Hi Guys,

I was wondering what your opinions of the hunters monte are. I have a few ideas that I belive will improve upon the standard handling, however as a monte type effect, how do you feel it compares to the others out there such as Skinners Monte etc

Many Thanks

Come on guy's, one of you must have this

I have it and Skinners etc. But haven't actually performed a monte routine for many years. Several phases, never where it is supposed to be. From a LAY point of view they are all pretty much the same, although the Hunter's Monte wallet offers the chance of a clean up, and if I remember correctly a suggestion of a torn card ending? Not that you'd use that table hopping.

So if you're asking how they compare from an entertainment point of view, it's the same. From a method point of view they are both easy to do.

But you're right, there must be others here who have the effect, it was so popular at one time it got ripped off.

Paul.

Thanks for your comments Paul, there much appreciated. I agree about the clean up but don't really like the addition of a 4th card. (You never started with 4 so why 4 at the end) However, with a bit of imagination you can still have the clean up but still have 3 cards.

In regards to the Skinners Monte, watch this space as there will very shortly be released a new version with many routine ideas where you can have the torn corner clean up. It will come with approx 20 gaffs, and packs of additional gaffs will be available quite cheaply.

Hot Off The Press News As I Discussed Amongst A Few At the International Magic Convention.

Hmmm, I assume you're talking about Hunter's Monte by Rudy Hunter?

I like the effect, however it makes no logical sense to mix the cards face up. After all you're playing a game of chance with the spectator, having the cards face up just seems odd to me.

I agree with Paul that most monte routines get boring very quickly, unless you can make each phase more impressive than the last.

I do a monte routine that is similar in method to Hunter's Monte, but different in all other respects. Briefly, I start with a 4 card phase, then continue with a three card phase, followed quickly with a two card phase. Finally, I finish with a game of 1 card monte! This structure works well for me and allows the spectator to focus on the kicker ending as only one card is in play (this also takes all the heat off the card you don't want people looking at).

Marty

Truesoldier, that Skinner update perhaps sounds a little like Harry Anderson's "The Laste Monte" described as follows;

Effect

This is an outstanding routine which simulates the classic Three Card Monte routine played on the streets. Even though the routine looks and feels like the real thing the special cards supplied are used to create impossible looking sequences. But the impossible and memorable ending is what kills.

While educating the spectators about how not to get ripped-off with the con game you demonstrate a basic routine where the money card is never found. You then give them the ultimate chance to win by tearing the corner off the elusive money card. Believe it or not when the card with the missing corner is turned over it is not the winning Ace. Everything can be handed out for immediate examination and can be given out as a souvenir.

Comes complete with illustrated instructions and all necessary cards, including a dozen special Monte cards. The cards supplied are Poker-size, blue-back Gemaco Casino Pro cards as used in many casinos. "

Many of the marketed monte routines are pretty much interchangeable/similar from a lay point of view.

Actually a couple of years ago I did re-introduce to my repertoire Joe Riding's "Three Card Trick With Four Cards" for a while. And still use my own "Not Another Three Card Trick" for walk around, which mentions three card monte initially but of course is nothing like it.

There must be more than half a dozen variants on three card monte released every year I guess the latest is Paul Wilson's Concam Monte (which uses four cards)and whilst different in method is still very similar in effect to what's already out there. I think in "Small But Deadly" I commented we need another three card trick as much as we need fluorescent invisible thread. But I also said I'd probably make comments I regret. The effect does have a place, and there are plenty out there to suit everyones comfort zones, so more just add to the choice.

Paul.
p.s. Marty, the reduction of cards sounds good, and amusing and usually the way to go with that gaff. Pretty much what Marty Grams does with "Mo' Money Monte". When Rudy performs his monte it looks good. But then, originators do tend to be more comfortable with their material than anyone else

Thanks for the info Paul, I'll have to check out "Mo' Money Monte". I do like Hunter's Monte, I think it is a very strong effect, it just doesn't suit me because I like to present the trick as a game, and I have a hard time justifying the face-up mix.

Marty

Mo Money Monte uses the same gaffed card.

There are other monte routines where some cards are face up and face down, some of Gordon Bean's for instance. As for the presentations, well, those can be personal and what works for one doesn't always suit another. It really is whatever you feel comfortable with.

Paul.

Hi Paul

Thanks for the in depth post, it's really appreciated. (Sounds like it could be the same effect, although my understanding is that it hasn't been released as yet.

Also, I totally agree with you, do whatever feels comfortable to you.

All Then Best