(Close Window)
Topic: Routining to make packet tricks examinable
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Apr 24, 2020 04:31PM)
Hi folks,


I like my props to be examinable by the end of a trick. I just had an idea of sorts, and I wondered if people with more experience than I have could help elaborate the idea.


To give you an example, I saw an O & W trick in which there appeared to be 3 black cards and 3 red; in reality there were 2 black and 4 red. So presumably not examinable, at least without doing something currently above my pay grade like lapping or palming or a packet switch.


My thought was to immediately follow the O & W by another trick; magi would keep the six cards already in use, and add a few more cards to the original ones, and perform a second trick that *was* examinable at the end.


For instance, you could go into 8-card brainwave -- except that isn't examinable either!


I hope I've conveyed the idea. I'm looking for suggestions for short sets of packet tricks that could be routined together so that by the end of the *last* trick the cards could be examined. Wouldn't have to include O & W; that was just an example. Generally I'm not a big fan of O & W, but I liked the version I'm referring to because it had a nice climax: all six cards appeared to be red at the end.


Thanks for your help!


Bob
Message: Posted by: CardGuyMike (Apr 24, 2020 04:52PM)
If you can't palm out or lap a card then it's all about audience management. Routine the effect so that they think they have already examined the cards, or so that the cards with heat on them are examinable. Lose them in the deck and go into another trick. Put them back in a gimmicked wallet so if they ask to see them you can open the wallet back up and pull out ungimmicked cards. Or do as you say and routine several effects so that you are eventually clean. Some tricks end with the cards you want to ditch reversed on the bottom, at which point you can drop them on the deck and you are clean. Look at John Bannon's fractal packet tricks. John's definition of fractal is that you end clean which has become important to him.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Apr 24, 2020 08:29PM)
Those are all good ideas -- thanks, Mike. I have a Z-fold wallet and one of the fractal disks, so those are definite possibilities. Can you remember off-hand any effects that end with cards reversed on the bottom? That seems like a promising idea, too.
Message: Posted by: CardGuyMike (Apr 25, 2020 11:19AM)
I'm sure there are a lot of tricks out there that end with dirty cards reversed in the packet. Off the top of my head from what I have performed lately,

Shaking the Aces from Do Ki Moon's "Brave" DVD ends with a card reversed on the bottom
Bruce Cervon's "A Matter of Psychology" ends with a dirty card reversed in the center of the packet, but there are ways to get it to the bottom. For instance a final display using an Ascanio spread, casually setting the bottom 2 cards on top of the packet.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Apr 25, 2020 11:40AM)
Thanks. :)
Message: Posted by: Tom G (Apr 26, 2020 06:58AM)
Don't feel like stuff needs to be handed out.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Apr 26, 2020 11:12AM)
This is something that I've gone back and forth about, Tom. My feeling is that effects are stronger if the props can be examined a the end. But I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.


Thanks,

Bob
Message: Posted by: draupnir (Apr 27, 2020 06:23AM)
I know John Bannon does a lot of work to try and make these kinds of tricks examinable at the end of the routine. He calls them fractal I believe and it might be worth researching that more to see if he has any work that could help you
Message: Posted by: peppermeat2000 (Apr 27, 2020 07:09PM)
I started performing Bannon's, "Sizzle" and "Royal Scam" before the pandemic set in. I wasn't choosing them based on audiences being able to examine the cards (which they can), but that they both play very strong. I'm still trying to figure out why I set them aside when I first purchased them, but happy I have them in my arsenal.

Anyhow...obviously I'm with draupnir in advising you to check out Bannon's fractal magic. "Triabolical" is a great start (co-written with Liam Montier).
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Apr 27, 2020 07:57PM)
Thanks for the suggestions, pm2000. I have one of the fractal disks somewhere in my cabinet -- Fractalicious, maybe? -- so I'll take a look and see if those effects are on the disk. Funny -- despite all the posts about magic during the pandemic, it hadn't occurred to me to practice magic on my friends. Could certainly do so, using something skype-like.
Message: Posted by: Tom G (Apr 27, 2020 08:28PM)
I guess handing stuff out indicates there could be something fishy and if you do have a great trick and it can't be worked to hand out then you look suspicious. Handle the cards (even if clean) at the end of the effect, and display them as above board.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Apr 27, 2020 09:45PM)
I think I see what you're saying, Tom. It's better not to hand out the cards for examination even if you can. Because if you hand them out then specs will expect you to hand them out every time and will be suspicious if you don't. But you can *show* the cards at the end in such a way that specs don't see any gaffs. Am I interpreting you correctly?



Still open to ideas related to my OP: a small set of tricks in which you keep adding cards to the packet at the end of the trick in order to show a new trick, and, by the end, evidence of anything out of the ordinary has been destroyed. Wouldn't work with gaff cards, I guess, but it should be possible with tricks that use ordinary cards in which you have a different number of cards in the first trick from what you claimed. I'd think...
Message: Posted by: Mark Williams (May 3, 2020 09:59AM)
Hello Bob, There is no reason to allow spectators to examine cards or props. You are in charge of your show, not the audience. Here's an idea, if you are hired to do a show, ask the host to purchase a brand new deck of cards and have it available for your performance. Let them open the cards and shuffle them, proceed performing your magic routine. There is no need for the cards to ever be examined, as they themselves bought them. Or, bring a brand new sealed deck to your show and let someone open & shuffle them...proceed as I recommended before. Either way, the cards will never need to be examined, they are above board. Did I mention that your props never need to be examined? :)


Best Magical Regards,

Mark Williams
Message: Posted by: CardGuyMike (May 3, 2020 10:25AM)
I think when you are performing a "professional" show in front of an audience, you are in charge of your show. When you're performing informally for friends and family (and forgive the assumption if I am wrong but I get the impression that's what Bob is doing) it becomes a bit more problematic.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (May 3, 2020 12:44PM)
Hi Mark and CGMike,


First, yes, Mike, "performing informally for friends and family" is exactly what I'm working toward (and even doing a bit of :) ). I think you make a good point, one I hadn't thought about, about the difference between a formal show and a more informal one. It's got me thinking about something that I had wanted to do but is not possible this year: setting up a card table at our annual street-wide yard sale and showing magic to whoever's interested. That seems somewhere between the two scenarios you mentioned.


And Hi Mark, always great to hear from you. Maybe I'm taking your idea too literally. If I'm letting my spectators open a new deck as you describe, then there's no possibility of using gaff cards, is there? In which case the the cards could be examined at any time anyway. I guess you could palm in cards (like the stranger card in Chicago Opener) and then palm them out again, but that's way above my pay grade at the moment. More generally, isn't the magic more magical if the props can be examined?


Interested in your thoughts, folks.


Bob
Message: Posted by: Wravyn (May 3, 2020 01:04PM)
By having to prove/over prove with examination of our props all the time, in my opinion, it lessens the magic and brings a puzzle aspect with what we have presented. By introducing the puzzle we now change from Magicians to puzzle masters.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (May 3, 2020 02:27PM)
Interesting, Wrayn. Opposite of what I'd have thought -- but then, I don't have much performance experience.
Message: Posted by: CardGuyMike (May 3, 2020 02:35PM)
You need to strike a balance between proving and over proving. I really like what Tommy Wonder has to say about it. He talks about constructing routines so that the proof is part of the routine, either explicitly or implicitly. He calls this "running before you are chased". I often don't hand out my props, and I don't feel the need to hand out my deck of cards more than once (if at all). I strive to perform packet tricks by taking cards from a deck in use (or even allowing the spectators to do that for me) and palming gaffs in and out as needed. However some kinds of tricks beg for examination.

If I change a copper coin into a silver coin, people are going to want to examine the coin. I don't have to hand it out, but if I don't the assumption will be that it's some sort of trick coin. Handing it out makes the effect more magical.

Similarly packet tricks are problematic, and even John Bannon recognizes this by trying to make his tricks end clean. Many card magicians disdain packet tricks saying that taking out a special packet of cards from a wallet makes audiences think the cards are special (gimmicked) since they didn't come from a deck. If I take four aces from a wallet and change them to four kings the assumption will be some sort of trick cards. Spectators don't have to know the details of flap cards to suspect some sort of trickery in the cards. Again, handing the cards out in this instance makes the trick more magical. And I have seen this first hand with both coins and cards -- spectators who weren't that impressed with an effect, assuming trick cards/coins, became much more amazed when they were able to look at the cards/coins and see that they were completely normal. In many cases you can hand out the objects in the beginning rather than at the end, but there is value to allowing inspection for certain kinds of tricks. After all, why are so many tricks advertised as ending clean if that is not an issue?
Message: Posted by: Bob G (May 3, 2020 02:54PM)
All very interesting. This makes sense to me -- whether to hand out props is context-dependent. I find myself attracted to packet tricks -- in general I like things that are the smallest of their kind -- so eventually, if I'm going to do gaffed ones, I'll have to learn palming. Right now I'm working on Dr. Daley's Last Trick, which can certainly be examined, and half a year ago I could have shown you Color Monte (need to refresh my memory on that one); those are great tricks because there's nothing to hide at the end.


Although I'm speaking from not a lot of experience, I agree with what I take to be your philosophy, which I'd paraphrase (I hope correctly) as, "Don't hand your props out if no one asks, but be ready the hand them out, after discarding any gaffs, if someone does ask."


I'm really intrigued by Tommy Wonder's idea of running before you're chased. Does he address this in his DVD's? I'd love to see examples of his philosophy carried out in practice. I have his 3-DVD set -- Visions of Wonder?? -- but none of his books.
Message: Posted by: CardGuyMike (May 3, 2020 04:52PM)
If you're serious about performing, Tommy Wonder's 2-Volume Books of Wonder is gold. Of course it has some great tricks but also wonderful discussions about magic theory and performance theory. He starts with a dissertation on misdirection, why that is an unfortunate term to use, and then a masterclass on the theory of focusing attention where you want it. Lots of other wisdom about how to construct effects and much more. He talks about running before you are chased because once you are chased it's too late to run and you're going to be stuck. So don't put yourself in that position.

Every performer has their own style, and I see lots of advice about not over-proving, not running when you're not being chased, etc. And it's true that doing these things can arouse suspicion where there wasn't any to start with. But I have to disagree with those who take it to the extreme of saying that you're in control and never have to hand out anything. It's true -- you don't ever have to hand out anything, but you're kidding yourself if you think that never detracts from the experience.

Look at how tricks are sold. It's a virtue to end clean and even better to begin clean as well. Many coin sets come with un-gimmicked versions of gaffs so you can do a sleight to switch out the gaff and end clean. Many creators explain how to clean up after a trick. On his DVD set, Jason Ladanye goes to great lengths -- even throwing in extra sleights -- to end clean, even in situations where it is unlikely someone would want to examine the deck. Darwin Ortiz also makes sure to teach you how to end clean. Why all of this emphasis on ending clean if it's never necessary to let spectators take a look?

One of my favorite performers of all time is Daryl, and I have watched his Fooler Doolers set countless times. He performs with all sorts of props including ropes, cards, dice, matches, rings, etc. In his performance he almost always hands out these objects for examination. Why? Is he wrong? Is he over proving? He even states during one trick that he always likes to end clean and will design bits of business into his routines so that he can.

Stage magicians often invite a member of the audience on stage to examine a magic prop to verify that is is "perfectly ordinary." Why?

So it is up to you to design effects and routines that achieve the audience reaction you want. Don't over-prove. Don't make a point of showing your hands empty at a time when spectators have no reason to believe otherwise. If you're doing a card set, don't hand out the deck after every trick. Don't go overboard continually showing both sides of the cards, counting the cards or otherwise proving things you have already proved. Allow things to be inspected casually as part of the performance. Don't shove a prop at someone and insist that they examine it closely to make sure it's normal unless this is important. If you're dirty and can't clean up, maybe you want to replace the effect with something else. Otherwise just move on. Just because you end clean doesn't mean you have to hand things out, but you do want to be prepared for the spectator who thinks he knows something. You can learn spectator management to try to sidestep that situation but isn't it better to truly be clean? And maybe there is something to be learned from the seasoned and respected performers who do strive to end clean and who do allow props to be examined within the context of the performance.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (May 3, 2020 09:07PM)
Although you've clearly watched more magicians than I have, I'm with you on loving Daryl. I have the Fooler Dooler disks and you're inspiring me to watch them (I've watched parts, but not the whole thing), both for the pleasure of watching his inimitable style and to see how he handles handing things out.


Books of Wonder, Ladayne, Ortiz -- I've heard people rave about all of these. I'll keep them in mind for the future. Right now am saving pennies.
Message: Posted by: EndersGame (May 4, 2020 10:06PM)
[quote]On Apr 28, 2020, peppermeat2000 wrote:
[quote]On Apr 27, 2020, draupnir wrote:
I know John Bannon does a lot of work to try and make these kinds of tricks examinable at the end of the routine. He calls them fractal I believe and it might be worth researching that more to see if he has any work that could help you [/quote]
I'm with draupnir in advising you to check out Bannon's fractal magic. "Triabolical" is a great start (co-written with Liam Montier). [/quote]
This is exactly what I was going to suggest. Bannon's whole idea with what he called "fractal card magic" (his term for packet tricks) was to create something that was fully examinable.

Bannon had strict requirements for his packet trick routines, including that they had to end clean. The year 2008 saw him release three successful tricks along those lines, namely "The Royal Scam", "Duplicity", and "Spin Doctor".
● "The Royal Scam": [i]a dizzying set of surprises that not only ends with a rainbow back finish, but an unexpected change to a Royal Flush.[/i]
● "Duplicity": [i]a small packet thought-card transposition (think "Twisted Sisters").[/i]
● "Spin Doctor": [i]a Twisting the Aces effect with a number of additional surprises including a rainbow back finish.[/i]

These were sold separately and are all excellent, but if you are looking for value, I would suggest instead looking at getting one of his DVDs with fractal card magic:

● [url=http://www.playingcardforum.com/index.php?topic=13026]Fractalicious DVD[/url] (2014) - this has 7 packet tricks along these lines, and comes with five gaff cards. It came about after the publication of a pamphlet called [i]Triabolical[/i] (2011), in which Bannon taught three packet tricks in combination with Liam Montier, all of which were included in Fractalicious: "Brainiac", "Short Attention Spin", and "Montinator 5.0". It also taught "Chop Shop", "Spin Doctor", and two bonus effects, all from his other books.

● [url=http://www.playingcardforum.com/index.php?topic=13056]Bullet Party DVD[/url] (2011) - this comes with 13 gaff cards, and has a lot more tricks, but they aren't all packet tricks. Of the packet tricks in this collection, the two standouts are "Bullet Party" and "Mega 'Wave", but there's certainly a lot of other strong material as well, including a revised version of his older "Call of the Wild" packet trick under the new name "Fractal Re-Call".

[img]https://i.imgur.com/afbuGCJ.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: Bob G (May 4, 2020 10:43PM)
Thanks, EndersGame. I own Fractalicioius -- clearly I need to take a closer look at it. If I like it I'll consider the Bullet Party Trilogy.


By the way -- as a mathematician I have to say that Bannon's use of the term "fractal" has nothing to do with its mathematical meaning. But that's just a quibble -- his definition fits all the things I want: examinability, etc. And value is definitely what I'm looking for.


Bob
Message: Posted by: EndersGame (May 4, 2020 11:24PM)
[quote]On May 5, 2020, Bob G wrote:
By the way -- as a mathematician I have to say that Bannon's use of the term "fractal" has nothing to do with its mathematical meaning. [/quote]
I was curious about this for similar reasons when I first came across his use of the term, and at the time I managed to find a place where he explained his thinking on this. I'll share it here, since it will likely be of interest to you. Here's what he said in an [url=http://royalmagic.blogspot.com/2008/01/exclusive-fun-interview-with-john.html]interview[/url] in 2008:

==========================================
[b]Q: Where did the phrase "Fractal card magic" come from?[/b]

At the 31 Faces North convention in Toronto, I did a presentation on "packet" tricks. Every now and then, the term "packet trick” gets a negative connotation --but I have alwys liked them. When I was in DC one of my magic colleagues was the great Larry West--of Emerson And West. I have never thought it was uncool to take a packet of cards out of the little wallet, do a trick, and put the cards away. One night at the convention, we brainstormed to try and create create a new term for "packet tricks"–sometimes a new name can give you a new way of looking at something.

In mathematics, a fractal is "an object or quantity that displays self-similarity, in a somewhat technical sense, on all scales. The object need not exhibit exactly the same structure at all scales, but the same "type" of structures must appear on all scales."

In a non-mathematical sense, tricks with fewer cards than the entire deck would exhibit many of the same characteristics, but on a smaller scale. There would be self-similarity in the sense that the same "structures" (such as transpositions, color-changes, divination of selected cards) could exist without needing the entire deck.

Besides, I like how "fractal" sounds. "Fractal card magic" seems like a good trademark-able name for what we used to call packet tricks.

([i]text quoted from John Bannon interview[/i])
Message: Posted by: Bob G (May 5, 2020 11:18AM)
Aha! Thanks, that makes sense -- and is imaginative and shows some mathematical understanding. An alternative name that would convey the same idea is "holographic," as each piece of a hologram displays the whole image (though with less resolution than the whole). Personally, I I like the traditional name, "packet trick." It has a nice, crisp sound.
Message: Posted by: ekgdoc (May 13, 2020 06:26AM)
[quote]On Apr 24, 2020, Bob G wrote:

I like my props to be examinable by the end of a trick... I'm looking for suggestions for short sets of packet tricks that could be routined together so that by the end of the *last* trick the cards could be examined.

Bob [/quote]

In the context of how the term FRACTAL has been used by Bannon for a single packet trick, you are asking if there are fractal ROUTINES that string together a series of dirty packet tricks so as to end clean. This higher order of complexity seems itself fractal. In any case, to my knowledge no one has explored fractal routining. You can do that if you want, but I will stick with using routines that string together single tricks that are clean or fractal or can be cleaned up with a touch of SOH. Not as elegant mathematically, but a lot simpler and a lot more flexible.

David M.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (May 13, 2020 12:55PM)
Thanks for your thoughts, David. You summarized neatly what I hoped to do. At the time I didn't know I was asking for anything complex, but I didn't have the experience to know! I may have to bite the bullet and actually learn how to palm a card and lap it so as to end clean -- something I've been putting off for a long time while learning what I perceive to be simpler moves.

Bob
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (May 13, 2020 11:34PM)
I haven't read through all the posts, but one of the things I frequently do is to have a divider in my shirt pocket. One side has my gimmicked cards and the other side has un-gimmicked spare cards. After the trick, I put the cards away. Sometimes they will ask to see another trick, sometimes I will ask them if they want to see another trick. I then take out the regular cards (spares that I just want to get rid of anyway, and I have them pick two of the cards and I do an impromptu card warp. I have a method where I can get my card warp card ready while they fold one of the cards. This give me a good way to show the cards as un-gimmicked and to get rid of spare cards. There are also some other effects that I do in this situation, but I'm not able to reveal them right now.
KJ
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Jun 19, 2020 08:31PM)
Thanks, 1KJ -- don't know how I missed this interesting post before.


I found my copy of Fractalicious, and have a question about Short Attention Spin. It's a great trick, full of zany surprises -- yet I can't help but think that spectators will remember the moment when one of the cards is ditched. For people who have tried it, how does it fly?


Thanks,


Bob
Message: Posted by: bobmag56 (Jul 5, 2020 10:30AM)
In some cases, the finish of a packet trick shows an unusual card or cards (like a rainbow back). I would thnk that this type of unusual card is part of the routine so it can be examined.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Jul 5, 2020 10:52AM)
That makes sense to me. But it reminded me of an issue that I have with the beautiful trick Capitulating Queens. At the end you show all four (?) cards and let spectators examine them. To my way of thinking that's kind of an anticlimax, because, until the end, the new backs seem to appear out of nowhere -- very mysterious. But then by showing all four at once at the end, you're kind of admitting that they were there all along, and it was just some kind of clever manipulation that allowed you to show them one at a time. I haven't thought of a solution, though, except to just end the trick after the four cards have been shown individually, and then put the cards away in an envelope.


The same thoughts apply to the trick's predecessor, Martin Gardner's All the Nonconformists (taught on one of Ammar's Easy to Master videos).


I'd be curious to hear what others think: is it a climax or an anti-climax to show all the cards at once at the end of CQ?
Message: Posted by: CardGuyMike (Jul 5, 2020 11:39AM)
If you have a trick where four cards have backs that change, what is a spectator to think?

a) They were like that all along and you used some sleight of hand to disguise it
b) You used sleight of hand to switch in different cards
c) There are extra cards that you are hiding
d) The cards are gimmicked in some way
e) It's real magic

How is handing out the cards at the end an anticlimax? All you are disproving is (c) and (d). Does that weaken the trick?
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Jul 5, 2020 12:11PM)
Good questions, Mike. Let's hope that we can rule out (e). Then *of course* the spectator knows that you're doing something sneaky (a-d). But -- if we think of magic as involving some suspension of disbelief, then my feeling is that showing the four cards at the end shatters the suspension of disbelief. FWIW...
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 5, 2020 03:59PM)
Capitulating Queens is one of my favorite effects and here is how I handle it using the "it's not a bug, it's a feature approach."

I take the 4 of a kind (Queens originally but I use 9's and lately 6's) of a small packet trick wallet. I tell people these are my special cards and show four 9's. I count the first three nines and casually just move the hand without actually grabbing the edge of the last nine. It is not exactly what I would call a high scrutiny move, but I keep right on going, showing the last singe nine for just a second, after which I put the other black nine (or queen, whatever) on top of the two as one. My story is that these are my special cards and when I ask people what card is the special card, they pick one color way more than the other. I say to a spectator, which color do you think they pick more often, black or Reeeeeeeeeddddddddd, making it really obvious that I'm giving them a hint to pick the red. Most people play along here. If they don't, I ham it up and make it even more obvious or you can just say, "Can't take a hint huh, sorry it was red. Now do you think diamonds or..." or just ask another, obviously more helpful spectator who played along to pick the amongst the diamond or heart.

Since you know the routine, the second and third change is motivated by, Now what if you picked the other red card, what if you picked the black instead, the finale being what if you'd picked the spade (or club depending on how your set is setup) I'd of had to do real magic and change all the backs, except for the one you picked so it would be special.

After that, I end by saying "look, I have to level with you, it really wouldn't have mattered what card you picked, because they are all special" said as all four cards are being displayed as different. Most people are just mind-boggled by that point, but as a middle school teacher, who performs under tough conditions, if a student does ask, usually a sorry I can't let a muggle ruin my special cards. If that doesn't work, drop the three cards on top of the double that you end with in your left hand, position for a gamblers cop while grabbing the packet trick wallet. It is a simple matter to grab the wallet with your right hand bring it over to your left and say, "well, I usually just put my cards away to protect them, but if you're careful you can look." Use the packet trick wallet as cover for copped DS card as you hand them the four. I've also just copped it out as I placed the four on the table. If I have to do that (like once honestly), I make sure to say, "Well here look at them, while moving on to another trick simultaneously ditching to get it.

Honestly though, ever since using the special card approach, no one really asks to see them. IMHO, YMMV...

[quote]On Jul 5, 2020, Bob G wrote:
That makes sense to me. But it reminded me of an issue that I have with the beautiful trick Capitulating Queens. At the end you show all four (?) cards and let spectators examine them. To my way of thinking that's kind of an anticlimax, because, until the end, the new backs seem to appear out of nowhere -- very mysterious. But then by showing all four at once at the end, you're kind of admitting that they were there all along, and it was just some kind of clever manipulation that allowed you to show them one at a time. I haven't thought of a solution, though, except to just end the trick after the four cards have been shown individually, and then put the cards away in an envelope.


The same thoughts apply to the trick's predecessor, Martin Gardner's All the Nonconformists (taught on one of Ammar's Easy to Master videos).


I'd be curious to hear what others think: is it a climax or an anti-climax to show all the cards at once at the end of CQ? [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Jul 5, 2020 08:58PM)
Oh gosh, Kalix, you're a middle school teacher! Your kids are a tough audience indeed. I admire people who can teach this age group.


One thing I get from what you said is that it is *not* an anticlimax when you show all four cards -- quite the opposite, since apparently your spectators buy into "all the cards are special" and are flabbergasted.


I haven't performed the trick, but I really want to. The only thing that's stopping me is that I haven't learned to do a gambler's cop, and would need to build up my courage to do one in performance. So your description of how you handle the cop is really useful to me. The ditching is well hidden.


I had trouble following one sentence early in your description: "I count the first three nines and casually just move the hand without actually grabbing the edge of the last nine. It is not exactly what I would call a high scrutiny move, but I keep right on going, showing the last sing(l)e nine for just a second, after which I put the other black nine (or queen, whatever) on top of the two as one." Would you mind clarifying? -- by PM would be fine if it feels like too much exposure.


Thanks,

Bob
Message: Posted by: Kaliix (Jul 6, 2020 08:36AM)
The move you reference is when you have a double after showing/counting the first three cards. If you were to count four cards, you would normally just grab the last card with fingertips while holding the first three, being free and open with the last card. In this routine, the fourth card is a double, so it is really kind of carefully placed over with the first three cards, though this should look casual and easy. Magician's guilt can rear its ugly head at a "dirty" time such as this. What I've found is that it is a moment not to worry about, but one to handle almost apathetically. As in, the showing of the hearts, diamonds, clubs, and spades is sort of obvious since I've said I have four cards and they are four of a kind, so obviously these are the suits and I'm just showing you so I can get to the good part which is... (in my case, what color do you think people pick most often?) The more that move is practiced, the more casual it will seem.

It's not a moment to rush or care about. I show all four and immediately split the cards into black and red piles and go on...

Remember, you are the magician and you have the power to determine what moments matter and as importantly, which ones don't.

[quote]On Jul 5, 2020, Bob G wrote:
Oh gosh, Kalix, you're a middle school teacher! Your kids are a tough audience indeed. I admire people who can teach this age group.


One thing I get from what you said is that it is *not* an anticlimax when you show all four cards -- quite the opposite, since apparently your spectators buy into "all the cards are special" and are flabbergasted.


I haven't performed the trick, but I really want to. The only thing that's stopping me is that I haven't learned to do a gambler's cop, and would need to build up my courage to do one in performance. So your description of how you handle the cop is really useful to me. The ditching is well hidden.


I had trouble following one sentence early in your description: "I count the first three nines and casually just move the hand without actually grabbing the edge of the last nine. It is not exactly what I would call a high scrutiny move, but I keep right on going, showing the last sing(l)e nine for just a second, after which I put the other black nine (or queen, whatever) on top of the two as one." Would you mind clarifying? -- by PM would be fine if it feels like too much exposure.


Thanks,

Bob [/quote]
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Jul 6, 2020 12:04PM)
Thanks again, Kalix.
Message: Posted by: Proximo (Oct 7, 2020 09:25AM)
[quote]

Stage magicians often invite a member of the audience on stage to examine a magic prop to verify that is is "perfectly ordinary." Why?

[/quote]

This! I'm allergic to the 'look, this is a normal deck of cards, right?'-kinda-phrase!

It'll always be difficult, but indeed, it's, I guess, the way you perform?

A while back I did Virginia City Shuffle. Spectator was a grabby one!
So the first phase was really fast, so he didn't really understand what was going on.
The second phase a bit slower.
And by the time I was going to put the cards down (third phase) I knew he was gonna grab 'em.
But off course, one step ahead...

Anyway, don't really know what point I'm trying to make :-)
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Oct 7, 2020 11:53AM)
Please continue, Proximo. :) You knew he was going to grab the cards, so what did you do? Or, in retrospect, what *would* you have done?


Bob
Message: Posted by: Dollarbill (Oct 9, 2020 05:01PM)
[quote]On Oct 7, 2020, Bob G wrote:
Please continue, Proximo. :) You knew he was going to grab the cards, so what did you do? Or, in retrospect, what *would* you have done?


Bob [/quote]

hahaha! Bob, it doesn't matter what the spec grabs at the 3rd phase. The dirty work is done! VCS is a killer! Michael Ammar teaches it on his ETMCM. I can remember what disc it is on. Maybe #3. Super easy and a mind baffler!
Message: Posted by: Dollarbill (Oct 9, 2020 05:25PM)
Disc 5 for anybody that cares. 🙂. If you're not familiar w/ VCS then you should care with the best of em'. 🤘👍🙂
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Oct 9, 2020 09:01PM)
Thanks, Dollarbill! I'm pretty sure I have Disk 5. I'll take a look. I imagine it's in this hat: :magician:


By the way, your help with Color Monte a couple (?) of years ago made a big difference. I was performing it successfully for a while. Time to bring it back up to speed.



Bob
Message: Posted by: Dollarbill (Oct 10, 2020 01:09PM)
I carry Color Monte and VCS. in my TCC packet wallet. TCC wallet. One of the bst $4 bucks ever spent.🙂
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Oct 10, 2020 01:50PM)
Did you buy the wallet recently? I couldn't find it at anywhere near that price.
Message: Posted by: Dollarbill (Oct 10, 2020 02:18PM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2020, Bob G wrote:
Did you buy the wallet recently? I couldn't find it at anywhere near that price. [/quote]

Out of stock but:

https://www.penguinmagic.com/p/10040
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Oct 10, 2020 03:04PM)
Thanks, $bill. I saw that. Ah well...
Message: Posted by: SamChak (Oct 14, 2020 09:37AM)
[quote]On Apr 25, 2020, Bob G wrote:
I'm looking for suggestions for short sets of packet tricks that could be routined together so that by the end of the *last* trick the cards could be examined.
[/quote]

Have you found a solution to allow your favorite [b]Color Monte[/b] to be examinable at the end?

If you want to connect the [i]1st packet trick[/i] (gaffed) to the [i]2nd packet trick[/i] (examinable), then the [b]10-Card Poker Deal[/b] is probably a good choice.

[youtube]EPhspnS0h_U[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Oct 14, 2020 12:59PM)
Hi Sam,


Color Monte isn't a problem, as the cards can be examined at the end of the trick. But maybe you were thinking of another trick?


Thanks for the video; I'll take a look.
Message: Posted by: SamChak (Oct 14, 2020 02:42PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2020, Bob G wrote:
But maybe you were thinking of another trick?
[/quote]

Hi Bob, I thought you talked about the "[b]Chase-the-Queen[/b]" kind of Monte routine. Maybe your [b]Color Monte[/b] is a different kind of Monte. I don't know many packet tricks, other than Gary Ouellet's handling of [b]McDonald's Aces[/b] and Max Maven's [b]B'Wave[/b] and its variations.

Naturally, packet tricks with gaff cards are not intended to be immediately examined by the spectator, at least not without [i]ditching, switching, or destroying[/i]. If the design of gaff cards were intended to be examined, then Houdini would have invited the spectators to examine his Substitution Trunk. Moreover, I have never seen any Quick Change Artists allow the spectators to examine their masks or costumes. Nevertheless, many people still enjoy watching the "magical" Quick Change effects, repeatedly.

On the psychological aspect, do you really think that the spectator's magical experience would be significantly enhanced after physically confirming that the props are "[i]clean[/i]"? Subconsciously believing and consciously confirming are two different things!

I would not want the spectator to examine my Magic Hat. :magician:
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Oct 14, 2020 04:07PM)
'On the psychological aspect, do you really think that the spectator's magical experience would be significantly enhanced after physically confirming that the props are "clean"?'

Good question, Sam. I don't have enough performance experience to know the answer for me, and I imagine the answer varies from person to person. My instinct is that (1) there's no need to hand out props for examination unless a spectator asks for it, and (2) The trick loses some of its punch if someone *does* ask to examine and the magician refuses.


Color Monte is a delightful trick. It's a form of 3-card monte that comes with a nice story. (Though I've changed the story somewhat.) Perhaps others who know a lot of 3-card monte tricks can tell us what makes Color Monte different from other 3-card monte tricks. One obvious difference is that the cards are specially made Bicycles with big metallic red and blue diamonds on the faces. Some people prefer to do the trick with ordinary cards; I enjoy the diamonds that come with the trick.
Message: Posted by: Bob G (Oct 14, 2020 04:08PM)
P. S. Oooh, I *really* want to see what's in that hat...
Message: Posted by: Wravyn (Oct 14, 2020 08:45PM)
[quote]On Oct 14, 2020, Bob G wrote:
P. S. Oooh, I *really* want to see what's in that hat... [/quote]
A Hair :rotf:
Message: Posted by: Proximo (Oct 15, 2020 02:44AM)
[quote]On Oct 10, 2020, Dollarbill wrote:
[quote]On Oct 7, 2020, Bob G wrote:
Please continue, Proximo. :) You knew he was going to grab the cards, so what did you do? Or, in retrospect, what *would* you have done?


Bob [/quote]

hahaha! Bob, it doesn't matter what the spec grabs at the 3rd phase. The dirty work is done! VCS is a killer! Michael Ammar teaches it on his ETMCM. I can remember what disc it is on. Maybe #3. Super easy and a mind baffler! [/quote]

Sorry, late reply.
Indeed, the effect basically is over at the 3rd phase.
So, I actually was kinda hoping that the spectator would grab the cards, seeing as how he really was sceptical about everything. Needless to say, It went over very well!

Very powerfull effect indeed!
Message: Posted by: SamChak (Oct 15, 2020 07:54AM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2020, Bob G wrote:
The trick loses some of its punch if someone *does* ask to examine and the magician refuses.
[/quote]

My philosophy is simple: Always do a [b]packet-to-deck switch[/b] so that it ends [i]clean[/i] in the eyes of the spectator.

So long as the magician continues after the end of the routine, the spectator doesn't know the transient state from Routine #1 to Routine #2.

If the spectator really interrupts the magician to ask for examination, the magician can respond:

[img]https://i.imgur.com/ioHElnQ.jpg[/img]
and then proceed to do a [b]packet-to-deck switch[/b], ditching the [i]dirty cards[/i] in the pocket and taking out the cold deck, followed by showing the [i]clean cards[/i] that have the same values and suits as the [i]dirty cards[/i]. Continue with the "[i]Pick a card... any card[/i]" routine that requires a full deck.
Message: Posted by: SamChak (Oct 15, 2020 08:03AM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2020, Bob G wrote:
P. S. Oooh, I *really* want to see what's in that hat... [/quote]

Isn't it too obvious that a magical :) in my hat?