They can be . I did a version of RHM that was skill-less for the five + years it took me to be able to learn do a passable DL. And even now I can do a passable DT the skill-less version looks better! . Unless one counts a Hindu force as non-SW, it is pretty much an actual shuffle in reality though.

The triumph effect I was thinking of was Bannon's play it straight triumph trick. Self working and very nice looking - I really do shuffle the face-up into the face down and don't do any false shuffles,

As I said, all the tricks I noted above, from ACAAN to triumph ace assembly to an Ambitious card effect can all be done as SWers, and there can be plenty of non-sleight shuffles and mixes and cuts throughout the show too.

I'm also a casual amateur and enjoy performing where there's no pressure to earn money from performances - I choose to do it because it's a stimulating shared experience for me and hopefully my audiences too.

I use use very basic sleights (ONLY if necessary) and SW's and try to ensure programme ingredients are varied - mentalism, apparatus based effects (Magic Wagon, Viking, etc), light comedy (arising from magical situations) and some card, pacing to a strong finish.

SW's (not just with cards) often have as much potential to amaze as those heavily slight based effects.

As has already been stated, a good, well thought out performance is the key factor and this should be everyone's target. We are entertaining our audiences NOT just ourselves!.

The answer to your question is, I believe, yes. Mick Ayres used to perform at a Disney resort on Hilton Head Island (he may still... I have no idea). He advertised and sold his "shows" when he retired each act. I believe each show was made of self-working card tricks. The acts he had for sale were fully scripted from start to finish, so it looks like he might have two cents to add to the discussion of presentation of self-working card tricks. He would be a good person to answer your question.

I think it's a very good trick. The key to it is to let them think sleight of hand is involved; so for a moment you place each hand simultaneously on each pile. Then cross your hands and do it again. Only then do you do the reveal.

I think it would be really interesting to create a self-working version of Chicago Opener. I don't have the skills to do it myself, but I'd love to see someone else's version. Someone on this thread (I forget who) suggested that such a version couldn't be created, but I don't know. With enough ingenuity and persistence, lots of unexpected things can be attained.



There's been a lot of discussion on the Café about how there's a lot of heat on the DL in this trick. So how about a version that still uses the Hindu shuffle force, but avoids the DL. Any takers?

Maybe incorporating some double sided tape? Might fix the double lift issue.

Interesting idea, James. You'll be glad to hear that my strike DL practice is going really well. Nevertheless, it's an interesting puzzle to try to make CO self-working. Bob

That's awesome! I'm glad to hear it. I actually really like trying to take effects and make them as self working as possible. I love knuckle busting slights but I actually love self working or semi automatic tricks even more.

Dear friends,

You can also read the Roberto Giobbi books: LIGHT, EXTRALIGHT and SUPERLIGHT.

There you can find more magic than you expect for an automatic tricks or self-working magic.

If you have a little bit of technique, you will have a lot of jewels in your repertoire.

Truly yours,


F. Amílcar Riega Bello.

Regarding heat on the DL in Chicago Opener, try this: outjog the red/stranger card as you spread thru the whole deck showing it the first time, clearly displaying a single card. Then cut it to the top, take the single card in your right hand as you do a get-ready with the left, replace the outjogged card square on the deck, and do the DL, all the while looking at the spec and saying "Would it be amazing if this was your card? It wasn't the (DL) --- of ---, was it?" I'm no pro, but I've never had anyone call out the DL.

Thanks, ejohn. Question: Do you feel the need to give a reason, after holding the single card, for putting it back on the deck?

When I take it in the right hand and gesture, my thumb is on top. Therefore it is natural to replace it on the deck in order to do a normal turnover, like a page of a book. No one has ever questioned it.

I'm a big fan of the somewhat "easier" tricks, and really appreciate the thinking that goes into them. But they do have to be fairly streamlined, otherwise it's a lot of procedure and not much effect.

Regarding the "Chicago Opener" and devising a "self-working" version - the thought occurred that the most direct method would be to use two extra cards and force both selections. There would need to be a switch and you'd have to manage the two stranger cards as well, to keep them from appearing together (and still spread fairly naturally). I've worked out a fairly easy version using two extra cards - not sleight-free, but using a few very easy sleights and no DL's. The switch is also very easy. I based the effect on the one from Michael Ammar's DVD - ie., what the trick looks like from the spectator's point of view, more or less (though not exactly, of course).

I'm not sure it's a very good variation, but would be willing to write it up in "Secret Sessions" if that would be appropriate. Perhaps someone could improve it, or see if it flows enough as a trick.

> Question: Do you feel the need to give a reason, after holding the single card, for putting it back on the deck?

Terry Ward's version of the Chicago Opener is outstanding, adds a good bit to the presentation, and makes it natural to return the card to the top of the deck. Well worth a look if you are interested in an excellent presentation of this effect. (And sorry for possibly stepping a bit off topic)

Hi RiBo,


For some reason I just got notification that some posts had been added to this thread. I'm not sure why, because your post is dated 29 July. Anyway, thanks for the tip on the Terry Ward DVD.


Bob

That happened because a new user made a bunch of posts with "hmmm" or "this is good" in many topics at the same time to increase his post count. The moderators likely saw it and deleted the posts.

Oh! Thanks, adiabaticman, good to know. I'm glad I eventually found out about your post.

Dani DaOrtiz has some great self working effects on his series of "Semi-automatic card magic" books. I think there's 5 of them.

I really like self working effects.

I strongly disagree that a set made with only with self working effects may suggest a pattern to the spectator. They may suspect of math principles as much as sleight of hand.

In the end it goes back to the "almost-cliche": assuming the trick (SW or not) was well constructed, it all depends on the presentation. Lennart Green, Tamariz, DaOrtiz and So Sato have some mindblowing self workers.

Hard to think of a whole show of self-working; but a set of 3 seems very possible. You could even start with a set-up deck for one trick and then end with 2 that don't need the set up. I'm thinking of something like 1)Double Discovery (where the spectator does all the moves from a set up of 4 kings on the bottom face-up ...from Nick Trosts book) 2)Daryl's 'Untouched', and then finishing with 3) Gemini Twins. There are indeed more than enough self-workers for an entire show, as people note; but I think I'd want to not overdo it. Perhaps this forum could morph into set suggestions?? Lynn

A self-working mental magic set suggestion:

(Psychic powers)
Mix the cards, then do stack trick b from Corinda,
Then some card calling

(Super sense of touch)
Then TNT

(Transfer psychic intuition to the spec)
Then Intuition
They shuffle the cards, then do Gemini Twins

(You have powers of prediction)
Shuffle, then pre-Prefiguration,
Then What's my number?

Final kicker closer combining mind reading and prediction: show cards, shuffle a bit, write a prediction, then do overclock!