talkmagic.co.uk

Mnemonica sounds intriguing. Tamariz's book was already on my wish list before I read this topic, but it's priority has just been increased by a few points! I learned the Nikola system a few years ago but never really explored its full potential and so the stack faded from my memory over the course of time. I am now looking forward to the wonders of Mnemonica as I have been looking for a memorised deck system for a while now.

I don't have mnemonica, but I do use the Aronson stack and have a couple of Aronsons books. It is true that there are a couple of books which contain effects specific to the arronson stack and that they don't mention methods or tricks to get the stack back into order during a routine (which, though it hasn't been stated explicitly, I assume that Mnemonica does) though they do contain other effects not dependent on the deck itself.

My suggestion would be that if you are looking for a memorised deck order that doesn't require any specific featires then you already have it by simply memorising a shuffled deck. The Aronson stack itself is available for free in a document available on Simon Aronsons website and once you have memorised it then playing with it will reveal some of the features and many others are available for slightly less cost than Mnemonica in Aronson's books (though a lot of them are simply fortunate coincidences which came about when the stack was designed for certain specific purposes). It seems from the contents of the (relevant) discussion that there is more detail available in Mnemonica and that more effects are built into the stack but I can't comment from personal experience. Is there anyone who uses both of these memorised orders?

Hi,
I have recently bought Mnemonica. I will try to post a detailed review in due course. In the meantime I would like to make a couple of points, that would be relevant to anyone trying to choose which memorized stack is best for them. (Sorry if these comments duplicate some other threads).

Menemonic is a very deep & thorough book. This could give you enough material for a whole career. BUT you will need to do a lot of work.

The stack does have a lot of built-in routines (perfect poker hands etc). But they are NOT straightforward to perform. IE you always have to make various adjustments to the stack before/during the effect in question. [If you think about it, it would be impossible to produce lots of different effects from exactly the same setup.] These adjustments require intimate knowledge of the stack (which you will by definition acquire) plus a variety of sleights. SO you need to be good with your hands. They also require you to remember all the correct adjustments for each trick (which is not the same as just knowing your stack).

The other thing is that members on here keep saying it is 'easy' to set up from New Deck order; 'easy' to get to a mirror stack etc etc. Well, that depends on your definition of "easy"!!! EG Four perfect Faros followed by a cut at a certain place, run a couple of cards etc etc. That rules me out!


I cannot agree that you might as well learn ANY randomly shuffled deck order.
If you are going to put in the learning effort, you should look for a stack that is either (A) Designed to be easy to learn. Or (B) Like Mnemonica or Aranson, got other features you like (built in tricks; easy to set up from new deck etc). If you learn a random sequence, you get the worst of both worlds [unless you happen to hhave a great memory - in which case A becomes irrelevant, I suppose]

My own interest in Memorized Decks is that i hope for a 'secret advantage' to perform some great tricks while I gradually improve my sleights. (I am a newcomer to magic), So all the Faro shuffles etc are very off-putting to me personally.

I have also come to the conclusion that all those poker hands etc are probably not what I am looking for. Especially as they might make spectators suspicious about the deck being stacked. Since my false shuffles are only adaquate, I don't want that kind of heat on the deck.

So for me personally, as a mere newbie hobbyist, I am simply not skilled enough to benefit from the Mnemonica stack. I have therefore decided to look for one that is designed for ease of learning.

There is a short chapter in Mnemonica with some suggestions for memorization. EG make up a silly song with all the cards/positions & learn your song. Similar techniques can be found in many books on Memory.

You could also use the techniques generally associated with Nikola system. For some reason there are people who are quite disparaging about this excellent approach. They say you have to 'learn' 52 images for the numbers, then another 52 for the cards; then 52 associations to link each number to its card. This is an unfair misrepresentation. You do not learn 104 random images. You learn a simple system to derive a memorable image from an otherwise meaningless number.
EG. the digit 3 = M, 2 =N [count the vertical strokes] therefore 32 = MooN or MaN or even MoNster - or whatever you will remember.
The great thing about this system is you can use it as well as any other technique (eg singing a song).

Having decided that Mnemonica is not for me, I am considering Joyal's 6 Hour Memorized Deck & Doug Dyment's Quickstack.

The Joyal stack is apparently based on 14 rules. He says it can be memorised in 4 90 minute sessions. Once the stack is memorized, the rules 'fade away'.
[NB. Tamariz claims his stack can be learnt in 3 hours - using the various techniques he describes. I am rather sceptical of this - but I admit I haven't attempted it.]

Doug Dyment published Quickstack in his Mindsights booklet. There is some great info about all these systems on his website www.deceptionary.com. He gives an example of a Joyal 'rule' - that is actually more of a clue/reminder than a rule. By contrast, Quickstack "The Half Hour Stack" is based on a simple-ish algorithm.
Personally I am leaning in favour of this one now.

Looking back at the original post by Taneous, sounds like he should consider it too!

One final point. An algorithm for a Memorized Stack is NOT the same as an algorithm for a sequential/cyclic stack. EG Stebbins, BCS etc. These are much simpler algorithms to learn - but they only link each card to the next one to form a chain. They do not link each card directly to its location.
If this is unclear, you just have to try to answer these questions:
1. What position is the 8C in Stebbins or BCS? 7H? 2S? etc
2. What card is at position 14? 23? 45? etc

I will write a review of QuickStack (& maybe Joyal too).

In the end, each individual must make their own choice. I hope this info aids that process.

The above post by Nikodemus is excellent and thorough. I would like to make a couple of points about Mnemonica though.
Just because you don't have the chops to to take full advantage of Mnemonica, don't let this put you off. You can still do some amazing magic with it and with time your ability will improve, so the amount you can do will increase.
You don't need to be able to Faro to set it up (Tamariz describes a method with anti-Faros which is essentially dealing the cards to the table and picking the piles up in a given order). You can always just set it up by hand (takes about 90 seconds when you know the stack).

Remember a stack is just a tool, but it is an hugely powerful one. All of my decks that are sitting around are stacked so that if someone asks me to do something, this is always an option. And I'd like to reiterate- yes you can stack a deck as part of another effect and Tamariz tells you lots of ways to do this.

Finally if you want to see the stack in action, look at the A1 allstars video with Tamariz Symphony in Major D- it is a full routine using the stack and it's fantastic.

Cheers

Shanester

Nikodemus,

I appreciate your thorough research and your insights into the method of stacked decks. However, since you mentioned that you are new to magic (so am I, by the way) I wanted to give you a few words of caution since I feel you put too much of an emphasis on a tool rather than the much more important result you want to achieve.

I have just performed two stacked deck effects over the previous months. I focus on their presentation and how to make them entertaining and mystifying. Both effects can be done with any stack and only require to know the subsequent card. Thus, I am pretty happy with the BCS stack. But I could use any random stack. The only card sleight I need to use for them is a false shuffle.

When I started out I made the mistake of wanting to learn a hundred tricks which required two hundred moves I would never have time to practice let alone rehearse. When I started performing for real people I realized that I just needed one or two card effects and that it did not matter at all whether they involved sophisticated moves, stacks or whatever.

They did, however, require sophisticated presentation! All of them!

So my opinion is: The most important thing is the effect you want to produce. This sounds obvious and, admittedly, it is. Yet, many people brag about "stack X having 563 built-in features" or "stack Y is can be learned in a single afternoon".

But what is it that you want to do? IMHO your time is much better spent on learning how to write good presentation and rehearsing than on figuring out what is the ultimate stack.

Nikodemus wrote:Hi,
The other thing is that members on here keep saying it is 'easy' to set up from New Deck order; 'easy' to get to a mirror stack etc etc. Well, that depends on your definition of "easy"!!! EG Four perfect Faros followed by a cut at a certain place, run a couple of cards etc etc. That rules me out!

That's exactly what I'm talking about. There are sufficiently many killer routines which don't require bizarre moves at all.

Nikodemus wrote:I cannot agree that you might as well learn ANY randomly shuffled deck order.
If you are going to put in the learning effort, you should look for a stack that is either (A) Designed to be easy to learn. Or (B) Like Mnemonica or Aranson, got other features you like (built in tricks; easy to set up from new deck etc). If you learn a random sequence, you get the worst of both worlds [unless you happen to hhave a great memory - in which case A becomes irrelevant, I suppose]

Speaking of technicalities: I disagree with this one. For the reasons I explained above, you do not need gazillions of tricks. You need to know a few and know them well. If you can afford to be fluent in five of them, you definitely have too many and should spend your time on other effects, instead.

Nikodemus wrote:My own interest in Memorized Decks is that i hope for a 'secret advantage' to perform some great tricks while I gradually improve my sleights. (I am a newcomer to magic), So all the Faro shuffles etc are very off-putting to me personally.

Why 'secret advantage'. Nobody on the planet except fellow magicians who don't pay you money will care about the methods you use. If you do the cross-cut force to entertain laymen, then just do it. I never got caught with it and it always went great.

Nikodemus wrote:I have also come to the conclusion that all those poker hands etc are probably not what I am looking for. Especially as they might make spectators suspicious about the deck being stacked. Since my false shuffles are only adaquate, I don't want that kind of heat on the deck.

Then stop learning advanced moves and sleights and focus on false shuffles for the upcoming weeks, instead. One good trick is better than a dozen bad ones.

Nikodemus wrote:You could also use the techniques generally associated with Nikola system. For some reason there are people who are quite disparaging about this excellent approach.
[...]

Since you know about memory systems and how to memorize stacks - maybe you should consider learning to memorize random stacks. This can be presented as a memory feat and will be "the real deal". You actually do what you claim you are doing as opposed to card tricks that lots of people do.

Nikodemus wrote:One final point. An algorithm for a Memorized Stack is NOT the same as an algorithm for a sequential/cyclic stack. EG Stebbins, BCS etc. These are much simpler algorithms to learn - but they only link each card to the next one to form a chain. They do not link each card directly to its location.
If this is unclear, you just have to try to answer these questions:
1. What position is the 8C in Stebbins or BCS? 7H? 2S? etc
2. What card is at position 14? 23? 45? etc

Just take a pragmatic view: Does the routine you want to do require these features? The question "Does the most general stack I consider learning support feature XY?" is entirely irrelevant for your skills as a Magician.

Nikodemus wrote:In the end, each individual must make their own choice. I hope this info aids that process.

I can only agree with this one 100%.

But I hope I have been able to successfully convey which criteria I consider of importance. The perception of your magic by laypeople is what judges your skills as a Magician, not your focus on methodology.

Hello Rumburuk!

Well I agree with your basic point that it is better to present a few effects well rather than try to learn millions of sleights.

But I have to say I think you have misunderstood almost everything I wrote!!!! Go back & read my post again slowly. I think you will discover that we agree on almost everything. And every point you have disagreed with is actually the opposite of how you read it!

Sorry if I wasn't 100% clear.

Best wishes,
Nick

Hello everyone. Very informative thread, especially Nikodemus' post. I'm considering getting Tamariz's book as well, but my act is mainly a mentalism act (plus I'm not very good with card sleights) and I am hoping to incorporate memorised deck effects into it. Given this condition or requirement, do you think I should get "Mnemonica"?

Thanks!