen (Jun 10, 2015 08:06AM)
The Erdnase shuffle could be used with a tactile locator, for example, a breather crimp, at the bottom of the set-up deck, so that you could finish with a straight cut (at the breather crimp).
Message: Posted by: diogoviana7 (Aug 15, 2015 12:31PM)
If you want a deceptive, easy, full deck overhand shuffle please check this: http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/5896
Thanks
Message: Posted by: lcwright1964 (Aug 15, 2015 07:56PM)
[quote]On Aug 15, 2015, diogoviana7 wrote:
If you want a deceptive, easy, full deck overhand shuffle please check this: http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/5896
Thanks [/quote]

I purchased it because it was cheap and I believe in supporting magician's work. I learned something I can use and as such think I will get my money's worth. But I have to say that I expected a somewhat more polished production for something for sale on Penguin. The photography was clear enough, but it still looks like it was done with someone's phone--and in portrait mode no less. The narration was in places mumbled and hard to follow. And, finally, the absence of any credits was conspicuous for me. What are the inspirations for this move? How is it similar to or different from other moves that have come before? That sort of thing makes for a professional presentation, and gives confidence that we have purchased an innovation, and not some old work passed off as new.

Forgive if I seem to be expecting too much from a six-buck three-minute video, but I am reminded of a few weeks back that a marketed move, Fauxverhand by James Dickson, was presented as original work whereas it turns out that it is identical to the Mead-Kennedy shuffle described by Mike Close (with permission I am sure) in Closely Guarded Secrets. Ellusionist has since pulled the download.

Les
Message: Posted by: diogoviana7 (Aug 16, 2015 04:30AM)
Hi lcwright1964, first of all thanks for purchasing the effect. Itīs my first product and I know that the production is not what you expect if you compare to a top seller produced by theory11 or ellusionist. In the future I will certainly be improving and make a much better production. Regarding the credits I didn't credit anyone because my inpiration was the overhand shuffle. I created the method from scratch thinking: "How can I apparently shuffle the deck but not changing the order?" After I created the method I searched a lot of false overhand shuffles already created and I didn't find anyone with my method.
Thanks!
Message: Posted by: lcwright1964 (Aug 16, 2015 04:53AM)
[quote]On Aug 16, 2015, diogoviana7 wrote:
Hi lcwright1964, first of all thanks for purchasing the effect. Itīs my first product and I know that the production is not what you expect if you compare to a top seller produced by theory11 or ellusionist. In the future I will certainly be improving and make a much better production. Regarding the credits I didn't credit anyone because my inpiration was the overhand shuffle. I created the method from scratch thinking: "How can I apparently shuffle the deck but not changing the order?" After I created the method I searched a lot of false overhand shuffles already created and I didn't find anyone with my method.
Thanks! [/quote]

Well you are on the right track. I like overhead false shuffles where cards are actually moved about, singly or in bunches, and the order restored. Pantomiming chops never sounds or feels right to me. The Mead-Kennedy shuffle has actual card movement, but packets are not interchanged then restored as they are with yours. I am sure SOPAS will inspire many tweaks and variations. I would respectfully suggest your shuffle is inspired by the Hunter shuffle, where one reverses the order of a few cards between two larger packets then restores their order.

Thanks for sharing your contribution.

Les
Message: Posted by: diogoviana7 (Aug 16, 2015 05:08AM)
Yes, I also like when the cards are moved. Maybe you are right but I didn't credit that shuffle because I didn't even know that shuffle existed before I created the method.
Thanks for your constructive criticism.
Message: Posted by: TRI6KED (Sep 3, 2015 02:33PM)
My favourite overhand shuffle that looks the most natural and very easy to do is "Full Deck Retention False overhand shuffle by Dan Fishman"

The only place I know that you can buy this shuffle is:

Ninja Tossed Out Deck by Patrick Redford - DVD
OR
in Patrick Redfords Book Square available from :
http://www.patrickredford.com/square.html

