Any Card at Any Number discrepancies

Richard Kaufman · Postby **Richard Kaufman** » July 19th, 2006, 4:49 pm

I have seen Berglas perform the card at any number once, and a similar effect, where I cut the deck and my thought-of card was at the cutting point, once.

In both cases the deck was not brought out until after I had named my thought-of card and, in the former case, a thought-of number.

I can state this without question because Berglas made a point of asking me to remember the sequence of events so I could correctly recount it later.

John Born was selling a nicely-published book on this subject at the IBM convention in Miami a few weeks ago. Anyone out there read it?

David Scollnik · Postby **David Scollnik** » July 19th, 2006, 7:36 pm

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:

John Born was selling a nicely-published book on this subject at the IBM convention in Miami a few weeks ago. Anyone out there read it?

No, but I recently ordered a copy from here:

http://www.products.johnborn.com/products.htm

Guest · Postby **Guest** » July 19th, 2006, 11:36 pm

Originally posted by Bill Nagler:
40 years ago in London, Martin Breese ran an ad for the Berglas Effect, Any card at any number. The deck is out at the top. No stooge. No force. No switch. The spectator names a card. The spectator names a number. The spectator uncases the deck. The spectator counts. The card is there. The effect is 50 pounds, $100 at the time, more than $1000 today. Sales are limited to 100 orders. Breese gets 100 orders. Goodliffe dies, the deal falls apart, and Martin refunds everyone's money. Except for Steve Martin, yes that Steve Martin, because hes gotten famous and Martin cant find him. Martin Breese and David Berglas do not speak for almost 20 years.

20 years later, Martin Breese is at David Berglass home in North London. Berglas hands Breese a deck. Martin is vehement, vehement the deck is out at the top. No stooges, no force, no switch. Breese names a card. Breese names a number. The card is there. Breese turns on a tape recorder. For the next 3 hours, Berglas talks. He tips it all, every detail, every nuance, every subtlety the whole thing. A week later, Martin sends Berglas a CD of the recording. 2 days later, Berglas calls Breese and tells him to hold off. Berglas is writing a book, which reveals the secret of the Berglas Effect. The book comes out. Its not there. To this day, no one on earth has heard the contents of that recording, other than Martin Breese and David Berglas. The master sits in a safe in Martin Breeses home in Brighton. This really, really bugs me. Berglas wont release the effect - twice. Breese wont talk.

I'm curious about the dates given in this account.

-- Surely Martin Breese wasn't a magic dealer 40 years ago as far back as 1966? And in 1966, 50 pounds really was a lot of money.

-- 20 years after 1966 would be 1986, which seems a little early for CD recording technology - I'm pretty sure Martin was still into Magicassettes at that time.

-- Goodliffe died in 1980. http://www.pmhcpath.demon.co.uk/abra/page8.html

-- The Berglas File was published in 1976. http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post ... ?id=143269

By the way, here are a couple of related discussions:

http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post ... ?id=143269

http://geniimagazine.com/forum/cgi-bin/ ... 6;t=000750

Guest · Postby **Guest** » July 20th, 2006, 4:23 am

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
John Born was selling a nicely-published book on this subject at the IBM convention in Miami a few weeks ago. Anyone out there read it?

Yes. The main feature of the book, John Born's method, is quite good and sort of a finessed version of the general principle used Krenzel's method from "Close-Up Impact!". While it looks fair, the magician still has to touch the deck.

Since Berglas is a fan of stooges, maybe he has a deck of 52 cards, each of them with the words "Please play along and tell everybody this effect worked" written on the face :-)

Bill Nagler's story seems to be discrepant on so many levels that somebody should clearify or correct it...

Denis

Guest · Postby **Guest** » July 20th, 2006, 3:32 pm

Anyone got a method that can stand up to a repeat or two?

This seems a great way to warm up an audience to card magic, treating the deck as an oracle.

Steve Bryant · Postby **Steve Bryant** » July 20th, 2006, 3:53 pm

My favorite is J.K. Hartman's "Patent Portent," from the December 1999 issue of Genii. It's an anywhere anytime (no stack, etc.) impromptu miracle. And virtually no sleights: it's practically self-working. You just need some management.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » July 20th, 2006, 11:02 pm

Hi Steve,

Self working is always good! I'm with you.

There is a self working version in John Born's new book. I don't want to tip it but it's in there. : )

It could stand up to a repeat performance for sure although i'm not sure why you would want to. Unless of course you mean if someone came to see your show the next night. In that case I believe it would hurt even worse.

All the best,

Kranzo

Guest · Postby **Guest** » July 23rd, 2006, 3:19 am

Well,
i think that this thread has gone a little off topic.
I think it is difficult to arrive at some kind of conclusion.
Well, i know there are other methods of the "any card at any number", but the original one is by Mr.Berglas.
And as Mr.Kaufman stated, he named ANY card.. then he named ANY number, and then HE HIMSELF took the deck out of the pack and counted to that number.
Well, as he said, the card he chose was at the position he chose.
This is a great and stunning effect.
The only problem is that this effect is not explained in the Brtiland book.
But other variations are explained.
So to this day, i really don't understand why to explain a different trick!!
This remains a mystery to me.
It feels a little misdirecting.
For me, it is better not to explain a thing, if the alternative is to explain a DIFFERENT THING!
And i think magicians and amateurs of magic who purchased the book, wanted THE REAL THING, THE REAL ANY CARD AT ANY NUMBER.
Not a fake.
And i really don't understand why the need to explain a fake or a deviation from the real thing.
It would have sufficed to recount the trick, and at the end to write in the book that the method couldn't be explained.
Opinions and disagreements of yours are welcome.
Crim
P.S:It's like writing in a cooking book a recipie for an apple pie, while in reality the original pie is a cherry pie!!

NCMarsh · Postby **NCMarsh** » July 23rd, 2006, 3:48 pm

CrimsonKing,

You have completely misunderstood the explanation of the routine in the book.

There are "versions" (perhaps the better word is "oppurtunities") that involve the performer never touching the deck, a deck that has been in full view the entire time. There are solid strategies given for enhancing the possibilty that you will have such an oppurtunity. There is also a performance structure given that allows the touching of the deck to be psychologically invisible.

Keep in mind that the final out is whether you perform the effect or not. Remember: the most powerful weapon you have is that you get to decide what the effect is, and you decide when (and if) you are going to do it. You decide when the effect "begins"...

This is not a puzzle with a single set solution. This is a framework within which you have the freedom to take advantage of the particular conditions here and now.

Best,

N.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » July 23rd, 2006, 4:38 pm

Originally posted by Nathan Coe Marsh:
CrimsonKing,

You have completely misunderstood the explanation of the routine in the book.

There are "versions" (perhaps the better word is "oppurtunities") that involve the performer never touching the deck, a deck that has been in full view the entire time. There are solid strategies given for enhancing the possibilty that you will have such an oppurtunity. There is also a performance structure given that allows the touching of the deck to be psychologically invisible.

Keep in mind that the final out is whether you perform the effect or not. Remember: the most powerful weapon you have is that you get to decide what the effect is, and you decide when (and if) you are going to do it. You decide when the effect "begins"...

This is not a puzzle with a single set solution. This is a framework within which you have the freedom to take advantage of the particular conditions here and now.

Best,

N.

Are you saying it like The Trick That Cannot Be Explained?

Guest · Postby **Guest** » July 23rd, 2006, 5:53 pm

Exactly!

Guest · Postby **Guest** » July 23rd, 2006, 6:48 pm

Originally posted by ecphora:
Exactly!

Have you heard of a trick where the performer asks two people to think of a number and a card (one each), gives the deck to the one with a number in mind and says "deal down that many" and then asks the other for the name of the card?

If not, consider what is required to accomplish this reliably. Then backtrack.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » July 25th, 2006, 9:08 am

If not, consider what is required to accomplish this reliably. Then backtrack.

Good suggestion Jonathan. I have worked out an effect for a group than includes Wayne Dobson's invisible deck. Can't wait to try it out.

and from Crimsonking:

And I think magicians and amateurs of magic who purchased the book, wanted THE REAL THING, THE REAL ANY CARD AT ANY NUMBER.

Good news Crim--I just received the Aug Genii and noticed an ad from Bill Nagler that seems to be almost the exact description of the Berglas effect with a solution for $99. Don't know if it is exactly the same. Maybe Bill will weight-in here since he has already posted on this thread.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » July 25th, 2006, 9:02 pm

Barrie Richardson - Theatre of The Mind have a great version of ACANN
I use it often..fooled a lot magician...
nice trick:)

Bob Farmer · Postby **Bob Farmer** » July 26th, 2006, 5:41 am

The Theatre of the Mind version does have some flaws. For example, if the card and number is AD and 26, respectively, you're out of luck.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » July 26th, 2006, 8:01 am

Born, Krenzel, Richardson, Waters I have not seen Born or Krenzel do their card case cut-dump, but I fear too much futzing is necessary to get the break, and the dump telegraphs method. Waters thin-card double-deck also bothers me for the same reason. I dont think Richardsons deck turnover would get by me, but that said, Del Rays turnover in his poker and blackjack deals fooled me. Stooge solutions are of no interest. Trick That Cant Be Explained varying of the effect is of less than no interest. Martin Breese is 5 years younger than David Berglas. Berglas may not be able to take it with him.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » July 26th, 2006, 9:49 am

Originally posted by Jonathan Townsend:
Have you heard of a trick where the performer asks two people to think of a number and a card (one each), gives the deck to the one with a number in mind and says "deal down that many" and then asks the other for the name of the card?

If not, consider what is required to accomplish this reliably. Then backtrack.

Michael Close did just what you described when he lectured in Huntsville. The person who named the card was his girlfriend, I believe. She knew the Aronson Stack.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » July 26th, 2006, 9:52 am

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:
...Michael Close did just what you described when he lectured in Huntsville. The person who named the card was his girlfriend, I believe. She knew the Aronson Stack.

That's clever.

I suppose a talented stooge who can read a marked deck and deal bottoms would also get the job done but for the real world...

Guest · Postby **Guest** » July 26th, 2006, 10:19 am

Bob Farmer writes:

The Theatre of the Mind version does have some flaws. For example, if the card and number is AD and 26, respectively, you're out of luck.

I don't get what the flaw is. Where's the AD in the stack. I'll assume it is 26th.

If you put two jokers face to face in the middle, there is no flaw.

Bob Farmer · Postby **Bob Farmer** » July 26th, 2006, 11:45 am

I am referring to the Thirteen Deck Solution which appears on pages 262 to 266. As the title indicates, there are 13 stacked decks and once you know the card and number, you can (by consulting a cheat sheet) remove a deck that will have that card at that number.

However, there is a flaw with respect to position 26. If someone selects the AD and 26, there is no deck which has an AD at the 26th position.

Adding 2 jokers doesn't solve this problem.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » July 26th, 2006, 11:50 am

Originally posted by Bob Farmer:
I am referring to the Thirteen Deck Solution which appears on pages 262 to 266...

Are there any other such combinations?

Given the weight/bulk of the setup, an otherwise empty box with just the named card inside that says "you also named the number thirteen" might be impressive.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » July 26th, 2006, 1:32 pm

Can't you just add a 14th deck with the AD at 26th position? I say that jokingly as I have no clue as to how the effect works. But who knows, maybe that's all it needs.

A more practical solution would probably be to use AD and 26 as examples in your patter. That should subtly cancel out the spectator from using the exact same numbers.

Just my two cents.

James

I am referring to the Thirteen Deck Solution which appears on pages 262 to 266. As the title indicates, there are 13 stacked decks and once you know the card and number, you can (by consulting a cheat sheet) remove a deck that will have that card at that number.

However, there is a flaw with respect to position 26. If someone selects the AD and 26, there is no deck which has an AD at the 26th position.

Bob Farmer · Postby **Bob Farmer** » July 26th, 2006, 3:35 pm

I believe the laguna affects any card at number 26, so you would need 52 additional decks.

With Tomas Bloomberg's help, I have figured out the correct 13 deck solution, but I have no plans to publish it.

I think a better approach is a one-deck solution with no sleights. I do have an idea that would allow the deck to be in the possession of the spectator at all times (even before the card and number is named) and the spectator removes the deck and counts down himself to his card.

NCMarsh · Postby **NCMarsh** » July 26th, 2006, 4:15 pm

Originally posted by Bill Nagler:
Born, Krenzel, Richardson, Waters I have not seen Born or Krenzel do their card case cut-dump, but I fear too much futzing is necessary to get the break, and the dump telegraphs method.

I spent some time in NYC in the spring and Asi Wind was showing around a version with a dump that looked quite nice...and there was no "futzing" on his part to get the break -- clean and instantaneous...not, in my view, the perfect solution; but not a bad one either

Best,

N.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » July 26th, 2006, 9:06 pm

Bob Farmer writes: "I am referring to the Thirteen Deck Solution which appears on pages 262 to 266. ..."

Sorry, I thought you were referring to the "Any Card at Any Number" on page 257

Steve Bryant · Postby **Steve Bryant** » July 27th, 2006, 6:12 am

Simon Lovell's Blackpool 1995 lecture notes is easily the best set of notes I own, material that, while eventually expanded into the 242-page book SIMON SAYS, was once all here in these brief pages for those of us lucky to have purchased them. I often read these notes for sheer pleasure, and while doing so last night came across this joke, which Simon has given me permission to post here. In light of this thread and recent comments in Genii Speaks, it seems relevant:

AND FINALLY MY FAVORITE MAGICAL JOKE ...

A magician dies and finds himself in heaven. Luckily for him the angelic magic club is meeting that night. He meets all of his magical heros then sees a guy who looks just like David Berglas! He turns to St. Peter and says, "I didn't realize David Berglas was dead!" Peter replied, "That's not David Berglas ... That's God ... He just thinks he's David Berglas!"

Guest · Postby **Guest** » July 30th, 2006, 4:44 pm

Hi Bill -

Is it your effect that was recently advertised in the magazine? Since you are free to talk about some of our methods (dump, etc.), how about hinting to what you have? Or should I wait for someone else to post your method...

Best,

John B

Guest · Postby **Guest** » July 30th, 2006, 8:29 pm

The version performed by Michael Close sounds like Simon Aronson's. Good thoughts there.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » July 31st, 2006, 9:11 pm

Originally posted by Jonathan Townsend:
Anyone got a method that can stand up to a repeat or two?

This seems a great way to warm up an audience to card magic, treating the deck as an oracle.

Barrie Richardson details a method with a repeat; very clever as he is using two different versions, each version canceling out the discrepencies in the other version.

Jack Shalom

Guest · Postby **Guest** » August 6th, 2006, 11:06 pm

I beleive anyone interested in how Berglas may perform this effect should check out the Audio CD "David Berglas interviewed my Martin Breese" On this Cd he performs the effect for Martin.
Brent Braun

Guest · Postby **Guest** » September 1st, 2006, 6:25 pm

1. An ordinary deck of cards is given to someone (not a stooge) to hold. From then on, the performer does not touch the cards.

2. The person freely names any number from 1 to 52, and any card.

3. The person then counts down to their number, and finds the card there.

I cannot see why so many people are asking what the "method" for this is, or even thinking that there is one. I have heard people say to me, "Berglas has a special method for that effect - I'd like to find out what it is". They assume there is something "hidden" - some secret knowledge that mere mortals do not possess. This is nonsense. And these are people who have read TMAMODB (which I have too).

An effect as "pure" as the one I have described above (and that some people think there is some special method for) simply does not have a method other than "being lucky". That much is just plain obvious.

A little thought will tell you that the odds of being lucky are 1 in only 26 (allowing for counting from either top or face). The odds are even better if you are able to subtly influence (but not force) the choice of card and number by psychological techniques.

It is entirely possible that David Berglas "got lucky" on several occasions, and these are recounted as MIRACLES. On other occasions he would not have been able to carry out the pure version of the effect as described above (how could he?) and perhaps would have then relied on other techniques (which are described in the book) which result in a less pure effect, or indeed continued with some other kind of effect using the card and number named.

It's not rocket science.

Before you scream - please note that this post is not exposure. It is just common sense.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » September 1st, 2006, 7:20 pm

Hi Mr.Martin.
I was the one who started this topic, and i started it simply because, having read Mr.Richardson experience with this trick(Berglas did it to him on 2 different occasions),and Mr.Warlock experience,it seemed obvious that the trick was carried on in a very simple and clear manner as you described above.
But the book by Mr.Britland was described an EFFECT which seemed to me much more complicated and not straightforward than the one experienced by Mr.Warlock,Richardson, and as i learned Mr.Kaufman.
I thought and i think that it is more than a coincidence that 3 experienced magicians get the clean effect from Mr.Berglas and not the inticated one described in the book.
So my conclusion was and is that there are some discrepancies between the 2 versions..
i must admit that i started this topic to get my ideas clearer, because i loved the original effect described by Barrie Richardson, Peter Warlock and Mr.Kaufman.
But still now my ideas are very cloudy!!!
Good Bye from Italy.
Crim

NCMarsh · Postby **NCMarsh** » September 1st, 2006, 10:53 pm

CrimsonKing,

When you actually start performing material that has a component of hitting or missing (backed up with an out), you find that you hit far more often than you suppose you will when sitting at home thinking about the effect. It's nice to dream of miracle solutions, reality is that this is the strategy that makes miracles possible in the real world.

N.

Pete Biro · Postby **Pete Biro** » September 2nd, 2006, 9:31 am

Agreed. I have a stabbed card effect that is PURE LUCK if it hits... and it hits far more often than I ever imagined.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » September 3rd, 2006, 8:02 pm

After you all invest in Bill's ACAAN can you please send him a little something for his patented headache machine, or perhaps you all would be interested in his hypnosis therapy? Or there is always his weight-loss clinics? And don't let's forget about his wonderful re-working of all of Irv Weiner's mental material - Bill, are you still selling that stuff? You know, the stuff you ran ads for in the Magic Circular way back when you were pretending to be a Harvard Grad? I have copies, in case you've forgotten. Or maybe all you'll need to jog your memory is the letter from Irv? Bill, are you sure you have all your facts straight in your recounting of this Berglas thing? I'm wondering about Martin Breese too - the CD thing bothers a lot of us, and the timeline is just wrong, and then there's the whole thing about Goodliffe - ah, but what the hell, we're just trying to peddle a little magic here, right? What's wrong with a little literary license? Oh, yeah, that exposure you are always going on about? Don't worry Bill, I won't tell anyone the real deal, not right away, anyway...

PSC

Geno Munari · Postby **Geno Munari** » September 6th, 2006, 6:37 pm

Steve
Good thinking.
Thank you thank you thank you.

Richard Kaufman · Postby **Richard Kaufman** » September 6th, 2006, 9:04 pm

David Berglas gets "lucky" far too often for the effect to be described as Steve Martin has done in his post above.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » September 6th, 2006, 11:59 pm

David Berglas has done the effect 5 times (since 1988) for me. The first 4 times it was excellent; but note that each time, he produced the deck AFTER I named a card and number! The last time he did the effect (circa 2001) - the 5th time - it went wrong. (This was done to a group of twenty of us.) He did say he hadn't done it in a while. Now, David is not widely known for his use of 'heavy' card sleights, so I guess he may use a few set-up decks and 'gets' to the card with casual cuts and/or double lifts etc., etc.

Either way - the 1st time you see it - WOW!

Paul Gordon

Guest · Postby **Guest** » September 7th, 2006, 3:44 am

Originally posted by Steve Martin:
A little thought will tell you that the odds of being lucky are 1 in only 26 (allowing for counting from either top or face). The odds are even better if you are able to subtly influence (but not force) the choice of card and number by psychological techniques.

I am straining my brain here trying to remember statistics from my college days but here goes: if one has a 1 in 26 chance of picking the correct number (allowing for counting from either side) and a 1 in 52 chance of picking the right card wouldn't the odds of picking ACAAN be 1 out of 1,352 (52*26)? I may be wrong . . . college was 25 years ago.

Guest · Postby **Guest** » September 7th, 2006, 4:01 am

Originally posted by cgscpa:
... odds of picking ACAAN be 1 out of 1,352 (52*26)? I may be wrong . . . college was 25 years ago.

That makes sense if you are offering a prediction of the card and number and did not have access to a secret writing impliment to get the data in place after the fact.