talkmagic.co.uk

Hi there,

I wonder if someone could help. I've come to a sticking point with The Royal Road to Card Magic.

Chapter IX: The Overhand Shuffle, II (PAGE 116)

It describes the following which I'm a) unsure how to do and b) unsure what they are getting at!

1) Undercut half the cards, injog the first, and shuffle off.

I'm ok with that!

2) Pat the upperside of the deck.....

(I don't want to write more as it's probably against the Forum Rules)

However, I'm stuck at the bit where you press your thumb "Upwards and Inwards", then grip pack, lift and shuffle off again.

I don't understand what this is trying to achieve.

I'm fine with injogging, shuffling off and undercutting to bring the bottom part back on top in one movement but I don't see how this new bit works or what it is trying to achieve!!

Could someone dig out there book for me and have a look please!

I really appreciate all the help you guys have been giving me.

Thanks!!

PM'd reply

I actually completely forgot this way of executing the shuffle after the injog...

Thanks for the reminder!

Hi, I have the exact same problem - I dont know how to "press the thumb xxxxxx".. Im getting lost in the middle of Step 2..

Please help

The Last Deck on the Left wrote:However, I'm stuck at the bit where you press your thumb "Upwards and Inwards", then grip pack, lift and shuffle off again.

I don't understand what this is trying to achieve.

If I'm remembering the correct chapter, the "upwards" command means in relation to the deck - ie. in the direction of the top of the deck - and "inwards" in relation to the deck means to push the injog flush with the deck in the motion of lifting off, so you're creating a thumb break below the injog. (I don't think that's exposure since it will read like gobbledy-gook unless the reader has a knowledge of card controls.)

I have to say, as I always do, that all these injogs and running cards and shuffling offs are fine, but there are much better and fairer ways to overhand shuffle a deck and retain stock or stack. I never use an injog as a shuffle control.

I never use an injog as a shuffle control.

Me neither. In general, using a shuffle as a control is too obvious. "Yes, you've placed your card in the middle of the deck where you know I can't retrieve it, but now Im going to shuffle, so your card is no longer where you think it is!"

It just doesn't work for me.

Lenoir wrote:

I never use an injog as a shuffle control.

Me neither. In general, using a shuffle as a control is too obvious. "Yes, you've placed your card in the middle of the deck where you know I can't retrieve it, but now Im going to shuffle, so your card is no longer where you think it is!"

You make a fair point, but I disagree slightly because there are valid ways to control a selection with a shuffle.

The way I (sometimes) control a selection to the top is by beginning an overhand shuffle and asking the spec to call stop. Then they place their card on top of the packet they stopped at and the shuffle is continued until the deck is exhausted. That's all. Totally fair. But at that point their card is wherever I want it to be.

Good point Queenie and to be a hypocrite, I have done the excact procedure as you described. In my eyes, it will never be as clean as a control via a Pass or shift, but I'm sure many spectators wouldn't remember!

Lenoir wrote:

using a shuffle as a control is too obvious.

I disagree, it may be obvious to us but I've seen a working pro using this control many many times with no hint that it has been seen as suspicious by the spectators. This may be because he is very much of the view that flourishes or shows of skill destroy magic - his card handling is very sloppy and I think this makes people less suspicious of his handling.

In my opinion, ANY control that doesn't end with the spectator shuffling the pack is suspicious, it's just how well we dress up the control so that it seems logical and fair when we know it is quite the opposite that will determine whether it flies

cragglecat wrote:In my opinion, ANY control that doesn't end with the spectator shuffling the pack is suspicious

Personally, I think a well executed pass is not in the slightest bit suspicious. No cutting, no shuffling. To the spectator, you have placed the card in the middle of the back, end of.

I have been using injogs as my main control for nearly 50 years. So far it has worked perfectly well. Perhaps as a result of this thread I had better change my procedure.

Let me think about it and get back to you............................................

Lenoir wrote:I think a well executed pass is not in the slightest bit suspicious.

The point I was trying to make was that if, after the control, the pack is not shuffled by the spectator then there could be suspicion. I agree that a good pass is a much better control than an in-jog and shuffle in terms of looking 'clean' but a bad pass is more suspicious than a good in-jog and overhand shuffle control. Again, all I'm trying to say is that in my opinion most controls executed well, with a sensible motivation for the handling can be effective. As Mark Lewis has demonstrated, the in-jog and overhand shuffle control is very widely used and, if his experience is anything to go by, can be used with great success.

p.s. I'm writing this at 7 am not because I'm a TM addict (well not much) but I do have an insomniac 1 year old..... [/i]

In the old,old days before card magic advanced there was only one control in existence. I am talking about the 19th Century and very early part of the twentieth century here. The control was the pass.

However even in those days the pack was always shuffled. The standard procedure was to do the pass, palm off the selected card and have the audience shuffle the deck and on return the palmed card was replaced.

A lengthy but effective procedure. The psychology of shuffling was sound. I do not subscribe to the position often propogatated that there is no need to shuffle the deck after the pass is made since it should seem that nothing has happened.

Audiences are intelligent animals and often know that SOMETHING has happened even though they may know not what. Either the pass lacks proficiency or the operator gives something away by his body language and demeanor. I can do the pass better than most and sometimes use it as a control for variation of my procedure. However even I will shuffle after doing it. Call it insurance.

I believe that the pace of entertainment today discourages the old procedure of having the spectator shuffle but the psychology is sound. You should shuffle after the pass is made. It calms the spectator down and allays suspicion.

Take my word for it. I have been doing this stuff rather a long time.

mark lewis wrote:I have been using injogs as my main control for nearly 50 years. So far it has worked perfectly well. Perhaps as a result of this thread I had better change my procedure.

Don't feel the need to change on my behalf, Reverend.

I agree that the injog is widely used - and widely used for a reason: it's extremely good. All I was saying was that I happen to prefer something else which is not only closer to invisible than an injog, but doubly handy in that I'm better at it than an injog control. Each to their own, eh?

Isn't this like arguing over which is the better pass?

I mean, the Hermann is obviously the better; but surely everyone's hands and powers of misdirection vary - so if you wish to injog like a madman, or indeed a madwoman; then please do so.

Personally, I'm not adverse to injogging their card, crimping as i square up then offer the deck to someone else.

As for the initial question - just think of it like a side on version of retaining a thumb break at the back of the deck.