Go to page [Previous] 1~2
|
Mr.Tweed
New user
45 Posts
|
Posted: Mar 28, 2007 09:55 am
0
In the first video you flash near the heel of the thumb after the switch. In the second you flash through the windows of the index and 'bird' fingers.
Too lazy to work, too nervous to steal.
|
bsmith
Loyal user
289 Posts
|
Posted: Mar 28, 2007 09:37 pm
0
Thank you all for your posts and PM's. I have received many PM's asking about the switch. A few people have deconstructed the mechanics from the point of view shown and fell into some of the same pitfalls that I've had to overcome. There are some details to the switch that are very difficult to figure out. This switch is very easy to do, by comparison, and if learned properly I'm sure most would agree. I will soon be offering a tutoral of this switch and will keep you all posted.
Mr. Tweed, you are right. The slight heal flash is a result of filming it with my left hand, from the right side, while doing the switch with my right hand. This is nearly directly on top and the angles wont allow that. What you all see is the extent of the birds eye view. As I said before, I prefer people to be seated from 10 o'clock to 5 o'clock. As for between the fingers on the blackjack, that could have been avioded on my part by keeping my fingers closed. I can refilm it if you like to assure you of this.
Best,
BSmith
|
Unknown419
Inner circle
1321 Posts
|
Posted: Mar 29, 2007 01:23 am
0
Robertson I agree with you 100% that if it's well done it will pass and get the money. It may not mean much Rob but I'm proud of you.
Take Care
Your New Friend
Doc
|
Unknown419
Inner circle
1321 Posts
|
Posted: Mar 29, 2007 02:01 am
0
Jason didn't we have a conversation about this before and why I told you your move should be critiqued? I guess I was right and now I see that your view point changed.
Readers I invented this move after the Shade movie came out but never posted the video, this is why I wrote this post to Jason.
Bottom Line: As I said somewhere else today. If we use a logical approach to learning something we will all come up with the same idea and think we invented it when someone else invented it earlier but never had a chance to post it.
Bottom Line 2: Since the invention of the Internet moves that was invented and never published or seen before are just now materializing and the first person who posts it claims to be the originator when actually they're not. I need no recognition because someone probably came up with the idea before me.
Quote: On 2007-03-26 23:17, Robertson wrote:
Quote: On 2007-03-26 22:57, JasonEngland wrote:
Here's the problem with that theory.
The MacMillan switch isn't unique because of its starting palm. It's unique because the act of palming the outgoing card is also the motor that brings the incoming palm into position at the left side of the palm.
Additionally, the MacMillan was never done directly from gambler's flat palm or the classic palm. It was a hybrid of the flat palm and a thumb-clip palm that is found in other, earlier mucks.
Having said that, I can do the move from flat, classic, or the clip palm and not change the essence of the move, which is that levering/motoring action that produces the incoming card as the outgoing one is slapped into the right hand.
This may indeed be a new switch, but not because of the palm it begins in. There is a complete action that must be considered before labeling something new or original.
Here is a brief list of attributes of the MacMillan. Does this new switch share any of these details?
1. The incoming card scoops under the near end of the outgoing card.
2. The palming action of the outgoing card acts as the motor for bringing the incoming card into view.
3. The card appears at the left side of the palm-down hand as a result of this levering action.
4. Does it look like a duck, quack like a duck, etc?
Okay, so maybe that last one isn't completely genuine, but I believe the point is still a valid one: this looks a lot like the MacMillan!
Only an exposed view from underneath with dramatically different mechanics would convince me that this is anything other than a variation (or perhaps even an improvement...I'm willing to concede) on Bob's switch.
Jason
Thank you for the information on the MacMillan switch. The answers to your criteria are as follows:
1 - No, it does not
2 - No, it does not
3 - No, as there is no levering action involved
4 - Mucking a card under the cover of turning over another card, in a natural manner, should look exactly as such.
The mechanics are entirely different. A PM is coming your way.
Quote: On 2007-03-27 00:22, JasonEngland wrote:
Quote: 1 - No, it does not
2 - No, it does not
3 - No, as there is no levering action involved
4 - Mucking a card under the cover of turning over another card, in a natural manner, should look exactly as such.
The mechanics are entirely different.
Excellent! A new switch is always a good thing.
Jason
PS: Sorry to be so pedantic and precise about the qualities of the MacMillan (what it is and what it isn't). It's just that I've seen dozens of variations that claimed to be different, and what they really were were marginally different starting points. The middle (the most important part) and end result were all Dan's.
Your initial response fell into that same trap: "mine's different because it doesn't use gambler's flat."
My reaction: it may be different, but not for that reason; Dan's didn't use gambler's flat either!
You appear to have something genuinely different. Keep exploring.
MY DISCUSSION WITH JASON
Quote: Critiquing Is A Must
(Jason)
The funny thing about the Macmillan turnover switch is that it is not now, and never has been touted as a "real" cheating move. It was created by a magician that never played a game of cards in his life, was published in a magic book, and is used primarily in pseudo-demonstrations of gambling moves by myself and the other half-dozen people that do this move well.
(Doc)
The first thing I would like to do before I go into my analysis is to give the magician who invented this move a standing ovation for such a great idea. Everyone loves it even the great card cheating magicians therefore something must be great about this move and idea.
Jason regarding what you said about the Macmillan turnover that has never been touted as a real cheating move may have been true in the past but that's about to change as of today; at least in the case of me using it. Why? Because the move is an excellent move to do, you and your half-dozen friends just don’t know where to use it.
What Might Walter Scott Say About Jason’s Statement?
“Magicians weren’t interested in playing poker; they only wanted to know the moves that got the cards from the deck and on to the table…It made no sense to him…In Scott’s eyes, they were not clever enough…and selling what was never theirs.” Note: I deleted words from his text so not to offend anybody but I believe my teacher’s whole statement to be exactly true.
Note: This paragraph was taken from Page 182 and 183 of Phantoms of the Card Table.
Comments To Be Re-evaluated
(Jason’s Statement) “I don’t think it makes much sense to critique a move in a gambling context that was never created or intended to be used as a gambling move”
(Doc)
It does make a lot of since to critique a move in a gambling context IF YOU ARE A PROFESSIONAL CARD CHEAT for a number of reasons.
1. I’m a cardsharp not a magician so how would I know where this move came from? Being that I am one is all the more reason why it is inevitable for me to critique it, being that I saw it in a movie pertaining to card artifice at the table.
2. I mean this in no disrespect but Jason nor those who learned the move is God and therefore don’t have the final word on what we are to critique. I will prove this in the last part of this evaluation. For those readers reading my post, please critique what I say and ask me questions because by doing this, I will continue to keep on advancing and learning and besides most times when one re-evaluate things, you learn new things that never crossed your mind before which might have been so simple to solve if only that person looked at it from another viewpoint.
3. I believe I know what the problem is now in which mostly all magicians view things sometimes. They believe that since a person possess great skills as a card sharp; he had to know that this move came from a magic publication; in which is not true. AS NIXON ONCE SAID, READ MY LIPS. I’M NOT A MAGICIAN I’M A LAYMAN AND I BELIEVE WHAT I SEE LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE WHO WATCHES MAGICIANS DO SLEIGHT OF HAND. I JUST KNOW HOW TO CRITIQUE THINGS A LITTLE BIT BETTER REGARDING GAMBLING MOVES THAN OTHERS BECAUSE OF WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING. HOW DO YOU THINK I GOT TO THIS LEVEL? I CRITIQUED MOVIES SUCH AS THE STING TO GET BETTER AND THIS IS HOW I LEARNED HOW TO DO THE COLD DECK MOVE, I CRITIQUED IT UNTIL I FIGURED OUT HOW TO DO IT.
4. So with that in mind, why should I dismiss something that worked for me in the past the second time because someone says why critique a move that was never created or intended as a gambling move because of their status as a great card manipulator? I shouldn’t, I should critique it the same way. Once you’ve stopped critiquing and thinking, you will never advance, you will never get better nor will you ever invent new moves or new things.
5. My last and final reason why you should critique all moves that you’re planning to use? IT WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE. To all who may be interested in becoming a cheater, your life is more important than anything in this world and if you’re going to do a move and you don’t know the mentality of the people you’re playing with meaning if they are killers or not, please take my advice and critique all gambling moves that you come in contact with as if your life depended on it; because one day YOUR LIFE WILL DEPEND ON IT.
The second comment that should be re-evaluated is
This move was never created or intended to be used as a gambling move?
