On Aug 15, 2022, Nikodemus wrote:
I think it is very strange that so many people do Chicago Opener with the Hindu Shuffle. It's totally unnecessary for that trick.
The point I was really trying to make was not about the merits of the Hindu Shuffle. It was more about the tendency many of us have to slavishly copy every detail of a trick rather than personalise it.
I remember a while back looking at many YouTube videos of a particular effect [unfortunately I can't remember which one]. In about 90% of those videos exactly the same card was "selected"III
mlippo Inner circle
Trieste (Italy)
1228 Posts
Posted: Sep 3, 2022 07:46 pm
0
Quote:
On Sep 3, 2022, Ed Oschmann wrote:
Changing selection procedures.
I said "consistency goes in the rubbish".
That's why l chose to use the same procedure, the Hindu Shuffle, for both selections.
As in Card College 5 description.
Mark
Ed Oschmann Inner circle
Lake Worth FL
1038 Posts
Posted: Sep 3, 2022 08:22 pm
0
Yep. Depends on the context.
Pyppo100 Regular user
189 Posts
Posted: Sep 3, 2022 08:45 pm
0
Quote:
On Sep 3, 2022, Ed Oschmann wrote:
Yep. Depends on the context.
I think a lot also depends on the distance between the performer and the spectator...
Thanks!
mlippo Inner circle
Trieste (Italy)
1228 Posts
Posted: Sep 4, 2022 09:42 pm
1
Quote:
On Aug 13, 2022, Pyppo100 wrote:
What do you think of Ekaterina's performance of the Chicago Opener effect that doesn't use the Hindu Shuffle?
By the way, l liked her script a lot. Not the usual "blushing" or "shy" card ...
Does anyone know if it's original with her?
First time I come across it.
Mark
Wravyn Inner circle
3673 Posts
Posted: Sep 11, 2022 01:20 am
0
In a blog by Bill Wisch, Slydini-The Legend, he shares "Slydini's Hindu Delay".
A number of other worthwhile lessons are shared here also.
https://www.billwisch.com/slydinilegacy
Yes - Chicago Surprise elevates CO from great trick to absolute miracle
charliemartin Special user
Rapid City, SD
791 Posts
Posted: Jul 26, 2023 12:25 am
0
Meir Yedid on his "forces" DVD has some great tips on the Hindu Shuffle. I love the trick And I don't use the HS but who cares. I still go by the adage " they pay for what they see and not for what they don't".
Pop Haydn Inner circle
Los Angeles
3703 Posts
Posted: Nov 8, 2023 07:47 pm
1
The second selection should be stronger than the first, or what is the point of repeating it? It is not enough for the force to "get past the audience," they need to be able to attest that the second choice was free and "could not have been" a force. By using a classic force with the cards facing the spectator, they have to agree that they could have thought of any card and just picked it from the face up cards. When you give them several chances to change their mind, they have to admit they "could have" picked "any" card, and they could have changed their mind several times. They can be convinced there was no force, and none possible. If they have their finger or foot or saltshaker on the stranger card so that it could not be switched--from before the second card is chosen--the spectators have to agree that "it could not be a force and the card could not have been switched." If the card was not switched, and the choice was "truly free" then the result is absolutely "impossible."
Getting the spectators to mentally "agree" to both these conditions is essential to creating a truly mindblowing effect.
This is the difference between an effect that "fools" people (I don't know how he did it!) and one that confronts them with the impossible (There is no possible way!).
The difference between lightning and a lightning bug.
Watch the video above, where Rachel is convinced the choice is free before the change, and her friend has had a finger on the stranger card from "before she picked a card!"
On Nov 8, 2023, Pop Haydn wrote:
The second selection should be stronger than the first, or what is the point of repeating it? It is not enough for the force to "get past the audience," they need to be able to attest that the second choice was free and "could not have been" a force. By using a classic force with the cards facing the spectator, they have to agree that they could have thought of any card and just picked it from the face up cards. When you give them several chances to change their mind, they have to admit they "could have" picked "any" card, and they could have changed their mind several times. They can be convinced there was no force, and none possible. If they have their finger or foot or saltshaker on the stranger card so that it could not be switched--from before the second card is chosen--the spectators have to agree that "it could not be a force and the card could not have been switched." If the card was not switched, and the choice was "truly free" then the result is absolutely "impossible."
Getting the spectators to mentally "agree" to both these conditions is essential to creating a truly mindblowing effect.
This is the difference between an effect that "fools" people (I don't know how he did it!) and one that confronts them with the impossible (There is no possible way!).
The difference between lightning and a lightning bug.
Watch the video above, where Rachel is convinced the choice is free before the change, and her friend has had a finger on the stranger card from "before she picked a card!"
Pop, when it comes to this effect you are THE man!!!
Well, and for the Chinese linking rings as well ... and for the magnetised water as well ... and for the Mongolian Knot as well and so forth ...
Mark
Kaliix Inner circle
Connecticut
2043 Posts
Posted: Nov 15, 2023 04:57 pm
1
Pop Haydn is my favorite magical character and you are one of my all-time favorite magicians. But then you had to write lightning bug instead of lightning. Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with what you wrote. My experience performing Anmmar's Red Hot Mamma from ETMCM Vol 2 over 25 years in paid shows, walkaround/restaurant, casual, impromptu and 20 years of performing this in a middle school classroom demonstrate that this effect kills. People say the Hindu shuffle looks weird, different, odd yet I've used the Hindu force every single time and the spectator always looks at the remaining red card incredulously. Never have they acted like the choice wasn't free.
The second selection doesn't have to be stronger. The cards were just slowly run through and shown to not contain any other red cards (which was both fair and true). The one red card was just shown. Saying I can do it again and then offering a quick selection makes sense as everything was just shown very fairly and the spectator is seeing all bluebacks go by which is really all anyone cares about. The second selection matters in that its back is not yet red. Its face is important in that it is proof that the correct card turns red. There is little reason to care about the selection procedure. The backs are and have been shown blue. The selection procedure is of little consequence at that point. At least the way I present it and that presentation has never failed me in almost 30 years of performing this. After the HF selection, for me, it is all about selling the overconfidence, magician-in-trouble aspect of the routine. That has been my hook and why this routine gets the reaction it does.
IMHO, YMMV
Quote:
On Nov 8, 2023, Pop Haydn wrote:
The second selection should be stronger than the first, or what is the point of repeating it? It is not enough for the force to "get past the audience," they need to be able to attest that the second choice was free and "could not have been" a force. By using a classic force with the cards facing the spectator, they have to agree that they could have thought of any card and just picked it from the face up cards. When you give them several chances to change their mind, they have to admit they "could have" picked "any" card, and they could have changed their mind several times. They can be convinced there was no force, and none possible. If they have their finger or foot or saltshaker on the stranger card so that it could not be switched--from before the second card is chosen--the spectators have to agree that "it could not be a force and the card could not have been switched." If the card was not switched, and the choice was "truly free" then the result is absolutely "impossible."
Getting the spectators to mentally "agree" to both these conditions is essential to creating a truly mindblowing effect.
This is the difference between an effect that "fools" people (I don't know how he did it!) and one that confronts them with the impossible (There is no possible way!).
The difference between lightning and a lightning bug.
Watch the video above, where Rachel is convinced the choice is free before the change, and her friend has had a finger on the stranger card from "before she picked a card!"
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel J. Boorstin
Pop Haydn Inner circle
Los Angeles
3703 Posts
Posted: Nov 15, 2023 05:51 pm
0
Quote:
On Nov 15, 2023, Kaliix wrote:
Pop Haydn is my favorite magical character and you are one of my all-time favorite magicians. But then you had to write lightning bug instead of lightning. Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with what you wrote. My experience performing Anmmar's Red Hot Mamma from ETMCM Vol 2 over 25 years in paid shows, walkaround/restaurant, casual, impromptu and 20 years of performing this in a middle school classroom demonstrate that this effect kills. People say the Hindu shuffle looks weird, different, odd yet I've used the Hindu force every single time and the spectator always looks at the remaining red card incredulously. Never have they acted like the choice wasn't free.
The second selection doesn't have to be stronger. The cards were just slowly run through and shown to not contain any other red cards (which was both fair and true). The one red card was just shown. Saying I can do it again and then offering a quick selection makes sense as everything was just shown very fairly and the spectator is seeing all bluebacks go by which is really all anyone cares about. The second selection matters in that its back is not yet red. Its face is important in that it is proof that the correct card turns red. There is little reason to care about the selection procedure. The backs are and have been shown blue. The selection procedure is of little consequence at that point. At least the way I present it and that presentation has never failed me in almost 30 years of performing this. After the HF selection, for me, it is all about selling the overconfidence, magician-in-trouble aspect of the routine. That has been my hook and why this routine gets the reaction it does.
IMHO, YMMV
Quote:
On Nov 8, 2023, Pop Haydn wrote:
The second selection should be stronger than the first, or what is the point of repeating it? It is not enough for the force to "get past the audience," they need to be able to attest that the second choice was free and "could not have been" a force. By using a classic force with the cards facing the spectator, they have to agree that they could have thought of any card and just picked it from the face up cards. When you give them several chances to change their mind, they have to admit they "could have" picked "any" card, and they could have changed their mind several times. They can be convinced there was no force, and none possible. If they have their finger or foot or saltshaker on the stranger card so that it could not be switched--from before the second card is chosen--the spectators have to agree that "it could not be a force and the card could not have been switched." If the card was not switched, and the choice was "truly free" then the result is absolutely "impossible."
Getting the spectators to mentally "agree" to both these conditions is essential to creating a truly mindblowing effect.
This is the difference between an effect that "fools" people (I don't know how he did it!) and one that confronts them with the impossible (There is no possible way!).
The difference between lightning and a lightning bug.
Watch the video above, where Rachel is convinced the choice is free before the change, and her friend has had a finger on the stranger card from "before she picked a card!"
I have performed both ways successfully thousands of times. It is not that the original is bad--I wouldn't have wanted to improve it if it wasn't a strong trick from the first. By ratcheting down the weaknesses, the trick and its response will be much stronger. If you give my changes a chance in performance, I think you might agree.
On Nov 15, 2023, Kaliix wrote:
Pop Haydn is my favorite magical character and you are one of my all-time favorite magicians. But then you had to write lightning bug instead of lightning. Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with what you wrote. My experience performing Anmmar's Red Hot Mamma from ETMCM Vol 2 over 25 years in paid shows, walkaround/restaurant, casual, impromptu and 20 years of performing this in a middle school classroom demonstrate that this effect kills. People say the Hindu shuffle looks weird, different, odd yet I've used the Hindu force every single time and the spectator always looks at the remaining red card incredulously. Never have they acted like the choice wasn't free.
The second selection doesn't have to be stronger. The cards were just slowly run through and shown to not contain any other red cards (which was both fair and true). The one red card was just shown. Saying I can do it again and then offering a quick selection makes sense as everything was just shown very fairly and the spectator is seeing all bluebacks go by which is really all anyone cares about. The second selection matters in that its back is not yet red. Its face is important in that it is proof that the correct card turns red. There is little reason to care about the selection procedure. The backs are and have been shown blue. The selection procedure is of little consequence at that point. At least the way I present it and that presentation has never failed me in almost 30 years of performing this. After the HF selection, for me, it is all about selling the overconfidence, magician-in-trouble aspect of the routine. That has been my hook and why this routine gets the reaction it does.
