This little 64 page book is a real gem. It was written by Al Smith in 1931 and reprinted in 1975 by Gambler's Book Club of Las Vegas.

According to the introduction by Charlie Miller, Al Smith was "a Professor of Mathematics, Insurance Agent, Writer, Gentleman and a Poker Player of outstanding ability."

The book was written as a card cheating expose by a man who had evidently played a considerable amount of poker in his life, and his valuable insight and experience is evident throughout the book. For anyone interested in the practical aspects of Card Sharking, this book is a must buy. For someone who just likes to play poker, this book would be a worthwhile addition to his library.

(By the way, a “Card Sharp” is defined as someone who cheats at cards to gain an advantage. A “Card Shark” is someone who wins by having an advantage at cards, although not necessarily by cheating. A good player who consistently wins at cards but does NOT cheat is a Card Shark.)

Smith starts off by explaining that the average poker player has many factors working against him, such as an exaggerated idea of his ability as a card player, going up against the "take-off" game, playing against men who are really experts and being cheated from time to time. Smith advises that one should be on the lookout for cheating every time one sits down in any game where the stakes are worthwhile, and to detect the cheater one should know how to do the "work" himself.

Smith makes the very astute observation that "a great many players who are not novices, are under the impression that it takes a great deal of skill at sleight-of-hand to cheat a poker game successfully. Such is far from true. While some manual dexterity is required in most forms of cheating, it is very easily acquired and is in no way related to the sleight-of-hand that is used by the stage magicians in his tricks."

There is a great deal of truth in this statement. While it is true that there are some very skillful practitioners plying their wares at the card table, it is also true that there are many practical tricks that are quite effective that do not require more than average ability with cards.

Smith then says this about the Card Sharp. "The successful card sharp must be very careful to avoid the appearance of being what he is. He is usually a good mixer, a good fellow, and is often in some respectable business or profession or pretends that he is. His conduct and affectations are governed by the class of people with whom he plays. He does not squabble over trifles, and will often take the worst of it when some controversy arises over a small matter, as he must take no chances of making himself so unpopular that he might not be invited to future games. Men do not readily suspect men whom they like, even the constant winners."

Smith further says, "The sharper nearly always has a partner. In the choice of this partner he must be very careful, as the confederate must be of about the same social class as the sharper, must be honest to the extent that he will not double-cross a partner, must be intelligent, at least an average poker player, and must not be stubborn."

Smith's comments about the card sharp and his selection of a partner are very astute and reflect the type thinking that an experienced and successful card cheat would use.

Smith then describes false cuts and false shuffles, using both the overhand and riffle shuffles. He follows this with an explanation of bottom dealing, capping the deck and second dealing. He then explains the three card draw trick (for draw poker), and states that this method "is capable of breaking up any six, seven or eight handed draw poker game by causing all the players except the cheaters to run out of money." I agree with Smith's assessment. It is a powerful trick and he describes three variations of the method. Moreover, it is an example of the practical, "bread and butter" side of card cheating and not the whimsical nonsense that is often promulgated by gambling "experts." The trick is not difficult to execute, is very powerful, and when performed expertly, is almost impossible to detect.

Smith follows up with further cheating methods such as the Count Down, Four Handed Square Cut, Playing Top Hand (fairly good explanation), Holdouts, the Cold Deck, Shiners, Locating, Dealing Known Hole Cards, and Marked Cards. His explanation of marked cards leaves a little to be desired, but his purpose is to acquaint and not to teach.

The remaining concepts in the book are devoted to improving one's playing ability.

If you are looking for glitzy high tech gaffs, a lot of hype, or the latest fancy second deal to wow your friends with, this is not the book for you. However, if you would like to get some insight as to how the "practical" sharp might actually work a game, and if you would like to read about some sensible and workable gaffs that have been played, and are still being used, in the informal private games that abound throughout the country, this is a good book to get. Additionally, professional players have used some of these techniques, with slight modification, in the high stake games played in the California poker rooms years ago when draw poker and lowball where the big games. And they used the techniques I'm referring to for years with great success.

Eddie McGuire’s Phantom of the Card Table book, which describes Walter Scott’s Second, Bottom and Punch deals sells for about the same price as Smith’s book. McGuire’s book is a lot more exciting because it has a great deal of hype and the techniques it describes are “the stuff that dreams are made of,” and excites the newbies and half-smarts to no end. My bet is that the 3 card draw trick described in Smith’s book has made, and is capable of making, hundreds, if not thousands of times more money than all the Walter Scott punch/second dealers, lined up end to end, have or ever will make. It is easier to do, more sharps can do it, is very powerful, and if done cleverly and properly about as undetectable as a move can get. And there is no proof as to what occurred, as there would be with a punched deck. The same can be said for a number of other tricks described in this book.

Keep in mind, a highly proficient cardsharp can improve on the execution or technique of the methods, given but the principles behind the moves will remain constant. However, most of tricks explained work very well exactly as described. And if one is a little bright and so inclined, some of the concepts can be cleverly adapted to the more modern day games of Hold‘em and Seven Card Stud.

The book can be ordered from Gambler's Book Club in Las Vegas or on a Google search from various vendors online.

For $2.95, plus shipping and handling, one really can't go wrong.

I bought this book based on an earlier reference made by Cagliostro.

It is one of those “hidden in plain sight" gems.

A must-have.

Here is some additional information that might prove to be of interest to the magicians.

According to the book, Early Vernon, edited by Faucett W. Ross and published by Magic Inc. (1962), Vernon published a manuscript in 1932 entitled, Ten Card Problems (commonly known as the Twenty Dollar Manuscript). In this manuscript, Vernon used the Count Down in one of the tricks, “The Vernon Poker Demonstration,” to stack the four aces.

Vernon incorporated gambler’s moves in his tricks, when possible, because he believed they were more deceptive for close up card magic than the available magician’s sleights in use at that time. Inasmuch as Charlie Miller met Al Smith in 1931, and Vernon’s Twenty Dollar Manuscript came out in 1932, I would have to assume that Vernon learned the Count Down from Charlie Miller, who in turn learned it from Smith. Therefore, I am almost certain this is one of a number of example of Vernon incorporating a move from the card table into a magic trick.

To clarify, the Count Down is a form of stacking that could be termed by some a “formula” stack. Employed in the manner that Smith suggests (on the “offbeat” as the current dealer casually stacks the cards before they are passed to his partner, who becomes the new dealer), I believe this is still a viable cheating technique in a number of private games. The cheat's partner then false shuffles the cards.

While on the subject of overhand stacks, I don’t think much of the Erdnase System of running up hands with the use of in jogs and out jogs. It certainly is ingenious, but for actual play is complicated, laborious, runs too many cards singly at one time, and the use of out jogs is totally unnecessary. A better method, in my opinion, is the method discussed, starting on page 39, of Card Cheats – How They Operate by Floyd Moss, published in 1950. That is one of the methods actually used by cheats. (I bought a new copy of this excellent book when I was a youngster for $1.50. I see now that used copies sell for around $65.00 or more from various sources.

One final point, magicians talk about the efficacy of using a fine brief for dealing seconds. However, I believe that was something started by Eddie McGuire to elevate Scott and his second deal to supernatural levels. Although Scott probably could no doubt deal from a small brief with a new deck (so can many card men), it becomes very tricky when the cards have been used for a while in actual play. Further, Smith’s explanation as to the actual technique used for strike seconds is one of the best ones in print in my opinion. That techniques is to push the card over the upper right hand corner as Smith describes.

This was described in more detail by Vernon in one of his videos. In fact, in that video Vernon states that a small brief is a fallacy and is not necessary for a deceptive strike second. The real key is to move the top card only when the thumb is moving down down to hit the second card.

Is there any more info about Al Smith work?

What more could you possibly want?

There is more information on this thread than has ever been written before on Smith and his book.

You might want to buy the book for further information. The book is the meat, not Smith.

Smith wrote one manuscript which later was published as a book by Gambler's Book Club.

Am I missing something here?

To clarify, the Count Down is a form of stacking that could be termed by some a “formula” stack. Employed in the manner that Smith suggests (on the “offbeat” as the current dealer casually stacks the cards before they are passed to his partner, who becomes the new dealer), I believe this is still a viable cheating technique in a number of private games. The cheat's partner then false shuffles the cards.

That is used in four handed games like Kalooki rather than poker.

Cagliostro wrote:

tommy then wrote:
That is incorrect. Al Smith’s book was written exclusively about poker and no other card game. His description of the count down was used exclusively for draw poker as explained by me above during the time period he wrote about.

It no doubt could be used for other games but if you had read his book, you would concur it was used for draw poker as described above. In fact, it is done exactly as described and is still quite viable in private poker games including Hold'em.

I meant Cag that we actually use it in four handed games like Kalooki rather than in poker as poker is croupier dealt normally. I don't believe this is still a viable cheating technique in the four handed games like Kalooki I know it is you see?

Quoting a very knowledgeable guy:

"...I remembered a terrific book titled "Poker to Win"... (...) The book is exceptional in terms of describing the "real work".

Cag,

I find Smith's use of the term "the count down" surprising.

For anyone not familiar, that term generally refers to a much older technique where a small slug of cards is steered to a player by his partner. For instance, in a 5-handed game of draw you would try and get a set (say, Kings) positioned at 34, 35, and 36.

The deck is shuffled (mostly falsely, but a real mix of the top 30 or so cards is ok) and the cut is beaten.*

You now deal and keep track of the cards used up during the draw. If you or your partner get a natural pair, you try and steer the Kings to that hand by adjusting the number of drawn cards as much as possible. Your three opponents can take up to 8 cards amongst themselves before you get into the Kings.

Even if your opponents take one of the Kings, you still have two on top to help you as much as they can. If they get too deep into your slug then at least you have some information about what they're holding and you can play or fold accordingly.

This technique is in print at least 35 years prior to Smith's book (and was called "counting down" even then). The serious researcher can find the idea in Koschitz's Manual of Useful Information (1894) as "counting down."

In any case, if you're going to try and set up a hand for someone while apparently "counting down" the stub, getting those cards to the bottom and counting through them one time only while inserting the good cards via the bottom deal** is a much better move in my opinion. While you do have to be able to bottom deal, the "count" is only done once (as opposed to 3 times) and there isn't much heat on the deal itself.

Other than the odd choice of terminology, I agree with Cagliostro that this is a good book and a worthy addition to anyone's library that's interested in this stuff. I've actually held a first edition but didn't have the opportunity to purchase.

Jason

* This is pretty easy with a partner sitting to your right.
** I first ran across this idea in Forte's Casino Game Protection (2004) on p. 442.

When we played draw here we played strip deck. One could keep a few cards at the botton to the same effect. Most of boys were well aware of the idea and we would work together against the tourists as and when. There were hardly any cash draw games here played with a full deck as the action was too slow. I was talking to Ron C about this some time ago and how they worked it in Gardena. We have not played draw here for 25 years though.

http://www.nolimitpoker.poker.tj/strip-deck-poker.html

Thanks to Jason for his reference to “counting down” used in a different context at an earlier time than Smith’s book. I am certainly not as much of an historian as Jason no doubt is. Although I have read a number of the “older” books on the subject, my education is more hands on and less academic than most readers of this forum. However, gambling terminology can change over time because times change, methods change or become less well used and so forth. Additionally the same terminology can be used for different methods. For example, nowadays “counting down” to a card counter would more likely refer to counting down the deck for card counting purposes.

(As an aside, I also note that with the large number of magicians learning about academic card table chicanery, they often come up with their own terminology in many instances and the original terms used by hustlers is sometimes distorted and at odds with this “new” terminology.)

There are many ways to apply the method described by Jason in his post above and Smith refers to a variation of this technique in his book under a completely different name (not the “countdown” designation). Hustlers also have a more modern name for the methodology described by Jason in any and all forms for use in many different games but there is no reason to enlighten the casual reader any further on this.

However, the countdown terminology as used by Smith was reserved exclusively for the overhand shuffle run-up (similar to the Erdnase overhand shuffle stack but without the injogs and outjogs). It was used because the cards in fact are counted down during the shuffle. This shuffle was also referred to as the countdown by hustlers for many years and even by Anthony Marone in his excellent card cheating series published in the 1950s. We are talking about an actual overhand run-up stacking method here. In fact, I met an old Jewish fellow who hustled the games at Grossingers’ and other resorts in the Catskill Mountains in the late 60s which were frequented almost exclusively by the large Jewish clientele from New York City. He used a clever variation of the Countdown overhand stack as described by Smith.

In Smiths method, the stacked hand remained on the top of the deck after the shuffle as would be the case in most stacking methods, including most forms of riffle stacking. In the “countdown” stacking procedure used by this hustler, the stacked cards were gradually sent to the bottom portion of the deck during the stacking procedure thereby eliminating the need to “crimp for the cut” after the run-up. He usually gave himself a pair or three of a kind in the seven card stud and draw poker games played at that time.

Just goes to show the same name can be used in different ways for different concepts and can change over time and still be used interchangeably.

Whoops. I wasn't as clear in my original post as I meant to be. This is what I found surprising. That he was obviously aware of the older "countdown" idea and included it along with 2 or maybe 3 examples in his book, but then referred to is as something else. I don't have the book handy, but I recall it was something like "The Draw Trick". And then to use that name to describe his overhand shuffle* idea (which isn't a bad idea, but I don't think it's particularly elegant), is strange. I guess we'll never know if he just got confused, or if this was a regional language difference amongst the hustlers of his day (Smith was from Texas), or if he never knew that the term had been used to describe the "Draw Trick" before his book.

Good book though and a fun subject to think about.

Jason

*Cag, I don't remember Smith's "count down" idea as an overhand shuffling idea. I was under the impression that he was just counting from hand to hand. I seem to recall there is a whole section on overhand false shuffles and that this move is separate from those and towards the back of the book. Does he actually mention an overhand action or shuffling in any way? I've used the term here this way because you referred to it as an overhand shuffle, but for the life of me I don't remember it that way.

PS: Just reread your original post and saw that Smith used the term "Three Card Draw Trick." I didn't remember the "Three Card" part.

The Three Card Trick was the designation Smith used for the similar concept you described in your post of Nov. 21, 2012 @ 12:40 and Smith’s description was employed for a seven and eight handed draw poker game. I don’t mean to cut hairs on this but the positioning at 34, 35 and 36 for a five card draw poker game in my experience is a little too far down in the deck.

Many variations exist and similar method were used in Gardena for years during its heyday as the “Gambling Capital of the World.” It was used in both the draw poker as well as the lowball games. This was a very powerful and deceptive methodology when played by a professional hustling team.

Floyd Moss has an interesting variation in his book Card Cheats – How They Operate which removes all uncertainty of getting the required cards on the draw.

Smith’s book is packed away so it is not convenient to double check your supposition of possibly counting the cards from hand to hand at this time. However, the countdown uses an overhand shuffle and that shuffle is done casually by the partner to the hustler’s right prior to dealing the next hand and while the current hand is in progress. The hustler then gathers up all the cards, including the stacked section, and goes into his false shuffle to retain the stacked cards. The few amateur hustlers that I have seen use this in a game employed the overhand shuffle for this stacking procedure. Counting the cards from hands to hand repeatedly would appear too contrived and not make any sense in a poker game in my opinion. Casually shuffling the cards in this situaiton would not be out of the ordinary in many private games. (When I refer to private games, I am speaking of games without a center dealer.)

