Memorized Stack

[Cain]

O.K., let's breath a little life back into this forum. Who uses a memorized deck? I believe our own Bob Klase has published a respected stack fittingly called the Klase stack.

I use a stack similar to Darwin Ortiz's, which involves taking a new deck, switching the spades and diamonds, and giving it four out-faros. This one has some obvious (and not-so obvious) built-in effects.

If you don't use a mem-deck, why not? It's a great tool. I used to do everything completely impromptu, insisting spectators shuffle the cards before beginning. I would like to think Alan Ackerman, Michael Skinner, Darwin Ortiz and Lennart Green taught me the errors of ways. And now I'll be the good evangelist and help you realize the awesomeness of using a memorized stack.

[firecoins]

I am learning the Aronson stack now. I have been using the Joyal for years.

[firecoins]

The Canast 2 card revelation is excellent.

[Cain]

I'm not familiar with that revelation. Out of curiosity, why are you switching from Joyal to Aronson?

ETA: What memorized-deck tricks do you perform? My view is somewhat idiosyncratic in that I perform only two tricks that require I memorize the stack, "Mnemonicosis" and Steve Ehler's "Three Card Location."

In my view I make a distinction between memorized stack tricks and stack tricks. I regard Aronson's built-in poker deal as a stack trick, for example, because it does not require any special memorization. I also think that this is a crucial distinction when choosing a stack.

[Monza]

I was working with the Aronson Stack for a while after being inspired by Michael Close. I never did really give it the dedication it deserved. I agree that there are some serious foolers that can be had with a mem-deck. But I believe it is important to use the correct effects to make sure there is no possibility that someone thinks the deck is memorized. The above mentioned gentlemen (Aronson and Close) have some great examples.

[Bob Klase]

Naturally I use my own stack, but mainly because that's the one I know. Over the years since I started using it I find that I rarely use very many the other features I built into it. That's because most of them destroy the stack and it's usually simpler to just switch decks.

It was published in Onyx several years ago and would probably be difficult to track down, but if anyone would like to see it you can PM me.

Originally Posted by Cain

In my view I make a distinction between memorized stack tricks and stack tricks. I regard Aronson's built-in poker deal as a stack trick, for example, because it does not require any special memorization. I also think that this is a crucial distinction when choosing a stack.

Right. The most important thing in picking a stack is deciding what features are important to you. For some people who might like a stack trick found in one setup it might be better to just use that stack separately from mem-deck work.

If you don't care about additional features then you can just shuffle a deck thoroughly and use that. For some people the ability to get into it quickly from new deck order is a primary concern. I don't use a new deck often enough to worry about that, and it can have the (usually minor) disadvantage of leaving clues that the cards aren't shuffled thoroughly if you have to spread the deck face up (much like the cyclic nature if Si Stebbins can be spotted by someone observant).

Originally Posted by Monza

But I believe it is important to use the correct effects to make sure there is no possibility that someone thinks the deck is memorized.

Of course that's true about anything you use.

Originally Posted by firecoins

I am learning the Aronson stack now. I have been using the Joyal for years.

I'm also curious about what made you decide to switch. I would guess that it's probably some of the other stuff built in to Aronson's, but for me to take the time and effort to learn a new stack it would have to be something really special and difficult-to-impossible to use without learning a new stack.

The things I use mine for the most often are Michael Close's Invisible Deck (which I only use for magicians), his Birthday Card Trick and his version of Monkey in the Middle.

I also use a number of things that would normally require you to just use a small number of easily remembered cards and it simplifies things since I can just use a few of the top, or bottom cards of my stack.

[Cain]

So I requested the Klase stack, and Bob kindly messaged it to me, and I like the built-in effects. I think it's similar to -- but for my purposes better than -- the Aronson stack.

One of the advantages the Aronson and Tamariz stacks have is that because so many people already use them, certain unintended properties have been discovered. See for instance Simon's site where he describes a version of the Christ Aces that requires almost no set up. Alan Nu figured out a way to get into Prediction Shufflebored with minor adjustments. Those are strong routines that utilize a stack, though not a memorized stack (a key distinction).

There are competing values when choosing a stack, most of them mentioned in Klase's above post: Patterns, getting into the stack from New Deck Order, built-in routines, ease of memorization.

However, for me, and a lot of people seem to find this take compelling, there is one over-riding consideration, and it's my standard advice: pick a stack that has ONE built-in blockbuster trick.

In his video on Memorized Deck Aronson says that if you choose to construct your own deck you will want to build in as many features as possible, and I think that's misguided. I think it's much better to have ONE great trick rather than a dozen good ones.

