So I have read a couple of methods in the past on how to arrange a deck under the cover of trying to locate a chosen card. This is typically for basic setups like separating black from red however. I have been contemplating if there is a clever and discrete way of arranging a more complicated stack for tricks like Mockingbird and up the ante? Has anyone done any work on this?

I love these effects but you would have to carry multiple decks if you wanted to perform more than one and if its a borrowed deck then forget about it.

I would love to hear some thoughts on this.

Hey brad,

There are many ways to get what you need. You mention separating red from black, which would be such sleights as Woody Aragon's Septagon, Harry Lorayne's Great Divide, etc. However, for smaller setups, a cull is what you're looking for. I personally use "Cull de Stack" from John Bannon's Dear Mr. Fantasy. It's great for an approximately five card setup. I'm not familiar with the two effects you mentioned, so I'm not sure of the required setup. There is also some great advice in John Guastaferro's One Degree. It's not really a cull, but an extremely devious way to set up the deck for your next effect. Hope this helps.

Just to clarify that it should be Separagon, which is named after Woody's surname.

Well the stacks for the tricks I mentioned are full deck stacks... not just a small packet. So culling wouldn't really work. I actually figured out one way I could do it. I figured I could use an impression device that I learned from Max Maven's videomind series to have someone think of a card. I could ribbon spread the cards and start removing cards one by one ultimately eliminating all the cards but theirs. Sure it would need to be done at a good pace and there would need some good patter to go along with it so it doesn't get stale. However, the stacks in the tricks are not hard to put together from a ribbon spread. Definitely wouldn't want to do this more than once in a performance.

http://www.geniimagazine.com/forums/ubbt......er=42256

Simon Aronson's post in that thread is worth its weight in gold.

Brad,
What you are describing is similar to "Memory Jumble" from Mnemonica, where Tamariz explains his method of using a process of elimination to set up a half stack. I have used this several times (although I don't use the cull as he does) and it goes over well. Then if I need the whole stack, I do a memory call of the second half. So in the course of a couple of tricks, you have a full deck stack.

Tom

How about a good deck switch? Doesn't fit?

Well I am not a professional performer so when I do tricks it's always at an odd time and impromptu. I used to carry around 3-4 decks with me in case I ended up wanting to show a few tricks to friends or co workers. I wanted to be able to show some of the tricks that required a prearranged deck. However, it got really old carrying around multiple decks all the time and I decided that I wanted to be able to perform a variety of tricks with either a borrowed deck or just a single deck that I could carry around. Hence why I am looking to find some creative ways to stack a deck while performing other tricks. Plus it's an interesting problem to try and solve.

I agree with Foolsnobody a good deck switch will give you the flexibility of creating effects with a normal deck and then when you want to pull out the big guns you can switch to the memorized deck. Just make sure you use a good deck switch. There must be a million different ways of switching the deck When I perform and use a memorized stack I often switch it back after the effect so that it is ready for a later stage (walkaround functions). If I use it in a "routined" show then I just carry on with the memorized stack if I don't need it again. Hope this helps solve your problem.

Regards

Sieko

Brad, Many card tricks use partial decks or packets. You can use a full memory deck, go on to effects using fully mixed packets then back to your now partially memorized deck (perhaps no half the deck, 26 cards in memorized stack order), another effect with a small mixed packet then back to a small pack deck order (13 cards perhaps?), etc.

An idea I've used very effectively.

Not sure this is exactly what you are after, but have a look at Lennert Green's Angle Separation.

Angle Separation is a direct rip-off of my THE GREAT DIVIDE, and nowhere as good. First part of that sentence FACT, second part OPINION. HL.

'the great divide' indeed looks great. I was not aware of it.

You gotta' start reading the good stuff!!

Harry, THANK YOU for the good stuff!

Harry,

In what book(s) of yours is "The Great Divide" discussed and taught? Also, do you recall (no joke intended) if "The Great Divide" is discussed and taught on any of the DVDs in your great "Best Ever Collection" DVD set? If so, which one(s)?

Thanks for any info in these regards. Such information would greatly appreciated.

Mike

P.S.



I'm intrigued with your above comment and am unclear as to precisely what your beef is with Lennert Green and his "Angle Separation" methodology. Why so?

Well,...I don't think that you are claiming to be the originator of the concept of "on-the-fly" deck separation/deck stacking. (See at least Jean Hugard's The Encyclopedia of Card Tricks" book referenced in the above-referenced Genii magazine link here in this thread.)

So that leaves methodology as the predicate for the "direct ripoff" charge. However, if Lennert's methodology is inferior to your methodology, is it not, by definition, not the same as your methodology, and, accordingly, it must be different. If so, where (and what) is the "direct ripoff"?

It would be greatly appreciated if you would please be so kind as to clarify your "direct ripoff" and "inferior" comments so that I (and other Café members?) can more fully understand and appreciate exactly what it is that has gotten you so riled up in this regard.

Thank you.

Turk: My THE GREAT DIVIDE was originally a manuscript - way back in the late 60s or early 70s. I re-wrote it, updated it, in LORAYNE: THE CLASSIC COLLECTION, Vol. 3 (along with Quantum Leaps, Trend Setters, Dingle's Deceptions, Numero Uno, etc. Quite a bargain). Yes, I discuss it on Vol. 1 of my "Best Ever" DVD set.

And...I've really gone into Lennart's rip-off (let me repeat - RIP-OFF) of my The Great Divide a few times. You'll have to try to find it somewhere here on this forum - I think. Basically, when I lectured in about all the Scandinavian countries - at that time I always demo'd and sold THE GREAT DIVIDE m/s. AT EVERY ONE OF THOSE LECTURES - Green was there, right in front. Not too long after that - he comes out with his angle thing. It was/is a direct RIP-OFF (fact). And it's nowhere as good as my original THE GREAT DIVIDE (knowledgeable opinion). And yes, Turk, Green's is inferior and is still a DIRECT RIP-OFF. I do hope that I've made myself a bit more clear and that you can "...fully understand and appreciate exactly..." etc. Best - Harry L.

Thanks for that information, Harry. It is much appreciated. I own a number of your works but none of the compilation books (i.e., LORYANE: THE CLASSIC COLLECTION series). I do own the The "Best Ever" DVD set and I'll first look for it on your referenced volume 1. If I need more information in order to learn this, I'll go to LORAYNE: THE CLASSIC COLLECTION, Vol. 3. (Edit: I just watched the video explanation of this. Fantastic!)

BTW, the very first Harry Lorayne magic book(let) I purchases was Dingle's Deception. I loved both the effects covered and the writing style. When it first went OOP, it became a very closely guarded resource by me. I also purchased a used copy of your lecture notes specifically to have your write-up of Numero Uno. And, I paid a small fortune for the manuscript on our favorite auction site. (I just couldn't wait for LORAYNE: THE CLASSIC COLLECTION, VOL 3 TO BE RELEASED...even thought it was rumored to be pretty close to being released.)

Thanks again for the information.

Mike

P.S. BTW, your Amazing Prediction video performance on your youTube link ( http://www.youtube.com/harrylorayneonvideo ) was really very aptly named. I'm going to have to start in on that one too. So many effects...so little time. (grin)

Wrong thread.

But "right" remark.