Push off second deal
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bp-GTogBUE5/

That stud take looks amazing. Very deceptive.

Thank you

Some one handed seconds
https://www.instagram.com/p/BqkM0pNgvkw/

Some recent videos on the push through:

(RRSRC procedure)
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bs2-gDYBfvd/

(Trying to show it from all angles)
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bs8koZuBVnt/

(Completing the cut in an erdnase fashion)
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bsk8unBh2y_/

(More natural way of completing the cut)
https://www.instagram.com/p/BsSijgPBrqZ/

Hope you like them!

Good work – but the strip cuts look magical.

Any hints on how to make them look not "magical"?

Non magical:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBxnuoBWdVs

Magical:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo4qiFn7lpY

Thank you. What exactly is the reason why the first one is used? I always thought in a real setting it is all about speed (i.e. more hands to be played and thus more money) and the second one can be done at a faster pace in my opinion.

Well, how about wearing New-Age finger rings on all your fingers and thumbs? No, that has already been done by another premier card table performer plus it might make you really look magical.

Perhaps having tattoos all over your body and brandishing an unkempt bearded homeless guy appearance? Regrettably, while that may be disarming, it has already been done before by the great DM. Besides it makes people itchy and they want to scratch themselves while watching.

Hmmmm...wait a minute. You are doing a demonstration showing skill with cards, even possessing the ability to control them and bent them to your will. While Tommy's point is well taken for an actual game format situation, you are performing a card table demonstration for show. You are slick and fast and give the appearance of being able to do anything with cards. Why not just keep things the way they are...slick, fast and yes "magical" ...because performing card control for show is really a magical feat, is it not?

Of course, wearing a top hat and tux might be stretching things a bit too far.

So, IMO it is supposed to look slick and magical...and the slicker and faster you work the better. Of course, that is just my opinion for what it is worth.

Regarding tommy's statement, if you were attempting to emulate a casino house dealer at twenty-one or poker, that is another story. Slick and fast, which in a way enhances your demonstrations would wake the dead and probably get you pulled up in a professional gambling format. But hey, if it is good enough for Steve Forte, well...

(Slick and fast is not the same as clean, efficient and easy to follow which would be important in a professional or casino format.)

Interestingly I watched Molly's Game on TV the other night, the story of Molly Bloom and the very high stakes exclusive private poker games she ran in L.A. and N.Y. for the wealthy - sports figures, Hollywood show biz types, business magnates, a few Russian Mobsters and so on. In one scene she has hired a new dealer who is experienced and Molly wants to see her deal a little before the game starts. As soon as the dealer shows Molly how adroitly and professionally she deals, Molly pulls her up and says, "No, don't handle cards like that in this game. Slow down and deal more clumsily. You will scare away my players if you are that slick" or some such statement.

However, even if you were not doing pull-throughs, false cuts and whatever, and even if you were not fooling me all the time, I would still enjoy watching you shuffle and deal because it looks so fast and slick and adroit. Even if you were not controlling the cards I would still enjoy watching, but of course, not in my game.

It is not about speed but about technique: the first shows the technique used by dealers, while the second shows the technique used by most magicians. Some gamblers call the magicians way an up-the-ladder cut, even though it may not be so but when they see it done that way it raises their suspicion. It is not normal procedure to experienced poker players that’s all.

I don't mean the speed displayed in the two videos. But it appears to me that the second technique can be done at a faster pace than the first one. Up till now I was under the impression that a fast pace would be desired at the table. Therefore, my question what the reasons are that the first one is preferred. Would love to hear some insight.

It does not matter which way is faster. One cannot use Erdnase like strip cuts without waking the dead. The first one is preferred because it is a security procedure designed to prevent Erdnase like manipulations.

I would agree with tommy on this and his point is valid. The first procedure is very clean, everyone can follow what is occurring (surveillance, the floorman and the players), the middle block of the deck is getting changed or reversed and the number of strip cuts is minimalized.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBxnuoBWdVs

Of course, it can be done a little more adroitly and professionally than shown. It is actually counted 1,2,3,4 if one counts the first packet pull as 1 and the last packet, placed on top, as 4. If one just pulls 1,2,3 the middle packet essentially remains the same. Pulling 1,2,3,4 breaks that packet up. Whipping one to three singular packets from the bottom to top and then whipping 4,5,6 times or more with a running cut...no one know what is occurring. It looks skillful, dazzling and to more experienced people, certainly suspicious.

The last thing a well-run house or a properly trained dealer wants to do is create lack of clarity or suspicion as to what is occurring. In fact, they make every effort to do just the opposite.

This is not to say that some poker and casino game dealers will not whip 1,2,3 or 1,2,3,4 with a running cut, (Erdnase style, if that makes the description easier to understand), but 4 is about max and ideal. If the dealer is whipping 5,6,7 or more running cuts, the game is not following accepted procedure. Not only is it hard to follow, it is a waste of dealing time.

Of course, my post of Jan. 23 2019 above was largely tongue in cheek. However, for demos there is one school of thought that says the more pizzazz and skill demonstrated, the better. Then again, a purist can ague that demos should duplicate exact game procedure, or at least as closely as possible. I think it can be argued pro or con depending on the circumstances, the audience involved and whether it is primarily for entertainment or not.

But...in the final analysis...a demo, is a demo, is a demo, is a demo...it is still not the same as getting the money in a live action game.

Of course, just my rarely, if ever, humble opinion...

Thank you for the insight. I just wanted to understand the reasoning behind it!

An update on my Bottom Deal:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BtEN4rdBgsd/

Some more riffle stacking:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BtTn8zmBlr0/

Nicely performed as usual, Joey.

Out of curiosity, can you do two shuffles of four of a kind for 4 hands or 3 shuffles of four of a kind for 8 hands with any degree of consistency?

In my experience, that is quite difficult to do consistently with a straight riffle shuffle.

Z stacking skills are amazing. The best I've seen

Z is a whole 'nother level.

I fully agree

Mechanics Grip Bottom Deal
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bt-4X7BBncN/