How difficult can it REALLY be dealing from the middle of the deck? I mean REALLY?
Turns out, its incredibly difficult. So much so that if I do chose to commit myself to 20 years of practice to get it flawless, I’m kind of hoping I’ll get the best technique for me and my hands.
So begins a sort of progress diary of centre dealing on this blog. I can already do a PASSABLE kennedy centre, but its really quite awful – so I’ll start today on a brand new deal.
On this cold August day (no surprise there) I’ve been trying to come up with my own variation of centre dealing simply because I don’t feel that any published ones I’ve seen really suit my hands. Kennedy’s deal has the immovable thumb, something I despise in false dealing. I’m sure it works for some, but also due to its grip my thin fingers flash the buckling of the bottom half of the deck. So thats out. Searching through Revolutionary Card Technique presents ideas which I like, although nothing that seems to click. Also, the less said about the deals in Expert Card Technique, the better.
So I’ll do it myself.
But what do I opt to adopt? (so to speak)
I want a flawless deal, and therefore I cannot be happy with a deal where the break is on show at the sides such as in Gene Maze’s centre deal. I have found that with a little bit of practice, it is possible to not hold the break at all, but to use a crimp identical to Erdnase’s first method of indicating the position for the cut. My hopefully-soon-to-be-ultra-sensitive fourth finger will serve me well as it now needs to feel for the crimp. Not only that, but the pinky is also the finger doing all the work. It pulls down, and it pushes out. It also really hurts. These are the 3 things it does.
But strength will come in time. I don’t think I’ll resort to Kennedy’s method of strengthening his fingers, as cited by Vernon in Revelations Vol. 12 (I think its 12)
I have actually made the deal harder by opting also to use a sort of Erdnase grip. This makes it more difficult to control the top portion after the push out, and also means the pinky must be stronger. But the advantage is much greater – there is no flash of the break during the deal at the FRONT of the deck.
Plus I deal in Erdnase grip for tops, greeks and bottoms (and rubbish seconds) so it makes sense to have some sort of continuity.
If you read all that, you probably know what I’m going on about. If you have no idea how to centre deal, then you didn’t read it.
Interesting.
–Arthur–
Filed under: Magic, Peculiarities | Tags: ambitious, control, dupe, dupery, dupes, sudo-dupe, sudodupe, topper, transposition
This is perhaps flogging a dead horse as the Ambitious Topper is about as clean as you can get visually, but if you wanted to make it EVER more (perhaps suspiciously) clean you could utilise Sudo-Dupes.
Take the Ace of Clubs and crimp it so you can locate it in the centre of the deck, and place the ace of spades on the top. Now injog the ace of clubs somewhere in the centre of the deck, and perform the ambitious topper control. You will have forced the ace of SPADES and the ace of CLUBS will be jutting out the deck. (Be sure to use the word “jutting” when pattering. It is a fantastic word. I enjoy it immensely and so should you.)
Now comes for the sudo-dupery. If you make sure the outjogged ace of clubs is only out about a centimetre (or, on rider back bikes, just at about the nipple level of the outer cherubs) you can turn over the whole deck and the only exposed part of the Ace of Clubs with be the BLACK A. Obviously, it looks a bit fishy and you would not want to go “Look the ace of spades is there. Loooook” because that is worthy only of a bungler.
The best patter to use in my opinion is to say “And I’ll just take a cheeky look at the card, ok great its the ace of spades, easy to remember” and turn the deck back over. This is for two reasons. One: it justifies bothering showing the card again because this time you see it. Two: Miscalling it as the ace of spades implies you saw the spade of the card, even though it is not visible, which psychologically is very convincing. Add that to the fact that the spectator should genuinely believe they had a free choice and thus you correctly naming the card means you MUST have seen the value and suit.
Neat, eh?
Use it in the context of a trick??!?!?!? What the hell is the point in that?!?!?!??!
OK a trick with it. Well, actually it can just help improve any transposition effect. Do the Bucks’ Tivo 2.0 with this control/dupey process instead of the usual centre double lift. It is a lot cleaner. Of course its also a lot more difficult, but then, isn’t that the point?
Until next time, sleight-junkies.
–Arthur–
Filed under: On The Deal | Tags: aces, centre, deal, faro, middle, ortiz, strike
Or ESCDD for short of course.
But then, who cares about a name.
Now I am entirely sure someone somewhere has thought of this. But at the same time, if they have published and are proud of it, then I’m shocked by the simple level it is at.
Anyway, so long as you do a good strike second deal, you can do an easy centre deal demonstration. Here’s my simple simple way of showing it off.
Effect: Performer takes a desirable four of a kind face up and shuffles it into the deck thoroughly. He announces that he knows exactly where the aces are and will centre deal them to himself, in true ruffian style. He deals a 4 handed game of poker, dealing visibly from the centre of the deck every time it comes to him and receiving a face up ace, or king, or whatever.
Method: Take your 4 of a kind (lets just use the aces) and place them face up on the top on the deck. Begin a casual overhand shuffle and run one, injog, shuffle off, cut, shuffle to the injog and throw. In other words, get one card on top of the aces. Mention about the centre deal and how you need the cards mixed thoroughly. Then say: “Lets mix them up more professionally.” Do two out-faros. The aces should be positioned 5th, 9th, 13th and 17th. Now deal four hands of four cards, dealing a second when it comes to your hand. This way the aces seem to appear from the centre. Ta-da.
The effect is rather simple, can play well if presented properly. You just need to convince the spectators that the aces are lost in different parts of the deck, and thus they MUST be coming out of the middle.
If you like this effect, you should definitely check out “God of Gamblers” from Darwin Ortiz’s “Scams and Fantasies with Cards” book (if you can get a copy.) Its the best centre deal demonstration I have ever encountered – better perhaps than genuine centre deals.
–Arthur–
Vernon’s “Revelations”, and “Revelation” (the new printing which I urge you all to get several copies of,) has an explanation of Dad Stevens’ cull, which famously brought tears to Vernon’s eyes.
There is a lot of debate around whether the explanation given by Vernon is actually what Stevens did. I shan’t go into the logistics of that argument, although the problem of deck burning and whatnot certainly seems very real and the relative inability to catch 3 cards cleanly without stuttering. A very interesting thread can be read on the subject here. I do believe the explanation given about the cull being used in the game of Faro to be highly plausible.
I can not, however, believe that the cull is completely useless at the poker table. Whilst I wouldn’t dream of culling (and then stacking) a full house, flush or quads from scratch, used in conjunction with the pick-up, I can see its uses.
Consider this. In slow company, looking at your hands when you shuffle is not strange. So, as long as you can do the cull and stack smoothly, you’re made. You are in a 5 handed game of Hold’em. On the pickup, you need to get a pair on the top of the deck. Ideally this should be comprised of the previous burn cards so their reappearance in the next round flies unnoticed. After the pick-up, imagine you have two knaves on top. In the FIRST shuffle, you search for another knave to make your pair a set. Whether you catch it or not, shuffle 4 cards on top of the Js, and either 1, 2, 3, 5 or 7 in between them (the lower the better.) Now either cull the 3rd J on top of the deck, or shuffle again in search of a one. Once the 3rd knave is atop the deck, Zarrow stack or riffle stack carefully or simply cut 4 cards on top the slug.
Then beat the cut, of course.
When you deal, you will receive pocket Js and then hit the flop, turn or river depending on how many you put in between the Js.
If you miss the cull, just shuffle 5 cards on top and be happy with a pair I guess.
This means you are only culling one card, not all 3 as is suggested by Vernon.
Whether or not it would work at the table, I do not know for sure. But its a fun procedure to practice.
–Arthur–
Filed under: Card Table Artifice | Tags: ally, erdnase, no, player, without
Recently, in a local game, I decided to try out some ideas from Erdnase (where else) from the “Player without an Ally” section.
I thought it might be interesting to post the results of the many ways of beating the cut alone.
It should be noted, that I had no cheated in any way during the shuffle, and so nullifying the cut meant essentially nothing. Yes I know Erdnase makes some very good points about Ego and that only the Tyro will put himself in unnecessary danger through execution of various ruses for no gain. However, in this section Erdnase does note how many of the simple ruses in this section can be put down to “thoughtlessness.”
Dealing without the cut: It was commented on as strange, but otherwise flew by.
Replacing the cut as before: No problem there. Not an eyelid battered during the shade of natural conversation.
Holding out for the cut: I didn’t have to grapes to pull this off. And understandably so as Erdnase states “To hold out in a card game is the riskiest and most dangerous form of taking advantage that a player may attempt.” I’ll leave this one to the expert hustlers, thanks.
Shifting the cut: I have passed the deck during play, using a (shoot me) classic pass during an offbeat. However, this was not just after the cut. Erdnase indeed mentions how the best moment to shift the deck is in fact as the deck is tabled, not before the first deal. Since we were playing Hold’em, I could only shift in later rounds. As it happened, I passed the deck before the river, not that that really mattered. As I remember it there was no showdown.
Dealing too many: Far too noticeable in hold’em.
Crimping for the cut: It worked once out of two times attempted. I’m sure with more study of the psychology of the cutter (or at least closer observation) it would work nearly every time.
Replacing the palm when cutting: See holding out for the cut.
The short deck: This one I did not employ, although every time the other players went for the mass fag break, I could have easily removed any cards. (or indeed, breathered all desirables.)
So there we are. Gotta love Erdnase. Slightly endangering myself for no good reason. Wahey.
–Arthur–
Play along with me.
Take two high four of a kind, aces and kings are always good, (if a little suspicious) or queens and jacks etc. 10s and 9s… blah blah.
Take the cards face DOWN and breather all 8 of them. This can be done whilst listening to Bach, or Vivaldi, or any other strangely named European composer.
Then, distribute the cards in the deck and shuffle thoroughly. In other word, get them randomly mixed into a deck.
NOW imagine yourself in a shady room playing 5 card stud with a bunch of suckers.
Haphazardly dribble them into your hand as for dealing. This should cause a break at one of the breathers. It should be at the BOTTOM of a packet of cards. Hold this break. Deal a round of cards and then deal a centre deal at the break to yourself. You will thus, receive one of the cards.
Now everyone has a one hole card. And you are guaranteed to have either a queen or king or one of the two values that you marked.
I think you can see what to do now. Every time you are to deal a face up card to someone, you can gain another break at another breather and deal yourself one of your 8 card stock. This way you are guaranteed at the end a full house or quads.
Nifty, ey?
OK so yes. Yes its incredibly bold. You’re board will appear incredibly strong and getting suckers to bet into you would be difficult. You could of course help them along by dealing one other player aside from yourself a marked card in the hole and for the first board cards, and deal yourself one in the hole and later board cards so its too late for them to back out.
I wouldn’t recommend doing this more than once in a game. It might be a bit fishy if on every one of your deals you hit a boat or quads…
This is mainly just a thought, and through playing with it I can see it would take a lot of practice and balls as well. If I ever manage to make a clean video, I’ll post it up.
Until then, this is food for the brain. And a fun way to practice breathers and centre work.
Cheers ‘en.
–Arthur–
This post comes from the wonderful and strangely alluring mind of Donald Chung. ‘Tis a finesse on the classic through the fist flourish, which is simple, but nonetheless delectable.
So I shall hand it over…
The video already explains the move in enough detail. However, I’d like to talk about the reason for the move.
In the usual Through The Fist Flourish (TTF), the cards are left in your non-dominant hand. This means the cards have to be adjusted before it can be displayed.
If you compare the move with and without the finesse, you will notice the time period for the sequence is almost the same.
However, the key point is that although they require the same time to execute, the moment of magic within has different timing.
When I say moment of magic, I mean the moment from the dispay after TTF, to the Elmsley Count.
This almost has minimal effect on the trick, but naturally this enhances the whole performance.
Details matter kids.
Play safe.
Donald
