The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Easy full-deck false shuffle? -- Hunter is driving me nuts! :) (45 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next]
Kjellstrom
View Profile
Inner circle
Sweden, Scandinavia, Europe
5134 Posts

Profile of Kjellstrom
This false overhand shuffle looks very good, must be a good shuffle for stack workers:

The Combination Shuffle by Ben Earl (false overhand shuffle)
https://www.murphysmagic.com/product.aspx?id=69824
ipe
View Profile
Elite user
489 Posts

Profile of ipe
Quote:
On May 1, 2021, Nikodemus wrote:
Quote:
On Jan 13, 2021, ipe wrote:
While playing with the Underhand Shuffle and the Greek Shuffle, I realized we can combine both, thus obtaining a new shuffle that is easier then the Underhand Shuffle and possibly more deceptive than the Greek Shuffle. Let's call it "Greek Underhand Shuffle". Smile


Nice!

Steve Beam has an "Underhand Shuffle" which is completely different from Dan Garrett's "Underhanded Overhand Shuffle". Steve's is in effect a series of cuts. I presume it must be Steve's that ipe refers to?

Hi Nikodemus,
yes, my proposal is mixing the Beam's "Underhand Shuffle" with the "Greek Shuffle". Let me know if it is not clear how to do that.
What would a real mindreader do?
Nikodemus
View Profile
Special user
839 Posts

Profile of Nikodemus
Hi ipe

A while back I bought Steve Beam's Underhand Shuffle booklet, because I kept coming across positive references here on the Café, but had no idea how it worked.
To be honest I found it too awkward to persevere with. And Steve B says it is not really intended to pass for a proper overhand shuffle; more a casual "mix" to be done on the off-beat.
Maybe I will come back to it when I am a more advanced magician (one day!)

I liked the idea of doing the Optical Shuffle with the Dan Garrett variation (referenced earlier in this thread I think. This means you throw off to the front (twice) in order to end up exactly where you started, rather than having to throw off to the back.
BUT I find it difficult to make the second Optical Shuffle (after exchanging the packets) as convincing as the first.
Luckily it works really well with the Greek Shuffle for the second half instead.

In fact the Greek Shuffle seems a really nice way to finish any combination where you need to move the rear packet to the front.
Nikodemus
View Profile
Special user
839 Posts

Profile of Nikodemus
Regarding DRY HANDS -
I read a suggestion on another thread to have a cold drink while you are performing. Condensation forms on the outside of the glass. You can secretly moisten your fingertips just by picking up the drink before performing tricky sleights.
ipe
View Profile
Elite user
489 Posts

Profile of ipe
Quote:
On May 6, 2021, Nikodemus wrote:
Hi ipe

A while back I bought Steve Beam's Underhand Shuffle booklet, because I kept coming across positive references here on the Café, but had no idea how it worked.
To be honest I found it too awkward to persevere with. And Steve B says it is not really intended to pass for a proper overhand shuffle; more a casual "mix" to be done on the off-beat.
Maybe I will come back to it when I am a more advanced magician (one day!)

Hi Nikodemus,
the Underhand Shuffle can be tricky to perform correctly and deceptively but the Greek Underhand Shuffle is very very easy. It is very easy because the outjog issue is solved. Moreover the problem of speed and rhythm is solved too because the interlacing and waving movement from the Greek Shuffle. Trust me, if I can do this smoothly while talking without looking at the hands, anyone can do that. Smile

Quote:
On May 6, 2021, Nikodemus wrote:
I liked the idea of doing the Optical Shuffle with the Dan Garrett variation (referenced earlier in this thread I think. This means you throw off to the front (twice) in order to end up exactly where you started, rather than having to throw off to the back.

I agree. I don't like the unnatural move to throw it to the back.

Quote:
On May 6, 2021, Nikodemus wrote:
BUT I find it difficult to make the second Optical Shuffle (after exchanging the packets) as convincing as the first.

Did you understand why you find it difficult the second time? It should be the same as the first one.

Quote:
On May 6, 2021, Nikodemus wrote:
Luckily it works really well with the Greek Shuffle for the second half instead.

In fact the Greek Shuffle seems a really nice way to finish any combination where you need to move the rear packet to the front.

I agree. Another option is finishing the shuffle without rearranging the deck as in the original configuration, but instead placing it on the table with some cards injogged. An then cutting the cards. The best false cut is a legitime legitimate cut. Smile
What would a real mindreader do?
Bob G
View Profile
Inner circle
2525 Posts

Profile of Bob G
I'm interested in this issue too: why is the second optical shuffle harder to make convincing during the Garrett/Farmer shuffle? I can't make either convincing yet, but one of Bill Malone's disks has an interesting section about how he does the optical shuffle -- it certainly looks convincing in *his* hands!

Bob
Bob Farmer
View Profile
Elite user
Magic Forest
427 Posts

Profile of Bob Farmer
If you are looking at your hands when doing any false shuffle or cut, you are doing it wrong. Look at the spectators and they will look at you and see the actions in their peripheral vision. If you look at your hands, they will look at your hands.
Nikodemus
View Profile
Special user
839 Posts

Profile of Nikodemus
I look at my hands when I am working on a technique. Once I am happy with it, I progress to practicing without looking (except with a mirror).

The problem I have with the second half of the Optical Underhanded Overhand Shuffle is this -
In a genuine shuffle, as you pull cards off the deck with the left thumb, the packet in your right hand naturally gets a spread-out bevelled look. So I think the optical shuffle should look the same. A neat square block would look wrong.
In the first half of the shuffle it is easy to create this look with the left thumb as you strip off about half the deck.
In the second half of the shuffle, the right index finger position means my left thumb can't reach. So the R hand block is too tidy, and unrealistic in the second half.
I am now experimenting with using the right index finger itself to bevel the cards. It feels a bit odd, but seems to do the trick.

Has anyone else had similar issues?
Nikodemus
View Profile
Special user
839 Posts

Profile of Nikodemus
I have been thinking about this a lot.
I think it's an important basic skill to be able to run single cards, so definitely something to keep working on rather than give up.
But if you have dry hands, maybe a good idea to look for false shuffles that don't rely on running singles. The problem is almost ALL of then do involve precisely that! (eg Dan Fishman - which is very popular).
The only options I can find are -
Optical Shuffle
Bob King (which is based on Erdnase method 1, I think?)

The Erdnase/King one involves genuinely moving packets. They are thrown/pulled to front and back of the deck. (I know some people hate the look of packets thrown to the back, but every false deal has some compromises). I have had a play around with the Erdnase one. Then I found a video on YouTube of the Bob King one. (just a couple more steps). My feeling is it could look good after a LOT of practice - but my attempts just look too awkward.

There are lots of tweaks and variations of the Optical Shuffle. This is what I am now working on.
Also I am thinking about turning my attention to false Riffle Shuffles, and false "messy" shuffles like Charlier(?) This potentially allows you to side-step the problems of overhand shuffles.

Thanks for starting this thread Bob. And to everyone who has contributed advice.
JonHackl
View Profile
Regular user
Western Australia
156 Posts

Profile of JonHackl
Quote:
On May 19, 2021, Nikodemus wrote:
The only options I can find are -
Optical Shuffle
Bob King (which is based on Erdnase method 1, I think?)


I don't mind running singles, but I use the lift shuffle as a full-deck false shuffle. It doesn't involve running cards.
"Magic is the only kind of entertainment where 90% of the audience is trying to ruin it for themselves." - Pete Holmes
Nikodemus
View Profile
Special user
839 Posts

Profile of Nikodemus
Quote:
On May 19, 2021, JonHackl wrote:
I use the lift shuffle as a full-deck false shuffle. It doesn't involve running cards.


I generally think of a Lift shuffle as only partially preserving deck order (i.e genuinely shuffle off to the lifted packet).

Do you mean repeated lifts until you get back to where you started? There is a link somewhere in this thread to a demo by Ekaterina.
This looks very unnatural in my hands.

