Introduction to Full-Deck Stacks Page 1 of 4

An Introduction to Full-Deck Stacks

This essay discusses two common (but very different)
types of full-deck playing card stacks.

The first is the sequential stack, which permits one to

determine the card following (and, in most cases, that
preceding) any given card. Such stacks are designed to
be “circular” (indeed, they are sometimes termed “rosary
stacks”); that is, the pack may be given any number of
single complete cuts without destroying the sequence.

Examples include the venerable Si Stebbins (a numeric

progression: see analysis below) and Eight Kings (a mnemonic progression: Eight
kings threatened to save, nine fine ladies for one sick knave. = 8-K-3-10-2-7-9-5-
Q-4-A-6-J) stacks. There are mnemonic sequences other than Eight Kings (cf.
Five Trees, Furry Kitten, Hungry Jackass, Jackass Ate, Nine Jacks, etc.), and
numeric progressions other than Si Stebbins (see discussion below), but the
concepts are the same. The basic versions of these classic stacks exhibit a
rotating suit (and thus alternating colour) sequence that is not very desirable,
though there are simple schemes for eliminating this. Arguably the best
sequential stack, however, is Richard Osterlind’s Breakthrough Card System,
which is easily learned and displays no obvious ordering of any kind.

The second type is the memorized deck, in which you simply(!) know the
position of every card, and — conversely — the name of the card at any location.
Clearly, this is also suitable for anything requiring a knowledge of preceding and
following cards, but it enables a much wider realm of possibilities. There is no
“secret”, per se... the stack is simply memorized. There are, however, four
alternative approaches to the learning process.

The first is simply to do so by rote memory. Decide on the pack arrangement you
want to use (ensure that it appears to be random), and just sit down and
memorize it. It’s not as difficult as it sounds, but it’s not trivial either. And some
people do find it beyond their capacity.

The second approach is the use of classical mnemonic tools as a “stepping stone”.
The well-known mnemonic alphabet (T/D=1, N=2, M=3, etc.) can be used to
devise images for each of the 52 positions in the stack. Similarly, images can be
created for each of the 52 cards in the deck. Then scenarios can be imagined,
pairing the card images with their corresponding stack position images. So when
given a card name (or stack position), one can recall the associated images to
reconstruct the relationship, and the corresponding position (or name). This won’t
be truly useful/effective, of course, until you have learned the relationships so
well that you no longer have to think about the images, but can simply (and
instantly) recall the association directly. The most widely-used such stacks are
currently those by Simon Aronson and Juan Tamariz, extensively described in
their respective books, though this solution can be applied equally to any of the
many other published stacks... those by Steve Aldrich, Laurie Ireland, Bob Klase,

http://www.deceptionary.com/aboutstacks.html 5/28/05
Introduction to Full-Deck Stacks Page 2 of 4

Ed Marlo, William McCaffrey, Herbert Newell, Claude Rix, Rusduck, Mike Skinner,
Rufus Steele, and Audley Walsh, to name only some of the better-regarded ones.

It’s also worth noting that Bob Farmer has devised an easily-learned mnemonic
system (not requiring knowledge of the mnemonic alphabet) for memorizing
arbitrary playing card sequences. Another useful playing-card-specific mnemonic
code can be found in lesson seven of David Roth’s venerable Memory Course.

The above two approaches yield a pair of useful benefits: they allow for the most
random appearance, and they permit stacks that have been “wired” to perform
certain effects (poker deals, spelling tricks, etc.). They are challenging to learn,
however, and also have a significant drawback: unless you are regularly doing a
lot of memorized deck work, it is easy to forget a particular association in the heat
of performance.

A third approach is used in Martin Joyal’s Six-Hour Memorized Deck, and Chris
Matt’s Six Kicks stack. In place of a classical mnemonic system, these each
employ a set of “rules” (Joyal uses fourteen, Matt thirteen) as stepping stones to
enable learning and remembering the necessary relationships. By way of an
example, the rule for the four deuces (2s) in the Joyal stack is “even positions
containing the digits 2 and 4: 22-40-42-44”. The equivalent rule for the Matt
stack is “positions ending with the digit 2: 12-22-32-42”. One can see that these
are not precise, specific rules (they are more like clues), and some additional
memorization is clearly required. Nonetheless, such an approach makes it
significantly easier to get to the stage where you can match card names and stack
positions. But there is no magic road to the point where you can instantly recall
those associations... that will take a similar amount of time in any case.

The fourth approach is an algorithmic one, in which a formula of some kind is

used to relate card values and positions. This approach is particularly popular
among those who want to do memorized deck work, but not make it a life’s work
(particularly mentalists and others who don’t do a lot of card work, but recognize
the miracles that can be performed with a memorized deck). Its advantage lies in
the fact that a single algorithm relates any card name to its corresponding
position (and vice versa). This yields two specific benefits: first, it enables one to
perform a significant number of “memorized deck effects” without truly
memorizing the stack; second, if the memorized relationship is temporarily
forgotten, there’s still a reliable (albeit slower) fallback position.

Although it’s possible to compute card positions with the Si Stebbins

arrangement, it’s not very easy, so few consider using it in such a fashion.
Probably the best three algorithmic solutions are the Bart Harding stack, the
Charles Gauci stack, and my own QuickStack (I know, sounds a bit self-serving, but many
prominent performers agree with this assessment) . Each is easily learned (less than half an
hour’s effort for most people). Without going into detail (and revealing
information that is not mine to reveal), here is a brief comparative summary of
the three:
1. The Bart Harding stack (published in 1962) is the most random-appearing,
and will withstand the most intensive scrutiny. The algorithm is not

http://www.deceptionary.com/aboutstacks.html 5/28/05
Introduction to Full-Deck Stacks Page 3 of 4

completely consistent, having a couple of exceptions. It also requires the

most calculation, and therefore takes the longest to convert between card
names and stack positions (though it’s still considerably faster than much of
what’s out there). Here are the first dozen cards: 10C 7H 4S AD JD 6C 7C
9S 6D AC JC 8H
2. QuickStack (from my book, Mindsights) occupies the middle ground; it’s not
quite as random as Harding’s, but will still withstand pretty careful
examination. Doing the conversions is notably faster than the Harding
system. Here are the first dozen cards: 10H 5S 3C KH 2S 9S 7C QH 6S AD
JC 8D
3. The Charles Gauci stack (from his lecture notes, and also sold separately) is
the least random appearing of the three, with regular suit rotation (thus
alternating colors as well) and clearly detectable sequences, but the
conversions are a bit faster than QuickStack’s. Here are the first dozen
cards: 3H 6S 9D AC 4H 7S 10D 2C 5H 8S JD 3C
Note that the basic concept of Gauci’s stack (published in 2002) is identical to that of two others...
Boris Wild’s (published in 1996), and Jack Yates’ (1978). In fact, all of these are modified versions of
the Si Stebbins stack (1612), itself a variation of the Horacio Galasso stack (1593)! Some versions are
quite weak... the Wild stack, for example, is comprised of 13 four-card groups (each in strict
sequence, both numerically and with respect to suit), with all the courts cards clustered at the end,
and thus unlikely to survive any but the most cursory examination. This is not necessarily a show-
stopper (any card arrangement can be hidden by a sufficiently skilled performer), but there are no
commensurate benefits: the computations necessary for Wild’s name/position conversions are no
simpler than with (for example) QuickStack, which offers a considerably more random presentation.
Anyone interested in further details of this “Si Stebbins family” of stacks can explore a spreadsheet
that I constructed to illustrate the algorithm.

Occasionally one reads disparaging remarks about algorithmic and rule-based

solutions, claiming that they are not “real” memorized decks. This is uninformed
nonsense (and a common consequence of confusing the organization of a stack
with the issue of whether or not it is memorized). A memorized deck is simply
that, and that alone... one in which the practitioner knows the positions of all 52
cards; the method initially used to learn the card name/position relationships is
irrelevant. With any approach, translations made while you are still in “stepping
stone” mode will be too slow for some effects (though perfectly sufficient for
many others). It’s certainly true that in the case of an algorithmic solution, one
can simply learn the algorithm and never actually memorize the stack (this, in
fact, is one of the benefits of this approach), but then it’s not really a “memorized
deck”.

If you want to know the card at position #46 in the Aronson stack, you either just
“know” that it’s the eight of hearts, or you apply the various mnemonic rules to
work it out: four is an “R”; six is a soft “J”, “SH”, “CH”, or “G”; that suggests a
“roach”; that reminds you of a hive filled with roaches; the “H” in “hive” indicates
a “heart”; the “V” is an “eight”. In QuickStack, you either “know” that #46 is the
seven of hearts, or you use an algorithm to work it out: four is the fourth bank;
six is the (+1) seventh card, a “seven”; the natural suit of the fourth bank is the
(four-pointed) diamond; the seven is the same colour, or a “heart”. Neither
approach is “better” in any absolute sense; they are just different. The tradeoff is
that the algorithmic solution can be learned a lot more quickly (a single algorithm
vs. a mnemonic alphabet, 104 word images, and 52 word-pair relationships), but

http://www.deceptionary.com/aboutstacks.html 5/28/05
Introduction to Full-Deck Stacks Page 4 of 4

constrains the order of the cards, thus limiting (though certainly not eliminating)
the possibility of “built-in” tricks. If you use either approach regularly, you’ll find
that you soon “know” all the card positions anyway (though it’s nice to be able to
calculate them if you forget!).

By way of a summary, here is a brief comparison of the tradeoffs associated with

the four different memorized deck techniques:

rote memory mnemonics rule-based algorithmic

ease of learning
most difficult difficult moderate easy
the associations
capability for
extensive extensive quite limited very limited
“built-in” effects

backup strategy
none fairly poor poor good
if memory fails

It’s important to understand that “ease of learning the associations” in this

comparison refers to exactly that, and not the total time necessary for
translations between card positions and values to be performed instantly,
without conscious thought. The latter is primarily a function of practice, the
acquisition time being roughly comparable in all cases. Many excellent stack
effects, of course, do not require this facility.

Realize also that there are occasional (very specific) exceptions to these general
characteristics. For example, the use of classical mnemonics to memorize a
sequential stack yields a good backup strategy when translating from position to
value (since, if an association is forgotten, one can recall the previous card and
then apply the sequential rule); unfortunately, this also nullifies the “built-in”
effect capability.

For the sake of completeness, I should also mention that both Barrie Richardson
and Lewis Jones have published clever algorithmic systems that are extremely
easy to learn, but cover only half the pack: either all the even cards (Jones), or all
those of one colour (Richardson). These can be quite effective for certain effects.

... Doug Dyment

http://www.deceptionary.com/aboutstacks.html 5/28/05