Cross Cut Force Science

[Bob Farmer]

Though this force is usually considered less than ideal, a recent scientific study has confirmed its deceptiveness. See: The apparent action causation: Using A Magician Forcing Technique To Investigate Our Illusory Sense Of Agency Over The Outcome Of Our Choices, by Alice Pailhès and Gustav Kuhn, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2020, Vol. 73(11), pp.1784-1795.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10 ... 1820932916

[Q. Kumber]

In his recent book, Inside Out, Ben Earl has a section on the Cross-Cut Force which is excellent and has a number of ways of having the participant do it on themselves. If buying the book, I recommend buying from a dealer rather than direct from Ben's website as they are slow in responding. Here's Vanishing Inc's ad for the book https://www.vanishingincmagic.com/magic ... nside-out/ (from where I bought it).

[Joe Mckay]

Andy (The Jerx) carried out research a few years ago that confirmed the Cross Cut force is the best force.

https://www.thejerx.com/blog/2017/10/8/ ... -unleashed

[katterfelt0]

I like John Bannon's in-the-hands version published in the Sep. 2021 Genii.

[Chris Aguilar]

Andy (The Jerx) carried out research a few years ago that confirmed the Cross Cut force is the best force.

https://www.thejerx.com/blog/2017/10/8/ ... -unleashed

I like Andy a lot, but don't find his experiments/research especially compelling in such matters.

[Philippe Billot]

You can also read Criss-Crossings by Jon Racherbaumer, published in 2015.

[MagicbyAlfred]

The most compelling research I have seen is my own experience. And though it's anecdotal, and certainly not scientific or peer reviewed, it's the only evidence I need or care about. To wit, I have used the cross cut force countless times over the past 3 decades, and not once has anyone ever said anything along the lines of, "That's not the card I cut to," or "That's the top card" or, for that matter, exhibited any facial expression or body language that would indicate even the slightest skepticism or suspicion. And trust me when I say that in some of the establishments I've worked in, people would not be the least bit shy or hesitant about saying something, or restrain themselves out of politeness. So if anyone thinks it's weak or less than ideal, then it must be magicians, because it's sure not laymen.

[Richard Kaufman]

The Hindu Shuffle Force is equally effective.

[Tarotist]

I have had a lot of success with the Cross Cut Force. However, I do find that the best way to get the most out of it is to only use it for certain tricks, preferably those that need a bit of time misdirection. I use it for a Jon Tremaine item that he used to call "Voodoo Spirit" for which the move is ideal. I think it is based on a Dr Jaks trick which although similar is not identical. I wish I could remember the name of it. I think it only uses 4 cards and I vaguely remember the cards had letters on them.

The effect of the Voodoo Spirit trick is that you do the Cross Cut force but delay the revelation of the force card. You then show 4 cards to be blank on both sides. The spectator chooses two of the cards and shows them between his or her hands. The force card is now shown and the spectator visualises it and spreads his two blank card and lo and behold the card is revealed. The Cross Cut force is ideal here because of the delay in showing the force card. Tricks like this are the best option for this particular force.

[MagicbyAlfred]

The Hindu Shuffle Force is equally effective.

Absolutely! 100%.

[Dave Le Fevre]

I have had a lot of success with the Cross Cut Force. However, I do find that the best way to get the most out of it is to only use it for certain tricks, preferably those that need a bit of time misdirection.

Exactly! It's intrinsic to its method that some time separation is needed after the cut.

I suppose that quite a few people would be deceived by it without any time separation, but with the time separation it does seem to deceive all lay audiences.

[MagicbyAlfred]

I have had a lot of success with the Cross Cut Force. However, I do find that the best way to get the most out of it is to only use it for certain tricks, preferably those that need a bit of time misdirection.

Exactly! It's intrinsic to its method that some time separation is needed after the cut.

I suppose that quite a few people would be deceived by it without any time separation, but with the time separation it does seem to deceive all lay audiences.

Yes, "intrinsic to its method." While the cross cut force is a subtlety, not a sleight, the time separation (a/k/a time misdirection) fortifies the force and adds an extra layer of deception, just as looking at the spectators and addressing a question or comment to them does at the moment of palming or replacing cards, or executing a pass.

[Richard Kaufman]

There is no need for a "time separation" with a Cross Cut Force. Zero need. Try it and see.

[Bob Farmer]

Richard is correct, as the article explains. The force is not deceptive because of time misdirection, it is deceptive because the spectator substitutes his understanding of how a deck is cut for how the deck was actually cut. In other words, when a spectator sees a sequence of actions that are similar to a sequence of actions the spectator is familiar with, he will think he sees the familiar sequence in order to make sense of what he has seen.

Dr. Kuhn notes in the study cited:

"[Most people] … failed to correctly remember the exact sequence even without time delay or attentional distraction … people substitute the complex and unfamiliar cutting procedure with a simpler and more typical one."

[MagicbyAlfred]

"Most people...failed to correctly remember the exact sequence even without time delay..."

So that means that some people did not fail to correctly remember the exact sequence even without time delay.

And what does "most people" mean? 51%? 60%? 74%? 90%?

I'm going to stick with what experience has shown me. I want and need 100% so I see no need to change based on data from a scientific study that fails to prove that time misdirection is never needed. It's as easy as pie to interject an intervening sentence or two before having them look at the card they "cut" to. I see the time misdirection as insurance. You may not need it, but then again, you may, and it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

[Dave Le Fevre]

I see the time misdirection as insurance. You may not need it, but then again, you may, and it's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

That's my thinking too

[Leo Garet]

The Cross Cut Force has its own in-built time delay and misdirection.

The spectator cuts the cards, puts "half" here and leaves the lower "half" there. Magician says something like "Not bad, that's about half each. Now...."

It's not a long time, but the cutting is comfortably separated from the the choosing.

Doesn't mean it can't be enhanced, of course.

[Richard Kaufman]

It doesn't need to be enhanced.

[Jack Shalom]

How minimal can it be? Spec cuts the deck, performer immediately picks up bottom half, palm down, and with same hand points to the top of the original top half, "Take a look" and then replaces the cards in his hand back on top?

Just tried it with the Missus. Fooled her twice in a row.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Well, I think that the question arises, why are we even marking the (alleged) spot where they cut? If no time misdirection is needed, then that placing of the cut-off packet cross-wise on the remainder of the deck is completely superfluous and meaningless, and therefore likely to arouse suspicion. I mean, to place the cut-off portion on the remainder of the deck and then, with absolutely no time lapse, immediately lift it back off and have them look at or take the card??? Most spectators did not just fall off a turnip truck. The procedure needs a justification, otherwise what purpose does marking the spot where they "cut" serve?. Why would we not just have the spectator cut off some cards and take or look at the card to which they cut -- which, of course, we cannot do if we want to force the top card.

[Bob Farmer]

I agree with Alfred. Sure, the science may say that, say, 60% of people are fooled without the time misdirection, but as magicians we want certainty not percentages, so we use the time misdirection in case of a tie.

[Leo Garet]

It doesn't need to be enhanced.

Well, of course it doesn't. And I didn't say it should be. But some conjurors disagree, as has already been demonstrated.

That's why I added that final sentence. And for fun.

[Tarotist]

This is what the Royal Road to Card Magic said about the matter:

CUT FORCE
This method of forcing is bold.
1. Place the card to be forced at the bottom of the deck, and retain it there while shuffling.
2. Square the pack, place it on the table, and request someone to cut it, placing the cut to the right.
3. Next invite him to pick up the lower packet and place it at right angles upon the cut (Fig. 109).

Fig. 109
4. Pause for a moment, conversing or performing any action which is a part of your trick, then have someone lift the upper crosswise packet and look at the card at its face, as you say, "Please note and remember the card at which you cut." This will be the original bottom card. So few people understand the nature of the cut that your statement will not be questioned.
You should never repeat a force of this type for the same audience. Knowing what you will do, the spectators will analyze the action and may fathom the method.

Step four above seems to indicate where it says, "Pause for a moment, conversing or performing any action which is part of your trick" that the delay is a good thing. I do think, however, that Richard is probably correct. Still, I think the delay makes it even better.

Anyway, here is my annotation in the book regarding the matter:

"I have seen online discussions on magic forums decrying the use of this force saying that the method is too obvious. This is arrant nonsense since I have been using it for certain selected tricks for decades and it has never yet been detected. You have to choose the tricks you use it for very carefully and with an astute use of what is known as “time misdirection” you will have no trouble. In other words you need some sort of delay either in conversation or in action between the spectator cutting the deck and the final revelation."

[katterfelt0]

I'm always a wee bit skeptical when someone says such-and-such maneuver "has never been detected". I'm not quite sure how we would know whether it was detected or not.

The most egregious case of this I've heard was from a magician who did a switch of assistants while surrounded, and claimed only two people saw the switch. If two people saw it, it's highly likely that more did and were too polite to comment.

[Tarotist]

I have indeed been detected on a few odd occasions with certain sleights over the years. Very few indeed but it has happened. However, I can assure you that I have NEVER been detected even once in the 64 years I have been using the cross cut force. Of course some of us are born to lead and others born to follow..................

[Richard Kaufman]

At the moment we are not having a generalized discussion, but one specifically about Max Holden's Cross Cut Force. This is one of those sleights that cannot be done badly.

[Tarotist]

It would be very difficult to do badly! Still, I suspect it might be possible if you say the wrong thing while at the same time not using time misdirection. I do think you are correct when you say that no time misdirection is necessary but I can see a bungler messing it up if they move too quickly or say the wrong thing.

[MagicbyAlfred]

Here's what Ted Annemann had to say about the criss-cross cut force in his book, 202 Methods of Forcing: "An old timer but very practical and deceiving force is to have the card on the top and deck on the table. Ask to have it cut anywhere and when this is done, performer carelessly puts the lower half on upper half but crosswise. It is left this way for a few minutes while the trick is continued, until time for selection to be revealed when top half is taken off and top card of lower half (?) turned over. Really deceptive."

I certainly wouldn't advocate for leaving the cards in the cross cut formation for "a few minutes," as I don't believe anything close to that long is necessary, but I would think Annemann is a pretty authoritative source supporting the position that at least some time delay is integral to the force.

It would, of course, be impossible to have no delay whatsoever between the placing of the one portion on top of the other and the spectator looking at the force card. But I can't imagine picking up the cut-off portion and placing it cross-wise on the remaining portion, and then a second or two later taking the top portion off and saying, "Please look at the card you cut to." I think at least some reason has to be given for the procedure, or it just makes no sense. And even if it is something like, "I am going to mark the spot you cut to for a moment. Now, before we go any further,, let me ask you, do you feel like I influenced you in any way as to where to cut the deck?" They will almost certainly say no (unless they may jokingly give us credit for having supernatural powers). But irrespective of their answer, at least there has been some justification provided for the procedure and for why we did not simply directly have them look at the actual bona fide card they cut to immediately after they cut. After the foregoing dialogue, it makes sense to say (lifting off the top portion and gesturing), "Well, we marked the spot at which you cut, so please have a look at the card you cut to." And while others may disagree, I believe that a delay of at least 15 to 30 seconds is a prerequisite.

[Jack Shalom]

f no time misdirection is needed, then that placing of the cut-off packet cross-wise on the remainder of the deck is completely superfluous and meaningless,

As I say, this is exactly what I tried out ( though picking up the other packet and pointing) and it fooled the Missus twice. I'd be curious if anyone else would like to try and report back.

[MagicbyAlfred]

f no time misdirection is needed, then that placing of the cut-off packet cross-wise on the remainder of the deck is completely superfluous and meaningless,

As I say, this is exactly what I tried out ( though picking up the other packet and pointing) and it fooled the Missus twice. I'd be curious if anyone else would like to try and report back.

But Jack, while what you did was bold and creative, unless I misinterpreted your description in your prior comment, the force you successfully pulled off with the Missus was not the criss cross force. It was a completely different animal. You never placed the cut-off portion on the remaining portion. I'm not saying the technique you used wasn't effective; it just wasn't a criss cross force. And no justification was needed for placing the cards in the criss cross formation, since they were never placed that way to begin with. Perhaps you have broken new ground with a theory that there need not be any criss crossing at all.

[Richard Kaufman]

You only have to put the half deck on top, at right angles, for a second--as a gesture.

[Tarotist]

You would have to be a damn good actor to put the half deck on top for a mere second as a gesture. I am not saying it couldn't be done but I do think you have to have some kind of reason to put them on top and then take them off again a second later. My gut feeling is that it would work but with time misdirection it would work even better! Still, I am not going to get embroiled in a discussion as it reminds me of the silliness some time ago of a fierce and nasty discussion over a riffle shuffle of all bloody things!

[Richard Kaufman]

You don't have to be a good actor: magicians are not actors. As an entertainer, you place the half of the deck on top and say anything, no matter how short, that will make the spectator think about something ... anything, even for a millisecond.

[Tarotist]

Yes. I think you are probably right. However, since I have been doing things a certain way for decades I am not going to change. However, as an experiment I may well try it your way to see what happens.

[Brad Jeffers]

It is left this way for a few minutes

for a millisecond

So we're all in agreement about using a time delay.
It's just a matter of how long.

[Brad Jeffers]

From the Scientific Report ...

"We investigated whether misdirection was the key to the success of this force.

Our survey on magicians revealed that misdirection in the form of diverting attention away from the cards and creating a time delay
before forcing the card should be the most important factors driving the illusion.

However, our results do not confirm this view.

Attentional misdirection and a time delay had no impact on participants’ awareness of the force. These results were truly unexpected and confirm that magicians do not always know why their tricks work."

[Paco Nagata]

It is left this way for a few minutes

for a millisecond

So we're all in agreement about using a time delay.
It's just a matter of how long.

Ted Annemann said that in 1933.
Richard Kaufman in 2021.
We need time to trust this ruse too!

[Edward Pungot]

Glossary

confabulation: The ¿ lling in of details missing from either perception or memory. The brain invents the missing details to construct a consistent narrative.

constancy: The fact that our brains construct a constant and consistent model of what we perceive that generally matches reality.

heuristic: A cognitive rule of thumb or mental shortcut that we subconsciously make that may be true much of the time but is not logically valid.

[Bob Farmer]

Scientists often do not understand how magic works. If they did, they would have invented some great tricks--and they haven't done that.

[Bob Farmer]

Use the David Berglas mind eraser strategy, i.e., give the spectator something to think about so he can't think about what just happened. As the Cross Cut is made ask him, "Do you play a lot of cards?"