The set-up is entirely similar in most aspects.

With respect to the integrity of your effect, I won't divulge the pertinents. In brief, your effect's final sum is determined by the card after the ace. Elmsley cycles through the entire deck to arrive at a final card that is predicted, and there is a sum total of several (roughly 8-9, it's not always the same) face-up cards arrived at which total a figure determined by both yourself and the spectator before the procedure began.

I know it's a littler cryptic, I just want to assure that anyone reading this won't be "tipped-off', if ya' know what I mean.

If you can gain access to the book you'll immediately understand - it's entirely the same foundation, though there are differences between how you and he both utilise the principles.

Cheers.

Thanks for the info! I'll be sure to check it out. It might not, but it sounds like it uses the Kruskal Principle.

You're more than welcome Cameron, just glad to be able to help.

Let me know how things go.

BTW, I've tried your take on this effect at my regular gig just to see how it played out, and I'm happy to report that it was well received. Keep up the good work!

Cheers.

Update: I have come to discover that the basic principles behind 18 were discovered by Alexander Kraus. He published a trick in Ibidem which used the same principle, albeit, in a different way. This crediting is now included in the PDF.

I know that this is an old thread, but when I tested this out on my wife, (years ago) and when I asked her for an important/favorite number and she blurted out "18", I was stunned. All I did was tell her to turn over the box, (or I did, just don't remember) and the big, bold #18 was there. She was really stunned. So was I, but I had to play it calm and cool like I predicted the number with ease.