My stack definitely has a built in pattern, since it's faroed from NDO, but the only way anyone would ever catch it is if I invited the sort of scrutiny that would cast suspicion upon a genuinely mixed up pack anyway.

Two people who I think are overlooked in memdeck magic are Michael Skinner and Alan Ackerman. In his book Classic Sampler, Skinner discusses using two stacks. The first one is setup to perform two of his favorite tricks that require a stack, mental speller and Vernon's Poker deal. Alan Ackerman sets his in a tetradistic stack, leaving him two faros away from putting the whole deck into fours of a kind (see his brilliant routine "Ackerman's Opener" in Las Vegas Kardma). Ackerman's stack also accommodates Marlo's (?) incredible, astonishing matching trick.

http://www.murphysmagicsupplies.com/...MAN-VIDEO1.wmv

He's not the most dynamic performer (who is?) but he demonstrates marvelous thinking with that spread-proof. James Swain has a stronger theatrical presentation, and a nice convincer that I also like to use (it can be found on his L&L DVDs).

Point is, I say you pick a stack that has ONE fantastic trick built-in. The problem I have with Aronson's is that I don't think his five-hand poker deal is not all that great. The Tamariz stack is better, in my view, but I think it requires a setup trick before going into new deck order (I'm not sure if you need to do a setup trick to get into stay stack).

[firecoins]

Originally Posted by Cain

I'm not familiar with that revelation. Out of curiosity, why are you switching from Joyal to Aronson?

The Aronson Stack allows you to spell to positions 10 through 15. If someone names one of those cards, you have a trick ready.

Quote:

ETA: What memorized-deck tricks do you perform? My view is somewhat idiosyncratic in that I perform only two tricks that require I memorize the stack, "Mnemonicosis" and Steve Ehler's "Three Card Location."

you don't need many effects

Quote:

In my view I make a distinction between memorized stack tricks and stack tricks.

well, yes. There is that distinction. Aronson also makes that distinction. He built the deck like that. Any effect that is simply reliant on the order and not memorization could be considered just a stack trick.

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

Naturally I use my own stack, but mainly because that's the one I know.

Thats a pretty good reason.

Quote:

I'm also curious about what made you decide to switch. I would guess that it's probably some of the other stuff built in to Aronson's, but for me to take the time and effort to learn a new stack it would have to be something really special and difficult-to-impossible to use without learning a new stack.

The aronson stack allows me to count to cars 10 through 15. I want the ability to "jazz" spelling to 5 cards makes it easier.

Quote:

In his video on Memorized Deck Aronson says that if you choose to construct your own deck you will want to build in as many features as possible, and I think that's misguided. I think it's much better to have ONE great trick rather than a dozen good ones.

If your using the deck as a memorized deck, the one great trick will be stack independant. Having built in effects allows for you to do those effects rather easy. This way you can go in several different directions.

[firecoins]

Originally Posted by firecoins

The aronson stack allows me to count to cars 10 through 15. I want the ability to "jazz" spelling to 5 cards makes it easier.

allows me to spell to cards 10 through 15.

[Bob Klase]

Originally Posted by firecoins

The aronson stack allows me to [spell]to cars 10 through 15. I want the ability to "jazz" spelling to 5 cards makes it easier.

My stack allows the same thing (although not the same cards). I got the idea from Aronson's stack which was one several I looked at before developing mine.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by firecoins

The Aronson Stack allows you to spell to positions 10 through 15. If someone names one of those cards, you have a trick ready.

"Mnemonicosis" is basically jazzing -- or the trick that cannot be explained. My personal bias is that most spelling effects are weak, so I try to avoid them. Nevertheless, by happenstance my stack spells to the 11th, 13th and 14th cards. The 12th and 17th can work with some finagling (a slipcut, which is no big deal since the top card is marked and has a breather). The 15th and 16th cards require I double undercut two and spell using "the". Point is, every stack will have spelling built-in.

Quote:

well, yes. There is that distinction. Aronson also makes that distinction. He built the deck like that. Any effect that is simply reliant on the order and not memorization could be considered just a stack trick....

If your using the deck as a memorized deck, the one great trick will be stack independant. Having built in effects allows for you to do those effects rather easy. This way you can go in several different directions.

Spelling to certain cards is one of the few tricks I can think of (off the top of my head) that is built-in and memorized. Like I said, my view is that one should choose a stack with a single fantastic built-in trick. While I think "jazzing" can elicit insane reactions, I'm not sure if spelling to six cards is a strong enough incentive (Klase's stack can do just the same, and has additional properties built-in).

[firecoins]

If the spelling effects are presented as predictions, they can be quite strong. Its the presentation.