The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » Tommy Burnett-Advancing Mother: If you own MOABT, this is for you! (6 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
Mindpro
View Profile
Inner circle
9429 Posts

Profile of Mindpro
Oh brother.

Has this been approved by Ted?
ReaderOfThought
View Profile
New user
21 Posts

Profile of ReaderOfThought
I've been trying to get in touch with him but I understand he is not available at the moment. If you're worried that I am revealing any secret from MOABT I assure you I am not. This is merely my handling using an anagram. I teach the anagram and nothing more. I will continue to try and get in touch with Ted.
Protect Your Magic!
Tommy Burnett - THE UNCONVENTIONALIST
Consultthemind1
View Profile
Regular user
113 Posts

Profile of Consultthemind1
Ok, here we go again...

I must sound like I’m a sour grape whenever I write my findings. I just got this and I’ve read through it a couple of times and there’s one glaring problem I can see with this “advancement”. In-fact before I get into that, anyone that knows me, knows that I usually like to test ideas multiple ways, sit on them, view them from all perspectives and even go as far as scientifically examining them in microscopic detail. Under usual circumstances I would be the first to say that reading this a couple of times is not enough time to have made apt judgements about the content - but I have performed MOABT for over a decade and that’s the perspective I’m commenting from.

This doesn’t logically make any sense to me.

The beauty of MOABT’s original routining is that you struggle initially (speaking in code as not to tip the method) and then you dramatically succeed in revealing the information out of nowhere. It’s a powerful revelation.

This “advancement” requires you anagramming the letters in the word and in some cases getting 2 “no’s” (mid routine). This is backwards, the routining in the original has the awkwardness over in seconds at the front end of the routine (where any psychic / mind reader not connected to the spectator would naturally struggle) in this “advancement” every time you seemingly start to succeed, you have to fail. With each letter you call out you also (in my opinion) weaken the revelation. It also means that after calling out 5 or so letters, half the audience could guess the word. Doesn’t this seems backwards? Or is it just me?

To quickly sum this up - In the original you get one “no” maximum and never have to fish, in this you get one “no” minimum and you still have to fish - something doesn’t sound right when broken down to its simplest form.

I have my own solution for the first letter, I never get a “no” at any point and I have everything I need to reveal the word when I want without having to “fish” for more letters. So maybe I’m being bias but this isn’t well thought out.

To sum this up.

This is nothing ground breaking but if one is interested in taking this away from a book and writing the words out it might be an interesting practice. But if you were going to go to those lengths to write them out, just use a Sven pad or force the word - there’s no need for two “no’s” and you’d save 40 bucks.

David.
Illucifer
View Profile
Inner circle
1265 Posts

Profile of Illucifer
Thanks, David. I completely concur regarding MOABT. One can hardly do better than to use the Bint ploy.
It's all in the reflexes.
NeilS
View Profile
Inner circle
2187 Posts

Profile of NeilS
The Bint ploy is absolutely brilliant and the one I use whenever presenting MOABT.
ReaderOfThought
View Profile
New user
21 Posts

Profile of ReaderOfThought
Thanks for your opinion. I've been using this method for 3 years. It is my preferred way. I think it is an advancement. In most cases I only get one no And I think it's more believable when I do get a no. But I'm not here to argue points. The original title was not Advancing Mother. I wanted to call it MotherGram. This is merely an offering of something new and different if you happen to like anagrams and MOABT. Sorry if you were disappointed.
Tommy Burnett
Protect Your Magic!
Tommy Burnett - THE UNCONVENTIONALIST
Consultthemind1
View Profile
Regular user
113 Posts

Profile of Consultthemind1
Quote:
On Sep 25, 2019, ReaderOfThought wrote:
Thanks for your opinion. I've been using this method for 3 years. It is my preferred way. I think it is an advancement. In most cases I only get one no And I think it's more believable when I do get a no. But I'm not here to argue points. The original title was not Advancing Mother. I wanted to call it MotherGram. This is merely an offering of something new and different if you happen to like anagrams and MOABT. Sorry if you were disappointed.
Tommy Burnett


I agree a “no” can add to the credibility of the performance, but how can this be an advancement in terms of seeming “real” and not a game of cat and mouse when in some performed versions of MOABT (such as my own) there is not one “no” or “yes” for that matter - Please know however, if I wanted a “no” I could purposefully construct one (as I’m in full control of the entire performance start to finish) and the spectator never feels I know the word. In your version however, the spectator is in control of the way the routine plays out (They could misspell it, and you don’t know where the yes or no’s will appear) and also it’s hard for the spectator (after two letters) to feel you do not know the word (I’ll explain my logic in a moment).

For the record, I wasn’t disappointed per-say, I just thought there might be a slight advancement on anagramming (in general) or something I could take away from this to add to my own MOABT.

You see in my opinion most people anagram backwards, it doesn’t make sense (to me) to anagram and be receiving constant affirmation. It weakens the revelation with every yes. Take a standard star sign anagram which seems most powerful.

Before looking at the two scenarios, these scenarios do not outline the point I’m making (I will get to that at the end) they just give an essence of overview of the philosophy.

Scenario 1

“We’ve just met, so I will be honest I’m going to struggle to read you right out of the gate. I don’t know how your brain works and I certainly haven’t spent enough time with you to really work out how best to read you, but together if you’re happy trying we can work together and figure it out?”

(They agree and focus on their sign)

“The first thing I must do is figure what makes your brain tick and how your mind operates. Focus on the letters in your zodiac sign and constantly keep changing your mind going through the letters in a random order”.

(They do this.)

“It’s very hazy, I’m seeing a curved shape and what looks similar to an “R” - is there an “R” in your zodiac’s name?”

(They say no)

“Ok, can you focus on the picture or the image of your sign for me?”

(They do)

“Sophie, that’s it! We’ve cracked it, ha! Thank you for doing that, I believe I now know how you think. Now we have that connection I’d love to explore it”.

(“Ok... But what about my zodiac sign?”)

“Sorry! I got excited and ahead of myself, you’re a Pieces right?!”

————

There is never really a miss more of a “discovery process”. The spectator is the one that reminds you of star sign, but more importantly that sign is a strong confirmation you now understand their thoughts and them and you’ve proven that as you were that excited that you learnt the way their mind worked you forgot about the smaller thing that you were attempting to divine. A lot of the time the spectator isn’t going to remind you of the sign until way later (a few routines down the line) and when you instantly come out and say it - trust me they never even remember that you asked them to think of letters. That’s because letters weren’t the focal point of which the revelation relies upon.

When you spend your time solely focusing on letters any spectator (when deconstructing what they saw) simply sees it as a process of elimination.

Scenario 2

“We’ve just met, so I will be honest I’m going to struggle to read you right out of the gate. I don’t know how your brain works and I certainly haven’t spent enough time with you to really work out how best to read you, but together if you’re happy trying we can work together and figure it out?”

(They agree and focus on their sign)

“There’s an “R” in there correct?”

(Yes)

“An “A”

(yes)

“An Xx”

(Yes)

“An Xx”

(Yes)

“An Xx”

(Yes)

“You’re an Aries, correct?”

(Yes)

- Whilst seemingly cleaner as you get no “no’s” the only thing this seems like is a mental game of hangman - Where the spectator cannot focus on anything else. Here is a play by play of why I created my own star sign divination (ignoring anagrams altogether) using this scenario.

We’ve just met, so I will be honest I’m going to struggle to read you right out of the gate. I don’t know how your brain works and I certainly haven’t spent enough time with you to really work out how best to read you, but together if you’re happy trying we can work together and figure it out?”

(They agree and focus on their sign)

“There’s an “R” in there correct?”

(“There’s an R in most of them”)

“I’m right, yeah?”

(“Yeah”)

“An “A”

(“Are you asking me or telling me?”)

“Telling you”

(“Well if you know, then I don’t need to say”)

“It’s for everyone else watching, just yes or no”

(“Yes”)

“An Xx”

(“Yes”)

“An Xx”

(“Yes, but this just process of elimination now”)

“An Xx”

(“Yeah” rolling the eyes)

“You’re an Aries, correct?”

(Sigh “Yes”)

Anyone who says they’ve never had a spectator like this has not used anagrams for long enough. It’s something that happens to everyone at some point. Whereas, even the most embarrassingly behaved spectators revel in saying “no” and when they do they never feel you’re closer to the sign/ word. It’s a weird psychology - If you get 2 “no’s” you’re seemingly further away (even if the two consecutive no’s give you the sign/ word) whereas 2 consecutive “Yes’ “make the spectator feel like you’re closer and in a lot of cases they believe you have it.

Hence my point about the anagramming process seeming illogical from a choreography perspective.

In your example, you get some yes’ and then a no and then yes’ and then (maybe) another no - It feels like a bad game of “Cat and mouse”. It’s a logistical car crash from a performance perspective.

That’s my opinion - it doesn’t mean I’m right. I just feel that way. I have for more than 3 years about anagramming in general.

David.
Gaz Lawrence
View Profile
Inner circle
2946 Posts

Profile of Gaz Lawrence
Totally agree with the last post , beautifully put and explained Gaz 🙂
Illucifer
View Profile
Inner circle
1265 Posts

Profile of Illucifer
Agreed, Consultthemind1
It's all in the reflexes.
Mark_Chandaue
View Profile
Inner circle
Essex UK
3375 Posts

Profile of Mark_Chandaue
Whilst I agree for the most part with David I do think that the extent to which anagrams appears to be a process of elimination is directly connected to how wide the pool is in the first place. So when using star signs where you only have 12 to choose from it’s not a huge leap to consider it a process of elimination. However when the pool is almost any word in the English language then it is less likely to appear like a process of elimination. So in a book test where the participant can think of any word on any page then an anagram can be very effective.

However for the anagram to be effective the words need to have been chosen to make the anagram presentation smooth, seamless and logical. To go back to the star sign anagram as an example, as soon as you get your first no you can stop using the letters as in David’s first scenario. This can work very well as the participant could be thinking of any word in the English language and if you can’t connect on the letters you could switch to imagery or the meaning of the word.

However this isn’t the case with Mother, it wasn’t designed with an anagram in mind and so you are likely to need two no’s before you can move away from the letters. As such I can’t imagine how an anagram could be better than the bint ploy or many of the other existing strategies for getting the word. Anagrams themselves can be very powerful if used correctly even the star sign anagram that David uses in his example above. One only has to look at some of Atlas Brookings work to see how powerful they can be when the effect is designed from the ground up with an anagram in mind.

Mark
Harpacrown is available from
http://www.harpacrown.co.uk
Consultthemind1
View Profile
Regular user
113 Posts

Profile of Consultthemind1
Quote:
On Oct 1, 2019, Mark_Chandaue wrote:
Whilst I agree for the most part with David I do think that the extent to which anagrams appears to be a process of elimination is directly connected to how wide the pool is in the first place. So when using star signs where you only have 12 to choose from it’s not a huge leap to consider it a process of elimination. However when the pool is almost any word in the English language then it is less likely to appear like a process of elimination. So in a book test where the participant can think of any word on any page then an anagram can be very effective.

However for the anagram to be effective the words need to have been chosen to make the anagram presentation smooth, seamless and logical. To go back to the star sign anagram as an example, as soon as you get your first no you can stop using the letters as in David’s first scenario. This can work very well as the participant could be thinking of any word in the English language and if you can’t connect on the letters you could switch to imagery or the meaning of the word.

However this isn’t the case with Mother, it wasn’t designed with an anagram in mind and so you are likely to need two no’s before you can move away from the letters. As such I can’t imagine how an anagram could be better than the bint ploy or many of the other existing strategies for getting the word. Anagrams themselves can be very powerful if used correctly even the star sign anagram that David uses in his example above. One only has to look at some of Atlas Brookings work to see how powerful they can be when the effect is designed from the ground up with an anagram in mind.

Mark


I agree that the size of the pool you are anagramming from is massively important and can also aid in making the anagramming process seem invisible.

I understand it’s also logical to believe that if the spectator believes you are divining letters from absolutely any word its a fairer process - Methodologically and to some degree (narratively) I agree but don’t be fooled into thinking this is the best solution from a choreography perspective.

Regardless, that’s not the case here - getting five yes’ (with no’s scattered in-between) before revealing the word takes what sounds like a solid idea (in theory) and shatters it in practice.

Here’s why anagrams are difficult to be seemingly great from a choreography perspective and why getting the no’s on the front end make much more sense. (I believe I mentioned this) but here goes incase not.

- Imagine a psychic. A real one, they start off with a weak connection, a blurred vision that starts to become clearer and clearer until it’s totally clear. That’s how you imagine it, not someone who starts off with a clear vision, then gets stronger and suddenly weaker and blurred for no reason and then strong with the reveal.

However, if you loved the regular anagram plot (which I did for years) I covered the choreography problem doing this -

“I’m going to teach you how to stop yourself from psychic attack’s. I want you to take hold of this book and close your eyes imagine looking down and seeing your zodiac sign written as the title on that book. Imagine all of the letters float off of the cover into the air. I will tell you what letters I can see there’s an “R” there correct?”

You will likely get a yes.

“Open the book, start reading inside your head, the more your mind becomes engrossed and distracted in the writing inside book the harder it becomes for me to pick up on the letters in your star sign. There’s an “A” in your sign too correct”.

Now when you get a “no”, you can act excited like the book is working and you tell them you can’t see any letters your plan has worked perfectly! Tell them to close book after a few seconds, clear their mind ignore the everything.

Now say “the letters in your sign are coming back to me all at once though!” Then reveal their sign in one go.

If you don’t want to carry a book, use their mobile phone or if you wanted to go prop-less read signs / things the room to themselves.

The “no” makes sense as it feels like there’s a reason it’s happening, if you’re going to make excuses for the yes’ at least make them for the no’s too. Bigger picture.

If you did want to create your own ”no-agrams” but are worried about getting one no, a simple way around this is to have letter flash cards made up say “let me show you how impossible it is to pick a random letter and it appear in (whatever it is you’re thinking of)”

Either force the letters you want the no’s from onto a second spectator or simply let them pick fairly and miscall. Then say “You chose two random letters, proving my point you can’t just throw out random letters and hope they hit”. Let me share with you how you read someone now you should know the information and you never missed.

This is a messy post, I’m about to have brunch with my wife! Got to run.

David.
The Unmasked Magician
View Profile
Special user
If only I didn't have a wife and kid I would have MUCH more than
800 Posts

Profile of The Unmasked Magician
I think a lot of people would be proud to write such a messy post. Have a nice brunch and thank your wife for letting us borrow your brain.
Please check regularly if you are becoming the type of magician Jerry Seinfeld jokes about.
Gaz Lawrence
View Profile
Inner circle
2946 Posts

Profile of Gaz Lawrence
Total agree The Unmasked Magician , if that is what David does on a bad day then the guys a genius Gaz 🙂
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Latest and Greatest? » » Tommy Burnett-Advancing Mother: If you own MOABT, this is for you! (6 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.24 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