Even though I don’t have any proof, I believe that this move was. Why? I can’t imagine a trick that a person would use this move for unless it was for a gambling table. What trick does any one know where a magician places a card in the middle of the table and then position his hand in a way that is shown as in Shade just to do a switch unless it’s just like Jason said a pseudo-gambling move or a move that was intended to be a gambling move but because of the lack of knowledge about the card table, was dismissed and left to be improved upon by an expert cheat. (I’m just thinking out loud)
I’m assuming that this magician might have seen Dai Vernon or some gambler do this move while crumbling up the card and tried to improve upon it in which he did but since he had no prior gambling experience he could go no further.
Why the Move Was Never Used and Why Jason May Have Made This Statement?
I’m making an assumption here of why Jason made his statement being that I’m not God either and I can’t read minds or hearts, I believe it’s because of one of the same problems that the magician who made up the Macmillan turnover had, they don’t gamble for a living, don’t gamble that much or gamble only under certain conditions. Let’s fast forward to gambling under certain conditions.
Gambling Under Particular Conditions
According to Jason’s second post he knows about a blackjack table and the condition in which a move can be done. This shows that Jason has at sometime in his life gambled or is experienced in this area but also according to this same post Jason makes another statement that throws a little light on why he makes the other statement in which stumps me “the move is as useless as the Macmillan at the card table.” This is the missing part of the puzzle that must be found to solve the problem.
Jason, leave the world of the regular cards and come to the world of the Kem Cards and you’ll have the answer to the problem of why it was never used. This move can be accomplished perfectly and undetected without a flaw (a concave bend) if it was played using Kem Cards or any such cards of the same quality.
If Jason would have played at a poker table in the casino or just remembered that they played with plastic cards he would not have come to the conclusion that this move was useless.
Jason And Doc’s View Is Almost the Same
As To Why The Move Can Pass In Fast Company
Now let me put everything Jason said in an order to make it sound like what Doc said.
If something is presented as "real" to people who should know better, then by all means critique away. You guys are insisting that a move conform to card table procedures and contexts that we just didn't care about (Doc: or didn’t know at the time) as long as it looked plausible to non-experts.
It's possible to switch a single card with one hand in the act of turning another faced down card face up. We wanted to get this across to the audience. So, we put a switch that could accomplish this in the film! Since the “moves were done to show what is theoretically possible to do … with people who don’t already know… and since “all gambling is not played with regular cards…“Never mind that the card came out warped from the grip (Kem Cards Won’t).” If you think that (an) average audience member (or card player) can picked up on these things you're wrong…you're preaching to the choir on this one (Doc: sometimes it’s those in the choir that needs the most preaching too).
The move can pass in fast company for a few reasons. Why?
1. Because most people don’t know that this move exists according to a statement made by Jason (myself and the other half-dozen people that do this move well),
2. The 2nd reason why this move will go over well is because it’s unbelievable to the eye just like the Cold Deck Move. How be this possible to do if he has another card in his hand is what the mind will say to itself if he thinks something is wrong. The mind must take action and say to itself without words that he can’t be doing anything because he turned the card over normally and the way he has his hand positioned, he can’t possibly have anything in his hand. This observation is proven to be true because everyone who saw this move thinks that the move is great and spoke highly of it and want to learn it.
Readers of the forum you have to realize that certain moves like the retention of a vanishing coin fools the mind because the person saw that coin closed in by the other hand. Likewise when this card is turned over in the way it is, the mind will say it’s impossible for him to have two cards in his hand because he turned it over in a way that only permits one card to be turned over and by this fact alone makes the Macmillan turnover a gambling move for the card table.
Note: For the record, this is the only card switch that I know that has to be rated on the level of a Cold Deck Move. Why? The handling of this switch is not covered at all and it fools the eye.
Forum I Need Your Input On This
I would like the forum to voice their opinion on my evaluation to see if it's an excellent move for the card table after me tweaking out the problems.
The reason why I excel in certain things is because I look at things in a different perspective than many of you here because I do this for a living. Do you remember why I said that like going to the magicians? Because the magician’s have the answers but they don’t know the questions. This is a prime example of what I was talking about.
Well the fist thing I want to say is that Jason already told you the answer, so let's just find the riddle to where it fits. Jason answers the dilemma in his own words when he said, “Never mind that the card came out warped from the grip (Kem Cards Won’t).”
This is why this move is not used at the gambling table; it’s being used at the wrong gambling table. It’s suppose to be used at the table where they are playing with plastic cards but since he forgot about his own answer this is why he then stated “I don’t think it makes much sense to critique a move in a gambling context that was never created or intended to be used as a gambling move.”
