(Close Window)
Topic: The Undetectible Zarrow Shuffle
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 7, 2017 04:41PM)
I have mentioned a few times that the Zarrow Shuffle in its original form is one of the worst card table moves imaginable. Flawed on several levels it is routinely murdered by magicians and demonstrators as they fool themselves [i]looking down[/i] at their hands as they perform the shuffle.

However, in my lifelong quest for the perfect Zarrow, I believe I have not only found the cleverest way to perform the Zarrow shuffle but as an added bonus make it not only undetectable but absolutely imperceptible.

Taking an idea from the Walter Scott's blindfold deal, in which he used a scratch/punched deck to deal himself winning hands while blindfolded, I thought to myself, "Why should the performer be blindfolded? Why not blindfold the deck instead?"

Eureka! A brilliant masterstroke of genius if I must say so myself.

By placing a heavy duty opaque cloth over the cards, one can now perform an imperceptible Zarrow shuffle with no fear of detection. As an added bonus, one can even use the AMcD Erdnase Method 2 Riffle Shuffle grip for added deception. So now we have combined AMcD's favorite false shuffle with his preferred riffle shuffle grip, the best of both worlds so to speak and devised a move that cannot be detected.

This may be my crowing achievement in riffle shuffle chicanery and in all modesty I can safely say that I sometimes astound myself with my ingeniousness.

With this technique, finally [i]everyone[/i] can now perform an undetectable Zarrow Shuffle, even those who have struggled for years with this move.

Sigh...
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Feb 7, 2017 04:52PM)
My favourite false shuffle is the push-thru. I have never understood why not every cardman consider it as the ultimate weapon in terms of false shuffling. Versatility, deceptiveness, credibility, it has it all. But no, magician prefer (to butcher) the Zarrow.

Go figure...
Message: Posted by: MarcoLostSomething (Feb 7, 2017 05:19PM)
That moment when you realize at some point of the post that you have being #Cagliostroed! That was a fun one :D
But the beginning was interesting, expecially the part where the performer fools himself when looking down.

I feel that my push through is a bit slow, expecially on the pushing action, I can't figure out a good rhythm.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 7, 2017 05:41PM)
A false shuffle is a false shuffle to a magician, to a sharp it is all about the application. You sound like a bunch of magicians to me.
Message: Posted by: TH10111 (Feb 7, 2017 05:53PM)
Curious that you would explore unconventional uses of the blindfold. I too have experimented briefly with such ideas, however I found that blindfolding the audience had the greatest effect. Not one of them saw the cards come off the bottom...
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 7, 2017 06:14PM)
[quote]On Feb 7, 2017, TH10111 wrote:

...however I found that blindfolding the audience had the greatest effect. Not one of them saw the cards come off the bottom... [/quote]

***. Why didnít I think of that?

Well, I can see that I am not the only one on this board that has occasional lapses of sanity.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 7, 2017 06:21PM)
[quote]On Feb 7, 2017, AMcD wrote:
My favourite false shuffle is the push-thru. I have never understood why not every cardman consider it as the ultimate weapon in terms of false shuffling. Versatility, deceptiveness, credibility, it has it all. But no, magician prefer (to butcher) the Zarrow.

Go figure... [/quote]

The push-thru takes skill, ability and practice to do deceptively. That is too much work for most who pretend to be masters of card table chicanery. It is much easier to fool oneself thinking he is doing a deceptive Zarrow.

After all, isn't the Zarrow the one move that moved from the magic table to the gaming table and is coveted by the top level of professional cardsharps, or so the story goes?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 7, 2017 06:29PM)
Well, you lot can carry on with your quest for perfect moves and I will carry on with my quest for the perfect applications of imperfect moves. Then next Sunday you can stand on your pile of money and I will stand mine and will see who is the tallest.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 7, 2017 10:12PM)
[quote]On Feb 7, 2017, tommy wrote:

Well, you lot can carry on with your quest for perfect moves and I will carry on with my quest for the perfect applications of imperfect moves. Then next Sunday you can stand on your pile of money and I will stand mine and will see who is the tallest. [/quote]

Wow. I'll bet you have a really big, big pile and probably need a ladder to get to the top of that humongous heap.

Oh, wait a minute. Are you talking about money...a pile of money?

My mistake. I thought you were offering to stand on top of a different kind of pile.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 7, 2017 11:28PM)
I guess it was too complex for the old man.
Message: Posted by: MarcoLostSomething (Feb 8, 2017 06:49AM)
[quote]On Feb 7, 2017, tommy wrote:
you lot can carry on with your quest for perfect moves and I will carry on with my quest for the perfect applications of imperfect moves.[/quote]

Why not both? I don't think they are mutually exclusive
Message: Posted by: ULockJustice (Feb 8, 2017 07:57AM)
Really, almost any move is destroyed by looking at the hands, though I imagine that goes without saying amongst this group. I've been training myself to not look at my heads by practicing while watching old episodes of the Friends spinoff Joey. If I can keep my eyes on the screen and pay attention to the plot the entire time and still execute card moves then it is both a success as a practice session and a a form of self mutilation. I do suffer for me art.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 8, 2017 08:27AM)
Alexander, stepping back, called out, "What does it matter how I loose it?" With that, he drew his sword, and in one powerful stroke severed the knot.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 8, 2017 08:55AM)
[quote]On Feb 7, 2017, tommy wrote:
Well, you lot can carry on with your quest for perfect moves and I will carry on with my quest for the perfect applications of imperfect moves. [/quote]

Actually my original post on this thread describes a concept that goes beyond the quest for [i]the perfect application of an imperfect move.[/i]

The Zarrow is an imperfect move, in fact quite imperfect. Blindfolding the deck is a proactive approach to CREATING the [i]perfect application [/i]. After all, if one were to wait for the perfect application to occur (the deck blindfolding itself), the wait might be quite long. However, by [i]proactively[/i] blindfolding the deck, the perfect application has been achieved and the long wait negated.

This is an example of the difference between lineal/simplistic thinking and more complex problem solving. :cool:
Message: Posted by: Peterson (Feb 8, 2017 09:03AM)
Why bother to shuffle at all? Just put deck underneath the table and say: "You may not see it, but I am actually shuffling the deck". After that you can carry on with your game or demonstration ABOVE the table.
Message: Posted by: Artie Fufkin (Feb 8, 2017 09:07AM)
The Zarrow, when done poorly, is like any false shuffle done poorly ... a crappy false shuffle.

But the Zarrow when done well, is as deceptive as any false shuffle in existence.

Horses for courses, and the absence of profoundly definitive (and probably incorrect) statements related to false shuffles remain my personal mantra.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 8, 2017 09:24AM)
[quote]On Feb 8, 2017, Peterson wrote:

Why bother to shuffle at all? Just put deck underneath the table and say: "You may not see it, but I am actually shuffling the deck". After that you can carry on with your game or demonstration ABOVE the table. [/quote]

That would work but you would have to have a way of simulating the sound of the riffle shuffle. Perhaps running one's fingers up the edge of the deck to create the sound or having a tape recorder attached under the table with the sound pre-recorded.

However, the purpose of this thread is to actually perform the Zarrow shuffle but make it undetectable. You have taken the concept to a higher level by not using a move at all. This is the professional approach of using subterfuge rather than a manipulative move.

The creativity of thought on this thread is mind boggling. :rolleyes:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 8, 2017 11:35AM)
If the Tran organization couldnít perfect it then what chance have you bunch of magicians got?
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 8, 2017 01:16PM)
[quote]On Feb 8, 2017, Artie Fufkin wrote:

But the Zarrow when done well, is as deceptive as any false shuffle in existence. [/quote]

I would have to disagree with that subject to further clarification.

The Zarrow shuffle as originally presented by Herb Zarrow is an open shuffle. In my opinion, it cannot be performed deceptively, especially the squaring up action itself if performed as originally designed. There are angles that make it deceptive, namely looking down from the top or from the top down at an angle, but looking at it across the table make it obvious what is happening to a close observer.

There are variations of the Zarrow which are still called the "Zarrow" shuffle which mitigate some of its deficiencies, namely covering the cards more on the square up and concealing the breakout action. Indeed if you completely conceal the break out action with the fingers, it becomes more deceptive but a good break out shuffle will accomplish the same thing much more quickly and efficiently.

It is usually not necessary to control the entire deck which shuffling, but a good pull-through is hard to beat for that purpose. Second best would be a breakout shuffle with proper cover.

Of course, that is just my opinion but the Zarrow, while it has some limited use in gaming, is more of a magician move.
Message: Posted by: necro555 (Feb 8, 2017 04:25PM)
At Magic Live 2015, Bill Malone asked if Steve Forte and Ron Conley had ever seen a Zarrow Shuffle used in a game. They both mentioned that a zarrow is very rarely used at the card table. That being said, Steve did proceed to demo some zarrow shuffles and stated that one of the best Zarrow Shuffles he's seen was where the cards were shuffled from the long side of the deck. Not sure how common riffle shuffling cards from the long side of the deck is in a card came.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 8, 2017 05:25PM)
[quote]On Feb 8, 2017, necro555 wrote:

Steve (Forte) did proceed to demo some Zarrow shuffles and stated that one of the best Zarrow Shuffles he's seen was where the cards were shuffled from the long side of the deck. Not sure how common riffle shuffling cards from the long side of the deck is in a card came. [/quote]

It is rare to see cards shuffled that way. That Zarrow variation shuffle performed by Forte was derived from a breakout shuffle that is deceptive and has great cover. Magicians have a name for that shuffle (I donít recall what it is but first read about it in a magic book many years ago), but I prefer using it as a breakout shuffle rather than a Zarrow.

Professional breakout shuffles are superior to the Zarrow in my opinion and are used at the gaming tables.

The big disadvantage to that particular shuffle is people rarely shuffle that way.
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Feb 8, 2017 05:41PM)
@necro555

It certainly isn't common, but I have seen it done many times. At first, I didn't understand why, sometimes, I ran across guys shuffling that way... and it took me some time to get it! Then... :)
Message: Posted by: Artie Fufkin (Feb 8, 2017 06:20PM)
Perhaps we must agree to disagree.

I've seen private video of near imperceptible Zarrow shuffles.

Of course, if you're using Ricky Jay as your example ... you're absolutely correct. He's a guy that perpetrates one of the crummiest Zarrow shuffles around.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 8, 2017 07:19PM)
Perfection isn't static.
Message: Posted by: necro555 (Feb 8, 2017 09:59PM)
Good to know :)

I presume the Zarrow would need a lot of cover to fly by, so the shuffles from the long end of the deck makes sense in that way. But does that start to become more of a breakout shuffle? I'll have to do some more research into that shuffle.

I bought Steve Reynold's Z DVD a while back, as Jason England mentioned in a lecture that Reynolds was one of three people who have the best Zarrows he's seen; After watching the DVD, I did feel the Reynolds Zarrow looked a bit robotic. Maybe it's just me. Cagliostro, Artie Fufkin and AMcD, what are your thoughts on that Zarrow?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 9, 2017 04:32AM)
Bold moves we know work perfectly at the right moment. Perfection isn't static. Buy when there ts blood in the street.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 9, 2017 11:25AM)
[quote]On Feb 8, 2017, necro555 wrote:
Good to know :)

I presume the Zarrow would need a lot of cover to fly by, so the shuffles from the long end of the deck makes sense in that way. But does that start to become more of a breakout shuffle? I'll have to do some more research into that shuffle. [/quote]

I now recall this shuffle was called the "V" shuffle because shuffling the cards was not done end to end as such but actually the cards were shuffled [i]by[/i] the ends with the packets in the "V" angle position.

It originally was a breakout shuffle but later utilized as a Zarrow type shuffle with this grip.

The Zarrow cover is better with this method but I still preferred the breakout method as it was faster, had better cover and was more utilitarian.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 9, 2017 12:46PM)
We were curious to know if our casino croupiers were aware of the Z. The funny thing about learning how something works is that it changes us for ever. The Z is obvious to those who know it and after performing a couple of card tricks it was clear to us the croups were not.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 12, 2017 11:56AM)
If you do not have an opaque cloth available I have an alternative.

It is a move I developed called "The Venetian Blind". It is necessary to perfect this move. (It is alternatively called the Moe Howard.)

(For those unfamiliar with the move look up the joke "Do you know how to make a Venetian blind?" All will be clarified.)

Once you learn the mechanics of that move the undetectable Zarrow falls right into place.
Message: Posted by: SDR (Feb 13, 2017 08:13AM)
Gary Plants' version is worth investigating if you don't like the original. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqNRcYumAFo
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 13, 2017 09:47AM)
There is really no such thing as the original; as Zarrow said, fit it to your way of shuffling.
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Feb 13, 2017 05:22PM)
Gary Plant's version is poor. I like the "Comments are disabled for this video", easy to understand why lol.

From the angle he chose for shooting the video it looks Okay (even if the speed is too slow for a shuffle), but if the camera was a few degrees down... it would be another story in terms of deceptiveness.

Let's give Gary a big credit for the booklet he wrote a few years ago about the Z though. Excellent booklet.
Message: Posted by: necro555 (Feb 13, 2017 06:02PM)
[quote]On Feb 13, 2017, tommy wrote:
There is really no such thing as the original; as Zarrow said, fit it to your way of shuffling. [/quote]

It was originally published with a specific technique in the New Phoenix. So maybe there's no original zarrow, but there is an original publication of the technique.

As with most shuffles, you can personalize it and call it something like the Shank Shuffle :)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 13, 2017 07:58PM)
As soon I learned it I tried to make it look more like a professional game shuffle, a more closed shuffle. I automatically do so with anything actually. In the professional game things not look deceptive but also fit the usual procedures. I did bot succeed to do it with Zarrow. I think it better applied to an amateur game and cool for magic. Let us put it this way, I would not advise my son to it in the professional game. Mind you in steer game one might do things that would not fly ordinarily.

I am not a pro cheat or player or magician but have done a bit and run a professional game.
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Feb 13, 2017 10:06PM)
Drop it tommy, Magicians only fools themselves with the Z. If they are too stupid for being objective, what can we do?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 14, 2017 10:26AM)
It is one of those shuffles that just attracts the eye. Strange movements for no reason. Even for purposes of a magic trick in which you don't want to seem as if you are doing anything it seems poorly suited.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 14, 2017 03:28PM)
I always wondered why Vernon promoted the Zarrow shuffle or praised it to some degree. Probably because Zarrow was a nice old guy and maybe he wanted to help him out. However, I saw a video of Zarrow doing the shuffle, the original shuffle as developed by him, and I thought it was terrible. Maybe doing one shuffle during a magic trick would be okay.

I saw Bill Malone do it one time in a card trick. He shuffled the cards and then pushed the deck well forward as he was making the square up maneuver to conceal what was happening, all the time chattering in his rapid fire style. In that context, it seemed passable.

Also, it has been used in some casino plays years ago before they had the cameras installed. From the sky looking down it could not be detected. Since all the players at the table were in on the play, the dealer did not have to fool them with the shuffle. The advantage was one could teach almost any dealer to do the shuffle under those conditions in a relatively short period of time. However, the sky shuffle would have done the same job more simply and just as effectively. However, the best casino plays used some form of push-thru or strip out shuffles, even a breakout shuffle is better than the Zarrow in that context.

It can be done better by covering the cards with the fingers to obscure the deck more, but still it is awkward under fire. The initial setup before each shuffle is cumbersome and the top cards shifted and covering on the square up leaves a lot to be desired.

However, keep in mind that regardless of the promotional advertising to the contrary stating that it is used at the gaming tables, or coveted by professional gamblers, the Zarrow was developed for magicians and for use in a magic trick context. I have never met a professional gambler who used it at the gaming table, probably because those that may have tried did not live very long. :eek:

As I said in the original post on this thread, the only really deceptive Zarrow requires one to blindfold the deck with a heavy opaque cloth. I still amaze myself with the brilliance of that concept.

(Hey, when you are that clever, modesty is out of place.) :goof:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 14, 2017 04:36PM)
The magician Guy Hollingsworth fooled me with it by riffling the cards together and then spreading then before squaring them up and doing it. The spread sort of gave me a mental block. It was a strange sort of misdirection. I canít recall exactly what I was thinking but I think the spread convinced me they were riffled fairly. It did not dawn on me for while what he had done.
Message: Posted by: necro555 (Feb 15, 2017 08:56PM)
Cagliostro, how exaggerated would you say the influence of the Zarrow Shuffle on the gambling table has been?
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Feb 15, 2017 09:29PM)
[quote]On Feb 15, 2017, necro555 wrote:

Cagliostro, how exaggerated would you say the influence of the Zarrow Shuffle on the gambling table has been? [/quote]

Greatly exaggerated, mostly by those who are demonstrating the move as it adds credibility to what they are doing, selling books and videos on the subject or simply repeating what they have been told by others. I am not saying these people are insincere in their beliefs, but they have no real-time factual experience to support that claim.

I am not saying the Zarrow has never been used in a gambling situation, indeed I recount an example above, but it is little used and I have never seen it applied in any tough games. Since many on this board give great credence to Steve Forte, I believe he stated the shuffle was rarely used in gaming situations.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 15, 2017 10:52PM)
Magicians are actors, they playing a part; they create a backstory for their fictional creators. The magicians that do card magic with gambling thyme often will invent a backstory to fit the bill. They will talk about how they hung out with gamblers etcetera but it only fiction. It is only for the public who they are there amuse. They are all professional utter liars and donít ever believe anything they ever say, especially Pop Haydn.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (Feb 18, 2017 03:18PM)
That is a terrible thing to say!

I've never told but one lie in my entire life, tommy...

and I only tell that one when I'm pressed and don't have time to think.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 20, 2017 12:39PM)
:)

One day there will be a portrait of Pop hanging in the Louvre next to the Mona Lisa called ďThe Sincerity of the MagicianĒ.
Message: Posted by: Artie Fufkin (Feb 20, 2017 11:16PM)
One day Pop Haydn will get the credit he deserves for the incredible amount of work he and SFS did documenting the Top and Ball, Chain, and Three Card Monte.

There are lots of folks [i]that are pretenders[/i] to the crown hanging around these days, but [b]School For Scoundrels[/b] and Pop (as Whit) did the original work (along with Anton) in documenting these three classic short cons in a scholarly fashion.

I have all the written work, and DVD's that SFS released on the three short cons noted above, and refer to them often.

And if that wasn't enough, [i]it was Pop and SFS that sat down with Doc Jon[/i] and got on video the real stories, and the actual methods used by "legitimate" hustlers to separate the rube from his money.
The Doc Jon DVD is absolutely priceless.

Anyway, thanks for all you've contributed to the knowledge bank Pop, it's a massive amount of quality information that will undoubtedly more than stand the test of time.
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Feb 21, 2017 10:38AM)
I will never thank Pop enough for setting up a live chat with Doc Jon, a few years ago. I had to stay awake for the whole night, but it was great!

Thanks Pop!
Message: Posted by: dapo24 (Mar 5, 2017 02:30PM)
While I agree it is visually inferior to the push-through I think it still has an application. And that's in the RRSRC. You can do the cut one handed. But I don't think it could withstand a lot of scrutiny - unless done very well. Maybe just preserving the bottom ~15 cards with the concept of the Zarrow? Jason England does it pretty well and I'm currently trying to play around with it. Trying to make RRSRC sequence with the zarrow as the last shuffle (first two push-through with Richard Turner's "crocodile shuffle") and making the actions somewhat uniform. I'll see what can I come up with :V
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 16, 2017 10:45PM)
My zarrow after a lot of practice is natural and covered. Principals learned from Gary plants watching excellent crud men performing listening to sound advice like from cag about the principals taught about false shuffling i.e. Top stock. I only use a zarrow shuffle I never shuffle on the square. I am never fooled by a push thru no matter how skillfull. I have used a zarrow in real time games.best performers I have seen is 1 Gary plants 2 Steve forte 3 Charlie Miller all the rest follow herb zarrow said lead. I have not seen all zarrow so but I do know mine and I have compared to other card men and I do use mirrors and professional critics to check the mechanics.
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Mar 17, 2017 08:09AM)
Geez! Can you show us please? By the way, don't forget the aim of this place: G-A-M-B-L-I-N-G. What I mean by that is that most of the "good" Z I have seen could not fit. Far from it. They were so slow, for instance, that we could play almost a round of Poker before the guy has finished a single Z (I'm hardly exaggerating). And don't forget to use a good angle of vision; at the table, people are at a certain distance from the shuffler and you generally have one player on your right and one on your left (not mentioning people standing up behind you, watching the game).

Don't worry, critics will be fair and honest.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 17, 2017 10:56AM)
ďGamblingĒ covers an awful lot of different players, games and circumstances.
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Mar 17, 2017 11:20AM)
Yes. But an undetectable Zarrow covers an awful lot of bullcrap as well.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Mar 17, 2017 11:54AM)
[quote]On Mar 16, 2017, cbharrelson wrote:

...I only use a zarrow shuffle I never shuffle on the square. I am never fooled by a push thru no matter how skillfull. I have used a zarrow in real time games... [/quote]

As I have written before, I prefer a good breakout to a Zarrow. However, I have developed a pretty deceptive Zarrow using a close approximation of the grip explained by Erdnase to control the top stock with the riffle shuffle and squaring the cards ups with the heels of my hands while keeping the finger cover at the same time. Not a great shuffle but better and more deceptive than 99% of the Zarrows I have seen.

The only suspicious elements to me with my approach (which is common to all Zarrows) would be the "setup" prior to the Zarrow and the slight movement of the top cards of both halves prior to breaking out and squaring the deck. Also, the amount of cover necessary to conceal the breakout leaves a little to be desired compared to "fair" shuffles or even compared to pull through and strip out shuffles.

Gary Plant's method is pretty good and much better than most of the Zarrows I have seen. His grip and cover uses an old breakout shuffle technique that has been used going back 50 years or more at the gaming tables. I personally thought the breakout shuffle, which was also described by Plants and called the "Oiensk" shuffle or something like that to be a better shuffle, at least in comparison. Plant's method leaks form certain angles but is fairly good looking straight on.