But if you Google it, I'm sure you can get a demonstration of what it looks like.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Dan+Fishman+False+Overhand+Shuffle+is+available+on+Ninja+Tossed+Out+Deck+by+Patrick+Redford+-+DVD+OR+in+Patrick+Redfords+Book+Square+available+from+%3A+http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patrickredford.com%2Fsquare.html&oq=Dan+Fishman+False+Overhand+Shuffle+is+available+on+Ninja+Tossed+Out+Deck+by+Patrick+Redford+-+DVD+OR+in+Patrick+Redfords+Book+Square+available+from+%3A+http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patrickredford.com%2Fsquare.html&aqs=chrome..69i57.3079489j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=Full+Deck+Retention+False+overhand+shuffle+by+Dan+Fishman
Message: Posted by: Zedd (Sep 4, 2015 08:03AM)
I don't know if it's the same shuffle as the one mentioned by TazBo but the shuffle by Patrick Redford in his new book 'applesauce' is also great!!
Message: Posted by: lcwright1964 (Sep 12, 2015 07:56PM)
Does anyone just mix and match parts of other shuffles? I find of late I am doing a mix of false butt shuffles alternating with a modification of the Mead-Kennedy shuffle--basically, I chop off a top chunk legitimately then do the Mead-Kennedy artifice with the remaining packet on top of that. The result is that of simply cutting the deck, as it is with the false butt shuffle. I find it looks more authentic if anyone is looking all that closely, and more importantly to me it feels better so I can execute it without feeling self conscious. The Mead-Kennedy shuffle done straight just doesn't feel or sound "real" in my hands and I sense the artifice will be spotted unless at least one packet is seen to clearly change position. Moreover, perhaps unlike some people, I have no problem with any false shuffle that simply cuts the deck, since there is no lack of gimmicks and moves that can aid one in easily getting a cut deck back to canonical order from a completed cut.

Personally, I find that shuffles which mix up packets and/or single cards and then undoes the mixing (such as the Erdnase or Stanyon or SOPAS shuffles noted above, not to mention the venerable Hunter shuffle) offer some great ideas but I am prone to get easily confused since they seem to be a little more complex and less effortless.

Les
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Sep 28, 2015 07:37PM)
[quote]On Sep 12, 2015, lcwright1964 wrote:
Does anyone just mix and match parts of other shuffles? I find of late I am doing a mix of false butt shuffles alternating with a modification of the Mead-Kennedy shuffle--basically, I chop off a top chunk legitimately then do the Mead-Kennedy artifice with the remaining packet on top of that. The result is that of simply cutting the deck, as it is with the false butt shuffle. I find it looks more authentic if anyone is looking all that closely, and more importantly to me it feels better so I can execute it without feeling self conscious. The Mead-Kennedy shuffle done straight just doesn't feel or sound "real" in my hands and I sense the artifice will be spotted unless at least one packet is seen to clearly change position. Moreover, perhaps unlike some people, I have no problem with any false shuffle that simply cuts the deck, since there is no lack of gimmicks and moves that can aid one in easily getting a cut deck back to canonical order from a completed cut.

Personally, I find that shuffles which mix up packets and/or single cards and then undoes the mixing (such as the Erdnase or Stanyon or SOPAS shuffles noted above, not to mention the venerable Hunter shuffle) offer some great ideas but I am prone to get easily confused since they seem to be a little more complex and less effortless.

Les [/quote]

PM me.
Message: Posted by: RiderBacks (Oct 15, 2015 01:13AM)
A deceptive complete (full) OH False Suffle is hell on wheels. If you want a deceptive, in-the-hands, complete false shuffle, I strongly recommend biting the bullet and working on in-the-hands riffle shuffles. There are many of them out there. The "Grey Shuffle" by Benjamin Earl is solid. And there are others similar to it. The "Truffle Shuffle"being one pretty good improvement or replacement. These will not be trivial to learn. But your effort will be repaid ten-fold.
Message: Posted by: Uli Weigel (Oct 15, 2015 09:31AM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, RiderBacks wrote:
A deceptive complete (full) OH False Suffle is hell on wheels.[/quote]

What is that supposed to mean? Please explain.
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Oct 15, 2015 10:17AM)
Claiming that a false riffle shuffle is superior to an overhand one is overly broad. Many of us (particularly the mentalists in the crowd) strive not to appear too accomplished with the handling of playing cards, preferring the goal to be one of impressing by magic, not manipulation. Overhand is how most laymen shuffle, and thus a good model to follow. In some parts of the world (New Zealand, for one), regular people [b]never[/b] riffle shuffle: it's a technique only seen in the hands of magicians.
Message: Posted by: chappy (Oct 16, 2015 01:03AM)
I completely agree with you Doug that a false overhand is a good option for those who strive not to appear too accomplished with the handling of playing cards, and your point that claiming that a false riffle shuffle is superior to an overhand one is overly broad.

But it is beyond overly broad and bordering on absurd to suggest that people in New Zealand never riffle shuffle. The use of tabled riffle shuffles is common in card games across New Zealand. There may be countries where it is not, but New Zealand is not one of them.

Best,
Greg
Message: Posted by: Uli Weigel (Oct 16, 2015 08:32AM)
Not only in Germany but as far as I know in all of Europe the overhand shuffle IS the regular shuffle. Occasionally you meet someone who does riffle shuffles or some kind of dovetail shuffle, and in most cases they don't do it all that well. On the other hand, I have met people who questioned the fairness of my riffle shuffle, and I'm talking about a regular, smooth riffle shuffle, not a false one. Go figure.
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Oct 16, 2015 10:27AM)
Chappy claimed:[quote]... The use of tabled riffle shuffles is common in card games across New Zealand.[/quote]
I've been told by two lifelong New Zealanders that they've never seen a layperson do a riffle shuffle, so there are obviously differences of opinion on the matter (and I have insufficient personal experience to have an opinion). But the expressed concern remains unchanged.
Message: Posted by: chappy (Oct 16, 2015 03:38PM)
Doug, apologies if my using the word absurd to describe something in your earlier post caused any offence. My post was not intended that way.

I'd like to consider my post as a "reply" rather than a "claim". Much of what is shared here is a "claim" if you like to put things that way.

My only intention here is to provide perhaps a more relevant perspective regarding the use of riffle shuffles by laypeople in New Zealand, with the hope it might help more correctly inform members here at the café, and provide greater contextual information to this topic. My perspective is based on having played in many private home and bar room card games throughout different areas of New Zealand and having performed (exclusively card magic and gambling demonstrations) in many other places across the country.

The use of the riffle shuffle IS common and widespread. Perhaps 20 or 30 years ago it was a little different, and it may be less common amongst the older population.

At the card table, or when performing seated at a table, most laypeople will use or attempt a tabled riffle shuffle. I'd agree that people performing with cards in a stand-up situation would encounter more use of the overhand shuffle, just not because "regular people never riffle shuffle" but rather because it is easier to overhand shuffle when standing up and without a surface, than it is to execute an in the hands riffle shuffle. I mention these things because a person's opinion about the different shuffles people use is going to be linked to how often they see laypeople shuffle cards and in what context.

For example, it would not be especially balanced to base ones understanding of how common a type of shuffle is across an entire country based on the choice of shuffle used by lay volunteers in one routine using cards in a stand-up act.

Doug, you are welcome to believe anything you choose, but it is my opinion that the information you received from the two people you mention, is limited by the limited contexts in which they are exposed to laypeople shuffling, and possibly just very out of date.

Best,
Greg
Message: Posted by: RiderBacks (Oct 16, 2015 10:17PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, Uli Weigel wrote: What is that supposed to mean? Please explain. [/quote]

I just meant it's exceedingly difficult to pull off. What I'd want out of a deceptive, complete overhand false shuffle is the ability to do it anytime without any preparation. In short, I wouldn't want to have to crimp before the false shuffle. And that'd probably be one of the best ways to handle this request. But again, not a route I'd want to go. I use crimps sparingly. I am not familiar with Dan Fisman's complete false OH shuffle. Maybe I'll have to look at it. I do like my OH shuffles, and I do not know have any good, complete false OH shuffles.

In my experience (in the US), laymen almost *always* use tabled riffle shuffles. It is very, very rare for me to find laymen doing OH shuffles. Now it is true that laymen *never* *ever* *ever* do an in-the-hands riffle shuffle. It is not easy to pull that off effortlessly and elegantly! Of course, if you are performing for people who only ever see OH shuffles, that would be some reason to favor the OH shuffle. But the tabled riffle, where the deck is held on the short ends, is commonplace in the US. (The uncommon variation is the magician's version, where the deck is riffled on the table from the long ends.)

So yes, there is much to think about here. There is nothing wrong with thing about your audience's expectations! But I have never seen a riffle shuffle questioned. And I have never had an in-the-hands riffle shuffle questioned. You can actually do an in-the-hands push-through false riffle shuffle if you want. But I don't like the stripping action unless it's followed by further fancy shuffling such as an Up the Ladder sequence (which might well get questioned and can't be done non-tabled.)
Message: Posted by: Uli Weigel (Oct 17, 2015 12:35AM)
[quote]On Oct 16, 2015, RiderBacks wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, Uli Weigel wrote: What is that supposed to mean? Please explain. [/quote]

I just meant it's exceedingly difficult to pull off. What I'd want out of a deceptive, complete overhand false shuffle is the ability to do it anytime without any preparation. In short, I wouldn't want to have to crimp before the false shuffle. [/quote]

Well, I use half a dozen convincing full deck overhand false shuffles and none of them need a crimp.
Message: Posted by: RiderBacks (Oct 17, 2015 06:15PM)
[quote]On Oct 17, 2015, Uli Weigel wrote: Well, I use half a dozen convincing full deck overhand false shuffles and none of them need a crimp. [/quote]

Ok. But I agree with the following remark, made in 1984:

[quote]I don't believe that a good complete deck overhand shuffle has ever been developed. I think that with enough practice, this one can fill that void.[/quote]

I'll side with history and work with the riffle. Maybe the past thirty years have seen vast improvements in complete OH false shuffles. But good false riffles have been around much longer and have been improved upon for much longer still.
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Oct 21, 2015 10:17AM)
Interesting that nobody here is familiar with the couple of full-deck overhand shuffles that I published in APOCALYPSE.
Message: Posted by: RickDangerous (Oct 23, 2015 01:14AM)
[quote]On Sep 3, 2015, TazBo wrote:
My favourite overhand shuffle that looks the most natural and very easy to do is "Full Deck Retention False overhand shuffle by Dan Fishman"

The only place I know that you can buy this shuffle is:

Ninja Tossed Out Deck by Patrick Redford - DVD
OR
in Patrick Redfords Book Square available from :
http://www.patrickredford.com/square.html

But if you Google it, I'm sure you can get a demonstration of what it looks like.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Dan+Fishman+False+Overhand+Shuffle+is+available+on+Ninja+Tossed+Out+Deck+by+Patrick+Redford+-+DVD+OR+in+Patrick+Redfords+Book+Square+available+from+%3A+http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patrickredford.com%2Fsquare.html&oq=Dan+Fishman+False+Overhand+Shuffle+is+available+on+Ninja+Tossed+Out+Deck+by+Patrick+Redford+-+DVD+OR+in+Patrick+Redfords+Book+Square+available+from+%3A+http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patrickredford.com%2Fsquare.html&aqs=chrome..69i57.3079489j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=Full+Deck+Retention+False+overhand+shuffle+by+Dan+Fishman [/quote]
imo THE best false overhand shuffle
Message: Posted by: Nicolino (Oct 23, 2015 03:05AM)
Seconded. Looks absolutely deceptive.
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Oct 23, 2015 12:11PM)
Also excellent are Dan Garrett's "Underhanded Overhand Shuffle" and the Mead-Kennedy Shuffle.
Message: Posted by: RiderBacks (Nov 2, 2015 10:49PM)
That Dan Fishman shuffle looks great. Might have to buy that... Going to look at some reviews now! The shuffle doesn't seem to be advertised with either of the referenced works, which is odd.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Dec 7, 2015 08:08PM)
Bob King. Next topic.
Message: Posted by: RiderBacks (Dec 7, 2015 11:56PM)
Ok. So I've put some work into researching Dan Fishman's false overhand shuffle. A prior post pointed to this Redford demonstration of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQzR1O6wiBw

