The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » Giving It a Shot (11 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
RiderBacks
View Profile
Loyal user
249 Posts

Profile of RiderBacks
Quote:
On Apr 17, 2016, Claudio wrote: Have the spectator take the top card (instead of from a spread) after multiple cuts. Have the packet spread and the card inserted into the spread.


I like the angle of not influencing the spectator to pick any particular face card, so you have them look at the backs of all the cards and select the one with their "favorite back". That's roughly how I plan to word it, and I find it hilarious. This solution sacrifices that.

Quote:
On Apr 17, 2016, Claudio wrote: Have the card selected from the spread and tell them to put it back wherever they want. Not sure fire but reduces, I think, the risk.


I'm not sure this reduces the risk at all. It might heighten the risk, since, for one, the location that took it from is still so readily accessible. And if you tell them to put the card back somewhere else, you draw attention to something you don't want to.

Quote:
On Apr 17, 2016, Claudio wrote:There are of course a couple of other ways to ensure success (have the selected card put back onto top and cut for example), but the solution above is very natural. What are your own ideas?


I don't see returning the card to the top or the bottom as a viable option in the context of this trick (for fairly obvious reasons).

I think I want to leave this in the hands of the spectator until the very end. I find that very strong. So I'm probably going to drop the tabled spread in favor of the spectator looking through the card backs in their hands. That's one change I'm pretty sure I do want to make. As for eliminating the possibility of error, I haven't solved this one yet. But working backwards, we see that we get a possibility of error whenever the spectator has a truly free choice as to where to return the card. So the only way to fix the problem is to limit their choices. Still, we want the choice to seem completely free. So a possible solution might involve some easy estimation followed by equivoque?
Claudio
View Profile
Inner circle
Europe
1553 Posts

Profile of Claudio
Quote:
On Apr 17, 2016, RiderBacks wrote:
I like the angle of not influencing the spectator to pick any particular face card, so you have them look at the backs of all the cards and select the one with their "favorite back". That's roughly how I plan to word it, and I find it hilarious.

I think I want to leave this in the hands of the spectator until the very end. I find that very strong. So I'm probably going to drop the tabled spread in favor of the spectator looking through the card backs in their hands. That's one change I'm pretty sure I do want to make. As for eliminating the possibility of error, I haven't solved this one yet. But working backwards, we see that we get a possibility of error whenever the spectator has a truly free choice as to where to return the card. So the only way to fix the problem is to limit their choices. Still, we want the choice to seem completely free. So a possible solution might involve some easy estimation followed by equivoque?


Here what I tried this morning on 2 co-workers who have little or no knowledge of card-handling:

I tried the selection from a spread, which did not work very well as even with a mat one had problems with spreading the cards and the spread was then closed/collected in a haphazardly way. So I used your idea of a hand spread but I had them look through the faces for a card they liked and cut it to the face of the deck. I then asked them to lose the card in the middle of the pack. Finally I had them shuffle the deck and cut it.

As this was a test so to speak, I did not perform the effect with the polished presentation developed in Some People Think, but it was decent enough. I prefer to (false) shuffle myself at the beginning and have them shuffle at the end, which I reckon is more impressive for a lay audience as they really lose their card. The patter I used during the selection process is that if the cards were marked I would be able to see the marks, so to prevent this etc... It played very well. All in all I prefer that handling as I don't have to turn away at all during the effect.

I suppose you could use the same handling with the faces down: spectator cuts the "back they like" to top of pack, they pick at its face and insert the card in centre of deck to lose it. It feels quite a natural thing to do.
magicfish
View Profile
Inner circle
6529 Posts

Profile of magicfish
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2016, RiderBacks wrote:
I managed another session with Simon. I finally made time I don't have to sit down and read for a few hours. What a ride!

One effect stuck out as particularly lovely. It was "Some People Think" (though "Lie Sleuth" is killer too). I had to instantly pick up my stack after reading "Some People Think" and perform it. So I grabbed my effect tester. The first performance after reading the description once obviously wasn't very good, but that goes without saying. Still, it came as close to frying my effect tester as any effect can. It is, alone, worth the price of the book (not only for the effect, but for the underlying principle which is also operative in "Lie Sleuth" and obviously has much broader application). The vast majority of my friends who do nothing with cards find simple "key card" nonsense absurd. This will fry the hell out of them. For those who are ignorant of even the simplest card nonsense, this might be over the top. But it will still fry with the best of them. This effect has earned the Riderbacks' Seal of Approval. Mind blown.

Before I go live with this effect, the routining and patter needs a bit of tweaking. There are a few problems that need to be smoothed over for various types of performances. (One problem is having idiots spread cards.) And a serious final problem remains. I do not, generally, like effects that have chances of failure. This is a rare exception. Unfortunately, I haven't figured out how to remove the chance of failure while preserving the effect in its entirety. There are some obvious ways to completely remove the chance of failure, but those hurt the effect. With a little more work, I think I can diminish the chance of failure significantly without harming the effect too much, but time will tell.

The Key Card principle is one of the most powerful tools in all of magic. If you're not fooling people with it, you haven't given it enough study.
RiderBacks
View Profile
Loyal user
249 Posts

Profile of RiderBacks
Quote:
On Apr 18, 2016, Claudio wrote: Here what I tried this morning on 2 co-workers who have little or no knowledge of card-handling:

I tried the selection from a spread, which did not work very well as even with a mat one had problems with spreading the cards and the spread was then closed/collected in a haphazardly way. So I used your idea of a hand spread but I had them look through the faces for a card they liked and cut it to the face of the deck. I then asked them to lose the card in the middle of the pack. Finally I had them shuffle the deck and cut it.

As this was a test so to speak, I did not perform the effect with the polished presentation developed in Some People Think, but it was decent enough. I prefer to (false) shuffle myself at the beginning and have them shuffle at the end, which I reckon is more impressive for a lay audience as they really lose their card. The patter I used during the selection process is that if the cards were marked I would be able to see the marks, so to prevent this etc... It played very well. All in all I prefer that handling as I don't have to turn away at all during the effect.

I suppose you could use the same handling with the faces down: spectator cuts the "back they like" to top of pack, they pick at its face and insert the card in centre of deck to lose it. It feels quite a natural thing to do.


The in the hands spread resolves another problem with the trick. I mean, if you're using something like Aronson's original patter, you obviously have to address the marked cards concern, and his handling totally fails on that score. It looks like you've come to the same conclusion there. It also looks like we're in agreement on the nonsense that turning one's back on the spectator is. That's just not a viable solution for this trick unless you're only performing it for your trustworthy magic buddy. This effect calls for excruciatingly precise spectator management if you're going to use it in the trenches.

I was toying with the idea of opting for the faces-up handling, but I still would like to retain the jokey aspect of suggesting they look at the backs (for reduced influence). It seems when they spread, you need to instruct them to do so in such a way that you can neither see the faces/backs of the cards. And this no matter which option you pick. If they're going through the faces, they shouldn't hold the deck so you could see potential deck markings. And if they're going through the backs, you shouldn't be able to see the faces. Perhaps this favors stepping away ("so you can't see deck markings, which are always very small") while they spread through the backs with the cards held in the plane of the ground?

From here, they can cut the card to to the top. Flip it over and look at it (out of your sight), and then you can finally instruct them to insert it "inside the deck at some random point". Something like "inside the deck" should have the desired effect. Maybe add that they should "just jam it in there between some random cards". The problem with this is that a cut seems like a much more reasonable way to lose the card...
Claudio
View Profile
Inner circle
Europe
1553 Posts

Profile of Claudio
Quote:
On Apr 18, 2016, RiderBacks wrote:
I was toying with the idea of opting for the faces-up handling, but I still would like to retain the jokey aspect of suggesting they look at the backs (for reduced influence). It seems when they spread, you need to instruct them to do so in such a way that you can neither see the faces/backs of the cards. And this no matter which option you pick. If they're going through the faces, they shouldn't hold the deck so you could see potential deck markings. And if they're going through the backs, you shouldn't be able to see the faces. Perhaps this favors stepping away ("so you can't see deck markings, which are always very small") while they spread through the backs with the cards held in the plane of the ground?


Indeed my main concern was to address the marking business, and having the spec. spread the deck face up alleviates that as the back is not fully exposed, and further more the fact that the selection is cut to the face shields its back. I agree that wherever possible, stepping back is a good ploy.

Quote:
On Apr 18, 2016, RiderBacks wrote:
From here, they can cut the card to to the top. Flip it over and look at it (out of your sight), and then you can finally instruct them to insert it "inside the deck at some random point". Something like "inside the deck" should have the desired effect. Maybe add that they should "just jam it in there between some random cards". The problem with this is that a cut seems like a much more reasonable way to lose the card...


It's a minor logic issue, which exists as well in SA's original, as it would be more logical for the spec. to take the selection out of the spread, look at it and insert it back somewhere into the spread, while the performer is looking away, and close the spread. It's finessed verbally by a clever script. If you really want to overcome this, what do you think of this handling when the cards are spread faces down:

When the selection has been cut to the top, instruct the spectator to have a look at it using both hands by bringing them to the chest, like a poker player would do. The idea is to shield the back further, but mainly to prevent you from getting a pick by chance. During this action the spec. will have to table the deck. It's now logical and natural to ask the spectator to bury the card in the pack and have the deck cut a couple of times.

I hope I did not sound too much like Spock Smile

N.B.
Probably my last post on this thread as it is being targeted by the Magic Inquisition.
RiderBacks
View Profile
Loyal user
249 Posts

Profile of RiderBacks
Quote:
On Apr 19, 2016, Claudio wrote: If you really want to overcome this, what do you think of this handling when the cards are spread faces down:

When the selection has been cut to the top, instruct the spectator to have a look at it using both hands by bringing them to the chest, like a poker player would do. The idea is to shield the back further, but mainly to prevent you from getting a pick by chance. During this action the spec. will have to table the deck. It's now logical and natural to ask the spectator to bury the card in the pack and have the deck cut a couple of times.


This is an interesting idea that has some promise! I like it.

Quote:
On Apr 19, 2016, Claudio wrote: N.B. Probably my last post on this thread as it is being targeted by the Magic Inquisition.


Thanks for your contribution and ideas! I've enjoyed our discussion!
RiderBacks
View Profile
Loyal user
249 Posts

Profile of RiderBacks
Quote:
On Apr 18, 2016, magicfish wrote:
Every idea you've ever toyed with pertaining to Aronson's magic has been brought up, discussed, and rejected before you ever thought about it.
You are not worthy of performing Simon Aronson's magic because you cannot comprehend basic magic principles. Aronson is a magic genius. You are an Irreverent bumbler, an arrogant buffoon, and a troll who thinks he can improve not only on Simon's creations but also on the critique of John Bannon, and Dave Solomon.
You are a disgrace to the art and you harm magic every time you show someone a trick.
Sincerely,
Magicfish


I suppose I'll respond constructively to my pet troll. In his description of "Some People Think", Aronson writes:

Quote:
It was originally designed as a magician's effect.


I am happy to let the effect stand, as written, for a performance for another magician. For such purposes, and for which the effect was designed, it needs no modification. However, for other purposes (such as a performance for a layman) it clearly requires modification. You cannot count, for example, on a laymen not mixing up the order of the cards when attempting to open or close a tabled spread. And this is especially so if you don't always want to be restricted to use of a close-up mat, though I'd be willing to bet that even on a mat, 85% of laymen would screw this trick up at the spread-stage. (This problem, which I mentioned above, was then confirmed in actual fact by Claudio. But one doesn't need confirmation to see the problem. One only requires a brain and some rudimentary knowledge.)

There is a huge difference between performing for a magician and performing for a layman. If you ask a magician to cut the deck, for example, you'll get a fair cut. If you ask a layman to cut the deck, you're going to get screwed. You have to manage the layman like a hawk. If you aren't at least saying "cut the deck and complete the cut" you're doing something wrong. Aronson's patter includes the line "Cut the deck again." This is unacceptable patter for a layman (even though his first instruction does include the "complete the cut" line). The patter requires modification for performance on non-magicians at this point and at others.

When considering whether a published effect requires modification, one needs to consider one's presentational requirements. Does the effect, as published, fit those? An effect originally designed for close-up presentation may need to be modified for stage work, and vice-versa. That one is considering modifications to an effect, and even one published by a magic genius, is manifestly not to denigrate or tarnish the reputation or skills of the effect's producer or his friends. Aronson's "Some People Think" is not, as set forth, appropriate for presentation to laymen. For that purpose, which is not what it was designed for, it needs to be modified. If you can't accept this, you simply don't understand how to perform effects for laymen.
Claudio
View Profile
Inner circle
Europe
1553 Posts

Profile of Claudio
Here's a Think of a Card effect H.O.T.O.A.C. that can be performed with a borrowed deck. It fooled me badly on first viewing and will fool all non-magicians.

It's not as refined as Some People Think and the risk of failure is higher (once you understand the method behind it, it's obvious why.) I've posted this because of the selection procedure (though I would disregard the turning away business) which is kind of similar to what I am currently doing. Ben's presentation is geared towards letting the spectator believe that the performer knows the card before going through the packet to find it. It's a nice touch which enhances the effect. The deck is shuffled by the performer at the beginning and by the spectator himself at the end to lose the selected card; it's how I am performing SA's effect.

I have noticed that the effect is stronger when I can reveal the spectator's card before it's been dealt. I am thinking of ways to engineer its occurrence.
RiderBacks
View Profile
Loyal user
249 Posts

Profile of RiderBacks
Quote:
On Apr 21, 2016, Claudio wrote: I have noticed that the effect is stronger when I can reveal the spectator's card before it's been dealt. I am thinking of ways to engineer its occurrence.


No question That is absolutely the case (and, for the record, one doesn't have to notice it to know it's the case.) It's going to be difficult to engineer that effect, though, without giving up other important (hands off) aspects of the routine. Managing the location they replace the card at will almost surely involve losing the hands-off and it's totally-up-to-you aspect. And I currently enjoy to (if not prefer) turn(ing) my back during the re-insertion phase. This is safer on some occasions than it is on others, and patter helps.

I actually did this today and I used some of the ideas in your previously linked video. Once I hit the point at which I knew I could predict the card, I did the whole visualize the card in the space in front of you routine you see in the video you linked. The effect was mind-blowing. When I revealed the card, the spectator literally hopped out of her seat as if she's seen a ghost. If you hit the prediction climax, you should absolutely play it up for everything it's worth.

If you have thoughts on engineering the prediction climax, I'd definitely be interested. That's the ultimate climax.
Claudio
View Profile
Inner circle
Europe
1553 Posts

Profile of Claudio
Quote:
On Apr 21, 2016, RiderBacks wrote:
If you have thoughts on engineering the prediction climax, I'd definitely be interested. That's the ultimate climax.


I do have a couple of ideas but they definitely need polishing.

One early thought I had was to carry on dealing about ten cards or so, covering the selection, if you deal out the selected card prematurely, in effect ignoring the "mental stop". You can then engage your spectator saying for example you're going to switch to a visual mode (instead of an auditive one... blah, blah, and I believe you should not ask whether they've seen their card or not) and you climax the effect with the mental revelation. I have not tried it, but with a clever script it could play nearly as strong as the best scenario for laypeople.

If you have the occasion of trying this (I won't be able to perform for a while), do let me know as I am curious whether this has any merit in live performance.
RiderBacks
View Profile
Loyal user
249 Posts

Profile of RiderBacks
Quote:
On Apr 22, 2016, Claudio wrote: I do have a couple of ideas but they definitely need polishing.

One early thought I had was to carry on dealing about ten cards or so, covering the selection, if you deal out the selected card prematurely, in effect ignoring the "mental stop". You can then engage your spectator saying for example you're going to switch to a visual mode (instead of an auditive one... blah, blah, and I believe you should not ask whether they've seen their card or not) and you climax the effect with the mental revelation. I have not tried it, but with a clever script it could play nearly as strong as the best scenario for laypeople.

If you have the occasion of trying this (I won't be able to perform for a while), do let me know as I am curious whether this has any merit in live performance.


I'll try your method out. That's not a bad idea at all.

I was thinking along different lines. I'll mention a few of them, along with some of their problems. Perhaps one could deal in such a way that one gets a glimpse of the dealt cards before the spectator does. In that scenario, you could just say this isn't working before you show the spectator the correct card. And then move into the mental effect. (This requires incredibly fast computational speed, but I'm getting there fast.)

This has a few problems. First, I want a very, very open and clean dealing action. (I barely touch the deck. Cards are tabled, and I openly turn the top card off as cleanly as possible.) So to pull off the above here, I'd have to get a glimpse of the card and place it back on the tabled deck before displaying it. Their card then becomes the top card. That's bad. This is because the prediction climax is heightened when you can show them that the next card wasn't their card (and you have no idea where their card is!) To work around that would require moves like multiple-lifts or one-handed false cuts, and those would negate the clean, open handling. Perhaps this would still play strongly for laymen (though not as strongly for magicians). Nevertheless, I'm skeptical.

As an alternative, one could glimpse the card, and if it's the correct one, set it back on the deck. Then one could turn over two as one. But this is non-trivial, especially if one is using clean, open handling. And absent having a nice surface to set the double down on, you're going to create further problems. Perhaps those can be worked around to some extent, but I'm a bit uncomfortable setting a double down on something other than a close-up mat.

Another alternative is to try to manage the removal, replacement, and final deck order. This requires you to watch while the spectator does everything. Depending on my spectator, I generally like to let them do some moves out of sight. (I'm often fairly, though not entirely, comfortable with letting them re-insert the card into the deck while I'm not looking, for example. This really reinforces the "it's lost in the deck" idea.) But if you do watch the spectator the entire time, you can try to encourage a cut if it will set the deck up for a prediction climax but not permit them to cut the deck if it won't. You should be able to track the cards well enough, if you're watching, to vastly increase the probability of a prediction climax by doing this.

I'll give your handling a try soon and see how it plays. It's not quite a real prediction climax, though. Still, I suspect it can be made to play well. My initial thoughts on it are that one should deal through the entire deck, resulting in a magician's failure. Then you recover that failure with the mental effect. The apparent colossal failure provides the motivation for switching to another method. I think this might work fantastically. I already instruct spectators to say or telegraph nothing if I pass their card and fail to pick up on their mental command to stop (for obvious reasons). Some clever patter needs to be devised. Perhaps one explains how visualization enhances telepathic connections, etc...Maybe criticize the spectator's mental vocalizations and suggest that perhaps they are more visually wired, etc...

I think we may well be making significant progress here! I'll report back after some tests!
RiderBacks
View Profile
Loyal user
249 Posts

Profile of RiderBacks
Ok. I'm fast. I've already run a single test. The effect was incredible. On this go-round, I aimed for a double magician's failure. I dealt through the deck (as cleanly as possible). I passed their card (it wasn't set up for prediction) and dealt out the entire deck with no apparent success. Then I instructed the spectator to not just mentally think "stop" but to mentally scream "stop". We tried again. Second failure... From here, we moved into the prediction effect motivated by some nonsense about how their mental visualization might work better than their mental vocalization. I used the (above linked) HOTOAC visualization nonsense about filling in the imaginary card in front of one for this phase.

I think we've improved upon Aronson here. More tests need to be performed, but this can play like dynamite. Standing on the shoulders of giants, etc.. Aronson is amazing, but I think the effect has been improved. Thank you so much for sharing your ideas, Claudio. This has been the best, most valuable, and most worthwhile conversation I have ever had here.
RiderBacks
View Profile
Loyal user
249 Posts

Profile of RiderBacks
One's instructions have to be very, very clear. You have to ensure, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that spectator *never* reveals their card. After further testing, folks will frequently, even after being given what most sane people would consider reasonable instruction, say that you ****ed up (once the deck is exhausted) and tell you what their card is. One has to build into the patter the clear requirement that *no matter what*, they never reveal their card. This has to be emphasized heavily. Once the mental stop is "missed" the spectator may believe that, once the deck is exhausted, you've lost, and then just announce their card. This has to be guarded against.
Claudio
View Profile
Inner circle
Europe
1553 Posts

Profile of Claudio
Thank you for trying it out and I am pleased that it played so well. You've shown that the ruse is convincing, maybe too much so, and sets the stage for a stunning “visual divination” climax.

The fact that some spectators are so keen on telling you that you’ve messed up and blurt out the card name is the negative aspect of their being taken in so completely by the ploy. Peformers must find a way to counter-balance the spectator's-only pay-off by another one that works in their favour. Here’s a possibility:

When you’ve got a few cards left (about 5 say), you could say something like this:

“Please do not give me any clue, OK? But, look, the way it’s going...", fan down the few cards left, "... it’s quite likely that you signaled ‘stop’ and I did not catch it. I am going to deal these few remaining cards to be sure, but if I truly fail, will you give me a second chance?” In effect, you appeal to their sympathy and make them feel magnanimous.

I perform a few effects themed around the “magician’s failure” device, and it’s always a concern to fight off the immediate spectator’s gratification of telling you that you’ve messed up. An alternative pay-off must be provided as relying on exhortations only is not always enough.

I am now convinced that with a polished script, this will play very well.

However, I have found a solution that always guarantees the “divination” outcome, and further more you know the selected card within dealing 10 cards, at most, which makes it nearly self-working as no much mental effort is required. No sleight of hand, no contrived procedure, no further restriction, no nothing. To be fair, it’s a solution that fits my handling (outlined in my previous posts) and will not work for you.

I am keen to try it out when I have a chance.
RiderBacks
View Profile
Loyal user
249 Posts

Profile of RiderBacks
Quote:
On Apr 23, 2016, Claudio wrote: “Please do not give me any clue, OK? But, look, the way it’s going...", fan down the few cards left, "... it’s quite likely that you signaled ‘stop’ and I did not catch it. I am going to deal these few remaining cards to be sure, but if I truly fail, will you give me a second chance?” In effect, you appeal to their sympathy and make them feel magnanimous.


Patter seems alright. But I don't and won't fan the cards. I deal from tabled cards as cleanly as possible. Every single card is clearly coming off the top, one by one. There is no (perceived, if you like) room for any sleight. Fanning the cards requires them to be in your hands. The effect is far more powerful if the deck isn't ever in your hands. You also have to already guard against the spectator seeing their card which you've missed and then ending it with a premature reveal if you're performing it as written. I favor a patter structure here which ensures that they will not reveal their card if you go through the full deck and still fail. At this point, you can choose to move immediately to the visual climax or you can opt for a second fail after which you move to the visual climax.
Claudio
View Profile
Inner circle
Europe
1553 Posts

Profile of Claudio
Quote:
On Apr 24, 2016, RiderBacks wrote:
But I don't and won't fan the cards. I deal from tabled cards as cleanly as possible. Every single card is clearly coming off the top, one by one. There is no (perceived, if you like) room for any sleight. Fanning the cards requires them to be in your hands. The effect is far more powerful if the deck isn't ever in your hands. You also have to already guard against the spectator seeing their card which you've missed and then ending it with a premature reveal if you're performing it as written. I favor a patter structure here which ensures that they will not reveal their card if you go through the full deck and still fail. At this point, you can choose to move immediately to the visual climax or you can opt for a second fail after which you move to the visual climax.


You don't have to fan, spreading is as good. You don't like the idea, fair enough it was just brainstorming. We've taken different paths on how we present this effect (I, for example, would never go twice through the deck, and even once is too much and that's why I've devised a handling by which I deal as fewer cards as possible) and it's all well and good as appropriating an effect, more than enhancing it, is what performing is all about (instead of slavishly following the recipe).

Thank you for giving some feedback on your performances as I always find very interesting how real spectators defeat the best laid plans Smile
I hope to perform it in the next few days.
RiderBacks
View Profile
Loyal user
249 Posts

Profile of RiderBacks
Quote:
On Apr 24, 2016, Claudio wrote: We've taken different paths on how we present this effect (I, for example, would never go twice through the deck, and even once is too much and that's why I've devised a handling by which I deal as fewer cards as possible) and it's all well and good as appropriating an effect, more than enhancing it, is what performing is all about (instead of slavishly following the recipe).


It does take a lot of time to run through all the cards, and an *awful* lot of time to do it twice. I would only spend that much time dealing (though I do move fast) if I have set a hook and achieved prior serious interest. I think it *can* be worth it, but it'd by no means be my go-to version.

Quote:
On Apr 24, 2016, Claudio wrote: Thank you for giving some feedback on your performances as I always find very interesting how real spectators defeat the best laid plans Smile


Cut the deck and complete the cut doesn't cut it fifty percent of the time... I'm working on refining this patter for people who think "cut" means "shuffle" or "split the pack into seven piles and reassemble".
Claudio
View Profile
Inner circle
Europe
1553 Posts

Profile of Claudio
Here's an idea I had recently which is strictly to fool magicians - as it would be overkill for civilians.

Do a version of Do As I Do. Most versions of this effect rely on a subtle use of key(s) card(s). A magician will be aware of that as, in the regular versions, you exchange packets before choosing a card. But, if you let the spectator riffle-shuffle his own pack, chose their card and lose it in the middle of the deck, give it a couple of cuts and and now only swap decks, it's bound to "fry" your fellow magi, whether they know about memdecks or not.

The effect is not as dramatic as Some People Think but I bet it's going to give the other mago sleepless nights Smile
RiderBacks
View Profile
Loyal user
249 Posts

Profile of RiderBacks
Quote:
On Apr 25, 2016, Claudio wrote: Here's an idea I had recently which is strictly to fool magicians - as it would be overkill for civilians.

Do a version of Do As I Do. Most versions of this effect rely on a subtle use of key(s) card(s). A magician will be aware of that as, in the regular versions, you exchange packets before choosing a card. But, if you let the spectator riffle-shuffle his own pack, chose their card and lose it in the middle of the deck, give it a couple of cuts and and now only swap decks, it's bound to "fry" your fellow magi, whether they know about memdecks or not.

The effect is not as dramatic as Some People Think but I bet it's going to give the other mago sleepless nights Smile


That's an interesting take on the Do as I Do plot! I'm actually not a fan of that plot, but this might bring it back! I haven't really started thinking in this way yet, but the basic idea is that you can improve a whole host of effects by using a stack. Clever application! I might try this out soon.
Claudio
View Profile
Inner circle
Europe
1553 Posts

Profile of Claudio
I've been using Do As I Do for years as a way to ring in a stacked deck in the middle of my set: it's perfect as, though the decks get repeatedly shuffled, only the one deck gets shuffled by the spectator - while you give yours false shuffles, but genuine cuts. I came up with that idea, but if one were to point out that Marlo beat me by 50 years, I would not be surprised as it is simple enough an idea.

This effect plot means that there's little room for your spectators to trip you up (they do as you do). I always use two decks of the same colour to further camouflage the ruse. Not only that, but the effect is actually stronger than when using key cards as the spectators have total freedom to insert back their selection. I would only use the handling I described above to mess up with fellow magi's minds as it destroys the stack, but after further thinking, maybe as a closer to a set too. I need to try it to see how it plays.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » Giving It a Shot (11 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.34 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL