|
|
Go to page 1~2 [Next] | ||||||||||
Pyppo100 Regular user 154 Posts |
I'm studying Dai Vernon's "Simple Arithmetic" effect from the book "More Inner Secrets of Card Magic" and I have some doubts:
1) For the success of the effect I have to ask the spectator for the number corresponding to the position of his card but what justification should I find? Also, this number does NOT come into play for the effect's ending. I was thinking as an alternative of using a stack to avoid this problem. 2) To restrict the choice of the number between 1 and 13 by the spectator, reference is made to the game of Bridge but this game is NOT known by everyone, I was thinking as an alternative to make the spectator think for an hour and thus narrow the field numerical between 1 and 12 (I would do the effect only with 12 cards). What do you think? Which presentation do you use? Thanks! |
|||||||||
Jason Simonds Veteran user Pensacola, FL 318 Posts |
If you use a stack, there's no point in using Vernon's method. Just memorize your stack.
Personally, I would cut off 1/4 of the deck and fan them toward your spectator. Ask them to think of any card. Once they have one in mind, ask them to also remember where the card is. Then I would count all the cards, while it is still fanned out. I would touch each card as I count, so there's no miscounts. If they aren't sure, tell them you can count again. If you want to hand them the deck and have them count down and look at a card at that position, it will work. I like the above method better myself, because I'm asking them to think of a card and remember the number it is located at rather than think of a number and remember the card at that position. I realize it's 6-half dozen the other. But, IMO, I think it seems more impossible to your spectator, when they can think of "any" card vs thinking of a number between 1-12/13. Also, if you let them shuffle. After the shuffle, just blatantly look at the deck, explaining you want to see how mixed up they are. Just spot your two and take 3 cards above it and 9 cards below it out of the deck and fan them to your spectator. |
|||||||||
Jason Simonds Veteran user Pensacola, FL 318 Posts |
Oh, one gotcha for the think of an hour method, the way most spectators count, it will reverse the order of the deck. So, you may have to figure out a way to reverse those back.
Now, what you could do to prevent this is keep your two at the 9th position. Have them think of an hour, and look at a card at that hour. Don't stop counting though and continue to count all 12 hours. By counting all 12 hours, they'll put the two in the position you need it. You'll have to modify the Vernon's cheat sheet because 9oclock is 4. 10-12oclock is 1-3. 6-8oclock is 5-7. 1-2oclock is 11-12. 3-5oclock is 8-10. Edit: Another way is start with the two at position 9. Have them count 12 cards off into your hand, reversing the order and putting the two back at position 4. Spread the cards toward them and ask them to think of an hour. Tell them to remember their card at their hour. Touch each card and say 1oclock, 2oclock, etc. This way will let you use Vernon's numbers. Good luck! |
|||||||||
Rupert Pupkin Inner circle 1452 Posts |
What does the trick have to do with clocks? Or bridge?
These are good examples of "justifications" being just as arbitrary as nothing at all. They are non sequiturs that draw more attention to themselves than, for example, asking a spectator to, "Think of a smaller number — let's say under 12." I'm not saying that's perfect. But I am saying it's better. |
|||||||||
Pyppo100 Regular user 154 Posts |
Quote:
On May 25, 2023, Jason Simonds wrote: OK, but for the effect to be successful I then need to ask the spectator what position the card he had thought of was in and therefore what justification can I find for asking him this question without making him suspicious? Thanks! |
|||||||||
Pyppo100 Regular user 154 Posts |
Quote:
On May 25, 2023, Rupert Pupkin wrote: In the book "More Inner Secrets of Card Magic", the game of Bridge is introduced to force a number from 1 to 13...do you want to question the effect how Vernon does it? ;-) Thanks! |
|||||||||
Rupert Pupkin Inner circle 1452 Posts |
Quote:
On May 26, 2023, Pyppo100 wrote: Gladly! |
|||||||||
Ray J Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1503 Posts |
It is right to question anything and everything. Perhaps the audiences Vernon was used to performing for were familiar with Bridge and so it made sense for him to use it. I don't currently know anyone who plays Bridge, so obviously it isn't suitable as a basis for presentation.
By the way, questioning doesn't necessarily mean you agree or disagree with something. Questioning things we agree with oftentimes yields a greater, deeper understanding of the subject, a worthy pursuit. So should we question Vernon? Absolutely! And anyone else for that matter.
