|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] | ||||||||||
harishjose Special user 932 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-03-18 01:56, Lhotta wrote: I see what you are saying. According to you, the number chosen is a constant after it is chosen.It should not vary. But what I am saying is the number chosen can be varied, even during the process. The number can be varied even after the card is chosen or vice versa. The difference is in the presentation. I am not trying to make this difficult. harishjose wrote: ----------------------------------------------- Quote:
On 2006-03-17 23:26, Platt wrote: I quoted your actual words (what are the odds of flipping a coin the same way two times in a row? ) about the probability of getting two heads/tails in a row from a school website. You said it was 1/2 and the real answer is 1/4. You should had said, whats the probability of getting a second head after getting head in the first toss? The difference is in the dependency of the two events. I didn't make up fancy terms for math. This is what we learn. Yo are speaking about conditional probability and what you stated was actually independent probability. Posted: Mar 18, 2006 9:05am ----------------------------------------------- One more attempt: What you guys are saying is: WHat is the probability of any card at a specific number (say 21, 22, ....)? What I am saying is: What is the probability that the spectator will choose any number from 1-52 and what is the probability that the spectator will choose any card from 1-52. And they occur independently. At the end, the spectator might say: The performer knew which number I would choose and which card I would choose.
To believe is Magic.
|
|||||||||
Bill Lhotta Veteran user on top of a 14000' mountain in Colorado 357 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-03-18 08:36, harishjose wrote: Actually Platt was correct. The probability of flipping a coin the same way two times in a row (which is what Platt describes) is not the same as the school example you quoted that shows the probability of flipping heads two times in a row. Here is why; what Platt describes can be broken down as: The probability of flipping a coin the same way two times in a row = the probability of flipping heads two times in a row OR flipping tails two times in a row. So you must add the two probabilities together. Your school example already shows the probability of flipping heads twice in a row is 1/4 and the same is true of tails twice in a row (probability is 1/4). So the probability of heads twice OR tails twice in a row (which is what Platt described) is 1/4+1/4 = 1/2. Does that make better sense? ** Bill ** |
|||||||||
Fred E. Bert Veteran user New York, NY 359 Posts |
Harish, you are right, that is what the spectator would be left thinking - "The performer knew which number I would choose and which card I would choose." If you don't spell it out for them, they will come to the conclusion that they had a choice of 52 cards and 52 positions (which they do) and will assume a probability of 1/(52*52). Look at the way Alain Nu presented it on his special - he didn't give his spectators a math lesson. There's no need to over-proove the impossibility of the presentation, just let the audience fill in the gaps.
If, however, you wanted to explicitly present it as 1/2704, you would either need to introduce a prediction that read "You will pick the Jack of Spades and the number 17," or, reveal the selected card at the selected number and ribbon-spread the deck to show that the rest of the cards are blank. In other words, the ONLY card they could have succesfully selected would be the Jack of Spades, and the ONLY correct position would be 17. It get down to semantics vs. mathematics... |
|||||||||
harishjose Special user 932 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-03-18 09:35, Lhotta wrote: You are right there. I overlooked that.
To believe is Magic.
|
|||||||||
Bill Lhotta Veteran user on top of a 14000' mountain in Colorado 357 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-03-18 09:05, harishjose wrote: If you really mean what you are saying "What is the probability the spectator will choose any number from 1-52" then the answer must be 1, since unless he/she refuses to cooperate with the trick they will always choose some number between 1 and 52. The same is true for choosing "any card" from 1-52, the probability is again 1. So multiplying these two probabilities together will give you 1 times 1 = 1 or 100% probability the event will occur unless the spec refuses to cooperate. What I believe you meant to say is what is the probability the spectator will choose a specific number you have predicted from 1-52 and what is the probability the spectator will choose a specific card you have predicted from 1-52. Because that is actually what you are proving with the revelation using the deck, that you knew that card at that location would occur. Now if you write this down on a slate or piece of paper ahead of time as a prediction then you are absolutely correct, the probability is 1/52*1/52 = 1/2704 since you have committed yourself to one and only one possibly correct answer. BUT by using the deck you are giving yourself 52 possible correct answers, and if the spectator chooses any one of them then you as the performer/magi are correct (read that last sentence again!). Probability is defined as the number of correct choices divided by the total number of possible choices. So for this problem we have 52 correct choices divided by 2704 total choices which simplifies to 1/52. You are not considering there are 52 possible correct choices and that is the flaw in your logic. I hope that helps clear things up and if not then I'm gonna give up at this point. Cheers! ** Bill ** |
|||||||||
harishjose Special user 932 Posts |
Thanks for the patience, mates. I understand what you are saying now.
To believe is Magic.
|
|||||||||
Cody Fisher Special user 884 Posts |
I currently use Daniel Garcia's version of ACAAN. However, I am interested in Barrie Richardson's, which I have never seen. First of all, does it require a stack? Second of all, what are the differences between those two versions. Thanks for the help.
Cody |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
I sentence the "1/2704" people to empirical research on this topic. Walk around to 5,408 different people, in groups of two, and without any "method," simply ask one of each group to name a number from 1-52, and the other to name a card, 2,704 times. I wouldn't bet a ton of money that they're going to be right EXACTLY 52 times, but they're sure as heck going to be right more than once. As pointed out (repeatedly), since there is no "wrong" card to be named at an ACAAN routine, the random odds of success are 1 in 52 (though you can do something to make it seem 1/2704, such as using a N--- W-----.
For the generic ACAAN routine, though, feel free to put any NLP/double-talk/semantic spin on it you like; your audience members who know math will know you're full of it. Is trying to make something that appears to be a miracle ANYWAY 52 times more unlikely worth risking alienating the mathematically savvy? Your call.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
Bill Lhotta Veteran user on top of a 14000' mountain in Colorado 357 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-04-06 21:35, codysf wrote: Hi Cody, I'm not familiar with Daniel's version but I do know Barrie's and those are the ones I use. Barrie has a very clever method in Theatre of the Mind that does require a memorized deck but I believe it is well worth it. There are a couple of other methods discussed in Theatre of the Mind but I prefer the method discussed on page 257. Barrie also has an impromptu version that can be done with a borrowed deck. I believe he published it as a separate effect and I know it's available in a CDROM he put out with a bunch of his lecture notes. The name of the CD is called "Barrie Richardson A collection 43 Routines, Tricks and Devices" and the routine on the CD is called "Impromptu Card at Any Number". Hope that helps! ** Bill ** |
|||||||||
Dr Spektor Eternal Order Carcanis 10781 Posts |
Check out MENDACITY - great book which has one of the coolest easiest ways to do the ACAAN IMHO ranking with the others mentioned....
"They are lean and athirst!!!!"
|
|||||||||
JSBLOOM Inner circle 2024 Posts |
Harishjose,
I have a degree in math. TO KISS, imagine you have a facedown red card on the table. It is the Queen of Hearts. You have a female name anycard and anynumber. (For a guy, the ACE of Spades is the red card) Suppose you are quick enough to switch the card on the table to match the card they named that fell on their number, NOW you have a 1/52 X 1/52 miracle. But if there is no prediction, it doesn't make a difference what card they named. |
|||||||||
stanalger Special user St. Louis, MO 998 Posts |
You can make ACAAN into a 1/2704 miracle. It could go
like this: Magician tables deck of cards. Spectator #1 names any card. Spectator #2 names any number (1-52), picks up deck and deals to the card at that position. Card is turned face up. It matches spectator #1's selection. The remaining cards are turned face-up. They are all BLANK! Stan Alger |
|||||||||
harishjose Special user 932 Posts |
Thank you for the further explanations.
I was never the teacher's pet. If I have a doubt, I question that. Surprisingly, short after making the post, I came across Scarne's article on Roullette in Epilogue. That was on the probability of 2 balls being on the same number!
To believe is Magic.
|
|||||||||
davidlai308 Veteran user Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia 376 Posts |
I only do two effects of Card at any number .One is by Daryl and another is by Barrie Richardson.Both are impromtu and uses very minimal sleight of hand.IMO Barrie Richardson`s impromtu CAAN is very very strong.The effect:
1)Spectator picks a card 2)Magician gets back the card and cuts the deck/shuffles it 3)Spectator names any number between 1 to 52(almost acctually,without tipping the method, it`s a number between 7 to 47,Barrie has a nice way of controlling this) 4)Card is dealt one by one,and at the specs number,lets say #32,there is the card. As I said, very strong.For Daryl`s version,it uses a simple sleight to accomplish the count.PM me if you want the particular details.I`ve never tried BOOMERANG CARD before,how strong is it compared to Barrie`s?thxs Regards, David Lai
An entrepreneur by day , a magician by night . Satiate my mind & you've won my heart .
www.superhumanz.online |
|||||||||
Seth speaks Inner circle New Mexico 1249 Posts |
Lhotta,
Thank you SO much for your explanations. Fascinating stuff! My brain is still throbbing, but now I think I almost have sort of a handle on it. Your lessons in probability are seriously cool. However, I think I'm just going to tell people its "like a gazillion to one," and let them work it out... Seth |
|||||||||
BobMillerMAGIC! Regular user MN 103 Posts |
Wow! Hey I learned something about math. This is one of my favorite card tricks. I do it with the Aronson stack. And I always presented it as a 1/2704 chance, because I thought that it was. But, if I ask the audience (I often do), they always say it's 1/52. So, intuitively, the audience understands the odds.
So I did a little empirical test. I shuffled the deck. I named a card. Then I named a number. I dealt to that position to see if the card was there. Then I did it again, starting with a new shuffle. How long did it take until I got it right? NINE TRIES. So, I tried it again. Shuffling, naming a card, naming a number, and dealing. It took me only 8 tries to do it again! So, the empirical test demonstrates that it's closer to the 1/52 than the 1/2704. Try it yourself. Anyway, I agree with Seth: Just tell them it's a "Gazillion to one." They don't want a math lesson anyway... But it plays very strong! BTW, I just ordered the John Born book on this topic after reading Cody Fisher's review of it. My presentation: One person names a suit. Another person names a rank of a card. I name a tens digit. And another person names a ones digit (which is added to my tens digit.) The cards are dealt to that position. Question: Do the odds change any with my presentation? (Probably not...) But, does this presentation make it seem less likely? Wadyathink?
PreDate: The NoMem Calendar Trick
http://www.BobMillerMagic.biz |
|||||||||
John Born Veteran user 390 Posts |
Greetings everyone!
If you have interest in the ACAN plot, may I recommend looking into my latest book mostly dedicated to the ACAN plot, "Meant To Be...". You can find more information in the book review section. All the best, John B. Born |
|||||||||
Bill Lhotta Veteran user on top of a 14000' mountain in Colorado 357 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-05-23 01:05, BobMillerMAGIC! wrote: Hi Bob, Why do you restrict the tens digit by choosing it yourself? I would think the spectators would easily deduce you are limiting them to only 10 possible positions in the deck which would remove some of the impossibility of the ACAN stigma. The perception could be that you knew the card they called out resided in that block of 10 cards and therefore the probability of the ACAN being correct is only 1/10. I do like the way you let one spectator choose the suit and another choose the value of the card as it involves more people in the audience and seems to add to the impossibility of the effect. Cheers! ** Bill ** |
|||||||||
cfrye Special user Portland, Oregon, USA 940 Posts |
Quote:
On 2006-05-23 01:05, BobMillerMAGIC! wrote: :) Don't let the results of two trials throw you off. A person won the New Jersey Lottery twice, each time at one million to one odds. Professional Monte Carlo simulators won't look at your results unless you've run a model at least 100,000 times. Curt |
|||||||||
BobMillerMAGIC! Regular user MN 103 Posts |
Quote:
Hi Bob, The reason I name the 10s digit, is because then I only have to secretly pass 1 - 9 cards, so it's easy. But since 4 different people name part of the final choice, the impression is that no one has final control of the final selection. As far as the audience's perception that I knew the location: I "shuffle" the cards with a riffle shuffle during the presentation. After performing this for more than a year, I can tell you that it really kills.
PreDate: The NoMem Calendar Trick
http://www.BobMillerMagic.biz |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Any Card At Any Number (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 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 < |