|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
martydoesmagic Inner circle Essex, UK 1704 Posts 
|
I was hesitant to use it, too. But there are a lot of great writers on the platform. Basically, Substack is a cross between a traditional email newsletter, a personal website and a blog. For things like this book club, where I want to gently "nudge" people each week and encourage them to read the book, it seems to work better than a blog.
You can subscribe via email and not bother making an account on Substack. But their website and app have helpful features designed to make reading more enjoyable. |
|||||||||
|
martydoesmagic Inner circle Essex, UK 1704 Posts
|
I've finally managed to get the next update published:
Secrets of the Professional Gambler It took me a while to finish because I wanted to add some historical context to this section of the book. I've also included some fascinating photographs of nineteenth-century holdout devices. Marty |
|||||||||
WalterPlinge Veteran user 357 Posts
|
Those holdout devices made me lol. Did they fool anyone with them? Their jacket sleeves must have been tailored large to fit those things!
Reading that, all I could think of was J.J.(Ray Walston) in THE STING, saying, about Lonnegan (Robert Shaw): "I dunno know what to do with this guy, Henry. He's an Irishman who doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, and doesn't chase dames. He's a grand knight in the Knights of Columbus, and he only goes out to play faro. Sometimes plays 15 or 20 hours at a time, just him against the house." Henry (Paul Newan): "Does he do anything where he's not alone?" J.J.: "Just poker. And he cheats. Pretty good at it, too." "He plays with a Tally Ho Circle and a Tally Ho Fan, I got you one of each. He likes the cold deck low...8's or 9's." |
|||||||||
|
martydoesmagic Inner circle Essex, UK 1704 Posts
|
Yes, they did fool people. Kepplinger got caught because he used the device too much and never lost a game. The fellow card cheats who caught him using his holdout didn't hand him over to the police. They agreed not to say anything so long as he made a similar holdout for each of them to use! However, after the widespread exposure of such devices, in books like Sharps and Flats, I'm sure it was more difficult to use a holdout of this type.
The photos also make the holdouts look a lot bigger than they are in reality (maybe I should have included measurements). In addition, the Kepplinger-style holdout is a lot smaller and lighter than a "Jacob's Ladder" one. I agree that they look ridiculous. Harry Anderson had a hilarious act called "The Grappler" where he took advantage of this. Marty |
|||||||||
|
martydoesmagic Inner circle Essex, UK 1704 Posts
|
Oh, and The Sting is one of my favourite films, for obvious reasons. While it is set thirty-plus years after the publication of The Expert at the Card Table, the gambling scenes on the train do represent the type of gambling taking place when Erdnase was a professional gambler.
Gambling expert and magician John Scarne was the hand double for Paul Newman in the film: Some of the moves he does in that sequence are from the pages of Erdnase. For example, he demonstrates Erdnase's Fancy Blind Cut I (To Retain the Complete Stock). I still think this is one of the best false cuts to the table. Marty |
|||||||||
|
WalterPlinge Veteran user 357 Posts
|
Yes, I've heard that Scarne was "in" the movie.
In that clip, there is a red Tally-Ho fan-back, and a blue Bicycle. The latter should have been a Tally-Ho circle. J.J. never mentioned the colors Lonnegan preferred. That's a flaw in the script. 
For some reason, THE STING doesn't seem to be a film many people still talk about. It was one of the lightest Best Picture films of the 70s. After that, maybe only ANNIE HALL was as light. I don't think a light film has won Best Picture since then. THE STING is one of my favorites, too. "I said PLACE! Place it on Lucky Dan! That horse is gonna come in SECOND!" "Lonnehan!" "The name's Lonnegan. Your gonna remember that Mr. Shaw or you'll have to get your self another game." "Ya folla?" "When you come to a game like this, you bring your money!" "Sorry I'm late, I was taking a crap!" |
|||||||||
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts
|
I just watched The Sting a few days ago. It's on Netflix.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
|
WalterPlinge Veteran user 357 Posts
|
I canceled Netflix a year ago, lol.
