(Close Window)
Topic: Sleights that wont fool anyone
Message: Posted by: diamondjack (Mar 13, 2019 08:33PM)
I have been watching a lot of youtube magic videos lately and something occured to me. There have been some sleights that have never fooled me. Even when I was a child and before I studied card magic. Here are three sleights I have always thought were not convincing.

1:The Flustration count
2:The Mexican Turnover.
3:The Shapeshifter Change.

I have seen these moves preformed even before I knew anything about card magic and they have never fooled me. Anyone else have some sleights that they think won't even fool laymen?
Message: Posted by: Steve Friedberg (Mar 13, 2019 09:04PM)
Properly done, Jack, they *will* fool people. For instance, JC Wagner's take on the Flustration Count makes it a real worker. The Shapeshifter is a bit of visual magic that can astound people; I don't do it because I can't nail it every time, but I've found Marlo's Sleeve Change accomplishes the exact same thing...and that, I *can* do.

Keep practicing.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 13, 2019 10:04PM)
These moves definitely fool!
Message: Posted by: davidpaul$ (Mar 13, 2019 10:07PM)
Youtube magic videos. Well that speaks volumes.
I utilize the sleights you mention. If done properly, in the context of a routine with the proper speed finesse and timing they are powerful tools. They are popular sleights that have stood the test of time for a reason (in the proper hands)
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Mar 13, 2019 10:16PM)
No discrepancy can fool everybody. It's a discrepancy.
Message: Posted by: mlippo (Mar 14, 2019 02:12AM)
90% of the videos on YouTube show teenagers wearing shorts and a vest, sitting on their beds and filming a close up of their hands (alright slightly exaggerating here, but maybe not so much ...).

What I really mean is that too often the moves are performed badly, with a bad timing and, to make things worse, the close up shot, makes you miss (this is true for any move, not just the ones you cite here) body talk, direction of attention, eye contact between magician and audience and so on, and these are things that help immensely during the execution of the move.
I can't speak for the Mexican Turnover as I have never studied it enough to perform it, but it's certainly valid for the other two you're questioning.

Mark
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 14, 2019 08:37AM)
[quote]On Mar 14, 2019, mlippo wrote:
90% of the videos on YouTube show teenagers wearing shorts and a vest, sitting on their beds and filming a close up of their hands (alright slightly exaggerating here, but maybe not so much ...).

What I really mean is that too often the moves are performed badly, with a bad timing and, to make things worse, the close up shot, makes you miss (this is true for any move, not just the ones you cite here) body talk, direction of attention, eye contact between magician and audience and so on, and these are things that help immensely during the execution of the move.
I can't speak for the Mexican Turnover as I have never studied it enough to perform it, but it's certainly valid for the other two you're questioning.

Mark [/quote]
Exactly.
Message: Posted by: diamondjack (Mar 14, 2019 09:36AM)
I think the reason I never found these moves very useful is that the nature of the sleights draws attention to the cards when you preform them. Color changes and false counts direct your attention to the cards, otherwise why do them? The shapeshifter change is supposed to be like other color changes...the visual change of one card into another. The problem is that even when I was a little kid before I knew anything about card magic I saw someone do the change and immediately knew how it was done. The handling is not concealed in any way that would lead you away from the solution.
same with the flustration count. I suppose you could do it fast enough to confuse the spectators but that wouldent be very convincing.

I suppose you could do the mexican turnoveron the off beat with the heat away from the cards, but I havent seen anyone do that. You're better off picking up the card and doing a top change.

Again, this is just my experiance. Maybe someone can show me where I can see someone preform these sleights in a convincing manner.
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Mar 14, 2019 09:57AM)
Yeah, with the Shapeshifter, you're basically [I]inviting[/I] someone to stare at the visual discrepancy.

Same goes for the Flushstration Count. Now, conventional wisdom says that move should follow a stronger show, such as a Diminishing Lift. That certainly helps [I]reinforce[/I] the illusion by lowering the spectators' vigilance. But it will never be a guaranteed fooler, and anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves.

The faults in these two moves are objective and have nothing to do with YouTube.

The visual discrepancy of the Mexican Turnover can effectively be eliminated through proper blocking, timing, and gaze management (what a term). After all, no one can see a discrepancy if they're not looking at it, eh? If I remember correctly, Juan Tamariz provides blocking that accomplishes just that. It can be found in Sonata.
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Mar 14, 2019 10:01AM)
[quote]On Mar 14, 2019, mlippo wrote:
90% of the videos on YouTube show teenagers wearing shorts and a vest, sitting on their beds and filming a close up of their hands (alright slightly exaggerating here, but maybe not so much ...).

What I really mean is that too often the moves are performed badly, with a bad timing and, to make things worse, the close up shot, makes you miss (this is true for any move, not just the ones you cite here) body talk, direction of attention, eye contact between magician and audience and so on, and these are things that help immensely during the execution of the move.
I can't speak for the Mexican Turnover as I have never studied it enough to perform it, but it's certainly valid for the other two you're questioning.

