Balducci, using that logic, every deck in existence is a memorized stack. If you borrow a normal and legitimately shuffled deck from a friend and take the time to memorize the random order it's in, then it's a memorized stack, but I don't think that's what Alex Cahill was asking, i.e., an "...easy stack to know...the position of the card...."

Larry D.

The mnemonic system suggested by Aronson links each card to a particular word (e.g. Jack of Spades = Spade) and each number to a particular word (e.g. 1 = toe) and then the two words together (e.g. hitting a toe with a spade). After a while the mnemonics slip away and you just remember 1 = JS.

Yes, of course any random deck order can serve as a memorized stack. I think Joyal makes the same point somewhere in his book. I just didn't think it was fair of you to diss Osterlind's stack when Aronson's and Joyal's are open to the same criticism. If you want to know what card is at what position, you have to memorize Aronson's or Joyal's in the same way you would have to memorize Osterlind's. And Osterlind's is probably easier to learn.

[True, Aronson's does come with a mnemonic system (which I never bothered with, myself) linking a card with its position, but you could apply that same method to any stack.]

If you really want a stack that matches Alex's originally stated criterion, I think we're talking about a stack like that associated with the Stanyon System: one that comes with a simple formula to allow you to calculate which card is in a given position on the basis of a mathematical formula.

I think the best thing Alex can do is get a copy of Joyal's book and read the first couple of introductory chapters on complete deck stacks and card systems.

Balducci,

I wasn't dissing Osterlind's stack by saying it doesn't meet the criterion. In my opinion, his stack is not an "easy" "memorized" stack to remember.

I'm using the term "memorized" the same way the original poster did, i.e., a stack that allows you to convert a card to its position in the deck and a position in the deck to the card that is found there. Osterlind's stack is designed for an entirely different purpose, i.e., it's a next-card stack.

Joyal's stack is not open to the same criticism, because it's designed as a memorized stack and was easy for me to memorize (far easier than it would be for me to memorize the order of the cards in Osterlind's stack). Contrary to what you've stated, you don't "...have to memorize...Joyal's in the same way you would have to memorize Osterlind's...." You memorize Joyal's stack through formulae, whereas you couldn't memorize Osterlind's stack through formulae (at least none I know of that would allow you to convert the cards in his stack to their position in the deck and vice versa). That a DIFFERENT way of memorizing, not the same way.

Of course "easy" is a relative term, but it was much easier for me to learn Joyal's stack than it would be for me to learn a different type of stack based on mneumonics or rote memory (I've tried those systems as well).

Before I learned a memorized stack, I used a stack designed for next-card effects and found that Bob Mason's O-2 Matica was the best of the bunch for me. It was much easier to learn than Osterlind's stack (which I did ultimately learn but it took longer) and is no less random looking in my view.

Regards, Larry D.

8 kings threatened to save 59 queens from 1 sick knave.

It's from Expert Card Technique, simple to remember and will do the job.

I think you should steer clear of systems (just my opinion). Memorized decks can accomplish the same things as systems like Osterlind's, Si Stebbins, 8 Kings, etc. Also, if you know you accidentally displaced a card in the stack you have to go through almost the whole stack to know which one is displaced whereas with a memorized deck you can pretty much instantly know where to put it back. And I have used both systems and memorized decks and these are the results I have. As for stacks, I would memorize the Aronson stack. I did and I use it all of the time.

Aronson's method uses mnemonics in a general sense. The object linking done with linking two vivid pictures with action is very old and is great for general use. But the ancients who used these ALSO developed other more specific methods for specific things. This is not the only form of mnemonic device, and not the best for cards.

The Joyal stack uses mnemonics in a direct fashion. It cuts through the bull of extra memory work. You are memorizing the cards after reading the rules once. For me rote memorization was occuring much faster than standard mnemonics. The 14 rules ARE mnemonic (memory) devices and they are learned FAST so you are really only using them a short time. Joyal is very smart and must have studied memory and learning (or just understands better than many people)

I've tried both. Joyal is a faster road to rote memorization.

The Six-Hour Memorized Deck has stuck with me for years. I left it for about a year and I came back, and within 30 minutes I had it mastered again. Highly recommended

I should have looked this up to be sure, but I'm pretty sure it's, "Eight kings threatened to save 95 queens (ladies) for one sick knave (jack)".

Aronson's stack .........

Tamariz!

There have been several good recommendations in this thread, but with little in the way of supporting logic other than, effectively, "this is the best". There is no "best"; all designs are tradeoffs, and you won't be able to make an informed choice until you understand exactly what these tradeoffs are, and consider how they relate to your specific needs.

I've written a short essay on the topic of full-deck stacks; this includes "memorized decks" of the type originally requested. It's available on-line, so all are welcome to read it.

In the quest for more informed decisions,

... Doug