The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » All in the cards » » Bannon's AK47 vs Carey's Think and Sync (4 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

ipe
View Profile
Elite user
421 Posts

Profile of ipe
Hello everyone,

what do you think in general about Bannon's AK47 and Carey's Think and Sync (the Vault version)? Do you like them?

I'm particularly interested to know which version do you prefer and why and if you have some variations.

I personally prefer the Carey's version because:

1) The needed peek is more stealth. Sometimes it is almost like nothing is needed here.

2) I prefer to work with a complete deck. This is subtle, but someone can later say the performer could estimate the number of removed cards looking at the deck.

3) The end is more straightforward method-wise so easier for the performer.

4) I prefer (I think it is more justified) the spectator removes a random number of cards to generate a random card instead to create a value in mind and then, only for commitment, remove that number of cards from the deck.


But I like two subtleties from AK47:

1) The color management: first the card selection and then the statement.

2) The suit management: the physical aspect aspect is practically identical, but I think the sentence used here is great.


So, at the end I perform Carey's Think and Sync with the two aforesaid subtleties from Bannon's AK47. What about you?
What would a real mindreader do?
ekgdoc
View Profile
Regular user
106 Posts

Profile of ekgdoc
These tricks are based on Think of One by Allan Zola Kronzek (Genii Aug 2012) which has a better presentation but is harder to do. In AK-47 (also T&S), the performer places a card on the table. Rather than showing it to be the thought-of card, he has the participant look through the deck to find it is not there. Kind of a jerk move (and boring) to make the spec look for a card the performer knows is not there. Oh, and this is the better of the two possible endings. I think AK-47 is half baked. Andy at the Jerx gives a major improvement. And I think there are other tweaks that can make it stronger. The differences between AK-47 and T&S are minor, and I am almost surprised Bannon felt his modifications warranted publication.

David M.
ipe
View Profile
Elite user
421 Posts

Profile of ipe
Hi ekgdoc,
thank you for the precious information.

"The differences between AK-47 and T&S are minor, and I am almost surprised Bannon felt his modifications warranted publication."

I totally agree with you. I was surprised too especially because I think T&S is better overall than AK47.

I read the Jerx's article and I found it very good. I don't like the negative equivocate statement too for the same reasons. Before reading that article I was thinking to use a similar approach, the following one (please consider I present this as a mentalism demonstration):

1. When the spectator places the deck down I ask them to think a suit "like spades or any other suits". This increases the odds the spectator won't choose spades.
2. Then without touching the deck, I start immediately to read the spectator's mind. After some moments of meditation: "You are thinking a red card". It is more probable the spectator is not thinking to spades, so it is more probable he is thinking a red card. Moreover, I find laymen tend to favour red cards in general.
3. If I'm wrong, no problem, it is not easy to read minds: "Hmm, strange. It is not easy to read minds but maybe you were focusing on the entire card, but I need you isolate each aspect of the card in your mind. So, please now concentrate on the suit alone [...] and now on the value". After this I place a club card on the table.
4. If I'm right, that is perfect and I place a heart card on the table.

If someone prefers, I thought another strategy. Before revealing the colour, I place a hear card on the table. "Are you thinking a black card?":

- YES: "Great, like I thought. We are on the same wavelength. Just to be sure, though: now concentrate on the suit alone [...] and now on the value alone [...] Hmm, I was close with the value, but not perfect: off by 1." And then I change the tabled card with a club card.
- NO: "Phew, so we are indeed on the same wavelength because this card is a red one" and you don't change the table card.

What do you think?
What would a real mindreader do?
Claudio
View Profile
Inner circle
Europe
1588 Posts

Profile of Claudio
I don’t have a copy of Genii Aug 2012, but I have AZ Kronzek’s book Artful Deceptions, published in 2017, where his effect “Think of One” is republished. It’s all subjective, of course, but I don’t believe Think of One to be more difficult than AK-47. Allan suggests the dealing at the outset, like in AK-47, as an alternative to the face-up overhand shuffle (FOS). But again, in a footnote that could be missing from the original Genii publication?

I like the idea of using a FOS. So, here’s a handling that I use: Remember the bottom card of the deck and go into a couple of FOS. You may now set-up the key card by using Bannon’s handling. The advantage is that you don’t have a take a peek at a crucial moment. Before reading Allan’s handling, I used to perform a riffle shuffle to peek at the top card, but I think a FOS is superior in this effect.

I don’t feel that the Jerx’s slight change is a major improvement. It suits him, and that’s fine. At the end, it’s all acting.

The principle of this type of effect is based on Bob Hummer’s The Mindreader’s Dream.
ipe
View Profile
Elite user
421 Posts

Profile of ipe
Ciao Claudio, thank you for your post. Unfortunately I don't have "Think of One" and Bob Hummer’s "The Mindreader’s Dream", but thank you for the suggestions, maybe I will buy it in the future.

By the way, have you seen the Carey's "Think and Sync"? You just need to peek the last card and you don't so many different endings.

Regarding the Jerx's article, do you like the equivocal negative statement strategy? And what do you think about my proposals?
What would a real mindreader do?
pnerd
View Profile
New user
93 Posts

Profile of pnerd
Her is the link to the Jerx article mentioned above: https://thejerx.squarespace.com/blog/2016/8/21/tweak-47
Image
Claudio
View Profile
Inner circle
Europe
1588 Posts

Profile of Claudio
Hi Ipe,

I don’t know the Carey’s handling as the demo is heavily edited and I don't have his download.

Your verbal “play” is fine, as long as you feel comfortable with it.

Here’s how I dress up the revelation phase with AK47. It suits me, as I don’t care much for the “commit” line and I don’t hesitate to stray away from the mental aspect. I also make the effect more about the spectator successfully projecting their thoughts than my "psychic" ability.

I say: “OK now, concentrate on your card and try to transmit it mentally to me… First its value (Ace, two…) and now its colour.

You table a card and say to the spec. OK, I’m pretty sure I received the colour correctly but I’m not sure about the value.

I "received" black, is that right?

A) They say you’re right.
You nod, “Yes, your thought was very crisp.” But you carry on with, “But I am unsure about the value, please concentrate a bit more. I see, it’s not a court card (or a number card, just name the opposite). Ah, I think I’ve received your thought correctly this time.”

B) They say you’re wrong
You said, “well I can’t be right every time” or "I'm a lousy psychic" etc, and wave you hand above the card and leave it at that.

You then ask the spectator to retrieve their card from the deck. Whether you hit their exact card or not will leave them with the extra question of the “colour change”. I have my own line to deal with both scenarios.

Maybe palming off the twin card, culled to the top during the “looking for the spectator’s card phase”, before giving the deck to the spec so that they retrieve their card is worth the effort as you always finish with a strong climax: card on table, or card in pocket. Lapping will work very well here, too.
ipe
View Profile
Elite user
421 Posts

Profile of ipe
Thank you Claudio for the inputs.

I have another subtlety. Before starting the trick you can start saying there are a lot of curiosities about playing cards, "for example, do you know what are mate cards?". Then explanation of the concept. After that: "We talked about a playing card curiosity but now I would like to show you one". Then, I would perform Carey's "Think and Sync".

At the end, if needed, before the revelation, I can say something like: "Do you remember before I talked to you about mate cards? [...] Please show your card. Do you know what is the mate card of your card?".
What would a real mindreader do?
ipe
View Profile
Elite user
421 Posts

Profile of ipe
Here I talked why I preferred TAS over AK47, but it was before I was exposed to "Think of One" by Allan Kronzek: https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view......start=20 . After that I preferred TOO over TAS or AK47, explaining my reasons in that thread.

But why not have the strengths of TAS and the the strengths of TOO in the same effect?

- TAS has the more stealth peak (and sometimes the performer doesn't have to do anything).
- In TAS the performer works with a complete deck. No estimate explanation is possible for the spectators.
- I think it is more justified the spectator removing a random number of cards to generate a random card (like in TAS) rather than to create a value in mind and then, only for commitment, remove that number of cards from the deck.

But I don't like the fishing and the mate strategies from TAS. What I really love is the multiple-pack strategy from TOO (the divination phase), though. And I love the Paul Fox strategy too.

So here my hybrid proposal between TAS and TOO.

You start using the TAS approach till the spectator has created their card in their mind and the full deck is back on the table. After that you ask the spectator to cut the deck in two halves. Then you continues with TOO.

That's it.

Of course, if you want, you can try to limit the suit choice as explained before in one of my previous posts: ask the spectator to think a suit "like spades or any other suits". This increases the odds the spectator won't choose spades. And if it is more probable the spectator is not thinking to spades, so it is more probable they are thinking a red card. This information could be precious or not, it depends on the deck splitting.


What do you think?
What would a real mindreader do?
ipe
View Profile
Elite user
421 Posts

Profile of ipe
Any thoughts? Smile
What would a real mindreader do?
ekgdoc
View Profile
Regular user
106 Posts

Profile of ekgdoc
Quote:
On Sep 22, 2020, ipe wrote:
Any thoughts? Smile


In theory, I like the TAS method for creating a card. But in practice, the AK-47 approach plays better (plays great, actually). It gets you where you need to be more quickly. I have performed it both ways and that has been my experience. But you might present things differently so this may not be the case for you. I suggest performing it both ways to see which one works best FOR YOU.

David M.
ipe
View Profile
Elite user
421 Posts

Profile of ipe
Hi David.

You are totally right. In theory, I like the "mate strategy" of TAS and AK-47. But in practice, when tried with a spectator, I realize the "mate out" is not so strong.

Thank you for post.
What would a real mindreader do?
SamChak
View Profile
Elite user
445 Posts

Profile of SamChak
Quote:
On Apr 6, 2020, ipe wrote:
what do you think in general about Bannon's AK47 and Carey's Think and Sync (the Vault version)? Do you like them?


Hi ipe,

I have neither Carey's Think And Sync (TAS) nor Kronzek's Think Of One (TOO), but consider getting Kronzek's book "Artful Deceptions".

Bannon's AK47 is a relatively fast-paced mentalism effect, which can bewilder most spectators, but probably not intelligent laymen.

I think all three AK47, TAS, TOO provide a good baseline for numerous subsequent innovative variants.

For example, at 1:22 Bannon takes out a prediction card from the deck, but then at 1:39 he thinks he can get a little closer and openly swaps with another prediction card. However, in the hands of a mentalist who is good at card sleights, as he goes through the deck to take out a prediction card, he can secretly setup a second prediction card either to the top or the bottom of the deck, depending on the situation.

If it is a stand-up performance, the mentalist can execute the convincing Top Change. Interested performers are referred to Magic Christian (2017) The Top Change: Monarch of Card Sleights for a more detailed treatment of the sleight. If it is a seated performance, the mentalist can apply Mucking Techniques to switch the tabled prediction card for a second prediction card.

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science."

~ Albert Einstein ~
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)
ipe
View Profile
Elite user
421 Posts

Profile of ipe
Hi Sam,
of course you are right you can use a switch instead of the "psychological move" at 1:39. But I really love to use subtleties instead of sleights when possible. It is more fun for me and I like to be as hands-off as possible.

In this instance I think that psychological move is very deceptive. What I found not so deceptive (changing my original idea after some tests on the field) is the last one, let's call it the mate strategy.
What would a real mindreader do?
SamChak
View Profile
Elite user
445 Posts

Profile of SamChak
Hi ipe,

To comply with Bannon's "Move Zero" policy, as the mentalist runs through the deck to take out a prediction card, by the principle of multiple outs, he can secretly "move" the 1st prediction card and align with the 2nd prediction card during the spread. Then, he takes out both prediction cards as one. When the deck is given to the spectator to find their thought of card, during this misdirection, the mentalist can ditch one of the prediction cards, either through pocketing (standing) or lapping (seating).

By this approach, the mentalist does not need to openly switch the 1st prediction card to a "much closer" 2nd prediction card.
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science."

~ Albert Einstein ~
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)
ipe
View Profile
Elite user
421 Posts

Profile of ipe
Hi Sam,
this is a good idea. It is easy to do and it is still hands-off from the spectator's point of view. The only disadvantage with this version is you need to ask the identity of the card before the spectator tries to find their card in the deck. But I think this is a very minor point.
What would a real mindreader do?
kollo
View Profile
Regular user
109 Posts

Profile of kollo
Hi ipe,

you took the time to answer helpfully my questions in the TOO thread, so I want to comment your thread.
After a lot of working on TAS, AK47, TOO I ended up confidently in a "tri-brid" way between AK47, TOO and my own adjustments.
Ended up in
- Borrowed shuffled deck
- stealth peek
- stealth positioning
- full deck
- freely thought of card with a second layer build in
- tiny false cut
- TOO divination
- 95% chance that the cosen card is on the table (physical revelation does hit harder!)
- no boring mate bs

It kills. Even my wife, very critical, analytical and intelligent in terms of card magic, had No clue. Not a bit. You have to know her to know what that means.

So, like you did ipe, I suggest to everyone to buy all three routines, look at them as "working templates", finding out what is important to YOU, working hard and time consuming on "improving". Then you will perform ... magic.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » All in the cards » » Bannon's AK47 vs Carey's Think and Sync (4 Likes)
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.19 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