talkmagic.co.uk

Cards again, I'm afraid!

Well, in a nutshell, there are more false cuts in my arsenal than any other single sleight. I use loads of them. And generally, they're not 'flourishes' I use, they are cuts used as part of effects.

I do believe that learning a few false cuts is almost essential. They are a great distraction and also are convincers that your deck isn't 'set-up'.

In fact, there are tons of uses for a false cut.

However, I do think that up-n-coming magicians see false cuts as flourishes. In fact, with the recent fashion of Xtreme Card Magic, false cuts and cuts in general have become somewhat a distraction rather than a utility.

But, the false cut is a serious tool for any card magician. It's not just a way of showing off with the cards.

Here's some tips on how to make false cuts look like real cuts:

1. Don't appear to be concentrating! If you were GENUINELY cutting the cards, would you concentrate? Nope. You'd simply cut the deck. So to add credibility to a false cut, you need to have practiced it well enough to do it fluidly without even looking at the cards.

2. Don't do a run of false cuts! Again, to appear credible, a cut is a cut! Just doing one or two is fine, but don't interrupt the flow of your routine by mesmerising the spectators with a five minute interlude of cuts. (unless, of course, the interlude IS an interlude, and you're just doing a set of flourishes!)

3. NEVER say "This is a GENUINE cut" or make reference that you are really performing a cut. NO! Again, assume it's a genuine cut—you wouldn't draw attention to the fact, would you? In another context, you don't TELL a spectator "Now, I place the coin in my right hand—notice that there's no false transfers or palming going on".
It's a mistake I've seen a lot that magician's feel the need to cover their 'guilt' by covering an action with a contradiction! NO NO NO!!! Just do the move...

4. KISS! (No, not me, pervert!). Keep it simple, stupid! Keep your false cuts SIMPLE! In the cases where you USE real cuts, try to make the REAL cuts match the actions of your FALSE cuts. That way, your cuts are consistent, simple and credible.

5. When is a cut not a cut? When using a false cut in the instance of a stacked deck routine, for example... work out "Do I really need to be doing a false cut? Could I simply do a real cut?"
The answer in most cases, I have found, is yes. In this example, a stacked deck CAN be cut repeatedly without disturbing the order of the stack.
I've noticed that sometimes cuts are done just for the sake of it, and have no justifiable effect on the trick—except to raise suspicion. After all, a cut of any kind is extra handling, and keeping handling to a minimum dispels thoughts that you are manipulating the deck.

6. Other motives for a false cut? Yes. There are, including my favourite—the getting a glimpse of the bottom card. You can also use a false cut to control the attention of the spectators to the table, because as you perform a cut, their eyes follow the deck.
This can be used as a 'rhythm' programming technique, to help pace a routine which may be long and needs chopping into parts.
E.g. if you want the audience to remember a certain aspect of an effect, i.e. 'THE KING OF SPADES IS SHUFFLED INTO THE DECK AND LOST", then speak the words as you rhythmically cut the deck and table it. It's a visual and mental cue point.

7. Can a card be forced using a false cut? YES! Aside from classic slip-cut forces, an even simpler way to force a card is to perform an overhand shuffle, glimpse the bottom card, control it to the top of the deck with ANOTHER overhand shuffle and then false cut the deck and table it. You now know the identity of the top card.
So why not just use a marked deck? Well, this kind of force looks SOOOOO convincing when done with a BORROWED deck!
Again, if done smoothly and fluently (as if you are performing REAL shuffles and cuts), the card selection looks totally random.

Please add more thoughts to this thread, as false cuts are a passion of mine, and I've not nearly skimmed the surface yet!

R. Rinkle wrote:Trust everyone, but always cut the cards - and carry a gun.

A cut is simple device and will be well known to most spectators as a natural action which follows a shuffle. Matching the spectators expectation in card handling allows for a better effect.

I agree with your commentary seige, but I was wondering how you felt about; allowing the spectator to carry out a real cut and then cancelling it as opposed to the performer carrying out a false cut. (Obviously this is irrelevant for stacked decks.)

