(Close Window)
Topic: BCS idea!
Message: Posted by: KiKi (Sep 16, 2005 06:54AM)
Today I had a new presentationidea for BCS (calling the cards).
After the spectator pulled out a bunch of cards, I tell him to shuffle the cards and distribute the cards among the audience. After each person looked at his card to remember, another person gather the cards and put them with the rest of the pack into the box. You ask each spectator who is thinking of a card to stay up. Then you start the `calling`! I think the advantage is, that there are no more `visible`cards envolved, just the thoughts! I think that will increase the effect? Best kiki
Message: Posted by: Traveler (Sep 16, 2005 06:57AM)
I love it !
Message: Posted by: Iain Moran (Sep 16, 2005 07:05AM)
Great idea Kiki. I like it a lot, will try it out tomorrow night!

Iain.
Message: Posted by: Gede Nibo (Sep 16, 2005 07:18AM)
[b]Wicked![/b] Brings another, subtle and psychological angle with it...simple and strong !!!!!
Message: Posted by: KiKi (Sep 16, 2005 07:38AM)
The weak point is you don`t know which person have what card. so for the last 3 or 4 spect.(the others are already sitting) I would change the presentation. you have 3 or 4 spectators and you know already the cards, so now it`s easy to assign the cards to each spectator. kind of radar or mindpowerdeck-method!hard for me to explain it in english, but I think you understand what I mean! best kiki
Message: Posted by: David Numen (Sep 16, 2005 08:25AM)
Not exactly an original idea - I saw Peter Zenner use a very similar idea many years ago and I am sure it wasn't new then - but that isn't meant to discourage you - to come up with the idea independently AND to add in the business of taking the cards out of sight (maybe a bit long-winded for me but I can see it working) is great.

Incidentally, the not knowing which person thought of which card didn't pose him a problem at all...just do it.

Think about it - in effect the tossed out deck is pretty much the same in a lay person's eyes but in most presentations you don't identify specifically who thought of which card (indeed you can't do that in the standard version of the effect!) but it hasn't stopped it becoming a favourite effect of many mentalists.
Message: Posted by: Stuart Cumberland (Sep 16, 2005 09:43AM)
Kiki,

Nice. I'm big on not using props and if you have to use them... take them out of play as soon as possible.

Here's some extra thoughts--you'd have to test them out:

As soon as the person takes the group of cards out, cut and get your key. IMMEDIATELY hand the remainder to the person and ask them to put them in his pocket.

He hands out the cards, collects them and you tell him to put them in his pocket with the other cards and KEEP them as a souvenir.

Ask HIM if he knows the names of any of the cards. He'll say no. Ask if he could know who has what card. No. Thank him and ask him to sit.

Look at the first spectator and tell him/her to concentrate. Suddenly you're getting all kinds of cards! "I can't concentrate! Who's thinking of the eight of clubs? YOU ARE! (whoever that is) Please sit down and thank you! Who's thinking of the SIX of spades??"

And so on.

Put emphasis on the THINKING of cards, VISUALIZATION of cards etc. Don't mention the actual playing cards again.

That routine will play very strong. And not knowing where the thoughts are coming from is not a weakness in any way.

Hope that helps.
Message: Posted by: Piers (Sep 16, 2005 11:24AM)
I love that 'Who's thinking of ... ?' idea - really strong !

Piers.
Message: Posted by: Brian Turntime (Sep 16, 2005 11:37AM)
That's wonderful, KiKi. Have you attempted to do this in Radar Deck style all the way through, fishing a little bit and then taking a shot? I mean, if you know the cards to come, you are able to say: "Would I be right that 3 of you are thinking of red cards?" Stuart's advice is excellent of course.

Still, I think the layer of impossibility in Radar/ Koran/ Mindpower deck is that the cards aren't handled/ touched by the specs, but merely thought of. Thus, when you're able to name a card that they only glanced at and chose mentally... plus, you have that bonus impact of "did you almost think of the queen of diamonds?" I think in MM#1 a big exhultation was when Richard named the two red cards that two volunteers [i]almost[/i] thought of.
Message: Posted by: Stuart Cumberland (Sep 16, 2005 11:41AM)
I just ran a few errands and realized while driving I forgot another strong bit.

Assume you have 8 people. You won't have a clue who has what card. As the group get's smaller you can single a person out, "I'm having a hard time with your thought". A bluff, of course, but if they by chance end up being the last person standing you can finish by saying "And you are thinking of the Queen of Diamonds!"

This is a subtlety most miss. It creates the false memory that you DID know some of the people's cards.

Depending on how good you are with Richard's system, you can "split" the last two people and do a gentle pump. "You're thinking of a red card, correct? NO? But YOU are (turning to the second last person)... YES... " Now you know who has what card and can finish that way too.

Kiki, I loathe using cards, but this is the first time I've read something and actually wanted to go and test it out. It certainly meets the invisible props criteria, involves a number of people and with the BCS is a mindbender.

Great stuff. Really!

Best,

SC
Message: Posted by: sarcophilus (Sep 16, 2005 11:42AM)
This is such a great idea. I can wait to try it out...

-thomas
Message: Posted by: kbiehler (Sep 16, 2005 05:20PM)
I like the idea! It gets more people into play and after all, with mentalisim the peolple are your props!!
Kent
Message: Posted by: kbiehler (Sep 16, 2005 05:24PM)
Another idea. After the "bunch" of cards are selected and you are having them mixed, you can put on a blindfold while they are pssed out ,looked at and then collected. If you then call the cards with a blindfold on it doen't matter who was looking at which card.
Kent
Message: Posted by: RicHeka (Sep 16, 2005 07:56PM)
Kiki:You have opened a can of worms!However,it is a GOOD can of worms.Creativity breeds creativity.
I am going to present a version of your idea tommorrow night.(All adult audience)I however,have decided not to have the passed out cards collected and put away.My reasoning for this is that some may be drinking and to remember the exact card can sometimes be a challenge(hic-up).So after peeking the key,I shall turn away.I shall ask all with a card to stand,and please be seated if they hear their card divined("and if I am fortunate enough to get all to be seated{Ala Richard Osterlind} you will give me a tremendous round of applause).Now I can play this to the hilt with no mistakes.I will let you know how it play's. Thank-you and All the Best. Rich
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (Sep 16, 2005 08:09PM)
Can't wait to hear how this turns out. I too like the idea of them keeping the cards. I use Animental and discovered even with just four spectators and four animals, some forget which one they selected.

I had some spectators grab 10 or more cards in BCS.

A few times I've used two spectators with BCS and did a quick glimpse with the first but this seems a lot better properly presented.

One positive over the original is there won't be anyone cry out the cards are in order which has happened to me a few times.

Or instead of blindfold, just have your back to them and they can pass them to you just like original.

Keep us posted!
Message: Posted by: Richard Osterlind (Sep 16, 2005 09:23PM)
Let me throw one more idea into the mix. If you use Jumbo cards and ask the person who draws them out to shuffle them, very rarely will they do more than mix them a bit. Most will still be in order. Then if you ask that same person to distribute them amoungst audience members, he will probably just deal them off the top, in order.

