Does anyone perform b'wave? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB4hCMQTofQ

I really like this trick as an example of mentalism, but would like to do something else with the cards too. Also, does anyone have patter suggestions for the triple reveal? I feel there's no excuse for the triple reveal, and actually makes the trick weak.

In what manner do you think the triple reveal weakens the effect? I suppose what I am really asking is how else would you end B'Wave? The triple reveal IMHO makes the effect so hard hitting.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the question however.

Ahimsa,
Vlad

PS: The spectator in that video was not acting... she LOVED that triple reveal.

Vlad, what's the difference between the different color back and the blank cards? I feel you're hitting the spectator 3 times with the same hammer, and the first and second have already knocked 'em out.

You could have only 1 (or 2) reveal if you want.

And we are magicians my colleague, and what is part of our job? Hit 'em hard, hit 'em often, and no mercy. Now one could make the argument certainly that B'Wave straddles the line between magic and mentalism or B'Wave falls under the category of "mental magic." I would GUESS - since I only dabble in mentalism - that a pure mentalist would not consider B'Wave a mentalism experiment because of the triple climax. Certainly there ARE multiple climax experiments in mentalism, but largely these climaxes are congruent with the notion of experiment in mentalism rather than something that smacks of magic. I would agree based upon my reading of the mentalism literature. So, if we can for sake of argument place B'Wave in the context of mental MAGIC, then there is so much precedent extant in the literature where we DO hit them three times (or more) with the same hammer. Paul Harris' "Overkill" and Tom Daugherty's "Three Proofs" immediately spring to mind. Obviously John Bannon's B'Wave relative "Twisted Sisters" does the same.

As MAGIC opposed to mentalism, the effect of B'Wave is nicely structured because each climax builds upon the preceding. I would agree that there should always be an awareness that we have overdone it. There is a fun effect in Kabbala called "Taking Further Than That Too Far" by John Racherbaumer. It takes James' classic effect a bit too far. If you have a friend with Kabbala or you have it, study it along with the James original. That being said, I do not see a compelling argument for a magic effect to be limited to two climaxes at most. (I am also addressing bofx's assertion here and in the following remarks).

Also, please consider that if you do B'Wave and only do the odd back reveal to end, then why not just do Nick Trost's "Eight Card Brainwave?" What would be the logic of only doing two reveals as you suggest? I would offer that there is no logical reason to NOT reveal the last card. You are dealing with 4 cards. The spectator arrives at a "free" choice. So, let's list the possible endings and hopefully others will chime in on what would seem strongest. I hasten to add that of course there IS a bias here because we KNOW B'Wave so obviously we would need a control effect but even in that case we still would not have a completely fair comparison because effects differ. Twisted Sisters might be the closest but it contains the optional transposition "out-effect" to lead to the actual climaxes, so it presents a bit of a tricky situation that is best left for the perennial B'Wave vs. Twisted Sisters debate.

But let's try this and look for thoughts from others as well as continuing our dialog.

At the spectator's naming of her card from a 4 card face down packet we have these possible endings:

1. You spread the face down packet to show that the only card that is face UP is her thought of card. End.

2. You spread the face down packet to show that the only card that is face UP is her thought of card. Then you show that it is the only odd backed card. End.

3.You spread the face down packet to show that the only card that is face UP is her thought of card. Then you show that it is the only odd backed card. Then you show that all of the cards are BLANK (or are jokers ala B"Wave/Twisted Sisters). End.

4. Your suggestion of a partial reveal. End.

To get deeper into the dialog we need to think as magicians AND we need to think as non-magicians. We would need to examine each case from both perspectives in terms of effect, and how we would end the effect logically and magically without providing an anti-climax.

My thoughts are:

1. Could be an okay ending but as a non-magician I would be curious to see the other cards. Ending one fails this test. But for sake of argument, let's say that the other three cards are merely three random cards. So you would show if you had to these three random cards. Considering the methodology of the effect and its conclusion, what justification would you have to work with only 4 cards? If you are going to do a mental magic effect where the thought of card is reversed and that is the climax, it is logical to utilize the whole deck. But given even that, I could make a compelling argument that White Bikes or Blizzard would provide better routes. Obviously so would an ID.

2. This one gets a little more tricky because the addition of showing that her card is also the only odd backed card still does not solve the problem of the remaining cards UNLESS, as offered earlier, you might as well just do "Eight Card Brainwave" OR do full deck Brainwave or a variant. Again, the consistent theme here though is the utilization of 4 cards and that I believe is crucial to the argument.

3. This is the handling we know but let's look at why it works for the non-magician.
a. Four card packet - why?
b. Thought of card is the only reversed card! Cool! But what about the other three?
c. Though of card is the only odd backed card! Very cool! What about the other three?
d. The other three are blank! Wow!

So at this point you as a magician are raising an eyebrow at point 3(d). But it is point 3(d) that not only provides that further wow factor it also provides all the justification you need for using 4 cards as opposed to a full deck. You have answered each succeeding question logically and magically.

Why would I NOT want to answer these questions that are either spoken or unspoken? Now, having said all of this I would offer that YES, some effects WOULD suffer from additional climaxes. Case in point is David Roth's classic coin effect "The Portable Hole." The effect for those unfamiliar with it is that you have a circle of black felt and it's a portable black hole you state, One at a time, three coins vanish and reappear in (under) the black hole. Roth has an optional ending where you additionally produce a LARGE coin. He almost commands in the effect description NOT to use it because it lessens the main effect. His argument is sound because there is no need to account for anything left over as is the case with "B'Wave." Many have criticized some of John Mendoza's routines because certain routines like coins through the table with him ended with a huge factory drill bit produced magically to "explain" how the effect was done. Yes it DOES get gasps but the criticism is that the audience remembers the drill bit production but does not remember the coins through table main effect. No, magic does not HAVE to be logical, but then again, why produce the drill bit? One good reason is to provide that extra surprising climax, but, there is no need to do it. If the penetration of the final coin is so beautifully impossible looking, I would offer that the effect needs no more enhancement. In addition, like B'Wave, you have no leftovers.

Jay Sankey went the opposite route in Sankey Panky with his Cups and Balls routine. His argument at the time was that the audience ONLY remembers the final loads. So, Sankey's routine in that book is comprised of a series of a bunch of productions under the cups to the point that the working surface is strewn with produced "stuff." A cool idea - perhaps - but why use cups to produce things? A magician would normally just do productions bare handed. The cups IMHO actually weaken the main effect of the production. Yes there IS a short conventional C&B sequence at the very outset. But in this case, I believe that Sankey IS hitting them with the hammer too many times and he HAS weakened the effect. In that sense your argument would certainly be valid.

So what's wrong with only revealing two cards, or any number less than all? It simply makes no sense from a magical standpoint and in addition it leaves too much unanswered to the spectator; you have not justified and answered the question of why only four cards. I believe that Max Maven knew this when he designed B'Wave just as John Bannon knew it when he devised Twisted Sisters.

To bring an effect like B'Wave closer to mentalism and away from magic, I would offer that you would use four Rhine ESP cards or perhaps a larger number of Major Arcana from the Tarot. You would have a prediction in view at the start (of course it is not REVEALED yet). Then the prediction becomes the focus and it doesn't matter what the other cards are.

Ahimsa,
Vlad

Vlad, that is an absolutely fantastic response, and I have nothing to say as I am fully convinced.

There was a similar discussion recently regarding the Simon Aronson effect "Prior Commitment." There is a prediction at the end of the effect which confirms what you've just told the spectator. When you analyze B'wave or Prior Commitment, or for a better example "Overkill" by Paul Harris, you'd think that all of these convincers are just that--overkill.

When you perform these tricks for people, though, they don't appeal solely to the spectator's intellect. There is a deeper level where these effects can have impact. And each additional layer of proof hits them at this deeper level.

Plus all the stuff Vlad said.

Vlad say it all and left everyone speechless! Great post Vlad. And yes, I have it too, but never thought that the triple revelation weakened it. Rather stengthened it! Everyone that I've shown it to was blown away. It's easy, simple to understand and great entertainment.

In one of the his DVDs John Mendoza mentioned the notion of "too much" or overkill, he does not expand on the subject but certainly he believes that sometimes in looking for effect people go overboard. I hope John can join this discussion and explain his view.
B'Wave I think is just enough, even so there are 3 surprises, they add to each other re-enforcing the point that the magician really knew the prediction.

Vlad_77

With utmost respect.

Vlad_77...your post is worthy of distinction.
You have undoubtedly & superbly initiated the uninitiated.

peace, charlie

Not to sidetrack too much, but there is an effect that uses the working of B'Wave for an entirely different effect, and it ends with only one reveal, essentially. It is called Cards of the Aura by Tony Chris, and it does not use playing cards but rather, 8 cards with words and colors on their faces. I mention this because it may interest you to look into it, just for something different.

I was reading the B'wave instructions written by P. Goldstein and from there you can tell that the 3 reveals were not part of the trick originally but rather an evolution.
As per Goldstein, many people work in solution of a packet trick for Brainwave (ie Vernon, Marlo), but he says that Paul Fox is the one that created that the color of the revealed card to be different and was Karl Fulves that later on added the idea of the other 3 cards to be different.
Maybe this is well known, but I found interesting how the trick evolved.

B'Wave is one of the best examples of the redundant climax in action. The card being face-up proves that you knew beforehand which Queen the spectator would mentally select. Technically no other proof is required. However, the odd back proves that you didn't use sleight-of-hand to secretly turn the card face-up. The three blank card make the effect much more memorable. So, even though the last two reveals are not needed to bring the prediction to a successful conclusion, they do function to make the effect more impressive and more memorable.

The script I use is something like:

"You might think I used sneaky sleight-of-hand to turn the Queen you named face-up - I didn't. Look, your Queen is from a completely different deck! In fact, I was so sure you'd think of the Queen of ?, I didn't bother to get the other three cards printed!"

When I saw Eugene Burger lecture on this item, he made the intelligent point that you must have a line of speech to cover the time it takes you to put the cards away. People who own this trick will understand why this is so important.

All the best,

Marty

Vlads response is certainly impressive-well thought out
However its let down soley by over Analysis because hes a magician, its a weakness in many of us on certain effects-Im guilty as well.
We all tend to assume how the lay person thinks instead of keeping it simple & having a reason for each of 3 steps,


However as Professional Corporate worker I use B'Wave occasionally in strolling corporate events & find the script I use with it is
linked back to the beginning of the effect that I talk about, as I reveal the 3 blank cards -it ties the routine together
with a beginning & end & gives the double whammy finish a purpose.
Lay audience reactions are very strong to this effect with lots of laughing, astonishment & head scratching reactions...

Whether we use 1 reveal, 2 or 3 its how you sell it to the spectator -otherwise its just an average packet trick..

cheers

Great "reveal" here Vlad my friend.

I was about to ask the poster, JS just what did you "like" so much about the effect to have a final reveal bother you so much as to its necessity in the trick???

I love B'Wave myself, one of the very best packet tricks I've come across as to presentation and interaction, and so easy to do too. It is just a perfect effect IMHO. It's one of the few (actually only gaffed card effect) I carry with me regularly, it's that good. Every so often you hit upon a simplistic effect that just works without all the knucklebusting, twisting & turning, holding back and DLs, etc...Well B'Wave is one of those few "just perfect" effects.

Brent,

Thanks for the kind words. Ironically, I tend not to over analyze. In this context however I DID do so because I wanted to build a stronger case for the triple climax. I wanted to show that there is precedent, and I do believe that the underlying psychology is sound. What we do as magicians in terms of deception about 98% psychological IMHO.

Ahimsa,
Vlad

Do see Racherbaumer's chapbook Fried Thrice - an experiment in intuition, a three phase routine using a set of four jacks, four queens and four kings, ending with B'Wave.


Brian

Is there a video of this routine? Sounds wonderful.

I suggest an experiment. Try B'wave with just the one card reveal and see what the reactions are. If they are lackluster go to the second and if needed, go to the third.

Then try it with a two part reveal only and see if you have to go to the final reveal.

Make notes of reactions along the way. Let's come back and report our findings with reactions, age and demographics of our audience, etc.