Mark [/quote]

How do any of those things eliminate the visual discrepancies in the Shapeshifter or Flushstration Count? The corners will always swap, and you will always be flashing the bottom card. [B]Unless someone isn't looking at the move,[/B] which then leads to the obvious question: Why do them at all?
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Mar 14, 2019 10:05AM)
I'm not saying we should abandon discrepant moves. Rather, we shouldn't chastise someone for calling out their obvious flaws ó discrepancies are [b]by definition[/b] flawed. Nor should we blame said flaws on the fact that a Youtuber was performing them. Nonsense.
Message: Posted by: JBSmith1978 (Mar 14, 2019 10:21AM)
I use the Flustration Count and Mexican Turnover within certain contexts. I use the Shapeshifter occasionally as well. I sometimes use it's precursors and offshoots too. As with any move in magic, if you don't see how something will fly it's best to avoid it till you do.

As an aside I do something similar to a Mexican Turnover in a routine that is visually more illogical than any of the aforementioned discrepancies. You just have to pick your battles appropriately.

As an aside many perform the moves you cited poorly and or not in the best situations.
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Mar 14, 2019 10:25AM)
Always the performer that "won't" fool - not the "established" sleights. ALWAYS.
Message: Posted by: davidpaul$ (Mar 14, 2019 10:46AM)
Well here is where I differ in certain aspects. If you are just performing DeSousa's (the originator) Shapeshifter or any other sleights mentioned in an of themselves, well one can deduce. BUT if you establish yourself in the context of a show that you can do some extaordinary feats, then what you do becomes more believable. It's about entertainment and not focusing on one move.

I'll direct your attention to Jean-Pierre Vallarino. Ultimate McDonald's Aces, Rumba Count, Ultimate Wild Card. Watching his Wild Card Routine is a thing of beauty and you can care less about the moves. Maybe it's our personality in performance that is lacking. What we do should be enjoyable.

When you go to a really good movie, you KNOW it's not real. You KNOW they are acting and it's all special effects. Why does the movie industry bring in billions of dollars?

Maybe our focus should be on entertaining and engaging our audience where they leave feeling good and wanting to see YOU again.

I posted this before I saw Harry's post. His post said it all.
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Mar 14, 2019 11:02AM)
[quote]On Mar 14, 2019, Harry Lorayne wrote:
Always the performer that "won't" fool - not the "established" sleights. ALWAYS. [/quote]

A good performance can only reinforce a visual discrepancy's deceptiveness, not guarantee it.
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Mar 14, 2019 11:06AM)
[quote]On Mar 14, 2019, davidpaul$ wrote:
When you go to a really good movie, you KNOW it's not real. You KNOW they are acting and it's all special effects. Why does the movie industry bring in billions of dollars?
[/quote]

It's easier to suspend my disbelief when I CAN'T see the wires lifting Peter Pan.

If you want to focus on entertaining spectators, then go be an actor or a comic or a writer. If you want to give someone the experience of magic -- whatever that may be -- then be realistic about the deceptiveness of your repertoire.
Message: Posted by: Bobby Forbes (Mar 14, 2019 11:23AM)
[quote]On Mar 14, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
[quote]On Mar 14, 2019, davidpaul$ wrote:
When you go to a really good movie, you KNOW it's not real. You KNOW they are acting and it's all special effects. Why does the movie industry bring in billions of dollars?
[/quote]

It's easier to suspend my disbelief when I CAN'T see the wires lifting Peter Pan.

If you want to focus on entertaining spectators, then go be an actor or a comic or a writer. If you want to give someone the experience of magic -- whatever that may be -- then be realistic about the deceptiveness of your repertoire. [/quote]


Couldn't have said it better.
Message: Posted by: davidpaul$ (Mar 14, 2019 11:41AM)
[quote]On Mar 14, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
[quote]On Mar 14, 2019, davidpaul$ wrote:
When you go to a really good movie, you KNOW it's not real. You KNOW they are acting and it's all special effects. Why does the movie industry bring in billions of dollars?
[/quote]

It's easier to suspend my disbelief when I CAN'T see the wires lifting Peter Pan.

If you want to focus on entertaining spectators, then go be an actor or a comic or a writer. If you want to give someone the experience of magic -- whatever that may be -- then be realistic about the deceptiveness of your repertoire. [/quote]

Just curious... Do you perform on a regular basis for paying establishments/venues?
I don't know your backround and you certainly sound very knowledgeable. I'm a bit confused by your statements, but that's just me I suppose. I entertain regularly am paid well and have been for years as a magician. I assume if my audience wasn't entetained and found my deceptivness unrealistic I would not be working. That's what it boils down for me. Your mileage obviouly varies but that's OK.
I will continue to do what works for me.

We are all just trying to help each other with our on personal experiences.
Message: Posted by: Al Schneider (Mar 14, 2019 01:40PM)
Just for giggles.

Recently I came up with a different concept.
I have posted this elsewhere in this forum.

When a magic event occurs that appears very magical but the audience can discern a possible solution, they are very entertained and respond appropriately.

When a magic event occurs that appears very magical but the audience CANNOT discern a possible solution, they are stunned and in general do not respond.

I could back up all this with examples but I will save that for my next book.
Message: Posted by: martyjacobs (Mar 14, 2019 09:42PM)
I'd agree with that observation, Al. When a magical effect completely deceives a person they are usually lost for words, i.e. don't know how to react because they're experiencing [b]cognitive dissonance[/b]: I know what I saw is impossible, but I just witnessed the magician do it.

This often results in an extended period of silence, followed by swearing and statements such as, "I don't like this!" Dissonance is not a comfortable feeling for most human beings.

Marty

P.S. Love your work. Keep writing those books.
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Mar 15, 2019 08:32AM)
Right on, davidpaus. Thank the Lord I never listened to that font of knowledge, Pupkin - so I've been ENTERTAINING, let me be sure he "gets it" - E-N-T-E-R-T-A-I-N-I-N-G with card magic for about 80 years. If we all listened to font-of-knowledge Pupkin there would never be any "magic entertainers."
Message: Posted by: diamondjack (Mar 15, 2019 11:09AM)
I'm glad you responded Harry. A good example of what I was talking about is that I would rather use your "Turnover Change" in place of the mexican turnover since it accomplishes the same thing but the turnover change is more structurally sound. Of course it would depend on the skill of the preformer, but all other things being equal, I would prefer the turnover change for its deceptiveness.
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Mar 15, 2019 11:19AM)
Of course. The basic Turnover Change is Paul Curry's - and a bit of misdirection...looking at the card at say, the left, as you turn over the card at the right helps to "misdirect."

I've added a few touches/additions to the basic move in CLOSE-UP CARD MAGIC.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Mar 15, 2019 12:04PM)
The Mexican Turnover is used by some street-hustlers in Three Card Monte. It would be physically dangerous is it didn't fool everyone...
Message: Posted by: j100taylor (Mar 15, 2019 09:41PM)
The glide...
Message: Posted by: NEKKODDD (Mar 21, 2019 11:48PM)
The Flustration count
Message: Posted by: Melephin (Mar 22, 2019 06:14AM)
I agree 100% with Harry Lorayne. It is always the performer.

Speaking of the flustration count: that move is great and works perfectly if the timing is right and if you didn't bring it to peoples attention, to burn your hands extra carefully. I have seen magicians they go like: "Look, I have 10 Ace of Spades." Then they do the flustration count. At that point, the audience tries to verify, that your statement was true. If people burn your hand at that time extra carefully and realize a discrepancy - it's definitely the performers fault.

You should never make a statement, that you can't prove and you should never draw attention to the move itself.
Message: Posted by: Melephin (Mar 22, 2019 06:35AM)
In addition: If you perform a worked out routine, the moves "disappear" in the routine. The audience sees the routine as a whole piece and not the moves....
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 22, 2019 06:42AM)
[quote]On Mar 22, 2019, Melephin wrote:
I agree 100% with Harry Lorayne. It is always the performer.

Speaking of the flustration count: that move is great and works perfectly if the timing is right and if you didn't bring it to peoples attention, to burn your hands extra carefully. I have seen magicians they go like: "Look, I have 10 Ace of Spades." Then they do the flustration count. At that point, the audience tries to verify, that your statement was true. If people burn your hand at that time extra carefully and realize a discrepancy - it's definitely the performers fault.

You should never make a statement, that you can't prove and you should never draw attention to the move itself. [/quote]
Magic 101
Message: Posted by: lord_wallmotto (Mar 22, 2019 05:21PM)
Most people's classic pass.

What most people do should be called "the classic earthquake" because that's how obvious it is that something is happening in 99% of the cases. I have seen many "top pros" use the classic pass and only like 00.02% of them really had mastered it.
Message: Posted by: MaxfieldsMagic (Mar 23, 2019 01:10AM)
Another vote for the flushstration count. First time I saw it I just thought ďwhy does he keep showing the bottom card?Ē and didnít realize he was attempting to show them as different. So Iíve always assumed that plenty of other will perceive it the same way, whether or not they say anything.
Message: Posted by: Leo-Kim (Mar 23, 2019 04:50AM)
Wayne dobson did a hilarious version of equivoke where the audience cerater a card piece b piece (red or black? Red, ok letís eliminationen the red cards etc} and when hus prediction is showen it reads Ēthis trick sucksĒ

Thatís not to say that equivoke canít be a devastating weapon - just ask Max Maven...

Mikael Johansson
Sweden
Message: Posted by: Leo-Kim (Mar 23, 2019 04:53AM)
Yay! Iíve got 333 posts!
Oh... rats! Now itís 334...
Oh well...

Mikael Johansson
Sweden
Message: Posted by: The Burnaby Kid (Mar 23, 2019 08:08AM)
Not to worry. I'm going to use my magic powers to revert it back to 333. You're welcome!

And then I'm going to use them to double it and leave it that way permanently. You're welcome!
Message: Posted by: danaruns (Mar 24, 2019 09:37PM)
I'm not a great card technician. My card skills are mediocre at best. But I've done the Mexican turnover for years in a Three Card Monte, and have not once been busted on it. I've used the flustration count, and even super obvious stuff like a riffle force or even a Hindu force, and people do not see it. So I disagree with your assessment of those sleights.

I also have a bad classic pass, but I get away with that too. The whole thing depends on context and what else you are doing at the same time. Subtle misdirection -- also known as performance skills -- covers a multitude of sins. Johnny Ace Palmer tells a bad joke while he does a pass. He even says, "That's a terrible joke, but it covers a pass," and he [i]still[/i] gets away with it. Hannibal repeatedly sticks a card on the table right under the spectator's nose over and over, in plain sight, and the audience never sees it, because he directs their attention elsewhere. And each time he repeats it, he gets a bigger and bigger reaction. Magic is replete with performers who make the most obvious things work to stunning effect.

A sleight is maybe 10% of the trick. 90% is performance. Maybe you'd feel differently about those sleights if you watched good performers live, rather than looking at YouTube videos, which IMHO are inherently bad. It's a bad format, and they are usually done by bad performers.
Message: Posted by: diamondjack (Mar 25, 2019 04:05AM)
I've never seen a preformer do a good mexican turnover, flustration count, or shapeshifter change. Can you point to any videos of these? Also, a pass is not the same kind of sleight that the others I mentioned are. A pass is done ( or should be done} without the audience burning the cards. Misdirection can't be used for the other sleights because attension is being directed at the cards when you're doing them.
Message: Posted by: The Burnaby Kid (Mar 25, 2019 08:57AM)
[quote]On Mar 25, 2019, diamondjack wrote:
I've never seen a preformer do a good mexican turnover, flustration count, or shapeshifter change.[/quote]

It's a shame the smiling mule blog hasn't been up for a while. He had a killer Mexican Turnover. Very fluid.

The flustration count is best used in concert with another supporting idea. It's not great for proof on its own.

The shapeshifter change suffers a lot of the time because the changed card is often shown right next to the deck, which gives it a point of reference when it comes to its orientation. Three ideas that really help. First, do it away from the deck, and pick it up and set it down so that card remains somewhat aligned with the deck (it'll be your fingers that are reoriented). Second, do it as an "In Lieu Of The Through The Fist" Marlo-style move (Sankey does this all the time). Third, don't neglect to surround it with more mystery, either by having the spectator shuffle the cards or by having shown their selection right in the middle and then secretly getting it to the top (such as via a pass, not a shuffle).
Message: Posted by: Ado (Mar 25, 2019 06:25PM)
At Magic Live a few years ago, I spent a night jamming with Bebel. His Mexican turnover works. There's no doubt about it. It's as good as it gets. However he's got the whole choreography around it. Which makes it *better*. You can't see it. It doesn't take a lot of misdirection or what not. If you're looking even 2 inches away from the card that flips, you won't see anything. Pros, real pros, find ways to shut your brain off when the move happens. You won't find how in books or DVDs. You'll have to dissect what the masters (the real ones) do. No one will teach you those secrets, because it's worth too much money.

P!
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Mar 25, 2019 08:46PM)
Some of the pros will teach some of their secrets. Both Giobbi and Tamariz have published different ways of ensuring that the Mexican Turnover is as invisible as it should be.
Message: Posted by: lynnef (Mar 27, 2019 03:20PM)
[quote]On Mar 15, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
The Mexican Turnover is used by some street-hustlers in Three Card Monte. It would be physically dangerous is it didn't fool everyone... [/quote]

Quite true...a magician could catch the Mexican turnover; but ALL people (except stooges) who place bets are fooled or there are consequences. As for the flushtrashion move: even if you don't like it, in performing Jumping Gemini, it's part of the overall effect as well as a move to displace the cards for the finale. Sooo... back to Mr Lorayne's post, you have to get the performance (patter, timing, misdirection, and overall entertainment) down pat. Great topic folks. Lynn
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Mar 27, 2019 03:42PM)
[quote]On Mar 22, 2019, Melephin wrote:
Speaking of the flustration count: that move is great and works perfectly if the timing is right and if you didn't bring it to peoples attention, to burn your hands extra carefully. [/quote]

Unless you choreograph the Flushtration Count so that the spectators are looking away from the cards every single time you thumb the top card into the taking hand, then itís not a guaranteed move. It canít be. It relies on a discrepancy.

I agree that attitude, timing, gaze management, context, and a dozen more presentational factors are critical to the moveís success. But itís silly to argue that they make the move totally bulletproof.

One more time for the cheap seats: [b]If the spectator sees the take of the top card, the move is subject to failure.[/b]
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Mar 27, 2019 03:55PM)
[quote]On Mar 27, 2019, lynnef wrote:
[quote]On Mar 15, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
The Mexican Turnover is used by some street-hustlers in Three Card Monte. It would be physically dangerous is it didn't fool everyone... [/quote]

As for the flushtrashion move: even if you don't like it, in performing Jumping Gemini, it's part of the overall effect as well as a move to displace the cards for the finale. [/quote]

Point of order: Just because a move offers convenience in handling doesnít mean itís a good or worthy move.
Message: Posted by: The Burnaby Kid (Mar 27, 2019 07:22PM)
Point of personal privilege: Oodles of green noodles make blue poodles jump der shtroodle.
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Mar 27, 2019 08:16PM)
[quote]On Mar 27, 2019, The Burnaby Kid wrote:
Point of personal privilege: Oodles of green noodles make blue poodles jump der shtroodle. [/quote]

Hold on let me put that to a beat.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 27, 2019 10:25PM)
The idea that every sleight within an effect must be 'best in its class' is a fallacy and can make for artistic mud. I believe it is a philosophy given rise by the youtube generation who view all card magic through a lens and perform to a lense whereby every move must be "bullet proof".
This is a horrible way of thinking.
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
The magic must bewilder. It is a piece of performance art. Not a series of moves. Things should flow. Most sleights have a time and place. The expert knows where, how, and when to use them.
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Mar 28, 2019 06:24AM)
[quote]On Mar 27, 2019, magicfish wrote:
The idea that every sleight within an effect must be 'best in its class' is a fallacy[/quote]

Where did I say that?

I simply pointed out the (seemingly self-evident) fact that a discrepancy cannot fool everyone and will not "work perfectly," as stated above.
Message: Posted by: EllisJames52 (Mar 28, 2019 01:26PM)
[quote]On Mar 28, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
[quote]On Mar 27, 2019, magicfish wrote:
The idea that every sleight within an effect must be 'best in its class' is a fallacy[/quote]

Where did I say that?

I simply pointed out the (seemingly self-evident) fact that a discrepancy cannot fool everyone and will not "work perfectly," as stated above. [/quote]

Discrepancies can fool everyone. The performer needs the right attitude and the right misdirection. Audience's aren't cameras. They can't rewind, pause, or zoom in.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 28, 2019 01:29PM)
Bingo.
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Mar 28, 2019 02:59PM)
[quote]On Mar 28, 2019, EllisJames52 wrote:
The performer needs the right attitude and the right misdirection.[/quote]

As stated above, if you choreograph the Flushtration Count so that the spectator is looking away every single time the take happens -- thus eliminating the visual discrepancy -- then sure, it's foolproof.

This isn't rocket science.

[quote]Audience's aren't cameras. [/quote]

Correct. They're thinking adults with miraculous brains that are capable of interpreting millions of vanishingly minute bits of information. At the end of the day you're flashing the bottom card over and over. We can only do so much to hide that (let's be honest, boneheaded) fact.

[quote]
Discrepancies can fool everyone.[/quote]

An incredible sentence that requires no further comment.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 28, 2019 03:06PM)
"An incredible sentence that requires no further comment."

I disagree. I feel it could use further comment as there may be some here who doubt it. Discrepancies can indeed fool everyone. And they do. Some make very good livings with them.
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Mar 28, 2019 03:08PM)
[quote]On Mar 28, 2019, magicfish wrote:
I feel it could use further comment as there may be some here who doubt it. [/quote]

The floor is yours!
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 28, 2019 03:08PM)
"At the end of the day you're flashing the bottom card over and over. We can only do so much to hide that"
Correct. And sometimes it doesn't need to be hidden at all.
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Mar 28, 2019 03:08PM)
[quote]On Mar 28, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Some make very good livings with them. [/quote]

This... isn't an argument?
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Mar 28, 2019 03:08PM)
[quote]On Mar 28, 2019, magicfish wrote:
"At the end of the day you're flashing the bottom card over and over. We can only do so much to hide that"
Correct. And sometimes it doesn't need to be hidden at all. [/quote]

Like when?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 28, 2019 04:09PM)
[quote]On Mar 28, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
[quote]On Mar 28, 2019, magicfish wrote:
Some make very good livings with them. [/quote]

This... isn't an argument? [/quote]
I'm not sure what you mean?
Message: Posted by: Rachmaninov (Mar 28, 2019 06:28PM)
Ellisjames52, your post goes right into my notesÖthanksÖ
Message: Posted by: jason ladanye (Mar 28, 2019 06:34PM)
I'm only here for the comments...

::eats popcorn::
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 28, 2019 07:38PM)
[quote]On Mar 28, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
[quote]On Mar 28, 2019, magicfish wrote:
"At the end of the day you're flashing the bottom card over and over. We can only do so much to hide that"
Correct. And sometimes it doesn't need to be hidden at all. [/quote]

Like when? [/quote]
Like when the audience believes you have a packet of identical cards.
See Ortiz' writings about conviction.
The flushtration count casually, subtly, shows them what they already know. You're almost doing them a favour by giving them a final glimpse.
Take Williamson's genius action of moving a coin around his upturned palm with his opposing thumb. If he used it to say "look, there is a coin in my hand" it wouldn't fly.
But that is the case. When we see him pretend to move the coin we believe it because we just saw it go in there. We are already convinced there is a coin there so his subtle repositioning is psychological bamboozlement- not unlike the flushtration count.
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Mar 28, 2019 08:47PM)
[quote]On Mar 28, 2019, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On Mar 28, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
[quote]On Mar 28, 2019, magicfish wrote:
"At the end of the day you're flashing the bottom card over and over. We can only do so much to hide that"
Correct. And sometimes it doesn't need to be hidden at all. [/quote]

Like when? [/quote]
Like when the audience believes you have a packet of identical cards.
See Ortiz' writings about conviction.
The flushtration count casually, subtly, shows them what they already know. You're almost doing them a favour by giving them a final glimpse.
Take Williamson's genius action of moving a coin around his upturned palm with his opposing thumb. If he used it to say "look, there is a coin in my hand" it wouldn't fly.
But that is the case. When we see him pretend to move the coin we believe it because we just saw it go in there. We are already convinced there is a coin there so his subtle repositioning is psychological bamboozlement- not unlike the flushtration count. [/quote]

None of that makes the discrepancy go away. It only works to reinforce its deceptiveness.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 28, 2019 09:07PM)
Who said anything about making the discrepancy go away?
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Mar 28, 2019 10:19PM)
This is an even dumber Cafť conversation than usual.

[B]As long as a spectator is able to see the discrepant take of the card, the Flushstration Count is not a foolproof move.[/b]

I'm out. Later!
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 29, 2019 02:18AM)
[quote]On Mar 28, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
This is an even dumber Cafť conversation than usual.

[B]As long as a spectator is able to see the discrepant take of the card, the Flushstration Count is not a foolproof move.[/b]

I'm out. Later! [/quote]
Dumb indeed. This is about the silliest sentence I've read in awhile- regardless of font thickness. NO count is foolproof if the onlooker determines it is false whether it be an ascanio spread or a Gemini count.
Message: Posted by: diamondjack (Mar 29, 2019 03:34AM)
Some discrepancies can fool a layman but my initial post was specifically about the flustration count. I think that the discrepancy is too big to fool most people. The only way to cover it would be some kind of misdirection, but then why do the count? The count is supposed to be a convincer that the faces or backs of the cards are all the same.A false count is not a "secret slieight" like a pass because you want them looking at the cards when you do it.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 29, 2019 04:23AM)
No. If you are relying solely on a flushtration count to demonstrate the identical cards then you are drawing attention to it in every way. This is not the way to use it.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 29, 2019 04:24AM)
"Unless you choreograph the Flushtration Count so that the spectators are looking away from the cards every single time you thumb the top card into the taking hand, then itís not a guaranteed move. It canít be."

