On , lcwright1964 wrote:
The premise of the famous Miraskil effect is so simple (it's analogous basic equation handling we learn in early algebra), and yet this trick still crops up around here as a favourite self-worker.

The way the trick is laid out in Scarne and Fulves leaves me a little cold, actually. It seems so transparently mathematical I wonder how anyone can be impressed.

Yet people better than I seem to swear by the trick.

If you are one of those folks, could you share what YOU do to bring magic to what is, on paper, a dull effect?

Les

On , lcwright1964 wrote:
The premise of the famous Miraskil effect is so simple (it's analogous basic equation handling we learn in early algebra), and yet this trick still crops up around here as a favourite self-worker.

On , Poof-Daddy wrote:


John Bannon has an effect "A view To A 'Skill" based on a Stewart James effect.

Bannon eliminates the "moves" that you need to do the James version according to the book High Caliber. (it is originally from "Open and Notorious" 2009. Although this is a long (some might say drawn out) effect, It is by far one of my favorite effects in the new book. I really enjoy performing it for family and friends in a non formal setting.

But it begs a deeper question Les, namely, that many effects read "dull" on paper that when performed are very strong effects because the performer creates a compelling presentation. And I would offer that even though the method coincides with a basic principle that we learned in algebra, it doesn't necessarily follow that the method is obvious enough for a non-magician to make that connection. The original and the variants I have performed have been very strong for me.

On Feb 22, 2014, lcwright1964 wrote:
(it's analogous basic equation handling we learn in early algebra)

On Mar 8, 2014, Hushai wrote:
I have NEVER been able to see what people like about Miraskil. The first time I read about the trick in a magic book, before I had even finished reading the "effect" part of the write-up I was saying, "Wait a minute! The number of reds and blacks HAVE to come out EVEN!" I just find it hard to see how it could get past anyone, whether they've had high school algebra or not -- though apparently it does, since it gets such high praise.

I know John Bannon's "A View to a Skill," and if there's a version of Miraskil I appreciate, it would be that one.

This leads me to a more general question: is it possible to perform a trick well which you yourself saw through the first time you saw it performed? Or, even a trick which you yourself just don't like? I guess that's a dumb question, since you're not likely to take the trouble to learn a trick unless you like it. I would NEVER learn to do the original version of Miraskil -- though, maybe I would learn Bannon's.

On Mar 11, 2014, Wilf Jonson wrote:
I'll just chime in as another voice in support of Simon Aronson's "Point Spread" from Simon Says.

Like Bannon's "View to a 'Skill," it's framed as a game played between two people, which is a fun aspect which they both share. However I think Bannon's routine loses its punch in the second phase -- it's there as a convincer, but it's long and there's really nothing new that we didn't already see in the first phase. It's like a second beat that might set up a finale, but there's nothing beyond the second beat.

So I prefer Aronson's "Point Spread," which has three beats. Simon's version of the game also plays quicker than Bannon's, which is helpful since the whole deck is used. The first two phases are Miraskill with the third mixing things up and using the Shuffle-Bored principle, so there's progressive variety and surprise within the frame of the game being played. The premise Aronson offers also fits well and gives the predictions a better-grounded reason for existing.

Both are valuable contributions, though.

On Mar 8, 2014, Hushai wrote:

This leads me to a more general question: is it possible to perform a trick well which you yourself saw through the first time you saw it performed? Or, even a trick which you yourself just don't like? I guess that's a dumb question, since you're not likely to take the trouble to learn a trick unless you like it. I would NEVER learn to do the original version of Miraskil -- though, maybe I would learn Bannon's.

On Mar 13, 2014, landmark wrote:
Lcwright1964--I don't know what you paid for the Aronson book, but I think you will find in a little while that you just bought one of the greatest card books ever. And if you do any kind of memorized deck stuff (or it inspires you to do so!), well then, even better.