Now the cat's out of the bag.

Thomas,

I felt that way because Christopher Carter told me nothing of how it was done other that to say he had NEVER seen anything like it before. Believe me I've done my research this last month or so, and found some of those other GREAT MINDS lottery routines. They were full of props and BS to accomplish, what I believe, was a weak trick...bags, balls, wallboard, nail guns! Of course I already have the Anthony Owen book on it's way to my doorstep. Although, Nate is not obligated to tell me where his version came from, but he did email me, and from what he typed, I would say this VERSION is his creation. But, Like I said, he wouldn't have to say to me, "Oh, that's Anthony Owen's...not mine!"

As for the hardware on his belt...I don't have the book yet, but I doubt it. When I get the book, I WILL admit it if I am wrong.

Nathan

As for his style...it is "stage Blaine with more personality"...therefore I believe a lot of guys around here would find it objectionable...some more of the green monster.

Nathan

The effect wowed me, but more importantly, it wowed his audience. In the end, isn't that what counts? - the aim is to entertain the audience he was performing for, and clearly Nate Staniforth successfully achieved that, even with a minimalist style.

Are there any known video clips of Anthony Owen's "Natural Lottery" being performed?

Regardless of who originated the idea of a lottery prediction, I strongly believe it is unwise to speculate as to the method used on an open forum that can easily be googled. People who are amazed by Nate's performance may be inclined to seek out more information on him. It would be a shame for them to bump into this thread and receive the impression that this or that may be the explanation.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion about a particular performance. The approach used on this routine is clealy different from a one that would be used by a lot of more traditional performers, particularly those who do corporate events. All I can say is I've seen a lot of people take their more traditional ideas of showmanship to a college crowd and die the death. It is possible that, given his crowd, the choices he's making may be very right, even if not to your taste.

The Andrew olsen effect is similar to Nate but it isn't the same effect. I just read Andrew's and there is a slight but big difference

Nathan,

You are letting your blind devotion to this performer cloud your reading comprehension. I said the EFFECT was Anthony Owens' (also the basic presentation of having six random specs think of numbers, by the way). There are many different ways to accomplish "3Fly" (for example), but the basic effect is Chris Kenner's - get it?

Now... "green monster"? You know, Nathan, it IS possible for other magicians to not care for another's performance style without necessarily being jealous. The fact that you apparently worship this guy does not mean that anyone who doesn't is somehow "wrong".

TW

Thomas, all true what you say. By the way, Anthony Owen's routine is much more like Alan Shaxon's confabulation... Jan

Geez louise...someone needs some fiber in their diet.

Nathan

Tom:

As is often the case, I agree with you that the performance was weak - imagine how the suspense could have been built, number selection after number selection, up to a dramatic climax!

"Blaine theatrics" is lacking and amateurish, no matter what the masses think.

But more importantly, this effect appears to me to be more of a closer than an opener, don't you think? Or perhaps part of the body of the programme, but not an opener - it isn't "quick" and "punchy" enough in my mind.

I'd love to see Max Maven perform this.

Comments, anyone?

Arnon

I agree with not opening with it Arnon.
Based on what I’ve read this was not an opener it was his closer. So it appears Nate also agrees. As for his performance the end result was accomplished and he has enough experience to control an audience. I thought he spoke with proper authority while giving directions.
Over all I say job well done. He is young and will only get better.

Arnon,
I agree with you on this.

That is exactly what I was thinking --
Imagine what someone else could do with this,
with some drama and suspense.
A killer effect.

I also think that it would be hard (more like impossible)
to follow this effect with a complete act.
Opening too strong can work against you,
because you have nowhere to go.

Cheers.
Tom

This IS his closer, as has been already stated.

Nathan

Yes. So go get some already.

TW

This is a neat effect and I think that his particular style works well for him in the college arena where he performs.

FYI...the method for this effect has been published...I have it.

Cody S. Fisher

SSShhhhhhhhhh! Don't tell!

Firstly, I thought it was really lovely, a fantstic opener. I personally quite like his style, a very hands off piece, very laid back while remaining in control. It's pretty informal, and I think this work s for him, relaxes the audience, sets a tone. A Magic Act isn't all about tension. As far as I am concerned a good effect, relatively well presented. I appreciate some people may dislike the style, that much is obvious from the comments, but I do really like it.

Secondly, I don't believe the trick is predictable, very much a magicians chat. I don't think asking an audience for 6 numbers, in anyway tips what is about to happen. Why should it?

And finally, I thought some of you might be interested to learn that Derren Brown is doing something relatively similar in his current stage show. The basic plot goes that Derren Brown gets the spectator to call up a friend, and name any 3 numbers, DB gets it wrong, tries again, and again fails. He then gives the spectator a £10 note, that's been in "plain" sight the entire time, as a prize for "beating" him. The serial number of this note, are the 6 named number.
It's pretty fantastic ;p
Nick x

TW,

I am already getting enough fiber in my diet. You really should try it, be good to your colon and it will be good to you.

Nathan

Is this the opener or the closer? I'm confused by what he's said.

The fiber goes in the opener and out the closer.
Why is that confusing?

Or is it the other way around?

This is THEE CLOSER!!!

This is the opener. http://www.popsoda.com/twispopbotop.html

Nathan