|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..8..13..18..23..25~26~27~28~29..34~35~36 [Next] | ||||||||||
The_March_Hare Regular user 125 Posts 
|
So many people adore this effect that I was not going to give my review but I must because I don't think that all of the praise should be given unconditionally and that there cannot be a variety of voices.
I bought Proteus as a preorder, it was not given to me as a gift and it shipped at a day or so late from Penguin but I still feel like it arrived at a good time. Putting this aside, the book arrived in great condition, it is well written and the only criticism here is that I prefer hard cover books but everyone is on a budget so I understand the choice to go with soft cover. Getting into the effect itself: I did not like it. I was under the impression that it was 100% accurate (it is not), that it could be done for anyone (it cannot), and that the method was ground breaking (it is not). Allow me to explain myself: I practiced the system to where I could do it through the phone rather effortlessly and through skype. It was relatively simple after a few days, no problems as far as memorizing the system was concerned. However of all of the people that I tried it out on (10+), half of them chose an object that is not covered by the system. One person chose a bunny rabbit, one person chose a clock (which Peter Turner's thoughts did cover but Phedon's did not), etc. etc. There are lots of objects that fit the criteria that the book gives but are not covered by the system. Anyone who says that it is 100% is lying, there is no ifs, ands, or buts about it. I have a ton of experience with propless mentalism and this is one of my least favorite pieces I'm afraid (COG by Ben Seward is my favorite). I know what the rebuttle is going to be, "don't do it for artists who are highly creative" which was my mistake with the person who chose the Bunny. However the person who chose the clock was nine years old. I must admit that Michael Murray's ebook was great in helping the hit rate to increase. His subtles should have been included in the book and for the people who purchased directly through his website they were. However this brings me to my next point: In Michael Murray's ebook he said that his ideas were preliminary because he hadn't memorized the system yet and gone out to perform it. Several of the people who gave it raving reviews have told me that they have yet to perform it in order to genuinely test the *** thing. It might sound great on paper but can it hold it's weight in the real world? From my experience the answer is no but if someone else has a different experience than fantastic. However I don't think that people who were given advanced copies who did not try it out in the real world at all should be saying how great it is if they don't know. This is my personal thoughts and everyone is free to disagree with me. As for the method, it's a classic method that I cannot see any additions that have been made to it. In fact right away I said to my friend before I received my copy, "sounds like something Art Vanderlay mentioned in one of his lectures" and my friend said "well he was mentioned in the back of the book as an inspiration". I (unlike others) like this method but in order to use this method to reveal what someone is thinking of, you go through a lot of process. With propless mentalism I hear all of the time, "you trade of props for a lot of linguistic steps" well with Proteus YOU REALLY HAVE A LOT OF LINGUISTIC STEPS before you actually get to the reveal part of it. It does not feel like real mind reading, it feels like you are guessing. Sure under the best scenario it might feel like real mind reading but under the worst scenario (which is rather common) you are going to give everyone a reason to see right through you. This brings me to the reveal: I thought that the book would have more ideas for how people could reveal the object and how a proper time delay might enhance the reactions of individual participants. I have a lot of experience so I can think of 100 ways to reveal the information but a lot of other people that purchased it might not be as advanced. If you are going to purchase this book be sure to buy Michael Murray's download, that is the only way to perform it. I don't think that it is horrible but I was not impressed so here is how I would rate it: Method Originality 3 out of 10 Surefire Method: 5 out of 10 Writing (were the sentences and structure good): 9 out of 10 Quality of Book (cover and pages): 9 out of 10 Is this a good propless item: 3 out of 10. Would you recommend it? No I'm afraid not. I apologize if I have offended anyone that is not my intention. I merely wanted to give my honest opinion and since we are all magicians, we should be able to do so without people being too angry with us. |
|||||||||
|
Rolyan Special user I'm fencing in my land; so far there are 590 Posts
|
It's a difficult one.
At the moment, I'm having great success with the basic version. But I can accept the occasional miss. The extended version is easy to learn, but the process then takes longer and requires much tighter scripting and presentation. It can look 'fishy' if not done well. I wonder if one of the issues is that so many appeared to have been trying this within hours of receiving it, rather than studying and trying to understand the nuances of the script in depth. When it failed they commented on social media and others then panicked, thinking they needed lots of outs. Yes, there are definitely cultural differences, but I'm not convinced that the desire to use an extended version doesn't stem from lack of practice. This is a general comment, not aimed at anyone in particular, here or elsewhere. When the basic hits it truly is a thing of beauty. |
|||||||||
|
The Duster Inner circle 1693 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2017, The_March_Hare wrote: I thought your review was an honest opinion and exactly what should be writen - so thank you Do I agree with it personally [?] I can see where you are coming from - but I'm looking forward to getting out and trying this [especially as eventually I have an idea of how to place this as a start to a routine, where it doesn't matter if it hits or not... hmm you may think why put it in, I just think it is a really fun way into what I want to do]... but I haven't even learnt the routine yet Anyway I thought the review was great and you have nothing to worry about [having offended anyone] |
|||||||||
|
The Duster Inner circle 1693 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2017, Rolyan wrote: I'm really at a stand still - as I don't know what to work on I keep thinking I want it as simple as possible... as little procedure as possible - and then perform it in such a way as it doesn't matter if it misses... Then I get greedy and think it would be good to hit more often But I hate any extra layers of work... G'ah |
|||||||||
|
gtx magic Special user United Kingdom England 957 Posts
|
Simplicty is the basic key and scipting.
Infact even Donald Trump performs this for his white house staff. 
Graham
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.
|
|||||||||
phedonbilek Special user Greece, Cameroon, France 884 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2017, The_March_Hare wrote: Hello there! 
I respect your opinion 100% and salute you for writing an unbiased review, very objective. This is the way it should be done. However, with what you are saying I am afraid I FEEL you missed the whole point of this TOOL and didn't quite grasp the purpose of this. I do believe you made the mistake to consider this as a get-it-and-perform-it thing. But again, this is my own personal feeling. Saying you can't perform this without Michael's bonus reinforces my feeling above, and from this statement I clearly see that you are a magician and not a mentalist. I think that you are missing YOUR role into making this work. You seem overly scared of failure, something a mentalist embraces. No harm here again, but... if one's scared of failing, please don't only stay away from Proteus, I'd say stay away from mentalism. IMHO. This is just my two cents. Your review remains perfectly valid and I respect it. In fact, I do HOPE it will deter non- serious mentalists / magicians to buy this, as I hate feeling some readers are disappointed and expected to achieve results without working for them. This requires WORK. It's NOT an app 🙂 . It's NOT self-working! And in this misunderstanding I am afraid I carry my share of responsibility, as I claimed it was EASY. I had wrongly assumed (hey, it's my first release) that only mentalists would get this. I guess I was wrong. REALLY wrong. Mea culpa. Referring to Art Vanderlay's routine and method. Very different. Yes, there are some similarities. It's about drawings. So there will be some. I suggest you get Art's version, and even go deeper in his thinking. Good work, that I had the good fortune to discover recently. As a side note I'd like your point of view on Psychological forces... You discard them as well because of their nature? Have a very nice day and thank you for your time, Phedon
...The only easy day is yesterday...
|
|||||||||
|
Rolyan Special user I'm fencing in my land; so far there are 590 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2017, The_March_Hare wrote: It's clear that Proteus is not for you, and your review is a perfectly valid one. I don't think you will offend anyone, as you put your review calmly and rationally, and unlike some others on social media, you have explained your comments. I could put the opposite position from someone who is using this in the real world to real people. Not a free review copy that's been read and not performed as you say above, but an everyday guy that's out there. Firstly, like you I have a "ton of experience with propless mentalism"; I've been performing for decades. Because of that experience, I knew some things for certain before I bought the book. I absolutely knew that it wasn't 100%, that it wouldn't be suitable for everyone and that it's not groundbreaking or brand new. I'm not sure where you got those impressions from, I don't recall seeing it on the pre-release vidoes. Just to be clear, I'm really familiar with (and own) all of the current modern trend (Turner, Parker etc.) and to be fair, very little of the modern material is 100%, can be done to anyone and is new. Those that think it is probably don't go back as far as some of us old ones! I agree that the book was hyped up beyond belief, and I knew there would be some disappointment, as certain people would buy it without appreciating that there is a process. But that's not really the fault of the book. I personally haven't seen anyone giving it raving reviews and admitting that they haven't tested it. But I can tell you from someone who HAS been out and tested it that it DOES work, and that it the basic method straight out of the book. My current hit rate is 80%, using the basic method. Not the extended version, and certainly not Michael Murray's version. Each time I get a miss I analyse why and tighten the script, rather than add another out. Also, using the basic method, there are not of lot of linguistic steps. That's incorrect. I performed this last night (yes, to real people in the real world). I did it on the main table. The performance went like this....I can definitely see an (X)..... there's an (X).......this is alive...and this big.....BOOM, sorted, job done. Hardly lots of linguistic steps. Finally, I have to disagree with you that the only way to do this is to buy Michael Murrays download. I'm performing it without his download. As regards the reveals, I admit that there are not loads of reveals given. I'm pleased about that. I personally love the cold read reveal, but I also will work out my own. That's as it should be. So, hopefully you can see that I'm not saying you are right or wrong, as you are entitled to your opinion. I'm just giving you some comments from someone who bought this, who performs it and who is doing it successfully. Is it for everyone; absolutely not. Will some be disappointed; almost certainly, the same as those who are disappointed by Turner, Parker, and the same as those who were hugely disappointed by Train Tracking. I can recommend this to those who will know what they are getting, or those who want to develop their knowledge in this area. It's possibly not for beginners or die hard magicians, but in the right hands this will fry. |
|||||||||
|
phedonbilek Special user Greece, Cameroon, France 884 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2017, The_March_Hare wrote: ... And I need to clarify that IN NO WAY have you offended anyone, especially not me my friend. You said what you said with respect, and thank you for that. I wish everyone expressed themselves in such ways. Very friendly, Phedon
...The only easy day is yesterday...
|
|||||||||
|
Rolyan Special user I'm fencing in my land; so far there are 590 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2017, The Duster wrote: It's a difficult decision. But you only have to see Phedon and Madison perform the basic process to know how strong it is. But you're right, there's always that temptation to add a few, and to be honest, it's not because we are scared of the miss. It's because we want the spectator to experience how good it is! |
|||||||||
|
The_March_Hare Regular user 125 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2017, phedonbilek wrote: “However, with what you are saying I am afraid I FEEL you missed the whole point of this TOOL and didn't quite grasp the purpose of this. I do believe you made the mistake to consider this as a get-it-and-perform-it thing. But again, this is my own personal feeling.” This is incorrect, I never hinted at this idea and you have nothing to go by in what I said to come to assume this. What I am saying is that it is not as solid as you are making it sound, this is what I repeatedly said. If you are simply going to dismiss people who don’t like it as people who want a quick hit or a magic effect then you are not listening as a creator. This is nothing more than putting people into a category who don’t like your product. “Saying you can't perform this without Michael's bonus reinforces my feeling above, and from this statement I clearly see that you are a magician and not a mentalist. I think that you are missing YOUR role into making this work. You seem overly scared of failure, something a mentalist embraces. No harm here again, but... if one's scared of failing, please don't only stay away from Proteus, I'd say stay away from mentalism. IMHO.” I never said that I had a problem with failing. Most of the mentalism that I use has a chance of failure but are we talking about a 5% failure rate, a 10% failure rate, or a 50% failure rate. With all due respect, you said in the ad copy and inside of the book that this was 100%, so don’t you have some of the responsibility on your shoulders to make sure that this is true? When someone thinks of a clock and you say “oh well that’s not covered”, then it’s not 100%. I have not only been doing mentalism for a long time but I am also in the field of psychology. As I said before, most of the mentalism that I perform has a chance of failure that is not my problem. However as mentalists we do have to differentiate the difference between a pipedream and something that has even a chance of working as it is intended. I have performed many effects by people such as Sean Waters who have a chance of failure and are based upon linguistics and I don’t care if I fail or not. Everyone who owns COG knows that it has a chance of failure but that didn’t stop me from making that part of my show. However to call me a non-mentalist just because I don’t like your product shows a lack of character by you, because you don’t know me well enough to even make that conclusion. You say on one side of your mouth that my review was valid and then the next minute basically attack my knowledge of mentalism itself. I get that hearing someone critique your mentalism child is difficult for you but you have to learn to take this criticism on the chin and handle it like a mature adult. I probably have been studying psychology and mentalism longer than you, by your own admission in your book, you are a coin magician. Which is fine but you seriously don’t have to try and discredit everyone who disagrees with you. With regards to propless mentalism: It all takes work and never before have I not put the work into it but the problem is not that the work was not put into memorizing the anagram, the problem was with the script itself at the beginning. If you have to begin by eliminating tons of items through verbal linguistics, and then people still don’t choose one of the 19 other items that is covered by your system, the problem is not with the work, it’s with the fact that your system does not cover enough items. I have never had a problem with doing this with other scripts whether ones by Peter Turner, Fraser Parker, Kenton Knepper or others. This is an old principle that I have been using for a very long time but yours does not do what it is intended to do. It does not deter them from all of the items that you do not want them to choose. With your original script, it doesn’t cover a clock and honestly the scenario that you tell people to imagine that they are in when they think of their object being drawn, a clock is a very common item for people to think of. Michael Murray at least decided to find a way to cover for this, so yes his script is superior to yours. I didn’t say that I couldn’t perform this without Murray’s ebook, what I said is that his ebook script increased the hit rate substantially. I am not worried about you saying in the ad copy that it was easy, I am more concerned that you said that it was 100%, and that you even said this in the book which is false. Now you are saying that I am not a real mentalist because I assumed that it was 100% and that I should be fine with a possibility of failure. In reality this has nothing to do with me being afraid of failure, it has to do with you saying that there is no risk of failure which is a blatant lie. With regards to Art Vanderlay’s routine and method: It is more similar than different but I cannot say more without exposing the method, as tempting as it is to disagree with you publicly about it. In conclusion: At first I thought that you were taking the criticism well, but it appears that my hesitations on writing a review at all were well warranted because one of the first things you did was attack me as a mentalist and attempt to somehow revoke my credibility as a mentalist rather than take the criticism as one mentalists opinion, a mentalist who performs most of his show propless. This is highly discouraging but go figure. |
|||||||||
|
The_March_Hare Regular user 125 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2017, willmagicman wrote: HAHAHAHA yes because it is all about pushing as many books as possible... don't let me stop you, ride it until the wheels fall off. |
|||||||||
bowers Inner circle Oakboro N.C. 7024 Posts
|
I perform it today on 4 different people using only the standard version.
Nailed it on 3 people. The one I didn't get right was my own mistake by going the wrong direction with the script Todd |
|||||||||
|
BlackZ Veteran user 316 Posts
|
Thanks The_March_Hare for your review!
|
|||||||||
|
phedonbilek Special user Greece, Cameroon, France 884 Posts
|
Seems I said something that offended you The_March_Hare. I never meant to, and I sincerely apologise if I did.
Now, I told you I was OK with your points, but it seems there are other motives here. You're a new user but have a long history in mentalism. Perhaps. I believe you, your references above are sound. BUT... what I say with Proteus remains, and I stand by it. Bigger names than you perform it, and are delighted by it. And their hit ratio is, according to them, around 90%. They all might be liars and just being polite, but thing is: so is mine. 90%? I can live with that. Now, you don't like it, I'm sorry. Move on. No need to go on a rant and expose everything here. Finally, I do believe you haven't studied the routine well before writing because 1. The clock is covered. Extended chart. You don't seem to have looked at it. 2. If the clock was NOT covered you could have added it. Adapted it to you. You know. well... That's what I think you missed. It's a tool. When you buy a screwdriver there's no exhaustive list with it that covers all the uses for it. You can use it to screw, unscrew, even stab your mother-in-law. Adaptation. Circumstances. You get the point, you do have a mother-in-law. Anyway. I'm not trying to convince you. I take criticism very well dear friend. It looks, however, that you don't like to be questioned. So again, my apologies, and have a great day. Peace brother. Phedon
...The only easy day is yesterday...
|
|||||||||
|
The_March_Hare Regular user 125 Posts
|
"You're a new user but have a long history in mentalism. Perhaps. I believe you, your references above are sound." I could read into this a bit and say, why do you think that people's experiences are more or less merely based upon how long they have been on the Café? My original motivations for joining the Café were to give a positive review for a book that I was given an advanced copy of. I don't regularly spend time on the Café no but lots of people do not, what does that have to do with anything? Shall we move on to more solid arguments?
"BUT... what I say with Proteus remains, and I stand by it." You wrote it so I wouldn't expect anything less from you. "Bigger names than you perform it, and are delighted by it." Bigger names than me endorsed it but most of them have said that they have not spent much time performing it and many of them have said that they couldn't do it without staring at their book itself. So they might have endorsed the idea of it but they have not endorsed it in actual performance which is what I said originally. "And their hit ratio is, according to them, around 90%." Many of them don't even have it memorized so this 90% figure is nonsense (I happen to know how percentages work, particulrly are they are applied to statistics) and furthermore you said that it was 100% in the book, so how do you justify this discrepancy? At least with COG the author admitted that there is a chance of failure, so did Sean Waters with many of his routines but his script warranted it. As far as saying that your percentage is 90%, again you said in the book itself that it was 100%, so justify your claims please. Furthermore I did read the extended version, I read the entire book a bunch of times. When I got my first failure, I went back in there to see what I could find. I even asked numerous other mentalists (some of which I had not bought it yet) that I respected what their opinion was and they too said that they didn't like it. I don't want to give away the method but a simple apple is not even covered in the basic script. I mean there are so many objects not covered at all. Shall I go further? You said that you encouraged people to see it as a tool, something that you could adapt and if there is an item missing then you could add it. This would be great if it were an original system but it's not. This is a classic of mentalism that I am tempted to get more specific about to be honest, that you have taken and used in a particular way but it's not original. If I wanted to make my own (which I have), I wouldn't have bought your book. I would have just taken the principles of this method which I already knew and have created my own. If someone is purchasing your book, they shouldn't have to do all kinds of alterations to make it work, it should work as it is. Imagine if I bought one of Jerome Finley's ebooks and he said, "This routine has a high failure rate but if you alter it to make it your own the hit rate could increase and it could be awesome". This would be ridiculous, particularly it was a classic method that everyone was already aware of. Your comparison to a screwdriver is ridiculous because by definition it is apples to oranges. Now with regards to questioning me, I have no problems but you did not stick to the questions and comments in my review. Instead you did the usual childish nonsense which is turn the criticism to me personally and question me as a mentalist because you cannot handle the fact that a seasoned mentalist didn't like your product and had something to say about it. I buy lots of products all of the time, from Outlaw Effects, Peter Turner, Fraser Parker, Jerome Finley, Sean Waters and many others. I have found some products from some of them that didn't work for me but they were still solid products and true to what they said that they did. I will not be performing Jerome's PK touches in the near future because it is not for me but his take on Paul Vigil's Lady Bug, the one-two bend, subliminal peak, and a whole bunch of others were put to good use. Not all of the star sign divinations that Fraser has released fit my act but two of them are phenomenal. If you said, "I disagree with you Reza, because of this that or the other thing", no problem but instead you did the immature approach which is calling me as a mentalist into question and trying to discredit me instead of sticking to my criticism itself. Perhaps you think that I should have practiced it more and tried it out more, fine. I would not be offended if you said so but when you say that I'm not a real mentalist, well that is turning all of the attention away from what I wrote and towards me. Grow up and learn to attack the criticism rather than the person and you will get less resistence. I do get offended by people who resort to such logical fallacies because I expect more from adults. And due to your attitude towards your customers, I will not purchase another product from you regardless of how much you hype it. Originally I was going to post my review, discuss it as two adults if necessary and leave it at that but you convinced me never to buy a product from you again, so good job. |
|||||||||
|
Rolyan Special user I'm fencing in my land; so far there are 590 Posts
|
Reza (The March Hare) - can you please clarify something.
You have written that most of the 'big' names out there that are endorsing it have said that they have not spent much time performing it and they have said that they couldn't without staring at the book. That is a huge claim to make, and I haven't seen it anywhere, so can you back it up. Who are these big names you refer to and where have they said the things you say they've said. Without you providing that evidence, then many will question your motives. As this thread has now been hi-jacked, I would advise anyone considering this as a purchase to contact the author direct, or any of the other Café members who say it works for them, and ask relevant questions in private. That will stop more public revelations and help them make their own mind up. |
|||||||||
|
phedonbilek Special user Greece, Cameroon, France 884 Posts
|
There is nothing to back up I'm afraid Rolyan. Reza has an agenda. I stopped writing because he's gonna quote each sentence and analyze every single word's etymology.
I guess some people need, love confrontation. I don't. Be well Reza. Phedon
...The only easy day is yesterday...
|
|||||||||
Max Hazy.jpg "View Profile") Special user 543 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2017, The_March_Hare wrote: I'd like to give a thought here too. Because, I was in your shoes... when I first saw the trailer, the 100% accuracy got me intrigued. Seeing the performance I was like wtf! Because it is really clean. I knew under those conditions there should be "something" happening, but with 100% accuracy, maybe there's something I was overlooking. After reading everything here, I think I got what was meant. The 100% depends a lot on you. If you can add and subtract anything with script, then technically... yes, you're able to do it with 100% accuracy. But maybe 100% accuracy would be tons of unnecessary work. I would be more than happy doing something easy to grasp and with a clean path with 90% accuracy than doing something more complex just for the sake of the 100% accuracy. My only concern was that my main language is portuguese. After knowing that this wouldn't actually be an issue, I'm buying it in the next days. I think I'll find a lot here to be added in what I do. So far the only thing I do that looks similar is a star sign divination. I do it with 100% accuracy but as you can see, it's quite restrictive. Also, I've enhanced other performers material dozens and dozens of times. If you think the 100% hit ratio is that much important then you should consider making a board with designs (and an appealing history) or even cards with designs and do a hands off divination blindfolded. I do see lots of possibilities in various directions here. Today I always try to improve in any way I can/need/want, regardless if it's something honed through 30 years... everything can get better. Think about it. Max
"Your method is in my opinion the very best way to do Q&A"
Millard Longman "Max has pushed some less known and seldom used principles a huge step forward" Jan Forster Arcane Grimoires Vol 1- http://www.maxhazy.com/arcane-grimoires/apocryphal-reach/ Arcane Grimoires Vol 2- http://www.maxhazy.com/Codex-Mentis/ |
|||||||||
|
The_March_Hare Regular user 125 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2017, Rolyan wrote: Read Michael Murray's PDF, he says himself that he is still working on it and is not at that point of feeling comfortable to perform it live. The other people I am not going to expose because that is not my intention. I only mention Michael Murray because he did not hide this fact and there is no harm in saying so. However the point of what I said was not to expose anyone for endorsing a product that they have not quite tested out that much. There are others who are my personal friends that endorsed the book and gave me their opinion without having actually put it to much use and again we can have a difference of opinion. People can question my motives but what motives would I have? I have no competing product on the market, I am not pushing another product by a friend of mine that would compete with this so what motive do you think that I would have? I'm sorry but not everyone who writes a negative review has some secret hidden motive. I gave specific reasons why I didn't like the product and you can take it for what it is. Furthermore, by saying "contact the creator and ask him", he has a direct motive to push his product. You cannot one minute say "I think that you Reza, with no connection to the creator have an alternative motive because you wrote a negative review" and then on the other side of your mouth talk about how people should take the creator at face value for what he says. I brought up many problems with his own advertising, such as claiming that it is 100% and then the next minute saying that it is only 90%. He admitted in his responses to me that his advertising was not honest when it said that it was easy and could be learned rather quickly. In the book itself he says that he wrote it on one night and immediately tried it out on his wife and with people over the phone. Yet somehow when other people try it out under this same scenario, they haven't put the proper practice into it and are not honest. I actually spent more time learning this than I ever did with COG and yet COG immediately allowed for hits. COG was also minimal in procedure and felt more like mind reading. If this offends you, then that is not my problem because I stuck to the topic and gave an honest opinion. You don't agree with my opinion, fine but by diverting the conversation to me having an alternative motive, that is silly. I literally said that I am a huge fan of most of the people who endorsed it. However we need to be able to scrutinize ideas and give our honest opinions. If every time someone gives their opinion about the product you attack the person and their character, you are only hindering an honest and open dialogue about whether or not this product is good or not. Like I said, if you like it and are getting tons of hits from it then fantastic. If you read the threads that pertain to COG, tons of people said that they absolutely hated it and couldn't get it to hit. I wasn't offended because it allowed me to buy more than one copy of it and be one of the only people consistently performing it. If this is a great product, the best mind reading tool ever invented, you should be happy that I will not be using it and don't like it. Instead you get all defensive about it and feel the need to defend it. |
|||||||||
|
The_March_Hare Regular user 125 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jul 21, 2017, Max Hazy wrote: Max I would agree with you that some methods can be improved on and I don't have a problem with that. Of course any product that you buy, you should try and improve the script. I have found many ways to improve various scripts over the years of performing them. However when someone says that there is a 100% accuracy rating that is saying a lot about a product. I could easily say to the people who claim that they could not get COG to hit, that they were not doing it right and that my accuracy rating is 100% but that does not mean that COG is 100% as in a mechanical method would be and we should take that into consideration. Now after you buy it and put some time into it, perhaps it will work better for you than it did for me. Perhaps the things that I pointed out about not liking it, you will not mind or perhaps like but I gave my opinion. Please do give your opinion in the next few weeks after you purchase it and have gone through it. I won't be offended if you come to a different conclusion. The difference between you disagreeing with me and Phedon is that Phedon likes to try and discredit people who he disagrees with rather than sticking to the specifics of what they said. |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » Proteus by Phedon Bilek Official Review (333 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..8..13..18..23..25~26~27~28~29..34~35~36 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Jul 21, 2017 06:21 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.25 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement <
|