The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » NDO vs ShuffleBored vs Sam the Bellhop...which finishing move? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page 1~2 [Next]
the dealer
View Profile
Regular user
las vegas
190 Posts

Profile of the dealer
Ok...let the battle begin. So here's what I'm wondering you memdeck workers think, so hear me out. Imagine doing a card set, containing in it, your favorite memdeck effects and so forth. So after about 10-15 minutes or so comes your closer. So my question is, what do you all think is a killer ending to your card set. After you perform, you finish with the deck in new deck order(or whatever grand bridge deal), you divine exactly how many face up or face down cards are in a deck that you never touch, or you end with the ever so entertaining, Sam the Bellhop!...id love to hear your thoughts on this...thank you all!...(gotta get back to modern warfare now)
The Futurist
View Profile
Veteran user
331 Posts

Profile of The Futurist
Personally, I'd consider some effect that lets the spectator(s), at some point, shuffle. If you're going to be retiring the stack for the night anyway, might as well leave them with that "he let me shuffle the cards" memory.
the dealer
View Profile
Regular user
las vegas
190 Posts

Profile of the dealer
Very good, very good....makes sense...thank you
MemDeck329
View Profile
Regular user
179 Posts

Profile of MemDeck329
Simon Aronson has stated that his Poker Deal is the world's greatest trick to be done with his stack. In his book, "Try The Impossible" and in Vol. 3 of the "Sessions With Simon" DVD, he shows a way to keep the stack in order after performing this effect. He used to close with this one one, with the deck out of order.

There are a few tricks whereby the spectator is allowed to perform one complete riffle shuffle, and several real cuts. One of these effects is "Lie Sleuth" from "Bound To Please". Due to the popularity of the recent (2009) hit TV show, "Lie to Me".... I think this is a good effect to close the mem deck set. This is a fairly difficult one for Aronson Stack users, because (due to the shuffle) you have to keep TWO stack orders in mind, at the same time.

I like this one because you can restore the stack later quite easily because you have two streams of stacks. You can spread the cards on your table and separate the two stacks into one in just a few minutes, instead of starting over from scratch.

"Some People Think" is also a good one to close for magicians or "smart" spectators. It also requires you to keep tracks of two parallel stacks in your mind. It is also in "Bound To Please". These two look like the impossible.....
the dealer
View Profile
Regular user
las vegas
190 Posts

Profile of the dealer
Thanks for the insights memdeck...i have my copy of the book right next to me, so ill be checking it out, thank you!
the dealer
View Profile
Regular user
las vegas
190 Posts

Profile of the dealer
BTW...you sure he shows his poker deal on vol.3 of his dvds?...i don't see it anywhere. Or maybe I'm mistaken...in fact, I'm gonna watch it now...lol...
MemDeck329
View Profile
Regular user
179 Posts

Profile of MemDeck329
It's called "Routine Maintenance".
Mito
View Profile
Veteran user
Japan
319 Posts

Profile of Mito
I'm pretty sure Mr. Aronson doesn't think that the poker deal (however wonderful) is the ultimate stack trick anymore. "Try the Impossible" was written years after he said that, and included advice on preserving the stack in order to go on to even bigger miracles.

If I'm going to destroy the stack, I've gotta go with Everybody's Lazy—the trick he wishes he could have shown Marlo. My (subjective) opinion.
MemDeck329
View Profile
Regular user
179 Posts

Profile of MemDeck329
In "Try the Impossible", the first line on page 238 states: "In my personal opinion, the most impressive feature of the Aronson stack -- bar none -- is the "Draw Poker Deal".
Mito
View Profile
Veteran user
Japan
319 Posts

Profile of Mito
True, but that's different from "the world's greatest trick to be done with his stack". It's the best built-in feature of his stack, but there are other (arguably better) tricks that can be done with the stack that aren't stack-dependent.
Know what I mean?
MemDeck329
View Profile
Regular user
179 Posts

Profile of MemDeck329
Hello Mito-san. I know what you mean. I do not disagree with your statement. There are many excellent stack-independent tricks..... The Poker Deal was one of the reasons I chose to go with the Aronson, rather than the Tamariz (or other) stacks. The Routine Maintenance idea makes it even better because the stack is not destroyed.

And, even though there may be hundreds of other ways to use the stack, Simon used to close with this one. The Poker Deal is a tough act to follow.
Simon Aronson
View Profile
V.I.P.
74 Posts

Profile of Simon Aronson
Hey guys, let me clarify what I said, and what I meant, and what I think NOW.

