At a lecture I attended recently the lecturer mentioned that a study had been carried out where laymen selected cards in various ways ie they were not aware of the cards being forced and were than asked which method seemed the fairest to them, so I thought I would share the results with you.

I was quite surprised to find out that the method that they deemed the fairest was the good old criss cross force, personally this isn't a force that I use often but it certainly made me think.

It was also mentioned that some spectators ie the odd ones that do not like to be fooled and watch everything very closely etc do sometimes catch on that they are not actually getting to look at the card they actually cut to which kind of makes it a double edged sword as in it may seem the fairest but it's not always sure fire.

Interesting. Can you share anything else about the lecture? Or the lecturer? It's still very factinating. I don't use the criss cross force...

AsL

Nobody should use the criss-cross force. Ever. Yes, I'll get pushback on this, as I have in the past, but seriously... This is for people with zero chops who can't rely on anything better than time-misdirection.

The lecture was a typical magic club lecture by Ben Williams who visits the Café every once and a while, and this just happened to come up.

I actually presumed the classic force would have come out on top as did many others but no apparently the spectators didn't feel like this was a fair selection and I think it was said that they felt rushed. Personally like Cain I've always preferred the under the spread force but as the study was carried out on a lay audience it's certainly interesting.

Man....you REALLY sound like someone who knows nothing about misdirection or how strong it can be. Just because something takes little to no skill does NOT mean it's not powerful.

Oh, it's definitely useful when playing to an audience of morons.

I have an uncle named Opinion. As you may have guessed he's quite stubborn.

I have to agree with pepka on this as even though it's rare that I use the criss cross force myself it can be used to great as simple as it is just check out Michael Vincent's excellent handling in his wonderful Lie Detector routine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fovMVEr2TFk

Agreed. It's about presentation and interaction in how we use sleights.
I use many and varied forces especially in my restaurant work. Many regulars
come in to see weekly and because they like the food (probably the latter)
and I try not to use the same methodology.
I never consider my audiences as morons,never. They keep me employed and more
importantly become friends when we part.

The criss-cross force is brilliant (done correctly! with all the misdirection). Although I once taught the Methode to a friend who wanted to do a magic trick in a presentation about controlling people etc. I especially mentioned the part on how to direct the attention as needed. She didn't care and people realized what she was doing. The second time she did the presentation and the magic trick, this time doing exactly as I had told her, she got standing ovations, people were amazed. And from that day on, it worked every time she did it.

So, for those who think, you don't need skill for the criss-cross force has no idea. It requires a lot of skills, just not slide of hands... And it is very helpful, to really take some time and practice this fantastic force.

I've never had anyone rumble the cross force. It fooled me before I knew it too.
Then again, I've also never had anyone rumble the under the spread force either.

I've had one or two know about or rumble the hindu force, but that's out of a lot of people.

No one has said anything about the 10-20 force, or the cut deeper force - but they've sometimes got funny looks, which probably tells me something about those forces. Especially the 10-20 force.

The psychological stop force seems to work everytime.

I've never bothered with the riffle force because I never trusted it as a layperson.

It's a very interesting study that is worthwhile for magicians to know about, but just realize it does not tell you EVERYTHING. As Cain very correctly pointed out, it does not tell you how strong it is to those WATCHING. A Classic Force can look very fair to those watching but can seem a little "rushed" and controlled to the one selecting (as warren said). To get more accurate and helpful results, you would need to survey a group of people watching someone select a card.

I think it is also important to realize that even after we do all these studies and discover the "most deceptive and fair" force, it does not mean that you should use that force every time you need a card forced, as different forces make more sense in different contexts.

For example, the Classic Force is good when you wan to look like you are casually having a card selected, but if the climax of the trick (based on the force, e.g. revealing a prediction of the card chosen) follows IMMEDIATELY after the selection, they participant may wonder if it was completely fair or if he was somewhat pressured. I think even the Classic Force, in this regard, needs some sort of "time misdirection" before the climax so the audience's emotional memory of the selection process has faded a little.

On the other hand, a "under-the-spread" Cull Force can be more useful in contexts where the climax will be revealed immediately afterward, because the external appearance to the audience is a lot fairer than the Classic Force in a way. You can even call attention to the fairness during the selection process by spreading the cards one by one very slowly, and after participant touches one, you can ask if he wants to change his mind and you'll spread further. The Classic Force does not give you this freedom.
[We have to remember to not judge techniques by how they feel to US, rather how they appear to the AUDIENDCE. The Classic feels to us like it's fair, because you are not technically doing any "sleight of hand" per se. Whereas we automatically think of the Cull Force as less fair because we know that we are doing "moves" to accomplish it. But how does the audience perceive it? Something to keep in mind.]

The Dribble Force may be useful in a context where you may not have the card physically removed from the deck. For example when the participant is not so close to you, like in a Parlour situation. So even if the study would theoretically show that the Cull Force is more deceptive than the Dribble (not saying it is, I personally think the Dribble has its own merits), it does not mean you should use it in a Parlour setting, as maybe the removing and replacing of the card will slow down the pacing of your act.

And just to comment on another one, I am among those that regard the Criss Cross Force as a deceptive force, but again we have to understand what type of a context it is appropriate for. If someone was SELECTING a card, it can be a bit odd for him to cut the deck, you "mark" the cut, talk for a few seconds and then hand him his selection (I am not saying it is impossible to use it this way, I'm sure presentation can take care of it, just pointing out that it's something to think about). However, if this force was being used as a REVELATION (e.g. the participant is cutting to a previously chosen card that is "lost" in the deck), it can make more sense to have him cut, and then you are talking and building up the climax, and then you reveal the climax for a big impact. The delay of showing the card makes more sense now, as opposed to when a card is selected, the guy should jut take a card and look at it and be done with it.

Anyway, just a few of my thoughts on various forces, Again, you do not have to agree with my analysis, but understand that they should be analyzed and understood to know what force to use when. In a nutshell, there can only be a best force for ONE SPECIFIC context, I don't think it's possible for there to be one best one to always use across the board.

Any thoughts?
Yehuda

What force do you think looks the LEAST fair to layman?
One vote for Hindu. To me it always looks fishy (maybe because I know it is).

I think the main correlation here is between speed of the moment of "choice" and fairness of the procedure. Based on that info we can work around the issues of each technique and even to create more powerful techniques. That blog also have a really strong force, and if I'm not mistaken it's a combination of two techniques, based on the results of that test.

Mr. Salk: Not if done as I'll be teaching it in AND FINALLY!

I agree that combining methods can be extremely powerful Ricardo. A good example of this is Bobby Motta's Blackmail used with The Informant. Not only do you know which number or word they are thinking of, it's also in a sealed envelope. I wonder what I could combine the cross-cut force with to create something interesting?

To the couple of people who've called and asked how a Hind you Shuffle can be "better" --- better if bottom card is flashed before going into the shuffle, and better if TOP OF SHUFFLED CARDS is the selection, not the original face card. I believe I've taught that handling before (Tarbell #7?) but it is taught in AND FINALLY!

A few general comments:



It's great when people take a strong point of view, but those who fail to back it up are just blowhards. More than a few masters have expressed a preference for subtleties rather than moves. Have fun with your diagonal palm shift.

Re: This "Study"

I was more familiar with the blog in its previous incarnation (and it was great, especially the comments about the Café), but I don't think this is rigorous enough to call a "study." It's more comprehensive than most evidence in magic, but that's evidently not saying much. Approximately half of studies published in peer-reviewed journals are not replicable. A diehard fan of the classic force could always say, "they're doing it incorrectly," or "I know what works for based on how my audiences react." Of course, the motive for getting research published is not necessarily to expand knowledge but to secure tenure (or more funding). This experiment strikes me as honest and disinterested.

The Classic Force: "Hey, it might not be convincing, but at least it doesn't always work."

I attended a lecture from a well-known magician. He spread the pack hand-to-hand for someone I knew, and the force card was drawn. Triumphantly, he asked, "Did you know that was a classic force?" The guy's eyes widened and he said, "No clue." The whole thing seemed obvious to me, so I later asked if he tracked the method and he said, "Of course."
"Why didn't you say anything!?"
"Because I didn't want to be THAT guy."

In a concurrent thread, a well-known magician said that for decades audiences have -- without fail -- believed that a selected card was hopelessly lost using a double-undercut and jog shuffle. Lesson: Spectators trick magicians. It's a two-way street.

You may be tricked by spectators - I never have been. So, yeah, I do many different controls - but basic, when I'm doing a select-a-card trick, which "ain't" often - double undercut and into overhand injog shuffles ALWAYS makes my audiences believe that the vital card is hopelessly lost in the deck.

Probably not the case when YOU do it - it sure is - after about 80 years of experience and working for much, much, more sophisticated people than I'm sure you ever knew, plus all, I mean ALL, kinds of audiences all over the world - when I do it. I've stated it many times - the overhand injog shuffle covers a multitude of sins. So, forgive another cliché of mine - to each his own. I just love it when so many with much less experience than mine are ready to "advise/teach" others. A few of those in this thread. For example, as RiderBacks advises - "Nobody should use the criss-cross force. Ever." He really KNOWS - God save us!

Another thing important thing to consider when using a force is to use one that is appropriate to the settings ie if a spectator is close enough to actually reach out and take a card then something like a riffle force and those of a similar nature look out of place unless your presentation provides a reason for such an unusual way to have a card selected, where as if some one is sitting on the opposite side of the table and can not actually reach the cards now the riffle force and those of a similar nature now look natural.