Thing is, YouTube is not the only place Redford has demonstrated this shuffle. And while the YouTube version looks pretty great, at least to my eyes, every move is quite clearly flashed in another video version Redford has put out. (Patrick, maybe at least set the other version to not be catalogued by search engines? That might help somewhat, though it won't completely fix matters.) The flashes there clearly make it look as if something odd or off is happening. Nevertheless, those flashes can be overcome by paying attention to angles and, of course, by misdirection. I take no points off this false shuffle for its angle sensitivity or being able to cover it with misdirection (which should always be used anyway.) And I have no objection to the use of short runs. This shuffle is a giant leap forward, and I feel like an ass for not thinking of it myself. This is, without a doubt, the absolute best complete false overhand shuffle I know of. I will be incorporating it! It gets the Riderbacks seal of approval. This is, really, the holy grail of completely false overhand shuffles. As an extra bonus, this should be fairly simple for most experienced cardicians to add to their arsenal.
Message: Posted by: TRI6KED (Dec 8, 2015 05:46AM)
[quote]On Dec 8, 2015, RiderBacks wrote:
Ok. So I've put some work into researching Dan Fishman's false overhand shuffle. A prior post pointed to this Redford demonstration of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQzR1O6wiBw

Thing is, YouTube is not the only place Redford has demonstrated this shuffle. And while the YouTube version looks pretty great, at least to my eyes, every move is quite clearly flashed in another video version Redford has put out. (Patrick, maybe at least set the other version to not be catalogued by search engines? That might help somewhat, though it won't completely fix matters.) The flashes there clearly make it look as if something odd or off is happening. Nevertheless, those flashes can be overcome by paying attention to angles and, of course, by misdirection. I take no points off this false shuffle for its angle sensitivity or being able to cover it with misdirection (which should always be used anyway.) And I have no objection to the use of short runs. This shuffle is a giant leap forward, and I feel like an ass for not thinking of it myself. This is, without a doubt, the absolute best complete false overhand shuffle I know of. I will be incorporating it! It gets the Riderbacks seal of approval. This is, really, the holy grail of completely false overhand shuffles. As an extra bonus, this should be fairly simple for most experienced cardicians to add to their arsenal. [/quote]
I am glad to have pointed people in the direction for this shuffle and that you have found this shuffle usefull and hope many others give this a try, as it is the best overhand false full shuffle I have ever come across.
Message: Posted by: Zipposrsa (Dec 8, 2015 09:59AM)
Thanks TazBo - you did point me in the right direction. I think it is brilliant !!
Mike
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Dec 8, 2015 08:48PM)
It's decent, but not nearly as good as Bob King's.
Message: Posted by: rapmr (Dec 8, 2015 10:35PM)
In which book/dvd do you find Bob King's false shuffle?
Message: Posted by: Uli Weigel (Dec 9, 2015 07:13AM)
Bob King's false overhand shuffle can be found in "The Annotated Erdnase" by Darwin Ortiz. It's a variation on the Erdnase false shuffle.
Message: Posted by: rapmr (Dec 9, 2015 06:05PM)
Uli,

Thanks. I have the Erdnase, but I heard so much about the Annotated Erdnase that I should add this book to my list.
Message: Posted by: Ferry Gerats (Feb 8, 2016 05:18PM)
Thanks everyone for their input as I am still looking for a false overhand shuffle that looks good and feels comfortable.
Message: Posted by: RiderBacks (Feb 9, 2016 04:50PM)
So magicfish continues to repeat the mantra that the Bob King OH Shuffle is the world's best. Some comments on this claim, despite not being an expert on the Bob King OH False Shuffle. The Bob King OH False Shuffle cannot look, as far as I can tell, like a standard OH false shuffle. In a standard OH shuffle, the cards are repeatedly stripped off, by one's thumb, onto the same side of the deck. This is not remotely what occurs in the Bob King OH False Shuffle, where cards are alternatively (and quite visibly) deposited onto both the face and back of the deck.

Now some comments on this. Some may (as magicfish presumably does) think this makes the Bob King OH False Shuffle look "messier". To the extent that it does, some may (as magicfish presumably does), consider this a virtue. Perhaps there is something to be said for that, but on the other hand, the Bob King OH False Shuffle just won't look like the kind of normal OH shuffle everybody uses. And that is, in my view, a significant mark against it. I count that mark against it to be so significant that I wouldn't rely on it as a primary OH False Shuffle.

