We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » Which Hand Method & Philosophy by Timon Krause - Mind FX (79 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..12~13~14~15~16 [Next]
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
3798 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Quote:
On Jul 31, 2019, The Duster wrote:
Quote:
On Jul 31, 2019, celebrity wrote:

if Timon had any doubts whatsoever over the reliability of this I don’t think that he would have risked performing it on live TV


Is there another TV performance of this [?]

I thought it was only on Fool Us

If there is, if anyone could drop a link that would be very interesting to watch...

Thanks


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCAeqEeqt40

He ends it with a drawing reveal which is I believe separate from the which hand. Much of the patter even though it's in German, is the same as he used on FU. The way I deduced that is because he choreographs his actions with his script and you can tell that it's much the same as what was shown on FU.

It's very very very unfortunate for those that were not able to get the book because the method really does take a backseat to what he teaches in regards to routining. The method itself is super solid but what makes it amazing really is his routining.
magicmind
View Profile
Inner circle
Wandering around with
2149 Posts

Profile of magicmind
Quote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCAeqEeqt40

He ends it with a drawing reveal which is I believe separate from the which hand. Much of the patter even though it's in German, is the same as he used on FU. The way I deduced that is because he choreographs his actions with his script and you can tell that it's much the same as what was shown on FU.

It's very very very unfortunate for those that were not able to get the book because the method really does take a backseat to what he teaches in regards to routining. The method itself is super solid but what makes it amazing really is his routining.


Great to see another live performance, thank you. Agreed, the book is excellent and the kit will make this a much easier learning curve. Routining is pure gold.
Pay it forward
amirb401
View Profile
Regular user
114 Posts

Profile of amirb401
I must say, even though I have and know few methods for the which hand, this is by far the most "mentalist" version iv'e encountered.
REAL "mind reading" and not just a simple logic patter to follow or use of electronics or gimmicks.
I have bought his bought when he came to lecture at my "circle". its just plain brilliant.

It does take some practice but with enough you will be doing it with 100% success all the time.
People complained that it might not be really 100%.. something is 100% if you do it correctly, something that can/will always work even with bad spectator/showmanship isn't "100%" but more of a "dumb-proof" and probably heavily gimmicked.
This IS 100% if you understood the method and had enough practice on real audience/friends. I have tried it several times already and this kills.
I have a lot more to practice but this surely is one of the best out there.
RedDevil
View Profile
Inner circle
Deep South
1175 Posts

Profile of RedDevil
Am I mistaken that he misses on the second round in this vid? If so, he recovers well.

Quote:
On Aug 1, 2019, magicmind wrote:
Quote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCAeqEeqt40

He ends it with a drawing reveal which is I believe separate from the which hand. Much of the patter even though it's in German, is the same as he used on FU. The way I deduced that is because he choreographs his actions with his script and you can tell that it's much the same as what was shown on FU.

It's very very very unfortunate for those that were not able to get the book because the method really does take a backseat to what he teaches in regards to routining. The method itself is super solid but what makes it amazing really is his routining.


Great to see another live performance, thank you. Agreed, the book is excellent and the kit will make this a much easier learning curve. Routining is pure gold.
F-F-U-L-Ri-F-F-Li-R-U-F-F
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
3798 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Quote:
On Aug 2, 2019, RedDevil wrote:
Am I mistaken that he misses on the second round in this vid? If so, he recovers well.

Quote:
On Aug 1, 2019, magicmind wrote:
Quote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCAeqEeqt40

He ends it with a drawing reveal which is I believe separate from the which hand. Much of the patter even though it's in German, is the same as he used on FU. The way I deduced that is because he choreographs his actions with his script and you can tell that it's much the same as what was shown on FU.

It's very very very unfortunate for those that were not able to get the book because the method really does take a backseat to what he teaches in regards to routining. The method itself is super solid but what makes it amazing really is his routining.


Great to see another live performance, thank you. Agreed, the book is excellent and the kit will make this a much easier learning curve. Routining is pure gold.


He definitely missed on the second round, I don’t think it was really a recovery though, he just keeps going. I think that was prior to him forming the routine he does now with the prediction but you can see many of the elements with the choreography and script (in German though of course) here. He obviously kept much of that choreography and script in tact for the P&T appearance.
Martin Pulman
View Profile
Inner circle
London
2977 Posts

Profile of Martin Pulman
Timon clearly misses during the footage above- which hopefully puts to bed the silly argument about this method being 100%. It isn't and really should not have been advertised as such.

The biggest drawback in this method for me are the constraints placed on the routine to get the success rate as high as possible. The ideal scenario involves ideal lighting, size of participant, gender of participant and choice of object. Some may also think not being able to "borrow" a coin is another potential drawback. I doubt very much that this will replace the electronic route for the majority of professional performers. But as others have said, the book is really about far more than the method. It is a brilliant study in building a Mentalism routine -and often very funny. And, as Mark Chandaue points out, the final revelation normally allows you to cover any misses you make along the way.

So, not a 100% foolproof which-hand method, but definitely a solid 80% for the contents of the book.
otreboR
View Profile
Loyal user
The Netherlands
223 Posts

Profile of otreboR
Just a small clear up for the language in the 2014 video.
He is speaking Dutch with a German accent.
That's all. Continue the discussion. Smile

Greetings from the Netherlands
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
3798 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Quote:
On Aug 3, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
Timon clearly misses during the footage above- which hopefully puts to bed the silly argument about this method being 100%. It isn't and really should not have been advertised as such.

The biggest drawback in this method for me are the constraints placed on the routine to get the success rate as high as possible. The ideal scenario involves ideal lighting, size of participant, gender of participant and choice of object. Some may also think not being able to "borrow" a coin is another potential drawback. I doubt very much that this will replace the electronic route for the majority of professional performers. But as others have said, the book is really about far more than the method. It is a brilliant study in building a Mentalism routine -and often very funny. And, as Mark Chandaue points out, the final revelation normally allows you to cover any misses you make along the way.

So, not a 100% foolproof which-hand method, but definitely a solid 80% for the contents of the book.


This was a couple of years into him using this method. He’s been working it for a total of 9 years or so now. The P&T appearance was two year post the performance in that video. He clearly had not formulated the full routine he uses on P&T. He also explains in the book that he has missed frequently before and he gives explanation of why in the book so that students will not repeat the same mistakes and thus have misses when they could have avoided it.

It’s unfortunate that only people that know the method would understand this, but if you do an example phase first properly (in the video he rushed through it, you can tell if you understand the method) and actually did the opposite of what he instructs in the book, if you do the example phase AND pick your participant wisely, there’s a specific characteristic at play for it to be physically/mechanically impossible to not be able to get the read. Again, it’s unfortunate that people that have not learned this would not understand what I am explaining here but then again, perhaps it’s for the better as this does keep the secret more of a secret.

Quote:
On Aug 3, 2019, otreboR wrote:
Just a small clear up for the language in the 2014 video.
He is speaking Dutch with a German accent.
That's all. Continue the discussion. Smile

Greetings from the Netherlands


AH! Thank you!
Martin Pulman
View Profile
Inner circle
London
2977 Posts

Profile of Martin Pulman
Quote:
On Aug 3, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 3, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
Timon clearly misses during the footage above- which hopefully puts to bed the silly argument about this method being 100%. It isn't and really should not have been advertised as such.

The biggest drawback in this method for me are the constraints placed on the routine to get the success rate as high as possible. The ideal scenario involves ideal lighting, size of participant, gender of participant and choice of object. Some may also think not being able to "borrow" a coin is another potential drawback. I doubt very much that this will replace the electronic route for the majority of professional performers. But as others have said, the book is really about far more than the method. It is a brilliant study in building a Mentalism routine -and often very funny. And, as Mark Chandaue points out, the final revelation normally allows you to cover any misses you make along the way.

So, not a 100% foolproof which-hand method, but definitely a solid 80% for the contents of the book.


This was a couple of years into him using this method. He’s been working it for a total of 9 years or so now. The P&T appearance was two year post the performance in that video. He clearly had not formulated the full routine he uses on P&T. He also explains in the book that he has missed frequently before and he gives explanation of why in the book so that students will not repeat the same mistakes and thus have misses when they could have avoided it.
[


I'm happy to admit that if we use your criteria -in which no miss EVER counts as a miss, even when the creator misses- then this method works 100% of the time.
Waters.
View Profile
Special user
647 Posts

Profile of Waters.
I like collecting these types of methods and found Timon’s method both effective and insightful. In the US, since quarters are such a wide variety it is a complication to borrow one (if you are using a special something). Devices are a great resource. If you like having a genuine skill, then that is another thing. The truth is it is VERY helpful to have a variety of tools at your disposal. No method is 100%, but I like having routines like this and TH available to not have to worry about an EMP reducing me to a chump. The nice thing about this craft it that you can choose your own adventure.
Follow the link...
www.experience-architecture.com
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
3798 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
Quote:
On Aug 3, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 3, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 3, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
Timon clearly misses during the footage above- which hopefully puts to bed the silly argument about this method being 100%. It isn't and really should not have been advertised as such.

The biggest drawback in this method for me are the constraints placed on the routine to get the success rate as high as possible. The ideal scenario involves ideal lighting, size of participant, gender of participant and choice of object. Some may also think not being able to "borrow" a coin is another potential drawback. I doubt very much that this will replace the electronic route for the majority of professional performers. But as others have said, the book is really about far more than the method. It is a brilliant study in building a Mentalism routine -and often very funny. And, as Mark Chandaue points out, the final revelation normally allows you to cover any misses you make along the way.

So, not a 100% foolproof which-hand method, but definitely a solid 80% for the contents of the book.


This was a couple of years into him using this method. He’s been working it for a total of 9 years or so now. The P&T appearance was two year post the performance in that video. He clearly had not formulated the full routine he uses on P&T. He also explains in the book that he has missed frequently before and he gives explanation of why in the book so that students will not repeat the same mistakes and thus have misses when they could have avoided it.
[


I'm happy to admit that if we use your criteria -in which no miss EVER counts as a miss, even when the creator misses- then this method works 100% of the time.


Go back and think about that one characteristic in the book he mentions and how to choose the spectator and the note about doing the demo phase first. Think about if he adhered to his own guidelines there in that video... you can PM me and I can explain why his method would be physically impossible to not get right unless it was operator error. I'll also point out something else I can't mention on here but perhaps would be insightful to you once I mention it to you (because you have read the book). I understand the reasoning why people feel that this can't be close to 100% and I think that has much more to do with them going into this expecting to have a wider pick of spectators and this idea of going in cold to do this. Just PM if you wish to discuss some of these points.

Quote:
On Aug 3, 2019, Waters. wrote:
I like collecting these types of methods and found Timon’s method both effective and insightful. In the US, since quarters are such a wide variety it is a complication to borrow one (if you are using a special something). Devices are a great resource. If you like having a genuine skill, then that is another thing. The truth is it is VERY helpful to have a variety of tools at your disposal. No method is 100%, but I like having routines like this and TH available to not have to worry about an EMP reducing me to a chump. The nice thing about this craft it that you can choose your own adventure.



Fl*x does make that complication of borrowing a quarter a non-issue though Smile
Ustaad
View Profile
Inner circle
Iindia - States
5549 Posts

Profile of Ustaad
On the "Which Hand? Overlooked By Arthur" thread, there is a good and very wise suggestion.
And may I please quote:-

Quote:
On Aug 4, 2019, imacmagic wrote:

Also, for anyone wondering if it works with the Which Hand Method & Philosophy, I would tell them that you wouldn’t want to use them together at the same time, but that you could use this first and it could teach you what you need to know to follow up with Which Hand.


Smile
MAGIC is a SECRET, without the SECRET, there is no MAGIC.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke.
Martin Pulman
View Profile
Inner circle
London
2977 Posts

Profile of Martin Pulman
[quote]On Aug 5, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 3, 2019, Martin Pulman
Quote:
00%.


I'm happy to admit that if we use your criteria -in which no miss EVER counts as a miss, even when the creator misses- then this method works 100% of the time.


I understand the reasoning why people feel that this can't be close to 100%


And in one sneaky move we've gone from "works 100% of the time" to "works close to 100% of the time".

Nice try.
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
3798 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
[quote]On Aug 5, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 5, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 3, 2019, Martin Pulman
Quote:
00%.


I'm happy to admit that if we use your criteria -in which no miss EVER counts as a miss, even when the creator misses- then this method works 100% of the time.


I understand the reasoning why people feel that this can't be close to 100%


And in one sneaky move we've gone from "works 100% of the time" to "works close to 100% of the time".

Nice try.


Just from my posts in this thread from last week, my stance on this has never changed so where is this "sneaky move?" It seems that you're on here to stir the pot for no other reason than to stir the pot. It's a bit sad that you do this even though I clearly was offering to discuss the topic with you in private since it would include discussing methodology in the book (which I'm actually unsure if you have or had read, so was going to have you essentially provide evidence that you do own or have read the book).
Martin Pulman
View Profile
Inner circle
London
2977 Posts

Profile of Martin Pulman
[quote]On Aug 5, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 5, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 5, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 3, 2019, Martin Pulman
Quote:
00%.


I'm happy to admit that if we use your criteria -in which no miss EVER counts as a miss, even when the creator misses- then this method works 100% of the time.


I understand the reasoning why people feel that this can't be close to 100%


And in one sneaky move we've gone from "works 100% of the time" to "works close to 100% of the time".

Nice try.


Just from my posts in this thread from last week, my stance on this has never changed so where is this "sneaky move?" It seems that you're on here to stir the pot for no other reason than to stir the pot. It's a bit sad that you do this even though I clearly was offering to discuss the topic with you in private since it would include discussing methodology in the book (which I'm actually unsure if you have or had read, so was going to have you essentially provide evidence that you do own or have read the book).


Your claim has changed from one post to the next. First it worked 100% of the time; then it became "close to 100% of the time". Sneaky. You would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky kids!

The Debate is about truthfulness in advertising. It has long been established what "works 100% of the time" means. It is important that blatantly false claims aren't allowed to start creeping into magic adverts. The lies by omission are bad enough.

As for owning the book: footnote number 6 on page 11 explains why this cannot, and never will be a 100% effect, regardless of all the criteria being met. It is an occurrence that is completely out of control of the performer.

"Provided the object is **** in a ****** ***. A ****** **** ******** might potentially jeopardize the reliability of the method."

The lesson: always read the footnotes.

But again, a really good book. Overpriced -but what isn't these days. (Apart from Iain's Freud book test).
kissdadookie
View Profile
Inner circle
3798 Posts

Profile of kissdadookie
[quote]On Aug 5, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 5, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 5, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 5, 2019, kissdadookie wrote:
Quote:
On Aug 3, 2019, Martin Pulman
Quote:
00%.


I'm happy to admit that if we use your criteria -in which no miss EVER counts as a miss, even when the creator misses- then this method works 100% of the time.


I understand the reasoning why people feel that this can't be close to 100%


And in one sneaky move we've gone from "works 100% of the time" to "works close to 100% of the time".

Nice try.


Just from my posts in this thread from last week, my stance on this has never changed so where is this "sneaky move?" It seems that you're on here to stir the pot for no other reason than to stir the pot. It's a bit sad that you do this even though I clearly was offering to discuss the topic with you in private since it would include discussing methodology in the book (which I'm actually unsure if you have or had read, so was going to have you essentially provide evidence that you do own or have read the book).


Your claim has changed from one post to the next. First it worked 100% of the time; then it became "close to 100% of the time". Sneaky. You would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky kids!

The Debate is about truthfulness in advertising. It has long been established what "works 100% of the time" means. It is important that blatantly false claims aren't allowed to start creeping into magic adverts. The lies by omission are bad enough.

As for owning the book: footnote number 6 on page 11 explains why this cannot, and never will be a 100% effect, regardless of all the criteria being met. It is an occurrence that is completely out of control of the performer.

"Provided the object is **** in a ****** ***. A ****** **** ******** might potentially jeopardize the reliability of the method."

The lesson: always read the footnotes.

But again, a really good book. Overpriced -but what isn't these days. (Apart from Iain's Freud book test).


Wow, it hasn't but you're just doubling down on literally lying about what I have said and haven't said. Footnote number 6, is that about being seated? I don't have the book on hand because if that's what you are talking about, he explains how to get around this in a obvious way. Or is that the part about performing it on magicians which also has the same drawback as doing it to someone seated, which again, it is explained as to why this would jeapardize the method and he provides the solution to circumvent this. If you ignored his guidance here then you are NOT meeting all the criteria which demonstrates that you've just contradicted yourself because you are claiming that no matter if all the criteria is met or not that this is still a problem (he points out this potential problem and explains what that problem is and how to get around it, which is a CRITERIA by definition, if you choose to ignore this and do whatever it is you feel like doing and your trip up due to this, that's on you, the operator, not adhering to the guidance provided in the book).

It seems that you have selective reading so you've basically made up your own interpretations of what is being explained in the book? Even though clearly the book instructed you to not do what you are doing you still took it as go do that because that is something you can't prevent so yolo. I have read the footnotes. I've really enjoyed the footnotes. I've stated this pages back. I've stated how this is as close to 100% as possible about 3 or so pages back. I have not flip flopped on my statements, you lying about what I have and haven't said makes your posts questionable. Especially considering that my comments on the reliability of this was clearly stated 3 or so pages back when I was responding to RedDevil.
bretti_bln
View Profile
New user
23 Posts

Profile of bretti_bln
The discussion becomes a bit absurd. With which hit rate can you tell the chick whether it’s male or female? Chinese reach 100% but not you. Let‘s talk about the method Smile)
To advertise the book with 100% covers simple the method. I currently have 100% although I do not master all subtleties perfectly. And I'm sure I'll miss it sometime - then I was not perfect, so what?
The Unmasked Magician
View Profile
Special user
If only I didn't have a wife and kid I would have MUCH more than
677 Posts

Profile of The Unmasked Magician
This discussion isn’t about you. That WOULD be absurd.
Please check regularly if you are becoming the type of magician Jerry Seinfeld jokes about.
bretti_bln
View Profile
New user
23 Posts

Profile of bretti_bln
Never mind, the method is so close to 100% that you can advertise it as 100%. That’s just my opinion as a lawyer.
The Unmasked Magician
View Profile
Special user
If only I didn't have a wife and kid I would have MUCH more than
677 Posts

Profile of The Unmasked Magician
We are having a discussion about morals, mr Lawyer. Not jurisdiction. Somehow in two posts you manage to come across as a bit egocentric and not interested in morals. So I guess... you really are a lawyer. Smile
Please check regularly if you are becoming the type of magician Jerry Seinfeld jokes about.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » Which Hand Method & Philosophy by Timon Krause - Mind FX (79 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..12~13~14~15~16 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.27 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL