|
|
|
|||
| Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
PaulPacific Special user Yes, I used my toes to type all of my 907 Posts 
|
Hey guys.
There are tricks which I call "the dove pans of magic". These are effects that appear so transparent, that to try to pull them off with a straight face would be impossible. Paul Green's "Odds Against Me" (sometimes called 'Option Call') and Daryl's "Untouched" are "dove pan card tricks". Here are two effects that when I read them I assumed they were painfully obvious and wouldn't fool anybody. Perhaps it's magician thinking, but to me neither of these tricks seemed very deceptive and certainly wouldn't fly to perform as a piece of strong magic to a lay audience. However, I decided to put them to the test. I have now done both effects numerous times, and while from MY perspective they seem completely transparent, to my delight they get very good reactions. I now permanently carry the prediction card for the Green effect in my wallet to do at a moment's notice. Does anybody else have experiences with these 2 card tricks? Are there other card effects that you believe don't seem very deceptive but seem to knock people's socks off?
Blessings on thee, little man,
barefoot boy with cheeks of tan... Outward sunshine; inward joy, Blessings on thee, barefoot boy! :-D |
|||||||||
ipe Special user 515 Posts
|
Hi Paul, I don't know "Odds Against Me".
But I know "Untouched" and I think with the right presentation/misdirection is a good effect. However, I think the Larry Hass' version, "Friendship Game" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6AGmfP0hDM), is much more better and super-deceptive. Anyway, I'm just curious, do you think "Gemini Twins" and the Cross Cut Force are "dave pan" too?
What would a real mindreader do?
|
|||||||||
|
PaulPacific Special user Yes, I used my toes to type all of my 907 Posts
|
Not at all. I suppose what I am trying to say is that tricks that use the Double Deal (Double Count) technique might be reverse engineered by an intelligent spectator.
It's important to present them well to gently manipulate their ability to accurately recall the selection procedure. The same can be said about Cross Cut force. Eugene Burger had some good advice about that. He said most magicians make too much of a "thing" about the cut. He said it's not wise to say to a participant after they've made the cut, "Fine. Right there? Are you sure? Okay, I'm going to mark the exact place where you decided to cut the deck by placing this half on top." All that talk just serves to draw attention to the proper orientation of the cut. He said it's far better to complete the cut (on an angle of course) and not say anything about it all. Simply move on to briefly discussing another part of the effect or recapping what went on, before using the card freely(!) cut to. Like Corinda said, "it's not the trick that matters one fifth as much as the way you do it." A well presented technique combined with good patter when used with Cross Cut or Double Count can hide a multitude of sins.
Blessings on thee, little man,
barefoot boy with cheeks of tan... Outward sunshine; inward joy, Blessings on thee, barefoot boy! :-D |
|||||||||
|
ipe Special user 515 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 28, 2020, PaulPacific wrote: Of course I agree. But it is not so difficult to present it in an inexplicable way. The main point is that the spectator, during the first phase, can deal the cards from the top, from the bottom or from the middle, and they can mix the cards whenever they want. In this way the effect is really impossible. And on top of that, Larry Hass' version add two more layers of deception in the second phase. Quote:
On Aug 28, 2020, PaulPacific wrote: I agree on this approach. I like to keep it simple, but if someone wants to add a subtlety, Max Maven (in "Future Tense" on the "Multiplicity" dvd) explains a "sleight of mouth" to let the spectator choose between the two cards at where they cut.
What would a real mindreader do?
|
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7016 Posts
|
Double Ment- Aronson
|
|||||||||
|
ipe Special user 515 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 13, 2020, magicfish wrote: Hi magicfish, I don't know this one. Could you describe the effect and explain the strengths of the methods?
What would a real mindreader do?
|
|||||||||
|
Bobby Forbes Inner circle virginia beach, VA. 1569 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 16, 2020, ipe wrote: This little routine is one of the strongest impromptu mentalism routines you can do for two people. You can find it in Aronson's book "Art Decko". The only reason I know anything about it is because I was fooled with a 3 card version of this by a friend of mine. He later told me he learned the original routine from Aronson's book. Once I got the book, this routine became one of my favorites. Here's the basic effect. Two spectators each think of a card, you then place 2 cards on the table and when they reveal their cards you have nailed both of them. No forcing and super easy to do. There is no wierd dealing procedures or anything like that as far as the selections go. With this routine you can relax because there is hardly any dirty work. You get so far ahead of them, literally there is no explanation at the end. A shuffled deck with minimal handling. I use it all the time. Definitely look it up. |
|||||||||
|
ipe Special user 515 Posts
|
Hi Bobby, what a great endorsement! Thank you for the details.
What would a real mindreader do?
|
|||||||||
|
ekgdoc Regular user 110 Posts
|
Quote:
Are there other card effects that you believe don't seem very deceptive but seem to knock people's socks off? Extraordinary Proof by Andrew Gerard fits the bill. The method is stupidly simple, but when presented well it kills. David M. |
|||||||||
|
rowdymagi5 Inner circle Virginia 3624 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 13, 2020, magicfish wrote: Is this considered "self working"? |
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7016 Posts
|
I would say, yes. The only move is a glimpse. But, like all magic, it must be practiced, rehearsed, and mastered. Aronson's words must be followed to the letter, and it must be expertly presented.
|
|||||||||
|
PaulPacific Special user Yes, I used my toes to type all of my 907 Posts
|
Quote:
Extraordinary Proof by Andrew Gerard fits the bill. The method is stupidly simple, but when presented well it kills. Ah yes, David. That is a wonderful example.
Blessings on thee, little man,
barefoot boy with cheeks of tan... Outward sunshine; inward joy, Blessings on thee, barefoot boy! :-D |
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7016 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 18, 2020, magicfish wrote: And, it is the one piece of impromptu mentalism with cards that Simon performed for laymen more than any other over a 30 year span. |
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7016 Posts
|
I believe the Paul Green effect is called, "The Odds are With Me."
|
|||||||||
|
Ed Oschmann Inner circle Lake Worth FL 1022 Posts
|
Paul has two routines with similar titles. The "Odds Against Me" is an amazing laymen fooler. It encapsulates the classic "magician in trouble" aspect. It has been in my working repertoire for many years. it was also a favorite of Darwin Ortiz.
|
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7016 Posts
|
Interesting, Ed. Thanks for the information. Is it in Paul's lecture notes? Or Darwin's books?
|
|||||||||
|
Ed Oschmann Inner circle Lake Worth FL 1022 Posts
|
It's in Paul's notes Take a Stroll with Me. I think it may be on one of his videos but I don't own them.
I think I made a video explanation of it if you would like to see it. |
|||||||||
|
magicfish Inner circle 7016 Posts
|
Yes I would. Thanks very much Ed. The contents list of "takes a stroll" lists The Odd are Against me. But not, the Odds are with Me.
Thanks for your help on this . |
|||||||||
|
Ed Oschmann Inner circle Lake Worth FL 1022 Posts
|
Seems like I might've inadvertently side railed the conversation. "The odds are with me" is in Paul's notes take a stroll with me. This is a magician and trouble/2 card transposition(ish). Is this the routine in question?
|
|||||||||
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1174 Posts
|
There seems to be some confusion here!
The Op refers to The Odds Are AGAINST me. MagicFish says he thinks the effect is actually called The Odds are WITH Me. Ed then asserts there are TWO effects with similar names. (This seems pretty unlikely to me. Ed, are you sure??? Do you know both of them?) He says Odds AGAINST Me is great. Then he says it ("Against") is in Take A Stroll With Me. MagicFish agrees, and says "With" is NOT in the "Stroll" booklet. I have just checked and found multiple sites saying exactly the opposite - "with" is in the booklet, not "against". EG - https://magicref.net/magicbooks/books/gr......thme.htm Finally Ed seems to have realised his mistake. So just to be clear, has the whole discussion of the "Against" effect been a misunderstanding due to the OP? Ed sounded very sure there were two methods. Is that not the case? |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » All in the cards » » Paul Green's "Odds Against Me" & Daryl's "Untouched" (1 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Aug 19, 2020 03:40 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 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 < 
|