Incorrect.
Message: Posted by: EllisJames52 (Mar 29, 2019 10:56PM)
Iím honestly not sure whoís arguing what anymore. To go back to diamondjackís question, it might be an issue with the way youíre doing it, or the context. Feel free to pm me if you want some help. But I do want to stress that you can fool people with the move. (Though convince might be the better word) You can use it to show that the cards are identical. But thatís just my two cents
Message: Posted by: EllisJames52 (Mar 29, 2019 11:06PM)
[quote]On Mar 28, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
[quote]On Mar 28, 2019, EllisJames52 wrote:
The performer needs the right attitude and the right misdirection.[/quote]

As stated above, if you choreograph the Flushtration Count so that the spectator is looking away every single time the take happens -- thus eliminating the visual discrepancy -- then sure, it's foolproof.

This isn't rocket science.

[quote]Audience's aren't cameras. [/quote]

Correct. They're thinking adults with miraculous brains that are capable of interpreting millions of vanishingly minute bits of information. At the end of the day you're flashing the bottom card over and over. We can only do so much to hide that (let's be honest, boneheaded) fact.

[quote]
Discrepancies can fool everyone.[/quote]

An incredible sentence that requires no further comment. [/quote]

Also, just to clear up one thing, misdirection does NOT mean making someone look the other way. You can use it to cover discrepancies (or other dirty work) by shifting the focus. Hereís an example of misdirection. Can you count the basketball passes?

https://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo

Shifting focus is one way misdirection can be used.
Message: Posted by: asherfox (Mar 30, 2019 08:33AM)
[quote]On Mar 13, 2019, diamondjack wrote:
I have been watching a lot of youtube magic videos lately and something occured to me. There have been some sleights that have never fooled me. Even when I was a child and before I studied card magic. Here are three sleights I have always thought were not convincing.

1:The Flustration count
2:The Mexican Turnover.
3:The Shapeshifter Change.

I have seen these moves preformed even before I knew anything about card magic and they have never fooled me. Anyone else have some sleights that they think won't even fool laymen? [/quote]

Well, they work. Actually, I think they work much better than your thought.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 30, 2019 10:53AM)
[quote]On Mar 29, 2019, EllisJames52 wrote:
[quote]On Mar 28, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
[quote]On Mar 28, 2019, EllisJames52 wrote:
The performer needs the right attitude and the right misdirection.[/quote]

As stated above, if you choreograph the Flushtration Count so that the spectator is looking away every single time the take happens -- thus eliminating the visual discrepancy -- then sure, it's foolproof.

This isn't rocket science.

[quote]Audience's aren't cameras. [/quote]

Correct. They're thinking adults with miraculous brains that are capable of interpreting millions of vanishingly minute bits of information. At the end of the day you're flashing the bottom card over and over. We can only do so much to hide that (let's be honest, boneheaded) fact.

[quote]
Discrepancies can fool everyone.[/quote]

An incredible sentence that requires no further comment. [/quote]

Also, just to clear up one thing, misdirection does NOT mean making someone look the other way. You can use it to cover discrepancies (or other dirty work) by shifting the focus. Hereís an example of misdirection. Can you count the basketball passes?

https://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo

Shifting focus is one way misdirection can be used. [/quote]
Exactly. The flushtration count should blend and be incidental. The onlookers already know that all the cards or the same.
Message: Posted by: davidpaul$ (Mar 30, 2019 11:11AM)
[quote]On Mar 30, 2019, asherfox wrote:
[quote]On Mar 13, 2019, diamondjack wrote:
I have been watching a lot of youtube magic videos lately and something occured to me. There have been some sleights that have never fooled me. Even when I was a child and before I studied card magic. Here are three sleights I have always thought were not convincing.

1:The Flustration count
2:The Mexican Turnover.
3:The Shapeshifter Change.

I have seen these moves preformed even before I knew anything about card magic and they have never fooled me. Anyone else have some sleights that they think won't even fool laymen? [/quote]

Well, they work. Actually, I think they work much better than your thought. [/quote]

I agree..They work. I just wonder if those that say the moves are obvious actually perform on a regular, consistent basis. People that don't perform consistently tend to focus just on moves as opposed to the context of a full, entertaing performance/routine.

Sure if you are going to execute a flushtration count in and of itself, it's like focusing just on the applesauce as opposed to all the other foods and drink on your dinnerplate. Cadence has allot to do with execution of sleights. Some sleights like the Elmsley count can be performed in a steady rhythmic action, others like the flushtration should be performed with less robotic rhythm. Hesitations, quick eye contact, hand gestures in the context of the routine. Darwin Ortiz comes to mind.

Experimentation, performing in front of different audiences/ spectators, getting called out by people who notice discrepancies will teach you "over time" to make adjustments to your sleights.
It's not just the sleight it's the whole dining experience. To those that say that sleights don't fool anybody or are obvious are just looking at the applesauce.

