Pinky Count

[Gary Freed]

Originally posted by Richard Kaufman:
I have seen many people master the Pass, Top CHange, and Double Lift.
I have seen very FEW master the Pinky Count.

Though I agree in principal, I have seen many, many people butcher the pass. And unfortunately, that includes many of the so called greats.

[AMCabral]

Originally posted by Jim Coles:
I guess when I saw Darwin Ortiz doing this on video he was just in a zone that prevented him from displaying the weird paralytic actions described. Talk about a zen master :D

Actually, ILM edits all that out in post-production. When you see his deck hand in the final cut, it's actually being played by Warwick Davis.

-Tony

[Pete Biro]

If you see someone butcher the pass (or any move) then they did it at the WRONG TIME. Nobody should be looking at the hands/deck when you do it.

[Philippe Billot]

Mr. Jim Coles

I'm sorry, but I don't understand this expression because of my poor english.

"as if he's having the equivalent of a grand mal seizure. "

Could you explain, please ?

[Guest]

"as if he's having the equivalent of a grand mal seizure. "

Could you explain, please ?

A grand mal seizure is the type of seizure someone with severe epilepsy would have. I of course didn't mean this literally but was suggesting that the way the Pinky Count has been characterized by its detractors here is more than a little exaggerated.

Actually, ILM edits all that out in post-production. When you see his deck hand in the final cut, it's actually being played by Warwick Davis.

That explains it. Anyone who can play an appendage is okay in my book.

[Andy Hurst]

Originally posted by Philippe Billot:
The funny thing is that Lindahl (Gadzooks ! Who is this man ?) seems conscious of the problem explained by Richard Kaufman.
To overcome it, He covers the deck with a handkerchief (to hide the pinky count) and he presents a mental effect. In this way, he can simulate a hard concentration.

If you're going to cover the deck with a hanky, why not just do a thumb count instead? Or does he only suggest covering the deck with a hanky for sleights that are tricky or he can't do? (I have a fantastic pass when I use the hanky cover btw.)

Anyway, I'm with Richard on this one, the pinky count is not a seminal sleight, in fact let's be blunt - its cack.

But having said that if you really can do it perfectly, no straining, no seizure moment and without the cover of a hanky, foulard or king size continental quilt - then go for it... that is if you've got a great trick that can't be done any other way - and I doubt that.

Andy

[Randy Naviaux]

Something I can comment on! I have been working with this technique for going on 4 years now. I do agree with Mr. Kaufman in that there is always going to be tension involved in the move. (Mr. Wonder discusses this issue in his books.)It is very hard to hide tension yet easy to simulate it.

There are a few things I do to minimize this:

1. Put the move in the routine on the off beat.

2. Block the routine in a way that makes it harder to see the hand. When standing this is fairly easy to do. Sitting is much harder.

3. I think this is the most important. Eliminate as much tension as possible from the move. In "At the Card Table" Ortiz refers to the ring finger as the finger that prevents the card from popping up to far. Working with this led me to the discovery that keeping the ring finger as low as possible on top of the deck reduced the overall tension in the hand. Further the top card moves about 1/16th of an inch. The pinky has a very light touch on the card. There is still a modicum of tension in the thumb but I doubt I will every be able to completely get rid of it.

Of course I am unconcerned with getting a break any further down than the 5th card. Further than that and it takes a significant increase in tension.

Personally I hate the pushing over a card or cards and then pulling back to get your break. But I do understand that in some routines that particular move will fit within the overall structure. (Even Ortiz describes that in one or two of his published routines.)

Sincerely,

Randy

[Guest]

that is if you've got a great trick that can't be done any other way - and I doubt that.

Doubt no further...

I'd love to see someone duplicate 'Coincidice' without the pinky count... consider it an open challenge.

Coincidice vid-clip here

PS: Max Maven did costruct a non-pinky count method... but the effect was altered in the process (I believe his effect saw print in Genii several years ago... perhaps Max will chime in with an exact reference.)

[Guest]

Let's be honest: the demo of Coincidice did not require a Pinky Count ;)

Now "Plastic Surgery", that is a "great trick".

Any other examples of "great tricks" that require a Pinky Count?

[Temperance]

One thing I do with the Pinky count is to count on certains words. So for example, say you need to count four cards and your patter is "So, are you sure you can remember all that?"

I'll count a card on "so", "sure", "remember" and "that".

Euan

[AMCabral]

Originally posted by Doug Peters:
Let's be honest: the [b]demo of Coincidice did not require a Pinky Count ;)

Now "Plastic Surgery", that is a "great trick".

Any other examples of "great tricks" that require a Pinky Count? [/b]

"Coincidice". What it does not require, evidently, is all of the convulsive "tells" described by "experts" who should know better.

Looking great, Mr. Conn...

-Tony

[Steve Hook]

By the way, Doug Conn's choice of music is intriguing as usual. Someone asked me what that song was accompanying "Coincidence". It's from Eric Idle in Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life".

[Jonathan Townsend]

Good going Doug!

Thanks for posting the clip and tutorial.

Is anyone doing "any card at any number" using a pinky count and a pass? Seems the killer app for both sleights.

[Guest]

Let's be honest: the demo of Coincidice did not require a Pinky Count

Okay... I'll be honest:

There are 8 counts in that demo.

Granted, I got lucky on the dice rolls for phase one. Version 2.0 has contains most of the counting.

RE: "Great" tricks
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I assure you, this trick is 'great' for many occasions.

I use multiple speks to roll the dice which provides "hands on" fun (as well as PLENTY of misdirection for anyone that may have seizures while counting.)

Any other examples of "great tricks" that require a Pinky Count?

I'd post further examples of 'great' tricks...
but 'honestly'... I don't want to spend any more time defending my views. ;)

[Guest]

Originally posted by D. Conn:
Granted, I got lucky on the dice rolls for phase one.

That was my point.

Version 2.0 has contains most of the counting.

Was that in the Video demo -- I can only see the first phase/version, apparently.

[Guest]

That was my point.

Regardless... I was just responding to an inquiry regarding effects that require the pinky count... Coincidice is such an effect (whether I have to count 1, 2 or 8 cards.)

BTW, yes... version 2.0 is on the 'demo'

(and there's a 3rd version in "Tricks of My Trade" that uses selections.)

[Guest]

Originally posted by D. Conn:
BTW, yes... version 2.0 is on the 'demo'

Fair enough. I re-downloaded and like the Version 2.0 effect very much. But let me propose as a candidate solution to your "open challenge":

• Second deal on first pile
• Straight deal on second pile
• Side-steal bottom card to top

Would that not accomplish the same thing?

[Ryan Matney]

I was just thinking that Mr. Conn might want to look into the second deal which is an far more flexible and useful sleight and would accomplice the same thing.

Doug Peters: Double Deal Turnover and you don't even need to side steal.

Also, you can breather crimp the aces, have them preset and get your break using the crimps and Vernon's slap trick technique to deal.

[Guest]

Would that not accomplish the same thing?

Yup... that would work for version #2.

Duplicating version #1 (without the count) is the 'real' challenge.

[Andy Hurst]

There's a lot of ways of doing coincidice, a few mentioned here. In its simplest form, why not just have the aces all on bottom, deal fair up to the number and then bottom deal. You're already set for the cross cut force for the final ace.

But my original point was...

if you really can do it perfectly, no straining, no seizure moment and without the cover of a hanky, foulard or king size continental quilt - then go for it... that is if you've got a great trick that can't be done any other way...

If you can do it perfectly, then fine, I couldn't tell in the demo as your hands go out of camera shot a lot.

And 'if it can't be done any other way' - this one can.

Andy.

[Andy Hurst]

Originally posted by D. Conn:

Would that not accomplish the same thing?

Yup... that would work for version #2.

Duplicating version #1 (without the count) is the 'real' challenge.

Version one:

Same trick - thumb count - or am I missing something here?

If you can't hide thumb counting a few cards while a spectator rolls a dice then quit magic.

Andy.

P.S. Just a quick edit here. I re-read this post and it could read wrong. I am not implying that anyone here can't thumb count. My comment about 'if you can't....' was just my way of saying "it's a lot easier than pinky counting" IMO :)

[mike cookman]

I like to do the pinky count with coins.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Philippe Billot:


I'm sorry, but I don't understand this expression because of my poor english.

"as if he's having the equivalent of a grand mal seizure. "

Could you explain, please ?

The kind of seizure he's talking about is a crise pileptique .

The reason you may have had trouble with he words grand mal in English, is that they are actually the French words, grand mal, which is to say, worse than petit mal.

[Philippe Billot]

This expression is very excessive in view of that has said Richard Kaufman.
Perhaps I express myself badly but I want to say that Lindahl (Good grief ! Who is this man) more than SIXTY years known that there is a little problem using a pinky count

[Guest]

There's a lot of ways of doing coincidice,

Watch the first effect again... and then get back to me on that.

Granted; The ace production is easy to personalize... It's the first version (where the spots on the dice match the spots on the cards) that requires the p. count.

Same trick - thumb count - or am I missing something here?

Of course, the thumb count would work...
so would counting the cards (perhaps with your feet) under a table.

Anyhay...
If you can duplicate the first version without counting, lemme know.

your hands go out of camera shot a lot.

Note: This wasn't done on purpose, I had to shoot close-up to capture the spots on the dice. Regardless... the majority of the counts are on screen.

[Guest]

This expression is very excessive in view of that has said Richard Kaufman.

Yeah, as I said in my first reply it wasn't meant literally, just as a way to illustrate, IMO, that the way others were characterizing it was very excessive.

And gee Mr. Conn, why would I want to take the linear route to do Coincidence when I could maybe substitute a lot of other moves and turn it into an unusable monstrosity? Really, using the method which best allows for the clear presentation of the effect is so jejune! I'm sure with a little imagination it could be totally screwed up. ;)

[Andy Hurst]

Of course, the thumb count would work...
so would counting the cards (perhaps with your feet) under a table.

Actually the audience get a tiny bit suspicious when you take the deck in the erdnase foot grip and then take it under the table ;-)

The point is you originally implied that the trick couldn't be done without the pinky count. But obviously it can as you just said yourself.

Anyhay...
If you can duplicate the first version without counting, lemme know.

This thread isn't about avoiding counting, its about avoiding the pinky count and the fact that its not a seminal move or a move thats vital.

To quote myself, when I first posted my views on this.. if you really can do it perfectly, no straining, no seizure moment and without the cover of a hanky, foulard or king size continental quilt - then go for it... that is if you've got a great trick that can't be done any other way

And as someone else pointed out, 'great' is a matter of personal perspective. Don't take this the wrong way Doug, I don't personally like the trick (but I bet if you saw some of my material you'd not like a good chunk of it), but thanks for sharing the clip, it's made an interesting debate.

And having said all that - I do respect you for your ability to do what is a damn hard move in my opinion... even if its one I don't consider important or useful :)

Regards,

Andy.

[Dustin Stinett]

I have to tell you, I saw a pretty damn good pinky count last night. Well, actually, I didnt see it until it was pointed out that he was doing the move. More importantly, in the context of the effect being performed, it was the best possible way to get into the next move he had to dothere simply was no good alternative. Of course, in all fairness, Michael Close is a professional musician so his hands are stronger than the average magicians. But what does that tell you? We need to be 100% prepared to do a move well and that sometimes includes strengthening muscles that need it. Ill tell you what, it aint easy. I started tonight and had this photo taken:

Dustin working on pinky-count conditioning

Its brutal, man; brutal.

Dustin

[Guest]

This thread isn't about avoiding counting, its about avoiding the pinky count and the fact that its not a seminal move or a move thats vital.

Actually, the thread is/was about the history of the pinky count...

For some reason... it morphed into a cack debate.

I chimed in w/ my 2 cents only to play devil's advocate. I hate to think that people would ignore this USEFUL device because of a few narrow minded viewpoints.

[Philippe Billot]

Originally posted by D. Conn:

Actually, the thread is/was about the history of the pinky count...

For some reason... it morphed into a cack debate.

Indeed ! But DustinStinett's Humour has overdramatized the situation.

[Guest]

OK, IMHO, here's the big secret of the pinky count.

Fast. It should be done in a split second. Not "Unnnh --click, Unnnh -- click", but "brapp". Done in a burst. And done from a normal grip, not the ridiculous, tell-tale grip it's described with in the various print sources.

The pinky bevels the cards as it does the move. The whole thing should be over in a tenth of a second. Combine this with a slight (preferably elliptical) movement of the hand and it can NOT be detected by anyone. There is ZERO need to "necktie" the deck when the move is done this way.

And it should not be done with the tip of the pinky, but with the tiniest bit of the inner side.

Best,

Geoff

[Guest]

Great observation Geoff.

Counting in groups (3-2-3-2 ala' Elmsley) also has much merit.

I can live with a 2 second mini-seizure to get a break under a dozen cards (and/or much less time for the average 2-4 card count.)

Also;
I'm now focusing on added arm movement while doing the count; letting the arm swing at the side while doing the move.

[Terry]

I started tonight and had this photo taken:

Dustin, one word - Metamucil. Your looking backed up and it's affecting your skin color!! :D

[Guest]

In hopes of reducing magi-seizures... Here's something to keep in mind when doing the pinky count:

The move isn't all about the pinky pulling down. There are several pressure points;

Your thumb applies slight downward pressure on the outer left corner of the deck.

&

Your 1st and 2nd fingers apply (slight) downward pressure at the outer left corner.

+

You should also be applying upward pressure from below @ the base of your fingers (the fatty/pad section.)

Keep in mind, all of the above pressures points are minor. We're not trying to induce extra strain... we're trying to share the required strain amongst several pressure points. Combined, I'd guess that 30-40% of the 'strength factor' comes these actions.

A little focused practice and I think you'll develop the ability to use the pinky count without fellow magi feeling the need to call an ambulance
+ ... the ueber bonus: Your audience will no longer have to watch you spread and square the deck to get your four card break (something almost as bad as a magiseizure)

Of course, instead of the above, you can always take Dustin's road to pinky count mastery. Until magic bans steroids... the techniques for building pinky strength are boundless! :p

[Guest]

Didn't Steranko have some influence on the history of this technique? I don't own the book however I have read it and recall him as the person who should be credited with the move's creation.
Just Wondering
Elliot

[Mecki]

In a lecture the reasonably talented David Williamson explained how he developed the necessary strenght with the pinky.

When practicing (at school under the desk) he put the third finger under the deck.

Try it. There is a very strange feeling to it, but if one can do it this way, normal pinky counting becomes fairly easy und tension is reduced a lot.

[Philippe Billot]

Originally posted by nola:
Didn't Steranko have some influence on the history of this technique? I don't own the book however I have read it and recall him as the person who should be credited with the move's creation.
Just Wondering
Elliot

It's absolutly impossible as Steranko was born in 1939 and Richard C. Lindahl used the Pinky Count in 1944.

[Guest]

I can't do it worth a crap. But if any of you had a chance to see (or rather not see) Gary Plants do it you'd understand. A sleight's value is not determined by majority opinion, i.e., how easily it is mastered by you, you and you. I can't believe magicians continue to have this argument when all other branches of the performing arts have moved on. "Othello" is not considered a useless script just because a community theatre troupe can't do it justice. "Proud Mary" is not considered an unnecessary song just because Andy Rooney can't rip it out like Tina Turner. When Gus Van Sant horribly remade "Psycho" to look like a Gap ad it didn't define Hitchcock's. It's the finished work, not the tool. Dig?

[Tomas Blomberg]

Originally posted by D. Conn:

Would that not accomplish the same thing?

Yup... that would work for version #2.

Duplicating version #1 (without the count) is the 'real' challenge.

One way to do it that might inspire other ways:

1-6 on top, x-card, face up x, face up 6-1, break. At the bottom of the deck there is a few face up x, face up 12-1.

First die rolled. Snap fingers over deck. Deal down to the number rolled and push that card aside. Put the dealt cards on top of deck.

As they throw the die again, snap fingers over deck and do Flippant of all cards above the break. Deal as before.

As they throw two dice, table deck with the other side up. Let them deal to the sum of the dice.

/Tomas

[Guest]

Originally posted by Philippe Billot:

Originally posted by nola:
[b] Didn't Steranko have some influence on the history of this technique? I don't own the book however I have read it and recall him as the person who should be credited with the move's creation.
Just Wondering
Elliot

It's absolutly impossible as Steranko was born in 1939 and Richard C. Lindahl used the Pinky Count in 1944. [/b]

Thank you for the correction!

Peace,
Elliot