(Close Window)
Topic: Best Thought of Card divination
Message: Posted by: aladetomiwa (Nov 12, 2019 11:33PM)
I'm looking for the best(Cleanest) thought of card divination
Some people say Isolation is one of the best for that kind of stuff.But I have to be sure before I just buy it
So what do you guys think is the best?
Message: Posted by: WitchDocChris (Nov 13, 2019 08:12AM)
Define "cleanest".
Message: Posted by: aladetomiwa (Nov 13, 2019 08:43AM)
I used that word wrongly
I just mean the best/strongest
Message: Posted by: WitchDocChris (Nov 13, 2019 08:56AM)
The 'best' or 'strongest' to you may not be the best or strongest to me.

What are your requirements? What do you want it to look like?
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Nov 13, 2019 09:08AM)
Ultra-Mental Deck ~ Joe Berg

Mind Power Deck ~ John Kennedy

52 to 1 Deck ~ Fox and Penn
Message: Posted by: Sudo Nimh (Nov 13, 2019 05:34PM)
Michael Murray's "Isolation" is truly [i]wonderful.[/i] That said, you have to work with it a bit to find your groove so that it becomes effortless. But once you get there... man, it feels like the real deal.

Aside from that, I tend to favour regular deck approaches that don't have any restrictions whatsoever. In other words, any card is merely "thought of".

Maybe have a look into Paul Vigil's "Diplopia" and Harvey Berg's "Intercept" if you get the chance. I've used both of these extensively (albeit with several changes and additions) and they are fabulous. Learning to do this with normal cards is a skill you can keep for life. Not much of a Mentalist if you can't divine a freely thought-of card simply because you don't have your special deck with you, right?

Again, I can't recommend Michael's "Isolation" enough. It'll allow you to achieve the effect beautifully at any time, any place, and convincingly. The worst case scenario is that you don't like it - which simply means you're one step closer to finding your ideal. There's value in the journey of discovery.
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Nov 13, 2019 06:59PM)
I think 'isolation' is one of the poorer think of a card effects -despite Michael's very ingenious approach -mainly because it really doesn't make a tremendous amount of sense for a mentalist to reference playing cards when a physical deck is not involved. If you're asking someone to think of something, why ask them to think of a playing card?

It is certainly worth owning though for some of the ideas contained within, especially Michael's revised versions on the Facebook group.
Message: Posted by: weirdwizardx (Nov 13, 2019 08:55PM)
I would suggest to read the ebook Psychological Card Forces by Peter Turner and look to Dani Daortiz material, he has an impromptu ID that is wonderful.
Message: Posted by: Sudo Nimh (Nov 13, 2019 10:32PM)
[quote]On Nov 13, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
I think 'isolation' is one of the poorer think of a card effects -despite Michael's very ingenious approach -mainly because it really doesn't make a tremendous amount of sense for a mentalist to reference playing cards when a physical deck is not involved. If you're asking someone to think of something, why ask them to think of a playing card?[/quote]

Why would Bob Cassidy have one person think of a person, and another, a place? Especially when the person being thought of isn't even involved and those two things aren't even related whatsoever. Indeed, why have anyone ever think of anything at all?

Context is everything. There's several perfectly good and sensible reasons for why a Mentalist might have someone think of a playing card. This simply requires one to think a little about what they are doing and find their own answers to that question - like in most things.
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Nov 14, 2019 02:21AM)
[quote]On Nov 13, 2019, Sudo Nimh wrote:
[quote]On Nov 13, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
I think 'isolation' is one of the poorer think of a card effects -despite Michael's very ingenious approach -mainly because it really doesn't make a tremendous amount of sense for a mentalist to reference playing cards when a physical deck is not involved. If you're asking someone to think of something, why ask them to think of a playing card?[/quote]

Why would Bob Cassidy have one person think of a person, and another, a place?. [/quote]

Because a person and a place aren't connected in people's minds with magic tricks. Playing cards are. Physical cards should be used as infrequently in Mentalism as possible -especially in a modern world where they are increasingly no longer everyday items. Figuring out a way to divine a playing card without a deck is the epitome of magician's thinking.
Message: Posted by: The Unmasked Magician (Nov 14, 2019 03:06AM)
[quote]On Nov 14, 2019, Sudo Nimh wrote:
Context is everything. There's several perfectly good and sensible reasons for why a Mentalist might have someone think of a playing card. [/quote]

Could you please give an example? I'd be happily convinced if I could find a good and sensible reason.
Message: Posted by: Sudo Nimh (Nov 14, 2019 05:30AM)
I have my own answers to this. It's not my responsibility to do the thinking for others who are too lazy to think for themselves. You were born with a brain and imagination; use them. It's really not that difficult.

If you're actually interested in having a card thought of and need some rationale, you'll find one. But only if you want it badly enough.
Message: Posted by: The Unmasked Magician (Nov 14, 2019 05:53AM)
Are you saying I am too lazy to think for myself? That is some really quick mindreading. I suggest you listen to the latest Mystery Arts podcast to hear what I do for a living. It’s the opposite of what you think, apparently.
Message: Posted by: Sudo Nimh (Nov 14, 2019 06:04AM)
I know what you do for a living and I've heard the podcast. Means absolutely nothing to me.

My point still stands: If you need a rationale for having a card thought of, you'll find one.
Message: Posted by: Sudo Nimh (Nov 14, 2019 06:21AM)
[quote]On Nov 14, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
Figuring out a way to divine a playing card without a deck is the epitome of magician's thinking.[/quote]

I can accept this as an opinion, but certainly not as a fact.
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Nov 14, 2019 07:29AM)
[quote]On Nov 14, 2019, Sudo Nimh wrote:
I have my own answers to this. It's not my responsibility to do the thinking for others who are too lazy to think for themselves. You were born with a brain and imagination; use them. It's really not that difficult. [/quote]

He just asked you for a single example. Seems a fair enough request. What's the big secret?
Message: Posted by: Sudo Nimh (Nov 14, 2019 07:49AM)
There is no big secret. The fact is, I'm not obliged to give my own answers to the question; they have value to me. If he was truly interested in finding a rationale for himself, he'd find one.

But just for the sake of discussion...

Suppose that you have a premise which revolves around the idea of why you wouldn't want to gamble or play cards with a thought reader. Everyone knows you shouldn't do so with someone skilled in sleight of hand, but I imagine few have considered what a thought reader might be capable of in the same situation. For example, imagine we are playing cards and you're waiting for a certain card to come up - the card that will make your hand complete. If I were able to read your thoughts and determine which card you were waiting on, it would reveal a number of things (including which cards you might already be holding), and I'd have a huge advantage.

That's just a simple example. It's not a rationale I'm using (I have better ones), but it demonstrates that it really isn't so difficult if you just use a little thought and imagination.
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Nov 14, 2019 08:00AM)
[quote]On Nov 14, 2019, Sudo Nimh wrote:
There is no big secret. The fact is, I'm not obliged to give my own answers to the question; they have value to me. If he was truly interested in finding a rationale for himself, he'd find one.

But just for the sake of discussion...

Say for example that you have a premise which revolves around the idea of why you wouldn't want to gamble or play cards with a thought reader. Everyone knows you shouldn't do so with someone skilled in sleight of hand, but I imagine few have considered what a thought reader might be capable of in the same situation. For example, imagine we are playing poker and you're waiting for a certain card to come up - the card that will make your hand complete. If I were able to read your thoughts and determine which card you were waiting on, it would reveal a number of things regarding which cards you might already be holding and I'd have a huge advantage.

That's just a simple example. It's not a rationale I'm using (I have better ones), but it demonstrates that it really isn't so difficult if you just use a little thought and imagination. [/quote]

Thanks for the example. It illustrates the problem -you mention playing cards, you mention sleight of hand. Mentalists really shouldn't be asking people to imagine playing cards and think about sleight of hand. It's just inviting people to associate what you're doing with magic tricks.

If someone has a physical deck of playing cards and you use them as a convenient object to illustrate mind reading or influence, that is one thing -and even then you have to be very careful. To invite people to think of playing cards, sleight of hand etc is completely wrong-headed in my opinion.
Message: Posted by: Sudo Nimh (Nov 14, 2019 08:08AM)
So you don't think that card cheats use sleight of hand to cheat and that this isn't common knowledge to the public? Further, this is all the more reason for why you aren't even using a real deck of cards... it kinda defeats the notion entirely of sleight-of-hand. That's kinda the whole point.

And while we're on the subject: Derren Brown openly admits to using a variety of methods (including sleight of hand) to his audience. Hasn't hurt him in the slightest.
Message: Posted by: WitchDocChris (Nov 14, 2019 08:13AM)
Mentalists are people. People have a variety of interests. Therefore, mentalists can (and probably should) have a variety of interests. One of those interests could be playing cards.

I was (and perhaps mildly still am) obsessed with cards as a kid. Not playing games, not magic tricks. Literally just really liked shuffling and sorting cards. Hours spent shuffling, then bridging the deck, dealing into piles, then putting them back into order. I divine cards now because it's a thought I'm intimately familiar with so I can dig it out of their torrent of thoughts.

Doesn't take much creativity to come up with a valid, and authentic, reason to use cards. Also helps when you're doing things for real - no need to worry about people thinking of magic tricks when you're not doing tricks.

Context. Presentation. It's not the prop's fault if someone doesn't buy it.
Message: Posted by: Sudo Nimh (Nov 14, 2019 08:42AM)
I couldn't agree more Chris; you'd think that this debate would have died a long time ago, but sadly, it hasn't.
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Nov 14, 2019 08:42AM)
And I think by trying to avoid the term magic at all costs kinda creates an awkward atmosphere...it becomes the elephant in the room sometimes...

Most people know what playing cards are, but some are hard pressed to name the suits...

Past couple of years I've stuck with introducing myself as a cartomancy... Not at the doctor's obviously but under certain conditions, I've weirdly never been asked about magic...

I also think, that our own experiences matters very little...what people don't say to you, they may still think or gossip about after...

There's only so much you can do about that... definitely don't think everyone considers derren brown as real, some for sure. These days, any kind of mention of psychic induces eye rolling and skepticism over here...

And even then, there's a certain percentage who believe no matter what.

I think we need to consider all aspects of belief. It's broader than it used to be. And will get wider still as we carry on.
Message: Posted by: Dr Ross (Nov 14, 2019 08:43AM)
Isolation is brilliant! A fantastic combo of techniques. The work is done before anything seemingly begins, and so when you reveal their card, it can elicit some great reactions. I use it a lot. Michael's videos are invaluable for helping you learn it, and the extra ideas on the Facebook group are really useful, especially in helping you find an approach (within the wider framework) that works for you.

Some other propless think-of-a-card type effects include:

- Ross Tayler's 'O Force' - along with Fraser Parker's handlings (see Rapture DVD). Peter Turner also has a nice variation that can be found on his 'Escalators' set.

- Fraser Parker's 'Clubbed over the head' (among many others using various different plots, principles, and techniques)

- Ever Elizade's 'Mental Think of a Card' (involves a different and interesting approach)

- Sean Water's 'K?NT' (from Ponderings)

- Mark Elsdon's 'Deckless Wonder' (from 'Conversation As Mentalism Vol. 3')

Some using props that I like include:

Pete Turner's 'Think of Two' from Jinxed 2. Uses a deck but in a completely fair and hands off manner. He also provides some great techniques in that set that can be used for 'think of a card' style effects.

I also just re-watched John Carey's ATT lecture and was reminded of his 'Think as I Think' effect, which I really like. Uses real decks but with a think-of-a-card angle.

Ross
Message: Posted by: Sudo Nimh (Nov 14, 2019 08:53AM)
[quote]On Nov 14, 2019, IAIN wrote:
And I think by trying to avoid the term magic at all costs kinda creates an awkward atmosphere...it becomes the elephant in the room sometimes...
[/quote]

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more Iain.
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Nov 14, 2019 08:54AM)
[quote]On Nov 14, 2019, WitchDocChris wrote:

Context. Presentation. It's not the prop's fault if someone doesn't buy it. [/quote]

What prop? There is no prop if you're asking them to think of a playing card.
Message: Posted by: Sudo Nimh (Nov 14, 2019 08:56AM)
I don't think anyone (including myself) is advocating for "prop-less only" approaches Martin. I also listed two effects in my response to the OP which make use of a real deck.

I said it earlier and Chris echoed it: Context is everything - whether you're using an actual deck or not.
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Nov 14, 2019 09:08AM)
[quote]On Nov 14, 2019, IAIN wrote:
And I think by trying to avoid the term magic at all costs kinda creates an awkward atmosphere...it becomes the elephant in the room sometimes...

[/quote]
Hey, you can ask them to imagine someone doing sleight of hand with playing cards, you can ask them to imagine a magician doing cups and balls, you can ask them to imagine a woman being sawn in half in a big box. It wouldn't be the most sensible presentation in my view, but each to their own.


[quote]On Nov 14, 2019, IAIN wrote:
Most people know what playing cards are, but some are hard pressed to name the suits...

[/quote]

Another reason to avoid propless thought-card routines. They are simply no longer the everyday objects they once were. You really don't want to be explaining what the red and black symbols are when asking people to think of things. Keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler.
Message: Posted by: Sudo Nimh (Nov 14, 2019 09:15AM)
The problem of whether folks know the suits of cards etc is easily solved. Simply start out by asking if there are any card players present. Problem solved.

Perhaps the scene in the UK is different, but here in Canada I'm hard-pressed to think of times when that has ever been an actual issue I encountered. A lot of people still play card games around here.
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Nov 14, 2019 09:27AM)
[quote]On Nov 14, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
[quote]On Nov 14, 2019, IAIN wrote:
And I think by trying to avoid the term magic at all costs kinda creates an awkward atmosphere...it becomes the elephant in the room sometimes...

[/quote]
Hey, you can ask them to imagine someone doing sleight of hand with playing cards, you can ask them to imagine a magician doing cups and balls, you can ask them to imagine a woman being sawn in half in a big box. It wouldn't be the most sensible presentation in my view, but each to their own.


[quote]On Nov 14, 2019, IAIN wrote:
Most people know what playing cards are, but some are hard pressed to name the suits...

[/quote]

Another reason to avoid propless thought-card routines. They are simply no longer the everyday objects they once were. You really don't want to be explaining what the red and black symbols are when asking people to think of things. Keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler. [/quote]

I remember when K.E.N.T. first came out... remember the trumpeting?

it seems to me, if you consider the broad range of opinions in the uk about the whole magic/mind reading realness of things - its quite varied isn't it... it has been in my experience anyway...so I know you're not advocating putting your fingers in your ears and shouting lalalalala I can't hear you... no matter who you are and what you do, some will go "yeah, nice magic trick mate..."

and that's if Darren and Chan's ghost got them in a headlock too...(which I would quite like to see)...

so I don't feel like we have to be extra cautious - if anything we should be a little "oh that?! yeah well...that's a completely different thing..." acting like we understand how they may think that - but to calmly correct them without coming across as a duckhead...
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Nov 14, 2019 09:29AM)
[quote]On Nov 14, 2019, Sudo Nimh wrote:
So you don't think that card cheats use sleight of hand to cheat and that this isn't common knowledge to the public? Further, this is all the more reason for why you aren't even using a real deck of cards... it kinda defeats the notion entirely of sleight-of-hand. That's kinda the whole point.
. [/quote]

You're going to not use a real deck of cards in order to defeat the notion of sleight of hand?

Just don't mention playing cards at all and the notion of sleight of hand disappears completely.

I understand why people have tried to come up with a prop-less thought card routine, but it really is mostly an intellectual exercise among magicians and mentalists to see how far you can push an effect. I'm glad people try it -and as I said there are great ideas in Michael's Isolation that can be used in more logical Mentalism routines - but the reasoning given so far for thinking of playing cards are pretty contrived and transparent.

For those interested in work with a deck there are interesting ideas in Thomas Baxter's 'A Card Merely Thought Of', and Kaufman's 'Berglas Effects'. But the available gimmicked effects remain much cleaner, in my opinion.
Message: Posted by: WitchDocChris (Nov 14, 2019 09:34AM)
I'm going to take a moment and mention that I'm slightly surprised no one has mentioned Cogs by Ben Seward. Personally that's my favorite method, and if I were to do a card divination that's the one I would use. Perhaps it's not been mentioned because it's out of print? KENT by Kenton Knepper is also good, but I've never had much success with it.

I was going to quote bits of Iain's post I agreed with but I realized it was the whole thing so that's just cumbersome. We do need to acknowledge that audiences will think of magic, and the scripting and presentation needs to subtly remove that connection. I avoid it by doing as much as I can that is real.

Every time I think about this I remember this guy I met several years ago when doing Tarot readings at a haunt. He was this big guy, looked like a biker. He saw the cards and asked if I ever read playing cards as well. Apparently his mother (or grandmother? I don't know, it's been years) did and he taught me her system, which was very straight forward. But here was a situation totally divested from magic, and the laymen was the one who brought up playing cards.

I definitely do not advocate for propless. It has its place, but so do props. Again - context. Presentation. Creating the ideal situation for the desired effect is the important factor. Whatever works to do that is valid.
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Nov 14, 2019 09:45AM)
My favourite ungimmicked thought card effect is the Canasta routine David Blaine performed on the Tonight Show. It is a beautifully constructed beast.

https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=702013&forum=218&start=80

The Canasta effect is the first effect. Chan really was a genius.
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Nov 14, 2019 09:55AM)
Martin I have to ask...why do you like Chan so much when you don't like playing cards in mentalism? :)
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Nov 14, 2019 10:09AM)
[quote]On Nov 14, 2019, IAIN wrote:
Martin I have to ask...why do you like Chan so much when you don't like playing cards in mentalism? :) [/quote]

You're right -Chan Canasta is my favourite mentalist of all time. But he was performing 60 years ago. What made sense then in terms of people's experience and expectations doesn't necessarily make sense now. He was using cards as simple everyday items to display his power of influence. That made perfect sense 60 years ago. It doesn't now.

But nor was he asking people to just think of a playing card out of thin air. Cards can be made to work in Mentalism. But for pure, prop-less routines I simply don't think they make a lot of sense. Especially when you start asking people to spell numbers and suits in their head. When does anyone do that in real life?
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Nov 14, 2019 10:22AM)
I agree with the spelling thing...just that back then, there was a lot more magic on TV and in real life end of pier and cabaret...so not only were cards far more common in normal life but far more card magic being performed too...

But Chan was still an influencer, a psychomagic fella... Didn't harm him. There's always exceptions...no one fits all rule...not many others went live on the BBC with Thier own show eh...
Message: Posted by: IAIN (Nov 14, 2019 10:47AM)
My clumsy point is, surely that was the worst time to be a mentalist who used playing cards...
Message: Posted by: The Unmasked Magician (Nov 16, 2019 03:25AM)
[quote]On Nov 14, 2019, Martin Pulman wrote:
My favourite ungimmicked thought card effect is the Canasta routine David Blaine performed on the Tonight Show. It is a beautifully constructed beast.

https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=702013&forum=218&start=80

The Canasta effect is the first effect. Chan really was a genius. [/quote]

Finally checked back to this thread. Saw this link ad was curious to see the routine, as I value your opinion, Martin. But I was directed to the thread about Luca's cards. So ... are you secretly endorsing them now? ;)
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Nov 16, 2019 04:59AM)
Certainly not. A more pointless product I can't imagine!

But do check out the Canasta routine if you can. Such beautiful thinking. So far ahead of his time.
Message: Posted by: The Unmasked Magician (Nov 16, 2019 05:03AM)
I will, thanks for bringing my attention to it.
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Nov 16, 2019 03:45PM)
I realize that no one asked, but I’ve observed that many practitioners don’t understand the difference between “think of a card” and “try to see a card”. The Riffle Force is not equivalent to the former.
Message: Posted by: Maxyedid (Nov 17, 2019 12:29AM)
Chan Canasta was not a mentalist, he was a Remarkable Man
Message: Posted by: magicman from poland (Nov 17, 2019 11:39AM)
There is vere workable card force in book killer conceptions by kenton knepper.
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Nov 17, 2019 02:27PM)
[quote]On Nov 17, 2019, Maxyedid wrote:
Chan Canasta was not a mentalist, he was a Remarkable Man [/quote]

Chan Canasta was a remarkable man. Chan Canasta was a mentalist. But not all mentalists are remarkable... :) Jan
Message: Posted by: backinblack (Nov 17, 2019 06:21PM)
Touch by Paul Curry presented by Nick Locapo

https://www.penguinmagic.com/p/9134
Message: Posted by: cardistry master (Nov 17, 2019 08:03PM)
Touch is more of a prediction, but for a car divination I use the marksman deck peek the card above and then you can reframe it as a thought of card because they never took it out of the deck.
Message: Posted by: Ben Blau (Nov 18, 2019 08:47AM)
“Best” in what regard? What do you want it to look like? Are you looking for something quick and snappy, or more like a test-conditions experiment? Maybe neither? What’s your venue? What matters to you? People responding in this thread are telling you what THEY like, which is fine, but probably not relevant to the question of which is “best” for you.
Message: Posted by: The Unmasked Magician (Nov 18, 2019 11:20AM)
I always assume that a person asking this type of question is really asking: hey guys, what is your favourite (...) ? And judging by the OP's reactions that is the case here as well.
I have to say I usually really like these threads, as often some knowledgeable people chime in and recommend stuff I didn't know of. I'm always thankful when that happens as I find it inspiring to go check it out and broaden my horizon. But you're right, technically either the question isn't answered or is wrongly worded.
Message: Posted by: Martin Pulman (Nov 18, 2019 02:28PM)
I always assume this question means "what is your favourite [whatever]"

I find these have been some of the most useful threads on the Café, over the years.
Message: Posted by: Consultthemind1 (Nov 25, 2019 02:00PM)
I think it’s great to learn one of everything, even if for a random occasion to occur. I was once sat around a friends house and the subject shifted to tarot and one of the other guests mentioned that their grandma used to give readings using playing cards. The host then mentioned that I gave readings and (as they put it) “weird things” and of course the buzz had started in the room and I was nudged into giving a reading. My opening line was about the use of an oracle and how people have favoured all sorts everyday objects and items to base the reading from. As I remember it, (it was some time ago) the person nominated was the woman whose grandma gave readings using playing cards and I said that’s what we should use, even if just for nostalgic reasons.

Instead of picking a physical card she was to think of one that she was drawn to.

Of course I was already miles ahead without doing anything because I knew that the lady already had a belief in this stuff, she was the one who mentioned playing cards - which gave them a context that was as far removed from a trick as one could imagine and when I revealed the thought of card as the kicker she was the first one to turn to everyone else and say “That’s exactly how my grandma did it!” Then she thanked me and said she’d always wanted a reading from her grandma but never got one and that had filled the void.

The method I used was (I believe of my own creation) there are of course routines that use playing cards for readings but are generally not “thought of card” - In short I gave two options and tied it to a quality belonging to the playing.

As a quick example -

If you consider yourself a more loyal person, you’d think of red card and an independent person a black card. Of course the choices I gave them weren’t these particular words - I will keep those for myself. I forced a red picture card.

But In essence (if you wanted to create your own) I forced the outcome of the card by making one of each of the choices more socially accepted and when I was giving the reading if I needed to fish I would literally ask in the reading using a closed question.

As a quick example.

“I know that with this particular decision you found it rather difficult because each of the options in someway defined you and I feel that you were so torn between the two options that you instinctively chose one. You didn’t happen to go for this did you?”

If they said “yes” I’d smile (as though I was happy with my own intuition) and continued with the reading. If “no” I’d say “good you trusted your own intuition because I’d say this” (fill in reading in regards to the key word) from this point to bury the choice.

To force them away from a number and toward a picture would be the only time that I would offer up a word that could be seen as somewhat negative (but not overly) when mentioning the number option.

It’s essentially 4 quick statements and the reading begins.

Colour.

Suit.

Number / picture.

Then female / male.

As mentioned above the reading gives me leeway to (if I am ever in doubt) cross reference. I never mention the keywords in the reading (unless I’m referencing) I speak around keyword (if it’s “loyal” for example, I might talk about being a dependable person and very family orientated, always there whenever anyone needs at any hour etc.).

It’s quick and all the way along you get the affirmation of the correctness of the reading. Then at the end if I was torn between two cards I can say “This type of reading would usually naturally gravitate towards this card or this card”. Giving me two chances at an already massively restricted field and if I pause just long enough after saying that I know (if they affirm I’m right they went exactly for the bait) if not I continue and say “I feel you did briefly go for this card but at the last second you changed your mind - what did you change you’re mind to, what card are you thinking of?”

I say the last two questions coupled together, it’s a clever way of posing the question because it forces them to answer the card confirming that they changed. The audience will believe you nailed the card they first thought of giving you the hit anyway.

It rarely comes to that as I’m direct with my framing but as the reading was spot on as confirmed by the spectator the audience will believe that you were right in saying the cards you said and if you’re guilty about being slightly of simply say “the cards are an oracle only to be used as a baseline in which to get an impression of you and sometimes your own intuition has to take over”. Making the playing cards irrelevant anyway.

That cake and coffee meet was one of the more interesting ones I’ve been to!

There’s a more interesting philosophy here that should be inspected under a microscope.

When I hate a particular area of Mentalism I don’t avoid it, I embrace it and I carefully craft a “compromise” as I might (like above) find myself in a place where the context is just right. Also there’s been times where I’ve hated a particular plot and after growing as a thinker years later grown to love that particular subsection of Mentalism it’s happened to all of us at some point I’d assume.

Anyway, I hope this is understandable as I quickly typed this as my wife was making dinner - she’s shouted me 3 times and I’ve given her the old “one moment darling, I’m just finishing up” act a few times now so I must run or I’ll be sat through dinner having to endure the “I’m fine” look and attitude I’ve become accustomed to when I get carried away.

David.
Message: Posted by: weirdwizardx (Nov 25, 2019 02:58PM)
Very good idea David!
Genius thinking there!

You are making something much more emotional and personal...

The moment you nail the card you are nailing their personality too, is fantastic!

Cristóbal
Message: Posted by: art85y (Nov 30, 2019 07:07AM)
[quote]On Nov 12, 2019, aladetomiwa wrote:
I'm looking for the best(Cleanest) thought of card divination
Some people say Isolation is one of the best for that kind of stuff.But I have to be sure before I just buy it
So what do you guys think is the best? [/quote]

Given the OPs original enquiry, I find some of the herein expressed personal aversions, to even the mere mention of a playing card, to be unhelpful and off-topic.