

gdw Inner circle 4816 Posts 
I have been trying to work out a mathematical stack whereby each card is linked to its location by a single equation.
I am just now discovering that apparently such stack's do exist. These are NOT sequential stacks like Si Stebbins or the OBCS mind you. At least this is my understanding so far. I also am understanding that Quickstack is one of them. I know some people look down on these stacks in comparison to memorized stacks, as you should not need even the "backup" of the math should your memory fail, as you would not have it down cold if it did fail. Any who, although that is not the discussion I wish to get into, I am interested in a mathematical stack like this as math comes naturally to me and I would be far more likely to eventually get it memorized if it were done with math as there would be an actual logic attached to it rather than a mnemonic. What I am wondering is, is Quickstack a stack where by one equation is used to attach any card to its position? Also, is it avaliable on it's own, or just through Doug Dyment's book, Mindsights? Thanks.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." I won't forget you Robert. 
sgrossberg Special user Southern California 738 Posts 
Gdw  I don't believe Doug's stack meets your criteria (e.g., there is not one equation and it is sequential). And, I am only aware that it is available in his Mindsights book. That being said, Mindsights is worth looking at so you can see Doug's work on stacked decks. Some of the best (nonpublished) work I have seen on stacked decks has arisen from Doug's thinking.  Scott

Dennis Loomis 1943  2013 2113 Posts 
To gwd,
Quickstack is an algorithmic stack based on a set of rules. The rules are easy to learn, partly because Doug Dyment uses some very simple mnemonic devices to simplify the learning. It becomes a bank of 13 cards which is repeated 4 times. This is superior to the very simple +3 progression of Si Stebbins, and very much like the doggerel based stacks like Eight Kings Threatened. But you learn the sequence through the use of rules, not a verse. Another fairly simple set of rules are used to randomize the suit order which makes the stack superior to both the Si Stebbins and Eight Kings stack because there is no repetitious order of suits or colors. One can "get the hang" of this stack in a half hour or so, although performance level proficiency will probably take more practice time. Doug's procedure for randomizing the suits is easy to learn, and well thought out. It could be applied to the Si Stebbins or Eight King Stacks to produce a seemingly random order of suits. As to your idea of a "single" equation: The use of the word "single" suggests a simple formula. Most any process can be rendered into an equation or formula. (You would need two equations: one to go from the card to it's stack number and one for the reverse.) But, to get a stack which does not give itself away with easy to spot repetitions or patterns will require a very complicated "single" equation. When I studied Physics, I learned many such equations and the best tool for learning complex equations turned out to be mnemonics. And so, you are right back to where you say you don't want to be: memory work. To help you understand, here's a possible example. Probably the simplest equation which will assign a different stack number to each of the 52 cards: S = A + X, where S is the stack number, A is the numerical value of the card, and X = 0 for the clubs. X = 13 for the Hearts. x = 26 for the spades, and X = 39 for the Diamonds. This simple formula works perfectly, but produces a stack where all 13 cards of each suit are together and in the sequence of the numerical values. And, even in this "simple" equation you need to learn the value of S, A, and 4 conditional values for X. I'm afraid it comes down to this: There are no shortcuts to any place worth going. Dennis Loomis
Itinerant Montebank
<BR>http://www.loomismagic.com 
gdw Inner circle 4816 Posts 
Quote:
On 20070725 12:03, Dennis Loomis wrote: Thanks, your simple formula is kind of where I was starting but figured that by introducing multiplication etc it would vary the locations so they were not just in numerical order.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.
"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one." I won't forget you Robert. 
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » Questions about Doug Dyment's Quickstack (0 Likes) 
[ Top of Page ] 
All content & postings Copyright © 20012020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.19 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 < 