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 (1 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

ipe
View Profile
Loyal user
243 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
New user
81 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
Loyal user
243 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
1537 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
Loyal user
243 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
66 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
1537 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
Loyal user
243 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?
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » All in the cards » » Bannon's AK47 vs Carey's Think and Sync (1 Likes)
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.16 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