

Silvano New user Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovinia 36 Posts 
Hi every one, Here is my completed full deck cyclic stack based on suit progresion and simple value progression formula. I believe that this order has very random look, because there is 4 value repetitions: 10,10 ; J,J ; Q,Q ; K,K there is also many suit repetition and there is one triple suit repetition near the bottom Kh, Aj, 3h.
So, I would like to find out what all of you think about this stack. P.S. It is I believe mix of two old ideas and one mine, maybe something new. ORDER: As,2s,4c,10d,10s,7d,4h,9s,5c,Qd,Ad,5h,Jc,Jd,Qs,Jh,10c,9h,6d,2d,7c,3c,8h,4d,Js,9d 8c,5s,10h,8s,3s.6c,Ac,4s,8d,6h,Kc,2c,6s,Qh,Qc,Kd,3d,9c,7h,2h,5d,Ks,Kh,Ah,3h,7s Click here to view attached image. 
Silvano New user Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovinia 36 Posts 

Silvano New user Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovinia 36 Posts 

Tom G Inner circle 2696 Posts 
Silvano,
You'll need to let us know how it works before we could give an opinion. Tom 
ddyment Inner circle Gibsons, BC, Canada 2196 Posts 
I should weigh in on this briefly, at least. Silvano has thus far sent me three different versions of his stack, and now I see that he has posted (above) yet another rendition, which looks nothing like th three I have seen. I have been off travelling for the past couple of weeks, so have been out of touch with him, but I confess to having a challenging time following the changes. What I have managed to decode thus far is fairly complicated compared to other algorithmic stacks, so the benefits are not entirely clear.
Some of this might be due to language problems is explaining the algorithm, of course, though Silvano has also failed to respond to some direct questions from me. But I'm a bit frustrated by the fact that new versions seem to negate what I've managed to understand of previous ones. So that's the story from my perspective.
Doug Dyment's Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More

Silvano New user Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovinia 36 Posts 
Quote:
On 20101105 14:25, ddyment wrote: Dear, Mr. Doug this is something diffrent from my "Scot Bop" PC, CP stack, this is just new random looking full deck cyclic stack where bottom card identity determine top card identity. All with one simple formula. 
Silvano New user Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovinia 36 Posts 
Quote:
On 20101105 12:37, Tom G wrote: I was send you formula for my stack in P.M. stack for sure works perfectly. It is very random look and its based on Breaktrought by R.O. but it have more value repetitions and also few incentives in proces of calculating, For example A, 7, Q. Other is also piece of cake for calculate. Thanks. P.S. I was ask for opinion for order of cards and random look of stack, because i'am sure that speed of calculation and method is very simple for my stack. Anyway I sand to you method for calculating top card. 
Silvano New user Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovinia 36 Posts 

ddyment Inner circle Gibsons, BC, Canada 2196 Posts 
This turns out to be simply the BCS, with an extra arithmetic step added to further obfuscate things. Those who think BCS isn't sufficiently random, and are willing to add more calculation difficulty, may find it of interest.
Of course, there are many other randomizations that will result from adding more math to the BCS, if one is so inclined. The truth is, of course, that these progressions are designed to match what lay people think of as random: they will not fool mathematicians who are familiar with truly random distributions. It's always possible to make a stack more convoluted by adding more math: the challenge is to make a stack look sufficiently mixed with a minimum of performance effort. Naturally, there will be disagreement over what constitutes "sufficiently" (with stacks like the one above at one end of the scale, and those like Michael Weber's "Card Kindergarten" at the other), but that's a choice that individual performers must make for themselves.
Doug Dyment's Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More

Silvano New user Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovinia 36 Posts 
In did. Like I sad just another variation of BTCS. Interesting thing is just cause there is more value repetitions.
I personally believe that calculation process have few incentives on examples with A, 7, Q and K. The 2,3,4,5,6 is easy too, only with numbers 8,9,10,J we need to think 23 seconds more,in few days offcourse. That is my point, to make BTCS little bit simpler. "This turns out to be simply the BCS, with an extra arithmetic step added to further obfuscate things. Those who think BCS isn't sufficiently random, and are willing to add more calculation difficulty, may find it of interest." Mathematic structure is nothing more than subtracting 1 from next card value in BTCS, so you have right there is one more step, but only if you think that way, I mean, if You think that you add previous card value to card peek card value (in progressive card and suit value order), that is one step, actually that step replaces doubling card value in BTCS, so there is no extra steps in calculation method. Most calculations, I believe, is much easier for most peoples than BTCS, because of thinking patterns. 
Silvano New user Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovinia 36 Posts 

The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » Very random look cyclic (top/bottom type) stack, maybe new looking full deck order :) (0 Likes) 
[ Top of Page ] 
All content & postings Copyright © 20012020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.13 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 < 