Why Triumph Is A Great Routine..

[Rick Kirkes]

Because you can end the routine making all the cards turn face-up with the selection of their chosen card reversed in the middle of the deck and it's simple in method to do, and always get's a good reaction.

Question, do you end the effect as a degree of skill, or..something magicial ? I have been experimenting with both endings, and I like both methods. Do you have a favorite verson of Triumph ? I do the Vernon method..

I would like to hear your thoughts on this..

[Joe Mckay]

My favourite version is by Michael Weber.

RK EDIT: I don't believe Michael Weber gave you permission to post his routine here, so I've deleted it.

[Joe Mckay]

One other thing - look up the GOODWIN/JENNINGS display.

It is a stunning optical illusion which make the trick ten times stronger.

Joe

[performer]

I should do The Tipsy Trick described in the Royal Road to Card Magic. It has several advantages to it and I can assure you that for practical purposes when working to laymen it is far better.

[Anthony Vinson]

While perhaps not the most technically demanding version, I have long been partial to John Bannon's Play it Straight Triumph from Impossibilia. Performed correctly it kills. I also like his in-the-hands version, Last Man Standing, from Dear Mr. Fantasy. It, by the way, uses the Jennings/Goodwin display Joe mentioned.

[Rick Kirkes]

Thank you all for your comments and advice.

Joe, That sounds like a great routine!

There is a marketed effect by Penguin called " Fair and Sloppy " by Ron Bauer. I believe it's in booklet form. Does anyone like that method ? It's cost is fairly cheap ( $7.50 ), so I'll get it and give a review if no one's done a review on it.

[F.Amílcar]

I perform the Vernon's routine with the only difference that when I have the deck ready to show face up cards and face down cards I make the display of Daryl Martinez that is in his "Royal Triumph routine" to reinforce the initial situation and after that I recompose the deck in a "non square" block of cards to let see to the audience an advice of how are the cards, finally I recompose the heaps, and display again face-up cards and face-down cards in usual Vernon's manner.

Best wishes.

[performer]

Here are the advantages of the Tipsy Trick. First it is far more amusing and the slop shuffle fits the drunk man presentation a lot better. And drunk people do tend to be amusing when viewed from a distance. The second advantage is a major one. You don't need a table. If you are working professionally this can make quite a difference. Third it is more visible than all these other versions. If you are working at a large table people can see it better. I have even done this trick in cabaret and on stage in smaller venues. It works very well.

There is a place for these tabled routines and I have always liked the Vernon version in The Stars of Magic but by and large you are better off for practical purposes with the Tipsy Trick. Some rather silly magicians who like fiddling about with riffle shuffles turn their nose up at this version. They shouldn't.

[Bob Farmer]

I've got a really simple way to get into the set-up for the Jennings-Goodwin display. I'll post it here shortly.

[Matthew Field]

Bill Goodwin has written that the so-called Jennings-Goodwin display should be called the Jennings display.

Matt Field

[erdnasephile]

I would add a plug for Guy Hollingworth's routine in Drawing Room Deceptions. Completely in the hands and practical for tableside work (as are many of Guy's routines).

Also, if you're a fan of the Vernon Stars of Magic version, you might be interested in comparing this with his actual Triumph method as described by Johnny Thompson in his DVD Set from L & L.

[erdnasephile]

I've also used Daryl's routine constantly as written since the late 80's. Paul Cummins has some excellent work and psychology on the display which he published in his FASDIU books.

[El Mystico]

The first time I used the 'Daryl display' someone suggested it was the way I got the cards back into order.
If your shuffle is convincing, it is so unnecessary, it leads to a (fake) solution.

[Tom Gilbert]

Jason England has some good work on Triumph, including Daryl's display.

[erdnasephile]

The first time I used the 'Daryl display' someone suggested it was the way I got the cards back into order.
If your shuffle is convincing, it is so unnecessary, it leads to a (fake) solution.

It's a very good point--and one that has been debated previously by those wiser than me. FWIW, Mr. Cummins' stratagem is designed to address this very issue. Although I will say: in many performances over the years, no one has ever questioned the Daryl display (which I put in context for them with a personalized presentation).

For those that eschew such displays, Hollingworth's routine may fit the bill. A selection, one shuffle, one display, one cut and it's done.

Just to stir the pot a bit: what do people think of "Triumph-plus" routines? For example: Color Triumphant, Roll over Aces, and Double Dazzling Triumph. Does combining plots really make the tricks that much more effective for laypersons or does it dilute impact?

[magicfish]

I like Jennings' Gambler's Triumph from Ultimate Secrets by Ganson.

[Jonathan Townsend]

I did not know Dingle designed those tricks to be particularly effective for lay audiences.

[performer]

In that case I expect they aren't.

[Richard Kaufman]

"Rollover Aces" kills for lay audiences. I used to do it all the time and so did Derek.

[performer]

I have seen Roll Over Aces performed by Ariel Frailich. I always thought it would be terrific for laymen.

Oddly enough by some strange coincidence this very topic is being discussed over at the Magician's Forum which was started to help out Harry Lorayne when he some trouble with the Magic Cafe. I have just posted over there a clip of my version of the Tipsy Trick or to put it more accurately the Royal Road to Card Magic version. I may or may not post it here depending on the reaction over there. I don't usually find that magicians are interested in what they mistakenly view as simple stuff that they already know.

[performer]

Because you can end the routine making all the cards turn face-up with the selection of their chosen card reversed in the middle of the deck and it's simple in method to do, and always get's a good reaction.

Question, do you end the effect as a degree of skill, or..something magicial ? I have been experimenting with both endings, and I like both methods. Do you have a favorite verson of Triumph ? I do the Vernon method..

I would like to hear your thoughts on this..

I don't think anyone actually answered your question although perhaps I missed it. My answer is that under no circumstances should you present this or any effect come to that, as "a degree of skill". Magic should be presented as the art that hides art. There are a few exceptions but in general you should always present magic as MAGIC. The audience will sense your skill anyway but you should never openly display it. You can use flourishes of course but they should be done intelligently and sparingly. Always emphasize the magic and downplay the skill. I have known this since I was in my cradle.

[Q. Kumber]

Thank you all for your comments and advice.

Joe, That sounds like a great routine!

There is a marketed effect by Penguin called " Fair and Sloppy " by Ron Bauer. I believe it's in booklet form. Does anyone like that method ? It's cost is fairly cheap ( $7.50 ), so I'll get it and give a review if no one's done a review on it.

I have the full set of Ron Bauer booklets and find them excellent. He understands how to transform a trick into a performance piece. And the version in the above booklet uses the Slop Shuffle, the credit for which goes to Sid Lorraine.

[erdnasephile]

RK: Is So Sato's Bushfire Triumph going to be in the book? I was fooled and impressed by it.

[performer]

I had been doing the slop shuffle version for decades. And I had also known Sid Lorraine for a long time but had absolutely no idea he invented the trick I had been doing for such an extended period. I never found out until after he passed away. I have always regretted that I never thanked him for it. Alas I simply didn't know. I wish I had. Anyway I am still doing it. Here you are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0ko0cFWJ1Q

[JHostler]

"Rollover Aces" kills for lay audiences. I used to do it all the time and so did Derek.

Michael Ammar's Carson performance (which I understand isn't everyone's cup of tea) just killed me. Snagged the Dingle book shortly thereafter, learned RA and the Bounce Change, and never looked back.

[Richard Kaufman]

I always thought that Michael's performance was antithetical to good presentation.

[Paul Cummins]

I no longer use Daryl's display, as much as I like it. Check out Doug Conn's display in the book I wrote for him - it's quick, deceptive, and uses very little table space.

Paul

[Jonathan Townsend]

I've got a really simple way to get into the set-up for the Jennings-Goodwin display. I'll post it here shortly.

Yes, please, thanks Bob.

[Bill Duncan]

I always thought that Michael's performance was antithetical to good presentation.

I'm gonna need you to elaborate. Are you referring to his script, or to that particular performance?

[Mike Remington]

The original triumph followed by the Bannon Triumph is a great routine.

[erdnasephile]

For context of the discussion, Michael Ammar's performance of Roll Over Aces starts at around the 6:05 mark.

[Pepka]

On the table, I'll do a Zarrow, up the ladder and Daryl's display. If I can have a set up or ring in a stack, it's pretty tough to beat Bannon's Play it Straight Triumph. Most of my work is strolling and I don't always have a table, so I often do Bannon's Last Man Standing, which uses the aforementioned Jennings/Goodwin display. If you don't know this display, you will really fool yourself with it. Another favorite in the hands Triumph is Josh Jay's Prism routine which is kind of based on Paul Harris's Color Stunner.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Because you can end the routine making all the cards turn face-up with the selection of their chosen card reversed in the middle of the deck and it's simple in method to do, and always get's a good reaction.

Question, do you end the effect as a degree of skill, or..something magicial ? I have been experimenting with both endings, and I like both methods. Do you have a favorite verson of Triumph ? I do the Vernon method..

I would like to hear your thoughts on this..

The trick seems to work when presented. As what... that's a matter of narrative. Was the face up/face down shuffle an accident? Are you looking for their card during the displays? Do you put the cards under a hank, in a cocktail shaker, fold-up magic box? One guy does the thing as a false deal demonstration. Another guy does it as an oil-and-water separation of the face up and face down cards. The trick stands with with next to no personalized presentation beyond a little mime to get the procedure started. What you do with it beyond that basic procedure is specific to who you want to be, what you want to say and what serves your show design. Vernon's anecdote approach worked well for him.

[Jorge Betancourt]

My favorite version is Bonus Trick by Larry Jennings, it is published in his Classic Magic book. You shuffle two times face up/face down and show both sides of the deck before squaring, then it has a killer ending that Jennings said that it is for magician, not for layman, but I found that for layman also works well. I modify a little the set up so I can do it in front of the audience without them noticing anything weird.

[Jonathan Townsend]

What I'm reading for is the basic effect. Not so much the procedure as what you're presenting.

...also waiting for someone to suggest using the blizzard type deck gaff as a feint for the trick. Especially with the back change versions of the trick, say Dingle's Color Triumphant, they would like to think you switched decks...

My question is more about when and what you want them to think you are doing to account for the magic.

[performer]

I can always tell the professional from the amateur in the way they discuss this trick. Unlike most professionals I have the greatest respect for amateurs and in fact I actually envy them for the fun they get out of this stuff. They do make great contributions to magic and probably even more so than professionals who tend to concentrate more on grubby things like making money.

However, a professional will always go for the slop shuffle method. The amateur will always go for the intricate and introverted amusement of fiddling about with riffle shuffles. Don't get me wrong. The riffle shuffle method can work very well for laymen and I would be happy to do it myself if the prevailing circumstances warranted it.

I am merely explaining from an observational and sociological standpoint that I can instantly tell the professional from the amateur in the way they discuss this trick. Or at the very least the entertaining performer from the one who merely pays lip service to this aspect of magic then immediately goes back to the fascination provided by riffle shuffling..

[Joe Mckay]

I've got a really simple way to get into the set-up for the Jennings-Goodwin display. I'll post it here shortly.

Bob????

I have a nice way of getting into this using Bill Goodwin's Two-Ton Transpo move.

I have ordered a DVD by Michael "Six" Muldoon with his use for this move. He seems to have hit on the same idea - so I am curious to see if he has any subtleties that I have overlooked.

[Bob Farmer]

This explanation would be much better with a video and some pictures but I have none.

I came up with this several years ago after Bill Goodwin showed me the move at, I believe, a 31FN convention.

The discrepancy in step 14 is never seen, at least I haven't been caught yet.

This entire sequence takes about 10 seconds.

1. Face-down deck is squared in left hand.

2. As right hand arches over deck, left thumb pushes top card slightly to the right.

3. Outer right corner of top card slips between second and third fingers to create a break at the outer right corner and the right hand squares the top card with the deck.

This is an Erdnase Break which I first learned from “Look An Illusion,” in the Larry Jennings' Genii issue (Vol. 34, #9, May, 1970). It’s the same break I use in my move, “Passtitution.”

4. As the right hand squares the top card, the left thumb moves out of the way and to the left side of the deck.

5. The left thumb riffles down about half way as the right hand lifts the cards above this spot and turns palm up to turn the top half face up.

6. As the right hand places the face up portion on the face-down left portion, the break (which is huge, but hidden) allows you to slide the broken card under the face-down left portion.

7. Square the deck: from the top: face up cards, face-down cards, one face-up card (the original top card).

8. Spread the deck between your hands being careful not to flash the bottom face-up card.

9. Spread over to the first face-down card.

10. Take a little finger break under it and square the deck.

11. As the deck is squared, the right hand changes position and arches over the deck, thumb at inner end.

12. The right had immediately outjogs all the card above the break for about an inch.

13. The left thumb comes over to hold the cards as the right hand lets go, turns palm up, and grips the outjogged portion with the the right thumb on the right side and the right fingers on the left side.

14. Both hands are in motion: the left hand turns palm down and taps the end of its packet against the inner end of the right hand packet. Both hands moving conceal the turnover of the left hand’s packet

15. Now you are in position for the interleave, the top card of the left portion stays on top and the bottom card of the bottom portion stays on the bottom.

[Joe Mckay]

Wow - that is very kind of you, Bob! Thanks so much.

I am in a rush now - so I will get back to you on your handling when I have a chance to play with it. But I cannot wait to check it out properly.

Thanks once again!

[Bob Farmer]

Joe: Here is how I use the move.

Assume you have squared the deck after the display. The deck runs from the top: face-down card, 50 face-up cards, face-down card.

Deck is in left hand.

Get a left little finger break over the bottom face-down card (easy if you buckle outer right corner of bottom card with left forefinger).

Right hand arches over deck, thumb at inner end, fingers at outer end.

Right hand drags all the face-up cards to the right as the left thumb drags the top, face-down card to the left and over and onto the bottom face-down card and square with it.

Right hand places its cards on top of the two face-down cards but outjogged for about an inch.

Right hand moves away so left hand can flip the deck over side to to side. Right hand comes back and squares the deck as left little finger takes a break under the top two face-up cards.

The patter for all this is you are showing cards face down, face up, (flip over) face-up, face down.

Flip the double face down and deal off the top single card. For example, if the double is 4C face up with 9H under it, flip the two cards face down and take the top card (9H) off face down into the right hand claiming it's the 4C. Wiggle this card (like a butterfly flying) and then place it slowly on the bottom of the deck, injogged for half its length.

Slowly square it. Riffle the deck, then flip over the top card to reveal the 4C.

Fan the deck to show all the cards are now face down.

Patter: Chaos theory. A butterfly flaps its wings in Australia (bottom of the deck) and this causes a result at the North Pole (top of the deck) and all through the earth (fan deck).