Ha! Clever idea, Sam.

Spectator A cuts off a small portion of cards, turn it face up and replace it on top. Spectator B does the same but cutting deeper. Then, B takes out the first face-down card.

The process is repeted with reversed roles.

Here is a self-working and hands-off Do As They Do with two spectators.

From a presentational standpoint there's a lot of potential there. The Balducci is a bit process-heavy to make for a good selection, and I'm not entirely sold on it as a revelation, but one thing that I thought was potentially interesting for it from a mentalism standpoint was to perform readings based on the first two cuts (maybe with Tarot cards, but that's a discussion for another time) and then use the final revelation as a divination. With your idea, you could actually perform several readings based on the cuts to talk about the couple's compatibility, before showing the final matching end result.

Hi, Ipe and Burnaby,


Your ideas really intrigue me.


Ipe, your idea is delightfully simple. I need to add some self-workers to my (small) repertoire.


Burnaby, I'd be interested in hearing more about your Tarot idea. I have a pack of Cardshark's (his real name escapes me at the moment) tarot cards and accompanying gaffs, and have been interested in doing something with Tarot for quite a while. I think your idea, besides enriching the trick, could draw attention away from the Balducci. Or perhaps you have alternatives to Balducci? So if you care to expand on your ideas, here or privately, I'd definitely be interested.


Thanks, folks,


Bob

Sam,


I just read your description again of how, in the Gemini Twins scenario, to secretly move the mates where they're needed. You put "control" in quotes, and I'm a bit fuzzy about what you have in mind. I *think* your point is that it would be too obvious to simply put the cards at the top and bottom, so you make it look like they're buried in the deck but they end up on top and bottom. Any suggestions about how to do that? The reason I ask is that controls involve some manipulation that will be visible to the spectators, and that might make them suspicious.


I'm thinking about the Convincing Control, which probably wouldn't generate suspicion. Since I don't know that kind of control it puts off even further into the future the time when I can perform the trick. On the other hand, maybe someone can suggest a simpler control, and, after all, I have plenty of time to learn while Covid keeps us mostly indoors.


Thanks,

Bob

Hi Bob,

Bottom control is indeed achievable with Ed Marlo's Convincing Control. But in the 2-spectator Gemini Twins routine, I wouldn't want to call the spectator's attention to convince him/her that the unwanted card really gets buried in the middle of the deck.

There are many control sleights but the selection of control certainly depends on the performer's conjuring acumen and the situational locations of the spectators. Some control sleights look devastatingly deceptive but are angle-sensitive. Double Undercut + Overhand Shuffle Control are probably the easiest.

I prefer some casually deceptive techniques. Cutting the deck and holding one packet in each hand, the performer asks the female spectator (on the right) to return her unwanted card (face up) to the bottom of the right-hand packet, and the male spectator (on the left) to return his unwanted card (face down) to the top of the left-hand packet. Then, in the act of squaring the deck, Dan Fleshman's "Turnaround Swivel Pass" or any other illusive pass can be executed to control the returned cards to the top and bottom simultaneously. Voila!

Thanks, Sam. I'd say I'm nowhere near ready for the pass, but I appreciate your alerting me to this one. One of these days...


But Double Undercut + Overhand Shuffle Control sounds like a good option. I haven't tried the latter in a while; I went through a couple of periods, probably three years ago, of practicing it intensively, and really had trouble with it. Probably time to try again now that my card handling skills are better, and this Do as I Do/Gemini Twins idea is a good impetus.


Bob

One of the real dangers about invoking things like Tarot cards in a magic trick is that there's a risk of taking something with a long and storied history and rendering it trivial. Tarot readings also don't have a process that matches the Balducci exactly, which is no big deal to people who know nothing about Tarot, but to somebody who does, it's the equivalent of firing off 20 rounds from a revolver without reloading.

If somebody were to try to use Tarot cards with a Balducci procedure, I'd recommend two things. First, get so good with Tarot that you don't need to use it in the context of a magic trick to captivate the audience with it. Second, find some way to justify the Balducci process -- for example, if you don't have a table nearby, then you can't do any of the layouts that are usually associated with the tarot, but that's ok, I guess, because we can just ask you to hold the cards like this for a second while she clears her mind, thinks of something involving the two of you from the past, and then cuts off a bunch, etc.

If one's not quite ready to handle the Tarot and all the weight that goes along with it, it may make sense to try doing readings just with regular cards. Again, though, it's still something you'd want to take seriously. There's plenty of potential symbolism with colours and numerology and history to draw from.

