Here are some thoughts on the Expert at the Card Table that some members might find interesting. Certainly, most of the readers of this forum have read or are at least acquainted with Erdnase. However, the book begs a number of questions and possible conclusions.

On a certain level, "Expert" is a superb book. It was the seminal work on card table manipulation explaining each and every move with consummate care and detail, at the same time giving insight into the execution and implementation of these techniques. The Introduction and discussion of Card Table Artifice, pages 9 – 25, contains some of the finest expositions on the principals of card table cheating. I disagree with some of it, but by and large it is quite excellent.

In a broader sense, it is not a book on just card cheating. It is a mixture of card table artifice and magician moves and tricks. It is also not the best book written on cheating during this time period as it is quite incomplete. I would have to pass the accolade of the best book on cheating during this era, even by today’s standards, to Sharps and Flats by Maskelyne.

However, we can make certain observations and reach a number of conclusions regarding Erdnase based upon an analysis of his work.

While we cannot determine who Erdnase was, we might be able to reasonably conclude what Erdnase was. Erdnase appears to be an intelligent and educated person, with considerable perception and perhaps sensitivities. Because of his curious mixture of card table moves with methods that are more suited for magicians, and with his inclusion of magic tricks and techniques in the second half of the book, I believe Erdnase was an amateur or part time pro magician, who may or may not have done some hustling on the side. He evidently was acquainted with some members of the card sharper fraternity.

I believe one of the distinctions between the first and second part of the book is that the first part deals with moves that can be done on the table, while the second part deals with methods that are done standing. It appears that Erdnase was quite conversant with card magic, and no doubt performed such tricks, else why would he devote half his book to this subject, and also include some “magical” moves in his card table artifice section.

In my opinion, Erdnase’s reputation, like that of Walter Scott, was created by magicians and not gamblers. Many top cheats don’t even know that Erdnase exists and if they are aware of the book, consider it at best to be an oddity. It has no relevance in their work.

The people who venerate Erdnase are the newbie’s who are just getting introduced to card table artifice, magicians and magicians who do expose work, those who initially learned about card cheating from reading his book and collectors and connoisseurs of card table artifice.

Further, I would compare Erdnase with some of our more proficient members. We have members who have neither the desire nor need to cheat at cards, but love to experiment and learn the moves, and in some cases become quite proficient in this regard. I think Erdnase was this type “magician.” He may never have cheated at all. I think he was fascinated by card table manipulation, like many of our forum members, especially card table artifice, and spent his time experimenting, developing and probably entertaining his friends and acquaintances with card chicanery “demos” and card tricks.

One of the biggest weaknesses of Erdnase, as a card cheating exposition, is his blind and uncompromising insistence that sleight of hand is the best way to achieve one’s goals in this endeavor. This misinterpretation of the reality of the situation has been repeated over and over again, primarily by magicians and magician expose artists, so that it is now accepted as truth.

First of all, sleight of hand is not superior to prepared cards and gimmicks, nor is the reverse true. Each method of cheating has its time, place and applicability. I know this is difficult for magicians and those nurtured on Erdnase or video exposes to understand or accept, but I will elaborate further.

There are some games or situations where sleight of hand is the best approach to use. No question about it. Certainly in softer games its use has considerable merit. Indeed, even in fast company, there are a few sleight of hand tricks that can be employed quite successfully. There are other games and situations where sleight of hand would be risky or cannot be used at all. Let me say that learning sleight of hand and employing it exclusively, to the exclusion of all other methods, it is the path usually taken by lesser hustlers.

Maskelyne said it best in 1894 as follows:
Even in Erdnase’s time, the biggest money game was Faro. That game was dealt with prepared cards and a gaffed dealing box. Sleight of hand would not be applicable in that game. In modern times, if one plays in professionally run or casino card rooms, invariably with a house dealer, sleight of hand is not the best way to go, and may be impossible to successfully employ. Further, when you get into the area of casino dealt Blackjack, and other casino games, it is becoming more and more difficult to employ sleight of hand. Indeed, in many cases it is quite dangerous and at times impossible to use. Do you think a professional cheat is going to walk away from those games because it is beneath his dignity to play any game if he can’t employ sleight of hand? I hardly think so. In fact, I know he would not.

