(Close Window)
Topic: Simon Eyes - is there a better selection procedure?
Message: Posted by: Nikodemus (Aug 21, 2020 09:07PM)
I have just started reading the very lengthy SIMON EYES by Simon Aronson.
There is brilliant thinking here (of course) from Mr Aronson. BUT it seems to me the shared number is a real weakness in the selection procedure.
I am curious to know if others have done work to improve upon this?
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Aug 25, 2020 04:42PM)
This is almost for sure the only point you cannot change... it wouldn't work anymore, however you try - it's the system and abstractly thought the reason it works at all. But if you use the "search" function in "Shuffled not stirred" you will discover some good thoughts about it, some are from my side... ;) Jan
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 12, 2020 11:41PM)
Gosh--I don't think you lose that much by just having a cut, and handing out the two top cards. Brilliant as Simon's stack is, I think the number procedure is clunky and ultimately unnecessary. I say it's probably better just for one person to cut, the other to take the two top cards, and then hand whichever one of them s/he wants to the other spectator.

I know, SImon dismisses that procedure at the very beginning of his explanation, but I disagree.

Simon's procedure is meant to imply that the cards are from different parts of the deck. But

1) If the numbers are the same, then it seems less convincing;
2) Even if the cards are next to each other, there is no way to explain how the magician knows both cards never having looked at them. To the lay person, either way, it's impossible.
3) Despite what Simon says, 37 seconds for one pass means a minute and 15 seconds for both, which is an eternity of dead time in a presentation, and there's lots of opportunity for the specs to get confused and forget their cards. Their attention flags for a moment, they miss the count, and then they'll make up a card.

No, I'll think it's all around a better trick just taking two cards at once. This way--bonus--you can do the entire trick hands off.
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Sep 13, 2020 03:17PM)
In the Comments section, Simon describes a couple of straightforward selection procedures.

Personally, I like the one he rejects in that section: while the performer turns his back, one of the two participants cuts and reassembles the deck. One peeks at the top card and the other one at the bottom card. You won't know which.

I use this method as I want the spectators to actually look at the card and put it in their pocket (or bag etc.). The reason is that in similar effects, it's been my experience that cards get forgotten, or some may try to trick you etc. It's a guarantee against this type of mishaps.
Message: Posted by: Claudio (Sep 14, 2020 09:01AM)
Consulting my old notes on this effect, I came up then with a handling that I think practical, though I never implemented it.

I would only set-up the 26 top cards (with a slightly different stack though) and the bottom 26 cards would be mixed freely. It allows for very convincing false shuffles.

I would allow for a number between 1 and 52, like in the original, but under the pretence of speeding up the selection procedure I would ask whether the chosen number is greater than 26 or not.

In the negative I would carry on like in the original, but stop at 26. If the number is greater than 26, I would shuffle the bottom cards to the top, but keeping a break. I would then cut them to the table, saying something like “OK, we’ve got roughly 26 here, let’s start from 27”.

Though I have never tried this handling, I find it interesting.
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Sep 16, 2020 04:50PM)
Okay :) , then again: I came up with a version years ago, using only two times 10 cards, 2 spectators, one number, but cards are dismissed after showing each spectator "his" cards - so there is no thought that they remember the same card or cards next to each other (in fact, they don't...). It uses the Aronson Stack (there is also a version using the Tamariz Stack) and it doesn't destroy the stack. It is quick, but you could get probably just one "No" (not always, but possibly) - so you sacrifice the 100% "No-No-Fishing" although it follows its concept and strategy. Jan
Message: Posted by: mimo67 (Sep 17, 2020 03:38AM)
Jan, will this version be in your soon to be coming book ?? What's the name of that effect ?
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Sep 17, 2020 03:35PM)
Yes, it will be... "Jan's Eyes" ... :) Jan
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Sep 17, 2020 03:40PM)
You can find it also already here: https://www.vanishingincmagic.com/ebooks/tour Jan
Message: Posted by: CartoucheNL (Dec 5, 2020 08:46AM)
I would like your opinion on the following: Have two decks, one in Aronson s***k order, and in the second deck (here it gets a bit difficult) each card in a certain position is simply the successor as it would be in the Simon Eyes deck.
For example, in Aronson deck card number four is the Two of Hearts. That would imply that in the second deck card number four is the three of diamonds.
You can now do a few things: You can ribbon spread or fan out both decks, spectator can examine the spreads closely, there will be noting to find. Furthermore you can have the two specs together choose a number (secretly of course) between 0 and 53 and both at the same time count down to that number. Since the number is secret you can do the counting as well, if that is your wish.
Specs now choose their cards from their own deck which appears completely shuffled. You can even make remark: "Don't pick the same card please". You of course know that such is impossible anyway.

I have elaborated on this idea where neither deck one or two is in Aronson order, but I still find their two cards in Simon Eyes fashion and in the end even know their secret number. Best part for me: it does not use a deck of cards, just a folded piece of paper that, when folded, resembles a playing card.

As I said earlier in a different post on this trick, I think, like many, that the thinking behind this trick is brilliant. The serious student should read and absorb this effect, even if he or she has no intention on ever performing it.
Message: Posted by: JanForster (Dec 5, 2020 03:33PM)
I do not know if I really like the idea using two decks and counting again up to 52... two times. Do not get me wrong, as I wrote more than once previously, I adore Simon’s creation and have done it a few times in the late 90s... the concept and the thinking behind is brilliant! The No-No-Fishing is fantastic, but in performance I felt it being too long. I was discussing it with Simon many years ago (by emails) and he admitted that he actually performed it a very few times only and stopped doing it then.

I (in collaboration with a friend) came up a few months ago with a new version (unpublished until now): It uses the Aronson Stack, does not destroy the stack, it involves 4 (!) spectators (even 5 would be possible, so the complete deck), just one secret number from 1 to 10 (like the original the same unknown number for all of them) and everyone really sees a different part of the deck; so you use in fact 40 cards (or all 52 if you like). It does not need any fishing at all, you get no „no’s“, as you make just ONE statement which will get a positive confirmation. By then you know all thought of cards :) sounds unbelievable, but it‘s true, no dealer‘s language ;) Jan