"you looked at it, and you memorize it." that is a secret MENTAL action(not secret physical action.

Whether you memorize it or not resides only in your head.

if the bottom card is visible during a regular riffle shuffle, then it is NOT a secret action as you are openly doing the riffle shuffle.

Whether or not you memorize something is a MENTAL thing, not a physical thing.

As I've said many times now, I'm saying its a "secret *physical* action".

No, that is not true accourding to my definition, if they think you are turning a single card and you are really turning two, then that is a secret action.


I really don't see what your problem is, I've been STEADFAST with my definition and replies, yet you keep claiming that I think a DL is not a secret action.

You *constantly* get things wrong that go against what I'm saying, over and over.

Why don't you *listen* and understand what I'm saying rather than putting some pointless argument forth, because you are claiming I'm saying things I'm not....

First of all, I apology, Mr. Daegs, I forgot you stated earlier in the discussion the "secret *physical* actions" and that was the reason that the DL would be included in your definition of secret actions and remembering the key card would not.

With that said. I have to disagree, again , since looking at the bottom card is secret physical action too, you don't see the bottom card when doing a riffle shuffle unless you directly look at it and you lift the packet more than needed for the shuffle. And the spectators don't know you are looking at the bottom card.

Now, I would like for you to tell me if you consider secret actions or not the following moves.

-Force using the hindu shuffle
-False cut with the index (Leizip cut? the one where you cut the top half of the deck with your index finger from your right hand to your left, and then you drop the bottom part to the table and the top on top)
-Cutting the deck exactly on a known card (short, bubble, etc... )
-False Riffle shuffle to control the top or the bottom packet

All those are sleights, according to me, but I don't think they are secret actions according to you.

Can you explain me why you consider them, or why not, secret actions?

The only grey area in my definition depends on how the spectator "see's" the moves.

Written out in full, this is about what I consider to be the definition of self-working(card trick):

"An effect using cards, that requires mental work(memorization/calculation) and uses no secret physical actions."

Following that, the definition of a secret physical action:

"Any action which majorly differs from what a reasonable and attentive spectator would say happened immidiatly after the action occured".

That's imperfect I understand, but I cant imagine any definition of self-working that doesn't rely on peoples "observations" of what happens, or you run into problems as you've mentioned.

Those are all borderline examples, but I think the hindu force, false cut would *not* be self-working, the cutting the deck could *possibly* be self working depending on how it was used.

I think sighting the riffle could be as long as you don't have to overly stress the cards from what you normally would.

Finally doing a riffle to retain bottom or top I don't think would be, but it would be "almost self working" and *very* close.


While a spectator might not say "Oh you looked at the bottom card" after a riffle shuffle, I think they *would* say if asked "It was definatly possible you could have looked at the bottom card"..... and that's the deciding factor, at least imho.

I also think misdirection should be left out of it, since you could do MANY non-self working things as long as they were looking away or whatnot, which is why the false cut should not be included because it relies more on misdirection to cover it... if you said "WATCH THE PACKETS" and did it slowly I don't think they would consider it a cut.

So....

Self-working:
No practiced and secret, physical manipulations that require muscle memory are used.

Stacks, mechanical decks and gaffs, considered selfworking in some instances, have a category of their own here on the Café.

So what's allowable???
Secret, physical actions that -do not- require muscle memory such as secretly reversing a card behind your back, counting cards behind your back or beneath a table? Secretly dropping a card onto your lap? Obtaining a pinky or flesh break?
Using mental calculations to get a result?
Simply glimpsing key cards while the spectator or mage shuffles the deck?

In response to M.Lowry's post.
Several self-workers are ingenius but I think the general feeling is that most are not as magical and that using sleights adds to the magic.
I wouldn't classify them as beginner tricks. There's still practice and work on presenting them that needs to be done.

I disagree with the muscle memory part...I think if you have to secretly count or reverse, its "almost self working" but not self working...

