Go, Marko!

That's the best approach to BW presentation I've ever heard! Thanks.

Now, let's see if I can find the thing in whatever drawer I stuck it in all those years ago.

Marko,

I'm glad you find this stimulating because I do too! Not that I want to share the praises but I present the BW deck in a very similar way to you, except for the "magic" part of your routine. I don't say the card turns around. I thought my similar explanation (I had planted a prediction card into the deck prior to the performance) was enough. In fact, before turning the card over to reveal a different color, I say: "So that you won't suspect me of using some sleight of hand, I deliberately took this card from another deck..." And I slowly turn the card around as I speak. To me, it was simply an additional proof that I was a mentalist.

Maybe I'm failing to see what's wrong with it. I still don't understand why you think magic has to be included in the patter?

I'm a perfectionist and if I have to alter my patter, I will! Please, I am sincerely interested.

Richard

Invisible deck! Brainwave looks too staged and is more difficult to repeat to the same audience - also they may ask to see your different coloured back deck as well as your invisible deck.

My vote is for Invisible Deck.

It´s just a miracle.

All the best magic,

Pablo Tejero

I agree with you and, incidentally use the same basic presentation but as I stated above as a climax to the '52 in 1' card trick.

I think Brainwave works good in this context as an opener but would never use it as a closer.

I use the ID a lot as a closer but I'm not sure if I would use it to close and routine I opened with BWave. Haven't yet. Hmmm...

I never really found the motivation behind the color change so the only time I use a brainwave is with "Twisted Brainwaves" where 2 decks are used; 2 spectators pick cards, and the cards jump into each other's deck. The motivation for color change is strong with that.

For everything else there's invisible deck, especially when I've lost control of a card in another trick!

GaryW took the words right out of my mouth (or fingers I guess!). If you use two decks with different coloured backs it appears that you have magically taken a card from one deck and transposed it. This gives the purpose to the colour change and the magic is maintained.

rcad, I always try to avoid saying, “so you don't think I used sleight of hand”, or anything like that. It plants thoughts into the spectators mind that may not have been present before. It makes them more likely to assume that at other times you are using sleight of hand. It's like saying 'you can see this isn't a marked deck', until you said it your audience may never have even heard of such a thing.

What method is used for ensuring the spectators pick different coloured cards (after all you don't want to end up with two "red backed" cards in two "blue backed" decks.)

I can think of a few methods, but I wonder which you use?

Just by offering a red backed deck to one spectator and a blue backed deck to another spectator?

Jonesc2ii,

Good point. How about if I said, "so you don't think I'm cheating"?

Of course whatever we say, people will always know we're using tricks. But the point is to confuse them so much they can't figure it out so that it becomes, at least for a while, real magic.

In my humble opinion, saying that we're making the card magically change color in the deck doesn't work because the audience knows the card was already there. I think color changes are effective if they see it happening before their eyes or at least, have seen the card being a different color to start with. That's why I try to justify the color change as an additional proof of my prediction rather than as a magical event.

Richard

Hmmm, you must have a different method for BD than the one I use, (can't go into more detail in a public forum obviously) but what if one spectator chooses 7H and the other one chooses 9D, using the BD I have this would end up with blue backs visible except for the chosen cards both of which would be red, so the rationale given wouldn't work. Both decks would appear mainly blue.

Does that make sense?

Ah, I see what you mean. Well then, have the first spectator choose freely then force an appropriate card on the second?

As an aside, I'd like to say it's great that a simple "packet trick" can be used as the jumping off point to so much creativity. Since getting into magic I think the biggest breakthrough I've made is the realization that the presentation of an effect is far more important than the effect itself, and this thread is a great illustration.

Cheers!

"V",

I agree with you that to have TWO cards selected makes it a little bit more complicated to use the BWD because this deck wasn't designed with a double selection effect in mind. However, having two spectators select a card, I would have one choose a red card and the other, a black one (and use two decks of course.)

On the other hand, unless you have an act or a routine that calls for this, I don't think that doubling the effect will double the amazement. In French, we have a saying (there must be an equivalent in English): "Too much is like not enough." Then again, like I said, maybe your act or style requires it and in that case, I think you'd be better off with the ID although you'd still need two decks. That way, you wouldn't have to worry about any color change justification.

And yes, I too realized just how much presentation is important since such a simple effect is seen so differently by so many.

It's really great to be here!

Richard