Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Instead of mentally projecting your mentalism thoughts, type them here.
User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby DennisLisi » May 31st, 2022, 6:54 am

I was perusing another thread the other day (about the psychological aspects of "equivoque" I believe), and several members referred to Max Maven's "B'Wave", praising it as a virtually ideal packet trick.

I used to like packet tricks (when I was a kid), especially those involving gaffed cards--but nowadays I'm a little jaded.

My point is that anytime a trick becomes popular, there's the great risk that a significant portion of your audience knows how it's done. So it's a good idea to "customise" the routine.

Having watched several YouTube videos, my immediate concern with "B'Wave" was that we don't get to see either the faces or the backs of all four cards at the start.

I also didn't like the bit about imagining the cards being removed and/or replaced in the packet. Just silly in my opinion.

Anyway--here's my own version, which I hope you folks will comment on, and which a few may benefit from in the short term (before the public catches on to it).

B'WAVE (ALTERNATE APPROACH)

I will not be discussing the "secret" here, out of respect for the fact that Max Maven is still marketing the product.

But in order to show "all four cards" to the satisfaction of the cynics in the crowd, I devised a ruse of my own. I put a dab of bee'swax (or carnauba) on the face of the force card and place one of the blank cards on top of it (face to face), so that it adheres well enough to keep the odd card out of sight.

I now have a packet of four cards--but two of them are stuck together. All of the visible backs are blue.

I begin by removing the four cards from a full deck, as I think this lends some credibility (packet tricks are suspect, and imply preparation).

I say, "By the way, this happens to be a marked deck. If you look closely, you can see here--I've chosen the four queens. This one is The Queen of Clubs; this one is The Queen of Hearts", etc.

One of the blank cards has two different markings on the back, so that by inverting the packet (end for end), I create the illusion that there are four visible cards--indicating one card at a time, as I file off the top card and place it at the bottom of the pack.

"Now, what we're going to do is employ the powers of your mind to eliminate all of the queens but one.

"We'll be off and running, if you decide the colour. Which are you going to focus on, the red or the black?"

If the volunteer chooses red, I say, "Fine! then what you need to do is concentrate on making the black cards disappear. I find it helps if you visualise them, clap your hands, and say 'Poof!'"

"All that remains is to eliminate the unwanted red queen. Which one of the two don't you want? The Queen of Diamonds? Okay--picture it in your mind, and clap your hands!

"At this point, there should be just one queen in the packet--The Queen of Hearts. You seem doubtful of your own potential Alright, then! Think hard about The Queen of Hearts. Think RED CARD: think QUEEN; think HEARTS!"

"Now, let's see what we've got.' I spread the four cards, face down, to reveal The Queen of Hearts, face up. Turning the card over to show the red back, I remark, "You really did concentrate, didn't you?"

"And look! All the other cards are blank!". After which I scoop them up with The Queen and toss them out for examination. The spectators will discover that the markings are still present on the backs.

Meanwhile, I search my pockets for something (exchanging the gaffed card for a regular Queen of Hearts), and pull out one of my business cards, which I promptly attach to The Queen (either by stapling it, or using a bit of celotape)--and hand it to the participant as a souvenir.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby DennisLisi » May 31st, 2022, 11:39 am

You can of course, use roughing fluid to conceal the force card, but I think it's quicker, easier, and less expensive to use some sort of lip balm. The residue is easily wiped off if you are working on a table cloth or a close-up pad.

User avatar
katterfelt0
Posts: 273
Joined: February 2nd, 2021, 2:11 pm
Favorite Magician: Depends on the day. Today, Rick Maue.

Re: Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby katterfelt0 » May 31st, 2022, 12:22 pm

Dennis,

I'll have to give this a go and see how it plays, Thank you for sharing it.
Effect and method are inextricably linked.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby DennisLisi » May 31st, 2022, 1:29 pm

katterfelt0 wrote:Dennis,

I'll have to give this a go and see how it plays, Thank you for sharing it.



I forgot to mention that I've had a better response to this routine when I don't have the force card face-up in the pack. Since there's really no point to it (I don't claim to have predicted which card the volunteer would choose, and I didn't ask him or her to telekinetically flip it over). It's more of a dramatic build-up I think--for the spectators to first see the back of the red card, and then turn it over.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby DennisLisi » June 1st, 2022, 10:20 am

I just got a video in my YouTube feed this morning that incorporates the same idea that I had--i.e., to "make the three queens disappear", but which has a few distinct differences.

The first is that it employs no gimmicked cards. Which I quite like.

However, I find the use of The Elmsley Count rather annoying. Anytime I see it, I do an eye-roll. My purpose is to hide the method, not render it perfectly evident.

And besides, it would complicate my bit of business with the marked cards. I invite members of the crowd to closely scrutinise the markings on the backs of each one. Doing the EC with folks half a foot away from me would make me a little anxious.

And I always try to work out the easiest way. For me, that's a spot of Burt's Bees lip balm.

After all, the best thing about Max Maven's method is that it doesn't require any manual dexterity.

I think if I simply take the impromptu (non-gaffed) approach shown in this video, and use it with my routine, it will be fantastic.

No need to switch the gimmicked card before handing it to the volunteer for a keepsake.

Anyway--this is exactly what I mean by modifying. Let us each come up with our own unique twist on a given effect.

https://youtu.be/OAx2cGG6-5Q

User avatar
Q. Kumber
Posts: 1851
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Tom Whitestone

Re: Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby Q. Kumber » June 1st, 2022, 11:23 am

It is obvious you have put a lot of thought into your handling and I applaud you for that but you have put in everything Max took out.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby DennisLisi » June 1st, 2022, 12:04 pm

Q. Kumber wrote:It is obvious you have put a lot of thought into your handling and I applaud you for that but you have put in everything Max took out.


Yes, I've tried to make my brain stop, but I'm afraid it won't.

You bring up a good point (that I hoped someone would). Should we venerate a routine or a method so much that we feel we must faithfully adhere to it?

I think that the effect is the most important thing. But that the method can and ought to be altered whenever and wherever possible.

The audience shouldn't care how we do the trick. They ought to simply wonder, no matter how many times they see it.

"Did he do an Elmsley Count?

"Was that a gaffed card?

"Is it Max Maven's "B'Wave", or does it just look like it?"

Keeping the audience guessing is what it's all about. Ideally, every trick should have multiple methods, so nobody is really sure which one we are using.

I see it as a great service, to create this kind of confusion. If I were Max, I'd be glad that everybody was misleading the viewers so thoroughly that they'd never figure it out.

User avatar
katterfelt0
Posts: 273
Joined: February 2nd, 2021, 2:11 pm
Favorite Magician: Depends on the day. Today, Rick Maue.

Re: Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby katterfelt0 » June 1st, 2022, 1:22 pm

DennisLisi wrote:You bring up a good point (that I hoped someone would). Should we venerate a routine or a method so much that we feel we must faithfully adhere to it?

Keeping the audience guessing is what it's all about. Ideally, every trick should have multiple methods, so nobody is really sure which one we are using.

Regarding point A above: Magic is (or should be) intensely personal. What is great for one performer may not fit at all with another. As long as you're true to your character and vision, you've made a better choice than most.

Re: point B: I'm wondering if I'm somehow misreading you. I don't want the audience to be guessing at all. I want them so involved with the performance they don't even think to guess (a goal I rarely achieve but always strive for).
Effect and method are inextricably linked.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby DennisLisi » June 1st, 2022, 1:50 pm

Well I was thinking in terms of the worst case scenario, in which the sceptical onlookers naturally try to analyse the illusion.

There's a difference between sheer wonder and speculation. But it's fairly certain that we'll get a measure of each.

If an audience member asks, "How did you do that?!" you want him to be in a quandary. The best way I know is to misdirect the mind with alternate possibilities (and/or impossibilities). Anything to baffle the rational mind, to prevent it from drawing the right conclusion.

Some spectators will be content to believe in magic, but others will only be amazed if they can't logically determine your method.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby DennisLisi » June 1st, 2022, 8:41 pm

katterfelt0 wrote:
DennisLisi wrote:


Re: point B: I'm wondering if I'm somehow misreading you. I don't want the audience to be guessing at all. I want them so involved with the performance they don't even think to guess (a goal I rarely achieve but always strive for).



I think you got the impression that I believe in publicising various theories in an effort to distract people from the real method.

No, I just consider it inevitable that a great many in the audience will try to solve the mystery. It makes more sense to challenge them than to mystify them.

An ingenious routine will impress one type, while a brilliant performance will astonish another. I would prefer to have both.

I try to eliminate bits that could make anyone in the crowd suspicious. I don't want to "cover it" with mere theatricism. A sharp mind will spot it.

So no, I don't encourage the spectator to analyse the situation. Rather, I try to demonstrate (subtly) that this, that and the other possible explanation have little or no evidence to back them up. I don't ignore the questions. I anticipate them and frustrate them everywhere I can.

Sometimes it's best to supply an alternate explanation, but I strive to make even the most magical beanstalk seem plausible. That's why I replaced the pantomime of removing invisible cards from the packet, with getting the volunteer to use their own psychic powers to blank them out.

An absurdity vs. a fascinating experiment.

I think credibility is more often a help than a hindrance in producing a "boffo" effect.

User avatar
Brad Jeffers
Posts: 1221
Joined: April 11th, 2008, 5:52 pm
Location: Savannah, GA

Re: Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby Brad Jeffers » June 2nd, 2022, 1:12 am

B'Wave is a mentalism effect.
The modifications you reference turn it into a magic trick.
Then it's no longer B'Wave.
It becomes a weaker version of Twisted Sisters.

Philippe Billot
Posts: 1820
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: PARIS - FRANCE

Re: Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby Philippe Billot » June 2nd, 2022, 2:53 am

Twisted Sisters is a transposition

B'Wave is a Prediction (or as Philip K. Dick said: the magician is a precog)

But you can play this trick as a magician or a mentalist.

For those who want a manipulative version, I advise you B'zouave by Duraty in his book Subtile Extraction (2012) if you understand French.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby DennisLisi » June 2nd, 2022, 6:34 am

Brad Jeffers wrote:B'Wave is a mentalism effect.
The modifications you reference turn it into a magic trick.
Then it's no longer B'Wave.
It becomes a weaker version of Twisted Sisters.


I actually think "B'Wave" is more is of a simple trick, as the magician ultimately reveals that he "predicted" the outcome, essentially confesses that the cards consisted of just one queen and three blank cards from the start.

Whereas in my version, I not only imply that the cards are altered by psychic means, but that the participant is responsible.

Yes, the plot is different. But it is not a weaker effect. When you get your volunteer involved in making the magic happen, you are likely to get a stronger reaction.

I never did like the sort of Mentalism in which the predictive powers of the performer are merely vindicated in the end. Very few people believe that you have the prophetic ability to pre-determine their card. Most are going to realise that it was a force, no matter how well you convinced them that they had a "free choice".

I think it's truer to the spirit of The Art, to 1) persuade them that there were indeed FOUR QUEENS; 2) that they were not talked into picking a particular one; and 3) that they were instrumental in working the miracle.

Seeing is not believing. Doing is believing.

Dave Le Fevre
Posts: 365
Joined: December 24th, 2015, 10:29 am
Favorite Magician: Paul Megram

Re: Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby Dave Le Fevre » June 2nd, 2022, 8:09 am

Brad Jeffers wrote:Then it's no longer B'Wave
I cannot disagree. Which way you perform B'wave depends on whether you wish to perform a mental effect or a physical impossibility. And as you say, arguably the physical impossibility B'wave isn't really B'wave, semantically speaking. And you may or may not feel strongly about that. (I don't.)

I do notice that many people argue vehemently against using an Elmsley Count in B'wave, but that nobody ever argues forcibly in favour of that Elmsley Count. That always intrigues me - the mentalists defend their corner so strongly, but their opponents don't seem to feel the need to argue their cause. It probably sounds as if I'm trying to make a point here. But I'm not. I'm merely intrigued to notice the asymmetry of the strength of feeling.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby DennisLisi » June 2nd, 2022, 8:20 am

The problem I have with the handling of "B'Wave" is that you either "show" or suggest that all four cards are of a particular denomination (and have the same colour backs), but in the end, both ideas are proved false.

It is clearly not mere precognition, but chicanery. Which leads the suspicious mind to conclude The Elmsley Count (if it hadn't guessed already), and a verbal force (The Magician's Choice).

Having then determined these methods, all credulity in the performer's psychic ability is lost.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby DennisLisi » June 2nd, 2022, 12:13 pm

Let me clarify the above statement (my phraseology is often too implicit).

I don't mean that Max Maven's handling is suspicious. It's fine, as far as it goes. But it doesn't go far enough. In fact, it's virtually non-existent.

I don't trust any part of a magic act that I cannot see.

Thus I feel something ought to be done to persuade the spectator that the cards exist, rather than asking them to "imagine".

Now, as I said above, I would never use an obvious card sleight (such as The Elmsley Count) in a Mentalism routine like this. But some effort should be made I think, to satisfy the audience's curiosity about the cards before the trick is begun.

That's why I introduced the concept of the marked cards. It allows "all four" backs to be shown, and even indicates which cards they are WITHOUT REVEALING THEIR FACES.

You can still perform the routine exactly as conceived by Maven if you wish. I just find it more powerful to create the impression that the cards are "vanished" by some sort of psychic ability.

What participant would not be blown away by their own potential to do The Impossible? It's much more astonishing than any mere prediction.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Cliche served flambe

Postby Jonathan Townsend » June 2nd, 2022, 2:54 pm

It's an okay experiment to gauge audience reactions. Do what plays appropriately for your character and audience.

<humor> Such as show the other three cards to be aces, and then reach into your pocket for the last ace.
Or for the magic shop gang have the three cards be the red, blue and green finale for the Color Monte routine naming the earlier selection in green letters. </humor>

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8704
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby Jonathan Townsend » June 2nd, 2022, 3:06 pm

@DennisLisi,
If you wanted to start from the deck - there are several suitable packet switches in print so you could start by spreading the pack face up to get the Queens together. To be really blunt about it - if you are going to overhaul the routine - you may as well change the cards to the ace, two, three, four of the various suits. Just use a different special card - Hofzinser did ;) Taking that approach and starting with the four queens, one could have the other cards revealed to be two Jacks and her jealous husband (king of same suit).

The packet of four cards could put into the hands of a volunteer before the imagination exercise begins. One could put the entire "cause" into the volunteer holding the cards - having them imagine stuff happening to the cards during the selection procedure.

Have you toyed with Dean Dill's Blizzard item. ;)
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby DennisLisi » June 2nd, 2022, 7:29 pm

Yes, I'll be using random, ordinary cards in future. The gaffed cards are too limiting.

And they really aren't necessary, when you're using The Magician's Choice anyway.

One less bit of equivocation doesn't make a huge difference. But the advantage of a regular card is of course, that it can be examined.

I wouldn't bother with a deck switch. I'd just have an ordinary pack with a set-up (or two) in it.

Immediately mention that it's a marked deck (this always generates interest, and makes people forget about the faces of the cards). They will accept the idea that the markings correspond to the number and suit as a matter of course.

One of the blank cards has two different marks (example: 10S at one end, 10C at the other). Place this one in top of the packet.

Indicate with your finger, the 10S, slide it off and put it on the bottom, rotating it end-for-end, so the "10C" will be uppermost when it reappears.

Next, point out the "10H" (or whatever) on the block of two cards containing the hidden force, casually lift it as one, and tuck it under. Proceed with the "10D"--and lastly show the "10C".

The packet is in the original order, with the force card in the third position.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby DennisLisi » June 2nd, 2022, 7:31 pm

Yes, I'll be using random, ordinary cards in future. The gaffed cards are too limiting.

And they really aren't necessary, when you're using The Magician's Choice anyway.

One less bit of equivocation doesn't make a huge difference. But the advantage of a regular card is that it can be examined.

I wouldn't bother with a deck switch. I'd just have an ordinary pack with a set-up (or two) in it.

Immediately mention that it's a marked deck (this always generates interest, and makes people forget about the faces of the cards). They will accept the idea that the markings correspond to the number and suit as a matter of course.

One of the blank cards has two different marks (example: 10S at one end, 10C at the other). Place this one on top of the packet.

Indicate with your finger, the 10S, slide it off and put it on the bottom, rotating it end-for-end, so the "10C" will be uppermost when it reappears.

Next, point out the "10H" (or whatever) on the block of two cards containing the hidden force, casually lift it as one, and tuck it under. Proceed with the "10D"--and lastly show the "10C".

The packet is in its original order, with the force card in the third position.

ChrisK
Posts: 8
Joined: March 30th, 2022, 2:56 pm
Favorite Magician: Max Maven

Re: Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby ChrisK » June 21st, 2022, 12:05 pm

DennisLisi wrote:Yes, I'll be using random, ordinary cards in future. The gaffed cards are too limiting.

And they really aren't necessary, when you're using The Magician's Choice anyway.

One less bit of equivocation doesn't make a huge difference. But the advantage of a regular card is that it can be examined.


I've done a version of B'Wave that was fully examinable with equivoque, but it simply didn't play as strong. Even if you need to use it in phase 1 based on their response, the fact you can be so direct in phase 2 covers it. No one caught on to the equivoque, and yet the gaffed version always played stronger. People like it when performers are extremely direct with them on what will happen.

Immediately mention that it's a marked deck (this always generates interest, and makes people forget about the faces of the cards). They will accept the idea that the markings correspond to the number and suit as a matter of course.


I cannot fathom pointing out markings on my deck. First, most spectators won't be aware that it's a thing. Even if they are, they don't usually suspect a simple pack of bicycles. Second, that then destroys my ability to actually use the deck markings to my advantage. Not that I usually do two card effects in one set anyway.

User avatar
DennisLisi
Posts: 116
Joined: March 4th, 2021, 11:29 am
Favorite Magician: Fred Kaps

Re: Modifying (Disguising) Well-Known Tricks

Postby DennisLisi » June 23rd, 2022, 10:33 am

I find that calling attention to the marked cards lends credibility to my performance. Most people already suspect that magicians employ such devices. It's no big secret.

They've heard about marked cards, but they know little about them, so they regard it as a learning experience. They therefore have no reason to doubt that the faces of the cards are NOT AS INDICATED. It ironically allays any suspicion of blank faces or gaffs.


Return to “Mentalism & Mental Magic”