talkmagic.co.uk

Richard Osterland now has a memory system, based on Harry Lorrayne's system, to memorize the BCS. That way you have the advantages of using BCS as well as that of a memorized deck

Surely memorising the BCS completely removes the point of having it in the first place? As far as I know there is nothing particularly useful about the setup except that you can work out the next card from the previous, so if you are going to memorise a stack then why not memorise one with a some built in advantages?

Incidentally, the mnemonic system I am using came from Lorrayne's book. I had learnt the phonetic bit years ago but never found anything useful to do with it (the book just had some lists for you to remember, useful stuff like kings and queens) but one of the memory tests at the start of this one was spotting the four missing cards from a list so it inspired me to give it a go and learned his pegs. I changed a few that I had problems visualising but in essence they are the same.

nickj wrote:Which of Aronson's many publications do the worthy members here feel contains the most information on this stack

"Try the Impossible" is mostly on the Aronson stack. You don't actually need to memorize the stack to do most of the effects in this book - it mostly exploits the built-in effects.

Surely memorising the BCS completely removes the point of having it in the first place?

Nick. I agree with you on the grounds that if you are going to remember a memorised deck you have no need for that deck to be part of a stack as everything you could do with a stack you could do with a memorised deck (but not the other way around).

I guess the only advantage of memorising a stack is simply that if you ever forgot part of it you have a solid means of remembering, but in my opinion a memorised deck is really all or nothing.

My thoughts for the memorised BCS was that if I was going to memorise a deck (and I will.), then the BCS isn't the one I would use, as at least with Tamariz or Aronson you get a lot of built in freebies.

Anyway - moving on, you also asked for the best books on the "features" of the aronson stack. Firstly I will say get "Shuffle Bored". It is a stand alone effect, that doesn't NEED the aronson stack, but it is a built in feature of it, and in my opinion it is one of the strongest card tricks out there.

As to th ebooks, I can't personally recommend any as I don't own them, but I believe that Simply Simon, Bound to Please and/or Try the Impossible would be your best bets.

"Bound to Please".
I know has at least a few Poker routines. "Triple Poker Routine" being a great one. There is also a draw poker deal, a stud poker deal, and a ten card poker deal. Is you are so inclined then I believe that there is additionally a perfect bridge hand.

I think it is this volume that mentions you can deal any poker hand a spectator asks for with one cut of the deck (i.e. pair, 2 pair, 3 of a kind...... Royal Flush) And there is a nifty feature where 6 cards are in the perfect spot to be spelled to, which can be used for a great effect.

It also has one of my favourite effects called "The Group Shuffle".

Try the Impossible.
In one of the effects, it states...
Imagine dealing five strong poker hands, each better than the previous one, with the dealer receiving a Royal Flush in spades - and being able to instantly repeat it again and again with no resetting!

I don't know much more about this one, but it has had great reviews.

Simply Simon.
A great book with some really strong effects. (Madness in your method, Past/Present/Future and Happy Birthday), but I can't remember if there are specifically any poker deals in there.

To get the definitive answer to your question, I would suggest emailing Mr. Aronson directly. I have always found him to be very responsive.

The other thing I will mention is that there are some great STACK effects on Michael Close's Workers series of DVDs. Very Highly recommended (even without the stack effects)

As expected, a glut of information poured forth.

I shall look into Shuffle Bored and Try The Impossible, I spotted that I could spell to the 10th to 15th cards from the top, but I rarely do spelling effects so I am not sure how much use that would be.

Since I am now a wage slave I do actually have a little bit of money as I am still in the habit of not having enough so don't spend. I may have to let a little of it go on some new books and things

For who is afraid of the effort need to memorize a deck, I suggest read Tamariz's book where he suggests some methods.
Using that methods I memorized the deck in 9 hours (3 hour per day during 3 consecutive days)

Fans of pre-arranged decks might like to have a look at the latest freebie from allmagic.com. http://www.allmagic.com/

I have recently purchased Memonica by Juan Tamariz, I have not yet read it, because I am still waiting to master more needed sleights, but it really doesnt seem too hard.