I certainly don't recall ever saying the Draw Poker Deal was the world’s greatest anything, but sometimes in a gush of enthusiasm others may not quote me quite correctly. I did write that the Draw Poker Deal was "the most impressive feature" of my stack. By that, I simply meant that, among all the specific built-in features of my stack, that Poker Deal brought the strongest audience reaction. I was not talking about "memorized deck" effects (i.e. stack independent tricks), and was not referring to any other stack (memorized or otherwise) other than my own. I only was talking about the built-in features of my stack, and felt it was the most impressive.

But a few caveats are appropriate. First, the Draw Poker Deal is only strong when the audience is convinced the deck has been shuffled, preferably by them. That’s one of the reasons I do it later in a routine, or as a closer, because I can do other effects beforehand where an audience member actually shuffles the pack; then, after a deck switch I can false shuffle (see Vol 3 of my DVD) and go into the Draw Poker Deal. Second, it plays very strong for an audience that understands poker; if your audience isn’t poker-astute or poker-interested, it may not be particularly impressive. Third, the Draw Poker Deal is more of a gambling demo, which isn’t quite the same as “magic.” If someone were to ask me what built-in “magical” features of my stack I now find impressive (as opposed to a demo of gambling skills), I’d certainly mention the Aronson-Christ Aces, and the ability to directly go into my Shuffle-bored.

Keep in mind that (and this admittedly changes the focus a bit) while the Draw Poker Deal may, in my opinion, be the most “impressive,” it’s probably not the most “useful” feature of my stack. I’d say that award goes to the spelling feature of cards 10 – 15. I (and many others) use that extremely often.

Finally, we shouldn’t be comparing features of a specific stack with stack independent memorized deck effects. I think the “magic” (read: impossibility) of certain memorized deck effects (whether mine or other’s) far supersedes effects where the basic modus operandi is “merely” a specific stack. For full blown routines, Everybody’s Lazy is still at the top of my list, and for quicker, shorter effects, Two Beginnings continues to be one of my favorites.

Hope this clarifies what I meant. Naturally, all of this is just my opinion, and I’m not legislating for anyone else. As long as people are still having fun with, and fooling their audiences with, memorized deck magic (regardless of whose stack you’ve memorized), I’m happy and am glad to have helped pioneer the resurgence.

Simon Aronson
"There's a world of difference between a spectator's not knowing how something is done versus his knowing that it can't be done."

Shuffle-bored (1980)



http://www.simonaronson.com
The Futurist
View Profile
Veteran user
331 Posts

Profile of The Futurist
Simon, it's great to hear from you on this forum. I just recently learned your stack. I have started to really appreciate the spelling effects, and other "open index" opportunities that may arise simply by knowing where the cards lie - eg) if someone happens to name a card that you can spell to with their name, your own name, the name of the venue...

Just with those position 10-15 cards alone, there's a 6/52 chance for a "name a card" spelling miracle off the bat. Not so much an "out" as an "in" Smile

Do you find the Draw Poker works better with an older audience? The craze is for Texas Hold'em these days. I wonder if, for many younger people, "poker" is synonymous with (online) Texas Hold'em now, and many might not have even heard of Draw or Stud poker.

Many thanks for maintaining such great memdeck resources on your website.
MemDeck329
View Profile
Regular user
179 Posts

Profile of MemDeck329
Futurist, the odds are 11.5384615384615%, but who's counting? Smile

Simon, it is wonderful to see you here. We have been chatting up your most wonderous stack. Thanks for the clarification above.
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2009-12-03 01:47, MemDeck329 wrote:
. . . the odds are 11.5384615384615% . . . .

To be accurate, the probability is 11.53846%; the odds are 23:3 against.
The Futurist
View Profile
Veteran user
331 Posts

Profile of The Futurist
And, chuck in the possibility that someone may actually name the Jack Of Spades or Nine Of Diamonds, and then you've got about a 15% chance of doing something very cool. The other 85% of the time you can just do something else very cool anyway. Win-win Smile

This is a great article by Dennis Loomis and contributors: http://www.loomismagic.com/memdeck10.php

Some of these spellings might seem a little contrived, but there might be some other ones there that you feel you can incorporate. The ones that involve spelling from a face-up deck look alright to me.

And a few stock phrases wouldn't be too difficult to have in mind, for a few more chances at a spelling miracle:

y-o-u-r-c-a-r-d : spells to card 8, Six Of Clubs (or card 9, the Eight Of Diamonds, if you want to "burn and turn")
y-o-u-r-c-a-r-d-i-s : well, this one's redundant, as we can already spell "Ace Of Clubs"
t-h-e-c-a-r-d-y-o-u-c-h-o-s-e-i-s : will get you to 17, the Three Of Spades (or card 18, the Ace Of Diamonds, if you want to "burn and turn")

...etc. This would suggest a dynamic approach to patter eg: if they did choose the Three Of Spades, play up that phrase "the card you chose is..." a bit before going to spell it out.

Possibly, if the spectator gets to name, first, simply an Ace, Ten, Five, Two, King or Seven, it might even be a good ruse to steer them to the correct suit by equivoque, then do the spelling trick. Well, that last one depends how your routine's set up, I guess. It depends if you want to explicitly do a spelling effect, or opportunistically take advantage of one that is handed to you on a proverbial plate, as if that was your intention all along Smile
MemDeck329
View Profile
Regular user
179 Posts

Profile of MemDeck329
S2000 said: "To be accurate, the probability is 11.53846%; the odds are 23:3 against."

I stand corrected! It's hard to believe, but I actually wrote a short column for the Lotto Winner magazine on odds and probabilities in the 1980's. Smile
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4816 Posts

Profile of gdw
I personally always loved being able to go into NDO. Going to NDO implies complete control of the cards, rather than a specific order, as they see the deck in a different order earlier, an order clearly not NDO.

Going into a story routine like Sam the Bellhop can imply control of the cards as well, but the order itself does not stand out, aside from its coordination with the story, and may have been the order of the deck the whole time.
That said, I think it is a phenomenal closer to any set, especially if you can build in convincers of the decks random order before hand, but that applies to any thing really.

ShuffleBoard is also phenomenal closer, as it seems utterly impossible, and very much emphasizes "randomness" in the deck.

I guess everything I just said really says nothing about the actual question, lol.

Hmm, The stack I use is very easily brought to NDO as it is similar to Mnemonicam and this is something I will do in casual performances quite often.
Similarly, I think ShuffleBoard lends itself to casual performances in that variations of it can be done rather easily, and in a short period of time.
Whereas story routines, I think, require a bit more of a commitment on the part of the audience. That is, they require a bit more time.

Hmm, I think it would depend on if I am doing a larger set with the deck or not.

If just a casual "impromptu" performance that is just long enough to need a climax, I would do NDO, as it can be done pretty quickly, and I have built a relatively quite pick a card effect around it. Aslo, I can then go back into my stack relatively easily.

If I am in a situation where, even a casual impromptu performance, is turning into a bit longer set, then I think shuffle board, or a story routine will have a bigger impact as they probably build a bit more than a NDO revelation.

Even a grand bridge deal really only has a more singular impact. If dealt face up, it is apparent pretty quickly what is happening, and can't really go further, and if dealt face down, or with just the dealer's hand face up, there is only the addition of turning the other hands over, which may seem like three additional revelations, but is really only one.

A story effect really builds and goes somewhere (and also can keep the stack intact if done right) and ShuffleBoard is a bit more involved with the spectator, and really hammers home this randomness in the deck, and has a gradual build in revelations, each one building on the previous.
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.
Vlad_77
View Profile
Inner circle
The Netherlands
5829 Posts

Profile of Vlad_77
First off, what an honor to have a post here from Simon Aronson!!!! I TRULY wish he would post a bit more often.

So....

I will start by saying that I LOATHE story tricks. Sam The Bellhop and other routines of that nature just do not "play" well for me. So, the Sam the Bellhop ending is not for me.

I LOVE to take chances, so, the ending sequences for me in a formal set usually consists of:

Simon Aronson's Bait and Switch, The Draw Poker Deal, and then, a bit of chicanery and ending with Henry Evans' Perfect Triumph. In a strolling situation, I stop at the Draw Poker Deal and with Mr. Aronson's instructions, do the proper gathering up and I am reset and ready to rock again Smile

Is it overkill? Sure!! But why draw a little blood when you can have it all? *Smiles* I do not believe in magic that leaves them mildly entertained. To paraphrase the film Apocalypse Now, "I love the smell of burning neurons, it reminds me of MAGIC!"

Namaste,
Vlad
ddeckmann
View Profile
Loyal user
Paraguay
202 Posts

Profile of ddeckmann
How about ending with ACAAN?
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » NDO vs ShuffleBored vs Sam the Bellhop...which finishing move? (0 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.32 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL