(Close Window)
Topic: Histed Heisted with Tamariz stack
Message: Posted by: Davidmagicman (Apr 20, 2012 01:50AM)
Hi!
I wonder if there is a version of Histed Heisted for the Tamariz stack?

Many thanks/
David The Magicman
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Apr 20, 2012 03:27AM)
If you would know a memorized stack you wouldn't ask... It's stack independent! Jan
Message: Posted by: mindexplorer (Apr 22, 2012 05:04PM)
Maybe he knows a memorized stack, but doesn't know Histed Heisted very well. But Jan is correct, of course. The trick is stack independent. Even the updates are stack independent. This is definitely one trick where you have to know the stack "cold" or it could get ugly fast.
Message: Posted by: bunkyhenry (Apr 26, 2012 03:26PM)
You could have a crib on a card
Message: Posted by: Turk (Apr 27, 2012 02:04PM)
[quote]
On 2012-04-26 16:26, bunkyhenry wrote:
You could have a crib on a card
[/quote]

There was a crib sheet version that Jeff Busby released about 15-20 years ago. I'll be darned if I can remember the name of this effect but, Jeff credited it to a very well-known magician/mentalist at the time and Jeff included this performer's name in the title of the effect. My recollection is that this famous magician.mentalist performed sometime in the 30s to the 50s and that this effect was ostensibly his closing effect. The picture I remember in the Jeff Busby instructions was that of a slender elegant magician dressed in a tuxedo.

I'd love to have a Café member jog my memory as to both the name of this effect and the famous magician.

Thanks a lot.

Mike

P.S. And no, I am not thinking of Louis Histed.
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Apr 27, 2012 04:13PM)
It was the Paul Fox gimmick. Clever idea, but it never can substitute your memory as you are free, can do it everywhere and you act simply far better. If somebody wants to read (and avoid miscalls) I suggest to let the spectator who collect the cards shuffle the deck and then to sw....h the entire deck with a deck arranged in calling order.. Jan
Message: Posted by: Turk (Apr 27, 2012 05:55PM)
[quote]
On 2012-04-27 17:13, JanForster wrote:
It was the Paul Fox gimmick. Clever idea, but it never can substitute your memory as you are free, can do it everywhere and you act simply far better. If somebody wants to read (and avoid miscalls) I suggest to let the spectator who collect the cards shuffle the deck and then to sw....h the entire deck with a deck arranged in calling order.. Jan
[/quote]

Thanks, Jan.

I have this item buried somewhere but I gave it up a long time ago after learning a memorized deck (Aronson) and then learninging Histed Heisted. As I tried to recall the name of the item (Paul Fox Miracle Gimmick?), I kept keying on the name "Paul" but kept following through with the name "Daniels"...which I knew was incorrect. (grin) Thanks for the correct answer. I can now get this nagging thought out of my head and move onto something else.

Mike
Message: Posted by: bunkyhenry (Apr 28, 2012 09:52AM)
Jan has a good point. I do not have a spectator up with me as I call the shuffled cards. Is there a reason to do so?
I use this crib.
Message: Posted by: bunkyhenry (Apr 28, 2012 09:52AM)
Can I post a pic from Iphone 4 here? Cant seem to do it.
Message: Posted by: bunkyhenry (Apr 28, 2012 10:22AM)
http://s443.photobucket.com/albums/qq151/chopsueycandy/Histed/?action=view¤t=HH002d.jpg
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Apr 28, 2012 05:50PM)
[quote]
On 2012-04-28 10:52, bunkyhenry wrote:
Jan has a good point. I do not have a spectator up with me as I call the shuffled cards. Is there a reason to do so?
I use this crib.
[/quote]
Yes, a few... One is that you have somebody who sees and proves (not expressly, but still) what you are claiming to do :). Besides that he has collected the cards for you (strong point), so he is there anyway, he helps while you do the deck sw...h, e. g. using the box as you want to give the deck to him as a present... Only then you get an idea in which order you want to read minds, in randomness of HIS shuffle... But to be honest I'm already further. I use a different technique meanwhile which has been published (until now unfortunately only in German) and is used by some at least good names in our business. Jan
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Apr 29, 2012 08:31AM)
[quote]
On 2012-04-28 10:52, bunkyhenry wrote:
Jan has a good point. I do not have a spectator up with me as I call the shuffled cards. Is there a reason to do so?
I use this crib.
[/quote]
I've sent a pm. Jan
Message: Posted by: Danny Archer (May 28, 2012 11:49AM)
I published my version of the P Fox Miracle Gimmick called OutFoxed years ago in my first set of lecture notes.

In my version the audience can see the cards as they are called off. All that is used are the two decks and if you eliminate the false shuffles, it is a self working effect (no memory work) that duplicates the original effect 100% but is much easier to do.

This killed when I did it in my lecture, especially when I told them it was a self working effect. Needless to say, it plays great for the lay audience. The hardest part of the effect is justifying why you are calling from a second deck.
Message: Posted by: JanForster (May 28, 2012 12:59PM)
That's why I do a deck sw..ch :) Jan
Message: Posted by: Nick Pudar (May 28, 2012 07:34PM)
I used to use a small crib as shown in the picture link below.

http://www.pudar.com/images/HistedHeistedCrib.jpg

It was laminated, and I would hold it in place with my left thumb while my right hand removed cards one at a time while they were mis-called. It was easy to palm and get in place. It was a good crutch to use in the early performances to give me a bit of extra confidence. It is easy to make, and I only used it three or four times before I felt confident to perform it clean.

This is a great trick, and absolutely worth the effort to learn.

In the original post, there was a question about whether HH worked with the Tamariz Stack. Of course, it is stack independent -- however, there is a consideration to be aware of. My first memorized deck was the Joyal Stack, due to its ease of learning. When I read HH in Aronson's book, I knew that I had to perform it. However, when you set up the deck to hand out the groups of cards to the spectators, the Joyal Stack has some unfortunate properties. Quite a few of the card groups had some very non-random looking sequences, such as four-of-a-kind, etc. I corresponded with Martin Joyal, and he did have a work-around solution, but it seemed too complicated for me, especially as I was intimidated by the original trick, let alone additional adjustments to remember. So I ended up learning the Aronson Stack, just so that I could perform HH. I'm glad I did.

Nick
Message: Posted by: Nick Pudar (May 29, 2012 09:54PM)
I was just rummaging around in my magic cupboards, and found a small stash of the Histed Heisted cribs that is shown in the previous post's link. PM me if you are serious about performing this routine and would like me to send you one of the cribs. Some details about it: 1) two of the corners are rounded so that you can obtain the correct orientation in your pocket to palm it; 2) the laminated side is smooth, and the back is very rough, agian to assist in ensuring it is oriented correctly when you palm it for the routine; 3) the smooth side is the one that your thumb will be in contact with, and it is tacky, while the back, with its rougher surface actually glides easily across the card faces when you are mis-calling them. As I said in the earlier post, this is a nice crutch to get you past the first few performances while you build your confidence.
Best regards,
Nick
Message: Posted by: Steve Haynes (May 29, 2012 10:42PM)
A deck switch is very helpful(and subtle) in this effect.
I use a mem deck,but HH does not need one if a DS is done,just a randomly shuffled deck and a second decks order displaced correctly to the first deck per instructions of HH,starting with deck two and using D1 to finish.

Just saing no reason why someone who has not memorized a deck could not do HH,or their MD produces poor results for HH.

After all,with a DS,everything is in order,so you have your cue/open index staring you in the face.

The hardest part of HH with a DS is the DS,which is about as friendly of a DS effect you will find,as the deck is not changing color and so forth.Very subtle and no red flags for the spectators,as there is no reason for a DS to enter their mind with this type of effect.

Of course,thats no reason not to learn a MD.

S
Message: Posted by: Dennis Loomis (May 29, 2012 11:13PM)
I've done Histed Heisted for years. I've never used a crib nor felt the need to have a spectator looking at the deck as I call the cards. I've always done it with the Aronson Stack and was a little surprised to hear of the difficulty of doing it with the Joyal Stack.

If you want a powerful stand-up mentalism piece it's hard to beat. I've added a couple of my own ideas which you can read about on my web site. Just go to: http://www.loomismagic.com and click on the link to "Memorized Deck Articles" at the top of the home page. Then click on article 2.

Dennis Loomis
Message: Posted by: Nick Pudar (May 31, 2012 09:34PM)
Dennis,

When I first started learning Histed Heisted with the Joyal Stack, I was troubled by the fact that two of the spectators held cards that contained "four of a kind", and four other spectators had cards that contained the Jack, Queen, and King of the same suit. I wanted to avoid any possible hint of anyone thinking that the cards handed out were anything but random. As I had indicated I nthe earlier post, Martin had an elegant solution for this problem, but I do not remember what it was, other than the fact that it added more complexity than I wanted to contend with while I was still mustering the courage to perform this routine.

You are correct when you say that this mentalism piece is hard to beat. For those of you who have not read Dennis' article on this topic, you really need to see how a great effect is made even stronger with innovative thinking.

Nick
Message: Posted by: J-L Sparrow (Jan 28, 2015 09:00PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2012, Danny Archer wrote:
In my version the audience can see the cards as they are called off. All that is used are the two decks and if you eliminate the false shuffles, it is a self working effect (no memory work) that duplicates the original effect 100% but is much easier to do.

This killed when I did it in my lecture, especially when I told them it was a self working effect. Needless to say, it plays great for the lay audience. The hardest part of the effect is justifying why you are calling from a second deck. [/quote]

I just realized a few days ago that you could use a second deck (obviously in memdeck order) to call out the cards, just as you said. And I came up with two different justifications for a second deck:

1. You say, "I don't want you to think that I'm examining the cards you handled for any marks or bends you may have subconsciously placed on your chosen card."

or:

2. You give them each an (opaque) envelope with instructions that they are to place their chosen card inside the envelope and seal it shut. You tell them that you don't want the incomplete deck to give you clues as to which cards are in the envelopes, so you'll use a completely separate and shuffled deck to help you run through the cards. (They'll open the envelopes once you reveal their card, and you can have them hold up both cards to show that they match.)

The advantage of the first option is that the spectator merely thinks of their card, which nobody else could possibly know, even by examining the physical evidence.

The advantage of the second option is that the spectators can't lie about their choice. Not only that, but other spectators will be 100% sure that you were correct by having both cards shown at the same time.

I've yet to try Histed Heisted (I haven't scrounged up an audience big enough yet), but maybe some day I'll try it.
Message: Posted by: lcwright1964 (Jan 29, 2015 10:17AM)
I am looking forward to trying it out at my IBM chapter's Members' Night next week. I really like Jan Forster's variant of passing out the whole deck to five spectators (two get 11 cards, the rest get 10) and fishing after the card calling procedure eliminates all but two (or occasionally three) options in each case. How, that is a lot of busy brain work for my first time out with a large audience, so I will probably just do it as written this first time (five cards per volunteer, five or so volunteers, no need for fishing).

And, yes, it is stack independent, and works perfectly fine with Mnemonica, which I know.
Message: Posted by: bunkyhenry (Jan 29, 2015 11:23AM)
Do it with 50 cards and no fishing?
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Jan 29, 2015 12:00PM)
Possible, if you use 10 spectators which I feel is no real option in practice... BTW, in my version which you'll find in another thread about "Histed Heisted" you wouldn't call out all cards, forty would be sufficient. And with a deck switch what I use the mental work is far smaller than estimated. You see "it", you have"it"... you just fish between two (in very rare and only two possible scenarios three...) possibilities - and you are a mindreader... So, what's wrong with it? :) Jan
Message: Posted by: lcwright1964 (Jan 29, 2015 01:53PM)
[quote]On Jan 29, 2015, JanForster wrote:
Possible, if you use 10 spectators which I feel is no real option in practice... BTW, in my version which you'll find in another thread about "Histed Heisted" you wouldn't call out all cards, forty would be sufficient. And with a deck switch what I use the mental work is far smaller than estimated. You see "it", you have"it"... you just fish between two (in very rare and only two possible scenarios three...) possibilities - and you are a mindreader... So, what's wrong with it? :) Jan [/quote]

Yeah, I really need to get comfy with a deck switch for Forster ten (or eleven)-per-person fishing version--I would like to see the actual cards, both for card calling and for mental prompts for fishing. Moreover, in the counting deck I could mix up each "decade" of cards to through off stack-savvy magicians in the audience. (But then again the magician's in my club who work with stacks no this one anyway.) I don't wear a jacket, but with loose enough jeans I could try to pull off the bold Tommy Wonder pocket switch Tamariz describes in Mnemonica.

To practice I will have to use my spouse, and just have her play all five specs and write down the chosen card from each group. My six-year-old and the cats aren't quite sophisticated enough for that :)
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Jan 29, 2015 02:54PM)
The deck switch has not to be a very subtle one :) , although I could do one of my many as I am wearing often a jacket. See the entire picture: False shuffle the stacked deck, distribute the cards, give a reason why each one has to remember/chose mentally only a card he sees..., let somebody else collect and shuffle all the cards, take the deck and put it in the box, pocket all as you do not need the cards anymore... At least that is what you say for the moment.

Create a little time delay by recapping what has happened so far... And what will come, how difficult it is... You keep the spectator who was helping to collect and shuffle all the cards all the time next to you, "use" him by having a dialogue with him, let him confirm some of your statements. Finally offer him to keep the cards as a present as thank you for his help... Get the second (switched in) deck, hand it to him, there is no heat at all. When he wants to leave you, stop him, as you get an idea in which order you will try to read the minds.... Ask him if you can borrow his cards for a moment, take them, hand the empty box to him and casually false shuffle the cards while complimenting his shuffle from before. Let the helper be next to you as you (announce that!) will give the cards back to him, in several steps of course. And let him look also in the cards while you read them out loud.... Hope you get the picture :) jam
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Jan 29, 2015 02:55PM)
Jan,

You fish on every card and that works for you, but I am not sure it’s for everyone as it probably requires a lot of convincing acting, and it is not for Allan Ackerman for sure. A quote from his trick [b] Impromptu Paul Fox[/b] from his book La Vegas Kardma:

“I did this effect about 14 years ago and I missed on my first guess on all 4 selections. After the performance, one lady who saw the effect, mentioned that I needed practice on my mind reading and that the questions I asked, gave me the clues I needed to discover the thought-of cards.”

Priceless :)

He went on developing 6 no-fishing methods for the effect.

I’ve come to appreciate the beauty of a deck switch, as you preconize, but I was thinking that maybe it could be used to add a bit of humour and reinforce the effect too. For some it could be overkill and as I am unlikely to gather the number of people to do the effect in the near future, I submit this for discussion. Also, you forego the easiness of your method.

Once the deck switch has happened and the spec is in possession of his souvenir deck, as in your presentation, you claim that you’re going to read the mind of your spectators, but furthermore, to make it even more impossible, you’re going to call the 52 cards from memory and without repeating yourself. You then start calling a few cards in NDO: AH,2H,3H… With the right acting it should generate some laughs. You admit that you were jesting but you offer to do it for real. You ask your spectator to hand over the cased deck he’s holding and you then deal the 52 cards one by one and quickly, preserving their order.

You then hand the deck back to your spectator and you call your stack out of memory having the spectator check if you make any error.
Basically you turn the calling of the cards into an effect itself, instead of a procedural requirement for the effect to succeed.
The deck switch and the afterthought about using the spectator’s deck should help obscure the method as no layperson would think that you’d know by heart 52 cards in perceived/real disorder.

Any thoughts?
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Jan 29, 2015 03:06PM)
Partly I like it, but not there where you make the presentation part of the method. But the gag is good, calling out cards in NDO... What produces a laugh AND a reason to get back the shuffled deck... I am not with Ackermann here as I see this routine mainly or entirely mental while he is a pure cardician (this is alright!) who tries some mind reading... And if someone doesn't like to fish you could still use my strategy and distribute part of the deck, but not even please, better like 5, 6 or seven cards. You'll find also cards then by logical elimination. And call out different size groups with some x-cards additional. Jan
Message: Posted by: lcwright1964 (Jan 29, 2015 03:58PM)
[quote]On Jan 29, 2015, JanForster wrote:
And if someone doesn't like to fish you could still use my strategy and distribute part of the deck, but not even please, better like 5, 6 or seven cards. You'll find also cards then by logical elimination.[/quote]

Yes! This is a great compromise. You can even set it up so that you fish only some of the time but know the card right away most of the time. How would you handle it?

Les
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Jan 29, 2015 04:30PM)
Exactly like that :) !
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Jan 30, 2015 10:01AM)
I like Simon Aronson’s no fishing method, but I also like the idea of giving 10 cards to each spectator and calling out batches of 10. I’m looking for a solution whereby the spectators receive 10 cards each and where more than 5 spectators can participate; it’s counter-intuitive but possible.

I hit on a method which, though not perfect, is slowly bridging the gap: The spectators receive each 10 cards; the cards are called by batches of 10. The fishing is reduced because in some cases no overt fishing is required.
Message: Posted by: lcwright1964 (Jan 30, 2015 12:29PM)
My compromise solution, based on what Jan seems to suggest, goes something like this:

Spectator 1 gets 1, 6, 11, 21, 31, 41, 51
Spectator 2 gets 2, 7, 12, 22, 32, 42, 52
Spectator 3 gets 3, 13, 23, 33, 43
Spectator 4 gets 4, 9, 14, 24, 34, 44
Spectator 5 gets 5, 10, 15, 25, 35, 45, 50

The groups are called out thus:
1 through 10
11 through 20
21 through 30
31 through 41
42 through 52

Of course the groups themselves may be presented in any order, and the order of the cards within each group may be called out in any order. Moreover, only four of the five groups at most need to be called out, since if any spectators are left after four groups are recited then their cards must be in the fifth group.

This puts 32 cards in play, most spectators will have more than just five cards, and less than half of the selections (1, 6, 31, 41, 2, 7, 42, 52, 4, 9, 5, 10, 45, 50) present the need to fish. Moreover, I like the idea of Spec 3 getting just three cards, as in the original--one only needs to keep track of five "outs" for the prediction climax, and as there is no fishing for that spectator one knows immediately what the selection is and can bring out correct prediction BEFORE embarking on faux-fishing and feigning bafflement.

Though I like the idea of a deck switch I am practicing a miscalling-from-memory recitation. I know the stack cold, and I find that staring PAST the spread of cards I am pretending to read out minimizes the risk of me calling out the card in front of me instead of the card I am thinking of. Another option is to sneak a crib card onto the face of the spread--like the Poker Bingo card in Phoenix decks...
Message: Posted by: bunkyhenry (Jan 30, 2015 01:03PM)
This is how I do it! Via Jan

I only use 50 cards and I have shortened the corners of some cards to make it easy to hand out 10.
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Jan 30, 2015 01:16PM)
That's it. But I would call out only up to 39... In the worst case you still would have 2 direct hits (43 and 44) and three fishings between just two: 41/51, 42/52 and 45/50. Or hand spec.5 stack number 40 instead of 45 what increases direct hits to 3. Besides that adjust your calling which can be shortened also using your original. Jan
Message: Posted by: Francois Lagrange (Jan 30, 2015 03:33PM)
Wow, overly complicated solution, especially the setup where it's easy to make a mistake, for really little gain. Actually I can't see any. Besides versions of the trick where only half the cards are handed to the spectators strike as odd. Why?
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Jan 31, 2015 04:29AM)
An excellent version of this effect can be found in Barrie Richardson's trick [b]It Isn't Mind Control[/b] from his book Theater of the Mind. What's remarkable are the cribs he describes. They're very easy to handle and do not hamper the handling of the cards.
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Jan 31, 2015 10:50AM)
Believe it or not, although knowing these scripts, I truly enjoy to have a spectator next to me looking over my shoulder and seeing that I actually do what I claim to do: calling the cards he sees as well :) Jan
Message: Posted by: bunkyhenry (Feb 1, 2015 08:05PM)
[quote]On Jan 30, 2015, Claudio wrote:
I like Simon Aronson’s no fishing method, but I also like the idea of giving 10 cards to each spectator and calling out batches of 10. I’m looking for a solution whereby the spectators receive 10 cards each and where more than 5 spectators can participate; it’s counter-intuitive but possible.

I hit on a method which, though not perfect, is slowly bridging the gap: The spectators receive each 10 cards; the cards are called by batches of 10. The fishing is reduced because in some cases no overt fishing is required. [/quote]


I believe it is discussed in "The Impostress Princess" Expanded version Peter Tappan
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Feb 2, 2015 07:54AM)
^ Is it?

I'll try to buy a copy as I have heard excellent things about this book. As I think I have devised two original ideas, I'll be keen to verify whether or not I got scooped by a few years, if not decades ;)

In what particular effect(s) is this described? Thanks.
Message: Posted by: bunkyhenry (Feb 2, 2015 09:54AM)
I think it is in the expanded Impostress in the Additions section. Maybe the Steinmeyer version or Barrie Richardson has an impromptu version which allows this. Traveling now so not 100% positive.
Message: Posted by: bunkyhenry (Feb 2, 2015 09:56AM)
Now that I think of it ...maybe not what you are thinking about but one version in there allows different numbers of cards to be given out.
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Feb 2, 2015 01:24PM)
Peter Tappan's creation is great, but it is a special deck, not memorized and with repeating banks/duplicates. Truly a different story. Jan
Message: Posted by: bunkyhenry (Feb 2, 2015 03:43PM)
Jan

I was referring to the book in general. Is the Tappan version you are referring to "My Favorite Presentation" on page #52 of the expanded Willmarth book?
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Feb 2, 2015 05:21PM)
Yes, it is. BTW, this book is that good that I have it twice in my library: the original and the extended version edited by Phil Willmarth :) Jan
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Feb 6, 2015 05:04AM)
I have ordered the [b]The Impostress Princess" Expanded book Peter Tappan[/b] book and am looking forward to reading it.

I have my own version of the effect which I believe hides the matrix principle well: it uses 5 spectators and much more than half the pack and is very practical.

However, from a cerebral point of view, I find the Histed-Heisted versions more interesting and satisfying when the spectator receives 10 cards each. The fact that one must “fish” every time is a problem for me, though. I thought I’d shared a few ideas – untested, but they might be worth something.

Each of 5 spectators receives 10 cards

[b]1[/b]. Ask the spectators to remember one the cards of their respective packet. Then they are to hand the packet over to the person immediately on their left and these 5 spectators are to remember a card themselves. The cards are then gathered and shuffled.

The number of people (10) involved has doubled without making it any more difficult to remember which group they belong to.

The fishing might be reduced. For every batch of 10 which is called out, there’s a chance that both spectators belonging to the same group raise their hands. They may have selected the same card, or a different card from the same 10. You’ll be able to fish while getting “hits” every time as you’ll be addressing both at the same time, with the justification that they both selected a card from the same group. This method is well described by Simon Aronson in one of his effects, [b]Simon-Eyes[/b] I think.

I have not done the precise maths yet, but from the top of my head: for each pair this situation has 1 chance in 5 to happen and over the whole effect the chance to happen once is 2/3. Not bad. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

However, if you have to fish 10 times, it could be a long and lonely day, so that brings me to idea 2.

[b]2[/b]. Ask the 5 spectators to think of a black card from their packet of 10 and hand their packet over to their neighbours who are to think of a red card. The justification here is to prevent the spectators within a pair will think of the same card.

The amount of fishing will be tremendously reduced as often you’ll be able to name the card at once.

Well, that’s it so far. These 2 ideas might be dodos, or they might fly, who knows?
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Feb 6, 2015 03:50PM)
The second idea is really good - if the stack is offering that by itself, or you have to modify it. I believe it is worth the effort to investigate and possibly adjust the stack a bit! Jan