Shuffle Testing Feedback
/These emails came in after yesterday’s post. If you haven’t read that one yet, these won’t make much sense.
Nice posts on the false shuffling experiments. Many thanks.
Here's my question: in social contexts (not stage or planned set pieces) are false on the table riffle shuffles more convincing that false overhand shuffles?
I ask that because at least in my circles, and in all my growing up, which included a lot of social card playing, no one did on the table "Las Vegas" type riffles. In other words, I'm wondering if the very fact that you do either a push-through or Zarrow looks suspicious as compared to a good false overhand shuffle. I don't gamble, have never been to a casino, so maybe I'm in the minority here, but the only riffle I'd seen in my life before magic videos was a common in the hands riffle shuffle. So maybe that's two things to test:
1) Overhand vs. table shuffle
2) In the hands riffle vs table riffle
—JS
Interesting. I grew up with parents who come from large families of card players and I’d never seen an in-the-hands riffle shuffle until I got into magic. Everyone just did their riffle shuffle on the table.
I’m not sure this is anything that needs to be tested though. Or, at least, I’m not sure we’d get any worthwhile data from it. I would guess the most convincing false shuffle would be the one that looks the closest to what your spectators are used to. If they normally do an overhand shuffle, do a false overhand shuffle. If they do a tabled riffle shuffle or an in-the-hands riffle shuffle, do that. I’m not suggesting you need to be proficient at all of these things. I’m just suggesting it in a general sense. Is there a “common” shuffle in your social circles in your part of the world? That’s probably the one to devote your time to if you’re a non-professional.
Regarding the false exposure thing:
Equally, you could say, ‘Some people pretend to shuffle the cards by not pushing them completely together, and then pulling them apart again, like this.’ [Demo a bad push-through] ‘But you can see I’m really mixing these, yes?’ [Carefully square a Zarrow shuffle]
For what it’s worth, I think that Jason England Zarrow shuffle sucks balls. Not surprised people thought that was the more suspicious. I think most people do it pretty badly, and that’s somehow become the norm.—HC
Well, the issue here is you can’t really “carefully square” a Zarrow shuffle. You’ve got to square that thing pretty quickly or you’re screwed.
In regards to “sucking balls,” I’m guessing you don’t mean that as a compliment, yes? It really probably should be, e.g., “That girl sucks balls.” — “Yes, isn’t she a sweetheart?”
As far as England’s Zarrow shuffle, I‘m not such a connoisseur of false shuffles that I can really understand the finer points of them. It looks pretty good to me, relative to most of the other Zarrows I’ve seen. But you may be right that the “norm” for the Zarrow shuffle may be “pretty bad.”
Putting the “ideal” Zarrow up against the “ideal” push-through would be something that we could easily test online with 100s of respondents. And I’d be open to it. But I have a feeling whichever ones we chose as the “best” version of the Zarrow or the Push-Though, people would still take issue with them. And I’m not sure the head-to-head match-up is that meaningful. The more meaningful result was that neither false shuffle was more or less likely to be called out in the context of the tricks.
Both of those table false shuffles feel too perfect. Dani DaOrtiz once told me that “feeling” was more important than what you see. A deck that is handled haphazardly with sloppy false shuffles, cards left on the table as you pick it up etc will feel a lot more shuffled than any Zarrow or push through. The magician’s attitude towards the deck is more important than a perfected table false shuffle. The spectator will feel and remember that the deck is shuffled this way rather than seeing a technique full of finesse. If your routine revolves around a gambling demonstration, a Zarrow or push through would be more appropriate. For good magic, stick to the psychologically stronger alternatives. —DM
It’s a valid point. But look, all of these decisions are going to be trick/performer/audience/circumstance-dependent. When we test stuff we really need to narrow it down to simple A/B testing in order to try to come to some conclusion. When we were doing the shuffle testing it was being paid for, in part, by someone who wanted us to specifically test those two-shuffles because he works in a situation where those shuffles make the most sense.
Although, I will say, going back to Monday’s post, I don’t think you can always count on what the spectators will “feel and remember.” Most people aren’t watching magic tricks like we watch magic tricks. Especially if it’s something like a preliminary shuffling portion of an effect. They may not know the trick has even commenced and may not pick up on the details we think we’re “subtly” implying. Even if your mixing is “casual”—or maybe especially if it’s casual—you need to do something to cement it in people’s brains. (More on this tomorrow.)
The final email comes from DS who helped conduct the testing when it was originally done.
[One thing] that can’t be overemphasized is the strength of being able to pause the push-through shuffle in order to show the cards are “really being shuffled.” I did [his story deck trick] for years, using mainly push-through shuffles and it was mostly seen as a demonstration of false shuffling, cutting, and mixing with a story that went along with it. Then I started using the line, “After this is over you’re going to think I wasn’t really mixing the cards. So I want you to note as I do this that the cards are genuinely being shuffled together in a completely random manner.” And I would pause my next two push-through shuffles midway through to show the cards “really” being shuffled. After I included those moments the reactions got astronomically better. It was no longer even the same trick.—DS