|
|
|
|||
Pyppo100 Regular user 180 Posts 
|
I use Doug Dyment's DAO stack because I find it much easier to learn and remember: what are the advantages and disadvantages compared to Richard Osterlind's Breakthrough Card System (BCS) stack?
Thanks! Best regards! |
|
glowball Special user Nashville TN 853 Posts
|
The Osterlind stack can calculate the position of any card (acaan) and can calculate the next card if the bottom card is glimpsed (or doing a running reveal).
DAO can only calculate the next card (if the bottom card is glimpsed or doing a running reveal). DAO cannot do acaan (cannot calculate the position of a named card or named number). The next card calculation is super easy using DAO but not as easy using Osterlind. The Osterlind Breakthrough system has many other features. Both stacks are very random looking and highly unlikely that any spectator would detect the pattern. IMO a memorized deck is best but if you want a good calculator deck that is easier to calculate than Osterlind and can do acaan and next card calculations fairly easy then I would check out the Shadow Sequeira Stack by hcs (Dr Hans-Christian Solka). It doesn't look as random as Osterlind or DOA but looks far better than Si Stebbins. https://www.lybrary.com/shadow-sequeira-stack-p-805419.html Also the Seven Queens stack is similar to the Shadow Sequeira. All that being said the DAO is so easy at doing "next card" calculation I am thinking about memorizing the positions of the 12 face cards just so I can use DAO and do a little bit of acaan by saying "the high cards are very important in most card games so name any of the face cards". I can then use the instant shill technique to get my shill to name the position of that court card. And then the spectator deals down to that number and voila! |
|
glowball Special user Nashville TN 853 Posts
|
Instant shill technique:
Ahead of the performance the magician secretly tells the shill to mentally subtract 8 from the last number he hears. During the performance the magician mentally adds eight to the determined position. Example the card QD was named and is at position 10 so the magician mentally adds eight giving 18 and then says to his secret shill "name a number from 1 to 52 such as 34 or 18 but not those numbers name your own number". The shill mentally subtracts 8 from 18 giving 10 and then says "oh, how about 10". If the position is higher than 44 then the last number the magician says will be higher than 52 so he must alter his terminology by saying for example the card is in position 48: "name any two digit number not higher than 52, a number like 24 but not like 56". The shill then mentally subtracts 8 from 56 and says "oh, how about 48". |
|
glowball Special user Nashville TN 853 Posts
|
Another thing you can do with the DAO stack is to memorize the cards at the following six positions:
12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 34 Then you can do the trick that Anna de Guzman did on Penn and Teller by using two DAO decks and the fingers force method: "We need a random two digit number so just hold up a different number of fingers on each hand, no thumbs, and we will use the lower number of fingers as the first digit and the higher number of fingers as the second digit". Note that there are only six possible two digit numbers ie: 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 34. The Magician will then know which of the six cards to force. Of course these six positions could be memorized on any calculator stack and do the Anna de Guzman trick. |
|
glowball Special user Nashville TN 853 Posts
|
Oops, Pyppo100 pointed out in a pm to me that Osterlind BCS is not an acaan calculator deck. It is a "next card" calculation deck that looks very random.
I had bought the Osterlind Breakthrough System many years ago and remember going through all the calculations and my recollection was that a card position could also be calculated. My recollection was wrong. That being said there is probably not much difference feature-wise between OBS and DAO. OBS may look slightly more random but doubtful that any spectator can detect any pattern for either stack. However DAO is much easier to mentally calculate the next card. If you want to be able to do acaan and can mentally quickly calculate how many steps the named card (value + suit) is above the nearest multiple of four then the Shadow Sequeira $5.00 is the quickest good looking tetradistic stack to learn IMO. Note that the number of steps will always be 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 which inturn equates to offsets 0, 13, 26, 39. The Shadow Sequeira also has an easy "next card" calculation. |
|
Pyppo100 Regular user 180 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 6, 2023, glowball wrote: I have NOT studied the Shadow Sequeira stack. I studied Dyment's Quickstack: do you know it? Is it simpler than the Shadow Sequeira stack? Thanks! |
|
glowball Special user Nashville TN 853 Posts
|
This issue has been discussed in the thread below:
https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view......50688#14 Note that the above thread is comparing QuickStack to the Seven Queens stack however the Shadow Sequeira is almost identical to the Seven Queens stack for the acaan calculation. Also note that the Shadow Sequeira "next card" calculation can be learned much faster than the Seven Queens stack. The Seven Queens stack looks a little bit more random than the Shadow Sequeira. All three stacks mentioned in this post are tetradistic stacks and look better than a Si Stebbins. After reading its instructions I think you could learn all the features of the Shadow Sequeira in 1 hour and immediately be able to perform the "card to number" acaan calculation and perform a "next card" calculation. It's that easy imo. |
Kaliix Inner circle Connecticut 1999 Posts
|
You use this "look better than a Si Stebbins" quote like somehow the Stebbins stack is obvious to when looked at. I just totally fried my daughter with this stack and the Gene Anderson routine. After the trick, she wants to know how it's done. I say it's a trick deck, see go ahead look. I spread the deck out in front of her face up to look to her heart's content. Nothing. Mind you, her and I share an interest in magic. She does some effects and has some decent knowledge of effects from me.
I'm thinking people are just not going to notice any stack, Stebbins or otherwise. IMHO, YMMV... Quote: On Aug 7, 2023, glowball wrote:
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin |
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1196 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 4, 2023, glowball wrote: Hi Glowball, I have read some of your other posts, and been confused by your references to ACAAN. Having read the post above, the penny has dropped... Are you aware that ACAAN is the name of a trick? It's not simply a correspondence between a card and its position. |
|
glowball Special user Nashville TN 853 Posts
|
Response to Kaliix:
Nothing against Si Stebbins for the proper situation (in fact I have posted suggestions on using Stebbins (Snibbets) on how to calculate the position of a named card). I'm just trying to provide tools for my magician friends that may have a more astute audience and also wish to use an easy tool to calculate the position of any card as well to quickly determine the next card. It just another tool that some magicians may wish to use. |
|
glowball Special user Nashville TN 853 Posts
|
Response to Nikodemus:
I see your point. To others reading this: I am well familiar with the term acaan and that it means "Any Card At Any Number" which normally describes the situation where a spectator names any card and any number is specified by someone and when dealt to it is the spectator named card! Nikodemus is right that the trick itself does not require a mathematical stack (could be done with sleight of hand and/or a mem stack). When the term acaan is used in conjunction with a "mathematical" stack it normally means that such a stack lets a magician mentally calculate the position of a card. Its easy for us magicians to get confused about what type of information can be provided by these special mathematic stacks (look at the beginning of this thread about the mistake I made about the BCS). Some of these mathematical stacks will allow the magician to know the next card when the magician knows the prior card (examples: Eight Kings, DAO, BCS). These stacks do NOT have a calculation that allows the magician to mentally calculate the position of any card named by a spectator, they only allow the magician to calculate the next card. I refer to these stacks as "next card" stacks (they are also referred to as cyclical stacks or sequential stacks). There are other stacks that are very good at letting the magician calculate the position of any named card but which canNOT easily calculate the next card (example: Harding Stack). When refering to such a stack I could have said "a stack that can allow the calculation of the position of any named card" (rather wordy). The use of the term "acaan stack" is just my attempt at shorthand terminology to communicate a feature of a stack to fellow magicians in these posts. There are mathematical stacks that are cyclical that can do both "next card" and the "acaan" calculation. Examples: tetradistic stacks Shadow Sequeira, Golfer King, Si Stebbins (Snibbets). My ideal mathematical stack criteria: 1. Looks somewhat random 2. During performance can easily calculate "next card". 3. During performance can fairly easy calculate any card's position. 4. Quickly and easily learn the above two algorithms. I believe that mathematical tetradistic stacks: Shadow Sequeira and Golfer King best meet my above criteria. If criteria 3 is eliminated then I believe that DAO is the mathematical stack of choice because it can be learned in 5 minutes and is very easy to remember and to perform. . |
|
Kaliix Inner circle Connecticut 1999 Posts
|
Fair enough, there is no right answer. Magicians might notice but lay people, meh. I'm not particularly wedded to Si Stebbins. I at one point memorized the BCS stack.
I will add this though playing Devil's advocate for Stebbins, while it might not have a way to calculate the position of any card in the deck, Stebbins does have a built-in lie detector routine that I believe is every bit as good as an ACAAN/Estimation routine in any other stack. Quote: On Aug 12, 2023, glowball wrote:
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin |
|
glowball Special user Nashville TN 853 Posts
|
I thought reversing the Stebbins deck and calling it "Snibbets" was something new, but Earnest Hammond did it over 100 years ago!
By having the first 4 Snibbets key cards 8S, 5H, 2C, QD memorized it is fairly easy to calculate the position of any named card. Basically it's: determine number of steps from the proper key card then multiply by 4 then add the suit (SHCD). See below thread for more details about Snibbets: https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view......orum=205 |
|
glowball Special user Nashville TN 853 Posts
|
Also see the below thread about DAO used with a six card deBruijn using mandolin cards in the "0" positions.
https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view......orum=205 |
Posted: Jul 29, 2023 09:40 am 