The Magic Cafť
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index Ľ Ľ The workers Ľ Ľ Structure of Chicago Opener (35 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..10~11~12~13~14 [Next]
Ed Oschmann
View Profile
Special user
Lake Worth FL
930 Posts

Profile of Ed Oschmann
You REALLY need to check this out. My take ties the two selections together very effectively, the magic is done at eye level so attention is on the magician and less on the hands. In the video attached, there was an unfortunate framing out of my hands at a crucial point, but in performance this is never noticed as the hands go out of frame at the correct moment.

https://youtu.be/1tUocvFGqNA

https://www.penguinmagic.com/p/7993
Pop Haydn
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles
3543 Posts

Profile of Pop Haydn
Quote:
On Jan 31, 2021, martyjacobs wrote:
I agree, Bob. This is a great thread about a classic plot of card magic.

The exact words Eugene Burger used are worth looking at. He didn't say it is a bad trick; he said it just wasn't very good. He also said you could learn a lot from doing it. And, although I think you should pay attention to Eugene's advice, you do not have to agree with his assessment of Chicago Opener.

I still think there are problems with the construction of the piece (others are free to disagree). However, glimpsing the selection, performing a miscall followed by a relaxed DL on the downbeat fix most of these (as Andrew has mentioned above). You could also use m****d c***s to eliminate the glimpse (might as well do this if it is your deck). I also think that there are construction issues with an ACR if you are doing multiple DLs in quick succession. Vernon didn't do this in his classic routine.

The only outstanding issue is that the second phase can accidentally teach some people how the first was achieved. I had this happen to me; someone picked up the red-backed card and figured out what was going on using logic. They did not detect the DL because I asked them how they thought I did the trick. The starting point for them was the end of the trick. You can ignore this small flaw in the construction, and the trick will still be received well. But it is likely that some people will have a very good idea of how the trick works (if they continue to think about the possible method after your performance has concluded).

There is something very appealing about the original method for the trick; it has a simplicity that is lacking in others. I think this accounts for its continued popularity among cardmen. I do still perform it every now and again simply because it is a fun trick.

When we discussed this the first time around, I compiled a list of notable variations of Chicago Opener. You can still access it here:

Card Plot Chronology: Chicago Opener

This needs updating, as I haven't looked at any variants added more recently. If anyone knows of more versions of the plot, let me now and I'll add them to the timeline.

Marty


I first published the Chicago Surprise in 1980, not 2000. Those notes were in 2000 were a republication.
martyjacobs
View Profile
Inner circle
Essex, UK
1089 Posts

Profile of martyjacobs
Thanks, Whit. I've moved your routine to 1980. I must have the re-printed manuscript.

Ed, I love your presentational ideas for this routine. Where should "Yours Truly" appear in the timeline? I've dropped it in at 2017, as this looks like the year you performed this on your Penguin Live Lecture. I'm guessing it may have been in circulation before this, though.

Marty
Ed Oschmann
View Profile
Special user
Lake Worth FL
930 Posts

Profile of Ed Oschmann
It was first published in the April, 2016 Linking Ring magazine in Mike Powerís Card Corner. My problem personally with routine is that there was no relationship between the two selections. By adding a transposition the trick is resolved full circle. You can see some of Popís influence which was my go to routine for years.
martyjacobs
View Profile
Inner circle
Essex, UK
1089 Posts

Profile of martyjacobs
Thanks, Ed (I've updated the timeline). I like the deliberate transposition of the two cards. It maybe reduces the surprise a little, but does, as you say, bring things full circle. I took a similar approach in my version. Although, I decided to include two odd-backed cards and eliminate the need for any DLs.
Bob G
View Profile
Inner circle
2200 Posts

Profile of Bob G
Marty, thanks for your thoughtful reply to my previous post. You're probably aware of Jon Racherbaumer's book on the trick; just in case you aren't, it includes a bunch of variations along with historical info. I don't know whether he covers anything not already on your timeline. The title is Red-Hot Mamas: 17 Ways and Means. It's available at Lybrary.

Bob
martyjacobs
View Profile
Inner circle
Essex, UK
1089 Posts

Profile of martyjacobs
I wasn't aware of this compilation by Racherbaumer, thanks, Bob. I have other, similar manuscripts by him and enjoy his thematic approach. The booklet reminded me of several variations I was aware of but had completely forgotten about!

Marty

P.S. I'll update the timeline once I've read through to manuscript.
Nikodemus
View Profile
Elite user
419 Posts

Profile of Nikodemus
Kalix -
I don't think any of us involved in this recent discussion are saying the DL is at the wrong time. We all agree that any DL is typically done "in the open". The [meta] discussion was about the earlier posts in this thread that all [mistakenly] focused on the DL rather than the force. And I raised a doubt about what Eugene Burger actually said. (Now clarified by Marty - thanks).

I stand by my comments on the Hindu Shuffle. FYI there is a world outside the USA, and we are not "culturally isolated". Here in Europe, I have never seen anyone except magicians do that shuffle.

The example of someone figuring out CO by working backwards was of course what Eugene was concerned about. I suppose the fact that this only happened ONCE does suggest maybe he was worrying unduly!
Nevertheless, if you accept there is a weakness, THAT (the force) is where it lies - not the DL.
Whit has addressed this by engineering a situation where the spectator is absolutely convinced they had a free choice.
CO is a great effect - no doubt.
Eugene was a great magician who Identified a weakness.
Whit is a great magician who has fixed that weakness.
That's progress!

I also really like Ed's transposition.
martyjacobs
View Profile
Inner circle
Essex, UK
1089 Posts

Profile of martyjacobs
I agree that the force (and danger of retrograde analysis) is the bigger weakness. The DL is still problematic, though, and needs to be handled with care. The unusual nature of the card puts it under greater scrutiny, which means some people will be watching more closely when you perform the move. For the record, Eugene wasn't a fan of the DL in general, he was removing it from all of his routines towards the end of his life.

Marty

P.S. I love the Hindu Shuffle and use it in a lot of my magic. However, very few people in the UK shuffle cards in this way. One of my friends at university told me that I shuffled like his Indian grandma! He then said most of his relatives in India shuffled that way. The grip was different, though: she curled her fingers inward (as if the hand holding the cards was making a fist). My friend said that his grandma was a very fast shuffler.
Bob G
View Profile
Inner circle
2200 Posts

Profile of Bob G
To Marty and Andrew:


You're welcome, Marty, glad the reference was useful. The "Indian Grandma" comment made me smile. Of course, maybe she was a magician... I wouldn't put it past her.


Andrew (and everyone), Your idea of using a glimpse to take the heat off the DL intrigues me. If you have a chance sometime, I'd be interested to hear you elaborate on the idea. Despite my large number of posts, I'm still a kind-of beginner. I'm having trouble putting all this together. in particular:


1. When and how would you do the glimpse?


2. How would you make saying-the-alleged-name-of-the-card seem natural, and then, since you're already named the card, proving it later in Phase I using the DL?


3. When *would* be a good time to do the DL? Pop has pointed out that, by its very nature, the DL invites heat.


My questions are perhaps inviting exposure; if necessary, I'd appreciate a PM. Smile


Bob
Jack Skipton
View Profile
New user
93 Posts

Profile of Jack Skipton
I havenít read all 12 pages of this thread so Iím sorry if Iím repeating anyone, this is just my 2 cents. I have used the Chicago Opener in every gig I have ever worked since first learning it a scary amount of decades ago. The double lift has to be good, no question. The spectators should be absolutely (albeit subconsciously) convinced that it is their card that is red backed. I canít quite remember where the double I use came from, it might have been David Stone or maybe Gregory Wilson, it involves rotating the double face down and face up again in the hand as a flourish and the it snaps off the fingers and ends up held at one corner by the index finger and thumb. Itís very convincing that the card is single.
The second point it the force. I always hated the Hindu shuffle and never used it for years. But somehow, as time went by I started using it to the point that I now use it almost exclusively and find it to be thoroughly fooling to a lay audience. There definitely is a trick to making it deceptive, itís a bit wordy to describe (I just started to try ) so I might do a quick video at some point and post it here.
In any case, as I mentioned this has always been an absolute winner for me and I have done it for yearrrrrs to a gazillion spectators. I hope anyone new to the trick who reads this thread will give it a go and also give it, and the sleights, the practice they deserve.
El Mystico
View Profile
Special user
567 Posts

Profile of El Mystico
Years ago there was what would, I guess, now be called a meme, saying that a scientist has proved bees can't fly.
This topic reminds me of that.
Bees can fly; the analysis was wrong.
Chicago Opener is one of the most effective card tricks; the analysis was wrong.
Bob G
View Profile
Inner circle
2200 Posts

Profile of Bob G
Hi Jack,


Welcome to the Cafť! I, for one, would be very interested in seeing your method for making the Hindu force deceptive. I'm working on CO intensively and would be glad to hear any simple ways to make add to the trick's effectiveness without vastly changing its character.


And SeŮor Mystico, if you don't mind a little digression, perhaps the "bees" story came from Zeno's paradoxes? Zeno "proved" that an arrow can never reach its target. Of course, arrows *do* reach their targets, but his argument was so convincing that it made people lose sleep for many centuries. The idea of infinite series in calculus has more or less reconciled the paradox with reality. Reality wins again. Smile Mind you, as a pure mathematician, I love the theory, not just the reality. We make progress by marrying the two.

FWIW,

Bob
Ed Oschmann
View Profile
Special user
Lake Worth FL
930 Posts

Profile of Ed Oschmann
The Hindu shuffle force is a very good/deceptive move. Iíve never seen anybody crinkle their nose, squint their eyes, or tilt their heads when Iím doing it. If you look at the video I attached at the very top of the page, I adapted an idea I learned in card college. It shows the cards changing each time you shuffle it. Itís not completely necessary, but it accomplishes two things, that the cards change as they should, but more it informs them what they need to do.
If you read Kalyxí post a little ways up I am in complete agreement with him.
I love Eugene Burger, but he is simply wrong. Itís quite possible he was just trying to be evocative. You know, the Socratic method.
martyjacobs
View Profile
Inner circle
Essex, UK
1089 Posts

Profile of martyjacobs
I don't think Eugene was wrong, although I don't entirely agree with his final assessment of the trick either. I've received plenty of feedback that has proven that the two weaknesses he identified do exist. If you do nothing about them, Chicago Opener is a good trick that could be great. (Unlike Eugene, I do think it has the potential to be a great trick.) For those who believe that I'm wrong, I challenge you to perform the trick, then ask one of your spectators how they think it was done. I've found that this trick has a greater propensity to be reverse-engineered (because of its construction) compared to others that I perform.

All tricks have at least one critical weakness. The Last Trick of Dr Jacob Daley is my favourite piece of magic to perform, and I've identified four critical weaknesses in its construction! Analysis has led me to devise over 50 variants; some good, some bad, and a few that were downright terrible compared to the original! All tricks have weaknesses, usually more than one. If you do not identify, acknowledge, and address these deficiencies, your magic may well end up being less deceptive as a result. And by trying to rectify such weaknesses, you might even invent something better than the original.

Marty

P.S. The use of the HSF isn't a weakness of this trick in my opinion. The subtlety Ed mentions is a Max Maven idea and is worth the effort.
martyjacobs
View Profile
Inner circle
Essex, UK
1089 Posts

Profile of martyjacobs
Ed, I'd argue that by performing a variant that does an outstanding job of addressing the weaknesses Eugene mentioned in the interview, you are, in fact, in agreement with him! Smile
The Burnaby Kid
View Profile
Inner circle
St. John's, Canada
3139 Posts

Profile of The Burnaby Kid
Quote:
On Feb 1, 2021, Ed Oschmann wrote:
I love Eugene Burger, but he is simply wrong. Itís quite possible he was just trying to be evocative. You know, the Socratic method.


I dunno about that. If you look at his approach to card magic, you can see the sorts of things he's interested in. I can't think of much that he did that involves a DL at all, let alone a specific trick that relies upon it so heavily as the CO does.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
martyjacobs
View Profile
Inner circle
Essex, UK
1089 Posts

Profile of martyjacobs
There are a few notable master magicians that avoided the DL. Eugene mentioned in several places that he was trying to remove all DLs from his magic. Roy Walton also disliked the move in almost all situations.

Marty
Bob G
View Profile
Inner circle
2200 Posts

Profile of Bob G
Can anyone add to Marty's list of masters who avoid (or avoided) the DL? It's a wonderfully useful move, but it would be refreshing to learn some good tricks by people who don't use it.


Bob
Pop Haydn
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles
3543 Posts

Profile of Pop Haydn
Quote:
On Feb 2, 2021, Bob G wrote:
Can anyone add to Marty's list of masters who avoid (or avoided) the DL? It's a wonderfully useful move, but it would be refreshing to learn some good tricks by people who don't use it.
Bob


Wouldn't it just be easier to learn the double lift? It takes practice, but it isn't really that hard. Pound for pound, it gives you more worth for your investment than most moves.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index Ľ Ľ The workers Ľ Ľ Structure of Chicago Opener (35 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..10~11~12~13~14 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.18 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL