On May 5, 2016, Chamberlain wrote:
I also bought this for Ricks handling and whilst I know the original, the fun phrasing on the cards I feel really adds to the effect.

I've changed the words on the cards slightly, the ones I use are (written on blank face cards):
X
:) (smiley face)
Pick Me
Don't Pick Me
?
[Left Blank]
Heart Shape
Yes!
No!
FREE BEER

On May 5, 2016, Joe Roberts wrote:
Rick has long claimed that he is not much of a performer and I fear his recent releases have proven this to be true.

He had an effect with a non-examinable tarot deck which is essentially useless in real close-up performances because people WANT to look at tarot cards.

Then his teaching for Close Call was incomplete and incorrect which suggested he hadn't really performed it.

And now this trick in which he's bizarrely decided to draw attention to unexaminable cards. I agree he's come up with a nice presentation, but for real people this method and presentation don't work together. The reason Nick Trost's trick worked is because spectators were only interested in one card, their selection, which they could examine. Here he's made ALL the cards a subject of interest. People want to see how they were "psychologically manipulated." If you only perform for webcams and demo videos this isn't a problem. If you perform around real people who are interested in what you're showing them then you're completely out of luck

On May 6, 2016, drstevemagic wrote:

Quote:

On May 5, 2016, Joe Roberts wrote:
Rick has long claimed that he is not much of a performer and I fear his recent releases have proven this to be true.

He had an effect with a non-examinable tarot deck which is essentially useless in real close-up performances because people WANT to look at tarot cards.

Then his teaching for Close Call was incomplete and incorrect which suggested he hadn't really performed it.

And now this trick in which he's bizarrely decided to draw attention to unexaminable cards. I agree he's come up with a nice presentation, but for real people this method and presentation don't work together. The reason Nick Trost's trick worked is because spectators were only interested in one card, their selection, which they could examine. Here he's made ALL the cards a subject of interest. People want to see how they were "psychologically manipulated." If you only perform for webcams and demo videos this isn't a problem. If you perform around real people who are interested in what you're showing them then you're completely out of luck

COME ON; DON'T BE SO SHY --TELL US HOW YOU REALLY FEEL! (rough day at work? someone run over your dog?)

On May 5, 2016, e-man wrote:
Fans of the Olram move may wish to look into Daryls work on this plot

On May 5, 2016, Joe Roberts wrote:
Rick has long claimed that he is not much of a performer and I fear his recent releases have proven this to be true.

He had an effect with a non-examinable tarot deck which is essentially useless in real close-up performances because people WANT to look at tarot cards.

Then his teaching for Close Call was incomplete and incorrect which suggested he hadn't really performed it.

And now this trick in which he's bizarrely decided to draw attention to unexaminable cards. I agree he's come up with a nice presentation, but for real people this method and presentation don't work together. The reason Nick Trost's trick worked is because spectators were only interested in one card, their selection, which they could examine. Here he's made ALL the cards a subject of interest. People want to see how they were "psychologically manipulated." If you only perform for webcams and demo videos this isn't a problem. If you perform around real people who are interested in what you're showing them then you're completely out of luck

On May 5, 2016, Joe Roberts wrote:
Rick has long claimed that he is not much of a performer and I fear his recent releases have proven this to be true.

He had an effect with a non-examinable tarot deck which is essentially useless in real close-up performances because people WANT to look at tarot cards.

Then his teaching for Close Call was incomplete and incorrect which suggested he hadn't really performed it.

And now this trick in which he's bizarrely decided to draw attention to unexaminable cards. I agree he's come up with a nice presentation, but for real people this method and presentation don't work together. The reason Nick Trost's trick worked is because spectators were only interested in one card, their selection, which they could examine. Here he's made ALL the cards a subject of interest. People want to see how they were "psychologically manipulated." If you only perform for webcams and demo videos this isn't a problem. If you perform around real people who are interested in what you're showing them then you're completely out of luck

On May 9, 2016, baller08 wrote:

Interesting. Rick clearly explains in the tutorial why your spectators should not be asking to examine those cards. And I 100% agree with him as to the reasons why based on very real world experience. Truth be told, experienced, engaging, relatable, attractive and high social IQ performers don't really have to worry about props being examinable very often. Only inexperience performers or people who aren't very relatable to the general population have that problem.

So ironically, even though you said Rick has claim he isn't much of a performer, he sure doesn't act like it.

I'll even go as far as to say, I'll perform this (or any other effect where items being examine is a concern) 100 times and I'll give you $20 for every time someone asks to see the props and you give me $5 for every time someone doesn't and I might have to pay you once.

On May 9, 2016, Joe Roberts wrote:

In ANY OTHER activity someone NOT showing interest in something you asked them to would be sad or embarrassing. Only the fragile ego of magicians have been able to turn a lack of interest into a positive thing.

...Of course if you were REALLY doing it you would want the person you're showing it to to express an interest in these cards you're showing her. Only because we're faking it do we want them to act differently.