|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
LoveKey1988 Elite user 443 Posts |
If you know the method to this self-working trick A shuffling lesson and you want to know my two changed methods and handling + script which I think makes this effect even better send me a pm with a few words about the method and if I think you already know the trick I will send you my handling and methods.
Marian |
|||||||||
Bulla Special user Honolulu, HI 674 Posts |
I may be wrong, but this almost sounds like you yourself don't know the method and are asking for people to tell you the method.
|
|||||||||
LoveKey1988 Elite user 443 Posts |
I had someone asking me to send him my versions and I send it to him. I learned the effect in Ultimate Self Working Card Tricks and devoted a lot of time thinking on improve it. So if you think I am looking for the method you don't have to send anything. I just don't want to post my version on a public forum where everyone can access it without knowing the trick. Do you understand?
|
|||||||||
LoveKey1988 Elite user 443 Posts |
And I can prove to you that I know the method by only saying ATKB.
If you know the method you will understand that. |
|||||||||
Claudio Inner circle Europe 1927 Posts |
No worry Marian, you're not doing anything wrong, rather the opposite in fact. In any case this trick has been exposed many times on YouTube.
|
|||||||||
MichaelMann Regular user 109 Posts |
This effect is too long. At a gig you need faster effects that take up less space.
MM |
|||||||||
LoveKey1988 Elite user 443 Posts |
You can prepare the deck on the fly for this and a trick is long only if its not interesting. My opinion. And you don't have to have only tricks for gigs some tricks can be used to impress agents and etc.
|
|||||||||
sjrw Special user 571 Posts |
It is certainly too long for some kinds of gigs. I couldn't imagine anyone doing this in a restaurant for example.
I do think that it could be used very well when doing walk around at a party, if you go to a group who are particularly interested in what you are doing and you have a table. I perform this whenever somebody asks me to teach them a trick (only if they seem genuinely interested), the spectators feel like they are learning something, but are completely shocked at the end. Marian - Personally I don't like your second improvement, I think it would take too much time, I can't think of a good logical reason for the counting, and I think there is a risk that the spectators will get bored or make a connection between the counting and the method. But if it works for you then great, I just don't think I would want to use it. As an idea - You could potentially do the reverse of this, start with the setup in the middle of the deck, and then tell them you need to split the deck exactly in half and ask them to deal 26 cards to you. Just a thought, but I don't like this way either That being said... your first improvement (...make sure I'm not cheating...) is ingenious! If I remember correctly Gregory Wilson has a theory which is "if you can't hide it, highlight it". So essentially if you can't make something invisible then you should draw attention to it. This is exactly what you've done here. You have found a weakness, you couldn't hide it so you have drawn the spectators attention to it in such a way that they won't even suspect that anything untoward is happening (and in fact it makes it seem like you are being super fair!) As long as you don't mind - I am definitely going to use this. Thanks, Sam |
|||||||||
LoveKey1988 Elite user 443 Posts |
Hello Sam,
You are right about the second "improvement". I tought it was an improvement because it makes everything hands-off but the trade-of is that it makes the effect even longer that it is. And now that I think about you are right the part with the counting might make people suspect it. I did think before, that the second change was not really good because of the time involved to count the cards and I had a few more people telling me about it so I think I will stick to my first changed vesion as well. Thanks for reading and for your opinion. Means a lot. Regards, Marian Quote:
On 2014-01-26 12:29, sjrw wrote: |
|||||||||
Bulla Special user Honolulu, HI 674 Posts |
Here's two clips that you'll find of some interest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtkxCJ1V49Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hWFxBq42OA If you're interested in reading the original routine it's written up in Magic for Dummies and also in one of Chad Long's Lecture notes I believe. |
|||||||||
LoveKey1988 Elite user 443 Posts |
Hi,
The first video I have watched before and to be honest I think my presentation is a lot better, makes it even more impossible, he has just a small simple shuffle and some cuts for the spectator....in my version the spectator makes a mess with the cards and still at the end he has the aces on top. Also he keeps repeating that depending on how many cards she gives for each player it will change how the things works. It doesn't take a vert smart spectator to figure out that no matter how many cards she deals at the start the last 4 cards will still be the last 4 cards. I don't think you want to draw attention on that. On the second video I like some of the things like taking cards from the middle and put them on top and stuff like that. He still cuts the kings to the top while trying to hide it. I think is better to cut in in plain sight like in my version while making it seem that you have legitamely cut your cards at the beggining making the cards have a random order. Regards, Marian Quote:
On 2014-01-26 18:51, Bulla wrote: |
|||||||||
Bulla Special user Honolulu, HI 674 Posts |
In Ben Earl's variation, there is no way the spectator will be able to follow the shuffles and cuts and I like how the routine stays in the procedure of shuffle cut and deal. The displacement happens in the mixing off the cards while the spectators is mimicking your actions and honestly I think this is much more deceptive than just a straight cut in the beginning of the routine.
|
|||||||||
LoveKey1988 Elite user 443 Posts |
I still like my version...from what I understand from what you say he does something similar...I don't know why it seemd to me that in the beggining he undercut the bottom cards to the top
|
|||||||||
Bulla Special user Honolulu, HI 674 Posts |
I do like the fact that you took the time to actually think about the routine instead of just assuming that the way it was taught was the most effective procedure available.
|
|||||||||
sjrw Special user 571 Posts |
I originally learnt Ben Earl's version, and I didn't particularly like the displacement.
I opted for a more casual approach while the spectators were busy with their cards, but there is a risk of other spectators noticing. You could easily use Marian's displacement with Earl's routine - which is what I think I'll do. It might be a bit bold to tell the spectator you don't cheat, and when you cut the cards you actually cut them, but then shortly after you talk the spectator through a false cut! I wonder if you could change the moment of the displacement? Don't do it at the beginning, but keep control of your stock until the end and displace before the final phase? Or (at the beginning) when you deal your first cards down you could use false deals instead of the displacement. I think the displacement is probably simpler overall. |
|||||||||
sjrw Special user 571 Posts |
Marian,
why don't you post your improvements in the secret sessions forum, then we could discuss them more openly? thanks, Sam |
|||||||||
LoveKey1988 Elite user 443 Posts |
Hi,
I do think that the cut at the begging makes things a lot more simpler. Remember that you say that before the effect even begins I want you to make sure that when I say I cut the cards I really cut the cards like this. So in the mind of the spectator the effect did not even begin. Plus you have a triple cut at the beggining which seems perfectly legitimate which should really destroy any ideas from the analyzing type that you somehow had cards on top or on the bottom. Posted in Secret Session for a more open discussion: http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......rum=37&0 Marian |
|||||||||
LoveKey1988 Elite user 443 Posts |
Sam in my version there is no false cut...only real cuts! I don't think any spectator will remember that he dealt a few cards at the beggining before all the shuffling and cutting. Especially with my script and actions where the spectator can cut whenever he wants, shuffle when he wants...deals when he want etc. At the end he will remember that he did whatever he wanted with the cards. that's how it happens when I perform it.
|
|||||||||
Bulla Special user Honolulu, HI 674 Posts |
Here's the only problem I have with your addition and script. In this effect you're apparently teaching the spectator how to shuffle and mix cards. There is never any heat on you because this routine is not about the magician and in turn all the focus should be on the spectator. When you say that I want you to make sure that I don't cheat and when I say I cut the cards I really cut the cards like this, you're drawing attention onto yourself when there shouldn't be any in the beginning. As long as your actions mimick exactly what the spectator is doing, in their mind you're just mixing the cards just like them.
|
|||||||||
sjrw Special user 571 Posts |
Bulla - That's a good point. I wonder how you could change the script to use the same method but without drawing attention to your actions as suspicious. Any ideas?
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » All in the cards » » Read only if you know the trick: A shuffling lesson by Wayne Houchin (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 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 < |