Two different methods at achieving the same results. Which one would you prefer and why. Hopefully, magicaians of all kinds can come and share your thoughts on why you would prefer one over the other.

Personally, for me while performing to general audiences, I feel that when a magician does a pass, there are certain angels and motions that would definitely be a tell-tale sign that the magician is doing something. We wouldn't want the public to be thinking,"Wah, the magicians got very fast hands hor?!" or would we?

With regards to that, while doing a double undercut, it may look as though the magician is actually cutting the cards just to make it a little more random and fair.

Like I said, this is a personal preference. I believe many would have different views and thoughts.


Cheers!

dry_gin

Each move is different, so its kinda pointless to compare them like that.
I admit that they can kinda be substitutes, but there are certain scenarios where pass is superior and times when the Double Undercuts is superior. It really depends.
Anyway, I think this have been brought up b4.

I prefer the double undercut ; cause its easier. heh. ;) I can never do the pass properly..

I pick neither, because as mentioned, both is different.

Let say Double undercut... Normal

Pass... WOW

To audience: Double undercut... Normal

Pass .... Normal

So, in short, do what you feel like it, if you have the confidence, do the pass, if not, a undercut doest the same job.

Both have their place, and I use them in separate situations.

To add, I never perform a pass with my audiences looking at my hands; thus I hardly get the line about "my hands being very fast" (which I think laymen will say anyway, about most card effects) in executing the pass.

Even when using a double undercut, I try as best to frame it so that people do not even realise that the cards are being handled.

It's all done with proper direction of attention whilst performing.

I am never a fan of the classic pass. I feel it's a waste of time just to learn this move, when the similar control can be obtained through the simpler double undercut.

However there are times where a good classic pass really enhance the impossibility factor in an effect. (take ACR for example)

My personal opinon is unless one can perform the classic pass like this guy in the video, or else they should keep their substandard passes to themselves and just perform a double undercut instead.

Akira Pass

To me a pass is more of an attitude thing than a technical thing. but of cos, it really has to depend on the situations and surroundings.

So I'd do a double undercut under fire and a pass on the relaxation moment.

Both moves are for different purposes so they can't really be compared. At first, i also thinking that these 2 moves will get the same result, so why doing the difficult pass when u can do the double underhand cut but after consulting Shawn from concept magic about this, i come to realise that a pass will make an effect look more impossible, cause nothing had been done. So now i am busying practising my pass cause it is really difficult to catch the timing and angle. :unsure: :wacko:

Double undercut. If simple will do it just as well, do simple.

First of all the Akira pass video is amazing o_O!!

Ever since I learnt the pass I never use the double undercut again.

The pass is much more convenient, although not always necessary.

I'm so used to the pass that sometimes I'll find myself doing stupid things like execute a pass to control the card to the top, then do a triple false cut -_- when I could just use a double undercut from the beginning.

To the audience the double undercut proves that you have excellent skill in cutting to the cards you want.

The pass however is much more amazing to the audience, cos apparently you are not doing anything at all yet you are still able to control the cards.

I personally prefer the pass, though I must admit it's partly because it is more fulfilling, although I think that the pass and the double undercut have their own purpose and they are not perfect substitutes of each other.

As mentioned by bigbadwolf, for effects like ACR, you simply cannot do a double undercut because the audience may be able to believe that magicians can control cards even while cuts/shuffles are made. This is because the workings of the pass should not be seen, while the workings of the double undercut is 'seen'.

For most other effects, passes should be done on the offbeat (right after you bring 2 packets together) and generally should not be scrutinised by the audience unless you are trying to accomplish a colour change (which may or may not be a good idea). Even double undercuts (and most other sleights) should be done while the audience is relaxed, but this can probably stand more attention.

Hmm...

It really depends on situation. But for me, mostly double undercut, cos it's just easier. Only thing about it is some spec actually suspect " it's the way I cut the cards." Of course, as me and dry_gin had discussed before, it should be done off-beat (like most control anyway) so as not to arouse suspicion.

Actually I prefer to use a swing & swivel cut as an alternative control. Looks convincing enough, a bit flashy but not as technically demanding as a pass.

Both of them look the same to the audience... in the first place they didn't know you are going to control their selected cards. even in the simple acr . for the first step while you going to control the selected card second to the top using either method , the most important part is it doesn't matter if they see any thing because you still got the second phrase of the trick to enhance the whole effect. For example you can do a sloppy control to the second from the top and do a DL to show it , from this moment the spectator will say you did something. then you slot the card in the middle to show it come back to the top.
As i say in the first place the spectator wont know you are going to control their card and is the whole effect of the trick that amaze the spectator not your controls.
if really to ask what i prefer it will be a riffle pass. HABIT lol

Just do few false cut. A lot of people like to compare passes i think its not very useful because it contain a lot of movement in the hand,because people do know when u are do doing something fishy when u move your hand too much.Unless u can divert there attention to other thing i still think double undercut is better.

i presonally would prefer the double under cut. its easier to do than the pass and not as angle sensitive as the pass.

just do a few other false cuts if the person is not convinced rather than doing a pass and not managing your angle correctly.


.'. jon .'.

Yea. Sometimes a false cut can be equally misleading and just as easy to do.

I'll go with the double undercut cos im horrible at passes. Hee.

Pass + Palming combo with continued by spectator shuffle hands down win for me I would say.

Though not for every single trick, I would use this for more startling and magical reveals.

And about my pass. I would just thank my brother and my mirror whose feedback slowly improved it till invisible

i prefer double undercut because its easier and i'm not good in the pass.

-Ron-

looks like the double undercut is popular, but for me, i would do a pass most of the time, especially is im doing magic in a pub where the lighting is not soo good. This is also true when the cards are mine and i am comfortable with the feel of the cards. If it's a borrowed deck which is either too new and too hard, or an old deck which is too soft and sticky.

I feel it is equally important to master both sleight because u will be using them under different circumstances.

Last time I also used to think I should train my pass until it is invisible, but I never did. Somehow, I still can "see" my pass and I got very frustrated, thinking I am not talented enough.

Then... a friend reminded me I'm improving on the wrong thing, I should be improving on my misdirection instead of improving my "invisibility". A correct pass is done w/o spectator looking at your hands, not with them looking but unable to "see" the pass.

Anyway, a pass, no matter how good, still has this slight movement and sound when executed. So, maybe you really no need to train that hard to make it look invisible.

For me i usually do the invisible pass. I have never been caught before.

There are times when I asked the audience to focus on my hands, and I did the invisible pass. (Not a wise thing to do, but it's fun). They still cannot see it. Even I cannot see it -_-

If you can do passes like Akira, I dont see why you want to use double undercuts. (Thou I do agree sometimes it does depend on your situation)

For those who NEVER use the pass and condemns it; claiming that double undercut is BETTER than the pass/the pass is very difficult (waste of time to master it), I simply take it as: Cannot get to eat the grapes then say the grapes sour. B)

I've came across such people quite a number of times. When I was practising my passes (my pass aint fantastic), some arrogant magicians who sees me doing it will just tell me stuffs like, "The pass useless one lah, I do double undercut can liao, waste time practise pass for what."

The pass is useless? I really dont know if I should laugh out loud or cry out loud for that person. :D :lol: :P

I must say the grapes are sweet!

I don't think that learning the pass is a waste of time. Yes, it is not easy but if you invest some time on it you will have a powerful card control sleight in your arsenal.

For people who thinks that the pass might be too obvious, a little misdirection is enough to take the heat away from your hands.

Just look at them in the eyes and ask" How fast do you think I can find your card?"

The card is already on top of the deck even before you finish the sentence.

If you can practice until your pass is invisible that's even better. Instead of misdirecting them from looking at your hands, you can even direct them to look at your hands.

Haha..I see myself in that description. I always cannot eat the grapes one, so I shall condemn them. :lol: :lol:

I would prefer the pass. Because its more impressive and even though its tougher to do, I slowly realized that like what the others have already said, the crux is seriously the misdirection. When you look at you audiences in their eyes, you would have ample time to perform the pass.

Maybe the double under cuts is better for big crowds when its hard to look in everyone's eyes. LOL

Hmmm.. don't mean to be rude. I suppose we shouldn't think of a sleight as impressive because audience aren't even suppose to be aware of it. The most impressive sleight is the one that they fail to see.

I think you mean you get more satisfaction out of doing a pass, right?

Opps. Pardon me for my poor expression.

Like what you said, its more enjoyable.

Of course the pass is not to be seen. When I meant impressive, its kind of meant that the audience perceived that the cards were not manipulated all. Thats why its impressive. I'm not sure if I still said it in the way I wanted =P

As for the undercuts, you would still have to cut the deck. Unlike the pass your hands are just there holding or touching it.

Well, for me I will prefer to do a pass when doing tricks because it looks amazing to change the card at a sudden if you do it correctly and perfect. However, it also has its own disadvantages. For pass, it is angle sensitive and easily to be noticed if it is not done properly.

When doing double undercut, I found that some audience can easily notice that you are actually control the card to the position that you wanted based on my experiences. However to perform it properly, you can also do a misdirection by talking to the audience and do a double undercut to let them feel that you are just cutting the deck normally.

From my opinion, both are also the sleights that we need to practice to perform it well and looks convincing. Therefore both have their own pros and cons but i would still prefer to do a pass. As mentioned by dtjk, if you can do a pass like Akira, it would be definitely be amazing and shock the audience.

It's going to be the Pass for me.

Simply because: "It's invisible" (when done correctly)
And also because: It's easy (after weeks of training) and convenient.

Most of my routines involve getting the spectator to replace the card back into
the centre of the deck.

By performing the pass there is no visible signs of sleights, shuffles or controls.
Thus to the spectator, the deck's still "unhandled".
Naturally all he's going to think about is
"he didn't do anything with the deck yet?"

Compare this to the double undercut, if they seen you do the undercut a psychological reminder is left in their mind that
"hey i saw some cuts. Could that be it?"

But it all depends.
If someone hasn't mastered the pass well, or know how to make it invisible then double undercuts could be a good choice.
The Invisible pass when done correctly,
should be invisible even to the magician.

come to think of it,throw in Le'Paul's bluff pass!

Either way, it really depends on what you wanna portray.
I've heard from performing friends that hecklers like to call out on "shuffles, cuts and stuff"
They "think" that its humanly possible to control cards BY shuffling/cutting.

BUT throw in an invisible pass in their face?
Even when they burn your hands?

Chances are they'll go...
"but i didn't see you do anything???"

All in all,
It depends on what the Illusionist hope to achieve.

R™

i would personally do the Double UnderCut but i would do it with patter and eye-contact with the spectator. Further following up with a couple of ShuFFLeS to make it convincing.

Actually my pass is not up to standard la :lol:

It's funny how this thread has become somewhat of a debate over whether the double undercut or the pass is superior.

Actually I don't think either of them are any good. Just bloody palm the card and transfer it to the top.

My point is - there's no 'superior method'.

Fact - the double undercut is easier to execute.
Fact - the pass / shift does bolster the magician's ego.
Fact - the side steal is technically more difficult than the pass.

Fact - USE THE RIGHT METHOD FOR THE RIGHT REASON.

Will you use a sledge hammer to hammer a nail into the wall? Or how about bringing a knife into a gunfight? Better yet, wear a tuxedo to the beach; or bermudas and slippers - go topless - into the Equinox.

Anyway, I'm not here to pick a fight with anyone... So don't get all riled up.

Both the pass AND the undercut have got their uses. I think I've mentioned this before... somewhere... somewhere... in another thread anyway.
(Bernard - don't give me a warning; there's a good reason for those elipses.)

Just to state my point (after the long rant) - it is the meaning in context of the effect that should determine which move you use; not how easy it is to execute.

When you do a pass/shift to control the card, the audience should believe that the card is STILL in the middle of the deck - right where you inserted it. They know that YOU KNOW where the card ROUGHLY is - right there in the middle.

When you do a double undercut to control the card, the audience should believe that the card is lost. They don't know where the card is and they KNOW that YOU DO NOT KNOW where the card is EITHER.

I think there is a very distinct difference between the two situations and both will result in varying degrees reaction depending on the effect you were performing.

Lots of people perform the pass almost perfectly. You can burn their hands and they'll still get it right past you. But they don't always use the pass. It's not because they can't; it just isn't the right effect for the pass.

Check out Nique Tan's passes (if you see his pass, it just means he's done it twice). You don't see him flaunting the pass at every effect.

My more than 2 cents worth.

Shade

Really? You mean Nique's passes are better than our Adrian's...? I don't believe it. :P

Trust me, it IS way better. There is simply no room for comparison. In fact, Nique was the one who upgraded 'THAT PASS' to version 2.0. Hence Shade's comment: "Check out Nique Tan's passes (if you see his pass, it just means he's done it twice)." :lol:

Well said. VERY well said.

Nothing more for anyone to say. Well said. =)

Ok, then I know what Shade meant.... -_-