How not shuffling the deck theoretically is more magical

[Mark]

This is something I thought of last night and I might as well be the first one who thought of this in relation to a full deck of playing cards. Magicians always tend to think that having the deck shuffled is fair but is it really?

The Monty Hall problem
You may or may not be familiar with the Monty Hall problem. If you are, you can skip this section. If not, let me elaborate:

Let's say there are 3 closed doors and behind 1 of the doors there is a prize. You now may pick one of the doors so you have a chance of 1 in 3 that you pick the correct one. Once you picked a door, you are asked if you would like to change your mind. Would you change your mind and choose for another door or would you still go for the door you chose at first?

You may not want to but you better change your mind because you only had a 1 in 3 chance of instantly picking the correct door so there is a 2 in 3 chance the prize is behind one of the other doors. It's not a guarantee but changing your mind and choosing for one of the other two doors now does increase your chances. That is, if your intuition isn't always spot on.

A deck of playing cards
Let's look at this in relation to a full deck of playing cards. If you ask a spectator in what position i.e. the 7 of Spades is and let's say they choose for the 23rd position. The chance that the 7 of Spades is actually at that position is way small (1 in 52). But if you shuffle the deck, the chance the 7 of Spades now is in the 23rd position still is way small, but slightly bigger than before you shuffled.

'ACAAN'
Now if you would ask a spectator to think of any card and any number. The chance that the card they think of is actually located at the number they think of again is way small. If anyone now shuffles the deck once the spectator selected their card and their number (even when they didn't say them out loud yet; just in their minds.. and they wouldn't have a reason to change their minds and think of another number or card) the chance that the card they think of is at the desired number after the shuffle is bigger than before.

'Ambitious Card Routine'
A little easier to follow along: you bury a selection in the middle of the deck and have the spectator shuffle the deck. The chance the card is either on top or the bottom of the deck after the shuffle is pretty big compared to when the card really was in the middle of the deck. This is actually the reason why I never shuffle the cards during an 'Ambitious Card Routine'. I may have the spectators shuffle because they think it's way fair while it actually isn't if you think about it.

Of course, the chance is still way too small to make an actual trick out of this but I thought it was just a neat thingy to share. ;)

[la0o9]

agreed completely, i myself never really shuffle a deck unless demanded( need distraction, only way to make something make sense...), even IF i have a need to use the "it's not on top or the bottom" justification, to me, a clean deck is one that stays off everyone's hands.

[Albert]

So then, this principle can be applied to Multiple Choice Questions as well?

:thinking: Hmmmmmm..... I know I learned this from you before, but it's still interesting!

[Mark]

So then, this principle can be applied to Multiple Choice Questions as well?
Only if you didn't study and if multiple answers seem to be correct, yes. ;)

[Albert]

Only if you didn't study and if multiple answers seem to be correct, yes. ;)

:cry:

[s13zeTheDay]

Very interesting. The first time I heard about the Monty Hall problem I thought that can't be true. I guess that's why on the current show they don't let you switch doors. Even so, people's assessment of risk can be radically different from actual probable outcomes, so I doubt any spectators would care either way.

Also Albert, I feel your pain. I have a major history test tomorrow. :(

[TheMisdirectingHand]

I don't think shuffling makes it any more magical than it already is.

Just because of a few points-

What is more magical, losing a card into the deck, shuffling, and having it come back to the top, or losing a card into a deck, and having it jump to the top?

People are not idiots, and some actually do have an idea of card sharks.

Not shuffling just gives it that feeling of the fact that nothing has happened.

[MarkoViner]

@ TheMisdirectingHand : I can't agree with you. You see the chances of shuffling the deck and their card being on top is 1 in 52. And the chances of not shuffling the deck and their card being on top is magical...

[Mark]

True, David, but I also said that having the spectator shuffle the deck isn't more magical and most spectators I have performed for would beg to differ. Unfortunately, I'd rather have them shuffle than that I would have to explain the Monty Hall problem each time. :(

And Marko, what or who didn't you agree with? I think we've all been saying what you said. Nicely worded though! ^_^

[MarkoViner]

Em I have was referring to David's post :)

[TheMisdirectingHand]

Logically speaking... if the card is lost into the deck, and it is shuffled, the chances of the card being on top again WOULD be 1/52. I think some people might consider that luck, rather than magic.

MAGICALLY speaking... if the card is lost into the deck, and is NOT shuffled, the chances of it being on top are 0/52... which is why I believe that makes it all the more magical.

[Albert]

Logically speaking... if the card is lost into the deck, and it is shuffled, the chances of the card being on top again WOULD be 1/52. I think some people might consider that luck, rather than magic.

MAGICALLY speaking... if the card is lost into the deck, and is NOT shuffled, the chances of it being on top are 0/52... which is why I believe that makes it all the more magical.

I see merit in you statement and I think that's true.

