I'm just reading the In Order to Amaze. Has someone noticed that using a cyclic stack makes the Quartets much easier? A good reason to transform Redford back to Stebbins .

Hi Pierre Cardinlemon,

Well, I'm pretty sure controlling any four of a kind can be much quicker using the Tamariz stack, compared to any cyclic/power stack. It's because of one, very interesting feature of the Tamariz stack. I don't have "In Order to Amaze", but I'm pretty sure it's mentioned there. One can also read about it in Denis Behr's Handcrafted Card Magic - Volume 1.

It's far from easy, though, but it's definitely quicker once you'll put the necessary (mostly mental) work into it.

Mike

Tetradistic stacks have the 2 Faro Cull feature which in some cases is super handy, there are many published routines that take advantage of the feature. The cool thing about Quartets when published was that it gave the community another avenue to quickly collect a series of cards, one unbound by the formers tetradistic requirement.

The nice thing about Quartet w/ Mnemonica specifically is that the culls happen in relatively close proximity to one another and often with similar interval counts due to how it was constructed.

Would a tetradistic stack make it much easier? It'd make it simpler, but that's a LOT of spread-counting.

In a four faro stack, the values are generally separated into pairs that are three cards apart. So, what the hell does the mean? Well, take the Fives, which are among the most difficult to obtain. In my stack they're located at positions 24, 28, 45, and 49 -- meaning, once you locate the one at 24, you'll know you only need to push off three to grab the next one at 28. Same for the one at 45. So it's like a two for one. Two twos for one. This makes the culling that Hartling and Behr worked out much easier, and far more efficient. The only number one needs to memorize is the distance between the pairs (i.e., the second and third cards of the Quartet; in the case of Fives 28 to 45). So if I were to go for Sixes (29, 33, 40, 44) I only need to remember how many to spread between the second and third, which happens to be six, so it's easy to remember "Six for Sixes." In the case of Tens, 1, 5, 16, 20, I only need to remember to spread ten to get from the second Ten to the third Ten, which, again, is pretty easy since it's "Ten for Tens." And so on. It's generally automatic. These pairings allow for some cool possibilities that are unavailable to other memorized stacks.

As JB mentions, the Tetradistic stack shines with a couple faros, whereupon you get every four-of-a-kind, and that's how Allan Ackerman closes "Ackerman's Opener," which is a fantastic routine.

I don't have In Order to Amaze, so I don't know the exact procedure detailed in the book, but I suppose that under-spread culls are required.

I don't believe a tetradic stack will make the quartet culling any either as there will (nearly?) always be more spreading, but on the other hand it has some pros that makes it easier to handle, less mentally taxing that is. Target cards are always 12 cards apart. So, if you use a deck new enough, it's a doddle to spread count in groups of twos (or 3 if you're good at it). So you could push 3x2 and 3x2 without even thinking and it would allow you to carry out some kind of conversation.

But, there's more. Pink count or spread and cut to bottom the 1st card of the quartet. Pretend to start a faro and cut at 26, easy as you should see a mate. Keep a break between halves. Then spread and cull the 13th. Spread all the cards to the break and cull the 2nd mate, finally spread 12 more cards and cull.

All in all, I find this procedure rather efficient.

This is an excellent solution for someone who does not want to memorize the sets of numbers. Nice

I found the quartets principle quite easy to learn. Using some simple memorization techniques you'll be able to pull it off within seconds each time