| Go to page 1 ~ 2 (Next) |
|
|
micromega123
Regular user
145 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 30, 2009 7:22pm
I recently heard an interview with Eugene Burger where he characterizes Chicago Opener as a bad trick. He thinks that the DL in the first phase is done at the worst time (when the audience is looking right at the card) and that the second phase teaches the audience how the first phase was done.
I happen to like this trick, but I'd love to hear what other people think about this, as I know it is a popular one.
|
gadfly3d
Special user
749 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 30, 2009 7:36pm
The first double lift is only a problem if one doesn't have a natural looking DL and since the method in the second phase works differently than the first I have no idea what he means.
I have used this effect for laymen many times and always got a great reaction so I like the trick.
Gil Scott
|
Daegs
Inner circle
USA
4182 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 30, 2009 7:48pm
I can't comment on the version Eugene was talking about, but in regards to the version I most commonly see done:
The DL is done when they think the trick is over, after the odd backed card was shown to be the correct card matching the selection. Effect is over, the second phase of the routine should only be talked about after the DL is over and the card is on the table.
If I had to guess, he means that by showing the red card changed, the audience might feel that it wasn't the initial selection at all, thus ruining the first effect.
I think chicago opener is just that, an opener. It isn't a closer and isn't an effect that will stay with them for years, it is suppose to be fun, upbeat with many magicial happenings to establish that you aren't going to see tricks that your uncle does. To that end it does pretty well
|
Whit Haydn
V.I.P.
4800 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 30, 2009 8:15pm
There are ways to fix all of these problems.
--Pop Haydn
My Web Site
FACEBOOK
MYSPACE
|
Agaton
New user
Manila
88 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 30, 2009 8:40pm
Everybody has an opinion on every trick that exists. It just so happens that I still believe that the Chicago Opener is a powerful trick. It has been on my arsenal and have been my opener for the last couple of years. It never fails to give the "Whoa" factor.
The ACR uses multiple DLs where all eyes are burning on it (depending on your routine). It's just how you execute it.
|
tgold65
Regular user
156 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 30, 2009 9:44pm
Audiences seem to love the effect and that is the real measure of a good trick. I have never had a problem with the issues articulated above. It is a question of constructing the delivery and having a decent DL.
|
casibb3
New user
38 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 30, 2009 9:47pm
I attach a good deal of success to my card work with the Chicago Opener. It has never failed to get good comments when presented. I like the premise of the routine and think it deserves a place high up on my card work. Double lifts can be a real problem and when they are not done properly, they will ruin the effect. The problem is not with the moves but rather with the slovenly handling with which they are performed. If the various acoutrements cannot be trusted, it is the fault of the user, not of the move. why must we expect the audience to blink at the moment of execution? The moves are supposed to be designed to be secretive EVEN THOUGH all eyes are upon them.
|
captainsmiffy
Loyal user
UK, resident UAE
228 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 31, 2009 12:15am
Chicago opener rocks! When I perform it I get discussion afterwards as to 'how did he switch it under that glass right under our noses?!', so I guess that it boils down to not only the quality of the DL performed but the misdirection as it is performed too. My DL though not brilliant - but certainly adaquate - is nicely misdirected by stating, as I am about to perform it, that 'you didn't tell me the card that you selected' and also by placing the cards above the odd coloured one down to the table, allowing me all the time in the world to get a pinky break under the 2 - spectators being spectators, they suddenly get very defensive at this point (you are the magician, you tell me!) and thus provide ample misdirection for even the most basic DL! The heat is off the DL and it is never spotted in my experience. Sure, there are 'wised-up' people out there who know of a DL and once or twice somebody has said to me, at the end of the first phase, 'I know how you did that' with a wink (not 'I spotted how you did it but I 'know' how you did it')but these have always been blown away by the second phase as it just doesn't compute! These 'know it alls' have always been the ones MOST taken aback at the final denouement; the second phase, in my humble experience, certainly does NOT teach how the first was accomplished but serves to totally gobsmack them!
Sorry, just some ramblings from an ardent fan of the chicago trick as an opener!
