The TYPOS Story
Believe it or not, the typos in GSOH are not typos. I made many mistakes as a first-time publisher, but my most colossal mistake was sending the wrong, unedited, “final” version of the books to the printer.
After the book was assiduously edited by Jason, Charlie, and Bruce, I struggled with serious formatting issues for over two weeks trying to publish the books to PDF for the printer. Unable to solve the problems, I began to separate the book into chapters in an effort to isolate the problem, re-checking the code for hard-page breaks, photograph positioning, and everything else. I then started to rename the files, convinced that there must be a corrupt section or photograph. After finally figuring out a trick for retaining the formatting in PDF, I mistakenly renamed an unedited draft as the final draft . . . which was eventually sent to the printer. This was not a case of making error after error; this was a case of making one grand blunder that probably consisted of three key strokes in a span of two seconds.
When I write, my mind explodes in many directions, so my early drafts are barely legible—just ask anyone who reviewed the first draft. My only goal at the onset is to get my thoughts on paper, organize them, and keep writing with the plan of going back to clean up the text before proceeding with several additional reviews. When you adopt this writing style, typos are ubiquitous in early drafts. If you can write perfect sentences from jump-street, I commend you; unfortunately, I don’t have this skill.
It’s surprising to hear many refer to the typos as “sloppy editing” when just the opposite is true, and it should have been immediately obvious. Eventually, I’m told, it occurred to a few readers that I must have sent an unedited edition to the printer.
All I can do is apologize—which I have done countless times—and move forward. What is done is done. But after assessing the situation, here’s my position:
If you’re dedicated and determined to excel in this field, whether it be to expand your knowledge or improve your skill, there’s not a single typo or related error that will prevent you from achieving your goal from the research as presented!
‘Technical errors’ that incorrectly described a move, stunt, principle, or idea, however, are another matter. After reviewing every typo and related error that was reported, a list of technical errors was compiled and posted below. Should you spot another technical error and are kind enough to send it to me, I’ll update the erratum. Should you spot a typo or related error, accept it as an indelible trait of the second edition because there will not be another edition . . . unless there is a volume three.
If you’re wondering about a list of corrected typos, I don’t have one. Suggested changes were deleted after each typo was corrected. Also, I did my best to minimize changes to sentences with typos. Therefore, the only difference between the first editions (first and second printings) and the second edition is that the second edition corrects the typos and related errors that were reported . . . undoubtedly, there will be more given the voluminous research.
Although my editors all helped again with the second edition—especially Jason who insisted on rereading the unedited edition again from cover to cover—I want to take a moment to acknowledge the many readers who went way beyond kind gestures. There are too many to thank by name, so I’ll just pass along my heartfelt gratitude to everyone who informed me of one or more typos, and in many instances, provided me with their lists.
In closing, while I remain disappointed about the editing mix-up, what really stings is the wasted effort of my friends and reviewers, particularly Jason, Charlie, and Bruce.
I made the mistake and I alone carry the responsibility. For the last time, I extend my sincerest apologies.
GSOH ‘TECHNICAL ERRORS’
The following list does not address typos and related errors. It addresses the technical errors that have been identified so far. Should you discover an error that incorrectly or incompletely describes a move, stunt, principle, or idea, please let me know and I’ll add it to the list.
p. 81 - 3rd paragraph . . . Up the ladder
p. 99 - 5th paragraph . . . Don’t Let Go
p. 248 - under-slug . . . Riffle Stacking
This short section addresses the ‘optimal slug size’ of a stack, which always tends to be larger than what is considered by most cardmen and mechanics. The point was to merely bring attention to any unriffled cards that fall below the stack.
First the original text:
How many cards must be stacked in terms of ‘optimal slug size’? The slug size is six cards: the two aces and four x-cards (AxxxxA). Now consider how many cards under the lowermost ace were dropped with the ace as part of an unriffled slug?
The corrected text:
p. 313 - 3rd paragraph . . . touch slide-under
This paragraph is missing text. Here’s the corrected excerpt:
p. 316 - 4th paragraph . . . bottom-slug hop, multiple cards
p. 447 - 3rd paragraph . . . Erdnase Bottom
p. 547 - 5th paragraph . . . Left-hand-cut Cooler
p. 633 - final paragraph . . . Erdnase System of Blind Shuffles
p. 762 - photo with missing caption . . . JN dead-cut sequence
The missing caption should read, “photo 902 - gently slap deck to table and cut to break”
p. 871 - first paragraph . . . Target Practice
In the description of the stunt, the second sentence reads, “The face-up black aces are shuffled into one half; the faceup black aces shuffled into the other. Here’s the corrected sentence:
“Stunt: The deck is cut into halves. The face-up black aces are shuffled into one half; the face-up red aces shuffled into the other.”
p. 949 - 2nd paragraph . . . Immediate Center Deal
First, to eliminate dealing thirds, you must start with breaks under four and twelve cards, not under eight and twelve cards.
“Insert the uppermost three cards into the upper gap while inserting the lowermost ace into the lower gap as depicted.” This should read, “Insert the two uppermost aces into the upper gap while inserting the lowermost aces into the lower gap as depicted.
Here’s the corrected image:
Also, the stunt needs one more sentence to end the final paragraph.
“Square up and table the deck for a very clean prelude to the deal, then enjoy the immediacy of the deal with the following dealing order:”
TTTTT - SSSST - TTTTT - SSSST
p. 969 - Easy Stripped and Stripped Again
In the first paragraph, the last four sentences starting with “Overhand shuffle again" should read as follows:
"Overhand shuffle again (still face up), but start by slipping the bottom card with the left fingers; after a couple of throws, drop the packet face up and forward on the table. Repeat the same shuffle twice, each time slipping the bottom card to form two more piles. Reveal the prediction card and continue as described, only flip the final stripped or cut packet of each pile face down, bringing a jack to the top of each pile. Reveal the jacks."
p. 896 . . . Percentage Stacking
The stack before the deal should read xxxxAAxxxxxxxxAA, not xxxxAAxxxxAA. Note: I was notified of this error after the second edition was in the printing queue, so it's also the first error to be reported in the second edition.
p. 1025 - 4th phase . . . Blackjack Challenge Demo
During the 4th phase, the dealer can end up with 17 (8-9), but drawing three aces only totals 20, not 21. The obvious solution is to replace the 9 with a ten-valued card. Now the dealer can only have 18 or 20, and the aces will take care of the rest.
Consider turning the four cards face up and let the observer deal the hands in any order. Say, “If you give me (dealer) 20, I’ll need an ace on top to win—then flash the ace on top. “But if you give me 18, I’ll need a three on top to win.” This forces the observer to give the dealer 18, which leads to the unexpected ending of drawing three aces to make 21!