

WayneBurrows New user Palmerston North, New Zealand 59 Posts 
Hi
I am looking for an effect that I think I read about recently. It was with a memorised deck obviously since we are in this forum. Probably stack independent but I don't know the precise workings of what I recall being read. The effect is starting with a deck (in memorised deck order) you have a spectator name any card. You then deal the cards into two piles and select one pile. That pile is dealt into two piles and you again select one pile. This is repeated five or six times until the named card is the only card left in a pile of its own. I have worked out the mechanics of such a routine and just wanted to check what similar routines are available. I can also do a similar effect where I deal the cards into more than two piles and whittle down until there is only one card and it is the selection. 
MorrisCH Veteran user 339 Posts 
This trick trace back to Royal Road to Card Magic title Tantalizer
and Darwin Ortiz further maximize the effect by using Memorized deck call Maximum Risk Denis Behr has extensive works on this principle in his stack work which can be found in Handcraft Card Magic Volume.1 and 2 hopefully that give you something to explore. P.S. I hope I got the name right...if I don't, please correct me. 
WayneBurrows New user Palmerston North, New Zealand 59 Posts 
Fantastic it was Darwin Ortiz's Maximum Risk. I already have that on my list of videos to look at.

WayneBurrows New user Palmerston North, New Zealand 59 Posts 
I found my copy of The Royal Road to Card Magic and looked up The Tantalizer  I am amazed at your quick encyclopedic knowledge.
Does Darwin Ortiz's method require the card to be in the 22nd position like The Tantalizer or does he deal with any position? Either could be accomplished by using a memorised deck. You can cut so the card is in the 22nd position as if doing an ACAAN trick or you can manipulate the cards differently and directly knowing its precise position without cutting the deck. I have been using the latter method that allows me to deal the known card to a particular pile based on its card position rather than the essentially selfworking effect after the card is placed at 22nd position. My method effectively requires a calculation at each step although the calculation can easily be put into memory because there are strong patterns in the method. I like the plot of dealing the spectator half of the cards at each step and not finding their chosen card among them as in The Tantalizer. 
mlippo Inner circle Trieste (Italy) 1004 Posts 
Darwin Ortiz does not have the card in 22nd position before starting the dealing process
Mark 
Jerry Danes New user 28 Posts 
Darwin Ortiz has a new version of Maximum Risk in his latest book Lessons in Card Mastery from 2012. It is called Calculated Risk and you can find it on page 179187. I think it is way better and you should definitely check it out.

WayneBurrows New user Palmerston North, New Zealand 59 Posts 
Thanks. I am quite happy with what I am doing but there might be some subtleties that I can learn. I read this description: "A spectator selects a card. The performer then repeatedly eliminates half of the cards until only one remains. This proves to be the selected card." from elsewhere in the forums and then worked out an easy way to do this from a stacked deck for any named card.
I am happy to share my method if anyone is interested. 
Waterloophai Inner circle Belgium 1174 Posts 
Not the same of course but approx. the same effect is "The Core" from Pit Hartling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrsUQc6CzOI 
Jerry Danes New user 28 Posts 
Quote:
On Aug 10, 2019, Jerry Danes wrote: The difference between the two routines from an audience perspective is that in Maximum Risk the spectator selects a card, but in Calculated Risk the spectator NAMES a card. I forgot to write that in the previous text. It is a small change but it plays much better. 
WayneBurrows New user Palmerston North, New Zealand 59 Posts 
Thanks.
I haven't seen Calculated Risk or Maximum Risk for that matter but I suspect that I do something similar. As part of a routine I get the deck into memorised deck order and then ask a spectator to name a card. I then after successive deals end up with one card which is the spectator's card. I can't imagine there are too many significant variations on this procedure from a memorised deck. I deal two piles and I know which pile the card is in. By calculation I then know which pile the card is in in the second and subsequent deals. It is relatively easy to keep track of. Rather than dealing one pile of 51 cards to the spectator and 1 card to me, I deal two piles at each stage and select one pile. I can show the unselected pile to not contain the cards as we go or all at the end. 
Waterloophai Inner circle Belgium 1174 Posts 
Quote:
On Aug 11, 2019, WayneBurrows wrote: If I understand your procedure correctly, it is not as consistent and not as simple as that of Darwin Ortiz. By the way, he performs (and explains) "Calculated Risk" also in his Penguin lecture from October 2013. "Maximum Risk" he performs and explains at Volume 2 from his 4DVD series "Scams & Fantasies". But as mentioned before in this thread, "Calculated Risk" is more impressive (name a card instead of take a card). 
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 4704 Posts 
In Simon Aronson's "Divide and Conquer," the same is achieved with two chosen (not named) cards. No memdeck required.
Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years available now.
All proceeds to nonprofit charity Open Heart Magic. You can read my daily blog at Musings, Memories, and Magic 
WayneBurrows New user Palmerston North, New Zealand 59 Posts 
Quote:
On Aug 11, 2019, Waterloophai wrote: Compared with Maximum Risk which I have now viewed it is not as simple. The consistency is different. You would need a different plot that Maximum Risk uses or a slight possible anomalies in how the cards are dealt. I am still waiting to find out the details of Calculated Risk. My method uses a named card but could equally use a selected card replaced in the same or any known position. 
Denis Behr Special user Germany 678 Posts 
Since publishing my version, I traced the effect back to 1926 and compiled a list of more than 120 published versions. I will write a summary for our site https://www.conjuringcredits.com/ , but it will take a few weeks until I get to it.

langston3711 Regular user Cumming, GA 176 Posts 
I highly recommend looking into Denis Behr's version. Instead of destroying your stack with as with Darwin's, you can actually finish the effect back in full stack with Denis' teaching. Very smart thinking.
When a magician lets you notice something on your own, his lie becomes impenetrable
~Teller 
WayneBurrows New user Palmerston North, New Zealand 59 Posts 
Yes getting back into stack is a good feature. But it comes at a cost. I like being able to not touch the deck except for dealing after the selected card has been named.
Dealing into two piles is just an antifaro. Therefore you can restore this deck by not much more than a sequence of faros and partial faros. In fact when practicing my method by going through every card in the deck and performing it for every selection I was alternating that with faro practice to restore the deck. There is a minor problem that some cards are dealt an odd number of times reversing their order and others dealt an even number of times maintaining their order. That is potentially a problem in performance but not practice to restore the order as piles of cards would need to have their order reversed. I am not sure that the restoration would be insurmountable. 
WayneBurrows New user Palmerston North, New Zealand 59 Posts 
I have managed to obtain a description of Darwin Ortiz's Calculated Risk and I can confirm my method is completely different. Moreover, it is sleight free.

The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » Looking for an effect (3 Likes) 
[ Top of Page ] 
All content & postings Copyright © 20012019 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.13 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 < 