Sooo....

Once you get going and know who has a particular card, it is very possible you will know the card the next person has. You might say something like, "This person sitting here. Aren't you thinking of a higher, red card? Isn't it the Jack of Hearts?"

Just a little pumping to make sure.

Richard
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (Sep 16, 2005 11:43PM)
"ask the person who draws them out to shuffle them, very rarely will they do more than mix them a bit. Most will still be in order."
----------------

How true Richard:) I use to forget to ask them to mix them up and they would be in order (hence a comment here and there about a stack). The other night, I told them more than once to mix them and got them back in the same order:)
Message: Posted by: sinnead zenun (Sep 17, 2005 02:23AM)
Thanks kiki for sharing... bright idea... good thinking...
hope to hear more from you... :)
Message: Posted by: KiKi (Sep 17, 2005 04:37AM)
Hi! I am very happy about the great response, and the nice added ideas. so lets go on talking!!! best kiki
Message: Posted by: Ken Dyne (Sep 17, 2005 04:44AM)
Another thing you could do is be blindfolded. To the audience this is just so that you cant possibly know what is going on.

Now if you present this as if you are receiving impresssions you could say soemthing like:

"i'm getting the two of hearts, and very close by I can sense there is a person thinking of the six of diamonds."

Thew blindfold allows you tro miss somewhat more as you are "sensing".

Furthermore, if you are blindfolded throughout and use Richards Steel blindfold then how could you possibly peek at any information at all?

Best,
Kennedy
Message: Posted by: 7th_Son (Sep 17, 2005 08:05AM)
[quote]
On 2005-09-16 07:54, KiKi wrote:
After each person looked at his card to remember, another person gather the cards and put them with the rest of the pack into the box. you ask each spectator who is thinking of a card to stay up. then you start the `calling`!
[/quote]

I don't mean to sound like a wet blanket, but isn't there a chance that someone is going to forget their card? And the more people involved, the more likely someone will forget? That's the only weakness I can see.
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (Sep 17, 2005 08:53AM)
7th Son

I was thinking the same thing. I'd just have each spectator hold onto each card and hide it (or turn your back to them, wear blindfold etc). Have each spec visualize the card in their mind while you attempt to gather a visual.

I sense the JC coming from this direction (over my left shoulder etc). Who has the QS? I sensed it was here etc. Also, since 5 or so are playing, there may be mixed signals of what you receive etc...
Message: Posted by: KiKi (Sep 17, 2005 09:28AM)
I don't mean to sound like a wet blanket, but isn't there a chance that someone is going to forget their card? And the more people involved, the more likely someone will forget? That's the only weakness I can see.


[/quote]
I think that can happen in every cardeffect! even if 2 or 3 spect. forget their cards, you succesfully read the rest of the spectators cards. and maybe if someone forget their card and you name it, it comes back into their mind. if you feel uncomfortable with this method, it`s ok that each spectator keep their card. why not? I never tried it out, but I will. and when a lot of spectators forget their cards, I will change the method, that everyone keeps the card in their pocket! kiki
Message: Posted by: Stuart Cumberland (Sep 17, 2005 12:04PM)
I'm not knocking any suggestions here, but I feel that--without having tested it yet--the strength lay in the above-board fairness of the test. The fact that the spectator selects a bunch of cards, hands them out, collects them and puts them in his pocket is a VERY powerful part.

The beauty in R.O.'s BCS is that it looks exactly like... a shuffled deck. They can examine it until they turn blue.

*MY* personal criteria is to not use props. *IF* a prop must be used it must be in a challenge fashion OR taken OUT of play a.s.a.p.

I love Richard's idea with the giant cards, but for ME, it is drawing attention to them.

Kiki's original concept is amazingly powerful and clean. At least, to me.

I'm absolutely confident that doing it without knowing who has what, and narrowing down one or two who you CAN tell, will have a massive impact to the audience.

(And, in case anyone thinks that I'm knocking Richard, I'm NOT. His Radar deck routine is powerful *because* the deck is out of play, and he's reading their thoughts. That is huge, IMHO. Not knocking here, just brainstorming folks...)

Here's a favorite line of mine that I have used for years. It's funny to me because it erases an action that the audience blatantly witnesses! When you have the spectator remove the bunch, you cut and do the "dirty work"... turn your head and say "I don't even want to TOUCH the cards... put them in your pocket." Of course, you are saying this while TOUCHING the cards, but after you'll discover that they won't remember you handling them and they WILL remember you emphasising that you didn't want to touch them. I always have to resist cracking up when using that line, but it's miraculous in its impact.

This is fun. It's rare to find such a productive thread without egos flying about or nasty comments being made.

Best,

SC
Message: Posted by: Josho (Sep 17, 2005 08:54PM)
Another thought: once the spectator has taken a bunch of cards, BEFORE YOU HAVE THEM MIX THEM, have them take the first card and put it in their pocket UNSEEN. Then the spectator hands out a couple more cards. As an afterthought, say, "Did you mix them? Make sure you mix them before you hand them out." That way, you know exactly who the first three cards went to, and you save those for last, calling out the specific card for the specific person...with the unseen card in the first spectator's pocket used as the VERY last one, a real capper.

--Josh
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (Sep 18, 2005 12:15AM)
Josh,

I really like the idea of the spectator putting the top card in his pocket.

But if they mix them, how do you know which spectator has which card?
Message: Posted by: Brian Turntime (Sep 18, 2005 12:19AM)
I think he meant that you allow for the first two to be distributed in order off the top, and the remind spec to mix. Then you do the card call, and return to the individuals whom you know matched with specific cards.
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (Sep 18, 2005 02:38AM)
Ohhhh thanks Brian.
Message: Posted by: Woodfield (Sep 18, 2005 07:23AM)
How would you fill the dead time while the guy hands out the cards
and then goes back and collects them?
-Woodfield
Message: Posted by: KiKi (Sep 18, 2005 07:43AM)
[quote]
On 2005-09-18 08:23, Woodfield wrote:
How would you fill the dead time while the guy hands out the cards
and then goes back and collects them?
-Woodfield
[/quote]

a good question! when the spect. hands out the cards, I would tell -everybody who got a card already, please look at it and try to "burn" (can`t find another word in english) it into your mind. like when you close your eyes you can still see your card! at that time the cards are all handed out. now I would say: does anyone have their card in mind? ok, please collect the cards, and I want everybody who have a card in mind to stay up, close your eyes and try to picture the card in your mind! at that time the cards are all collected.
I will try it like this! just a suggestion! best kiki
Message: Posted by: Dave_J (Sep 18, 2005 10:46AM)
The BCS and Richard's blindfold would be the perfect combination. Don't even bother having the cards mixed. If you're wearing a blindfold you can't see anything anyway (!) Tell the spectator to hand the cards out. As Richard noted, they will probably do it from the top, keeping them in order. You'll be able to see who gets what card and then you can do your reveal by pointing in their general direction.
Message: Posted by: D.Paul (Sep 18, 2005 11:46AM)
I agree with Dave asking the spec to reshuffle the cards after you have just shuffled and cut them is just over kill. Its the same as asking the spec to cut the cards over and over again, once is enough I think its pointless more than once and if anything brings heat on the cards and makes them want to shuffle them fully.


Darren
Message: Posted by: 7th_Son (Sep 18, 2005 07:15PM)
[quote]
On 2005-09-16 07:54, KiKi wrote:
after the spectator pulled out a bunch of cards, I tell him to shuffle the cards and distribute the cards among the audience.
[/quote]

I really want to try this, but I have a question. I'm sorry if this is a silly question, but I'll ask anyway.

How would you know how many cards to call out?

If the spectator pulls a bunch of cards, and hands them out to several friends (while you are blindfolded or have your back turned), you don't know how many cards to call. Right?
Message: Posted by: Dave_J (Sep 18, 2005 08:02PM)
[quote]

I really want to try this, but I have a question. I'm sorry if this is a silly question, but I'll ask anyway.

How would you know how many cards to call out?

If the spectator pulls a bunch of cards, and hands them out to several friends (while you are blindfolded or have your back turned), you don't know how many cards to call. Right?
[/quote]

Well, the blindfold is not what it seems. In other words, you can still see. If you simply have your back turned without the blindfold, you have the people with cards stand and then you turn around. Either way you know how many people have cards.
Message: Posted by: sinnead zenun (Sep 18, 2005 10:09PM)
[quote]
I really want to try this, but I have a question. I'm sorry if this is a silly question, but I'll ask anyway.

How would you know how many cards to call out?

If the spectator pulls a bunch of cards, and hands them out to several friends (while you are blindfolded or have your back turned), you don't know how many cards to call. Right?
[/quote]
Well you can always tell them to get only five or six card. instead of a bunch :)
having an assitant might help too... ???
Message: Posted by: Al Straker (Sep 18, 2005 10:34PM)
Congratulations Kiki, you have really started something here and I really like the your idea.

There is a way to do this without ever touching the cards. Have you seen Marc Spellman's 'The Glimpse'? With this tool you could start with a boxed deck on the table, turn your back, give all the instructions and have the remainder of the deck boxed again. After stressing that the cards are completely out of sight, you could then turn back and gesture for them to give you the box and in the act of putting it away get all the info you need (it would take only 2 seconds). I'm sure with a bit of misdirective patter at the moment you handle the card box for a couple of seconds they will completely forget you handled anything.

This is a strong idea!!

Cheers,
Al
Message: Posted by: RicHeka (Sep 18, 2005 10:49PM)
Hello sinnead:I can speak directly to your question,since I performed my version of this routine(for the first time) last night.I was performing for 45 adults in a fairly noisey restaurant.Challenging to say the least.When I asked a spec. to grab a bunch of cards(say 4 or 5)he grabbed six(I was lucky to notice this{6})so I had no problem completing the routine.However,next time,to be certain about how many are grabbed,I will simply turn my back and ask the spec. how many cards he will be passing out.Another finesse point is to have all recipients of cards to stand,and if I call there card to say('Yes' or some other 'verbal' indicator) and sit down.(this way you alway's know where you are at) It's all about maintaining control,and all I can say The Magic God's were looking out for me,because all went well.My final effect was Giant B'Wave with the guest of honor displaying her great IMAGINATION.This,I performed as a magic/mentalism effect with the Elmsley count and it Killed! All the best. Rich
Message: Posted by: KiKi (Sep 19, 2005 04:10AM)
[quote]
On 2005-09-18 23:34, Al Straker wrote:
Congratulations Kiki, you have really started something here and I really like the your idea.

There is a way to do this without ever touching the cards. Have you seen Marc Spellman's 'The Glimpse'? With this tool you could start with a boxed deck on the table, turn your back, give all the instructions and have the remainder of the deck boxed again. After stressing that the cards are completely out of sight, you could then turn back and gesture for them to give you the box and in the act of putting it away get all the info you need (it would take only 2 seconds). I'm sure with a bit of misdirective patter at the moment you handle the card box for a couple of seconds they will completely forget you handled anything.

This is a strong idea!!

Cheers,
Al
[/quote]

hi al! of course you can use GLIMPSE. but I prefer to (false)shuffle the cards first, because spectators guess of a stack otherwise, or they ask if they can shuffle them. I just falseshuffle the cards, spectator takes a bunch, and then I give the rest to another spectator or the same. that's when I do the dirty work. the reason for handing the rest of the deck out is that I tell the spectator to look through the deck that there are no dublicates! the same method richard uses in his MIND MYSTERIES-BCS! that`s clean and convincing! best kiki
Message: Posted by: Al Straker (Sep 19, 2005 05:05AM)
Kiki I really like your thinking. I agree that shuffling first is a good throw off from the s****. There are some advantages to false shuffling, however, thinking like a layman for a minute IMHO the fact you touched the deck at all negates the value of the shuffle. The fact that you handled the cards at all is enough to create a reconstructable moment of doubt in the minds of laymen. As Ted Lesley says, in mentalism the effect is much stronger if the performer never touches the cards. If we could allow the spectator to shuffle before the effect, that would be perfect but now we are in the territory of deck switches.

Because we know the effect is done with a s****, we percieve the shuffle as important. From a layman's point of view, if they suspect a s****, the fact that you turned your back and 'never handled the cards' yourself is enough to cancel that theory. As long as they are clear at the close of the effect that all the cards are different, I believe the impossibility of the effect may be increased by appearing to never touch the cards.

You could still have them mix the cards they remove and they will recall that they 'shuffled the cards'.

The above are just my thoughts - I am constantly striving to make my show appear to be more a product of my mind's influence than my prop handling skills. Letting the layman do almost all the prop handling through the show is a very convincing way to present mentalism. People started to comment on this aspect of the show a lot so I decided to extend the idea, now it's almost an obession...

Love your work Kiki!
Al
Message: Posted by: KiKi (Sep 19, 2005 02:04PM)
[quote]
On 2005-09-18 12:46, D.Paul wrote:
I agree with Dave asking the spec to reshuffle the cards after you have just shuffled and cut them is just over kill. Its the same as asking the spec to cut the cards over and over again, once is enough I think its pointless more than once and if anything brings heat on the cards and makes them want to shuffle them fully.


Darren
[/quote]
maybe you are right! when the spectator shuffles the cards again it`s maybe to much. it just make sense in the original routine (calling the cards by richard o.), because the spectator have all the cards, and to destroy the evidence he has to shuffle them! so, if the spect. is not shuffling the cards, it`s easy to figure out who has what card!
AL wrote: ...you could still have them mix the cards they remove and they will recall that they `shuffled the cards`... that's also a good point! kiki
Message: Posted by: Brian Turntime (Sep 19, 2005 04:15PM)
Kiki and all,

What would you think of furthering the hands off by starting with the false shuffle ("I'm not going to to touch them again after I shuffle them") and then laying them on the table, ask the spec to cut ("as many times as you like") and then have them take off a small packet [b]from the top?[/b] ("Now you put them back in the case") hold the case for the p**k as in "challenge mind reading," close the case, hand it to the spec as above. From there any of the dozen ways to do the reveal that has been discussed...

I'm vacillating on whether to get the cards back as I call them.
Message: Posted by: Kevvy (Sep 19, 2005 05:44PM)
I found it is best to demonstrate EXACTLY how to cut the deck. You don't want a spec to get creative while handling the cards!
Message: Posted by: Al Straker (Sep 19, 2005 10:20PM)
Good point Kevvy, whenever a spectator is going to do all the handling it is crucial to have a very easy to understand way of instructing them on how to proceed. It is also a good idea to be a little careful when choosing the helper and emphasizing that they must follow your instructions precisely.

I will be performing this on Sat and will post about how it went - just thought I would jot down how I will present it. I am going to use the 'hands free' approach as much as possible and as have the spectators lock the thought of their card in their mind and then put the card somewhere out of sight. I will never touch the cards themselves. When the block selection is made I will ask the helper to mix them before distributing them around and allow anyone to take any card psycologically they are still making random selections while my back is turned).

I will only gesture to the spectator to hand me the card case when done and then use Glimpse to do the dirty work. As I do this I will say 'please stand if you are thinking of a card'. I will not mention the cards again but only refer to the cards they are thinking of. To acknowledge my correct hits I will ask all those thinking of a card to sit down again if I correctly name their thought of card (no displaying the hidden card - let them keep it). I will face the other way when doing the revelations saying that way I can't be picking up their body language. One at a time the people will sit as I get their card. I will also deliberately miss on one (name the mate) early on and then say 'I'll come back to that one...'. I will get a peek of how many people are left standing every so often and do as Richard does in his routine and when we are down to two people standing I will say 'I beieve there are two cards still being thought of...'. 'I will then name the incorrect mate again and say I could have sworn someone was picturing this in their mind. If the person thinking of the mate doesn't pipe up and tell me I will say is anyone thinking of card similar to this? I will then correctly name the one I have had trouble with and cleanly get the last person's card also. Looking forward to seeing how it plays...

Regards,
Al
Message: Posted by: KiKi (Sep 20, 2005 01:05AM)
[quote]
On 2005-09-19 17:15, Brian Turntime wrote:
Kiki and all,

What would you think of furthering the hands off by starting with the false shuffle ("I'm not going to to touch them again after I shuffle them") and then laying them on the table, ask the spec to cut ("as many times as you like") and then have them take off a small packet [b]from the top?[/b] ("Now you put them back in the case") hold the case for the p**k as in "challenge mind reading," close the case, hand it to the spec as above. From there any of the dozen ways to do the reveal that has been discussed...

I'm vacillating on whether to get the cards back as I call them.
[/quote]

hi! I also thought about that with the cutting. I think it doesn`t make a big difference. my experience is that the original `calling the cards` routine (grabing a bunch of cards) is in a laymen eyes convincing and clean. maybe we think too much (me included)about how to fool magician not laymen! kiki
Message: Posted by: D.Paul (Sep 20, 2005 06:46AM)
Hi, this is a little something I have always thought looks really clean. As I show the spec that all the cards are mixed, no dupelicate cards or anything like that. At the same time as I'm showing the faces of the cards I Haymow shuffle, it looks really clean and looks as if I'm mixing the cards as I'm showing them. From that point I turn the face down and ask them to cut once, then proceed with the effect.


Darren
Message: Posted by: Kevvy (Sep 20, 2005 01:48PM)
[quote]
On 2005-09-19 23:20, Al Straker wrote:

To acknowledge my correct hits I will ask all those thinking of a card to sit down again if I correctly name their thought of card (no displaying the hidden card - let them keep it).

[/quote]

Good idea.
Message: Posted by: Nicodemus (Oct 4, 2005 01:26PM)
Al: How do your performance of this go ? Really curious.

- Nicodemus
Message: Posted by: bobser (Oct 5, 2005 03:31AM)
I've never done BCS.
But isn't this similar to Marc Paul's routine?
A shovelled deck, 5 cards selected for 5 people and he names them?

bobser
Message: Posted by: Kevvy (Oct 5, 2005 05:14PM)
[quote]
On 2005-10-05 04:31, bobser wrote:
I've never done BCS.
But isn't this similar to Marc Paul's routine?
A shovelled deck, 5 cards selected for 5 people and he names them?

bobser
[/quote]

There are similarities, but the routine is different. (You can perform several routines with the BCS) Actually, the last few cards in the BCS work for Marc Paul's 'Giant card mind reading' effect. This will allow you to do other effects before performing Marc Paul's routine.

I also use the BCS an out when using the classic force.
Message: Posted by: Greg Owen (Oct 5, 2005 07:04PM)
One thing...

...just be prepared when you encounter a spectator who forgets, or worse, missremembers, his or her card.

Always be prepared and always have an out. Even if your out in this case is allowing for a miss, its good to know what you would do so it won't throw you off balance when it happens.

- Greg Owen
Message: Posted by: Al Straker (Oct 5, 2005 09:57PM)
Hey all felllow posters sorry it took a while to post the outcome of the 'hands off' BCS approach also using Kiki's ideas. Have to say this received some of the most dramatic reactions I have had. Psycologically my aim was to convince them all I never touched the cards and was turned away throughout the entire selection process. I also wanted the audience to believe the helper shuffled the cards. Here is how it played out.

Firstly I should mention that my regular venue is an ex-morgue that has been turned in to a winery. All the people were dressed as 'kooky' characters as the winery runs themed nights as their main attraction. My character is a kind of bizzare psychic undertaker and I dress accordingly. Every so often during the show a burst of baroque organ music comes forth to punctuate the effects. I could not ask for a much better mood or venue to perform.

I opened with 'Eye to Eye' by Gauci and had a good response then went in to card calling (I use the mnemonica stack by Tamariz). I emphasized the impossibility from the beginning and did my usual suggestion build up. I selected a helper using the maven tossed paper ball colour idea which worked in this case (those who have prism can look this up). The selected helper was a lady dressed as 'Morticia' from the Adams family. I left the deck sitting boxed on the table on top of a large notepad and turned away to give instructions. I emphasized that I would never touch the cards and for her to follow my instructions to the letter as it is quite difficult to be successful in any case.

Here were my intructions to her to keep things clear:
I asked her to remove the deck from the box and look through it to make sure they are all different. I then asked her to hold the deck face down so no one can see and cut any number of cards off the top and place them on the table 'to make sure we start form a random place'. I reminded them I was turned away while this happened. I then asked her to silently cut a pile of cards from the top of the deck, 'any amount you wish and place them in your pocket or somewhere where no one can see them'. After this, I asked her 'place the remaining cards on top of those on the table and put them away in the box so every card is now out of sight'. I then reminded them my back has been turned the whole time and asked her to 'take the cards out of your pocket and give them a mix'. I then asked her to hand anyone sitting near the front a card each which they were to immediately put in their pocket. After this was done I asked all those with a card in their pocket to stand. I then reminded them all that I have never touched the cards once, had my back turned the entire time, my helper mixed the cards up herself and not one single card has ever been in sight to me at any point in the routine. I also use Richard's line that even if the cards were marked, which they are not, I still have not had the chance to see the front or the back of a single card. I then asked one final time if every card was still out of sight and turned to face the audience again.

I asked all those with a card in their pocket to 'please stand'. Under this strong misdirection I picked up the card case and did glimpse (by Mark Spellman - I have gimmicked both sides of the case to make sure!). My motivation to pick up the case was to move it aside so I could get to my notepad (the table is so small that the helper had to put the card case back on top of the notepad - a subtle magician's choice which allowed me the motivation to touch the case again).

What happened next was really mentalists heaven as one of the people blurted out to their friends quite loudly 'he cannot do this, I just won't believe it if he knows the cards...'. This set an excellent precedent and in a serious tone I agreed that this is one of the most difficult things I have attempted. I started making my notes and asked them to think of their cards like a bright painting and make colours particularly vivid. I ask 'was that image real in your mind?' then say 'why shouldn't it be just as real in my mind?' With that bit of suggestion, I proceeded to call off the cards asking the participant to sit when they heard the card they are thinking of. After two revelations the lady I got up to help screamed and this set off a whole lot of 'Oh my God's' and 'What the's'. I deliberately missed on one card naming the mate, said I was fairly sure on this one and asked if anyone had a similar card? A gentleman dressed as Uncle Fester said he was thinking of a similar card. I then said I will come back to that one, that way when I got to the last two people I knew exactly who had what and could do an individual naming of the card with confidence. From the comments I got, I believe this left the impression I knew exactly which card EVERYONE had. I did not ask them to remove the card from their pocket and as the last person sat down I said to the group 'please keep the cards you were thinking of as a souvineer'.

The only thing I regret is not closing with this as it made the show peak a bit too early. Next time I will do this as a closer or second to closer. The other material I did was my own cold reading routine called 'The Gift', a bizzare effect by Borodin involving a glass of liquid and a D'lite, Maven's Mind's eye deck, my combined method metal bending routine, then Sean Field's Tesla experiment using pre show. This also caused a stir and I highly recommend Sean's work.

Thanks again to Kiki for a fine presentation idea of hers!

Cheers,
Al
Message: Posted by: KiKi (Oct 6, 2005 02:03AM)
....of hers?

nice review al! glad it killed the specs! I will try it on wednesday! kiki
Message: Posted by: Matt Pulsar (Oct 6, 2005 03:14AM)
Hers? are you not a her KiKi?

Doesn't matter, but I just want to tell you I love this Idea. I haven't gone as far as Al with the no touching the deck bit, but I have done the rest. I love the miss call note Al. I have done such with other routines, but not here. Got a great reaction. Have used it once, and am going to replace my tossed out deck with this routine, that's how good it is. I haven't ironed out all the kinks in my presentation of it but it killed. It simply leaves no paths and looks like real mind reading. Good Job.

I only have two questions. Why did you post this beauty? And how is it working out for you this far?
Message: Posted by: Al Straker (Oct 6, 2005 10:40PM)
Hi Stuart,

I agree this idea is A1 quality material. I'm not sure if you were asking me or Kiki those questions. I posted this performance because it was based on someone else's idea and wanted to share how I adapted it and how it went across. Also Nicodemus wanted me to post how the show went. I agree this is better than a tossed out deck. Looks more impossible because they sit down one by one and at the end you know exactly who has what. Thus far, it is working out absolutely superbly, only performed once but now firmly in the show towards the end. The fact they can keep the cards is also strong as it rules out gimmicks.

Cheers,
Al

PS My appologoies if the questions weren't for me.
Message: Posted by: Shawn D (Oct 7, 2005 12:24AM)
Has anyone done this with their BCS. I was putting my BCS together and saw I was missing a card.I didn't have an extra deck with me at the time so I subsituted with a joker. Now that I have done this I know everytime someone should have picked a 4ofD it is the joker.So now I say someone has a card but it is a differnt kind of card.It don't have #s on it or not a suit.IS your card a joker?
Worked out so well for me I kept the joker in the deck and leave out the 4ofD
Shawn D
Message: Posted by: KiKi (Oct 7, 2005 01:36AM)
[quote]
On 2005-10-06 04:14, StuartPalm wrote:
Hers? are you not a her KiKi?

Doesn't matter, but I just want to tell you I love this Idea. I haven't gone as far as Al with the no touching the deck bit, but I have done the rest. I love the miss call note Al. I have done such with other routines, but not here. Got a great reaction. Have used it once, and am going to replace my tossed out deck with this routine, that's how good it is. I haven't ironed out all the kinks in my presentation of it but it killed. It simply leaves no paths and looks like real mind reading. Good Job.

I only have two questions. Why did you post this beauty? And how is it working out for you this far?
[/quote]
Hi! first, I don`t know why I posted it. Just had this idea and wanted to know how other magicians think about it. I didn`t expect such a response at all!
Second, on Wednesday I try it out the first time!
P.S.: kiki is `his` :) Best kiki


Posted: Oct 7, 2005 2:38am
-------------------------------------------
[quote]
On 2005-10-07 01:24, Shawn D wrote:
Has anyone done this with their BCS. I was putting my BCS together and saw I was missing a card.I didn't have an extra deck with me at the time so I subsituted with a joker. Now that I have done this I know everytime someone should have picked a 4ofD it is the joker. So now I say someone has a card but it is a different kind of card. It don't have #s on it or not a suit. Is your card a joker?
Worked out so well for me I kept the joker in the deck and leave out the 4 of D.
Shawn D
[/quote]
Nice idea with the joker. but why do you leave one card out? You just have to remember where the joker is! Best kiki
Message: Posted by: Matt Pulsar (Oct 9, 2005 01:44AM)
Lol, good point. Well at least you know you can stand by the fact that this is yours. I have not seen it anywhere else. Again, well done
Message: Posted by: Richard Osterlind (Oct 9, 2005 07:54AM)
[quote]
On 2005-10-07 01:24, Shawn D wrote:
Has anyone done this with their BCS. I was putting my BCS together and saw I was missing a card.I didn't have an extra deck with me at the time so I subsituted with a joker. Now that I have done this I know everytime someone should have picked a 4ofD it is the joker.So now I say someone has a card but it is a differnt kind of card.It don't have #s on it or not a suit.IS your card a joker?
Worked out so well for me I kept the joker in the deck and leave out the 4ofD
Shawn D
[/quote]

Shawn,

That was good thinking for an emergency remedy, but if you are going to do it all the time, why not just leave the Joker in the deck with all 52 cards? I have done this myself and placed it after the King of Spades. That way, if you wanted to do one of the effects I mentioned in The Memorized Breakthrough, you can just look through the deck, remove the Joker and cut the deck at that point. Then you are ready to go.

Richard
Message: Posted by: Snail (Oct 9, 2005 10:20AM)
One other idea: Why not have certain cards in the deck that you can psychologically force. Queen of hearts, 4 of clubs, and 7 of diamonds are cards that I psychologically force most easily. If you know someone has this card and they have it in their pocket without looking at it, you can say, "Right. I've told other people their cards without them looking at them. I'll tell you what. YOU name your card". Psychologcially force it. "You think you have the 7 of diamonds? Then take it out!"
Message: Posted by: mouliu (Apr 3, 2006 03:12PM)
Great ideas, thanks all. I love BCS and use it a lot.

Recently I'm thinking about remember the exact positions of each card using BCS, wondering what effect can acheive.

One idea, I ask an audience put the cards on table one by one and stop whenever s/he wants, and put it into his/her pocket (while I turn my back to him/her). From the sound s/he makes while putting card on table, I know which card s/he takes. (For example, if the top card 4D, I know the fifth card is 3C)

Any idea on the application of remember the exact position of each card?
Message: Posted by: Kevvy (Apr 3, 2006 03:27PM)
I really like your idea, Mouliu!

Try the Memorized Breakthrough Card System (e-book).
Message: Posted by: Colin (Apr 3, 2006 03:41PM)
Just a little psychological ploy, once everyone has gotten a card, lets say eight have been handed out after they have been picked at random and mixed.

The eight people are standing. You ask them each to you as you try to pick up on what they are thinking of.

"I'm going to call out the card I think you are thinking of, and when I name your card just sit down. Some are easier to pick up on than others, so bare with me"

You now point with your left hand as you look up, not looking at anyone specifically and start pointing up and down with your left finger moving it to dfferent levels as you name each card. As less and less people are standing start pointing to specific areas of the audience as you look in the opposite. This will give the impression you are either looking at them and naming their card and still pointing as if keeping count of cards, or you are pointing to them as you look away to concentrate on what card it is. This will require practice to make it look convincing, however I've used it for similar effects, and it works very well.

When there are only two cards left point to one person and look at the other, name the second last card, and if the person you are looking at sits down, exellent turn to the last person and say "meaning you must be thinking of the..." If however they don't sit down and the other person does, this usually gets a laugh so slowly turn your head as you see them sit down, turning back to the last person and saying "meaning you must be thinking of the..."

Hope that makes sense!

Col.
Message: Posted by: Waters (Apr 3, 2006 03:50PM)
"BCS" and "Losing Control"...

I was playing around with BCS and realized that Lee Asher's "Losing Control" (one of the very best one card controls you can find) keeps the BCS intact while invisibly controlling a selection to the top of the deck. By the way, the selection genuinely comes from the center of the deck (or wherever).

...Do whatever you like with that!

Sean
Message: Posted by: mouliu (Apr 3, 2006 08:51PM)
Kevvy, is the Memorized Breakthrough Card System about how to remember the BCS? Or about how to remember the exact position of BCS (I don't know how to describe it in its proper term)? The second one means, if the top card is 3S, I can call out the 49th card is 4C without counting it.
Message: Posted by: RickThibau (Apr 3, 2006 10:27PM)
WOW! Very good ideas!
This is one of the best topics ever!
I use Tamariz´s Mnemonica´s, I know we are at a mentalists area but how many of you have seen Joshua Jay´s dvds? There are nice touches on memorized deck.

If spectator forgets the card is ok, if you miss one in 5 or 6 is not bad, and if you want to be perfect you can use an index.

Congratulations for all of you that shared good ideas! I´m pleased!
Message: Posted by: Kevvy (Apr 3, 2006 11:28PM)
[quote]
On 2006-04-03 21:51, mouliu wrote:
Kevvy, is the Memorized Breakthrough Card System about how to remember the BCS? Or about how to remember the exact position of BCS (I don't know how to describe it in its proper term)? The second one means, if the top card is 3S, I can call out the 49th card is 4C without counting it.
[/quote]

The Memorized BCS is great for knowing the exact position of cards in the BCS. However, knowing both methods will prove beneficial.

Check out this thread:
[url=http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=126308&forum=159]Memorized BCS[/url]

[url=http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=156452&forum=15]THIS THREAD[/url] contains more ideas for the BCS.
Message: Posted by: Dr Spektor (Apr 4, 2006 06:29AM)
If you do BCS often enough - you'll have the deck memorized anyway!
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (May 1, 2006 06:16AM)
[quote]
On 2005-09-16 18:24, kbiehler wrote:
Another idea. After the "bunch" of cards are selected and you are having them mixed, you can put on a blindfold while they are pssed out ,looked at and then collected. If you then call the cards with a blindfold on it doen't matter who was looking at which card.
Kent
[/quote]
Oh I like this. Anyone tried it yet?! I'm thinking of using it this upcoming week. I usually do Card Calling most of my stage shows and using the blindfold (mystery) and several spectators (involving more of the audience) adds some depth and excitement here.


Posted: May 1, 2006 7:57am
-------------------------------------------
Just thought of a possible scenario. I am thinking of doing it blindfolded and cut to the selection then box em up. Then have the spectators stand and instruct the audience to applaude when they sit down (after I get the correct card).


Posted: May 1, 2006 4:49pm
-------------------------------------------
Just wondering whether to have spectator shuffle the cards before handing them out or having them hand them out in order to a row of spectators. Being blindfolded also. I remember some have commented on the s**** when I didn't have them shuffled.

Comments?
Message: Posted by: RicHeka (May 2, 2006 07:44AM)
In my performing experience with the BCS,having the spectator cut the cards has been perfectly adequate.
I would think that the only person that would be suspicious of a spectator non-shuffle is another performer,or somebody with some magical knowledge..exception not the rule.Best.
Rich
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (May 3, 2006 03:29AM)
Thanks RIch. Seems I deal with a few hecklers now and then. I plan on trying Colin's idea tonight if I go up on stage.
Message: Posted by: Piers (Dec 19, 2006 12:13PM)
This is such a great thread.

I've been reading through it again, and there are many little nuggets in here.

Piers.
Message: Posted by: Nathan Alexander (Dec 19, 2006 02:34PM)
Piers- I heard that.
Message: Posted by: Hill (Dec 19, 2006 04:35PM)
Jeepers - I'm really glad this has been bumped up too - great thread
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (Dec 20, 2006 02:20AM)
BCS is so kewl. I go back and forth between Card Calling and Challenge as which one is best, both are!

Candini
Message: Posted by: Nathan Alexander (Dec 20, 2006 06:24AM)
Candini-

Do you find one or another to be better for groups large vs. small? I have wanted to try Card Calling but have yet to do so. This thread is certainly motivating!
Message: Posted by: Steve Suss (Dec 20, 2006 10:57AM)
I agree this thread is worth its weight in gold and should be a model for what brainstorming can do. Here's another idea which some might find useful.

Start out with Challenge Mindreading asking the spectator to merely think of a card etc. Ask if there are any card players in the audience and select one to thoroughly shuffle the deck to maintain test conditions. You then place the deck in your pocket so you can not see any cards and proceed to locate the thought of card with your fingertips. Not only have you found the thought of card but you've switched the shuffled deck for another one with your st**k. You can now proceed with the rest of Osterlinds routine or any other one requiring a st**ck deck. The difference is the spectators are now convinced this deck was thoroughly shuffled by a spectator.

For the method start out with the Challenge routine by Osterlind and glimpse when handing the deck to be shuffled. Follow the routine by Simon Aaronson called Shuffle Training. It's free on his website. The only thing is you must know a MD to do this routine. The BCS by itself,if not memorized, will not work.
Message: Posted by: Hill (Dec 20, 2006 12:13PM)
Great stuff steve - thanks for the idea
Message: Posted by: Al Straker (Dec 21, 2006 06:40PM)
Good to see this thread back in action! It is truly a Café classic.

Just wanted to update everyone that I have been using card calling exactly as I wrote up in this thread quite a few months ago now. It has become a particularly strong feature of the show. There are very few effetcs in one's lifetime that feel almost perfect to perform and where reactions are consistently off the scale, this is one of them.

There is enough info on this thread to create your own reputation making version, thanks to all who have contributed but lets not stop here.

Al straker
Message: Posted by: erlandish (Dec 21, 2006 07:26PM)
I wonder, would this work? One thing that could be fun (but also add to the chaos) is to encourage people who didn't get a card to try to throw you off by thinking of other cards. If, for instance, you knew that nobody had taken an often-thought-of card (like the Queen of Spades, etc.), but you have other people thinking of other cards to throw you off, in the middle of some successfully identified cards, you could say "Who's thinking of the queen of spades?" Some people would answer in the affirmative. "Stop trying to throw me off!" And then you go back to naming some of the other cards that people actually did take.

Another thought, if you ask somebody whom you know didn't take a card what card they're thinking of, and they name it, and somebody DID take that card, you could get all excited and say, "Wait! Somebody just thought 'That was MY card!' Who thought that?"
Message: Posted by: RicHeka (Dec 21, 2006 08:29PM)
[quote]
On 2006-12-21 20:26, erlandish wrote:
I wonder, would this work? One thing that could be fun (but also add to the chaos) is to encourage people who didn't get a card to try to throw you off by thinking of other cards. If, for instance, you knew that nobody had taken an often-thought-of card (like the Queen of Spades, etc.), but you have other people thinking of other cards to throw you off, in the middle of some successfully identified cards, you could say "Who's thinking of the queen of spades?" Some people would answer in the affirmative. "Stop trying to throw me off!" And then you go back to naming some of the other cards that people actually did take.

Another thought, if you ask somebody whom you know didn't take a card what card they're thinking of, and they name it, and somebody DID take that card, you could get all excited and say, "Wait! Somebody just thought 'That was MY card!' Who thought that?"
[/quote]

That is some very nice thinking!I am a big proponent of 'non-rote' presentation.

Best.

Rich
Message: Posted by: polkablues (Dec 21, 2006 08:40PM)
The best part about erlandish's idea is that, in the momentum of the routine, you don't even necessarily need confirmation that some of the cards you call out are actually being thought of by anyone. In the midst of naming the selected cards and the psychologically-likely selections, you could throw in a "Whoever's thinking of the 8 of Diamonds, please stop!" Then move on to the next selection. The audience will take it as a hit, simply because you're hitting with all the other cards (and no one there can reasonably say "none of us were thinking of that card..."), and on the off-chance somebody [i]is[/i] thinking of the 8 of Diamonds, you're now a freakin' miracle worker in their eyes.
Message: Posted by: bronx (Feb 19, 2007 07:57PM)
I am loving this thread. Really !! Reading it has been like a master class in BCS and related ideas. Thank you all so much.

I tried something the other night that was quite effective, and really fun. After the cards had been selected, shuffled and distributed and I had my key, I picked up my dry-erase board and started sketching. ' I'm seeing something red, definitely RED.' Picked up a red pen. "No wait, I'm getting a stronger black impression." Switched to black pen. "No definitely red" Did a quick sketch, turned it over and it was two bicyclists. "Sorry, I think that was the back." Got a good laugh, then started sketching cards ... quickly .... jumping between black and red pens ... played it like it was automatic writing. like I couldn't write fast enough with all the impressions coming at me.

Would like to keep working on this routine. I think it has some merit. Thoughts??

Thanks,

da bronx
Message: Posted by: Decomposed (Feb 20, 2007 04:34AM)
One of the best effects of all time IMO.....what a gem RO decided to share with us....
Message: Posted by: Malchat (Feb 20, 2007 05:07AM)
Also take note of Richard's subtlety of cutting the deck a few times in what looks like an overhand shuffle while he's talking. Works fine for me, I don't even bother with the riffle.

If you're just starting out with the BCS, consider using the Earle & Becker Demon Deck cards; they have a marking system that also includes every card's BCS neighbour. You can get some really subtle glimpses using the Demon Deck.
Message: Posted by: BERMINI (Feb 20, 2007 08:05AM)
KiKi,
Excellent presentation that led to an excellent thread. Malchat mentions the subtlety of apparently shuffling the deck but it is actually a series of cuts. I never fail to do this whenever I do any effect with a s* st***** stack. It is very convincing. I would do your presentation with the same stack.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan (Feb 20, 2007 11:30AM)
I like the ideas this is stirring up. I would like to present another way of going about it. Kind of going in a different direction in terms of the revelation of the cards but I think it will solve all the concerns and take the best of all the ideas.

I don't want to just give it away on here, but read my effect in PS2 (hoy/karm redux) and I believe it works even better with this BCS presentation than with the colors! People won't remember what order the cards are named in like they would remember colors. And it's MUCH more impressive because of how many possible cards there are as opposed to colors. And you need no outs. Takes care of all the concerns of the original hoy/karm redux effect.

The only drawback is you can't say what someone "almost" thought of. But if you think really hard I think there's another angle you can go with that which offers some really cool possibilities.

Check it out! (I think I'm going to use it, and it actually solves a little dilemma I was having in my act) Thanks Kiki! :)
Message: Posted by: Mariagi (Feb 20, 2007 05:27PM)
[quote]
On 2006-12-21 20:26, erlandish wrote:
I wonder, would this work? One thing that could be fun (but also add to the chaos) is to encourage people who didn't get a card to try to throw you off by thinking of other cards. If, for instance, you knew that nobody had taken an often-thought-of card (like the Queen of Spades, etc.), but you have other people thinking of other cards to throw you off, in the middle of some successfully identified cards, you could say "Who's thinking of the queen of spades?" Some people would answer in the affirmative. "Stop trying to throw me off!" And then you go back to naming some of the other cards that people actually did take.
[/quote]

There is a routine in an upcoming booklet I had the priviledge to read that does exactly what you say without any need on your part to encourage people who didn't get a card to try to throw you off by thinking of other cards. Is a routine in which you guess one by one real playing cards as well as playing card only thought of by members of your audience:

The routine is not based on any stacked deck but I see how you could use any stacked deck [even Si-Stebbins or BCS] for the first part
Message: Posted by: bronx (Feb 20, 2007 11:07PM)
So I'm sitting in a Café in San Francisco, reading the BCS pamphlet this afternoon, working through the deck, trying to speed up my card-calling. A guy at the next table sees me with a deck of cards. Asks me what I'm doing. I stash the pamphlet and tell him that I'm learning a new game of solitaire .... (I'm so lonely)

We start talking. I talk about how I've got this thing about guessing cards. And how I've done it since I was a kid. I tell him I'd like to try an experiment. Tell him to cut the cards as many times as he wants to.

He does.

(a small crowd is building)

tell him to take the top card w/o looking at it and put it in his right pocket. (he does)

tell him to take the next card and put it in his left pocket (he does)

I take the deck, put it in the box and hand it to someone else for safekeeping.

Tell him I'm getting two strong impressions. Ask him which card he'd like to find in his right pocket.

I call it...he finds it .... Ask the woman next to him to tell him what the card is in his left pocket. She looks at me like I'm nuts.

Well, I AM, but that's another story. I say, "OK. I'll give you three options. I call his card and two others. figure, what have I got to lose? She calls the right one.

He pulls it out of his pocket.

He literally choked on his Double Decaf Cap....

I had just read this basic routine in RO's pamphlet. Just tweaked it a tiny bit...THAT'S how strong this stuff is. It really is nothing short of amazing that he chose to share this. What a freakin' GIFT.

As is this thread.

Thanks again.

b
Message: Posted by: bronx (Feb 20, 2007 11:08PM)
Oh forgot,

Thanks, Malchat for the overhand shuffle info. I prefer not to use the riffle if I can help it and some fast overhand cuts really takes care of business.
Message: Posted by: Al Straker (Feb 20, 2007 11:25PM)
There is also an ultra convincing and casual overhand (false) shuffle taught on Vernon's Revelations, can't remember which volume. When you see it, you will probably think (as I did) that there is no way the full deck is still in order but it IS!

It's demonstrated by Steve Freeman. Not hard to do and the MOST convincing false shuffle I have personally ever seen. Part of the beauty of it is that it looks exactly like how anyone would mix up a deck with a simple overhand shuffle, not some kind of a fancy or special move. Much better for a mentalist!

Cheers,
Al
Message: Posted by: RicHeka (Feb 20, 2007 11:30PM)
Yes,Matthew and bronx,overhand shuffles usually are adequate.I also use a slower form of an overhand shuffle..where it appears that I am weaving the right hand[top] pack into the left hand[bottom] pack[assuming you are right handed]wiggling the right hand pack back and forth as if forcing it into the lower half.Try it it looks quite convincing.[never looking at my hands of course]
The bottom card of the top half is merely rubbing across the top card of the bottom half.There probably is a name for this false shuffle,but not being a card man I am unaware of it. :)

Best.
Rich
Message: Posted by: bronx (Feb 21, 2007 12:09AM)
Oh MAN. Does that ever look convincing. Just tried it in front of the mirror. Very pretty. THANKS.

I also have been working with an overhand shuffle that involves removing the lower half of the deck. As the remainder of the deck is rocked back and forth in the left hand the right hand appears to drop cards on the top (but doesn't), then drops cards on the bottom. I believe it is called the FALSE CHOP SHUFFLE. And it can be found on a Simon Lovell DVD called, 'Gambling Moves with Cards" distributed by Magic Makers.

There are a ton of other false shuffles on there as well, including a variation on the one you're talking about.

bronx
Message: Posted by: PsiDroid (Feb 21, 2007 07:53AM)
Erlandish and Mariagi I think your ideas are fantastic. thanks for sharing some great handling tips
Message: Posted by: Malchat (Feb 21, 2007 05:41PM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-21 00:25, Al Straker wrote:
There is also an ultra convincing and casual overhand (false) shuffle taught on Vernon's Revelations, can't remember which volume. When you see it, you will probably think (as I did) that there is no way the full deck is still in order but it IS! [/quote]

It's on Volume 13 - a beautiful sleight.
Message: Posted by: Pete Legend (Oct 8, 2007 11:14AM)
*Bumb* Great Thread!
Message: Posted by: Silvertongue (Oct 8, 2007 11:30AM)
Your not wrong, I'm going back to the front... Great ideas guys... I want some!!!
lol
Message: Posted by: RicHeka (Oct 8, 2007 01:41PM)
Yes,this was a great thread.

Just in case it wasn't mentioned here...another easy and deceptive false shuffle is Dan Garrett's 'Underhanded Overhand Shuffle'.So easy it can be done while looking them in the eye while talking.

Rich
Message: Posted by: gabelson (Oct 8, 2007 01:53PM)
[quote]
On 2007-02-21 00:30, PaleoMagi wrote:
Yes,Matthew and bronx,overhand shuffles usually are adequate.I also use a slower form of an overhand shuffle..where it appears that I am weaving the right hand[top] pack into the left hand[bottom] pack[assuming you are right handed]wiggling the right hand pack back and forth as if forcing it into the lower half.Try it it looks quite convincing.[never looking at my hands of course]
The bottom card of the top half is merely rubbing across the top card of the bottom half.There probably is a name for this false shuffle,but not being a card man I am unaware of it. :)

Best.
Rich
[/quote]

Rudy Hunter has a DVD of this very shuffle, called "The Hunter Shuffle". I don't know if it originated with him or not, but it's a great tutorial.
Message: Posted by: entity (Oct 8, 2007 02:03PM)
I believe that what Rudy calls The Hunter Shuffle was taught to him by Willis Kenney, now deceased. Willis (and Rudy) lived in Toronto and both were friends of mine. While he loved Magic and performed a wonderful cups and balls routine, Willis's forte was Gambling sleights. He gambled for years in real world, rough and tough situations, and knew what he was talking about.

- entity
Message: Posted by: RicHeka (Oct 8, 2007 02:13PM)
Thanks Gabelson..I new it had to have a name.

One thing I forgot to mention.Often while strolling,I have a guest cut and complete the cut.I have several guests remove a card from the top and keeping them from view.

I immediately begin an unrelated non card routine stating we will get back to your cards shortly.I replace the deck in the box.

Returning to the revelations after a time lapse seems even more impossible than just doing it immediately.

Rich
Message: Posted by: VIEW (Mar 18, 2008 06:55PM)
Totally bump. this is mega.
Message: Posted by: Chris Jenkins (Jul 17, 2011 04:31PM)
Time for another bump.....Brilliant ideas!!

Enjoy!
Message: Posted by: tomd (Jan 25, 2018 05:17PM)
It's been too long, people need to read this... bump