My Concluding Observation
1. This move is excellent for the card table, the few magicians who knew about this technique just didn't know how to apply it because they don't either gamble or don’t be at gambling tables as much as I.
2. It does make a lot of since to critique a move in a gambling context IF YOU ARE A PROFESSIONAL GAMBLER BUT NOT IF YOU’RE A MAGICIAN.
Steve Forte Learns Something New
When I was visiting Steve, Rod and Steve started talking about the quality of Kem Cards while they were doing false shuffles on each other. Steve was fooling Rod and Rod was fooling Steve. It was a great sight to behold, two of the greatest shufflers I’ve ever seen was baffling each other. Then Steve asked Rod a question “how is it possible that you’re able to conceal the fact that you’re holding a break while shuffling the cards?” and Rod said, “IT’S ONLY POSSIBLE TO DO IF YOU’RE USING KEM CARDS BUT NOT IF YOU’RE USING REGULAR PLAYING CARDS.” Steve was just taught something new that he didn’t know before and neither did I.
Bottom Line what you can't do with one type of cards, you may can do with the other.
Your Friend
Doc
Jason Saturday I purchased the DVD of the movie Shade just to see the moves and you do all your moves pretty good, I like them; Good card work. The only thing that I don’t like but was certainly necessary was the angle in which they showed the Macmillan turnover. In the commentary area you did the move flawless from the top angle and from the under the table position, the footage of the side view should not have been shown to show the card bent but it was necessary to see in order to come to a correct evaluation.
Like I said on a previous post, I made a variant for regular cards but it does not out beat the original way you do it especially if you this move playing with plastic Kem Cards.
One more thing before I go, In this month addition (June) of Psychology Today on page 62 you will see a very short right up on me.
Magically Yours
Doc
Signed
I Told Ya'll So...
Doc
P.S. Robertson again I'm proud of you.
|
bsmith
Loyal user
289 Posts
|
Posted: Mar 29, 2007 03:14 am
0
Quote: On 2007-03-28 21:23, Unknown419 wrote:
Robertson I agree with you 100% that if it's well done it will pass and get the money. It may not mean much Rob but I'm proud of you.
Take Care
Your New Friend
Doc
Thank you Doc, it does mean alot. I was hoping you would chime in here. We have met before. A PM is coming your way.
|
Unknown419
Inner circle
1321 Posts
|
Posted: Mar 29, 2007 04:56 am
0
Readers I remember Robertson well, we met at Tannen's one day and I showed him some things and after I did, he made the Doctor go crazy with his nicely made marked deck. Yes he got by what ya'll call fast company and would have robbed me if we played. Yes this deck that he showed me was made by a hustler and boy oh boy was it made nice.
Ya'll better watch out for him because if my memory serves me correctly I don't remember him being able to do mucks when I met him (but I'm not sure). I think I showed him some mucks but I definitely did some cold deck moves for him.
Robertson with the little bit that I showed you at Tannen's made you this good? Wow. Didn't I try to correct your seconds and bottoms? I don't remember now, I guess I'm getting old.
My students are now becoming better than the teacher. Yes I'm a proud but hard teacher and I produce excellent students.
I'm sticking my chest out with my arms back saying...I'm too sexy for my self, too sexy for my shirt, too sexy for this whole *** world.
Live long and prosper.
I hope to hear from you soon.
Respectfully,
Doc
P.S. What I do is trigger the mechanism or plant the seed in the brains of my students and watch them work and come up with their own ideas.
|
tommy
Eternal Order
Devil's Island
16544 Posts
|
Posted: Mar 29, 2007 05:27 am
0
The only simular switch I seen was from a bug and using a Malro miricle as the cards came together. On a rail table it was not any use, at least I could not do it over a rail.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy
|
bsmith
Loyal user
289 Posts
|
Posted: Mar 29, 2007 06:20 am
0
Haha.. yes Doc. Not only did you show me some of the best cold deck moves but you also did some things with dice that I never would've thought possible! The most important thing that I learned from you was your attitude towards learning and your helpfulness to others who are learning. Nothing is more refreshing then meeting someone of your caliber who's eager to see what others are doing instead of the far to familiar "know it all" who doesn't think anyone has anything to offer them. Your teaching and learning skills are masterfull.
To everyone that PM'ed me- the tutoral for the Smith Switch will be available soon. I will keep you all posted.
|
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The Gambling Spot » » Original Hand Muck (0 Likes) |
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |