Hi, Im new here so thought Id introduce myself.
My names Oli and I live in Bath, UK, where I lead an exciting double life as an underwriter by day and a magic enthusiast the rest of the time. Ahem.
It all started in the usual way. I was raised on the Paul Daniels magic show and my Dad would helpfully blurt out possible methods. The fact that all was not as it seemed was vaguely interesting and this indifference was moved up a notch when I permanently borrowed his copy of Sachs Sleight of Hand.
Sachs terse Victorian prose doesnt necessarily spring to mind as the perfect kids book on magic but, oddly enough, it had me hooked. The strange etchings and etiquette with the sheer variety of surreal (and oddly pointless) possibilities felt like discovering Narnia. It was a distinct style and realm to escape to and this is going to sound silly but having only that and half-remembered episodes of Paul Daniels to refer to, thats what I thought magic was like.
I had this odd idea that the magician was this bizarre out of time character like Doctor Who, wearing dated eccentric clothes and performing with old props in an oddly clipped way. My mums friend cut up a little dinner jacket for me and fitted it with the vertical pockets described in the book, along with a watch bag which I proceeded to ruin with over-enthusiastic hammering.
I blame this for my current financial situation, as Ive always picked up old books whenever I see them, as though theyve been delivered by providence to put me back in that wardrobe when Im supposed to be at work. Consequently, its all abit random with, Ive noticed recently, an unintentionally unhealthy avoidance of important, more recent, books.
My favourite old books are Sachs Sleight of Hand and Houdins Secrets of Conjuring and Magic (and the rest of them). I love how Houdin writes in a way that makes it very difficult to separate fact from fiction the perfect style for a magician. His style seems very similar to Dumas and Houdin reminds me abit of Edmond Dantes, creating his own legend - and that's the appeal I think: coz that's all of us, inside.
I also love to hear about all of the old vaudeville magicians, like Kellar and Thurston and Houdini and, over here, David Devant and John Nevill Maskelyne. This is another random connection but my Granddad used to own an antique clock shop, in Cheltenham where Im from. When I was older, I was walking past that same shop, when I saw one of those heritage plaques on the pillar next door, heralding the site of Maskelynes clock shop. I wished Id known that when I was younger!
A big current magic interest is mental card magic. It started with learning out of this world on a holiday camp from this guy who carried around a brief case stuffed with every conceivable type of gimmicked deck. I really like the kind of tricks Paul Curry came up with along this line and this also raises an interesting magical question.
I think a lot of people feel that magic effects should be very clearly sign posted: that what youre appearing to do should be easily understood and that the magician should appear to be directly responsible for each bit of magic that happens. This suggests that magic effects can and should be classified, eg if the magician produces a card from his wallet, its due to one distinct effect: either because he predicted it or misdirected the audiences attention, or mentally influenced the spectator to choose it.
The reverse approach appears to be the road less travelled, as its one of ambiguity. Instead of sign posting the effect, its left open to interpretation and the nature of this type of effect makes it difficult to attribute to one specific phenomena. Paul Curry and others seemed to pen many examples of this type of effect. Out Of This World maybe presented as the spectators latent psychic ability but this probably isnt how its actually perceived. Many are effects of coincidence or synchronicity both of which are oddly intangible and unexplainable as concepts. In any case, the audience may wonder whether the results are entirely down to the magician, their own receptiveness and/or some larger natural or mathematical phenomena.
One example of somebody who seems to adopt this approach is the ever-brilliant Derren Brown (how green am I, liking household names!). He drops little hints for people to pick up on but generally leaves the effect and method open to interpretation so, while youre sure, for example that all of those predictions were indeed written across that big role of paper, youre not sure how they got there. Were they predictions or influence or trickery? And I think its this open-endedness that makes that type of magic all the more compelling.
And this leads to my all time obsession Any Card At Any Number as I believe this is the epitome of that type of effect. As a prediction, it sucks and doesnt make sense, as you would simply remove a named card or a prediction of a number theres no reason why those two choices should coincide unless the effect is about them happening to coincide. And thats why it seems like the ultimate effect, because its about what playing cards physically are that they have different values and positions and possibilities.
I first became interested in this after reading Barrie Richardsons descriptions in his fantastic Theater of The Mind. Since then, its been my fair weather friend on long train journeys and duller moments at work. As a problem to solve, it seems both impossible and yet open to endless possibilitites and that, for me, is magic.
Anyway, thats probably enough self-indulgence for one evening, so Ill leave you in peace. Nice to meet you, good to be here and look forward to chatting further.
Cheers
Oli
Hi
-
Joe Mckay
- Posts: 2026
- Joined: April 13th, 2008, 6:56 am
- Favorite Magician: Lubor Fiedler
- Location: Durham, England
Re: Hi
Nice to see you here, Oli. I really enjoyed your introduction...
I too am very interested in the 'Any Card At Any Number' plot. My favourite approaches are some very clever stooge versions by Simon Aronson and Michael Close. They are clever because the presentation is structured so that you would swear that stooges are not being used. It nicely covers those 'tracks'. Still - I guess it is a bit of a 'cheat' method...
Another 'cheat' method I like is by Wayne Dobson. It makes sneaky use of a marked deck. Again - it is the presentation which makes all the difference. Because of the way it is scripted you would swear you were watching 'THE Berglas Effect'. I know for sure that if David Berglas had performed Wayne Dobson's version for me that I would have being convinced I had just seen the real deal. It is just so sneaky...
And speaking of Berglas. I hope we can learn alot more about his approach to this trick when Richard Kaufman publishes his book on David's card magic later this year (I hope?). I reckon David uses a couple of memorized decks (each deck in a different order). And then whilst jazzing with these two decks - and any others he borrows - he often can produce miraculous effects. Of which ANY CARD AT ANY NUMBER is one example. I mention this since I read in the Britland book that he often uses as many as six borrowed decks when performing for magicians. As such - I wonder if he slips in/switches in a couple of memorized decks as well along the way. And I am sure these stacks have crimps at the 26th card - which enables him to cut the deck exactly in half (or have the spectator do this) such that he can manoeuvre the required named cards into the correct position (one perhaps within one or two of the correct position). It is always easy to use the old 'and deal off the next card' after the named number of cards has being removed to get to the required card as well.
Also - when the situation arises - I feel he will improvise the effect so it becomes an entirely different one. For instance - one in which the named card is lying on top (or bottom) of the deck. Or is cut to by the spectator (when they cut at the crimp). Or is in a position to be spelled to by use of the spectator's name. Or appearing at the same time when the two decks are dealt in unision. Or when one deck is dealt from the top - and the other from the bottom. And so on. As such ACAAN is only one of the possible effects which may be achieved when in improvisation mode.
Whichever way is used - it is worth remembering that having two memorized decks in play (each in a different order) really helps open the way for the stumbling across of random miraculous effects. And all the above can be done with the deck held face-up instead of face-down. That helps double the number of possibilities as well...
Sometimes David produces a very strong ACAAN effect in which he will have a magician reach into (for example) a glove compartment of a car to find a deck of cards. With which he then performs ACAAN. In those instances - I feel he makes use of the thinking (and maybe some luck as well?) which can be found in Barrie Richardson's THIRTEEN DECK SOLUTION from THEATER OF THE MIND.
Gordon Bean has just published a book detailing some work in this area (although I think it may be a 'Card At Any Number' - as opposed to 'Any Card At Any Number'). It covers some variations by JK Hartman of an idea by Tomas Blomberg. I am really looking forward to checking that out as well...
On a separate point. I feel Guy Hollingworth's sneaky DUPLICATE SIGNATURE SCAM is worthy of mention. He uses it for a very strong 'Any Signed Card At Any Number'. Due to the principle involved it looks perfect. It is not ACAAN but it gives an effect which is probably just as strong as ACAAN.
One last tip. Lewis Jones has a very clever 'Card At Any Number'. It was published in a recent ebook collection. It is a clever reworking of the old 37 force which is used to achieve a very strong 'Any Card At Any Number'. That might not sound very tempting - but Lewis really has reworked this principle in a very clever way. Well worth checking out...
I like your thoughts about OUT OF THIS WORLD as well. You put your finger on something I have always felt (but without really thinking about). The trick really does have a number of possible effects. For example - is it coincidence, prediction, audience control and so on. I suppose it is fun to leave it up to the spectator to decide what the effect should be. Indeed different members of the same audience may experience different effects. A bit like the Kurosawa film 'Roshomon'...
The above reminds me of something that Max Maven and TA Waters has pointed out. It is quite easy for a mentalist to lose track of exactly what power is being demonstrated. Often the mentalist jumbles up precognition, synchronicity, coincidence, second-sight, prediction, mind-reading, divination and so on... I am guilty of this as well. So - it is easily done...
Sorry for the ramble...
And welcome.
Joe
I too am very interested in the 'Any Card At Any Number' plot. My favourite approaches are some very clever stooge versions by Simon Aronson and Michael Close. They are clever because the presentation is structured so that you would swear that stooges are not being used. It nicely covers those 'tracks'. Still - I guess it is a bit of a 'cheat' method...
Another 'cheat' method I like is by Wayne Dobson. It makes sneaky use of a marked deck. Again - it is the presentation which makes all the difference. Because of the way it is scripted you would swear you were watching 'THE Berglas Effect'. I know for sure that if David Berglas had performed Wayne Dobson's version for me that I would have being convinced I had just seen the real deal. It is just so sneaky...
And speaking of Berglas. I hope we can learn alot more about his approach to this trick when Richard Kaufman publishes his book on David's card magic later this year (I hope?). I reckon David uses a couple of memorized decks (each deck in a different order). And then whilst jazzing with these two decks - and any others he borrows - he often can produce miraculous effects. Of which ANY CARD AT ANY NUMBER is one example. I mention this since I read in the Britland book that he often uses as many as six borrowed decks when performing for magicians. As such - I wonder if he slips in/switches in a couple of memorized decks as well along the way. And I am sure these stacks have crimps at the 26th card - which enables him to cut the deck exactly in half (or have the spectator do this) such that he can manoeuvre the required named cards into the correct position (one perhaps within one or two of the correct position). It is always easy to use the old 'and deal off the next card' after the named number of cards has being removed to get to the required card as well.
Also - when the situation arises - I feel he will improvise the effect so it becomes an entirely different one. For instance - one in which the named card is lying on top (or bottom) of the deck. Or is cut to by the spectator (when they cut at the crimp). Or is in a position to be spelled to by use of the spectator's name. Or appearing at the same time when the two decks are dealt in unision. Or when one deck is dealt from the top - and the other from the bottom. And so on. As such ACAAN is only one of the possible effects which may be achieved when in improvisation mode.
Whichever way is used - it is worth remembering that having two memorized decks in play (each in a different order) really helps open the way for the stumbling across of random miraculous effects. And all the above can be done with the deck held face-up instead of face-down. That helps double the number of possibilities as well...
Sometimes David produces a very strong ACAAN effect in which he will have a magician reach into (for example) a glove compartment of a car to find a deck of cards. With which he then performs ACAAN. In those instances - I feel he makes use of the thinking (and maybe some luck as well?) which can be found in Barrie Richardson's THIRTEEN DECK SOLUTION from THEATER OF THE MIND.
Gordon Bean has just published a book detailing some work in this area (although I think it may be a 'Card At Any Number' - as opposed to 'Any Card At Any Number'). It covers some variations by JK Hartman of an idea by Tomas Blomberg. I am really looking forward to checking that out as well...
On a separate point. I feel Guy Hollingworth's sneaky DUPLICATE SIGNATURE SCAM is worthy of mention. He uses it for a very strong 'Any Signed Card At Any Number'. Due to the principle involved it looks perfect. It is not ACAAN but it gives an effect which is probably just as strong as ACAAN.
One last tip. Lewis Jones has a very clever 'Card At Any Number'. It was published in a recent ebook collection. It is a clever reworking of the old 37 force which is used to achieve a very strong 'Any Card At Any Number'. That might not sound very tempting - but Lewis really has reworked this principle in a very clever way. Well worth checking out...
I like your thoughts about OUT OF THIS WORLD as well. You put your finger on something I have always felt (but without really thinking about). The trick really does have a number of possible effects. For example - is it coincidence, prediction, audience control and so on. I suppose it is fun to leave it up to the spectator to decide what the effect should be. Indeed different members of the same audience may experience different effects. A bit like the Kurosawa film 'Roshomon'...
The above reminds me of something that Max Maven and TA Waters has pointed out. It is quite easy for a mentalist to lose track of exactly what power is being demonstrated. Often the mentalist jumbles up precognition, synchronicity, coincidence, second-sight, prediction, mind-reading, divination and so on... I am guilty of this as well. So - it is easily done...
Sorry for the ramble...
And welcome.
Joe
-
Oli Foster
- Posts: 110
- Joined: September 29th, 2010, 8:40 am
Re: Hi
Thanks both. Joe, you certainly gave me my money's worth on ACAAN! :)- cheers.
I know what you mean about stooges and having a bit of a 'dual reality'. I once tried a very unsophisticated version with a one-way force deck at my local club. The guy I wanted to fool named the number and dealt the cards and I think the reason it worked is because you tend to show the stuff you actually do and I hoped it wouldn't occur to him that I would resort to such a ridiculous method! It would fool me!
Really looking forward to Mr Kaufman's book too! It's interesting what you say about multiple decks as someone mentioned that Berglas appeared to range the number, as mentioned in Mind in Magic and then offered 'a choice of deck' If his choice of deck is anything like his choice of random object, this does indeed open it up.
And the crimped card as well means that you can make all positions "between one and ten" or otherwise, which I think is the best result in terms of invisibly limiting both selections.. I've just tagged some stupidly cryptic thoughts on this at the end of Richard's post about his book, but the devil's always in the detail isn't it!
I think you could limit multiple decks to four or perhaps slightly more, if you used Berglas' method to range the number combined with the subtlety of the card falling one after the named number. Imagine one deck is clubs with, for example:
Alternating Ace and two from positions one to ten
3 & 4 from 11 to 20
5 & 6 from 21 to 30
7 & 8 from 31 to 40
9 & 10 from 41 to 50
With the same order of values in each of the other three suits in the other three decks. (We can either eliminate court cards as "obvious" or use another deck or two.)
You could also use something like Kolossal Killer to reduce the number of decks, producing a named (for example, red) card from your wallet or have a number subsequently named if the selected card is black.
I'll check out your book selections and look forward to discussing further and also getting my hands on this new one!
Have you read John Born's Meant To Be? It's quite an interesting read and I was fooled by one of the two-deck handlings in it at his lecture, although he (perhaps tellingly) didn't use the main (seemingly fiddly) solution in that book. There's a review on Visions of a supplementary book called "flipshift" that looks like an improvement on that principle along the lines of Ken Krenzel's handling - sounds like it might be interesting.
I've got something I've been working on for a few years now, which is kind of like a "magic square" version of ACAAN. Basically three spectators each name a number and a fourth names a suit of card. The magician writes the selections down in a square as each one is named, drawing the suit.
On reading this square from left to right, a fifth spectator notices it resembles a two digit number and the name of a card, eg
2 7
3 (drawing of a club etc)
The spectator picks up a boxed deck and deals to this number to find the named card. It's abit weird, as you're breaking it down into the individual choices and the method is kind of the same as the effect (ie the deck is stacked to cover all possible combinations). I'm kind of sort of happy with it as something not intended to replicate the Berglas effect but this conversation's got me thinking that you could use the same principal when having a spectator simply name a card and number, and using the bits in Mind and Magic. Hmmmm....
Good talking to you.
Cheers
Oli
I know what you mean about stooges and having a bit of a 'dual reality'. I once tried a very unsophisticated version with a one-way force deck at my local club. The guy I wanted to fool named the number and dealt the cards and I think the reason it worked is because you tend to show the stuff you actually do and I hoped it wouldn't occur to him that I would resort to such a ridiculous method! It would fool me!
Really looking forward to Mr Kaufman's book too! It's interesting what you say about multiple decks as someone mentioned that Berglas appeared to range the number, as mentioned in Mind in Magic and then offered 'a choice of deck' If his choice of deck is anything like his choice of random object, this does indeed open it up.
And the crimped card as well means that you can make all positions "between one and ten" or otherwise, which I think is the best result in terms of invisibly limiting both selections.. I've just tagged some stupidly cryptic thoughts on this at the end of Richard's post about his book, but the devil's always in the detail isn't it!
I think you could limit multiple decks to four or perhaps slightly more, if you used Berglas' method to range the number combined with the subtlety of the card falling one after the named number. Imagine one deck is clubs with, for example:
Alternating Ace and two from positions one to ten
3 & 4 from 11 to 20
5 & 6 from 21 to 30
7 & 8 from 31 to 40
9 & 10 from 41 to 50
With the same order of values in each of the other three suits in the other three decks. (We can either eliminate court cards as "obvious" or use another deck or two.)
You could also use something like Kolossal Killer to reduce the number of decks, producing a named (for example, red) card from your wallet or have a number subsequently named if the selected card is black.
I'll check out your book selections and look forward to discussing further and also getting my hands on this new one!
Have you read John Born's Meant To Be? It's quite an interesting read and I was fooled by one of the two-deck handlings in it at his lecture, although he (perhaps tellingly) didn't use the main (seemingly fiddly) solution in that book. There's a review on Visions of a supplementary book called "flipshift" that looks like an improvement on that principle along the lines of Ken Krenzel's handling - sounds like it might be interesting.
I've got something I've been working on for a few years now, which is kind of like a "magic square" version of ACAAN. Basically three spectators each name a number and a fourth names a suit of card. The magician writes the selections down in a square as each one is named, drawing the suit.
On reading this square from left to right, a fifth spectator notices it resembles a two digit number and the name of a card, eg
2 7
3 (drawing of a club etc)
The spectator picks up a boxed deck and deals to this number to find the named card. It's abit weird, as you're breaking it down into the individual choices and the method is kind of the same as the effect (ie the deck is stacked to cover all possible combinations). I'm kind of sort of happy with it as something not intended to replicate the Berglas effect but this conversation's got me thinking that you could use the same principal when having a spectator simply name a card and number, and using the bits in Mind and Magic. Hmmmm....
Good talking to you.
Cheers
Oli
-
Richard Kaufman
- Posts: 27058
- Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
- Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
- Location: Washington DC
- Contact:
Re: Hi
Welcome, Oli. Good first post! I am in the last week of writing the David Berglas book, "The Berglas Effects." I'll finish by the night of October 5. At the moment it's 301 pages: should be 350 pages when the drawings are laid in. A lot of information.
I've been feeding text to David during the process, and he's been giving me corrections, and Earle Oakes has already drawn most of the illustrations.
Probably won't make it by the end of this year because of the work on the DVDs that will come with the book. My wife, who is editing the DVDs, tells me that I have to watch all 14 hours of footage we shot and log every single item before we can start editing. Damn and blast--there goes another month!
Oh--Joe, Berglas never spells to anything. Ever. Dislikes it.
I've been feeding text to David during the process, and he's been giving me corrections, and Earle Oakes has already drawn most of the illustrations.
Probably won't make it by the end of this year because of the work on the DVDs that will come with the book. My wife, who is editing the DVDs, tells me that I have to watch all 14 hours of footage we shot and log every single item before we can start editing. Damn and blast--there goes another month!
Oh--Joe, Berglas never spells to anything. Ever. Dislikes it.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
-
Oli Foster
- Posts: 110
- Joined: September 29th, 2010, 8:40 am
Re: Hi
Thanks Richard. Crikey, the suspense is killing me - and I don't mean that sarcastically! I had hoped some exceptionally generous person might buy me this for me for Christmas but I think I'll have to make it a new year's resolution instead!
I know what you mean about spelling - maybe it's a little "magicianly". Although, having said that, my friend Simon has an untouched named card spell that I can't begin to understand and I don't want to. I can see how it could be possible to spell to 12 or maybe even 24 cards but to have "a system" for the whole deck (unless I'm being taken for a ride!) Perhaps not quite the same as this Berglas Effect we're talking about but puzzling for magicians anyway!...
Novel idea to have DVDs as well and seems to cap it off. (that could take off for other magic combos too!) Well excited! Feels like you've written a book just for me!
Cheers
Oli
I know what you mean about spelling - maybe it's a little "magicianly". Although, having said that, my friend Simon has an untouched named card spell that I can't begin to understand and I don't want to. I can see how it could be possible to spell to 12 or maybe even 24 cards but to have "a system" for the whole deck (unless I'm being taken for a ride!) Perhaps not quite the same as this Berglas Effect we're talking about but puzzling for magicians anyway!...
Novel idea to have DVDs as well and seems to cap it off. (that could take off for other magic combos too!) Well excited! Feels like you've written a book just for me!
Cheers
Oli
-
Richard Kaufman
- Posts: 27058
- Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
- Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
- Location: Washington DC
- Contact:
Re: Hi
Forget about that business of cutting the deck as it comes out of the cardcase. It misses the point entirely.
The important thing to remember when David does "The Berglas Effect" is that he does not touch the deck. This is very important, and an integral part of much of his card work with a set-up deck in addition to "The Berglas Effect."
It's a great card trick if you handle the cards.
It's a MIRACLE if you don't
The important thing to remember when David does "The Berglas Effect" is that he does not touch the deck. This is very important, and an integral part of much of his card work with a set-up deck in addition to "The Berglas Effect."
