|
|
Jem
Veteran user
Singapore
342 Posts
|
Posted: May 26, 2003 8:14am
Greetings fellow magi. I would like to share a dilemma that has been plaguing me for some time now.
Firstly, I must say that I would consider myself still fairly new to magic, and my knowledge of card magic literature is by no means vast. However, I am aware of the fact that there are quite a number of gambling routines in books that actually advocate the exposing of a bottom/second deal at some point in time during the routine. Most of the time, the main purpose is to give the audience an "expose" of a card cheat's techniques. Some examples include the gambling routines from "At The Card Table", by Darwin Ortiz.
However, after reading many of the posts in this forum regarding false deals, it occurred to me that a false deal can be an extremely powerful move to be used in magical effects.
One more point to consider is that many laymen are TOTALLY unaware that a false deal is even possible! To most of us magicians, a bottom or second deal is no big deal, but to a layman, they had no idea that such a move existed at all! Thus, the question here is, should we expose the Bottom/Second deal to lay audiences? Or should we keep such a powerful tool to ourselves, since many people are not even aware that such a false deal is even in existence?
I think in one of Ed Marlo's videos, (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong here!) he makes a very humourous (but thought-provoking) comment about how he finds it remarkable that many magicians spend years mastering their false deals only to end up exposing them to lay audiences under the guise of a gambling "expose".
In conclusion, there is yet another perspective which you may want to consider, and that is whether to expose an inferior method of false dealing to lay audiences, and keep the superior method a secret. In Ed Marlo's "Seconds, Centers, Bottoms", Marlo writes - (quote) "Never use the Master Method for exhibition purposes as you will tear down everything you have worked for".
I greatly welcome your thoughts!
|
Elwood
Regular user
116 Posts
|
Posted: May 26, 2003 10:55am
My thoughts:
If you show a method in an "exposure/sucker" type of trick, the specs very rarely believe that what you are showing them is a bone fide move, especially if you perform it sloppily or obviously.
Secondly, when you perform a move for real, as part of an effect, it should be truly invisible, and the revelation/climax should be kept apart from the move with proper time misdirection and spectator management, so that even if someone is aware of second deals, thumbtips, IT, double backers, whatever, the effect hides the method.
As it says in Erdnase - "Even the most critical observer should not suspect, let alone detect, that a move has taken place."
http://www.magicaccessories.co.uk
|
marko
Inner circle
2095 Posts
|
Posted: May 26, 2003 2:38pm
I think it's possible to expose and still utilize them. False deals are usually presented in the context of gambling exposes or demonstrations. Few spectators would make the jump that gambling techniques could be used in the methodology of magical effects. In my experience, many spectators are aware of bottom dealing. Few are aware of second dealing making it a very powerful tool. If you can second deal well (and if not, why would you be demonstrating it or using it in an effect?) then whether you're exposing or using it secretly will be invisible to the audience. But I would never do both in the same act.
Thought: Why does man kill? He kills for food. And not only food: frequently there must be a beverage.
|
MacGyver
Inner circle
St. Louis, MO
1419 Posts
|
Posted: May 26, 2003 3:43pm
I think some of you are thinking too much like magicians. People don't remember moves, you can tell them about a second deal, and later on you can deal seconds and they won't be the wiser.
Sure, it tells them that we can manipulate which card we put on the table, but they already would suspect that we would be able to do things like that, even if they don't know a method.
It's like showing them a pass or thumbtip and 10 minutes later completly frying them with an AC routine or a silk vanish. Unless you tell them in advance that you are going to deal seconds to a table and deal regular when they say stop, or that you are going to be using that thumb thing to hide a silk, they won't connect the two later on.
|
Denis Behr
Special user
Germany
582 Posts
|
Posted: May 26, 2003 3:54pm
Quote:
|
On 2003-05-26 15:43, MacGyver wrote:
People don't remember moves, you can tell them about a second deal, and later on you can deal seconds and they won't be the wiser. |
|
Hmm... at least in Germany audiences can be a lot more attentive at certain times... (Never believe that spectators are stupid!)
|
ebyrne
New user
50 Posts
|
Posted: May 27, 2003 2:25am
I'm gonna have to agree with Denis on this one. I think you underestimate your audience. Unless your bottom or second is invisible (in which case I doubt you would be asking this), you should expect an attentive audience to catch on.
In general, I would say that if you must reveal a bottom deal, use a lesser method. Marlo is definitely right here.
If you must use the same method and must expose it, which I would advise against, at least respect your audience's intelligence enough to use it in a trick before you expose it.