The upside to all this is that people who love readings LOVE READINGS. They'll throw down money for that sort of thing. I'm certainly not endorsing magicians take financial advantage in that manner, but rather to show the emotional investment that can be there that's almost certainly not for Ace Assembly Fifth Variation.

Also, it's worth mentioning that you'd probably only want to do this sort of thing with a couple that you know would benefit from essentially being told they're made for each other. Not everybody is in that mental space.

Yes -- I would do readings only for people I knew well -- and couples who I knew were on good terms.


Well... Given that I'm already working on too many tricks right now, I'll let Tarot sit. It sounds like a big research project with potential to offend people.


Maybe there's some other way to use Tarot cards in magic, maybe in a story trick... Honestly, I'm not all that interested in Tarot itself; it's more that they carry a sense of mystery that might enhance certain effects...

Hi Bob,

Control in the card magic is a sleight to secretly shift or move a chosen card to the desired position in the deck, particularly the top, the bottom, second from top, second from bottom, the break, or the palm.

It is strictly unnecessary to use the Pass to achieve the simultaneous control result that I described above. Various simple controls such as Double Undercut variations, Bluff Pass + Shuffle, or even the legendary HaLo Cut can be employed to control the cards. Most importantly, as long as you use conjuring elements (e.g., delay & distract) to blend in with the routine, it is totally fine to use any control sleight that you are comfortable with.

Hi Sam,


Nice definition of control. I knew what a control was, but your definition is perhaps the best I've seen. I tried for years to learn the Halo Cut and finally gave up -- though I may well return to it when I'm more experienced. In the meantime there are other bottom slip cuts that I find easier.


I'll give some thought to which control to use. I'm comfortable with the Double Undercut. The Bluff Pass is so bold that it makes me quake with fear , but that may be a good reason to try it out! And then there's always mlippo's idea of just doing the placements openly, with a casual attitude. That seems bold too, but it would be good practice in being casual, and -- maybe your ideas of delaying and distracting, or some other misdirection, would help?


Thanks for all the help you're offering me.


Bob

I agree with everything The Burnaby Kid said regarding the Tarots. Their usage have strengths and weaknesses.

Anyway, it is true The Balducci is a bit process-heavy. But maybe this is a bit imprecise. The process is quite quick (and light?). The problem is the process is unusual and therefore it must be justified. So you can ask if they know the old technique to see if a couple is a perfect match, a method your grandma taught you.

One more point. In my proposal the first cut and the second cut are performed by two different people ("It is essential for both of you to touch the deck because..."). So, it makes more sense to me then the Balducci with a single spectator doing both cuts.

Another approach may be to use the Under The Table Force. Of course you need a justification here too ("In order to use this deck to find your compatibility we need to totally remove ourself, or at least as much as possible. So I propose this approach..."). Rectangular table: the two spectators in the opposite short side and the performer in between them on the long side. So A shuffles the deck under the table and, in order to pass the deck under the table to B, they pass the deck to the performer and the performer (adds the card and) passes the deck to B. Then, B cuts. After that, the process is repeated with reversed roles.

I propose an easy strategy. You can place the cards in the right positions (on the top and on the bottom of the deck) and then perform the Ose triple false cut and then let the spectator does the triple cut for themself.

Is it suspicious to place a card on the top and the other on the bottom of the deck? This problem could be reduce to the minimum if you have the deck in your left hand and the card you need to place on the top in you right hand. The other card should be on the table. So it is quite ordinary to place the card in your hand on the deck and then to table the deck placing it on top of the other card. After that, you are ready to perform the Ose triple cut.

Hi Bob,

You should follow ipe's suggestion for its stunning simplicity. Place the 1st card on the top, and double-undercut it to the bottom. Then place the 2nd card on the top, and perform a false cut to retain the deck order.

By the way, what are your top three routines in your repertoire of card magic?

And, what are your three frequently used sleights?

Hi ipe and Sam,


Ipe, I really appreciate these details of patter and handling; they're just the sort of thing I need as an inexperienced magician. I agree with Sam's assessment of the "stunning simplicity" of your idea.


And Sam, I *am* inexperienced; and my ideas and reading run far ahead of my abilities and my time spent in performance. I'll do my best to answer your questions.


I have a repertoire of two tricks -- Color Monte and Nick Trost's Sub-Trunk Mystery (in Subtle Card Creations 2).


As for sleights, they're all infrequent, but here are some I can do pretty well: Elmsley Count, Double Lift, G. W. Hunter Shuffle, Lift Shuffle, Double Undercut, Winnepeg False Cut (called Optical False Cut in Card College).


The trick I'm practicing the most right now is Chicago Opener. I'm also working on the Biddle Move, which I am learning for the Biddle Trick. I've made a little Sherlock Holmes story to go with Daryl's handling of it. My Biddle move is still inconsistent, but in the last week or so I seem to have had a bit of a breakthrough.


So that gives you an idea of where I am, which I assume is what you wanted?


Thanks, folks.


Bob

Hi Bob,

Since you can do Elmsley Count pretty well, you might be interested in the classical routine, "Twisting the Aces," first published by Dai Vernon.
Other popular variations include Waving the Aces (Guy Hollingworth), the Mcclintock Twist (Reed Mcclintock), and the Asher Twist (Lee Asher).
As it is unnecessary to interact with the spectator when performing Twisting the Aces, you can execute the secret moves at your own pace.

The G. W. Hunter False Shuffle retains the order of the deck. Hence, full deck false shuffles are often used in card routines that require pre-setup procedure in the deck. Chad Long's Shuffling Lesson is a Do-As-I-Do routine that requires a little pre-setup, but makes the spectator looks like a pro magician with an engaging comedic style.



By the way, do you have a video clip of your performance of Nick Trost's Sub-Trunk Mystery?

Hi Bob, trust me when I tell you I'm less experienced in card magic then you are.

I'm just a guy who loves mentalism and enjoys mental card effects. Basically I don't perform any sleight of hand with few exceptions for some false shuffles and false cuts. I love hands-off mental effects so my sleight-free approach fits quite well.

I'm glad you found my tips useful. I'm not an English native speaker, so my advices on the patter could only be inaccurate and incomplete.

Hi again, Sam and ipe.


Your English is quite good, though, ipe. May I ask what your native language is? I had no trouble following your tips, and I found them imaginative. Very cool that you can do what you want to in mentalism with few sleights. I love learning sleights, though I'm not a fast learner. Perhaps I'm more experienced in elementary sleight of hand than you are -- but you're clearly a more experienced performer.


Sam, I'd be happy to make a video of myself performing the Sub-Trunk -- and I've found that when I post videos of my sleights, people have excellent suggestions. There are two obstacles at the moment. One is that I haven't performed this trick in a while, so I need time to bring it back to speed. The other is that so far I haven't found a way to film myself in such a way that the viewer can see both the cards and my face. I bought a tripod for my iPod and need to find the time to see whether I can set it up in a way that gives a good view.


So it will be a while before I can post a video. It would help me, in choosing how to film it, to know why you'd like to see a video. For example, if you want to see the how the trick works, I can just show my hands, and I can be open about what I'm doing.


-- And thanks for the suggestions about Twisting, Chad Long's trick, etc.


Regards,


Bob

Hi Bob,

Thanks for your reply. I asked for a performance video of Nick Trost's Sub-Trunk Mystery because I don't know the effect and I don't understand your description of the deck has to be turned face-up in the story trick, though I know Houdini's stage illusion of the same name that implies the card transposition effect. I can imagine that the card box may represent the trunk and the chosen cards are the magician and his assistant.

Speaking of sleights, if you love learning new ones, then adding these four sleights into your arsenal will empower you to perform a variety of card miracles.

1. James-Ellis Loading Move: a tip-over switch based on the idea of retention of vision vanish to deceptively shift a chosen card (visually buried in the deck) to the top, without rushing.
   
2. Top Change: a move to casually switch the top card of the deck with another card. In appearance, the deck is held in one hand and a chosen card in the other. When revealing to the spectator, the chosen card has transformed into another card.
   
3. Vernon Top Palm: a two-handed technique to secretly steal the top card from the deck, and concealing it in the palm of the free hand.
   
4. Erdnase Bottom Palm: a two-handed technique to secretly steal the bottom card from the deck, and concealing it in the palm of the hand that holds the deck in the mechanic's grip.
   

Whenever a routine calls for a control-to-top maneuver, you can easily execute the James-Ellis Loading Move using your own creativity to bring the buried card to the top. No Pass needed. Once the desired card is at the top, you can force, palm, or switch the card. If you need to send the top card to the bottom, just Double Undercut it.

Most Card-to-Impossible-Location effects (e.g., pocket and wallet) require palming. If you find that the Erdnase Bottom Palm is more secured, and you want to palm the top card, then turn over the deck and execute the bottom palm to achieve the same result. Two-handed palming is commonly executed in the act of squaring up the deck.

Hi Sam,


If you don't mind spending the $10, you could buy Aldo on Trost 2 at https://www.lybrary.com/aldo-on-trost-volume-2-p-106288.html -- see the last effect. If not, I'll make a video showing the skeleton of the handling, not trying to make it into a real effect. I can then PM you with the link.


Interestingly, Trost's effect doesn't use the card box, though I think that your idea of using it could be the seed of a good variation.


Bob