(Close Window)
Topic: Ben Blau Performs “D.E.N.I.M.”
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Sep 27, 2017 07:44PM)
Hi.

Here’s something that’s both old and new. It’s called “D.E.N.I.M.”, and is one of the routines that will be included in my next project. This video is PRACTICE, and a lot more tightening up still needs to take place. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy it!

https://youtu.be/LvBBMnQcwuM
Message: Posted by: LoveKey1988 (Sep 27, 2017 08:04PM)
Well..this is very obvious for a magician, but I like how you milk the most you can out of a card location.
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Sep 27, 2017 08:38PM)
I was just discussing progressive revelations private FB group. How to make one mind-read seem like several.
Message: Posted by: LoveKey1988 (Sep 27, 2017 09:01PM)
This is one of my favourite things to do...just revealing an information you get is not using the full potential of knowing information your spectator doesn't think you know. Lets say you gain knowledge of a word they are thinking of...and the first letter is a...tell them to imagine a fruit that starts with that letter if they can think of one..imagine it very vividly...the color, the taste etc...most likely they will think of apple...thats another reveal of a thought that formed in their head not even written anywhere that you can reveal. Its the way you reveal things that makes an effect interesting.
Message: Posted by: RiBo (Sep 27, 2017 10:03PM)
I'm always impressed by Ben's performances. I'd like to think I have a similar style, and I must admit that Asymptotes is on my list to pick up soon.

Two comments:
First, I wish people would stop telling people that they're not using marked cards. Just leave that out of the conversation. Admittedly I suspect I'd like this because I always use marked decks.
Second, there was one stylistic part to the patter that I think is a little weak - it's around the 5-6 minute mark when you say something ike "I really have no idea of what your card is." The way you said this, it just sounded to me like you were protesting too much, if that makes sense. At least, that's what went through my mind while watching the video.
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Sep 27, 2017 10:24PM)
[quote]On Sep 27, 2017, RiBo wrote:
I'm always impressed by Ben's performances. I'd like to think I have a similar style, and I must admit that Asymptotes is on my list to pick up soon.

Two comments:
First, I wish people would stop telling people that they're not using marked cards. Just leave that out of the conversation. Admittedly I suspect I'd like this because I always use marked decks.
Second, there was one stylistic part to the patter that I think is a little weak - it's around the 5-6 minute mark when you say something ike "I really have no idea of what your card is." The way you said this, it just sounded to me like you were protesting too much, if that makes sense. At least, that's what went through my mind while watching the video. [/quote]

Noted on both counts. I agree. I think my comment on marked cards leaked out because I knew magicians would eventually see this, and there is a part of me that wanted to make the point that it really is an honest impromptu routine that can be done with any deck at any time. This will and should be removed from my script for laypeople.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Ben
Message: Posted by: marc_carrion (Sep 28, 2017 07:50AM)
Hi Ben, looking forward your new release, disappointed that it is not in book format :D, but it does not matter. I'm interested on the details on the est***** shuffle after the selection. I use a similar shuffle from a Lorayne trick, can't remember in which of his books I read it.

I'm not sure about the marked comment, I would maybe make it earlier, that's the reason you turn your back, even if the cards were marked somehow, I never see the back of the card, and furthermore, I'm going to turn my back so there is no chance for me to peek, maybe the reflection on your glasses, a mirror behind you, etc...

Anyway... great work like always!
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Sep 28, 2017 10:42AM)
[quote]On Sep 28, 2017, marc_carrion wrote:
Hi Ben, looking forward your new release, disappointed that it is not in book format :D, but it does not matter. I'm interested on the details on the est***** shuffle after the selection. I use a similar shuffle from a Lorayne trick, can't remember in which of his books I read it.

I'm not sure about the marked comment, I would maybe make it earlier, that's the reason you turn your back, even if the cards were marked somehow, I never see the back of the card, and furthermore, I'm going to turn my back so there is no chance for me to peek, maybe the reflection on your glasses, a mirror behind you, etc...

Anyway... great work like always! [/quote]

Honestly, I regret even raising the point in the first place. My preference would be to do this one with a borrowed deck. I don’t think it serves a useful purpose for me to even suggest that I know what marked cards are. I should let the conditions speak for themselves in that regard. I might make the comment, “I have seen neither the front nor the back of the card.” That carries the implication, without having to suggest it in the first place. The participant can then interpret the statement in whatever way correlated to their frame of reference and intellect.
Message: Posted by: Adrien L. (Sep 29, 2017 04:12AM)
Might be obvious for a magician... But it's IMPOSSIBLE for laymen. Love this!

The one thing I would point out is that I would try to make the whole process of asking the questions start small and get better... By that I mean something like: first ask the question and have her answer out loud. You then tell her that she lied or told the truth and eliminate the corresponding cards. Now, you take it up a notch and have her answer the truth, but only in her mind... tell her "you said picture cards, didn't you?"... then take it up another notch and have her either lie or tell the truth in her mind. Something like that... what to you think?

Anyway, nice effect! :D
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Sep 29, 2017 05:13AM)
If you can apparently hear an answer someone is only mentally projecting, then they don't need to go through the long physical processes at the start, right?
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Sep 29, 2017 06:14AM)
Interesting. Here are a few quick comments.

First, once you’ve removed the rehearsal selection from the pack, there are only 51 left and therefore you should amend your statement about chances to 1/51 and not 1/52.

During the revelation phase you keep asking the spectator to voice aloud what mental answer she transmitted to you, and then you say something like “I thought so, that’s why…” I don’t find this convincing because if you’d received an answer you would not keep asking her what message she'd sent. You would say something like: “I sense you’ve mentally answered …” It’s OK for a mental effect, not for a mentalist effect.

Any intelligent spectator would reason that you knew her selection from the start as yourself picked a bunch of cards out of the deck. I think a viable alternative handling to dispel this would be to spread the deck face up, so you may get a glimpse at the selection, and ask the spectator to draw towards her 10 or so cards with the selection among them, while your back is turned. You can give the spectator as many directions that you need about the composition of the packet.
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Sep 29, 2017 06:40AM)
Visually, if you're having to remove cards - and its all about you being able to pick up (somehow) what they are thinking of - but you are having difficulty, then I (personally) would want to remove cards that could be mistaken for their actual card...(so the subtext is that it either sounds or looks somehow similar to their actual card, which you have also pulled out)....
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Sep 29, 2017 08:59AM)
After we stopped filming, I had to spend several minutes convincing Samantha and the other student who was filming this that I wasn’t really a psychic. We ended up having a long conversation about non-verbal communication. These are smart people. LTU is the fourth hardest school to get accepted to in the country, and I teach in the college of engineering. So, these students are intellectually way above average. Based on how the effect has been received not only by them but also by others, I don’t share some of the concerns expressed above. The only one I agree with is the fact that I shouldn’t have said “one card out of fifty-one possibilities” instead of “fifty-two”, since one had already been eliminated. I think I’m going to change that line slightly, by first saying “one out of fifty-two” and then correcting myself, almost as if it just occurred to me.
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Sep 29, 2017 09:08AM)
Intelligence isn't really a measure though, not really... I know very smart people who love having their cards read.... a few believe in it, a few don't and just enjoy the experience...

I think really, we're talking about logic aren't we...not always necessarily for "them", but for "us"...though having it logical for us and our persona and claim, bleeds through to "them"...

if person A says they can do B and C - but then adds D and E for no reason, then it becomes odd, eliminating the gaps between what we have to do, and what we claim to be doing is very important...

just my opinion, nothing else...
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Sep 29, 2017 09:10AM)
OK, it shows that intelligence and credulity are not correlated.
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Sep 29, 2017 09:13AM)
[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, IAIN wrote:
If you can apparently hear an answer someone is only mentally projecting, then they don't need to go through the long physical processes at the start, right? [/quote]

Knowing someone’s card is trivial. Each procedural phase in this routine serves a purpose for me. I could do the same trick with NO procedure if I wanted to, and so could anyone else. I have my reasons, but I’d expect anyone to bring their own sensibilities to any routine they choose to perform.
Message: Posted by: Adrien L. (Sep 29, 2017 09:15AM)
I just want to quickly say the point I raised was just me being super nitpicky. I think the effect played out very well, but I wouldn't expect less from you :D

[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, Ben Blau wrote:
After we stopped filming, I had to spend several minutes convincing Samantha and the other student who was filming this that I wasn’t really a psychic. We ended up having a long conversation about non-verbal communication. These are smart people. LTU is the fourth hardest school to get accepted to in the country, and I teach in the college of engineering. So, these students are intellectually way above average. Based on how the effect has been received not only by them but also by others, I don’t share some of the concerns expressed above. The only one I agree with is the fact that I shouldn’t have said “one card out of fifty-one possibilities” instead of “fifty-two”, since one had already been eliminated. I think I’m going to change that line slightly, by first saying “one out of fifty-two” and then correcting myself, almost as if it just occurred to me. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Sep 29, 2017 09:23AM)
I appreciate the nitpicking. I think it’s incredibly important to analyze routines for logical inconsistencies, however I sometimes have been so strict about it that it has imposed unnecessary limits on the flow of a presentation. I think in this case, the performer’s affect is what allows some of the things voiced as objections here to be taken at face value and dissolve into being psychologically invisible to the audience by the time we’re done. I’d be willing to bet that Samantha only remembers the parts of the routine during which “active” attributes of the effect were taking place, and also that the conditions seemed fair.
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Sep 29, 2017 09:27AM)
[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, Adrien L. wrote:
Might be obvious for a magician... But it's IMPOSSIBLE for laymen. Love this!

The one thing I would point out is that I would try to make the whole process of asking the questions start small and get better... By that I mean something like: first ask the question and have her answer out loud. You then tell her that she lied or told the truth and eliminate the corresponding cards. Now, you take it up a notch and have her answer the truth, but only in her mind... tell her "you said picture cards, didn't you?"... then take it up another notch and have her either lie or tell the truth in her mind. Something like that... what to you think?

Anyway, nice effect! :D [/quote]

I think that is a fine idea, and definitely worth trying.
Message: Posted by: marc_carrion (Sep 29, 2017 09:39AM)
[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, Ben Blau wrote:
[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, Adrien L. wrote:
Might be obvious for a magician... But it's IMPOSSIBLE for laymen. Love this!

The one thing I would point out is that I would try to make the whole process of asking the questions start small and get better... By that I mean something like: first ask the question and have her answer out loud. You then tell her that she lied or told the truth and eliminate the corresponding cards. Now, you take it up a notch and have her answer the truth, but only in her mind... tell her "you said picture cards, didn't you?"... then take it up another notch and have her either lie or tell the truth in her mind. Something like that... what to you think?

Anyway, nice effect! :D [/quote]

I think that is a fine idea, and definitely worth trying. [/quote]

Or you can do the opposite, ask them to think of the color of their card... 'red'... ok, let's drop the black ones... 'face or number?'.... 'I see... number... let's discard the faces'...
I just think that asking them to think one answer, truth or lie, and then having to ask what they thought in order to tell if they lied or not seemed confusing.

Also, not sure if you want to mention this in the 'afterthoughts' but to me, effects like this are great because the set of cards discarded can be anything you want, so they can be the first ten cards of a stack and you can jump into something after that uses that fact. Unless you let them pick 10 card as someone else suggested, if you do it, choose wisely what cards you include in that set that you will discard, that may help in your follow up effect. A simple example, is to discard 12 cards, and remember the bottom one, you are then set for Bannon's AK47 right away (if you choose to follow up with that)
Message: Posted by: Francois Lagrange (Sep 29, 2017 09:58AM)
[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, Ben Blau wrote:

Knowing someone’s card is trivial. Each procedural phase in this routine serves a purpose for me. I could do the same trick with NO procedure if I wanted to, and so could anyone else. I have my reasons, but I’d expect anyone to bring their own sensibilities to any routine they choose to perform. [/quote]

What are your reasons? I'm genuinely curious as I think in a diametrical opposite way and strive to remove any excess process.
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Sep 29, 2017 10:04AM)
[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, Ben Blau wrote:
[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, IAIN wrote:
If you can apparently hear an answer someone is only mentally projecting, then they don't need to go through the long physical processes at the start, right? [/quote]

Knowing someone’s card is trivial. Each procedural phase in this routine serves a purpose for me. I could do the same trick with NO procedure if I wanted to, and so could anyone else. I have my reasons, but I’d expect anyone to bring their own sensibilities to any routine they choose to perform. [/quote]
It's not about the process, it's the skillset you are claiming...experiments are great, if there has to be procedure then let the skillset define it...

You're asking them to answer a question in their mind, so it's body cues or whatever else...and you can sometimes pick up on them...

So you 'do something' with your skillset to get the answer. At the root maybe they have to visualise something first - hence the picking of a random card...once that's done you use your skillset...

The cards should probably be dead to you by now as their purpose was a random choice...for me the delivery isn't a straight line and the premise seems a little fuzzy..

If you've read the above with me sneering, it's certainly not, I'm just chatting..I enjoy the plot and presentation side of things hugely...I sometimes imagine how Hemmingway would present mentalism...then compare that with say, how Dali would...
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Sep 29, 2017 10:14AM)
[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, Francois Lagrange wrote:
[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, Ben Blau wrote:

Knowing someone’s card is trivial. Each procedural phase in this routine serves a purpose for me. I could do the same trick with NO procedure if I wanted to, and so could anyone else. I have my reasons, but I’d expect anyone to bring their own sensibilities to any routine they choose to perform. [/quote]

What are your reasons? I'm genuinely curious as I think in a diametrical opposite way and strive to remove any excess process. [/quote]

I’ll elaborate on that when I film the explanation video. But my reasons are my own. Other people don’t have to see things my way. Robert Bullock just sent me a video of himself performing this routine with his own spin on it. It’s not the way I would do it (if I were me), but it suits him perfectly.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Woolery (Sep 29, 2017 11:03AM)
Out of curiosity, what does D.E.N.I.M. stand for?

I enjoyed the revelation, but I confess the selection of the card and burying it in the deck felt kind of overly procedural to me. We have to make a compromise in these things because our methods require more than just getting a thought into our participant's mind. However, in my casual performances, I try to make the selection aspect as natural as possible. I'm a civil engineering student and most of my classmates are half my age. They are willing to challenge a process they see as too detailed and will ask questions like"could you do it without me putting the card in the middle?"

I've watched several of your videos recently and you really are good at getting a lot out of a routine. It isn't a simple thing to turn a card find into 10 minutes of interaction. That's rather inspirational, actually.

Patrick
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Sep 29, 2017 11:21AM)
[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, Ben Blau wrote:
It’s not the way I would do it (if I were me)... [/quote]
Kudos on this very dry humorous passing comment!
:applause:
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Sep 29, 2017 01:07PM)
[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, Mr. Woolery wrote:
Out of curiosity, what does D.E.N.I.M. stand for?

I enjoyed the revelation, but I confess the selection of the card and burying it in the deck felt kind of overly procedural to me. We have to make a compromise in these things because our methods require more than just getting a thought into our participant's mind. However, in my casual performances, I try to make the selection aspect as natural as possible. I'm a civil engineering student and most of my classmates are half my age. They are willing to challenge a process they see as too detailed and will ask questions like"could you do it without me putting the card in the middle?"

I've watched several of your videos recently and you really are good at getting a lot out of a routine. It isn't a simple thing to turn a card find into 10 minutes of interaction. That's rather inspirational, actually.

Patrick [/quote]

Very kind of you to say. I’d like to request that you reconsider the naturalness of the selection procedure. Having someone cut into
a deck is a very natural hands-off method of having a random card chosen.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Woolery (Sep 29, 2017 02:38PM)
Yeah, it is a natural way to look at a card. The less natural aspect is how it is buried in the middle. Any process where I need to have a dry run first because it is different from what a participant would most likely do on his own is going to be a little awkward to me. This is meant constructively, as you are a more experienced performer than I. I really don't like having to do that much setup, even if they can't see how I could have done anything with it. For cutting to a card, I would want (as a participant) to lift up the deck and look, then put it back where it was.

But, again, you've got chops with keeping folks interested, so I suspect the process of burying the card is forgotten by the time you reveal it. I may be overthinking.

Patrick
Message: Posted by: John C (Sep 29, 2017 05:16PM)
[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, Tom Cutts wrote:
[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, Ben Blau wrote:
It’s not the way I would do it (if I were me)... [/quote]
Kudos on this very dry humorous passing comment!
:applause: [/quote]

I enjoyed that as well but didn't know how to respond.
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Sep 29, 2017 10:05PM)
[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, Mr. Woolery wrote:
Yeah, it is a natural way to look at a card. The less natural aspect is how it is buried in the middle. Any process where I need to have a dry run first because it is different from what a participant would most likely do on his own is going to be a little awkward to me. This is meant constructively, as you are a more experienced performer than I. I really don't like having to do that much setup, even if they can't see how I could have done anything with it. For cutting to a card, I would want (as a participant) to lift up the deck and look, then put it back where it was.

But, again, you've got chops with keeping folks interested, so I suspect the process of burying the card is forgotten by the time you reveal it. I may be overthinking.

Patrick [/quote]

None of us are immmune from self-delusion. I can only go with my instincts, and gauge the quality of responses I get. I think that if anything, the process is interpreted as a measure of establishing conditions. The performer’s affect has a great deal of influence on what audience memebers will take at face value. I think that people accept that the process is (1) fair, and (2) a way of guaranteeing that the performer has no opportunity to see the face nor the back of the selected card.

Knowing for sure whether or not we are overthinking is a challenge we all face, and I don’t think anyone has complete objectivity when it comes to these kinds of judgements in magic. I’ve seen some things that I interpret as absolutely wretched and transparent, and yet audiences seem fooled, mystified and entertained.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Woolery (Sep 30, 2017 03:00AM)
I actually chuckled at that last line, Ben. I did a simple LD routine today that depends on the ST p**k. The subject is a PhD professor in the Geological Engineering department (I'm civil) and I know he's a very analytical person. I still don't know how this technique flies past people.

In contrast, your performance is much more deceptive than that! And your method is better hidden.

-Patrick
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Oct 2, 2017 04:02PM)
I had what I think is a pretty substantial creative breakthrough with Denim today that not only shortens it, but makes it far less procedural and yet simultaneously even more deceptive. I just performed it at Wunderground Magic, and the mentalist I performed it for offered me $200.00 on the spot for the secret. That’s a good sign.
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Oct 3, 2017 04:43AM)
Are you saying you're now performing Dai Vernon's ER? :)
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Oct 3, 2017 06:04AM)
[quote]On Oct 3, 2017, Claudio wrote:
Are you saying you're now performing Dai Vernon's ER? :) [/quote]

Exactly! 🤣

JK. If anything, it’s even less like ER now.
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Oct 4, 2017 02:55AM)
@Ben, a (long) while back I developed a sequence to fool magicians familiar with the Vernon handling. It's very fast and direct: i.e. nearly zero process. PM me if you're interested. I very much doubt it'll be the handling you've newly adopted.
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Oct 4, 2017 07:41AM)
[quote]On Oct 4, 2017, Claudio wrote:
@Ben, a (long) while back I developed a sequence to fool magicians familiar with the Vernon handling. It's very fast and direct: i.e. nearly zero process. PM me if you're interested. I very much doubt it'll be the handling you've newly adopted. [/quote]

Will do. My new handling removes a lot of the process.
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Oct 4, 2017 04:25PM)
Here is the new version with some important presentational changes. I think this is a lot closer to what I had in mind compared to the last video I posted.

Please have a look:

https://youtu.be/NIpXPwkcc5M
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Oct 5, 2017 03:16AM)
Yes, the presentation is tighter and the selection handling far more direct. It's looking good and deceptive.

You could use a Darwin Ortiz handling here: when you cut off the top packet as a demo, you can show how to screen the packet with both hands to look at the bottom card, while it gives you perfect cover for the required p*** and is nearly totally angle proof. Darwin describes his handling in his latest book: Lessons in Card Mystery.

One can see that the presentation is still work in progress. So here's a suggestion:

Instead of keeping asking, "You've sent me an answer, you promise?" or "Were you sending me an answer?", which sounds awkward and unassertive, you could ask your spectator to let you know when s/he has sent you an answer and then you react accordingly and table the cards face-down. Maybe an even better way would to try to synchronise their sending answers with a visual and or auditory clue from you, like snapping your fingers, or something more subtle.

Even if you don't adopt this suggestion, you should cut down on repeatedly asking the spectator whether they have sent you an answer. You ought to know as you have already reacted accordingly by tabling cards.
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Oct 5, 2017 10:32AM)
[quote]On Oct 5, 2017, Claudio wrote:
Yes, the presentation is tighter and the selection handling far more direct. It's looking good and deceptive.

You could use a Darwin Ortiz handling here: when you cut off the top packet as a demo, you can show how to screen the packet with both hands to look at the bottom card, while it gives you perfect cover for the required p*** and is nearly totally angle proof. Darwin describes his handling in his latest book: Lessons in Card Mystery.

One can see that the presentation is still work in progress. So here's a suggestion:

Instead of keeping asking, "You've sent me an answer, you promise?" or "Were you sending me an answer?", which sounds awkward and unassertive, you could ask your spectator to let you know when s/he has sent you an answer and then you react accordingly and table the cards face-down. Maybe an even better way would to try to synchronise their sending answers with a visual and or auditory clue from you, like snapping your fingers, or something more subtle.

Even if you don't adopt this suggestion, you should cut down on repeatedly asking the spectator whether they have sent you an answer. You ought to know as you have already reacted accordingly by tabling cards. [/quote]

Thanks for the suggestions. My script is actually substantially different for that particular phase when there are other spectators present. Since we were alone, I couldn’t involve the rest of the audience in the way I normally would. I do appreciate the feedback very much!

Ben
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Oct 6, 2017 09:44AM)
Sorry, I meant “state”, not “country”.
Message: Posted by: Mr. Woolery (Oct 6, 2017 10:46AM)
I like this version better. The selection process feels more motivated without the dry run.

Still curious what DENIM stands for...

And I will take “podunk” for my school.

Patrick
Message: Posted by: doriancaudal (Oct 7, 2017 08:06AM)
Will you publish this somewhere ?
Message: Posted by: Max Hazy (Oct 7, 2017 05:40PM)
I have other ways to the card selection that fits me better. That being said, this is the best presentation of a single card location that I've ever seem ever! I already told Ben that. You have interaction, a fail-safe approach and you can involve more people to it, even allowing them to make guesses. In my case, I prefer a truth/lie from voice cues not telepathy.

[quote]On Sep 29, 2017, IAIN wrote:
If you can apparently hear an answer someone is only mentally projecting, then they don't need to go through the long physical processes at the start, right? [/quote]

I counter that mentioning the process to ENSURE that the selection is random, as statistically some people are inclined to think about certain cards (and even lay people might be aware of that). It's our job to use presentation in our favor, as with presentation alone you can: make sense of everything done/said, hide method, increase congruence for your character, etc.

Again, to me this is an absolutely awesome approach.

Cheers
Message: Posted by: Alexxander (Oct 7, 2017 06:26PM)
To be honest, I believe the presentation is still way too much about the fairness of the procedure, and the script could be shortened a lot.
It is a very dry style of presentation which is hardly more than an intellectual puzzle...
Message: Posted by: Max Hazy (Oct 7, 2017 08:22PM)
[quote]On Oct 7, 2017, Alexxander wrote:
To be honest, I believe the presentation is still way too much about the fairness of the procedure, and the script could be shortened a lot.
It is a very dry style of presentation which is hardly more than an intellectual puzzle... [/quote]

Agreed, but it's personal preference. That's why I said I would use other ways to have the card selected, even in a hands off way. The presentation I was referring to was the revelation, which to me is absolutely brilliant!
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Oct 7, 2017 08:57PM)
[quote]On Oct 7, 2017, Max Hazy wrote:
[quote]On Oct 7, 2017, Alexxander wrote:
To be honest, I believe the presentation is still way too much about the fairness of the procedure, and the script could be shortened a lot.
It is a very dry style of presentation which is hardly more than an intellectual puzzle... [/quote]

Agreed, but it's personal preference. That's why I said I would use other ways to have the card selected, even in a hands off way. The presentation I was referring to was the revelation, which to me is absolutely brilliant! [/quote]

If you watch the second video, I think you’ll find that it now appears very hands-off. Much more so than before.
Message: Posted by: Max Hazy (Oct 7, 2017 11:48PM)
[quote]On Oct 7, 2017, Ben Blau wrote:
If you watch the second video, I think you’ll find that it now appears very hands-off. Much more so than before. [/quote]

I don't think you got what I meant Ben. The second video in this topic was the very first one I've seem in facebook. What I meant is that I prefer to be more direct in the selection, with less procedure, even if I do it hands-off. That's because it leaves less space for people to wonder "why I have to do this and not this". So I prefer to change the selection procedure in favor of more direct approaches. Even if I go for a hands-off approach I prefer to be more direct in the selection. What I love about it is the presentation of the revelation, which as I said is brilliant!
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Oct 8, 2017 03:31AM)
There’s always a tendency to nit-pick about someone else’s presentation. For instance I query the use of two different kinds of shuffles (tabled and in-the-hands) after the demo. A couple of riffle shuffles should do it as there’s no heat on the deck and it would shorten the sequence.

But this is not essential and I agree with some here that Ben’s presentation angle is what has to be commended here.

Meanwhile, I thought about different ways to reveal the selection, that would suit me, and lately I’ve tried one which was well received.

In a nutshell:
Once the selection has been buried and lost in the deck, pick up the deck and spread it face up and take the opportunity to note the selection. Then, turn your back to the spectator and ask them to get a bunch of 12 cards or so but to make sure that their card is among the bunch. They may then gather the deck face down.

Ask them to hold their packet as if they were playing cards, hiding the cards faces from you.

Face your spectator and instruct them to always tell you the [b]truth[/b].

Then start the series of questions/actions.

Let’s say the [b]4S[/b] is their selection.

Ask them to mentally tell you the colour of their card… You then tell them to remove all the red cards and table them.

Then ask them something like: “I think I got it right and your card is still in your hands, am I right?”

They should agree.

Carry on with suits, courts, odds etc.

If after the last question they hold only one card (ideal scenario), ask them to send you its value and you reveal it.

If they have say 3 or 4 cards left – for example during a performance a spectator held 2,4,6,10 Spades (I found out afterwards) – there are multiple ways to finish. I ended this way. I asked the spectator to only keep their card in their hands and table all the remaining Spades and to “send me its value”.

The one thing I like in this handling is that the performer gives the impression to never touch the cards and to never have the opportunity to locate the spectator's card.
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Oct 8, 2017 09:04AM)
[quote]On Oct 8, 2017, Claudio wrote:
There’s always a tendency to nit-pick about someone else’s presentation. For instance I query the use of two different kinds of shuffles (tabled and in-the-hands) after the demo. A couple of riffle shuffles should do it as there’s no heat on the deck and it would shorten the sequence.

But this is not essential and I agree with some here that Ben’s presentation angle is what has to be commended here.

Meanwhile, I thought about different ways to reveal the selection, that would suit me, and lately I’ve tried one which was well received.

In a nutshell:
Once the selection has been buried and lost in the deck, pick up the deck and spread it face up and take the opportunity to note the selection. Then, turn your back to the spectator and ask them to get a bunch of 12 cards or so but to make sure that their card is among the bunch. They may then gather the deck face down.

Ask them to hold their packet as if they were playing cards, hiding the cards faces from you.

Face your spectator and instruct them to always tell you the [b]truth[/b].

Then start the series of questions/actions.

Let’s say the [b]4S[/b] is their selection.

Ask them to mentally tell you the colour of their card… You then tell them to remove all the red cards and table them.

Then ask them something like: “I think I got it right and your card is still in your hands, am I right?”

They should agree.

Carry on with suits, courts, odds etc.

If after the last question they hold only one card (ideal scenario), ask them to send you its value and you reveal it.

If they have say 3 or 4 cards left – for example during a performance a spectator held 2,4,6,10 Spades (I found out afterwards) – there are multiple ways to finish. I ended this way. I asked the spectator to only keep their card in their hands and table all the remaining Spades and to “send me its value”.

The one thing I like in this handling is that the performer gives the impression to never touch the cards and to never have the opportunity to locate the spectator's card. [/quote]

One should always bring one’s own sensibilities to the performance of any trick. What feels natural for one person may not for another. Any time I’ve seen a trick that I would want to perform, I can’t help but think of what I’d do differently. This happened to me recently. I watched a promo video for Paul Gordon’s “Near Perfect Gemini”. It instantly gave me an idea for a presentation that is nothing like his at all.
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Oct 8, 2017 09:56AM)
[quote]On Oct 8, 2017, Ben Blau wrote:
One should always bring one’s own sensibilities to the performance of any trick. What feels natural for one person may not for another. Any time I’ve seen a trick that I would want to perform, I can’t help but think of what I’d do differently. This happened to me recently. I watched a promo video for Paul Gordon’s “Near Perfect Gemini”. It instantly gave me an idea for a presentation that is nothing like his at all. [/quote]

You won't get an argument from me on this.