Just a thought,
Gene 
|
MacGyver
Inner circle
St. Louis, MO
1419 Posts
|
Posted: May 27, 2003 2:44am
I have to disagree, because people don't understand all the uses for a sleight, they only know one instince of them.
You can expose a silk vanish with a TT and then do a bill switch with TT and totally fry them. They will know when you put something into your fist and then stuff your thumb you are using it, but when you do a bill change they have no idea.
The same could be said about double lifts.... someone might know how you could use a double lift to put a card in the middle and keep it on the top, but there are so many uses for the move that many would never be the wiser if you used it for anything but putting it in the middle but retaining it on top.
Now, if you expose a second deal while doing a gambling routine and dealing hands, then later do a routine where you are dealing out hands and they catch you, i can understand that, but if you are instead using the Second deal as a force or as a method for changing a card or doing card at any number, I really doubt most audiences will make the connection between the two effects, even though they use the same move.
|
ROBERT BLAKE
Special user
595 Posts
|
Posted: May 27, 2003 2:53am
we as magicians are trained to see the difference between a gambling expose or a trick. we are also trained to see that the magician is doing a second deal because we know how that looks.
so, if you expose a second deal in a gambling routine the audience will see this a part of how gamblers cheat.
if you would use the second deal in another trick it will look for them as if your dealing cards.
for the audience gambling and magic are 2 different things. 
Robert Blake
http://www.robertblake.nl
THE COWBOY MAGIC SHOW
|
Adam V
Special user
603 Posts
|
Posted: May 27, 2003 3:22am
There is a magician here in Melbourne (Barry Govan) who does the funniest (to magicians) bottom dealing expose I have ever seen. He will totally expose the method and demonstrate it's use, then use the bottom deal in the exact same routine and completely fry you with it. It's quite bizarre.
Adam V - 9 out of 10 dentists recommend him.
|
Denis Behr
Special user
Germany
582 Posts
|
Posted: May 27, 2003 6:37am
Quote:
|
On 2003-05-27 02:44, MacGyver wrote:
... I really doubt most audiences will make the connection between the two effects, even though they use the same move. |
|
I think there are some that do. And that should be enough to stop doing it... (I'd say it is poor construction to use the sleight first exposed, than in an effect. The bottom deal exposure mentioned above is probably an exception but it seems to be constructed with this very issue in mind.)
If the audience sees that you deal cards and even though they appear to come off the top they do NOT come from the top this concept is not too abstract to transfer it to another context. At least in my opinion.
Denis
|
Jem
Veteran user
Singapore
342 Posts
|
Posted: May 27, 2003 8:07am
Thanks everyone for your opinions thus far. I think healthy debate is a great thing to have.
My own opinion is more like Denis's. I feel that false deals should not be exposed to lay audiences. As I have mentioned in my opening post, there are many people out there who have no idea that a bottom/second deal is conceivable. Thus, by demonstating a false deal to them, we have changed their whole mindset towards the concept of "dealing cards". They are now aware that it is actually possible for a skilled cardman to deal cards off the bottom/second even while APPEARING to deal them off the top. Therefore, I feel that there is a high chance that subsequently, whenever they see a magician deal off cards, there is this little thought that is triggered off in their minds which says that there is a chance that the magician might be false dealing. After all, since they now know that false dealing is "possible", it can most certainly be "probable".
What I'm trying to say is - why should we even sow the seeds of suspicion in a lay person's mind by exposing false deals to them? When a lay person, who is now aware of false deals, sees another magician hold the deck in mechanics grip, Master grip etc. the lay person may automatically be suspicious of a false deal, even if the magician performs it flawlessly.
It's just like as magicians, when we see another magician do a double lift. Most of the time (notice I did not say "all the time"), even though the magician may do a double lift flawlessly, we still cognitively know that he is executing a double lift.
To put things in another perspective, you may want to ask - Why do we not expose pass tachniques, double lift techniques, force techniques, false cuts techniques, etc. and yet feel that it is OK to expose false dealing techniques?
Just some of my own thoughts. Please feel free to express your thoughts, thanks!
|
Darren Roberts
Loyal user
222 Posts
|
Posted: May 27, 2003 12:43pm
I do not expose these types of moves currently because I can not do them invisibly...yet.
However, I imagine that if Darwin Ortiz were to expose a bottom deal, and then later use one, it would appear to be a perfectly legitimate deal. There would be no reason to suspect a bottom deal because it wouldn't "look" like one.
I agree with the above advice to only expose the method if YOU will not be detected when you do use it.
Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather straps. - Emo Phillips
|
JasonEngland
Special user
Las Vegas, NV
943 Posts
|
Posted: May 29, 2003 1:27am
Funny, I don't see anyone here advising us to all stop doing the "Invisible Palm" because it educates our audiences to the possibility of a palm.
As someone who has explained in detail the concepts of a bottom deal or second deal to my audiences, and then fooled them with those very same moves only a few minutes later, I can safely say that it CAN be done.
Whether or not YOU can do it is another matter.
Jason
Eternal damnation awaits anyone who questions God's unconditional love. --Bill Hicks
|
MisterE21
Elite user
Salt Lake City, UT
426 Posts
|
Posted: May 29, 2003 2:22am
I think Jason has an excellent point with his question regarding invisible palm reoutines. I mean, seriously, I know the routine has been performed by many great artists and met with resounding success, but I don't really see the difference...
I mean, even the pseudo-exposure of a move is still, in a way, exposure. The spectators don't need to know the mechanics of a move well enough to be able to go home and perform it; they just need to have that little peg to hang their hat on.
For instance, I have a friend who, thanks to a dumba** friend of his (not me..lol), thinks nearly EVERY card effect in the world is done with a double-lift. He can't DO a double lift, but he is aware of the concept and, consequently, believes it can be used to explain everything. The upside of this is that I can absolutely fry him if it is COMPLETELY obvious that no double-lift was used...but, if he can even pretend it could have been used, he grasps it as the explanation and that satisfies him.
I hope that analogy makes some sense. They don't need to be RIGHT, they just need to think they ARE and the magic is instantly gone. I, personally, am not an advocate of exposing gambling moves; while it would be an ego trip to say "here, watch..." while doing seconds with the top card face up (which, truly, can look more like real magic than 90% of the card effects being done today if a master is doing it) and having them ohh and ahh. But, overall, I think the detriment is worse than the gain.
E
Your EFFECT is only as good as its AFFECT.
|
Denis Behr
Special user
Germany
582 Posts
|
Posted: May 29, 2003 5:02am
I think that the Invisible Palm routines are a little different. First the concept of hiding things in the hand is far more obvious than false dealing (we often show hands empty but seldom say "hey, and this was no centre deal!"). Second, you do not show any real palming technique in those routines. Cards are placed in the hand and become invisible. You do not palm them off the deck or show real world technique as in most false dealing demonstrations. So there is nothing really that can be reconstructed if palming is used later on (especially if the hand looks clumsy when doing the fake palming demonstrations). (I guess this is the reason why Marlo suggests to use inferior dealing techniques for all exposure.)
I agree with E that if the audience thinks you might have employed this or that move even if you haven't the magic is lost.
Denis
|
MacGyver
Inner circle
St. Louis, MO
1419 Posts
|
Posted: May 29, 2003 10:02am
I think that if you make the difference very clear between showing them A: "Magic" and B: "How Gambler's Cheat" they usually won't connect the two.(usually)
It's the same with my TT analogy. You might know what a TT is, and you might do a bunch of silk work with it, or restore some sugar or whatever. But even people that know all about the thumbtip w/ silks, will still get fried by the TT bill change.
It's an aspect of laymen psychology that groups things by purpose not by methods.
Even if they relize that stuffing something into your hand might mean your using a TT, when you use it for a bill change or something else, they have no idea.
Now, if you plan on using false deals in another gambling routine, then no I wouldn't expose it right before I deal myself a straight flush.
But I think that most laymen will not make the connection between showing how a gambler cheats and later on when you force a card by way of second deal
If you don't feel comfortable with it, by all means don't expose it, but I think in genral, most magicians will be able to do a gambling expose and later fool someone with a bottom or second deal very easily.
|
Mr. Z
Special user
Las Vegas, NV
787 Posts
|
Posted: May 29, 2003 1:02pm
Quote:
|
On 2003-05-29 01:27, JasonEngland wrote:
Funny, I don't see anyone here advising us to all stop doing the "Invisible Palm" because it educates our audiences to the possibility of a palm.
As someone who has explained in detail the concepts of a bottom deal or second deal to my audiences, and then fooled them with those very same moves only a few minutes later, I can safely say that it CAN be done.
Whether or not YOU can do it is another matter.
Jason
|
|
Indeed, my friend Matt Murdock can spot most magicians' false deals...
Mr. Z
"...if you have to say you is, you ain't."--Jimmy Hoffa
|
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Should the bottom & second deal be exposed? |
|
|
|