It's a great card trick if you handle the cards.
It's a MIRACLE if you don't
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
-
Oli Foster
- Posts: 110
- Joined: September 29th, 2010, 8:40 am
Re: Hi
You certainly how to sell a book but my money was already yours on those two magic words, "Berglas Effect"! :)
Re: Hi
I can't see mention of David Britland's idea about ACAAN.
It's lovely. I fooled a few people at the castle with it.
It's lovely. I fooled a few people at the castle with it.
-
Richard Kaufman
- Posts: 27058
- Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
- Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
- Location: Washington DC
- Contact:
Re: Hi
Damian, which idea of Britland's? He's written quite a bit about ACAAN. Do you mean the one we published in Genii with the Reverse Sven?
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
Re: Hi
Yes, the reverse sven, sorry, missed out that tiny technical detail.
-
Joe Mckay
- Posts: 2026
- Joined: April 13th, 2008, 6:56 am
- Favorite Magician: Lubor Fiedler
- Location: Durham, England
Re: Hi
I find David Berglas to be a fascinating individual. One thing that sticks out is that he says he has never read a single magic book in his life. I remember Jerry Andrus (another genius) saying the same thing as well...
And for the sake of accuracy. I should point out that Berglas did say that someone once gave him a magic book and he kind of half-read it out of politeness. But - I still think the 'no magic books' claim still stands though...
It is a weird thing. But - I can well imagine that reading magic books can act as a subconsious limit on your magical creativity. Chan Canasta is another who seemed to largely overlook all that had being published before. This really comes across in David Britland's books on him. Some of the ideas he was working on didn't really work - but in those failures you can really see a brilliant mind at work. I am thinking here of his ideas to do with 'forcing' cards depending on the way the cards are dealt out in squares and other types of layouts...
Joe
And for the sake of accuracy. I should point out that Berglas did say that someone once gave him a magic book and he kind of half-read it out of politeness. But - I still think the 'no magic books' claim still stands though...
It is a weird thing. But - I can well imagine that reading magic books can act as a subconsious limit on your magical creativity. Chan Canasta is another who seemed to largely overlook all that had being published before. This really comes across in David Britland's books on him. Some of the ideas he was working on didn't really work - but in those failures you can really see a brilliant mind at work. I am thinking here of his ideas to do with 'forcing' cards depending on the way the cards are dealt out in squares and other types of layouts...
Joe
-
Joe Mckay
- Posts: 2026
- Joined: April 13th, 2008, 6:56 am
- Favorite Magician: Lubor Fiedler
- Location: Durham, England
Re: Hi
As for ACAAN - don't forget this interesting curiosity. It is a trick from 1921. And allows (in a leisurely fashion) for a 'Any Thought Of Card At Any Named Number'. By which I mean the card is never named. I first came across this trick in THE JAMES FILE and was impressed to see that it was one of the few card tricks that Winston Freer was a fan of.
How cool is that?
'Adamathica' by Bertram E Adams (1921)
Joe
How cool is that?
'Adamathica' by Bertram E Adams (1921)
Joe
-
Jonathan Townsend
- Posts: 8709
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: Westchester, NY
- Contact:
Re: Hi
Good morning,
I just read an astonishing abuse of language and the good will of the reader. In a textual discussion of the ACAAN plot involving a mental selection (that means "think of any card you want") I found, after several paragraphs, the following text: "forcing the total value of the four pocketed cards". Now since when is "put some cards in your pocket" a part of the dialog "think of any card in a normal pack of cards and a number between one and fifty two inclusive"?
I wish we, as a community, would abandon inaccurate effect/method format presentation of items into our literature.
Here's a format that looks promising:
Context
Specific merit
Advantages
Specific performance requirements
Specific logistical considerations
optional: avenues for further exploration.
We can do better,
Jon
Effect: After much convoluted fussing (please don't presume they will consider it amusing byplay) the performer displays a playing card which the audience conceeds...
I just read an astonishing abuse of language and the good will of the reader. In a textual discussion of the ACAAN plot involving a mental selection (that means "think of any card you want") I found, after several paragraphs, the following text: "forcing the total value of the four pocketed cards". Now since when is "put some cards in your pocket" a part of the dialog "think of any card in a normal pack of cards and a number between one and fifty two inclusive"?
I wish we, as a community, would abandon inaccurate effect/method format presentation of items into our literature.
Here's a format that looks promising:
Context
Specific merit
Advantages
Specific performance requirements
Specific logistical considerations
optional: avenues for further exploration.
We can do better,
Jon
Effect: After much convoluted fussing (please don't presume they will consider it amusing byplay) the performer displays a playing card which the audience conceeds...
-
Oli Foster
- Posts: 110
- Joined: September 29th, 2010, 8:40 am
Re: Hi
Yes, David Britland's cardoplois blog has lots of interesting versions of old tricks on it and quite a few interesting ACAAN variations, including the reverse svengali version, which has some really nice touches.
I tried a version of this using half of a one way force deck followed by 26 indifferent cards. The handling was pretty similar, in that you could spread from the face to show indifferent cards and have a spectator cut and replace a small packet from the top to select one. If they then named a number higher than 26, I'd have them cut the deck accordingly - which I think is important where they're physically looking at a card in the deck, as they KNOW the card isn't that far down. It lacked alot of the subtleties described, traded for ease, but I found it abit dissatisfying really - possibly for that reason.
I think it's fair to say that older card tricks were performed at a more leisurely place and more eccentric procedures (like multiple deals and addition etc) were more common place and probably accepted on the basis that, at the end of the day, it's a trick - something novel that happens, albeit inexplicably, when you follow that set procedure. Most magic books used to be written for the public and more people were aquainted with similar tricks themselves.
Nowadays, we want magic to seem universal and our stunts to seem like we could perform them in any conditions in a way that brings the nature of reality into question. I think there's a temptation underpinning this to take both magic and ourselves too seriously. I love well-presented powerful tricks but at the end of the day, I prefer magic that's fun and engaging. When thinking about solutions to ACAAN, it can be easy to lose sight of how ordinary people see it. Undue procedure can make it look like what we were referring to earlier - a trick with a set method. But at the same time, this can be both excused and even made compelling by an appropriate presentation.
There are undoubtedly very clean and clever ways to do ACAAN and I look forward to reading them but that doesn't automatically preclude variations on "the perfect effect", laborious as some of them may be.
I have a principal I don't think has been used for this effect(you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong) which enables you to control the mate of a selected card before that card is selected, meaning that you don't have to touch the cards, once the selection is made. This could be an example of an "unclean variation" that loses sight of the perception of the trick in the context of a routine. I wasn't thinking that when I put it together though. I think all I thought was, "that's neat!" Perhaps there are too many similar people saturating this market with rubbish. But there's no market without customers. There's nothing like abit of controversy!
Incidentally, I'd be very happy to post said variation here if it's of interest. Are we able to post attachments? If not, I can always copy and paste to the thread. How do we feel about posting full routines in this forum, provided there your own?
