(Close Window)
Topic: Looking for an effect
Message: Posted by: WayneBurrows (Aug 9, 2019 07:06PM)
Hi

I am looking for an effect that I think I read about recently. It was with a memorised deck obviously since we are in this forum. Probably stack independent but I don't know the precise workings of what I recall being read.

The effect is starting with a deck (in memorised deck order) you have a spectator name any card. You then deal the cards into two piles and select one pile. That pile is dealt into two piles and you again select one pile. This is repeated five or six times until the named card is the only card left in a pile of its own.

I have worked out the mechanics of such a routine and just wanted to check what similar routines are available. I can also do a similar effect where I deal the cards into more than two piles and whittle down until there is only one card and it is the selection.
Message: Posted by: MorrisCH (Aug 9, 2019 08:19PM)
This trick trace back to Royal Road to Card Magic title Tantalizer
and Darwin Ortiz further maximize the effect by using Memorized deck call Maximum Risk

Denis Behr has extensive works on this principle in his stack work which can be found in Handcraft Card Magic Volume.1 and 2
hopefully that give you something to explore.

P.S. I hope I got the name right...if I don't, please correct me.
Message: Posted by: WayneBurrows (Aug 9, 2019 08:39PM)
Fantastic it was Darwin Ortiz's Maximum Risk. I already have that on my list of videos to look at.
Message: Posted by: WayneBurrows (Aug 9, 2019 09:15PM)
I found my copy of The Royal Road to Card Magic and looked up The Tantalizer - I am amazed at your quick encyclopedic knowledge.

Does Darwin Ortiz's method require the card to be in the 22nd position like The Tantalizer or does he deal with any position? Either could be accomplished by using a memorised deck. You can cut so the card is in the 22nd position as if doing an ACAAN trick or you can manipulate the cards differently and directly knowing its precise position without cutting the deck. I have been using the latter method that allows me to deal the known card to a particular pile based on its card position rather than the essentially self-working effect after the card is placed at 22nd position. My method effectively requires a calculation at each step although the calculation can easily be put into memory because there are strong patterns in the method.

I like the plot of dealing the spectator half of the cards at each step and not finding their chosen card among them as in The Tantalizer.
Message: Posted by: mlippo (Aug 10, 2019 02:50AM)
Darwin Ortiz does not have the card in 22nd position before starting the dealing process

Mark
Message: Posted by: Jerry Danes (Aug 10, 2019 02:34PM)
Darwin Ortiz has a new version of Maximum Risk in his latest book Lessons in Card Mastery from 2012. It is called Calculated Risk and you can find it on page 179-187. I think it is way better and you should definitely check it out.
Message: Posted by: WayneBurrows (Aug 10, 2019 11:49PM)
Thanks. I am quite happy with what I am doing but there might be some subtleties that I can learn. I read this description: "A spectator selects a card. The performer then repeatedly eliminates half of the cards until only one remains. This proves to be the selected card." from elsewhere in the forums and then worked out an easy way to do this from a stacked deck for any named card.

I am happy to share my method if anyone is interested.
Message: Posted by: Waterloophai (Aug 11, 2019 02:33AM)
Not the same of course but approx. the same effect is "The Core" from Pit Hartling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrsUQc6CzOI
Message: Posted by: Jerry Danes (Aug 11, 2019 11:07AM)
[quote]On Aug 10, 2019, Jerry Danes wrote:
Darwin Ortiz has a new version of Maximum Risk in his latest book Lessons in Card Mastery from 2012. It is called Calculated Risk and you can find it on page 179-187. I think it is way better and you should definitely check it out. [/quote]

The difference between the two routines from an audience perspective is that in Maximum Risk the spectator selects a card, but in Calculated Risk the spectator NAMES a card. I forgot to write that in the previous text. It is a small change but it plays much better.
Message: Posted by: WayneBurrows (Aug 11, 2019 12:25PM)
Thanks.

