(Close Window)
Topic: Continuity / consistency between effects
Message: Posted by: Nikodemus (Jul 2, 2020 12:17PM)
I was wondering how much thought experienced/professional performers give to "logical consistency" BETWEEN effects (rather than within a given effect).

Take CHICAGO OPENER for example. According to the plot, one card changes colour, then changes its identity. Obviously this is an illusion. But according to the plot there should be a total of 52 cards at the end, including the stranger card. Without revealing details of the method, I hope I can mention here that the method creates a discrepancy.

Suppose you remove the stranger card, and then go on to perform other effects with the same deck. Are you concerned by the fact that the internal logic of the plot says you now only have 51 cards? Are you concerned about what an audience will surmise if/when they happen to spot cards that according to the previous effect should no longer be present?

Would you try to tie up the loose ends? (Chicago Opener does not have a final phase that restores the original cards)
Would you do a non-card effect to break the audience's memory connections?
Or would you just assume people probably won't notice or care?

I would love to hear how people view this from a theoretical and practical standpoint.
Message: Posted by: funsway (Jul 3, 2020 03:15AM)
There are many books on the importance of creating a "routine" as opposed to doing tricks or framing an effect.
You mention "theatrical" and "practical." How about magic? What is your objective in using mystical arts to communicate with an audience?

Perhaps your thought of "between effects" should be "across effects" or "around effects" or 'beyond effects" as well

Just to entertain? A skill Demonstration? or to create an experience of magic that will last decades in memory and story?

The latter objective may not be possible with a single effects. So, a combination of effects with varying impact and 'awe&wonder' can create the story to be told.
Continuity of theme, tension and release, logical disconnects/acquitments, sustaining interest, etc. are all important elements.

The online presentation by Ray Pierce is worth watching. Look to what you are trying to accomplish and work backwards to choice of effect and even trick.

but your line "Or would you just assume people probably won't notice or care? " may be critical.

You are talking about todays audiences, of course - as opposed to the mind set of audiences decades ago when most of the fine books were written.

For "must be magic" to occur or sustain in memory several factors must be in place. (Furst Principles)

Lack of focused attention, respect of the performer, and expectation of magic to occur are often missing today.
Additionally, many are addicted to entertainment with short-circuiting of their orbital cortex. Read up on it.

they do not "care" about anything beyond getting an endorphin reward and little information ever get to the "rational thinking."

So, audience selection may be a large factor in your consideration.

At a kids party any thought of 'routine' may be unnecessary. Likewise in a bar setting. Table hopping is another world.
At a commercial gig you may want to market a product or theme.

The, you get a chance to perform a one hour show for 300 folks at a 20 year class reunion where a magician was requested in a poll.
You plan on doing some research, yes? You plan on designing your show around the expectations of this audience, right?
You want to be asked back for the 50th reunion too. You need a routine and "magic" must be the bonding element. Not 'you" - magic.
Message: Posted by: mlippo (Jul 3, 2020 04:58AM)
Pop Haydn, in his Chicago Surprise has a very good and logical solution.

Buy his booklet and see what you think of it

Message: Posted by: Nikodemus (Jul 3, 2020 01:46PM)
Hi guys,
Thanks for your responses.

Mlippo - Actually I already bought Chicago Surprise, and that's what got me thinking about this.

Funsway - wow, a lot to think about! Not sure I entirely agree with the stereotype of modern audiences. I think people will spot discrepancies, and it's important to think about the big picture. (A bit like the internal consistency we expect within a Sci-Fi movie).

The reason I raised this is because there are so may demo videos that just show ONE effect.

I was thinking about another more extreme example today. Suppose you did some sort of signed card effect, and the method involves a duplicate card. At the end of the effect, you give the delighted spectator the signed card to keep as a souvenir. Then you perform another pick a card effect with the same deck - and the next spectator happens to pick the same card. You have allowed the first effect to be destroyed.

I guess it was a pretty silly question - I would never want to leave such a possibility.
Message: Posted by: Nikodemus (Jul 4, 2020 09:23AM)
I just checked my copy of Michael Ammar's ETMCM. There is [b] no [/b] mention whatsoever of resolving that issue. I think that's what was nagging at me subconsciously - I just bought Pop Haydn's Chicago Surprise. The fact that he produces the card from his pocket really got my attention. Funny really, there is so much great stuff in his teaching, but that detail stood out.

Anyway... Michael Ammar makes no reference to the slight anomaly at the end of CO. The way the DVD is edited makes it impossible to know what he does in a real performance. You see the performance, then the explanation (with 8 card Brainwave). Then they cut to the start of the next trick (Acrobatic Aces).
Message: Posted by: okiya (Jul 13, 2020 08:22AM)
[quote]On Jul 2, 2020, Nikodemus wrote:
I was wondering how much thought experienced/professional performers give to "logical consistency" BETWEEN effects (rather than within a given effect).

Take CHICAGO OPENER for example. According to the plot, one card changes colour, then changes its identity. Obviously this is an illusion. But according to the plot there should be a total of 52 cards at the end, including the stranger card. Without revealing details of the method, I hope I can mention here that the method creates a discrepancy.

Suppose you remove the stranger card, and then go on to perform other effects with the same deck. Are you concerned by the fact that the internal logic of the plot says you now only have 51 cards? Are you concerned about what an audience will surmise if/when they happen to spot cards that according to the previous effect should no longer be present?

Would you try to tie up the loose ends? (Chicago Opener does not have a final phase that restores the original cards)
Would you do a non-card effect to break the audience's memory connections?
Or would you just assume people probably won't notice or care?

I would love to hear how people view this from a theoretical and practical standpoint.
Thanks [/quote]

I do a variation on the Chicago Opener where there really is only 52 cards (including the miscoloured card), so I don't have that problem at all ! ;)
Message: Posted by: TomB (Jul 13, 2020 11:00PM)
Eugene Burger had some thoughts on that trick. The answer is yes, everything needs to be thought about.

If you have access, you may want to read this old post
Message: Posted by: davidpaul$ (Jul 14, 2020 09:34AM)
Performing in restaurants for many years, people really don't pay all that much attention to details in certain areas. They are too busy paying attention to each other or other things. Details about how many cards should be left in the deck after a particular effect is too much traffic for their minds.
They just want to have a good time. I also will go in a different direction after a card effect like (Chicago Surprise) to a non- card effect.
Message: Posted by: Nikodemus (Jul 15, 2020 03:50AM)
Thanks for the responses.

Okiya - I don't think that really solves the problem I wasn't really talking about the [b] number [/b] of cards in the deck. I meant [b] which [/b] cards are in the deck.
Suppose the spectator chooses Ace of Spades (from a red deck) in the first phase, and the back magically changes from red to blue.
Then they get the Queen of Hearts in the second phase. And the blue card magically changes from AS to QH. According to the plot there is only one QH in the deck and its back is now blue.
At the end of the effect that blue card is removed. So there should be no QH in the deck at all.
If you do another effect with the same deck [b] for the same group [/b] someone may spot that QH. They could even select it when you do another pick-a-card effect
Message: Posted by: Nikodemus (Jul 28, 2020 08:36AM)
I guess this video of ED OSCHMANN at the Magic Castle answers my question -


Ed performs YOURS TRULY, his version of Chicago Opener. At the end, he puts the red-backed AH in his pocket.
According to the plot, cards have changed their back and/or value, but no new card has magically appeared from nowhere. So logically the deck should no longer have an AH.

He then performs two more effects. Both require cards to be selected by spectators. These are taken from the middle of the deck. Whereas the AH is (I believe) safely near the top.

Then he performs COIN MATRIX. This is about 12 minutes after Yours Truly, with a couple of other effects in the meantime. One of the four cards happens to be the AH. This was exactly the kind of situation I was thinking about. But nobody seems to notice or care. They have already forgotten. But I think it would have been strange if the AH got selected for the very next trick.
Message: Posted by: tltq (Aug 1, 2020 02:31PM)
Try this. Change the color of the back of the card.

Let's say the odd-backed is the jack of clubs and it is a red back. After you force the second selection, control it to the bottom of the deck. After the face of the odd-backed card is shown to match the second selection, leave it face up on the table. Place the deck face up on top of it. Say, "I want to do some more tricks but I need to get the deck back to the original condition. I got an idea."

Pick up the deck. Switch the odd-backed card for the card above it by way of the Glide. Place the blue-backed card face-up on the table.

With the deck facing you, look through the deck to find two mates - like the red queens. You will need to push the bottom two or three cards over as a block the hide the back of the jack. Show the mates then place them face down on the table.

