(Close Window)
Topic: Center Tear Way Out
Message: Posted by: Torselli (Jul 27, 2005 03:25AM)
Ok, I've trained Osterlind's PCT a lot. Ok, I use a lot of cold reading with it, and my presentation is quite good. But sometimes the 'bright' spectator does not understand (or try to cheat) the simple directions of writing the word (name, or anything) ABOVE the line... They write someplace eles - some of them even in the wrong side.

So, you get the paper, you work your way to tear it right but, when you glimpse, it's completly blank.

How can we avoid that?? What is your way out when you Miss Center Tear.
Message: Posted by: Hill (Jul 27, 2005 03:56AM)
I would be inclined to use a ruse suggested by the ever wondering Richard Busch;

Draw on the billet a small (but easily recognisable) airplane with a banner attached to the back of it. The banner is of course the peek area - and should have wavy edges (so it looks like it is flapping in the wind) and be completely empty.

The banner is usually around the centre of the billet, and I usually draw the plane above or below this, attached to the banner by a 'rope' (i.e. single line drawn from the back of the plane to the edge of the banner).

The rest of the space is filed with little clouds and/or birds.

Patter: ask the spec to imagine they are lying on the grass looking up on the sky, pondering some deep dark personal thought. Suddenly, a plane flies overhead with a banner, depicting closely what you were thinking. Coincidence - or something else? Well I donít know for sure, but lets try to recreate it........[then do the routine]. When revealing, look upwards and give the impression you are trying to read and/or interpret the banner

Addendum: this might seem like a lot to draw, but it really just takes less than 10 seconds, while you explain the opening story. if you wish, you can have it re rawn, but I consider this to "magic trick-ish"

incidentally, could you tell me if the CT you ar refering to is the one he details on his dvd as well?
Message: Posted by: weepinwil (Jul 27, 2005 07:52AM)
Good idea and visual
Message: Posted by: Cameron Francis (Jul 27, 2005 08:33AM)
I did a couple of center tears the other day. After I did couple of times, a woman said, "I don't know how, but you must be looking at it."

I did it again, but this time I couldn't read the word. It was there, on the line, but the print was too small. So after acting like I was struggling to "see" the word in my mind, I just said, I'm sorry, I didn't get that one.

And suddenly, the woman was dumbfounded. She had no idea how I was doing it. My accident actually cancelled out her explanation. It was great.

So maybe missing once in a while is a good thing.
Message: Posted by: MIC (Jul 27, 2005 09:31AM)
Draw a circle casually like it doesn't matter... don't give any instructions whatsoever... the circle suggestion is too strong to miss... noone has ever questioned me about the pct... if you feel the need actually say: "don't worry I am not going to look at it!! it would be silly of me to look at it.." meaning ... ("then I wouldnt be reading your mind...") ...aaa by the way when you say that ... peak ;)

mic .. be casual and read the mind not the paper.

ps. I have a "layman" friend who knew me when I was taking my first steps.. and had realised the method of the original center tear.. now almost 6 years later... he thinks I am reading minds for real ...
Message: Posted by: kbiehler (Jul 27, 2005 09:32AM)
After I did couple of times, a woman said, "I don't know how, but you must be looking at it."

The last time this happened to me I followed it up with a peak.

And suddenly, the woman was dumbfounded. She had no idea how I was doing it. My accident actually cancelled out her explanation. It was great

I ended with the same reaction you got.
Message: Posted by: MIC (Jul 27, 2005 09:37AM)
"She had no idea how I was doing it"

Come on guys... doing what? reading their minds...?

mic
Message: Posted by: graemesd (Jul 27, 2005 11:11AM)
The osterlind is fool proof I thought. Clearly there are some really big fools!!
that's not aimed at you torselli but the public
Message: Posted by: Cameron Francis (Jul 27, 2005 03:13PM)
Mic, I don't understand your post. Do you mean she should have just believed I was reading her mind?

All I was pointing out was that my inability to do it again made her question her original speculation. In other words, she thought I was using some other means to gain the information. People come up with crazy explanations for how effects are done. Some people think it's electronic or there's mirrors all over the place or whatever. She had no clue. And, yeah, maybe for a second she did believe it was real.
Message: Posted by: MIC (Jul 27, 2005 03:34PM)
What I am just saying is create a spectacle out of it... make the suggestions that you are really doing it so big that even if you were actually reading it out open . it wouldnt matter.. that's what I am striving for.. to be so believable that I could go: "hello I am george... think of my name... concentrate on it... the second letter is an e .. correct?"

;) ofcourse if everything else fails.. frying their mind with multiple methods is always a fair idea!

regards
MIC
Message: Posted by: AngeJudor (Jul 27, 2005 04:07PM)
Hello,

I saw a magic show in wich the magician asked to think of something we like to eat. And he said he was trying to guess it.

And he draw ........ a box (you know, the metalic boxes - "boites de conserves" in french) with a blank in the center figuring the Label (all the people laught). And then he asked the person to write the name of the meal in this "label".

Then, while tearing, he said "sure ? did you think I was able to guess what you were thinking ?". suddenly, he said he had a revelation and revealed the name of the meal.

I thought it was a great presentation with humour and that he forced the person to write in the center of the paper. Really great !

Hope this could help, and sorry for my poor english :).

Ange.
Message: Posted by: mysticz (Jul 27, 2005 04:11PM)
[quote]
On 2005-07-27 12:11, graemesd wrote:
The osterlind is fool proof I thought. Clearly there are some really big fools!!
that's not aimed at you torselli but the public
[/quote]
A performer should never look at the spectators as fools, even if they foul up the instructions you have outlined to them. If the spectator doesn't do exactly what you have asked him/her to do, the real problem is with your approach and follow through in presenting your routine. In essence, you are the fool for lacking a viable alternative strategy in the case of a snafu.

Effective audience management is key to a smooth and compentent performance, and the performer should give considerable forethought to how he/she should most effectively communicate instructions to the spectator and control the process of the routine from beginning to end.

No technique is foolproof -- there is always a margin for error, and the astute performer should have alternate strategies in the case a spectator deviates from the planned outcome.

Joe Z.
Message: Posted by: Cameron Francis (Jul 27, 2005 04:29PM)
I see. Yes, I suppose I could have tried harder to read it. But the more I do things like this, the more I realize that missing is okay and actually lends legitimacy to what I'm doing. Or at least some mystery.

I didn't actually say anything to her about different methods. That was just supposition. You know, you look at people and you can just see the wheels turning...
Message: Posted by: Michael Bilkis (Jul 27, 2005 04:56PM)
SOme experts have taught that near hits are more impressive then getting it exactly right all the time. A few misses adds to the drama.

After all, it can't be a magic trick if you get it wrong. Of course then you slay them.
Message: Posted by: Torselli (Jul 28, 2005 01:03AM)
Well, I guess I have to say some things so you might help me better.

1st. I'm not a mentalist; I am a magician and sometimes I use some mentalism effects. So, I can not miss. If you're doing magic (cards, spongeballs, rings, etc), people see you as a magician - not a 'mind reader'. So, they don't expect you to miss.

2nd. I like all ideas - specially the food/label one. But I'm a little worried about drawing anything more than a single line. If you draw a box, a circle, an airplane, anything that indicates TOO MUCH the place where the person will write, I guess it exposes the secret - if you're going to read their mind, why the place of writing have to be SO EXACT?

3rd. I always ask the spectator to write a name of someone that's very important for him/her. And, besides, the name, I guess also if the person is the spectator's mother, father, son, daughter, friend... (I won't expose here HOW to do it - but I can assure it works 90% of time, without ANY clue from the spectator). So, any other thing than names is not useful to me.

4th. I just draw a single thick line, show the spectator, point to it with the pen and ask to write the name OVER the line. Still some people seem not to understand..

So.. any other ideas for that?

I forgot to answer write2david's question: Yes, the PCT (Perfected CT) is the one he shows in details in Mind Mysteries Series (Vol. 1 I guess). It's by far the most amazing magic trick you can do - IMHO. People almost go nuts - sometimes, they even cry (specially when someone puts some deceased family member name - it's a risk that worths the effect).

I didn't use CT too much becuase the method I knew you had to 'steal' a part of it and read later. This PCT can be done surrounded. I use it in Restaurant Table Hopping Magic - and have NEVER got caught.
Message: Posted by: Brian Turntime (Jul 28, 2005 11:34AM)
Anyone else ever use the PCT with "deep astonishment" or "anything deck"?
Message: Posted by: ksalaz1 (Jul 28, 2005 01:07PM)
Brian,

Yes I do and it kills. Torselli. I have never encountered the problem you are talking about. What I do to avoid it is I place on the outside of the paper, on the top, another line and I write a name in there as if to show by example. Then on the inside I draw the line and make the "x" and tell them to write a name there. They always do. I think the example on the outside leaves no room for doubt.

Ken
Message: Posted by: Joe Stone (Jul 28, 2005 02:04PM)
[quote]

2nd. I like all ideas - specially the food/label one. But I'm a little worried about drawing anything more than a single line. If you draw a box, a circle, an airplane, anything that indicates TOO MUCH the place where the person will write, I guess it exposes the secret - if you're going to read their mind, why the place of writing have to be SO EXACT?

[/quote]

I think the point is that you use the aeroplane banner or whatever as a 'visualisation aid', and then ask the spec the keep visualising the image and the writing as you do the reading.

I think just drawing a circle would be suspicious, but then if you know what you doing anything can be rationalised; if you watch the mind mysteries DVD RO says it's vital to write their name first and UNDERLINE it on the other side - this then makes the line you draw for them to write on seem more natural
Message: Posted by: David Numen (Jul 28, 2005 02:14PM)
"1st. I'm not a mentalist; I am a magician and sometimes I use some mentalism effects. So, I can not miss. If you're doing magic (cards, spongeballs, rings, etc), people see you as a magician - not a 'mind reader'. So, they don't expect you to miss."

My opinion would be to rethink using the Center Tear. If you are doing magic, no matter how well and how skillfully, the vast majority of your audience will know you are doing some kind of trick. Provided you are entertaining enough, that doesn't matter.

But think - for example if they sat and thought about the spongeballs what solution do you think a rational layperson would arrive at? Chances are high they'd work an extra ball was used for example. Think about the Center Tear. If you are NOT presenting yourself as a "mind reader" then you are inviting them to work out the method. This is why I dislike mentralism presentations where the mentalist says up front he is using trickery - any fool with 2 brain cells to rub together will work out that you must somehow read what they wrote. You aren't offering them any alternative if they are allowed to acknowledge that what you are doing is a trick.