IMHO, YMMV
Quote:
On Nov 8, 2023, Pop Haydn wrote:
The second selection should be stronger than the first, or what is the point of repeating it? It is not enough for the force to "get past the audience," they need to be able to attest that the second choice was free and "could not have been" a force. By using a classic force with the cards facing the spectator, they have to agree that they could have thought of any card and just picked it from the face up cards. When you give them several chances to change their mind, they have to admit they "could have" picked "any" card, and they could have changed their mind several times. They can be convinced there was no force, and none possible. If they have their finger or foot or saltshaker on the stranger card so that it could not be switched--from before the second card is chosen--the spectators have to agree that "it could not be a force and the card could not have been switched." If the card was not switched, and the choice was "truly free" then the result is absolutely "impossible."
Getting the spectators to mentally "agree" to both these conditions is essential to creating a truly mindblowing effect.
This is the difference between an effect that "fools" people (I don't know how he did it!) and one that confronts them with the impossible (There is no possible way!).
The difference between lightning and a lightning bug.
Watch the video above, where Rachel is convinced the choice is free before the change, and her friend has had a finger on the stranger card from "before she picked a card!"
In my opinion, the second selection must be AT LEAST as strong as the first. That's why I usually use hindu shuffle for both. Using a free from the fan selection first and then the HS, doesn't satisfy that condition.
Mark
Pop Haydn Inner circle
Los Angeles
3703 Posts
Posted: Nov 17, 2023 12:00 am
0
Quote:
On Nov 16, 2023, mlippo wrote:
Quote:
On Nov 15, 2023, Kaliix wrote:
Pop Haydn is my favorite magical character and you are one of my all-time favorite magicians. But then you had to write lightning bug instead of lightning. Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with what you wrote. My experience performing Anmmar's Red Hot Mamma from ETMCM Vol 2 over 25 years in paid shows, walkaround/restaurant, casual, impromptu and 20 years of performing this in a middle school classroom demonstrate that this effect kills. People say the Hindu shuffle looks weird, different, odd yet I've used the Hindu force every single time and the spectator always looks at the remaining red card incredulously. Never have they acted like the choice wasn't free.
The second selection doesn't have to be stronger. The cards were just slowly run through and shown to not contain any other red cards (which was both fair and true). The one red card was just shown. Saying I can do it again and then offering a quick selection makes sense as everything was just shown very fairly and the spectator is seeing all bluebacks go by which is really all anyone cares about. The second selection matters in that its back is not yet red. Its face is important in that it is proof that the correct card turns red. There is little reason to care about the selection procedure. The backs are and have been shown blue. The selection procedure is of little consequence at that point. At least the way I present it and that presentation has never failed me in almost 30 years of performing this. After the HF selection, for me, it is all about selling the overconfidence, magician-in-trouble aspect of the routine. That has been my hook and why this routine gets the reaction it does.
IMHO, YMMV
Quote:
On Nov 8, 2023, Pop Haydn wrote:
The second selection should be stronger than the first, or what is the point of repeating it? It is not enough for the force to "get past the audience," they need to be able to attest that the second choice was free and "could not have been" a force. By using a classic force with the cards facing the spectator, they have to agree that they could have thought of any card and just picked it from the face up cards. When you give them several chances to change their mind, they have to admit they "could have" picked "any" card, and they could have changed their mind several times. They can be convinced there was no force, and none possible. If they have their finger or foot or saltshaker on the stranger card so that it could not be switched--from before the second card is chosen--the spectators have to agree that "it could not be a force and the card could not have been switched." If the card was not switched, and the choice was "truly free" then the result is absolutely "impossible."
Getting the spectators to mentally "agree" to both these conditions is essential to creating a truly mindblowing effect.
This is the difference between an effect that "fools" people (I don't know how he did it!) and one that confronts them with the impossible (There is no possible way!).
The difference between lightning and a lightning bug.
Watch the video above, where Rachel is convinced the choice is free before the change, and her friend has had a finger on the stranger card from "before she picked a card!"
In my opinion, the second selection must be AT LEAST as strong as the first. That's why I usually use hindu shuffle for both. Using a free from the fan selection first and then the HS, doesn't satisfy that condition.
Mark
Why repeat the trick at all, if you are not strengthening the conditions? The problem with the Hindu Force is that it is hard to get "agreement" that the choice was fair and free. Without that premise locked down, the argument for the effect loses power. The spectator should be able to state, "I had a free choice of any card I wanted, and the card under my foot could not have been switched." If the spectator can't affirm both of these conditions, the effect will not be as strong.
When you use the Hindu Force or similar methods, it will go past even the most observant. But if you ask someone later how they chose the card they will have a hard time explaining. "Getting past" the spectator and convincing them they had a free choice are different things. In my opinion, when the argument for the effect requires that the choice be free, then cross cut and Hindu force are not sufficient.
One solution is good, the other is stronger. I always think that "strongest" is the goal.
Look again at the video of Chicago Surprise for Rachel. See how powerful the trick is when the argument's two basic premises are agreed to before the reveal.
In the standard handling (by Al Leech), there's a built-in inconsistency between the phases because in Phase I the spectator *takes* a card whose back later changes color, while, in Phase II, he can only *look* at the "selection." That way the odd-backed card can stay on the table so that it can change into the merely observed card in the force.
My intution, fwiw, is that if you make the two phases *too* similar then the unavoidable difference I just described will be more obvious, and thus arouse suspicion.
I had the same idea as you, Nick, of using a free selection from a spread in Phase I, and then a touch force in Phase II -- but I was worried about making the phases too similar.
Nikodemus Inner circle
1295 Posts
Posted: Aug 5, 2024 09:10 pm
0
Quote:
On Nov 25, 2023, M / Trick or Die wrote:
I have a version in which the spectators can select both cards freely from the spread, in the same manner in both phases.
As far as I can recall, your selection methods were not the same; the second selection was weaker. Phase 1 was a free selection from a face UP spread; phase 2 was from a face DOWN spread. I'm pretty sure I pointed that out to you at the time, because I remember referring you to Gary Kurtz'z handling which uses a face-up spread.
Nikodemus Inner circle
1295 Posts
Posted: Aug 5, 2024 09:38 pm
0
Quote:
On Aug 5, 2024, Bob G wrote:
In the standard handling (by Al Leech), there's a built-in inconsistency between the phases because in Phase I the spectator *takes* a card whose back later changes color, while, in Phase II, he can only *look* at the "selection." That way the odd-backed card can stay on the table so that it can change into the merely observed card in the force.
My intution, fwiw, is that if you make the two phases *too* similar then the unavoidable difference I just described will be more obvious, and thus arouse suspicion.
I had the same idea as you, Nick, of using a free selection from a spread in Phase I, and then a touch force in Phase II -- but I was worried about making the phases too similar.
Hi Bob,
I think you might be over-thinking this a bit. The difference you describe as "unavoidable" is merely a consequence of the chosen sleight. You could just as easily opt to have the selection removed by the spectator then returned to the deck. In fact you could use the HS, show the face, then hand the card to the spectator for them to check the back of the card.
Clearly the effects in phases 1 and 2 are different. But that doesn't really matter (in my opinion). What matters is the impossibility of phase 2 - because they have just seen its face, and it has been in full view ever since. It's inconsistent, but it's magic. And it's stronger than the first phase.
AND it's a surprise - which is entertaining. I believe Joshua Jay actually did a survey on this.
If you seek total consistency, you pretty much kill the scope for surprises.
In fact, Michael Close created a version that's specifically designed to be consistent. It's clever, but much less entertaining. Which is presumably why so any of us love Chicago Opener but not The Dumbest Casino in the World.
I think the key point to focus on is that the selection in phase 2 should seem at least as fair as the selection in phase 1. In this regard, I believe the Touch Force is a better choice than the HS.
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 <
Posted: Sep 3, 2022 11:36 am 
