Let's consider it this way.

The three card monte contains in it a certain pledge to the audience.

1) The magician will win or, at very less, control WHO wins, when and how
2) The audience can be involved in the playing of the game.

There is no routine that I have seen that lives up to that promise 100% of the time.

I get it Nick, and I agree with you. I don't think there is a routine like that out there.

I think we can come up with some ideas!

For example -

PLAYER SWITCH - If the spec picks it on the first go, I will often smile, turn to another spectator and say "would you agree?". They will say NO and pick the card I want them to pick. I then turn over the card THEY named and say "sorry - you missed the move. You see what Bob (first spec) saw that you missed is this move here..."
I then launch into a false explanation using the SECOND spectator. This allows for a) an audience member to be fooled and b) allows spec 1 to be rewarded for picking ocrrectly.

DOUBLE BLUFF - I look worried and say "THIS card...this one here? No this one?" I pick up a WRONG card a do the WORST switch of the two cards I can. "No no no no! This is a two!" I pick up the incorrect card in hype position (obscuring the money card above it). I then hype the money card onto the table. The audience has seen me do a BAD switch and then show ANOTHER card which I table. I am now holding the two in my hand which the audience believes is the money card. When they call me on the bad switch I say "This one? This one is a two as well!"

Often with this move, I will hype the money card on top of the third card so that I can sweep all three up swiftly as I move on.

THE EXPLANATION GONE WRONG - If I am explaining a 'fake' move and I feel confident that the audience member a) is under my control and b) just guessed rather the knows the hype. I will just sweep up he cards and say "no, no, watch closely...where is the ace." and do the move again.

I guess I'll keep working on it solo...

How about requiring the spectator to risk something a la Phil Cass? Putting some pressure on the choices would minimize all the wild guessing.

Well...have you tried another move similar to the Mexican turnover?

and why don't you like the turnover there are a few good decent ways to do it


also theres a move taught where you show the card diffrent by just simply letting the other card go when you flip it over...sorry I don't know what its called lol

Turnovers and switches don't work well once the card is picked. No matter how good you do it they know something happened. This goes for the Mexican turnover and the flip and flip-change.

Mota is correct - Whilst it will often fly, in a game where someone has PICKED a card and has invested their pride into it's identity, any attempt to switch it will be noticed enough of the time to make it inappropriate for the working pro.

Remember - the goal here is to create a routine that can be done over and over and never have the magician 'fail'.

Your discussions are very interesting and I agree with a lot that you've said, Nicholas. I only perform for entertainment purposes but am often asked to demonstrate this when folk learn that I am a magician. My favourite "out" when the victim picks the money card, is to show that all three cards are 'losers'. It brings the routine to a magical climax (which suits me). Pick up the two losers and place the chosen money card on top (all face down). Then perform the classic method of showing the three cards to be the same - retaining the last card in your hand. Say something like "and this was the card that you believe to be the winner?". Then turn it over to show that it too is an ace! Believe me, it does work. The spectators often ask me when I switched out the money card. They don't realise that it was still in the game until the very last. Hope this is of some help?

Nice idea!

I feel that the reason why more magicians don't do three card monte justice is because thye lack the ability to get inside the spectator's head. For example, I can usually tell by HOW the spectator taps the card to how they are thinking.

If they tap their selection too quickly, I know they are playing randomly
If they tapp too slowly, I know they are trying to out think me.

We need to train our spectators to see this a game that depends on their skill at watching closely NOT a battle of wits and NOT a game of chance. (as a game of chance they might win!)

Nicholas
Thanks for an interesting discussion. I had always been interested in 3CM (I had missed the fact that in the UK it had become known as 3CM - I grew up with it called the "3 Card Trick" and couldn't find any info on it). I assume that you Nicholas have seen both Daryl's Full Monte and the SFS Three Card Monte DVDs, so this is a comment for those that haven't seen either. I have both Daryl's output and SFS, but had put them aside because of the unpredictability of the outcome. However this thread has caused me to revisit both DVDs again and review how the author's treat the lack of a known outcome. Daryl doesn't seem to present his own routine but uses Vernon's and Judah's. Both these routines do not challenge the spec head-on and thus avoid the problem. SFS also has some interesting options on outs, Paul Wilson's approach for example, in the event that you come across a wise-acre/lucky spec.
For anyone thinking of buying one or the other DVD (avoid the Piacente one) I would actually recommend both. Daryl's is pointed more towards the magician, whereas the SFS towards the scam and history side, but with some interesting diversions on the psychology of some moves and presentational aspects. The only fault that I could find with SFS is that some of the actual sleights taught are not covered in enough detail. However with some experience and patience this could be overcome. Daryl covers the sleights very well.

I found Daryl's tips for learning the hype to be very useful.

But the breadth of knowledge and history in S4S (and the notes!) are amazing.

Something which we brushed on earlier but perhaps should mention is that PREVENTING the spectator from picking the ACE is better then any out.

The best idea is to give them something else to think about or do. For example, ask them to look for a 'move'. However, the dodgy move is actually swapping two jokers. They spot THIS Move and so miss the real work.

The bent corner is an excellent example of this pyschology.

A friend gets around the problem by only having 3 phases in his routine. He gives 3 different spectators a coin and only those 3 can bet. They win they keep the coin. They lose it was someone elses money.

Robert

That doesn't really get around the problem does it? The spectator can see pick correctly.

Just a thought. Probably not original. Has anyone thought of using 'Wow!' wallets for a strong three card monte effect either throughout or perhaps as a closer to the effect?. This would mean that the magician would always have an 'out'.It also opens various possibilities up. With best wishes Andy.

How would you use the wallet?

In my opinion, the solution to this problem would be to design the routine so that the spectator is not asked to guess where the card is. This eliminates the possibility of him guessing right(some people think this ruins the routine?) and it also saves him the embarrassment of feeling like a moron if he guesses incorrectly. Don't ask him explicitly "where is the queen?" This completely eliminates the magic of the routine, and turns it into a puzzle. Most people don't like puzzles, but most people like magic.
People do not like to be challenged, and engaging in a con-game with someone is about the most explicit challenge you can ever make! Why do this? We are entertaining people, not trying to make them look like fools!
If you do have the need to ask where the money card is, then ask in such a way that if he guesses right...it doesn't matter, you can just say "good job, you're paying attention" or if he guesses wrong, say something like "that's exactly what I thought when I first saw this, but it was actually over here!"
Ask something along the lines of "now, if I were to ask you where the queen was, you would probably say that it's here, correct?"
The other option is that, if you are asking him where the queen is, make sure that there is absolutely no possible way that he could guess properly. If you ask where the queen is out of the 3 cards, and none of the 3 cards turn out to be the queen, the queen is in your wallet, then he will not feel like a moron for guessing wrong...because how could he have ever possibly guessed correctly! The fact is not that he guessed wrong, it's that it was impossible for him to guess right. This has to do with what Darwin Ortiz discusses at great lengths in Designing Miracles(a phenominal book by the way, every performer should read it), which is that there is a difference between not knowing how what just happened happened, and knowing that what just happened could not have happened. As Ortiz says, the former has the implications that there is something wrong with the spectator, because he doesn't understand what happened, the latter has the implications that what the spectator just saw is incredible.

One more thought. If you prefer to challenge the spectator, ie, ask where the card is, then if there is any chance of his guessing correctly, do not ask before the climax. If someone guesses correctly in the early phases it is not a big deal, because you can just be like "good job, you're right" or whatever you wanna say. However, if someone happens to guess correctly in the climax, then yeah...that's gunna screw the trick up pretty hard.

But hey...you wanted to challenge him, and he beat you...you're gunna get embarrassed! It would have been exactly the opposite if he guessed where you wanted him to guess..you would have won, and he would have been embarrassed.

Why would you want that?

I disagree Mackinley -

Firstly, three card monte as we are discussing it here is not a magic trick, a game or a puzzle!

It is a SWINDLE!

The audience should know that it is a swindle and that they are playing the role of the sucker. They are NOT a sucker. They are playing the ROLE of the sucker. If you can communicate that to the participant you will never embarrass them. After all, losing the game does not embarrass people, jackass magicians embarrass people. If they EXPECT to lose and they lose to a nice guy, they won't feel embarrassed.

Secondly, as soon as there is no choice or participation in the effect, it because a static and ignoble thing. It is nothing more then a below average transposition. By bringing in a participant, the effect comes to life and begins to mirror it's street beginnings.

Why would you want to turn a classic swindle into a trick with an "outs"?

If you really want to understand the Monte pick up the School for Scoundrels material on it. First off there's no better available.....and second, you'll see that having an "out" is irrelevant.

If you want to do the Monte as a trick, then one of the gaffed pip card sets would be a far better choice.

Remember, the actual Monte as a hustle is not a trick and doesn't need any magic attached to it.
If they happen to guess the right card you explain that on the street their bet would be trumped by a higher bet put down by a shill, leaving the poor sucker to try again.

The point of demonstrating the Monte as a street hustle instead of a trick is to show that there's no possible way to win, and to demonstrate the methods the hustler uses to make sure that's always the end result.

(BTW, if you WANT to do the gaffed pip version as a magic trick, Bob Farmers "Bammo Monte" is an excellent choice.)

Sounds like you're actually looking for three shells and a pea, not three card monte. If it's gotta be cards, then fine, it's gotta be cards, but the shells will let you solve all of the concerns raised thus far.

The spectator can pick the right shell all day and you can still switch without worry. 3CM has the mentioned "flaw" only because it was designed for a particular purpose which didn't have the need to overcome that flaw.