|
|
ipe Special user 513 Posts |
Originally posted in The Worker forum, I repost it here hoping for more participation.
Hi everyone, I'm deepening my study on the "Automatic Placement" principle. I saw this principle implemented in John Bannon's "The 32nd Sense" (Move Zero Vol.3). I'm wondering whether Woody Aragon's "The EP Principle" and Paul Harris's "Overkill" are using the "Automatic Placement" principle too. Here are a some differences between Bannon's effect and the other two: - "The 32nd Sense" vs "The EP Principle". In "The 32nd Sense" the cards removed from the spectator are not added again to the deck and the order of the deck is not changed during the counting. Whereas in "The EP Principle" the counted cards are reversed and the removed cards are place on top of the deck. - "The 32nd Sense" vs "Overkill". In "The 32nd Sense" you count from the top, whereas in "Overkill" you count from the bottom of the pile. This has a great impact on the overall effect: in "The 32nd Sense" you force an unknown chosen card to end up to a specific position, but in "Overkill" you are forcing a specific card. Are all three effects based on the "Automatic Placement" principle? Are there other and different applications of this principle or are there other similar principles? From a spectator point of view, "The 32nd Sense" and "The EP Principle" are the same effect. Which one do you prefer and why? Thank you
What would a real mindreader do?
|
mantel Special user 922 Posts |
I don’t know what the automatic placement principle is. However I am familiar with Overkill. That being what you described reminds me of Gene Finell ‘s Free-Cut Principle.
Cheers. |
ipe Special user 513 Posts |
Hi mantel, thank you for pointing me out the Free-Cut Principle, I didn't know and I think it is a little gem. ;-)
Regarding the automatic placement, I learn it in Move Zero Vol. 3 (John Bannon). In Move Zero you can find the principle implemented in the effect "The 32nd Sense" but there is also a stand-alone chapter all dedicated to the theory behind this principle. Other sources for the automatic placement principle: https://www.conjuringarchive.com/list/category/722. (But I didn't read any of those books.) Since you know Overkill, do you know the name of the principle behind it? Lastly, I want to mention another principle similar to the automatic placement: the PM principle. You can read it freely here: http://mallofmagic.com/free%20stuff/PM%20Principle.PDF
What would a real mindreader do?
|
mantel Special user 922 Posts |
I have sent you a private message
|
saxonia Regular user 168 Posts |
As you certainly already know, the original article where the name of the principle has been introduced was:
Ed Marlo's Automatic Placement in: New Phoenix, #329, August 1955, p. 126. However, as you can see from the conjuringarchive references, the principle has been used before (some historical notes can be found in The Collected Works of Alex Elmsley, Vol. II, "Spell by the Numbers" (p. 349). And one more child belonging to the same family is: "The Principle of Equal Piles" in Ramón Rioboó's "Thinking the Impossible" (p. 13). |
ipe Special user 513 Posts |
Hi Saxonia,
thank you for the references. Good, so the Woody Aragon's "The EP Principle" of which I speak in the opening post is a variant of the Automatic Placement.
What would a real mindreader do?
|
ipe Special user 513 Posts |
Thanks to Mantel, I discovered that the principle in Overkill is the Clock Principle. Besides, the Clock Principle is a variant of the automatic placement principle.
So, at the end, as I have hypnotized in my opening post, all three effects (Overkill, The 32nd Sense and The EP Principle) are using the automatic placement principle (or variations of it). Another similar principle is the Undo Principle (in Simon Aronson's Prior Commitment). I think there is still much to explore!
What would a real mindreader do?
|
IZ1POZ New user 7 Posts |
I studied the EP principale a bit, in particular the handling of Woody Aragon. I was playing with the deck and I probably found another good (I hope) method to reveal the selected card after shifting it in a more easy to force position. Can't write more there but I'm ready to discuss it with anyone interested.
I have learned to use the word 'impossible' with the greatest caution. Wernher von Braun
|
MBAgamer Regular user 108 Posts |
Just seeing this thread so quite late to the party.
I do not know about the principle used in Overkill but I do know of the automatic placement principle and the EP principle (which I learned from an effect by Simon Aronson titled Self Control). In the automatic placement principle the mentally selected card is controlled (by you) to a predetermined number, whereas in the EP principle the mentally selected card is controlled (by the spectator who you guide) to a known (but not predetermined) number. So in both cases you end up knowing the location of the mentally selected card in the deck but in one case you already knew what that location was going to be before the trick even started whereas in the other case you learned what that location would be during the trick itself. So, given these crucial differences, I do not think that one is a variation of the other. They are both only similar in the procedure by which the mentally selected card is selected (because in both cases the procedure of the selection involves cutting off a random number of cards and then using that number to select a card) but everything beyond that is different. |
MBAgamer Regular user 108 Posts |
Quote:
On Nov 1, 2021, MBAgamer wrote: Just wanted to update my previous reply after some more thinking. The principle from Self Control (AKA “EP” principle) is indeed a variation of the venerable Automatic Placement. It is just a reverse of it (those that know how both procedures work will know what I mean here). Earlier I was saying that one difference between the principle from Self Control and the Automatic Placement is that in the Self Control procedure the selected card is controlled to a position that the performer only finds out during the effect (so it is not predetermined) whereas in the Automatic Placement procedure the selected card is controlled to a predetermined position. But this is only a difference caused by how the two effects are presented. If the performer wanted, Self Control, like Automatic Placement, could also be presented such that the selected card winds up at a predetermined number (if the performer does the crucial deal when the spectator is to remember a card, and so he decides on an appropriate number for the deal beforehand, as opposed to allowing the spectator to do the deal and so allowing them to decide when to stop the deal). And Automatic Placement, like Self Control, could also be presented such that the selected card winds up at a number that the performer only learns during the effect and not before (if the spectator, rather than the performer, does the crucial count to their number in order to remember a card and then the performer tells them to continue going past their number and stop at some random point, where, of course, the performer keeps track of how many cards they went through and then the performer uses that number to calculate where the spectators card would end up after the crucial cut). So they both are, at the end of the day, variations of one another. |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » All in the cards » » Automatic Placement: Overkill vs The 32nd Sense vs The EP Principle? (1 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |