I posted this in the essay section of one of the other forums i use, feel free to put it in the essay section of this one if it's any use. i hope it answers some of your questions
I would like to state, in an effort to avoid confusion, that when I refer to a 'stack', I am specifically referring to a memorised arrangement, or 'memdeck'. I am aware of, and often use, arrangements where the memorisation of the cards is not a requirement, and may waffle on about them at a later date.
I find myself in the minority of card handlers, in the fact that I always use a stacked deck. So, I shall begin this remarkable test of reader tollerance by examining the reasons why you should not use a stack. Now, as my internet psuedonum suggests I am a big fan of stacks. In fact my interest in a stacked deck was only a fleeting one at the time of the said pseudonym's inception. As it happens the term 'Stackman' is a local gambler's inside joke regarding one's inability to play poker. In my local, dingy and decidedly dodgy Three Card Brag playing environment a 'Stackman' is someone who has the luxury of being able to juggle their chips in their hands due to the scarcety of them.
You should, hopefully, be questioning my credentials right now, so let me offer you some words that may enthuse you to continue reading. I began in the same manner that, I suspect most of this article's few readers began. As in, I progressed through the classic card magician's texts; probably in the chronological order that the same scant readers did also, Royal Road, Expert Card Technique and then finally the Expert at the Card Table.
But it was after I aquired this well grounded education (an education that I am eternally grateful for) that I had the good fortune of encountering a stacked deck. Upon that encounter, I realised that instead of constantly having to learn new sleights to create new effects or improve on existing ones, all I had to do was master two or three sleights to maintain new stacks.
So with these points in mind, let's examine the percieved negatives of a stacked deck; percieved in the fact that these perceptions are typically those of non stack users; you may even recognise a few.
Percieved reasons for not using a stack
The biggest argument in opposition of using a stack is the fact that it can be easily lost. Be it through a mistake from the performer or a spec who insists on shuffling the deck.
But the fact of the matter is that all close up workers have a repetoire that does not require a stack, a fact made obvious by the arguments they typically posit againts using one. The best way to view a stack is to consider it another weapon in your arsenal, and if this weapon becomes unusable then simply change to impromtu effects. In short, in the same way that you perhaps have 'outs' for any other effects that could potenially go wrong, there are many mechanisms for undoing the damage caused by either of the scenarios mentioned above, the most obvious being simply abandon the stack. In my, admittedly, limited experience, it is rare for a spec to demand to shuffle the deck, however I am not unmindful of the fact that the workers out there will be able to share horror stories that are contradictive of my observation, but I would imagine that these stories are few and far between.
Another suggested negative is the time and effort required in memorising a stack. If you are lucky enough to own Tamariz's 'Mnemonica' you will probably find yourself dumbfounded at the methods of memorisation that the wonderfully wacky Tamariz recommends that you use. These methods include singing the card's names to nursery rhymes, elaborate and abstract markings on the card's faces and finally, my favourite, recording yourself reciting the stack in different accents.
Now, as it happens, myself and a buddy memorised the Tamariz stack in one hour during a boozy saturday afternoon, using a method I will describe later on. But let's imagine that I deny you of this method and only Tamariz's methods remains. Anyone familiar with these stacks will tell you that most of the effects do not require you to memorise the stack's order, in fact, the only reason why I, originally chose to do so was so that I could quickly identify if the stack was intact after each effect, as the stack's order is far more important than you being able to recall it.
Another prospect that may put some off using a stack is the skill required in maintaining it. When discussing this point I would like to direct your attention to Bill Malone's take on 'Marlo's Miracle Routine' (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ephf30tTMJ0). Now admittedly this isn't a full stack as such, rather 13 cards positioned in the deck. But notice how often in the 10 minute routine Malone actually shuffles the cards. With the exception of the inital shuffles that position the 13 cards, he does not shuffle the cards once. There are a couple of blind cuts here and there, but thats it. Now, yes it is an L&L audience, but their reaction is typical of the audiences that I have performed the routine to, as in, they are not concerned or suspicious in the slightest. The process of different cards being selected, the cards being dealt and often cut is enough to direct their attention away from the thought of the cards being kept in a particular order. As you may imagine this applies to a 52 card stack.
If you wish to give a performance that truly baffles an audience then some full deck retention shuffles would be an advantage, and yes these techniques require a lot of practice (I currently use a zarrow), but how does this differ from any other aspect of performance? If I were to qualify my statements further then I would, and will, paraphrase another stack user Lennert Green. In his celebrated 'Green Tapes' he suggests that if you offer to show a fellow magician a full deck retention shuffle, they will be interested, but if you mention a stack they will not. Lennert was correct in asking, and again I will paraphrase 'Why use a full deck retention shuffle if you don't have a full deck order to retain?'
Finally, if you are unfamiliar with the stacks available you could be forgiven for thinking that at the end of an effect the stack is lost, and under this assumption the time investment required for using a stack properly is offset by what you get in return; ie. one effect. This is ill-informed, as most of the memdeck effects result in the deck's order being maintained. Some of the effects do disrupt the order irreperably, but these are usually closers and they are spectacular enough to be the end of your routine.
Why use a stack?
The first advantage of using any kind of known arrangement of cards is that every card becomes a key card. So a card can be selected and you can be instantly aware of it's identity, without having to resort to controls. This skill could be considered an effect in itself, an effect that could help your hapless observers believe that you have psychic ability. And hey, if Uri Geller can constantly talk out of an orifice that would make you cautious about lighting a match, then I see no reason why you shouldn't also.
Another huge advantage of a stack is that any effect that involves a spectator physically selecting a card becomes the spectator simply naming a card. Once the card has been named the performer can easily control the card to the top, bottom, or position of his/her choosing, with a little estimation and a couple of cuts. The effect of someone naming a card and, without looking through the faces of the deck, the performer being able to have the selection under his/her control within a few seconds makes any effect instantly stronger.
Then of course, there is the stack's structure. Stacks don't only have effects built in, but entire structural benefits. For example Aronson's has the Kruskal Principle built in, Tamariz's can seperate the colours easily, allowing an 'Out of This World' effect or, one faro later, the ability to incorperate Gilbreathean effects into your routine. With the ability to jump into new deck order, you could, if you wanted, to perform the previously mentioned Marlo's Miracle Routine or even assemble Si Stebbin's stack. The list of avenues your performance can go down with a stack is endless.
Which stack should you use?
There are many stacks available throughout the literature, and they all are worth investigating. For reasons of briefity and consistancy, I will recommend the two stacks most likely to be familiar to you: Aronson's and Tamariz's.
If you are a table hopper/walk-around performer then the Aronson stack is for you. The effects are usually striking, often don't require a table and reset immediately. What's more if someone says something along the lines of 'I wouldn't play poker with you', within the stack lies a modified version of the 'Zen Stack' (for the unitiated, a self-working 'Any Hand Called For' , which can be reset). Also there is an extensive poker routine, that would fly with the casual poker player, ie; the 'Jonah card' effect, etc.
Also if you work the same venue for an extended period of time, there are many more effects in the stack than Tamariz's, and these are constantly added to, via Aronson's own work (he has constantly added new effects with each book he publishes since he created the stack over 30 years ago) and the stack using community whose contributions can be found on Aronson's website. Aronson himself states in his free booklet (
http://www.simonaronson.com/Memories%20 ... 20This.pdf) 'Memories Are Made of This':
'The momentum is growing and contagious, and the sheer number of cardicians now using a memorized stack has produced a synergy that is causing the number of effects, tips, variations, and new principles to multiply exponentially.'
Whilst the Aronson stack had only 8 effects built in when it was first published in --, the community of excellent thinkers that typically contribute to books like 'Mnemonica' and 'A Stack to Remember' (including Rafael Benatar, Joshua Jay, Jim Krenz and Ariston to name a few) have consistantly added new ideas over the years.
For the parlour performer then I would recommend the Tamariz stack. This recommendation is based on two properties of the stack.
First, this stack lends itself to a more sensible performance (although anyone who watches this –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s44FT6_Kao would be forgiven in disagreeing), and could produce a performance that perhaps would be more suited to an audience interested in gambling artifice. Secondly, the stack can be created from new deck order (Fournier) in about 120 seconds in front of the audience. As you may imagine it takes about the same amount of time to bring the stack back into new deck order, which, I suggest, makes for a truly astounding climax to your routine.
A possible third point in it's favour would be the stack's structure. The stack is Rumsduck's stay stack with a partial faro modification. So during the process of taking the new deck order and turning it into the Tamariz stack, you will find yourself in a 'natural' stay stack. If you look at the work of Elmsley, Marlo and the princible's pioneer Rumsduck you will see that with the luxury of being able to quickly go from the Tamariz stack to a stay stack and vise versa you suddenly have access to dozen's of wonderful effects.
Memorization
It is not uncommon, in forums like this one, for the majority of the requests for advice regarding a memdeck to be directly concerned with it's memorization and the difficulty of achieving it. Now, I am aware that I may get a shellacking for this statement, but I can hold my own.... so bring it!
Ignore the methods described in the books that contain the memdecks. Ignore the crazy methods in 'Mnemonica'. Ignore the laborious methods in 'A Stack to Remember (or 'Bound to Please'). I say this not to be deliberately provocative, as my position is a reasoned one.
Tamariz and Aronson (again using the most famous examples) are exceptionally good at designing magical effects using a memdeck, not to mention memdecks themselves. In fact, you could quite comfortably use the term 'expert' to describe either one of them in this context.
But they are not experts in memorization.
The assertion that Tamariz's stack could be memorized in an afternoon (at least using his methods) is rediculous. A quick look at the memdeck area of the green place's site shows dozens of threads beginning with owners of the book stating that they are struggling. Now, you may suggest that the posters were a minority and perhaps they are, but I couldn't help but notice these threads never include testimonies from people who have used the techniques described by Tamairz succesfully. Feel free to check for yourself.
We also need to consider that there is little chance that (for example) Tamariz used the techniques he describes to memorize his stack. The reason why I think this is the fact that he created it! If he spent hours and hours (if you read his celebrated book 'Mnemonica' and look at the dates for the various innovations, it is more like decades) creating the stack and exploring the possibilities of it, it is highly unlikely that he used the methods described in his book, simply because he would be so familiar with it, he wouldn't need to.
So, let's examine the thoughts of someone whose area of expertise is memorization. After realising that chapter 3 of 'Mnemonica' is a thoroughly amusing read, but offers little by way of a method that creates results I thought it would be helpful to to look to someone who had a method that could be more successful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominic_O%27Brien
And so, in an act of ruthless plagurism I will show how O'Brien's system can not only afford you the luxury of memorising a stack in an hour sequentially, but also how to be able to quickly identify the position of any card numerically without the out-dated method of applying every card a specific mnemonic numeric value. Admittedly this does involve some trickery, but hey, this concept is not new to magicians. Right?
The Hard Work (that will last a life time)...
Now, my claim to have memorized the Tamariz stack within an hour is a genuine one, but there was some 'pre-show work'. To be more specific, the most time-consuming element of Mr o'Brien's system is assigning each card a personality. This took considerably longer than an hour and was done years ago (inspired by Derren Brown's description of how he won consistantly at Black Jack, which I now know to be nonsense) and every stack I learn uses these identities.
I chose to use o'Brien's method of applying an identity to the court cards, as in each suit has a 'theme'. The diamond's theme is money. So, for example the queen of diamonds is the wealthiest woman in my native England; Queen Elizabeth. The kind of diamonds is England's most famous billionare Sir Alan Sugar. For the jack of diamonds I choose a younger character, typically one who was less financially successful than his superior (the king), and in this instance it happens to be everybody's favourite wife beating, fart lighting, spree killer supporting, Geordie drunk Paul Gascoigne.
The club's theme is power. The queen's identity is everybody's favourite premature ejeculation safeguard Margaret Thatcher, the king's identity is everybody's favourite global terrorism scapegoat Saddam Hussain, and the jack is everybody's favourite rapist Mike Tyson (for english readers subsitute a certain former Blue Peter presenter according to taste).
The heart's theme, according to O Brien's method (and I have yet to find a more efficient alternative) is sex symbols. One female, one male but young, and a male that your mother would have considered to be a sex symbol. I will not waste my time or yours, by offering anything by way of suggestion, because this is something that is subjective; but let's face it Kylie Minogue has to feature in there somewhere.
I have deliberately left the spade suit till last, in order to make a point, a point concurred in all of the literature I have had access to. The images you need to have for each of the cards needs to be memorable. Mr O brien suggests for the spade suit people who have black hair. Perhaps, for a reason he chooses not to disclose, black hair has some significance for him. For me it does not.
So, in an effort to ensure that the spades are memorable, I decided to use for the spades unfortunate individuals who died prematurely. For the king of spades I chose Elvis Presley, for the jack I chose James Dean and for the queen I chose Jade Goody.
The point of this exercise is that these things should be memorable. Yes I could have chosen someone more tasteful for a famously dead female; I could have chosen Marilyn Munroe. But the objective of this exercise is to remember things, not to exhibit good taste. This mnemonic system is a tool that you will use, and nobody else will be privy to. Mine happens to include the death of family members, things that actually happened, things that upset me. And these are things that I am likely to remember. If your mnemonic system is to be successful then it should be extreme. And if you disagree with this principle, then revert to a more tasteful alternative. For the ace of hearts choose Alan Hanson over Aldolf Hitler, but I assure you, you will be less able to recall a stack as quickly as I can. A successful mnemonic system should make you angry, it should make you upset. As someone who can boast having more than ten useful card arrangements stored in my head, accessible at any time, I can only advise that you decide early on whether or not it is worth it.
For the pip cards you will have to convert the numbers and suits into letters. Now the suits require little imagination with the conversion. The hearts become an 'H', the clubs become a 'C', the spades become an 'S' and the diamonds become a 'D'. The numbers are simply converted into their alphabetic positions. So, for the two of hearts, the two becomes the second letter of the alphabet 'B', the clubs becomes 'C' and so on. Now this princible can be modified according to personal taste. For example the number nine in the system I choose to use is the letter 'N', as the letter 'N' features heavily in the word 'Nine' phonetically.
So, using this method, a card becomes two letters and these two letters act as the initials of a person. So the two of hearts for example becomes 'BH'. This person could be someone you know well or a celebrity or historical figure. The five of clubs (EC) becomes Eric Cantona, the eight of spades (HS) becomes Harold Shipman and the nine of spades (NS) becomes the Magicbunny site's owner Nigel Selton, only because I couldn't think of anyone else. For the example I used first, the two of hearts, I chose to use an individual of considerable historical significance: Benny Hill.
If you struggle to personify the pip cards, then take a look at any of DB's books as he helpfully provides you with an index of possible card identities.
Now, that the hard work is out of the way, let's examine how these identities can be used to memorise a stack's order.
The way that I have quickly memorised an eclectic assortment of stacks, ranging from the various mathematical positions of the Si Stebbins arrangement and natural stay stack orders to the full memdecks is I have in my mind a fifty two position journey for each. For the Juan Tamariz, for example stack the journey is from my old bedroom above a pub, to my parent's front room; a journey I would make often.
In each of the fifty two stages of my journey, as in places inbetween my bedroom and my parent's front room, I encounter a card/person and interact with them in some bizarre, and subsequently memorable way. For example the eigth postion in my journey is the pub's kitchen. The eigth card of the Tamariz stack is the five of hearts (or 5H, or EH) and in the kitchen Emile Heskey is being critisized by a platoon of tabloid reporters whilst destroying the kitchen during an inept display of ball control. The eleventh postion, which happens to be a local corner shop, is occupied by Kylie Minogue and the way we interact to make this memorable is I gave her a good....... well it doesn't matter, but let's just say myself and Kylie are no longer on speaking terms. To quote Hannibal Lecter 'you should never be afraid to try new things'. Kylie was clearly unfamiliar with this notion. The stuck up moo.
The 'journey' method of memorisation results, typically from those who have only read about it rather than used it, in the assertion that the system is a flawed one due to the fact that in order to identify a card's position you have to cycle through fifty two positions in your mental journey. Let's take a moment or two to see if this really is a flaw in the system, and if it is, what we can do to counter it.
Let's say that the objective is to identify the position of card number thirty nine. Now you could be forgiven for thinking that you now have to cycle through thirty nine positions of the journey to be able to name the thirty ninth card. And if you choose that deliberatley difficult method then you would be right. Instead let's make things easy for ourselves.
Let's assign the twenty sixth card a mnemonic 'tag' that allows us to note that it is exactly half way in the deck; for example, the twenty sixth card in the tamariz stack is the king of diamonds (Sir Alan Sugar). What could be the tag? Well it is the middle of the deck, so if we are taking an unsophisticated approach we could perhaps see Lord Sugar being brutally sawn in half in an act of medieval torture (remember taste is not an issue) a tag that would allow us to quickly skip through the journey to half way in the deck. So now we don't need to travel thirty nine postions in the journey, but only thirteen. Which, I am sure that you will agree, makes life far easier.
Once you are familiar with the concept of applying numerical tags to your characters in the journey, you can increase the number of tags according to what you consider to be practical.
I personally have ten tags in my journey, one for every five cards. As a result I only ever have to skip two positions (because I can skip backwards aswell as forwards) so identifying the position of a card in the stack becomes very, very easy. I am sure that you will agree that memorising ten tags is easier than memorising fifty two, which the books 'Mnemonica' and 'Bound to Please' recommend.
Necessary weapons in your arsenal.
To be able to use a stack properly you will need to be able to maintain it. It is quite obvious that full deck retention is quite a difficult task if you choose the blind shuffle route. If this is not imediately accessible to you there are many other devious ways that you can remove the suspicion of any kind of arrangement.
We examined earlier the example of Bill Malone's routine where, due to the snappy delivery coupled with some false cuts and re-ordering due to the routine's requirements (ie. Cards being selected, poker hands being dealt, etc.) the audience are oblivious to the deck's arrangement. But outside of that there are dozens of crafty rouses that can deliver the illusion of dis-order. Culls, anti-faros followed by faros, false cuts and dealing procedures are examples of these rouses. Even a simple 'Up the Ladder' false cut will convince your spectator that the deck is shuffled and coupled with, for example, some of Lennert Green's downright cheeky methods (check the Green Tapes, for the false rosetta shuffle alone, which I struggle to stiffle a snigger when I do it) there is little in the way of requirement for false shuffles that mimic standard shuffle procedures.
A quick example of this is my supposed prodigious memory demonstration, which, whilst being straight of 'Mnemonica' could be applied to any memdeck. I cut to the thirty first card (something that can be done with practice) and take those cards and place them aside from the rest. Once the spectator has cut the cards I staddle faro the packet twice and ask the spectator to cut the cards once more and deal the cards and into four piles. I deal each packet onto the table face up whilst mumbling to myself, and once all four packets have been dealt I ask the spectator to pick up a packet of their choosing and fan them towards themselves.
I then name the cards in order (backwards if they wish) and repeat this stunt with all the other packets. The secret? With two straddle faros of thirty one cards followed by dealing the packets into four piles results in the stack being completely intact. It amuses me endlessly when I tell them that I have memorised the order of the cards. The fact ommitted is that I memorised that order years ago, not before their eyes as the illusion suggests. But what they don't know won't harm them right?
And finally I am afforded with the luxury of, one cut aside, being able to re-assemble the complete stack at the end of this effect and continue in any way that I choose.
Now a straddle faro is something, with correct instruction, that can be achieved within a few hours. Using that simple tool with some presentation you have a remarkable demonstration of memory. Perhaps now you are understanding that a memdeck coupled with some simple techniques can result in some really powerful displays.
If you do want to demonstrate an omnipient control of your deck (i said 'deck', stay with me gentlemen), then it is worth learning a full deck retention shuffle. I personally use a Zarrow shuffle at the moment as, whilst there are many alternatives (push through, strip out etc), in any of the performances I have seen from the best cardicians every single one uses a Zarrow. And if it is good enough for Juan Tamariz, Bill Malone, Dai Vernon, Ricky Jay, Martin Nash, Ed Marlo and Steve Forte, then it is good enough for me.
Finally, the ability to cull one or two cards and some false cuts and you have pretty much the tool kit that will equip you to use a memdeck to it's full advantage.
So, in conclusion....
Now I am aware that many who read this treatise may disagree with the idea that a memdeck, or a stack of any kind, is a useful weapon in your arsenal. And perhaps, at least some of the advantages of a memdeck could be replicated with the use of sophisticated sleight of hand.
With that in mind I will conclude with this quote from the infuriatingly brilliant fellow memdeck user Pit Hartling.
'Given a certain minimum of artistic experience, there is no 'good' or 'bad' anymore. 'Right' and 'wrong' have been replaced by 'you and 'me'.
Cheers,
Stack
by seige » Aug 3rd, '07, 15:37 
)