My opinion FWIW.
Message: Posted by: lynnef (Mar 31, 2019 01:28PM)
Re the flushtration count: YES, Darwin Ortiz does come to mind; and it's really worth watching Darwin Ortiz use it while performing Jumping Gemini. I believe he actually mentions that he doesn't particularly like the sleight; however it's necessary for the entire effect and not just one phase. When I first saw Jumping Gemini, I knew the flushtration count was being used, because I'd seen it in other tricks. However, I did NOT catch the fact that the cards were being displaced to reveal "4 kings". Overall, I was astonished that so much could be done with 4 cards. A true classic! Lynn
Message: Posted by: aabc (Mar 31, 2019 03:55PM)
IMO the flushtration count should just be a casual convincer - and probably only used once per routine while not drawing attention to it. It works great in something like Colour Monte, however, because there are so many 'changes' of the cards.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Mar 31, 2019 06:39PM)
Bingo.
This is one of the problems with those who learn from youtube. Before they are ever fooled by the magic shop owner or by a live magician, they begin to search for speights on youtube. They see an isolated, out of context move and think, blah, that'll never fly- next!
Message: Posted by: diamondjack (Apr 1, 2019 07:54AM)
I've never been fooled by a live magician with the flustration count even when I was a child. Or the mexican turnover. Or the shapshifter change.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 1, 2019 09:24AM)
Not surprised. It was probably done in the wrong place at the wrong moment. Happens a lot.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 1, 2019 09:33AM)
Same with the Mexican Turnover. I am not expert in its use but in my opinion, the effect musnt hinge on this move. The misdirection here is psychological in that the identity of the card turned over is a foregone conclusion or possible an in-transit action whereby there is no heat on the turnover.
Message: Posted by: davidpaul$ (Apr 1, 2019 02:44PM)
[quote]On Apr 1, 2019, diamondjack wrote:
I've never been fooled by a live magician with the flustration count even when I was a child. Or the mexican turnover. Or the shapshifter change. [/quote]

I believe you. You are probably one of those people who is very discerning, observant, focused and has the ability to detect what most others can't. Some people just enjoy the interaction , others just focus on mechanics. That's just who you are.

In my restaurant work I encounter MANY different personalities. Some could care less about being entertained and are
He#@ bent on figuring things out, while others just want to have fun..


I welcome the discerning spectators , although frustrating at times, but it challenges me to evaluate my performances, improve on sleights, use different ones to a hooefully successful conclusion. It's a constant learning experience.
Message: Posted by: aabc (Apr 1, 2019 04:19PM)
Re the Shapeshifter-although many smart spectators will be aware that there is a double, it is usually (and best) performed in the context of multiple productions/changes and has much greater VISUAL value, and should be a surprise, even if it doesn't fool them.
Message: Posted by: Lonnie Dilan (Apr 2, 2019 01:17AM)
You forgot to say april fools for posting something so silly.
Message: Posted by: lynnef (Apr 5, 2019 11:46AM)
Just thinking... there are many sleights we may say to ourselves, "how could people NOT see this?" Both in Jumping Gemini and Preset eg, we are shown 2 court cards for four; and yet I've never been called on it. Some folks have suggested here in the Cafť of using 2 jokers eg in JG; but Darwin Ortiz himself prefers to use the kings for the overall effect. In other words, the effect and performance are principle over the sleights. The sleights are necessary, yes, but the performance is what counts. What's also interesting is that these sleights that may not be foolproof go into what are considered "strong" effects from Paul Harris and Darwin Ortiz. Lynn
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 5, 2019 04:26PM)
Exactly.
Message: Posted by: Leo-Kim (Apr 7, 2019 05:45AM)
[quote]On Mar 23, 2019, The Burnaby Kid wrote:
Not to worry. I'm going to use my magic powers to revert it back to 333. You're welcome!

And then I'm going to use them to double it and leave it that way permanently. You're welcome! [/quote]

Rats! I'll never be allowed to play in Church again.
Thank you - I Think...

Mikael Johansson
Sweden
Message: Posted by: shaunluttin (Apr 13, 2019 04:01PM)
The unquinquaguple lift rarely fools anyone.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 14, 2019 10:30PM)
"If I may add my two cents.†

I believe that there's a subtle difference between using a Flustration Count to show four identical backs as opposed to four identical faces. Your audience should already assume that the backs of the cards are the same and the Flustration Count subtly "reconfirms" something that they already believe to be true."

- Daryl Easton
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Apr 14, 2019 10:33PM)
"See Ortiz' writings about conviction.†
The flushtration count casually, subtly, shows them what they already know."

- magicfish
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Sep 8, 2019 08:00PM)
Steve Friedberg mentioned J C Wagner's take on the flushtration count, saying that it's quite convincing. (Hi Steve!) Anyone know on which DVD Wagner teaches it? Is it in fact different from the usual count, or is it just that Wagner is a master and can do the standard count so well that people don't notice it?


Bob
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 8, 2019 09:35PM)
Take a sleight, find a trick that depends up it, and see if it's deceptive. Glide? Write down the name of the second to the bottom card on a slip of paper set on the table - then start your "select a card process". Old school comments about marked cards and dry fingers omitted. The bottom card? No? Okay how about the card on the bottom now? No? This next card? ... deceptive?

Frustration count - Tell them you added a few extra cards to the pack but they look a little out of place - as they are dupes but also slightly different colored backs. They touch four cards. Flushtration count to show they got em-put and put those cards away. Deceptive?

Want to test how deceptive? Set up a routine to depend upon the sleight primary display of what's asserted as magical. The shapeshifter change is usually done in focus, but more so if you direct attention to the place the sleight happens (left elbow?) Deceptive? A pass... geeze you really want them to watch their card as you put the other half of the pack on top and do that sleight? Okay? Deceptive? (*whoops that may be the pirouette change - Marc's change is up at the arm or done as a snap down onto the pack? )

*comedy: have a friend over by the light switch and give them a nod just before you do the sleight - they flash the lights off then on again after a half second -, you're good. *
Message: Posted by: Tortuga (Sep 8, 2019 10:23PM)
[quote]On Sep 8, 2019, Bob G wrote:
Steve Friedberg mentioned J C Wagner's take on the flushtration count, saying that it's quite convincing. (Hi Steve!) Anyone know on which DVD Wagner teaches it? Is it in fact different from the usual count, or is it just that Wagner is a master and can do the standard count so well that people don't notice it?


Bob [/quote]

Page 129 of The Commercial Magic of J.C. Wagner. Don't know if it is on any DVDs.
Message: Posted by: Tortuga (Sep 8, 2019 10:25PM)
[quote]On Apr 14, 2019, magicfish wrote:
"If I may add my two cents.†

I believe that there's a subtle difference between using a Flustration Count to show four identical backs as opposed to four identical faces. Your audience should already assume that the backs of the cards are the same and the Flustration Count subtly "reconfirms" something that they already believe to be true."

- Daryl Easton [/quote]

This makes good sense. I think attitude plays a key role.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 9, 2019 09:50AM)
Attitude yes, and judicious use.
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Sep 9, 2019 12:13PM)
Most often it's the performer, not the actual "move." I've personally never had a problem with most mentioned here - certainly not with The Flushtration Count or the Turnover Change. And I'll feed my ego a bit - I sure as heck have never had any problem with my own stuff - The Halo Cut, The Status Quo Shuffle, The Lorayne Force, A Sweet 4-Card Change, the Take Five action, The Ultra Move, my Angle Spread, Spread Control, Universal Reversal, Utility Mixer, Salt-Less, The Great Divide, Hindu Shuffle force of TOP card, and etc. Ya' gotta' start reading the good stuff, Guys!!
Message: Posted by: Kong (Sep 9, 2019 06:44PM)
An interesting discussion and good read.

I have to agree with those who say it's rarely a sleight that fails, more often the application (..in other words, performance).

For an extreme example look at card-to-mouth. 100% bold, 100% misdirection but still seems to work when performed correctly.
Message: Posted by: kShepher (Sep 14, 2019 02:27PM)
Regarding the Flushtration Count...you all know Ortiz uses it brilliantly in Jumping Gemini. Perhaps context?
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Sep 14, 2019 02:35PM)
[quote]On Sep 14, 2019, kShepher wrote:
Regarding the Flushtration Count...you all know Ortiz uses it brilliantly in Jumping Gemini. Perhaps context? [/quote]

Yes, this has been mentioned multiple times in this thread.
Message: Posted by: kShepher (Sep 14, 2019 02:37PM)
Sorry, didn't read the whole thread.
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Sep 14, 2019 02:58PM)
I don't blame you. No point in losing those braincells.

I also don't think anyone is arguing that there aren't smart applications of discrepant moves.
Message: Posted by: kShepher (Sep 14, 2019 03:30PM)
I'm just lazy on the weekends...my job sucks my soul.

I only chimed in because I JG is what I am working on now and even Ortiz in the video says he despises the move...but "it works here".

Carry on...
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 15, 2019 01:13PM)
Which move kshepher?
Message: Posted by: Tortuga (Sep 15, 2019 01:47PM)
I think he means the Flushtration in Jumping Gemini.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Sep 15, 2019 03:43PM)
Oh I see. Thanks.
Message: Posted by: Ben Bob (Sep 27, 2019 01:44AM)
[quote]On Sep 9, 2019, Harry Lorayne wrote:
Most often it's the performer, not the actual "move." I've personally never had a problem with most mentioned here - certainly not with The Flushtration Count or the Turnover Change. And I'll feed my ego a bit - I sure as heck have never had any problem with my own stuff - The Halo Cut, The Status Quo Shuffle, The Lorayne Force, A Sweet 4-Card Change, the Take Five action, The Ultra Move, my Angle Spread, Spread Control, Universal Reversal, Utility Mixer, Salt-Less, The Great Divide, Hindu Shuffle force of TOP card, and etc. Ya' gotta' start reading the good stuff, Guys!! [/quote]
Agree with your opinion.
Message: Posted by: Rachmaninov (Sep 27, 2019 01:26PM)
Problem is that usually you donít know when you have any problem. Most people are polite.
Message: Posted by: Mr Salk (Sep 27, 2019 02:16PM)
[quote]On Sep 27, 2019, Rachmaninov wrote:
Problem is that usually you donít know when you have any problem. Most people are polite. [/quote]

This is why you should always run your set thru children, drunks and A Holes.
Message: Posted by: Rupert Pupkin (Sep 27, 2019 02:49PM)
[quote]On Sep 27, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
[quote]On Sep 27, 2019, Rachmaninov wrote:
Problem is that usually you donít know when you have any problem. Most people are polite. [/quote]

This is why you should always run your set thru children, drunks and A Holes. [/quote]

That's my favorite Tom Waits song.