Counting the cards
Daniel Janzon
in a deck? The best I've found out, is to hold the deck with the same
grip as the you have when you do the Overhand Shuffle. It's then
possible
to take both the top and the bottom card. Thus, you only have to count
26
cards. If I want to check if there is 52 cards, I've found out that the
fastest
method should be this:
1. Do a perfect faro shuffle. If the two halfs of the deck isn't of
equal size,
there isn't an even number of cards in the deck. Probably somebody got
an
Ace in there sleeve.
2. Else, do another perfect faro shuffle. These halfs should be of equal
size too.
3. Do a third perfect faro shuffle. These should be uneven. If they are,
there is probably 52 cards in the deck.
Well, does anyone know a better (faster) mathod?
Cocatel
day to count 52 cards. however i am impressed if you can do 3 perfect faro
shuffles faster than someone counting 52 cards at the rate of 3 or 4 cards per
second.
don
Robin Allen
>Is there any advanced speed counting technique for counting the cards
>in a deck? The best I've found out, is to hold the deck with the same
>grip as the you have when you do the Overhand Shuffle. It's then
>possible
>to take both the top and the bottom card. Thus, you only have to count
>26
>cards. If I want to check if there is 52 cards, I've found out that the
>fastest
>method should be this:
>1. Do a perfect faro shuffle. If the two halfs of the deck isn't of
>equal size,
>there isn't an even number of cards in the deck. Probably somebody got
>an
>Ace in there sleeve.
<snip.>
I have occasionally checked the contents of a deck using faroes
just to impress people, as it's fairly flashy. I'm not sure if
my method is the same as yours, as I've had some difficulty
following your description.
Whatever, a possibly faster alternative is to count the cards in
groups. Push off a bunch of four each time and count 4-8-12-16...
it's fairly easy to get the hang of this; you have to develop
the knack of telling with a brief glimpse that you've separated
the correct number of cards, and this doesn't take much practice.
After a while you'll be able to count bunches extremely rapidly.
It might be safer to place counted groups to one side as you
count so that old bunches don't visually interfere with new
ones. This method is safer with cards with white borders, if
you're eyesight is anything like mine.
You might eventually want to try counting in groups of five
or higher. It's possible to just push over bunches at random
and assess their size with a quick glimpse, but this is dodgier!
Of course, you can combine methods. Spread count in bunches to
26, then see if you can faro what you have into the remaining
cards. It might be quicker to keep on spread counting than
worry about the faro miss that is likely to result if you don't
take enough time to square the halves of the deck.
This counting method is not original with me. However, I don't
recall whether I encountered it in the conjuring literature or
elsewhere, as a generally faster way of counting objects.
Cheers,
Robin.
Daniel Janzon
I checked how fast I could do it. I checked that it was 52 cards in the deck in
13 seconds, which is a little bit funny because that's how much time it takes
if you count 4 cards per second. The reason why I want a fast way to count
the cards is that it's impressive.
Daniel Janzon
> just to impress people, as it's fairly flashy. I'm not sure if
> my method is the same as yours, as I've had some difficulty
> following your description.
I guess my description was quite worthless. Here's a better one:
Divide the deck in two halfes as for a perfect faro. Faro shuffle
the cards, but do not complete the shuffle, just see if the shuffle
ends up even (if there is the same amount of cards in the two halfes).
Put one of the halfes aside, and do the same thing again with now
(hopefully) 26 cards. Check if the shuffle ends up even, and put
one of the halfes containing (hopefully) 13 cards aside. Now do
the same thing again, this time it should not end up even.
If there is only 51 cards in the deck, it will be clear after step
number one. If there is 50 cards in the deck, it will be obvious
after step number two. If there is 49 cards in the deck, it will be
obvious after the first shuffle. If there is 48 cards in the deck
the two halfes in step three will not end up uneven. If there is
less cards than 48, you will feel that something is wrong.
Maybe it's possible to count a pack of cards in your hand by
feel alone?
> Whatever, a possibly faster alternative is to count the cards in
> groups. Push off a bunch of four each time and count 4-8-12-16...
> it's fairly easy to get the hang of this; you have to develop
> the knack of telling with a brief glimpse that you've separated
> the correct number of cards, and this doesn't take much practice.
> After a while you'll be able to count bunches extremely rapidly.
That was very smart indeed.
> You might eventually want to try counting in groups of five
> or higher. It's possible to just push over bunches at random
> and assess their size with a quick glimpse, but this is dodgier!
In the book "Card Control" by Arthur Buckley, Buckley explains
how a card shark can cheat. In that methos of cheating, the card
shark must be able to lift of exactly 13, and exactly 17 cards when
he's cutting the deck. I've never managed do this, but if I ever do,
I'll be able to count the cards extremely rapidly!
Robin Allen
>> I have occasionally checked the contents of a deck using faroes
>> just to impress people, as it's fairly flashy. I'm not sure if
>> my method is the same as yours, as I've had some difficulty
>> following your description.
>I guess my description was quite worthless. Here's a better one:
>Divide the deck in two halfes as for a perfect faro. Faro shuffle
>the cards, but do not complete the shuffle, just see if the shuffle
>ends up even
OK - it makes sense now. Our "methods" are similar enough.
> Maybe it's possible to count a pack of cards in your hand by
>feel alone?
It should certainly be possible to tell whether a deck is light
by a few cards simply by how it feels - not by how heavy it
feels but how thick. I've found that after prolonged usage of
a pack (e.g. for dealing) I can tell if a couple of cards are
missing, and suspect that it's possible to detect the loss of
a single card.
Unfortunately, this is a difficult skill to develop, as decks of
cards can vary in thickness, even within brands. I recently
opened up a new deck of Bikes and was amazed to feel how "thin"
it was compared to the previous Bike deck I'd used. The new deck
was complete, but actually only about 95% of the thickness of
the old one. This can actually interfere with some sleights - it
can bugger up faroing two decks together, for a start (at least
with the methods I use). It might also affect various "estimation"
moves...
>In the book "Card Control" by Arthur Buckley, Buckley explains
>how a card shark can cheat. In that methos of cheating, the card
>shark must be able to lift of exactly 13, and exactly 17 cards when
>he's cutting the deck. I've never managed do this, but if I ever do,
>I'll be able to count the cards extremely rapidly!
...See Marlo's "Estimation" for this sort of thing. I think it's
pretty easy to get hold of from dealers.
It's possible, with practice, and bearing in mind the deck
thickness caveat above, to cut to pretty much the same point in
a deck simply by feel. Find where you tend to cut the deck - in
my case it's at 23 cards - and practise cutting to just that
point. Over time, you'll hit it often, or only miss by one. I
presume it's possible to learn to cut at 26, but I've not put
in any time on this.
Note that riffle stacking is a useful sleight to practise
if you want to develop a "feel" for packets of cards!
Robin.
Pen thru
<< I checked how fast I could do it. I checked that it was 52 cards in the deck
in
13 seconds >>
I counted the cards in the deck in 3 seconds!
But I cheated...............
I used a digital caliper.
:)
Robin Allen
Great!
Can I fit one up my sleeve or will I need to use the
table edge for cover?
ES Andrews
52 cards are there, then the final card you count should fall on
the "G" of "King".
Maybe not the quickest way but there you go.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Pen thru
table edge for cover? >>
Yes and Yes, and think S. Deck, &cut off a portion. also .008 in:)
Bruce Barnett
> Is there any advanced speed counting technique for counting the cards
> in a deck?
Since the goal is to impress people, why not fake it?
Ruffle the end, listening to the clicks. One second later, say
"Tsk. Tsk. I'm missing one card." Look in the bottom of your close-up
case, or inside the card case. "Aha! I knew it had to be somewhere."
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
Daniel Janzon
> Daniel Janzon <ja...@hem.passagen.se> writes:
>
> > Is there any advanced speed counting technique for counting the cards
> > in a deck?
>
> Since the goal is to impress people, why not fake it?
Because then the spectator will say: "Do it again! Let me pick away some
cards!".
Of course, I will not be able to do this, and he will understand that I'm
faking.
Then, he will think that none of my card tricks is built upon skill. Maybe
I'm
suffering from paranoia? ; )
diggum
fooled einstein and was printed most recently in one of the penn adn
teller books. you could do this with cards pretty easily.
Bruce Barnett
> Because then the spectator will say: "Do it again! Let me pick away some
> cards!".
I would wait for them to return the missing cards, or I will leave.
I'm under no oblication to do their bidding. If I want to, that's
fine. But remember who is in control. You shouldn't be presenting
magic as a challange, but as entertainment. It's your show.
> Of course, I will not be able to do this, and he will understand
> that I'm faking. Then, he will think that none of my card tricks is
> built upon skill. Maybe I'm suffering from paranoia? ; )
Well, yes - you do need to have believable skill. That is true.
But once you have them sold, then you can do anything.
David Wright
> Then, he will think that none of my card tricks is built upon skill.
You are going to struggle for ever and ever if you come at it like this.
If you want them to think you're hyper-skilled - a dubious and
confrontational approach as it is, you will have to use "fake" methods to
get there, and your best course of action will be to have a good reason not
to repeat... such as a good trick to follow.
In any case, I'm sure people will agree that nobody is going to believe
you're very very skilled if you aren't.. I suggest that you either GET very
very skilled, in which case you'll be able to cut 26 and compare the other
half... done in 2 seconds, or imply "skilled" rather than demonstrate...
If you can approach your spectator humbly and work thesame magic, you WILL
walk away with them thinking you are very very skilled. If you show off,
they are SURE to think that's all you've gotr, and it probably is..
no disrespect, just observations
dave