To Magicfish, I’m not an anti Lorayne, quite the contrary ! I’m a fan !

1. Rachmaninov said: "I’m a teacher by profession, and very often, a little child’s answer to a problem I offered to them to solve strikes me like a sparkle : he enlightened me on something I was sure about, in a way that this obvious thing to me appears now in a new light ; it forces me to reconsider it. And it makes improvement in my work. Granted, humility is needed for this."


Rachmaniov, As a fellow teacher (though of students older than yours), I utterly agree. And "strikes me like a sparkle" is lovely. You should consider writing poetry!



2. Back to the business at hand. My favorite multi-use sleight is the Elmsley Count. Mind you, I'm just learning it now, but it's just so clever and sneaky and versatile, and it seems impossible that one could hide cards in a tiny packet! I'm a bit prejudiced, I suppose, because generally I like things that are the smallest of their type.

Rach wrote:
"And again, you put cards on a spread, you gather the spread. Where are the cards ? On the deck ! How else ?! "

Incorrect.
1, nobody is asking where are the cards. If they are you're doing something wrong.
2, the cards are shuffled immediately after.
Nobody knows where the cards are, nor should they care at this point. If they do, you are doing something wrong.

You have to start thinking like a layman.

"All the best controls made by the operator will appear as such: controls."

Wow. All of them? Ok.
Take care.

I've tried to get that point across for decades...if you're doing a sleight/maneuver of mine that I've used all over the world, for decades, and for any/all types of audiences - and ALWAYS fooled all - but you're not --- YOU ARE NOT DOING IT CORRECTLY. How obvious.

I’m reminded of that Vernon quote about polite spectators.

As you should be. It is something we must consider carefully when constructing our methods. Thank goodness Mr. Lorayne and many card experts took this into consideration. It is why they often use the spread control over the dozens of others in their arsenals.

I’ve never tried the spread control in front of spectators. I don’t want to insult their intelligence.

Magicfish, nobody ask openly the question about the position of the cards. But their mind do for sure. I know European audiences are far more skeptical than US ones, they question your actions more, and if they see someone putting cards ON a spread in order to loose them, they will never be convinced. And if you don’t put the cards on the spread to loose them, what is for ? Logically speaking, if you shuffle the deck afterwards, why not directly put the cards on the deck ?

Nobody (with a few exception, eccentrics spectators) will deeply believe you loose the cards, whatever control you use, they know we cheat. They don’t believe in magic ! But of course, it doesn’t mean that they can’t believe in our magic…

Magicfish pointed out something right saying I should think as a layman. I’m trying to do so, so my reasoning here.
It reminds me one time, I offered a fan to a spectator in order to put his card back in it. And he jus put his card ON the fan. Why ? Maybe he thought it was not important, as he knows (by what i’ve done before) I will keep track of it in a way or another. Or he didn’t care at all…

Generally speaking, magicians think they fool people far more often than they really do.

Back to the initial subject, my vote goes for the spread cull.

Rachmaninov,


You mean you like the spread cull better than the Elmsley Count??? Say it isn't so!

Bob,
I like the versatility and the wide applications of the spread cull. But you’re right, we can attribute the same qualities to the Elsmey count.

Or to my HaLo Cut, The Lorayne Force, Universal Reversal, Reverse Faro Ending, Angle Spread, The Lorayne Spin, Sweet 4-Card Change, Status Quo Shuffle, To Catch An Ace #5, Illogical Double Lift, Utility Mixer, etc. No, no, wait - Rachmaninov either doesn't know these at all or if he does - can't do them properly --- just as in my Spread Control.

You call yourself a fan and then accuse the man of insulting his audience's intelligence for 60 years? No.
I will put my money on the man who appeared on the tonight show 24 times and spent a lifetime entertaining audiences all over the planet.
I tend to think he knows a touch more about audiences.

I recently became acquainted with the HaLo cut and have started to use it. It's a lovely technique.

Magicfish,
I was speaking of a specific technique, just one thing amongst the thousands he has created. Please don’t generalize.
And as I said before on this forum, I’m a fan of his material, not a fan of his style, but that’s just a matter of personal taste.

Yes. You said you wouldn't insult your audiences by using the Spread Control.
Harry Lorayne (and dozens of other top card men) have been using the Spread Control for decades. Your insinuation is that they too have been insulting their audiences intelligence.
How nice.

Anyone who "just became acquainted with the HaLo Cut" sure as heck doesn't read the good stuff. I taught it in a few books over the decades.

Magicfish,
My phrasing « insult my audience’s intelligence «  was very awkward. I should have used mishandle instead. I’m sorry for that. Don’t forget (sure it shows !) English is not my first language. Maybe we could now switch to French language as every knowloadgable people have of course studied Houdin, Ponsin, Descremps, Gaultier…in their langage, namely French.