I haven't seen Calculated Risk or Maximum Risk for that matter but I suspect that I do something similar. As part of a routine I get the deck into memorised deck order and then ask a spectator to name a card. I then after successive deals end up with one card which is the spectator's card. I can't imagine there are too many significant variations on this procedure from a memorised deck. I deal two piles and I know which pile the card is in. By calculation I then know which pile the card is in in the second and subsequent deals. It is relatively easy to keep track of.

Rather than dealing one pile of 51 cards to the spectator and 1 card to me, I deal two piles at each stage and select one pile. I can show the unselected pile to not contain the cards as we go or all at the end.
Message: Posted by: Waterloophai (Aug 11, 2019 01:51PM)
[quote]On Aug 11, 2019, WayneBurrows wrote:
I haven't seen Calculated Risk or Maximum Risk for that matter but I suspect that I do something similar.
[/quote]
If I understand your procedure correctly, it is not as consistent and not as simple as that of Darwin Ortiz.
By the way, he performs (and explains) "Calculated Risk" also in his Penguin lecture from October 2013.

"Maximum Risk" he performs and explains at Volume 2 from his 4-DVD series "Scams & Fantasies".
But as mentioned before in this thread, "Calculated Risk" is more impressive (name a card instead of take a card).
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 11, 2019 03:32PM)
In Simon Aronson's "Divide and Conquer," the same is achieved with two chosen (not named) cards. No memdeck required.
Message: Posted by: WayneBurrows (Aug 11, 2019 04:02PM)
[quote]On Aug 11, 2019, Waterloophai wrote:
[quote]On Aug 11, 2019, WayneBurrows wrote:
I haven't seen Calculated Risk or Maximum Risk for that matter but I suspect that I do something similar.
[/quote]
If I understand your procedure correctly, it is not as consistent and not as simple as that of Darwin Ortiz.
By the way, he performs (and explains) "Calculated Risk" also in his Penguin lecture from October 2013.

"Maximum Risk" he performs and explains at Volume 2 from his 4-DVD series "Scams & Fantasies".
But as mentioned before in this thread, "Calculated Risk" is more impressive (name a card instead of take a card). [/quote]

Compared with Maximum Risk which I have now viewed it is not as simple. The consistency is different. You would need a different plot that Maximum Risk uses or a slight possible anomalies in how the cards are dealt.

I am still waiting to find out the details of Calculated Risk. My method uses a named card but could equally use a selected card replaced in the same or any known position.
Message: Posted by: Denis Behr (Aug 12, 2019 07:15AM)
Since publishing my version, I traced the effect back to 1926 and compiled a list of more than 120 published versions. I will write a summary for our site https://www.conjuringcredits.com/ , but it will take a few weeks until I get to it.
Message: Posted by: langston3711 (Aug 12, 2019 09:14AM)
I highly recommend looking into Denis Behr's version. Instead of destroying your stack with as with Darwin's, you can actually finish the effect back in full stack with Denis' teaching. Very smart thinking.
Message: Posted by: WayneBurrows (Aug 12, 2019 03:46PM)
Yes getting back into stack is a good feature. But it comes at a cost. I like being able to not touch the deck except for dealing after the selected card has been named.

Dealing into two piles is just an antifaro. Therefore you can restore this deck by not much more than a sequence of faros and partial faros. In fact when practicing my method by going through every card in the deck and performing it for every selection I was alternating that with faro practice to restore the deck. There is a minor problem that some cards are dealt an odd number of times reversing their order and others dealt an even number of times maintaining their order. That is potentially a problem in performance but not practice to restore the order as piles of cards would need to have their order reversed. I am not sure that the restoration would be insurmountable.
Message: Posted by: WayneBurrows (Aug 14, 2019 03:01PM)
I have managed to obtain a description of Darwin Ortiz's Calculated Risk and I can confirm my method is completely different. Moreover, it is sleight free.