Rub the back of the jack on the backs of the mates. At the same time, thumb off the odd-backed card into a pocket. Show that the back of the jack is blue again.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Aug 2, 2020 12:16PM)
Lots of good ideas here. Here's a relative beginner's perspective, Nikodemus. I fretted about these issues In Chicago opener too. Someday when I'm advanced enough I may learn Chicago Surprise. But in the meantime, here's my take. Magic is a game of "Let's Pretend." From that point of view, the reappearance of the first selection, but with its original back-color, would have happened by magic. It was simply one component of the magic that changed the face of the stranger card.

Not all spectators will buy into "Let's Pretend" or suspension of disbelief; they're more interested in figuring out how the trick is done. If that's the way they want to enjoy (I hope) magic, fine with me.

As I write, I'm realizing what I think is the central question here: is our goal to minimize the chance that spectators will figure out how the trick was done? That is surely one goal, but we have to weigh its importance against that of creating a sense of wonder. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I'm guessing that Pop Hadyn would say that making it hard to figure out how the trick is done is *part* of how we create a sense of wonder. But he's assuming, I think, a very sophisticated audience. So, echoing Funsway, it depends on who you're performing for.

By the way, Bill Malone has a nice solution. The original selection ends up in his wallet, which has been in his pocket the whole time. If you're interested, you can find his performance and explanation on L&L's compilation DVD, World's Greatest Magic: Chicago Opener.

I'm inclined to think that the trick as it stands, without any frills, is great as it stands. Why gild the lily? I haven't performed it yet -- my DL needs work -- so this is partly my personal reaction from watching various versions, and partly my having read the testimony of many people on the Cafť, who say they've been doing the original for many years and have found that audiences enjoy it.

Finally -- Funswway -- can you recommend some good books on routining?


Message: Posted by: Nikodemus (Aug 2, 2020 07:49PM)
Hi Bob,
Chicago Surprise is available as a PDF plus video download for about $20. It is well worth it.
Pop's philosophy (as I understand it) is that you do NOT want the audience to suspend disbelief. You want to engage their critical faculties and then apparently eliminate all possible explanations. This leaves them with the sense that something impossible has occurred.

My own opinion is you should not assume spectators are dumb. What you call a "sophisticated" audience is probably a cross-section of normal people with reasonable level of intelligence and curiosity.
If you want to win at chess, you need to think of the best move your opponent could make - not assume they will walk blindly into your traps. I believe designing magic is the same.
Message: Posted by: Ed Oschmann (Aug 5, 2020 09:48PM)
It's an important question. I've always held the opinion that you try to fool the smartest guy in the room. The rest just come along for the ride. So yes, you should take care in eliminating discrepancies that can weaken a subsequent effect. Not discrepancies within an effect, those are fun.
Take the case of a torn and restored card. If that card is signed, destroyed and finally restored, it wouldn't be good if that card showed up later. So care must be made to make sure it doesn't show up again. In the case of the Chicago Opener Pop pulls the card out of his pocket after tabling the odd backed card suggesting a duplicate. This mitigates a potential problem further up the road.
As to the example where the ace of hearts shows up later in a matrix effect is no big sin. The focus is on the coins and enough time has passed to make this fact immaterial.
So it's difficult to forsee every potential eventuality. Placing your effects in the framework of a routine will definitely pay dividends. Or you learn like me. A lot of trial and error. A LOT of trial and error.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Aug 5, 2020 10:15PM)
Hi Nikodemus and Ed,

Very interesting thoughts, here.

Nikodemus, I already have Pop's booklet and video on Chicago Surprise. I'm not far enough along in my learning for his effect, so for now I'll be happy if I can learn the traditional Chicago Opener! About Pop's philosophy of magic: the thinking he's put into that is amazing. I'm out of my depth here, but but it seems to me that in the end, even if his clever strategms (sp?) have made his methods utterly inscrutable, no reasonable spectator will believe that they've witnessed real magic. So I'm inclined to think that the audience still has to bring a "Let's Pretend" attitude to Pop's performances if they're to fully enjoy the effects. Maybe.

Ed, "Try to fool the smartest guy in the room" -- sounds like excellent advice. I'm curious: why do you distinguish between discrepancies within an effect and between effects. I'm missing something...

I'm with you, by the way, on trial and error. :cheers: That's pretty much the way I do everything. A lot of work, but fun (mostly) work, and in the end you find that you've created something beautiful.

Message: Posted by: Nikodemus (Aug 6, 2020 05:31AM)
Ed - thanks for contributing! It's great to have the answer from the horse's mouth. A signed card is a GREAT example.
I have a really clear idea now about what matters and what doesn't - which is why I started the thread.

Bob G - forgive me, butI think your logic is not quite right. It's a false argument I have noticed is quite common.
Roughly speaking this argument says totally fooling a spectator is the same thing as making them believe in real magic.
They will never believe in real magic.
Therefore I don't need to worry about totally fooling them.

And worse -
Spectators don't believe in real magic.
Therefore they must "suspend belief" when they watch a magic show.
Therefore if there is a weakness in my effect it doesn't matter - they will be fooled anyway, because they wan to be.

People often compare magic to suspending belief when we go to the movies or a play. There is a massive difference.
I can thoroughly enjoy a movie like Superman, Star Wars etc etc, knowing it is all make-believe. I certainly don't believe Darth Vader is real. But there is always an internal logic within a story. Especially in Sci Fi there ate "rules" about the laws of the fictional universe. Spiderman & Darth Vader have different, specific powers.
When people watch magicians perform they do NOT suspend belief. They know it is a trick - but they STILL don't know how it is done! That is what makes it an enjoyable "magical" experience. This is why it's important to eliminate both the actual method used AND other possible methods not used. You want to leave them with no possible explanation, But that is not the same thing as convincing them you have real magical powers!

If you are interested in this theoretical side of things I recommend two books by Darwin Ortiz -
Strong Magic
Designing Miracles.

I have been working on Chicago Opener/Surprise for a couple of months. I think I am just about ready to perform now. Funny, it seemed really daunting at first, but gradually it has taken shape,
Message: Posted by: Ed Oschmann (Aug 6, 2020 09:30AM)
Itís funny, I have never actually looked up the word discrepant. Intuitively I know what it means, but never actually taken the time to look the word up. So, based on my extensive research (Google) a discrepancy is simply a disagreement. And yes, itís more nuanced than that, but for the sake of argumentÖ So you donít want some thing that happens in one effect negatively affect what happens in the next. Like the example of a destroyed card showing up later. It dilutes both effects. So when I talk about discrepancies in a particular effect an Elmsley count is probably a very basic example. You are showing four face up cards and yet the ace of diamonds shows up twice yet itís
never noticed. Itís not noticed because you may be asking a spectator to focus on the card turning face down as in twisting the aces. Inconsistency may be a better word for what weíre talking about. Although, at the moment Iím not really in the mood to expound on this. :stircoffee:
I can only speak for myself in addressing the ďsuspension of beliefď idea. The spectator is always the X factor here. 95% of the spectators know what Iím doing is !@#$%^&*. And yet, they donít care because I am amazing them, while making them laugh at the same time. They are getting a swell night out. And yes, once in a while someone finds what I do to be quite profound. So, my point isÖ Actually I donít have a point. Iím going to pour myself some more coffee.

No, wait! I do have a point: buy this- itís great!

Message: Posted by: Bob G (Aug 6, 2020 10:59AM)
Nikodemus, you may be right. I dunno, the more I think about it the more I don't understand! One thing I can tell you: I certainly wasn't advocating sloppy handling or thoughtless construction; I'm actually a perfectionist about this sort of thing. Maybe what I said comes out of being intimidated by Haydn's high-level thinking. As a relative beginner, I don't think I can even begin to apply his methods. Of course, he builds the methods into his tricks, and eventually, with more experience, I hope I can learn some of them.

You mentioned internal consistency in sci fi. Have you seen Tolkien's interesting essay, On Fairy Tales, that addresses the same issue?

Glad the Chicago tricks are going well for you.

Ed, I see what you mean about the Elmsley count, though at the moment, with not much performance experience, I'd be calmer doing face-down EC's. Your lecture does indeed look great -- and recommended by such a highly respected reviewer! :) I think you have another Penguin DVD where you talk about your version of Chicago Opener?

Thanks to both of you for your DVD and book recommendations. I've resolved (for the thousandth time) to spend no more on magic, and this time it looks like I'm going to stay on the wagon. But I'll keep these ideas in mind for some indefinite future time when Darth, and his boss the Emperor, permit me to spend again.

Message: Posted by: Bob G (Aug 6, 2020 11:02AM)
Oops! Just realized, Ed: the disk you mentioned *is* the one with your Chicago Opener! So that makes the disk *two* disks for the price of one, no?
Message: Posted by: Ed Oschmann (Aug 6, 2020 11:34AM)
No discs, just a digital download from penguin.
Message: Posted by: mlippo (Aug 6, 2020 12:22PM)
[quote]On Aug 6, 2020, Ed Oschmann wrote:
No discs, just a digital download from penguin. [/quote]

Your Chicago Opener presentation is something I like a lot!
Seriously thinking to adopt it, ditching the one I've been using for years

Message: Posted by: Ed Oschmann (Aug 6, 2020 12:29PM)
I adapted Pops card from the pocket. I didnít do it in the Castle performance, but this is the way I do it most of the time.


Thanks for the kudos!
Message: Posted by: Ed Oschmann (Aug 6, 2020 12:31PM)
[quote]On Aug 6, 2020, Bob G wrote:
Oops! Just realized, Ed: the disk you mentioned *is* the one with your Chicago Opener! So that makes the disk *two* disks for the price of one, no? [/quote]

What two for one are you talking about?
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Aug 6, 2020 12:39PM)
It was a lame attempt at a joke. Of course we're not talking about disks anyway, but the idea was: I looked at the disk you referenced and thought, "That looks like fun, but it doesn't have Chicago Opener, so if I *were* buying magic, I'd have to decide whether to buy this disk *and* the one with CO. On looking again, though, I realized that CO *was* on the disk you mentioned, so I'd just saved myself a hypothetical $30. If you see what I mean.

Does the Cafť have a picture of a lead balloon?

See you, Ed.

Message: Posted by: Nikodemus (Aug 7, 2020 07:45PM)
I purchased Ed's Penguin lecture. It's brilliant. Full of really powerful effects - mostly not too challenging. A couple are virtually self-working. Lots of useful tips along the way.
And all explained with charm & humour.
Message: Posted by: Aus (Aug 8, 2020 10:22PM)
I wonder if the concern of "discrepancies" in the magic we perform is just another case of running well not being chased.

Psychology dictates that the human mind can only effectively and accurately focus on one thing at a time. It's when we divide our attention to more than one thing that our recall and perceptions of events start to falter.

We see this psychological tendency utilized in many principles of magic. Take the humble criss cross force for example, where we are forcing ether the bottom or the top card of the deck and obscuring that fact by physical displacement of the various halves of the deck and time misdirection by virtue of divergent patter that shifts the spectators mental focus away from the cards for a moment. With these simple ingredients in combination, the criss cross force works effectively.

The effectiveness of misdirection falls on the same principles which when boiled down to barebone concepts manifest as the following. For example, the audience will pay attention to what moves. They will also pay attention to what makes noise. What doesn't move and doesn't make noise doesnít attract attention. The audience will always look where the magician looks. The magician must never look at what he wishes to conceal. The audience will treat as important what the magician treats as important. The audience will treat as unimportant what the magician treats as unimportant. Of course there's a lot of meat that attaches to these barebone concepts but the basic tenets of what I'm talking about are there.

Here is an social experiment for you to try to get real life validation of these concepts. Take a matchbox and take the draw out and place a folded up 5 dollar note in it. Ask you spectator/participant to match this investment and to place 5 dollars of his own money in the draw along with yours. Place the matchbox draw back into it's sleeve and make the following proposition.

Recall the events that transpired to this point highlighting your actions of extracting the matchbox draw and placing the money in it without making reference to the fact that one of the 5 dollar notes belongs to the spectator. Just say "we" placed 10 dollars cash inside the match box.

Now make the offer to the spectator that you will sell the matchbox and it's contents for 7 dollars to him/her. Further making the point that they would be making a $3 dollar profit on the deal considering that there is 10 dollars cash inside the matchbox.

You'll find that 9 out of ten people will jump at the chance without realising that half the money in the matchbox was theirs in the first place and in paying you 7 dollars your essentially making an 2 dollar profit on this deal. You will find that the majority of the hesitation if any stems from a "to good to be true" mentality that comes into play but they often can't place their finger on why they feel like this.

This experiment highlights the power of time misdirection and repositioning focus of you spectators.

I think sometimes the pessimism of these concepts can be traced to some extent to videos of live performances where these principles and concepts can seem more overt rather covert to the magic practitioner. But there needs to be a better understanding that there is a substantive difference between perspectives that makes this appear so. Firstly, you as a magical practitioner are privy to knowledge that the average spectator is not, so what seems obvious to you may not be obvious to a layperson who doesn't have that knowledge.

Secondly, videos give a panoramic view which puts the spotlight more severely on everything which is substantially different then the limited perspective and focus of a real spectator in a real life performance. The margins of a person's peripheral vision is a lot less in a live performance then that of watching a video performance, which means the effectiveness of the above concepts and principles are substantially different then what you would perceive on a video performance. This also has a direct collation on one's perspective of what is considered a gutsey or bold move.

Well my tendency leans towards the more psychological concepts of masking so called discrepancies I do see some value in more physical solutions.

Structuring your Acts by using tricks that give a natural congruence can remedy any perceived discrepancies. For instance I constructed a three trick set for walkaround using Nick Trost's Observation Test, Garrett Thomas Stand Up Monte and finally Ambitious card. The premise of the set revolves around the exploration of the common cliches of "seeing is believing", "the hand is quicker than the eye" and "it's all done with smoke and mirrors".

Much like Chicago Opener, the Observation Test ends with a odd backed card in an off colored deck, but since the back color of the cards or card is the primary focus of the trick I make sure that the face value of the card is of the same value of money card of my stand up monte gaffs. It's then a simple matter of taking the odd backed card from Observation Test well putting the remainder of the deck away and proceeding with the stand up Monte routine.

At the conclusion of Stand up Monte I end with multiple queens which logically wouldn't belong in a standard deck of cards, so I put the duplicates away well retaining one which is used in my final trick the Ambitious Card ending in a Omni deck finish. As you can see there is an inferred logic that exists from one trick to the next that doesn't need an overt explanation.

The added advantage of using the same card in each consecutive trick cuts down on the deadtime that would otherwise be involved in selecting a new card in every demonstration.

Of Course you could do this on an individual trick bases if you wanted to.

For Chicago Opener you could replace the odd backed card back on top of the deck at the end and do a color change of the top card to it's opposite backed mate, then peel it off well simultaneously necktieing the deck well showing the now changed card. Replace the card back on top without revealing the odd colored card on top then double undercut the top two cards to the bottom then bottom palming the odd card out at a convenient moment.

Of course this is all extra work you will need to add, however I would be asking the question first, is all this necessary or do I just think this t is necessary?


Message: Posted by: Nikodemus (Feb 19, 2021 07:44PM)
Tommy Wonder addresses this question on his Visions of Wonder DVD. He talks about "taking it out of the frame".
He has deliberately designed TAMED CARDS to cycle through 4 different force cards each time he resets. I.e. it is only on the 5th performance that he gets back to the first force card. This is aimed at restaurants etc where a spectator might watch him perform the same effect for another group.

He also gives a funny example of deliberately keeping a heavy Zombie Ball in your [b] dressing room [/b]. (I presume this was hypothetical). The idea is to totally fool anyone who happens to come into the dressing room and pick up the ball. The very opposite of letting someone find the actual prop and discovering its secret.

So clearly he was thinking of a much bigger "frame" than just one trick at a time.
Message: Posted by: michaelpenkul (Feb 21, 2021 01:08AM)
I used to occasionally get questions after Chicago Opener whether there is a missing card in the deck now after removing the odd backed card. These days I do a simple colour change like Erdnase to change the odd coloured card back, and then palm it off at some off-beat moment.
Message: Posted by: Nikodemus (Mar 6, 2021 12:20PM)
That makes a lot of sense.
Message: Posted by: michaelpenkul (Mar 10, 2021 12:26AM)
It's great because I will do it as people relax their attention, as if I'm just changing it back to reset the deck and move on. So sometimes only a few people in the group will see the colour change, and they will freak out explaining it to the others that didn't catch it; cool little moment and gets rid of the issue of there being one missing card in the deck now.
Message: Posted by: mightytimbo (Mar 12, 2021 03:50PM)
There are a lot of good performers out there that clean up this issue well. (Either purposefully or not). They'll do a trick like the Chicago opener, then focus the next trick or two on something than only focuses on a specific set of cards. Then maybe focus on a forced card that the spectator needs to sign. Then they'll do something like give the spectator the signed card as a souvenir and now because they no longer have a complete deck they set it aside and move to a new deck. This allows for a deck switch that the audience is not only aware of, but is a part of so they know the old one is burned.

There are a lot of variations on how this kind of thing is done in different routines, but it's a good way to resolve the issue you're talking about.