(Close Window)
Topic: Fulves Gemini Twins -- an odd circumstance
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Nov 21, 2018 12:11AM)
This is the well known first trick in one of the Fulves self-working books (with the blue cover, and it contains 88 tricks -- can't remember the title). At the beginning you spread the deck face-up so as to pull two prediction cards based on two other cards in the deck. But what if latter two cards match? I guess you could close the spread, cut, and spread again, but that seems a bit unmotivated. Can anyone suggest a natural way to deal with this?



Thanks,


Bob
Message: Posted by: Sixten (Nov 21, 2018 04:43AM)
Title: 'More Self-Working Card Tricks'.
(I'm thinking about a solution)

:)
Message: Posted by: Wravyn (Nov 21, 2018 07:10AM)
Since it is the beginning of the trick, your audience has no idea as to what your going to do. Do something different then come back to this trick.
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Nov 21, 2018 11:40AM)
Simply use one of the two as a prediction, say the bottom one and then you can search for the second prediction one as usual. Makes sense? Of course, one must not spread the deck in front of the spectator during the withdrawal of the selections.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Nov 21, 2018 12:19PM)
Thanks, everybody. :)


Sixten -- yes, that's the title! I'll look forward to any ideas you come up with.


Claudio, I'm sure I can figure out your first sentence once I have a deck in hand. But I'm confused by your third sentence. I think that Fulves actually instructs the magician to spread through the deck openly, telling her audience that she's looking for prediction cards. But I know you well enough to be sure that you have a better alternative. Possibly a glimpse -- something that I've always found confusing but will need to learn. Anyway, if you feel like taking the time to make suggestions I'll be happy to see them.


Wrayvn -- Ah, that's a good idea, one that I wouldn't have thought of because I know so few tricks. But I do know three tricks at this point, and two of the three require me to openly go through the deck to pick out certain cards. So your idea would work for me.


Bob
Message: Posted by: Mr. Woolery (Nov 21, 2018 04:42PM)
If you spread the cards and see that the two f*rce cards are, say, the two red aces, that's an easy thing to deal with. Just remove the two black aces for your target cards. Don't call attention to color, only to values.

In a way, finding 4 of a kind might seem even more impossible than matching two. Not sure. But it could change up the feel of the trick.

-Patrick
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Nov 21, 2018 05:07PM)
Interesting! Thanks, Patrick. I haven't tried the effect -- and I imagine the circumstance I described doesn't often come up -- so I don't know how it would play. But it seems like a good solution.



One of the things I love about the Café is that I learn so much. So far people have offered me three or four solutions, all different from each other. All of them will help me improve my magic. If anyone chooses to suggest yet another, I won't object!



Bob
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Nov 21, 2018 10:34PM)
Sorry Bob, my post was a bit confusing. When I said "don't spread the deck in front of the spectators", I meant don't show the faces towards the audience, i.e. spread the deck so that only you can see the faces. Is it not the way Fulves describes it? In any case I would not spread the deck face up to the audience as there is always a chance that they might notice the setup.

I don't have the Fulves write-up as I am away from my library but I perform this effect and I don't think I've modified it. So, say you have AC on top and AS on bottom. Put the the AS down as a prediction. Now there's a new bottom card, find its mate and table it. You are therefore in the exact required position.

If this is still unclear, my apology, I'll have to go back and read the Fulves description once I'm back.
Message: Posted by: Wravyn (Nov 22, 2018 07:09AM)
Claudio, such a simple solution. One of those 'why didn't I think of that' moments for me.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Nov 22, 2018 07:42AM)
Thanks, Claudio, for the clarification and the more detailed description of your handling. I'm sue I'll understand it without trouble once I follow it with deck in hand. But I'll let you know if I have further questions. You continue to be so helpful to me!


Bob
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Nov 22, 2018 07:44AM)
When I said "clarification" I mean "keep the cards facing yourself" -- that's exactly what Fulves describes.
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Nov 22, 2018 12:33PM)
You're welcome, fellow cardists. And thank you for confirming the Fulves handling, Bob.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Nov 22, 2018 10:14PM)
You're welcome, Claudio.



To everybody: I got curious about how often it would happen that the top and bottom cards would be mates. I'm going to offer my calculation here; this may interest some people. Please let me know if I've made a mistake. Later in this post I'm going to describe an idea I have for presenting the trick.



Here's the calculation. There are 26 pairs of mates. For each such pair, there are two possibilities, depending on which member of the pair is on top and which is on the bottom. So far we have 26 x 2 = 52 possibilities.


So much for the bread; now for the filling: for each of the 52 possibilities just described, the fifty intervening cards can arrange themselves in 50 factorial ways. (That is, 1 x 2 x 3 x ... x 50.) So the total number of arrangements of the deck for which the top and bottom are mates is 52 x (50 factorial).


Meanwhile, the total possible number of arrangements of the deck is 52 factorial. Thus the probability that the top and bottom would be mates is


(52 x (50 factorial)) / (52 factorial) = (50 factorial) / (51 factorial) = 1 / 51; that is, about 1/50, which is two percent.


Thus if you perform the trick frequently you'll find that the top and bottom are mates for about 2% of your performances. --- not a lot, but enough, I'd say, to justify having a contingency plan! I'm surprised Fulves didn't address this.



On the presentation: I'm not that comfortable with Fulves's patter. I've mentioned once or twice that I don't like anything reminiscent of mind control. I realize that in this case the suggestion of such control is pretty mild, more or less a joke. Still, the whole idea that the magician can somehow control which cards the spectator chooses (which is in fact what happens!) sets up a mild "magician vs. audience" scenario that I'd like to avoid: I prefer an atmosphere of "we're all in this together."


For that reason, I'm toying with the idea of framing the trick as an experiment in fate and destiny (not a new idea to be sure), or perhaps predicting the future. I have a cute Alan Warner trick in which the magician appears to predict the arrangement of colored blocks that a spectator will choose. My idea is to introduce Warner's apparatus as an instrument that measures how predictable (as opposed to chaotic and turbulent) the future is at the moment, on the assumption that at certain times things are calm and predictable, while at others events are chaotic and inscrutable. Once the instrument has "proved" that we're in a predictable time, I then introduce the idea of predicting two cards that the spectator will choose. (The idea is that when things are calm we have a pretty good idea of what choices friends will make, whereas in more extreme situations it's harder to say. Something like that!)



In addition to the above-described intro., I'm thinking about a minor change to Fulves's patter. Once I've brought out the prediction cards I'll refer to their colors (not values) and simply say that I'm pretty sure I can predict that the spectator will deal the first card at (say) a red card. Later in the trick we'll find out that not only did I correctly predict the color of the card they stopped at, but also the value. Similarly for the second card.


Not sure why that seems better than what Fulves does -- just fits my style better, I guess. I don't like the line, "Wouldn't it be amazing if...," which Fulves and many others use -- gives away what's going to happen before it happens, and presumes what will amaze the spectator .


Anyway, those are my thoughts for what they're worth. Thanks for letting me do a bit of thinking out loud here. If anyone else uses other presentations of the trick I'd be interested in hearing your ideas. I should add that I love Fulves's straightforward, pleasant writing style, and that this is a great trick -- a masterpiece of simplicity combined with mystification.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Nov 22, 2018 10:20PM)
P. S. There's another thing I like about making the modest claim that I'll predict the color the spectator will stop at. It prepares the spectator for what's going to happen later, but in a very general way. In Fulves' presentation there's no foreshadowing; the line "wouldn't it be amazing if" occurs just before the first card stopped at is revealed. So making the modest claim early on prepares the spectator for what will happen later, but there'a an additional surprise in store.
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Nov 23, 2018 03:39AM)
Bob,

Regarding the probability of having a pair on top and bottom, I’d go about it this way: There are 52 cards and 26 pairs. For any card on top, its mate may occupy anyone of 51 positions (2 to 52), therefore the odds that its mate is at the bottom (position 52) is 1/51.

Your being a maths teacher, I would hope you’d grade my copy as valid. :)

But this issue is really the least of your problems as it’s easily fixed. If you perform this effect long enough, you’ll find mainly two situations that you’ll have to solve:

1.The dealer gets passed the first selection on the second deal.
2.Some observant people will remark that the cards next to your predictions are not the ones they stopped out.

If you search the Café, you'll find some interesting suggestions.

Patter wise, you should definitely use a script you're comfortable with.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Nov 23, 2018 10:17AM)
Clever solution, Claudio! Much more elegant than mine.


Hmmm... I have to think about your points 1 and 2, again with cards in hand. ... Okay, I just figured out #2. Wow, even these "self-working" tricks aren't so easy! I'll look for the threads you mentioned.


Thanks for the encouragement to vary the script. I actually really enjoy making up my own stories to go with tricks, and varying given patter. One of my (many) favorite parts of magic.


Bob
Message: Posted by: ringmaster (Nov 23, 2018 08:18PM)
[quote]On Nov 22, 2018, Bob G wrote:
You're welcome, Claudio.



To everybody: I got curious about how often it would happen that the top and bottom cards would be mates. I'm going to offer my calculation here; this may interest some people. Please let me know if I've made a mistake. Later in this post I'm going to describe an idea I have for presenting the trick.
If the two cards mate, take a bow and continue with something else.



Here's the calculation. There are 26 pairs of mates. For each such pair, there are two possibilities, depending on which member of the pair is on top and which is on the bottom. So far we have 26 x 2 = 52 possibilities.


So much for the bread; now for the filling: for each of the 52 possibilities just described, the fifty intervening cards can arrange themselves in 50 factorial ways. (That is, 1 x 2 x 3 x ... x 50.) So the total number of arrangements of the deck for which the top and bottom are mates is 52 x (50 factorial).


Meanwhile, the total possible number of arrangements of the deck is 52 factorial. Thus the probability that the top and bottom would be mates is


(52 x (50 factorial)) / (52 factorial) = (50 factorial) / (51 factorial) = 1 / 51; that is, about 1/50, which is two percent.


Thus if you perform the trick frequently you'll find that the top and bottom are mates for about 2% of your performances. --- not a lot, but enough, I'd say, to justify having a contingency plan! I'm surprised Fulves didn't address this.



On the presentation: I'm not that comfortable with Fulves's patter. I've mentioned once or twice that I don't like anything reminiscent of mind control. I realize that in this case the suggestion of such control is pretty mild, more or less a joke. Still, the whole idea that the magician can somehow control which cards the spectator chooses (which is in fact what happens!) sets up a mild "magician vs. audience" scenario that I'd like to avoid: I prefer an atmosphere of "we're all in this together."


For that reason, I'm toying with the idea of framing the trick as an experiment in fate and destiny (not a new idea to be sure), or perhaps predicting the future. I have a cute Alan Warner trick in which the magician appears to predict the arrangement of colored blocks that a spectator will choose. My idea is to introduce Warner's apparatus as an instrument that measures how predictable (as opposed to chaotic and turbulent) the future is at the moment, on the assumption that at certain times things are calm and predictable, while at others events are chaotic and inscrutable. Once the instrument has "proved" that we're in a predictable time, I then introduce the idea of predicting two cards that the spectator will choose. (The idea is that when things are calm we have a pretty good idea of what choices friends will make, whereas in more extreme situations it's harder to say. Something like that!)



In addition to the above-described intro., I'm thinking about a minor change to Fulves's patter. Once I've brought out the prediction cards I'll refer to their colors (not values) and simply say that I'm pretty sure I can predict that the spectator will deal the first card at (say) a red card. Later in the trick we'll find out that not only did I correctly predict the color of the card they stopped at, but also the value. Similarly for the second card.


Not sure why that seems better than what Fulves does -- just fits my style better, I guess. I don't like the line, "Wouldn't it be amazing if...," which Fulves and many others use -- gives away what's going to happen before it happens, and presumes what will amaze the spectator .


Anyway, those are my thoughts for what they're worth. Thanks for letting me do a bit of thinking out loud here. If anyone else uses other presentations of the trick I'd be interested in hearing your ideas. I should add that I love Fulves's straightforward, pleasant writing style, and that this is a great trick -- a masterpiece of simplicity combined with mystification. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Nov 23, 2018 08:28PM)
I had thought that this trick would be a nice, simple one to add to my repertoire. After thinking about what you said, Claudio, and looking at some of the threads about the trick, I've decided to wait on this one! It ain't so self-working after all!



Marty Jacobs has a really nice solution to your second point, using a false count. But that's going to have to wait! Which is fine -- there's lots of good tricks in the world, some simple, some hard.



Thanks to everyone for their ideas -- I'll return to them when I'm ready to think seriously about the trick.



Bob
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Nov 24, 2018 07:26AM)
This is self working. Nothing to think about. If the cards match, which is rare, either use the other two mates to end up with all four, or just use the mate of an adjacent card and get rid of the top card with a Slip Cut or a an Undercut. Piece o cake
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Nov 24, 2018 09:51AM)
Thanks, magicfish. So do you feel that the difficulties that Claudio brought up needn't be worried about?:



"But this issue [the one I brought up about the top & bottom being mates -- BG] is really the least of your problems as it’s easily fixed. If you perform this effect long enough, you’ll find mainly two situations that you’ll have to solve:

1.The dealer gets passed the first selection on the second deal.
2.Some observant people will remark that the cards next to your predictions are not the ones they stopped out.

If you search the Café, you'll find some interesting suggestions."


Bob
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Nov 25, 2018 09:48AM)
[quote]On Nov 24, 2018, Bob G wrote:
I had thought that this trick would be a nice, simple one to add to my repertoire. After thinking about what you said, Claudio, and looking at some of the threads about the trick, I've decided to wait on this one! It ain't so self-working after all!

Marty Jacobs has a really nice solution to your second point, using a false count. But that's going to have to wait! Which is fine -- there's lots of good tricks in the world, some simple, some hard.

Thanks to everyone for their ideas -- I'll return to them when I'm ready to think seriously about the trick.

Bob [/quote]

Bob,

I did not mean to put you off, especially when I think that your idea of using the Alan Warner trick is excellent. I just meant to call your attention on issues that might come up – as experienced by a few fellow magicians of this board.

As often, simple “fixes” are best.

A robust script which foresees possible issues and how to prevent them is crucial, even for self-workers.

For example, on the second run, tell your spectator to deal slowly and stop dealing before s/he gets to the 1st card. It’s easy to justify whether you have one or two participants. Say that you do not want to undo the previous participant’s choice, or the current participant’s previous choice. That sorted the issue for me.

For the second issue, yet again an interesting script which focusses interest on something different than the procedure itself will resolve this.

Just to let you know, I never got any issue with G.T. since I started using a decent script – and that was decades ago.

I have been busted more often on sleight-of-hand effects than on G.T., for sure :)

Finally, I checked my (computer) notes and there’s a handling I came up with at the time. I realise now that I tackled both issues by changing the handling (there’s no reason why one should slavishly stick to the two deals). I am not saying my alternative handling is better though.

I could PM it to you if you were interested.
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Nov 25, 2018 09:58AM)
Something funny regarding the 1st issue:

For recalcitrant specs who deal very fast (wrong crowd, maybe), just tell them to say aloud, on each card dealt, something that fits your presentation, for instance “Fate or free choice, that’s the question!” (This is a Simon Lovell idea, but what he asked the participant to say, was something else :) ) That should slow them down. I’m half kidding, but if you were to use a shorter text (said aloud or silently), it will stop the people from dealing long runs and it might enhance your presentation.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Nov 25, 2018 11:01AM)
Thanks for all this, Claudio -- very helpful. I definitely like the idea of "not messing up the other spectator's choice" (or, for one participant, "your other choice.") To make sure spectators deal slowly, I might simply say, "slowly deal the cards"! (In another scenario I thought of asking the spectator to listen for the genii in the room, who would signal when to stop. One wouldn't want to deal so fast as to miss the genii's signal!) Thanks for mentioning that you liked the Alan Warner idea. I appreciate your close reading.



I'm definitely interested in studying your alternative handling -- you're generous as always.


You aren't the first person to tell me (in effect) that I need to perform and get busted. Fear of getting busted is a major factor that keeps me from performing much. (The other factor is time, as it is for most of us.) Still, I clearly need to perform more often in order to experiment with the possibilities of script, and to see what works for me, and, of course, for my audiences.


Bob
Message: Posted by: Mr. Woolery (Nov 25, 2018 02:39PM)
The basic premise of Gemini Twins is a card matching one. You can present it as something YOU can do or as something THEY can do.

Go to a used book store and check the esoteric section for a book with a title like How To Develop ESP. Carry that book, a notebook, a deck of cards, and a pen. Have one or two other self working ESP tricks ready. An impromptu OOTW would be a good one.

The book does two things. It is a prop to justify procedure and it allows you to claim this is an experiment, rather than a trick.

If you get someone who deals it wrong and messes it up, he just doesn’t have the ability. In other words, although all the success goes to the participant, all the failure does, too.

Patrick
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Nov 25, 2018 03:52PM)
Interesting idea, Patrick. Let me mull it over. So if I understand your idea correctly, the idea would be to present a short series of tricks, all of which tested the spectator's "intuition" in the occult sense of the term. If one trick in the series went wrong, it wouldn't matter, it would be just part of the test -- thus taking away my fear of messing up a trick. Is that what you had in mind?


In the scenario I just described, no one fails, not even the spectator. We're simply mapping out the geography of their psychic powers.



Bob
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Dec 1, 2018 09:21PM)
Here's a related question, folks. I'm wondering how people efficiently spread through the entire face-up deck to find the mates of both the top and bottom cards. I guess you could spread through the whole deck quickly so as to note both the top and bottom, and then spread through a second time to find the mates; is that too much time spent looking at the deck? Would it look suspicious?



Another thought I had was to fan the cards in a pressure fan or something, so that the whole deck was exposed (to the magician) at once; it would then (I hope) be fast, and involve little physical manipulation, to spot the mates. I don't know how to make a fan (not even of any kind, as Oscar Wilde would say), but it's on my list of things to learn.


Thanks,


Bob
Message: Posted by: Thomas Henry (Dec 1, 2018 11:29PM)
Hey Bob,

I'm unable to answer your questions. But I will take the time to highly praise your taste in theater. However, Algernon, rather than Jack has always been my mentor and not just in magic, but in life...

Thomas Henry
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Dec 2, 2018 06:40AM)
[quote]On Dec 1, 2018, Bob G wrote:
Here's a related question, folks. I'm wondering how people efficiently spread through the entire face-up deck to find the mates of both the top and bottom cards. I guess you could spread through the whole deck quickly so as to note both the top and bottom, and then spread through a second time to find the mates; is that too much time spent looking at the deck? Would it look suspicious?



Another thought I had was to fan the cards in a pressure fan or something, so that the whole deck was exposed (to the magician) at once; it would then (I hope) be fast, and involve little physical manipulation, to spot the mates. I don't know how to make a fan (not even of any kind, as Oscar Wilde would say), but it's on my list of things to learn.


Thanks,


Bob [/quote]
Bob, what books are you studying? These questions are answered in most books that teach a “Gemini” effect. Spotting top and bottom is instant on the first spread. Standard technique which Id be willing to share with you.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Dec 2, 2018 10:35AM)
To Thomas: Ha ha, thanks for making me laugh. Given that you're well-informed, you're probably familiar with another Oscar Wilde quote: "Be yourself: everyone else is already taken." I don't know where it comes from, but I found it in Greg Chapman's book on card magic, Details of Deception. Oscar Wilde is great, isn't he? .



To Magicfish: The only book I've been using (and the only one I know about for this trick )is one of Karl Fulves's books on self-working card magic He doesn't address the questions I've been asking.



. I gather from what you said that there's a whole family of Gemini tricks -- something I didn't realize. I'd certainly be interested in the techniques you mentioned (and, to the extent that you have time, any references you recommend for Gemini-type tricks). Thanks for your generosity.



Bob
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Dec 4, 2018 11:14AM)
Here’s how I extract the pairs for the reveal when I have plenty of table space (I doubt it's original):

I ribbon spread the deck face down, straight or in a half-circle. I then gather the cards on both ends of the pairs by forming two packets. Then, I coalesce the cards between the pairs to form a third packet. Finally, I pick up the three packets to leave only two pairs on the table. It’s got a nice theatrical feel about it.

There are indeed multiple versions, or rather elaborations on the G.T. theme. Here’s a [url=https://www.conjuringarchive.com/list/search?keyword=gemini+twins]short list of some of them[/url].
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Dec 4, 2018 02:42PM)
Thanks, Claudio, and everyone:



I'm pretty excited about this trick now. Between the handling you just described, another handling that magicfish and I talked about privately, and all the other advice you, Mr. Woolery, and others have given me, I now feel that I can go ahead and learn the trick and use/adapt all these great ideas.



At this point I've got four tricks that I'm working on (one of which I've shown a few times):



1. Fatima at the Wizard's Castle (my story to go with Nick Trost trick);



2. Color Monte with a somewhat altered story (must perform to see how well it goes over; many thanks to DollarBill for help with this);




3. Red or Black -- Which? (also Trost; my thanks to Steven Keyl for teaching me this one); and




4. Gemini Twins (really two tricks because of the preface with Alan Warner's Mini-Mental).



This is a good feeling -- a year ago I was working on card handling and sleights and thought I might never perform any tricks. Currently it's just a matter of finding the time to rehearse the tricks enough and then I'll have a nice little set to perform. Meanwhile I'm continuing to work on sleights, mostly EC and Biddle Steal at this point.


As for the "short list," Claudio -- Wow! For now I'll avoid looking at it a second time, for fear of giving in to my tendency to want to learn *everything*! (At least the list didn't turn me to stone. I looked at a few of Lawrence O's amazing lists and froze solid with desire and paralysis; my wife had to thaw me out with her hair dryer.)


Bob
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Dec 4, 2018 02:45PM)
P. S. Trick#1 is the one I've performed; it's adapted from Trost's "Sub-Trunk Mystery" on one of Colombini's DVD's and on the second posthumous Trost collection.



P. P. S. To Steve Keyl: I discovered that another of Colomibini's DVD's has "Red or Black." This was a big help because I'd misremembered one seemingly minor step and always had one black card in the red pile.