Sign up Latest Topics Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Rudy Tinoco

Founding Member
Registered:
Posts: 3,888
Reply with quote  #1 
Hi Fellas, 

I was working on an effect that requires you to double undercut cards from the bottom of the deck, four times.

I just noticed that double undercutting a card from the bottom to the top of the deck, feels kinda awkward. It doesn't use the same actions as controlling a card from the top to the bottom.

The way that I've adjusted this is to get a break above the bottom card, swing cutting the top portion and placing that bottom card onto that packet while keeping a break between the two halves, and then cutting half of the top packet onto the table followed by the second half and then the remainder of the deck (bottom card is now on top).

Have any of you felt the same awkwardness of the double undercut from the bottom? If so, how have you dealt with it (or not).

Rudy

__________________
http://www.facebook.com/magicrudy
http://www.facebook.com/themagiciansforum
0
Mike Powers

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,345
Reply with quote  #2 
I agree that the bottom to top double undercut looks awkward. Your method is good if you don't need to keep the remainder of the deck in order. But often you want to only move the bottom to top and keep everything else in order. Terry Veckey had a method for this situation. I'll see if I can find his lecture notes.

Found the notes, but I don't see this move. It was a good solution as I recall. I'll see if I can contact Terry.

Mike
0
rready

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 437
Reply with quote  #3 
Rudy,

             The way I do it looks the same as if your doing a double undercut from top to the bottom(no swing cut). It may be a Lewis Jones idea, not sure where I read it. I'll post a video of it tomorrow.
0
Rudy Tinoco

Founding Member
Registered:
Posts: 3,888
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Powers
I agree that the bottom to top double undercut looks awkward. Your method is good if you don't need to keep the remainder of the deck in order. But often you want to only move the bottom to top and keep everything else in order. Terry Veckey had a method for this situation. I'll see if I can find his lecture notes.

Found the notes, but I don't see this move. It was a good solution as I recall. I'll see if I can contact Terry.

Mike


Hi Mike, Fortunately, for this trick, I don’t require the deck to be in any particular order (except for the bottom four cards). But you bring up a great point about the deck losing its order with the method I’m considering using.

If you can get a hold of Terry that would be great!

Thanks,

Rudy

__________________
http://www.facebook.com/magicrudy
http://www.facebook.com/themagiciansforum
0
Blathermist

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #5 

Rudy:

Your description is exactly how I do the Reverse Double Undercut. I devised the working myself, but I have since read the exact handling more than a few times in other publications. I have a feeling Jon Racherbaumer described it like this as one of Marlo’s approaches to the move.

When I get a minute I’ll have a look in "Card College". And maybe Nick Trost's first hardback. He lists a fair number of moves and such in there. Also in the first volume of his "Subtle Card Creations".

0
Harry Lorayne

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,014
Reply with quote  #6 
     Bit of "using a sledge hammer to kill a bird" here? Nothing wrong with the method(s) mentioned above, but - nothing wrong with just "doing" the darn thing.

I "do the darn thing" very, very, often. Never had any problem "getting away" with it. As a matter of fact - and thanks for the plug opportunity - I just, literally "just," finished writing up a new impromptu card routine for AND FINALLY!  that requires double cutting the bottom card to top THREE times during the routine.

      I always do it the "basic" way - deck in right hand being held from above, break above the bottom card held by right thumb, kick cut top half deck into left hand with right forefinger, left hand immediately places its half deck to bottom, completing the "open" cut, palm-up left hand cuts half the portion under the break to top and then the remaining portion up to the break to top. Done. What in the world is wrong with that?

      For the routine I mention above for AND FINALLY! the only shuffling that can be done after double cutting bottom card to top is a center Hindu Shuffle or my Bottom Stet Overhand Shuffle - you'll have to look it up - because there are cards at bottom to be "brought to top" later.  

       When dealing with only one card - like a selected card - after double cutting that selection from bottom to top (if that's part of your handling) a couple of overhand injog shuffles "locks" in the fact(?) that that selected card is hopelessly lost in the deck.
0
Blathermist

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Lorayne
 
       I always do it the "basic" way - deck in right hand being held from above, break above the bottom card held by right thumb, kick cut top half deck into left hand with right forefinger, left hand immediately places its half deck to bottom, completing the "open" cut, palm-up left hand cuts half the portion under the break to top and then the remaining portion up to the break to top. Done. What in the world is wrong with that?


Nothing at all. And that's exactly how I do it. I also thought  that was what Rudy was describing. I re-read his method and realised he brought the table into play. I missed that.

Just goes to show that speed reading doesn't help when reading Magic stuff!!

The table addition is fine, but as the Birthday Boy says, it's not necessary. And if there's no table....
0
rready

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 437
Reply with quote  #8 
Here's the one I read somewhere by Dick Koester. 
0
rready

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 437
Reply with quote  #9 
0
luigimar

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member - Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,005
Reply with quote  #10 
I seem to remember that this move would be called the double uppercut. Many years ago I read it somewhere (I don't recall where). It is a double  undercut when the card(s) is (are) transfered from top to bottom and a double uppercut when the cards are transfered from bottom to top. And it is a double because two cuts are done in this transfer. The names could have become one throughout time, who knows...
__________________
Luigimar
Magic is Within...
0
Harry Lorayne

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,014
Reply with quote  #11 
    I can't really make it out clearly, but that looks exactly like what I'm talking about - that I've suggested literally thousands of times in my books and probably in my DVDs.
0
Harrisgagnon

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 288
Reply with quote  #12 
I do it Harry's way as well. I think Rudy's way is fine too. Both work the same. If you want to switch up the way you cut the deck during the performance so you don't look repetitive you could do both.  
0
Harry Lorayne

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,014
Reply with quote  #13 
    And if you want another way to imperceptibly move the bottom card to top look up A Card Hop - page 41 of ONLY MY APOCALYPSE.  It's a move I've been using for decades - originally published it in the January 1980issue of APOCALYPSE. (So - I've been thinking of that particular bottom-to-
top "transfer" for a loooong time.
0
Anthony Vinson

Avatar / Picture

Inner Circle - Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,531
Reply with quote  #14 
Rudy, if you have Stephen Hobb's Technical Toolbox, he describes several solutions to the problem you describe on DVD One, Week6: B2T Transfer Cuts.

Av
0
Gareth

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 676
Reply with quote  #15 
Harry's A Card Hop popped right into my mind when I saw your post Rudy. It's beautifully natural, bold and simple.  As Harry states 'smoothness' is the key.  A casual look up at your spectator at the right time will help.

Only My Apocalypse is one of my favourite books as I don't have any Apocalypses (now that's an awkward sounding word but then it's probably not a word where the original usage, a plural should ever apply, I digress)

...and Harry my apologies I still haven't got around to posting about my conversion to being a Spelling Trick fan after reading, practicing and performing 'Spell All' the last effect in OMA. Will try to later today.

Happy Birthday Harry[smile]

Gareth
0
arthur stead

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 552
Reply with quote  #16 

For one of my routines, I also needed to bring the bottom card to the top.  Worked out a method that sounds exactly like Harry’s!  An “in-the-hands” bottom card to top cut.  (As opposed to dropping the packets on the table).  Never felt uncomfortable to me, and no one has ever given me a funny look when I'm doing it.  Of course I maintain eye contact and keep talking all the while ...


__________________
http://www.arthurstead.com
0
Rudy Tinoco

Founding Member
Registered:
Posts: 3,888
Reply with quote  #17 

__________________
http://www.facebook.com/magicrudy
http://www.facebook.com/themagiciansforum
0
arthur stead

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 552
Reply with quote  #18 

Hey Rudy, I do it just like you do, except … I only do one cut.  In other words, get the R thumb break, swing cut the top half of the deck into my LH, bring RH packet over to LH packet to drop the single card, and then just cut that whole LH packet to the top.  I admit it does look “sneaky” from my perspective.  But that’s not what the audience sees.


__________________
http://www.arthurstead.com
0
Pinhead52

Member
Registered:
Posts: 25
Reply with quote  #19 
I don't like that I'm coming in with a "me too" all the time, but I completely agree with Harry. Of course, there are several ways to get a card from the bottom to the top. You could even do a single cut and a pass from the middle, etc. But I have found in all the videos I've seen and actual magicians in first hand is that the classic double undercut always works. I think about magic like a game of chess, and the double undercut is a move with no possible negative outcomes. First of all, for people who don't know magic, it will always work. Your average audience member has no idea that cuts are a way to move cards, and it just seems like you're fidgeting to kill time. But if you're doing magic for a magician, the double undercut can either mean "I'm doing magic right now, start paying attention", or if you can get a magic 101 move like that past another magician, it means you're doing fine (or they need to pay closer attention). I've also found that my most effective moves are the ones that I never believe will fool anyone, and sometimes when you do a double undercut it can feel like you're just taking the card off the bottom and putting it on the top and thinking "there's no way anyone didn't see that."
0
François Lagrange

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 98
Reply with quote  #20 

As mentioned above, Dick Koester’s Consistent Reverse Double Undercut published in Las Vegas Kardma and Constant Fooling 2 is excellent as it looks exactly as a regular UC.

0
Mike Powers

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,345
Reply with quote  #21 
Hi Rudy,

I totally "feel your pain" dude. Double cutting the bottom card to the top in the "standard fashion, looks bogus to me. Can we "just do it?" I think, yes. Is it the sort of thing that seems to draw attention to itself? I think, yes. That's why I don't like it the way it is generally performed (as on your video). 

M


0
Mike Powers

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,345
Reply with quote  #22 
Thanks for that reference Francois. The move is described on pp. 66 and 67 in the Ackerman book. It looks like the LH moves cards from bottom to top three times in a very consistent fashion.

Allan expresses his motivation this way: "Most people in order to secretly cut the bottom card to the top do a swing cut followed by a double cut. Having two different cutting styles in the same procedure is suspiciously inconsistent."

Mike
0
magicfish

Moderator - Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,174
Reply with quote  #23 
The Koester Move is good.
Larry Jennings also published a method. I will see if I can dig it up.
0
Rudy Tinoco

Founding Member
Registered:
Posts: 3,888
Reply with quote  #24 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Powers
Thanks for that reference Francois. The move is described on pp. 66 and 67 in the Ackerman book. It looks like the LH moves cards from bottom to top three times in a very consistent fashion.

Allan expresses his motivation this way: "Most people in order to secretly cut the bottom card to the top do a swing cut followed by a double cut. Having two different cutting styles in the same procedure is suspiciously inconsistent."

Mike


Man. There consolation in knowing that I’m not the only one who feels like I do.

I’ll check out Koester’s handling in Constant Fooling.

Thank you all for your input!

Rudy

__________________
http://www.facebook.com/magicrudy
http://www.facebook.com/themagiciansforum
0
Harry Lorayne

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,014
Reply with quote  #25 
        Boy!  I just have never, ever, had a problem doing the basic double cut - just as I posted about 6th from top of this thread.
0
Rudy Tinoco

Founding Member
Registered:
Posts: 3,888
Reply with quote  #26 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Lorayne
        Boy!  I just have never, ever, had a problem doing the basic double cut - just as I posted about 6th from top of this thread.


Maybe that’s the secret to living well into your 90s…don’t needlessly over analyze or overthink things :)

__________________
http://www.facebook.com/magicrudy
http://www.facebook.com/themagiciansforum
0
Blathermist

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #27 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Powers

Allan expresses his motivation this way: "Most people in order to secretly cut the bottom card to the top do a swing cut followed by a double cut. Having two different cutting styles in the same procedure is suspiciously inconsistent."
Mike

All very well and proper, but I’ve seen Ackerman work on video and he uses regular cuts too; surely yet another inconsistency.

As with, HL I say just flippin do it.

And I don’t always say flippin, though being a good boy I usually do.

0
Bob Farmer

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 139
Reply with quote  #28 
I use the Jeff Semel's False Cut from Versatile Card Magic by Frank Simon.

1. Break over the bottom card.

2. Swing Cut the top third to the bottom.

3. All cards above break are lifted slightly by right hand as right hand jogs it left and begins a swing cut of the top half of this group--but does not actually swing the cards off. Rather the top two parts are placed jogged to the left and the bottom portion (original top) is seized by the right thumb and second finger.

4. Pull out the bottom portion and drop it on top then square.

The whole thing is an optical illusion--it looks like three swing cuts but isn't.
0
Bob Farmer

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 139
Reply with quote  #29 
The Semel cut is described in my manuscript here:

https://www.lybrary.com/cheat-p-922452.html

It is a relatively unknown gem that has flown beneath the radar for way too long.
0
Anthony Vinson

Avatar / Picture

Inner Circle - Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,531
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Farmer
I use the Jeff Semel's False Cut from Versatile Card Magic by Frank Simon.


That's quite clever. Fooled myself.  I had to turn the bottom card face up before seeing that it really worked!

Thanks, Bob.

Av
0
JohnnyNewYork

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 213
Reply with quote  #31 
Hello Rudy and Forum members!  I guess I'm not the only one on this forum who sometimes "overthinks" things when it comes to magic (but perhaps that overthinking ultimately has the potential of "raising the bar" for future effects -- who knows?).   I completely agree with those posters above who feel that the standard "reverse undercut" to shift the bottom card to the top of the deck works fine (especially when combined with engaging patter, etc.).  There have been some great alternative approaches/suggestions already posted here, however, and I'd like to provide two very humble alternatives of my own (which are rather obvious and I'm sure have been published by others before) -- maybe they will spark an idea or two, although they definitely fall into the "overkill" category, for sure.  My suggestions are based on the idea that you only need to retain the original bottom card order of the deck.  

Swing cut approach
1.  Deck held in RH Biddle Grip -- thumb break above bottom card.
2.  Swing cut top third to left hand and immediately swing cut another third on top of that while maintaining thumb break above original bottom card in the remaining RH portion.
3.  Place remaining RH packet on top of LH cards (releasing card below the break to the left hand portion but STILL maintaining a break between the LH and RH packets with the LH little finger).
4.  Optional pause/gesture with free RH, or simply proceed with the next step.
5.  Transfer talon into RH Biddle Grip while maintaining break between packets and swivel cut packet above break using your LH index finger placed on upper packet's inside left corner, rotating the packet 180 as it is cut into the LH.
6.  Drop/slap the remaining RH packet on top of LH cards and square the deck.

Hindu Shuffle approach:
1.  Deck held in LH Mechanic's Grip, but with an extended gap between cards and palm (outer end facing audience).
2.  Concealing the next action, the LH turns counter clockwise slightly as the index finger peels and and down-jogs the bottom card about 1/2 inch while the RH grasps the deck in preparation for a Hindu Shuffle.
3.  Perform a standard Hindu Shuffle at a relaxed but UNINTERRUPTED tempo (RH maintaining and concealing the down-jogged bottom card) until the RH holds only a small packet of cards.
4.  Still maintaining the rhythm of the shuffle, place the remaining RH packet on top of the LH cards, aligning the down-jogged bottom card with the LH packet and automatically leaving a small packet of cards up-jogged, forming a forward step on top of the deck (again, the RH conceals the step between packets); the LH pulls the forward stepped upper packet clear of the deck as the RH drops/slaps its packet on top of the LH packet to complete the Hindu Shuffle.

I hope the descriptions make sense -- sorry if these alternatives waste your time, but I honestly had fun thinking about them!  Good luck with your routine, Rudy!  johnny

0
Chi Han

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 992
Reply with quote  #32 
I have 2 moves that I tinkered around with for use as a substitute for this exact problem, but I can't tell if I'm fooling the audience or just myself. I'd love to get some feedback on them next time we have a session.
0
magicfish

Moderator - Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,174
Reply with quote  #33 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Farmer
The Semel cut is described in my manuscript here:

https://www.lybrary.com/cheat-p-922452.html

It is a relatively unknown gem that has flown beneath the radar for way too long.

I've been using the Pirandello for many years.
0
magicfish

Moderator - Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,174
Reply with quote  #34 
The Vernon Cut will also do the job efficiently. I first encountered it in Neoclassics by Minch. See Intuitively Yours pg.15
0
Mike Powers

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,345
Reply with quote  #35 
I had forgotten about the Pirandello cut. It is a thing of beauty!

Simon follows the description of the false cut with the Pirandello Undercut. It looks very good. This might be the answer for Rudy. It maintains deck order which is often important.

Mike
0
rready

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 437
Reply with quote  #36 
Maybe in the next session we can throw around the different ways we've talked about here.
0
François Lagrange

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 98
Reply with quote  #37 
I learnt "The Pirandello False Cut"  in Frank Simon Versatile Card Magic Revisited. It is a false swing cut in the hands: "It looks like a triple cut but is actually a double cut that is a false cut."

Personally, if I had to perform the move 4 times in a row, I'd stick with Dick Koester’s Consistent Reverse Double Undercut, as it's very innocent looking, i.e. not flashy.
0
Bob Farmer

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 139
Reply with quote  #38 
The Koester move is at pages 66-67 of Allan Ackerman's book, Las Vegas Kardma. It's a very nice idea, however, like all Double Cuts it looks like you cut the deck and then uncut the deck since it's two cuts in a row. It can be improved by taking two portions off the top, one after the other, and then doing the final cut. This is three cuts.
0
Harry Lorayne

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,014
Reply with quote  #39 
    I thought that - anyway the way I do it - it is three cuts --- one cut top to bottom and then two cuts from bottom up to top.
0
Harry Lorayne

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,014
Reply with quote  #40 
   Oh, that's if I'm secretly moving the bottom card to top. If I'm secretly moving the top card to bottom then it's  three cuts from bottom to top.
0
Harry Lorayne

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,014
Reply with quote  #41 
   In either case I always - always - follow up with either overhand injog shuffles to keep the top card in place or my Bottom Stet Overhand Control ro keep the bottom card in place (or, if you haven't read the good stuff - a Slip Shuffle or two).
0
karel

Member
Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #42 
I am new here and have eonjoyed this discussion. Not sure I have much to offer, but it is something I have been thinking on for a while - it is something I like to spend some time on.

I have no qualms with the reverse double undercut - but it does flow quite a bit different for me than a normal double undercut.  I've been trying to get the idea of a swing-cut multiple shift to flow as an alternative - if the bottom card can be side jogged to the right, you can strip it out of the middle on the third swing cut. It does actually cut the deck, though.

I've also been trying to use an in-the-hands, false triple swing- cut to work smoothly - dropping the seperated card onto the first packet cut to the left and then continuing with the next two cuts. Catch that first packet in a slightly different grip with the left hand - as if you were about to spread the cards, the little finger supporting the packet from the inner narrow end (as it remains in the left hand til the last cut). And on the third cut, switch the packets. I'm not sure I explain it very clearly, but it keeps the deck in order and the right index finger seems to be swing-cutting three times (which it actually does).
0
Chi Han

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 992
Reply with quote  #43 
Hi, I decided to film the ideas that I was talking about before.



Edit:  The Allen Ackerman move was called the Simulated Double Undercut.  I applied the same principle to get the card from bottom to top instead of top to bottom.
0
Chi Han

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 992
Reply with quote  #44 

Quote:
Originally Posted by karel

I have no qualms with the reverse double undercut - but it does flow quite a bit different for me than a normal double undercut.  I've been trying to get the idea of a swing-cut multiple shift to flow as an alternative - if the bottom card can be side jogged to the right, you can strip it out of the middle on the third swing cut. It does actually cut the deck, though.


Hey Karel!

I just read this, it seems we stumbled upon the same idea!  It's the second one I was talking about in the video above.  Great minds!

0
JohnnyNewYork

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 213
Reply with quote  #45 
Chi Han (and Karel) — I love your ideas with this! The first version on your video clip looked especially good to me — pure direct simplicity and it appeared to be a very convincing cut of the cards. Even though the standard approach works just fine with the average layperson, your alternative suggestions might come in handy (and I haven’t seen or read this before). Great thinking! — johnny
0
karel

Member
Registered:
Posts: 5
Reply with quote  #46 
Chi Han Yeo - thanks for posting the video! Your idea of the side jog is the same kind of thing I was thinking about - seemed like a good idea to keep the card under control with fairly regular actions. I'm not as smooth with it yet, but will work on it more.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.