The Berglas Effect

Discuss the latest news and rumors in the magic world.
User avatar
Matthew Field
Posts: 2813
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Slydini
Location: Hastings, England, UK

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Matthew Field » August 3rd, 2012, 12:35 pm

I'm tellin' you -- MARK LEWIS!!

(Or Mark Lewis, Jr.)

Matt Field

Edward Pungot
Posts: 521
Joined: May 18th, 2011, 1:55 am

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Edward Pungot » August 3rd, 2012, 12:46 pm

Roger M. wrote: .........a troll perhaps?


I've never heard this expression before until you used it in this context. I looked it up and found an interesting link regarding these peculiar creatures: http://www.flayme.com/troll/

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby jkeyes1000 » August 3rd, 2012, 12:47 pm

I never stated that I was a working magician Mr. Kaufman. To have discovered that I am not one hardly seems pertinent. My main purpose was to rationally analyse The Effect, not to glean the thoughts of its author. By doing my best to fulfil the criteria, and adhering to the routine as it is generally presented (which you yourself admit is subject to the whims of the performer), I sought to come to the only conclusion worthy of "The Mind Of David Berglas". The solid bedrock of logic and good sense.

If it is inaccurate to attribute this degree of philosophy to Mr. Berglas, I beg your (and his) pardon.

As for my literacy--it is possible that I over-shot my counterpart in this field as well. "Mangled English"--you say? Ah--I perceive! Not enough of your modern day, trendy excuses for grammer and decent sentence structure. Lacking in the street wise lingo of of the 'hip', 'with it', 'now' magi. I am schooled. Let me borrow my dunce cap from Shakespeare.

Roger M.
Posts: 1424
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Roger M. » August 3rd, 2012, 1:54 pm

This thread seems over and done with.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby jkeyes1000 » August 3rd, 2012, 2:18 pm

Indeed.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8155
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Jonathan Townsend » August 3rd, 2012, 2:45 pm

Can anyone recommend an ebook on trolling for magicians?
Preferably something meaty with the rationalizing and theory so posts can seem intriguing while serving as specious lures for the vain and the impudent alike?

User avatar
mrgoat
Posts: 4257
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK
Contact:

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby mrgoat » August 3rd, 2012, 2:48 pm

Jonathan Townsend wrote:Can anyone recommend an ebook on trolling for magicians?


Might be something in here that covers it, although I've not read it

http://www.magicshop.co.uk/COLLECTABLE_ ... _info.html

User avatar
erdnasephile
Posts: 4175
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby erdnasephile » August 3rd, 2012, 3:02 pm

All trolling routines use stooges.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby jkeyes1000 » August 3rd, 2012, 3:11 pm

My understanding of a 'troll' is some sort of creature that spends considerable time under a bridge, lying in wait for a victim to seize upon. Funny--how I wander into a pack of them and they call me a miscreant. I guess I simply don't belong amongst them.

By the way--I'm intensely curious. You suggest that my post(s) "seem intriguing". Evidently others felt the same way. How is that, if everyone is satisfied with Mr. Kaufman's explanation of The Berglas Effect, they seek more on the subject?

User avatar
AJM
Posts: 1193
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby AJM » August 3rd, 2012, 3:25 pm

Spider senses tingling.....

again.....
Corner-person Begrudger

User avatar
mrgoat
Posts: 4257
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK
Contact:

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby mrgoat » August 3rd, 2012, 3:49 pm

AJM wrote:Spider senses tingling.....

again.....


You're right...again

He's dropped character and lapsed back into his usual clumsy writing style.

Edward Pungot
Posts: 521
Joined: May 18th, 2011, 1:55 am

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Edward Pungot » August 3rd, 2012, 4:27 pm

Online forums are a community of sorts, designed to stimulate thought in a respectful manner regarding a particular subject and its contributors. To assume authority over a subject based on bare-bones premises (taken out of context of the bigger picture) and on two youtube clips is political and academic suicide and an invitation for scorn and ridicule, something only a lowly creature such as Troll would truly enjoy and wish upon himself.

Clearly you have not described this community but yourself. What life or legacy you leave here you yourself have painted, and since the bridge you are attempting to build will slowly be abandoned one by one and will eventually be forgotten, you will have only yourself to blame and talk to as you guard a vacant space as the numbers dwindle and the Berglas legacy lives on.

You cannot be expected a warm welcome if you choose to insult the very man who makes your existence here possible and who actually tried to reason with you on several occasions and has surprisingly allowed you to stay in his domain. If this were the real world, you just did the equivalent of pissing on the very black book which is a tome and a celebration to one of our dearly respected grandfathers in magica logical step in the wrong direction.

My only sincere hope is that one day you will use your logical reasoning to examine yourself and what you hope to accomplish by ostracizing yourself from what could have been a much more fruitful experience here on this forum. Perhaps the skills you wish to hone could be sharpened by allowing yourself a little humility. Logic cannot live under a bridge and be expected to improve without the critical eye of others. Learn or move on, but dont waste our time.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25112
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Richard Kaufman » August 3rd, 2012, 4:51 pm

The op is either a Brit, a Canadian, or an Indian (from India). Spelling gives it away. He's using a VPN to conceal his real IP.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

User avatar
mrgoat
Posts: 4257
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK
Contact:

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby mrgoat » August 3rd, 2012, 6:26 pm

I'm so proud Mark has learned to use a VPN. All these years of trolling and finally he gets a new trick.

User avatar
Chas Nigh
Posts: 186
Joined: March 24th, 2008, 10:45 pm
Location: California

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Chas Nigh » August 3rd, 2012, 6:45 pm

You, sir. are a preposterous canard. I finally found a chance to say that.

Randy Naviaux
Posts: 89
Joined: August 26th, 2008, 4:45 pm

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Randy Naviaux » August 3rd, 2012, 7:17 pm

This has to be a troll but not the first time I have seen someone give very "learned" opinions on a subject that they haven't even read the book for.

I was very skeptical about purchasing the book as I could only imagine the solution being a certain thing/procedure. I found I was right and I was wrong after buying and reading the book.

I had preformed the effect before in a paid show using Mr. Close's published method. Went over well. Probably would go with that method again in fact.

But like I mentioned before the book that we now have takes all the trial and error out of coming up with unique and gimmicky ways of performing this effect. Read the book and the apply it. People will say that is the best thing you have ever done.

And then you spend the rest of your rime trying to figure out a way to top what you have done.

Just used techniques from this book to perform a miracle for some like time fans. I feel almost embarrassed using these techniques.

User avatar
jkeyes1000
Posts: 483
Joined: August 2nd, 2012, 3:12 pm

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby jkeyes1000 » August 3rd, 2012, 7:34 pm

To suggest that my original post (which is the only one I intended to make) was in any way disrespectful of either David Berglas or Richard Kaufman is absurd. I appealed to those that might be curious to read my opinion in regard to a subject that I knew to be controversial, but--which appeared to have been stifled. I believe I "stimulated thought in a respectful manner". It was The Community that attacked, not I.

I did not "assume authority" over the subject. I wrote a blog, I gave my opinion for what it was worth. And I gave it for free.

I have no problem with "inviting scorn and ridicule". I feel quite capable of handling myself under fire and defending my well considered opinions. On the opposing side, only Mr. Kaufman made any effort to "actually reason with me" as you put it, and I appreciated that. I thanked him sincerely for it. But--soon even he resorted to personal invective, merely because he could not persuade me of his counter-argument. Every snide remark that I have made was in direct response to a much nastier 'first strike'.

In fact there have been so many of them that I would be hard pressed to deal with them all.

It is evident that you and most of your fellows are so grateful to Mr. Kaufman for this forum that you feel the need to defend him from a line of questioning that is not new--you all I trust were by his side when others were criticising his book in much the same way. But--you are not objective, so you'll get nowhere by pretending to be. Your own language suggests that I should be respectful in the sense of not mentioning that troubling subject, of remaining mum as a sort of tribute to him. If you wished to allow the matter to be discussed at all, I see no reason why my civil and polite treatment of it should be objected to.

I happen to believe that I am right in what I say. So far, no one has convinced me that I am wrong. Many have told me so, but--few have given their reasons, and none have given satisfactory ones. I am not stubborn. I am quite tractable to a good debate. Does anybody here really want to talk about it?

I didn't think so. Mr. Kaufman is the unquestionable authority on David Berglas. Case closed.

Believe me--I have no desire to perpetuate this discussion with those who will not address the fundamental questions that I have raised.

Edward Pungot
Posts: 521
Joined: May 18th, 2011, 1:55 am

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Edward Pungot » August 3rd, 2012, 9:55 pm

I suppose I was mistaken. Logic can only take you so far. And then there comes a point when the whole thing becomes pointless because it eats away at the very heart of what magic is supposed to be all about. Congratulations. Hope you are happy with your results.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8155
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Jonathan Townsend » August 3rd, 2012, 11:17 pm

Randy Naviaux wrote:... And then you spend the rest of your rime trying to figure out a way to top what you have done....

from whose perspective?

It helps to pick a side of the proscenium arch and put focus there for material. Most elegant method? Most impressive effect? Most portable/utilitarian way of getting close to one or the other?

Who is the audience? The magic shop catalog reader? The booking agent? The folks in at the table or perhaps at the back of the theater?

User avatar
Matthew Field
Posts: 2813
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Slydini
Location: Hastings, England, UK

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Matthew Field » August 4th, 2012, 4:36 am

B-O-R-I-N-G!!

Matt Field

Potty the Pirate
Posts: 30
Joined: April 14th, 2011, 4:54 am

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Potty the Pirate » August 4th, 2012, 6:03 am

I enjoyed the blog, and can't see any reason for folks to jump up and down about someone discussing this effect.

Personally, I don't believe the average layman can tell the difference between ACAAN and CAAN.

I prefer to use Nostradamus' Chest, which elevates the effect into a true miracle. The freely-chosen number is counted to, in a deck which has remained untouched, and secured in a box hanging in full view throughout the effect.

The spectator, who is not a stooge, is the only person who handles the cards, and the prediction card. The prediction is also in full view throughout the effect.

You can see some of my version here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF1TzTEGOW4

Potty

Potty the Pirate
Posts: 30
Joined: April 14th, 2011, 4:54 am

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Potty the Pirate » August 4th, 2012, 6:55 am

BTW: In my method, there is no pre-show work, the spectator is not a stooge, the number is freely chosen, clear instructions as to how the effect will proceed are given before the chosen number is revealed, the magi never needs to touch either the deck or the prediction card, and it works 100% every time.

Potty the Pirate
Posts: 30
Joined: April 14th, 2011, 4:54 am

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Potty the Pirate » August 4th, 2012, 7:08 am

On another note...Marc Paul states in his presentation that the odds of the chosen card being at the chosen number are 1/52x52, which would be 1/2704. Obviously, anyone with basic "O" level maths knows that the odds are in fact 1/52.

That's because whatever card is chosen, assuming a full deck, there is 100% chance that it is in the deck somewhere. So the odds for ACAAN and CAAN are exactly the same: 1/52.

Since there are so many folks who know enough about probability to realise this, I wouldn't claim these false statistics. It's also the reason why I prefer CAAN..it's easier to understand, and it's just as impossible.

John Bowden
Posts: 167
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Main Street, Urlingford, Co. Kilkenny, Ireland, E41 Y9K2.

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby John Bowden » August 4th, 2012, 8:25 am

Ah! Mathematics...................funny old thing.

Card at any number is 52 to 1

Why is it 52 to 1.?
Answer because to arrive at a named card in a deck of 52 cards required a total of 52 combinations.

However to have a full deck with 52 choices of cards and 52 choices of number require the old multiplication process of 52*52 which gives a grand total of 2704.

Some magicians, with limited mathematical skills, fail to factor in all the combinations because they overlook the fact that ANY card is a factor of 52 while a named card is only 1.

So if it is a chosen card known before the process begins then it is 52 to 1 and if it is truly a free choice of both card and number it is 2704.

For the mathematically and magically disadvantaged I recommend using a ONE WAY deck have a card chosen and then shuffle the deck and count down to a freely number and "Hey Presto" you have done the BERGLAS EFFECT.

Now that is 100% successful and must be WAY BETTER than anyone else's..............so I don't need to read Richard's Book.

Should have thought of this before I read the book.

Cheers from The Emerald Isle of Ireland,
John Bowden ......A harmless poor magician with the best Berglas Effect ever.(This is the way Berglas SHOULD do it).

PS. To save anyone who is mentally challenged from jumping down my neck for this post please note that I am writing in jest.
The Berglas Effect is a miracle to behold and is done without special decks (maybe setups) or stooges and is fully explained in Richard's book but is also better understood when one studies the THINKING that David Berglas engages in when approaching any of his miracle effects.
JB

Potty the Pirate
Posts: 30
Joined: April 14th, 2011, 4:54 am

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Potty the Pirate » August 4th, 2012, 8:55 am

The only way the odds would be 1/2704 is if the chosen card were the only card in a deck. For example, after showing that (say) the 4D is at position number 34, both card and number having been freely selected.....the remaining cards are shown to be all blank.

However, since a deck contains all the cards, the first selection is not 1/52, it is 1/1. That is to say, asking someone to name a card, and then showing that it is, indeed, in a deck, is 100% guaranteed.

It's only when the location of the card is factored in, that a miracle occurs...being a 1/52 chance.

Admittedly, for the performer, the work is potentially greater to achieve ACAAN, than CAAN...but this doesn't alter the basic statistical probability of ACAAN and CAAN being identical.

John Bowden
Posts: 167
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Main Street, Urlingford, Co. Kilkenny, Ireland, E41 Y9K2.

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby John Bowden » August 4th, 2012, 9:07 am

" The only way the odds would be 1/2704 is if the chosen card were the only card in a deck. For example, after showing that (say) the 4D is at position number 34, both card and number having been freely selected.....the remaining cards are shown to be all blank."

You have answered yourself here but rather than having the remaining cards all blank they are all different to the 4D.
So ACAAN is 2704 to 1

Blank cards, green cards, credit cards whatever cards they are so long as they are different to a named card in this case (say) 4D.


Thanks for replying as it showed where I might have been slack in explaining it to you. I'm sure now that you must be getting the gist of it.

Cheers again from the Emerald Isle,
Land of Saints and Scholars (Rogues and Robbers)
John Bowden.

PS Don't make me come over there and explain it personally, you wouldn't like me when I am explaining.
JB

User avatar
mrgoat
Posts: 4257
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brighton, UK
Contact:

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby mrgoat » August 4th, 2012, 9:20 am

Potty the Pirate wrote:I enjoyed the blog, and can't see any reason for folks to jump up and down about someone discussing this effect.


Because it's Mark Lewis. Your presence here confirms this.

Now, hop off back to the buskers, the pair of you.

User avatar
Joe Pecore
Posts: 1915
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Paul Harris
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Joe Pecore » August 4th, 2012, 9:26 am

Isn't the math equation for the probability of two independent events "P(A and B) = P(A) * P(B)"?

A = pick a card
B = pick a number

P(CAAN) = 1/1 * 1/52 = 1/52
P(ACAAN) = 1/52 * 1/52 = 1/2704
Last edited by Joe Pecore on August 4th, 2012, 9:34 am, edited 0 times in total.
Reason: oops typo

John Bowden
Posts: 167
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Main Street, Urlingford, Co. Kilkenny, Ireland, E41 Y9K2.

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby John Bowden » August 4th, 2012, 9:52 am

Thanks Joe but the problem may well be that some can't count when the range of numbers go beyond their fingers.

I didn't like to introduce equations into the discussion as there was already enough difficulty with multiplication and comprehension of probabilities.

Cheers, once again, from the Emerald Isle of Ireland,
John Bowden.

PS "OK, you guys, have I made myself clear?"

El Mystico
Posts: 996
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Leamington Spa
Contact:

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby El Mystico » August 4th, 2012, 10:19 am

For once I side with Potty.

If John calls out either "heads" or "tails"; and Joe tosses a coin; the chances that John has called right is 50%.

But according to Joe and John's logic above, it would be 1/2 * 1/2 = 25%.


but, despite this, I think that ACAAN is more impressive to laymen than CAAN.

El Mystico
Posts: 996
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Leamington Spa
Contact:

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby El Mystico » August 4th, 2012, 10:51 am

If I had been able to correctly guess that John would call heads, and guess that the coin would end tails up; that would be a 25% chance.

Smurf
Posts: 521
Joined: May 31st, 2010, 11:23 am

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Smurf » August 4th, 2012, 10:59 am

Potty is correct.

The named playing card is in the deck - assuming a standard deck. The only unknown is which number is it at.

User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 25112
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Richard Kaufman » August 4th, 2012, 11:25 am

Another funny day here on the Genii Forum when even the tenents of basic mathematics seem a mystery.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

User avatar
Matthew Field
Posts: 2813
Joined: January 18th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Slydini
Location: Hastings, England, UK

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Matthew Field » August 4th, 2012, 12:11 pm

According to Prof. Adams, it is 42.

Matt Field

John Bowden
Posts: 167
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Main Street, Urlingford, Co. Kilkenny, Ireland, E41 Y9K2.

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby John Bowden » August 4th, 2012, 12:11 pm

El Mystico always be careful when comparing oranges to lemons or your juice will taste awful.

If you toss a coin once it is a 50-50 but if you toss the coin TWICE then it is a 25% chance.

Now on to Smurf you are correct for CAAN but for ACAAN there are two unknowns. One unknown is which card will be chosen and the other which number will be chosen. Two equal probabilities.
The fact that the card is already in the deck does not diminish in any way the number of cards in the deck any more that knowing that it is in one of fifty two positions diminish the number of possible positions. It is still 52*52 and that is still 2704 and I am nearly blue in the face telling you that. I'm turning into a smurf myself.

Cheers once again and again and again from the Emerald Isle,
John Bowden.............

PS. Now anyone else with a problem ...................get yourself out to your local kids playground and they will explain it for you.

Richard................STOP enjoying it.

JB

User avatar
Joe Pecore
Posts: 1915
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Paul Harris
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Joe Pecore » August 4th, 2012, 12:48 pm

El Mystico wrote:If John calls out either "heads" or "tails"; and Joe tosses a coin; the chances that John has called right is 50%.

But according to Joe and John's logic above, it would be 1/2 * 1/2 = 25%


I don't understand your math. You only have one event.
Share your knowledge on the MagicPedia wiki.

User avatar
erdnasephile
Posts: 4175
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby erdnasephile » August 4th, 2012, 1:25 pm

Joe Pecore wrote:Isn't the math equation for the probability of two independent events "P(A and B) = P(A) * P(B)"?

A = pick a card
B = pick a number

P(CAAN) = 1/1 * 1/52 = 1/52
P(ACAAN) = 1/52 * 1/52 = 1/2704


Joe's math is correct.

However, as Max Maven has noted on his seminal "Multiplicity" DVD's, the statistical odds of a correct outcome in a given effect play little role on whether or not the effect is impressive to the audience.

User avatar
Joe Pecore
Posts: 1915
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Paul Harris
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Joe Pecore » August 4th, 2012, 1:30 pm

El Mystico wrote:If John calls out either "heads" or "tails"; and Joe tosses a coin; the chances that John has called right is 50%.

Unless you mean the fact that John calls "heads" is one event and the toss of a coin is another event.

It comes down to how you state the probability.

A = chance of john calling "heads/tails"
B = chance of coin being "heads/tails"

The outcomes can be:
1 John calls "heads" and coin is "heads"
2 John calls "heads" and coin is "tails"
3 John calls "tails" and coin is "heads"
4 John calls "tails" and coin is "tails"

The probability that John will call "heads" (1/2) and the toss of the coin will be "heads" (1/2) is 1/4 [1/2 * 1/2 = 1/4]

The probability of John calling "heads or tails" (1/1) and the toss of the coin will be "heads" (1/2) is 1/2 [1/1 * 1/2 = 1/2]
Share your knowledge on the MagicPedia wiki.

John Bowden
Posts: 167
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Main Street, Urlingford, Co. Kilkenny, Ireland, E41 Y9K2.

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby John Bowden » August 4th, 2012, 2:07 pm

Sort of boils down to a question of: is it the probability of how the coin lands (Heads or Tails) or is there a further element of how someone predicts how it will land?
This can be further complicated by the possibility that Joe might predict one outcome John another............... Did David Berglas cover this in his book and if not what is the possibility that he was going to but realized that it would eventually be covered here?.

Did Richard Kaufman leave it out or will he put it in another book?
What are the chances I will have a nervous breakdown as a result of this thread? what are the chances that I will cause someone to have one? are they the same or are they inversely related.?



OK Class...............ONE last time

CAAN = 52 to 1
ACAAN = (52*52) to 1 which is 2704 to 1

Class Dismissed.

Cheers from the Emerald Isle
John Bowden

OH another PS. For homework will all those who still think ACAAN is 52 to 1 please do some research on the BERGLAS EFFECT.
We'll know by your posts if you do it or not............. so no dodging.

JB

Larry Horowitz
Posts: 434
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: L.A.

Re: The Berglas Effect

Postby Larry Horowitz » August 4th, 2012, 2:13 pm

I think the problem here is one of words and logic :

If we agree that the card will always and forever be the King of Spades. Then the card will be in one of 52 places, always and forever.

However, if we allow the card to be named by the spectator. we have 52 choices.

Then we have a number named. Again 52 choices.

We have had two events. 52 cards x 52 choices.

Now for the illogical play on the mind:

Once the card is named the trick has begun and the card can only be in one of 52 places. It is only before you begin the trick that the odds are 1/2704. Because before you begin the trick the decisions are yet to be made and each decision has multiple outcomes.

Two decisions, 2704 possibilities. One decision, 52 potosi ileitis.


Return to “Buzz”