STICKS & STONES NUMBER 4 

A leaflet for the left hand

 

Getting Lost in the Shuffle 

Agreed: The subject of Riffle Shuffling is complex. Many claim to 
fully understand the. Real Work. Few do. 

The Shank Shuffle controversy was a learning experience. I edited 
and published Marlo's controversial treatise about five years ago. 
There were Underground tremors from coast to coast. The Inner 
Circle buzzed and balloon-like egos bobbled in bunches. There were 
harsh words and some hard sayings. A lawsuit was proposed and 
dropped. Gossip. Estrangement. Private speeches. Then like all 
controversies it predictably fizzled. The principal agonists--Ed Marlo 
and Herb Zarrow--never clashed or met face-to-face. Marlo's book 
and "argument" speaks for itself. There were no formal, public 
refutations or rebuttals. What a shame! Here was another 
opportunity for the so-called community of experts to intelligently 
examine a subject that cries for clarification, a subject that needs to 
be fully explored and analyzed. It didn't happen. 

Point 1: Vladimir Nabokov writes in Strong Opinions that "reality is 
a very subjective affair. He defines it "as a kind of gradual 
accumulation of information and as specialization." What is the 
reality of false Riffle Shuffles? Good question. 

Point 2: Herb Zarrow has a safe and well-earned reputation, 
particularly on the East Coast. His contribution to card magic has 
been obviously established and his unique riffle shuffle contribution 
is well-known. His silence is disturbing. He should publish his 
private research concerning false shuffles. He should publish his 
side of the Shank Shuffle controversy. 

Point 3: In March of 1975 I wrote an article called "Getting Lost In 
The Shuffle". This was originally included in a book planned for 
publication. The book was published. The article was suppressed. 
Since I'm against this kind of censorship, I'm publishing the 
squelched article here... 

 

 

Welcome to the club! There must be a legion of lost shufflers. It's 
easy to become bewildered studying the Riffle Shuffle. Information 
is scattered here and there, technical descriptions are often 
sketchy, and nomenclature is not uniform. The definitive work, 
Marlo's Riffle Shuffle trilogy (Riffle Shuffle Systems - The Patented 
Shuffle -Riffle Shuffle Finale), is a semi-private and expensive 
study. Furthermore it's too detailed and recondite for average 
students. Its style will put casually interested readers to sleep. 
Likewise the trilogy's structure is not wholly systematic, nor do they 
embody a memorable unity. They must be read several times. 
Every element, part, and detail must be retained, then mentally tied 
together. Each reader is responsible for seeing unwritten 
implications. Since Marlo's Trilogy was released and xeroxed copies 
were eventually circulated, little research has been published. Karl 
Fulves has published several monographs, but his contributions 
have further complicated and muddled the subject. At this point we 
don't need more information. We need to consolidate, simplify, 
unify, and systematize all the information already published. 

Let's get down to basics. What is a Riffle Shuffle? 

A Riffle Shuffle is a mixing procedure characterized by having two 
portions of squared cards randomly riffle-meshed together. This is 
done by using the thumbs, each specifically placed on its respective 
portion, to riffle off cards in a releasing action so they interlace and 
become intermixed. This interlacing always occurs in a partial 
manner, i. e. only the corners, ends, or sides mesh rather than the 
whole card. Once the portions are interlaced, they're pushed 
together in a squaring action. 

This sounds simple, but there are many ways to accomplish what's 
basically a three-step action: (1) The initial cut or separation of 
portions; (2) The actual mode of interlacing the portions; (3) The 
final square-up or subsequent cutting actions. 

What is a FALSE Riffle Shuffle? 

Now things get hairy! A genuine Riffle Shuffle causes the order of 
the cards to be changed in a random, unspecific  way.  A  deck  is 
literally a many-layered object consisting of fifty-two individual and 
separate cards held as a squared unit. The positions of these layers 
(for the most part) change during a genuine shuffle. The order of 
the cards is physically changed or altered. In a false shuffle two 
aspects are false: (1) Its appearance: the cards look like a real 
shuffle when they're being maneuvered. (2) Its result and purpose: 
The result is that all or parts remain unchanged. Its purpose is to 
produce this result. 

I once argued with Marlo that eight Out Faro shuffles was not false 
shuffling. We were both right and wrong. It's a matter of semantics 
and interpretation. The purpose of eight Out Faro shuffles is to 
produce a deck's original order after shuffling. The shuffling, 
however, is genuine and not false. The result is the same, but the 
means of achieving it is different. In most false shuffles the order of 
the cards is retained. In perfect Faro shuffles the order is regained 
in a precise, cyclic way. Again: The Faro shuffle is a true one--the 
cards are perfectly interlaced and squared. 

To phrase things more succinctly: A false shuffle consists of actions 
that seem to emulate a genuine riffle shuffle, but wherein one or 
more secret actions nullify or invalidate the real ones. These secret 
actions must occur during one or more of the three basic stages of 
a riffle shuffle, i. e. the Initial Cut or setting-up of portions, the 
interlacing of the cards, and the square-up or subsequent postlude. 

Let's examine some false Riffle Shuffles. 

THE STRIP-OUT & PUSH-THROUGH 

These shuffles are akin. Both feature similar actions. In Initial Cut 
or setting-up is fair. The portions are genuinely interlaced. The 
secret, nullifying actions take place as the portions are pushed 
together and apparently squared, and more importantly during the 
final cut (s). 

In the Strip-Out the portions are not fully squared. The longitudinal 
sides are flush and squared, but the narrow ends are not. One 
portion remains in an end-jogged condition known as the strip-out 
condition. This jogged portion is stripped out in a simulated cutting 
action. In other words, the portions are pulled or drawn apart. The 
jogged portion moves away as a squared unit while the other 
portion remains stationary as a squared unit. When the cut (?) is 
completed, the original order of the deck is retained. Strictly 
speaking, the Strip-Out and Push-Through shuffles are true. The 
simulated cut is false. The cards are actually interlaced. The false 
cut unlaces (nullifies) the portions. 

In the Push-Through Shuffle the setting-up procedure and riffle-
interlace are fair; however, the right-hand portion is not 
maneuvered into a strip-out condition. Instead it's pushed through 
the left-hand portion. This also exchanges the portions (from right 
to left). The final simulated cut, of course, is like the "stripping 
action" of the Strip-Out Shuffle. 

NOTE: The above explanations are necessarily very brief and 
rudimentary. Fine points and bits of finesse are not described. One 
can limn at great lengths about Block Transfers, Center Transfers, 
Delayed Strip-Outs, Partial Strip-Outs, Riffle Stocking, Run-ups, and 
so on. These are adequately covered by Marlo in his Trilogy. Other 
riffle shuffle experts haven't published their findings. Their lips are 
sealed or they're bluffing. 

THE ZARROW SHUFFLE 

Herb Zarrow introduced his shuffle in 1956, calling it "Full Deck 
Control By A Riffle Shuffle." It appeared in The New Phoenix #346. 
Zarrow combined known principles and dynamics to produce a false 
shuffle that didn't feature a follow-up to nullify a real interlace, nor 
did it use push-through or strip-out dynamics. Yet his shuffle 
retained the order of a full deck. 

The Zarrow shuffle is characterized by its center block pull-out to 
divide the deck into two portions prior to their interlace. These 
portions are apparently riffle-meshed together and the cards are 
squared. How? Simple. 

The center block is pulled out to the right. The portions are actually 
interlaced, but these meshed portions are secretly disengaged. 
During the square-up the original center portion (block) rides back 
into place. 

THE SHANK SHUFFLE 

This shuffle is easy to confuse with the Zarrow shuffle. If a standard 
Shank shuffle is executed, the operator must do it twice to achieve 
"full deck control". Marlo has a variation with a follow-up cut that is 
done only once. Neither variation uses a center block pull-out. 
Technical details of this shuffle are included in Marlo's The Shank 
Shuffle (1972). This same treatise explains the differences between 
Zarrow and Shank dynamics, adds applications, and features further 
arcana. Marlo also explains how the Shank shuffle is more flexible 
when it comes to block transfer applications and other maneuvers. 

Here's one of the biggest problems in the Zarrow Shuffle 
Controversy: When we call a certain dynamic by name, we often 
muddle our definitions. Ever since Zarrow's shuffle made itself felt 
in the closed community of experts, its actions and actions like it 

were automatically called Zarrow actions. The word "zarrow" started 
an adjective, then became a noun and verb. ("He did a Zarrow..." 
"Now Zarrow underneath the held-back block...") Any handling 
using block cover and disengaged corners was considered 
Zarrowesque. I can understand this and Herb should be given credit 
for his unique contribution. His Phoenix article and expert model 
inspired other cardmen to reconsider principles and dynamics long 
ignored. But let's stick to the facts, giving credit where credit is due. 

Herb Zarrow did NOT create the idea of secretly disengaging 
interlaced cards under block cover. He didn't create block transfers. 
He didn't create the center block pull-out dynamic. These elements 
were already in the published Record. Zarrow's special contribution 
to Riffle Shuffle arcana consists of combining these established 
elements in a detailed and technical manner. He also demonstrated 
through his own expertise the possibilities and potentialities 
inherent in such a potent combination. 

