Please slap me if I'm being dim here but could someone PM me and explain the variation where numbers are written?
I have purchased the effect and really don't understand the handling when numbers are used. I have read and re-read, but it still makes no sense when used with the same handling as a word prediction.

Many thanks,

Matt.

Actually, I'm re-launching the question.

How can you set the deck up for a number prediction (as described in the booklet) if you show the spectator their selected card?

Riddle me that, Batman!

Matt.

What? Do you actually have Room 101? It would be the same as for a word prediction. Or a colour prediction. Or an object prediction. Or whatever the **** else you want to predict prediction.

I suggest you re-read the instructions.

I know exactly what you mean 808. If you were to do exactly as the instructions suggest you could not show the spectator their selected card until the work was done. You need to make presentation adaptations.

I wouldn't do the number prediction as written for this reason.

Thanks Tom, glad I'm not going mad.

Bad day at work, Craig? I wonder if your magical performances are presented with the same warmth. You're clearly a people person. I'm sure you're loved.

Ah well, can't win 'em all.

Matt.

LOL or should it be l0l...

Now c'mon...don't stir.

I'm thinking of purchasing said effect,marks out of 10?

It's a solid effect, but expect nothing revolutionary. If you're looking to perform it surrounded or when strolling, it has flaws that cannot be overcome. I love the idea, but realistically I'll never use it. Hey, you can have mine. Unused. Tenner, postage paid. PM me if you're interested.

Very good review stephen, I would love to use this effect but the handling is not smooth. I am considering using it with the black envelope principle but not sure if this just complicates matters further!

I found the writing of the instructions to be confusing. It took several reads and I'm still not 100% sure of the handling. Sections 4 and 6 probably make great sense to the writer. Section 6 reminds us that there is a very important part left out of the instructions, though it is in the script.

And because the effect relies heavily upon a sleight that is likely not in everyone's arsenal, some subleties or advice on misdirection at that moment would have been nice.

Is there a forum where purchasers may openly discuss this? I believe the potential is great and would love to hear other's approaches.

I agree with Jasper and Keith regarding the needed sleight. I go out of my way to make sure that there are no sleights nor any other kinds of "moves" in my entire performance. In fact, I go out of my way to explain that I'm a mentalist, not a magician. I make a point that I use nothing associated to that endeavor in that I use no sleight-of-hand nor fancy flourishes. Everything is open, VERY direct and totally clean. So whenever I read that I have to palm or switch something, into the junk drawer it goes.

So here it is, once AGAIN where a video would have helped me to make a more enlightened decision as to making a purchase. I would have seen the required move and realized that it was not for me. When you READ these descriptions, it looks wonderful. If they would make performance videos available, so many of us would be spared the expense and the trips to our junk drawers.

The sleight referred to is not needed. There's an alternate method that fits in with the required subtlety. I think this sleightless handling is the one I would use.

The writing implement provided could have needed a bit more work - I made the necessary alterations to mine and now everything is as it should be...

I also hate to harp on Luke 'cause I have admiration for his work (Building Blocks is an exceptional book) but I have to agree with 808 and Keith. The instructions are sometimes unclear or not thorough enough, and would have required a few more proof-reading passes.

When reading the instructions, the effect may not seem as direct to you as the ad makes it out to be, but to the spectator, it would play just as it's described: Spectator has a fair choice of a card; she names a word; you write the word on the face of the card (on second thought, she could write the word) and place it on the table; you produce a different colored card from your pocket or any other place you chose -- the card matches and has the spectator's word written on its face in a different color. If you can get rid of your magician's guilt, I think this has the potential to be a very powerful effect.

The sleightless version leaves a lot to be desired for obvious reasons.

Yes, a video would have either clarified the approach to performing the sleight while at the same time accomplishing something else, or it would have allowed me to see that such is not possible and saved $.
This said, knowing that Mr. Jermay probably executes it flawlessly. And that is the guide I would like for doing justice to his effect. The instructions fall far short of allowing anyone the ability to do that.

First sentence of step 4 in instructions: "A which point you throw the xxxxx behind you." Really? I hope it won't land on the plate of the gentleman at table 40. Though I am a full-time magician, apparently this trick was never meant for my venues. (Remember, at some point you have to RETRIEVE item xxxxx). I can see this playing great on stage or at a lecture.

I'm reminded of the Gilligan Prediction trick where first viewing of the video shouted out awkward moments and saved me money.

Goodbye Mr. Close. We will miss you.

If you are referring to Michael Close reviewing mentalism then I am sure only magicians will miss him doing that, not mentalists.....

No, I wasn't.
And there isn't a thick black line separating the two (magicians/mentalists).

Keith, I don't remember making (or insinuating) that assumption and, with this in mind if you are offended than I apologise.....

My comment about Mr. Close was about the sentence that preceeded it, not about the mentalists/magicians point that you brought up.

To clarify, a video can bring certain elements to our understanding of a product before we buy, but a detailed attempt at an honest review by someone that has a strong context in the magical arts has provided me with more information in the past than a tiny video on a website - again, in regards to whether or not to purchase. That is the whole of my Mr. Close comment.

Because your reference to the disparity between how much magicians and mentalists may miss him, and because you are sure about it, and because you used the words ONLY magicians, I addressed your comment by pointing out the line between magicians and mentalists is quite blurred if viewed with an historical perspective. Many of us and many of them are both, or have been at one time or another. Many mentalists started as magicians. Many techniques, methods and subtleties bridge the gap that is inferred by your use of the two separate words.

Of course I'm not offended, I just took exception to your characterization. And I appreciate the opportunity we both have to expound the minor points.

Agreed Also a little more honesty in add copy wouldn't go amiss....
I think my differentiation with magicians / mentalists lies more in the psychological and attitudinal aspect than the methods etc than anything else to be honest.

As far as reviews go I do believe that you have to think like a mentalist and remove your magicians cap to give a fair review (just a comment and not aimed at anyone here).

Could someone give an analogy ? How hard is the sleight ? Perhaps an example of a slightly harder sleight . I.E. if you can do a DL then this is O.K. or whatever .
I'm completely stuck , having read the above.

If you can palm a card than you are OK.

Again, I think the sleight is not necessary. Although I wouldn't do the sleightless version exactly as described in the manuscript - I would do it less directly, as a 1-2-3 motion (think lemon or kiwi switch.) This would make sense following the subtlety involved.