The following presents two alternative approaches for shuffling on behalf of audiences who are on the other side of a camera from two different Oval writers. We’ll start with Drew’s take, and move on to Franklin’s which you can do half asleep.
Drew’s Version
The following technique was inspired by my friend who was performing a card trick for me over Skype. The trick he was doing starts from a shuffled deck, and he wanted me to know that the deck could start in a random order. He said “If you were here, you could shuffle it any way you wanted. Since you’re not here, just tell me how to shuffle. Do you want me to overhand, cut, or riffle?” Whatever shuffle I chose, he proceeded to do the cleanest, slowest version of that shuffle he could for me.
It took me four years to realize I could do this same thing, but fake it. I seemingly offer my Zoom audience all the choices about how to mix the deck, meanwhile secretly controlling the top stock of cards using only fair-looking and simple, easy card techniques: overhand shuffle, Mahatma control, riffle shuffle, pinky break, the Frank Thompson false cut, and the Jay Ose false cut.
Start with the stock you want to end up on top halfway down the deck, just below a pinky break. Say to your friend that there are basically three ways to mix a deck—an overhand, a riffle, and a cut. Ask your friend which of the three they want you to do.
If they say cut: Ask them “How many cuts would you like? Usually one to three cuts suffice.” No matter what they say, all you do is cut to your break. If they say 1 cut, cut directly to your break. If they say 2, cut directly to your break but using two cuts. Same with 3. It’s that simple.
If they say overhand: Use a Mahatma control to bring your stock to the top.
If they say riffle: split the deck at the break, and riffle shuffle so that your stock ends up on top.
Now that you’ve finished fulfilling their request, assuming they didn’t ask for a cut, ask them if they want you to give the deck one final cut or leave it the way it is. If they say yes, ask them if they would prefer a standard cut with 2 piles or an extra cut with 3. If they say 3, you can go into the Jay Ose false cut. If they say standard, you can just do the Thompson False Swing Cut. Or you could omit that final choice and just do the Thompson Cut, but I like to offer an extra choice when possible.
That’s it! You can see how simple it all is. Most of it is just shuffling to and from a break.
I think this is deceptive for a couple of main reasons. The first one is that they are choosing the shuffle. How would you be able to control the top card if they said “I’m good here”, when they know they could’ve said “cut the deck”? There is generally no notion of being able to hold a break, shuffle to a specific spot, and so on among lay people. This combined with the choice, performed with the attitude of “I know this is somewhat tedious but you really could shuffle these if you were here, I want to prove that” is just killer.
I want to clarify the context and situation that this top control is designed for. In addition to virtual performances, you could also use it when your buddy sitting across the table is eating a sticky jam sandwich, and hesitates when you offer the deck to him to shuffle. “Oh right, you’re eating, my bad. Hey, let’s do this instead. How about you just tell me how to shuffle?”
Of course, you can do multiple phases. If they ask you to cut again or riffle again, the procedure should be obvious. If they ask you to do an overhand, just do any overhand shuffle that preserves the top stock. You may notice this means you can continue indefinitely, even long after the participant has decided that you have shuffled enough and loses interest:
“Just one more shuffle.”
“And then another cut for fairness.”
“And then one last shuffle just so that you’re 100%.”
“Actually, mathematically speaking, you need seven riffle shuffles to be truly mixed.”
“I’m not sure you believed that one was real. Here it is again.”
“Actually, I’m recording this for YouTube, so let’s add another to make sure I hit the minimum time for monetization.”
“How much doubt does a court consider reasonable again? Here’s another cut to be sure we’re beyond it.”
“You weren’t looking that time. I’ll do it again, and this time pay attention.”
“I’ve probably crossed a line here, so here’s another shuffle to make sure I cross it again.”
“Oh, did I mention that you can tell me to stop shuffling any time you like?”
[“You can stop”] “Nice job! I knew you could say it! Anyway, here’s another cut…”
Upon learning of Drew’s approach, Franklin found he disagreed with some of the underlying assumptions, and came up with the following alternative as a response.
Franklin’s Version
When it comes to card tricks done for virtual shows, my first recommendation would be “avoid tricks where the effect hinges on the assumption of a thoroughly shuffled deck in the performer’s hands.” But I can’t deny there are some fantastic tricks that are otherwise perfect for such a show but require this assumption.
While discussing Drew’s above procedure with him, I proposed the idea that there are two kinds of audience members to a virtual show: There’s the kind where you can say “I’d let you shuffle these if you were here, but since you aren’t, I’ll just do it for you,” and they’ll guilelessly believe you as you control whatever stocks you need to control throughout your shuffle. And then there’s the kind that won’t believe you no matter what you say or how convincing your shuffles are. Everything he wrote above depends on a significant number of people being of a third kind between these two extremes, and I’m not convinced. But the following idea is a way to allay the suspicions of skeptics who don’t trust anything while still controlling relatively small top and bottom stocks (around ten cards at most).
The basic idea is that you will cut the deck up into a large number of packets that are roughly the same size, then get input from the audience about how to reassemble them. In order to simplify and speed up this process, I recommend cutting the deck into 12 packets and placing them around your mat at the positions corresponding to the numbers on a clock. You could even put a small clock in the middle for reference. Then, for a small audience, you could ask one or more participants to call out positions while you pile up the packets at those positions. For a larger audience, you could ask everyone to type numbers into the chat, then read off the numbers in order, ignoring repeats and picking up the corresponding packets as you go. You could even do some quick shuffles or cuts with each individual pile as you stack it. Once the pile is reassembled, no one will be able to deny you had no control over the final order of the deck.
So how do you restore your top and bottom stocks anyway? Very simple. Start with your bottom stock on top of your top stock on top of the deck, and make sure the top card of your top stock is a short card. Then, when you cut the deck into piles make sure this entire stock comes off in the first pile. If you’re shuffling packets as you pick them up, make sure this one gets a false shuffle.1 Once the deck is reassembled by popular decision, you conclude “—and, of course, even the best shuffle is no use without a cut!” then cut your short card to the top2. That’s it.
Now, you might think that most audiences fall into that first category that will accept a well-executed false shuffle as genuine or just not particularly care, and so this would all just be a waste of time. But I would contend that the hardest part of a virtual show is feeling like you’re getting any sort of feedback whatsoever from those people sitting behind their screens at home. So I say, you should do something like this anyway. Take every opportunity you can to involve as many people as possible.
Leave a Reply