Some excellent advice in this thread. Also, I think Jack Tighe just crushed it, as he always does. That demo alone should put to rest the idea that the Hamman count "can't" be done invisibly or deceptively. Yes it can!

Here's something to think about that might help some of you, some of the time: improve/alter some other aspect of the overall structure of the routine.

Disclaimer: the following is an artificial situation I've just now come up with for the sake of argument. But the principle may still be of use to some of you.

Imagine that you want to show 4 black spot cards, an Ace of Hearts and then 4 black spot cards again, all the while concealing the 4 Queens behind the AH.

Cull the Queens to the rear of the deck. Make sure the AH is somewhere in the middle of the deck.

Spread through and openly upjog 4 black spot cards, then upjog the AH, then upjog 4 more black spot cards as you say to the spectator, "I need 8 random black number cards and a red Ace for this..."

When upjogging the 4 black spot cards behind the AH, upjog them slightly lower than the first 4 and the AH.

After all 9 cards are upjogged, catch a break above the 4 Queens and close the deck, but try and have the 4 spot cards nearest the face and the AH widely spread. That small fan of 5 cards will conceal the fact that you're using your left forefinger to reach up and square the lowermost 4 black spot cards back into the deck. Immediately after doing this, you perform the Vernon upjog addition as you strip out the 4 forwardmost black spots and the AH.

Now when you perform your Hamman count, you're not "displaying" the situation for the first time (which might be interesting enough for your spectators to pay attention to), you're merely reconfirming what they already (think they) know. There's a big difference between those 2 situations. In fact, assuming your Vernon strip out addition was invisible, this Hamman count could even have one of those extremely common visual "hiccups" that we all dislike (but that Jack doesn't seem to have) and yet the spectators will likely disregard the hiccup when they see that the packet "does" contain what they believed it to contain.

As I said earlier, this is an artificial situation that I created just to make this larger point, but small details like this can help you in a variety of ways.

I used to use this principle in Brother John Hamman's The Twins effect. I would frequently ask the spectators if they wanted to see a really "cute" trick. They always said yes. I would then take out 2 decks of cards and spread through one removing the KS and QS and then spread through the other and remove the QH and KH. That's it. That's the whole "touch" on this trick, but it put up a HUGE mental roadblock in the minds of many of the spectators. After the first phase of the routine (where no magic has happened yet but the cast has been introduced), the spectators thought they completely understood the situation. (They didn't and were about to get blown away.)

By contrast, if you remove the 4 cards from a single deck, you get smiles and pleasantly confused looks on the spectators faces after the first phase, but they're on high alert from that point on and are in a position to more easily back-track the starting conditions, if not the exact method.

After doing the routine both ways, I can tell you that the single deck version is a really great, cute trick and the double deck version is the same trick with an really impenetrable extra layer of smoke added to the front end. The spectators have a much more difficult time undoing their OWN conclusion about what that initial starting packet contained as opposed to undoing and reconstructing what a packet contained where you merely TOLD them it contained one thing and then it turned out to contain something else.

Jason

Thank you for the insightful post, Jason. It's kind of fascinating how adding the deck would check the effect so much for the spectator.

"Now when you perform your Hamman count, you're not "displaying" the situation for the first time (which might be interesting enough for your spectators to pay attention to), you're merely reconfirming what they already (think they) know. There's a big difference between those 2 situations."

This mirrors what I stated earlier here about the flushtration count.
And thanks for that good example with the upjogs.

Jason----Regarding the Twins, am I taking your meaning correctly? You removed the 4 cards from 2 decks not allowing the spectators to see what cards you removed?

What a great thread. I have been able to do the count with good rhythm but not with out the normal tells (index finger movement). Due to this thread, I feel I have made great progress in getting things looking much better. I switched to using middle and ring finger for the move. For me, it's easier to do the required move if the left hands cards are positioned more in the fingers instead of the left edge being at the base of the left thumb like the elmsley or Jordan. After that small change, it has become much easier to smoothly transition through the move.

I also never seen that fingertip Hammond count before and after trying it out, that one came vary naturally to me. So again, great thread and thanks for all the great info.

Hamman, not Hammond.

That's not the first time I have misspelled something. I'll correct that pronto.

I've seen Bazillions of misspellings of Hamman. Maybe we could collect them all and sell them to benefit the Café.

Thanks, I don't believe in being a grammar policeman, but names are the exception. Glad you didn't take it wrong!

Hammmah?

Halvah?

Tried doing the count with the letters of his name

Ah, got it. Still think I'd prefer it with slices of halvah.

HaLVaH, me too

[technical]? is there a credit/citation for seeming to thumb over not one but two cards at that central display moment? [/technical]

Yes- Bro. John Hamman’s.

Thanks, magicfish. The original, then.