|
|
Sid Mayer Special user Santa Fe, NM 656 Posts |
Mr. Haydn,
As an acknowledged master of the short con, are you familiar with the following scam? I did not originate it and no longer remember where I first heard about it. I'd appreciate any background you could offer. It's a "game" with playing cards. Three participants are required. They are the worker, the sucker and the confederate. It goes this way. The sucker gets to cut the cards and riffle shuffle the two resulting packets together. He then deals four piles of thirteen cards as if he were dealing bridge hands. Each participant gets to pick one of the packets with the sucker getting first pick. Play begins with each of the three players turning up his top card. If all three are the same color (which never happens), the round is a push (no one wins). Otherwise, the player with the odd color is paid one unit by each of the other two players. This continues for a total of thirteen rounds during which the sucker never is the odd man and, thus, never wins. Of course, the worker and the confederate later split the winnings. Thanks for any information you may have about this. Sid
All the world's a stage ... and everybody on it is overacting.
|
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Never heard of it. Do you have any sources on it? Sounds very interesting, kind of like the Smack.
|
Sid Mayer Special user Santa Fe, NM 656 Posts |
Mr. Haydn,
Thank you for your reply. None of the rather knowledgeable people to whom I have shown this bit knew anything about it and, no, I cannot cite any sources for it. As to method, think Gilbreath Principal noting that dealt piles one and two have a certain relationship to each other as do piles three and four. Please PM me if this is not enough of a clue. Cordially, Sid
All the world's a stage ... and everybody on it is overacting.
|
Darwin Ortiz V.I.P. 486 Posts |
I thought I’d pass on what I know about this scam. It has definitely appeared in print. I’m ninety percent certain that it was published by Nick Trost, but I can’t remember where. (There is also that ten- percent possibility that it was someone else who published it.)
Okay, that wasn’t real helpful. But my reason for posting is to pass along the following. Several years ago, on one of my visits to Paris, Bernard Bilis introduced me to two French card cheats. I found out that they use this scam professionally. Unlike the Smack, they weren’t working it as a con game, just a straight hustle. These guys had never read a magic book and didn’t know any magicians other than Bernard. And I guarantee that they’ve never heard the name Gilbreath. Yet they’re working this scam. This appears to be one of the few examples of a magic creation having migrated to the hustling community rather than vice versa. Sincerely, Darwin Ortiz |
Paul Sherman Inner circle Arlington, VA 1511 Posts |
Holy Smokes! I'm in the amazing position of filling in information on a scam AFTER Darwin and Whit have weighed in....I'm flabbergasted...
Darwin is right. I thought this sounded familiar and pulled out Simon Aronson's "Try the Impossible" where he has an effect very much like this. In the credits he says: Quote:
My starting point for "Oddly Enough" was Nick Trost's "Odd Man Wins" (Trost, The Card Magic of Nick Trost, 1997, p. 93). Trost's game procedure is quite different from the ideas outlined above since his purpose is to create an obviously controlled magic trick in which the "mark" NEVER wins. To do this, he uses the Gilbreath principle in a fairly traditional manner, dealing out the entire deck into four piles. The victim then selects one pile, and depending on which pile the mark has chosen, the performer then discards one of the remaining three piles. Next the performer enlists the aid of a second spectator to play his confederate, and each takes one of the two remaining piles. Between the two of them, they always beat the mark, becasue one or the other of them must always have the odd-color card. Simon's game is a little different. There are 2 "marks" and one hustler. Same rules, odd card wins, but the odds in his work out so that, while the hustler won't ALWAYS win, the odd card will fall to the him 50% of the time. I'm gonna step back now and enjoy this rare moment while it lasts Paul
"The finished card expert considers nothing too trivial that in any way contributes to his success..." Erdnase
some youtube videos |
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Sid, Darwin, Paul:
This is great stuff. I am taking notes. So glad to see you guys here! |
Sid Mayer Special user Santa Fe, NM 656 Posts |
To all who responded,
Thanks for the great input. Paul's quote from Simon Aronson seems to indicate that Nick Trost had this in print although I do not recall reading the referenced book. Having been involved in magic since 1937, I suspect that I picked this up sometime in the 60 years between then and the publication date of Mr. Trost's book. It may be that it migrated from the hustling community to the magic community. This suspicion is bolstered by a minor difference in the Trost version (as quoted by Mr. Aronson) that I believe is slightly inferior. It is, "The victim then selects one pile, and depending on which pile the mark has chosen, the performer then discards one of the remaining three piles." In my opinion, it is more convincing to have three piles selected and simply discard the remaining pile. The deck (all 52 cards, no jokers) is set up in the conventional alternating R/B Gilbreath manner. As is obvious, any number of complete straight cuts will make no significant difference. However, it is necessary that the division of the cards into two packets preliminary to the riffle shuffle must be made so that the top cards of the packets are of different colors. There are many ways to solve this problem. Perhaps the easiest way, which allows the mark to do all of the card handling, is to pencil dot the backs of all of the red cards. The Gilbreath principle ensures, that, after the shuffle, any pair of cards, taken two at a time, from the top of the deck will be of opposite colors. A moments thought establishes that, after the deal, the top cards of piles one and two will differ in color as will the top cards of piles three and four. Thus, if the sucker chooses pile one or pile two, the worker and his confederate must choose pile three and four. Similarly, if the sucker chooses pile three or four, the other two players must choose piles one and two. In this way, the worker and the confederate must always turn up opposites and the sucker must turn up a card that is a color match to one of theirs. This is probably a needlessly lengthy explanation but I wanted to make the working clear and hope that I have succeeded. Cordially, Sid
All the world's a stage ... and everybody on it is overacting.
|
Whit Haydn V.I.P. 5449 Posts |
Thanks Sid. Very interesting stuff.
|
Jeff Haas Special user 929 Posts |
A couple more details on this...
Nick Trost's procedure for selecting the piles goes like this: "Ask the victim to select any hand (pile) for himself and place it facedown in front of himself. When he has selected his pile, say, 'Since we have only three players in the game, we'll eliminate one hand.' Discard the pile that is in corresponding order to his selected pile. (For example, if he selects pile A, discard pile B.) Now have this spectator select one of the two remaining piles for you. When he hands you one, say, 'Are you sure you want me to have this one? Remember, I said I'm going to win.' When he is satisfied with his selection, place this pile in front of you. Place the remaining pile in front of your partner." [p. 94-95] After a few rounds, Trost has you shuffle your partner's unplayed cards, allows the victim to shuffle his own, and you shuffle yours (putting them in the same relative order as your partner's.) Trost's notes in the back of the book indicate that he first published this in The New Tops, November 1971. [p. 329] Jeff |
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Thanks all for your fine explanations. I was up all night trying to reconstruct this, and even though I knew the Gilbreath principle was involved I couldn't figure it out. (I got misdirected into thinking it depended on the repeating 13 card set up using the Gilbreath principle). Anyway, I'm having a lot of fun playing around with this, thanks.
Jack Shalom
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The September 2003 entrée: Whit Haydn » » Odd Man Wins -- an obscure(?) scam » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 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 < |