Exactly.

Rats! I'll never be allowed to play in Church again.
Thank you - I Think...

Mikael Johansson
Sweden

The unquinquaguple lift rarely fools anyone.

"If I may add my two cents. 

I believe that there's a subtle difference between using a Flustration Count to show four identical backs as opposed to four identical faces. Your audience should already assume that the backs of the cards are the same and the Flustration Count subtly "reconfirms" something that they already believe to be true."

- Daryl Easton

"See Ortiz' writings about conviction. 
The flushtration count casually, subtly, shows them what they already know."

- magicfish

Steve Friedberg mentioned J C Wagner's take on the flushtration count, saying that it's quite convincing. (Hi Steve!) Anyone know on which DVD Wagner teaches it? Is it in fact different from the usual count, or is it just that Wagner is a master and can do the standard count so well that people don't notice it?


Bob

Take a sleight, find a trick that depends up it, and see if it's deceptive. Glide? Write down the name of the second to the bottom card on a slip of paper set on the table - then start your "select a card process". Old school comments about marked cards and dry fingers omitted. The bottom card? No? Okay how about the card on the bottom now? No? This next card? ... deceptive?

Frustration count - Tell them you added a few extra cards to the pack but they look a little out of place - as they are dupes but also slightly different colored backs. They touch four cards. Flushtration count to show they got em-put and put those cards away. Deceptive?

Want to test how deceptive? Set up a routine to depend upon the sleight primary display of what's asserted as magical. The shapeshifter change is usually done in focus, but more so if you direct attention to the place the sleight happens (left elbow?) Deceptive? A pass... geeze you really want them to watch their card as you put the other half of the pack on top and do that sleight? Okay? Deceptive? (*whoops that may be the pirouette change - Marc's change is up at the arm or done as a snap down onto the pack? )

*comedy: have a friend over by the light switch and give them a nod just before you do the sleight - they flash the lights off then on again after a half second -, you're good. *

Page 129 of The Commercial Magic of J.C. Wagner. Don't know if it is on any DVDs.

This makes good sense. I think attitude plays a key role.

Attitude yes, and judicious use.

Most often it's the performer, not the actual "move." I've personally never had a problem with most mentioned here - certainly not with The Flushtration Count or the Turnover Change. And I'll feed my ego a bit - I sure as heck have never had any problem with my own stuff - The Halo Cut, The Status Quo Shuffle, The Lorayne Force, A Sweet 4-Card Change, the Take Five action, The Ultra Move, my Angle Spread, Spread Control, Universal Reversal, Utility Mixer, Salt-Less, The Great Divide, Hindu Shuffle force of TOP card, and etc. Ya' gotta' start reading the good stuff, Guys!!

An interesting discussion and good read.

I have to agree with those who say it's rarely a sleight that fails, more often the application (..in other words, performance).

For an extreme example look at card-to-mouth. 100% bold, 100% misdirection but still seems to work when performed correctly.

Regarding the Flushtration Count...you all know Ortiz uses it brilliantly in Jumping Gemini. Perhaps context?

Yes, this has been mentioned multiple times in this thread.

Sorry, didn't read the whole thread.

I don't blame you. No point in losing those braincells.

I also don't think anyone is arguing that there aren't smart applications of discrepant moves.

I'm just lazy on the weekends...my job sucks my soul.

I only chimed in because I JG is what I am working on now and even Ortiz in the video says he despises the move...but "it works here".

Carry on...

Which move kshepher?

I think he means the Flushtration in Jumping Gemini.

Oh I see. Thanks.