But there is a version of Optical Shuffle I like that includes a lift. This allows you to finish by throwing off to the front instead of the back (although you do need to throw off to the back first)
ltrblst
View Profile
Loyal user
224 Posts

Profile of ltrblst
Quote:
On May 31, 2021, Nikodemus wrote:
Quote:
On May 19, 2021, JonHackl wrote:
I use the lift shuffle as a full-deck false shuffle. It doesn't involve running cards.


I generally think of a Lift shuffle as only partially preserving deck order (i.e genuinely shuffle off to the lifted packet).

Do you mean repeated lifts until you get back to where you started? There is a link somewhere in this thread to a demo by Ekaterina.
This looks very unnatural in my hands.

But there is a version of Optical Shuffle I like that includes a lift. This allows you to finish by throwing off to the front instead of the back (although you do need to throw off to the back first)


If I'm not mistaken the lift shuffle is a full deck false shuffle used by Elmsley (Continuous Pick-Up Shuffle) and others.

Recently I saw a lot of poor tutorials, the following is a good one:

https://youtu.be/dnWgIpPvv3A

References (see Jason England post):

https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view......81429#17

https://www.conjuringarchive.com/list/category/1630
JonHackl
View Profile
Regular user
Western Australia
156 Posts

Profile of JonHackl
Quote:
On May 31, 2021, Nikodemus wrote:
I generally think of a Lift shuffle as only partially preserving deck order (i.e genuinely shuffle off to the lifted packet).

Do you mean repeated lifts until you get back to where you started? There is a link somewhere in this thread to a demo by Ekaterina.
This looks very unnatural in my hands.


Yes, repeated lifts. If I recall correctly, RRTCM describes the lift shuffle as a top stock control, but in a later trick mentions it can be used for the full deck.

I've seen the Ekat video, but I think she limits to three packets and recommends a slow, steady pace. With practice, you can do more packets and go a bit faster. Also, I think she does that thing with curling the right index finger behind the deck so it keeps the packets separate. I don't do that. My finger lies across the top like in a normal overhand shuffle.
"Magic is the only kind of entertainment where 90% of the audience is trying to ruin it for themselves." - Pete Holmes
Bob G
View Profile
Inner circle
2525 Posts

Profile of Bob G
For some reason I didn't get notified about the additional posts to this thread. So let me say "You're welcome" to Nikodemus, who thanked me for starting the thread. I had no idea it would blossom into such a varied and interesting set of ideas.


A friend on the Café suggested the following method for using the lift shuffle to do a coarse full-deck retention. I haven't practiced it enough yet to make it convincing, but maybe it will help some of you folks. You pull up half to two-thirds of the deck with the right hand and then drop the remaining, "lifted" portion onto the cards in the LH. You've retained the order. If you do this twice (or more, I suppose) in quick succession, you have a nice full-deck false shuffle.


As for running cards, d**n, I still can't do it consistently, even when I do the Hunter Shuffle and run only three cards. It's getting *more* consistent, but still isn't consistent enough. (And I do use lotion, and I do hold the right-hand cards at a steepish angle to those in the left hand.) I'm beginning to think that it's a family curse... Smile
Nikodemus
View Profile
Special user
839 Posts

Profile of Nikodemus
Hi Bob,
I think you are talking about the same shuffle as Jon.
I have seen videos of people doing it really well - but when I do it, it just looks phoney.

I gotta say I totally disagree with Ekat's argument that "most laymen" shuffle badly, so magicians can too. I know there are lots of people who shuffle badly, but there are also lots of ordinary folks who can comfortably shuffle a deck of cards.

I can run cards pretty well, but occasionally I screw up. So I have decided to abandon Hunter as my default false shuffle.
For me, the key goals are -
It must be easy to get pretty good pretty quick.
It must be as error-proof as possible.
I must be able to to it casually without concentration
I must be able to reproduce the overall rhythm, shape & sound of a genuine shuffle.

For me the Optical shuffle (which has several variations, and details) ticks those boxes best.
JonHackl
View Profile
Regular user
Western Australia
156 Posts

Profile of JonHackl
I could be reading him incorrectly, but I think Bob is talking about doing a two-packet lift shuffle, instead of Ekat's three-packet version. I'm down the opposite end. I tend to do about 5 packets in a single false lift shuffle. I think Bob is basically talking about cutting the deck once and then using the lift to restore the cut in the hand, and then doing that sequence more than once so that it looks like a continuous shuffle instead of just a couple cuts.

Anyway, probably this is just one of those well-known times when different techniques suit some of us differently. I'm certainly not trying to dissuade anyone from using optical or Hunter or whatever else. I just wanted to clear up that the lift shuffle can be done for the full deck, can be done with normal finger placement, and can be done at a reasonable speed with a little practice. Whether it's the right shuffle for this or that magician is another question!
"Magic is the only kind of entertainment where 90% of the audience is trying to ruin it for themselves." - Pete Holmes
Nikodemus
View Profile
Special user
839 Posts

Profile of Nikodemus
Jon
I am not sure what YOU mean about 2/3/5 packets! (That's the limitation of the written word). The number of times you execute the technique is not really the point IMO. You just repeat until you get back to where you started. I would call this a "rolling" lift.

I couldn't find anywhere in the Ekat video where she says only do it 3 times.
And in the Biz video he says start with 3 motions, then build up to more.

I do think Biz's demo looks amazing. Maybe I need to work on it more.

Meanwhile - I made a pretty neat discovery. The rolling lift combines really nicely with the optical shuffle.
Lift, fake fake, lift fake fake etc.
JonHackl
View Profile
Regular user
Western Australia
156 Posts

Profile of JonHackl
Mostly I was trying to explain what I understood Bob to be saying. I think he's using the lift method with just two packets at a time, like a "rolling" cut. "Rolling" lift is a good term for it.

As I said, it's been a long time since I saw the Ekat video, and I was using this shuffle since before I saw it, so I can't remember exactly what she said. I don't think I've seen the Biz video. If they recommend working up to more packets, great!

I think the number of packets is part of the point, because part of the point is how much this looks like a normal overhand shuffle. The discrepancy of a packet in your left hand that isn't getting bigger is unavoidable with a lift shuffle. So minimising other discrepancies is important, it seems to me, and part of that is "rolling" through more packets. I know that in a normal overhand shuffle, I for one would chop more than twice (three packets).

I like the idea of combining the lift with the optical. Very cool. I don't think it's for me, but it's a great idea if it works for you or anyone else.
"Magic is the only kind of entertainment where 90% of the audience is trying to ruin it for themselves." - Pete Holmes
Nikodemus
View Profile
Special user
839 Posts

Profile of Nikodemus
Jon, how long did it take you to get competent at your 5-packet rolling lift shuffle?
In the video Biz I think says it took him 3 days to get it acceptable. But I can't help wondering if he spent 16 hours a day on it!
Bob G
View Profile
Inner circle
2525 Posts

Profile of Bob G
Jon and Nick,

A few things about the shuffle that Biz describes ("rolling shuffle," if you like).


1. Biz shuffles with breathtaking speed; I suspect that's part of what makes that last shuffling off of nearly the whole deck impossible to notice. I can't imagine shuffling that fast. Any ideas for speeding up one's shuffle??


2. Biz doesn't give credit, but I *think* I saw the same thing referred to as a "continuous running cut" (at least "continuous" was in the name), and Elmsley was credited. Take this with a grain or three of salt, but it might give us a starting point if we want to know the shuffle's inventor.

3. I agree that a single lift shuffle as my described it is the simplest possible form of the shuffle Biz shows. But if you do two single lift shuffles in a row, as my friend suggested, then it isn't the same as Biz's, because you're doing one lift shuffle followed by another. Biz is doing just one shuffle, adding another packet to the back of all the previously lifted cards each time he chops.

4. Biz said he took three days to get good at doing the rolling shuffle with just three packets. That seems plausible to me. After that he slowly moved up to four, five, and six.


I'm excited about this shuffle.


See you,

Bob
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Easy full-deck false shuffle? -- Hunter is driving me nuts! :) (45 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.04 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL