Has anyone played with this? I've done fast and loose for years, both the SFS version and others, but this is the first one I've seen with three pegs.

I have not, but I started to play with this handling (issue 166 Apocalypse Oct 1991) and (issue 221 May 1996 Apocalyspe) but after someone (I believe it was Pop Haydn) saying more than two choices or performing in the air appearing to complicated to get a Mark I mean spectator to bet on so I abandoned it.

But I did like the suggestion of using a piece of styrofoam and pencils to try to see if it is something you would like.

Also Linking Ring January 1989 caught my interest with Pentacle by James Prince and I thought about combining with a layout on a piece of wood with dowels with a pentagram so that it would turn into a magic or Bizarre presentation instead of gambling scam.

I've always been intrigued with on the barrelhead because of only needing a string or chain to perform.

A great routine ...
don't know when this "version" was released, but it is documented in the Supreme Magic publication of 1967.

Published under a different name in "The Art of Close Up Magic" Vol 1 - by Lewis Ganson.
Chapter 4: It's a Gamble
Triple Circle Routine (Fred Lowe)

Also performed on UK TV by the late magician Paul Daniels.

This is the same routine. The chain is laid down onto the table, in 3 loops without pegs.
The spectator then selects any peg with their finger.

This is a win-win situation for the performer.
The outcome is always win or always loose, no matter which of the loops is selected.
A foolproof method.

There is also a routine published in one of the older Magic Magazine issues. Somewhere around the years 1995-2000. Couldn't find it in my files but I will keep looking. It was another one of the 3 loops surrounded by a large one, just as in the Lowe routine. I am not sure but it could have been written up by Bob Farmer.

This version is strictly a magician's creation. It was never used on the street for money as the "Strap" or "Belt Game" (Pricking the Garter), and "On the Barrelhead" actually were.

I find the three loops versions not very persuasive or riveting.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would bet on this proposition for several reasons.

It is complex, hard to follow and looks susceptible to handling tricks. It looks extremely difficult to follow the chain, it is as complex as the Cat's Cradle game. If the spectators can't see themselves betting, I don't think the interest level in a demonstration would be very high.

Also, there is no way to prove that the other choice would have worked out differently, as there is in the two loop pattern.

What holds people interest in the two loop con is the apparent simplicity and fairness, and the feeling that they have "almost" got it--it seems they should be able to suss out the pattern.

When played over time, as it could be by a bartender for his customers, it becomes a kind of an alibi game with the operator giving hints and suggestions on how to win to his regulars. Like a ball and pin joint in the carnival.

The three loop pattern, even when used with the pins as Gene Maze invented (which I consider a brilliant presentational stroke), lacks convincing proofs and a fair proposition.

I disagree. I own this & have used it. Most of the presentation choices are "two" You can do three... is 3 Card Monte hard to follow? I don't understand Pop's objections. This is NOT a 3 loop game. I think Pop didn't watch the video.... This is a game-changer for Fast & Loose. It literally raises the effect to a higher level ...where it can be seen from 6 feet away. .. I think it's brilliant.

Don't get me wrong. I've done F&L for years. I learned from Pop's video. After I'd done it for years, I added doing the toss in my hands before lying it down. It can still use the "proof" once it's on the table, but I use the in the hands once I give them the feeling they "know" how it's done and I'm pulling off the kid gloves because they're too good. Plus, the in the hands has a win/win that doesn't matter where you pull from. I was only looking at using the 3 peg version as an expansion rather than replacement.

It's not a "replacement". I call it a 'Game Changer' because it makes the game visible to the whole room, for a parlor audience or beyond. I too have performed F&L for years ( 3 decades ) I am not denigrating the School for Scoundrels material. They are great. Catch Me & Win is a vast enchantment and yes.... an improvement. My opinion based on using it.

I have been fascinated for years with games of "no" chance and collect some different versions of 3 card monte, 3 shell and F&L. I had considered recently picking this Gene Maze version from MyMagic as the new material used in making it has lowered the price by $20, but after reading the first few pages of SFS "Notes on the Fast and Loose" I see where this "extra choice" just makes it look more in the favor of the hustler and it reminds me totally of the "Flower Pattern" pictured early on and advised to stay away from in the notes. Personally, I would rather perform different versions of "basically" the same game (F&L, Chain Gang, Pricking the Garter) than confusing it with an extra choice. Remember, the key to a great performance (and/or scam) is to "Sell the Lie" and the 2 choice figure 8 seems best suited for that aspect.

I am not saying that "Catch Me and Win" would fail to entertain a lay audience or be fun to own and mess with and I still may pick up a set for my "collection", (but not for performing). I am just agreeing with Pop's reasoning here from not only my studies of the SFS materials but also from my mentor who was a true con man for the better part of his life.

By the way Moderncelt, How long have you lived in the Twin Cities? You may have known or at least met my Mentor "Doc John Deems (R.I.P.)" who lived not far from the Mall of America and demo'd magic there at "Magic Max" until right before they closed and later at the "Fun Shop" (I believe it was called then).

We have different opinions. Mine is based on owning both the School For Scoundrels F&L materials and the "Catch Me & Win" materials. I have performed them both. That is what my opinion is based on. Also... look at the video. There is no "extra choice". ( unless you allow it ) Everything is under your control.

Poof Daddy: I didn't know Doc, but I'd heard of him. I've lived up here since 2000.

The Maze routine is a magic trick performed with magic props (a lacquered wooden base with three removable chrome pins, something that doesn't exist in the "real world").
The S4S Fast and Loose presentation, however, is a historically accurate recreation of a classic short con.

The two are very different

Absolutely true. "Catch me and Win" was created by the legendary Magician Gene Maze ( of Bottom Dealing fame) and was sold by him in limited quantities to fellow Magicians at his lectures. The original routine was first published in Apocalypse by Harry Lorayne. Shortly after publication it was performed on UK television by Paul Daniels. This version is NOT a historical con ( though the presentation is such, because... I lie my @ss off when I have an audience. It's fun for all of us ) Why do I like this version so much? It elevates the game (literally ) so that the entire room can see what is going on. It is a theatrical con-game. I would not use this version to actually cheat people. I haven't used the Scoundrels material for that purpose either. It's all for entertainment. This is the first time Gene Maze's version has been offered to the greater magic community through Meir Yedid. For me it is practical & useful.

Reese,

I have used F&L in close up shows but hadn't heard of this version until today. I would like something that can be used in a parlour or stage situation. Can this version be attached to a vertical surface or maybe a slanted tripod so that the whole audience can see? or does it have to be done flat?

I haven't tried it on a slanted surface but I imagine it could be easily done. Vertically, no.

The profound issue with Catch me and Win is the complete lack of proofs that the other side would have "stuck".

When you remove the pins, it becomes impossible to prove that any alternate choice made by the spec would have "stuck", and thus the spec instantly ponders the obvious, which is - "I don't think that any of the three pins would have stuck"
That (IMO only) is the fatal flaw of the effect.

The impact of the more historically accurate SFS iterations of the short con is a proven entity, and the inherent interest is sustained through the fact that it's a literal re-telling of a classic street con, and the proofs that a different choice would have a different result are demonstrated after each and every throw of the chain.

Is the two loop pattern possible with catch me and win (and therefore being able to prove the other choice would have won)?

The pattern is disrupted by the removal of the pin. It isn't clear how to show the other side would have stuck.

With the chain on the table, the chain can be lifted to show the "pattern" underneath--"proving" the other side would have stuck, and then replaced. The chain can then be pulled and proven to hold fast.

Page 99 of The Art of Close-Up Magic has a phase where you say "No, it is this one, try it." Then "He places his finger in the circle you indicate and you pull the chain, trapping his finger."

Obviously this wouldn't fly in a real game, but maybe it can work in a demonstration to increase confidence that it is possible to win? And with Catch Me and Win, you don't need the spectator to comply. Just tell them it's the other one and demonstrate.

Disclaimer: I have never actually performed the Lowe or Maze handlings, so I'm just speculating.

Andru

In the School for Scoundrels handling of the game, the side that the spectator picks can always be lifted and shown to be "outside the loop" and unable to be caught. The chain is replaced and the spectator can either try it himself or try "the other one." This can decimate any claim that "neither side catches." You can always "prove" the other choice would have held fast, meeting any challenge. The layout is simple, and it seems impossible that the spectator can't find the pattern. To me, there may be some historical interest in a Lowe style pattern, it won't hold the same attention over more than three tries that the original con game does.

No one would ever bet real money against the Gene Maze game with pins--it would be too difficult to follow arrogantly. My feeling is that unless the game could draw enough interest to make people bet, it won't hold their attention for long as an exhibition.