I read somewhere people complaining that the Scott Joplin music was an anachronism. They must have been confusing it with Janis Joplin, lol. The Scott Joplin music predated the mid 30's. So it was not an anachronism. What they should say is that it was from an earlier era. Actually here: https://calendar.songfacts.com/december/25/20472 The director himself. If you wanna get picky, it actually fits the official definition of anachronism, but nobody uses it that way. Cavemen wearing watches is an anachronism. Wearing a caveman outfit in 2023, IMO, is not. From google. Definition: a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, especially a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned. "everything was as it would have appeared in centuries past apart from one anachronism, a bright yellow construction crane" The example is vice-versa old-fashioned. Back on topic: Erdnase rules. Is it an anachronism, then, to use Erdnase moves today? :) "We have some suits for you. Pick yourself out a nice tweed one." "Ma specialty's an Englishman." "Does J.J. know how to use that thing?" "All he has to do is read." "It's been raining and the track is muddy. AND...there off and running..." |
|||||||||
JasonEngland V.I.P. Las Vegas, NV 1730 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jan 22, 2023, martyjacobs wrote: Just a quick correction: Vernon's faro box didn't facilitate second dealing, it facilitated double dealing (dealing 2 cards together as if they were 1). There are boxes that allow for second dealing, but his wasn't one of them. Jason
Eternal damnation awaits anyone who questions God's unconditional love. --Bill Hicks
|
|||||||||
|
martydoesmagic Inner circle Essex, UK 1704 Posts
|
Thanks, Jason. I've corrected the article. I had read that some Faro boxes were designed to separate the cards a little to facilitate seconding dealing, and I assumed this is what Vernon's box did. It sounds like it did the opposite.
I've never got my hands on a Faro box, gaffed or otherwise. I'd love to see how they work in person. Marty |
|||||||||
|
martydoesmagic Inner circle Essex, UK 1704 Posts
|
The latest update has been published (I was a couple of days late with this one):
Getting Technical In this post, I briefly discuss the "Technical Terms" section of the book. Next month, we'll be moving on to the systems of blind shuffles and cuts. Marty |
|||||||||
Ray J Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1503 Posts
|
Marty, as you correctly point out, the term "blind" did not catch on with the gambling nor with the magic communities. I like that it captures an idea, that of not being able to tell that something has happened that you cannot ascertain. Being able to manipulate the cards without anything appearing untoward is desirable in magic and serves as a life preserver in crooked gambling.
I've always subscribed to the notion that the mere suspicion that "something has happened" is enough to detract from a magic effect. At the card table, overt displays of skill should be avoided. The last thing you'd want is to draw attention to yourself and your ability. For that reason, most all of Erdnase's "blinds" were in keeping with typical card table behavior. The glaring exception is the section on "Fancy Blind Cuts" which contains three techniques. But Erdnase himself indicates their weakness for use at the card table. Perhaps he included them for completeness. He does claim that one of the procedures was in common usage at the card table by "advantage players".
It's never crowded on the extra mile....
|
|||||||||
|
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts
|
I've always had mixed feelings on the fancy cuts. On the one hand they are, and Erdnase admits this, showy for his philosophy. On the other hand they would really look to most people like they did a thorough job of mixing.
But I guess we're not on that chapter yet so I don't want to stray too far off topic.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
|
WalterPlinge Veteran user 357 Posts
|
On most videos of card tricks I've seen, even ones done by professionals, you can spot a DL/DT a mile away. Maybe because I know the move? False shuffles, much less so. The shuffles may look real to me, but I know they must be false, else how is the trick done?
Just me, but I'm turned off once I see someone doing an Elmsley count. I know that post-dates Erdnase, however. When I'm learing a trick, whether it be from a video or book, I tend to disregard the ones with DLs/DTs, or Elmsley counts. |
|||||||||
|
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts
|
I think because those things are overdone. I think they're great tools but a mechanic (pun intended) doesn't drive around with one socket.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
|
WalterPlinge Veteran user 357 Posts
|
Yup. The experts say not to overuse a DL -- yet I see many experts doing just that. Also, so many of the books and DVDs from the "big names", surprisingly, do it. (I won't name names.)
Maybe I should actually start reading my copy of Erdnase, and learing his moves. Stating the obvious: a sleight should look like something you are supposed to be doing, and people recognize, but you are actually doing something else. Sorry, but no one turns over a card, or deals it to the table, like any DL/DT I've seen anywhere. Same with the Elmsley count -- even the "modern" version where you don't unnaturally pinch the cards with your fingertips. Most people would just count the cards by dealing them down onto the table -- period. |
|||||||||
|
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 2653 Posts
|
I'll say I think we get hung up too much looking for perfect sleights rather than perfect timing of those sleights. That was the hardest and most important lesson I've ever learned about magic and I'm still working on it. Hope one day I get it down.
"The fool is one who doesn't know what you have just found out."
~Will Rogers |
|||||||||
|
NicholasD25 Veteran user 382 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jan 23, 2023, martyjacobs wrote: The cut he does just before the fancy blind cut is my favorite tabled cut. While I learned the fancy blind cut when I first began reading Erdnase, I now feel that It doesn’t look like anything a gambler would use. I suspect Erdnase had similar thoughts. |
|||||||||
|
martydoesmagic Inner circle Essex, UK 1704 Posts
|
I've just published the latest update to the Exploring Erdnase Book Club (this one's a week late):
Erdnase System of Blind Shuffles In it, I discuss the correct position for an overhand shuffle and three basic blind shuffles (what we now know as "jog shuffles"). Marty |
|||||||||
|
martydoesmagic Inner circle Essex, UK 1704 Posts
|
Quote:
For that reason, most all of Erdnase's "blinds" were in keeping with typical card table behavior. The glaring exception is the section on "Fancy Blind Cuts" which contains three techniques. But Erdnase himself indicates their weakness for use at the card table. Perhaps he included them for completeness. He does claim that one of the procedures was in common usage at the card table by "advantage players". Quote:
I've always had mixed feelings on the fancy cuts. On the one hand they are, and Erdnase admits this, showy for his philosophy. On the other hand they would really look to most people like they did a thorough job of mixing. Quote:
The cut he does just before the fancy blind cut is my favorite tabled cut. While I learned the fancy blind cut when I first began reading Erdnase, I now feel that It doesn’t look like anything a gambler would use. I suspect Erdnase had similar thoughts. I'm a fan of the Fancy blind cuts. They're "showy" and "easily recognised", as Erdnase freely admits, but they're not in the same league as "The Five Faces of Sybil" by Chris Kenner, which was designed to demonstrate skill and dexterity. This is a good reason to avoid them at the gambling table. The DL suffers from the same issue: once you have knowledge of the move, it is impossible not to notice it when it is performed by another magician, even if it is executed successfully. This is Erdnase's criticism of all the fancy cuts, as the following quote highlights: Quote:
The principal objection is that, once known as a blind, it can never be worked again, as the action is showy and easily recognized. He also warns of making an exhibition of your skill using these cuts: Quote:
The only drawback is the danger in making a display of even such simple ability. Erdnase does suggest that these fancy blind cuts were in common use among advantage players. I think most laypeople do imagine that this is the sort of thing that a card cheat would be able to do, even if they do go to great lengths to hide their skill when gambling. I like the idea of framing these cuts as moves that gamblers use to show off to fellow card cheats. However, I think the "fancy" nature of these cuts can work in a magician's favour, and, as Erdnase mentions, the cuts are deceptive, even at the card table. If you perform them at the correct time, like other flourishes, they can enhance your magic. I like to include them in Magician Vs Gamber-style demonstrations. When I perform, I don't attempt to hide my skill at manipulating cards. But it is true that you can overdo this and damage the impact of your magical effects. Even people watching Lennart Green understand, after a while, that he is highly skilled at manipulating cards, even if his "sloppy" style suggests otherwise. I'll talk more about these cuts in a couple of weeks. Marty |
|||||||||
Posted: Jan 15, 2023 06:01 pm 