It's never crowded on the extra mile....
|
|||||||||
Pyppo100 Regular user 154 Posts |
Quote:
On May 25, 2023, Rupert Pupkin wrote: If the presentation refers to mentalism, in my opinion, making one think about the hour can be a good justification. ;-) Thanks! |
|||||||||
1tepa1 Inner circle 1281 Posts |
How is the hour connected to the rest of the trick? The spectator thinks of an hour, but why? Is it justified? For example, after the trick if the spectator describes this trick to another spectator who asks "why did you need to think of an hour?", would the spectator be able to give a reason?
|
|||||||||
Pyppo100 Regular user 154 Posts |
Quote:
On May 26, 2023, 1tepa1 wrote: And instead asking the spectator to think directly of a number between 1 and 13, what would be the point? To make you think of an hour I was inspired by another effect:: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1anCyN10gE Thanks |
|||||||||
1tepa1 Inner circle 1281 Posts |
Here is another idea, not sure if it is any good though. If you want to try a mentalist route. Ask the spectator to think of the month of their birth. There are 12 months. Then ask them to remember the card that falls to the numerical position of their month. Now we add in time in between the two points, the point where we initially asked the spectator to choose their card with the number of their month and the moment we ask their month. We shuffle the deck, saying something about how our time of birth is important and according to astrology influences our actions and our destiny. Now we ask further questions about the time of birth. Do you know what day of the week you were born? Some know, others don't, if they know, you make some remark about that day and say that you will use this information to determine something about the future. If they say they don't know, you ask what day of the month they were born. This everyone knows. You say that you will use this information to try to make a prediction about the future, and you do the thing where you put the deck behind your back and do the alteration to the deck according to Vernon's instructions. You might at this point put the deck on the table, saying that everything is now done, the future is set. It is at this point where the spectator perceives everything to be finished that you ask the number, but you don't just ask them the number outright, you use the astrology theme and ask if they know what their horoscope (zodiac sign?) is, because the horoscope is the thing that has the biggest impact on the destiny of a person. If they say yes, you ask them what it is, and now you know what their month is. If they say no, you say that it is important to know what ones horoscope is, and you ask what the month is, and after they tell you, you proceed to tell what the horoscope for that month is. You can at this point make some comment about some generic traits a person with their horoscope has if you want. And now you simply go into the normal reveal of the card according to the method Vernon describes.
|
|||||||||
balbec New user few 62 Posts |
Just ask for a « number » : it will be between 2 and 10 90% of the time. Add the digit once or twice for the other 10%.
|
|||||||||
1tepa1 Inner circle 1281 Posts |
Quote:
On May 27, 2023, balbec wrote: To me the initial asking of the number is not that big of a deal, however the later request that the spectator tells the number is something that I feel is a weak point. Why are you asking the spectator what the number they thought about is? |
|||||||||
balbec New user few 62 Posts |
Quote:
On May 27, 2023, 1tepa1 wrote: Implicitly because the experience is over, nothing is going to change now and other spec need to know for the ending to be clear. Depending on one’s style, it may be either weak… or totally natural. |
|||||||||
1tepa1 Inner circle 1281 Posts |
Quote:
On May 27, 2023, balbec wrote: It could be pulled of casually if it is because everything is already done so there is no reason why the number needs to be a secret anymore. But there is also no reason why it should be said out loud. For the ending the number is not needed, the other spectators don't need to know that number because it is not used in any way. It would be different if you ask for the number and then show a prediction that shows you knew their number. But because you are going to simply reveal their card, there is no reason why anyone would need to know what the number is. Its different in some other similar tricks, for example there is a trick where you ask the spectator what the number is for the specific purpose that they then deal that amount of cards from the top of the deck. Then it is understandable you would ask for the number. But here I don't see it would come across to the spectators that they needed to know the number. |
|||||||||
Pyppo100 Regular user 154 Posts |
Quote:
On May 27, 2023, 1tepa1 wrote: I agree... so I prefer this version of Preverino which uses a stack: https://youtu.be/7PngQa-VBD0?t=388 ..and Preverino himself explains why he modified the original version ... precisely for the reasons we are discussing ... Thanks! |
|||||||||
1tepa1 Inner circle 1281 Posts |
Quote:
On May 27, 2023, Pyppo100 wrote: What Paverino says about the issue with the Vernon trick, I agree, that is exactly my thinking also. I have been trying to think of a way of overcoming those issues without changing the basic method of the trick. The effect Paverino showed also has a flaw to it, which is that spectators don't like to tell their card to you. If they tell you their card, and don't feel like you are already fully comitted to the outcome like already have a card out that you have said "this will be your card". But my feeling is that spectators feel like if they tell you what their card is, you can find where it is. A magician knows that it makes no difference if you know the identity of the chosen card or not if it is "shuffled" into the deck after selecting it, knowing what it is or not knowing what it is does not make finding it any more easy or difficult. But if you test a simple trick to spectators in two different ways, you find one gets a stronger reaction. Ask them to take out a card, they put it back and you shuffle the deck, then you find the card by some easy way like spelling the spectators name or some other such simple way. You do this in two ways, in one you have the spectator select their card face up so they know you know the identity of their card, and in the other version you do it face down so they know you don't know what their card is. I think you will find the second one gets a stronger reaction. In the case where the reveal will be very immediate, it will be not too bad. Like in the case where the card is on top of the deck, or on the bottom. Or reversed in the middle. But if there is more procedure like you spread and there is a face up card in the middle, then you count that many cards from the bottom of the deck, there is now a lot of time and procedure and handling of the cards in between the moment where they told you their card and the moment when you show you found it. The strenght of the vernon trick is it is impromptu. You can have the spectator shuffle the cards, hand them out to you and immediately go into the trick. If you have for example one two corner shorted, you don't even need to look through the cards, just shuffle it to the right position. They know the cards you show them are random because they shuffled the cards themselves. They know you cant know what the cards are because they shuffled the cards. So even though asking them to think of the number first is the weakness, it is also a strenght later on when asking for the number. Because it is one step removed from their card. Instead of you asking for their card, you ask for the number. So in their mind you might not still know what their card is, even if they tell you the number. How could you know what their card is because the cards were shuffled by the spectator before you asked them to think of the number and the card? Where as if you ask for their card outright, that is when the clock starts. The more time and procedure there is in between the moment they say what their card is and you producing it, the worse the effect will be imo. But if you ask for the number, then you show the reveal and get to the card, you can then take that card out and ask them what their card is and they know there is no two things about it, the card you took out has to be their card. As for how to make the number logical, I have been thinking about this and one thing I have tried to get a method for is being able to make the necessary work without needing to put the deck under the table. Instead of making it a prediction effect, to make it a magical effect. I still don't know how to do that because it involves a reversed card but perhaps it could be done. Then the effect could be like this: the spectator shuffles the cards, you ask them to think of a number that will then be their magic number. You show cards and they think of the card that falls to their magic number. You shuffle the cards and put them on the table and tell them that their magic number can make their card appear. Ask them what the number is and tell them to tap the deck that many times, and then something magical will happen. Lets say their number is 3, they tap the deck three times. "Did you feel that"? Well, one card turned over in the middle of the deck. You spread the cards. "This two of spades is my lucky card, just like your lucky number was able to find my lucky card, my lucky card was able to find your selected card, because this card right next to my two of spades is exactly your...Six of hearts!" |
|||||||||
balbec New user few 62 Posts |
Agree with Tepa on 2 ideas.
1- The value of this trick is impromptu + speed + number, not the mind reading aspect. Pyppo - if you try to remove the number to turn it into a mind reading miracle, you will find something else, which may eventually be a variation of « Out of sight, out of mind », a much, much stronger, but very different effect. If you want to keep the arithmetic idea, then asking the card is quite normal, since you don’t pretend to read minds : the « magic » comes from the way the number will directly lead to the card. Not a very strong magic, indeed, but still a very surprising one. 2- In this line of thinking, putting the deck under the table / in ones back is the true weakness of the trick, because it slows the process to a critical extend, especially in 2023. It could likely be removed with a precise series of overand shuffle moves + reverse, though. |
|||||||||
Pyppo100 Regular user 154 Posts |
Quote:
On May 28, 2023, 1tepa1 wrote: Your observations are very interesting... In the book "Roberto Extra-light" (Italian version), Giobbi uses Vernon's presentation with the game of Bridge to force a number from 1 to 13. Then, before placing the deck under the table, the magician says he reads the spectator's mind and knows exactly what his card is and to prove it he will place it in a specific position... if then, in order to find the card of the spectator needs the count, after showing the two face up, the magician will say: "I deliberately flipped a deuce in the deck. I know it's NOT the card you thought of. I have a great theatrical sense.. This deuce reminds me though that I have to count two cards..." Thanks! |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Simple Arithmetic presentation by Dai Vernon (7 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page 1~2 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.12 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 < |