I only meant to reference the clarity and clearness of the bowl.

The shape of the bowl, and the way it distorts the light and makes it difficult to actually see inside it is what is important. It looks clear and innocent, yet you cannot really see how many cards there are.

I'm sorry to have confused you.

Does anyone have any comments about the routine, the plot or the structure?

I think I already have a good handle on the presentation, and am sure that will smooth out with more flight time.

I agree. The recipient doesn't seem to be the good one. IMHO,It extends a moment (when you take back the cards from it) and give it something suspicious. I think you can find one with a roundish bottom which help you take the card from it without need to look at it or without take care about it. Otherwise, the routine is interesting even if I have never like the plot. But you are a good performer. I like it.

except if it falls...

Maybe you can say the same thing (I don't known what, maybe something funny about the weight of the cards) when you take them out of the glass ... like a running gag. Because this moment is a end of a phase, it can be a good idea to punctuate it.

An other idea I had a long time ago about a presentation for "The Famous 3 Card Trick" by David williamson is to talk about diet (You throw cards but nothing happens). I wrote a funny script about it but I have never use it so I can't say if it works. But diet is something a lot of people are interesting in. I remember I showed the side of the packet (big) and the thickness of a card to illustrate this plot...

That just ideas .. but you can simply stay with your presentation because it"s funny

Thank you for your comments. I will simply stay with my presentation.

When you say you don't like this plot, do you mean the plot of my routine?

I mean the plot
because I like your routine and it woulf be perfect except the moment when you take back the cards from the glass

The plot of what? My routine or the original Six Card Repeat?

I am confused.

Are you saying you don't like the original plot, but like this revision, or that you don't like either plot?

I don't like the original plot (I haven't seen a lot of performance of the original Six Card Repeat but none convince me as far as magic or entertainment is concerned) but I like your revision because it's really a good one. I like the way you let one card fall and act as if you don't notice it. I like the whole performance ... except the cards that seems to stick to the glass (it put intensity at a moment when notice should happen. The first time I saw your routine, I asked myself what you where doing and what it was so difficult to take the cards out of the glass. It's a pity, because I fear that spectators remember this moment - the only weak point in your routine).

I think you will have a great succes with this routine and time will make it better and better. No doubt about it and about your ability as a performer.
I wish you great success

As stated above, I really liked this. The only question in my mind is could the ending be made ever so slightly bigger? I'm afraid I don't have any suggestions as to how, Mr Haydn, but am interested in your thoughts on this.

As I mentioned previously, you could make the ending BIGGER if you'd like that (and I do) by using the David Williamson gag of suddenly discovering yourself holding a huge wad of cards that you spill/pour onto the floor. Personally I end my version of the effect by saying "and now I have more cards than I can count", while springing roughly half the deck into the air. It's a choice of ending with a bang or a whimper. Either would work, I believe, depending on the character you are portraying.

Spike

I got ya. Like Whit, however, that doesn't sit right for me. I'm not suggesting grafting on a new ending, just wondered if the present conclusion could benefit from being made more definitive?

I don't think this trick wants a bigger ending. Darwin suggests that I let them know more clearly that I am entering the last count. I think that is good advice.

Why do you feel that a bigger ending is better?

The theme of the routine is that there are just six cards, but they resist being counted. It is not about magically growing numbers of cards. What sort of ending completes the routine, making the audience satisfied with the ending and the trick's feeling of completeness?

When you convince the audience there are ONLY six cards, the appearance of occasional extra cards becomes amazing. If you show you actually have a whole deck of cards in your hand, then you are sort of killing the effect--"Oh, so he has been hiding cards in his hand all the time!"

I don't see how "proving" you have a whole deck of cards in your hands adds to the concept that there are ONLY six cards.

Sometimes magicians focus too much on making every trick the same, instead of allowing each effect to be what "It wants to be."

Doesn't it seem that if you have been struggling for five minutes to accomplish the relatively minor magic of showing six cards, throwing away one, and still have six, that the trick wants to end on the successful conclusion of that premise?

I feel that changing the point of the trick at the end just to add "a bigger ending" is an inelegant way to increase the applause.

Perhaps "bigger" was the wrong word. Definite might be more accurate. Watching the clip, several days ago, I felt a slight sense of deflation after being very happily entertained. This is just my reaction, not an indictment. I have watched many of your clips from the castle, and place high value on your sense of pacing and shape.

Perhaps it would just be a line, or an added emphasis to sell the message that the trick is done.

Just my thoughts, as I said. I am not suggesting changes, but responding to your questions. My reason for ruling out a production of dozens of cards as an ending is the same as yours.

That is pretty much what Darwin Ortiz suggested, that I need to more clearly point that this is the end of the trick. Should just be a shift in moment.

I'm in elevated company, then. I really did love it, but that is because I love being entertained. That sounds like sycophancy, but I don't mind complementing people truthfully.

I didn't post this looking for help in improving my performance of it. I think I have a pretty good handle on that, and am very pleased with the first week of performance and the reactions it got at the Magic Castle as my opening effect--I am generally competent at performing magic, and am confident I will be able to get the most out of every moment on my own.

I did think more people would be interested in my original answers to the problems of this effect, but none seem even interested in addressing the routine itself--the plot, the structure and the hooks for the audience.

I think the critique of the bowl is way off. I have used a number of different bowls in practice, including paper, china and glass plates, rounded bowls and so on--I have not found the square design to be any more difficult than the round bowls to pick up the cards.

If you guys bave actually performed a Six Card Repeat routine, and have found a design of bowl that is better, I would like to hear about it.

But if you are just making suggestions off the top of your head, you should know that I have been working on this effect for more than three years, and made the choice of bowl very carefully. I am sure I will get better at dropping the cards without flipping them and so on as I get more performing experience, and this will help the pickup.

I actually watched this video several times before posting it, and the slow pickup from the bowl never drew my attention. It didn't seem to detract from things at all. I was very surprised to find it so annoying to several people.

Does anyone want to talk about my routine, rather than my performance and choice of props?

I'll take another couple of looks and give you some thoughts, but given that my only mild concern has been addressed, it will read like unadulterated praise.

You'll have to judge for yourself whether my comments apply to the routine (I think that they do) rather than to your performance (I think that they don't); they don't apply to the props.

The premise of the "effect" (I put "effect" in quotes because, although it's the stated premise of the supposed effect, the bulk of the magic has nothing - directly - to do with it), is that you establish clearly that you have six cards, you clearly throw one away, and, yet, magically, you still have six cards.

This premise isn't mentioned until 2:33: nearly half-way through the routine. Furthermore, it isn't emphasized. You do a good job of emphasizing that you need six cards, and, ultimately, that you have six cards, but I think the audience will benefit from you giving them a reason - early on - that the number of cards is important. It's similar to the idea that before you change an orange to an apple you need to make <very> sure that the audience knows that you have an orange; here, you need to make <very> sure that the audience knows that you have six cards, and why having six cards is the point.

I also think that you're losing some momentum at 3:20 when you ask, "Did I drop one?" You've already established that you can drop or throw away cards without knowing it, so the question seems to undermine what you've already established. Perhaps a better aside would be, "I obviously miscounted; let me try again."

Finally, I think that the climax to the routine would benefit from a more obvious expression of relief on your part: it worked! (Hallelujah!) You could take a cue from Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes): a triumphant, "Ta-da!" (Maybe after a brief, theatrical, pause.)

Please take all of this in the context of my comment on the first page: I love the routine. I merely think that some touches will take it to the next level: the level at which I am accustomed to seeing you perform.

I'm going to see again your routine (because this story of bowl makes me forget it) and I'll give you my comment if I find it interesting.