The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Gemini Twins - too perfect? (11 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4
Mr Salk
View Profile
Elite user
Tied to
493 Posts

Profile of Mr Salk
I pull and set aside both sets as a three-card sandwich.
When I flip the reveals the order is lost.

But GT is essentially a simple key-card trick, so presentation won't always save you from bright specs.
.


.
lynnef
View Profile
Inner circle
1309 Posts

Profile of lynnef
Thanx Mr Salk! Flipping the reveals as a sandwich is a nice touch! Interesting that the topic has lasted so long. Such a simple effect that begs to be messed with. I love John Bannon's many ideas on this in Move Zero, eg "collusion" where 2 spectators create a card via countdown; yet, in the end, it's a simple Gemini Twins effect. If this effect can spawn so many variations, then is simply is not "too perfect". Lynn
ipe
View Profile
Regular user
188 Posts

Profile of ipe
Am I the only one performing Gemini Twins with only one prediction? To me with only one card the effect is more elegant and pure. I must confess that I'm interested in mentalism though.
What would a real mindreader do?
Mr Salk
View Profile
Elite user
Tied to
493 Posts

Profile of Mr Salk
That's Gemini only-child.
.


.
Rupert Pupkin
View Profile
Inner circle
1114 Posts

Profile of Rupert Pupkin
Quote:
On Sep 17, 2019, ipe wrote:
Am I the only one performing Gemini Twins with only one prediction? To me with only one card the effect is more elegant and pure. I must confess that I'm interested in mentalism though.


I would argue that, counterintuitive as it may seem, doing the placement procedure twice helps obscure the method. It's a two-layered deception.
ipe
View Profile
Regular user
188 Posts

Profile of ipe
Quote:
On Sep 17, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
Quote:
On Sep 17, 2019, ipe wrote:
Am I the only one performing Gemini Twins with only one prediction? To me with only one card the effect is more elegant and pure. I must confess that I'm interested in mentalism though.


I would argue that, counterintuitive as it may seem, doing the placement procedure twice helps obscure the method. It's a two-layered deception.

Hi Rupert,
I can see how doing it twice can be more deceptive. But I have found that with 3 small expedients the effect is still very deceiving also with only one match:
- time delay (I explain the concept of mate/twin cards)
- a question exactly one moment before I take both cards out of the spread ("which card is a mate of a seven of hearts?" or "which card is a mate of a joker?")
- bringing the two cards far from the spread one next to the other in full view (instead of one card on top of the other)

In this way you have a pure and elegant effect, difficult to backtrack. Plus, taking out only one match from the spread (during the question), you halve the time the spectator see the discrepancy.
What would a real mindreader do?
The Burnaby Kid
View Profile
Inner circle
St. John's, Canada
2969 Posts

Profile of The Burnaby Kid
I think that if you're aiming for directness, there might be better ways to get it than just cutting Gemini Twins in half. A cross-cut force, the Bill Simon prophecy move, the psychological stop trick from Expert Card Technique, or one of the presenations for the R.W. Hull force would get you what you're looking for in a more expedient manner.

Really, if we're talking about an idealized version of the effect, it's that the spectator deals down a bunch of cards, and the card they dealt to matches. The insertion and square-up mandated by the Gemini Twins format takes away from this directness. With Gemini Twins, you can sort of motivate that retroactively because there's a second step to the procedure -- there was logic to inserting a card and then continuing because you were going to repeat again and reveal both at the same time. Cutting that in half makes a bit less sense than just switching the format -- you're relying on a discrepancy in any case, so if directness is important, why not use something more direct that still works despite the discrepancy?
A screed for scams, sorcery, and other shenanigans... Nu Way Magick Blogge

JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
Rupert Pupkin
View Profile
Inner circle
1114 Posts

Profile of Rupert Pupkin
I agree with Andrew. That's considerably weaker, in both effect and method.

I'm also not sure how it's a purer effect? It's certainly a less impossible effect. Why you would strive with less impossibility, for the same price as MORE, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
ipe
View Profile
Regular user
188 Posts

Profile of ipe
Quote:
On Sep 18, 2019, The Burnaby Kid wrote:
I think that if you're aiming for directness, there might be better ways to get it than just cutting Gemini Twins in half. A cross-cut force, the Bill Simon prophecy move, the psychological stop trick from Expert Card Technique, or one of the presenations for the R.W. Hull force would get you what you're looking for in a more expedient manner.

I want as many direct effects as possible. Smile

Quote:
On Sep 18, 2019, The Burnaby Kid wrote:
Really, if we're talking about an idealized version of the effect, it's that the spectator deals down a bunch of cards, and the card they dealt to matches. The insertion and square-up mandated by the Gemini Twins format takes away from this directness. With Gemini Twins, you can sort of motivate that retroactively because there's a second step to the procedure -- there was logic to inserting a card and then continuing because you were going to repeat again and reveal both at the same time. Cutting that in half makes a bit less sense than just switching the format -- you're relying on a discrepancy in any case, so if directness is important, why not use something more direct that still works despite the discrepancy?

I know that my approach is of course not perfect, but to me is better than the version with 2 matches. One discrepancy is better than two discrepancies for me. Smile
About the reason to place the rest of the deck on the tabled cards: "please place the rest of the cards you are holding here, so none can touch the prediction card or mess with the deck. Meanwhile [blah blah blah]"

Quote:
On Sep 18, 2019, Rupert Pupkin wrote:
I'm also not sure how it's a purer effect? It's certainly a less impossible effect. Why you would strive with less impossibility, for the same price as MORE, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

As a mentalist I love the maxim "less is more". Sometimes (now always) less impossibility is more believability.

Of course I don't want to impose my view, it wouldn't it make sense because it depends on what is the scope and sensibility of the performer. And sometime it is a aesthetic preference too. Smile
What would a real mindreader do?
The Burnaby Kid
View Profile
Inner circle
St. John's, Canada
2969 Posts

Profile of The Burnaby Kid
Two questions...

First, if less is more, why bother cutting stuff out of Gemini Twins when you can cut even further and use something even more direct?

Second, if you're looking for as many direct effects as possible, why not keep Gemini Twins intact? This would add scope to what it is you're apparently able to do and give your repertoire more texture. Single card mental magic revelations are all over the place, but multiple-card ones are a bit more rare, and having one of those in your back pocket can be helpful for changing the dynamics of your performance and adding a bit more in the way of escalation, should the situation call for it.
A screed for scams, sorcery, and other shenanigans... Nu Way Magick Blogge

JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
Mr Salk
View Profile
Elite user
Tied to
493 Posts

Profile of Mr Salk
I'm not sure what is meant by "direct effects". In a singular Gemini Twins the effect points directly to the method.
.


.
ipe
View Profile
Regular user
188 Posts

Profile of ipe
Quote:
On Sep 20, 2019, The Burnaby Kid wrote:
First, if less is more, why bother cutting stuff out of Gemini Twins when you can cut even further and use something even more direct?

If I had a different method to achieve the same effect but more directly, I would use such method. But I don't. You mentioned the psychological stop trick, but I would prefer a sure-fire method.

Quote:
On Sep 20, 2019, The Burnaby Kid wrote:
Second, if you're looking for as many direct effects as possible, why not keep Gemini Twins intact? This would add scope to what it is you're apparently able to do and give your repertoire more texture. Single card mental magic revelations are all over the place, but multiple-card ones are a bit more rare, and having one of those in your back pocket can be helpful for changing the dynamics of your performance and adding a bit more in the way of escalation, should the situation call for it.

Sure, I will try the original version of Gemini Twins and I will see my and spectators experiences.
Smile

Quote:
On Sep 20, 2019, Mr Salk wrote:
I'm not sure what is meant by "direct effects". In a singular Gemini Twins the effect points directly to the method.

As I told you, with the three small expedients I explained above, I found the method is very deceptive.

What is a "direct effect"? This is a philosophical question. Smile
I can reply to that saying: I prefer to telekinetically move a pencil few inches for one second on a table than making ten pencils dancing in the air for some minutes. Smile
What would a real mindreader do?
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Gemini Twins - too perfect? (11 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 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