BUT~~~

One problem is that that's a magician's POV. I find it unbelievable that Mark's MTL control is actually possible. On the other hand, a spectator might think of it as camera editing on video or trick cards on live performances.

When I don't shuffle cards, like Mark has mentioned, some people beg to differ and literally take the deck from you. One of the reason being, they think you know where the card is (i.e. memorizing the position), so regardless of if your intention was to bring it to the top without shuffling, the spectators still want to see it shuffled so that they can confirm you don't know where the card is. Some think that as more magical :)

[Kieran Oloughlin]

I think that not shuffling the deck at all is the most magical way of doing tricks except for the start to prove there is not set up. SHufflinf just means you can control a card from the center to the top and a specator may think this but just pushing a card into the deck is as fair as fair can be in my imponion

[TheMisdirectingHand]

You're completely right, but think about it- couldn't you somehow justify the losing of the card without shuffling? Dribble the cards, show both sides of the packet, whatever it is that is subtle and will make them believe that it is really lost would work.

[TommySteal]

I think shuffling works fine because sometimes a control can make the hands look a little awkward. But more important than method is the art of being natural. Compare these two magicians: David Copperfield and...JC Wagner. The majority of David's work relies soley on showmanship so admittedly maybe shuffling a deck would look out of place, but as for Wagner, that's what he does, that's who he is. Maybe I'm biased, but I would have no reason to question his shuffling, because he's natural. Erdnase stressed how being natural was the most important tool a cheat can posess.

---------- Post added at 02:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:43 PM ----------

Of course placing a card into the deck and having it melt through the deck back to the top would be more magical, but let's not forget we are magicians not wizards.

[la0o9]

uhm... you're talking about Shifty or a rising card gimmick? or are you questioning the whole point of an ACR routine?

[Mark]

uhm... you're talking about Shifty or a rising card gimmick? or are you questioning the whole point of an ACR routine?
You lost me soooo badly there, haha. He just meant having a card come magically to the top, like in an ACR indeed. :rolleyes:

[TommySteal]

uhm... you're talking about Shifty or a rising card gimmick? or are you questioning the whole point of an ACR routine?
@la0o9 Are you replying to me? If so, I don't understand your comment. Could you elaborate? :)

[la0o9]

card melts through the deck= Shifty card rise( search for it)/ a rising card gimmick or ACR routine?

[TheMisdirectingHand]

He's talking about the ACR.

[TommySteal]

card melts through the deck= Shifty card rise( search for it)/ a rising card gimmick or ACR routine?
The last part of my initial post was just referring to an ACR. But as for the debate, yes, not shuffling in an ACR would theoretically be more magical.

---------- Post added at 08:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:28 AM ----------

But kind of boring

[TheMisdirectingHand]

The whole point of the ACR is to show how ambitious the card is in the process of jumping to the top. It would seem weird if we just started shuffling every time the card was lost. If we WERE shuffling in an ACR, it would not be magical at all. That would just be demonstrating your ability to control cards, rather than the card controlling itself.

[la0o9]

hmmm, actually, it WOULD be very interesting to use this type of material in a routine, i just thought of some good stuffs( quick question, if you guys were audience, would you like things to just happen without you noticing at first no matter how hard you try to notice it, or would you find mentally depriving visual tricks better?

[Albert]

hmmm, actually, it WOULD be very interesting to use this type of material in a routine, i just thought of some good stuffs( quick question, if you guys were audience, would you like things to just happen without you noticing at first no matter how hard you try to notice it, or would you find mentally depriving visual tricks better?

As an adult, I like mentally challenging tricks better because older people tend to know more about the possibility of gimmicks. If something doesn't scientifically make sense, I would probably be more amazed. On the other hand, depending on how visual and in what context this visual magic happens, this could also fall in the category of being "mentally inexplicable".

If I was younger, I would probably prefer visual tricks; younger people are just like that :D

[TommySteal]

The whole point of the ACR is to show how ambitious the card is in the process of jumping to the top. It would seem weird if we just started shuffling every time the card was lost. If we WERE shuffling in an ACR, it would not be magical at all. That would just be demonstrating your ability to control cards, rather than the card controlling itself.
I think you miss my point David. No magician in their right mind would shuffle the deck EVERY time the card was lost, but for a good routine to be interesting and entertaining there has to be variety in method to how the effect is achieved otherwise spectators would get bored. What I mean is if you fairly show the card being inserted into the deck, and without the use of duplicate that card then jumps to the top, that's the trick over , no routine - that's real magic.

[Kieran Oloughlin]

Or fallen by dg

[MarkoViner]

As an adult, I like mentally challenging tricks better because older people tend to know more about the possibility of gimmicks. If something doesn't scientifically make sense, I would probably be more amazed. On the other hand, depending on how visual and in what context this visual magic happens, this could also fall in the category of being "mentally inexplicable".

If I was younger, I would probably prefer visual tricks; younger people are just like that :D

Yes I have to agree with you. I have noticed that about the spectators too :)