(Close Window)
Topic: The Butterfly Effect by Peter Nardi
Message: Posted by: Titanas (Jun 2, 2016 02:00PM)
I still remember the day that Peter performed The Butterfly effect for me.
I immediately fell in love with it, not just because I was so fooled (and that I had no clue what exactly hit me)
but because it is such a beautiful routine that makes perfect sense and would fry any audience, lay people or magician.
Straight away I said to Peter that he needs to put it out. At first Peter didn’t want to, it was his pet effect
and one that he wanted to keep for himself and only share it with a few friends.
After my emails and Skype calls, I finally convinced him to release it and I am so happy for all of you guys,
because this is an amazing concept/effect.

You have got to see this:
http://www.murphysmagic.com/Product.aspx?id=57503

Well done Peter!

Best regards,
Titanas
Message: Posted by: chrislomas (Jun 2, 2016 03:09PM)
I have just had the email about this. I am amazingly impressed and have already ordered this. I cannot wait for it to arrive
Message: Posted by: Chris Jones (Jun 2, 2016 03:36PM)
If this is the same effect I saw peter perform to some lads in the Ruskin I need this in my life. Totally fooled me LOL
Message: Posted by: Peter Nardi (Jun 2, 2016 04:15PM)
[quote]On Jun 2, 2016, Chris Jones wrote:
If this is the same effect I saw peter perform to some lads in the Ruskin I need this in my life. Totally fooled me LOL [/quote]


Hi Chris,

I suspect this was the one you saw, as Titanas kept asking me to show people :-)

Regards

Peter
Message: Posted by: mike donoghue (Jun 2, 2016 04:25PM)
Really like this Peter.

Very sneaky & I didn't see the end coming.

Self working & not a long process.

Miracle time.

I will get this Peter.

Mike Donoghue

Pro. magician
Message: Posted by: emyers99 (Jun 2, 2016 09:41PM)
Looks great. Love Peter. His stuff is usually great and he's just plain fun to watch.
Message: Posted by: billion (Jun 2, 2016 10:40PM)
Love this!

Billion
Message: Posted by: Legendary Wizard (Jun 3, 2016 03:31AM)
Hum ... It's kind of weird , but when I saw the trailer this seems so familiar to me , I remembered that I've been doing this trick for sometime before at jamming sessions but just couldn't remember where I've seen it or that I've came up with a similar thing . I used a prediction card instead of the double faced joker though .

Anyway not trying to say this is not original , since I can't remember when I started performing this , I'm quite certain of the main workings , or that the version I've been performing looks similar to this , and all I've to say is that the method is brilliant , and it's really , really clever . It involves a little st*** , but it can be displayed as if the spectator shuffles the deck , since the spectator can have a chance of shuffling almost 3 / 4 of the deck . I've enjoyed performing this , and it really does fool magicians . Though the spectator won't get to shuffle the entire deck , it's easy to give them an impression that the entire deck is shuffled by themselves , and yes during the dealing process they truly have total control of what to deal , how much to deal , until they stop at one card which the shown value is lesser than the amount of cards left and cannot be dealt anymore .

One note to mention to buyers in case they're wondering , is that the dealing can be done partially face up , but when it's dealt near the end you've to find a way to deal the cards face down , there's no force whatsoever and I highly recommend this . You'll not be disappointed .
Message: Posted by: Richard Doyle (Jun 3, 2016 05:38AM)
I like this and have ordered it this morning. One question I have about the trailer. It seems that the trailer was edited because if you count the cards that is counted out and the cards remaining it doesn't add up to 52.
Message: Posted by: Legendary Wizard (Jun 3, 2016 06:06AM)
It is , but there's not really an issue , it's not edited out to protect the secret , it's just edited out to cut a long performance shot . In real situation the spectator has choices to deal down however number of card matching the previous value of the face up card , or he can randomly select any number and deal down , this will continue till the deck is almost finished and the last card turned face up the he deals , with it's value higher than the remaining number of cards in his hands , will be the final selected card . I cannot be sure if it's the exact way Peter performed it , but it rotates around this idea and steps . The method will not disappoint you and a little different to other CAAN effects , this involved free selection and multiple choices made completely free by the spectator , which is intriguing and interesting to them I find .
Message: Posted by: JamieD (Jun 3, 2016 06:40AM)
Peter Showed this to me in the shop a couple of months back and it fooled the hell out of me! The interesting thing here is, the amount of free choices you give to the spectator is amazing! Any number of variations could have been played out and still he predicted my card! Equally, I don't believe the trailer was edited because that is exactly how it played in real life. I cannot wait to get this!

Jamie Daws
Message: Posted by: IanB (Jun 3, 2016 07:27AM)
Not 100% sure but I feel this is very similar to (if not exactly the same as) Ed Marlo's "Not so lazy man's card trick" (Apocolypse Vol 13 No 1) 1990 or Mike Maxwell's "Lazy Magician's Assistant" (Apocolypse Vol 17 No.8) 1994.
Magician560 is correct about the m**i s***k etc. in one half of the deck. Very old trick.
I may not have the above references 100% correct but it is definitely appears to be a re-working of the lazy man's card trick from Harry Lorayne's "Close-Up card magic" (1962) taken a step further by Ed Marlo (as usual).
Sorry if I've got this wrong, but I can definitely replicate what is on the demo using Ed Marlo's trick!!
Message: Posted by: Legendary Wizard (Jun 3, 2016 08:30AM)
I remembered watching many Ed Marlo's videos and books but I'm not quite sure if this is where it came from . I'm good at remembering effects at the back of my head but considered utterly stupid in remembering it's name and it's source , all I can say for The Butterfly Effect is that : I remembered performing this quite some time ago , but I've absolutely no idea how and when exactly I started performing this , it's an awesome effect that really fools not only magicians but also gives a quite unexpected impact and reaction from a layman for a CAAN effect , I personally give this a high recommendation .

Don't get me wrong , I'm not going into an argument to whether this is an original release since I can't remember much . I support this product and thinks that it's excellent .
Message: Posted by: jaizon (Jun 3, 2016 09:36AM)
I have several of Peter's effects and will be adding this to the mix. Looks great.
Message: Posted by: barts185 (Jun 3, 2016 12:21PM)
I think that the

It uses a regular deck which may be borrowed

statement has a heavy emphasis on the MAY part.

As opposed to saying you definitely can borrow any deck and do this trick with that deck I think you MAY borrow a deck IF the borrowed deck meets certain criteria.
Message: Posted by: videoman (Jun 3, 2016 02:54PM)
I like it but I was a little surprised when I first saw it and it resembled the kind of effect that could be on one of the self-working card trick DVD's such as Bannon's Move Zero.
Not saying there is anything wrong with that or that that's a bad thing, I was just somewhat surprised by it.
But it looks nice and I may pick it up sometime. May wait for a used version to hit the market.
Message: Posted by: IanB (Jun 4, 2016 09:46AM)
Still surprised that so many "named" magicians were fooled by what is effectively a variation of the lazy mans card trick. As old as the hills and unoriginal.

I've cited the references in a previous post. I tried to be open, honest and respectful with my comments.

I have a lot of respect for Peter Nardi and I have and will continue to support Alakazam going forward but this is another case of "accidental re-invention" and because it's been done by someone who is a "big name" in our community it seems to be passing under the radar (again).

Look at the thread for "Polarity by Pablo Amria" http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=617260&forum=218

You'll get the idea.

I await the usual suspects to castigate me but we should be able to talk about these things without fear or favour ...
Message: Posted by: IanB (Jun 4, 2016 12:20PM)
Emyers99 - I don't see any hate in this thread. Using emotive language like that is unhelpful and unnecessary.

Perhaps if you bothered to read the reference given then you might have a different opinion?

It is indeed a fantastic trick and one I've used for many years. I love!! It's just not Peter's ...
Message: Posted by: cardbiker (Jun 4, 2016 01:30PM)
Could you chime in please Peter
Message: Posted by: billion (Jun 4, 2016 02:33PM)
Peter will do the right thing.

Billion
Message: Posted by: Jupiter47 (Jun 4, 2016 10:08PM)
See Sum Talk of Alexander - Alex Elmsley, as well
Message: Posted by: a brown 1968 (Jun 5, 2016 02:41AM)
I am not sure what Peter has to explain or justify here on his thread ? If the principle applied to his effect is the same one as used by Al Koran , Marlo , Emsley etc ... Then by bring up those names what is in fact being said is each of those notable people have taken the principle and created a premise around the effect which suited their personality and performing circumstances .

I have read again the Marlow effect and his premise was more akin to the Stop trick . Peter has come up with an interesting premise .

Andrew
Message: Posted by: IanB (Jun 5, 2016 03:04AM)
A brown ... Each of the people you mention had a variation in method to the original idea. Each deserved publication as they were different enough in methodology to the original.

The butterfly effect is exactly the same in methodology to the Marlo effect. No difference other than a presentational spin. A variation in presentation like this does not and should not be classed as a new effect.

I again refer you to the Polarity thread referenced above.

Save yourself £20 and support the originators. Buy Close-Up card magic or Harry's recent collected series (if you can get one). Buy the bound volumes of Apocolypse (if you can get one).

I also seem to remember that Mike Maxwell put this on one of his self working DVDs. They are inexpensive and you get much more for your £20.

I would like to emphasise again that I have nothing against Peter or Alakazam and will continue to support them ongoing.

There is still time to pull this before release.
Message: Posted by: Karl M (Jun 5, 2016 03:38AM)
[quote]On Jun 5, 2016, a brown 1968 wrote:
I am not sure what Peter has to explain or justify here on his thread ? If the principle applied to his effect is the same one as used by Al Koran , Marlo , Emsley etc ... Then by bring up those names what is in fact being said is each of those notable people have taken the principle and created a premise around the effect which suited their personality and performing circumstances .

I have read again the Marlow effect and his premise was more akin to the Stop trick . Peter has come up with an interesting premise .

Andrew [/quote]
Totaly agree with you mate peter doesn't need to explain any thing, his trick has a diffrent flavour to what else is out there
Message: Posted by: cardbiker (Jun 5, 2016 04:06AM)
[quote]On Jun 5, 2016, Karl M wrote:
[quote]On Jun 5, 2016, a brown 1968 wrote:
I am not sure what Peter has to explain or justify here on his thread ? If the principle applied to his effect is the same one as used by Al Koran , Marlo , Emsley etc ... Then by bring up those names what is in fact being said is each of those notable people have taken the principle and created a premise around the effect which suited their personality and performing circumstances .

I have read again the Marlow effect and his premise was more akin to the Stop trick . Peter has come up with an interesting premise .

Andrew [/quote]
Totaly agree with you mate peter doesn't need to explain any thing, his trick has a diffrent flavour to what else is out there [/quote]

How would you know Karl M I doubt you've even heard of Marlow let alone studied his work
Message: Posted by: IanB (Jun 5, 2016 04:08AM)
It makes me smile ...

People contribute meaningless, uneducated and pointless posts to threads like this and it's any wonder that so many valuable individuals have stopped contributing to the Café.

I encourage anyone to re-read this post. Check the references. Look objectively at the facts and then make an intelligent comment on those facts.

There's no room for the sycophant's who blindly pass comment with no substance.
Message: Posted by: a brown 1968 (Jun 5, 2016 04:53AM)
Hello Ian ,

Yes I have all the excellent books you mention in your thread . The question , how come it fooled magicians can often depend on when an effect is brought into play but I agree when I saw the demo I recognised what I believe the principle to be .

You mentioned that Marlo and Koran effcts were different enough to justify separate publication . Technically both use the same principle merely its location is different ,resulting in one needing a deck face up and the other a deck face down in order to complete the effect .

I will say that for the price I am not sure the presentation Peter uses adds suffiicentt value if you know other versions already . Again we are assuming what the method is because we do not own the effect

Andrew
Message: Posted by: Karl M (Jun 5, 2016 04:56AM)
[quote]On Jun 5, 2016, cardbiker wrote:
[quote]On Jun 5, 2016, Karl M wrote:
[quote]On Jun 5, 2016, a brown 1968 wrote:
I am not sure what Peter has to explain or justify here on his thread ? If the principle applied to his effect is the same one as used by Al Koran , Marlo , Emsley etc ... Then by bring up those names what is in fact being said is each of those notable people have taken the principle and created a premise around the effect which suited their personality and performing circumstances .

I have read again the Marlow effect and his premise was more akin to the Stop trick . Peter has come up with an interesting premise .

Andrew [/quote]
Totaly agree with you mate peter doesn't need to explain any thing, his trick has a diffrent flavour to what else is out there [/quote]

How would you know Karl M I doubt you've even heard of Marlow let alone studied his work [/quote]
I've got his revalutionery card technique book actually and his dvd called its all in the cards in my collections so I know what Im on about mate
Message: Posted by: IanB (Jun 5, 2016 05:16AM)
Couple of things Andrew.

The previous incarnations give full credit to each other and don't hide that fact.

You're quite right. I don't own Butterfly Effect but I do the original Marlo version. If you freeze the YouTube video at 0.54secs you will see the KH, QS & JD next to each other. The Joker also covers a block of cards. Therefore, I don't need to own the Butterfly Effect because it is exactly the methodology referred to in previous incarnations. If it's proved otherwise then of course I'll accept my mistake and apologise accordingly.

All that is being offered here IMHO is a presentation spin and some gaffed cards which are merely the revelation on the final card.

IMHO this does not justify an individual release. If it was part of a book/lecture notes that acknowledged the original and was shown as a different presentation then I think that would be fine.
Message: Posted by: magicgerry06 (Jun 5, 2016 06:56AM)
Don't know if it's the same method, but this looks like it's based on the K.....L maths principle. It's a nice thing to know, and very weird principle!
Message: Posted by: BlackZ (Jun 5, 2016 02:28PM)
Known or not known I have like the trailer and immediately ordered ;-)

I hope to receive it soon and start palying with it!
Message: Posted by: magicgerry06 (Jun 5, 2016 02:55PM)
[quote]On Jun 5, 2016, BlackZ wrote:
Known or not known I have like the trailer and immediately ordered ;-)

I hope to receive it soon and start palying with it! [/quote]
You won't ve disapointed.
Message: Posted by: rosariorose9 (Jun 5, 2016 03:23PM)
I ordered it as well. As to Bannon's Move Zero earlier noted in this thread, I must admit that I was disappointed by its content.
Message: Posted by: Magic KL (Jun 5, 2016 05:07PM)
You don‘t think it's good enough to be a stand-alone trick?
Message: Posted by: magico (Jun 5, 2016 10:48PM)
I have to agree the principle or method may not be new but I like Peter's presentation. If you watch the Alakazam Vlog 2nd June 2016 he mentions he has been doing this effect for the past ten years and started to teach it in his lectures.

I think some are jumping to conclusions about credits but we won't know that until the actual product is released.
Message: Posted by: Legendary Wizard (Jun 5, 2016 11:43PM)
So here's another single trick DVD anyway ...

I miss the times when there always are multiple effects on a DVD .
Message: Posted by: papawemba (Jun 6, 2016 04:47AM)
In the trailer, Titanas say this : "This is favorite EVER impromptu effect".
So is it impromptu if this is sold with a gimmick !?
And if this is the same principle as Lazy man card trick, this is definitively not impromptu ;-)

:idea:
Message: Posted by: JackMagic (Jun 6, 2016 05:04AM)
[quote]On Jun 6, 2016, papawemba wrote:
In the trailer, Titanas say this : "This is favorite EVER impromptu effect".
So is it impromptu if this is sold with a gimmick !?
And if this is the same principle as Lazy man card trick, this is definitively not impromptu ;-)

:idea: [/quote]

Please Remember Titanas is working for Murphys so most of what he says should be taken with a Pinch of salt
Message: Posted by: pegasus (Jun 6, 2016 05:43AM)
Correct.
Message: Posted by: papawemba (Jun 6, 2016 06:26AM)
Ok thanks for the info lol.
But anyway, that would be false advertising to leave that in the trailer... (If not impromptu of course )
;)
Message: Posted by: barts185 (Jun 6, 2016 07:29AM)
[quote]On Jun 6, 2016, papawemba wrote:
Ok thanks for the info lol.
But anyway, that would be false advertising to leave that in the trailer... (If not impromptu of course )
;) [/quote]

Anymore, it seems like the definition of impromptu in the magic world means impromptu less and less.

