I recently bought this trick, and for some reason I just don't get the psychology behind having the spec split the deck in half and estimate how many cards they have. Doesn't this weaken the effect by calling attention to the fact that the card must be close to mid-point?

Benjamin talks about guessing how many cards the spec is holding, but again I don't see the value in this. I guess the reasoning just doesn't click with me or I have a blind spot.

Can someone clarify this for me? I admit it may be that I'm not quite bright enough to see what is obvious to most. Wouldn't be the first time.

So Ben's reasoning for having the spectator estimate the number of cards in their hands is to get the spectator to think that they could have ended up with any number of cards in their hands (and by extension, the spectator could've ended up on any card as well). By recapping to the spectator what has happened, the amount of free choice the spectator has had along the way, and then having the spectator estimate the number of cards in their hands, the performer is trying to get the spectator to believe that the card they arrived at is from somewhere within the deck (their estimated number) rather than from where it was secretly placed originally. The card estimation is a psychological ruse to make it more difficult to reverse engineer.

However, even with that explanation, I actually agree with you that the estimation of the number of cards at that point isn't that strong of a convincer. I think it is the spreading of the cards that weakens the convincer. Instead, you should simply recap to the spectator that the number of cards they hold in their hands is completely random. This randomness could not have been predicted by the performer or by the spectator. After recapping this to the spectator, have the spectator peek the card that is facing them and immediately shuffle their packet after taking note of the card, then shuffle that packet with the remainder of the deck.

I don't ask the spectator to spread the cards and estimate. I simply skip the estimation, but I do still do a recap of the events that transpired (of course told in a favourable light to the effect).

Steambc: indeed, it doesn't make much sense.

What you could do instead, when they’re left with about 1/2 the deck, is to instruct your spec to cut that half-deck in three packets (though not strictly necessary, by using the mechanics of Ose's False Cut for example as the cutting sequence itself makes it difficult for the spec to follow the origin (top, half, bottom) of each packet ) and look at the bottom card of the relevant packet (with a bit of magician's choice if you wish). It makes the procedure more aligned with the previous instructions and doesn't leave a clue, to a lay audience, to what part of the deck the selection came from.

Doesn't Ben explain his rationale in the explanation of the trick?

Having just pored over Earl's performance demo video for the fourth or fifth time, I conclude that in it, he never directly answers the original poster's question as to "Why split the deck in half?" As I see it, the method calls for some means to rationalize burying the top and bottom cards twice . . . which I won't explain further here. (Really! Just go buy this trick if you haven't already done so--it's one of the biggest bargains you'll ever come across!)

In the print version, however, he does clarify the reason for having the spec guess the number of cards in the final bunch containing the selected card, characterizing it as "an extremely important piece of psychological deception," basically confirming bentpenny's reasoning as delineated elsewhere in this thread.

Bottom line: A more appropriate name for the effect might well have been "Red Herrings" in the plural, since it can be argued that everything in the performance is really just 'smoke and mirrors' to (ahem!) force the spec's attention away from the underlying method.

Guys, I’m sorry for disappearing and not acknowledging your help. I ran into some health issues which put me on the sidelines for a while. Thanks much to each of you for the detailed replies. I greatly appreciate it.

Hmmm good question.

First and foremost: steambc: all the best for your health! Hope you are on your way to recovery!

Just recently bought Red Herring and, as Deckstacker mentioned, found it to be a real bargain. More of a steal actually.
As far as I understand, he explains the psychology behind the split briefly.

It is less of a split and more of a counting down of cards by the spectator, who can stop at any time he wants.
Followed by the "card burrying" and the spreading of the remaining cards, while estimating how many are left in the hands, it helps in selling that the finally chosen card comes from deep inside the pack.
A position that, by doing all of the above, was actively and randomly found by the spectator him or herself. Hence the mention of psychological aspects by Ben Earl himself.

I thought it is an amazing utility piece!

Best
Alex

I always saw it as a question to direct the spectator attention away from the method.

However, I think that the average spectator can find the procedure-heavy steps a little hard to follow. In those moments they can be so focused on following your instructions that asking to estimate cards can be too much and not much useful to avoid them backtracking the method or even part of it.

I think this is great effect and a real fooler.