Why Erdnase’s insistence on sleight of hand and his disdain for all other methods?

Does anyone have any thoughts on that, including the concept that cheating with sleight of hand methods are not “provable.”

Erdnase was writing for his time. When Erdnase speaks of poker or whatever then we have to carefuly look into what Erdnase was talkng about at that time. What were the usual procedures of the games, the circustances, he was talking about back then exactly and so on. We are talking about circa 1902.

I agree we are talking about a different era by why his insistence on sleight of hand and his great disdain for all other methods? Sharps and Flats was written in 1894 and had a disdain for sleight of hand, considering it the lowest form of cheating methods. Plus, we are not just talking about poker card games. At that time there were many other forms of card playing like Euchre, Pinochle, Faro and probably other card games I have not heard of. So why sleight of hand only in 1902 when there were far superior "other" methods or because he was not much of a gambler:

I think so too. If I remember correctly, Doc said something along those lines in one of his older posts aswell. I think pretty much every magician knows about Erdnase because "The Expert at the Card Table" sort of set the rules and the way moves are taught for "modern" magic books. Now I have no clue about "real world hustling" or anything like that, so therefor I have to trust you about the fact that most of the stuff from the "Expert" doesn't apply to the situations nowadays. It would be weird anyway if everything written about cheating in a book from 1902 would still apply to todays circumstances.

Nevertheless, for beginners who are interested in doing gambling demonstrations and don't care about actual cheating, its a great book to start with. And its avaiable as a free e-book aswell

Confederacy
WHEN two card experts work together their difficulties are greatly lessened. The opportunities of securing the desirable cards on the outset, that is before the shuffle, are doubled, and this is half the battle. If they understand each other perfectly they can often arrange one or two hands ready for dealing, and find little or no trouble at all in getting several desirable cards together while apparently gathering up the deck in the most careless manner. If sitting together so that one cuts on the other's deal the possibilities become so great that ordinary chances will be taken in perhaps nineteen deals out of twenty. Two or three coups in the course of an evening will not flush the quarry, and are quite sufficient to answer all purposes. Advantages without dexterity can be taken in almost any card game when two or more players are in collusion, by the use of any secret code of signals that will disclose the hand of each to the others. For instance, in Poker the ally holding the best cards will be the only one to stay, thus playing the best hand of the allies against the rest; quite sufficient advantage to give a large percentage in favor of the combination. Again, the allies may resort to "crossfiring," by each raising until the other players drop out. There are hundreds of small but ultimately certain advantages to be gained in this manner, if collusion is not suspected. No single player can defeat a combination, even when the cards are not manipulated.

-SWE

On using devices he says:

They are cumbersome, unnecessary, and a constant menace to his reputation.

When I was raided by the Gambling Commission they took all the cards and had them inspected and I am glad that I had no marked cards or any cheating devices there. There are plenty in jail today that wish they had listened to Erdnase.

Maybe he was a egotistical snob who could do the things he wrote about better than anyone he ever met, or at least good enough to fool most anyone he ever met. Maybe the way he saw it his way was the only way, because he was really, really good at it.

The same way a magician who can do a very good classic pass might disdain for an "inferior" magician who does a double undercut in the same situation instead. Even if a dbl undercut may be perfectly fine as far as the spectator, and the final result, is concerned.

Although, I think there probably is something to be said for being "clean". Especially in certain situations.

Continuing on with my conclusions about Erdnase, let’s take a look at his statement that "…the player who can accomplish this feat successfully, (speaking of cold decking), is generally well versed in the higher orders of card-table artifice, and will dispense with such makeshifts as “cold decks” or any kind of prepared cards.”

Really! I could point to a number of card cheats who are well versed in the “higher orders of card-table artifice” who would disagree with that statement, and if fact, make an argument that at the higher level, one doesn’t use much sleight of hand. There is some pretty sophisticated stuff out there, and to suggest that this is a lower level of accomplishment just won’t stand up under close scrutiny.

Even in Erdnase’s time, Maskelyne wrote in Sharps and Flats, “Nowadays, however, it is quite possible to be a first-rate sharp without being capable of performing the simplest feat of dexterity. It is a thing which is not necessary, and more often than not it is attended with the risk of detection. The sharp has gone further afield in the augmentation of his resources. He has pressed into his service every device that human ingenuity can conceive or rascality execute, every contrivance that skill can produce, and even the forces of Nature herself have been made to serve his ends."

The above was written by Maskelyne in 1894. Does that read like sleight of hand is of a higher order? Think about all the technological advances that have been made since the time of Maskelyne and the augmentation of such technology into cheating methods, some rather mundane and others quite sophisticated.

Once again, there are many games and situations where sleight of hand is the best way to go, but there are other games and situations where it is not. I think that any capable cheat who has hustled both soft games on up to very difficult or tough games would concur with that conclusion, at least if he is concerned with getting the money without being detected. Some of these situations where sleight of hand is not applicable are high level instances where a great deal of money can be scored, either in private or casino games. So the insistence that sleight of hand is of a higher order of expertise, or a superior method of cheating, is not really valid, not in Erdnase’s time, and certainly not today.

I could write 10 pages about why I don't like Erdnase, but, well...

What I like is that it is nicely written. Personally, I like that old English style. Yes, it's old language, when you hear the English used by Beyonce and read Erdnase you might think one was fighting with dinosaurs when writing his book...

I'm quite sure he was not a professional. Not even a serious player. The way he denigrates the riffle shuffle convinced me years and years ago. Sure, overhand stacking is so simple compared to riffle stacking... Besides, his overhand stacking formulas often uses the shift of the top card at the beginning of the shuffle. Geez, try it with serious players...

What about his false cuts. From memory, there is one in four packets which is absolutely ridiculous considering you don't want to show skills at the card table!

His three card Monte routine is far from the one used by professionals too.

Well, would Erdnase have become so popular if Dai Vernon would not have made it his bible? I bet no.

Here's a test I have made many times. Ask among the card Magicians you know how many have REALLY read it. You'll get surprised...

It seems Erdnase agrees with Maskelyne where Erdnase says:

"Advantages without dexterity can be taken in almost any card game when two or more players are in collusion, by the use of any secret code of signals that will disclose the hand of each to the others. For instance, in Poker the ally holding the best cards will be the only one to stay, thus playing the best hand of the allies against the rest; quite sufficient advantage to give a large percentage in favor of the combination. Again, the allies may resort to "crossfiring," by each raising until the other players drop out. There are hundreds of small but ultimately certain advantages to be gained in this manner, if collusion is not suspected. No single player can defeat a combination, even when the cards are not manipulated."

Devices such as marked cards can be cool, until they are dicovered, then they are not so cleaver.

The fact is one can use manipulation in high stakes games and get the money.

It is an option. It is not a case of either one or the other.

It's all about the application as Forte says.

One can use Ednase today, it depends on what you are applying it to.

It has often been argued that with sleight of hand there is no proof that a cheating move has been made once the move is over, whereas if on uses a gaff or marked cards, there is “proof.” Let’s take a closer look at that, first at the time of Erdnase, and then by today’s standards.

The first questions we can ask is whether or not proof is necessary to know that someone is cheating at cards. Is proof, in the sense that one would employ such in a court of law, even relevant to the issue? Is proof even necessary to catching a person cheating at cards? Is one more likely to be caught if he uses paper (or prepared cards, or other gimmicks), as opposed to sleight of hand, especially the oftentimes heavy handed sleight of hand advocated by Erdnase? Let’ take a closer look at this.

If one or more players see a thief palming cards from the deck, hopping the cut, dealing from the bottom, do they need to prove the person is cheating? For example, let’s say the cheat has a hanger when dealing base, and three people see it. What else is needed to get the cheat kicked out of the game, maybe have his money confiscated, or worse, maybe much worse?

What if one person senses that another is cheating, (say running up and crimping for the cut), and tells the other players about it and what to watch for. Then when the cheat runs up a hand, puts in a crimp a la Erdnase, and passes the deck off to be cut, the other players grab the deck at that point, examine the crimped condition of the cards, deal out the cards from the crimp cut off point and see that the dealer would get three aces. Does anyone think that these players who have lost their money to the thief are going to need any more “proof” than that? Granted, it may not be the type proof one needs in a court of law, but it is enough to seal the cheat’s fate, not only in that game but perhaps in many more to come. I could give example after example, but I think the point is made.

Now let’s take an example of where paper is found in a Poker game. Of course we are making the assumption that it will be detected in the first place, not necessarily a valid assumption with very good paper. But if it is found, yes, there is proof that the cards are marked, but how did the decks get into play and who is taking advantage of them? If the host put the cards into play, is he the cheat? There is a good chance he is not. What if he is a very reputable and successful business man, has been inviting people to his house for years, and maybe a big loser to the game. Let me tell you, a smart hustler is not going to be associated with the marked deck, or whatever is being used. They will not be his cards, and you won’t be able to trace them back to him. Isn’t that safer than the guy who gets spotted using sleight of hand and maybe holding out for the cut?

And who is going to find this good work? If it is really good, the only person who is going to nail it is someone who has spent the necessary time to learn to read and play it. Do you think such a person is going to expose it to a bunch of chumps at the game, or do you think he will take advantage of it himself?

Let me say this, those that use the standard sleight of hand tricks (seconds, bottoms, hops, holding out, etc.), in games for significant money, over a long period of time and work different games on a frequent or day to day basis are going to get caught at some point in time, sooner or later. That’s a fact and anyone who has been around this type activity long enough will attest to.

Why did Erdnase include only sleight of hand in his book, and show such great distain for any type of prepared cards or other gimmicks and gaffs? In my opinion it is because he may not have been a card cheat, or at least not a full time card cheat, but primarily a magician. He was interested and excited about moves, and little else. A cheat is interested in only one thing, how can he beat the game in question and what does he have to do to get the money? Period!

A magician is interested primarily in moves. Moves, more moves, different moves, variations of moves, new moves, old moves, upside down moves, etc. Why? Because learning and mastering card manipulation is fun, challenging, interesting and a source of continual delight, even though most of it is impractical in the everyday world of card hustling. (Does this sound a little like Erdnase?) What magician or card enthusiast is going to spend six months to one year or more going through the drudgery of learning how to read and play really good paper, and developing a skill that he can never really demonstrate in an entertaining manner? This skill is difficult to learn, master and implement under fire. In fact, it is as hard or harder to read and play good paper correctly and undetectably than any move I have ever attempted to learn, and I have tried virtually every move you can think of over the years.

In the present day, when we run into video surveillance in professionally run public and casino card rooms, proving cheating by sleight of hand now becomes a reality. By playing the video tapes back in slow motion and by replaying them over and over again, the slightest leak, bad angle or mistake may nail the gaff. Talk about proof, that’s solid proof.

Casino procedures also knock out sleight of hand to a large degree. In well run casino Poker rooms, the house dealer will only be at a specific table for 20 - 30 minutes or so before he is relieved. Not really enough time for him to use sleight of hand to make any real money, unless he goes very strong in which case he will get nailed eventually. To win under these conditions requires time to earn the money. Fifteen to twenty minutes won’t get the job done, unless perhaps a cooler is put in and that is very risky under modern day surveillance.

Hand mucking and switching cards are becoming more and more difficult and dangerous under current casino procedures and camera surveillance. This certainly is not the best way to go, or even close.

Now let’s look at paper under the cameras. First the all, the camera is not going to catch good paper. But let’s say someone in the game detects it and informs management, which is not very likely. They can play the tapes all they want, but detecting who is playing the work is all but impossible, and even in the unlikely event they did, proving it is something else again. How did the cards get into play, how long have they been circulating in the card room from table to table, are these cards left over from a previous cheating play, etc.

Even if one concentrates on using sleight of hand exclusively in private games, and there is nothing wrong with doing that, the most successful and capable practitioners will attempt to extract the money more like a surgeon rather than a man with a club. If one is playing in the same games, with the same people over and over again, if the cheat wants to last he has to use discretion. Sometimes the simplest of tricks will get all the money in the long run, if the thief has but the patience and brains not to blow himself out of the game in the process. Now if it is a quick, one time shot type game, the thief will probably have to go stronger. It all depends on many factors because in the end one has to still get the money, but to have “more balls than brains” is not the right approach ever!

Praise Erdnase in those areas where he deserves justifiable praise. But let’s not blindly and unthinkingly deify the supposed total accuracy and perfection of Erdnase because that is what we have been led to believe. Such a conclusion won’t stand up to reason, logic and careful analysis.

Finally, let me just say one more thing, and I know this for a fact by direct observation and experience. The biggest, most humongous scores made in casino and in tough high stake private games use little or no sleight of hand. If fact, if one wants to last in this type environment, he can take most of the old time moves, put them in a basket, attached a high altitude balloon and wish them a good flight into the stratosphere.

It's all about the application as Forte says.

One is playing a Jewish millionair Kalooki in his home, heads up, with his cards. How will one get the money? What exactly does one apply to this game?

To me Erdnase was more a Magician than a Gambler. Mainly because he gives his name to some sleights .

He also says he won't betray blababla. Typical Magician behavior! When they don't know a move they say they could explain/show to you, but they have made promises or another kind of crap.

It also appears to me that the second part of the book uses a slightly different English. Was this part written by the same author?

No doubt the guys was proficient, knowledgeable, educated, etc. All that has been debated. But he was not a gambler. Have you ever seen a mere gambler so deeply involved in card tricks? Why the hell is there a "Legerdemain" section in that book? Why so much disdain, as Cag says, for everything that is not sleight of hand related (again, a Magician syndrome)?

Magicians ...... they do love their Gaffs and Gimmicks.

Erdnase was one person? Hm, maybe two, one magician and one gambler...

I just don't see how you can state categorically that the guy was not a gambler. Maybe he was and maybe he wasn't, but I don't think the fact that the guy wrote about, and probably performed, card tricks disqualifies his as a gambler. Yes, I have seen gamblers that were involved in card tricks. Is Antonio Esfandiari a gambler? The guy did tableside magic and has won over 20 million in live games, as well as a couple of WSOP bracelets. He gets his picture taken doing giant fans and sybil cuts.

The reason there is a legerdemain section in the book is because the man was not stupid. He wanted to sell as many books as he could. He knew his best chance was to sell it to magicians who were probably no different then than they are today. They buy everything they can get their hands on, especially if they think it contains some grand "secret". Like the secret of gamblers/hustlers. People still sell those kinds of books and videos. And magicians buy them. They man says straight up that he wrote the book to make money. Why wouldn't you put something in there for magicians? I doubt he expected to sell many to actual gamblers but I don't think that necessarily means he wasn't one himself.

@marlin

As far as I know Esfandiari is not a card cheat. The fact you make millions at gambling does not prove you are proficient either, would you call Jamie Gold a top notch card player? He made millions though... Hey, Esfandiari is a very good card player, before you ask me.

It's not because he added a section on card tricks that I say he wasn't a PROFESSIONAL gambler. It's the addition of many things. His false cuts, his disdain of riffle shuffle, the fact he doesn't talk deeply about shaved decks, marked cards, etc. And, of course, the fact he added a section on card tricks! Steve Forte doesn't add card tricks in his books. It's OK for a flourish or two, like Piacente or Turner have done in some DVDs. After all, manipulating cards the all day long, it's natural you wanna have a nice deal, or being able to spread the cards gently. But card tricks...

I'm not Steve Forte nor Richard Turner, but I can tell you for sure that no one would buy my booklets if there was card tricks in it.

Besides, I'm sorry but I don't "feel" the Gambling atmosphere when reading Erdnase. I read 20 pages of Poker Protection I feel it. Reading Erdnase I "feel" Northern Hilliard's style, not a player's style. Hey, I'm a big fan of Mr Hilliard, don't get me wrong.

I say it again, without Vernon, who would have taken care about Erdnase?

If the game is played by (older) Jews, you are thinking about Clobyosh, not Kalooki.

As for Jewish millionaires...what exactly is the point of conjoining money and ethnicity in this otherwise very intelligent forum?

AMcD,

To be fair to me, you didn't say anything about card cheats. You asked if anyone had seen a "mere gambler so deeply involved in card tricks". As far as I know Esfandiari is not a card cheat either, but he's definately a gambler. And I believe he did magic tricks before he ever played poker. He can't be the only one in the history of the world. If you believe Dustin Marks, he took what he learned doing magic and used it to cheat the casinos.

As far as proficency I don't know and it doesn't really matter. The goal of gambling, any gambling, is no to gain accolades in regards to proficency, or cunning, or brains, or anything like that. The goal is to win money. If a person gets beat by the biggest idiot in the world it may make them feel better to denegrate that idiots skill level etc. But the idiot still walks away with the money, and no amount of anything can change that.

Sal Piacente did an entire two DVD set of nothing but card tricks. It's pretty good by the way. It features a couple of trick, some credited, some uncredited, by Steve Forte.

I'm not saying it's the case but maybe the reason you don't "feel" the atmosphere in Erdnases writing the way you do in Fortes writing is because the two atmospheres are so far removed from each other by time and space that they bear almost no real relation to each other anymore. You are familiar with one and maybe not the other. Who knows?

In any event. Because at the end of the day it's not very important to me I won't argue whether the book itself is proof that Erdnase wasn't a gambler. Or wasn't a professional gambler. Or anything other than a magician, if even that. It doesn't really matter, the book is what it is. Had the book not been a total bust financially he may have written more books. We can never know what the man knew, didn't know, did, or didn't do. To think we can truly KNOW anything about the man is borderline hubris in my opinion.

Here are some additional comments on Erdnase that might be of interest.

I previously wrote a detailed analysis of the practical and impractical moves in Erdnase, chapter by chapter, which I may publish at some future date. My conclusions about Erdnase were based solely upon his writings and analysis of the material in his book and the wide variety of cheating techniques being used during that time period. I started with no preconceived notions about who he was, what he was or what he used in play if he was in fact a cheat. The only objective information we have as to the extent and types of cheating techniques used during that era is Sharps and Flats by Maskelyne, which I suggest interested members read as it contains a wealth of information.

Based upon all the above, my conclusion was that Erdnase was a magician, magican/exposer, part time cheat or combination thereof.

The next thing is, if we assume that Erdnase did cheat in Poker and other card games is what tricks or methods did he use. We cannot assume that he used all or even any of the moves in “The Expert”. Cheats generally use only one or two tricks to get the money and use those methods most of the time. Magicians, on the other hand, learn and practice many different moves and manipulations and assume cheats do the same. Magicians also assume that the "gambling" moves they learn actually work in games for important money against reasonably astute opponents, an assumption which is not necessarily valid.

I don’t know why Erdnase did not include any cold deck moves. The best cold deck moves use machines or specially designed clothing, and are not the simplistic video/DVD exposure sleight of hand methods, usually shot from favorable angles to make the moves look good. (Also, oftentimes on cooler plays, one has to be “mobbed up.”) I also don’t know why he did not include the pull through and strip out shuffles (although he alludes to those shuffles in the text), the spread, capping the deck and so forth. Maybe he used the spread or capping the deck to actually get the money and did not want to write about those methods, but there is no way of knowing or even making valid conclusions in that regard.

Erdnase’s description of various moves also leads me to conclude that he is describing what others have done. In fact, if I was to write a book on cheating, which I could do, I certainly would not include the methods I was using at the time, assuming of course that I was a cheater.

I think it would be to the advantage of the serious student to read Sharps and Flats to find out the extent of what was available during the time of Erdnase and what was actually being used during that time period. I don’t see how anyone can make objective comments on the efficacy of Erdnase in 1902 without actually first determining what was really being used buy hustlers at that time. Erdnase is limited to certain sleight of hand moves, some of which are not very practical, and only the tip of the iceberg of what was used in 1902.

________________________________________

I guess a lot of what you take from the book depends on whether you believe Erdnase was trying to write a difinitive treatise on cheating, or magic, or whatever. Or if he was just trying to cobble something together that he could sell to a couple of different markets in an effort to raise a few bucks. It seems he took some pride in the book. But other than his stated intention of making money it's impossible to know what, if anything, he was trying to accomplish. It's kind of difficult to criticise something without knowing what the true intention of the work was in the first place. Oh, to be able to go back in time and ask him!

And you have to admit, even if no one would have known about the book if not for Vernon or a few others, the book is still fascinating.