Harry Lorayne's "Sting" (actually the Walt Madison trick with normal cards) is a great trick. The one weak spot in the routine is the penultimate display of the piles. You show R-B, R-B, R-B, X-X and X-X (ie, hide the last state of two pairs). The fairness of the first three makes the lack of display of the last two pairs suspicious.
My solution to the problem is to take a break between the 1st and 2nd card, just before you add the 2 X-X pairs. After adding them, I do a semi-side steal, shifting the bottom packet of 5 to the top. It's not a pass as I edge pinch the top 5 cards with the left index finger, move the left hand forward while gripping the bottom five cards between right pinkie and right thumb, and then deposit the bottom 5 cards on top. I know it's a move in an otherwise moveless routine, but it then allows me to show the top 4 cards which the spectators obviously didn't see.
I was wondering if other people had better solutions?
Bye for now
Harold
Sting
-
walkinoats
Re: Sting
I have performed "sting" many times. To me it doesn't have the weak spot your talking about. When you perform the trick with the speed and rhythm that HL teaches, I don't think it will be obvious to the spectator that you didn't show the faces of the four cards. Your method might take away from that rhythm.
-
Guest
Re: Sting
Harold, I once made a similar comment about Roy Walton's "Oil & Queens". I liked the trick but hesitated to do it because you don't see "all" the cards. When I asked a friend if he had any advice on what to change, he said: JOE,STOP THINKING LIKE A MAGICIAN! It has since become a top favorite. Harold, are you thinking like a magician?
Re: Sting
I tested the Walkinoats "you're not doing it right" theory by showing a video if Harry Lorayne doing the effect to a non-magician. He said "he didn't show the last two pairs" with no prompting from me. He admitted that he probably wouldn't have said anything if it was live, but he did think it.
If you go quickly into the final displays, one could argue that the audience doesn't have time to react to the discrepancies (ie, verbalise it). Adding a move allows me deal with the discrepancy head on.
In the context of DeStefano's comments, the trick is so slick that I probably am thinking like a forensic scientist: picking on that one moment that probably won't be noticed. But what do you do if someone does comment? Do just continue anyway, or do you then do a move when all the heat is on your hands? My solution (and I've been doing it this way since it first came out in Apocalypse) was to add the move and then turnover the top four cards to show that they are R-B-R-B order. I have occaisionally seen audience members shift in their seats (with a "there goes that theory" look) as I display the top four cards, and that moment justifies the move. However, as I said in my original note, I feel guilty adding a move that sometimes comes in handy, but most of the time is unnecessary.
One could argue that by not displaying the four cards, you put heat on them, and strengthen the finale as they're probably expecting some variation of R-R-B-B.
Bye for now
Harold
[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Harold Cataquet ]
[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Harold Cataquet ]
If you go quickly into the final displays, one could argue that the audience doesn't have time to react to the discrepancies (ie, verbalise it). Adding a move allows me deal with the discrepancy head on.
In the context of DeStefano's comments, the trick is so slick that I probably am thinking like a forensic scientist: picking on that one moment that probably won't be noticed. But what do you do if someone does comment? Do just continue anyway, or do you then do a move when all the heat is on your hands? My solution (and I've been doing it this way since it first came out in Apocalypse) was to add the move and then turnover the top four cards to show that they are R-B-R-B order. I have occaisionally seen audience members shift in their seats (with a "there goes that theory" look) as I display the top four cards, and that moment justifies the move. However, as I said in my original note, I feel guilty adding a move that sometimes comes in handy, but most of the time is unnecessary.
One could argue that by not displaying the four cards, you put heat on them, and strengthen the finale as they're probably expecting some variation of R-R-B-B.
Bye for now
Harold
[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Harold Cataquet ]
[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Harold Cataquet ]