I am new to memdeck work. Assuming that built-in effects are irrelevant (for me because I am learning memdeck for specific tricks which are stack independent). Does this mean QuickerStack is better then Mnemonica stack and Aronson stack?

I am asking because Mnemonica and Aronson will need mnemonics to learn and then it will take some time for the mnemonics to fade away and instant recall is possible. But the same is true with QuickerStack also. It can be learned in about half hour (as it has an algorithm) and then after some time, its algorithm may not be needed as it will be remembered completely.

So why waste time with Mnemonica or Aronson? Are there any advantages of using either of these?

PS: Is it possible to get to QuickerStack stack from new deck order?

Thanks for your time.

Which stack is best? The answer is easy: it depends!

Questions like this have no simple answers.

It's a multifaceted issue.

Here is good advice from Vincent Hedan !

http://www.vincenthedan.com/magic/blog-stackchoice.html

I've had good experiences with the QuickerStack. It's not my main stack, though, so I don't have it memorized backwards and forwards.

But when all I have at my disposal is a deck set up in QuickerStack order (which once happened to me), it works out quite well.

One thing to consider: Like the Eight Kings stack, the QuickerStack is a tetradistic stack. While some magicians prefer not to use the Eight Kings stack as they fear it's not "random-looking" enough, a tetradistic stack can allow for some great effects. And personally, when using the QuickerStack, my spectators have never noticed a lack of randomness, so I wouldn't worry about its tetradistic nature being a problem.

In the end, though, to really get a lot of mileage out of a memorized deck, you're going to have to memorize the whole deck, no matter which one you decide to use. Even if it's the QuickerStack, you're still going to have to memorize each card to its stack number (and each stack number to its card). Where QuickerStack shines is that if you find yourself slipping up (where you draw a blank and can't think of the proper card or number), you can easily fall back on its well-thought-out logic system.

But that shouldn't be a reason not to memorize the whole stack. In my opinion, the fall-back technique should only be as a safety net (and as an aid in memorization). Ideally, it shouldn't be depended on during performances.

As far as getting QuickerStack from New Deck Order, it's as easy to do as getting New Deck Order to Si Stebbins order, or to Eight Kings order, it that helps.

Frankly, I think you'll do well with the QuickerStack. (Or any other stack, provided you memorize whichever one you decide to use.)

And finally, welcome to the world of memorized deck magic! You'll find lots of great effects!

Doriancaudal wrote:
Alas, this article makes a large number of beginner errors. It conflates sequential stacks with memorized stacks. It ignores one of the best methods for memorizing stacks. It confuses the technique by which the stack is initially learned with the utility of the stack. It completely omits important issues that pertain to the utility of specific stacks.

I can't recommend it, myself.

Particularly since he is SOOOO knowledgeable re: memorizing cards. Yeah, use flash cards - stay away from what I teach in about 12 of my books on memory training. My laugh for the day!!

Don't discard anything simply because something else is faster and easier to learn -- you'll be missing out on a wealth of great material.

We retain image memory much better than numbers and letters. Learn a memory/peg system and it will be useful not only for cards, but for almost everything else in life.

Doug's answer in the linked essay above is a very good one. For those just getting into stacked deck work, though, the answer "there is no 'best' stack" may not always be as helpful as hoped. For that reason I'd like to share some specifics about the stack I use and why, for me, it does everything I need in a stack.

I use Doug Dyment's original "QuickStack" which is a cyclical, non-periodic stack. Meaning that the values are the same through each block of 13 cards, but the suits don't strictly rotate like a Si Stebbins or 8 Kings stack. This combination of features provide certain advantages over other both "random" stacks and periodic stacks like Si Stebbins.

Given the nature of the stack I'm just one faro shuffle away from having all cards next to their mate. There are several effects that require mated cards set together as a starting point and this provides a way to get into that arrangment in just a couple of seconds.

One more faro shuffle and every card is together with the other three values in the deck, i.e. all the 10's are together, all the 3's are together, etc. Faroing into these arrangements cannot be done with random stacks like Mnemonica or Aronson stacks. I shouldn't need to explain the value of this setup.

Then as I continue to get back around to my original stack (it takes 8 shuffles to do this) I perform tricks along the way using the faro index principle. The tricks you do in this phase are ones that only require the knowledge of the next card given a starting point. This cannot be done with periodic stacks like Si Stebbins stacks since the suits don't look randomly distributed as you move through the stack. Eventually, you'll see all the suits separated into blocks of 13, which may be good for some tricks but not the type of things that I do.

For example, after faroing into 4-of-a-kind I'll faro twice more and perform "The Corrinda Effect", faro twice more and perform Osterlinds "Challenge Mind Reading", faro twice more and I'm back to my original stack and can perform some stack-destroying finale.

I've discovered several even more esoteric advantages in this stack but we'll leave those for another day.

In short, for me QuickStack is the best of both worlds.

NOTE: I am not saying QuickStack is better than the stacks mentioned above. I'm only pointing out its advantages over those stacks. Each of those other stacks have inherent advantages over QuickStack as well. Since I don't use those stacks I don't know what all those advantages are.

The last point is the crux of the issue. Nobody really knows all of the inherent advantages of every stack because it takes lots of work with any given stack to milk all of its hidden properties.

Whatever stack you ultimately decide on, you will get as much out of it as you put into it.

Best of luck to you figuring this all out!

It is interesting in that a few times I realize that the old Si Stebbins deck which one can learn in 10 minutes can do the same job as some of the memorized decks.

No, unless you have really memorized it. Cut your stack, glimpse the bottom card and then tell me immediately the position of (e. g.) the 7C... Could you? Jan

It depends Steve. What do you want from a memdeck as opposed to a stacked deck - there is a difference. I agree that the Si Stebbins - and even Eight Kings and other cyclics are quite useful and some very interesting work has been and continues on these older stacks. But there are many things you simply cannot do with a vanilla Si Stebbins that you can do with The Aronson Stack and Juan Tamariz's Mnemonica.

One of the things that I look for in a memdeck are built in effects and how many of those are stack independent.

I haven't looked at Doug Dyment's Quicker Stack - lack of money these days - but knowing his other work I would wager based on that and the praise his stack has garnered that it works well.

But I guess it's important to differentiate as Aronson and Tamariz do that a memdeck is different than a deck with a mathematical basis. It's not a matter of sematics. If you have The Award Winning Magic of John Cornelius, there is a beautiful stack in that book. It is not however a memdeck. Also, J.K. Hartman and Tom Daugherty - among many others - have created ingenious effects built around virtually undetectable stacks, but, again, these are not memdecks and yet they are far more subtle than a Si Stebbins or Eight Kings.

Two effects might interest you: Goody Two Choose by J.K. Hartman and Utterly Blown Away by Tom Daugherty (both in Apocalypse and Goody Two Choose is also published in CardCraft). The effects are similar but Daugherty's effect is a refinement on the Tamariz effect known as Blown Away and alternatively known as Neither Blind Nor Stupid. Daugherty's effect allows you to perform the Tamariz effect completely impromptu and obviously FASDIU. But both effects are what Harry Lorayne would term a "pathway" idea.

Now, all of this said, I do agree that the older cyclics should not be dismissed. Perhaps Chris Wasshuber will see this thread and refresh my memory but there was a recent e-book that focused on the weaknesses of the Si Stebbins such that there is no discernible red/black alternating sequence. Yet this too can be over come by a somewhat casual display of the cards.

Lastly I should mention the excellent Si Stebbins Secret found in Darwin Ortiz's At The Card Table.

Slainte,
Vlad

Where can I get the QuickerStack?

Https://www.deceptionary.com

Is there a way to buy a pdf file of it?

You'd have to ask Doug about that, but I doubt it. I find it's the easiest for me. Using rote memory on the Aronson Stack, I came to a dead stop at 30 +-. Looked at mnemonics on a few occasions and it just looks like another big layer of things to memorize. As much as I tried, it doesn't make sense, but it has worked for a huge amount of people. Some of us aren't wired that way. I do better with rules/math with a stack.

Agree 100% And it isn't just faro. With a lot less practice one can get very good at bringing the pair of a chosen card to either the top or bottom of the deck with either a cut or p*** (verified by a quick glimpse of bottom card) since it is always in the center position.

But from my experience why QuickerStack really excels is that it is compatible with Eddie Joseph's staggered principle. In fact, you can perform Aldo Colombini's Twists of Fate directly from it! See here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XQz10kksEew

Great info, Frank!