Cheers
Oli
I tried a version of this using half of a one way force deck followed by 26 indifferent cards. The handling was pretty similar, in that you could spread from the face to show indifferent cards and have a spectator cut and replace a small packet from the top to select one. If they then named a number higher than 26, I'd have them cut the deck accordingly - which I think is important where they're physically looking at a card in the deck, as they KNOW the card isn't that far down. It lacked alot of the subtleties described, traded for ease, but I found it abit dissatisfying really - possibly for that reason.
I think it's fair to say that older card tricks were performed at a more leisurely place and more eccentric procedures (like multiple deals and addition etc) were more common place and probably accepted on the basis that, at the end of the day, it's a trick - something novel that happens, albeit inexplicably, when you follow that set procedure. Most magic books used to be written for the public and more people were aquainted with similar tricks themselves.
Nowadays, we want magic to seem universal and our stunts to seem like we could perform them in any conditions in a way that brings the nature of reality into question. I think there's a temptation underpinning this to take both magic and ourselves too seriously. I love well-presented powerful tricks but at the end of the day, I prefer magic that's fun and engaging. When thinking about solutions to ACAAN, it can be easy to lose sight of how ordinary people see it. Undue procedure can make it look like what we were referring to earlier - a trick with a set method. But at the same time, this can be both excused and even made compelling by an appropriate presentation.
There are undoubtedly very clean and clever ways to do ACAAN and I look forward to reading them but that doesn't automatically preclude variations on "the perfect effect", laborious as some of them may be.
I have a principal I don't think has been used for this effect(you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong) which enables you to control the mate of a selected card before that card is selected, meaning that you don't have to touch the cards, once the selection is made. This could be an example of an "unclean variation" that loses sight of the perception of the trick in the context of a routine. I wasn't thinking that when I put it together though. I think all I thought was, "that's neat!" Perhaps there are too many similar people saturating this market with rubbish. But there's no market without customers. There's nothing like abit of controversy!
Incidentally, I'd be very happy to post said variation here if it's of interest. Are we able to post attachments? If not, I can always copy and paste to the thread. How do we feel about posting full routines in this forum, provided there your own?
Cheers
Oli
-
Jonathan Townsend
- Posts: 8709
- Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
- Location: Westchester, NY
- Contact:
Re: Hi
Good morning Oli,
I've seen and posted full items here so it should be okay. The only caveat so far seems to be direct discussion of an item on the market. Interesting applications of principles to tricks can yield unexpected reactions in performance and inspire further work from there. If you've got something that might be of interest or utility - yes please.
The internet is starting to do a pretty good job of making sure material is analyzed and vetted even if after the fact of its publication.
Perhaps you could cut/paste the work into a post here at genii or if it's a much larger item maybe our host/publisher would like it for an article.
Best wishes,
Jon
I've seen and posted full items here so it should be okay. The only caveat so far seems to be direct discussion of an item on the market. Interesting applications of principles to tricks can yield unexpected reactions in performance and inspire further work from there. If you've got something that might be of interest or utility - yes please.
The internet is starting to do a pretty good job of making sure material is analyzed and vetted even if after the fact of its publication.
Perhaps you could cut/paste the work into a post here at genii or if it's a much larger item maybe our host/publisher would like it for an article.
Best wishes,
Jon
-
Richard Kaufman
- Posts: 27058
- Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
- Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
- Location: Washington DC
- Contact:
Re: Hi
Oli, we welcome the publication of methods here. I am not the least bit concerned about laymen reading this--they don't, and could care less.
There is no way to post attachments: just paste your routine into the message box.
There is no way to post attachments: just paste your routine into the message box.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
-
Joe Mckay
- Posts: 2026
- Joined: April 13th, 2008, 6:56 am
- Favorite Magician: Lubor Fiedler
- Location: Durham, England
Re: Hi
Just to follow on from Jon's post.
The original ADAMATHICA does not involve the force of a number. Any number can be freely named. My link to David Britland's variation does involve the force of a number (I should have double checked that before posting the link). But - the original version does not include that.
I assume David introduces the force of the number to save the memorization (or crib sheet) which is required in the original to work out in which order the piles need to be re-stacked in.
I do think ADAMATHICA is interesting (from the point of view of the method - in a Stewart James kind of way). But I also agree it is a pretty awful trick as well. One thing I have often wondered would be if a robot could be designed which could do the dealing/re-dealing incredibly quickly such that the effect could take place in seconds instead of minutes. That might make for a strong ACAAN effect.
But this probably just wishful thinking...
Joe
The original ADAMATHICA does not involve the force of a number. Any number can be freely named. My link to David Britland's variation does involve the force of a number (I should have double checked that before posting the link). But - the original version does not include that.
I assume David introduces the force of the number to save the memorization (or crib sheet) which is required in the original to work out in which order the piles need to be re-stacked in.
I do think ADAMATHICA is interesting (from the point of view of the method - in a Stewart James kind of way). But I also agree it is a pretty awful trick as well. One thing I have often wondered would be if a robot could be designed which could do the dealing/re-dealing incredibly quickly such that the effect could take place in seconds instead of minutes. That might make for a strong ACAAN effect.
But this probably just wishful thinking...
Joe
-
Oli Foster
- Posts: 110
- Joined: September 29th, 2010, 8:40 am
Re: Hi
On a completely unrelated note, went to see Michael Ammar's lecture in Bristol yesterday. It was the first time I'd seen him live and all I can say is absolutely brilliant! Fantastic magic fantastically taught, all really good stuff. If the lecture goes anywhere near you, go and see it!
Anyway, I realise I'm probably teaching my grandmothers to suck eggs here, so please try not to feel to patronised by what follows. Any criticism/feedback much appreciated.
Any Mate At Any Number
Effect
The magician asks a spectator to name a number under 40. She names the number 23. A deck of cards is spread face up and the spectator is asked to think of and remove any card she likes and to place it face down on the table. She removes the five of diamonds.
The magician now remarks that every card in the deck has a mate: a card which is identical in value and colour for example the two black sixes. Somewhere in the deck (which the spectator is still holding) is the mate of the card she just selected and this matching card could now be at any position in the deck, depending on which card she chose.
However, what would be really strange is if the spectator somehow knew the exact location of this matching card and had, in fact known this before she even chose a card. The magician states that he will not touch the deck and asks the spectator to count twenty three cards off the top of the deck and to place the twenty third card next to the face down selection she removed earlier.
Under these conditions, it would take nothing short of a one-in-fifty-two coincidence for the two cards to match. Despite this, when the spectator turns the cards over, she finds that they do indeed match the two red fives!
Uses a complete deck of fifty two cards, no memory work and no sleight of hand!
Set-up
This trick uses a novel application of a cyclic stack, which bizarrely enables you to control the mate of a chosen card to a chosen position before the card is chosen. Remove thirteen matching pairs (ie twenty six cards) of a random selection of different values, so for each of the thirteen values you have two cards of the same colour. Decide on a sequence for these thirteen values and create two piles with a matching card in the same position in each pile. For example, the two piles might contain:
First Pile Second Pile
1) Six of Hearts 1) Six of Diamonds
2) Queen of Clubs 2) Queen of Spades
3) Five of Diamonds 3) Five of Hearts
4) Nine of Spades 4) Nine of Clubs
5) King of Hearts 5) King of Diamonds
6) Three of Clubs 6) Three of Spades
7) Ace of Diamonds 7) Ace of Hearts
8) Eight of Spades 8) Eight of Clubs
9) Jack of Clubs 9) Jack of Spades
10) Ten of Hearts 10) Ten of Diamonds
11) Two of Diamonds 11) Two of Hearts
12) Four of Clubs 12) Four of Spades
13) Seven of Hearts 13) Seven of Diamonds
The only thing you need to remember about these cycles is the value and colour of the first and last card, in this case the two red sevens on top (from the face) and the two red sixes at the bottom. (think of it as God, 7, above and Satan, 6 below - both red from a furious battle). Place the first pile on top of the second pile to form a pile of twenty six cards. You should have 26 indifferent cards left over. Place thirteen of these on top of the pile and thirteen on the face. The complete deck of fifty two cards therefore runs: 13 indifferent cards, followed by first cycle of thirteen cards, second cycle of thirteen cards, 13 indifferent cards.
Basic principle
Look back at those two piles of thirteen cards. Imagine placing one pile on top of the other to create a single pile of twenty six cards and just forget about the rest of the deck for the moment. If you were to give this twenty-six-card-pile a single cut, youd find that the thirteenth card in the pile would match whichever card youd cut to the top. Thats a feature of a cycle that each card is the same distance from a card of matching value - but here we stray a little.
Imagine that you didnt want to find a matching card at the thirteenth position but preferred the fourteenth spot in the deck. All you would need to do to achieve this would be to place an indifferent card between the two cycles. This indifferent card would place one more card between whichever card you cut to the top and the second cycle that the matching card is found in. If you preferred fifteen, you would add another, likewise with sixteen etc. Youll see that in this way, you can control the position of the mate of any card (in the cycle) before it is selected.
Thats the basic principle at work in this trick, which is disguised by the routine. Obviously there are restrictions to the choice of card and number: One of the thirteen cards in the cycle must be selected and the number chosen must be between thirteen and forty. However, youll see that both of these points are going to fly by.
Handling
As above, you first need a number between thirteen and forty but, to make this sound less particular, start by asking a spectator to name a two-digit number under forty. Tell her that its really important that she remembers this number shes chosen as youll use it for something later, so ask her to fix it in her mind by imagining she can see it projected on a small square screen in front of her. There are three reasons you ask her to do this that go beyond presentation. The first is that you genuinely dont want her to forget the number.
The second is that you will later try to convince her that she merely thought of a number by reminding her of this visual image in her mind. And the third is that it buys you a second to do the only small piece of mental arithmetic that makes the trick work, as follows:
- If the spectators chosen number is lower than twenty six, subtract 13. They will later count the cards from the face of the deck.
- If the spectators chosen number is higher than twenty six, subtract twenty six. They will later count from the top of the deck.
The result of this subtraction gives you the number of cards youll need to place between the two stacks of thirteen cards in order to bring the mate of a card the spectator will later choose to the number theyve just named. The idea of secretly controlling a particular number of cards to a particular position in the deck sounds very fiddly. In fact it isnt and doesnt even require any sleight of hand.
In this example, the spectator has named the number twenty three. As this number is lower than twenty six, we subtract thirteen, which means that well now have to place ten cards between the two cycles to bring the mate of the spectators chosen card to the twenty third position.
These ten cards are counted off the face of the deck in the action of spreading the cards to show that they are all different and then to have one thought of and remembered. Hold the deck face up in your left hand and, as you start to spread the cards, thumb the top three overlapping cards from left to right, onto your right fingertips. Continue to spread the next three cards, mentally counting three, six and then the next three, nine, and one more is ten.
Counting the cards in groups of three as theyre spread is quick and natural, as you will only have to count a maximum of four groups of three. When you have spread off your desired number of cards, ten in this case, slightly right-jog this counted pile so that you can clearly see the next card beneath it. Note this card and leave it protruding slightly more than the others as you continue spreading to show a complete deck of 52 different cards.
The next key youre looking for is the first red seven (God above), which in this case, will follow three cards later. When you reach this 7, slightly square up all of the cards above it so that none of the preceeding individual cards can really be distinguished, with the exception of the card you left protruding a moment ago. This 7 and the following twelve cards form the cycle from which the spectator will make her selection but you dont need to count them. Continue to spread the cards from left to right, keeping your sighted card protruding and saying, please just think of and remember any card you see here in the deck.
Continue to spread the cards until you reach the first red 6 (Satan below) The range of cards for selection should appear very broad as you have carelessly spread half the deck before the spectator to have one thought of. When the spectator confirms that she is thinking of one of the cards she sees, casually cut off the packet above the card you left protruding. This packet contains ten cards in this example. The rest of the deck is not yet squared and, before you go to square it, insert the ten card packet beneath the red 6 at the back of the spread. Its just a thoughtless cut thats meaningless at this point because the spectator hasnt chosen a card yet (other than simply thinking of it) but this single cut has just placed the mate of their thought-of selection at their predicted number.
Square up the deck and hand it to the spectator. Ask her to concentrate on her card and, to help her burn an image of the card in her mind, she is to run through the cards, cut her card to the face of the deck and stare at it for a few seconds against the deck, without showing anyone else. This is basically a pretext to have her cut the deck. When shes done this, as an afterthought, ask her to actually remove the card and place it face down on the table.
Believe it or not, regardless of which card shes just removed, its mate now rests at the named number in the deck without you having to go anywhere near it again. The trick is over but it appears to have only just begun. Explain to the spectator that the reason you asked her to think of a card and then remove it was because you wanted her to be absolutely sure that she had a completely free choice of card, rather than just blindly taking one from a face down deck.
Casually continue that the reason you are able to give her a free choice of card is that every card in the deck is the same in one respect: every card has a mate one single other card of the same colour and value. Give an example of the two black sixes (as she cant have chosen either of these). So regardless of what card she chose, a matching card is to be found somewhere in the deck.
Here you lie, although what you say sounds completely truthful and self-evident: The position of this matching card will depend on the card you chose. For example, you might have chosen a card which is the mate of the top card of the deck, or one that matches the second card, or the fifty-second card or the matching card might, in fact, rest at any of the fifty two positions in the deck, as it entirely depends on what card you chose and we agree that the card you chose was a free choice.
But heres the weird thing: What if I somehow knew the exact location of this matching card without looking? That might look like a trick so what if it wasnt me who knew this random piece of information but you? And what if youd known it all along? before you even chose a card?... Hopefully the audience will be ahead of you at this point and eagerly anticipate what is about to happen, the more so the better, as you have nothing left to do.
Earlier on you thought of a number and visualised it in your mind before you chose a card. What number did you think of? By phrasing it like this, theres a reasonable chance that the spectator might forget that she ever named the number as she remembered it in the same way as she later remembered a card. Distorting this memory creates an even stronger effect as you literally dont appear to have had any opportunity to have manipulated the cards. Wouldnt it be strange if that number was the position of the matching card? Being a magician, if I could handle the cards, I might be able to make that the case. But heres the thing: I dont want to go anywhere near them!
Now ask the spectator to count the cards face up either from the top or the face of the deck, depending on whether her number is higher or lower than twenty six respectively. Berglas it aint, but just a little piece of weird...
I'd love to hear what you think!
Cheers
Oli
Anyway, I realise I'm probably teaching my grandmothers to suck eggs here, so please try not to feel to patronised by what follows. Any criticism/feedback much appreciated.
Any Mate At Any Number
Effect
The magician asks a spectator to name a number under 40. She names the number 23. A deck of cards is spread face up and the spectator is asked to think of and remove any card she likes and to place it face down on the table. She removes the five of diamonds.
The magician now remarks that every card in the deck has a mate: a card which is identical in value and colour for example the two black sixes. Somewhere in the deck (which the spectator is still holding) is the mate of the card she just selected and this matching card could now be at any position in the deck, depending on which card she chose.
However, what would be really strange is if the spectator somehow knew the exact location of this matching card and had, in fact known this before she even chose a card. The magician states that he will not touch the deck and asks the spectator to count twenty three cards off the top of the deck and to place the twenty third card next to the face down selection she removed earlier.
Under these conditions, it would take nothing short of a one-in-fifty-two coincidence for the two cards to match. Despite this, when the spectator turns the cards over, she finds that they do indeed match the two red fives!
Uses a complete deck of fifty two cards, no memory work and no sleight of hand!
Set-up
This trick uses a novel application of a cyclic stack, which bizarrely enables you to control the mate of a chosen card to a chosen position before the card is chosen. Remove thirteen matching pairs (ie twenty six cards) of a random selection of different values, so for each of the thirteen values you have two cards of the same colour. Decide on a sequence for these thirteen values and create two piles with a matching card in the same position in each pile. For example, the two piles might contain:
First Pile Second Pile
1) Six of Hearts 1) Six of Diamonds
2) Queen of Clubs 2) Queen of Spades
3) Five of Diamonds 3) Five of Hearts
4) Nine of Spades 4) Nine of Clubs
5) King of Hearts 5) King of Diamonds
6) Three of Clubs 6) Three of Spades
7) Ace of Diamonds 7) Ace of Hearts
8) Eight of Spades 8) Eight of Clubs
9) Jack of Clubs 9) Jack of Spades
10) Ten of Hearts 10) Ten of Diamonds
11) Two of Diamonds 11) Two of Hearts
12) Four of Clubs 12) Four of Spades
13) Seven of Hearts 13) Seven of Diamonds
The only thing you need to remember about these cycles is the value and colour of the first and last card, in this case the two red sevens on top (from the face) and the two red sixes at the bottom. (think of it as God, 7, above and Satan, 6 below - both red from a furious battle). Place the first pile on top of the second pile to form a pile of twenty six cards. You should have 26 indifferent cards left over. Place thirteen of these on top of the pile and thirteen on the face. The complete deck of fifty two cards therefore runs: 13 indifferent cards, followed by first cycle of thirteen cards, second cycle of thirteen cards, 13 indifferent cards.
Basic principle
Look back at those two piles of thirteen cards. Imagine placing one pile on top of the other to create a single pile of twenty six cards and just forget about the rest of the deck for the moment. If you were to give this twenty-six-card-pile a single cut, youd find that the thirteenth card in the pile would match whichever card youd cut to the top. Thats a feature of a cycle that each card is the same distance from a card of matching value - but here we stray a little.
Imagine that you didnt want to find a matching card at the thirteenth position but preferred the fourteenth spot in the deck. All you would need to do to achieve this would be to place an indifferent card between the two cycles. This indifferent card would place one more card between whichever card you cut to the top and the second cycle that the matching card is found in. If you preferred fifteen, you would add another, likewise with sixteen etc. Youll see that in this way, you can control the position of the mate of any card (in the cycle) before it is selected.
Thats the basic principle at work in this trick, which is disguised by the routine. Obviously there are restrictions to the choice of card and number: One of the thirteen cards in the cycle must be selected and the number chosen must be between thirteen and forty. However, youll see that both of these points are going to fly by.
Handling
As above, you first need a number between thirteen and forty but, to make this sound less particular, start by asking a spectator to name a two-digit number under forty. Tell her that its really important that she remembers this number shes chosen as youll use it for something later, so ask her to fix it in her mind by imagining she can see it projected on a small square screen in front of her. There are three reasons you ask her to do this that go beyond presentation. The first is that you genuinely dont want her to forget the number.
The second is that you will later try to convince her that she merely thought of a number by reminding her of this visual image in her mind. And the third is that it buys you a second to do the only small piece of mental arithmetic that makes the trick work, as follows:
- If the spectators chosen number is lower than twenty six, subtract 13. They will later count the cards from the face of the deck.
- If the spectators chosen number is higher than twenty six, subtract twenty six. They will later count from the top of the deck.
The result of this subtraction gives you the number of cards youll need to place between the two stacks of thirteen cards in order to bring the mate of a card the spectator will later choose to the number theyve just named. The idea of secretly controlling a particular number of cards to a particular position in the deck sounds very fiddly. In fact it isnt and doesnt even require any sleight of hand.
In this example, the spectator has named the number twenty three. As this number is lower than twenty six, we subtract thirteen, which means that well now have to place ten cards between the two cycles to bring the mate of the spectators chosen card to the twenty third position.
These ten cards are counted off the face of the deck in the action of spreading the cards to show that they are all different and then to have one thought of and remembered. Hold the deck face up in your left hand and, as you start to spread the cards, thumb the top three overlapping cards from left to right, onto your right fingertips. Continue to spread the next three cards, mentally counting three, six and then the next three, nine, and one more is ten.
Counting the cards in groups of three as theyre spread is quick and natural, as you will only have to count a maximum of four groups of three. When you have spread off your desired number of cards, ten in this case, slightly right-jog this counted pile so that you can clearly see the next card beneath it. Note this card and leave it protruding slightly more than the others as you continue spreading to show a complete deck of 52 different cards.
The next key youre looking for is the first red seven (God above), which in this case, will follow three cards later. When you reach this 7, slightly square up all of the cards above it so that none of the preceeding individual cards can really be distinguished, with the exception of the card you left protruding a moment ago. This 7 and the following twelve cards form the cycle from which the spectator will make her selection but you dont need to count them. Continue to spread the cards from left to right, keeping your sighted card protruding and saying, please just think of and remember any card you see here in the deck.
Continue to spread the cards until you reach the first red 6 (Satan below) The range of cards for selection should appear very broad as you have carelessly spread half the deck before the spectator to have one thought of. When the spectator confirms that she is thinking of one of the cards she sees, casually cut off the packet above the card you left protruding. This packet contains ten cards in this example. The rest of the deck is not yet squared and, before you go to square it, insert the ten card packet beneath the red 6 at the back of the spread. Its just a thoughtless cut thats meaningless at this point because the spectator hasnt chosen a card yet (other than simply thinking of it) but this single cut has just placed the mate of their thought-of selection at their predicted number.
Square up the deck and hand it to the spectator. Ask her to concentrate on her card and, to help her burn an image of the card in her mind, she is to run through the cards, cut her card to the face of the deck and stare at it for a few seconds against the deck, without showing anyone else. This is basically a pretext to have her cut the deck. When shes done this, as an afterthought, ask her to actually remove the card and place it face down on the table.
Believe it or not, regardless of which card shes just removed, its mate now rests at the named number in the deck without you having to go anywhere near it again. The trick is over but it appears to have only just begun. Explain to the spectator that the reason you asked her to think of a card and then remove it was because you wanted her to be absolutely sure that she had a completely free choice of card, rather than just blindly taking one from a face down deck.
Casually continue that the reason you are able to give her a free choice of card is that every card in the deck is the same in one respect: every card has a mate one single other card of the same colour and value. Give an example of the two black sixes (as she cant have chosen either of these). So regardless of what card she chose, a matching card is to be found somewhere in the deck.
Here you lie, although what you say sounds completely truthful and self-evident: The position of this matching card will depend on the card you chose. For example, you might have chosen a card which is the mate of the top card of the deck, or one that matches the second card, or the fifty-second card or the matching card might, in fact, rest at any of the fifty two positions in the deck, as it entirely depends on what card you chose and we agree that the card you chose was a free choice.
But heres the weird thing: What if I somehow knew the exact location of this matching card without looking? That might look like a trick so what if it wasnt me who knew this random piece of information but you? And what if youd known it all along? before you even chose a card?... Hopefully the audience will be ahead of you at this point and eagerly anticipate what is about to happen, the more so the better, as you have nothing left to do.
Earlier on you thought of a number and visualised it in your mind before you chose a card. What number did you think of? By phrasing it like this, theres a reasonable chance that the spectator might forget that she ever named the number as she remembered it in the same way as she later remembered a card. Distorting this memory creates an even stronger effect as you literally dont appear to have had any opportunity to have manipulated the cards. Wouldnt it be strange if that number was the position of the matching card? Being a magician, if I could handle the cards, I might be able to make that the case. But heres the thing: I dont want to go anywhere near them!
Now ask the spectator to count the cards face up either from the top or the face of the deck, depending on whether her number is higher or lower than twenty six respectively. Berglas it aint, but just a little piece of weird...
I'd love to hear what you think!
Cheers
Oli
Re: Hi
Greetings and thanks for joining us. We are sure you will enjoy it here.
-
Oli Foster
- Posts: 110
- Joined: September 29th, 2010, 8:40 am
Re: Hi
Thanks guys. Great to be here and look forward to chatting further.
Cheers
Olo
Cheers
Olo
-
Joe Mckay
- Posts: 2026
- Joined: April 13th, 2008, 6:56 am
- Favorite Magician: Lubor Fiedler
- Location: Durham, England
Re: Hi
Hi Oli,
Congratulations on the above post. It is the bigeest I have seen. I am going to print off the trick and play with it. But - from what I read so far it looks good...
Thanks for sharing.
Joe
Congratulations on the above post. It is the bigeest I have seen. I am going to print off the trick and play with it. But - from what I read so far it looks good...
Thanks for sharing.
Joe
-
Oli Foster
- Posts: 110
- Joined: September 29th, 2010, 8:40 am
Re: Hi
Thanks Joe,
Yes, the moral of this story is don't get me started on ACAAN - I don't shut up!
It's also recently occurred to me that you could use a Si Stebbins stack to find a mate at a named number, as it automatically places the mate of any cut-to card, 26th from the top. If you request a number, "somewhere in the middle" before you have a card cut to and removed, it's an easy matter to sight the face card before controlling the small balance. Identifying the removed card then creates a little bit of time delay to distance you from the deck - and this also seems abit psychologically easier than remembering the above - albeit not as clean in terms of not touching the cards.
For a more conventional routine, I've tried breather crimping and marking the 13th, 26th and 39th card in a stack running from the face. This means you only need to add the position of the card in the stack to the named number and cut to one of the three crimped keys nearest to that point.
This way, you're only a maximum of six cards away from any position and there are two points where you can move this small balance of cards The first is after the card and number are named - thumb/spread count the balance from the top or bottom as required and either palm them off or execute a pass at this point.
Or, the easier method is after cutting to the key, spread the balance away from the key as you raise the cards to face the spectator, with the slightly hackneyed, "a deck of 52 cards" briefly flashing the faces and inserting a break at the required point.
The former method is probably better though as it means you can then try to have the spectator cut to the breather-crimped card, indicating, "cut off a few/about half/a nice lot of cards" If you hold the deck (holding a break) while they do this, it doesn't matter if they cut off too few.
Charlier cut at the break and have them insert their packet "in the middle of the deck". Although the cards appear to have been cut, they've actually placed their cut off cards back on top of the deck whilst you've simultaneously cut to the right point. If you're not keen on a charlier cut, a conventional cut onto the table will do the same job.
Have them deal the cards face up to retain their order and it instantly resets by cutting the first card of the stack back to the face of the deck.
I was kind of happy with this method, even though it ignores the idea of not touching the deck because it's quick and does the job.
Mind and Magic says Berlas used a crimped 26th card and, as he can work out the position of a named card from either end of the stack and be one - or even a few cards out, you could probably have just as small a balance using that method.
If we could devise, say 3 logical outs for moving a maximum of say three or four cards, each with the same result, I'm reasonably convinced we'd come up with a similar method...
Yep, I've just proved my own point about not shutting up...
Cheers
Oli
Yes, the moral of this story is don't get me started on ACAAN - I don't shut up!
It's also recently occurred to me that you could use a Si Stebbins stack to find a mate at a named number, as it automatically places the mate of any cut-to card, 26th from the top. If you request a number, "somewhere in the middle" before you have a card cut to and removed, it's an easy matter to sight the face card before controlling the small balance. Identifying the removed card then creates a little bit of time delay to distance you from the deck - and this also seems abit psychologically easier than remembering the above - albeit not as clean in terms of not touching the cards.
For a more conventional routine, I've tried breather crimping and marking the 13th, 26th and 39th card in a stack running from the face. This means you only need to add the position of the card in the stack to the named number and cut to one of the three crimped keys nearest to that point.
This way, you're only a maximum of six cards away from any position and there are two points where you can move this small balance of cards The first is after the card and number are named - thumb/spread count the balance from the top or bottom as required and either palm them off or execute a pass at this point.
Or, the easier method is after cutting to the key, spread the balance away from the key as you raise the cards to face the spectator, with the slightly hackneyed, "a deck of 52 cards" briefly flashing the faces and inserting a break at the required point.
The former method is probably better though as it means you can then try to have the spectator cut to the breather-crimped card, indicating, "cut off a few/about half/a nice lot of cards" If you hold the deck (holding a break) while they do this, it doesn't matter if they cut off too few.
Charlier cut at the break and have them insert their packet "in the middle of the deck". Although the cards appear to have been cut, they've actually placed their cut off cards back on top of the deck whilst you've simultaneously cut to the right point. If you're not keen on a charlier cut, a conventional cut onto the table will do the same job.
Have them deal the cards face up to retain their order and it instantly resets by cutting the first card of the stack back to the face of the deck.
I was kind of happy with this method, even though it ignores the idea of not touching the deck because it's quick and does the job.
Mind and Magic says Berlas used a crimped 26th card and, as he can work out the position of a named card from either end of the stack and be one - or even a few cards out, you could probably have just as small a balance using that method.
If we could devise, say 3 logical outs for moving a maximum of say three or four cards, each with the same result, I'm reasonably convinced we'd come up with a similar method...
Yep, I've just proved my own point about not shutting up...
Cheers
Oli