Readers may be asking, "Where are these elements previously 
published?" Fair enough question. Try these: 

THE EXPERT AT THE CARD TABLE (Erdnase) 

"...the deck is separated into two packets, the thumbs riffle the 
inner corners together, the left fingers are shifted across the 
bottom, the right thumb spreads the top cards over the left hand 
packet, and the right hand brings the outer ends of the two packets 
towards each other, twisting out the interlocked corners and placing 
the right hand packet again on top in much the same manner...the 
more fanwise the packets are spread during the operation the more 
perfect the blind." 

THE L.W. FALSE SHUFFLE (Genii magazine February-1937) 

"The inner corners of the outer ends of the packets are brought 
together, the right hand packet being held about half an inch in 
advance of the other. The thumbs riffle these corners together, but 
with the left thumb releasing its cards more rapidly than the right, 
so that about half a dozen cards from the right hand packet fall on 
top. The corners of the packets are interlocked only to the slightest 
extent. Now while the packets are held in the same relative 
positions...the positions of the hands are shifted so that the first 
and second fingers of each hand lie alongside the outer ends of the 
respective packets, completely concealing these ends. The right 
thumb now presses on the free cards on top of its packet so that 
they are fanned out to the left, forming a mask for the move to 
follow. The packets are apparently squared around side by side and 
the cards are pushed into each other, flush. Actually, in bringing the 
packets around so that they lie side by side, the interlocked corners 

are disengaged... the two packets are pushed flush with the right 
hand cards going on top of those in the left." 

MORE MAGIC OF THE HANDS (Edward Victor) 

"The packets are brought together and their inner top corners are 
riffled into each other with the thumbs; the corners should "The 
packets are brought together and their inner top corners are riffled 
into each other with the thumbs; the corners should not overlap 
more than half an inch... The portion in the left hand must be riffled 
a little quicker than the one in the right hand, so that at the end of 
the riffling movement there are about eight to twelve loose cards 
laying on top of the left hand portion across to the left so that they 
cover both packets... as these cards are pushed across, the right 
hand portion is tilted slightly upwards at the end nearest the body 
and then twisted outwards, pressing the inner sides of the two 
packets together. This action will free the interlocked cards. The 
unlocking of the riffled pack is completely masked by the loose 
cards spread across the top of the packets. As soon as the two 
halves are disengaged, the pack is squared up, and the false shuffle 
is completed, leaving the pack in its original order." 

We get back to Erdnase and Victor in HILLIARD'S CARD MAGIC or 
GREATER MAGIC with "The Inverted V Shuffle". Here the riffle 
shuffle is a Dovetail with the outer ends being shuffled as per the 
old-fashioned way. It, too, uses "spread cover" and "disengaged 
corners" even though performed in the hands. (Note: A tabled 
variation is mentioned.) 

There are more sources than the ones already cited, including the 
recent version in Harry Lorayne's RIM SHOTS called "Old Reliable". 
My whole point is to show previous, established sources clearly 
describing shuffle dynamics now associated with Herb Zarrow. As 
mentioned earlier, Zarrow COMBINED these elements and published 
an exacting handling/procedure in the Phoenix. This is the Zarrow 
Shuffle, gentleman... Nothing more, nothing less. 

Serious students should now consider the necessity for 
consolidation, simplification, unity, and systematization. At this 
stage of the game each riffle shuffler must do his own work. 
Perhaps someday a definitive study will appear—one that's 
comprehensive, honestly annotated, precisely organized, and clearly 
written. The slipshod salmagundi cranked out in Teaneck misleads 
beginners and amuses experts. Perhaps Dai Vernon and Charlie 
Miller will tip. Perhaps Herb Zarrow will publish his findings and 
feelings. I hope so. In the meantime, many are truly lost in their 
shuffling... 

Your move, Karl. 

- Jon Racherbaumer, March - 1975 
AENOS 

Today there are fewer Faro Finaglers and more Riffle Shufflers in 
frenetic pursuit of greater Triumphs. Cardmen seem smitten with 
"Triumph", but somewhere along the way they've lost sight of 
Vernon's original approach to the effect. 

Some cardmen became infatuated with mechanical razzle-dazzle 
and raw technical elements. Consequently we now see versions that 
feature repeated topsy-turvy shuffles, umpteen cuts and turnovers, 
and procedures that would elude instant-replay cameras. Confusion 
is not sophistication. Complication is not virtuosity. 

