Which of these two versions do you prefer?
I really like Tamariz's version but it requires more technical skill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuN8AMY8ggw&t=16s (Roberto Giobbi)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGhCqNK8A98 (Juan Tamariz)

Thanks!

Best regards

I always do the the Giobbi version. Follow the leader is an effect I prefer to present in a direct and streamlined fashion because it may take some seconds for the spectators to understand what's actually happening. Because of this, Giobbi's version allows me to fully concentrate on the most important points.

I have always done Giobbi's, because it is technically sleightless or almost (I actually cull two cards at the beginning and at the end I repeat the last change by means of a Doctor Daley's move).
Tamariz's (and a few more I've seen) has a few more "convincers", but that would need more work and, honestly, I do not wish to put the extra effort in this effect, since I find Giobbi's quite satisfying.
At least this is what I think now.
Tomorrow, who knows?

Mark

They both have their ups and downs. Giobbis is Pretty clear and straight to the point, while Tamariz version is rather excessive on the counting, smth I personally don't like in his routine. but the solution Tamariz finds for different stages I prefer, especially the opening sequence that only needs a single count. the counting in this effect only has a methodological reason as far as I understand it and should therefore be limited to a bare minimum.

One of my go to effects by now.

Also one of the best Follow the leader Effects out there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz92KY7i9Do

Majakowski52 thanks for sharing Pareras' take on this effect. This may really be worth studying, as it's often the case with Gabi's work.

Follow The Leader sees to me like a "modular" kind of effect - you can mix and match according to what bits you like; and what is within your own technical ability.

I like the fact that Tamariz and Pareras both show all the remaining cards when there are four left in each pile. This is a nice convincer to fool anyone who is getting suspicious. It's also a technique most magicians would be familiar with.
Pareras's idea to move both packets to each leader in turn is brilliant. And requires almost no extra skill/effort.

Even in Giobbi's version, for example, you could regularly count the three cards remaining in each pile and then continue with the subsequent phases.

What do you think?

Thanks!

Best regards

Giobbi's version (and many others) primarily relies on confusing the spectator. This includes the last three cards. There is only one place in the routine where the magic is simple and clear, due to the setup (and therefore more "impossible" in my opinion).

Whereas the Tamariz & Parara versions allow you to do a much clearer piece of magic after doing that count. In fact it seems to me, Parera's handling gives you twice as much effect from the same sleight, as Tamariz does.

Obviously it's a matter of personal preference, but I think it's worth the effort to get into a setup that allows the EC - if one has the skill to do so. But if not, start with a simpler version, and maybe one day evolve to a more sophisticated version.

Tom Matriq has a tutorial of FTL on YouTube. He gets into his setup using a technique that could be adapted to pretty much any setup you want. (And it's not a knuckle-buster!)

Dani DaOrtiz has a really good version called Followers....
https://www.theory11.com/marketplace/est......-daortiz

You may (or may not) like the way I get the cards into place using the Olram. I have tightened the trick up since, as this video was made three years ago.
It's definitely less verbose when it was then. Anyways, apologies aside here it is.

https://youtu.be/J9nGSbxjlPU?si=rGg4i5WlQAbJJhp0

Hey Ed, good job. I like it.

Ed, I really liked the justification that you give for putting the leaders in front of the packets.

To be honest, I always found the theme of "selecting a leader & cards following the leader" to be a bit cheesy, at least for my style which is more rational and observational.

Instead, that idea seems to resonate very well with me: the performer put one card for each packet face-up to help the spectator remember which packet is which. Whenever the magic happens, cards do not "follow" anything, it's more of a visual inconsistency/illusion, something inexplicable.


I don't seem to have seen this angle on the presentation before. May I ask if there's any source or inspiration for yours?

I can never take total accountability for what's going on in my head. I've read too much over the years,so it's very possible I was influenced by others. I've played around with different presentations, but ultimately you're correct. It really doesn't matter what you say, as just a bunch of interesting things happen. I like to talk about how frustrating it is to work hard at some thing, and ultimately nothing ever gets done. Like parenting . The trick does not require a lot of patter, just an interesting opening phrase to create a framework.

I am coming to this discussion late, but I am surprised no one has mentioned the Javi Benitez version. He has some interesting modifications and brings a completely different energy to this trick: https://www.javibenitez.com/products/fol......-stream/

I have to admit that I was disappointed by this plot: I'd assumed that, each time the leaders would switch, *all* of the followers would switch, too. (That's what happens in the children's game as I remember.) I suppose it would be pretty hard to make that happen...


On the other hand, something like that happens in some of the tricks mentioned above; also in Vernon's original. On the first one or two switches, only one follower is shown to have followed. Then, just when the audience is wondering if the cards are just changing one at a time, the magi shows that all the remaining cards have switched.