I perform the Three Card Monte on a regular basis as my magician name implies. I was wondering how do you handle spectators that guess where the money card is at instead of actually following it?

I have a suggestion for you. Tell the audience to keep their eyes on the cards and once the tosses are done tell them "don't guess where the card is, rather choose the card that your eyes tell you is the (ace, queen, whatever).

Samuel

Monte,

Learn to do a really convincing Mexican turnover?

Sid

Actually, on the street it is very dangerous to even touch the chosen card. Cracker Parker always said, "Let the spectator turn the card or there will be claret (blood) in the street."

The Mexican turnover and other false turnovers are usually used on the offbeat, to show that the Ace is where the spectator thought it was when no one makes a bet for example.

The magician can use the Mexican turnover or one of the better switchouts without getting hurt, but the spectators can usually sense something funny.

The heat is really on at the moment the card is being shown, and everyone is burning the operator's hands. People tend to suspect sleight-of-hand at that moment. So you can sometimes get away with it, but it is not the best. I wouldn't try that when there is money down.

The most important way to keep the audience from guessing is to make sure that they know where the money card is at all times. When they are sure of where it is, they are less likely to guess.

Most magicians who do the monte, and many of the young scam artists I have seen on the street, work way too fast, and thus have a hard time getting the sucker to bet until there is a peek, a bent corner, or a hint from the booster.

The hype and the mix must be done slowly and casually, not superfast like it is so often done.

The performer needs to keep the spectator from thinking as the cards are thrown and mixed, so he must "talk over" the actions, and get agreement.

Part of this involves shifting the moment of agreement. "Calling the card face down" is one of the most important psychological aspects to the hype, and shifts the moment of agreement.

As the Ace is shown in preparation for the hype, for example, the operator states "This is the money card" and hypes the other card to the table. With the Ace face down in his right hand, he immediately gestures to the face down card and says, "I only pay on the Ace." This calls the card facedown on the table, and not as it is shown.

The idea is that if I show you the Ace and say "Here's the Ace" the sucker nods in agreement. When the "Ace" is then thrown down, he may question whether something funny happened. Is it still the Ace? To avoid this, we call the card only when it hits the table, shifting the moment of agreement.

We also shift the question of agreement by in effect asking, instead of "Is this the Ace?" "Do you know I only pay on the Ace?"

The operator looks at the sucker as if to make sure he understands--thus asking for agreement--and at the same time with his right hand picks up the other loser card and shows it in hype position.

"I don't pay on either of these," as he hypes the Ace to the left and then shows the loser card once more and tosses it facedown to the right. This shifts the the guestion of agreement from whether the two last cards are both Jokers, to whether the sucker understands that they are losing cards.

It is also important to shift the question of agreement at other times. For example, when the cards are thrown with the hype and the flash hype, and before the mix, the operator shows his hands empty and states "Just three cards" or "Nothing in my hands."

This in effect is asking the sucker to question the wrong thing--that there are just three cards--and stops him from questioning in his head which is which.

Showing the hands gives a pause between the toss and the mix, which enables the spectator to catch up with the performer, and freese in his mind a picture of the three facedown cards on the table, noting incorrectly that the Ace is in the center.

I like to clap my hands at this point, just as the spectator looks down at the cards. This "wakes" them up so they are ready to watch the mix, and makes sure they are paying attention.

Now the mix is done at a steady, even pace. A four year old can follow the Ace. But the sucker is following the wrong card.

Only when the sucker is allowed to see where the Ace starts, is given sufficient time to get ready to follow the Ace, and the mix is done in a clean, slow manner so that he can follow it, will he choose the card he has followed. If he gets confused, or senses deception, he will guess.

These psychological aspects of the game are discussed in more detail in the book and video.

If I might offer one other suggestion (which I do only because Monte mentioned performing in a "magic" setting)...

Consider the routining used by Dai Vernon where he didn't actually let the spectator's guess. Instead he'd do the hype and the mix, point to the real ace and say, "Did you see the ace go over here?" The spectator would, of course, reply that the card Vernon was indicating couldn't be an ace. Vernon then shows the card. The spectator can't guess the wrong card because guessing isn't an option.

In fact the only time in the routine (as I saw it performed) that Vernon allowed the spectator to guess as to the location of the card was when using the bent-corner dodge. In that situation the spectator isn't really "guessing" at all, they think it's a sure thing and they'll always pick the "correct" card.

In addition, there might be something to the idea that the approach of "teaching" the spectator the game is less adversarial than many possible presentations and may, for that reason, have additional merit.

Paul

Paul:

Thanks. I agree with you on all of that.

Watching the Professor do the three-card monte was one of those "light-bulb" moments for me. When he did the bent corner, he didn't let anyone guess where it was, though he seemed like he was going to.

He noticed the bent corner himself, and apologized, and picked the card up and unbent the corner without pointing out that it was not the Queen. He let the audience off the hook, without making fools of them.

He beat them twice. Once by fooling them; the second time by being more of a gentleman about it than they would have been had they been in his shoes.

Mr. Haydn,

psherman’s post and your posts are great. The subtleties Dai Vernon incorporated in his magic demonstrate how much he thought about his every move.

More on topic, even if the mark closed his eyes and made a totally random choice, the expected outcome would be that he would only guess correctly one-third of the time. He would still end up losing money in the long run. So that wouldn't be a good strategy to use.

The best strategy for Three Card Monte is not to play. You can’t win!

But when played for entertainment, I see your point. Someone could mess things up by guessing randomly. I expect when the game is played for entertainment, a Mexican turnover would be ok.

That still wouldn't work. Most Monte operators work with a group of shills. If somebody did guess the correct card a shill would step in and place a larger amount of money down on the card. The operator would say "Highest bets only!" and give the shill the money.

Exactly right, Adam.

Thanks Adam for straightening me out.

Mr. Haydn,

I see I am going to have to buy your book!

You will find it eye-opening in many ways, not just about the real work on the monte, but also about magic.

When Ken Brooke was teaching me Chase the Ace, he said you NEVER let the spectator's guess you always tell them... just like Vernon's approach.

That is, for magic. On the street? I don't know, but what you write seems to be right on the mark (pun intended).