I've got a demo video and tutorial of a CLASSIC Annemann effect that I would like to share. This trick has treated me very well over the years.

http://www.themagicteacher.com/articles/......ick-Test

If you don't know it, learn it.

If you do know it, but don't perform it because you think it's "outdated" or some other crazy reason - I recommend you try it again tonight and really *believe* it when you perform it. Then wait for the reactions.

I've used the secret of this in knowledgeable company, and it always amazes me when otherwise skilled magicians have gaps in their knowledge regarding this.

Most working pros, though, appreciate how great a tool this is...

Cheers!

Is this truly worth destroying your stack for, given that it can fail?

Dennis Loomis

YES!

The greatest magical moments happen when we take risks.

Even people who believe in mindreading think that it doesn't work perfectly each and every time. I say go for it and build your reputation one miracle at a time.

Annemann wrote, in "Sh-e-e-e, It's a Secret", that '$100 Test Card Location' works in 80%, I think the percentage decrease considerably if you let spectator Overhand Shuffle four times in a row as David-san allowed in the video demo.

I can't risk it because one mistake can be fatal in my act. One mistake can ruin my reputation.

Hideo Kato

To take what Mr Kato has said a step further, if you cannot risk a mistake or failure in your act, then you need methods that are sure to be successful.

There are more surefire (ie. 100%) ways of acheiving the same effect or very close to it if it is played out properly. This would mean it would have to be as hands off as the above trick is (and it's not TOTALLY hands off but should appear so to a layperson), the spectator would have to do the shuffling, cutting, selection, etc. With a little management, you could make someone think that the conditions were the same. This could be as simple as saying, "you shuffled & cut the cards, chose one, and you mixed them some more" when maybe the actual order of events wasn't *exactly* like that.

I'm not against the trick itself - it's a neat thing - but if you can't risk failure, there are other ways to create a "hands off, you did everything" mindreading type of trick that hit 100%.

This is a very interesting topic. I love taking risks. I get a thrill the more I can get away with. Odd though, as how the appreciation of the amount of risk that is taken is not readily apparant to others or as proportionate, yet it still is a secret "something" I smile over.

Of course on that note manufactured "risk" is/can be put into a trick where there is none and so you'd have no problems, but I feel it more when there is actual risk. Then again, my show could stink more too!:)

Anyway, I'm gonna try this.

I applaud you Nathan.

I started a new topic on taking risks in the 'Penny for your thoughts' forum.

It's called:

"Taking Risks"

Read my favorite risk-taking story there.

While working without a net can be thrilling, I just don't think it's worth it. Not only can you miss, but you also destroy the stack in the process.

I use few enough stacks as it is, so this will fit perfectly in my repertoire! I will try this out... sometime later.

Cain, I do agree that it isn't always worth it, that is, effects without a safety net. But yea it can be fun.

But to the other comment, there is a great way to "undo" an overhand shuffle (and riffle) by a spectator quite quickly and quite fairly in Mnemonica. Pretty cook stuff!