Any Card at Any Number discrepancies

[Guest]

Originally posted by cgscpa:

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.

As I understand it, the premise of ACAAN is that a card is named, a number is named, the spectator or the conjuror counts through the deck to the named number, and the card at that position is then seen to be the named card.

If the conjuror had to forecast the number and forecast the card, then I'd agree with your logic.

But as I understand it, the 1 in 26 logic seems to be correct. And in fact, if one could count to the named number and then take either the card at that position or the next card, then odds would be 1 in 13.

Dave

[Guest]

Mr.Gordon says that the deck is taken out after the card is named.
To be sincere, this fits with Mr.Richardson stroy.
Also in his testimoniance, the deck was produced only after the card was named.

The thing i don't understand is that all the people who saw the trick, in this case Mr.Kaufman, Mr.Richardson and Mr.Warlock say that they've handled the deck, and not Mr.Berglas.
So this would exclude the hypothesys of false cuts..double cuts....

I'm wondering how this clear handling, with the spectator who can count the cars, is achieved.
And i think it is in this that the secret lies.
Waiting for your opinions..
Crim

[Guest]

The odds of any card being at any number appear at first to be far smaller than they really are. That's exactly what we want the spectators to think, of course!

It's very simple: Think of any card. Now - how many possible positions are there for that card within a shuffled deck (from the top)? Only 52. No more and no less. So when you then name a number, the chances that your card occupies that position are 1 in 52. This applies no matter which card you originally think of.

Because each card actually occupies TWO positions - one from the top and one from the face - (e.g. 8 and 45), then if you do the trick by counting from either the top or the face, the odds of your card being at your number are 1 in 26.

If you do the trick, as Dave Le Fevre suggests, by counting from the top or the face, and taking either the card AT the named number or the one immediately AFTER it (all of which options can be presented in an entirely logical way) then the odds get even better. However, the odds in this case are, strictly speaking, slightly less than 1 in 13 because for positions 1 and 52, there is no option to count to the card AFTER the number. (i.e. if the spec names "1", you can't say, "ok - count off zero cards and look at the next one". Similarly, if he says "52" you can't say "ok - count off 52 cards and look at the next one").

Making use of these odds (and to avoid much/any manipulation of the deck with sleights) would require stacked decks that cater for each possible card-number combination using these different counting methods. The various approaches to devising and handling such stacks is an area where, no doubt, David Berglas's thinking and experience applies. The stacked decks would enable the effect to be done by selecting the deck to be used after the card and number are named (as Paul Gordon describes David Berglas doing for him).

In cases where the cards are "out at the top" (with no room for manipulation of the deck before the spectator himself counts down to the card)... I repeat what I said earlier about luck, and the option to take the routine in a different direction entirely if luck does not go your way.

Richard, in your description of the effect...

"When Berglas did the effect for me, he never touched the deck.I named a card, I named a number, he pointed to the deck. I took the deck out of the case and put it face up on the table (at his instruction). I counted down to the number I named and my thought-of card was there. BAM."

...you happened to name a card that lay at the number you chose (from the face).

If someone does the effect for me (in this "cold" scenario where it's just me and him and a single deck) and needs to do a casual cut (or some other kind of handling of the cards) before or during the count, the effect is not going to be too impressive. However, in a group setting, in the context of other magical effects that are ocurring, and with the right sense of showmanship, direction and timing, such a method (as is discussed in TMAMODB) could of course be used.

[Matthew Field]

Originally posted by Bob Farmer:
With Tomas Bloomberg's help, I have figured out the correct 13 deck solution, but I have no plans to publish it.

I didn't need Tomas Blomberg;s help to devise my practical method.

I simply carry 52!, that's 52 factorial or 2,652 decks set up so the proper one can show any card at any number.

Hey -- don't make a move out of it!

Matt Field

[Guest]

The other factor that heps the odds here is the possibility of having jokers in the deck, one at the topo and one at the bottom. Leaving them in or taking them out increases your options again.
And I seem to remember reading a description of the Berglas Effect where the jokers were removed first....

But even so, you are faced with the need to remember the position of all the cards in multiple decks, which puts it beyond most of us...

[David Scollnik]

Originally posted by Matthew Field:

Originally posted by Bob Farmer:
[b] With Tomas Bloomberg's help, I have figured out the correct 13 deck solution, but I have no plans to publish it.

I didn't need Tomas Blomberg;s help to devise my practical method.

I simply carry 52!, that's 52 factorial or 2,652 decks set up so the proper one can show any card at any number.
[/b]

Actually, 52! or 52 factorial is a HECK of a lot larger than 2,652. It is 52*51*50*49*...*3*2*1.

2,652 is just the product of the first two terms, i.e. 52*51.

[Guest]

Indeed. The number of decks you want to carry is 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000. Perhaps you should rather make a move out of it...

Denis

[Guest]

When I do ACAAN, I frequently claim that the spectator has a choice of 1 of 52 cards and 1 of 52 different positions, making the odds 1 in 52*52 = 1 in 2704. For anyone who was awake when elementary probability was taught in high school, this is clearly wrong, but I have never been challenged, even by people who should know better. I sometimes make up a reason to multiply 2704 by 2704 again, which makes the odds 1 in 7311616. This is even more obviously and outrageously wrong, but surprisingly, many people believe me. The trick is so strong that it probably doesn't need me to lie so blatantly about the odds of achieving it, but I do it anyway. I like the idea of claiming the odds are 1 in 52 factorial. As long as I'm going to lie about the odds, I may as well make the lie as outrageous as I can. Thanks for the idea.

[Matthew Field]

Originally posted by Denis Behr:
80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000

Gee, you're right. That is bigger. I'm going to have to get bigger pockets in my jacket.

Matt Field

[Jon Allen]

Originally posted by Denis Behr:
Indeed. The number of decks you want to carry is 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000. Perhaps you should rather make a move out of it...

Denis

Tell them not to name the Ace of Spades and you can eliminate 52 decks!

[Guest]

Originally posted by Denis Behr:
Indeed. The number of decks you want to carry is 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000. Perhaps you should rather make a move out of it...

Denis

It is this kind of thinking that makes "any card at any number" seem to be much more of an amazing thing than it really is. (Although when presented well, it can be an amazing effect).

Since the chances of the named card being at the named number (assuming we count always from the top of the face-down deck) are 1 in 52, what makes you think that you need more than 52 decks to guarantee a sleight-free or ruse-free method?

Dom: Yes, the ruse of using the jokers to provide a one-card offset (at either end of the deck) is quite good, although I'm not a big fan of it as it looks a bit fishy to be saying "oh, let's not count the joker". But as an alternative to secretly leaving cards in the box, it's not a bad method. There are relatively simple forumulae for working out (in your head) which deck you'd need for any card-number combination, so it's not as difficult as it first appears.

[Brian Marks]

well you can limit it further by insisting the # be between 1 and 52 eliminating 1 & 52.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Steve Martin:
Since the chances of the named card being at the named number (assuming we count always from the top of the face-down deck) are 1 in 52, what makes you think that you need more than 52 decks to guarantee a sleight-free or ruse-free method?

I am fully aware of this of course. I was replying to Matt Field and David Scollnik's "jokes".

Leaving cards in the box is worse than the joker method in my opinion, at least what the no-touch-condition is concerned. If you take the cards out of the box yourself you can as well do anything (like John Born's method).

BTW limiting the number to 2-51 doesn't reduce the 1 in 52 odds to 1 in 50 unless you also eliminate two of the cards as possible choices if I am not mistaken. (If you let them name the number first anyway.)

Denis

[Guest]

ok :)

It is true to say (unfortunately) that limiting the choice of number and/or card (assuming using a genuinely shuffled deck of 52 different cards) does not change the odds of 1 in 52 that the named card lies at the named number.

In the extreme case, if you limit the choice of card to 6H, and the choice of number to 15, the chances that 6H is at position 15 are still 1 in 52.

If you have a pre-arranged and memorised stack, then you can change the odds by influencing the choice of number after the card is named, to give a better chance of a hit.

[Guest]

I often fumble the math, but this just occurred: even at 1 out of 52, the odds (1.923%) are slightly better than house odds on Baccarat, Blackjack and Craps

I was almost going to say that the odds get better when dealing with someone who would have been wearied of counting tricks and therefore chose a lower number, but the odds would still be 1 out of 52

of course it would help to have some kind of Dunningeresque setup with an assistant in a secret room behind a Buddha with a trap door in his tummy

or a specialized limo with an Alfred as the chauffeur

[Brian Marks]

BTW limiting the number to 2-51 doesn't reduce the 1 in 52 odds to 1 in 50 unless you also eliminate two of the cards as possible choices if I am not mistaken. (If you let them name the number first anyway.)

Denis [/QB]

well it was worth a try.

[Guest]

As my name has been mentioned a couple of times I suppose it is time to respond. This is the correct version of my involvemt with the Berglas effect. David asked my help with the editing of his Berglas File many,many years ago. I visited his home and went over the book with him and, as a result, I have a very small credit somewhere in the book. I can't even remember what contribution I may have made. Perhaps I corrected some of the literals that may have been made.

At that time I was not a magic dealer at all and all that I was doing was to make my Magicassette recordings. I asked David if in return for my help (whatever it may have been) on the Berglas File if I could make a recording with him. I was in great awe of David and was thrilled when he agreed.

Some time after that I went with David to a night club in Watford and I saw him perform and taped a little of his act on my 25 second-hand and very basic cassette recorder.

A few days later I visited David in his home and we made a recording together and it was made as if we had both returned from his show that evening to make the recording. In fact there was a gap between viewing the show and actually making the recording.

During the recording David performed his effect for me and our listeners. He fudged the first attempt in some way and we agreed to cut the first performance of the effect and to do it again. The second time around the effect was spot on and I was fooled.

Some time later when I was working in partnership (secretly) for Goodliffe and was backed by him and advertising for free in Abracadabra to our mutual benefit, I suggested that we could offer Berglas a thousand pounds to see if he would be prepared to make a tape for me which would truly reveal every nuance of his classic effect.

David agreed.

I used to send out regular newsletters and in the next one that I wrote, I mentioned that I had persuaded an eminent performer with an amazing card trick to release the secret on tape and that eventually I planned to release 50 copies of the tape at 50 each. I was completely overwhelmed when a lot of the readers of the newsletter put two and two together and correctly assumed that the performer was Berglas and the effect his ACAAN routine. Most of the envelopes I received contained a cheque for 50. I am certain that I wrote back to everyone indicating that they were correct in their assumptions and the trick I had mentioned was actually the Berglas card routine. I know that I also offered to return the money immediately as I had no idea when the project would be ready. The majority replied and told me to hang on to the money as they didn't want to find themselves not on the list.

From time to time I contacted David to see how the project was going and he told me that he was working with a mutual friend Brian Barnes to get the script and the tape ready for release.

Quite a bit of time passed and I was unhappy that I was holding 2500 of advance payments.

Then Goodliffe died and although he was initially the person who was to finance the project it was my plan to pay David myself when his tape was ready.

I approached David again to ask how things were going and he asked me about advance sales and I told him that all the tapes had been sold at 50 each and that we all awaited delivery of his tape.

David did a quick calculation and said that as Goodliffe had died that it would be best for the two of us to work together with him sharing the income received. He told me that he didn't want to put pressure on me to pay him myself as Goodliffe had died and my response was to ask him to carry on as briefed and to complete the project for the sum of 1000 which I would personally give him on competion.

David was not at all pleased and his reply was that if I didn't want to share the project with him then he had no idea when the tape would be ready. I sought clarification and he made it very clear that unless we entered into his suggested deal, that the tape would never be ready. I told him that on that basis I would have to return all of the money that had been sent to me. His reply was that that was my problem.

I returned all of the money barring the 50 owing to Steve Martin the film star. I couldn't find his address or wrote to the address given but got no reply and that was the only payment that was not returned.

If the film star Steve Martin is reading this and gives me his address I will return the money immdiately.

I was very angry indeed with David Berglas and we didn't speak with each other for many many years.

Some years later David spoke to me and although this unhappy affair was not mentioned David intimated that he would like to make another audio recording with me.

I went to his home and before the tape recorder was switched on David told me that he had a problem in that a long time ago when I had some "severe financial problems" he had tried to help me by sharing his project with me thus relieving me of the need to give him the 1000 that I was going to pay him. I was very upfront with David and told him that that was not the case at all and that for the rest of the life I would always remember exactly what happened and that in essence and put very bluntly was the fact that if I wasn't willing to cut him in on the project that he wouldn't finish the project. We agreed to disagree and shook hands and moved in to his office to start making our new recording and from then on we had and still have a good relationship.

The recording revolved around how David created his four different versions of his card stacking system. We then moved on to how to learn to cut any number of cards off the top of a deck. In other words David showed me that he could almost without fail cut any chosen number of cards off the deck. I sked him to cut exactly 7 cards and he did that and I gave him another number and he did that over and over again. Then David explained how to do this and how to learn to do it with great accuracy.

Around the time of the recording David had received an award (as did I previously) from the Academy of Magical Arts for his contribution to magic and the balance of the tape consisted of discussions about these two awards. (the date of this second recording can easily be established as a result.)

I wound up the session at about six in the morning and as the birds were singing took a taxi home. I edited the tape recording and put it on to a CD and posted it to David.

I heard from David later and he said that he thought that the CD was good but that he wanted to enhance it by adding further material. I didn't have the time or interest in enhancing a recording that I thought to be excellent and as I have always made it clear when making one of my recordings that all editorial decisions about the recordings made were mine and that that was a condition of working with me.

When I worked with Edwin of Supreme Magic these conditions were made clear to him and when he received the first cassette off the line he wanted to make editiorial changes and add more and take out some things I refused to do so and he threatened legal action and basically I abandoned the project and only released the original recording after his death many years later. My most unpopular recording of all time with about only three people interested in hearing what in fact was absolutely brilliant material.

The recording that I hold of David Berglas does in my opinion tip all that anyone needs to know to be able to perform his classic effect. As with the write-up of the effect in David Britland's wonderful book on David Berglas the explanation is not spelled out letter by letter but anyone with the intelligence to read between the lines would be able to perform a highly satisfactory version of the effect.

If performed for laymen the effect on the audience would (as it always has been) be simply a total miracle. Probably the only person in the world with the skill and experience to perform this effect for magicians and to completely knock them sideways is David Berglas himself.

The real debate in this discussion is really whether David touches the deck at all after the card and number have been named or whether he leaves behind the memory that the deck has never been touched.

David has performed this effect hundreds and hundreds of times. When the deck is openly displayed before the effect and the spectator happens to mention a card and a number and David happens to know that the card named is at the number selected then obviously that becomes a miracle never to be forgotten.

As to Bill Nagler's version of the effect it is good and a great deal of effort and expense has gone into providing all that is needed so that anyone with a modicum of skill and performing personality can perform a very adequate version of the classic effect.

I corrected Bill Nagler's version of the events leading up to my last recording and these are still a little muddled despite my constant updating with him. I was somewhat lax as I should have gone on correcting but I had other things to do and little time to devote to a project that I thought would not have lift off.

What I have described in this reply is as accurate as I can make it and an earlier person in this thread linked the first recording with the creation of the Berglas File (to give it a date) and I am adding the fact that the last recording was made just after David had returned to England following the receipt of his award from the Academy of Magical Arts in Hollywood.

DAvoid's recognition by the Academy was well deserved because David in my mind is a brilliant performer and I have seen his one man show many many times.

I met up by chance with David at the IBM convention here in Sussex last Saturday but we were unable to talk properly as we both had other people we needed to see and it was not the place and time either.

I would have related every single point raised in this text to David and I would have added that the recording would remain in my keeping and that it would be unlikely to be released whilst either of us were still alive.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Martin R Breese:
and I would have added that the recording would remain in my keeping and that it would be unlikely to be released whilst either of us were still alive.

It's statements like this that make me feel guilty for what I wish for...

[Geno Munari]

I certainly don't want to be remiss about Jimmy Grippo. Here is how he did this effect.

Spectator names a card and a number. The deck is on the table. He tells the spec. to shuffle.

He has the spectator deal the cards on to the table and stop at the selected number or go to a different one. So done.

His only move is to square the pack.

Beautiful, I must say.

[Guest]

Since the chances of the named card being at the named number (assuming we count always from the top of the face-down deck) are 1 in 52, what makes you think that you need more than 52 decks to guarantee a sleight-free or ruse-free method?

52 decks would only give you one particular card at every number. You would indeed need 52! decks for every possible permutation, even though many decks would contain a certain card at the same number.

Also, the house's odds in blackjack are no where near 1%, but their advantage is. This makes the house's odds just over 51% against perfect basic strategy, a considerably better shot than 1%.

[Bob Farmer]

I see your ACAAN and raise you mine:

A spectator THINKS of a card (no force, no Equivoque), but does not reveal its identity. He does not write it down -- it is only an image in his head.

A second spectator THINKS of any number from 1 to 52 (no force, no Equivoque), but does not reveal it. Again -- nothing is written down.

The deck is spread face down on the table (neither the name of the card or the number is known to the magician at this point).

BEFORE the first spectator reveals his card, the second spectator reveals his number (say, 37) and counts over to that point in the deck (he can count from either end of the spread -- his choice).

ONLY AFTER this has been done -- only after the card has been counted to -- does the first guy reveal the name of his card (assume, 2D).

The 37th card is turned over by the spectator who counted to it and it is the 2D.

The next card is shown -- it is an indifferent card.

Features: No sleights (and you don't switch the card counted to for the selected card).

No calculations. The deck is spread on the table BEFORE the number and the card is named. The cards are not gaffed or specially printed -- use any cards you want

It is not the same card and number every time. the magician learns the name of the card and the number at the same time as the audience.

No forcing. No Equivoque. No rough and smooth. No, you don't have 5,000 decks. No stooges. No assistants. Resets instantly.

No special clothing! I performed this last night at a party wearing a t-shirt, jeans and sneakers. It got a tremendous reaction.

It really is as clean as I've just described. No, I'm not having a bad acid flashback. Matt Field and Mike Weber, who know the method, can confirm my description.

[Guest]

Originally posted by John Wilson:

Since the chances of the named card being at the named number (assuming we count always from the top of the face-down deck) are 1 in 52, what makes you think that you need more than 52 decks to guarantee a sleight-free or ruse-free method?

52 decks would only give you one particular card at every number. You would indeed need 52! decks for every possible permutation, even though many decks would contain a certain card at the same number.

Sorry, John, but you do NOT need every permutation - 52! - to meet the requirements of this trick.

Think of it this way: Take 52 decks all in new deck order. The first deck you leave alone. The second deck you shift one card from top to bottom. The third deck you shift two cards from top to bottom, and so on until you are shifting 51 cards from top to bottom for the 52nd deck.

Name any card, and that card will appear at a different number in each of the decks.

:)

[Guest]

John, "once a magician" has the math right.

However 52! decks would allow for a no-sleight, no-ruse method for the ever popular crowd-pleasing quickie effect, Any Full Deck Order Called For.

Packs small, plays big!