(Close Window)
Topic: Dispelling notion of marked cards in MD effects
Message: Posted by: todsky (Feb 2, 2008 07:54AM)
From the little knowledge I have of mem/stack card effects, it seems that spectators may jump to the (wrong) conclusion that the cards must be marked. How does one dispel this notion, aside from having spec minutely examine the cards?
Message: Posted by: kosmoshiva (Feb 2, 2008 08:44AM)
Depends upon the routine (card calling, for instance, wouldn't really clue marked cards), but the obvious advice is: don't look at the cards.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Loomis (Feb 2, 2008 10:52AM)
I have adopted the Gene Anderson Si Stebbins routine (available from Gene on his web site) for use with the Aronson Stack. As a part of this routine I raise the issue of marked cards myself, only to dispel the notion. I'm claiming that I can hear each of the card individually by running my thumb down the side of the deck and listening. I hear the missing selection (which has not been returned). After doing this a couple of times, I say: "Some people think the cards must be marked, and I'd like to show you something to disprove that." I then have a person name any number from 1 to 52 and I say: "Let's see if I can hear the card at that position in the deck." I then run my thumb down the side of the deck while holding the cards to my ear, and name the card. And then I say: "You realize that if the card is at that position, marks on the card wouldn't help at all, because I can't see the back of that card. Let's see if I was right... watch closely as I count down to the card." I then count down to the card and reveal that I was right.

This works to dispel the notion of marks, and is much better than stopping your set and letting people look minutely at the back. Besides, we know that most laypeople couldn't find any marks even if they were there.

This routine is often my opening with a memdeck, and gets the notion of marked cards off the table right away.

Dennis Loomis

P.S. Interestingly, I do sometimes work with a memorized and marked deck, and this same sequence works to dispel the notion of marks just as well.
Message: Posted by: Billgussen (Feb 2, 2008 09:04PM)
For card-calling effects, it seems to me that you can go a long way to dispelling the marked deck idea by turning your back while the card is pulled and examined or by wearing a blindfold (gimmicked or otherwise). It's their card that they are worried about you reading, and not the rest of the deck, so I'm sure you can routine a good way to get a peek at the next card in the sequence somehow without ever being able to see either the front or the back of their card.

Bill
Message: Posted by: todsky (Feb 3, 2008 07:30AM)
Thanks for the reassurances, guys. I guess there are enough effects that can be done where I don't need to see the back of the chosen card, then.
Message: Posted by: Larry Davidson (Feb 3, 2008 03:32PM)
Those who are unfamiliar with the Gene Anderson effect that Dennis Loomis mentions above are missing out on a very strong, real-world effect.

Larry

P.S. - The MD I use is also marked and I'd never leave home without it.
Message: Posted by: Axelchen (Feb 4, 2008 07:09AM)
What about explaining the riffle check for detecting a marked-deck to the spectator when you are accused to use marked cards?
at least for friends and well known people I do this. do you see any problems to do it everytime and for every audience when accused?
Message: Posted by: kosmoshiva (Feb 4, 2008 09:14AM)
Use casino 'cut' cards ... or ...
Look them in the eye when their card is chosen ... or ...
Tell them you do indeed use marked cards and that you can read using your fingertips ...
Personally, I'm delighted if someone posits a wrong solution. :)
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Feb 4, 2008 11:27AM)
[quote]On 2008-02-02 22:04, Billgussen wrote:
. . . you can go a long way to dispelling the marked deck idea by . . . wearing a blindfold (gimmicked . . .).[/quote]
I believe you've hit on the precise reason that wearing a blindfold won't dispel the marked-deck idea.


[quote]On 2008-02-04 10:14, kosmoshiva wrote:
Personally, I'm delighted if someone posits a wrong solution. :)
[/quote]
I thought that the idea was that they shouldn't be able to posit [b][i]any[/i][/b] (natural) solution.
Message: Posted by: edh (Feb 4, 2008 04:22PM)
I believe Axelchen hit the nail on the head. If specs believe that there is a marked deck then prove them that there isn't.
Message: Posted by: Bill Lhotta (Feb 7, 2008 06:38PM)
I have to agree. If the spectator thinks they know the solution (even if they are wrong) it is as good (to them) as if they really knew the actual solution. The Magi is the only one who is comforted by knowing they do not know the actual secret, but what does this gain?

** Bill **

[quote]
On 2008-02-04 12:30, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2008-02-04 10:14, kosmoshiva wrote:
Personally, I'm delighted if someone posits a wrong solution. :)[/quote]
I thought that the idea was that they shouldn't be able to posit [b][i]any[/i][/b] (natural) solution.
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Acecardician (Feb 8, 2008 01:35AM)
After they pick a card, I glance the mark, but I look through the deck and say I can tell them which one is missing, and they believe me.

ACE
Message: Posted by: Acecardician (Feb 8, 2008 01:46AM)
And...I found it is good when I work professionally to use a marked deck. I just do regular card effects, but I will always know what their card is, if I need an 'out'. Or get challenged. Once I guy said, let me shuffle. I already knew the card, I gave him the deck. I ended the trick by looking throught the deck to make sure "he did not slip it out" and finished my effect.

ACE
Message: Posted by: Axelchen (Feb 8, 2008 06:03AM)
That's the problem I saw with explaining the riffle check I mentioned in my posting above: if you do use a marked deck sometimes you give them the knowledge to nail you...i donīt really like that.

on the other hand, I think there are some advantages in explaining the riffle check:
1) you prove that you donīt use a marked deck, so you cross out one possible solution a spectator can think of. I personally use marked decks very seldom so to me itīs not really a great problem explaining it. what I like to do sometimes is after the third or fourth performance to the same audience that know me already and that I have convinced in the previous performances that I donīt use special decks, then to ring in such a nice deck. at that state they believe me not to use a marked deck and I do things that I only can do (that clean handling)with a marked deck.

2)this to me is more important: you come around as a nice and honest persona (i am, so I donīt have to fake it :bg: ...but not all know that). because first, you say to them that you donīt cheat them so cheap in not using a marked deck ("ooh, itīs not done by such a simple method as I thought. so he is really clever and so honest to me. a real artist" (hehe, iīm not but...)). second, I give them a method to protect themselves in a card game (pokern is very popular in germany nowadays) (i hope they are thinking:"how nice. he introduce us to the real secrets of card cheating. how generous." etc). and the third point to me is, that you are perceived knowledgeable, a real expert in what you do (i know, my magic speaks for itself and I hope that perception is gained by doing magic in the first place, but itīs a kind of extra-convincer. something that connects you further with your audience. it creates an atmosphere of trust, at least I do perceive it that way. and... the more they trust you (has something to do with respect and authority too), the less you have problems with hecklers and the more you can hit them more harder, I believe.

so, again, do you see a problem in explaining this feat (riffle-check)? do you see that as a kind of exposure? me, iīm not really sure and would like to read and listen to your thoughts!

have a nice day!
Axel
Message: Posted by: Acecardician (Feb 10, 2008 09:09PM)
Is it the same as saying I can tell the only one missing? Like exposing that it is possible?
Then they think I have great memory skills.
Not really a magic trick, but again a logical explanation.
And looking at me, they think, oh he can count cards, and tell which is missing.
Another paradox. Danged if you do danged if you don't.

ACE
Message: Posted by: Axelchen (Feb 11, 2008 12:20PM)
The riffle check for marked cards? if you look at the backs and riffle with your thumb like a ... donīt know the right word "thumbcinema" would be the wordly translation from german...like "cardtoon"... you see the marks jump. you can use this to identify marked cards. and that procedure I would explain to the spectator. donīt know if riffle-check is the right term but I would call it that way.

Axel
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Feb 11, 2008 12:28PM)
One of the best ways to dispel suspicion about marked cards is to use the key card principle in conjunction with them. That way, you're never looking at their card directly, only the card(s) next to it!
Message: Posted by: todsky (Feb 11, 2008 03:51PM)
[quote]
On 2008-02-11 13:28, Scott Cram wrote:
One of the best ways to dispel suspicion about marked cards is to use the key card principle in conjunction with them. That way, you're never looking at their card directly, only the card(s) next to it!
[/quote]

So true, so simple, so effective.
Message: Posted by: Andy Moss (Feb 18, 2008 06:33AM)
I guess associated with Scott's observation is the fact that if you first have the deck in a 'memory stack' and false shuffle it in an convincing manner then in most cases one does not require marked cards at all.You can also use a stack for the purpose of avoiding the need to force cards onto the spectator.Only if I feel that the advantages with respect to the streamlining of the effect or in strengthening the impact directly benefit the SPECTATOR do I use a marked deck.

For example at the moment I am practicing a John Mendoza card effect called 'Whispers'. This is a free download provided on Magic Café by Hocus Pocus sited on the 'Workers forum'I think.I am hoping that many of you reading this post will be familiar with it.If not do take the time to download it as it is a solid effect.In the effect I need to know the identities of three cards. The effect therefore involves a force. Now I could use any force.Some more able magicians might even use a sleight of hand to produce the required selections.I could also use a MARKED deck and simply fan the cards out for the spectator to take the selections.But why?

The method I am choosing for 'Whispers'is to simply have the deck in a memory stack.After a thorough looking series of false shuffles I then ask the spectator to call out three numbers between one and fifty two and I simply (and cleanly) take out the selections out at the said positions by dealing cards face down onto table.This leaves me immune to any suspicion in the spectator's mind that a marked deck MUST have been in play.I am also now in a position where I am not under any pressure to see any markings from 3 or 4 feet away. I can bring as much or as little attention to the three selections (and the deck) as I choose to do so having nothing to hide.

With best wishes Andy.
Message: Posted by: todsky (Feb 18, 2008 08:25AM)
[quote]
On 2008-02-18 07:33, Andy Moss wrote:

I need to know the identities of three cards. The effect therefore involves a force.
[/quote]
Not if you use a mem deck or card control.

[quote]
The method I am choosing for 'Whispers' is to simply have the deck in a memory stack. After a thorough looking series of false shuffles I then ask the spectator to call out three numbers between one and fifty two and I simply (and cleanly) take out the selections out at the said positions by dealing cards face down onto table. This leaves me immune to any suspicion in the spectator's mind that a marked deck [b]must[/b] have been in play. I am also now in a position where I am not under any pressure to see any markings from 3 or 4 feet away. I can bring as much or as little attention to the three selections (and the deck) as I choose to do so having nothing to hide.
[/quote]
But if you deal the cards, you're not 3 or 4 feet away, so you might be suspected of seeing marks on the cards.
Message: Posted by: Andy Moss (Feb 18, 2008 09:00AM)
"I simply (and cleanly) take out the selections out at the said positions by dealing cards face down onto table."

With respect to my last paragraph relating to the 'Whispers' effect there is a gaping kink in my not so cunning plan.(!).I should have given it more thought before posting. don't deal the first few cards onto the table as one would then be disturbing the order of the top set up and would also reveal the face up ace!.One could I guess carefully clump count the first four cards in the hand and then place these cards as a bunch onto the table.The rest of the cards could be reverse counted as per normal....But then one still has to bring the set up aces to the top of the deck again in a controlled cut or shuffle......One could I suppose just count all the cards in the hand...... It is time for me to face the truth.It is probably better to stay with the force! (or use marked cards!!).(LOL)

Back to the drawing board. Yours in embarrassment.Andy.
Message: Posted by: Andy Moss (Feb 18, 2008 09:14AM)
Todsky, Yes you are right. My brain is clearly not in gear today.I think Scott was wise when he mentioned using the key card principle and a memory stack.This could reveal the identities of all three cards. I shall reflect upon that.

Best wishes. Andy.
Message: Posted by: kosmoshiva (Feb 18, 2008 11:52AM)
[quote]
On 2008-02-07 19:38, Bill Lhotta wrote:
I have to agree. If the spectator thinks they know the solution (even if they are wrong) it is as good (to them) as if they really knew the actual solution. The Magi is the only one who is comforted by knowing they do not know the actual secret, but what does this gain?

It gains you the very powerful ability to undermine their construct by proving them wrong - in a multitude of ways (as this thread attests). Once a spectator believes he has guessed a method, it's much harder for them to undo that belief.

Asides from that, I'm not sure if I'm following the logic of some of this thread - surely marked cards have nothing to do with the mechanics of mem deck work and it's a bit like running when not being chased?
Message: Posted by: todsky (Feb 18, 2008 12:19PM)
Kosmo, the reason I was asking about dispelling the notion of marked cards from mem deck work is because if I was to tell a spec what card they are holding (using mem deck methods), they might be left with the only conclusion (wrongly) that the cards must be marked, because many laymen know about marked decks. And I don't want to leave them with any conclusion at all, except astonishment.
Message: Posted by: kosmoshiva (Feb 18, 2008 04:17PM)
Thanks, todsky, got it :)

So ... when challenged that you're using a marked deck, how about admitting that indeed you ARE and then setting up an experiment so ridiculously difficult that it ends up astonishing? For example, reading the 'marked' card at a distance and with just the briefest flash? Then follow it up with a demonstration of your X-ray vision! :)
Message: Posted by: todsky (Feb 19, 2008 10:13AM)
That could work, Kosmo. So with each repetition, the test conditions get harder and harder to the point of impossibility, at which moment the person who believed so strongly that the ony solution was marked cards is suddenly left with nothing under his feet, and he is left floating in boggled wonder. I like it.
Message: Posted by: Joshua Barrett (Feb 20, 2008 02:39PM)
Iv never been called on "marked cards". I think what you need to do,is be looking and talking to your audience throughout the routine and not looking down at the cards.
Message: Posted by: Acecardician (Mar 6, 2008 08:07PM)
When I was very young and doing one of my first walk around gigs, someone wanted to borrow my cards. They were regular cards. I said no, so he found a deck on board(I was working the riverboat.) I continued to work the room, having a card selected and finding it in impossible ways.
Then I heard loud laughing and the astonishment sound coming from OTHER tables.
I though "wait a minute...I'm supposed to be the entertainer"
I crept up to see what was going on. The "guy" had stacked the deck. He was not a magician, he just knew one thing. He had one picked,cut and glimpsed at the bottom card, and called out their card. Quick, simple and to the point. I did not get close enough to see which stack he used. But he could show them mixed and cut them. Any stack would work. Me, I was to lazy to memorize a stack. And I also do the waterfall flourish a lot which mixes the cards pretty well. So I took a needle and etched the name of each card on the pack into the pattern in plain view, but you cannot see if not looking for it.

The moral of the story is: spectators usually have short attention spans.
The quick revelation gets the gasps. Taking so long to find a card(and I always see card men do this) gets boring. If you are a real magician, you should know the card right off. And I've never been accused of using marked decks.
And now "I" get the gasps and laughs.

ACE
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Mar 7, 2008 02:48AM)
If I do "real impossible" things using a MD I always give the cards away as a gift announcing that even sometimes before. Or use (Simon Aronson's idea) cards with advertising on their back (i.e. Coca Cola). Jan
Message: Posted by: churken (Apr 28, 2008 10:05AM)
For a long time I used a blank back deck when working with the stack. This completely takes away the notion of marked cards and can even be worked into the presentation.

Certainly this limits you in terms of doing deck switches, etc. On the other hand it frees you up with the things you can do with your non-stacked deck. For example, if you have a three of hearts signed in the non-stacked deck you are taking a risk doing a deck switch because the three of hearts in the stacked deck is not signed.

The blank back deck idea might be something you want to play around with. Or not.

Paul
Message: Posted by: Magicmike1949 (May 7, 2008 10:23PM)
Assuming you're not using a marked deck, I have on occasion offered $100 to anyone who can find anything gimmicked about the deck I'm using. Since they can't find anything,I've never had to pay. In fact, I've said it with such confidence that no one has ever even really challenged me on it. Even if they did, I'm in the clear.
Message: Posted by: scody (May 11, 2008 01:16AM)
-- If I do "real impossible" things using a MD I always give the cards away as a gift -- announcing that even sometimes before. Or use (Simon Aronson's idea) cards with
-- advertising on their back (i.e. Coca Cola). Jan

That is a GREAT idea Jan... thanks. I've been giving away my prohibition bottles, especially when impromptu... but giving away the deck after a killer impossible memdeck effect is just great.

thanks!