The Genii Forum

Geoff,

Interesting point about people tracking overhand shuffles.

I know that I can track a shuffle, because I'm familiar with the process, but have you ever had a spectator track your shuffle that you were aware?

I've never had that happen...to my knowledge. And if an effect doesn't have the impact it usually does, I can generally am aware of a more obvious reason it went South.

Jeff

Originally posted by Kim:
I dont think the postings should be locked, what about those of us that have only recently stumbled onto this section? I feel these should be continuing threads that can continue to grow.

Originally posted by Geoff Latta:
I agree with Kim. As magic history grows, why shouldn't the interpretation of it do the same?

Pardon the interruption, but to Kim and Geoff--and the several others who have expressed the same view via email, please check the announcement page.

Thanks!
Dustin

Originally posted by Jeff Haas:
Geoff,

Interesting point about people tracking overhand shuffles.

I know that I can track a shuffle, because I'm familiar with the process, but have you ever had a spectator track your shuffle that you were aware?

Hi Jeff,

When I was a kid I noticed that magicians and seasoned card players (A good percentage of my audiences at the time) could track them in at least a general sense; that was enough for me to stop using them right there. After analyzing all of the riffle shuffles I did I realized that they were impervious to this, as well as giving a much more convincing impression of mixing the cards, and that was that.

As for conveying skill, I don't have a problem with that; I submit that probably everything I do with a deck from turning a card over to making a fan for a selection says to the audience that I am very familiar with a deck of cards. To me, this merely gives me more authority when working and makes the experience more enjoyable for everyone.

Best,

Geoff

Geoff,

I rarely run into seasoned card players at gigs I do...as a matter of fact, I dropped all effects that went into gambling themes in detail because the audiences didn't connect with them.

Everyone knows what the four aces and a royal flush are, but the details of poker? Too much to follow for the uninitiated.

I found it was kind of like a sports nut describing the intricacies of a sport that people have heard of, but weren't familiar with...like hockey or auto racing.

Also, I rarely have a table surface to do riffle shuffling on anyway. How do you deal with the strolling situations?

Jeff

With all the discussion on the shuffle in OOSOOM, are we missing some of the actual flaws in the routine? Well, maybe not flaws, per se -- more like logical problems. They're nothing that can't be solved without a good presentation (I believe there are some solutions from Vernon in the book as well as the in Genii issue. Roberto Giobbi also covers them a bit), but I think a discussion here might be worthwhile. From looking at the routine, I see three problems that need to be addressed:

1. The selection procedure: Why the odd method of having them think of a card? Why can't they just think of any card they like? Why can't they remove a card from the deck as it's fanned before them like we usually do?
2. Running through the cards face-up: What's the motivation for running through the cards? They've seen it already, they know what it is, so why should they see it again? And why do you need to ask if they've seen it already? Couldn't you just run through all the cards and be certain that they saw it?
3. Having them name the card at the end: If you (supposedly) already know what their card is, why do they need to tell you?

As I said, there are already some solutions in print. I'm just curious to see what you guys think about these problems.

-Jim

Concerning the selection procedure: Jennings'method to make the spectator think of one card is very subtle. He spreads the deck faces to one spectator but holds the deck in such a manner that he can only see eight or nine cards.
Jennings shows this method in one of the Paris Super Session Video.
On running through the cards face-up, I think this is The weakness of the trick but hard to avoid.
On having them to name the card at the end, it is to my opinion very weak but you can avoid that through Dingle's strategy. See one of my messages above.

With regard to the selection process in Out of Sight, Out of Mind, the Professor employed a verbal subtlety which eminently explained the provision that the spectator merely think of any card THEY SEE........ He explained that he was certain that the deck he was using was short a card or two thus if the spectator were asked to think of ANY card in the deck, there was a chance that they might think of one of the cards that was missing...and "it would be impossible for me to then find your card, as it wasn't in the deck to begin with........ So I'm going to ask you to think of any card you SEE...."
Naturally, prior to the spectator visually noting a card, all the attendant preliminary free shuffling by the spectator is given great emphasis thus rendering it impossible for the performer to know the order of the deck, etc., etc.

Originally posted by Jeff Haas:
....Also, I rarely have a table surface to do riffle shuffling on anyway. How do you deal with the strolling situations?

Jeff

Jeff, shuffle work is table work as far as I'm concerned, though I have to say I've done Triumph on more bars, barstools and chairs than I can count. That said, the routines I use standing up don't have any shuffling in them, unless it's the spectator shuffling after a steal, crimp or whatever.

Unless shuffling is the focus of the trick (as in a gambling routine) I tend to avoid it. It seems like the magical equivalent of "dead air" to me. In fact, in most of my tricks I try to keep procedure minimal and have as much visual magic going on as I can.

I agree in general about the gambling stuff, but with the caveat that there are good audiences for that kind of thing, and for them it's great stuff. Don't do much of it anymore, though I used to.

Best,

Geoff

Originally posted by Philippe Nol:
Concerning the selection procedure: Jennings'method to make the spectator think of one card is very subtle. He spreads the deck faces to one spectator but holds the deck in such a manner that he can only see eight or nine cards.
Jennings shows this method in one of the Paris Super Session Video.

Sounds interesting, but does he cover WHY they need to look at the cards in order to mentally select one? Is there a reason why they can't just think of any card they like?

On running through the cards face-up, I think this is The weakness of the trick but hard to avoid.

Perhaps if the selection procedure was changed, so that you could easily determine what card they chose? What about the riffle force where you pause briefly on one card so that they notice it more than the others? Anything that gives the impression of being able to mentally choose from a number of cards while only giving them the choice of one (or give you the ability to peek the card) could work, as long as the procedure doesn't take away from the mental feeling of the effect. I don't think that you should in any way obviously display one specific card (as in, for example, a peek, or anything in which a card is removed from the deck and then replaced), as this can lead them to think, "Well, maybe he was somehow able to keep track of that card." Of course, Vernon's selection procedure is good and fulfill's my criteria -- it's just that it creates problems down the line that need to be addressed.

On having them to name the card at the end, it is to my opinion very weak but you can avoid that through Dingle's strategy. See one of my messages above.

Well, there's two issues here -- the first is that you have to ask for the name of the card. However, if they don't name the card, no one else in the audience can appreciate the revelation of the card.

I don't like the Dingle strategy you mentioned earlier. First, if you do get a hit, how do you explain the card on the table? If you don't get a hit, and you need to pull the card from your pocket, that completely changes the theme of the effect. Now, instead of reading someone's mind, you're doing a magic trick. If you miss, but discover it's the card on the table, you can laugh off the prediction as a joke, but it ruins the moment, at least for me. This all depends on your character, style, and the mood/effect you wish to create.

Personally, I feel that you should ask them to name the card. However, it must be done in such a way that 1. it seems as if you already know and 2. you don't really care a whole lot whether or not they do say it. The way to do it, I think, is to let them know that you want them to name the card for the audience's sake, so they can appreciate the effect. This is entirely true. Check out Roberto Giobbi's verbal handling for the climax in CC5 -- as is typical, he's found a effective and subtle solution.

Ok, I'm done with my rambling. For now, at least. ;)

-Jim

Roberto Giobbi has his own take on this Vernon effect in Card College 5. You might be interested in reading about the verbal misdirection he uses.

Originally posted by Giorgio GetJet Tarchini:
Roberto Giobbi has his own take on this Vernon effect in Card College 5. You might be interested in reading about the verbal misdirection he uses.

I've read over Giobbi's version several times. His verbal technique (in this and other effects) always impresses me -- his phrasing may seem insignificant to some, but it makes a big difference in terms of the preception of the effect.

-Jim

I figured that with all the discussion on the shuffle in OOSOOM there would be more interest in the questions I posed about the structure of the effect in general. Are there only a few of us thinking about those questions, or do the others just not want to give their thoughts? I'm kind of surprised since I think these questions need more attention than how you shuffle the cards (although that is a valid question as well).

-Jim

I suggest that students of this effect check out Marlo's "Direct Statement vs. Interrogation." The spek thinks of a card, the deck is shuffled, and then the magician utters an unambiguous statement regarding how the selection will be revealed.

Then he does so.

Onward,

JR

Originally posted by Jim Maloney:
I figured that with all the discussion on the shuffle in OOSOOM there would be more interest in the questions I posed about the structure of the effect in general.

Jim,

I only posted about the shuffle because it was the only part of the trick's "issues" I had a solution for that felt good to me. I thought the overhand shuffle solutions were trackable and the riffle shuffle solutions were, I thought, cumbersome and studied.

As far as the other issues go, all I have to offer is be casual and offhand with the questions, and bury them in other chatter (a slightly different use of what Max Maven calls "verbal overkill") so that they may not be remembered, or if they are, do not seem particularly to stand out.

Best,

Geoff

Just a note regarding OOSOOM. I attended R Paul Wilson's lecture here in Dallas last week and he went into a lot of detail on his version of this fabulous effect, "Out of Your Mind". It impressed many of the attendees big time. He also has developed his own shuffling sequence.

I know he is on his lecture tour right now, but perhaps when he gets back on-line, he will favor us with some of the details on his shuffle, etc.

If you can't wait, you can obtain it from his web site for a minimal amount (unfortunately I don't get anything for this endorsement, but if a million of you buy it and say I sent you, maybe he'll send me a freebee ;)

R Paul Wilson\'s Web Site

Best,

Mark

Originally posted by Mark Jensen:
I know he is on his lecture tour right now, but perhaps when he gets back on-line, he will favor us with some of the details on his shuffle, etc.

If you're just interested in his shuffling sequence, it's in the Dec. 2001 issue of Genii. Assuming, of course, he hasn't changed anything since then.

-Jim

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that original concept was published in the Rosini book.

Jim Maloney_dup1 wrote:
1. The selection procedure: Why the odd method of having them think of a card? Why can't they just think of any card they like? Why can't they remove a card from the deck as it's fanned before them like we usually do?

I start by offering them the fan, then pause, change my mind and say, tell you what, let's make this harder, just THINK of one of the cards.

Then on the return and during the shuffle sequence I patter about how I know sleight of hand and can cheat if they physically take a card. Because they just thought of one, all that is out the window and I will have to try something else to find the card...(segway to...)

Jim Maloney_dup1 wrote:2. Running through the cards face-up: What's the motivation for running through the cards? They've seen it already, they know what it is, so why should they see it again? And why do you need to ask if they've seen it already? Couldn't you just run through all the cards and be certain that they saw it?

THe face up running of the cards is the 'something different' I refer to in 1. I ask them to think intently of the name of their card. I run the cards, I keep pausing every now and then and looking them in the eyes, then carrying on.

Jim Maloney_dup1 wrote:3. Having them name the card at the end: If you (supposedly) already know what their card is, why do they need to tell you?

I've had a strong urge to stop here (peek at card). So everyone else can feel as blown away as you are about to be, name out loud the card you MERELY THOUGHT OF at the start of the trick...

--

Probably inelegant or uneffective solutions to the issues. But it seems to work for me.

Chas; I assume you are referring to "Somewhere in the Deck" in Rossini's Magican Gems published in the 1950?
The original concept goes back to Erdnase's A Mind Reading Trick, as Vernon often acknowledged.
Hull's Mental Discernment, published around 1930, is very close to what Vernon ended up with; Hull cutely refers to "the originator" without naming Vernon, giving the suggestion that the originator was Hull himself.
But Max Holden described Vernon doing the effect in a column in May 1927.

As for Jim's comments on the structure of the effect - posed five years ago - I'm guessing he has had a chance to look back at the description written up in more Inner Secrets since then; if not, i'd urge him to do so. Vernon clearly considered the same questions and came up with his own solutions.

The original concept was described by Guyot in 1769 in Nouvelles Rcrations mathmatiques et physiques, Vol. 3, page 252, under the title :

De quatre cartes qu'on fait prendre dans le jeu, en laisser penser une, et la deviner.

From four cards, to suggest one and guess it.

is it the concept that was explained by Guyot? Or the effect?
(Certainly it is astonishing how many of magic's effects were created by the French!)

I don't think that all were created by French but a lot of new tricks were explained during the XVIII century by french writters.

Don't forget that Vernon himself said that card magic comes principaly from Europe. It's a mix of french, italian, german, english and spanish magic.

Guyot simply explains the effect. He dosen't speak about a new concept.

I was just re-reading this thread and I noticed that seven years is a pretty long time. By which I mean this - the CASTLE NOTEBOOKS and the expanded edition of REVELATIONS have subsequently been released. There was alot of worry at the beginning of this thread that they might never see the light of day. It is sad to think that Geoff Latta was an early poster to this thread. Like any respectable card man he was very interested in seeing the unreleased Vernon material. I hope he lived long enough to check it out...

I guess the HENRY CHRIST notes held by Persi Diaconis are one of the few remaining unreleased 'holy grails'. Although - I read that Peter Duffie has read them and thought that whilst they were of interest for their time they have now being superceded by better ideas...

Sorry for the detour!

Joe

PS I was re-reading the thread to check out Geoff's Zarrow shuffle approach to the distribution of cards needed for the OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND trick. It is a great idea...

Yes, I believe it did.

I hope one day someone puts together a "sticky" post of the all time best Genii Forum threads. This thread would be at the top of my personal "must read" list. Rereading it reminds me of just how much we miss Geoff and Paul.

Fascinating thread. Particularly the strength of conviction held by some that material was withheld from Revelations.

Anyone know (Richard?) what is happening to the detailed notes that Jennings took on Vernon's effects?

There was no material withheld from Revelations--while I heard first hand from several people who would know that this was the case, it later turned out not to be true (conclusively not true). So that is finished.

As far as Jennings' notes on Vernon's material, that is unknown at the moment. I talked about it with Larry, and I knew where the notes were while he was alive, but have no idea now.

I agree that the conclusion is that no material was withheld. But I think the story serves as an instructive lesson for all of us going forward about how rumours can be taken as truth and argued strongly.

Bummer about the Jennings notes though!