If one were to use a Zarrow under fire, I would think that partial Zarrows would be much better and then only as part of a shuffling sequence, say to setup a brief or to complete a riffle stack. But still, not great. Same with strip out shuffles, partials are much better as it's rarely necessary to control the entire deck. Full deck control is more in the province of magicians and demonstrators "doing their thing."

We have all heard or read statements that someone has seen an undetectable Zarrow shuffle or can actually do one. While I don't doubt the sincerity of those making such statements, it is anecdotal and has never been verified to [i]my[/i] satisfaction. Also, what is deceptive and undetectable to one observer may be obvious to another. In other words, it may be deceptive to someone with little or no knowledge of card table manipulation but readily apparent to someone who is more adept and aware of such type chicanery.

@cbharrelson: Evidently you have put in a lot of time mastering your technique of the Zarrow. So...if possible, I would like to see a video of your Zarrow. If you can't post one, that's okay also.

Further, you say you use the Zarrow in real-time games. What type games, what are the stakes and how astute are the players? Moreover, do you just casually use the shuffle in a game with no objective of getting the money and mostly for you own amusement or do you use it as a sequential part of a real ploy?

Keep in mind, this is not meant to criticize in any way. I am really just curious. If you have a very good Zarrow, I would enjoy seeing it.
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Mar 17, 2017 12:15PM)
Talking is so cheap. Just allow the guy to demonstrate.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 17, 2017 03:23PM)
There are various degrees of heat and therefore then the phrase ďunder fireĒ is essentially meaningless without context. There is less heat in lesser company and so on.
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Mar 17, 2017 03:52PM)
Yeah, yeah.

Me, I just wanna watch that terrific Z.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 17, 2017 04:05PM)
How do you know that you haven't been had by a Z?

Possibilities of the "blind"

IT IS surprising to find among card players, and many of them grown gray at the game, the almost universal belief that none but the unsophisticated can be deceived by "blind" shuffling. These gentlemen have to "be shown," but that is the last thing likely to happen. SWE
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Mar 17, 2017 09:10PM)
So, where is this amazing-terrific-undetectable-approved-by-professionals Z?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 18, 2017 05:07AM)
Down a dark alley that nobody knows there stands Z-man picking his nose.
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Mar 18, 2017 07:54AM)
Yeah, nothing new. As usual in the Gambling Spot, a lot of talking. But when showdown time is there, we don't see that much.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 18, 2017 08:05AM)
As hard as it is for you to believe, the showdown time is not the time of putting a video up at the Magic Cafť.
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Mar 18, 2017 10:44AM)
Me, I'm just a bit tired of all those guys who are skilled, who are the gods of the green cloth, who have never been caught, blablabla. All those wonderful guys who can do this and that, who have done this and that. Like undetectable Zarrow shuffles. Yes, all those tremendous people who talk a lot, but who have never demonstrated anything.

I don't give a *** about all those theories, I want facts. It's like a decade or more now that I read this place and I have understood that pros never show, that this place is just for amateurs, that we are wannabes, that we know nothing blablabla and f* endless blablabla which goes on and on for years! I am fed up with all this. Personally, I was simply an amateur card player and it went well for me. All I say or show is true and comes from my own experience. I have never claimed to be someone I wasn't and I don't brag about things I don't know or I can't do. I like Gambling with cards, its history, the techniques. And I like talking and exchanging about it.

You have a nice Z? Show me. You know a technique used in actual places? Show me. If you can't, just don't talk about it. I'm not 25 years old anymore, empty, meaningless and void speeches just bore me.

I leave you there with your metaphors, my friend.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Mar 18, 2017 11:08AM)
[quote]On Mar 16, 2017, cbharrelson wrote:

I am never fooled by a push thru no matter how skillful. [/quote]

Well then, you are one up on me. I have seen push-through shuffles that mimic a fair shuffle exactly where it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between the fair and the push-through. Suspecting is one thing but actually distinguishing between the two is another.

Personally I would say there is no comparison whatsoever between a expertly performed push-through and a Zarrow. The push-through is the adult in the room and the Zarrow is the baby in diapers.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 18, 2017 01:00PM)
I have actually spotted push-through shuffles at twenty paces.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Mar 18, 2017 01:47PM)
[quote]On Mar 18, 2017, tommy wrote:

I have actually spotted push-through shuffles at twenty paces. [/quote]

Yes, but you are the sharpest person on this BB. Your experience, knowledge, intelligence and ability are second to none plus you have a big advantage over the rest of us. You carry a worn out copy of Erdnase in your back pocket at all times so you have a handy reference to get the definitive answers to all questions and situations.

Plus...you probably have an undetectable Zarrow shuffle that you have used in big games against very astute opponents.

So...be gracious and give us lesser mortals a break. :cry:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 18, 2017 02:17PM)
I am not kidding.
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Mar 18, 2017 02:43PM)
I'm with Cag, Push-Thrus (PS) can be very deceptive. I would even say that they can be hard to spot.

In fact, I'm yet to see a Z as deceptive as a PS.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 18, 2017 03:18PM)
I did not say that I could. I said that I did. Now if you had any brains at all then you know there is a difference between saying one thing and the other.
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Mar 18, 2017 04:05PM)
Oh, I get it now. You're Madison posting here under cover right? Gotcha!!
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 18, 2017 06:03PM)
Oh no, you wouldnít get it unless I put on youtube for you.

:)
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 18, 2017 10:45PM)
Fellows I was asked what kind of games I have played in and the stakes. I have played in barber shop closed on Sunday road games across west Texas regular pro card games in apartments home games across west Texas card games at slaughter houses played at Las Vegas stakes were 2-5 5-10 pot limit. Games were Texas holder high Texas high low Holden 5 card draw high 6 card draw high low 7 stud high and high low. As a pro I play the players I will soon know if someone is expert enough to know if I am stacking the deck I have used a strip out a zarrow stacked a deck shifted the cut and copped chips. I am 69 years old and have never been caught I am very very careful erdnase gave the best advice any false shuffle must be covered like the pass. A zarrow to be in detectable must be covered however with proper misdirection even an open zarrow can be done without people realizing. Would Steve forte know when I do a zarrow? Would I know when Steve forte does a push thru? Yes!, would I pick a game with Steve forte sitting? No!, when I sit in front of a mirror and do my zarrow I can not spot any tells. I have worked on a zarrow for a long time. I am good at reading players and games.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 18, 2017 11:18PM)
By the way cag you probably have a much better zarrow than most because you understand why erdnase used a covered shuffle for a top stock. Oh I used tricks at one time to make money but I was also a very good poker player on the square. As for money my partner and I once played with a few of the buyers at bell helicopter in Fort Worth and won thousands. However I do not gamble any more I lost a wife respect from my kids I would play starting at 6 pm on Friday night and quit at 12 pm on Sunday night. I do sleights now just to see if I can improve the techniques. Cag it is obvious you have played many games for money and you do know the principals that make a good card hustler.. Me I am a retired poker hustler and card cheat.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 19, 2017 01:54AM)
But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't believe ya'.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 19, 2017 03:19AM)
Cag also the push through shuffle is an honest shuffle it is not he cut that is false and it is not he cut that is the tell the shuffle itself is perfect that is why it was favored by gamblers but the cut has always been the weakness with the strip out shuffles a good zarrow is just as deceptive as the push through. Card men that have worked on their. Strip out for many years can do it very well I myself have used a strip out in a money game also a zarrow. To fool anyone you must be able to do it well the problem with card men is they feel like they can do a good push through and they try to do the zarrow like herb zarrow instead of like Gary plants. Which do you think had a better zarrow herb or Gary if you had to use it in a game. The zarrow is like the pass it must be covered. And it must be natural if it is it is more deceptive than the push through not the shuffle itself it is the strip out that is weak.
Message: Posted by: MarcoLostSomething (Mar 19, 2017 09:33AM)
The Z is not my best shuffle, I practised it during the years because it has tons of applications in magic, but I can see every little tell of my shuffle no matter how much I try to do my best.
Pheraphs the mechanics are more apparent to those who "know" the move, but as previously stated I do believe that a well performed push through beats a well performed Zarrow in terms of blind false shuffle for table situations.

I am ignorant about the terminology and I have to ask: what's a breakout shuffle? I might know it with a non-english term or not know it all.

PS: I have recorded a quick demo of my Z but I haven't claimed to be The Best, so I will post it just to give my take on that (it's Sunday after all): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjESfO87yCM&spfreload=10
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 19, 2017 01:39PM)
Marco your zarrow is smooth normal tells are not there weakness is not covered enough
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 19, 2017 01:45PM)
Croupiers donít shuffle in that open way. That is no good for the professional game. I really donít know why magicians do a Z like that when they donít shuffle that way normally.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 19, 2017 02:32PM)
Marco you do a herb zarrow shuffle your normal shuffle is an open type shuffle look at the two types of shuffles in erdnase even a top stock control shuffle can be spotted in an open shuffle much less a zarrow.an open zarrow will never be as deceptive as a push through. If you want to do an open false shuffle stick with the pus through
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 19, 2017 03:38PM)
Tommy magicians demonstrate the push through and the do a card trick that uses the push through obviously they won't fool other magicians.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 19, 2017 03:40PM)
Richard turner does a pull out that is more deceptive than his push through.. So does Steve forte.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 19, 2017 05:57PM)
Steve forte has the same issue as you his normal shuffle is a more open type shuffle he has done a good job on the zarrow by changing his finger position to cover the shuffle however you can tell it is two different shuffles the zarrow conflicts with his normal style of shuffling.he does an excellent job of laying the cards in and the unweaving.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 19, 2017 06:22PM)
By the way Richard turner Gary plants and Doyle Brunson are all Texas boys!
Message: Posted by: MarcoLostSomething (Mar 19, 2017 06:51PM)
[quote]On Mar 19, 2017, tommy wrote:
Croupiers donít shuffle in that open way. That is no good for the professional game. I really donít know why magicians do a Z like that when they donít shuffle that way normally. [/quote]

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

@cbharrelson: couldn't follow quite well, but I understand that my cover is weak, well I think it too. I haven't seen Steve Forte's Zarrow, I am curious to see it (or I have and I forgot).
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 19, 2017 08:26PM)
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeEMaZqMRp0

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

Erdnase describes how to riffle shuffle.

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

When I say wrong I merely mean it is not the way it is done by pro croups.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 19, 2017 10:31PM)
Cag knows how to make a zarrow in detectable he gave the answer .when he can look Ina mirror and not see any difference in his regular shuffle and his zarrow wit will be wonderful..
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 19, 2017 10:34PM)
Marco Steve forte has his zarrow on you tube it is in quicker than the eye
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 19, 2017 10:35PM)
Owing to the fact that regular poker players see cards riffle shuffled in the regular closed way, regularly, regular poker players will find your open riffle shuffle, irregular. He that rejects this will never know the entrance to the temple.

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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVyu6VWTfoU
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 19, 2017 11:36PM)
Cag here is a little more food for thought. Take the table faro I would not use it in a game . Steve forte on the other hand does a partial on the bottom that is identical to his regular shuffle. Partial is the key you are right erdnase said there was no need for a full deck false shuffle in hustling you may already have an I detectable zarrow.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 19, 2017 11:55PM)
Marco one last thought for you my goal right now for my own pleasure is to do the greatest gambling card trick the ultimate card shark for my own amuse the but with my own 4 ace production and using the push throug for the false shuffles but using the bottom deal in the poker sequence. I do a lousy bottom deal my hands are dry. Adam learning Richard turners bottom. The reason I use the push through is because it and the bottom deal are knuckle buster sleights. Other magicians know what you are doing but they enjoy seeing other card men doing those sleights. I think the push through is the perfect magicians false shuffle if you do it well other magicians will enjoy watching you do the sleight laymen will be fooled.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 20, 2017 09:25AM)
The difference between a magician and sharp is that unlike a magician a sharp cannot make up his own procedures but must conform to the regular procedures of the game. If your ďregular shuffleĒ does not fit the bill then your regular shuffle will have to change in first place. The perfect Z for professional poker is that which looks like a casino shuffle. Herb Zarrow says one should make the Z look like your own regular shuffle. So we have magicians doing all different sorts shuffles. When we say to them, look that open shuffle of yours, it is not the way should be, they say well that is the way I normally shuffle. When the worlds of magic and gambling there always confusion. If you are playing in a self-dealt game then might get away with it. If you are playing Gin with naive sucker you might well get away with an open Z. I am not sure why you would want to, when there are better ways but you could as opposed to would.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Mar 20, 2017 09:39AM)
[quote]On Mar 19, 2017, tommy wrote:

Owing to the fact that regular poker players see cards riffle shuffled in the regular closed way, regularly, regular poker players will find your open riffle shuffle, irregular.[/quote]

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

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

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

Of course, any student of Erdnase would know this already. :)
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Mar 20, 2017 09:57AM)
And still no video, gentlemen?
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Mar 20, 2017 12:22PM)
[quote]On Mar 19, 2017, MarcoLostSomething wrote:

The Z is not my best shuffle, I practiced it during the years because it has tons of applications in magic, but I can see every little tell of my shuffle no matter how much I try to do my best...

I have recorded a quick demo of my Z but I haven't claimed to be The Best, so I will post it just to give my take on that (it's Sunday after all): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjESfO87yCM&spfreload=10 [/quote]

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

[quote]Perhaps the mechanics are more apparent to those who "know" the move, but as previously stated I do believe that a well performed push through beats a well performed Zarrow in terms of blind false shuffle for table situations.[/quote]

No disagreement here.

[quote]I am ignorant about the terminology and I have to ask: what's a breakout shuffle? I might know it with a non-english term or not know it all.[/quote]

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

Gary Plant demonstrates an example of a breakout shuffle in his booklet on the Zarrow Shuffle. He calls it the "Oeinsk" Shuffle or something like that.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 20, 2017 01:19PM)
One common claim is that the Z does not beat various angles but in a heads-up card game, there is only one. IF it looks good enough in a tipple mirror it ought to work for heads up games against suckers.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 20, 2017 01:19PM)
Well I think it is very good to have a forum like this where card men can come and discuss different moves and the willingness to offer advice to up and coming card men. I enjoy it because I have learned I will never know everything. I learn new twists everyday I think you guys have a wealth of knowledge.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Mar 20, 2017 03:16PM)
Cbharrleson:

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

Please check you mailbox for the invoice. You can pay through PayPal. ;)
Message: Posted by: MarcoLostSomething (Mar 20, 2017 07:11PM)
Thank you all.
I will try to learn a Zarrow for a professional shuffle, and I will pay more attention to the angles.
Maybe the breakout shuffle is also known as a Shank shuffle? Or is it another thing?
I'm curious about Gary Plants handling, as well, I will check it out in the future.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 20, 2017 07:48PM)
Cag my friend you are a gentleman and a scholar I will check my mailbox. You know cag I saw a video of Rene Levantd tthe one armed wonder magician do a one handed stripout shuffle but he also used what you would call a one handed breakout shuffle in a routine. He did it well. Also there are 27 cards run out in 10 handed holder a partial zarrow would work fine. You could even do a legit strip cut. More food for thought.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Mar 20, 2017 10:09PM)
[quote]On Mar 20, 2017, MarcoLostSomething wrote:

...Maybe the breakout shuffle is also known as a Shank shuffle? Or is it another thing?... [/quote]

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

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

Like the Zarrow, it looks best when the deck is blindfolded with a large opaque cloth. :P
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 20, 2017 10:19PM)
Well to be perfectly honest we are in the age of technology today way beyond this old fart and you need a crew not a zarrow.
Message: Posted by: Thomas Gilroy (Mar 21, 2017 03:12AM)
I respect that the Zarrow shuffle is a valuable move for card magic, but I don't think it's a deceptive move.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In comparison, I think the push-through is much more deceptive. I think a casual observer naturally assumes that when the woven cards are pushed together, the shuffle is complete, and thus they are convinced that the shuffle is fair. Also, the deceptiveness of the push-through is much less dependent on the grips used for the riffle and the square-up.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 21, 2017 05:27AM)
Those who know will very seldom be perplexed by what is exhibited.

Note that nobody has ever exhibited anything here that has perplexed all the experts.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 21, 2017 06:05AM)
ďThe Zarrow shuffle is a valuable move for card magic, but I don't think it's a deceptive move.Ē

Orwell's 1984 doublethink!
Message: Posted by: Thomas Gilroy (Mar 21, 2017 08:51AM)
Hi Tommy,

I don't see how there is any "doublethink" there at all.

I don't think the move itself is deceptive. I don't think that you could focus the attention of an observer on a Zarrow shuffle and reasonably expect that they would not notice what is happening. However, in the context of magic performance, with suitable misdirection, I think the move has merit. In that context, it is the presentation or patter that is deceptive, not the move.

I think the move can go unseen, but I don't think it is invisible. In this respect, I think it's similar to a classic pass. When attention is drawn to the move, I think the move is obvious. A move can have value to card magic and not be deceptive.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Mar 21, 2017 01:42PM)
[quote]On Mar 21, 2017, Thomas Gilroy wrote:

...I don't think the move itself is deceptive. I don't think that you could focus the attention of an observer on a Zarrow shuffle and reasonably expect that they would not notice what is happening. However, in the context of magic performance, with suitable misdirection, I think the move has merit. In that context, it is the presentation or patter that is deceptive, not the move. [/quote]

That is an excellent point. The same applies to card hustling. In many cases, it is more the con, grift sense and the timing that makes many gaffs and moves work, or at least work much better. Similar concepts here.

[quote]I think the move can go unseen, but I don't think it is invisible. In this respect, I think it's similar to a classic pass. When attention is drawn to the move, I think the move is obvious. A move can have value to card magic and not be deceptive. [/quote]

Once again the same applies to hustling with cards. I have seen a hustler with a mediocre bottom deal get the money over and over again. He had a great deal of experience and it was the timing of the move, lulling the people into complacency, moving at the right time and not doing anything fast or suspicious looking. If anyone was "gunning his hands" as he was dealing, he just would not make the move. Because of his friendly and pleasant personality it would be rare for him to get any real scrutiny while dealing. He was just one of the guys having a good time.

Like the classic pass as mentioned. If you look directly at the hands, you know something happened. But...if you look in the general direction but not at the hands, if smoothly done you will not see anything.

Many "movers" think that a move must be impeccable to succeed. Of course, one wants to have a move mastered as adroitly as possible, especially for video demos. But many moves cannot be performed in a completely undetectable manner because of their inherent "weaknesses." Many "movers" cannot conceive or really understand why a mediocre bottom deal in the right hands would work in a game better than their impeccable bottom deal. The reason is they just don't understand these additional elements - the timing, grift sense, con, shading involved, etc. that make it all work.

To put it another way, oftentimes it is "the tail that wags the dog" that is the key element so to speak, not the superb execution of the move.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 21, 2017 06:39PM)
I have a question if you ha a top stock of 15 cards dou you do a push through or do you do a top stock shuffle? If you do atop stock shuffle with several cards in the stock do you do an open shuffle and hope they don't notice the clump. Erdnase did not. Steve forte has the best zarrow besides Gary plants. Some of the moves in Steves are better than Gary's but it is very noticeable when he changes the shuffle if he did all his riffle shuffles in this manner it would be deceptive because he cold throw in a zarrow unnoticed.etdnase stressed uniformity of action.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 21, 2017 07:28PM)
Cag is absolutely correct about misdirection. He is spot on. Take bill Malone for example he uses the zarrow a lot but he always shuffles the same. And my friend Arnold can appreciate this I use drills for my false shuffle just like a 2nd deal. I do a a push through with a block transfer then strip the cards to the right and the do a zarrow then an honest shuffle then a top stock control. All shuffles same erdnase closed shuffle. Thousands and thousands of times in front of a mirror all shuffles look the same.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 21, 2017 09:06PM)
When I tested the Z I didnít use misdirection; it would have been a pointless exercise if I had.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 21, 2017 09:24PM)
Here is a little more food for thought. Tommy why are poker dealers required to shuffle the same every time? When Steve forte shuffles and deals it is so smooth and professional I can't take my eyes off of the deck even when he is doing a demo of an honest shuffle. And to friend Arnold I do a good zarrow but I can't do a good video.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 21, 2017 09:28PM)
Arnold I also don't look as good as these fellows I would be embarrased.
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Mar 21, 2017 10:04PM)
Too sad for my eyes, but I'm okay with it.

Thanks for answering. Appreciated.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 21, 2017 11:11PM)
So you can spot the fake; fakes are always a little different than the rest.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 21, 2017 11:41PM)
Tommy it is also to give greater confidence to their gambler customers. After all they tap them pretty hard money wise and they go to great lengths to make their customers feel secure. When I have played in casinos most players did not even pay attention to the shuffles o r the rake I have personally spotted some dealers cutting more than they should and other nefarious things. Collusion etc. a lot of dealers shuffle so fast if they did a fake it would pass.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 21, 2017 11:52PM)
Another principal of hustling get caught with marked cards hard evidence if so one believes you are doing a false shuffle where is the proof.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 21, 2017 11:57PM)
Gamblers are funny animals I have played square in a game and I got alittle lucky and I have had people say I must be doing something wrong
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Mar 22, 2017 09:20AM)
[quote]On Mar 21, 2017, cbharrelson wrote:

Another principal of hustling get caught with marked cards hard evidence if so one believes you are doing a false shuffle where is the proof. [/quote]

The question then becomes who put the cards in play, who is playing them and are you the stranger in the game? The only thing marked cards in play prove is marked cards are in play.

Also, in professional games being unable to prove sleight of hand cheating is long gone. The cameras tell all. Just play them back over and over again, close up and in slow motion. Plenty of proof there.

Further, irate players really don't need much proof, especially if they have lost considerable money.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Mar 22, 2017 10:07AM)
Since we have digressed into different false shuffles, here is something that I value highly. It is the Triumph Shuffle described by Dai Vernon in the original [i]Stars of Magic[/i] Series.

Let me digress.

When I was a teenager I purchase the entire [i]Stars of Magic[/i] series in its original, loose life format with very sharp photos by George Karger and printed on very high quality glossy paper.

All the tricks in that original series were excellent and just as good today as they were back then. One trick by Vernon was the original Triumph card trick using his brainchild, the Triumph Shuffle. Vernon said he invented the Triumph shuffle because most card men had a hard time mastering an undetectable and deceptive pull through shuffle and the Triumph Shuffle was designed to make the task simpler and easier to execute. The idea behind the shuffle was quite clever although like most developments, it was based upon a different move and adapted.

I took that original Triumph shuffle, worked with it in front of a three way mirror, designed different variations and made it [i]very[/i] deceptive and effective. I actually modified it for use at the card table and made it virtually angle proof. I used it for block transfers, for partials, with riffle stacking and slug controls and complete full deck retention although full deck control was usually unnecessary and used rarely used at the card table. The big key was the [i]correct[/i] and deceptive way to square up the cards and having only a slight "extension" prior to the pull. One of the big advantages was the cards did not move diagonally on the square up but pushed straight in. Secondly I developed ways of making the pull without the telltale collapse of the packets.

As usual, most magicians murdered the Triumph shuffle or abandoned it for the simpler BS shuffles like the Shank and Zarrow. However, I would rate a correctly performed Triumph Shuffle at the top of the list for false shuffles but it must be done deceptively and correctly. And yes, it works very well under fire against pretty sharp people and one can go into sequential shuffles without the "cuts" in between.

Most who read this will probably have their eyes glaze over and since I am not a magician or demonstrator don't perform on video to force feed or try to prove anything for free to those who have no real interest or are not willing to do the things necessary to achieve higher levels of mastery. Additionally, most that are dedicated and become really good at sleight of hand "moves" come up with their unique variations and techniques and just need a kernel of an idea to run with. They usually don't just take a stock move from a book or video and go with it.

However for the very few adepts or future adepts who may have discounted this shuffle, you might want to take a closer look - in many instances it is comparable and sometimes beats the pull through and strip out shuffles and makes the Zarrow and Shank shuffles in comparison look like something invented and used by Mickey Mouse in cartoon land.

I have hinted at a lot here, but...sorry...no free lunch.
Message: Posted by: CoffeeBeans (Mar 22, 2017 10:34AM)
Very interesting post, thanks Cag! I guess I'm gonna go back to working on the shuffle, as I too had abandoned it.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 22, 2017 11:10AM)
Cag you have hit on a good style shuffle I do that type shuffle too Richard turner does a good job with that type of shuffle it is his pill iout is better than most push through shuffles. I agree with everything you say even about the shank I find it easier to do a block transfer easier with this type of shuffle everything you say is true I think you are missing the boat on the zarrow.if you spent the time working with the zarrow with your skill you may change your mind
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Mar 22, 2017 11:19AM)
[quote]On Mar 22, 2017, Cagliostro wrote:

One trick by Vernon was the original Triumph card trick using his brainchild, the Triumph Shuffle. Vernon said he invented the Triumph shuffle because most card men had a hard time mastering an undetectable and deceptive pull through shuffle and the Triumph Shuffle was designed to make the task simpler and easier to execute. [i]The idea behind the shuffle was quite clever although like most developments, it was based upon a different move and adapted[/i].
[/quote]

Do you mean Erdnase's [i]I. To Retain the Top Stock[/i] blind shuffle?

I am asking because Darwin Ortiz in The Annotated Erdnase writes about it that "Vernon used the same squaring action and hand positions to effect a one-card top block transfer and disguise the strip-out condition of the deck in Triumph in Stars of Magic".
Message: Posted by: tommy (Mar 22, 2017 12:03PM)
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMvziKDRbKQ
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Mar 22, 2017 04:20PM)
[quote]On Mar 22, 2017, cbharrelson wrote:

Cag...if you spent the time working with the zarrow with your skill you may change your mind [/quote]

I did spend the time and have a Zarrow much better than most but the shuffle is too flawed to go beyond a certain point. Plus, the moves I used were designed for use at the card tables and not to do card tricks or demos with, so the standards are much, much different.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Mar 22, 2017 04:32PM)
[quote]On Mar 22, 2017, Claudio wrote:


Do you mean Erdnase's [i]I. To Retain the Top Stock[/i] blind shuffle?[/quote]

No, it nothing to do with any Erdnase methodology. It was based upon the concept of placing say four aces in different parts of the deck and apparently squaring them flush with the deck but instead controlling them to the bottom or top.

[quote]I am asking because Darwin Ortiz in The Annotated Erdnase writes about it that "Vernon used the same squaring action and hand positions to effect a one-card top block transfer and disguise the strip-out condition of the deck in Triumph in Stars of Magic". [/quote]

Yes but what I am talking about went well beyond the original Triumph Shuffle but that is correct in its most basic form. The original Triumph Shuffle was used for a card trick and therefore was limited to that application.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 22, 2017 04:33PM)
Ah yes card men dismissed the triumph because it was simpler and this made it inferior in their mind.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 22, 2017 04:36PM)
Vernon himself touted the push through ala mysterious kid.
Message: Posted by: slim23 (Mar 22, 2017 07:23PM)
Cag,
I loved your take on the triumph!

Thanks for sharing!

Slim
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Mar 22, 2017 09:49PM)
How many pages are you gonna fill without DEMONSTRATING anything? This place looks like, more and more, a retirement home with old guys rambling.

I'm not saying it's not interesting. I just say it's boring to never see anything.
Message: Posted by: Artie Fufkin (Mar 22, 2017 10:06PM)
Wake me when this thread is dead. :napping:
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Mar 22, 2017 10:11PM)
You're gonna have a long sleep Artie. A looooong sleep... Enough time for studying EATCT.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 23, 2017 08:04AM)
Arnold you have shown that I am sadly lacking in the video making dept I must do some serious work in that dept it has been a pleasure cag tommy to discuss something we all love.
Message: Posted by: AMcD (Mar 23, 2017 08:46AM)
@cbharrelson,

Sir, I wasn't targeting you in particular. I you think so, please, accept my apology.

You're new in this place. If you dig into the old posts you will understand my views better; there is a looooot of talking in the Gambling Spot, but almost zero displaying/showing. The main reasons that are usually given by the "talkers" are that the readers of this forum are Magicians or amateurs and don't deserve or would not make any benefit from the "true" moves (why do those knowledgeable people hang out here then?); that pros never give their secrets (why do they talk about them though?); and that we know nothing about Gambling because we haven't cheated $250K buy-in tables (myself, I have never seen more than a few grands on my tables).

That said, this place is second to none in the Internet world. There is not the activity we had like 10 years ago anymore, but it still worth to visit it despite the endless fights we have (there are a few strong personalities haunting this place, as you will find out).

It still is nice to have new posters and be assured that you are warmly welcome here.
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Mar 23, 2017 05:09PM)
Arnold I did not take offense. It is that I have never done a video. Picture is worth 1000 words. I really like and appreciate your videos. It really helps communication.
Message: Posted by: CharliePA (Mar 9, 2018 06:31AM)
[quote]On Mar 21, 2017, Thomas Gilroy wrote:

I don't think that you could focus the attention of an observer on a Zarrow shuffle and reasonably expect that they would not notice what is happening. However, in the context of magic performance, with suitable misdirection, I think the move has merit. In that context, it is the presentation or patter that is deceptive, not the move.

I think the move can go unseen, but I don't think it is invisible. In this respect, I think it's similar to a classic pass. When attention is drawn to the move, I think the move is obvious. A move can have value to card magic and not be deceptive.[/quote]

How can a thread can be started in such statement?
Very few moves or techniques are "deceptive" when isolated. Palms, top changes, most false shuffles...
A magician is NEEDED to add something to it and make them really deceptive: like timing, misdirection, etcetera.

Gentlemen, I've seen magicians staring at a spread 25 card packet made of 5 sets of the same 5 cards and NOT noticing it, just because the "frame". I was fooled also, of course.
We SEE a zarrow because we are EXPECTING a zarrow. And that's why sometimes the most simple principle fools magicians. Because our mind is already on what we THINK it's going to happen.

OK, this is The gambling spot, but I needed to say this.
Message: Posted by: Gamblingman007 (Mar 10, 2018 03:00AM)
Mr. Cag seems to be a very knowledgeable guy in his own right but if heís still using a Zarrow or a Undetectable Zarrow shuffle isnít his moves outdated? I donít know Iím just asking because the moves that Iíve been seeing displayed on here seems to be more advanced. Please correct me if Iím wrong.

The Gamblingman007
Message: Posted by: Jerry (Jul 6, 2018 07:54PM)
Video example of proper Zarrow Shuffle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwemFZzwYx8
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jul 7, 2018 02:54PM)
Cute and thanks for posting.

I don't know who the performer is, but the resolution is so poor it is hard to determine some important factors.

Canít tell if the entire deck is in correct new deck order from the outset. Things are so blurred it is impossible to tell. The angle of the video gives the most favorable view for the move.

At the end of the video, the three of hearts is on the bottom???

Donít want to struggle with something as poorly shot as this. If you have a better video of this person doing the move, it would be appreciated if you can post that. Then perhaps we can discuss the move more intelligently.
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Jul 7, 2018 04:07PM)
This is Steve Reynolds, best-known among magicians for his Z shuffle. The cards are not in numeric order but segregated in black/red groups. The 3H is at the bottom of the deck from the very beginning. I believe the original order is fully maintained, though I could not ascertain it for sure for the whole deck but only for portions of it.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Bones (Jul 7, 2018 04:15PM)
Uhhh, it's Steve Reynolds ... so "yes" the original order was maintained, and "yes" his Zarrow shuffle is essentially invisible.

Are you guys stoned or something?

If you want more resolution, pony up the cash and buy his disc on the subject matter:
https://www.artofmagic.com/products/the-zarrow-shuffle
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jul 7, 2018 05:30PM)
[quote]On Jul 7, 2018, Mr. Bones wrote:
Uhhh, it's Steve Reynolds ... so "yes" the original order was maintained, and "yes" his Zarrow shuffle is essentially invisible...

If you want more resolution, pony up the cash and buy his disc on the subject matter:
https://www.artofmagic.com/products/the-zarrow-shuffle [/quote]

Uhhh, sorry. Don't hang with the magician crowd so did not recognize Steve Reynolds nor his apparent significance in the magic community. :confused: However, now that his name was mentioned I recall it was written about on some previous posts regarding his Zarow technique.

The link supplied by Bones clearly shows Reynold's technique.

Certainly, his Zarrow shuffle is better than most I have seen. It is cleanly performed in a disarming and casual manner but it is definitely not indetectible in my opinion.

While I value the suggestion, I am not going to "pony up" to get the DVD. :rolleyes:

However, the link that Bones supplied clearly tells me what I need to know about the "Reynolds" technique. In my opinion there are much better false shuffles out there and my previous statements about the Zarrow remain unchanged.

I think this technique would be okay while disarmingly shuffling the cards during a magic trick presentation, but in a game with observant players for worthwhile money...??? Good luck with that.

Then one might have to "pony up" for some hospital bills. :eek:
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Jul 8, 2018 02:11AM)
[quote]On Jul 7, 2018, Mr. Bones wrote:
Uhhh, it's Steve Reynolds ... so "yes" the original order was maintained, and "yes" his Zarrow shuffle is essentially invisible.
[/quote]

To keep in the patronizing tone of the quoted message:

Interesting use of the adverb "essentially". It is or it is not invisible. In this instance it is not, unless you close your eyes while it's being performed. Some of the Zarrow tells are glaringly visible. However, some people will let themselves be deceived when they should know better. There are a couple of cognitive biases at play here.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jul 8, 2018 11:09AM)
What do player's notice?

I think the Zarrow works in many instances because most people are not really that observant, only peripherally so. Let me digress.

Some people are naturally "critically" observant and closely watch all that occurs. However, the vast majority of players simply don't notice most things, unless they are glaringly obvious, even things that may be significant.

For example, many years ago I was playing in a poker tournament at the Orleans in Vegas. A young female dealer came to the table to relieve the existing dealer. She shuffled the cards with RRSRC but her riffle shuffle "meshing" was almost non-existent. In fact, about 5 or 6 cards actually were mixed with each riffle using her light-handed shuffle. Of course, I noticed this right away but it [i]appeared[/i] no one else did. I did not think she was engaging in any chicanery but simply shuffled that way because it was easier to square the deck after the riffle. (Doing a nice clean riffle shuffle with plastic cards makes squaring the deck more difficult.)

For someone who is practiced at remembering long strings of cards, it proved to be somewhat of an advantage for me from time to time, and I enjoyed her way of shuffling until a new relief dealer came in.

However, the point being is that apparently no one else noticed...at least in this specific instance. I would surmise about 5% of players are critically observant in average sized games. Of course, in the bigger games you will run into some pretty sharp hombres and if you are working that type game, you had better know what you are doing.

As far as the Reynold's Zarrow shuffle goes, it can be greatly improved (as well as all Zarrow's can be made more deceptive), by using Cagliostro's brilliant blindfolded deck technique mentioned in the first post of this thread.

(Sigh...Apparently modesty is not one of my virtues.) :cool:
Message: Posted by: Mr. Bones (Jul 8, 2018 01:11PM)
[quote]On Jul 8, 2018, Claudio wrote:

Interesting use of the adverb "essentially".[/quote]

Yes, I used "essentially" in order to not exclude the pedantic magicians who from time to time tend to hang out in this forum, the ones who would go out of their way to yell [b][i]"I SAW IT - I SAW IT!"[/i][/b]

Seems like some folks here need to go back and re-read [b]Road Hustler[/b] ... or at the very least buff up on their Erdnase and learn how to [i]"change the moment"[/i].
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jul 8, 2018 03:49PM)
I should clarify the very important distinction between observing something peripherally and critically when it comes to the Zarrow, and to magic and card table artifice in general.

Specifically concerning the Zarrow Shuffle, most people will observe it on a peripheral basis. That is the [i]feeling[/i], or uncritical or casual observation that the deck is being shuffled. For deceptive purposes, this shuffling is usually part of something else occurring simultaneously. For example, in a demo magic trick the performer is using patter to describe what is occurring or about to occur and at the same time casually Zarrow shuffling the cards. The shuffle itself is not the focal point, it is an "aside" and perhaps a small or perhaps psychologically insignificant part as to what is occurring or about to happen.

This same principle applies to magic tricks in general and to card hustling and scamming also. Many things are occurring, and the "gaffing" move or procedure is only a part and possibly an unimportant or insignificant part of the whole. Therefore, the vast majority of people will observe that element on a peripheral, casual or non-critical level, or perhaps not observe it at all.

However, a critical observer, especially a suspicious critical observer, will also experience everything in totality but also carefully observe specific elements, like how well the deck is actually being shuffled. This type person will not be deceived by the Zarrow. He may not know what a Zarrow Shuffle is, but he will at least realize something is not quite right with the shuffle. If he is somewhat knowledgeable and/or has seen some exposes on TV, on YouTube or is generally suspicious and careful when playing cards, he will know or at least suspect the shuffle is false, or perhaps somewhat "strange" or at least not entirely legitimate.

For the Zarrow to be at all deceptive when doing magic or demo tricks, this principle must be present to give the greatest probability of success with the move. In a fast action card game for serious money, for the Zarrow to have the greatest chance of success I would suggest that an accomplish light a fire in the other end of the room while the shuffle is being used.

I would say that lighting a fire in the other end of the room is similar to blindfolding the deck. Both techniques are equally deceptive and represent the epitome of clever card table chicanery. :rolleyes:
Message: Posted by: Mr. Bones (Jul 8, 2018 09:25PM)
I guess in the final analysis, our friend C.R.D. Sharper certainly wouldn't use a Zarrow Shuffle to control a small slug of cards ... what with the concept of a full deck false shuffle largely a magicians conceit, and not something our crooked friend would lose sleep over trying to figure out.
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Jul 9, 2018 02:37AM)
[quote]On Jul 7, 2018, Cagliostro wrote:

While I value the suggestion, I am not going to "pony up" to get the DVD. :rolleyes:
[/quote]

I helped produce the DVD. I have 700 of them in my closet downstairs. Send me your address and I'll drop you one.

As far as false shuffles like the Zarrow fooling serious card players. Is a game with pots of $30K, 40K or 60K "serious" enough for you? I personally sat in the room while Rod dealt games at that level in 2010. He used his tabled faro (ala Sharps and Flats), strip outs and the occasional Zarrow to set briefs. No one said a word. He crushed the game including demolishing a main event bracelet winner.

Cag, you have some weird issue with equating big money with knowledgeable players. When are you going to accept the fact that that concept DIED about 15 years ago with the poker boom and the rise of the internet poker scene? We have an ENTIRE generation of phenomenal poker players (who've played 100 times the hands that Doyle Brunson has played in his life) but that who have never seen a false shuffle in real life. These players are playing for very serious money, I assure you. But they can't spot cheating moves based solely on their dollar amounts. You simply CANNOT, I repeat, CANNOT equate big money and poker knowledge with cheating knowledge. The internet poker boom destroyed that idea.

Players may or may not be able to spot cheating moves, but it has NOTHING to do with the dollar amounts being wagered. I'm a $1-2 HE player at best, but good luck getting a false shuffle by me. Meanwhile those Internet whiz-kids that showed up in S. California on Dec 29th, 2010 with $100K each in brown grocery sacks went home unhappy.

You know a lot about gambling and cheating, but on this issue your knowledge is past its expiration date. You're perpetuating a myth. Stop it.

Jason
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Jul 9, 2018 11:58AM)
I love the zarrow. I really do have an indetectable zarrow. I gave up the stripout shyffles some time ago.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jul 9, 2018 12:43PM)
[quote]On Jul 9, 2018, cbharrelson wrote:
I love the zarrow. I really do have an indetectable zarrow. I gave up the stripout shyffles some time ago. [/quote]

Is that why you have two broken arms? :goof:
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jul 9, 2018 01:45PM)
[quote]On Jul 9, 2018, JasonEngland wrote:

As far as false shuffles like the Zarrow fooling serious card players. Is a game with pots of $30K, 40K or 60K "serious" enough for you? I personally sat in the room while Rod dealt games at that level in 2010. He used his tabled faro (ala Sharps and Flats), strip outs and the occasional Zarrow to set briefs. No one said a word. He crushed the game including demolishing a main event bracelet winner. [/quote]

Yes, those are good sized games and yes I have also used these techniques years ago. This was when private big money games were prevalent. I have often used the techniques described, among others, even an occasional Zarrow to set in a brief. Butt shuffles, both tabled and against the table techniques (called faros by magicians) and strip out shuffles, when properly executed and cleverly employed usually stand on their own. One has to be pretty knowledgeable to nail this when done capably but from time to time someone [i]will[/i] nail what happening, no matter how well executed. Usually they are smart enough not challenge or say anything immediately but will quietly get you aside and ask for their money back. No fuss, no muss. You just give them their money back and shake their hand. But these games I'm referring to were not card room games but private games, sometimes with a center dealer and sometimes not.

By the way, when setting in a brief in one of several ways, I have used [i]one[/i] "Zarrow" as part of a larger sequence of shuffling but had much more cover than the standard Zarrow when I did so...actually covered from all angles. It was an "aside" as part of a sequence and using grift sense [i]critically important[/i] in these instances. However, my comments on the Zarrow, as [i]usually murdered by card enthusiasts[/i], remains unchanged.

[quote]Cag, you have some weird issue with equating big money with knowledgeable players. [/quote]

Perhaps I was not quite clear on this. Of course, one can encounter knowledgeable players in any game, but...when you get into big money [i]cash[/i] games in a casino or card room format, percentage wise you tend to encounter better players as a group and percentage wise tend to more likely run up against a "sharper" player. You will also encounter players who are not knowledgeable, in fact some can be complete chumps but that does not change the main premise. In fact, you only need one sharp player in a game to cause trouble, even if everyone else is a chump. But when I talk about big money games keep in mind I am also referring to casino games - against surveillance. Also far as actual standard card moves go, the moves we talk about on this BB, for the most part are little used nowadays in [i] big money games on a professional level. [/i] I thought I was clear on that and stand by that statement.

I also question how much experience one can glean by playing in games with $1 - $2 blinds. I don't know any pro who would try to beat a game like that and doubt one would encounter 'professional' cheating there. However, good paper and/or PROFESSIONALLY executed collusion, by [i]very good players[/i], in big cash games is what I am referring to. So, maybe Jason can't be fooled by that but sadly I have...and more than once I might add, before I eventually caught on.

I should also add that impressing or fooling someone with a card move in singularity or fooling someone with a gambling demo which incorporates some magic chicanery as part of a routine to entertain, is not the same as getting the money without detection in a game. It is not even close.

[quote]You know a lot about gambling and cheating, but on this issue your knowledge is past its expiration date. You're perpetuating a myth. Stop it. [/quote]

Hopefully the above comments clarified my terminology this issue somewhat.
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Jul 9, 2018 02:20PM)
Thanks for the clarification, but I still think your thinking is behind the times.

Line up a 10,000 poker players with bankrolls north of $250,000 and I'd be willing to bet that the majority of them made their bankrolls online and NOT in brick and mortar card rooms. Thus, in this day and age serious money players are actually LESS likely to have been exposed to advanced sleight-of-hand, not more likely. (The same could be said of paper and electronics I guess.)

Your blanket statements (clarification that you're speaking mainly of casino games acknowledged) that more money = an increased likelihood of being able to detect cheating was absolutely true in just about all cases 15+ years ago. Those higher stakes games were where we found the most experienced players and ALL of that experience had to come from live play.

These days it just isn't true.

Jason
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Jul 9, 2018 05:38PM)
[quote]On Jul 9, 2018, JasonEngland wrote:

Line up 10,000 poker players with bankrolls north of $250,000 and I'd be willing to bet that the majority of them made their bankrolls online and NOT in brick and mortar card rooms. Thus, in this day and age serious money players are actually LESS likely to have been exposed to advanced sleight-of-hand, not more likely...[/quote]

Your point is well taken and many, possibly even most play online. I don't know. However, there are brick and mortar poker rooms all over the US, so I think the statistics, comparing one with the other would be difficult to obtain.

For example, I occasionally play on the WSOP site in the US. This site is owned by Caesar's World, was originally only available to Nevada residents and recently added players from Delaware and New Jersey to the mix. [i]No one but current verifiable residents of NV, DE and NJ are allowed to play legally online in the US.[/i] Residents from the other 47 States cannot legally do so. Quite frankly the activity on these three WSOP sites combined is not very good. (Of course, residents from other countries can play on non - US sites in different locations outside the US, and there may be more action on those sites, but I can't comment on that.)

