(Close Window)
Topic: Skinner's 3 Card Monte
Message: Posted by: Flec (Oct 2, 2004 07:24PM)
I have owned and performed this effect for a few years now and I love it. But I noticed something the other day.

Firstly on the Bill Malone Tapes he mentions that the cards can be taken out of the deck to start the effect. How is this possible? It would surely have to be an early effect right?

Secondly, A review of this trick claims that the ending can leave you clean and the cards examined if necessary. Again, how?
http://www.magicbox.uk.com/product.php?prodId=00028&catId=919

PM me or reply with any suggestions.
Message: Posted by: Jaybs (Oct 2, 2004 07:45PM)
Hi Flec,

Yes, the cards can be taken out of the deck to start the effect. I usually ribbon spread the whole deck face up to show that they are all normal, being careful not to show the gimmicked portion of the cards. If you have this, you should know that it is possible to show a large portion of the gaffed cards without revealing anything.However, as you mentioned, it would have to be an early effect so that the the gaffs are not exposed.

I guess you can end clean if you do a packet switch which isn't too hard. There's been times when the spectators have asked to examine the cards, but they still could not find the secret. This doesn't usually happen to me because I put the cards away as soon as I finish the effect, and continue my act with the rest of the deck. I hope this helps!

Joe
Message: Posted by: DaveM (Oct 2, 2004 07:50PM)
I used to utilize "Switch-a-Roo" in conjunction with many of my packet tricks, especially Skinner's Monte, NFW, and Ricochet, to enable me to hand the cards to the spectator for examination. Hope this helps.


Dave
Message: Posted by: Jaybs (Oct 2, 2004 07:53PM)
I also forgot to mention that if you had an Xchange deck, this would be a very effective way to switch the cards. Unfortunately, you still don't end clean, but it allows you to let the spectators examine the cards without hesitation.
Message: Posted by: Dorian Rhodell (Oct 2, 2004 08:07PM)
In the instructions that come with the packet trick, it describes how Mike cleaned up with a packet switch. However, if you really study the performance part of the routine, you will find that no switch is nessecary.

Best,

Dorian Rhodell
Message: Posted by: markyeager (Oct 2, 2004 11:42PM)
I recently saw Bill perform this effect. If performed properly, no one would ever ask to see the cards. Bill gets more out of this effect, than anyone else I've ever seen do it.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 2, 2004 11:55PM)
Aside from your fast hands, what specifically keeps the audience from wondering what's under your thumb and later seeking to explore the question for themselves with cards in hand?
Message: Posted by: BIlly James (Oct 3, 2004 01:40AM)
Start with the 3 cards on top of your deck in it's case and push the flap of the case between the gimmick set and the rest of the deck, that way when you pull the deck out it is easy to keep the gimmicks in the box as you pull out the regular deck.

Now go into a couple of your standard routines and then put the deck back into the box but leave it on the table. (Do a non-card trick or two now)

Now go back and take the cards out of the case give them a cut and then run through and take out the gimmicks and away you go.

When you finish put them back on top of the deck - deck into the case - flap between gimmicks and deck.
Now off to the next table you go.

Cheers
Message: Posted by: Marco S. (Oct 4, 2004 08:33AM)
Billy James`s idea is one of many you could come up with. Just try it.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 4, 2004 08:57AM)
True, and what about what's under your thumb?

Believe me, I've used this, in the form of Hamman's [i]Final Ace Trick[/i] and found out the hard way.
Message: Posted by: Werner G. Seitz (Oct 4, 2004 10:04AM)
[quote]
On 2004-10-04 09:57, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
True, and what about what's under your thumb?
[/quote]This is very funny..for me..

Actually I never liked that version, also I did know it way back from the Eddy Taytelbaum days..most ppl still not know that it was described in *The Art of Close-up magic* way back...

I never liked the MS handling/popularization at all !
And..to say so, is almost a crime.. :(

Seeing Bill Malone do it, gives another perspective..also it was not that routine I kept a very firm eye on when watching his DVD, I think (IIRC) his handling and presentation was GREAT..maybe here was a performer that could make the most out of it..?
I have to have a renewed look, but can't imagine the impression I recall is wrong..

As mentioned, that type of gaff is much, much older then when Michael Skinner made it popular, those just knowing a tiny bit about the various routines/tools of card magic will know this!

TBH, when Patrick Page does his version of 3 card monte it is GREAT.

As being influenced though by being a *magician* (well at least kind of) myself, I must though admit, I like the Gaetan Bloom gimmick much, much better, otherwise I wouldn't have gone through the trouble of making spares myself, AFTER I had purchased the stuff from him/ his dealer selling it many years back..

BUT, this -again- goes 15-20 years back and I haven't done that routine since..still it is stuck in my mind..and I still love it, but would have to practice heavily to get it running smooth..

Too much other non-card stuff that is more effective for laypeople to keep up with..

Remember, one can't do it all..and WHEN one does it, it has to be as flawless as possible..
That is not only a goal, but also often prohibits one in doing routines that are great, even routines one has done years back oneselves, takes too much time to get 'em perfect (or at least close to perfect).
One has to make a choice..always!
Message: Posted by: bobby (Oct 4, 2004 08:09PM)
[quote]
On 2004-10-02 20:50, DaveM wrote:
I used to utilize "Switch-a-Roo" in conjunction with many of my packet tricks, especially Skinner's Monte, NFW, and Ricochet, to enable me to hand the cards to the spectator for examination. Hope this helps.
[/quote]

I actually purchased the Switch-a-Roo exactly for this purpose myself...
Message: Posted by: David Nelson (Oct 4, 2004 08:23PM)
To back up Jonathan, since I like to do that when he's right, I've got an anecdote to share. I was a young punk hanging around the magic shop but still very green when in walked Mike Maxwell with a new trick to show Steve, the owner. L&L had just finished the first run of the cards and Mike had written the instruction booklet that came with it. Up until this point I had never seen or heard of the infamous fake-o sheets. I didn't know that the cards had been custom printed, I was told that Mike was doing sleight of hand as taught to him by Mike Skinner. Mike was very unhappy when I told him it looked like he wasn't showing the full face of the cards and I'd be curious to see them. One could chalk it up to a magician's knowledge but, at that time I was very ignorant of the various methods to create magic, particularly in the area of gaffs. I'll always remember feeling like the routine telegraphed the method. Of course, Mike Maxwell is no Mike Skinner but it does give one piece of anecdotal evidence that the method to this effect can be somewhat obvious in the hands of a mediocre magician.

Dave
Message: Posted by: Review King (Oct 5, 2004 04:58AM)
What a great story.

I think the way the effect is written up and how I've seen folks perform it, people suspect soemthing si up. That's why I don't think there should be a miracle in the middle of the routine. Let them win twice and then end the effect with them stunned.
Message: Posted by: timtam (Oct 22, 2004 08:19AM)
If you are comfortable ending up with gaffs at the end its ok but for my money go for a non gaffed version any time.
Message: Posted by: Werner G. Seitz (Oct 22, 2004 08:53AM)
[quote]
On 2004-10-04 21:23, David Nelson wrote:
I was told that Mike was doing sleight of hand as taught to him by Mike Skinner. Mike was very unhappy when I told him it looked like he wasn't showing the full face of the cards and I'd be curious to see them. [/quote]Let me honest also re this..
I always disliked that *fake*, the second a visitor from Germany performed the routine for me many years back, he did it well, that wasn't the prob..

Michael Skinner was an outstandingly great artist, but I still wonder, he got away with this thingy..even if the originator is good old Eddy from the NL..
Take a look at Gaetan Blooms fake..that's true magic when performed well, or even Pat Pages version..he wouldn't dream of to swap it for any other version..
IMHO, that Ultimate 3 card monte stinks..sorry, I'm actually just observing, trying to look at the routine from a specs point of view!

BUT, take the *Chase the Ace* from Ken Brooke..or whoever invented it..for larger cards or stage-work..that one is OK, even if the gaff is similar, actually I too used it years back!
Just -again- the opinion of a single guy, judge for yoruself..

One main point, even *the greats* in magic can flop re their judgement and handling of certain routines..they are human too..so why not !
Message: Posted by: MField2000 (Oct 22, 2004 10:26AM)
Two quick points: First, the gaff goes back to the great Theodore DeLand. Second, Bob Far mer took the Skinner idea and greatly improved it (IMHO) in "Bammo Monte Monster."

It's a multi-phase routine in part designed to de-fuse the "what's that under your thumb" problem.

Matt Field
Message: Posted by: Werner G. Seitz (Oct 22, 2004 10:31AM)
[quote]
On 2004-10-22 11:26, MField2000 wrote:
Two quick points: First, the gaff goes back to the great Theodore DeLand. [/quote]
DeLand...why didn't I recognize that?
An old pal of mine :)
Just kidding, but I should have remembered! :(
(Don't know Bob Farmers version though :( )
Message: Posted by: Pete Biro (Oct 22, 2004 11:10AM)
Even though the Ken Brooke Chase the Ace cards are around 9x14-inches, Ken INSISTED that it is ia close up trick. And I agree.

It is the handling and the presentation.

When you are close, you can allow the spectator to put his/her hand on the ACE corner, turn all over, take away the 2 and 3 and it KILLS when they turn their hand over and have a 3, you the Ace.

But, as I said (and as Ken taught) it is the handling/managment.

A great routine and I have probably worn out a dozen sets over the years.
Message: Posted by: Paul Chosse (Oct 22, 2004 03:20PM)
I "Beta'ed" (Check the credits) the Skinner thing... Never been asked about the cards, never had 'em grabbed... Depends on your presentation. You'll note that they really don't give you one in the Skinner package. How you handle the cards, how you do the "fekes'", etc., are what sell the slieght-of-hand concept. And you do have to "sell" that this is clever card handling! You have to almost challenge them to catch you, then give them a reason that explains the wrong card being there. This IS NOT an easy trick to perform - it is easy to DO, but not easy to PERFORM. Real performers CAN "sell" this. Mike Skinner did, and I'm glad he showed me how...

Best, PSC
Message: Posted by: Larry Davidson (Oct 22, 2004 05:07PM)
Over the years, I've performed a number of versions of 3 card monte and this version garners me the strongest reaction. I've not have one person mention or act as if the cards weren't normal. Here's one suggestion...if you don't want people to think that the cards are special, don't treat them like they're special, for example, by removing them from a wallet.
Message: Posted by: Werner G. Seitz (Oct 23, 2004 02:51AM)
[quote]
On 2004-10-22 16:20, Paul Chosse wrote:
I "Beta'ed" (Check the credits) the Skinner thing... [/quote]
Yes, I did Paul..so many (good) magicians can't be wrong...

Well TBH, I never did use/practise that version -also I bought it!-as I always was in love with the Gaetan Bloom handling/fake..

The ones demonstrating it to me (Skinners version) didn't do a too good job, I suppose, the only one that got away with it in my (critical) eyes was Bill Malone, and THAT was because of his presentation rather then the *handling*/ covering of the particular spot to be covered.

Now, comparing this *real* close-up thingy with *Chase the Ace* is not entirely fair, as in the latter (which I did and loved to do when being in my early 20th) gave entirely diff. handlings/possibilities to cover the dirty work, f.ex. by use of ones own entire part of the hand below the thumb (don't know what's it called in english).

The handling of that routine was very natural, by f.ex. having all 3 crds slighly fanned in the right hand ,taking the 1st dirty crd (the one on the back of the fan) in the left, the others still sightly fanned in the right and *sliding* the fanned crds in the right diagonally from top left to bottom right of the dirty card as a POINTER, and the instant the bottom left is reaching covering the *****, the crd in the left was turned over showing it's back..

As you now doubt know the handling of the *Chase the Ace* (others might not), this action aloo when reading the word *sliding* may seem unnatural, and the word *sliding* is not exactly the action taking place, but I assure you it IS a very natural handling..

Also later, when revealing the cardchange, there where so good options to cover the dirty *spot*..
As Pete Biro mention, KB looked at it as a close-up trick, that is correct in a sense, the fact is, that it was/is highly visible for a roomfull of ppl, when doing -and it's always done that way- it stand-up and one also has to have a chair or a table to place the cards on, back up..

Doing that routine with normal sized cards on a table and using the thumb..using each and everytime the thumb, might be slightly suspecious, even when the card is snapped face-up..
Anyway...my original judgment most certainly was too *harsh* and doesn't do justice to what an *expert* can get out of it..prob is, the average magician most certainly never will grasb the correct way to handle that gaff :( -and I include myself into that statement..

What Larry Davidson stated however, is entirely correct..

The real handling starts by removing the 3 aces FROM the deck..and not out of a wallet or envelop..that is the first and basic step to a deceptive performance..
Message: Posted by: Dan LeFay (Oct 23, 2004 06:01AM)
I agree with Pete, Larry and Paul. This has been in my repertoire for years (both the close-up, a jumbo and a giant version). I never had questions on the cards.

To answers Jon's first question: Presentation, character and "a total trust in the gaffs".

Let me tell you guys something that might have me crucified: I prefer this version over the normal 3-card monte. At least when it comes to terms of magic and not gambling.
Auch, I said it...
Message: Posted by: RiffClown (Oct 23, 2004 06:33AM)
[quote]
On 2004-10-23 07:01, Dan LeFay wrote:
I agree with Pete, Larry and Paul. This has been in my repertoire for years (both the close-up, a jumbo and a giant version). I never had questions on the cards.

To answers Jon's first question: Presentation, character and "a total trust in the gaffs".

Let me tell you guys something that might have me crucified: I prefer this version over the normal 3-card monte. At least when it comes to terms of magic and not gambling.
Auch, I said it...

[/quote]

DITTO!!!
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 23, 2004 09:24AM)
I did Hamman's Aces for my younger brother and sister LONG ago, the Sidewalk Shuffle and even the Monte trick.

I watched their eyes when I displayed the cards, and saw the "humor him" look.

People give you that look when they let things slide for the sake of your performance.

People give you a completely different look when they are comfortable with what they see and an almost unmistakable look when surprised by what they see.

A clever idea is not always the best method for a trick.

Paul mentioned above how presentation and persona can manage audience reactions.
Message: Posted by: Dan LeFay (Oct 23, 2004 12:34PM)
Since this is one of the few challenge effects that I have in my repertoire it would be the first where spectators would immediately get vocal if they'd suspect anything. I must admit that with the giant size this has happened in the past. Not so with the close-up version.

Jon mentions the Hamman Final Aces routine and the sidewalk shuffle. When considering the effect of these two, compared with the 3CM effect I would say that the "claim" is much higher. Especially with the sidewalk shuffle, the cards transform in the end. Seems rather natural that someone would like to check them.

(Bob Kohler, in his Aces in their Faces video has a very nice approach for the heavily gaffed cards. First he makes it seem like very slick sleight of hand. And only in the second phase he does a no touch, psychological presentation. The chances a spectator would like to "examine" the cards is much smaller this way.)
Message: Posted by: Bob Kohler (Oct 23, 2004 01:20PM)
Psychological ploys are a great way to cover using gaffed cards. As Larry and other above mention casual handling and your attitude lay the foundation.

Bob Sheets taught me years ago that the most common error magicians make is their "guilt" complex. You've got to eliminate even thinking that you're guilty.

The best performers are powerful, charming and are in control of the audience the entire show. Of course, it should appear to the audience that there is no control.

Next spring I plan on releasing two DVD's that will cover this. One is a much upgraded handling of Aces In Their Faces that will include a new gaff to the set. The second DVD will contain seven card effects that use control as a major part of the "sell."

The lessons will apply to all card handling but will really help routines that use gaffs such as Skinner's Monte.
Message: Posted by: Paul Chosse (Oct 23, 2004 05:14PM)
Hi Bob!

I look forward to your take on subtle card handling as regards gaffs. There is far too little available in any format right now, and, as you know, many excellent effects are ruined by the "guilt" complex magicians display as they handle gaffs. I wonder sometimes if magicians are afraid the gaffs are going to expose themselves, given the care with which they handle them, versus the cavelier attitude they display with normal cards. In fact, I have used this careful handling of gaffs to really sucker folks, magicians included, in more than one trick.

John Luka's "Michigan Monte", based on Louis Falanga's "Virginia City Shuffle", is a case in point. I purposely handle the cards as if they are gaffed, even "guiltily" reversing them and very "carefully" spreading them, as if I'm afraid to expose too much of the card faces. Since the cards are ungaffed, and the trick uses a reverse spread and other subtleties in place of the gaffs, it really is a "sell" to handle them this way, and the audience is shocked at the end, when you toss them the cards!

In another effect, Ron Bauer's version of an Elmer Biddle trick, there is a moment when the spectator is sure that you have two cards held as one. By handling the single as if it IS a double, they are really thrown when they go for the card(s) and find just one.

And then there is the Ascanio spread, which looks like nothing anyone has ever seen before. It can only be for hiding a card! So, I use it to lead the audience to believe that's exactly what I'm doing, when in fact I have nothing to hide at all!

Anyway, you get the idea - handle cards casually when you need to hide something, and guiltily when you don't!

Best, PSC
Message: Posted by: Review King (Jul 9, 2007 01:11AM)
[quote]
On 2004-10-23 14:20, Bob Kohler wrote:
Psychological ploys are a great way to cover using gaffed cards. As Larry and other above mention casual handling and your attitude lay the foundation.

Bob Sheets taught me years ago that the most common error magicians make is their "guilt" complex. You've got to eliminate even thinking that you're guilty.

The best performers are powerful, charming and are in control of the audience the entire show. Of course, it should appear to the audience that there is no control.

Next spring I plan on releasing two DVD's that will cover this. One is a much upgraded handling of Aces In Their Faces that will include a new gaff to the set. The second DVD will contain seven card effects that use control as a major part of the "sell."

The lessons will apply to all card handling but will really help routines that use gaffs such as Skinner's Monte.
[/quote]

I know this is a few years ago and Bob has been verrry busy, but I'd love to see Aces in Their Faces re-released on a DVD. OK, I'd like to see anything by Bob Kohler released!
Message: Posted by: RickVancouver (Jul 9, 2007 02:06AM)
I read somewhere on the Café, about putting all your gaffed cards into a Bicycle card box, along with some regular cards, to create a "deck of packet tricks". At any time through your performance switch in this deck to perform your favorite packet effects.

I always thought this to be a wonderful idea and beats pulling out those small plastic wallets [i](which I'm still guilty of doing - lol)[/i]

Rick
Message: Posted by: gadfly3d (Jul 10, 2007 09:55AM)
Many years ago at a Michigan Magic Day I saw a "performer" in a contest going through a bizarre series of hand washing moves and couldn't figure out what he was trying to do until I figured out he was manipulating his pull to show his hands empty!

Many of the above concerns place one in danger of developing convoluted means to handle what with proper attention to ones performance attitude, as has been suggested also above. Consider if one is hiding an index with ones thumb or finger-if you are thinking about the finger placement or have any anxiety about it at all it will be obvious. But if you can do it without any tension or interest being given it will work.

Gil Scott
Message: Posted by: Ross W (Jul 11, 2007 07:55AM)
[quote]
On 2007-07-10 10:55, gadfly3d wrote:
Many years ago at a Michigan Magic Day I saw a "performer" in a contest going through a bizarre series of hand washing moves and couldn't figure out what he was trying to do until I figured out he was manipulating his pull to show his hands empty!

Many of the above concerns place one in danger of developing convoluted means to handle what with proper attention to ones performance attitude, as has been suggested also above. Consider if one is hiding an index with ones thumb or finger-if you are thinking about the finger placement or have any anxiety about it at all it will be obvious. But if you can do it without any tension or interest being given it will work.

Gil Scott
[/quote]

I'm not sure this is 100% true. To me, Bill Malone's thumb looks like he's hiding the corner of the card, and this is one of his workers. OK so maybe I'm looking at like a magician but you can add my name to the (short!) list of people who think that this trick fools audiences less than we like to imagine.
Message: Posted by: JSBLOOM (Aug 3, 2007 11:43AM)
How about this idea.
Have the cards in a wallet, with a full Ace of hearts displayed.
It is taped to the clear plastic.
Remove the cards then perform.
They have now seen a normal ace and will see a normal 2c through out.
Message: Posted by: Robert M (Aug 3, 2007 04:09PM)
In the beginning, I had misgivings about performing this trick. I thought that the method would surely be obvious to anyone. But, a friend convinced me otherwise (thanks, Steve!), and I've been doing it ever since. No one has ever asked to examine the cards.

I use Daryl's gaffed "Ultimate Monte" cards - two red aces and the Ace of the Spades. One of the advantages of this is that the face card - the Ace of Hearts is one way, so you always know how to hold the cards.

Out of all the tricks he could have performed, Michael Ammar chose to perform this on a Learning Channel magic special that aired a few years ago. So, I think that says something about this trick! :)

Robert
Message: Posted by: closeupcardician (Aug 6, 2007 01:31PM)
Bill Malone's Handling and presentation for Skinner's Monte is great.
Message: Posted by: John McLaughlin (Aug 7, 2007 02:30AM)
I agree with the majority of opinions here that it's how you sell the effect that counts. I've not been caught or suspected of using gaffed cards because in my mind I'm not, and for some reason it comes across to the spectators that way. It's kinda like shuffling a deck of cards. Many of us can do some of the fancy "finger flicker shuffles, but I prefer to do a basic shuffle, so that I don't arouse suspision as a "card shark".
Message: Posted by: Steve Haynes (Aug 12, 2007 02:15PM)
This is a true classic and a real worker.
Message: Posted by: magicdeacon (Aug 16, 2007 10:39PM)
I've been performing Skinner's 3 Card Monte for over 5 years. It's a great effect! I'm one of those guys that hates to pull out the packet wallet.

For the past several years, I've created my own special packet deck. I know where all of my packet tricks are located. I keep the ungimmicked 2c,Ac, and 3c on top of the deck. On the bottom of the deck is Skinner's 3 card monte.

I strongly suggest that you try it. It's been awesome for me. In that deck alone, I've got 20+ minutes.

Just my thoughts:)
Message: Posted by: Andy the cardician (Aug 19, 2007 09:18PM)
Thanks for the tip . . .
Message: Posted by: Rupert Bair (Aug 20, 2007 06:36PM)
I might replace skinners with blammo monte...is the routine better than Malones? If anybody has made the switch?

I rarely perform it...guess I've been lucky, never had the whats under your thumb look.

M:C
Message: Posted by: Review King (Dec 5, 2007 05:40PM)
I was surprised this wasn't done on Mike Skinner's A-1 videos etc. or the peformance videos put out after he apssed.

Does anyone know if there is a performance of Mike doing this?

Here is Mike Ammar performing for real folks:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TwhxHEgbVx8
Message: Posted by: Vlad_77 (Dec 5, 2007 06:11PM)
I have never been "busted" with this effect, and it elicits very strong reactions. I do not present it as a challenge to the audience, but rather how I was duped by a street worker. I think that angle makes the audience a little more relaxed. Also, IMHO, the proper placement of this routine in one's set is very important. The audience needs to be at the point where you have fried them so thoroughly that they will accept anything you do!

Audience management is key; also, handling the gaffs casually makes a world of difference. If the audience has handled the deck in prior effects and you have done your job, they will not suspect anything untoward with the cards as long as your handling remains casual. At one point in the routine, I literally toss them on the mat as I make a disgusted comment about how I was "taken" again. I end it by telling the spectators that I took the cards from the street worker and showed him that magic is stronger than a con. The payoff is great.

As for the thumb issue, I use my index and middle fingers to turn the cards. It looks a lot more casual - at least for me.

Having said all of this, I have begun to do Richard Vollmer's "Poor Man's Monte" from Apocalypse; VERY nice effect and no gaffs.

Best,
Vlad
Message: Posted by: Harry Lorayne (Dec 5, 2007 07:05PM)
Best Monte I know (and perform) is Monte Plus, out of the very first year of APOCALYPSE. Interesting, I even "fry" magicians with it. HL
Message: Posted by: Review King (Dec 5, 2007 09:15PM)
I use Harry Lorayne's routine. THe bent corner scam is what makes a Monte routine, but most mortals can't do it the Vernon way. Harry's routine allows the scam to be done without pinky gymnastics and frys laymen.
Message: Posted by: paisa23 (Dec 5, 2007 10:25PM)
The only versions of this that I know are the Malone and Skinner booklet way.
Message: Posted by: Review King (Dec 6, 2007 12:30PM)
[quote]
On 2007-12-05 23:25, paisa23 wrote:
The only versions of this that I know are the Malone and Skinner booklet way.
[/quote]

Those are the gaff versions ( Mike Rogers also has a routine with those gadffs ).

Harry Lorayne's routien uses ungaff cards.
Message: Posted by: daver (Dec 6, 2007 10:13PM)
I actually like the suggestion that Malone has in his DVD - keep the folder for the cards in view (kinda obviates getting them from a deck, but if you pose it as a gambling thing with 3 cards, and then pull the three out, it's not too suspicious - I've never been busted using that story and pulling 3 from a folder - I don't use too many gaffed card effects) but right after the final reveal, put the cards in the packet and take out something else from the same packet and move right on, before they ask you to go back and get the cards you just used. There's a couple of cheapy vinyl packets around that also have a left and right opaque slot, with an extra slot on one side, so you really have three places to stash stuff. You can even use it as a poor man's gaff switch, keeping an extra ungaffed set of 3 in there and swapping them out.

Ungaffed is of course better in most cases.

I actually still, to this day (even sometimes using the set of cards I got at Tannen's when I was 12) mess people up with Color Monte. It's just such an unassuming effect, with a cute ending that never fails to entertain. And ungaffed.
Message: Posted by: Andy Moss (Dec 9, 2007 09:53AM)
I also follow Daver's idea where I have a cheap black vinyl wallet I got free with a packet card trick.As well as having two pockets with clear frontage there is another hidden opaque pocket on one side. In this pocket I place the three ungaffed cards before hand. At the end of the effect I simply place the gaffed set of cards back in the wallet and only if the spectator asks to see the cards do I undertake the switch.

At the onset of the effect I show all three cards in the following manner.First I spread the three cards face up in my left hand with the ungaffed two to the front. I use my right forefinger to bring attention to the ungaffed two.I then use my right hand to lift the two face up to the vertical just leaving it resting a little upon the next card so as to cover the gaffed index. I use this card as a natural pointer to bring attention to the second card. I then transfer the second hand behind the two using the two cards to do the same with respect to showing the last card cleanly.

I have also adapted Mike Skinner's effect so that I pick up the ungaffed two and the gaffed three separately from the table face down and place the cards together in my right hand.I then show the two cards face up in an open spread to the right with my right thumb covering the bottom right index.To my mind this is far more natural than showing each card singly.

If the gaffed three is to the front the index is naturally covered in the spreading.If the ungaffed two is in front I can then take the liberty of lifting my finger a little to let the spectator have a glimpse of the lower left index. I then raise the two cards up so that they are vertical and facing me.

Finally I pick up the remaining card face down (which I generally arrange in my routine so that it is always the ace) and with my left hand insert it as high up as possible in the vertical facing me fan of cards. I then simply lower the cards and the ace is shown with the index naturally covered.

If I remember correct Oz Pearlman (who is gifted with cards) does a good 'Three Card Monte' version of Mike Skinner's original effect on the Penguin web site where as he picks up the cards (one in each hand) he waves them face up horizontally so that they flap against one another. This movement creates misdirection from the fact that the thumb is in play. It gives the thumb a 'raison d'etre' so to speak. This is a good ploy.

I am not familiar with the 'Switch-a-Roo' and the 'x-Change deck'.I did make the mistake of buying a 'card switcher' thing a few months ago where you have a white perplex frame with a false back that is used to turn the cards around to achieve the switch. I never felt comfortable with this as it was only really good for one or two cards and the false back was too large. It did not look natural.

With best wishes Andy.
Message: Posted by: Joey911 (Dec 31, 2007 09:24PM)
There is a packet switch routine in the instruction booklet. Look in the back. It is pretty good.
Message: Posted by: Andy Moss (Jan 1, 2008 03:40PM)
Yes the pocket can be used to good effect. One might switch the gaffed cards for a normal set in the guise of searching in the pocket for the wallet. I think that this is the methodology you are talking about if I remember rightly. It is a classic ploy. Andy.