|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Danno83 New user 15 Posts 
|
Quote:
On Jan 3, 2017, avasatu wrote: I have managed to remember all the cards. My cull is taking about 2mins at the moment, my head is taking a while to catch up 
|
|||||||||
|
avasatu New user 97 Posts
|
Quote:
On Jan 5, 2017, Danno83 wrote: One way to practice culling half the deck (say, half of mnemonica/Aronson, or Dead Recknoning cards), would be the learn to cull the black and then the reds from the group (so two culls back to back). Once you can do each of these comfortably, you can combine them. For example, I have been learning to cull a shuffled deck to Mnemonica, and right now I am at about 2:30, which I consider a decent time for doing it covertly. First I learned to cull the sub 10s, teens, twenties, thirties, etc. separately, then I learned to cull cards below 30 and above thirty, and combining the two actions is about where I'm at now. I think it's a natural progression to practice culling in this way. |
|||||||||
|
pnerd Regular user 168 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 22, 2013, Turk wrote: May I know why exactly you want to repeat performing Dead Reckoning? .  |
|||||||||
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1345 Posts
|
The "rules" that define the stack for DR are very simple to understand. And Aronson's Flash-Speller is a neat idea to make it a bit easier to figure out on the fly. But it still requires a certain amount of mental effort. So (for me) it is never going to be super quick. I'm simply not motivated to learn it well enough.
Here is my alternative that I think is easier to set up impromptu... Bannon's original DR used the 12's & 13's - of which there are exactly 26. This requires 4 Clubs, 9 Hearts, 9 Spades & 4 Diamonds. If we use the 11's & 12's instead, we get 9 each of Clubs, Hearts and Spades. The Diamonds are completely ignored - this means quarter of the deck becomes a no-brainer. Actually I think it might be even quicker to cull the cards that are NOT in the stack. This is all the diamonds, plus 4 each of the other suits. The "low" clubs, and the "high" Spades & Hearts. This means your stack is 27 cards. The remainder is therefore 25 (assuming a full deck). If the divider card is a Joker, then the selection will be at position 26, rather than 27 in the original DR. You will still use 9D etc as your demonstration. Or you might prefer not to have a joker in the deck. You can use another card as the divider (just like you could with regular DR. In this case the remainder is 24, so selection is at 25. So you would use a different example in your demo. This could be 2D, 6D etc. Interestingly it could also be a Spade or Heart. This raises the 1/27 possibility of getting a hit on your demo - which would be pretty cool. If you prefer to stick to a stack of 26 instead of 27, you just exclude one of the 27 cards. Possibly make that your divider. |
|||||||||
|
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5195 Posts
|
Very nice, Nikodemus!
One minor point that I don't think is in the original write-up--when the spec is about to put the remaining cards on top of the deck at the end, he can shuffle them without screwing up anything--not even the re-set.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1345 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 5, 2008, Cain wrote: I've been playing around with Dead Reckoning recently. I agree with Cain. The rules are easy to remember, and apply, with a bit of practice. I don't see the point of creating any other (somewhat artificial) way to remember the 26 cards in question. One thing that I have found helpful - For the Clubs and Diamonds I think in terms of the rules for what 4 cards of each of those those suits to include BUT for the Hearts and Spades I think in terms of which cards to exclude |
|||||||||
JuanPoop Loyal user Luckily for you, I only have 244 Posts
|
This is definitely a fun effect to perform and one that I occasionally get asked to repeat. There aren’t many that I am happy to repeat, but DR seems to works fine, as it is very hard to back-track, especially with a decent false shuffle between each showing.
One thing I noticed earlier in the thread was the observation that using the 9D demo process over again being a problem. I never use 9D twice in a row. If asked to do the effect again, I use another card, with this style of patter - “OK, this time I will use a picture card to show you the process we will follow, let me see, how about the JD … J, A, C, K; O, F, etc”. Of course, one could also use either 4D, 5D or KD - all of which comprise the requisite number.
aka Lucky John
Sydney, Australia |
|||||||||
|
Claudio Inner circle Europe 1975 Posts
|
I’d find it awkward and redundant to repeat the demo as the spectator has just seen it and has followed your instruction properly on the first run. So, in my opinion, a different solution would be required here.
Also, on a repeat, the effect should be somehow stronger for good theatre. I don’t’ know whether it’s any good, but a faro check (26/27) would allow you to know the selection therefore making the effect more impactful as you would be able to name it before it’s turned over. Obviously, these extra actions would need justification. Just thinking aloud, here. |
|||||||||
|
JuanPoop Loyal user Luckily for you, I only have 244 Posts
|
Fair point Claudio, although I wasn’t really talking about doing it back to back with the same spectator. The repeats I am referring to are when I do this for a small group and then get asked to either:
- do it again for another person in the group (they are surprised at the result and want to see if it ‘works’ on them), or - someone who has seen it grabs a friend and asks me to do it for him/her. The fact that a different card almost always gets selected helps to convince people that the STOP message was specific to them … I like the faro idea, even if my faro isn’t quite yet at the point that I could rely on it. Nonetheless, I do like the notion of making it slightly different, if done again. That would elevate the whole effect for sure. I will have a think about alternative reveals that might work (in the spirit of a Dead Reckoning). Thanks for the prompt.
aka Lucky John
Sydney, Australia |
|||||||||
|
Claudio Inner circle Europe 1975 Posts
|
No problem, JuanPoop, I did think you were talking about repeating the effect for the same person. What you say makes sense. BTW, if you want to use a card which is not a diamond, you could use the QS, say, and then, after the spelling, use the top card of the packet in left hand to scoop the demo pile and add it to the bottom of the left-hand held cards.
Anyway, I got my thinking cap on and I came up with two elaborations - not improvement as I don’t think the trick can be much improved because it’s streamlined, self-working and produces a strong impact. Both variations keep the original method but add the option of a second card being selected (from different parts of the deck). One of the variations ends with a sandwich effect (2nd selection trapped between jokers) while still preserving the original setup, ie you're ready to perform the trick again. I need to try them out to see whether they’re any good. Also, using the same idea, it’s possible to perform the effect without the original segregation of the cards and still have the spectator end on the selected card every time. I’d only use this when it’s not possible to setup the deck without creating suspicion. |
|||||||||
|
JBSmith1978 Veteran user NY 392 Posts
|
Nikodemus‘s alternative is gold imho. Thanks!
|
|||||||||
|
Francois Lagrange Veteran user Paris, France 393 Posts
|
I doubt many, if any, would actually “nakedly” cull the 26 required cards in front of an audience just before performing the trick. Most will either have the setup ready to go, with or without a deck switch, or will perform a previous trick that would allow them to setup the deck in its context.
Personally, I prefer some of the ideas submitted in this thread about performing the trick impromptu and without setup at all. The grail is reproducing the same effect as JB’s without the setup.
Protect me from my friends, I'll deal with my enemies.
|
|||||||||
|
orenjii.md New user 13 Posts
|
Quote:
On Apr 6, 2008, Turk wrote: I have been doing the effect without the needed set-up. I also use Aronson's Flash speller system not to remember/be tipped of what cards to cull for the set-up, but for knowing what card to use as the example card when I demonstrate the dealing process. I follow the SD location same as with the original effect. After the procedure, I emphasize that "The cards were shuffled and cut by you. So even if I look through the faces of the cards or even try to estimate where it could end up, it will be hard to determine what your card is." at the same time either doing a rhythm count (3-2-2-3) or just simply perfect cutting 26 cards and taking a peek at the selected card. Once I know the card, I will subtract the number of letters of that card to 26 (thank you flash speller) and the difference will be converted to whatever card has the same amount of letters. example: 26th card I peeked is the 4 of spades. Using flash speller = 12. 26 - 12 = 14. I can now use whatever card that contains 14 letters in the name. |
|||||||||
|
rmorrell Loyal user 270 Posts
|
I have been using Second Reckoning a lot from Destination Zero same plot but different impossible location, and as John says in the book I simply remove the 26 necessary cards from an unusual deck, wrap a band around them and use it as a 'packet' trick to break up other card tricks, this way it literally resets itself and needs no setup, it is just a packet of 26 cards to do the trick, the impossible location used doesn't require a full deck like the original and is a bit quicker to do, might be worth looking into if you haven't seen it.
|
|||||||||
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1345 Posts
|
I think this is a fantastic idea!!!
You say you look at the 26th card. I assume you mean from the top rather than the face? (In the original DR by John Bannon, the selection would be at 27th position if I remember correctly. Why not bring the selection to 25th position instead? Then every card could land bang-on. I wouldn't be confident to quickly, accurately and secretly count to a specific card position near the centre of the deck; but you have got me thinking. Here are my thoughts - Most of us would find it very easy to divide a deck into two halves, where one half is Hearts & Spades, and the other half is Clubs & Diamonds. If you do this and spread the deck face up, it just looks like a random mixture of reds & blacks. You have to look hard to see they are actually split by suit. But if you know what you are looking for, it is really easy to see where the H&S end and the D&C start. So this maybe is an easier foundation for an impromptu version than trying to sort into Bannon's original setup. Using your technique above, it is now really quick and easy to to spot the selection at a glance. I would have the spectator select from the Hearts & Spades, since then there are only three numbers to cater for (11,12,13). Another option for those who already know a memorised stack is to divide the deck into high/low. (I can do this as easily as the suit sort above). This would mean the spread was totally examinable. Also worth mentioning that with marked deck, you wouldn't need to look at the faces. |
|||||||||
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1345 Posts
|
By the way, I just checked in Try The Impossible to remind myself what Aronson's Flash Speller system is. I was surprised how complicated it is. Unnecessarily so, in my opinion.
I simply remember that the LOWEST possible count is TEN, then add from there as needed. This isn't a "system" I sat down and worked out; it's just what works for me naturally. |
|||||||||
|
orenjii.md New user 13 Posts
|
[quote]On Aug 19, 2024, Nikodemus wrote:
I think this is a fantastic idea!!! You say you look at the 26th card. I assume you mean from the top rather than the face? (In the original DR by John Bannon, the selection would be at 27th position if I remember correctly. Why not bring the selection to 25th position instead? Then every card could land bang-on. I position the breather 27th from top in a 52-card deck. No jokers. |
|||||||||
|
orenjii.md New user 13 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 19, 2024, Nikodemus wrote: Preference will come into play of course. I like it bec it's just a matter of +1, -1 or as is depending on the suit. |
|||||||||
|
orenjii.md New user 13 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 18, 2024, orenjii.md wrote: btw in my script above, although I say ".... look through the faces...", I don't actually look at the faces. I rhythm count until 26 with the deck face down. |
|||||||||
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1345 Posts
|
JonHackl describes a nice impromptu approach to DR in this thread -
https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view......&forum=2 He doesn't bother with the Bannon setup at all (apart from crimping any card, and positioning it as required). |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » Setting Up For John Bannon's Dead Reckoning (6 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Jan 5, 2017 10:13 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.06 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 < 
|