Vernon presented "Triumph" with directness and clarity. In other 
words, he gave the deck one topsy-turvy shuffle, thus creating a 
condition difficult for a magician to overcome. To right the cards 
without any visible action is impossible. Vernon would show the 
apparent topsy-turvy condition, then immediately ribbon spread the 
cards to show them facing one way. Miracle time! 

Pick up a deck. Divide it into two portions, turn one portion face-up, 
and riffle shuffle both portions together ala "Triumph". Ribbon 
spread the cards. They're pretty fouled up, aren't they? 

Do you think they're going to get more fouled up with extra 
shuffles? No way. Over the years I've played around with many 
variations of "Triumph", testing each version on lay audiences. I've 
concluded that complicated, involved procedures using many 
shuffles, cuts, and turnovers subverts the effect, Such an approach 
creates a NON-MAGICAL climax. Instead it produces a 
demonstration of sheer manipulative skill. The audience forms a 
hard-headed generalized solution that goes something like this: 

"He straightened out the cards DURING all those shuffles and flip-
flops and general monkey-business!" 

The audience is unfortunately correct. They may smile and nod at 
your superb juggling feat, but the sense of magic is gone. Get out 
your copy of Stars of Magic and reread the Vernon method, 
including its patter approach. You may learn something. 

I Need a Magic Wand 

Once again Marlo's mind is at work. This version was inspired by 
"Hands Off Reverse" from Hierophant #7--an effect that received 
acclaim from high places. Marlo's approach features subtleties not 
found in the original. 

EFFECT - A card is freely selected and the spectator inserts his 
selection into the center of the deck; however, he does this with the 
cards behind his back. The magician asks the spectator to hand him 
a card to use as a make-shift "wand". After some by-play the 
performer hands the spectator the card case and asks him to case 
the deck, once again making these actions behind his back. While 
the cards are in the card case, despite the fact that the performer 
hasn't handled the cards, the selection magically turns face-up! 

WORKING 

1) Secretly reverse any X card on the bottom of the deck. Shuffle 
the cards and retain the bottom card. Spread the cards between 
your hands for a free selection. As the spectator looks at his card 
turn the deck over. Easy way: After the selection is removed and 
the cards are squared, casually drop your left hand to your side. 
Look at the spectator as you quickly flip the deck over. The whole 
business takes a couple of seconds. 

2) Hand the deck to the spectator and tell him to place it behind his 
back. Tell him to insert his Selection into the center of the deck. 
Say, "I don't want to see where you place your card..." (This verbal 
ruse explains the behind-the-back business.) At this point the 
spectator is holding a face-up deck with a face-down card on top 
and a face-down selection somewhere near the center. 

3) While he's holding the cards behind his back with both hands, 
say: "I'm going to need a magic wand... I'll tell you what... let's 
improvise... Hand me the top card of the deck. Leave the rest of the 
cards behind your back... just bring the top card forward..." 

4) As soon as the spectator hands you the top card (which will be 
face-down), turn it face-up. Look at the spectator throughout this 
activity, making relevant commentary on what's happening. At this 
point, of course, you've taken care of one improperly faced X card. 
The spectator now holds a face-up deck with his selection already 
reversed in its center. The spectator assumes that ALL the cards are 
face-down. 

5) Here comes your diversion. Direct attention to your impromptu 
"wand"--the face-up X card in your left hand. Turn the card face-
down as you say, "Turn the deck  over  in  sympathy  with  the 
wand..." 

6) Turn your wand-card face-up as you tell the spectator to "turn 
the deck over again." Turn your wand-card face-down as you ask 
the spectator to repeat the process. Explain that the "turning 
process" affects the cards in a strange manner. 

7) Hand the face-down wand-card to the spectator and tell him to 
replace it back on top of the deck. Hand him the card case and 
instruct him to case the cards. 

8) You're now clean and after some appropriate mumbo-jumbo you 
can disclose the reversed selection. Have the spectator remove and 
handle the cards, retaining the "hands off" approach of the original 
version. 
- Edward Marlo, June 4, 1976 
Marlo Note: The initial steps in "Hands Off Reverse" from 
Hierophant #7 can be reduced by freely shuffling a known card to 
the bottom of the deck. At Step 3, when you explain that the 
spectator is to place the cards behind his back, you place the cards 
behind your back and do the following: Your left thumb merely 
revolves the known bottom card as the deck is simultaneously 
turned face-up with one hand. 

 

 

These pages are wrought by JON RACHERBAUMER. Don't blame 
anyone else for STICKS & STONES and please don't write that other 
publisher. He has enough problems of his own. Send your 
comments, ideas, effects, complaints, and damnations to: 

P.O. Box 1142, Metairie, Louisiana 70004 

Send kudos and coins to Lloyd Jones!