Thanks for the clarification!

This is a VERY great effect. I have never been a huge fan of Free Will effects but I love this one. It uses a concept that is entirely new to this type of effect and definitely allows for some clarification that past methods have lacked. The selection procedure is EXTREMELY fair. There never appears to be a tricky moment throughout the whole effect, actually. There is one "move" (which you can't really call a move because literally nothing happens) that you may have to do depending on the circumstance but it is not a switch and it is COMPLETELY invisible. And by that, I mean you can have a camera zoomed on your hands watching in super slow motion and there is nothing to see. The presentation with this makes every thing seem fairer than it ever has before. The selection, the reveal, everything just seems so dang fair!I love this and I will be using it. Great work Laurence

Free Will of Order is still the top of the bunch for me, mainly because it really is an anytime and anywhere effect with borrowed objects that gets great reactions. There's not too many (good) effects like that.

I quite like this effect too and may use it someday but for now I'm sticking with Free Will of Order

best
Sean

Ok, I'm totally not a mentalist. But I really like this. Devious method, well thought through, focused subtleties. I smiled as I read the first few pages. This is good, usable stuff (even for a mentalist noob like me).

Great work, Laurence!

Really Mick, your quote made me smile and I am sure those who own your work will know why.
That is the sort of thing I might offer up.

Thanks, for the smile.

Talk to you soon,

Jim

You're welcome, Jim. Nice of you to notice.

Mick

Hi,

I kind of jumped the gun, without reading further in the manuscript of Laurence's Three Will. There are alternate methods offered that don't require the gimmicking and a special something. They aren't the primary method, according to Laurence, but they are in there, so I can't really say that his method isn't impromptu. I didn't read them all, because, at the time, I didn't realize that there were more than one method included.

I hope that this clarifies any confusion caused by my earlier post.

Thanks,

Jimmy

Well since no one else has asked I will now do so.

Is this not your work but using a 'pen' Mick?

Heck you were at my house when you first laid all of this out to me.

You use a marker for larger groups or a pencil for a calling card.

This uses a 'pen'.

I think it is all well written and thought out considering much of the method is yours.

The rest of it with the two way out is a bit of padding I think.

Heck Mick, you know I have a six way out on a prediction people can hold from the start.
In fact the two way in this presentation is possible with one sheet.
We even talked of how I would do it using things common to my work.
(No switch)

So if you Mick, or others want to shine a light on me please do.

Thanks,

J I'm

I finally bought Three Will. I already own Jimmy Fingers' Free Will of Order and I do have Colin's Remarkable Effect. I have been using Free Will of Order for a LONG time and I have used it as a stand-alone piece or as closer many times. It goes without saying that I am fond of 'free will'-type effects.

I am yet to perform Colin's version but it has lots of potential.

I only read the primary method of Three Will and my review is based on that.

Firstly, the gimmick is not an issue for me and is easily acquired. (I live in UAE and I already own it)

The structure is strong and solid. It is hard to compare this effect to others that are similar without risking exposure. All I say is that this works. Everything is well motivated. There is nothing to hide or see. Like most of Free Will type effects, this will take practice to get the timing down.

I find this routine actually theatrical in itself. It also has comedic moments built-in to it. It is a nice bonus to get all that in one package. Although, for an experienced performer (amateur or professional), this is not an issue, but for someone just starting out or they do not have experience building an act, they have a routine with some nice elements built into it.

Also, this involves an extra audience member which allows it to play bigger. I will not say this is suited for parlor or stage but with some clever thinking, one can adapt to a stage setting.

And as for the price, I think it is very fair.

I know in the impromptu situations and when I am caught off-guard, I will perform Free Will of Order (because I am used to it). Of course, in the proper setting, Colin's version is very strong! But I am yet to practice that.

For more formal performances, Three Will (primary method) fits my style and I am looking forward to road testing this effect.

Good job Laurence.

Already done by Mick Ayres. It's the effect that Three Will was based on.

best,
Sean

'ThreeWill' is based heavily upon 'Location, Location, Location' from PREDICT-ABILITIES (Book Two in the Act-Series). Laurence Hookway's adjustments to LLL change the handling a little but keep the presentation intact. LLL was created as a parlor piece for greater visibility (using a whiteboard) and is the opening demonstration in a complete mental act offered within those pages. Sooo...if anyone is looking for a way to include this effect in an act much of the work has been done for you.

For the sake of historical accuracy, a more intimate version of LLL (using a business card) was published as 'Keep The Change' in Tom Baxter's THE N'WRITER ANTHOLOGY.

In answer to Jim Callahan's querulous post, Laurence did contact me a few weeks ago with a copy of his variation and asked for my approval and endorsement...which I have given. Jim is merely concerned that credit for key aspects of ThreeWill were being misapplied. All is well, though. That being said it is nice to have friends who, in turn, have my back.

Warm regards,
Mick Ayres

Thanks Sean.

I do not own Mick's effect that was referenced in the manuscript. I know it is in his second Act Series book.

Well it is good this has all been sorted now.

J im

H\.o.a-x

Hi there,

In a recent post on this thread Jim Callaghan made a couple of assertions drawing comparison between my effect Three Will (TW) and an effect by Mick Ayres. The assertions Jim made were...

1. That TW is simply Mick's work but using a different item.
2. Much of the method in TW is Mick's work.

I sent a PM to Jim on Aug 8th in response to his post. In my PM I provided Jim with a detailed description of the key differences between TW and LLL. I received a brief response from Jim on Aug 9th in which he told me that he had requested that his post be removed. It is now Aug 13th and Jim's post is still there. Mick Ayres has since responded to Jim's post therefore removal of Jim's original post at this point would serve no useful purpose.

I have received no further response from Jim regarding my PM to him. I am therefore compelled to post my response to Jim's post publicly. Much of what follows was in the PM I sent to Jim on Aug 8th. Jim was also a reviewer of TW, he had full access to the manuscript for TW before its release and Jim and I had corresponded by email prior to his post.

Before Jim made his post I had no idea whatsoever that he held the opinion he does of TW. I wish Jim had spoken with me privately with any particular concerns or observations he had before TW was released rather than choosing to voice his opinion publicly in the manner he did. That is the whole point of reviewing someones effect after all.

Before I released TW I sought Mick's permission to use elements of an effect of Mick's entitled 'Location Location Location' (LLL), which Mick generously granted. Mick was one of my reviewers (the same as Jim was) and I am grateful and appreciative of Mick's feedback and support without which I would not have released TW.

The concept of TW is to the best of my knowledge a "concept" that was originally conceived by Mick and builds upon a concept conceived by Deddy Corbuzier and realized in his classic Mentalism effect Deddy Corbuzier's Free Will.

A concise definition of Mick's "concept" is: 'A 'Free Will' type effect that uses two assistants rather than one'.

A more specific definition of Mick's "concept" is...

1. An effect that requires the assistance of two people.
2. An effect that uses three items as the focus of the effect.
3. An effect that requires the performer to write a single prediction which remains in full view for the entire effect.
4. An effect that requires the two assistants to distribute the three items among themselves and the performer, one item for each person.
5. Ends with the performers written prediction matching the choices made by the two assistants.

Mick uses his "concept" in LLL (which I own) and in another effect of his entitled 'Keep the Change' (KTC). KTC is mentioned briefly at the end of LLL as being an 'impromptu presentation' of LLL. Although I do not own KTC my understanding is that the principle and presentation used in KTC are the same as LLL but that one aspect of the method is different.

I use Mick's "concept" in TW with his permission and endorsement.

LLL, KTC and TW are all: 'Free Will' type effects that use two assistants rather than one.

There is A SPECIAL PRINCIPLE of Mick's used in TW that is unique to LLL/KTC. The way this "principle" is implemented as part of the method in TW is different to the way it is implemented as part of the method in LLL/KTC. The actual use of this "principle" in TW insofar as it pertains to an item used in the presentation of the effect is the same as its use in LLL/KTC. If that sounds rather cryptic I apologize but I cannot disclose any more than that. I am sure that anyone who has TW and either LLL/KTC will understand what "principle" of Mick's I am referring to.

This "principle" is to the best of my knowledge Mick's "principle". I use Mick's "principle" in TW with his permission and endorsement.

Mick's "principle" is only one part of the primary method employed in TW. It is not used in the three alternate methods presented in TW. These three alternate methods borrow nothing unique to LLL/KTC other than Mick's "concept".

Jim said in his post that in his opinion the three alternate methods presented in TW were "padding".

To clarify, the three alternate methods presented in TW are there for three very specific reasons.

1. To allow the effect to be performed in foreign languages.
2. To allow people an alternate way of performing the primary effect so that it fits their style.
3. To allow for a more personalized prediction.

The only thing these alternate methods presented in TW have in common with LLL/KTC is Mick's "concept". All three alternate methods in TW use a different method and presentation and nothing unique to LLL/KTC.

The differences between TW and LLL/KTC in terms of method and presentation are...

1. The method used by TW uses Mick's "principle" to double the versatility of the prediction.
2. The method by which the prediction is handled in TW is very different to that used in LLL/KTC.
3. The wording of the prediction in TW is very different to that used in LLL/KTC.
4. The method by which items are chosen by the assistants is very different to that used in LLL/KTC.
5. Mick's "principle" is used roughly 15% of the time in TW, in LLL/KTC Mick's "principle" is used roughly 50% of the time.
6. TW uses a business card folded into billet to strengthen the impression that the prediction is tamper proof. KTC also uses a business card but I do not know if it is folded into a billet. If it is then please correct me.

All these differences exist by my design they use nothing unique to LLL/KTC other than Mick's "concept" and his "principle".

There is one very notable difference that no-one has mentioned between TW and LLL/KTC so I shall. In TW after all the items have been assigned by your assistants and just before the prediction is revealed one of your assistants may be given the option of swapping their item for ANY OTHER ITEM. They may swap their item for your item, they may swap their item for the other assistants item or they may decide not to not swap at all. They really do have an entirely free and fair choice as to what item they wish to have.

In LLL/KTC an assistant can swap their item for the other assistants item but they cannot swap their item with your item.

If you are familiar with the Deddy Corbuzier's Free Will which is the granddaddy of TW/LLL/KTC try to imagine a version of 'Free Will' that allows your assistant to swap their chip for your chip OR THE CHIP IN THE BAG. That's essentially what you can do in TW, an assistant may swap their item with your item or with the other assistants item or they may decide not to swap at all.

I am unaware of any published 'Free Will' type effect other than TW that allows an assistant the opportunity to swap their item for any other item and that uses one prediction in the same way that LLL/KTC and Free Will do. If anyone knows of one then please drop me a PM, I would really appreciate it.

I maintain that...

1. TW is not simply, 'Mick's work but using a [different item]'.
2. Mick's "concept" and Mick's "principle" are the only elements used in TW that are unique to LLL/KTC.
3. Mick's "principle" is only one element of the primary method used in TW.
4. Mick's "principle" is only used in the primary method for TW.
5. The overall method used in TW is very different to that used in LLL/KTC.
6. The presentation used in TW is very different to that used in LLL/KTC, and necessarily so because the overall method is different.

For these reasons I refute the assertions made by Jim Callaghan that TW is simply Mick's work but using a different item and that much of the method in TW is Mick's work.

The handling of the prediction in TW and specifically KTC are entirely different. It is fair to say that the handling used in TW is easier requiring very little practice but it will not be suitable for everyone because it requires the use of an 'small everyday item' that you may not normally carry on your person or that you may not wish to use in your performance. The handling in KTC is trickier and will require some practice to do properly if you are unfamiliar with the method it uses but once mastered it has lots of other applications and will very likely suit anyone's style.

I have made every effort to discuss this privately with Jim and I have given him ample opportunity to respond to my PM. Without any meaningful response from him I have chosen to respond publicly.

I hope this clarifies the differences as I see them between TW and LLL/KTC. I want potential purchasers of Three Will to make an informed decision as to whether or not to purchase the effect.

I would not have made this post if Jim had not chosen to draw the comparison he did between my work and Mick's work.

For the record Mick's LLL effect is a fantastic realization of his "concept"; LLL is what inspired me to come up with TW. LLL is a strikingly more visual effect because of a key element it uses thus making it ideal for stage or parlor performance. I wanted an effect that used Mick's "concept" but could be performed in a close-up setting with a more 'off the cuff', impromptu feel to it. LLL is best suited for stage and parlor, TW is best suited for close-up, off the cuff performance, it is not suitable for stage or parlor unless your audience is particularly eagle-eyed and can see writing on a business card from 50ft away.

The reasons I came up with TW in the first place are (in no particular order)...

I wanted an effect similar in concept to LLL but for close-up performance. I wanted an effect that used a selection process that was more open-ended and allowed an assistant a truly free and fair choice at the end of the effect. I wanted an effect that required no sleight of hand or required the use of any tricky I was not comfortable using. I wanted an effect that did not require the addition of anything to the single written prediction during performance. I wanted an effect where the prediction could be written in ballpoint pen and folded up. I wanted an effect that allowed me to hand that folded up prediction to the spectator and have them open it up and read it without any apparent jiggery pokery on my part. I wanted an effect that could easily be carried on my person for multiple performances and performed 'off the cuff' with no notice.

I would like to thank Mick Ayres for his continued support and understanding and for allowing me to use his "concept" in TW. Mick is fully credited in TW as being the inspiration for the effect.

I would also like to take this opportunity to offer my thanks and gratitude to those of you that have purchased TW. The feedback I have received has been overwhelmingly enthusiastic and encouraging. Thank you for your support and understanding.

As always, I am happy to answer any questions or queries you may wish to ask me personally.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,

Laurence.

Not sure what you are getting at since I thought this was sorted out as per my post and my PM to you.

Jim

H.O.A-x

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9

Isn't just about everything we do derivative? Bob Cassidy's Fourth Dimensional Telepathy comes from Annemann. Richard Osterlind's Radar Deck, I believe, is an outgrowth of the Koran Deck. How many effects have emerged based on Deddy Corbuzier's Free Will?

Is it OK for some performers to build off of others, while some are prohibited? Did Laurence do something not kosher? Am I missing something that is blatant?

Bobby

update: I see Jim just posted he thought this was sorted out.

I'm happy to have been able to highlight the differences between LLL and Three Will so as to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding in the future.

Regards,

Laurence.

This was an interesting thread.

I have bought many of these routines over the years and would have to see this is the most complete bit of thinking yet. Great job Laurence. Most of instructions for this type of effect run 4 pages or less, this comes in at 35 pages and it's not filler but some real thinking going on.
when I first saw this I was thinking why do I need another version of free will? Well I was wrong, and very happily surprised. Can see using some of this thinking with other versions as well.

Very happy I bought this.

Well done Laurence.

Kevin

Well done indeed! I was really impressed with the level of detail that went into the writing and the overall level of thinking. No stone is left unturned and the effect is great. Nice work, Laurence!