However, that *is* an interesting addition that would probably help include a bunch of "almost self working, simple effects" that many would fit into the catagory

Very well said and I think this might be the reason why people tend to shy away from self-workers so much. Most people lack the ingenuity and creativity to come up with an interesting presentation for self-working effects. This is definitely a shame because some of the best reactions I get from people are from the self working mentalism effects I perform which have simple self-working principles embedded in them. The best thing about these are that if you hide the principle well, people are completely baffled as to how the effect is possible because most people will be concentrated on looking for a secret "sleight of hand" move. With a self-working effect, the heat is off of any sleight of hand move and you can concentrate on the actual performance, you would almost have no choice but to concentrate on performance. After reading "Maximum Entertainment" by Ken Weber, I realized the difference between "Magicians" and "guys performing tricks". Embarrassingly, I'll admit that in many ways, I was guilty of being one of the probable 80% of people out there who are just "guys performing tricks". Unfortunately a lot of people are guilty of this without realizing it. I guess my point is that "Magicians" would be able to figure out a proper presentation for almost (excluding the redundant 21 card trick) any self-working effect and pull it off successfully but "guys performing tricks" would most likely not. Any thoughts?

Here's my opinion on self-working effects: Good enough for John Scarne, good enough for Dai Vernon, good enough for [insert name of your favorite 'big name' magician here], then good enough for me.

Don't get me wrong, I love to see an accomplished card, coin, or cups worker do his thing, and I appreciate the work and dedication it takes to get there, but there is nothing inherently 'dirty' about a self-working effect.

I've said it a dozen times on the Café already - Magic doesn't happen just because you've developed a skill, it's comes about when you've developed an artful and entertaining presentation.

I have no preference to either type of trick, personally I think self working effects are good to start with in order to build performing confidence and some kind of persona when you perform. Self working effects allow you to focus on the people and not the cards. I prefer to do the non self working effects but I do not believe self working to be beggining effects.

Self-working card tricks usually are good tricks, not because they're easy to do but because they have a good presentation.

Can "beginning" magicans get lazy by relying too much on self-working tricks? Someone there's a sense that if you haven't practiced sleights, you're not a magican.

This thread sort of reminds me of an argument some actors engage in: is 'method acting' superior to simply 'acting'? The only people who care about this are actors. The only thing that really matters is the end result. The audience doesn't care how you got there. Is Dustin Hoffman better than Laurence Olivier? One is a method actor, the other wasn't. Does the audience care if a trick is self-working or requires extreme sleight of hand? Be an entertainer...work on the presentation...be engaging and fun to be around, then nobody can just 'take your place'. I think a lot of this type of thinking derives from guilt: if I'm a real magician then I need to practice all these sleights until carpal tunnel sets in! I work a lot on sleights, but what is more valuable to me are all the years I've spent on voice and stage presence through doing so many plays and other performances. I don't think any effect that has a solid impact on an audience is easy to accomplish. Unless you are trying to impress magicians, what's the point of worrying whether an effect is self-working or not?

If the audience can perceive the difference, then there is a problem. To use the acting ****ogy, the final product - that is the ILLUSION of character - is arrived at but the means used make NO difference. Both Lord Laurence Olivier and Dustin Hoffman are great actors and their audiences did not care - or in most places KNOW - whethet the Stanislavsky Method was employed or not. Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino both played powerful Mafia dons. We as an audience suspended are disbelief and accepted that Vito and Michael existed. Pacino learned from Lee Strasbergs Actor's Studio, and DeNiro is a dyed in the wool Stanislavski. So, the question of who is "better" is truly subjective.

To close, I ask many of you to remember how profoundly you were fooled and entertained by OOTW.

Best,
Vlad

I use to perform self-working with card tricks a long time ago. I have been more in love with the sleights for years. The number one thing I dislike about self-working ones is the set-up.

I've said it on the Café before and I'll say it again. Good self-working effects are always in my tool bag. Why? Because many years ago, I was doing a few effects for friends and some guy walked over doing a coin roll and proceeded to tell everybody how I was doing everything. I didn't let him go too far, but immediately switched to self-working card tricks. (I got a book full of them in 'Scarne on Card Tricks'.) For the next few routines, he could say nothing. A few looked at him and he couldn't say anything. He got upset and walked away. I went back to my sleight of hand and the performance ended very well. And the best thing is I have several solid self-working routines that require no set-up.

Does it have to be either or.

One of my favourite tricks at the moment is a self working trick by Aldo Colombini. First and foremost it's very entertaining, and with the right patter
it really engages the audience.

When you add an Ireland Shuffle at the start of it, which I think Colombini mentioned as a possible enhancement, it goes from being really entertaining to being a complete mystery.

I no longer consider the version I do Self-Working, although the kernel of the effect most definitely is.

Ultimately you must start with the effect, why do you want to present the trick the way you do. What would you like to add (such as a shuffle at a kep moment)

Then you need to find the most fool proof way of achieving the effect. If that involves duplicate cards, gaffed decks, then fine, if it involves some self working mathematical principle then fine. If it involves breaking your knuckles then fine.

But start out by worrying about the effect. If you are ****yzing whether a method should be self-working or sleight heavy then you are wasting valuable brain power that could be applied to thinking about the effect.

It's like a playwright worrying about whether the actor should enter stage left or stage right, without first figuring out why the actor is entering at all, and what he's going to say when he gets on stage.

-Richard

Good story, Steven. I'm curious if the road some of you have traveled is similar to mine. I saw self-working tricks in one light when I first started in magic. Then I thought that to be a "real magician" I would need to learn lots of complicated sleight-of-hand. When I became proficient at using a few of the more difficult sleights, I still wasn't satisfied. That's when I looked at self-working tricks in a whole new light. It's like it took me having to make my way over to the other side of the fence to see that the grass was just as green where I came from! It took a maturing process to shift the focus from me and a "look what I can do" spirit, to placing the focus on the experience for everybody and a "look how much fun we can have" spirit. When my focus shifted, the self-workers stood as tall as the rest. Because of that process, I have come to view self-working vs. nonself-working as a moot point. It's fun to talk about, but when it comes right down to it, I don't think it really matters all that much.

Fritz I think we arrived at the same destination taking slightly different routes. When I started out in card magic I realized I had to fool people's brains not their eyes but my clumsiness and obvious lack of skill in handling the cards said "set-up deck" or "mathematical trick." Without some degree of finesse I was doomed to presenting puzzles rather than creating magic. So my venturing into card sleight-of-hand was primarily to eliminate the obvious explanations as to what had just happened and to leave the viewer stranded if he attempted to retrace what he had witnessed. I now find the practicing of sleights as satisfying and challenging as the creation of my presentation.

I think one must remember that this is the business of entertainment. Whether the effect contains none, a few, or many slights might matter to the performer (and to other magicians) but to the spectator it matters not. How many well-executed slights an effect contains is not important if in the end the spectator is not entertained (i.e. do not confuse the cleverness of the technique with how entertaining the effect is). An argument can be made that the most entertaining effects require slights, however, in the end, if in the eyes of those you are performing for you have done the impossible, then the effect was well chosen.

D. Len Seconds,

I like hearing your perspective. I love to hear people's stories about the road (or roads) they've traveled to get to where they are. It seems like everyone pretty much agrees that the end effect on an audience is really what matters most. I don't know why this question keeps coming up though, since everybody does seem to agree on some level that the effect is what matters. Actually, now that I think of it I guess I just answered my own question... it's interesting to hear other people's perspectives. By the way, I love your username!

You have to have both. Self working is good for your presentation. And why shouldn't you use them? Because they are self working? Is that making you a bad magician? I thought that magic is to make people wonder, to surprise them. If it's with a self working trick, why not?