The online games available to US residents on the combined 3 WSOP sites in the US really have less than desirable action in my opinion.

The cash games are mostly small-time games. Right now, at 1:13 PST Tues. July 9 2018 the largest cash game available is 25-50 cent blinds NLHE. This is follows by lesser games down to 1-2 cents NLHE games. So, we are not seeing much big action here. Of course, tournaments are considerably larger with buy ins from 0$ (freerolls) up to say $500 in general. (The first prize in this particular tourney is $17,000. Not bad.) Also, cash games can be much bigger depending on the day and time of day.

The point is, these players and many more in order to play in bigger cash games, either now or later, have to go to brick and mortar facilities. Look at all the side games during the WSOP. And while most players would not notice if an elephant walked across the table, [i]percentage wise[/i] there are enough that recognize common moves and therein lies the rub. Hustling in today's world is not as easy as it used to be.

I think the licensed B&M facilities, which all have surveillance probably do a fairly good job, but not a great job, of protecting their games. However, the format of these games and video surveillance, limit a certain amount of sleight of hand chicanery. It simply is not applicable anymore.

Playing the casino table games against hi-tech security. That requires a different level of capability and the common methods generally just don't apply, that is if you don't want to get caught and arrested.

Usually old-time sleight of hand for the most part is obsolete or doesnít apply in large part to the games being played on any professional level.

So maybe I am behind the times, maybe not. Either way it really does not matter to me much anymore.

WHY?

[b]I already got mine!!![/b] :yippee:
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Jul 10, 2018 08:58AM)
My friend cag my arms aren,t broken. I also play online poker very well too. original name of texas holdem was holdem and !@#$** .
Message: Posted by: cbharrelson (Jul 10, 2018 09:13AM)
Jason my friend you keep up the good work. you are doing a lot to preserve an art form.
Message: Posted by: Thomas Gilroy (Aug 9, 2018 08:01PM)
[quote]On Mar 9, 2018, CharliePA wrote:
[quote]On Mar 21, 2017, Thomas Gilroy wrote:

I don't think that you could focus the attention of an observer on a Zarrow shuffle and reasonably expect that they would not notice what is happening. However, in the context of magic performance, with suitable misdirection, I think the move has merit. In that context, it is the presentation or patter that is deceptive, not the move.

I think the move can go unseen, but I don't think it is invisible. In this respect, I think it's similar to a classic pass. When attention is drawn to the move, I think the move is obvious. A move can have value to card magic and not be deceptive.[/quote]

How can a thread can be started in such statement?
Very few moves or techniques are "deceptive" when isolated. Palms, top changes, most false shuffles...
A magician is NEEDED to add something to it and make them really deceptive: like timing, misdirection, etcetera.

Gentlemen, I've seen magicians staring at a spread 25 card packet made of 5 sets of the same 5 cards and NOT noticing it, just because the "frame". I was fooled also, of course.
We SEE a zarrow because we are EXPECTING a zarrow. And that's why sometimes the most simple principle fools magicians. Because our mind is already on what we THINK it's going to happen.

OK, this is The gambling spot, but I needed to say this. [/quote]

Maybe I failed to articulate my meaning clearly. I'll try again.

The majority of moves, when isolated are not particular deceptive, and require misdirection to go unnoticed, even with the best possible handling. Again, for the majority of moves, I don't feel you can focus attention of a lay observer on the move and expect that they would not notice what is happening. Some moves are specifically problematic. That doesn't mean those moves can't be valuable, or that I don't recognize their merit.

I'd wager that ugly moves have gone unnoticed in games, and I know that ugly moves go unnoticed by magic performance all the time.

Other sleights more closely resemble fair movements and are thus more deceptive in and of themselves, and when performed competently, I believe you could focus a lay observers attention on the move and still deceive them. There are a few, specific handlings of select moves that are so deceptive in and of themselves that I genuinely believe you could focus the attention of a trained observer on the move and the move itself can still be deceptive. Consider Richard Turner's sweep second deal for example. The front push-off second deal is deceptive move in and of itself, and when he performs his specific method, the move is nearly invisible without a slow-motion camera. I've seen push-off double lifts performed with similar expert method and performance also.

Other movements are completely fair, but some prior knowledge makes the outcome predictable and repeatable. For example, if a few cards on the top or bottom of a deck are known, an RRSR sequence ending with a one-handed cut can be performed that ensures those cards will not appear in the next hand, as maximum of 26 cards is dealt in a round of Hold'em (9x2 hole cards + 5 community cards + 3 burn cards). That's a significant advantage to anybody who actually plays. Try it, it's shockingly easy. There's no difficulty in making this look deceptive, there are no moves being done. All you have to do is maintain your usual demeanor and it will fly.

I feel that the Zarrow has problems at a fundamental level. Expert method and exceptional performance, as in the case of Steve Reynolds' Z, minimize the severity of those problems and increase the deceptiveness of the move itself. Jason has mentioned that Steve can perform the move so well that he is sometimes unable to determine whether the shuffle was true or false, and I believe him. Even then, I still believe that the push-through is inherently a more deceptive move than the Z; a similar level of deceptiveness can be achieved with a wider variety of handlings and less expert performance.

As for only seeing a Zarrow because I expect a Zarrow, well this is just factually not how it was for me. The first time I ever saw a Triumph effect, I noticed the Zarrow, even though I didn't know what it was called at the time. The effect specifically directs attention to the act of shuffling face up cards into face down cards, that is, it specifically draws attention to the Zarrow. The Zarrow was performed well and the effect was presented expertly, and I was able to reverse engineer the shuffle and the effect in minutes. If Steve Reynolds' Z was the Zarrow I had seen then, maybe it would have flown right past me. I believe that any competently push-through with a card transfer would have stumped me.
Message: Posted by: Taylor Haws (Sep 3, 2018 09:11AM)
Brad Tobin makes the Zarrow shuffle look pretty darn good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3I387JoYaU&t=6s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juZPbHIU9i8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q60pDt7QVI
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Sep 3, 2018 06:00PM)
[quote]On Sep 3, 2018, Taylor Haws wrote:
Brad Tobin makes the Zarrow shuffle look pretty darn good. [/quote]

Yes, he does a much better job than most with this shuffle. He uses continuous shuffles and eliminates the "slip-cut" action which in my opinion is one of the glaring problems with the Zarrow. The shuffle looks fast and natural and he has given some though and practice in its execution.

However, the video is shot from a very favorable position, i.e., up close and looking down at an angle. I analyze these moves in the context of how they would look at other angles across a card table. Dropping the camera down a little to see the move "head on" so to speak and further back would accentuate the Zarrow shuffles weaknesses much more IMO.

However, he does a nice job with the shuffle and no doubt in a demo and magic trick context it would work well. That is the context it was designed for.

In a gambling scenario, if can be used occasionally and in specific instances but overall for card table use, there are better false shuffle. Also, it is rare to have to control the entire deck in a gambling situation.
Message: Posted by: Taylor Haws (Sep 3, 2018 07:07PM)
Here's a video of the same guy doing the push through. I agree that it's more visually deceptive, but I think that the zarrow shuffle is a more "interesting" false shuffle, which is why magicians like it so much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlBS03PIj7E

my personal favorite false shuffle is the False Rosetta Shuffle. I had to go back and watch the shuffle at least ten times before I figured it out.

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

being a magician, I have no idea how good it would be in a gambling scenario. my guess is that it would work in loose games without any procedure, but I have no experience in that field.
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Sep 3, 2018 07:46PM)
[quote]On Sep 3, 2018, Taylor Haws wrote:

Here's a video of the same guy doing the push through. I agree that it's more visually deceptive, but I think that the Zarrow shuffle is a more "interesting" false shuffle, which is why magicians like it so much.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlBS03PIj7E

my personal favorite false shuffle is the False Rosetta Shuffle. I had to go back and watch the shuffle at least ten times before I figured it out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyjvdbGVOls [/quote]

He is a skillful guy and does nice work. The push-through looks very good.

I think magicians like the Zarrow so much because it is easy for them to learn. Not necessarily easy to do well, but easy to master well enough to use for their purposes.

The False Rosetta Shuffle. Never saw that one before and not too hard to figure out if you know it is false to begin with. Cute though. I liked it. LOL
Message: Posted by: Last Laugh (Sep 3, 2018 08:08PM)
The spread half way through really adds to the deceptiveness of the Rosetta shuffle. I believe it was created by Lennart Green, btw.

Thanks for sharing those videos, the guy is really good.
Message: Posted by: Taylor Haws (Sep 3, 2018 09:39PM)
If anyone thinks that the zarrow shuffle cannot be invisible and undetectable, I recommend that you check out the following video by Jack Carpenter where he shows you how to do a PERFECT zarrow shuffle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUkUsuQ4GN4
Message: Posted by: Last Laugh (Sep 3, 2018 10:04PM)
Lol, yeah absolutely undiscernable
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Sep 3, 2018 10:04PM)
With the kind of cover Carpenter uses, why mess with the Zarrow. Just pop in a cooler instead.
Message: Posted by: Thomas Gilroy (Sep 4, 2018 08:09AM)
I hadn't heard of Brad Tobin before. I think the Zarrow he demonstrates is excellent. I'm sure it would have fooled me had it been the first Zarrow I'd seen.

I don't think he's actually riffling the corners together at all before he sets the step. That would eliminate the need for to undo the weave, and I think it's a totally valid handling. I also appreciate that his shuffle uses a covered "riffle" and a more open square up, which is more inline with card table procedure.

Incidentally, I recently bought Steve Forte's Poker Protection, and reading through the section on false shuffles and his section on the Zarrow specifically, I can see that the move has greater utility in cheating than I had acknowledged. I had seen the Zarrow as being a useful method for preserving a large slug when riffle stacking, or when setting a brief for the final one handed cut. However, if all players at the table are working with the dealer to take off bad beat jackpot, the Zarrow would be useful there too. To any overhead camera, the shuffle would look legitimate, and the players would be acting as blockers against floor staff. This also reminds me of use of the Sky shuffle that Jason England discussed on one of his online lectures.

The card rooms I've played in haven't had bad beat jackpots, so I hadn't really considered these scenarios.
Message: Posted by: Taylor Haws (Sep 4, 2018 01:19PM)
[quote]On Sep 4, 2018, Thomas Gilroy wrote:

I don't think he's actually riffling the corners together at all before he sets the step. That would eliminate the need for to undo the weave, and I think it's a totally valid handling.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that he is accualy riffling them together, but just barely.
Message: Posted by: rnaviaux (Sep 5, 2018 11:42AM)
I recently met a retired professional poker player. Had a chance to do some effects for him. He didn't catch any false shuffles, etc. Admittedly, this was a series of 1 so means little. But I was curious what his knowledge level would be. On the flip side his understanding of the math involved in poker was way over my head.

I have a theory that if there is money involved then someone is trying to cheat. Seems like a good rule of thumb.

I was quite taken by a recent lecture by Mr. England (At the Table Live Lecture series)in which he mentioned that once you are familiar with the Zarrow then it will no longer fool you. I think that's really the crux of the "Undetectible Zarrow." You can only make it undetectable to someone who is unaware of the technique.
Message: Posted by: Jerry (Sep 5, 2018 05:24PM)
Rnaviaux: "You can only make it undetectable to someone who is unaware of the technique".

You present an excellent point.
Perhaps the reason this shuffle is so obvious to some, is because they know the method.
Selective attention, the "Invisible Gorilla" is an example of this.

I am really would like to have poker game (with no money involved) and use "magician's technique" to put this theory to test and see what if it would get detected.
Message: Posted by: rnaviaux (Sep 6, 2018 02:35PM)
[quote]On Sep 5, 2018, Jerry wrote:
Rnaviaux: "You can only make it undetectable to someone who is unaware of the technique".

You present an excellent point.
Perhaps the reason this shuffle is so obvious to some, is because they know the method.
Selective attention, the "Invisible Gorilla" is an example of this.

I am really would like to have poker game (with no money involved) and use "magician's technique" to put this theory to test and see what if it would get detected. [/quote]


I only wish I had come up with that point on my own:) I remember working diligently on my zarrow so my magic buddies would say they couldn't see it. But they always did. Never occurred to me it just might not be possible to make it invisible.
Message: Posted by: KardSharp89 (Oct 18, 2018 04:14PM)
[quote]On Jul 9, 2018, JasonEngland wrote:
[quote]On Jul 7, 2018, Cagliostro wrote:

While I value the suggestion, I am not going to "pony up" to get the DVD. :rolleyes:
[/quote]

I helped produce the DVD. I have 700 of them in my closet downstairs. Send me your address and I'll drop you one.

As far as false shuffles like the Zarrow fooling serious card players. Is a game with pots of $30K, 40K or 60K "serious" enough for you? I personally sat in the room while Rod dealt games at that level in 2010. He used his tabled faro (ala Sharps and Flats), strip outs and the occasional Zarrow to set briefs. No one said a word. He crushed the game including demolishing a main event bracelet winner.



Cag, you have some weird issue with equating big money with knowledgeable players. When are you going to accept the fact that that concept DIED about 15 years ago with the poker boom and the rise of the internet poker scene? We have an ENTIRE generation of phenomenal poker players (who've played 100 times the hands that Doyle Brunson has played in his life) but that who have never seen a false shuffle in real life. These players are playing for very serious money, I assure you. But they can't spot cheating moves based solely on their dollar amounts. You simply CANNOT, I repeat, CANNOT equate big money and poker knowledge with cheating knowledge. The internet poker boom destroyed that idea.

Players may or may not be able to spot cheating moves, but it has NOTHING to do with the dollar amounts being wagered. I'm a $1-2 HE player at best, but good luck getting a false shuffle by me. Meanwhile those Internet whiz-kids that showed up in S. California on Dec 29th, 2010 with $100K each in brown grocery sacks went home unhappy.

You know a lot about gambling and cheating, but on this issue your knowledge is past its expiration date. You're perpetuating a myth. Stop it.

Jason [/quote]
Jason is 100% correct. When you talk high stakes... I've played in some of the biggest private games in the world. (Jason knows this)...and I can assure you..these young internet kids like Durr etc.. wouldn't be able to spot a one handed Shank being dealt by Captain Hook!. Now...some of the older guys...that's a different story. But most of the players playing in games that have a few million dollars on the table don't even know how to shuffle the cards because they've never played in a dealers choice game! ...like ever!
- Houston Curtis
Here is a fun old false shuffle from Buckley's Card Control... I will neither confirm, nor deny that I have personally used this to deal a 5 player hand of SHOWDOWN at the end of the night with each player putting up 10k. Worked like a charm. https://youtu.be/cZb33ADoku4
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Oct 18, 2018 04:38PM)
Yes, that is the V shuffle, one of the first shuffles I ever learned right after the Erdnase shuffles. It can be employed effectively as shown or the square up can be done with a little more cover than demonstrated.
Message: Posted by: KardSharp89 (Oct 18, 2018 07:20PM)
I purposely showed less cover from the POV angle so people could see what was happening. The way I do it at the end of the video uses about as much cover as the move needs in my opinion. It's all about the square up. But my point being...even an old move like this will fly right past these young players today. So...a well done Zarrow will definitely get the money in todays games...especially if there is a center dealer (which most of the big games have now). And don't get me started on chip heisting. In the right game, its like giving the dealer a key to the bank vault and telling him just to lock up on his way out!
Message: Posted by: KardSharp89 (Oct 18, 2018 07:26PM)
[quote]On Sep 5, 2018, rnaviaux wrote:
I recently met a retired professional poker player. Had a chance to do some effects for him. He didn't catch any false shuffles, etc. Admittedly, this was a series of 1 so means little. But I was curious what his knowledge level would be. On the flip side his understanding of the math involved in poker was way over my head.

I have a theory that if there is money involved then someone is trying to cheat. Seems like a good rule of thumb.

I was quite taken by a recent lecture by Mr. England (At the Table Live Lecture series)in which he mentioned that once you are familiar with the Zarrow then it will no longer fool you. I think that's really the crux of the "Undetectible Zarrow." You can only make it undetectable to someone who is unaware of the technique. [/quote]
I agree with you completely! A good example of this is the marked deck by DMZ. (The DMZ Elites)...a genius marking system for doing magic tricks etc. But once you know the key, you can never "unlearn it".
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Oct 19, 2018 02:24PM)
I guess I should address this post by Jason England as it was re-posted by KardSharp89. (Gee, I hope these two guys are not colluding against me on this.) :hmm:

[quote]On Jul 9, 2018, JasonEngland wrote:

As far as false shuffles like the Zarrow fooling serious card players. Is a game with pots of $30K, 40K or 60K "serious" enough for you? I personally sat in the room while Rod dealt games at that level in 2010. He used his tabled faro (ala Sharps and Flats), strip outs and the occasional Zarrow to set briefs. No one said a word. He crushed the game including demolishing a main event bracelet winner. [/quote]

Okay, regarding the Zarrow shuffle, my original post on this thread is as follows:

[quote]On Feb 7, 2017, Cagliostro wrote:

I have mentioned a few times that the Zarrow Shuffle [b]in its original form[/b] is one of the worst card table moves imaginable. Flawed on several levels it is routinely murdered by magicians and demonstrators as they fool themselves [i]looking down[/i] at their hands as they perform the shuffle. [/quote]

Note that I specifically said "in its original form" and I stand by that. It can be made much more deceptive, usually by eliminating the slip cut and covering the cards more on the square up. I have used it myself quite a few times to shuffle in a brief, but I know from experience [i] where, when and against whom[/i] to use it. This precautionary caveat applies to ANY move or ploy. It is called [i]grift sense[/i].

Also, Rod the Hop was a real pro and knew when and where he could get his moves on. That is critical when moving. Your anecdotal story about him above relates to a specific occasion or occasions where you were an observer and he played many more times and in many more games than you observed, so you don't really know how many times he got specific moves on and how many times he had to back off from doing so. Even with that being said, he still was caught from time to time - everyone who cheats over a period of time will be regardless of how good he is.

[quote] Cag, you have some weird issue with equating big money with knowledgeable players. When are you going to accept the fact that that concept DIED about 15 years ago with the poker boom and the rise of the internet poker scene? We have an ENTIRE generation of phenomenal poker players (who've played 100 times the hands that Doyle Brunson has played in his life) but that who have never seen a false shuffle in real life. These players are playing for very serious money, I assure you. But they can't spot cheating moves based solely on their dollar amounts. You simply CANNOT, I repeat, CANNOT equate big money and poker knowledge with cheating knowledge. The internet poker boom destroyed that idea. [/quote]

I agree with that but only in part. There have always been a lot of unformed fish "swimming around" in the poker pool. Taking the entire poker spectrum of payers, most would not see an elephant walk across the table, regardless of the money size of the game. So maybe 1%, 5%, 10% (take your pick) of players would spot card moves in a cash game or tournament. My point is, GENERALLY you are more likely to have someone in the game that can spot chicanery in higher no-limit cash games than you will in 1-$2 cash games simply because the more experienced players will gravitate to higher limit games. Also, you will tend to have better players at higher limits than in the small time games.

Sure, you might have someone very knowledgeable in a $1-$2 ante cash game, but so what? One only needs one player out of the entire player spectrum who plays over time in a specific game to spot something. That does not mean there are not a lot of fish in higher limit games. There are and thankfully so. Some of the biggest players know very little, or almost nothing. The reason I talk about higher limit games is because those are the games I played in. They also tend to be harder to beat because one tends to encounter better players at the higher levels...GENERALLY SPEAKING.

Also, in large part players do not have to be as knowledgeable nowadays as they are playing with house dealers in a casino environment protected by the ever-present cameras. Whether or not they could spot seconds, bottoms, hopping the cut, a Zarrow shuffle, etc. is really not that applicable except in unique situations. Much of these moves are not just 15 years behind the times, they are almost ancient history. [i]Other methods are used more effectively in today's casino and professional environment. [/i] So whether or not a big money player can be fooled by a false shuffle or second deal on a practical level is irrelevant. Will they ever encounter these common moves in the casino dealt or online games they play in. Not likely. Fooling them with these old time moves for the most part proves nothing. As I said, [i] other methods are used nowadays, of necessity. [/i]

[quote]You know a lot about gambling and cheating, but on this issue your knowledge is past its expiration date. You're perpetuating a myth. Stop it. [/quote]

"Stop it"??? :pout:

Hopefully the above explanation clarifies my thinking on the subject. :cool:
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Oct 19, 2018 02:37PM)
[quote]On Oct 18, 2018, KardSharp89 wrote:

...A good example of this is the marked deck by DMZ. (The DMZ Elites)...a genius marking system for doing magic tricks etc. But once you know the key, you can never "unlearn it". [/quote]

Caveat. Use great care if cheating with these cards in the meeting rooms on the DMZ between North and South Korea. The players are not very knowledgeable, but if caught... :eek:
Message: Posted by: JasonEngland (Oct 19, 2018 03:21PM)
Cag,

I know you get it. I just take issue with your choice of words sometimes.

It boils down to this: Lots of brick and mortar and/or private play and exposure to cheating moves = more likely to spot cheating moves.

Doesn't matter if your BM or private play was $1-2 or $1k - 2k.

And yes, 20+ years ago there was a 100% correlation between high-stakes games and experience in BM/private games. Internet poker was just beginning in 1998, so of course the correlation was 100%. It's been dropping ever since.

Today, that correlation is a TINY FRACTION of what it once was.

Pick at random a poker player playing $1k -2k HE in a casino game today. I'll bet you even money he made his bankroll online (and still plays there if he can).

That's a very safe bet for me.

And if he did make that money online, then he wasn't being exposed to manipulative cheating techniques.

Today, it isn't the amount of money that should scare potential cheats thinking of moving in a private game, it's the age of the players! Show me a guy that's in his 70s that's been playing for 40 years and I'll bet that guy has seen a few things! Him I'm worried about. Show me a guy with a million dollar bankroll and I'm not as concerned. Chances are EXCELLENT that he built up that million sitting in his underwear.

Hopefully the above clarifies my thinking on the subject.

Jason
Message: Posted by: Cagliostro (Oct 19, 2018 03:42PM)
@jason: We really have no disagreement here.

Regarding my choice of words, well...I'm still working on my English...I'll get it down eventually.