some read and don't see. "The simpliest sleights, if well rigged up with either plausible or nonsensial clap-trap,may be made to provide a most astonishing and elaborate card trick" S.W. Erdnase.
Magics relation to cheating at cards
- Thread starter c.t
- Start date
some read and don't see. "The simpliest sleights, if well rigged up with either plausible or nonsensial clap-trap,may be made to provide a most astonishing and elaborate card trick" S.W. Erdnase.
His problem is context. Plain and simple. I don't think he understands that most magic sleights simply won't work in a card game, specifically because it is incredibly difficult to use misdirection (which is what allows you to get away with certain things in front of people.). You simply cannot do that in a card game. Most Card Cheat performers don't rely on misdirection when performing, they rely on pure skill and technique and the people watching them KNOW that they are watching a show.
What you did was essentially try to get away with moves that have no context in a card game.
What you did was essentially try to get away with moves that have no context in a card game.
And why exactly are they mutually exclusive? What is the vast, unbridgeable gulf between the two?
Theres no gulf, mechanics are same. But, one performed to amaze, other performed not to be noticed. One you aloud to mess up and laugh it off if you do, other might get free trip to hospital. Cant explain better then that.
If you can't explain it better than that, then you should stop arguing because you're not going to convince me. I see absolutely no proof in those statements that someone cannot adapt the same mechanics to different skill sets. I find the very idea to be ludicrous. You are effectively saying that these skill sets must remain mutually exclusive because you can't possibly imagine anyone being able to do both because reasons. And that, to me, shows a rather limited imagination.
i wasn`t arguing, and i got no interest in convincing you. I would rather know my limits then live in a dreamworld.
I don't believe you.
So now you think your limits apply to everyone else? You can't learn two skill sets, therefore no one else can?
Well now you trolling, and getting personal. Why don`t you go and play cups and balls.
Three things.
1. You don't know what trolling is.
2. You used yourself as an example to prove your points, so don't complain when I roll with that.
3. If you're disparaging the cups and balls, I'm going to ask that we take this outside.
Now you can either provide adequate explanations for the opinions you're firing off, or you can continue getting ****ty with me. I'm sure the latter will end well for you. Point is, don't open your mouth unless you're prepared to back up your words. You made a claim that you've made no real attempts to explain or defend, and you've been called out on it. Learn from this.
We had nice discussion. I understand your opinion on the topic. But it looks like you are not happy that i got mine. I never used myself as an example, i expressed my opinion. You clearly not happy that it does not correspond with yours. Your remark about my imagination earned you a proposition for a game of cups and balls.
Yes you did use yourself as an example.
There are plenty of people who have used sleight of hand both at the table and in front of an audience. Same moves, different timing.
At this point, I have to assume you're just trying to make yourself sound like a guru without any of the requisite ability to back up what you say.
I`m just a beginner just voicing my opinion acquired from Erdnase.
There is a vast difference between the methods employed
by the card conjurer in mystifying or amusing his audience;
and those practiced at the card table by the professional, as
in this case the entire conduct must be in perfect harmony
with the usual procedure of the game.
Excessive vanity proves the
undoing of many experts. The temptation to show off is
great. He has become a past master in his profession.
To be suspected of skill is a death
blow to the professional.
To attain the highest degree
of excellence at card manipulation much study and
practice are necessary; but proficiency in the art quite
sufficient for the purpose of entertainment or amusement
may be acquired with very little effort if a thorough
understanding is first obtained of the best and simplest
methods of accomplishing the sleights.
http://conjuringarts.org/ give away free digital copy of Erdnase. May be you should re read it.
Actually I have 3 copies of Erdnase and I've read all of them several times. Perhaps instead of just reading and parroting what he says, you should actually think about it. Since you're so fond of quoting, why don't you quote me the part where he says that a card cheat can't do magic?
I suspect you'll have trouble with that, since it's not in there and in fact he specifically mentions using a magic move at the card table to get out of trouble. Go ahead and hunt for that passage, I'll occupy myself with other things in the mean time.
Nothing you've even quoted is supporting your argument. All the passage above says is that it's easier to gain enough skill to do magic than it is to be a good cheater at the card table. I agree to an extent, but really it's a different skill set. Getting away with techniques at the card table is a matter of pure technical skill and timing more so than psychology, whereas being a good magician is also a matter of having a sense of theater.
There is absolutely nothing that says a card cheat can't be a magician and a magician can't be a card cheat. The closest you're going to get is that you probably shouldn't try to be both at the same time at the card table.
No you don't.
I'm unhappy that you're doing such a poor job of backing up your assertions.
Yes you did.
And an opinion is only as good as what you back it up with.
Or maybe what you said was bull**** and I was calling you out on it. You never even entertained the possibility you could be wrong?
Which was a stupid thing to say because when I break out the cups and balls, it's to busk. And that ends with me getting paid. You effectively told me to continue being a better performer than you.
In other words, you're regurgitating some stuff you learned rote rather than apply any real critical thought to it. Your story about being a beginner certainly checks out.
None of this proves me wrong.
Kid, I have read more texts on magic and performance theory than you have read books on any subject in your lifetime. Do not presume to lecture me.
Yes i do. You brought to the table the names of Daniel Madison and S W Erdnase. I dont think Madison was a good card cheat. Card cheat yes, but not good otherwise he would not got caught. But even now i dont think he calls himself a magician. Deception artist i think it is. No one 100% knows who S W Erdnase was. But he definitely got lots of inside about card cheating, where his card magic section feels to me a bit out of place.
I trying to explain myself to my best knowlage. If you are not happy with the way i do it, there are hundred and one way to say it nice, instead of being arrogant.
Can you please point me where i used myself as an example.
If you treat other peoples opinion as bull*** expect same back. I might be wrong but you have not make a single point but only bashed mine.
You being a beginer yourself. Your knowlage greater then mine. So is your arrogance.
I think you knew what i meant about cups and balls.
Really? Where did I do that? I haven't invoked a single name. Am I now sleepwalking, going online and correcting people in a sort of somnambulist trance, the details of which I do not remember afterward?
The only point I have so far made is that you have offered no real proof for your claim that certain skill sets must be mutually exclusive.
You keep saying this, but who are you arguing with? No one here has claimed to know. They've simply argued that your assertion about skills being mutually exclusive is wrong. Focus, man!
I can be friendlier if I so choose. Wishing to be correct however does not make it so.
Glad to:
You effectively said that you can't do both, so that's proof that it must be impossible. Fortunately, I do not have the same paradigm. You call it dreaming, I call it ambition.
I pointed out the flaws in your logic. That's what a debate is.
Just putting this out there, but... I've been performing for live audiences since 2007. Did you actually think I was pulling all of this out of my ass?
Assume I don't. Please elaborate.
my apologies wasnt you.
neither did you.
No the skill but the approach.
it does not cost much to be nice.
Trying to shot two birds with same gun won`t work.
For me it sounded like picking and not pointing.
I am not familiar with you repertoire. What and from where you pulling thing none of mine business.
Try to be nicer and i might think about it.