First, don’t be mistaken. Even if the cardmen Bible is far to be my favourite book, I appreciate it a lot. There are many books preceding Erdnase’s one: An Exposure of the Arts and Miseries of Gambling (Green, 1843), How Gamblers Win (Evans, 1865), Koschitz Manual (Koschitz & McClintock, I don’t remember the year), Fools of Fortune (Queen, 1893), Sharps and Flats (Maskelyne, 1894), just to name a few (famous) of them. But maybe except for Evan’s exposé, sleight of hand descriptions are not explained in deep details, there is not such a narrow moves analysis than Erdnase left to us. It’s not really an easy to grasp text, but definitely a must have one. Of course, we could converse about the fact that all isn’t cast in stone, maybe it’s time to decrease the importance of this book and we’re not in 1902 anymore! But it ain’t today’s discussion.

Was Erdnase really a cheat?

Yeah, that’s the buzz! A gambler, there’s little doubt about it. But a cheat… Just to make it short, many moves are not described in the book, there’s no word about the spread, the wash seems unknown, peeks, mucks, etc., how many techniques are quick reviewed or simply not referred to? He hardly talks about the riffle (yet known in his time), the card monte section has little to do with the way it’s actually done in the streets. Don’t tell me they didn’t kill cards in 1900! He says he needs the money? Well, it’s not that hard to get the money for a cheat!

I know this point has been discussed many times before, but well, let’s get some nice words over this, just to kill time. Was he really a cheat?

Me, I say no.

Maybe that what he means when he says "We betray no confidences in publishing this book, having only ourselves to thank for what we know."



Is that right?

Yeah of course it's right. Don't you ever watched movies?

Or probably he didn't talk about these moves because he just didn't know them...

That another possibility.

About money and cheating, well, if getting the money from crooked games is so hard maybe it worth to take into consideration to get an honest job. Civil servant sounds good to me.

Probability or possibility? You use both up there.

It's going to be impossible to have any discussion with you if you are going to put forth an idea such as the author was not a cheat, and then back it up with all sorts of "probabilities" that you are assigning to people. Could you tell us why you say he "probably" didn't discuss the things you mentioned above because he didn't know about them? And base it on something other than the assumption that you are more well read than Erdnase. lol!

Well Vandy, sorry for my poor english, it's not my mother tongue. I'm gonna try to make it sounds more clear though.

You say that Erdnase tells us "We betray no confidences in publishing this book, having only ourselves to thank for what we know.". I answer that he probably doesn't talk about certain things because a possibility is that he's not aware about them. The way he says that is just a good ruse to avoid such questions like the ones coming to my mind . But it's just a possibility. Maybe he really intented not to unveil some moves. That's another possibility. There are many others.

I don't really understand the trouble you got from my writtings. I don't know Erdnase, I've never met him . Hence, I just can express my point of view. I'm not really sure he was a cheat because some facts I talk about in the first post. But in my mind, it can't be sure as heck, how could I prove that? No one can prove he was really a cheat either.

To me it's simple. He doesn't show as many "true" moves as people generally are inclined to take for granted. It seems to me he just goes into nice details about some gambling techniques but nothing really convince me he was a sharp. Just my opinion.

Con men, hustlers, reformed gamblers and others guys from the underground little hesitate when they've got an opportunity to make money. Do you believe talking about the spread or some mucking techniques would have betray much more than going in deep details to explain overhand stacking, false cutting or false dealing? He needed green? Well, unveiling true secrets from the table would have been a great opportunity to get a lot of money!

What about you? How could you convince me he was really a cardsharp ?

I don't have any trouble with your writings.

When you talk about "true moves" that people take for granted etc. You have to remember when the book was written and the fact that it was a much bigger world back then. It's hard to imagine how difficult it was to garner information and to learn in those days. You talking over 100 years ago.

Also, you have to look at what the author states as his preferred techniques. I simply can't assume that someone dosen't know something because they don't include it. Remember, Erdnase planned to sell this to magicians, who knows how he decided what they needed and what they didn't? For all we know this was all basic stuff to Erdnase and he held back some of the advanced info.

Look at all the stuff that has been left out of Forte, and Ortizs, and everyone elses stuff at one time or another. Sometimes to be included later with the explaination that the author just "didn't feel" like tipping it originally. For whatever reason.

As far as this; "Do you believe talking about the spread or some mucking techniques would have betray much more than going in deep details to explain overhand stacking, false cutting or false dealing? He needed green? Well, unveiling true secrets from the table would have been a great opportunity to get a lot of money!"

I simply disagree. I don't think he would have made one penny more if he had additional stuff in the book. I don't think he made much on it anyway.

You say: "I simply can't assume that someone doesn't know something because they don't include it".

I agree with that too. But the book was about the "Card table", frankly, what in that book you're unable to find anywhere else in on form or another (Green, Quinn, Maskelyne, Magic books, etc.)? Nothing. I understand it was a long time ago and it was hard to gather information, harder than today. I understand he was mainly targeting magicians. I understand the "whatever reason" factor.

But the contents wasn't that sexy anyway as we say today. Second deal, bottom deal, overhand stacking, palming... Come on, there was a lot of stuff yet in use in 1902 he could have talk aboutn in order to get a big buzz about his book!

I have no idea if the initial one buck price was a big amount of money by that time, but we know the price has been divided by two just a few months after the first advertising. Too expensive or no that much interesting? Not the same time, Okay, but maybe not revealing enough "real" secrets too .

