I am currently working on a version of ACAAN that involves a shift as the deck is removed from the card box. I am aware of previously published handlings by John Born, Allan Ackerman and Ken Krenzel. I recently learned Asi Wind has a version as well. Can anyone comment on whether Asi Wind's handling is similar to the other aforementioned versions?

Asi's version and John Born's hold some similarities.

I'd definitely check out Asi's, I think it's cleaner than Born's. It does require another principle in addition to the shift (not sure if I can say it here without breaking the rules and exposing Asi's work), but I assume you already know what's required, hence the need for a "shift".

I will say that with Asi's handling everything appears completely normal and the box can be handled or left out in the open with no fear of exposure.

Asi Wind's is pretty great, and it's the spectator who removes the deck from the box. Or at least probably remembers it that way.

I agree Asi Wind's is cleaner. Asi has two versions, one in particular will bear close scrutiny - though I suspect he uses the other more frequently - it easier and (something he doesn't mention in his video or his recent lecture at the session) there is no need for an occasional adjustment in the calculation. John Born's version needs a slightly broader choreography - more like using a top it than sleeving!

"easy", "it looks completely normal": In the hands of Asi Wind and John Born: yes.
This is NOT an easy trick. You have to do multiple things at the same time (patter, calc***, est***, pee** and do the shift perfectly )
Besides that, you have to master a MD thoroughly (I do !), what makes that 98% of the magicians already fall out.
I"ve seen it done by a few colleagues-magicians (not bad ones) and the result was not breathtaking.
I am very curious to see videoclips....of others.

But I do agree that it is far out the best acaan there is. (no doubt about that)
But it must be done as fluent as Asi Wind does it.
I don't think I will see many video clips....

I don't do the trick. It would be a shame to do such a wonderful piece of magic in a mediocre way. I love that trick (and the Art of Magic) too much for that.

I don't see how we can let the spectator remove the deck from the box; both in Asi Wind's version or John Born's version. They're almost identical, and except for the MD, the cornerstone of this trick is when and how you remove the deck from the box !!!

Performed Krenzel's version for years. But after seeing Asi's lecture feel he has a smarter take on the same idea. Both work but the latter has less to hide. Just my two cents worth.

Kex

I agree that Asi Wind's version as he presents it is a very advanced performance piece. I initially rejected it for that reason, but have modified the methods and presentation (using ideas from John born and Barrie Richardson) - specifically for platform presentation and to make it doable. It plays very, very well. My version is technically weaker (a single equivoque) but using an i********* pad introduces a one ahead extra principle and means the audience memory is very clean. The actual box shift is the easy bit! I am glad that ACAAN has the impact we feel it should. It needs s strong presentation though....

You might wish to check T.A.Waters's version from his book Mind, Myth and Magick.

I have started working on Asi Wind's version of ACAAN. There is no question that this will be difficult to master, but I feel confident that I can get it audience-ready in about a month. Three components are the difficult parts. First, as mentioned, there is a shift to be performed upon opening the box and emptying the cards. This is actually pretty easy, and I was able to do this fairly well in a day. Second, there is a need to learn a stack such as Mnemonica or Aaronson, and this has to support immediate and accurate identification of all 52 cards. This can be done starting with mnemonic techniques in about a month. Third, there are some simple arithmetic calculations to determine how many cards are to be shifted, and these calculations have to be undertaken quickly, accurately, and concurrently with busy audience activity. I am a little worried about this because it will be difficult to practice effectively without there being an audience present. Finally, there is a need for a peek of multiple cards that will be hard to accomplish when the audience heat is at its highest. Still, this is the best ACAAN that I have ever seen, and I am willing to devote a month or more to perfecting it. Take a look at the Dan and Dave Web site for more about it.

Chris Payne,

I would be interested to know what you have done to make Asi Wind's version a bit easier. You could post a response or send a message.

Interesting comments.

Jim

In answer to Jim's question I have
Edge marked every 10th card
I use Barrie Richardsons lazy magician stacked deck - that explains my need for a single equivoque.
I have put a single piece of card in the bottom of the card case - this prevents a slight concavity of the deck that makes breaking at 45 to 52 tricky
I only use 50 cards making the maths easier
I arrange the black cards so their numeric values tell me their position between 1 and 10
I have marked all of the backs of the cards so I have sure fire reset, I also know ahead of the reveal whether I am correct allowing me to top change as an out
I have introduced a simple bit of business to gain me an extra beat on the riffle

Chris

Barrie Richardson has three interesting handlings of ACAAN in his book Theater Of The Mind.
You should study those as well.

I am still working on Wind's ACAAN, as it is taking longer than I had anticipated. I have (a) written out the patter, (b) memorized the mnemonica stack, (c) nearly mastered the shift with both right and left hands, (d) practiced the riffle peek quite a bit. Nevertheless I am at least another month away from being audience ready.

I really like Chris Payne's suggestions. I had thought of putting a metal or plastic bottom in the box to make the riffle smoother. A card is simpler and probably would work well. A
s Chris does, I find the uneven top of the deck often makes it impossible for me to find the required card in the first pass. The dark line at every tenth card is another good idea.

I was thinking of shortening every tenth card so I could "feel" each decade. I will experiment some more on all these methods, as this is the most difficult part of the trick.

Eliminating two cards makes a lot of sense. (Which cards do you eliminate, Chris? 51 and 52?)

I plan to use the trick in my parlor and walk-around magic shows--not in a mentalism act. Thus, my patter does not involve any talk of mind reading or kinetic powers.

Jim

A practical problem with an ACAAN / memorised / calculation piece is rehearsal. There will be over 2500 combinations of calculation / shift, so unlike most routines where you can rehearse to automaticity, there will always be performance stress. One tip for rehearsal is to take two old packs, number one pack 1 to 52. During each rehearsal cut each pack to randomly generate a card and number. This helps you calculate on the fly. Some combinations one is unlikely to generate otherwise.

It is a John Born idea to use a 50 card deck. Given that the card is usually named before the number you simply have a different effect if either of those two cards are selected. As I equivoque to the reds I simply remove 2 black cards.
the problem with shorts or longs is that one of the paired cards become Unriffleable to. I think you need a range of outs from missing by one to total cockup - that is why some form of marked cards keeps you well ahead.

@ChrisPayne - I am not the only one who found that there are some combinations with this that do require mathematical adjustments. It's not on the video, but I do occasionally find problems. Do you know the occasions when the adjustments have to be made - so that you have to do the 'move' the second way, if that makes sense?

Asi's trick is so good. It is very hard to catch, even when you see it on video.

Let's call the two shifts "simple" and "covered". The covered shift is more deceptive but due to its "glide" type motion results in the face card of the deck staying in place, which means one less card is transferred. This means the problem of being one "out" will occur when the desired card needs to be buried deeper in the pack, because the packet doing the burying will be one short. I hope that makes sense to those who know the principle and no sense at all to the casual reader!