The Fishman False Shuffle, on the other hand, does preserve the general look of a typical overhand shuffle. All cards are stripped off onto the same side of the deck. There is none of the "wibble wobble" nonsense required for depositing cards on both sides of the deck. When choosing between incorporating runs or wibble-wobble, I favor runs (provided they are not too long). And the required runs in the Fishman OH False Shuffle are short.

As always, your mileage may vary. But something had to be said about this endless, cult-like worship of the Bob King OH False Shuffle.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Feb 10, 2016 05:58AM)
[quote]On Feb 9, 2016, RiderBacks wrote:
So magicfish continues to repeat the mantra that the Bob King OH Shuffle is the world's best. Some comments on this claim, despite not being an expert on the Bob King OH False Shuffle. The Bob King OH False Shuffle cannot look, as far as I can tell, like a standard OH false shuffle. In a standard OH shuffle, the cards are repeatedly stripped off, by one's thumb, onto the same side of the deck. This is not remotely what occurs in the Bob King OH False Shuffle, where cards are alternatively (and quite visibly) deposited onto both the face and back of the deck.

Now some comments on this. Some may (as magicfish presumably does) think this makes the Bob King OH False Shuffle look "messier". To the extent that it does, some may (as magicfish presumably does), consider this a virtue. Perhaps there is something to be said for that, but on the other hand, the Bob King OH False Shuffle just won't look like the kind of normal OH shuffle everybody uses. And that is, in my view, a significant mark against it. I count that mark against it to be so significant that I wouldn't rely on it as a primary OH False Shuffle.

The Fishman False Shuffle, on the other hand, does preserve the general look of a typical overhand shuffle. All cards are stripped off onto the same side of the deck. There is none of the "wibble wobble" nonsense required for depositing cards on both sides of the deck. When choosing between incorporating runs or wibble-wobble, I favor runs (provided they are not too long). And the required runs in the Fishman OH False Shuffle are short.

As always, your mileage may vary. But something had to be said about this endless, cult-like worship of the Bob King OH False Shuffle. [/quote]
No. I don't think it looks messier, nor do I think messiness is a virtue.
Message: Posted by: Waterloophai (Feb 10, 2016 06:38AM)
[quote]On Feb 10, 2016, magicfish wrote: ..., nor do I think messiness is a virtue. [/quote]
In the hands of Lennart Green it is ! :-)
Message: Posted by: Kjellstrom (Feb 10, 2016 07:44AM)
I do a overhand false shuffle from the Genii Magazine - December 2004, page 22. Flim-FlaMagic by Bob Farmer.

http://geniimagazine.com/

Look it up - it is good and pretty easy to do.
Message: Posted by: RiderBacks (Feb 10, 2016 11:06PM)
[quote]On Feb 10, 2016, Waterloophai wrote:

[quote]On Feb 10, 2016, magicfish wrote: ..., nor do I think messiness is a virtue. [/quote]

In the hands of Lennart Green it is ! :-) [/quote]

Yes, Lennart Green is a master of messiness. Messiness is clearly sometimes a virtue. And when it comes to performing a false shuffle, I think messiness is definitely a candidate for being a virtue-maker. If it looks like you're just randomly tossing the cards all over the place, even though you aren't, that's great! I subscribe to the school which holds that when performing an effect, you should not be demonstrating great skill with cards. So I think there definitely is something to be said for the Bob King OH False Shuffle. Against this, I weigh other considerations. Does this look like how people ordinarily handle cards? If the answer to that question gets returned in the negative, we have an vice-maker. How do you balance these? That's up to you. And I'm not saying that the Bob King OH False Shuffle is a bad one. It's not. I'm just annoyed by the over-zealous support it receives from some people. It was also about time that someone said something somewhat informative about it other than "it's the best and now go look it up".
Message: Posted by: Waterloophai (Feb 11, 2016 01:31AM)
[quote]On Feb 11, 2016, RiderBacks wrote:
I'm just annoyed by the over-zealous support it receives from some people. It was also about time that someone said something somewhat informative about it other than "it's the best and now go look it up". [/quote]
You are right.
"The best" is a very subjective notion.
There are so many factors to consider: personal taste, ability, when, where, circumstances, etc.
Better would be if someone said: "That or this is the best FOR ME at that particular time" (and that goes not alone for false shuffles...)