Let's wait other's advices...

I will await other responses, in fact I'm done with the discussion alltogether. I've have this discussion before it doesn't really interest me all that much. It's kind of academic, so I'll leave it to others.

But I will leave you with this quote from Steve Forte about an item on one of his GPS tapes.

"For whatever reason, I didn't want to tip the complete ******* at the time volume #4 was produced."

So I would have been pretty foolish going around questioning Mr. Fortes knowledge based on what WASN'T on the tapes. He knew about it, but for "whatever reason" he didn't tip it.

"Erdnase was a baker of pies"

Anybody can say it, anybody can believe it, and nobody can dispute it........but that statement serves nobody, adds nothing of value to the discussion, and is ultimately irrelevant.

I achieve great inner peace by not engaging in discussions regarding "Expert" with folks who don't hold the book in at least the same vaulted position that I do.

To be honest, I do not know nor have I ever heard of anyone writing down 100% of what they know to be sold as a book.

Erdnase left things out, but then so does everyone else. Basing your assertion that he was not a cheat on the fact that he left some things out would seem to apply just as well to a number of people who are currently active. It probably is just as valid in either case, that is, not at all.

You know what? I heard the backpalm helped him out of a difficult situation... but that's another story.

Doesn't he mention a couple moves, but with no names and no description? is it the back palm? Might want to get jason e into this one...

My gut tells me yes, he was a cheat (at least in a limited sense and probably in a more involved sense).

However, nowhere in the book does he actually claim to have been a cheat or cheated anyone.

He does mention that he was a player/gambler and drops hints that he was cheated, but doesn't ever come right out and claim to have hustled himself.

I think it unlikely that a complete outsider would have bothered to come up with the things he did and not have at least experimented with them at the tables, but I guess it's possible the entire book was written but not tested personally by the author.

I doubt it though.

Jason

Jason,

In Regards to Erdnase never claiming to have cheated. What do you make of this; (sorry to quote EATCT to you, I know you are quite familiar).

"Our tuition was received in the cold school of experience. We started in with the trusting nature of a fledgling, and a calm assurance born of overweening faith in our own potency. We bucked the tiger voluntarily, and censure no one for the inevitable result. A self-satisfied unlicked cub with a fairly fat bank roll was too good a thing to be passed up. We naturally began to imbibe wisdom in copious draughts at the customary sucker rates, but the jars to our pocketbook caused far less anguish than the heartrending jolts to our insufferable conceit. After the awakening our education progressed through close application and constant study of the game, and the sum of our present knowledge is proffered in this volume, for any purpose it may answer, to friend and foe, to the wise and the foolish, to the good and the bad, to all alike, with but one reservation,--that he has the price.


Don't you take references such as the "cold school of experience" and things like "our education progressed through close application and constant study of the game" to be claims of having cheated by the author?

A complete outsider, it's impossible. No, I think he was a true gambler or at least he has gambled a lot in his life. But too many techniques are missing. And they are of interest even for magicians. Peeks, mucks, switches, etc.

Well, I take your advices into account nevertheless. Everyone's advice is important.

Too many techniques are missing.

What do you say to this Amos?

A real cheat is more likely to write a book describing the techniques he KNEW and EMPLOYED, not a book of every possible technique under the sun. What was he writing, an encyclopedia or a "how to" book?

Why would he write about mucking if he never hand mucked for example? I don't know how it was back then, it's possible that back then a "expert" was someone who actually did the things they wrote about, not someone who just cataloged moves. You are dismissing the possibility that he actually cheated because it's not a catalog of moves. That to me is absurd.

You tell me. Do you think most cheats, false deal, and false shuffle, and cold deck, and hand muck, and play the spread, and do riffle shuffle run ups, and everything else you can think of, or ever heard of?

Answer that question honestly and you may begin to see the folly in your logic.

I agree with Vandy and would expand a bit to say that card hustlers don't make a living using dozens of different moves, but rather a few moves done well.

If anything, "Expert" is absolutely chock full of gambling moves, far more than the average hustler would ever use at once, and in the same time frame.

I'm not saying that he was a cheat or not, although I think he was. It's just that the absense of any particluar move, or moves, from the book not only proves nothing, it's not even a good criteria to base a judgement upon.

So, Vandy, you think that he just wrote about what he knew or used?

OK, that's your opinion. I understand it.

To me he showed only well known material. All right, he described all the stuff in a very good way and no one did that before. It's OK, but he talked about no "underground" techniques used at that time. There is no new material if you compare with Evans, Koschitz, etc. writtings, just full (and wonderful) explanations.

As an expert he should have gone into many more techniques and not only talk about known for ages ones. I admit I don't know what they called an "expert" by 1900 though.

By the way you get me wrong. It's not because he didn't use 12,000 techniques I say/suppose he wasn't a cheat. But because he doesn't talk about new materail well used around the table in 19th century, like the spread, mucks and so on.

If you had to sell a book about cheating in 2008, would you talk about second dealing or bottom dealing? Let's be serious! You'd rather write about N strippers, kills, cut cards bypasses, plastic cards, electronic devices, mini-cameras hijack and so on! You wanna sell your book? Add spice!

What about his money needs? Why he just didn't play another crooked table? He says he show no great respect for reformed gamblers. So why he details some of their techniques, it's not very different. I don't know if I'm stupid but it's not that easy to follow his reasoning.