(Close Window)
Topic: Impromptu Out Of This World
Message: Posted by: montemagic (Apr 26, 2007 12:44PM)
Here is a clip of my Impromptu Out of this World. It will be available as an instant download from the Merchant of Magic in the U.K. in the next week or so. This effect can be done with a borrowed deck of cards, that the spectators shuffle themselves. This is my FAVORITE effect to perform, and it absolutely baffles people. This was filmed on location at the Cinema Under the Stars in San Diego, CA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku0o_g2VQ9U

Enjoy,
Matt
Message: Posted by: ted french (Apr 26, 2007 07:07PM)
Very good
Message: Posted by: Andrew Loh (Apr 27, 2007 08:59AM)
Marvellous!!!
Message: Posted by: dduane (Apr 27, 2007 11:57AM)
Impromptu, eh?..... AWSOME!
What will it cost?
Message: Posted by: montemagic (Apr 27, 2007 12:41PM)
I don't have a cost yet, and I am not exactly sure how many effects are going to be sold, or if they will be sold separately. I will post it all when it is finalized.
Message: Posted by: Jagy (Apr 27, 2007 02:49PM)
Well - doesn't it look like just the normal out of this world?
Message: Posted by: Pete Biro (Apr 27, 2007 05:46PM)
Look maybe, but borrowed, shuffled deck intrigues me.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Apr 27, 2007 06:21PM)
Thanks Montemagic - I liked it.

Ron
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (Apr 27, 2007 06:54PM)
Borrowed and shuffled deck... shuffled right before the edited-out cull, that is.

TW
Message: Posted by: montemagic (Apr 27, 2007 09:02PM)
[quote]
On 2007-04-27 19:54, Thomas Wayne wrote:
Borrowed and shuffled deck... shuffled right before the edited-out cull, that is.

TW
[/quote]

An interesting and completely inaccurate assumption. I assure you that you see exactly what the spectators see. It's something Eugene Burger taught me.
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (Apr 27, 2007 11:24PM)
The deck is clearly prearranged in some fashion at some point in the trick, and that process is obviously [i]not[/i] being shown during the performance video. If you really want to impress knowledgeable magicians, show a performance from immediately prior to borrowing the deck, through the final reveal - without edit.

If the viewers are unable to discern the false shuffle you employ, OR if there is no false shuffle, but your culling process is invisible, then you may have something here. However, those are a couple of pretty big "ifs"...

Short of that it appears to be "same old same old".

TW
Message: Posted by: montemagic (Apr 28, 2007 12:51AM)
I can assure you and your scholarly friends the [b]entire[/b] evening's performance will be available to you as a preview of purchase. Remember that many people have never seen this effect performed before.
Message: Posted by: Dan McLean (Apr 28, 2007 01:13AM)
Hmmm. I don't undertand the controversy.
I have no idea how montemagic is accomplishing his effect but the conditions he describes are hardly impossible.
There have been other FASDIU Out of This World methods that involved no false shuffling, culling or prearrangement. He might well have come up with another one.
So what's the problem?
Message: Posted by: Dan McLean (Apr 28, 2007 01:39AM)
I just made use of the search engine here to look up Impromptu Out Of This World. Appears I was right. There are quite a few out there. The one I remember is Harry Lorayne's from My Favorite Card Trick. I seem to remember Doug Henning performing a version in one of his TV specials. May have been Harry's.
Glad this topic came up. I'll have to start doing it again.
And montemagic, since you come from my old stomping grounds of San Diego, I'm even more interested since all things from San Diego are good. Keep me posted on when it's available. I want it.
P.S. In one of the posts from 2003 I found someone remarking that he was blown away by a magician he saw in San Diego performing this effect.
Could that be you?
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (Apr 28, 2007 02:25AM)
Dan,

Yes there are many "impromptu" OOTW versions out there. A typical hallmark of them is that the performer does a good deal (usually up to half the deck) of selecting the individual cards, whereupon the spectator determines which pile each card goes onto. These versions can be done using a borrowed, shuffled deck...[b]without[/b] prior set up.

That, however, does not appear to be what going on here – and if it [b]is[/b], they’re selling something they probably have no legitimate claim to. Anytime the cards are handed to the spectator to freely choose which card goes on which pile, you can be absolutely sure of what the actual conditions are. And to get to those conditions, other handling - such as is not shown on the linked video - must be employed.

The statement: "This effect can be done with a borrowed deck of cards, that the spectators shuffle themselves" strongly implies that the performer borrows a deck, the spectators shuffle, and then the performer immediately proceeds... [b]using that deck, without any further manipulation on the performer's part[/b]. I would LOVE to see such a handling - and would be their first customer for sure - but that's [b]not[/b] what we're seeing here.

TW
Message: Posted by: montemagic (Apr 28, 2007 03:43AM)
I implore anyone considering purchasing this effect to watch the preview they get, as I imagine you all will, on the site selling the effect. That preview will contain the entire evening’s performance.

IN THE MEAN TIME, please enjoy my performance of Out Of This World.

I encourage discussion at time of release in the appropriate Review sections of the Café, and more importantly look forward to discussing it with you all.

IN THE MEAN TIME, please enjoy my performance of Out Of This World.
Message: Posted by: Rennie (Apr 28, 2007 05:26PM)
The same as Lorayne's Impromptu Out of This World, only diffrence I saw was spectator pointing to card he did not feel right about which was in the "red" supoosedly black pile..Seems easy enough..
Rennie
Message: Posted by: RickVancouver (Apr 28, 2007 05:38PM)
I agree with Thomas & Rennie here. Nothing new here.

Rick
Message: Posted by: montemagic (Apr 28, 2007 06:36PM)
Lorayne only uses a portion of the deck, only about 20 cards.
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (Apr 29, 2007 06:43AM)
[quote]
On 2007-04-28 19:36, montemagic wrote:
Lorayne only uses a portion of the deck, only about 20 cards.
[/quote]

AND Harry favored the use of blue-backed bicycles, whereas this version takes the revolutionary step of using red-backs. Pretty earthshaking; buy the instant download NOW, before they run out - lol

TW
Message: Posted by: Tom G (Apr 29, 2007 10:41AM)
Not to show disrespect to Monte, but there are many claims given to many items sold though good hype and video cuts...

Tom
Message: Posted by: montemagic (Apr 29, 2007 12:14PM)
I will let the product speak for itself. But I appreciate everyone’s comments

As far as this concern that the spectators cannot shuffle, not only do they shuffle, but they will always remember that they shuffled. My shuffle claim is to SPELL OUT that this is completely impromptu and can use a borrowed deck of cards. When this effect is out, I will teach you about the psychology behind it, and you will see why it is so great for your spectators. Earlier in this topic you talk about impressing magicians, for me that is a completely useless motivation in life, impressing real people is all I care about. This effect does that, and it does it better for me than any other version I have seen. Mostly because I let the spectators shuffle the cards first. I will say I have not seen all versions that are out there; maybe they let you shuffle too. When you see the night’s performance, I have a feeling that you will enjoy it. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

Tom G, I absolutely agree, but read my previous posts for your answer. I am not here for promotion, or to sell, and assure you that the entire evening’s performance will be available to you prior to purchase. I also do not wear eye liner and use tiger decks. Following an email, I may be able to discuss this more in depth the Secret Sessions.
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (Apr 29, 2007 05:04PM)
Your initial (and subsequent) posts are merely an attempt to hype a mostly uninspired and unoriginal handling of an old classic that you didn't invent.

As for your claim of NOT caring if you impress magicians - [i]of course you care[/i]. Otherwise, why would you be on a [b]magicians’ forum[/b] trying to hype and pre-sell instructional material using a deceptive description and a carefully edited video?

And finally, I'm just stating obvious facts and as you admit - you obviously haven't done a lot of research into the effect you're trying to re-package. There are many versions of OOTW that include allowing the spectators to shuffle the deck, and all except the few [i]gaffed[/i] versions can use [b]any deck[/b].

In fact, if we are allowed to use the same editing in our [i]live[/i] performances that you are using in your hype video, ALL versions of OOTW meet this criteria, which you apparently consider so groundbreaking[b]:[/b]

"Will you please shuffle this borrowed deck, sir? Look, everyone, he’s [i]shuffling[/i] the deck I just borrowed! Thank you. Now, if you'll excuse me for a moment, I just need to turn my back [with the deck] so I can... um... um… channel the psychic energy... yeah, that's it! Alright, I'm done; [b]ROLL CAMERA[/b]. Okay, this…this… this is a test… this is a test of your instincts…” lol

TW
Message: Posted by: montemagic (Apr 29, 2007 07:12PM)
I still think you'll like it.
Message: Posted by: Tom G (Apr 30, 2007 12:13AM)
Needless to say, I purchased an earlier version promising the same conditions. The video demo looked great, but the reality of it was much different.. If I see good reviews and it's as demo'ed/advertised, I'll certainly buy it. Just not going to be one of the first to jump.

Tom
Message: Posted by: ted french (Apr 30, 2007 10:26AM)
I currently use a ootw that has the cards spread to show they are mixed they can shuffle too if they like, turned over then handed to the spectator to deal two piles. the whole effect takes less than 2 minutes and there is no changing the order of how you deal. So Montes claims are not outrageous and if they are true they are worth the investment.
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (Apr 30, 2007 11:59AM)
[quote]
On 2007-04-30 11:26, ted french wrote:
I currently use a ootw that has the cards spread to show they are mixed they can shuffle too if they like, turned over then handed to the spectator to deal two piles. the whole effect takes less than 2 minutes and there is no changing the order of how you deal. So Montes claims are not outrageous and if they are true they are worth the investment.
[/quote]

Interesting. Not, however, what we see on the montemagic demo video, which is [b]actually[/b] what's being discussed here.

TW
Message: Posted by: ted french (Apr 30, 2007 02:54PM)
You seem very angry about a card trick. I understand your frustration though if I had all the money back I've spent on dishonest hype I would be a much more optimistic about product claims too. With my last post I meant to emphasize the power of ootw with a full shuffled deck of cards, instead it came across like I was bragging
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (Apr 30, 2007 03:52PM)
[quote]
On 2007-04-30 15:54, ted french wrote:
You seem very angry about a card trick. [...]
[/quote]

No idea what you base THAT shot on, but I sincerely recommend you avoid mentalism, or anything that involves reading people - lol

TW
Message: Posted by: ted french (Apr 30, 2007 07:21PM)
Tw 1 tf 0 good one
Message: Posted by: scorch (May 6, 2007 10:10AM)
[quote]
On 2007-04-28 19:36, montemagic wrote:
Lorayne only uses a portion of the deck, only about 20 cards.
[/quote]

Monte, I find it rather odd (and somewhat suspicious) that you are touting a FASDIU effect, yet in your demo clip you don't show a spectator shuffle. The performance that you do is not at all different from the standard stacked versions. I mean, if you're going to claim something rather important about your effect, don't you think it would make sense to actually show that feature in your demo of it? Why did you omit the only thing of interest that you are claiming, which in this case would be a spec shuffle?

Added to that curious ommission in your demo, you make an ignorant claim regarded the Lorayne Impromptu Out of This World. Actually you can do as many or as few cards as you want in his version. And actually, the fact that you go through less than the full deck in his impromptu version is an asset, not a liability. The original effect infamously suffers from a problem in pacing. It is too long, and your supposedly impromptu version doesn't solve that.
Message: Posted by: MagicMarker (May 6, 2007 10:19AM)
Doesn't the name "out of this SLOPPY world" tell people how the deck is
arranged back into OOTW order?

I have nothing against montemagic, but I do think there are too many instant download versions of OOTW with questionable additional value. The version we see on the video is EXACTLY the same as the original out of this world. Little bits about going back to a card that the spectator paused on and showing they got it wrong are interesting, but not interesting enough to warrent a newly marketed version.

If the only thing we missed before the video started rolling is a slop shuffle then that also doesn't warrant a newly marketed version.

I'd be a lot happier if more magicians would share ideas like this for free.

We need a cull of marketed magic and a re-examination of the real value of some of the effects and methods that are out there.

I think if there was more sharing of information and less attempts to sell every little idea we'd all benefit. I don't know how much cash someone would expect to earn from a variation of OOTW, but it's unlikely to be a huge amount.

Just my opinion, no offence intended to anyone, and I could be completely wrong about the real content of montemagic's download.

-Rd
Message: Posted by: montemagic (May 6, 2007 10:45AM)
[quote]
On 2007-05-06 11:10, scorch wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-04-28 19:36, montemagic wrote:
Lorayne only uses a portion of the deck, only about 20 cards.
[/quote]

Monte, I find it rather odd (and somewhat suspicious) that you are touting a FASDIU effect, yet in your demo clip you don't show a spectator shuffle. The performance that you do is not at all different from the standard stacked versions. I mean, if you're going to claim something rather important about your effect, don't you think it would make sense to actually show that feature in your demo of it? Why did you omit the only thing of interest that you are claiming, which in this case would be a spec shuffle?

Added to that curious ommission in your demo, you make an ignorant claim regarded the Lorayne Impromptu Out of This World. Actually you can do as many or as few cards as you want in his version. And actually, the fact that you go through less than the full deck in his impromptu version is an asset, not a liability. The original effect infamously suffers from a problem in pacing. It is too long, and your supposedly impromptu version doesn't solve that.
[/quote]

Perhaps you should read the entire topic prior to responding. In regards to my ignorance over Loraynes version, "Lorayne only uses a portion of the deck, only about 20 cards." That is a direct quote from Mr. Lorayne himself. No apologies needed.

and to MagicMarker:
Thank you for being the first person to actually read my original post, and use your brain. I expected this from the get-go, but you are the first person to actually think before responding. Thank you. In regards to your hating Instant downloads, I understand, but sharing an effect along with methods on the Café is one thing, but there is a much bigger world of magicians out there. If I were to post this effect on my website complete with instructions, I would be attacked for giving away secrets. This effect is not original to me, but I love performing it and I am happy to share it with other magicians that are unfamiliar with it.
Message: Posted by: scorch (May 6, 2007 01:37PM)
[quote]
On 2007-05-06 11:45, montemagic wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-05-06 11:10, scorch wrote:
[quote]

Monte, I find it rather odd (and somewhat suspicious) that you are touting a FASDIU effect, yet in your demo clip you don't show a spectator shuffle. [/quote]

Perhaps you should read the entire topic prior to responding. [/quote]

I did read the entire topic. Where did you address the problem of your promising a FASDIU effect yet failing to show it as a FASDIU in the demo? I missed that post the first time through the thread, and even re-reading it again, I don't see any justification for such a glaring omission. Perhaps you could explain the omission more clearly, other than merely to say to watch the demo when it comes out, because it hasn't come out. (until then most of us have more sense than to take an unknown magician at their word for promising such a quantum leap of an improvement on a classic effect. It happens all the time - e.g. Mr. Kam and his Toibox - and the reality rarely measures up to the hype).

After all, if you're merely doing a red-black cull or slop shuffle of some sort (omitted in the demo), few of us would pay money for that or consider it to be a truly FASDIU effect, or even any kind of improvement on the original Curry effect. Honestly, I hope that the explanation isn't as banal as that. Hopefully I am way off base in these suspicions, and if you think I won't be disappointed when the full demo is available, I would be willing to suspend judgment until I can see the whole thing from spectator shuffle until where this demo started. But next time, please do wait until the entire demo is available before you tout it to the membership of the Café.
Message: Posted by: MagicMarker (May 6, 2007 06:01PM)
Hi Monte,

thanks for responsing graciously to my post, that's often not the case.

Just to clear up I don't hate instant downloads, I've bought a few, more so when I started than recently because when I started I didn't have access to magic stores or magic clubs, so I couldn't tell what were the good books. Back then an instant download of a full trick that I knew I'd use for a couple of bucks was better than perhaps 20 or 30 bucks for a book that might or might not have effects I'd like.

Of course in retrospect the instant downloads seem like pretty poor value compared to some of the books and DVD's I've gone on to acquire.

I understand your concern about being attacked if you made your method available for free from your website, and that's not what I'd suggest.

I think publish it, give it to people on the Café, perhaps in the secret sessions area. I think the goodwill from that will pay you more in the long run that any money you'll make. And if more magicians took the same approach you'd be repaid tenfold in other methods and ideas received.

I understand the urge to publish and sell. I came up with a nifty little principle a while back which as best as I can figure is original. I've typed it up in a manuscript and have added some effects to the manuscript. I think it's as good as many ebooks that I've seen for sale. So should I sell it?

I don't think so. The fact is it's as good or better than ebooks that I don't think should be for sale. I think when I finally finish with it I'll be making it available for free to people with a genuine interest, rather than trying to sell it. When you charge for something I think it raises the bar of what you should be providing and I think that bar is unfortunately getting way too low in magic.

Still, whatever you decide to do, well done on some nice subtleties in the performance. Best of luck with it.

-Rd
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (May 11, 2007 01:46AM)
[quote]
On 2007-05-06 11:45, montemagic wrote:
[...]
and to MagicMarker:
Thank you for being the first person to actually read my original post, and use your brain. [...]

[/quote]

Words that could ONLY come a pompous, self-centered punk.

The fact that you don't like what several of us have to say - and that our [b]well informed[/b] opinions threaten to disrupt your potential for squeezing cash out of unsuspecting victims - is no reason to cast aspersions at your critics, sonny boy.

[b]I[/b] (for one) read your original post - that's where I found your deceptive sales pitch, after all - and I used my brain to analyze its content. In fact, I used my brain well enough to read through your over-hyped BS. You've created nothing new here, and you have nothing new to offer the magic marketplace. As far as I'm concerned, I pity anyone naive enough to pay you for a download of a trick you have no right to sell in the first place.

[quote]
On 2007-05-06 11:45, montemagic wrote:

This effect is not original to me, but I love performing it and I am happy to share it with other magicians that are unfamiliar with it.

[/quote]

[b]Of course[/b] You're "happy to share it"... [b]especially[/b] if it PUTS MONEY IN YOUR POCKET! But thank you for admitting that the effect is not original to you. Now do the right thing and forget the idea of selling [b]other people's work[/b] on the internet. And go tell your mother about the mischief you've been up to; I'm sure she'll know how to deal with you.

Thomas Wayne
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (May 11, 2007 02:10AM)
[quote]
On 2007-05-06 14:37, scorch wrote:
[...]
After all, if you're merely doing a red-black cull or slop shuffle of some sort (omitted in the demo), few of us would pay money for that or consider it to be a truly FASDIU effect, or even any kind of improvement on the original Curry effect. Honestly, I hope that the explanation isn't as banal as that. Hopefully I am way off base in these suspicions, and if you think I won't be disappointed when the full demo is available, I would be willing to suspend judgment until I can see the whole thing from spectator shuffle until where this demo started. But next time, please do wait until the entire demo is available before you tout it to the membership of the Café.

[/quote]

Scorch,

[b]I've[/b] seen the entire “demo” video, via a private link Monte sent me. Sadly, you have described perfectly the entire technique used. The FASDIU principle is [b]not[/b] employed, and virtually [b][i]any[/i][/b] minimally knowledgeable magician (even most beginners, IMO) will immediately understand how the slop shuffle/cull is accomplished, and therefore the entire trick itself.

In fact, I would daresay that if Monte does post this full demo on the Internet, virtually [b]everyone[/b] watching will have learned all there is know about the technique, and he will sell zero downloads. It is absolutely [b]that[/b] obvious.

TW
Message: Posted by: montemagic (May 11, 2007 03:11AM)
I am selling this to people that do not already perform it. If you don't know the method, you don't know the secret. In regards to thanking him for reading my original post was for comprehending the title and its meaning. You seem to think that just because you know the method for the effect, that every other magician in the world does. Heckle me all you want, I know how to deal with people like you. You have threatened to beat me, called me names, and told me how greedy I am. Funny how big and bad people can be from the safety of their computers. I am not impressed, grow up, and have some fun. If you want to continue to threaten me, do me a favor and do it in person. I am not going to continue to fulfill what seems to be the only joy in your life, and that is arguing about how much you know and how great you are. I think people will enjoy it, and if they don't they don’t. When all is said and done you will still need a hug.

Bye.
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (May 11, 2007 06:50AM)
[b]montemagic wrote[/b]
[quote]"I am selling this to people that do not already perform it. If you don't know the method, you don't know the secret. [...][/quote]


Ya know, Monte, you just don't get it.

[b]YOU HAVE [i]NO[/i] RIGHT TO SELL THIS EFFECT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! THE [i]SECRET[/i] IS NOT YOURS TO SELL.[/b]

Did I say that loud enough for you to hear?

What you’re trying to do is no different than if you were to record yourself performing some popular music, and then sell homemade CDs to "people who hadn't heard it yet" [without paying royalties to the writer]. There is no part of this demo performance video that is original with you, except [i]maybe[/i] for the inane patter. Other magicians created every bit of what you hope to sell, most of it long before you ever picked up a deck of cards.

Your attitude and behavior seem questionable on many levels. You started out with deceptive hype, you're re-packaging other magicians' intellectual property, and you're justifying it all by saying that you're only selling it to people who "don't already know the secret" - like they're sheep waiting to be sheared... I guess by YOU.

I can't say it any clearer than that. Maybe you don't care if what you're doing is wrong - but it [b]is[/b] wrong, and that's the problem.

And, on a separate note, I would like to address your claim that I’ve “threatened to beat” you. [b]Shame on you for that lie.[/b] Within private messages between you and me, you complained about my negative comments regarding your re-packaging of other people's material. I told you the proper research steps to take, and that - because you hadn't bothered to do so - "you probably deserve to get publicly smacked around a little for your arrogance". Clearly, in the context of the entire message, [b]anyone[/b] with even a minimal brain function would understand that was metaphorically speaking. The fact that you distort that NOW, to claim I “threatened” you, is a perfect example of your dishonesty.

You really need to check yourself.


TW
(PS: As for a [b][i]hug[/i][/b], I think I'll pass thanks. It would take me much too long to wash the scum off afterwards, I'm afraid.)
Message: Posted by: edh (May 11, 2007 07:46PM)
[quote] YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SELL THIS EFFECT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! THE SECRET IS NOT YOURS TO SELL. [/quote]

It has been posted here that Twisted Sisters and Ultimate Monte have been around for some time before Mr Bannon and Mr. Skinner came up with these ideas.

Would you say the same to them?

BTW way look at Transpo Kings by Simon Lovell. What would you say to him?

I'm not defending montemagic. I have not been privy to his demo so I cannot make an informed opinion. I'm just curious about your opinon of these effects.
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (May 12, 2007 01:16AM)
Edh,

Go on eBay and wade through the multitudes of unknown opportunists who are offering to teach the latest trick by Criss Angel or David Blaine, or David Copperfield, or [b]whoever[/b], and then come back and tell me we don't have enough of this already, and that we [b]need]/b] "montemagic" to re-sell the magic community a trick they already have. Complacency is what makes this crap so easy for monte and guys like him to get away with.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

TW
(PS: now you're privy)
Message: Posted by: ChristopherM (May 12, 2007 10:48AM)
I'll stick to the Paul Curry original, thanks. That's all I'll say on this.
Message: Posted by: scorch (May 12, 2007 02:05PM)
[quote]
On 2007-05-11 04:11, montemagic wrote:
I am selling this to people that do not already perform it. If you don't know the method, you don't know the secret.....
[/quote]

You miss the point entirely, and that is that Paul Curry's OOTW is not yours to expose or exploit (as least, not unless you have made any substantial improvements to it, which you have not). And further, it is highly unethical of you to market such a clean-looking OOTW as an impromptu effect, when it clearly is not impromptu. The fact that you accomplished the setup in a previous effect does not change the basic fact that your supposedly new OOTW effect is no different whatsoever than the original version by Paul Curry. You have not improved or changed the basic method, you only have a suggestion of how to set it up in a previous effect.

And as far as the quality of the material is concerned (since you posted presumably to get feedback), my opinion apart from you poor ethics in marketing this effect as your own, is that the material is weak. Your red-black face up slop shuffle/cull won't fly by a careful observer, and the whole idea seriously compromises the triumph effect part of it. It is not a bad idea to set up one effect in the process of another, but in this case you end up with a fairly weak triumph routine in order to do it. It's too high a price to pay just to do the original Out of This World without a more deceptive cull or deck switch. My preference would be to do a mugh stronger triumph routine, and follow it with a TRULY impromptu OOTW effect such as Harry Lorayne's. Both effects would be stronger than what you have offered here.

I think it's important that if you're going to offer up something to the magical community, especially if it's work based on a classic effect, what you offer should represent an improvement. This clearly does not offer any improvement on either the triumph plot or the OOTW plot.
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (May 12, 2007 02:54PM)
You're right, of course, Scorch, but I think it's also apropo to this discussion that when I originally taught Out Of This Universe (decades ago)I also taught to set up during a preceding effect. What in the world is new about that?I'm speaking of no one in particular, but I am continually amazed at both the lack of knowledge, the fact that they DON'T KNOW they "lack knowledge," and the chutzpah of some of the younger people in magic. HL
Message: Posted by: Greg Arce (May 12, 2007 03:40PM)
[quote]
On 2007-05-12 15:54, Harry Lorayne wrote:
You're right, of course, Scorch, but I think it's also apropo to this discussion that when I originally taught Out Of This Universe (decades ago)I also taught to set up during a preceding effect. What in the world is new about that?I'm speaking of no one in particular, but I am continually amazed at both the lack of knowledge, the fact that they DON'T KNOW they "lack knowledge," and the chutzpah of some of the younger people in magic. HL
[/quote]

Mr. Lorayne, as usual, speaks nothing but truth. :applause:

Greg
Message: Posted by: montemagic (May 12, 2007 04:37PM)
[quote]
On 2007-05-12 15:05, scorch wrote:
You miss the point entirely, and that is that Paul Curry's OOTW is not yours to expose or exploit (as least, not unless you have made any substantial improvements to it, which you have not). And further, it is highly unethical of you to market such a clean-looking OOTW as an impromptu effect, when it clearly is not impromptu. The fact that you accomplished the setup in a previous effect does not change the basic fact that your supposedly new OOTW effect is no different whatsoever than the original version by Paul Curry. You have not improved or changed the basic method, you only have a suggestion of how to set it up in a previous effect.

And as far as the quality of the material is concerned (since you posted presumably to get feedback), my opinion apart from you poor ethics in marketing this effect as your own, is that the material is weak. Your red-black face up slop shuffle/cull won't fly by a careful observer, and the whole idea seriously compromises the triumph effect part of it. It is not a bad idea to set up one effect in the process of another, but in this case you end up with a fairly weak triumph routine in order to do it. It's too high a price to pay just to do the original Out of This World without a more deceptive cull or deck switch. My preference would be to do a mugh stronger triumph routine, and follow it with a TRULY impromptu OOTW effect such as Harry Lorayne's. Both effects would be stronger than what you have offered here.

I think it's important that if you're going to offer up something to the magical community, especially if it's work based on a classic effect, what you offer should represent an improvement. This clearly does not offer any improvement on either the triumph plot or the OOTW plot.
[/quote]


You can tell me that this will not pass by a careful observer all day long, and I will repeat to you that it has worked flawlessly for me for years. I also make no claim that Out of This World is my routine. NEVER ONCE HAVE I SAID THAT. I did however conceive the use of the slop shuffle in its performance 100% on my own. Somehow that seems to make me unknowledgeable and ignorant. I was too poor to buy all the books and videos out there and often had to come up with solutions on my own. I spoke with Lorayne via PM and he told me that the slop shuffle has been used before to set up decks, he didn't say whether or not it had been published with Out of This World. I have no doubt that there is some other magician out there in the world performing this exact routine that he/she put together on their own. But despite all that has been said here, no one has pointed me to its publication.

While you feel this routine will not work, I assure you it is because you are watching it on TV. Interacting with and misdirecting people is much different than misdirecting a camera. If you understand the basics of misdirection and performing this will make sense when you think about it (and I am sure you do).

I do feel that this is an improvement from the gaffed methods, deck switching methods, or the only other separation method I have studied which was Lennart Greens (for a different effect). For me there is nothing more powerful than performing this effect with the spectators cards. In all of the people I have contacted and all of the people here, no one has mentioned a publication with this method being used. I make no claim that it doesn’t exist, but I will share a real workable routine with fellow magicians and not feel bad about that.

Furthermore I did in fact post this here to discuss it with people, however there are many people here that seem to just want to wave their ego around at you, and those people are completely useless in a forum such as this (and in the world in general). If you noticed the section of the café you strolled into it is not for reviews, I simply mentioned this was going to be available to those that were interested, but ultimately wanted to talk about the effect. Other know-it-alls made this into an advertisement of sorts without using tact, kindness, or intelligence. Perhaps it was my wording that led them to this, but it was their social skills that set the stage. There is nothing I can do about that. Please note that you have problems with me “exposing” Paul Curry’s effect… look back through this thread and see who has exposed the method in their rants, and they didn’t even give Mr. Curry the respect to do it in the Secret Sessions.

Ultimately because of the nature of a “FEW” members of the café there will always be discussions such as this one, but more importantly there will be those that learn the effect, and love it as I have. There are a lot of great level-headed honest people here, and those are the ones I come to chat with. Both good and bad opinions are fine, it’s how great you need to make yourself feel when you share you opinions that label your character.
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (May 12, 2007 04:43PM)
Unfortunately, monte remains convinced he is right, and [apparently] righteous, even though plenty of well-versed magicians (including Harry Lorayne himself) have pointed out the error of his ways.

Of course, we must remember that none of [b]us[/b] - with the notable exception of 'MagicMarker' - have "used our brains". In the same way that monte takes the polite response of his audience as [i]proof[/i] that he's performed a miracle, so he ALSO takes the [b]single[/b] positive response in a sea of negative posts as an indication that he's actually doing the right thing. I believe the technical term for that sort of irrational distortion is [b][i]cognitive dissonance[/i][/b].

But Mr. Lorayne phrased it best when he described this as the "chutzpah of some of the younger people in magic". Well said indeed.

TW
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (May 12, 2007 05:51PM)
I just want to point out one last thing. In his initial post, monte claimed: “This effect can be done with a borrowed deck of cards, that the spectators shuffle themselves.” After watching his carefully edited video, I wrote:

[quote]
[b]On 2007-04-27 19:54, Thomas Wayne wrote:
Borrowed and shuffled deck... shuffled right before the edited-out cull, that is.[/b]
TW
[/quote]

[b]MONTE RESPONDED:[/b]

[quote]
[b]On 2007-04-27 22:02, montemagic wrote:
An interesting and completely inaccurate assumption. I assure you that you see exactly what the spectators see. It's something Eugene Burger taught me.[/b]
[/quote]


As it turns out, I was [b]exactly[/b] correct in my assumption, and this was BEFORE I saw the full length 'demo'. Here is how the [i]entire[/i] effect runs, from beginning to end:

Monte first has the two spectators each shuffle the deck [we are never told if it is borrowed, but I don't think so] - under the guise of wanting to "see how they shuffle". He then has a card selected and replaced in the deck. He fumbles with the deck a little (doing what I assume is a control to the top via double-cut) and then riffle shuffles the deck, followed by an overhand shuffle – all the while being careful to retain the selection on top of the deck. Now, he returns to the 'theme' of discussing how various people shuffle, and then continues his tale of how ‘he was with a large group of people and, you know, how he likes to watch people shuffle and see how they shuffle…’ Whereupon monte begins a face-up (!) slop shuffle, going through the entire deck in a manner that is distinctly [b]non-random[/b] and pretty carefully supervised [by monte].

>>>For those of you unfamiliar with the slop shuffle, it’s a handling that superficially appears to have you mixing the deck up in a haphazard fashion, finishing with some cards randomly face up and some cards randomly face down throughout the deck. Done with a face-up deck and searching through the cards as you “shuffle” has the very distinct look of an [b]open[/b] cull, which it IS in this case. I personally don’t think this would fool many people over the age of 4.<<<

Because the face-up slop shuffle/cull takes some bit of time, [b]and[/b] monte’s full attention, there is an awkward lull in the action, during which monte’s patter consists of discussing how everyone was drinking, and…

[i] “and, you know, I wasn’t paying attention and somebody took the cards and they started shuffling like this. Yeah… cards…well, again, I wasn’t paying attention, so I didn’t know this was going on behind my back. …you know it kinda happens like this… when you do tricks…card tricks for people who are drinking and things like that, you get little weird situations like this…”[/i]

This is the gist of the patter, but the actual slop shuffle/cull required 24 seconds – according to my stopwatch – during which time monte’s attention [i]must[/i] be primarily focused on turning all the red cards one direction and all the black cards the opposite direction. 24 seconds is a very long time to devote to only giving your audience the slightest bit of attention while you are busily concentrating on arranging the deck right in front of them!

Once the deck has been openly stacked, monte goes on to demonstrate (ala Triumph) how

[i]“I had some cards that were face down, which… you know… is normal. But there were also some that were face up… some that were face-to-face, and... it was just a real mess.”[/i]

Of course, during [i]this[/i] patter he does an open half-pass in order to rearrange the deck for the climactic(?) reveal.

Now, the deck has been arranged in red/black order and he is ready to begin OOTW. This is also the point that the posted “demo” begins.

Go up and read the beginning of this post again. I wrote that there must have been an edited-out cull prior to the footage we saw, and monte replied:[i] “An interesting and completely inaccurate assumption. I assure you that you see exactly what the spectators see.”[/i] This was a [b]LIE[/b]; a complete and utter lie, and a rather insulting one at that.

As I said earlier, I feel sorry for anyone foolish enough to give this little scam artist a penny of his or her money.

And, finally, [b]monte[/b], you say that other posters have "exposed" the method for OOTW in this thread, while you have not. I contend that ANY intelligent person watching the entire 'demo' will have no problem figuring out exactly how you did your little trick. It is so poorly constructed and badly handled that you really don't need to actually provide an explanation section. Just sell the performance video you sent me, and every magician in this sloppy world will instantly know how to do it anyway.

Sadly, however, only the very worst ones will want to.


TW
Message: Posted by: montemagic (May 12, 2007 06:07PM)
TW,

Thank you for your opinion.
Message: Posted by: edh (May 12, 2007 07:42PM)
I viewed the demo of montemagic. It is just as Mr. Wayne has said. The handling of OOTW is, maybe, montemagic's but there is nothing new here. He may want to sell this as his own handling, though there really is no improvement to the OOTW plot.

Now having said that I must say Mr. Lorayne, Mr. Arce and Mr. Wayne have not commented on what I posted about Simon Lovell's Transpo Kings. This may just have been an oversight. But there was a thread about this posted here. If Mr. Arce, Mr. Lorayne and Mr. Wayne have no comment about whether Mr. Lovell's Transpos Kings is original or not and should be sold as an improvement over the orginal plot to TS. If Mr. Lovell gets a pass with his effect then why shouldn't montemagic get a pass with his? As I see it Transpo Kings IS Twisted Sister. Only the handling is slightly different and in my opinion no improvment on the plot.

Let us not use a double standard here. If one gets a pass then the other also should get a pass. If one gets slammed then let's slam the other. If the "pro" does this type of thing then why not the amatuers or semi-pros?

If no comments are made on my post by these distinguished gentleman, then that, in itself, is a reply.

BTW here is the link. http://www.funtymemagic.com/shop/item.aspx?itemid=5415

Thank you all for allowing me my opinion.
edh
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (May 12, 2007 08:04PM)
Edh,

I know Simon Lovell as a friend, but I'm not familiar with "Transpo Kings"; in fact I've actually never heard of it. But then, I don't do "Twisted Sister" either - although I am familiar with the gaffs, plot and handling of [i]that[/i] effect.

I [b]can[/b] say two things about that, however. First, if I had a trick that I performed, which used the principle(s) of "Twisted Sister", I would put in the effort to research ALL the material relevant to that effect before I EVER started posting teaser videos – especially dishonest ones – in an effort to sell "my" effect to the magic community. It's all about the research.

Second, I am unaware of these various "passes" that you say Lovell and others have been "given". [b]I[/b] certainly didn't give anybody a "pass" that I know of. But even if you are absolutely correct that other magicians have gotten away with [i]"semi-plagiarism"[/i], in what way should that permit future transgressions by others? O.J. Simpson got a pass on double murder; are you arguing that this means all celebrity murderers should similarly escape justice? I sincerely hope not.

If a few rotten apples have the potential to "spoil the bunch", why would you advocate that we need more rotten apples? I'm afraid I don't follow your logic.

TW
Message: Posted by: mmura (May 12, 2007 08:09PM)
Montemagic,

IMHO, the 'thing' you are going to sell is not an impromptu OOTW, but just another way of colour separation.
And this method has been discussed at the Magic Café forum -- nothing new.

If you claim that the combination of slop shuffle and OOTW is a *BREAKTHROUGH* and you are entitled to sell it, then I can sell "Out of sloppy Universe", "Sloppy Galaxy", "Sloppy Magnetic", so on...(Of course I won't... more precisely, I CAN'T!)

mmura
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (May 12, 2007 08:14PM)
Edh,

One last thing; I entered this thread, [b]not[/b] because monte was trying to sell material of which he has no ownership rights - though that [b]does[/b] turn out to be the case. I entered this thread because monte was trying to sell a routine through [b]deceptive[/b] "advertising". He is making claims that simply aren't true, in a attempt to dishonestly take money from eager magicians on this forum.

I didn't come here to argue the merits of other magicians and the tricks they may (or may not) have cribbed from others. If "Transpo Kings" is such an important issue for you, don't hijack [i]this[/i] thread - start a NEW one.

TW
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (May 12, 2007 08:29PM)
I don't know Simon's routine so can't comment on it and, frankly, not apropo to this discussion. The fact is that the Slop Shuffle has been used to separate the deck into reds and blacks long before MonteMagic was born. I did it myself when I was younger than he is, I'm sure. There are, of course, MUCH better ways - see my post above. Multiply "CHUTZPAH" by about 100! What silliness. HL
Message: Posted by: edh (May 12, 2007 08:56PM)
To both Mr. Lorayne and Mr. Wayne the link for Transpo Kings is in my previous post. Again perhaps just an oversight. If you don't want to comment on it fine by me. No comment is a comment.

We'll leave it at that.
Message: Posted by: edh (May 12, 2007 09:34PM)
Mr. Wayne, I don't see why you think that I'm hijacking this thread. I made my post based on what you posted. If that's hijacking my apologies.

Mr. Loryane if I commented on something that was posted here how is that not appropriate to this discussion?
Message: Posted by: Greg Arce (May 12, 2007 10:04PM)
Edh, I too had not seen Transpo Kings or have heard about it. I went to the link and the brief explanation there seems to read as just a new set of cards for the old Twisted Sisters idea. I can't completely say that until I see someone perform it or handle the cards.
I know I use Twisted Sisters and love that effect. I also use B'wave and love it almost as much as Twisted Sisters.
Having said that, I hope hat what is being sold is not just Twisted Sisters with a different set of cards.

Greg
Message: Posted by: Greg Arce (May 12, 2007 10:09PM)
Oops, I went back and noticed it had a demo. Not good. It does look like he just added a presentation to the already existing Twisted Sisters set up. I don't get how this stuff happens. I'm hoping that somewhere he got permission from Max or John to do that, but who knows. It's a shame if it's just a new package on an old effect.

Greg
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (May 12, 2007 11:22PM)
[quote]
On 2007-05-12 21:56, edh wrote:
To both Mr. Lorayne and Mr. Wayne the link for Transpo Kings is in my previous post. Again perhaps just an oversight. If you don't want to comment on it fine by me. No comment is a comment.
[...]
[/quote]

Now you're just being petulant. "No comment is a comment."? What kind of double-speak is THAT? I never heard that twisted logic before. Furthermore, I [b]have[/b] commented, at length, on your primary question of “two wrongs making a right”. The simple fact is I'm not familiar with "Transpo Kings", and I'm not about to go become familiar with it in order to entertain a debate that has NOTHING to do with the effect [i]primarily[/i] being discussed in this thread.

“Hijacking” a thread is the act of diverting attention away from the initial topic to suit a different issue that YOU wish to discuss. This is [b]exactly[/b] what you are trying to do, edh. As I said before, if you have an ax to grind about “Transpo Kings” or “Twisted Sisters” or any [b]other[/b] effect that is NOT “Out of This Sloppy World”, perhaps you should start a new topic.

Maybe I will join that thread, maybe I won’t; either way I will say what I have to say – NOT have you say it for me.

“No comment is a comment”? I don’t know what you’re smoking, but don’t blow it my direction, okay? lol

TW
Message: Posted by: RickVancouver (May 13, 2007 02:50AM)
Thomas,

I love reading your posts here, you're so dead on and [i]they[/i] just don't get it.

Rick
Message: Posted by: mmura (May 13, 2007 03:30AM)
Edh,

I know so many rip-offs are trading here and there in internet, but this thread is NOT the place to report them.

Let's stick with the thread title - "Impromptu Out of This World" (by montemagic).

If you want to discuss the legality or comprehensive solution of rip-offs, I think you should start a new thread.

mmura
Message: Posted by: bear trees (May 13, 2007 03:04PM)
A question. If the cards were borrowed and shuffled an what not, then why have a separater card in the middle of the deck obviously separating the blacks and reds? Just a thought.
Message: Posted by: edh (May 13, 2007 05:52PM)
Thank you Mr. Arce for your candidness.

Mr. Wayne, I realize you may be a very busy man. But you don't have 5 minutes to watch your "friend" perform Twisted Sisters, excuse me Transpo Kings. Now who's blowing smoke? lol

Enough said on this. You can go back to bashing montemagic.

Thank you all for your patience.
edh
Message: Posted by: Thomas Wayne (May 13, 2007 10:56PM)
Edh,

Just think of all the posts you could have generated in your [b]own[/b] thread, about the issue that apparently keeps you up at night with worry - "Transpo Kings". Instead you've wasted your (and our) time with it in this thread.

But, just so we're crystal clear, I [b]HAVE[/b] responded to your questions about this. I don't have the slightest clue what more you think you want from me, but the answers I gave are the answers I have.

You further dilute this topic with your ongoing pet-peeve side issue, you can drop it, you can start a [i]new[/i] topic devoted to you obsession... in fact, you can stick yourself in the eye with a pickle fork, for all I care. I said what I had to say about "Transpo Kings"/"Twisted Sisters", and if you continue to harangue me about it then you're just being an asss.

TW
Message: Posted by: ChristopherM (May 13, 2007 11:44PM)
Thomas is absolutely correct: there already IS a thread regarding those two releases.
Message: Posted by: Rennie (May 24, 2007 11:02PM)
I have to strongly agree with everything Thomas Wayne has said. Now to stop this thread from continuing, get Harry Lorayne's impromptu version and you will be able to duplicate exactly what montemagic is SELLING !
Absolutely nothing new...
Message: Posted by: Hart Keene (May 26, 2007 01:59PM)
Hello everyone,

Just thought I would cut and paste the rules of this forum per Steve Brooks...You can check for yourself back on the main page but I will make it easy on you guys.

FORUM RULES & GUIDELINES:

You may post links to your own personal website (or those listed above) to showcase homemade magic video demonstrations you wish to share with other Magic Caf� members, provided:


* The video is NOT a promo for an item you are selling or marketing. Such a video will be considered as nothing more than an advertisement. Please see our Advertising Policy for further details.
* Does NOT contain any copyrighted intellectual property without the permission of the respective copyright holder.


Sounds like someone was in the wrong right out of the gate anyway boys...

On another note, I will be releasing a new effect of mine called twisting the aces..I mean, twisting the queens. It will be available as a download. Look for the video here real soon...
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 26, 2007 06:09PM)
Hart I am twisting the Jacks with Red backs real soon.

The justification people use to sell others hard work amazes me constantly.

To the original poster, come on man, you think noobdy started magic before you came along? Please when you want to release something to the public on something so goofy as a instant download,(which by the way you WERE trying to sell wheather you admit it or not.) please at least do the research. This is so pathetic.