I have prevaricator but I don`t get the idea how it should be. I tried it out with 2 friends, but I failed. ok, this is a bit out of topic....
kiki

You can do like that (the spectator, for example, only need to say "yes" or "no" in her mind while look at your eyes), and you can say who is the liar and who is the truth teller... But, obviously, you can't say who has got the ring

I'm feeling rather ignored !

Sorry Bill

I have done "Ring of Truth" for magicians and it worked very well. But I always have felt that it's too easy to imagine the logic behind.

PD: I'm a big fan of Banachek too.

I've used Ring of Truth with a slight variation from Banachek's presentation. In the DVD presentation Banachek asks participant 1, one question. Next he asks participant 2, two questions. I found my accuracy increased if I only ask each participant one question at a time - less chance for them to get confused about the way they answer. Also, I lightly hold their wrist and pretend that I'm reading phsycial response (ala muscle reading).

I used to follow Ring of Truth with Kurotsuke but now I follow with Charles Gauci's Body Language which is a similar effect to Kurotsuke (find the differnt colored marble/ball held by a spectator) but the method is much different.

For me the combination is used to sell our secret language, the subtle clues our bodies provides even when we are trying to conceal them.

Even working for magicians with my slight wrist holding I've been asked more about muscle reading then understanding the approach behind Ring of Truth, and none have gotten Charles Gauci's Body Lanaguage when I do it after Ring of Truth.

Sincerely,
Solarzar

Is the principle behind ring of truth banacheks or is it an old principle dats public domain. I ask because I have an idea for an effect using it but I want to be ethical ..pm me if you can

Hey there everyone. Sorry to have come in so late on this (thanks for bring the thread back).

Just a few comments: Prevaricator can indeed be performed without the subject answering out-loud. This may be performed silently indeed. The only requirement that must be true is that those involved know who has what. This also means that Prevaricator lends itself well to a Kurostuke style of effect that's incredibly hands off. Ben Blau has a wonderful (not in print, yet!) routine that uses a combination of these ideas as well as some new techniques not yet to see the printed page. I hope this clears up a bit of what was above. That said Banachek's routine is still fantastic. HIs particular technique is unique to him, yes. However, the mathematics behind the "normal" ring of truth (not to be confused with Prevaricator as they're different in their base method), are all essentially the same. Different performers simply found better ways to hide the real work that was going on.

Patrick Redford

Hmm..so if my presentation was completely(no rings) different but I used the same system of "yes ,no" would I be frownd upon?

The math principle is the same amongst the versions that use math but a different set of formulas to arrive at the same out come are used to hide the math - if this makes sense?

If you come up with a new structure as some of these folks have done, you would not be frowned upon.

To Patrick and all others who use Prevericator: Can the performer say, "Both of you please say 'no' when I ask the question, and I will try to pick out the liar..." instead of having them secretly choose different characters?

RLFrame: Yes, you could do that.

Though I actually think it would decrease the effect, because by doing that you are telling them that the one with the ring is going to be the liar.

With the original presentation, they get to choose both who is the liar, who is the truth teller and THEN who gets the ring. So the final revelation is not only that you can tell which is which but where the ring is(even though the ring is a given based on who is lieing).

By basically forcing the person with the ring to lie, I think it somehow lessens the effect. You are choosing rather than letting them choose.

In terms of structures etc. I think it was Charles Cameron who first published a routine like this anyway - and Banachek credits him to have "beat him to the punch" for publishing... involves demons and angels doing the logic puzzle.

First time I saw that in an 80' movie - LABYRINTH - Two gnomes were trying to keep Jennifer Connelly away from rescuing her little brother ...

Hmm... Jennifer Connelly - trying to keep her away? Those gnomes must have been nuts!

Agreed... Especially when she was younger and tasty (can tasty be said here, without censorship? )

But probably they were just playing with her the "Go away CLOSER!" game, if you get my hint!

There are many different variations of this type of idea. Different questions and structures give you different information. One will might tell you who has the ring, One might tell you who is lying. Sometimes you need two questions. Sometimes one. So it is good to read up on as many as you can.

I don't like to miss, so when I first started to do Prevaricator, I used my own ring (PK Ring) and my watch (Child's Play II) as "insurance." I started by doing the Prevaricator sequence after I already knew where the ring was. It was an interesting experiment, which gave me confidence to do Prevaricator by itself (still, with my "insurance policy" on my wrist if needed).

On a related subject, here is my version of Kurotsuke:
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/searc......=4742184
(What I left out of that description is how I often use the Prevaricator principle in phase 2.)

CM

I've found that they themselves will reveal the other information right away, if you just focus on one question, actually the Second Question, in my routine. I remember a version as a child using only one question but an involved set-up.

Dave, by the way, the ONE QUESTION you remember from your childhood is probably the following "If I ask to the other person which X will be Y, what will the other person answer me?" which, again, is the one question that was adopted by the movie Labyrinth...

It's an interesting one, but seems to be overly complex and more than hints at the method. I'd expect most people to figure out it's a logic puzzle just by the question itself. This is less evident in Banachek's version, and of course Mr. Redford's version is great for this as well (without going into the methods).