With my brush with the Masters System it seams both useful and obtainable.

Well, after a couple of months of procrastination I ordered 'Bound to Please' and 'Try the Impossible' and they arrived yesterday. I have to say I am am very impressed with these books already, the size of them was the first surprise, I was expecting much smaller books than I got, and they are crammed with effects, I think my rough count got me well above 60 and the first couple that I read in TTI based on a cutting principle that I still can't quite follow are frankly stunning, if the rest of the book effects are the same then this is one hell of a book.

Born To Perform actually includes shuffle bored, so I read that too and was suitably immpressed. Needless to say I shall finish reading the books and audience test some effects (I am going away for Easter weekend so will have a captive audience for 4 days) then I will write a review of them.

The only problem is that since I last posted in this thread I have let my memory slip regarding the Aronson Stack so I will have to learn that again, though I I am sure it will come back in 15 mins or so since I still have the mnemonic pegs in place.

I love Osterlind’s Breakthrough Card System (BCS). It still amazes me, and once played with, really isn’t too difficult.

So I was then prompted to buy Osterlind’s Memorized Breakthrough Card System (MBCS).

I’ve only just read it through, and it certainly comes across as an intense piece of writing ( and memory ).
I need to get my head around it and post a review, because it is certainly worthy of comment.

Piers.

Don't get me wrong. I really love the BCS and use it a lot. It's just that it's such a pain to set up (I'm a lazy b****r) that I hate it being destroyed as part of a performance. With a Si Stebbins, I don't give a hoot...

This is a great thread!

However, I do recommend everybody who uses any stack to practice it to such a point that setting up the deck with it is as easy as the Si Stebbins system. If you cannot do this, you are much more likely to blunder during a show.

The good thing about the BCS is that you don't need to know the order. If I'm out, I usually have a small piece of paper with the order on. Sorting the deck into suits, I can then set up a BCS deck in only a minute or so.

I am very intrigued with the whole MD idea, and found bananafish's post an interesting read. It's certainly given me more of a wish to proceed with it...

~Sym~

bananafish wrote:

Surely memorising the BCS completely removes the point of having it in the first place?

Nick. I agree with you on the grounds that if you are going to remember a memorised deck you have no need for that deck to be part of a stack as everything you could do with a stack you could do with a memorised deck (but not the other way around).

I guess the only advantage of memorising a stack is simply that if you ever forgot part of it you have a solid means of remembering, but in my opinion a memorised deck is really all or nothing.

Bananafish - sorry to be pedantic but your use of the word 'stack' (bold-ed by me in the quote above) is rather misleading.
Strictly speaking a stack is any pre-arrangement of the cards. A memorized deck is by definition a stacked deck. What you are talking about is the difference between a stack derived from a formula (or algorithm or whatever word you like) - such as BCS & Stebbins - and a stack that cannot be simply calculated, so must be memorized.

Obviously, you could memorize a formula-based stack like BCS. But as you rightly say, there may be other stacks that better warrant the effort.

Strictly speaking a stack is any pre-arrangement of the cards. A memorized deck is by definition a stacked deck. What you are talking about is the difference between a stack derived from a formula (or algorithm or whatever word you like) - such as BCS & Stebbins - and a stack that cannot be simply calculated, so must be memorized.

You are absolutely right with what you said, but I still felt what I said was very clear. I feel that anyone who was reading the thread will know the difference, and it was far easier to refer to one as a memorised deck (and not a stack even though it is) and the other merely as a stack.

In short, yes - a memorised deck is a stack, but a stack is not necessairly a memorised deck. If I refer to a stack, then I was referig to a calculated stack.

So - thanks for pointing it out, (but yes. I did think you were pedantic).