On May 28, 2023, 1tepa1 wrote:
Out of sight, out of mind is a stong effect. It is an effect that I have seen splitting magicians in two, there are those who think it is not that good of a trick and then there are those who really like it. I have gotten some quite strong reactions with this trick so I think objectively looking at how most spectators react to it, it has to be a good trick. However it suffers also from a weakness that the original description it the book does not solve to my satisfaction. It does not give a justification for WHY you are asking them to look for their card immediately after having them think of a card. This action in my opinion should be justified because otherwise it makes no sense. There are some justifications I have seen people use, one has been that you show them the cards to make sure that no trickery has happened and that their card is still in the deck. I have tried this way and found it not so good. Because there is no reason why it would no longer be in the deck. Unless you do some action ala Slydini that makes the spectators doubt whether you took the card out or not, there is no reason to tell them that you want them to make sure the card is still in the deck.

Michael Vincent has a different approach to this, where he asks the spectator to take a hold of his hand has he spreads through the cards and he says he will try to read signals coming from their hand as the spectator looks at the cards, muscle reading, to get information about their card. This is a justified reason for having the spectator look at the cards. However in my opinion it gets rid of one flaw and replaces it with another. The flaw here is that you are saying that you are getting information about their card via them looking at their card, which is what you are actually doing. Even though you are not doing it with muscle reading, but instead based on their response to the question or statement that they have seen their card already, it is still similar to the actual method, you are actually getting information about their card by having them look at the cards. I feel like this action of having them look at the cards has to not be associated with you getting any information about their card.

So here is the way I have been doing this effec: I do the same thing as in the vernon trick at the beginning, they think of a card, I shuffle the cards. Next I tell them I am trying to read their mind. I spread the cards towards myself and I go through, take one card out and put it face down on the table. Now I tell the spectator "if I really did take out your card, it would mean that your card is no longer in the deck, right?". Now I spread and I say "look and confirm that your card is no longer in the deck" as I do the basic Vernon sequence. If they tell me that they saw their card, I stop and say "oh you did see your card?, Really". I cut the deck. Next I draw attention to the card on the table and say "But I did tell you that this card on the table would be your card", then I turn over the card on the table and it is a joker "and technically speaking the joker as a wild card can substitute for any other card". At this point there are two different version I do of this trick. In version 1 I will do the same thing as vernon did but instead of feeling for the card and stopping randomly, I take cards from the deck to spell the name "joker". At the end I ask them what their card is and proceed as in the vernon version to reveal their card where we stopped the deal at. The second version can go two ways. In way 1 the ending is the same in how it looks to the first version, cards are dealt down and the thought of card is found where we stop the deal. However, 1 out of 3 times this outcome will occur: I deal the cards and stop after dealing "JOKER" and ask what their card is. They name their card and I say "it would be a good trick if this card where we stopped at would be our card, however at the beginning I promised you that the card I put on the table will be your card, I know it was a joke, but I am not joking now. Turn it over. They turn over the "joker" and it is now their thought of card.

On May 28, 2023, Jason Simonds wrote:
"Concentrate on your card. Do you still remember where your card was located? Don't tell me the card, but tell me where was it? *Repeat the number* 5. Hrmm I'm not sure if this will work but we'll try it. Watch, by turning my hand over, it sounds foolish, but a card has turned over in the middle of the deck."

Spread the cards, revealing the faceup 2 of whatever. If it's the 2, you have a minor miracle. If it's not the 2. "Hmmm. The 2 of whatever. That card is my buddy and it's telling me something. It said I should have done of a different trick. I'm kidding but this 2 is telling me your card is close." Then follow the Vernon cheat sheet for your outs.

On May 28, 2023, Jason Simonds wrote:
Vernon only mentions Bridge because bridge hands are 13 cards and he wanted to get 13 cards in play. You don't have to mention Bridge. If you want to mention a card game, feel free to use Bridge, or even use Hearts or Spades which also use 13 card hands. You can also just say "Let's use a quarter of the deck. There's 52 cards in a deck. Do you know what a quarter of 52 is?" All this does is get 13 cards in play, so they can think of one of those 13 cards.

Since asking for the number is what is bothering you about the trick, here's a scripting option for you to ask for the number. "Do you still remember your card and where it was located? Don't tell me the card but tell me where it was. 5? *Spread over 5 cards from the top of the deck* It's not the 5th card right? That's because I shuffled the deck behind my back/Under the table." This gives justification to ask for the number, so you can prove that you shuffled under the table and it's no longer there. This would also provide some time misdirection, between when you asked for the number and when you do the reveal.

Here's another script option. Honestly, I'd probably use this one rather than the above. The above feels like running without being chased.

"Concentrate on your card. Do you still remember where your card was located? Don't tell me the card, but tell me where was it? *Repeat the number* 5. Hrmm I'm not sure if this will work but we'll try it. Watch, by turning my hand over, it sounds foolish, but a card has turned over in the middle of the deck."

Spread the cards, revealing the faceup 2 of whatever. If it's the 2, you have a minor miracle. If it's not the 2. "Hmmm. The 2 of whatever. That card is my buddy and it's telling me something. It said I should have done of a different trick. I'm kidding but this 2 is telling me your card is close." Then follow the Vernon cheat sheet for your outs.

On May 28, 2023, Pyppo100 wrote:

Quote:

On May 28, 2023, Jason Simonds wrote:
Vernon only mentions Bridge because bridge hands are 13 cards and he wanted to get 13 cards in play. You don't have to mention Bridge. If you want to mention a card game, feel free to use Bridge, or even use Hearts or Spades which also use 13 card hands. You can also just say "Let's use a quarter of the deck. There's 52 cards in a deck. Do you know what a quarter of 52 is?" All this does is get 13 cards in play, so they can think of one of those 13 cards.

Since asking for the number is what is bothering you about the trick, here's a scripting option for you to ask for the number. "Do you still remember your card and where it was located? Don't tell me the card but tell me where it was. 5? *Spread over 5 cards from the top of the deck* It's not the 5th card right? That's because I shuffled the deck behind my back/Under the table." This gives justification to ask for the number, so you can prove that you shuffled under the table and it's no longer there. This would also provide some time misdirection, between when you asked for the number and when you do the reveal.

Here's another script option. Honestly, I'd probably use this one rather than the above. The above feels like running without being chased.

"Concentrate on your card. Do you still remember where your card was located? Don't tell me the card, but tell me where was it? *Repeat the number* 5. Hrmm I'm not sure if this will work but we'll try it. Watch, by turning my hand over, it sounds foolish, but a card has turned over in the middle of the deck."

Spread the cards, revealing the faceup 2 of whatever. If it's the 2, you have a minor miracle. If it's not the 2. "Hmmm. The 2 of whatever. That card is my buddy and it's telling me something. It said I should have done of a different trick. I'm kidding but this 2 is telling me your card is close." Then follow the Vernon cheat sheet for your outs.

But you must also consider the case in which the card thought by the spectator could be among the top three cards at the top or bottom of the deck.

Thanks!

On May 28, 2023, 1tepa1 wrote:

Quote:

On May 28, 2023, Pyppo100 wrote:

Quote:

On May 28, 2023, Jason Simonds wrote:
Vernon only mentions Bridge because bridge hands are 13 cards and he wanted to get 13 cards in play. You don't have to mention Bridge. If you want to mention a card game, feel free to use Bridge, or even use Hearts or Spades which also use 13 card hands. You can also just say "Let's use a quarter of the deck. There's 52 cards in a deck. Do you know what a quarter of 52 is?" All this does is get 13 cards in play, so they can think of one of those 13 cards.

Since asking for the number is what is bothering you about the trick, here's a scripting option for you to ask for the number. "Do you still remember your card and where it was located? Don't tell me the card but tell me where it was. 5? *Spread over 5 cards from the top of the deck* It's not the 5th card right? That's because I shuffled the deck behind my back/Under the table." This gives justification to ask for the number, so you can prove that you shuffled under the table and it's no longer there. This would also provide some time misdirection, between when you asked for the number and when you do the reveal.

Here's another script option. Honestly, I'd probably use this one rather than the above. The above feels like running without being chased.

"Concentrate on your card. Do you still remember where your card was located? Don't tell me the card, but tell me where was it? *Repeat the number* 5. Hrmm I'm not sure if this will work but we'll try it. Watch, by turning my hand over, it sounds foolish, but a card has turned over in the middle of the deck."

Spread the cards, revealing the faceup 2 of whatever. If it's the 2, you have a minor miracle. If it's not the 2. "Hmmm. The 2 of whatever. That card is my buddy and it's telling me something. It said I should have done of a different trick. I'm kidding but this 2 is telling me your card is close." Then follow the Vernon cheat sheet for your outs.

But you must also consider the case in which the card thought by the spectator could be among the top three cards at the top or bottom of the deck.

Thanks!

I am not sure what you mean by needing to consider that possibility. The idea is that when you ask them to name their number, you can show them that since you shuffled the cards, the card they saw at that position is no longer at that position.

On May 28, 2023, 1tepa1 wrote:
Pyppo: I don't still understand. Yes there are multiple reveals, but I don't get how that is relevant or connected to the comment you responded to. I don't see how it needs to be taken into account. Its already taken into account in the original handling by vernon, you proceed with the reveal as normal.

On May 28, 2023, 1tepa1 wrote:
Out of sight, out of mind is a stong effect. It is an effect that I have seen splitting magicians in two, there are those who think it is not that good of a trick and then there are those who really like it. I have gotten some quite strong reactions with this trick so I think objectively looking at how most spectators react to it, it has to be a good trick. However it suffers also from a weakness that the original description it the book does not solve to my satisfaction. It does not give a justification for WHY you are asking them to look for their card immediately after having them think of a card. This action in my opinion should be justified because otherwise it makes no sense. There are some justifications I have seen people use, one has been that you show them the cards to make sure that no trickery has happened and that their card is still in the deck. I have tried this way and found it not so good. Because there is no reason why it would no longer be in the deck. Unless you do some action ala Slydini that makes the spectators doubt whether you took the card out or not, there is no reason to tell them that you want them to make sure the card is still in the deck.

Michael Vincent has a different approach to this, where he asks the spectator to take a hold of his hand has he spreads through the cards and he says he will try to read signals coming from their hand as the spectator looks at the cards, muscle reading, to get information about their card. This is a justified reason for having the spectator look at the cards. However in my opinion it gets rid of one flaw and replaces it with another. The flaw here is that you are saying that you are getting information about their card via them looking at their card, which is what you are actually doing. Even though you are not doing it with muscle reading, but instead based on their response to the question or statement that they have seen their card already, it is still similar to the actual method, you are actually getting information about their card by having them look at the cards. I feel like this action of having them look at the cards has to not be associated with you getting any information about their card.

So here is the way I have been doing this effec: I do the same thing as in the vernon trick at the beginning, they think of a card, I shuffle the cards. Next I tell them I am trying to read their mind. I spread the cards towards myself and I go through, take one card out and put it face down on the table. Now I tell the spectator "if I really did take out your card, it would mean that your card is no longer in the deck, right?". Now I spread and I say "look and confirm that your card is no longer in the deck" as I do the basic Vernon sequence. If they tell me that they saw their card, I stop and say "oh you did see your card?, Really". I cut the deck. Next I draw attention to the card on the table and say "But I did tell you that this card on the table would be your card", then I turn over the card on the table and it is a joker "and technically speaking the joker as a wild card can substitute for any other card". At this point there are two different version I do of this trick. In version 1 I will do the same thing as vernon did but instead of feeling for the card and stopping randomly, I take cards from the deck to spell the name "joker". At the end I ask them what their card is and proceed as in the vernon version to reveal their card where we stopped the deal at. The second version can go two ways. In way 1 the ending is the same in how it looks to the first version, cards are dealt down and the thought of card is found where we stop the deal. However, 1 out of 3 times this outcome will occur: I deal the cards and stop after dealing "JOKER" and ask what their card is. They name their card and I say "it would be a good trick if this card where we stopped at would be our card, however at the beginning I promised you that the card I put on the table will be your card, I know it was a joke, but I am not joking now. Turn it over. They turn over the "joker" and it is now their thought of card.

On May 28, 2023, balbec wrote:

Quote:

On May 28, 2023, 1tepa1 wrote:
Out of sight, out of mind is a stong effect. It is an effect that I have seen splitting magicians in two, there are those who think it is not that good of a trick and then there are those who really like it. I have gotten some quite strong reactions with this trick so I think objectively looking at how most spectators react to it, it has to be a good trick. However it suffers also from a weakness that the original description it the book does not solve to my satisfaction. It does not give a justification for WHY you are asking them to look for their card immediately after having them think of a card. This action in my opinion should be justified because otherwise it makes no sense. There are some justifications I have seen people use, one has been that you show them the cards to make sure that no trickery has happened and that their card is still in the deck. I have tried this way and found it not so good. Because there is no reason why it would no longer be in the deck. Unless you do some action ala Slydini that makes the spectators doubt whether you took the card out or not, there is no reason to tell them that you want them to make sure the card is still in the deck.

Michael Vincent has a different approach to this, where he asks the spectator to take a hold of his hand has he spreads through the cards and he says he will try to read signals coming from their hand as the spectator looks at the cards, muscle reading, to get information about their card. This is a justified reason for having the spectator look at the cards. However in my opinion it gets rid of one flaw and replaces it with another. The flaw here is that you are saying that you are getting information about their card via them looking at their card, which is what you are actually doing. Even though you are not doing it with muscle reading, but instead based on their response to the question or statement that they have seen their card already, it is still similar to the actual method, you are actually getting information about their card by having them look at the cards. I feel like this action of having them look at the cards has to not be associated with you getting any information about their card.

So here is the way I have been doing this effec: I do the same thing as in the vernon trick at the beginning, they think of a card, I shuffle the cards. Next I tell them I am trying to read their mind. I spread the cards towards myself and I go through, take one card out and put it face down on the table. Now I tell the spectator "if I really did take out your card, it would mean that your card is no longer in the deck, right?". Now I spread and I say "look and confirm that your card is no longer in the deck" as I do the basic Vernon sequence. If they tell me that they saw their card, I stop and say "oh you did see your card?, Really". I cut the deck. Next I draw attention to the card on the table and say "But I did tell you that this card on the table would be your card", then I turn over the card on the table and it is a joker "and technically speaking the joker as a wild card can substitute for any other card". At this point there are two different version I do of this trick. In version 1 I will do the same thing as vernon did but instead of feeling for the card and stopping randomly, I take cards from the deck to spell the name "joker". At the end I ask them what their card is and proceed as in the vernon version to reveal their card where we stopped the deal at. The second version can go two ways. In way 1 the ending is the same in how it looks to the first version, cards are dealt down and the thought of card is found where we stop the deal. However, 1 out of 3 times this outcome will occur: I deal the cards and stop after dealing "JOKER" and ask what their card is. They name their card and I say "it would be a good trick if this card where we stopped at would be our card, however at the beginning I promised you that the card I put on the table will be your card, I know it was a joke, but I am not joking now. Turn it over. They turn over the "joker" and it is now their thought of card.

You don’t need any justification for asking the spectator’s card, since you demonstrate right after that you already knew / found it. You can answer « Yes, I knwew it » right after the spectator’s answer and than turnover the card, as advised by Giobbi in its extended analysis (CC v5). In my opinion, it is not even necessary since the climax is so strong when the spectator sees his card that he forgets this part anyway. On the other hand, I think it’s a mistake to justify the request, since it goes agains the construction and focus the spectator attention on a key aspect of the technique…. and a secondary part of the effect.

But I guess one really got to try the deliberate approach to see how well it works, and why this trick may be Vernon’s ultimate masterpiece.

On May 28, 2023, balbec wrote:
Yes, I misunderstood your point. The moment before requires even less justification, though. You are slowly browsing through the cards and just asking « did you see it yet ? » as a practical matter, just to avoid spending too much time going through the whole deck. It should be done naturally and deliberately, without even thinking about it. If your pace is slow enough and your tone is uninterested enough, no-one will even notice. Same as in the very first sequence of 9 cards, btw. Obviously, all of this require some time, an already engaged audience and some storytelling / acting efforts. In any case, they are necessary to make the best out of this trick.

PS: there are different versions of OSOM, but I refer to the most standard one and in some cases to Giobbi’s in-depth analysis in CC vol 5

On May 29, 2023, balbec wrote:
Well, that’s the whole point of this trick and the bases of its construction. 3 phases : 1- Card selection: the focus is on the choice. Typically, you can explain that you display the cards to avoid any psychologic trick about choosing an ace or a queen. 2- Card reading : the focus is on getting an image in the spec’ mind. Typically, you ask for a real effort on *his* side, so that the card is distinctly readable through mind contact. 3- Reveal. The effort is now on *your* side, never easy, but after deep mind reading + touching cards you finally manage to pull it !

Most of the time is spent on phase 2, and its justification can be explained since the onset of the trick. Some magician present it as a recovery after a failed first attempt at the end of phase 1 : something like «  Sorry, its not precise enough, I would like you to see your card again for you to have a better mental picture » but I think it’s not necessarily useful. In the right context, everyone will understand that getting a clearer mental picture (or something equivalent) is a very good raison to see the cards again, especially since they don’t think there are giving away anything about their selection. Anyway, not sure I should go further, since some could call this « the method » of the trick…

On May 28, 2023, Pyppo100 wrote:


But you must also consider the case in which the card thought by the spectator could be among the top three cards at the top or bottom of the deck.

Thanks!

On May 27, 2023, balbec wrote:

Quote:

On May 27, 2023, 1tepa1 wrote:

Quote:

On May 27, 2023, balbec wrote:
Just ask for a « number » : it will be between 2 and 10 90% of the time. Add the digit once or twice for the other 10%.

What Paverino says about the issue with the Vernon trick, I agree, that is exactly my thinking also. I have been trying to think of a way of overcoming those issues without changing the basic method of the trick.

The effect Paverino showed also has a flaw to it, which is that spectators don't like to tell their card to you.....