I was wondering for those who have made their own memorized decks, what built in features have you put into it? Also, have you found ways to shuffle into it from new deck order?

Hi David,

My best recommendation would be to use Nick Pudar's excellent software (free at http://www.stackview.com/ )

This will allow you to see what you can do with your own stack, and help you develope it. You can even save your sessions!!!!

***if you already know about it, I apologize, but it
is worth saying.

As to your question: "what built in features have you put into it?"

That is a very personnal choice. For me the reason I did not choose the Aronson stack is because I can do all the built-in effects FASDIU. And with Tamariz's stack you can get to it from NDO, but with Fournier cards, it is possible with Bicycles, but the process takes way too long then (in my opinion).

It also depends on which type of effects do you perform the most! (Gambling type of effects, OOTU, etc...)

Ronnie Lemieux
Montreal
Canada

The "all 4 one stack" is being released on dvd soon. It can produce any called out 4 of a kind, the whole decks spells. There are tons of possibilites.

I worked for over a year at developing my memorized deck with about 12 built in stacks. Then I started memorizing it. No matter how hard I worked at it, it just didn't stick. Then it occurred to me: Why do I need a built in stack with a memorized deck?

I think this thought comes up with everyone because of the work that Simon Aronson has offered on the memorized deck. In fact, we owe gratitude to him for the popularizing of the memo deck.

Within his deck, he has built in several gambling routines. Now I personally do not see the parallel of having a memorized deck and gambling demonstrations together. But I must qualify this: I find gambling demonstrations rather boring and simply just a display of skill.

Not to get off on the subject, but when I perform card magic, the last thing I want to show is a display of skill. I don't want them to think that my fingers have "the ability".

Back to the subject at hand, because of the work Simon offered, we seem to feel that we must have a built in stack. If you think about it, after performing a couple of memorized deck routines and knocked their socks off, there really is no reason to now perform a stack dependant routine. It would definately be inferior to any memo routine.

So I ran across the Joyal stack and it stuck! It was very easy to memorize and it sticks. Even if you don't use it for awhile, it's still there.

So now I don't mix apples with oranges, no memorized routines with stack dependant routines. Don't let the fact that a memo deck doesn't have stack dependant routines built within deter you from memorizing a deck.

Now for stack dependant routines, I think a color changing deck can be set up as a stack dependant deck. Perform the routine, show the change and now you have a stack dependant deck and no one is any the wiser.

I built my stack using a shuffle calculator. I started out with the ability to do OOTW. I added Daryl's Double Dazzling Triumph. After these, it was easy to get 4 Aces 2nd from the top, a 10 card poker deal, and a couple of spelling tricks. (Obviously some Faro shuffles separate the set-ups.) There are a lot of published memorized deck tricks that are stack-independent and obviously these will be a major part of your repetoire.

What you'll find as you build your stack is that with certain positions, you may only care that the card is, for example, red. This allows for some flexibility, and lets you incorporate Joyal-like rules to make memorizing my stack easier. For instance, my queens are at positions 10,20,30, and 50. Some cards won't fit Joyal-type rules, and you'll be stuck remembering them by brute force.

I didn't add in an ability to quickly get to the stack from new-deck order, though I suspect you'd have to add such a feature early in the building process.

Overall, I highly encourage you to build your own stack. It allows the best of both worlds-- you get a stack with tricks you specifically like and you can make it easier to memorize.

-- Frank

My memorized stack has no built in features except for one I didn't want - it doesn't look random. This seems especially odd given the way it was devised. For example: The 33rd card (mnemonic, MuM) is the Ace of Diamonds because it's mnemonic is DaD, they naturally go together. Likewise, 52 (LioN) is paired with CuB, 9 of Clubs - ToP (19) goes with Hat (AD). In other words there's no mathematical relationship between the cards or the cards and their positions. Despite this fact cards of similar value tend to clump together in the same area of the deck. I can't see how the mnemonic system used imposed any regularity on the deck. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Steve, I just memorize each deck as it comes. I would stay away from making fixed associations if you intend to hook cards to other pegs at a later date. I just worked hard on getting my card to mnemonic icon programming, to an almost instant event.
Now as soon as I see 2C I visulize the can in an instant. This removes much of the hard work in mem'ing. Now you just need to allocate a peg to put the card on, not much mental stress at all.

I can mem a freshly shuffled deck in around 3 and a half minutes. I also have preset images for groups of cards, so If I note a sequence I can assign a single image to mutiple cards. If I'm lucky enough to get 2 sequences in a deck it can cut down memomry time to about 2.50 minutes.

I think you meant AH is HaT, as AD is DaTe

Frank L, you are talking about what I'm looking for. I wasn't necessarily looking for gambling routines in the stack as Simon Aronson does, I was looking for tricks such as out of this world, being faroed into if I please. I made a stack (but abandoned it), the top few and bottom cards were set up so I could do Juan Tamariz's trick "The Secret of Magic". I think I should have specified that I wasn't looking for lame poker deals, but tricks are built into the stack so that within a few faros (or whatever) you can access them easily. I'm looking for tricks that I can do often, that are built into the stack. I was just looking for ideas first.

I started wanting to do this when I saw that Dan Fleshman has his deck set up so he can do tricks he does often. He doesn't memorize it though. So I though if I set up the deck to do tricks I do all the time, and I memorize it, I can do some memorized deck magic and tricks that don't involve stacks (but they are conveniently set up already).

My personal stack has nothing built into it at all except for the top card, which I sometimes use as an opener. I therefore use the X-cut force - I know, it's old and simple, but it works with the effect - which allows me to retain the full stack.

I didn't see any point in building in poker stacks, as they don't mean much to many people in the UK, and I don't like spelling effects.

They don't mean much in America either except in certain situations, which is why I specified earlier that I'm not looking for poker demos.

David,

I'd recommend you think of all the tricks you like where you need a set-up. The bigger the set-up, the better. Something on the order of Sam the Bellhop. I haven't had time to go though Steve Beam's Semi-automatic Card Tricks, but I'll bet he has some that need setting up. Then, take the biggest set-up requirements and work backwards, adding smaller set-ups as you go. When you've exhausted them, start looking for easy things that pop-up when you do faros on the shuffle calculator. Bringing X-of a kind to a certain place is not too hard. Finally, spelling tricks are the easiest to find, remembering that there are many ways to get to the same card (e.g. use/don't use "of" (Four of Spades vs. Four...Spades)).

Probably the question you should ask the Forum is: what is your favorite trick that needs a set-up?

-- Frank

Partizan, you're quite right AH is HaT but I use DaD for AD. Doubtless you're also correct about the risk of making fixed associations; such things do tend to stick and might confound later associations. Not that I intend to start memorizing shuffled decks anytime soon. If I should have sufficient time to memorize a deck prior to performing then I'll have time to stack it, unless of course you're performing a straight memory feat. What I specifically wanted was a mnemonic stack in which one word (rather than just an image)naturally recalled the other. What baffles me totally is how the stack that I've come up with using those criteria has a non-random distribution of cards!

Frank L., By working backwards do you mean anti faroing on a shuffle caculator?

With regards to "working backwards," I was referring to the way I built my stack. You start with the end result you want (e.g. OOTW set-up) and do faros until it looks fairly random. That'll be the stack you want to memorize.

Of course, you don't memorize it just yet. Go back and add in the other tricks and switch cards around to add in Joyal concepts. You'll be using the shuffle calculator quite a bit. When you're done, use the shuffle calculator to get back to the order you wish to memorize.

-- Frank

In the long run, how you memorize the stack will be irrelevant. Once you know your stack cold, the mnemonics (if you used them) will drop away. Same thing with the Joyal Rules. I've used the Aronson Stack for a long time, and I really don't remember the original associations. The 28th card in the Aronson stack is the seven of clubs. I can't tell you why anymore; I just know it. Until you get to this point, you're going to be slow. (Not necessarily a problem... there are lots of things you can do with a memdeck that don't require blinding speed.)
I'm not so sure that Poker Deals are that boring. I do the ones in the Aronson stack quite often, but I do pick the spectators carefully. Certainly not for kids. But then I hardly do ANY card tricks for kids.
It seems to be silly to memorize a deck and not have something built into it. If you're going to be putting decks into this order and carrying them around with you, then why not incorporate some set ups into your stack. There has been a LOT of material worked out for the Aronson stack. It has, for example, the best bridge demonstration built in. I don't do it often, but when I find out that there are some bridge players around, I'm ready to do it.
Dennis Loomis

I generally don't use stacked decks but there are a few effects that are so powerful using a memorized deck that on the right occasion I will use it. My memorized stack is similar to the one Alan Ackerman uses. After 2 faro shuffles all the like cards are together (4 aces, 4 sevens etc.), The stack was memorized against a previously memorized series of 52 pegs or items. There are no formulas used, just brute force memory. Name a card I know the number instantly and vice versa. For example, 10 is TENT and the card in the 4 of Spades. I picture a tent with 4 pointy spikes (spades) at each of the 4 corners. The 27th card is the Ace of Clubs. I associate 27 with a perfect game in baseball (27 outs in a row) and the pitcher is an ACE from the Clubhouse. If you have to pause to think about it then you need a better system or more practice with it. Elaborate poker deals and the like are too good to be true IMO (too perfect) which clues in the spectator that there was a set up. I like using the memorized deck for effects such as Darwin Ortiz's Zen Master.

I love Zen Master. Larry, the type of stack you are refering to is a Tetradistic (spelling?) stack.

I learned the Aronson from just memorizing each one and testing myself over and over again. I agree that it is pointless to memorize a stack without having built in features, it's a luxery that can have its uses. I agree Dennis, in the right situation the poker deals can be used, but I'm not often performing for those crowds. So I find it better to make a stack with features I will use.

Dave,
Tetradistic sounds about right. I'm not sure of the spelling either. Also Dave, welcome to the Inner Circle.

Oh yeah I didn't even notice!

My system goes like this; A725494AJK666284QQA10102236 and so on. It works great!
Posted: Jun 20, 2004 7:55pm
---------------------------------------------
Oh! It's from top to bottom. Sorry.