Have you tried 'Up The Ante' yet?? The ultimate gambling demo....a self-working wonder! See the reviews here.
|
magicbob116
Inner circle
1474 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 31, 2009 12:44am
Quote:
|
On 2009-08-30 20:15, Whit Haydn wrote:
There are ways to fix all of these problems.
|
|
Mr. Haydn's "The Chicago Surprise" is a great version of this trick and also includes some great thoughts on classic forcing, timing of patter, DLs, etc.
B. Robert Pulver
The "I Hate Card Tricks!" Book of Card Tricks Vol. 1 & 2 available NOW! Vol. 3 COMING SOON
Kards for Kids
Sticky Situations
NEW: Sleightly Wacky
http://www.magicnook.com/magicbob
|
rawdawg
Special user
Southern California
581 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 31, 2009 2:56am
I still remember from time to time getting Brain locked by Whit at the Magic Castle with this very routine. That was several years ago.
"Your tricks bear watching, Nom Anor. This has always been the case"
"I trick no one but myself, High Prefect, by imagining myself more than I am."
Nom Anor, The Unifying Force
|
Andrew Musgrave
Inner circle
1460 Posts
|
Posted: Aug 31, 2009 3:01am
From the point of view of construction, I'm not in total agreement. When the cards are spread to show an odd-coloured back, there are a few things working in the moment's favour. First, the appearance of the card itself signals that the magic is essentially done, apparently. Second, because the cards are spread to show the odd-coloured back, the performer has a motivation to square the cards up, and this facilitates all sorts of get-readies for the DL, which can smoothen the execution nicely. Third, if you make it so that you want to verify what the original selection was anyway before the reveal, you have a moment of interaction with the spectator which allows for pretty good misdirection, which in turn allows for further cover. That's a lot of details working in the favour of the performer.
The idea that the reveal basically exposes the nature of the DL is hard to argue with, since it basically does, if you evaluate the routine as a whole. That said, I think that our audiences are usually only thinking one effect at a time. I suspect that the surprise in the second phase is so genuine that it can make it difficult for people to clearly remember the details surrounding the first phase. Plus, it's not like we're repeating it over and over again, like we might for the Ambitious Card.
If his beef is with the effect itself (as I believe he was pretty critical of it overall, not just from the point of view of construction) then personally, I can see where he's coming from. Take a good look at his magic, and you'll see that he's got a whole lot of stuff that meshes well with his performing character -- magic that, when he presents it, gives you insight into who he is as a performer. The Chicago Opener is a weird trick in that it tends to worsen when people try hard to throw a presentation on it, and yet, on its own, it's not an intrinsically meaningful effect. If we woke up with magic powers one morning, would we ever choose to use them to do effects like the Chicago Opener? Probably not. That's not always the metric for what is or is not a good trick, but it's worth thinking about. Consider that one of the popular ways to handle the Chicago Opener presentation is to develop the second phase as a magician-in-trouble scenario (which, if done well, is compelling on its own regardless of the trick). There's also Whit Haydn's approach, which (correct me if I'm wrong here, Whit) is to create a protagonist/antagonist relationship with the spectator which can be captivating -- again, regardless of the trick.
Part of creating a memorable character is Darwin Ortiz's exercise of figuring out our biases and editing appropriately. One can make the case that every piece of art is itself an argument for the way that art form should be. What does the Chicago Opener say about magic as a whole? Burger has some pretty strong ideas about the trivialization of magic over the course of the last century, and I'd bet that this trick, in his eyes, qualifies as part of the problem -- if only because of how seducing it can be, even as a comparably meaningless effect. Plus, it's probably a favourite of the "generic magician" that's featured in Burger's writings.
(For what it's worth, I have performed this professionally and it consistently went over well. I don't do it now, but not out of dislike for the trick. Just to make it clear I don't really have a horse in this race.)
Ye Olde Magick Blogge
The Annotated Royal Road to Card Magic
February 2010 was Cups and Balls Month!
|
MagicMarker
Elite user
498 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 1, 2009 7:43am
Speaking with a spectator's hat on first and foremost, The Chicago Opener/Surprise is not what I'd call a "bad trick" by a long shot.
The kinds of issues I'm seeing on this thread really sound like magicians overthinking things.
I can see why with any trick it would be possible for any magician to find faults or things they don't like. But that doesn't necessarily mean the trick is bad.
There are tricks and books and magicians that I see lauded on here all the time and they do nothing for me whatsoever. There's an element of taste to all of this.
The only bad thing about this trick is the amount of exposure of it on youtube, which in itself is a sign of it's popularity.
-Rd
|
Marcus001
New user
60 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 1, 2009 7:51am
A very sensible post. It is often a case of paralysis by analysis when it comes to magical thinking.
Marcus
|
Kaylan
Special user
CT
701 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 1, 2009 7:53am
It's true - Chicago Opener is the worst trick ever and you should all stop doing it immediately! But seriously - I wonder where it can be found in print or on video that Eugene said this. Not that I don't believe he did, but there may be some additional context to apply to his statement.
Kaylan
|
Denis Behr
Special user
Germany
586 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 1, 2009 7:59am
Eugene says it on the current issue 12 of Reel Magic: http://www.reelmagicquarterly.com/
|
MagicMarker
Elite user
498 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 1, 2009 8:26am
Well ok then, for comparison. On another thread about the best card magician in Europe Michael Vincent's name is mentioned, and I won't argue with that.
But, Michael Vincent does a version of Everywhere and Nowhere, there's a video out there somewhere, I think maybe from a magic club lecture, not sure. Now if Michael Vincent is taking the time to perform it, then it must be a good trick, right?
But I've never liked that trick at all. And the video of Michael performing it illustrates the part of the trick that I've never liked. You prop 3 cards up against glasses and have a spectator pick one, and that one then turns out to be the card chosen by an earlier spectator.
Then that effect is (in my opinion) completely ruined by showing that the other two cards were the same card. It didn't matter which card the spectator picked.
Then there's a whole by-play with all the deck changing to the spectators card, then none of the cards are the spectators card, by which time I'm bored.
I don't know, it leaves me completely cold. This isn't to criticize Mr Vincents performance of it, but I would consider Everywhere and Nowhere and much worse trick than Chicago Opener, and I can point to specific parts of Everywhere and Nowhere that lose me as a spectator. And even in the hands of very talented magicians like Michael Vincent, it's still not enough to make me like it.
-Rd
|
Zachary
Loyal user
Helped Mr. Townsend with his first
243 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 1, 2009 9:20am
I must side with MagicMarker here, I think as magicians become more apt at refining the 'many' weaknesses of any given effect, they tend to hyperfocus on details. Splitting hairs is the most cliche phrase that comes to mind. I have the highest respect for Eugene, however, when you reach legendary status in your field of study, people will be more critical of your idle comments should they find disagreement in them. No doubt Eugene can see that Chicago Opener is at least a good trick. But on his plane of thinking, the smallest discrepancies or weaknesses become more substantial. I do agree that the truth in his opinion of CO is directly justified by the quality, or lack thereof, in your DL. I have never had a bad reaction with this effect. This is looking at the big picture for me. But as Whit said, there are solutions for these issues. So if you agree with Eugene and Whit don't argue the point, embrace your creative muse and crank out a couple dozen new variations of the effect. We'd love to critique them unmercifully. Great discussion everyone!
~Zachary Heath
Skype:ZacharyHeath
|
michaelvincent
V.I.P.
483 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 1, 2009 10:21am
Quote:
|
On 2009-09-01 08:26, MagicMarker wrote:
Well ok then, for comparison. On another thread about the best card magician in Europe Michael Vincent's name is mentioned, and I won't argue with that.
But, Michael Vincent does a version of Everywhere and Nowhere, there's a video out there somewhere, I think maybe from a magic club lecture, not sure. Now if Michael Vincent is taking the time to perform it, then it must be a good trick, right?
But I've never liked that trick at all. And the video of Michael performing it illustrates the part of the trick that I've never liked. You prop 3 cards up against glasses and have a spectator pick one, and that one then turns out to be the card chosen by an earlier spectator.
Then that effect is (in my opinion) completely ruined by showing that the other two cards were the same card. It didn't matter which card the spectator picked.
Then there's a whole by-play with all the deck changing to the spectators card, then none of the cards are the spectators card, by which time I'm bored.
I don't know, it leaves me completely cold. This isn't to criticize Mr Vincents performance of it, but I would consider Everywhere and Nowhere and much worse trick than Chicago Opener, and I can point to specific parts of Everywhere and Nowhere that lose me as a spectator. And even in the hands of very talented magicians like Michael Vincent, it's still not enough to make me like it.
-Rd
|
|
MagicMarker,
Your comments about Everywhere and Nowhere are spot on.
It has taken me 100s of performances to come to the realisation that the high point of this effect is the first revelation. After that, the effect goes down hill and nothing you do will rescue the effect from that point on.
Now, in comparison, Robert Houdin's Metamorphosis, is a far stronger effect: The Joker transforms into four selections one at a time with very little time lag between each transformation and then back to the Joker. The pacing is very important in this effect and that is why Everywhere and Nowhere fails as a theatrical experience.
For your information, I have dropped Everywhere and Nowhere from my repertoire and replaced it with my Handling for Robert Houdini's masterpiece.
I really appreciated your considered evaluation.
Thanks
Mike Vincent
Magic for the 21st Century
"Why be mediocre, when you have excellence as an option"
http://www.michaelvincentproductions.com
http://www.michaelvincent.co.uk
<
|
MagicMarker
Elite user
498 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 1, 2009 11:45am
Quote:
|
I really appreciated your considered evaluation.
|
|
Phew. Thanks Michael. I'm always a tad nervous passing comment on magicians, because their reaction really can go either way. ;-)
Incidently I really like that 5 card ambitous routine you do. One of my favourite tricks is a similar trick where the A, 2, 3 and 4 rise to the top from progressively deeper in a packet of 4 indifferent cards.
In that case the magician appears make things "harder" for himself by inserting the cards deeper into the packet, and also showing the packet really is 4 indifferent cards. That's the lets make this harder for the magician approach.
Yours is the lets make this simpler for the audience approach, working with progressively fewer cards, until with only one card left there's only one thing left to do.
The benefit of yours is that after getting the audience into a pattern of rishing cards, you finish with something completely different, yet totally logical within the routine, and which I presume usually gets a laugh and causes the audience to relax.
-Rd
|
Cain
Special user
Los Angeles, CA
918 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 1, 2009 1:09pm
There's a reason why this is regarded as the "world's best card trick" (the secret's in the magic word -- "Hezbollah"). This used to be one of my favorites but I have not performed it in years. Someone once literally grabbed me by the shirt collar and demanded I tell him the secret. The construction is fine: You change the color of a freely chosen card and then offer to do it again. The audience pays careful attention and the second card is revealed in the unlikeliest of places -- front and center the whole time. It'd difficult to improve upon but it's also difficult to mess up, assuming competent technique (please do not use the Hindu Shuffle Force). I suppose one would have trouble figuring out a way to present the classic using a voodoo doll. CO is like a good Bruckheimer movie: visual, easy, holds mass-appeal.
"Power corrupts and tiny power corrupts tiny minds." - Kent Gunn
|
Count Lustig
Loyal user
228 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 1, 2009 1:43pm
Quote:
|
On 2009-09-01 13:09, Cain wrote:
CO is like a good Bruckheimer movie...
|
|
I resent your calling the Chicago Opener loud and stupid. (By the way, “good Bruckheimer movie” is an oxymoron.)
|
captainsmiffy
Loyal user
UK, resident UAE
228 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 1, 2009 2:21pm
Confused?! Did he say 'loud and stupid'? Am I missing something here? (Who is Bruckheimer, anyway?) Please expound.....
Have you tried 'Up The Ante' yet?? The ultimate gambling demo....a self-working wonder! See the reviews here.
|
Cain
Special user
Los Angeles, CA
918 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 1, 2009 2:25pm
Nah, that's too dismissive. Beverly Hills Cop? The Rock? I think that's fine company.
"Power corrupts and tiny power corrupts tiny minds." - Kent Gunn
|
Ben Train
Inner circle
Erdnase never had
3741 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 1, 2009 2:29pm
Quote:
|
On 2009-09-01 14:21, captainsmiffy wrote:
Confused?! Did he say 'loud and stupid'? Am I missing something here? (Who is Bruckheimer, anyway?) Please expound.....
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Bruckheimer
Welcome to the internet my friend!
Ben
I'm on twitter baby! twitter.com/ErdnaseinTo
I'm also on facebook! Search for ErdnaseinTo
And, of course, you can email me at Magic@BenTrain.ca
|
Andrew Musgrave
Inner circle
1460 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 1, 2009 4:17pm
Quote:
|
On 2009-09-01 08:26, MagicMarker wrote:
Well ok then, for comparison. On another thread about the best card magician in Europe Michael Vincent's name is mentioned, and I won't argue with that.
But, Michael Vincent does a version of Everywhere and Nowhere, there's a video out there somewhere, I think maybe from a magic club lecture, not sure. Now if Michael Vincent is taking the time to perform it, then it must be a good trick, right?
But I've never liked that trick at all. And the video of Michael performing it illustrates the part of the trick that I've never liked. You prop 3 cards up against glasses and have a spectator pick one, and that one then turns out to be the card chosen by an earlier spectator.
Then that effect is (in my opinion) completely ruined by showing that the other two cards were the same card. It didn't matter which card the spectator picked.
Then there's a whole by-play with all the deck changing to the spectators card, then none of the cards are the spectators card, by which time I'm bored.
I don't know, it leaves me completely cold. This isn't to criticize Mr Vincents performance of it, but I would consider Everywhere and Nowhere and much worse trick than Chicago Opener, and I can point to specific parts of Everywhere and Nowhere that lose me as a spectator. And even in the hands of very talented magicians like Michael Vincent, it's still not enough to make me like it.
-Rd
|
|
Everywhere and Nowhere is a pretty weird trick the more you study it, and I'd say extremely hard to do well.
The basic version, where three cards are each on a glass, they pick one, and it turns out to be the selected card, has an initial strong moment, but when the next cards are turned over to show they're also the selected card, then IMMEDIATELY suspicions are going to jump into the mind of the spectator -- first that the original card was forced somehow, and second, that you're using duplicates. To make matters worse, if those three cards on the glass were originally indifferent cards with duplicates switched in, then if you tried the magician-in-trouble ploy, it's also now going to betray itself as false.
However, the concept itself is potentially very magical IF done to handle all these suspicions and to make the initial failures seem plausible somehow. The problem isn't exactly with the trick itself -- the problem is that there aren't many surrounding methodological contexts that do it justice.
1. The initial card selection has to be as fair as all git out. Even then, just because of how the effect plays out, you might have to live with the spectators believing that you can force cards.
2. The concept of a magician using duplicates is a very unsatisfying one for spectators. It's essentially cheating. That's why, even though duplicates allow for strong displays of a full-deck transformation, there's a case to be made for the older versions of the effect (show the first card matches, return it to the deck, cleanly show the second card is identical, return it to the deck, and cleanly show the third card is identical) because even though it can only be explained by duplicates, there's still a tiny bit of ambiguity there because they don't see two identical cards at the exact same time (let alone an entire deck transformation), which would be the ultimate proof of the presence of duplicates.
3. The magician-in-trouble scenario (and the subsequent betrayal of the falseness of it) can be alleviated by providing an adequate alternate cause for the failure, by skipping over the failure altogether, or even by deliberately playing off the falseness of it. "Oh look, he was just pretending to fail. See, I knew he'd find it eventually. But there are two other cards there. What if she'd picked one of them? He couldn't have known... Wait, wait! I'll tell you what! I bet they're also the same card. Hey look, he's turning them over. I'm right! That means he's got duplicates! I'll bet 10 bucks if I get my hands on that deck I'll find them. Hey! He gave me the deck! Alright, I've got him now... Wait a sec, where did they go?" There are many magicians who say that a cat-and-mouse relationship between the spectator and performer is a bad and ultimately non-magical one. I'm not one of them. Depending upon how clean everything is, you can create a compelling mystery.
4. There's also a potentially new suspicion that can be brought on depending upon how you play out the trick. Usually the full-deck transformation to the selected card has lots of elements of sleight-of-hand, and it's very difficult to make sleight-of-hand NOT feel sleight-of-handy (for want of a better term). What that means is that if you decide to follow this trick up with something using cards, the onus is on the performer to go completely beyond sleight-of-hand with it, assuming that one wants things to get closer and closer to magic as the show goes along.
Apologies for the threadjack. Personally, I'm not of the opinion that one can ever overthink a trick, so long as one tests all that thinking through actual performances with the public.
Ye Olde Magick Blogge
The Annotated Royal Road to Card Magic
February 2010 was Cups and Balls Month!
|
chronica
Loyal user
France 94 Vitry s/s
236 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 1, 2009 4:31pm
There is not only one rule that fit everyone and that's what makes the life interesting; I find totally normal that everybody should have his own taste and I respect Mr Burger's opinion.
For example in his book 'million dollars card secrets' here's what Franck Garcia was saying about Chicago Opener :
" This is one of my favourite opener. I learned this many years ago in Chicago; it's a strong effect that always leaves the audience bewitched and bewildered. The action is fast and it will etablish you as a great card manipulator."
None of Eugene Burger or Frank Garcia is wrong, it's just a question of feeling. If you have fun with it do it , if not don't do it
( even if Slydini have said that sometimes he performed effects he didn't like very much but because the audience loved them. )
Personnally I like this effect very much ( inspired by the Garcia's variation called 'Chicago Style').
I add a subtelty : I palm the mate of the stranger card at the end so you can end clean if some naughty spectator asks to see the deck because he says that you have 2 identical cards in it.
(It happened to me with a naughty girl who screamed :'hey show me the deck you've got 2 of these cards!!...' I felt a bit confused then answered : 'ok I let you watch what you ask but after you have to let me watch what I'll ask ! ...' and all get big laugh 
|
Lawrence O
Inner circle
Paris France
4860 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 1, 2009 7:30pm
If you analyze Al Leech's Hot Card Trick (Red Hot Mamma or Chicago Opener), you find out that Michael Vincent also used the trick's design (with great improvements) for his outstanding Brainwave My Way done with an ordinary deck.
Vincent thus taught us that this trick offers many possibility to create different effects using its principle.
Magic is not a performing art where people don't know how situations are reached, it's the art of showing parallel dimensions that can't be reached
|
Lawrence O
Inner circle
Paris France
4860 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 1, 2009 8:11pm
Harry Lorayne has a "Two Card Trick" which can be used at the end of Chicago Opener. This makes the change visual and displaces the time between the real cause and the effect. As the spectators are checking the color change, it's an easy matter to top change the other card (I know this is not crystal clear but it will become if you learn this very simple but impressive trick which on its own is a little too short)
Magic is not a performing art where people don't know how situations are reached, it's the art of showing parallel dimensions that can't be reached
|
Medifro
Special user
Saudi Arabia
806 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 1, 2009 9:25pm
Quote:
|
On 2009-09-01 10:21, Michaelvincent wrote:
For your information, I have dropped Everywhere and Nowhere from my repertoire and replaced it with my Handling for Robert Houdini's masterpiece.
Mike Vincent
|
|
If by "my handling" you mean the one you put on your recent DVDs, its EXCELLENT.
Very well managed, very direct, and while I love the plot of Everywhere and Nowhere (though certainly not as its classically done, particullarly an old Richard Kaufman version in Apocalypse ), I really loved your rendition of Houdin's work.
~ Feras
P.S. Thanks to you, I'm addicted at having my dinner while watching you executing Jenning's handling of the top change. Are you familiar by Harry Levine's handling points by any chance? ( published in Trapdoor magazine?)
|
magiclimber
Regular user
Boulder, Colorado
191 Posts
|
Posted: Sep 1, 2009 10:44pm
I perform Paul Green's Chicago Opener from "In the Trenches"
During the first reveal, I misdirect the spectators by asking them what are the odds of the selected card being the only red card.
I do agree there is quite a bit of heat on the DL, and that's were practice comes in.
Or, if your super proactive, develop a routine that solves any problems.
I have NEVER been caught during this routine. Other tricks: yes. Chicago Opener: No.
Therefore, I think the routine, although defying some construction principles, is still a wonderful piece of magic.
|
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Structure of Chicago Opener |
|
|
| Go to page 1 ~ 2 (Next) |
|
![[4]](/forums/images/digits/4.gif)
![[7]](/forums/images/digits/7.gif)
![[0]](/forums/images/digits/0.gif)
![[6]](/forums/images/digits/6.gif)
![[5]](/forums/images/digits/5.gif)