Having thought about it, I'm not sure that the first method contributes significantly to the overall effect. Especially if you introduce a little time misdirection, and rewrite history for the spectator. Very much a case of KISS, me thinks.

pdjamez wrote:

R. Rinkle wrote:Trust everyone, but always cut the cards - and carry a gun.

A cut is simple device and will be well known to most spectators as a natural action which follows a shuffle. Matching the spectators expectation in card handling allows for a better effect.

I agree with your commentary seige, but I was wondering how you felt about; allowing the spectator to carry out a real cut and then cancelling it as opposed to the performer carrying out a false cut. (Obviously this is irrelevant for stacked decks.)

Having thought about it, I'm not sure that the first method contributes significantly to the overall effect. Especially if you introduce a little time misdirection, and rewrite history for the spectator. Very much a case of KISS, me thinks.

The KISS thing is very important. Absolutely, you can allow spectators to cut the cards. But, performing an innocent looking false cut should not leave the spectator wanting to further mix the cards.

From experience, I would note here that spectators are generally suspicious of things which we overlook, rather than things we actually worry about.

For instance, as I predominantly work with cards, the questions which arise usually are:
1. They are trick cards
2. There were two King of Hearts in the deck
3. You had my card hidden in your hand
4. You turned the deck around
5. The cards are marked
6. Let me shuffle the deck

Now. There's me, worrying about the quality of my pass, the indetectibility of my DL, and so on. When all the time, these aren't issues to the spectators. Why? Because laymen aren't familiar.

So, how to combat these questions?

Well, I like to use regular cards, as much as possible. Purity is the prevention, rather than the cure. I also like to allow the spectators to handle the cards. And I also like them, to become comfortable with the fact that I genuinely AM shuffling and cutting.

Once you've gained this confidence with the first few effects, your spectators will burn your hands less.

This is the whole reason I don't use loads of flourishes and cuts. I like to try and reassure the spectators that when they see me shuffle the cards, I really am genuinely shuffling. Same for the false cuts.

By setting these standards early on in your act, you will be able to gradually introduce false shuffles and cuts, and even a deck switch.

So, false cuts are an important integral part of gaining the confidence of the spectator. And as PDJamez rightly says, the cut is almost a natural expectation of a spectator after a shuffle.

By the way, there's a false cut I use when I want it to be very very simple. It's just a double undercut but not changing anything - i.e. undercut, retain a break, cut to the break. Easy.

Katy

katrielalex wrote:By the way, there's a false cut I use when I want it to be very very simple. It's just a double undercut ...... Easy.

Katy

Exposure? I personally don't like the double undercut, as it isn't what I'd consider a natural cutting action. To be fair, it may just be my presentation though.

I agree with Paul here—I use the double undercut as a control, and not a cut.

I categorise this as a control, as opposed to a cut, because I consider a cut to be an action which fulfills an open gesture—cutting the deck. Wheras, a control I consider to be an action hidden by a sleight.

Good thread!

One thing i always do is say 'just a cut' or 'a couple of cuts' as off hand remark not making it a big deal of it just so the spectators know that the deck was cut. The reason is, once i did a false shuffle followed by a false cut while talking and two spectators didn't notice and refused to believe that i had done.

Just a thought

Pitto

Just do a swing cut followed by a double undercut. Natural enough.

I usually do a trinary cut which is quite a convincer.

I'm a fan of the trinary cut aswell. I also use a cut very similar to the trinary cut which I created myself. I don't have a name for it though, any suggestions? I might make a quick video tomorrow.

I also like the swing cut to double undercut method. Sankey uses this all the time and I think it's really effective.

I've got quite a few that I like but I don't use them very often in tricks since I rarely need to keep the deck in order, just a few cards at the top or bottom usually, which I'd rather use a riffle stack or an overhand shuffle stack to keep in position. I'm always open to better and more interesting techniques though.

Bill Malone has some nice false cuts in his Sam The Bellhop explanation and in his general explanations, some flashy, some plain.

Then don't forget Card College vol 1, great for the basics, and a false cut is a basic essential

Shanester

seige wrote:For instance, as I predominantly work with cards, the questions which arise usually are:
1. They are trick cards
2. There were two King of Hearts in the deck
3. You had my card hidden in your hand
4. You turned the deck around
5. The cards are marked
6. Let me shuffle the deck

Something that I have found out quite recently - if they picked a crad, you can let them shuffle the deck and you can find it in a matter of seconds. I woud say how to do it, but it would be exposure.

Anyway, false cuts are brilliant, especially the Trinary Cut and the other cut in Born To Perform.

Hi guys,

False cuts and false shuffles is something that I feel I need to work on. Any other suggestions for good study material (DVDs or books) - apart from those already mentioned ("Bill Malonee" "Card College vol 1" )

Cheers

One of my personal bugbears is people commentating on what they're doing as they do it. It really infuriates me to watch, and instantly arouses suspicion.

For example, I recently saw someone doing red hot mama, which is probably the best trick I know in terms of simplicity of execution compared to the final knock 'em dead revelation. This guy had a card selected then returned to the top of the deck (I have it returned to the middle but that's more a performance style thing). Then he said "Ok, your cards's on top, now watch as I cut the deck, you can see there's no funny moves going on" as he kick cutted to the middle. Now we all know that he was telling the truth, there were no funny moves going on, but to me doing something like that automatically lights up a bulb in my head that says 1 - There's a funny move going on but it's well concealed, and 2 - Oh yes, I'd forgotten that magicians use 'funny moves' I'd best be as observant as possible from now on.

It made my blood boil it really did.

I agree. It's like some idiot making a point of saying "this is an ordinary deck" when it's a stripper. It pulls attention away form the performer and onto the deck and the moves.

For instance, as I predominantly work with cards, the questions which arise usually are:
1. They are trick cards
2. There were two King of Hearts in the deck
3. You had my card hidden in your hand
4. You turned the deck around
5. The cards are marked
6. Let me shuffle the deck

Dead on with these. I always get most, if not all, of these in a routine. I love using an ungimmicked deck of cards, and if possible borrowed. If I borrow a deck, which is what I try to do most often, people almost always mention the fact that I am doing all of this crazy magic with their cards.

If I did use a gimmicked deck, it just wouldn't work out too well for me. Spectators always think that my cards are fake or I have duplicates. If I did use these methods I wouldn't like the fact that I have to change/hide somthing instead of just putting the cards down for inspection. In fact I don't even own a gimmicked deck so the people that I am close to, if they are present, can reasure anyone that I don't use tomfoolery, its all me.

Asside from that I absolutly love false cuts and shuffles. The cuts I use are those from card mechanics though. These are the most simplistic looking cuts, in my opinion, and the most convincing. Mechanics don't try to amase, they want to get away with what they are doing. This is why I duplicate their moves. I know a few and have learned from them. Also I picked up on some of these moves from the Dai Vernon videos Revelations. These are some great videos and I recommend them if you don't have'em.

I also have a problem with people telling what they are doing(or not doing for that matter). Everytime I have seen a younger, or less experienced magician perform, they always think they have to talk when doing "the funny buisness"(that is what I like to call it). I don't know if this is what spectators do, but if a magician is talking I am watching closer and when he quits talking is when I get fooled. I let my guard down when he quiet and if he does his funny buisness then, I get burned rather then the other way around. I realise that for the most part misdirection is required to accomplish many things, but most shuffles and cuts(false ones) can be done with no misdirection and with hand burning if you have practiced. I would rather them watch and not have to listen to me, it gives them more of a sence of fairness if you will.

My favorite false shuffle is quite like the one used in Michael Ammar's version of Triumph, but mine(I don't own it, I just do it) requires you to push through like a multiple shift, but with all the cards. From there you can understand what it is. It is my favorite, but I barely use it, I havn't practiced enough. My most commonly used is the false hindu, but this is more of a controll as mentioned previously. I use this alot because I am pretty much strictly impromptu so the need to false shuffle all the cards is nill for me.

For the false cuts I have developed one of my own and use it all the time. Because the swing cut is my most common cut, I decided that if I were to do a false cut it would need to be swing cut based. Now most of us know the swing then double undercut, but I wanted mine to actuall look just like the swing cut. The only difference is I can controll the top and the bottom card, individually and at the same time. I don't want to reveal how do to do this as you can understand that it is my own unique method and if I did tell I would want to be compensated, having said that with what I did say you may be able to figure it out, its pretty simple, but hard to detect.

XCM...wow my least favorite trend of magic. Looks like a bunch of useless, I am a show off stuff to me. that is all I'll say about that.