Fake Bind in False Shuffling

[MohanaMisra]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CB5XtHKguEh/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet

Regardless of the production value, if you notice, I haven't really faked any binding during the false shuffle (and I'm aware the angle flatters the move! I guess I did exploit camera magic advantages. ).

Some people say that a fake bind is necessary in false shuffles like this. Some say it is not, if a riffle shuffle is properly performed.

I can't verify either since I don't usually table riffle shuffle cards. So please tell me your opinion:-

Is faking the bind necessary?

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

Depends on the situation.

I once did a mini-lecture for my old magic club, during which I used the "Gamblers False Shuffle" from EATCT about 10 times while talking about misdirection and timing of sleights and such. At the end I reveal the deck still in NDO and asked if anyone had noticed what I was doing and not one soul did.

In case you don't know that particular one, you just split the deck, riffle up the backs of the packets, then put them back together. It's bold as brass and absolutely cannot be done if people are paying attention to what your hands are doing - which was really the point of my little talk.

So - is the bind necessary? Not always. If you're just getting into a trick and giving some back story or talking about a premise you don't have to have a bullet proof false shuffle because no one is looking. As long as it peripherally matches what they are expecting, ie: split the deck, a riffle sound, push the cards back together - no one will notice.

But if you're head on and doing a gambling demonstration you're probably going to need to put more effort into making that false shuffle look more like a legit shuffle in order to fool the audience into thinking it is a genuine shuffle - in those cases I would use a shuffle that has an interlace. Personally I like the push through false shuffle because you can give a flash of the cards genuinely interlaced, or even leave them sitting there for a moment before finishing the push through and cut sequence.

 

[Scodischarge]

But if you're head on and doing a gambling demonstration you're probably going to need to put more effort into making that false shuffle look more like a legit shuffle in order to fool the audience into thinking it is a genuine shuffle - in those cases I would use a shuffle that has an interlace. Personally I like the push through false shuffle because you can give a flash of the cards genuinely interlaced, or even leave them sitting there for a moment before finishing the push through and cut sequence.

The only thing I'd like to add is that - if you're dead set on the Zarrow - there are ways to make the cards look interlaced-er. See the first variation in this video:

Apart from that, I completely agree with Christopher. There's just a little thing I noticed in your poll: As far as I know, the push-through and the pull-through are two names for the same move. You might have meant the pull-out (or strip-out) false shuffle, in which you pull the packets out before they square instead of pushing them through.

 

[Al e Cat Dabra]

@MohanaMisra,

Please allow me to offer my comments. (1) I thought the production values were quite good, actually, as was the "set design" - a very attractively adorned room, that looks magical; (2) The shuffle was excellent - smooth, natural and deceptive; (3) I would advise against using that (obvious) false cut, especially twice in a row. There are many far more convincing false cuts, and if they know or suspect you did a false cut, then it will undermine the shuffle and the routine, which as I said, is fabulous. Truthfully, IMO, it would be far better to do no cut than to do that one; (4) The cards look great in your hands, love your accent, and I wish I could speak any language (other than my native English) as well as you speak English! Thanks for sharing!

AECD

 

[MohanaMisra]

As long as it peripherally matches what they are expecting, ie: split the deck, a riffle sound, push the cards back together - no one will notice.

This.
The reason I was asking was because when I saw videos of magicians performing an effect and later rewatched the video or thought about it so as to realise that they used a false riffle shuffle, I also realised that whether or not they faked a bind, I seemed to naturally believe the fact that they shuffled the deck.

Thanks!

The only thing I'd like to add is that - if you're dead set on the Zarrow - there are ways to make the cards look interlaced-er. See the first variation in this video:

Apart from that, I completely agree with Christopher. There's just a little thing I noticed in your poll: As far as I know, the push-through and the pull-through are two names for the same move. You might have meant the pull-out (or strip-out) false shuffle, in which you pull the packets out before they square instead of pushing them through.

Wow, this is really informative. I'm definitely going to use some of the information on here.



The reason I was by the way, fixated on the Zarrow is because so far, it has seemed the easiest of false riffle shuffles. Admittedly, I don't want to spend much time on those (since I rarely table riffle shuffle cards anyways). I do think however that I'd find a lot more value in reading up on the in-the-hands versions of false riffle shuffles, especially those ending with a cascade (since I do them naturally).

(And I did make a mistake in the poll choices. Thanks for correcting me, hopefully I don't seem too ignorant.)

(1) I thought the production values were quite good, actually, as was the "set design" - a very attractively adorned room, that looks magical

Thanks a lot! Well, I was just trying to hide the dirty laundry in the background and I was bummed on the fact that I don't have spotless white/black sheets (like professionals who post videos) but hey, I'm glad now that I didn't have them boring backgrounds!

(3) I would advise against using that (obvious) false cut, especially twice in a row.

Heh heh, the second one was a genuine cut. But immature kidding aside, I see what you mean. I'm going to be more careful with false cuts in the future. Do you think there's merit in the cardistry-kind false shuffles? As much as I love cardistry, those always seem weird to me, because when packets are flipping around so much, it becomes much harder to believe that any cut is truly false. Then again, I might be thinking from a magician's point of view here...

(4) The cards look great in your hands, love your accent, and I wish I could speak any language (other than my native English) as well as you speak English!

Thanks a lot again! I mean, it isn't really as beautiful as a British accent but hey, we try.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

Heh heh, the second one was a genuine cut. But immature kidding aside, I see what you mean. I'm going to be more careful with false cuts in the future. Do you think there's merit in the cardistry-kind false shuffles? As much as I love cardistry, those always seem weird to me, because when packets are flipping around so much, it becomes much harder to believe that any cut is truly false. Then again, I might be thinking from a magician's point of view here...

I am of the school of thought that simplicity is better. Flourishing can look fun, but it introduces confusion (hard to follow all those packets) and provides an automatic explanation, "They did something while they were juggling the cards around".

But more importantly than any hard and fast rule, consistency is most important. What would make sense in the context of the routine? As Ricky Jay said, "If I were to sit down at a card table, I would not want to seem more clever, or less clever, than the other players present."

 

[Al e Cat Dabra]

Mohana wrote: "Do you think there's merit in the cardistry-kind false shuffles? As much as I love cardistry, those always seem weird to me, because when packets are flipping around so much, it becomes much harder to believe that any cut is truly false. Then again, I might be thinking from a magician's point of view here..."

No actually, I think you are seeing it from the point of view of a layperson, and that's a good thing! Erdnase said that our actions should be such that when viewed by the most critical observer, "they should not even suspect let alone detect." Cardistry is a lovely art form, and I admire its practitioners, but If a layperson sees us do one of those super-fancy false cuts in the context of a card magic or gambling routine, they will suspect it is a false cut - and of course they will be 100% correct. You do the Zarrow so well that they will not suspect a thing. The chain is only as strong as its weakest link, as they say, so you do not want to have one weak component of the routine cast a shadow over the whole thing. I highly recommend you check out the Jay Ose false table cut. When done casually, it is highly deceptive and looks as fair as can be. You will fool yourself with it.

And I must say - at least as beautiful as a British accent...

 

[Gabriel Z.]

You know where I stand on this one...