The "duh reaction" as you put it, is a misinterpretation on your part. Everyone knows that a vanish creates surprise and shock, thus the none response or "duh reaction".





Ado, I see your problem is not with magic or it's handling, but your words give you away. You just don't understand what magic is and it's purpose. Using words like "Fooled" and your search for gimmicks to substitute what the performer is suppose to create himself, and his audiences. Magic is not self working. It requires the human element to give it life and entertainment. Sometimes "suspicious" leads the spectator down the path to the wrong conclusion intentionally. As you believe everything must be examined, there may be no hope for you as a magician.

How do you learn how magic should be presented, and these questions and situations you mentioned. One way is through reading and learning from the experts and masters of days gone by. Investing in your knowledge to learn and analyze original publications of the root effects.

Trying to talk to someone that does not understand, and will not accept what others have learned, leads to a useless verbiage of information falling on deaf ears. One cannot inform, when the information falls on deaf ears.

In Michael Ammar’s Cups and Balls routine, he has eliminated the false transfer. If I recall I think he only uses it once and that’s near the end of a routine that has made the balls appear and reappear several times.

Besides, any fake transfer should use a delay where you don’t show the object disappearing right away. The purpose of the transfer should never be to the audiences eyes as a means to make something disappear. Rather, it should only to be use to move the object for from one hand to another for a motivated reason.

And as far as the wand playing no part, I disagree. I have done the standard Cups and Balls routine that is from the magic sets and use the wand as a prop. It is not used to assist in the inner workings, but yet the audiences seem to like it.

Once I forgot to use it and snapped my fingers instead. Then I remembered where I put the wand, and continued with the wand. I could tell that they liked the wand better. Lay audiences do because there is an air of mystery to it especially more so with the advent of Harry Potter.

The one prop exclusively associated with magicians is the magic wand.

It IS possible to do away with the ball vanish completely. There is no law that says you must vanish a ball from your hand to have it appear under a cup, with or without a wand. As I work on my color changing cups and balls routine, I am enjoying a new freedom and developing new mysteries for the spectator to see. For example, a red cup is placed over a red ball. The spectator is allowed to lift up the red cup and discover that the ball beneath it is now yellow, and under the yellow cup where the yellow ball used to be is a blue ball, etc. Getting the spectator involved in covering and uncovering the balls is, in my opinion, much more fun than having the spectators just watch you make the balls disappear and reappear. While you're at it, give the wand to the spectator to tap on the cups. Then when you do it from time to time, it becomes less suspicious, especially if you are "one ahead" at the time.

Take a look at penn and tellers see though cups and ball routine. its amazing and there just giving away the secret and your still amazed

Consider that some of the eternal popularity of C&B is that the spectator does have an idea of how the "tricks" are done.

Either they remember that set they had as a kid or infer "cause" from repeated moves like the Wand Vanish.

As magicians we pretend that an overwhelming or continuous barrage of astonishment if ideal, but consider Schneider's balance of Clown, Theater and Virtual Magic.

I am suggesting that some "less than perfect" components can make the entire routine more impactful and memorable -- perhaps with a "garden path" flavor.

Many performers progress toward the final load as if that is all that matters in forging a "30 year memory." jimgarrish and others have demonstrated that the final load is not necessary if the internal effects are engaging.

What si the story you want told after?

"He did a lot of predictable things with some old cups and tiny balls, and I had it all figured out until 'wham" some real magic snuck in!"

"I thought I knew what was going to happen with those weird cups -- you know the routines. But, he had those balls do thinks I never expected or imagined, some right in my hands. Incredible!"

"I love that magic with the cups and balls. Everyone knows how it is done and we can appreciate the artistry. It was a welcome relief from all that astonishing magic with coins I couldn't follow."

If you objective is to entertain and leave the audience with war/fuzzy feeling about magic as an art form, then any design based on "they must never figure it out" may be shaky.

If you instead desire to swamp them with endless astonishment, then C&B may not be the best choice. The expectations will be wrong.

So, in answer to the OP, C&B routines are not necessarily "badly constructed" but may be inappropriate for the expectations of a particular audience or complete show.

There are good false transfers and poor ones. When I do a ROV coin vanish, no one asks me to show them the other hand because they don't think it is there.

Tommy Wonder's Cups and Balls had a terrific ending. But, the second best part of his version of this classic was his routine itself. It was so well crafted that it was like a journey as he led you through each step forward. And that's the way it should be.

It's like a Twilight Zone episode. Most episodes had a kicker ending, but before you got there, the story led you up to it perectly. So should all magic tricks including the Cups and Balls.

EVERY single point in EVERY single trick is a "DUH" moment IF, IF, IF that is the only thing they are seeing.


I like Gazzo's response to his opinion about the people behind him who can see the Loads (In his C&B routine): "!@#$ them, they aren't going to tip anyways."
I've seen a lot of routines, and none better than his.

Are most C&B routines badly constructed? I haven't seen them all, so I can't give you a truly statistically relevant response, however what are YOU doing to make magic magical? You can't affect anyone else's magic.

I always thought that cups and balls is the most confusing effect in magic for the audience, and even for me .
Never really liked it, although the construction of the trick helps the student to understand deeply the principle of magic and misdirection. But I never perform it.
I prefer simpler routines with just one cup.

When Houdini said that every magician should master the Cups and Balls, he never said you should perform it -- and no indication he ever did (not in his books or wife's memoirs). So, the lessons on timing and directed focus and disipline are very valuable. For audience engagement I prefer other things.

Yes, this is an old thread, but that has never stopped me before, and this is a subject rarely discussed by magi.

You wrote:
"It seems to me that the wand adds nothing, and that those vanishes are happening so fast after the (fake) put that having the "duh" reaction is natural. I think that it only works because the pace is fast and the audience can't necessarily follow the load under the cups, but I mostly think that they are confused at best, and not fooled."

As stated earlier, the "Duh" reaction is quite often when the audience is struck dumbfounded and unable to react. You can usually tell, because their jaws are hanging open.

As for the wand, perhaps you do not understand it's traditional function:
The wand has been around, probably as long as magic has. According to archeologists, man started doing magic about the same time that he started using tools, in the Stone Age. Finds of prehistoric cups and balls (ceramic bowls and the proper number of matched pebbles) confirm this.
The wand, in metaphysical (natural magic) terms, is an extension of yourself, just as a hammer and chisel are an extension of the wood or stone carver's hands. The wand is supposed to concentrate and focus power to the item being worked upon.
In the hands of a conjurer, it is used to focus the attention of the spectator to the point where you wish them to look. Thus it is the perfect tool for misdirection.
To an audience, the wand is a badge of a magician's profession, even more than the top hat ever hoped to be.

For years I did not use a wand, thinking as you do, that it was an unnecessary prop, and nothing else. When Harry Potter came out, I started making wands, and then started using a wand, discovering what it was able to do for my magic. The wand vanish can be performed beautifully by some magicians. Even the first time I saw it performed, by Michael Ammar, I knew the method. That was because of my background in sleight of hand. Because I know how it is done, I see it every time, and to me, it looks obvious. But then again, most thimble and coin magic seems obvious to me, because I know just where and when to look. The audience does not have this advantage.

In short, the magic wand is a tool that many magicians have used for tens of thousands of years, for every sort of magic, so it has become a symbol of our profession. If you prefer to work wandless, then so be it. You have that choice, but you may not realize what you are missing. I didn't realize this for years.