Also, when Vernon employed this method of stacking in the Vernon Poker Deal, he used it as an overhand shuffle stacking method.

The term the count down is also used in the old horse or dog racing con on the bookies.

Cag,

It may very well be the case that having 8 draw cards on top of the slug is too many. I wasn't trying to describe an optimal situation, just get the idea across. I figured on 2 cards per player on the draw and came up with a quick number for the sake of example. I'd leave the exact numbers to anyone that was serious about draw poker and could get that type of game going in today's environment.

So, I just checked Smith's book and he doesn't specifically mention the word "shuffle" in his section on the countdown. I fully get your reasoning that it was an overhand shuffle that he was referring to, but I guess I got it into my head that since he used that term he must be "counting down" the stub (commonly done to see if anyone was holding out). He would then have to pretend to either lose the count or get sidetracked by watching the current hand play out, and then place his packet back on to and restart his count. At least that the way I always envisioned it. I can't imagine the "lost my count" rationale being worked more than once a night, but you never know.

But you very well may be right and I appreciate that you've made me think about it. You learn something new every day.

Jason

A similar idea is used in Hold'em and Omaha if you think of the board cards as the draw. In Hold'em count the players and X 2 ie 9 = 18 now count down 18 and you are into the draw. Knowing just one in the nest few cards is an advantage.

While knowing one of the cards is a definite advantaage the cards must be set. Having said that, in a 10 or even an 8 player table (where everyone deals) means that you would know one of the cards once every 8 or 10 deals. Which is not much coupled by the fact that knowing the one card does not mean it is going to be of any help to you in that paticular hand pre flop. So I do not see this as much of an advantage. Unless I am missing something here.

I will admit that my knowledge of cheating at poker while not necessairly a novice I am in no way an expert but I can see no real advantge in this case.

This is an addendum to the countdown overhand shuffle stacking method and really is geared more to the very serious student of the subject matter.

The two amateur hustlers that I saw using the countdown in play did not use Smith’s actual method using a mechanic on their left to do the final shuffles as described by Smith. That certainly would work in many private games of a more casual nature among friends and acquaintances. The hustlers in question simply ran up the hand using the countdown shuffle on their deal. Further, they used a variation of the countdown which ran the cards to the bottom half of the deck during the shuffle thereby making hopping the cut or laying in a brief or crimp unnecessary. Upon completion of the overhand shuffle stack, they simply handed the deck off to their right for the cut.

I should also mention there is a variation of the countdown which culls the cards to the bottom of the deck. This is very fast, uses no out-jogs, in-jogs or breaks and is much simpler and easier than the Erdnase overhand cull shuffles. Not as involved but for two or three cards there is no comparison between the two in my opinion. Of course, one can cull more cards than that but in play, on a practical level that is really all that is necessary.

The overhand shuffle stacks and overhand cull shuffles in Erdnase in my opinion are something that a hobbyist or magician would dream up. Ingenious but too involved and not really that practical compared to other methods that are available. In fact, in my opinion the only people who would use something like that in a game are people who learned it from “Expert.” People who learn by doing and from other capable hustlers usually don’t fool with something this involved because much simpler and efficient methods are available.

Please, this is not a criticism in any way of the “Sacred” Erdnase. It is a notable contribution to the subject matter. However, this is simply additional information for those who don’t want to limit their understanding simply to what Erdnase wrote, including the esoteric “hidden” info in that book that only the Erdnase Elite, because of their superior knowledge, perception and ability, can magically discern.

Aces

Its matter of playing the odds. You don't need set to it precisely, as long you know a card is in the 8 and you know the odds of it all and how play them.