(With your purchase you will receive for FREE an extra eBook with more ideas by Pablo Amira)


"Name It" is a new routine from the mind of Paul Hamilton, and it is amazing!

You have someone shuffle the deck until they are happy. They hand you the deck back or place it on the table. You take the top card off face down and slide it towards them pointing to the card you ask if they can get the name of a the card to the front of their mind.
You then ask them to say it.
It is the card on the table.

Limited to 100 Copies!





This is bold, very bold but easily do-able.
Well thought through. I like it very much. Some lovely ideas from Peter Turner.
Derek Heron

I know we're not seeing everything, but is it "a lot" we're not seeing, as in super process heavy?

How funny would it be if after buying this, all you got was the above youtube clip and a link to purchase Isolation.

Not at all!

The experience from the audience´s perspective is almost like you are seeing it in the video. Paul´s out of the box thinking allows this "named card" classic idea in a direct, bold and fun way.

Is it 100% sure fire? If it isn't then are outs provided?

Sleepy

I bought this and the video is nothing like the pdf file you receive.

This is NOT a " one on one " effect as depicted in the video...very misleading!!

There is a LOT you are not seeing in the video of the actual performance described in the pdf file you are buying.

You need to do a lot of work with the individual at the table to execute the effect to the audience.

Dang, but then how can Derren endorse it?

Nothing is 100% really, but yes, if you study it and you perform it in the correct context, it will work

Pablo, stop fudging. You know what we mean when we say "100%". There are sleights and techniques we use which SHOULD be 100%. If we bodge them up ourselves then obviously that's less than 100% but I dare say that's a world away from propless or psychological techniques which are more surefire.

I don't like that the first review from a customer states your promo video is nothing like the end effect. That's a tad dishonest, don't you think? I appreciate we're looking for the "holy grail" but really...don't advertise it if you can't meet expectations. It should be enough to be able to say you have a new take on the plot rather than punt a video that makes it look super clean.

So is there an effect for the participant?

//Dan

I got this. It is smart. But it is not for me.

I was also disappointed with the demo because it painted a picture that is not achievable exactly.

One can tip toe around it but I cannot see this being anything but a mere puzzle for the participant.

So close-up, out of the question. Parlor/stage, maybe. Again, I am the type who targets all members of the audience in my performances and this does not fit the bill.

With that said, I will tinker with the concept as I feel it has potential but I feel it is overpriced for what you get relative to how it was portrayed.

Yes, there are plenty of ideas from Paul, from Peter Turner and myself to modify the core method to create different options



Thanks for your feedback ash2arani

Indeed, it is not for everyone, but that's the fun part of studying and exploring strange methods. As soon as we are out of our comfort zone, we can expand, change and learn new ways.
Your last line shows that you are wise enough to appreciate the value of the core method, and I invite you to try it!

Yet a purhaser wrote: "One can tip toe around it but I cannot see this being anything but a mere puzzle for the participant."

And I'm not sure feeling you have to tinker with it, and that it's overpriced equals appreciating the core method.

All the best,
Dan

Pablo

Do you ever answer a question directly ?

A person asks is there an effect for the participant ? The normal approach is to say .

The effect for the participant is as follows and then describe it . Don’t say there is a core idea and other ideas .

Just be up front and answer the question

While you are at it try answering the other points raised directly .

If I was selling one of my effects with you Pablo and the sales pitch created this level of feedback I would be
fuming mad .

Please note Pablo . No effects of mine will be entrusted with you . I like people to come up to me and thank me for my effects and not
That they felt misled

Andrew

Hello Dan, all opinions are valid.

In offering this type of routines, of course that we can get people that don't like it, and that's fine. No one is forced to get this routine, right?
In terms of the participant´s experience, again, with proper time and thinking, the core method from "Name it" can be worked so both entities in performance experience an interesting mystery.

You say no one is forced to get this routine....which is true. But if I'd read the blurb and seen that video and decided to buy...from what is clear on here it does not match the promise of the blurb or video. Why even BOTHER with that video unless you are trying to manipulate the knee-jerk "what's new" brigade? Luckily I'm too wise to fall for this schnitzel but many aren't. I hope to make them pause for thought before plumping for buying something that will most likely disappoint.

I think this type of response could have been avoided if it was upfront that this is designed for stage/parlour and not close up.

Or not put a misleading video up?

Classic Amirisms

I gave this a read-through a few days ago (not Pablo's contributions, only Paul's and Peter's sections), and I will say: It's an interesting idea.

As people have said above (and in the already existing thread for it: http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......orum=218 ), it will not work for one-on-one. And it doesn't work for table/group hopping either. It's made for a situation where you and the participant are together in front of an audience.

As far as workability... I'm not sure. It's interesting, and the core method I'm sure has some nifty applications aside from what is presented here, but as a good friend of mine said: "We, as performers, need to assume that our audience is comprised of intelligent and curious individuals." Reading over the PDF, I get the feeling that even with the extra contributions, it would be very easy for the whole thing to unravel, thus exposing the secret.

Maybe if another effect along the same lines (spectator as mind-reader) was used as a lead-in to "Name-It", and a different 'spectator as mind-reader' effect was used to follow it (using the same spectator), then it might be better masked. But then one has to wonder: there are easier, less fragile ways of accomplishing the same thing, in which everyone experiences a true mystery, so why put yourself in this situation?

There are 3 parts of the method that I found to be quite intriguing:
- The "Introduction" to what is going to happen - I've played with this same sort of concept and published in my HT series, but with a different purpose
- The "Confusion Moment" that the audience witnesses
- And the "4H" thing from Peter Turner

When these 3 things are combined under the context of Name-It, the audience gets a mystery, and the participant gets a puzzle at best. But if we take any one (or combination) of those 3 concepts and applied them in a different context, then I think there is potential for something really great to come into existence.

All-in-all, if you buy this with the expectation of being able to accomplish exactly what was shown in the video (one-on-one), then you will be sorely disappointed. But if you buy it knowing that it is for parlour/stage, AND you're willing to explore the previously mentioned concepts outside of this plot, then I think you'll be satisfied with the food-for-thought.