Some definitions would seem to indicate that A Kub Zag is impromptu as long as you have a Kub Zag and an assistant available.
Message: Posted by: Christopher Williams (Jun 6, 2016 07:40AM)
It isn't a gimmicked card, it is printable PDFs for the reveal at the end
Message: Posted by: Titanas (Jun 6, 2016 09:03AM)
Hey all,
As Christopher Williams said its not a gimmicked card.
Also since almost always I perform it with a borrowed deck I consider this to be an impromptu miracle.
I have a specific routine that leads me to the preparation I need.

Best regards,
Titanas
Message: Posted by: IanB (Jun 6, 2016 01:01PM)
Take a look through these ...

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=424492&forum=2

http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/S6091 2nd and 3rd tricks on this DVD

http://archive.denisbehr.de/show.php?cat=1220 Line 41 referring to Ed Marlo "Perfect Stop Trick" 1945 "Early Marlo" Page 73

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEATPcEfIGM In Greek but you get the idea!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3WRgk_xeSM In Russian but you get the idea!

I hope I'm wrong but ...
Message: Posted by: JackMagic (Jun 6, 2016 01:07PM)
[quote]On Jun 6, 2016, Titanas wrote:
Hey all,
As Christopher Williams said its not a gimmicked card.


Best regards,
Titanas [/quote]

Hey Maybe you should read what's posted on the site you are representing

I Quote

"You receive two custom printed reveal cards"

If that was not the case it could be sold as a simple download without DVD and custom printed cards
Message: Posted by: big dan (Jun 6, 2016 03:24PM)
The custom printed card is a double facer with a joker on one side and the predicted card on the other. This is not a gaff and you don't need it for the trick per se. Watch the Alakazam Vlog on 2nd June for more info.

Man peeps sure are quick to snipe at each other here ;)

The idea of the custom printed card is that it isn't obvious that there is a prediction which makes the ending more impactful.

Whilst it may have similarities to other tricks a couple of the products mentioned have now been discontinued or are unavailable so I can't see an issue with Peter's release.
Message: Posted by: academy (Jun 6, 2016 06:12PM)
The title sounds much more interesting than another boring counting card trick, which could have been easily included in some previous self working video collection.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jun 7, 2016 07:45AM)
If one takes the time to look through the links above, one would find that variations on the stop trick are plentiful. There are over 60 versions on the Behr site alone. I found Ammar's version of the perfect stop trick on the web and honestly, the patter left me wanting and the trick seemed boring. At least Mr. Nardi's version has an interesting and engaging story line for a counting trick.
Message: Posted by: JackMagic (Jun 7, 2016 08:43AM)
[quote]On Jun 6, 2016, big dan wrote:
The custom printed card is a double facer with a joker on one side and the predicted card on the other. This is not a gaff and you don't need it for the trick per se. Watch the Alakazam Vlog on 2nd June for more info.

Man peeps sure are quick to snipe at each other here ;)

The idea of the custom printed card is that it isn't obvious that there is a prediction which makes the ending more impactful.

Whilst it may have similarities to other tricks a couple of the products mentioned have now been discontinued or are unavailable so I can't see an issue with Peter's release. [/quote]

First of all there is nothing wrong with Gimmick Cards

But to say a double faced card is not a Gimmick Card is stretching the Truth a little !

Last time I looked in a regular Card Deck I never noticed any Double Faced Cards
Message: Posted by: BlackZ (Jun 7, 2016 11:19AM)
Why we would have to argue about something that nobody, or few, has seen?

If it is not impromptu soon it will be discovered and underlined by the purchasers... but at the moment it is just only a sterile discussion...

The cards are not a gimmick necessary for the effect that it is based on a principle and anyway I prefer to have such cards realised in a professional way and use them on the go than downloading the product and then being not satisfied by having to print them... also because the DVD, as you someone as rightly noted, is a single DVD effect so it is good that it has inside the cards and everything else...

Wish you all some fun while waiting for mine DVD ;-)
Message: Posted by: CraigB (Jun 7, 2016 12:19PM)
The part I don't quite like is that you're displaying a double faced card to a spectator that shouldn't know that double faced cards are a thing. And it's only being used as a reveal. (Or as someone suggested, it might be being used as a cover for the face of the deck as well.)
Message: Posted by: cardbiker (Jun 7, 2016 01:36PM)
Funny why Mr Nardi hasn't chimed in he's usually very helpful when he has a new release
Message: Posted by: Karl M (Jun 7, 2016 01:51PM)
[quote]On Jun 7, 2016, CraigB wrote:
The part I don't quite like is that you're displaying a double faced card to a spectator that shouldn't know that double faced cards are a thing. And it's only being used as a reveal. (Or as someone suggested, it might be being used as a cover for the face of the deck as well.) [/quote]
Jus write the prediction on the back of the joker simple
Message: Posted by: jeanboucher (Jun 7, 2016 09:03PM)
Looks a lot like The Butterfly Effect by David Forrest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mud0YRR43NM
Message: Posted by: videoman (Jun 8, 2016 11:35AM)
[quote]On Jun 7, 2016, jeanboucher wrote:
Looks a lot like The Butterfly Effect by David Forrest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mud0YRR43NM [/quote]
Hmmm, this is getting interesting.
Message: Posted by: solidoak (Jun 9, 2016 04:07PM)
[quote]On Jun 7, 2016, CraigB wrote:
The part I don't quite like is that you're displaying a double faced card to a spectator that shouldn't know that double faced cards are a thing. And it's only being used as a reveal. (Or as someone suggested, it might be being used as a cover for the face of the deck as well.) [/quote]

Amen! Doesn't anyone else hate to show double facers to laymen?
Message: Posted by: Cameron Francis (Jun 9, 2016 05:11PM)
Depends on the context. Anniversary Waltz is one powerful trick
Message: Posted by: pegasus (Jun 9, 2016 06:25PM)
I don't see the problem. I hand out gimmick cards all the time as souvenirs.
Message: Posted by: Zuke (Jun 9, 2016 09:02PM)
This looks good. I usually have someone just name a card and show it reversed (ID) or have them just name a card and predict that it will be called Phil, but I've been looking for something with a lot more meaningless procedure and I think this will fit the bill. Actually I'm tossing up between this and Bannon's Collusion. Both great, procedure heavy, convoluted and mildly boring ways at predicting a playing card. :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
Message: Posted by: Karl M (Jun 10, 2016 01:11AM)
Agree mate lol
Message: Posted by: IanB (Jun 10, 2016 02:59AM)
So ... Is this the same methodology as the Marlo stop trick as predicted?
Message: Posted by: rowland (Jun 10, 2016 10:30AM)
Wasn't today the release day for this. Haven't heard anything from Alakazam yet.
Message: Posted by: Luke Dancy (Jun 10, 2016 12:12PM)
I sat down with Peter Nardi for an interview discussing the finer points of The Butterfly Effect.

https://soundcloud.com/murphysunplugged/episode-2-the-butterfly-effect-peter-nardi-interview
Message: Posted by: rosariorose9 (Jun 10, 2016 06:25PM)
Received mine today, and just finished my first viewing. Excellent, and imho, more than worth the cost as a 'single trick dvd.' By the way, regarding the issue of the originality of the effect vis a vis Marlo, etc., Peter credits on the dvd influences dating back to the 1950's. Weird, though, about Dave Forrest's identically named effect - which, while it seems to use the same method, is 'played out' in (again, imho) a decidedly less entertaining way...
Message: Posted by: pegasus (Jun 10, 2016 08:43PM)
I thought Dave's version was terrible, how it was presented. The patter was cringe worthy. Kept repeating himself, again and again. The spec wasn't impressed at all. I won't be buying this though as it's far too similar to Forrest's version.
Message: Posted by: rosariorose9 (Jun 10, 2016 09:46PM)
[quote]On Jun 10, 2016, pegasus wrote:
I thought Dave's version was terrible, how it was presented. The patter was cringe worthy. Kept repeating himself, again and again. The spec wasn't impressed at all. I won't be buying this though as it's far too similar to Forrest's version. [/quote]

Agree with you that Dave's version was pretty bad, but think you're missing out on a great (and SUPER easy to do) effect with this one. I generally do not like self-working tricks (see my earlier comment on Move Zero), but I really do love Peter's one here...
Message: Posted by: Cameron Francis (Jun 10, 2016 11:11PM)
Why is Daves bad? I'm curious becuse its based on a trick of mine that has always played great. Dave improved on my version. There are several principles in play, though, not just the one used in Peters trick.

Incidentally, I think Peters trick is very good,
Message: Posted by: reignofsound (Jun 11, 2016 07:44AM)
Mine arrived today and I am happy with the purchase.
Great little effect and simple to do.
Message: Posted by: emyers99 (Jun 11, 2016 05:20PM)
Nice effect. Probably not something I'll use very often but a great almost-impromptu effect that can hit people hard if someone hands you a deck and you need to do something powerful for a group. As always, Peter gives several variations including some to speed up the process.
Message: Posted by: rosariorose9 (Jun 11, 2016 05:29PM)
[quote]On Jun 10, 2016, Cameron Francis wrote:
Why is Daves bad? I'm curious becuse its based on a trick of mine that has always played great. Dave improved on my version. There are several principles in play, though, not just the one used in Peters trick.

Incidentally, I think Peters trick is very good, [/quote]

I can only say that my reaction was the same as that of the spec in his demo...i.e. I was underwhelmed. Curious, though, why he also calls his 'The Butterfly Effect', since there's no mention of that in his routine :confused:
Message: Posted by: Richard Doyle (Jun 11, 2016 06:36PM)
Make sure you read the information on the business card for what I think is a better setup.
Message: Posted by: Cameron Francis (Jun 11, 2016 07:54PM)
[quote]On Jun 11, 2016, rosariorose9 wrote:
[quote]On Jun 10, 2016, Cameron Francis wrote:
Why is Daves bad? I'm curious becuse its based on a trick of mine that has always played great. Dave improved on my version. There are several principles in play, though, not just the one used in Peters trick.

Incidentally, I think Peters trick is very good, [/quote]

I can only say that my reaction was the same as that of the spec in his demo...i.e. I was underwhelmed. Curious, though, why he also calls his 'The Butterfly Effect', since there's no mention of that in his routine :confused: [/quote]

There are many trick names that aren't mentioned in the patter to tricks themselves. Daves trick came out several years ago.
Message: Posted by: Magic McKing (Jun 11, 2016 09:11PM)
It's not completely impromptu (somehow I thought it was before the purchase). But it's a fooler. I love the effect. Don't think I'll add this to my set because of what's required to get into it. It's a lovely piece I'd do as a stand alone for sure.
Message: Posted by: rosariorose9 (Jun 11, 2016 10:04PM)
[quote]On Jun 11, 2016, Cameron Francis wrote:
There are many trick names that aren't mentioned in the patter to tricks themselves. Daves trick came out several years ago. [/quote]

True what you're saying, and anything is possible...but it does seem odd that David's trick has the same name as does Peter's (which, by the way, he's been performing for about a decade). Weird coincidence? I guess so...
Message: Posted by: MoonyD (Jun 12, 2016 06:32AM)
[quote]On Jun 11, 2016, rosariorose9 wrote:
[quote]On Jun 11, 2016, Cameron Francis wrote:
There are many trick names that aren't mentioned in the patter to tricks themselves. Daves trick came out several years ago. [/quote]

True what you're saying, and anything is possible...but it does seem odd that David's trick has the same name as does Peter's (which, by the way, he's been performing for about a decade). Weird coincidence? I guess so... [/quote]

I wouldn't read too much into it. It's quite a commonly used name really. I believe there was an effect by Bruno Copin called The Butterfly Effect as well (though that effect is completely different to this in terms of method and 'effect').
Message: Posted by: Cameron Francis (Jun 12, 2016 08:40AM)
[quote]On Jun 11, 2016, rosariorose9 wrote:
[quote]On Jun 11, 2016, Cameron Francis wrote:
There are many trick names that aren't mentioned in the patter to tricks themselves. Daves trick came out several years ago. [/quote]

True what you're saying, and anything is possible...but it does seem odd that David's trick has the same name as does Peter's (which, by the way, he's been performing for about a decade). Weird coincidence? I guess so... [/quote]


Uh, no. Dave's trick came out a long time ago. Dave did not steal Peter's trick or name. Peter's trick hadn't been released and quite possibly had no name. I don't know one magician who performs an effect and says, "This is called _________".

The main inspiration for Dave's effect was my trick, 18, which was in turn inspired by an Alex Elmsley effect (the name of which escapes me at the moment).

Peter's trick is quite good. He probably didn't know that Dave had already published a trick called Butterfly Effect.
Message: Posted by: simon hughes (Jun 12, 2016 09:44AM)
I picked this up on Friday and I ❤️ It! Just watched the bonus routine on Alakazm as well and that's double cool. Won of the best self workers I've seen.
Message: Posted by: Ustaad (Jun 12, 2016 09:46AM)
[quote]On Jun 12, 2016, MoonyD wrote:

I believe there was an effect by Bruno Copin called The Butterfly Effect as well (though that effect is completely different to this in terms of method and 'effect'). [/quote]

There is another effect by the same name 'Butterfly Effect' by Andrew Mayne. Only the name is similar but it is completely different in terms of method and the effect.

:xmas:
Message: Posted by: Ustaad (Jun 12, 2016 10:28AM)
BTW one shall notice that there has been a spate of new releases which are copies of previously released methods with a slight twist here-N-there. Lets take one example of a company which IMO is ready to do anything they can get away with to make a quick buck, checkout - - - Polarity, The Butterfly Effect, X-Ray etc. Unless we magicians stand up against such actions, we will get much more in the future. Money is all that matters, they care less about our age-old ethics in Magic.

However we have one more age-old tradition in magic which falls under acceptable ethics - We magicians are allowed to cheat our own clan by false/cleverly worded advertising.

:xmas:
Message: Posted by: M Pitcher (Jun 12, 2016 12:54PM)
[quote]On Jun 12, 2016, Ustaad wrote:
BTW one shall notice that there has been a spate of new releases which are copies of previously released methods with a slight twist here-N-there. Lets take one example of a company which IMO is ready to do anything they can get away with to make a quick buck, checkout - - - Polarity, The Butterfly Effect, X-Ray etc. Unless we magicians stand up against such actions, we will get much more in the future. Money is all that matters, they care less about our age-old ethics in Magic.

However we have one more age-old tradition in magic which falls under acceptable ethics - We magicians are allowed to cheat our own clan by false/cleverly worded advertising.

:xmas: [/quote]

All the three effects you described have been released from three different companies.
So not really sure what you are saying here.

MP
Message: Posted by: On The Offbeat (Jun 12, 2016 02:32PM)
Not making any accusations here or trying to stir up the nest but I just thought it was very strange that the effects put out by Dave Forrest and Peter Nardi not only have the same name but are very similar in effect and method from what I can tell (I don't own either but they appear quite similar to me.) It's like Peter had stored it away in his sub-conscious without remembering where the original idea came from or something. That actually happens quite a bit.

But again, I love practically all of Peter and Alakazam's releases and have high respect for him and his company. They've never done me wrong. Just seems like quite a coincidence.
I believe if Peter wasn't so well-liked and respected by his peers around the world a much bigger to-do would be made of this here by all of the usual suspects.
Message: Posted by: IanB (Jun 12, 2016 04:08PM)
[quote]On Jun 12, 2016, Ustaad wrote:
BTW one shall notice that there has been a spate of new releases which are copies of previously released methods with a slight twist here-N-there. Lets take one example of a company which IMO is ready to do anything they can get away with to make a quick buck, checkout - - - Polarity, The Butterfly Effect, X-Ray etc. Unless we magicians stand up against such actions, we will get much more in the future. Money is all that matters, they care less about our age-old ethics in Magic.

However we have one more age-old tradition in magic which falls under acceptable ethics - We magicians are allowed to cheat our own clan by false/cleverly worded advertising.

:xmas: [/quote]

It's interesting Ustaad. If you follow this thread from the start I posted several times clearly stating the exact method with accurate sources to check. No one challenged my comments appropriately.
I have already stated that IMHO for this to be released was not justifiable. It seems that most people ignored my comments and many could have saved themselves £20 and supported the originator/s and got much more value for money.
If a "no name" magician did this they would be jumped on by the mob but because this has been done by a "big name" in our community the sycophants are choosing to ignore it.
Can't begin to describe how this frustrates me particularly when some people suggest that because an item has been unavailable for some time it's okay for someone else to release it.
It seems honesty and integrity are not a priority. I hope I'm wrong ...
Message: Posted by: Lseeyou (Jun 12, 2016 04:37PM)
IanB unfortunately it's a pattern on our society and I understand how frustrate it can be but there's nothing we can do.

There's some who can do and are praised and others who can't, cool hein?
Message: Posted by: Cameron Francis (Jun 12, 2016 06:18PM)
Peters effect may share a methodology to others but the EFFECT and procedure is different than some of the others mentioned
Message: Posted by: On The Offbeat (Jun 12, 2016 09:44PM)
Quick update to my previous post...I got to spend some time with a magic buddy today who happens to own both Dave Forrest's Butterfly Effect as well as Peter Nardi's trick of the same name. He told me that although there are some similarities both the effects and methods are different. He said Dave Forrest credits Cameron Francis as the inspiration for his routine (as Cameron has stated earlier in this thread) and received permission from Cameron to release his version of the effect. And also that Peter credits Peter Kane and a very old IBIDEM as the earliest sources he could find for his trick.

So best I can tell thus far is that no one seems to be stepping on the toes of anyone else here. The naming of the trick was apparently just a coincidence.
I'm unfamiliar with any of the things IanB mentioned but someone else will have to research and compare those. I'm satisfied that all is well in magicland again (for the moment anyway.)
Message: Posted by: Cameron Francis (Jun 12, 2016 10:26PM)
No one except you said anyone was stepping on anyone's toes in terms of Dave's and Peter's effects. :)
Message: Posted by: Ustaad (Jun 12, 2016 11:37PM)
[quote]On Jun 12, 2016, IanB wrote:

[b]If a "no name" magician did this they would be jumped on by the mob but because this has been done by a "big name" in our community the sycophants are choosing to ignore it.[/b]
[/quote]

That is exactly the problem. One can give all the references/reasoning/logic but nobody cares if a big-wig is involved. Very few are left with the moral, integrity and honesty to speak & support the truth.

In this case Peter being a gentleman doesn't have his clan of hoodlums but does enjoy the support of his followers and friends who will go all out to support him whether right or wrong, good or bad.

Over the years at the Café, I have seen that before releasing such effects, they (the creator/distributor) have their supporters and their hype machines well in place. They are all setup as a group to thrash anybody who don't support their knock-off releases. I also notice that there are just a few members left on the Café who standup and expose such kind of notorious business. This is quite sad and not good for the magic community as a whole. But in today's world (where money only matters) - Who Cares!?

Back on topic please.

:xmas:
Message: Posted by: pegasus (Jun 13, 2016 12:59AM)
Very true Ustaad. Well said.
Message: Posted by: ash2arani (Jun 13, 2016 05:09AM)
I agree with you Ustaad. The magic marketplace is spiraling down quickly. Lots of rehashes and uncredited releases but only is allowed to slip through because of the 'hype machine'.

I really wish we can go back to our original ways of learning magic. Books that dissect a routine is acceptable. Books with multiple effects, routines, and ideas, are great. DVDs/Downloads with multiple effects are also great.

But this current trend of single-trick downloads/dvds that cost as much as a book sometimes is just outrageous; more so when not properly credited. Sometimes, the explanation just go through it with basic mechanics and they call it a release.

I am not bashing this release because I do not have it and I do not think I will get it. The effect and/method may work for some but just the fact that the creators and/or the hypers did not bother to address the concerns of both ethics and final product worries me.

Anyhow, all the best to all. And more importantly, all the best to 'magic'!
Message: Posted by: The great Gumbini (Jun 13, 2016 07:14PM)
Nothing speaks louder then where we spend our money.

Good magic to all,


Eric
Message: Posted by: larotule (Jun 14, 2016 06:24AM)
Impromptu : "made or done without previous preparation"

[quote]On Jun 6, 2016, Titanas wrote:
Hey all,
As Christopher Williams said its not a gimmicked card.
Also since almost always I perform it with a borrowed deck I consider this to be an impromptu miracle.
I have a specific routine that leads me to the preparation I need.

Best regards,
Titanas [/quote]

Impromptu for the magic world :

made or done without previous preparation : "Bloody Wholly" impromptu
St*cking 25 % of the deck : impromptu
St*cking a full deck : almost-impromptu ?
Message: Posted by: Karl M (Jun 14, 2016 07:24AM)
I don't know why everyone is giving peter the banjo about it all the time maybe the mouths should release their own stuff and see what its like
Message: Posted by: ash2arani (Jun 14, 2016 11:21AM)
@Karl M: Personally, I once tried to release something that I came up with and I happened to ask different people about it. At one point, I was told that someone had something similar so I should not release it.

I approached that person and he denied anything similar but pointed me to yet another person. And the chain continues.

In the end, it was not worth releasing simply because it was along the lines of someone else's work.

So yeah, trying to release something is not easy. But that does not give us any leeway in releasing something without proper research.

At least, addressing these issues when potential customers inquire is the right way to approach things here.

If one stands by their products, then addressing customer concerns is a no-brainer.

And with all that said, it does not matter whether we try to release something or not, as long as we agree on what is the right way to do this.

Anyhow, I really wish Peter and the rest of Alakazam the best with this release.
Message: Posted by: Jared (Jun 15, 2016 01:30AM)
I watched this tonight and like it very much. Like many, it won't be something that I do all frequently but for the "right time- right place" this is quite excellent. The method and handling is so simple that you could forget about for a while and still be able to perform it capably in a moments notice without having to go back and re-watch the DVD. Also, the parlor handling is really nice for intimate gatherings when you want it to play a little larger...Well done.
Message: Posted by: Scott (Jun 16, 2016 09:11AM)
Just watched this to see what all the fuss is about.

OK method and who invented it, tweaked it stole it etc etc aside.

As a full time mentalist (and remember this is my opinion) this is everything I hate in a mental flavoured card routine, I won't call it mentalism because it ticks very few of the criteria boxes I require ticked before I'll start working on the scripting etc for a routine.

First of all the prediction card printed on the back of a joker, hate it, please write the prediction on a business card or post it as an advert in the newspaper.

You shuffle that half I'll shuffle this, yeah OK but the audiences I work for will smell a rat straight away.

And finally one of my pet hates, deal to a card, that card will tell you where to deal to next (but you can change your mind so why bother counting to a card anyway) the next card will tell you where to deal to next, and so on and so forth, what a convoluted and tedious way to arrive at a prediction card, no matter how abstract the tenuous link to the patter.

Borrow a deck, let the audience shuffle it, write a prediction, force the relevant card. (again just my opinion).

Regards

Scott
Message: Posted by: Ross W (Jun 16, 2016 11:03AM)
[quote]On Jun 14, 2016, Karl M wrote:
I don't know why everyone is giving peter the banjo about it all the time maybe the mouths should release their own stuff and see what its like [/quote]

"All the time"? Hardly. Peter's a popular member on here as far as I can tell. But this trick is - as other's have pointed out - just a variation on Marlo's Perfect Stop Trick and others and in no way merits the single trick DVD treatment and all the rest of it.
Message: Posted by: Jared (Jun 16, 2016 12:28PM)
For certain, it should have been a download priced at around $9.95. The cards and the DVD format add no extra value. I also agree with Scott's opinion about the joker reveal. Writing it down on a business card makes more sense.

Scott's Quote:
"And finally one of my pet hates, deal to a card, that card will tell you where to deal to next (but you can change your mind so why bother counting to a card anyway) the next card will tell you where to deal to next, and so on and so forth, what a convoluted and tedious way to arrive at a prediction card, no matter how abstract the tenuous link to the patter."

I agree that the process takes time and is a bit convoluted for paid gigs. But to perform it sitting down at a pub with a friend; I think it's fine. Like I said earlier, it's one of those "right time- right place" effects.
Message: Posted by: Karl M (Jun 16, 2016 01:09PM)
[quote]On Jun 16, 2016, Ross W wrote:
[quote]On Jun 14, 2016, Karl M wrote:
I don't know why everyone is giving peter the banjo about it all the time maybe the mouths should release their own stuff and see what its like [/quote]

"All the time"? Hardly. Peter's a popular member on here as far as I can tell. But this trick is - as other's have pointed out - just a variation on Marlo's Perfect Stop Trick and others and in no way merits the single trick DVD treatment and all the rest of it. [/quote]
You just did reinforce my idea and gave Pete the banjo about his trick
Message: Posted by: pegasus (Jun 16, 2016 02:29PM)
I cannot believe this is being sold as a standalone effect. I'm shocked that it's been released by Nardi if I'm honest.
Message: Posted by: Karl M (Jun 16, 2016 02:56PM)
Its driving me mad that every one keeps giving Peter the banjo, leave it out yeah
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Jun 16, 2016 07:43PM)
What is your issue with banjos?!?! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=geVDGjTYfPA
Message: Posted by: Ustaad (Jun 16, 2016 08:26PM)
[quote]On Jun 1, 2016, Karl M wrote:

I sussed it but not going to say it becaus people here give me the [b]banjo[/b] about it [/quote]


[quote]On Jun 14, 2016, Karl M wrote:

I don't know why everyone is giving peter the [b]banjo[/b] about it all the time maybe the mouths should release their own stuff and see what its like [/quote]


[quote]On Jun 16, 2016, Karl M wrote:

You just did reinforce my idea and gave Pete the [b]banjo[/b] about his trick [/quote]


[quote]On Jun 16, 2016, Karl M wrote:

Why is every one giving Rasmuss the [b]banjo[/b]? He's just relaeased a trick not a crime [/quote]


[quote]On Jun 16, 2016, Karl M wrote:

Its driving me mad that every one keeps giving Peter the [b]banjo[/b], leave it out yeah [/quote]

:xmas:
Message: Posted by: Legendary Wizard (Jun 16, 2016 11:06PM)
Never used it or planned to even show it on gigs , too time consuming . And doing it for table seems not as catchy . I only use this to fool magicians though ... But as a stand alone effect in a single trick DVD ? Er ...
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jun 17, 2016 10:36AM)
I learned this effect this last weekend and for a trick that has counting, dealing and shuffling by the spectator, I actually kind of like it. The idea of the butterfly effect has always interested me, that little changes can end up having a massive influence later on. I've worked on casually "shuffling" the deck while talking about the premise. Then a good "shuffle and cutting" sequence that makes assembling the deck seem random and fair. I've taken to putting the reveal on the back of the regular joker on a black post-it note in silver ink.

So far I've gotten good reactions to the trick.
Message: Posted by: mtstic44 (Jun 17, 2016 10:48AM)
I just purchased this effect.Looking forward to learning this and performing it.
Message: Posted by: Jared (Jun 17, 2016 11:08AM)
I just performed this for a 16-year old kid that I was interviewing for a summer warehouse position. I told him that everything looks good with his application but you'll have to pass one more test..."Do you believe that your outcomes in life (thus far) are more attributed to fate or choices that you made with your own free will?" He replied, fate. "Okay, then, we will use fate to decide each action, but I will give you one free will choice to use at your discretion should you elect to use it." After briefly explaining the procedure we began until he eventually landed on one card. I looked at him and said, "If my prediction matches the same card that you randomly landed on then you've got the job." He nervously turned over the prediction which read, "Fate decided that the card you will land on will be the 5 of spades...Congratulations, you can start Monday!" He looked at me with a BIG bright smile.
Message: Posted by: mtstic44 (Jun 20, 2016 10:22PM)
I got the Butterfly Effect in today.I thought it was suppose to come with a pdf. I thought it was going to be on the disk to tell you where to download the pdf. Has anyone else not get the pdf.
Message: Posted by: rowland (Jun 21, 2016 12:29AM)
[quote]On Jun 20, 2016, mtstic44 wrote:
I got the Butterfly Effect in today.I thought it was suppose to come with a pdf. I thought it was going to be on the disk to tell you where to download the pdf. Has anyone else not get the pdf. [/quote]

You have to open the disc up on your pc. Then you will find the pdf and be able to print it out 😀
Message: Posted by: robd (Jun 21, 2016 06:07AM)
[quote]On Jun 17, 2016, Jared wrote:
I just performed this for a 16-year old kid that I was interviewing for a summer warehouse position. I told him that everything looks good with his application but you'll have to pass one more test..."Do you believe that your outcomes in life (thus far) are more attributed to fate or choices that you made with your own free will?" He replied, fate. "Okay, then, we will use fate to decide each action, but I will give you one free will choice to use at your discretion should you elect to use it." After briefly explaining the procedure we began until he eventually landed on one card. I looked at him and said, "If my prediction matches the same card that you randomly landed on then you've got the job." He nervously turned over the prediction which read, "Fate decided that the card you will land on will be the 5 of spades...Congratulations, you can start Monday!" He looked at me with a BIG bright smile. [/quote]

You've created an atmosphere there where you're a friend first, boss second. Probably an entertainer third.
Message: Posted by: Waters. (Jun 21, 2016 06:26AM)
I purchased this. I agree with the comments that this is a "situational" effect. I wouldn't call this mentalism, but rather a curiosity with cards (which I don't think is negative). It is also my recommendation that one use the "Daley-Schartzman" switch and this have both packets shuffled. I agree about the Card on the Joker... Not necessary or even desirable. However, done casually and conversationally, I think this a great situational effect. I say this, even though I abhor counting down effects. This has an air of randomness that is lovely. Situational, but nice!

I leave the crediting to more capable folks out there.

Regards,

Sean
Message: Posted by: mtstic44 (Jun 21, 2016 07:03AM)
Thank you Rowland.I can't believe I didn't think of it.Thanks again
Allen
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jun 21, 2016 10:15AM)
Daley Schartzman switch? Okay, I'll bite, what is this and do you have a source?

[quote]On Jun 21, 2016, Waters. wrote:
I purchased this. I agree with the comments that this is a "situational" effect. I wouldn't call this mentalism, but rather a curiosity with cards (which I don't think is negative). It is also my recommendation that one use the "Daley-Schartzman" switch and this have both packets shuffled. I agree about the Card on the Joker... Not necessary or even desirable. However, done casually and conversationally, I think this a great situational effect. I say this, even though I abhor counting down effects. This has an air of randomness that is lovely. Situational, but nice!

I leave the crediting to more capable folks out there.

Regards,

Sean [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Waters. (Jun 21, 2016 06:25PM)
While I cannot offer the original sources off the cuff, here are some recent sources...

Bob Cassidy, Artful Mentalism
Derren Brown, Pure Effect
Looch, Simple and Direct
Marc Spelmann & Peter Nardi, The Project DVD
Me, Wonders

In a first "public performance" (though unpaid) I needed to make use of this. Call it poor audience management or just performing for adolescents. That's all I can say on a public forum. I hope that helps.

Best Regards,

Sean
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mindbender (Jun 23, 2016 03:38PM)
[quote]On Jun 21, 2016, Waters. wrote:
I purchased this. I agree with the comments that this is a "situational" effect. I wouldn't call this mentalism, but rather a curiosity with cards (which I don't think is negative). It is also my recommendation that one use the "Daley-Schartzman" switch and this have both packets shuffled. I agree about the Card on the Joker... Not necessary or even desirable. However, done casually and conversationally, I think this a great situational effect. I say this, even though I abhor counting down effects. This has an air of randomness that is lovely. Situational, but nice!

I leave the crediting to more capable folks out there.

Regards,

Sean [/quote]


I agree on you agreeing! The switch is a great idea, but one thing I bump on is cutting the deck in half to shuffle in the first place. On possibility is the idea of - let's not use the whole deck, it'll take too long. Cut the deck in half, spectator shuffles first half, you then switch, and they shuffle the second half, then you eq******e one half and continue with just using that much of the deck. On the plus side, it justifies splitting the deck into two, one the down side, it reduces the number of "random moments" you have, meaning it cuts down the number of times you turn a card over and use that to determine the next number.
Message: Posted by: mike donoghue (Jun 27, 2016 07:49AM)
Just watched this & I like it.

A very old principle but I like what Peter has done with it and like the variations in procedure that he offers. It seems so fair.

To be honest there is no need for the switch. However, it takes only a couple of beats to do it, so if you want to be extra fair, why not.

As Peter says there are a few ideas & you don't have to use the Jokers supplied for the reveal.

Just do the routine when you have that extra time in the right situation. I don't like the idea of just using half the deck as it doesn't(just my opinion) seem as random.

Very happy with the Butterfly Effect.

I will use it in the right situation. Love the idea with the PDF.

Mike Donoghue
Message: Posted by: Maxyedid (Jun 30, 2016 12:48AM)
I found this thread to be very interesting and wanted to contribute some thoughts, in the spirit that mature people can have different opinions and still love each other.

1) Theme: the theme of this effect is NOT a prediction. It does not showcases your predicting powers and abilities. It is about the question of Fate vs Choices, and if indeed the choices we make can actually affect the final result or not. So in this particular case the process IS the effect, or the main part which makes it worthwhile. Of course if you want to predict then you wouldn't use such a procedure probably (but then again why use playing cards after all). So keep this in mind before judging this effect as a "bad prediction".

2) Entertainment Potential: I'm very surprised that some performers do not see in this routine entertainment potential. That they would use it for "special occasions". I'm a huge fan of Tamariz and his prodigal son Dani DaOrtiz and I can clearly see them performing this effect, taking at least 10-15 minutes and "bringing down the house" with it. It has tremendous audience participation potential and the fact that the spectator can change his value for any other makes it all much more fun. Of course you would use all the hysteria created in a close up setting to make this much more fun. You PLAY with the spectators and their indecisions, their opinions, etc.

3) The double card. On a first thought I also disliked this but on a second thought - not. HOW you reveal something at the end is very important and is actually part of the effect as well. The worst you could do is just write it in the back of a business card and then just turn it over. Docc Hilford wrote about the importance of having splendid ways to reveal things in his Pearls Magazine (nr. 2 or 3 I think). I'm always looking for new, original and interesting ways to reveal information. Just writing it makes it unoriginal and uncreative. (In a small book I wrote called Subliminal 3 I use an interesting way to reveal a prediction, that in fact becomes the subtext of the routine).

The double card is at least an interesting object. Many people would want to examine it, try to split it, etc. It's a curious thing. The worst thing that could happen is that people would simply ignore it.

We see it as a "gaff" because we are magicians; layman do not know what to see. We see what we expect to see.

How would I use the double card: I would place it in a small envelope (joker side up). At the end I would let the card fall slowly from the envelope. Pause. I let people react, either verbally or in their head. "That's not the card". Then you can go "Jokers are wild" and THEN you turn the card over to show the final revelation. 3 beats instead of 1.

3) Originality: When I first read about the B.E. the first thing that popped into my mind was "this is the Marlo effect". In fact that's the reason I came to this thread, to see what people were saying about this. But so far I understand that the originality problem has been solved. I heard once from Brian Tracy (I forgot the name of the concept) that if an idea is 10% an improvement from a previous idea is already worth it. So even if this is not the most original trick of the world, if it still has original elements, then maybe it's worth it, why not?

I also have the following question: If I know a very good trick published in one of the old magazines, and this effect is really good and reputation making - now, I want to charge you $30 to say what to you what is that trick - is that worth it? I believe it is. So sometimes yes, it may be that someone is publishing an idea that has been published before in a similar way, however, if that idea was not part of the mainstream magic community and now I bring it to everyone's attention, why shouldn't I get a monetary compensation for that? (assuming of course, there are no copywright problems).

4) I find it surprising that Titanas has a way to set up the effect during performance (thus rendering it "impromptu"), and he is somehow related to the release of this effect, and his effect was not included as an "added value". And even if he does not want to release that particular effect right now, but at least it should be pointed out as an option. And I'm sure that it has to be in the literature some effect that will allow you to set up the cards needed for TBE.

Overall this seems like a very good effect and I look forward to obtain this DVD in a near future.

Thank you all for such an interesting discussion of magic.

Good night.
Message: Posted by: Cameron Francis (Jun 30, 2016 08:41AM)
Excellent points. Especially your thoughts on entertainment value. As Mark Elsdon has said, "The procedure is the entertainment".

I heart the "invisible deck" argument all the time. "If you want to predict a card, just use an invisible deck. It's more direct." But, what about suspense? What about building an effect? Guiding a spectator down down a winding road can be much more entertaining than just saying, "Name a card. Here it is."

And you are correct. This isn't a prediction effect. It's a fate effect. The spectator does the work. There is inherent suspense. It's an interesting and fun trick.
Message: Posted by: Titanas (Jun 30, 2016 11:07AM)
There have been a few people asking me how I m setting up for the trick, so here it is:

The way I use it and I always try to do it with a borrowed deck when it's possible, I ask them to shuffle the deck, saying I want to try something with you. A full deck has 52 different cards but since we just met I want to use less cards. So I take the deck and remove some cards (seemingly at random but what I am doing is I secretly making my ** card s%#*k) and the forcing card which is the queen of spades (this is also going to be my force on both the pre-effect and the butterfly effect which is going to follow shortly)
I force the queen of spades and now reading them and reveal the queen of spades... Now I take the rest of the cards and place the queen right on the bottom of my s%#*k, throw the rest of the cards on top and mix 6 or 7 cards on the bottom as I say let's try something else (do the butterfly effect)
I hope it makes sense.
Best regards,
Titanas
Message: Posted by: rosariorose9 (Jun 30, 2016 11:52AM)
^^^

I like it! Thanks, Titanas. And I also like Maxyedid's idea re: "the joker's wild." Will use (steal :) ) them both.
Message: Posted by: IanB (Jun 30, 2016 12:23PM)
Sorry people but I'm still amazed that so many are still brushing past the facts that have already been raised earlier.

Maxyedid - Your spin on originality is IMHO way off base.

"I also have the following question: If I know a very good trick published in one of the old magazines, and this effect is really good and reputation making - now, I want to charge you $30 to say what to you what is that trick - is that worth it? I believe it is. So sometimes yes, it may be that someone is publishing an idea that has been published before in a similar way, however, if that idea was not part of the mainstream magic community and now I bring it to everyone's attention, why shouldn't I get a monetary compensation for that? (assuming of course, there are no copyright problems)."

If something wasn't created by you irrespective of copyright issues you simply cannot sell this to other people no matter how old the trick is. That's just wrong!! Hopefully common sense? In blunt terms you are stealing someone else's intellectual property. As has been pointed out by many ... Financial gain seems to be the motivation on projects like this and many others.

To repeat from earlier ... all that is being offered here is nothing more than a presentational spin and a way of revealing the card! Everything else is the exact method of Marlo's perfect stop trick. No exact credits given or proper references to the history behind it.

C'mon guys ... this does not warrant an individual release and that £20 could have been better spent supporting the originators and getting more bang for your bucks.
Message: Posted by: lord_wallmotto (Jul 2, 2016 04:50AM)
Isn´t the trend of releasing tricks that would have been like 1 of 20 - 50 tricks in a book or 1 of 10 tricks on a dvd a couple of years ago as single trick dvds getting a bit ridiculous?

I am not saying that it is a bad trick, but come on.
Message: Posted by: Karl M (Jul 2, 2016 05:14AM)
Getting one of Peter nardis pet effects for less than 20quid is a bargain I reckon , it's a killer
Message: Posted by: patrick66 (Jul 2, 2016 07:17AM)
I so love this trick but why is this a magician's fooler?
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 2, 2016 10:54AM)
The actual description can be copyrighted. The actual method of the trick can only be protected legally for 20 years. The method is slightly different in application but the basic arithmetic is the same. In this version, it is the handling and presentation that are very different. The presentation is much more entertaining. That is where there is value added, one that some are willing to pay for.

[quote]On Jun 30, 2016, IanB wrote:
Sorry people but I'm still amazed that so many are still brushing past the facts that have already been raised earlier.

Maxyedid - Your spin on originality is IMHO way off base.

"I also have the following question: If I know a very good trick published in one of the old magazines, and this effect is really good and reputation making - now, I want to charge you $30 to say what to you what is that trick - is that worth it? I believe it is. So sometimes yes, it may be that someone is publishing an idea that has been published before in a similar way, however, if that idea was not part of the mainstream magic community and now I bring it to everyone's attention, why shouldn't I get a monetary compensation for that? (assuming of course, there are no copyright problems)."

If something wasn't created by you irrespective of copyright issues you simply cannot sell this to other people no matter how old the trick is. That's just wrong!! Hopefully common sense? In blunt terms you are stealing someone else's intellectual property. As has been pointed out by many ... Financial gain seems to be the motivation on projects like this and many others.

To repeat from earlier ... all that is being offered here is nothing more than a presentational spin and a way of revealing the card! Everything else is the exact method of Marlo's perfect stop trick. No exact credits given or proper references to the history behind it.

C'mon guys ... this does not warrant an individual release and that £20 could have been better spent supporting the originators and getting more bang for your bucks. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: HDMike (Jul 4, 2016 09:17AM)
Thanks everyone for the great feedback. I pulled the trigger and purchased this, should be here tomorrow. I know the effect that was introduced by Marlo and I was basically looking for a new creative way for presentation and in the revelation of the card. From watching the trailer, I believe this is what has been accomplished and this looks very interesting.
Message: Posted by: barts185 (Jul 4, 2016 01:48PM)
[quote]On Jul 2, 2016, patrick66 wrote:
I so love this trick but why is this a magician's fooler? [/quote]

Because it fools most people that call themselves a magician even though they shouldn't and, at best, have magic as a hobby on which they don't spend much time.

If you went, item by item, through Tarbell in most clubs where people call themselves magicians, the VAST majority of people would have no idea how you did most of the things.
Message: Posted by: Philippe (Jul 4, 2016 03:53PM)
Peter?
Message: Posted by: Titanas (Jul 5, 2016 02:53AM)
[quote]On Jul 4, 2016, barts185 wrote:
[quote]On Jul 2, 2016, patrick66 wrote:
I so love this trick but why is this a magician's fooler? [/quote]

Because it fools most people that call themselves a magician even though they shouldn't and, at best, have magic as a hobby on which they don't spend much time.

If you went, item by item, through Tarbell in most clubs where people call themselves magicians, the VAST majority of people would have no idea how you did most of the things. [/quote]


That explains perfectly why it fooled me :)

Best regards,
Titanas
Message: Posted by: HDMike (Jul 5, 2016 01:12PM)
Well, I do not call myself a Magician even thought I have been intrigued by Card Magic for many years. I do this for the enjoyment that I get with entertaining people and watching their reactions. This definitely fooled me even thought I know of some similar principals.
Message: Posted by: IanB (Jul 6, 2016 01:52AM)
The sycophants are still trying hard to justify what should have been released in a set of lecture notes or as an extra on a DVD. Purely as an idea/variation on the original.

Full credit should have been given to the origins of the effect.

Overtly or covertly this has been spun as if it was Peters creation, which it isn't, other than a presentational angle. Please, let's not insult each other's intelligence.

If people are prepared to pay for this kind of thing and support such activities then more fool them.

God help us if this is the future of our art!!
Message: Posted by: lord_wallmotto (Jul 6, 2016 03:42AM)
[quote]On Jul 2, 2016, Karl M wrote:
Getting one of Peter nardis pet effects for less than 20quid is a bargain I reckon , it's a killer [/quote]

I am not saying that the trick isn't any good. However, this is a slight version of an old trick which appears in books and on many great dvds which are filled with other great effects. It is also an effect which should not take much more than a couple of minutes to teach anyone. It could probably be done in two minutes and you would be more than fine.

This trick should have been a 5$ download or one of many tricks on a multiple effect dvd.

Again, not saying that the trick isn't any good. Its a good trick. However, I do like the original more.
Message: Posted by: HDMike (Jul 6, 2016 12:50PM)
Just received this and watched the DVD. Just a couple of comments:
Yes I agree that the prediction cards do not really add anything to the effect, I would rather just write down the prediction after shuffling and cutting the cards.

I also agree that this could have easily been a download for a cheaper cost, however, I love the method and the different delivery and presentation approaches.

Peter teaches this very well and offers other ideas and alternate ways to perform the routine. Overall I am happy with the purchase and plan to use this in the right situations.
Message: Posted by: lord_wallmotto (Jul 7, 2016 12:35PM)
I think that most of the material published in books can be considered to be "magician foolers" when performing for magicians who got into magic after the early year 2000. I met many quite talented magicians who never read a book and has absolutely no idea of who Vernon or Marlo was.
Message: Posted by: moiici (Jul 18, 2016 09:45AM)
New link.

Have you seen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afn7CNaYcv8
Message: Posted by: moiici (Jul 18, 2016 11:23AM)
[quote]On Jul 18, 2016, moiici wrote:
New link.

Have you seen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afn7CNaYcv8 [/quote]
and this thread: http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=621656&forum=206
Message: Posted by: Fero (Aug 22, 2016 05:28PM)
Love this trick... Spectators get stoned.
The only negative is the price. Could have be done with a streaming/download video.
Anyway my vote on this:
8/10
Message: Posted by: MikeTheRed (Sep 28, 2016 04:44PM)
Will someone that has this PM me. I lost the included small card with the alternative set up and I have a question.

Much appreciated,

Mike
Message: Posted by: MikeTheRed (Sep 28, 2016 05:22PM)
My question was answered. Thanks to those that responded! :)
Message: Posted by: Patrice (Oct 19, 2016 03:23AM)
See also Aldo Colombini's DVD Effective Card Routines. The routine Add-Acadabra uses the same principle (K.....L principle) with a double prediction : first, predicting a number found adding the value of all the face-up cards. Second, predicting the last face-up card.
This is done with a gag using one sheet of paper with several numbers - and the good number is at the back of the paper. And also using another sheet of paper showing all the 52 cards - the selected card is also at the back of the paper.
Message: Posted by: a brown 1968 (Oct 19, 2016 07:00AM)
I enjoyed seeing the premise for the effect but prefer to do it with a borrowed shuffled deck and ask the spectator at the start how many times the spectator would like to make a choice 2,3,4 5 etc Using a prediction card on the table which can be a closed or an open one .

Andy
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Dec 9, 2016 03:25PM)
I was reminded today why I really love this trick. I keep this trick set up in one of my older slightly beat up decks in my desk. I occasionally find the right time to bring it out and today was one of those days. The students I performed it for where in stunned disbelief. One girl got up and just left, one was shaking her head just trying to wrap her brain around what happened and the other just sat there and stared in disbelief, jaw agape.

With the Trick of the Year thread now open, don't forget about this gem.
Message: Posted by: Colin (C.J.) (Dec 9, 2016 04:53PM)
[quote]On Jul 7, 2016, lord_wallmotto wrote:
I think that most of the material published in books can be considered to be "magician foolers" when performing for magicians who got into magic after the early year 2000. I met many quite talented magicians who never read a book and has absolutely no idea of who Vernon or Marlo was. [/quote]
The young kids nowadays will probably refer to Vernon and Marlo as Verlo or something.
Message: Posted by: jmbulg (Dec 16, 2016 04:58AM)
If you are interested in a principle which allows the spectator to make a riffle shuffle and maintain the necessary properties for the butterfly effect:

http://www.lybrary.com/a-bumblebees-flight-p-891875.html

(currently on the hot-list :-) )
Message: Posted by: virtualwizard (Jul 9, 2017 06:37AM)
Just watched David Regal's review of Butterfly Effect on Reel Magic Magazine. I was surprised that David made such an issue of the length and procedure involved.
I think --like many others--that this is a wonderful effect and well worth learning. It has been added to my rotation. Sure it may not be suited for table hopping, but there are many occasions where this is suitable.
I mostly rely on Regal for his opinion, but I have to say I disagree with his assessment here.
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 9, 2017 09:00AM)
In regards to the dealing part of this effect, I am curious as to how many magicians have the spectators deal versus the magician dealing the cards? Personally, I've always dealt the cards when I've performed this effect. I find that it doesn't make a difference from the spectators view point and I find that the trick doesn't drag this way.

Anyone else perform Butterfly Effect this way?

[quote]On Jul 9, 2017, virtualwizard wrote:
Just watched David Regal's review of Butterfly Effect on Reel Magic Magazine. I was surprised that David made such an issue of the length and procedure involved.
I think --like many others--that this is a wonderful effect and well worth learning. It has been added to my rotation. Sure it may not be suited for table hopping, but there are many occasions where this is suitable.
I mostly rely on Regal for his opinion, but I have to say I disagree with his assessment here. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: 453rob (Aug 11, 2017 06:31PM)
I do the butterfly effect as done by Peter Nardi. After watching the trailer many times over I figured out how this was done. I recently saw Dave Forrest's Butterfly Effect and besides his rather awkward presentation, I think his effect is more baffling than Peter's There are more revelations and the deck is shuffled by the spec. I am sure that his is harder to do than Peter's. Counting versus a simple s*&^k. I do agree with some of the posters that this effect is way overpriced and should have been included is one of the self working DVDs that are so popular these days.
All in all I like the effect a lot and specs so far have been impressed. My reveal is on the back of a business card. I like revelations better when they are hand written rather than pre-printed. This gives the illusions that the result can be different every time.