Full disclosure on my part: I don't perform the routine; anything I say should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm not a fan of the six card repeat, but I love your take on it. Lots of magicians try to tell a story while performing the six card repeat, and most of the time it doesn't work very well. (When I was a boy, I remember seeing magician doing a trick with one, two, three, four, five, six cards. He'd throw away one, two, three cards, and still have one, two, three, four, five, six cards. I went to the magic shop and asked "Do you have that trick where you take one, two, ..." ) Your routine takes place in the immediate present, and it has a lot of nice situation comedy in it. It fits the Pop character perfectly.

I love how you've varied the procedures to help cancel out any audience theories. This is a bit subjective, but the routine 'feels' like it has one too many phases where you count the cards and discover that you have seven cards instead of six. (You'll probably disagree, but I'm just giving my impression.)

At the end of the routine, when you're finally going to succeed, after you throw away that first card, you might want to consider taking a slightly longer pause, with a look at the audience. Then, you could slow the pacing a little bit and finish by throwing away the six cards a bit more deliberately. (And once you've thrown the cards away, it's obvious that the trick is over.)

By the way, what are the lines at the end if you're NOT working at the Magic Castle?

Bill, I think that I set up the premise in the very beginning. "It is important that we know we have six cards, because I am going to take one of the six cards, throw it away, and then still have one, two, three, four, five, six cards..." Remember, I don't know that I am accomplishing the effect as I explain it, as I didn't know I dropped the card. When I actually attempt the feat, I am a card short--I don't know that I have dropped three cards and thrown away one. The audience knows this, but I do not. I suspect that I miscounted, and then checking it out that seems to be right. So until I get seven again twice, I have no idea that anything is going wrong. The spectators are on a completely different path.

Thanks, Barry! I don't know, I have never done it anywhere but the Magic Castle...

You are absolutely right about the count. The routine is supposed to have a count to five, leading to a one handed count of six in the left hand, and then two counts of seven with the right. In this performance, I screwed up the first right handed count, and got six instead of seven. So I did the count twice more.

It should go directly to the count of seven when I say, "I thought I made a mistake but I guess I was wrong..."

The extra count isn't too bad, but it messed a bit with the momentum.

I agree with Barry's assessment: you've eliminated essentially all of the shortcomings of the usual presentation of this effect. It doesn't come across as needlessly repetitive, nor as hackneyed. It's head and shoulders above any similar routine I've seen.

Thanks, Bill. I appreciate you and Barry talking about the routine and structure. That is what I am interested in discussing. My acting and performance skills with this will improve with more performances of the routine, so I am not really looking for free advice on how to do that from this thread. I was more interested in finding how people liked this approach compared to the story approach, and whether the throwing away of just one card and still having six has advantages over throwing away three.

I was very proud of the approach I have taken to the plot, and of the fixes I made to the structure of the routine. I also think that by varying the method three times, the count is made far more fair-looking, and another repetitive element is eliminated.

What is it that draws the audience in and makes them care about this? What steps could be eliminated, what is missing that might make the dilemma stronger?

I've never seen anyone do this (not that that means anything), but it strikes me as stupid. The effect - as stated - is that you start with six, throw one away, and remain with six. Throwing away three violates that effect; if I were watching someone do that I'd feel much as one does upon seeing a Monty Python sketch having missed the first 30 seconds: no clue what's going on.

You ended cleanly. Not in the magician's sense (though you did that as well), but theatrically: you started with six, threw one away, and ended with six, as advertised.

My favorite line is after the initial count coming up with an extra card Whit says, "Alright somebody's been playing with the props" and then that look off the side of the stage with the statement,"It's not that funny".

Don't know why but it just cracks me up.

Thanks, Steve. It is not an original bit, but it fits well here. It helps them to understand that I don't realize something is going wrong with the count--at first I just assume that someone in the crew is playing a joke on me.

BTW, the card counter in Vegas line is a revision of one of Crandall's lines.

Well, in general, the effect is as stated that three cards are thrown away, and there are still six left. Rinse. Repeat. Most routines follow this pattern.

I wanted to emphasize the lameness of the proposed feat by making it only one.

Sorry: my misunderstanding. Sticking with a given number of cards tossed away is, of course, best.

And I agree that one's cleaner than three.

(As for the line about someone messing with the props, you could toss in an inside joke for magicians: Now I know how Carl Ballentine must have felt.)

Here is a very early version of Michael Finney's wonderful take on Six Card Repeat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YiOVubj-wg

It's brilliant Whit. I don't think there is any advantage to throwing away three cards over throwing away one. You did a great job of varying the methods. The only thing that might make it stronger is if a spectator could take the cards out of the envelope and initially count them out into your hand. However, that clearly creates other issues that you would need to think through.... Thanks for sharing.

If you have a method, I will give you my first born child...

Boy or girl?

Hello Pop,

Here’s my answer about the structure of your 6 cards repeat version. I will not discuss a lot about presentation or mathematic (only when I think it necessary). It is not really an analysis of the structure but rather some thougts about it. I don’t know if it were the kind of answers you wanted and I don’t think it can help (I notice you don’t nedd help) but it can’t be negative to have some feedback.


1 – The choice of the number of cards : 6
- Obviously, you use 6 cards as a reference to the 6 card repeat plot. But, I’m not sure people knows this plot (except perhaps at the magic castle). One drawback of the original trick was that it was repetitive and you had to count 6 cards a lot of time. As you structure the routine with differents phases (no phases are identical), you avoid repetition.
- It is possible to use only 5 or 4 cards and find an excuse like « They used to count 6 cards. I take only 4 because I left school soon » or « They used 6 cards, I use only 4. More and more, people are lazy. It’s not new. Do you known that the form of pyramids allows us to think that ancient people had already tend to make less and less”.


2 - Introduction : You present a clear bowl and a glass and begin to assemblate them. Then you take off your pocket a small enveloppe and talk about the 6 cards trick and mathematic.
- Clear bowl + glasses : It is not something usual and so, it captures attention. Then we can see that your hands are empty.
- Small enveloppe : Good choice. I think that this way is clearer than the old way (taking a pack of cards and take 6 of them). The thickness of the enveloppe let us think that you have only a few cards before we can see them. That is a very strong point. In addition, we can see your hands empty.


3 – Description of the plot : You count 6 cards
- As I said before, I don’t talk about presentation or lines. In this phase, you establish in the spectaor mind that you have 6 cards. Now the trick can begin.


4 – While you explain what you are going to do, you let fall one card whitout notice it. Only the spectators seem to be aware of the fact. Then you count the cards and you still have 6.
- The fact that you let fall one card : As only one card is missing from the small packet, it is difficult for you to notice it. That will not be true if 3 or 4 cards were missing from a 6 cards packet. One card is sufficient to understand the effect.
- You still have 6 cards : The effect is done but you don’t react because as far as you are concerned, nothing has happened.


5 – You do the trick
- You throw one card away but let fall some cards whitout notice it. You count them : There is a packet of 5 cards : As far as you are concerned, the trick doen’t seem to work ; For the spectators, it works but not the way they coul have anticipated.
- The line « Did I drop one ? » : It’s funny but it let us think that maybe you have noticed that some cards could have fallen. Maybe you can choose others words like those I have suggested before : «Maybe I miscount them. I left school soon, you know »


6 – You count them severals time and find 7 …
- I don’t remember well this phase. All I can say is that it seems a little bit repetitive whitout being boring (because it is not really repetitive)
- I don’t really understand the meaning of this phase. May be you can tell us a litlle more about it.



7 – The end
- Ending such a routine is difficult as it is for a lot of routine with repetitive sequence (even when repetition is not really the same each time).
- Obviously, you can use a big end, like showing that you now have a lot of cards (producting 10,20 or 30 cards) but as you said in your post, it isn’t a good idea. I agree. For the same resaon, I don’t think it is a good way to make the cards vanish at the end.
- The end you choose is not spectacular but as we say « le mieux est l’ennemi du bien » (the best is the enemy of the good).


8 – The fact that you use a bowl : Great
- We are sure that you don’t count the same cards twice
- We can see your hands empty at the end of the count.
- I still think that it takes a little too time to take the cards of the bowl. Obviously, now that I have seen your routine severals time, I don’t find that there is something suspicious about that. But I remember the first time I saw your routine (I was like a layman) and I find dit suspicious. So, it makes me think about it.


9 – The magic castle and other things
- I think that there is something amazing when you mention that this trick works (maybe) because of the magic castle place (or something like that). You say it at the end or the routine. Why don’t you talk about that fact at the beginning ?
- Magic-Scott said that it would be interesting if the spectators could count the cards themselves at the beginning of the trick. I don’t think it is necessary, and it can change the rythm of your act but instead of doing it you can just ask yourself what are the advantages if you can do it … and find others way to reach the same goal whithout big changing in your routine.



Good luck with your routine and bravo!

Thank you for your thoughts, Jiceh.

Whit:

After watching magicians do The Six Card Repeat, and it's variants, for the past 57 years (I started doing Magic when I was 8 years old)..

May I say that you have THE FINEST VERSION I HAVE SEEN, SIR! BRAVO! WELL DONE!

I say this because:

1. You "get into it" right away at the beginning by showing a 7th card..(the audience, from the beginning, KNOWS that "something is fishy here...and it keeps their attention focused on your counts and the fact(?) that you SHOULD have 6 cards, but may not.......they know they just have to watch...
2. Then, like my good old St. Louis role model, Bro. John Hamman, you lead them down the Garden Path and BAM!
3. The cards that "drop" add humor and, to me, at least, bring a "this is a phase two of my routine" cohesiveness to the routine without saying it. I say this because in my experience, most GREAT routines in Magic have a beginning, a middle, and an end....and flow as such....by dropping the cards, in my opinion, you have added a SOLID bit to your routine.
4. The counts: Of course the counts make the trick and you do them flawlessly, and the bowl, as you have said, does not show how many cards are in it which is good.
5. The length of the trick is great, the patter is MUCH better than just about any patter I've seen for the six card repeat, and the trick resolves itself and doesn't confuse the audience at the end.

All in all, its a great piece of Magic.

Whit, I do a modified version of Bill Abbott's 5 Card Opener using my own patter, his jumbo cards, and the "laundry bag" to drop the cards in. It always gets a great reaction, but I must say that yours is VERY COMMERCIAL, INDEED!

I'm just curious as to whether you've shown your version to Johnny Thompson, and if so, what his thoughts and comments were? If I know Johnny, He'd LOVE IT!

Thanks for your kind comments. I haven't shown it to Johnny, yet. Darwin Ortiz liked it quite a bit.

You do understand that it isn't real crystal, right?

Your effect is awesome, Whit, although I have a couple of suggestions. The first is to have a spectator count the 6 cards at the beginning, as in Bill Malone's version of this effect. That removes all suspicions about what you actually pulled out of the envelope. The same spectator can later be handed what clearly appears to be 6 cards, but he counts out 7 cards instead. This is a very strong moment when I perform a variant of this trick. The obvious problem for you, however, is that you are apparently nowhere near the spectators. I always perform this trick standing at a table with seated spectators. My second suggestion has been made by a few others already, and that is to do a more dramatic ending with more cards. Personally I prefer bang to whimper at the end.

These are perhaps just stylistic alternatives. The version you've shown us works beautifully with your character.

Spike

But it is a real bowl, n'est pas?