I love it , the knack is not to be scared of it and don't hesitate mid flow
Mark

I love it but I don't. But I do. But I don't.

Another strong vote for Max's Multiplicity!

It is a very useful and amazing tool if you do it correctly! Done poorly, it is painful to watch, done well, it has elegant beauty.

As stated above Equivoque is a wonderful tool. It is part of a magician's/mentalist's arsenal. It should not be used as a stand alone effect but rather as a means to an end. Max Maven and Eugene Burger also perform Equivoque brilliantly and are a pleasure to watch. Poetry in motion.

Ray

David Berglas has some nice work on it.

If you know Docc's Evoke, you can do stunning stuff with no preparation and no props, except what you may find around you.

Also recommended: The Mind and Magic of David Berglas and Max's Multiplicity, of course.

If you know Docc's Evoke, you can do stunning stuff with no preparation and no props, except what you may find around you.

Also recommended: The Mind and Magic of David Berglas and Max's Multiplicity, of course.

First time I saw a thread about equivoque, incredible!
I love mentalism-Who's with me?

I Hate Mentalism!!

Kam

....but I am with you Mnsr Ambre....I have always been

Kam

[quote]On 2012-05-01 22:58, ronzo wrote:
If you know Docc's Evoke, you can do stunning stuff with no preparation and no props, except what you may find around you.

E´voque is great, but I wonder, if it would be as strong as without the p..k!

I have to completly disagree with that. Yes, Multiplicity gived a great deal of routine using equivoque but... I don't like the verbal structure used by Max Maven. Sometimes, what he said or do with the spectator's choice, doesn't make sense. I check the DVD yesterday. On one routine, what the spectator first choose is discarded. Then, for the final choice, what the spectator choose is to keep. There is no logic in that procedure and it's what's make equivoque badly performed.

David Berglas(Berglas Effect) and Joshua Quinn (ParaLies) point out the importance of such logic in actions.

I have found that you really need to be casual about the whole thing. Even when you discard the first choice and keep the second, if you keep it casual enough no one seems to notice.

-Max

:) I'm glad my friend understand what's wrong there ;-)

Docc covered this quite well on his E'voque Doccinar. If you do the routine as he teaches it you will never have to think about what you are saying and you can have more than one climax as he shows in several of the routines.

If this topic interests you at all then that Doccinar is well worth your time.

~ Dan
ps - I am associated with Docc and I still feel this is on of the better sources of information out there on the topic. This and the big Berglas book. But the Berglas book is a little difficult to get a hold of.

In Simon Aronson's Try the Impossible, his effect Divide and Conquer requires that one of two piles of playing cards be thrown away; this is repeated several times. His approach is to pick the pile to discard. John Bannon's approach uses a unique application of the equivoke: he asks a spectator which pile to discard; if they name the correct pile, he discards it. If they name the incorrect pile, he says, "Wrong!" and discards the correct pile.

I've done this many times for both magicians and laymen: it plays superbly well.

It may have more limited application in mentalism, however.

I like equivoque, but I keep messing up.

Z

http://www.lybrary.com/mind-control-p-150695.html