He deserves and received respect from all of us!

We were just discussing a technical point, the deceptiveness of the deal, nothing more.

Deuces not a great move for Poker? Sorry, but it's my main move. As we use cut cards, bottom deals are no longer possible and I use SD to fix some cases when I stack slugs. I use SD on the fly after peeking the top card when I deal. I use SD with some marks on the backs (kinda punch deal if you want), etc.

Anyway, that's not the place to discuss this here, but you puzzle me on that point.

The Greek Deal made me feel like a Geek...

I don't think it's a great move for poker. As a utility move to fix a stack as you say, or to move a card around so it hits the board or doesn't, or busts a Lowball hand, sure. Not exactly monster edges though.

Otherwise you're left with peeking the top card at every opportunity to try to build a hand. I don't think that's a good application. There are better tools for the job.

Dealing a punch or paper with it? My hat's off to ya...

Great deals Yiannis.

Hi Yiannis,

I too very much appreciated the skill of your deals. Very well done. It is true that Richard Turner does not favour the Scott second. To mix the vocab he regards the dead thumb as sticking out like a 'sore thumb'. I disagree with AcMD on the general deceptiveness of this deal. If you keep the deal consistent it becomes very difficult to discern the top from the second particularly at speed. The second can truly seem to melt through the top card. The tip off is more likely to be the dead thumb and even then it would be difficult to prove seconds especially if they were being dealt sparingly. The tip off might lead the knowledgeable to look for evidence of paper or punch. But there are so many factors involved in hustling a game. These days I'm not sure how many true career cheats are left. Anyway, its great way of dealing seconds for gambling demo's and as I'm mercifully not a cheat, I don't have to worry about my kneecaps in quite the same way.

Regards,

Paul

Since I'm no cardman (but would love to have the physical ability Yiannis demonstrated) I've been sitting on my hands waiting for someone to make one simple observation that I think needs mentioning:

Dealing seconds (and other sleights) with a white-bordered deck as he did cannot be as deceptive as moving with borderless cards like Bees.

After watching tons of crap on YouTube, all I can say is, very nice moves, Yiannis, and super video production.

Bret

Hi Yiannis,

Nicely Done - Keep Up The Great Work!

Guys, thank you very much!

I agree with Mr.Z that timing and phychology are the most important tools of the trade. If there is the slightest suspision that you are cheating the game, very little - if anything - will fly.

Paul is right about consistency; keeping the thumb "dead" through out the game, shouldn't raise any suspision because the deal doesn't change when it is a false one.

Bret, when I use Bee cards you cannot tell the difference between a second and a top even if you look directly on top of the deck and even in slow motion. Thank you for pointing this out.

The purpose of the video on Youtube is to prove that the second deal I'm using is the Walter Scott's one. That's why it is filmed directly on top of the deck and it is shown in slow motion. So that the spectators can see all its characteristics.

Stay tuned for a video demonstration with Bee cards!

The Scott deal is an important part of the historical record as it relates to gambling sleights.

To ignore it is to ignore history. Whether you think Scott moved in a game or not isn't important, there being no solid proof either way.
Certainly there's been more solid research (Gazzo/Britland) to indicate that he did move than there has to indicate that he didn't.......but alas, it must remain an unknown.

In the end, it does nothing but good to continue to demonstrate the Walter Scott Second, teach it, and talk about it.

Otherwise, it disappears.

Yannis,

Except for the fact I've NEVER seen someone dealing a card with a dead thumb and/or the top card not moving, I mean in true games. Trust me pal, I play cards and Poker for ages and the average style for dealing is far from Scott's one. You can give me dozen of explanations, you won't convince me.

For the zillionth time, your deal is great especially in the context you describe it: gambling demos, magician's stuff, etc. But I'm talking about something else: ACTUAL PLAY. And as far as I know, it's a gambling area here.

I don't wanna start a fight, with no one. That why I resign.

Silverking,

I disagree with you. If no evidence exist Walter Scott was a true cheat, you'll understand I can't accept the fact he's been called the best card cheat ever...

Anyway, end of thread for me. I think it's time for me to move away a bit from this forum...

See you guys!

That's a very wise statement, indeed.

AMcD, regarding the question of whether Walter Scott ever really moved in a real game, as Silverking says, we'll never actually know. But it seems to me that the detractors all base their evidence on the story (excellently recounted by David Ben in his Vernon biography) that the demonstration set up in New York was fudged.

Now, that argument is weak: even if the demonstration had been rigged to impress the Inner Circle (sans Vernon and those he trusted most), that doesn't mean that Walter Scott couldn't do the work in real life. Trying to fool magicians isn't quite the same as moving in real life.

And Gazzo's account is much more recent. Further, Gazzo learned to do the work himself. Granted, Gazzo isn't a Vegas dealer; nevertheless, he should be trusted to accurately report how good Scott was, and how deceptive the deal can be.

I myself responded to a Yiannis video a year or two ago that I thought he should move his thumb. But I had second thoughts when I had my next poker evening with my friends. True, no one deals with a dead thumb; but it is also true that none of my buddies deal in any other way than pushing out the top card an inch or more to the right. Professional dealers ALWAYS use a much, much smaller brief than amateur card handlers. And once the brief becomes so small that it is nearly invisible, the entire action becomes based on the hand dealing out the cards rather than the hand holding the cards. Which means in turn that no one (other than magicians trying to spot the "handling") would actually notice whether the thumb is dead or not.

Those are my thoughts at the moment. It's too bad when someone announces they're leaving the discussion. For some reason, that never impresses me. Makes me feel like I'm inferior for thinking there is still something to discuss.

I apologize to everyone for the confusing part of my last post in which I talk about professional dealers using a large "brief". I didn't mean that, of course.

What I meant is that professional dealers don't push the top card over to the side very far.

Shame on me! I'm so used to talking about cheating moves that it has become difficult to talk about how legitimate dealers deal cards.

Hope that clears up my point.

Stoney,

I agree with you that no one would ever notice whether the thumb is dead or not during a game. This is just another way of dealing and everyone deals the cards their own way.

Even if someone does notice, what would that tell him? If you are above suspision, nothing. On the other hand if you are suspected of foul play, holding the cards would be enough evidence that you are cheating.

Going back to Mr.Z, timing and psychology are the most important tools. If you can combine sleight of hand with clever psychology and timing, ANY technique can fly even in the presence of fast company.

Walter Scott's second is just another technique and by applying it properly, it can be used for gambling demonstrations, magician's stuff and in actual play.

Arnold, I hope you rethink leaving the forum, as I enjoy conversing with you about these kinds of things.
There is no requirement that we agree on everything, and in fact I welcome disagreement when it's well thought out.

The "double negative" type of argument about Walter Scott is where we disagree it appears........with me saying there's no proof he wasn't, and you saying there's no proof he was.

My point is that each of those thoughts cancel each other out, and in the end we don't know for sure either way.

I will say that I feel that a moving thumb certainly isn't the only smoke you can put on a second deal (any second deal), and I've seen the Scott deal done in such a way that the moving thumb becomes somewhat irrelevant to the illusion of a top card being dealt.
The moving thumb may be the most effective contribution to the illusion, but it's not the only choice!

Perhaps others will pass off the Scott Deal as a magic deal, but I myself feel it's not that effective for magic, and perhaps a bit to difficult for most magicians to master.......not to mention most magicians don't know it exists.

Re-think that leaving the forum thing though Arnold, as your thoughts are always most welcome!

The main issue is, even the tops don't look like tops... Not exactly what you're looking for when you're trying to keep a low key.

It doesn't make sense. A card is 2.5" x 3.5". Why the hell would anyone only take the cards by the top 1/100" for any reason other than needing to do something conspicuous? None. There's no reason.

And the reason why people "set" a deck into the hand is to maximize the efficiency of the deal (ie: making it easier / more comfortable to deal the cards). It doesn't make sense to take the time to carefully set and bevel the deck, then deal from a difficult microscopic portion of the top corner of the deck.

From a technical standpoint, it's awesome, which I'm guessing is the reason why most people here are liking it. But it doesn't matter who made this grip and I don't care if it's been used before in a game, though I'm sure it has - Bottom line, it's inferior. Better techniques are out there that are much easier to do and more deceptive.

I heard of a crew getting ready to switch in a cooler for 21 but a guy just wouldn't leave the table. They finally had to resort to farting on this guy to get him to leave so they could move. I hope you can read between the lines to find this analogous to the Scott deal, because I'm not going to practice the art of flatus emission just because it's been done in a game. Some of you guys get so hard when the next latest "move" gets (re)published that you forget to stop and analyze it first.

My point is, this move is good for a demo and for improving your other deals, that's it.

Maitre D, your points are excellent.

I would suggest (merely suggest, mind you) that you err regarding what is conspicuous in normal play.

The conspicuousness of farting I will leave to other to discuss.

I'd like to add one thing.

Yiannis, I'm not trying to talk down about you or your work, I'm only discussing the nature of the deal itself. I'll admit, I might buy the Scott eBook from you sometime in the future.

Any time I see "you guys" used in the negative in a post, I quit reading and ignore the poster.

The tendency to make absolute statements and declare them as "truth", and then to further declare that anybody disagreeing with those absolute statements as "wrong" tends to betray the speaker as a guy who doesn't quite know as much as he thinks he does.

My point is, this move is good for a demo and for improving your other deals, that's it.

This just makes you look uninformed, but opinionated.

I view your chops as higher than to make absolute statements about whether the Scott deal "works" or not Maitre D.
I accept however that you're as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine, and actually would prefer to engage the conversation with you, whereupon we discuss our individual opinions.

Ending a sentence with "that's it" tends to make it hard to converse further

Look, to all the naysayers......you don't have a clue if Scott used the deal under fire.......and I don't have a clue if he did.
Scott says he did, and the Gazzo/Britland research indicates that there's likely a greater chance he did use it under fire than that he was an outright liar.

But (and here's the important part), NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE!

To make declarations about the deal one way or another (and in effect attempt to end the conversation) is below all the posters in this thread.

Peace to all.

I believe that, what makes a false deal superior or inferior depends not on its technical points but on its application. As Mr.Z wrote, many scores have been won with moves most of us would spit at.