Simon Lovell saw me do the routine at A-1 nearly ten years ago. Perhaps he was distracted when he gave you that advice?

At any rate, thanks also for comprehensively exposing the idea here on the Café.

Paul M. According to Mr. Ross Welford the accurracy for hitting the aces on the cuts are "waaay less that 100%". I assume that he has tried all variations on the DVD and is honestly reporting what, to him, cannot be obtained. I would also assume where he is having trouble would be on the 3rd phase.

Ross has the note version... and technically it's almost impossible for it to be way less then 100% (mathmatically speaking). I don't want to expose too much. Ed, I thought you had simply devastating.?

Michael P., No not yet. I was waiting to for a review for Ross, or others. Ross said he was going to report back to us with a review.

I did: it's on p4 of this thread. I review the SCA trick, not the whole notes.

And sorry, Michael: I don't mean to diss your routine (and I think I was very fair in my post about its possible applications) but for me, in most real-life situations, it's too uncertain. I've no reason at all to doubt your 90% hit rate it's just that I (or rather, the people I was asking to do it) wasn't getting anywhere like that.

The odds of hitting the first two are the same as ANY VERSION of Estimation Aces, with the third ace being much higher (80% seems right) then most.

If spectators aren't hitting the target, then it's a problem with you direction and control rather then the structure of the routine.

Mike, I looked through the notes and didn't see any credits regarding this routine (or really anything) in the notes. I can't speak for the video, which I hope has improved crediting.

Personally, when I cut to the cards (using the Marlo concept) I use Steve Draun's variation. If I was going to have the spectators cut, I would use Andrew's, but Mike's method for ace number three.

Come off it, Nordatrax! That's absurd.

Seeing as anyone who's read this thread knows what's going on, let's look closer at this.

At the start of the third phase, two aces remain and they are at 15th and 17th. Therefore, a spectator must cut to one of four cards out of 52 to get a hit (without using outs, which I will come to later).

So - you ask them to cut off as close to 15 cards as they can. If you know of a way of "directing and controlling" the spectator to ensure s/he does that, then I'm all ears! Otherwise, you are ENTIRELY at the mercy of the spectator's accuracy and IN MY EXPERIENCE most usually miss.

Now to the outs. If they miss by a mile, then you just put 'em back with a joke and ask them to try again - not really a problem. BUt...if they miss by a mile again (happened to me a couple of times), then you're beginning to look like an arse.

Missing by a little (so long as it's fewer) and you're in the realm of DLs and other outs, which are do-able but - to my mind - undesirable. The heat on you is growing at that stage and you really want this to be clean.

Cutting MORE than 18 and you're in the sh-1-t, basically. Having counted, say, 19 cards, how then do you make that a "hit" without resorting to some sort of cumbersome finger-flinging? OK, off the top of my head you could cop the bottom two cards and show it as a "hit" but really - do we want to be doing this as that stage?

And that's only the third phase. You still have to depend on a specky being able to cut reasonably accurately in the first two stages. Yes, it's easier but I still had people miss and they were not being deliberately obtuse.

I simply don't get why it's MY fault that a spectator cannot cut accurately!

Are you referring to the first two, or the third?

If you are referring to the first 2 then there are, by my count:

For the first one- Four targets, and 8 cards to be cut at that provide a hit.
For the second- Three targets and six cards to be cut at that provide a hit.

I've practically given the routine away here. If you have anymore questions, feel free to PM me.

For the third target, yes, the chances of them missing is high. Unless you use Mike's solution, or Drauns, or cut to the target yourself. I CANNOT IMAGINE how you feel that Mike's solution is, technically, anything BUT 100%- you tell them where it is, and you are correct!

When I say 80% I am referring to hitting it dead on, or being one off, which leads to some amusing by play AND the successful production of the card. Even if they're WAY off, you simply fix the mistake by pointing out you TOLD THEM WHERE IT WAS, and you were correct! This isn't a strong moment, unless you have Andrew's notes and have read his thoughts (which, if I may be so bold, are ALSO 100% on) and fine details.

I hope I have cleared things up a little.

-The trick works, as both Mike and Andrew describe it.
-Mike's notes do not contain proper crediting, and this should be fixed. Mike, if you did get help with crediting, find a new guy. This one let you down.
-Mike's solution (though, considering there are no credits in his notes, I'm nervous to call it his) for the third target works 100% of the time, and needs no extra work 70-80% of the time.
-I provided what I believe is the proper crediting, with help from Andrew, earlier on this page.

Anything more we discuss basically gives it away (if we haven't already). If anyone has anymore questions about specifics, they might consider contacting Andrew, Mike, Ross, or any of the other players in this little game we call a magic forum discussion.

Ben Train

I jut realized this might have caused the problem because I didn't do a good job of writing.

What I meant is using Mike's written handling for the first three targets, as per his notes, would provide you with the same hit/miss percentage for any version of Estimation aces, in regards to the first two, and a very high percentage of making a successful hit on the third. I say this because even if the spectator misses, you don't...

Hope that clears things up, again.

I know. I could guess it from the video. It is called as an 'Out'. I think it is a good out.

Hideo Kato

Congrats?

I gave the exact refference a couple of posts back. It's in the Simon Session PDF, which automatically comes with the Simply Devastating notes.

Ah, ok.

I only have the Simply Devastating notes.

Well, I'm glad to hear they're there. I'm one of those wack-jobs who actually tracks down all the sources listed in the credits (imagine how I feel reading the Whaley book!) and I love not only seeing the credit so I know the history and evolution of the effects, and have a way to track down additional learning sources, but like seeing credit go to those that deserve it.

I only wish the credits were in the notes as well, where they should be.

Ben "nothing but love" Train

No, actually, I'm getting as upset as Andrew about the needless exposure of this effect on an open board. If anyone has a question about my version of this effect, contact me... and I'll be more detailed with you. I didn't think it was exposed much earlier, but that's all changed now.



I'm sorry Ben, do you not have the Simon Session that comes with the notes? Anyone who has purchased these notes have it, and credit is VERY clearly given. The Simon Session is only a pdf, but is considered a part of the notes for that lecture... not two seperate sets of notes. Andrew is not mentioned, but I have pm'd him directly to get that resolved. While we both (Andrew and I) started with the same inspiration, I do not as of yet have an idea about how similar our two routines are... but those things do happen.



Perhpas too late now.

I do not have the Simon Session notes, no.

As far as giving away the routine, I hope your not implying I've done so. Anyone who is familiar with the Marlo write-up SHOULD know what I'm talking about, and anyone who doesn't shouldn't understand what I mean about hitting targets. I also don't think I gave away any info on the third phase, other then it has a very high percent of success.

I hope this isn't starting to sound like its getting heated- I'm just enjoying talking about a routine that I enjoy, with people I like.

If you feel I've revealed something I shouldn't, please let me know and I'll have it removed.

Ben

I don't think anything has been revealed here. If you don't know Estimation Aces and how to go about getting set up for this effect then you don't know how to do it.

I agree with edh-san, and think you can guess the method by watching demo video if you know Marlo's original 'Estimation Aces'. (Except the 'Out' because we can't see demo including the 'Out').

Hideo Kato

Hideo-san, exactly my point.

Well then, there's no need to purchase my notes, or Michael Paul's, is there?

Mr. Wimhurst I would buy your notes or Mr. Paul's notes in order to get the subtleties that might be included in them. There are many effects out there that are built upon other effects that are known to magicians. If you know one effect then the odds are that you will deduce the method of the other. Still, if you like one variation you would most likely, at least I would, buy the notes to get the subtleties of the variation being offered.

There would only be no need to buy your notes or Mr. Paul's notes if you know Estimation Aces and do not like what is being offered. If you don't know EA's and you like what is being offered then you would buy the notes.

Just my thoughts.

thanks
edh