It's just a strategy, but I believe Max discusses his approach as part of the explanation of "Mockingbird" on his "Videomind" series.

Anyone else with opinions on what is the best prediction scheme, booklet vs scribbled notes vs telepathy on the fly vs...? So many possibilities. Just ordered the reprint of Dear Mr. Fantasy, which apparently has a clever presentation as well. Just out this week, I think.

I do like the market research booklet idea but I feel insecure about copying an effect out of a book that specifically. I worry that it would turn corny in my language. (I suppose I could design a booklet which looks like a really square government type of publication, emphasizing that fact.)

Isn't the book-like fold attributed to Aldo Colombini?

I use a variation of John Bannon's Wait Until Dark from Dear Mr. Fantasy: presenting it as clarivoyance, not prognostication. He's quite clear about why he prefers this presentation, and I agree with his thinking. He also says that reasonable people might find other presentations more appealing; I agree with that assessment as well.

Isn't the folding prediction attributed to Aldo Colombini?

I don't know that the folding prediction itself is attributed Aldo.

My favorite version of this effect happens to be Aldo's, though. It's called Pre-Deck-Ability, and it ROCKS! I write the first three predictions on the back of my business cards. I changed the final prediction. Aldo uses a pad for the first three, and then reveals a jumbo card for the finale. I wanted to do the routine as a more impromptu-seeming piece, so I use the biz cards, and then the finale (the "mistake") is written on the flap of the card box.

Here's how I do it, for those who might be interested. I remark that I'm going to make some predictions regarding choices and actions my participants have yet to make. The card box is to my left on the table. I write the first prediction and set it face down to my right. The second goes to the left of it, and the third in between the second and the card box. I turn over each prediction as we get to that point in the routine. At the end, I turn over the third prediction ("The remaing cards are all clubs!") BEFORE they go through the packet, revealing all clubs, except the 6S. Then I say, "OOPS! It's a good thing I wrote a fourth prediction ahead of time!" I pick up the card box (which was, in fact, fourth in the "line" of predictions) and open the flap, which reads: "EXCEPT the six of spades!"

Works for me! IMO, the routines of this type (like Paul's "Jeopardy") are MUCH stronger than the basic shuffle-bored effect by itself.

Scott,
Nice!

I love to perform Lennart Greens Rain Man !

Is a template for Paul Green's Jeopardy fold-out published in any magic magazine...or elsewhare? I purchased In the Trenches from a Café member many years ago and it did not come with the fold-out.

In watching Simon Aronson's Sessions with Simon DVD set, I understand that the Aronson e-zine fold-out template is inside of the August 2003 edition of Magic magazine.

Have either, or both, of the above templates ever been released as a .pdf download?

I'd like to get both and then play around with each and ultimately decide which one works best for me.

Thanks for any info in this regard.

Mike

I recently got back into magic after taking a break for a few years (having kids, different job and other excuses), but now I’ve been going through different effects picking ones that I want to focus on and learn. I just bought Lennart Green’s Green Lite DVD due to hearing such positive reviews about Eye of Stonehenge (which I’m still formulating an opinion on) and luckily stumbled upon the gem of Rain Man.

I’ve been tinkering with different ideas about a presentation and patter that reflects my own style and I’ve included them below if anyone is interested. Feel free to just jump to the bottom of the post if you would rather skip my long winded rambling about the subject because I want to get very detailed about certain aspects of the routine. What better place to do it than here where we can throw different ideas around? So please excuse me if I go on a bunch of rabbit trails but I just love talking about this stuff and the minute details that go into constructing different routines.

A bit of background on where my thoughts are coming from. Two magicians that I really adore are John Bannon and Lennart Green. I just really love the way they go about in presenting an effect. That element of surprise when it is least expected. So I was reading Dear Mr. Fantasy the other day and in the introduction of Bullet Train Bannon gives his thoughts on Green’s handling of the four Ace trick, with his surprise revelation of the Aces and contrasts how most magicians instead “magically” reveal the Aces at the end. But in doing so that surprise element is lost, since with most of these effects the spectator already knows what to expect and in many cases it becomes an effect of skill in how the magician reveals the aces or just one with a “magic wave” at the end where the aces are revealed.

After reading that a lightbulb went off in my head. That “Yeaaahhh, that’s why!” moment. For the most part I never really did care for most four Ace tricks but Bannon was able to nail down why I wasn’t fond of most of them, and explain it in a way much better than I could. Why am I going on and on about a four Ace trick? I don’t have a good reason, but just to say why I love Green’s thought process and why I probably gravitate toward Lennart Green’s version with Rain Man. That “Aha” moment was what made me start tracking down more of Lennart’s material.

So after watching a great effect I love hitting The Magic Café and searching (and re-searching…after waiting for that darn time limit to reset) on what others think of a trick. My search revealed that it is based off on Simon Aronson’s Shuffle-bored. Paul Green also has a version called Jeopardy and Aldo Colombini’s is called Pre-Deck Ability. With the wonderful ability of the internet and youtube I was able to watch all of their fantastic routines and soak it all in. I’ve included them below for reference and urge everyone to check them out:

Simon Aronson - Random Sample Shuffle-bored
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2KL0kY3DUQ

Lennart Green – Rain Man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PILjBKNKk9Q

Paul Green - Jeopardy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JKx_iFWoWU

Aldo Colombini - Pre-Deck-Ability
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK-k7wov7ec

Even though Rain Man was the first one that I saw (so you might believe I’m biased), it is still my favorite of the bunch. But that is not to take away from the others because they are all great, but Rain Man is the one that fits my style the best.

It is the only one where the predictions are written out during the performance, whereas the other three routines have the predictions already made, whether they are already printed or written out. With the latter ones, it is just a bit ‘too perfect’ for my tastes, even with the inclusion of the ‘oops’ moment at the end. In addition, I absolutely love the theme of ‘card counting’, which I also think lay audiences are intrigued with as well, and that premise lends itself really well to this effect. Again, I am in no way saying that Rain Man is the superior one of the bunch but that it is the one that works for me. I just think it is so important in adapting a routine and its patter to reflect your personality.

So here is what I’m looking at using for my presentation (I’ve intentionally kept the workings vague so this post didn’t have to be included in Secret Sessions):

“Despite never going to a casino to gamble, I am fascinated with the subject, and with the methods people will come up with to beat the house at its own game.”

Open up the deck give out sections to the audience to shuffle. [NOTE 1]

“Would you mind giving the cards a shuffle? Thanks. A few years ago a movie came out called ‘21’, has anyone see it? It was based on a true story of MIT students who figured out a method of counting cards and end up taking Las Vegas for millions. It was based on the book “Bringing Down the House” by Ben Mezrich, the book was much better than the movie by the way, and at the end of the book they actually let you in on the exact method the students used in counting the cards”

Take back the cards, shuffle and cut the deck into two piles.

“The thing is that you’re not actually ‘counting’ individual cards. You don’t have to be a real-life savant like Dustin Hoffman in the movie, “Rain Man”, it’s more of a combination of statistics, probability and a lot of memorization. The hard part is keeping track of all of this stuff in your head at once without anybody there suspecting that you’re up to something. Any suspicion at all and the casino will promptly have you dealt with.”

“I’ve been tinkering around with the method a bit, and while there is no way I would try this in a casino, I do like to have fun with it on my own. It’s in no way an exact science, but I’ve found that if I do it correctly the law of averages generally works in my favor.”

I then go into Lennart Green’s handling of the trick where he starts off by rotating each pile of cards to resemble flowers and then asking the spectator to pick up a packet from a pile, turn it over and merge the piles together by shoving them together. Repeat a few more times. [NOTE 2]

“Great job. Alright, now here is where the fun begins.”
Write only the first prediction, openly, on the first sheet of paper.
“I counted that there are 23 face down cards in that pile. Would you please deal the cards into two separate piles, one face up the other face down, counting the face down cards?”

From here we will have received our first reaction. This is where I deviate a bit more and build on the card counting theme by utilizing the left over face up cards in the other pile…to make the rest of the predictions. [NOTE 3]

“Now I’ve already seen enough of what I needed, could you please take those face up cards in the second pile and turn them over as I don’t want any more clues.”

Remove the first sheet from the pad with the first prediction, place it on the table and start writing the next prediction, that there are 12 red cards.

“Alright, let’s see. There are 12 red cards…”

Tear off that sheet and place it on the table and begin writing the final prediction, but with a little twist. From here on you will be holding the pad and writing the prediction, to hide a word from the last reveal. At this point the audience has no reason to suspect anything fishy.

“…And all of the remaining black cards are even numbers”

Except write “Almost all of the black cards are even”, where the word ‘almost’ is in the top left of the pad, to be revealed after that ‘mistake’ is found.

As they are looking to confirm that all of the black cards are indeed even numbers you are holding the sheet of paper with your right hand concealing the word “almost”. After the odd card is found you would of course move your hand to reveal the word.[NOTE 4]


Random notes from above:

NOTE 1: Although they are not needed, I like the use of Jokers as Simon does in his routine. Since I would use this effect as an opener, I would have both Jokers in the deck, one as a reference and the other in a random spot. Taking out the jokers from the onset of the first effect is also expected and very casual.

NOTE 2: In another thread on here someone mentioned that there might be problems with having the spectator shuffle the cards, where some might fall on the floor or whatever. This is another reason why I prefer Lennart’s version. By basically having the spectator use both hands to shove the cards together you eliminate any problems due to shuffling. The combined mess from the mix of cards also helps to add to the perception of counting cards since a few cards are still seen after each mix.

Another added bonus is that you get the feeling that the cards are just being mixed up together in a giant mess, rather than neatly shuffled face down into face up as shown on the other three routines. This opens you up to doing another triumph type effect if you should desire.

I know a lot of you are probably thinking that it is way too risky but I can guarantee you the audience wouldn’t put two and two together and would not expect a thing. It also helps that in the above presentation we didn’t point attention to the fact that we were mixing face up into face down.

The only reason I even thought about another triumph effect is that I think this would lead really nicely into James Swain Perfect Triumph to continue with the whole gambling theme. Something to the effect of “Yeah, it’s nice ability have to be able to count cards but how impressive would it be to be able to not only control a card but the whole deck” scenario. This is just me thinking out loud but I can definitely see where some might have some reservations with a second triumph type effect.

Finally, I don’t do the slop shuffle as Lennart does on his routine. Once I initially set up the deck into the two piles I try not to touch the deck any more. Although the slop shuffle looks to mix up the cards even more, I think the original mix is already convincing enough and I would not want to add any more doubt to the trick by touching the cards.

NOTE 3: This is where I differ quite a bit different compared to all four routines. Since this prediction is made after the initial prediction is confirmed, I can see where some may say that by waiting I am lessening the effect. While I can certainly see that viewpoint I chose to go this route to piggyback on the whole card counting bit, and I think it benefits from it. I do make it a point to make sure I am not focusing on the face up cards while the face down cards are being counted (just a very subtle thing to play up the patter bit about not looking suspicious).

NOTE 4: In Lennart’s routine he actually has another prediction where the black cards are all spots but I think I actually like the idea of just having three predictions along with the kicker at the end. I’m still toying with the idea of revealing the last card separately like all of the other performances but then I worry that it might take away from the card counting premise. But then again maybe that is just the right amount of “magic” that this trick needs? I’m still debating but I’m curious to know what others also think.

Anyways, if you kept through with me through this long post, thanks. I apologize for it being so long but there are times when I really like to dissect an effect and this is such a wonderful one that I really wanted to get my hands dirty.

If you are interested in any other topics about it, here are some other threads from The Magic Café on the subject:

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......m=111&27
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......&forum=2
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......&forum=2


A big thanks to Simon Aronson, Ali Bongo, Lennart Green, Paul Green, Aldo Colombini and anyone else that I’ve known I’ve forgotten to mention for coming up with some great ideas on this masterpiece.

Robert Giobbi's book "Card College Light" contains another version named "Manto". I agree with you about Rain Man. The effect appears to be more impressive than the others. The chaotic way the cards are handled leads you to believe no one can possibly know the layout of the cards.
John

John B. also has a great version in Dear Mr Fantasy with no sequential prediction.

I'm a big JB fan, but, for me, I don't want someone else's hands on my face.

I've played w/ this trick off and on for a couple years, but never settled on a presentation and never performed it. I'm thinking I like Scott Guinn's idea.

Excellent instructions on how to make a blank booklet (like the booklet used in the Simon Aronson version) are on youTube ("How to make a Zine") at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh1W15BWCUk

Using this blank booklet (and an appropriate software program), you can then insert customized information (that fits your presentation) onto the pages.

In this regard, what software program(s) can be used to design and layout the "pages" for such a customized "zine" booklet and/or for the type of revelation page used by Paul Green)? Would Printshop or PageMaster be two such programs? If so, in your opinion, which of the two programs would be easier to used for this task by a rank beginner?

Can you recommend an even easier program in this regard? Maybe even a freeware or shareware program?

Thanks for the info.

Mike

I'm familiar with Shuffle-Bored, but can anyone tell me if there are any substantive differences between that and Jens O. Jahn's Turmoil The Next?

Just looking at the description, I can't determine any differences. It even says "It was inspired by the 3rd phase of “Point Spread” from Simply Simon by Simon Aronson." Look it up – the 3rd phase is Shuffle-Bored, and Simon repeatedly refers to it as the "Shuffle-Bored finale"!

This reminds me of when David Copperfield performed Don Wayne's "Top 10" (a record album routine based on the McCombical Deck) on TV. Several months later, a magician marketing a "new" card routine – it was advertised as being like the "David Copperfield record trick", but now with playing cards! Yep, someone had just invented a trick that had not only been around a long time, but was already considered a classic.

I can't help but wonder if the same thing is happening here.

Substantively? From the description it would seem that in the eyes of the audience there would be no difference in effect perceived. But, the "Turmoil the Next" does differ in that it appears to use special cards. The ad states:

"This is a self-working effect. (The specially prepared cards do all the work for you.)" and "Available in red or blue Bicycle. (Please note that the Bicycle cards are the jumbo index variety.)"

So, to that extent, it appears that the two effects differ.

Then again, the use of the phrase "specially prepared cards" is somewhat ambiguous. Might the phrase be referring only to a deck stack or just the use of the cards necessary for the effect (i.e., 23 face down cards--13 red and 10 black, etc.)?

I dunno. But, a reading of the ad seem to suggest that the effect uses specially prepared (gimmicked) cards whereas Simon's effect does not.

I too would be interested in learning if the effect is any different in the eyes of the audience. If not, what advantages, if any, would "Turmoil the Nest" have over Shuffle-bored"? Ease of set-up? Ease of shuffling and audience control?

Just my $00.02 worth. It probably just muddied the water.

Mike

In Nick Trost's Subtle Card Creations Volume 2 there's a great version which uses the Gilbreath Principle as well as Harry Loraynes Equalizer shuffle

Also Woody Aragon's version from his book Woodysmo which is a combination of the Gilbreath Principle and Ramon Rioboo's Control of Chaos shuffle sequence

Good thread, I bring it up for that reason alone.

I have a released effect called "TelepaThree" which is a three phase esp routine using Aronsons Cancellation Principle (Shuffle-bored)

Jeff Pierce