|
|
jmbulg Loyal user Belgium 208 Posts |
Does someone know if the undo idea has been applied to 4 cards (I know there are strong contraints on the range for the cuts in this case but I have an idea how to avoid this) instead of 2 ? I did not find any hint on it in Aronson's book "Try the Impossible" or here.
Thanks in advance Jean-Marie |
lcwright1964 Special user Toronto 569 Posts |
One idea: consider the very general case of doing the undo on a deck that is C cards in size. I envision the deck as being somehow split into two roughly equal packets of C1 and C2 cards each, where C1 + C2 = 52. Determine your indicator locations in each packet accordingly, have two selections made in one "half" and the other two in the other, do the undo on each, and you know where the selections end up in each packet. I have derived the formulae for an arbitrary sized deck if you are interested, but if you look closely at the Theory and Practice section in the book, paying very close attention to where the sub-packets start and end, you can figure out the math when deck size C is something different than the standard 52. Hints at the form of these formulae are in the discussion of the Fixed Middle variant of Twice as Hard.
The practical issue is the cutting range restrictions. If you know something I don't that is most interesting… Les |
jmbulg Loyal user Belgium 208 Posts |
Thanks,
Making the 4 cards problem a 2 times 2 with a separation at a known place was indeed my first idea but since then I found a general theory for four cards (each spectator cuts from the full packet from top exactly as in the original undo influence, also the next step is quite similar). I thought circumvent the cutting range problem for the "Four times as hard" version by letting first cut the spectators, and then estimate the number of cards of their packet and from there calculate the range of admissible final placement for the cards. They would therefore choose numbers only after the cuts (rather then the inverse as in the original version). I need to statistically assess my skill on packet estimation because the finale range for the number should be as large as possible (otherwise things like "name a number between 21 and 23" would certainly look awkward). I will see how this comes out. In the meanwhile I have what I think is nice version of "Prior committment" with four cards, where the reveal is first done unsuccessfully by a miss from the magician followed by a recovery by a spectator performing a down-under shuffle. I will post it in another thread, as here it more about stacks (used in the "twice as hard" or "four times as hard"). Jean-Marie PS: I'm quite new to magic, so please be patient and tell me if I reveal too much here (I try to ask myself: would someone who read the book understand it (should be yes) and would someone who did not read it understand it (the answer should be no)) or if my magician's vocabulary is not precise. |
scottishsweetie New user Edinburgh, Scotland 88 Posts |
Hi
I have an effect published on the TSD website to control 4 cards. Basically all you need is 2 indicator cards in each half and a known key card in the middle. PM me if you want more details. I have applied it the 4 cards control to a collectors effect and a variation of Darwin Ortiz's The Cross. To be honest I think effects with 4 cards require quite tight cutting by the spectators so are best limited to magician only effects or for those people that handle cards regularly. Mark |
jmbulg Loyal user Belgium 208 Posts |
Thanks,
In the method I developped there is no need to add a key card in the middle and I can work directly with 4 indicator cards only. For a self running example see http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......orum=206 For the "Four as hard" version in a memorized deck, I should make the numerical choice as large as possible by assuming a very precise packet size estimation by the magician. I can check this for my present skill level (quite low yet), but if the method is to be usefull by more experienced magicians, I should exploit their error range. |
jmbulg Loyal user Belgium 208 Posts |
Hi
The generalization of the UnDo influence to more than two cards is now fully described and for members of TSD or The Peeble available at The Second Deal https://theseconddeal.com/index.php/forum/discussion/10063 The Peeble http://www.lancepierce.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7961 Otherwise PM me and I can provide you with my .pdf file Have fun Jean-Marie |
Turk Inner circle Portland, OR 3546 Posts |
Not to completely change the subject, but has anyone played around with a "Thrice as Hard" version? I really like the idea of three choices being allowed (and with teach spectator having a larger range from which to select.
Mike P.S. BTW, for the occasion when you only have one spectator, I came up with a way for that one person to pick a card and name a number. Since it is half as hard as Aronson's Twice as Hard, I (naturally) named it: Half as Hard. (grin) One feature of Half as Hard is that, when the effect has been completed, your deck is back in Aronson Stack order. Currently, the spectator is instructed to name a card between 16 and 30 and to cut off about a third of the deck. I'm still experimenting with Half as Hard and various larger selection range options; My goal is to come up with a larger range for the single card (than the range used for the first card as described in Twice as Hard). Mike
Magic is a vanishing Art.
This must not be Kansas anymore, Toto. Eschew obfuscation. |
jmbulg Loyal user Belgium 208 Posts |
In the full version of the text, there is indeed an effect called three times as hard, which is exactly what you think it is, except that first the cuts are done and then the numbers chosen.
|
Turk Inner circle Portland, OR 3546 Posts |
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2015, jmbulg wrote: jmbulg, Thanks for that information. I'll have to pullout the "Try the Impossible book and dust it off. BTW, am I correct to assume that your reference to the "full version of the text" refers to the "Twice as Hard" effect? Thanks again for the info. Mike
Magic is a vanishing Art.
This must not be Kansas anymore, Toto. Eschew obfuscation. |
jmbulg Loyal user Belgium 208 Posts |
Quote:
On Sep 5, 2015, Turk wrote: Sorry, was not clear about that. I refer to the manuscript mentionned above, about the generalization of Aronson's UnDo influence control. The text distributed for the moment has four sample effects but a more complete version is in preparation, including a "three times as hard". |
jmbulg Loyal user Belgium 208 Posts |
Let me know if there is some more interest to get the sample version; probably we will take out the pdf file in a near future as the full version is in preparation and well advanced.
|
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » Aronson's UnDo Influence control with four cards ? (2 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.02 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |