The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » That's It! vs, Fingerprint Card Trick (vs.Dunbury Delusion...) (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

foolsnobody
View Profile
Special user
Buffalo, NY
843 Posts

Profile of foolsnobody
These tricks are all similar in type, some more involved than others presentationally. Which of them do you like best and why? Would you ever include two of these type of tricks in the same set? I feel these are different from other kinds of "magician screwed up...no he didn't" effects like "Matching the Cards" or "Magician Makes Good" in that there is more of a seemingly unavoidable "sucker" aspect. How do you handle the "sucker" aspect with the individual spectator who is lucky enough to be chosen to "play" the sucker (so he doesn't feel like an idiot even though really the whole audience got "taken.")
Steve Friedberg
View Profile
Inner circle
1401 Posts

Profile of Steve Friedberg
Simply put, I try to avoid the "sucker" aspect as much as possible. Nobody likes being made fun of...so why should we do it? Watch Bill Malone's handling of "Daley's Last Trick," as opposed to the traditional handling; Bill focuses the attention on himself, while the traditional method makes the spectator look foolish because they haven't been able to follow the path of two cards.

Rework your presentation, I'd suggest, so that your spectators don't feel as if they're stupid.
Cheers,
Steve

"A trick does not fool the eyes, but fools the brain." -- John Mulholland
El Mystico
View Profile
Special user
573 Posts

Profile of El Mystico
Really good questions.
Certainly, I'd avoid doing two at the same performance.
Which to perform? It depends on your performing situation. Fechter was a bar magician, so "that's it" was pretty quick and to the point. Finger print card trick is actually the one I choose to do most often, but that is because I tend to have the "space". I doubt it would work for a bartender.
As for the sucker aspect - you are right, this is a crucial aspect. But a major issue is your performing persona. Some performers generate love and joy and for them, this sort of thing is all just marvellous fun. I kid myself that I fall into this group....but David Williamson certainly would.
Turk
View Profile
Inner circle
Portland, OR
3546 Posts

Profile of Turk
Quote:
On 2008-02-23 13:59, Steve Friedberg wrote:
Simply put, I try to avoid the "sucker" aspect as much as possible. Nobody likes being made fun of...so why should we do it? Watch Bill Malone's handling of "Daley's Last Trick," as opposed to the traditional handling; Bill focuses the attention on himself, while the traditional method makes the spectator look foolish because they haven't been able to follow the path of two cards.

Rework your presentation, I'd suggest, so that your spectators don't feel as if they're stupid.


Steve,

Are you referring to Bill Malone's "Back the Way They Were" on volume 1 of "On the Loose"? If now, would you please be so kind as to advise which effect of Bill's are you referring to? Thanks a lot.

Mike
Magic is a vanishing Art.

This must not be Kansas anymore, Toto.

Eschew obfuscation.
Cain
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles, CA
1522 Posts

Profile of Cain
I do not recall Malone's handling of Daley's Aces, probably because I am not quick to associate him with such a presentation. Malone's "My Favorite Opener" was his handling of Fecther's "That's It"! The guy also invites teachers to the stage, asks what they do for a living and then says, "Oh, I'll go slow then." It's all in good fun, he's self-deprecating, and so forth, which is why gets away with it.

I prefer Miller's Dunbury Delusion, though I do not perform it as often as I wish. Some sucker tricks, on the right person/audience, at the right place and time time, promote karmic justice. We do not want the spectators to ruin the effect by saying, "that's my card!" but then spectators should feel guilty letting you draw out your failure. Schadenfreude is the increasingly overworked word here. You can see the ****-eating grin on most of their faces; consequently, on some level, they need to admit they deserved to get fooled because moments earlier they could not contain their glee; it's a role reversal.

This probably applies only to "magician-in-trouble-before-she-knows-she's-in-trouble." Putting a card under the bar gas repeatedly is a bit different. I would even say certain ACR presentations come off as, "You didn't see the card rise to the top, did you? Idiot. Here, let me make it simpler for those of you who attended public school..."

I forget who said magicians should avoid appearing smarter than their audience. This is difficult coming from the sort of person who enjoys punching out his own sesquipidalian neologisms (sorcerpomorphism?) and lamenting the overuse of what some might view as an obscure German. "Yes, Niles, schadenfreude WAS a perfectly delightful word until the Times began using it in every other obit." People will be more likely to play their role if they get to see an egomaniac deflate before their eyes. Self-awareness, timing, presentation, character, present company have a lot more to do with, or so I figure, than whichever trick you choose to do. These can be so much though.
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."

Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!"
Fresh
View Profile
Regular user
134 Posts

Profile of Fresh
Cheops' Dunbury Sandwich from Card College volume 4. It's a great opener!
T. Joseph O'Malley
View Profile
Inner circle
Canada
1937 Posts

Profile of T. Joseph O'Malley
David Ben has a great handling of "Dunbury Delusion" in his book "Tricks". In it, he provides a presentation that removes any potential sting from the trick - as well as removing the need for a table...
tjo'
Ben Train
View Profile
Inner circle
Erdnase never had
4638 Posts

Profile of Ben Train
Quote:
On 2008-02-25 05:41, T. Joseph O'Malley wrote:
David Ben has a great handling of "Dunbury Delusion" in his book "Tricks". In it, he provides a presentation that removes any potential sting from the trick - as well as removing the need for a table...


Shhhh...
If you're reading this you're my favourite magician.

Check out www.TorontoMagicCompany.com for upcoming shows, and instagram.com/train.ben for god knows what!
seraph127
View Profile
Special user
582 Posts

Profile of seraph127
Quote:
I prefer Miller's Dunbury Delusion, though I do not perform it as often as I wish. Some sucker tricks, on the right person/audience, at the right place and time time, promote karmic justice. We do not want the spectators to ruin the effect by saying, "that's my card!" but then spectators should feel guilty letting you draw out your failure. Schadenfreude is the increasingly overworked word here. You can see the ****-eating grin on most of their faces; consequently, on some level, they need to admit they deserved to get fooled because moments earlier they could not contain their glee; it's a role reversal.


I'd never quite thought of it that way.

Still and all, presenting the Dunbury Delusion as sucker trick is simply one option. One could, for example, act confused when people want to check the "indicator" cards, and say something like "What? You thought it was one of these? THAT'S weird...I don't get it..."

Or maybe that's another way of invoking Cain's aforementioned "karmic justice" principle...
There are many tricks, and many effects, but rarely a Grand Effect. There are many entertainers, but few real magicians. Many technicians, but few artists who use their art to explore their vision. - Derren Brown, Absolute Magic
EndersGame
View Profile
Inner circle
Reviewer EndersGame
2123 Posts

Profile of EndersGame
Quote:
On 2008-02-23 13:59, Steve Friedberg wrote: Watch Bill Malone's handling of "Daley's Last Trick," as opposed to the traditional handling; Bill focuses the attention on himself, while the traditional method makes the spectator look foolish because they haven't been able to follow the path of two cards.
Quote:
On 2008-02-23 14:29, Turk wrote: Are you referring to Bill Malone's "Back the Way They Were" on volume 1 of "On the Loose"? If now, would you please be so kind as to advise which effect of Bill's are you referring to?
Steve is likely referring to Bill Malone's performance of "Daley's Last Trick" as seen in this video clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXKLw-3AWqc
T. Joseph O'Malley
View Profile
Inner circle
Canada
1937 Posts

Profile of T. Joseph O'Malley
Quote:
On 2008-02-25 07:44, BenTrain (Nordatrax) wrote:
Quote:
On 2008-02-25 05:41, T. Joseph O'Malley wrote:
David Ben has a great handling of "Dunbury Delusion" in his book "Tricks". In it, he provides a presentation that removes any potential sting from the trick - as well as removing the need for a table...


Shhhh...


(It's ok - it's out of print..)
tjo'
wsduncan
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle, WA
3619 Posts

Profile of wsduncan
Quote:
On 2008-02-23 18:02, Cain wrote:
I do not recall Malone's handling of Daley's Aces, probably because I am not quick to associate him with such a presentation. Malone's "My Favorite Opener" was his handling of Fecther's "That's It"!

Actually the Fechter trick was called “I’ve Got A Surprise For You” if memory serves me correctly. The presenation was that if "this" isn't your card... "I've got a suprise for you."

It isn't... then it is. "Suprise!"

Not a sucker trick at all when seen in the playful context of Fechter's presentation. Morel like "teasing."
Cain
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles, CA
1522 Posts

Profile of Cain
Quote:
On 2008-02-25 20:18, wsduncan wrote:
Actually the Fechter trick was called “I’ve Got A Surprise For You” if memory serves me correctly. The presenation was that if "this" isn't your card... "I've got a suprise for you."

It isn't... then it is. "Suprise!"

Not a sucker trick at all when seen in the playful context of Fechter's presentation. Morel like "teasing."


You're right.
Ellusionst discussing the Arcane Playing cards: "Michaelangelo took four years to create the Sistine Chapel masterpiece... these took five."

Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes: "You know Einstein got bad grades as a kid? Well, mine are even worse!"
Medifro
View Profile
Inner circle
Miami
1255 Posts

Profile of Medifro
Who said that Dunbry ( and brothers ) has "a sucker" type for audience?

I think the original poster said "sucker" because you sucked, not theirs, giving them the feeling that they caught you and they won, not knowing that they'll be suprised.

I think this is a good type of "sucker" that plays well for spectators, and my experience with it proves it. Sucker effects like presentations of 3 card monte or " I bet you cant pick your card" kind of tricks are the sucker effects you should avoid, unless you see that the moment is right ( Cain's post covers this ).

~ Feras
mrsmiles
View Profile
Elite user
439 Posts

Profile of mrsmiles
[quote]On 2008-02-25 11:54, Topov wrote:
Quote:
Steve is likely referring to Bill Malone's performance...


Yes, this is the version I do, based on Malone's teaching which is on one of his 'On the Loose' DVDs (can't remember which of one). The patter centres on the weight of the cards rather than the spectators failing to notice the cards transposing (the 'sucker' aspect referred to). I won't say more about the patter so readers need to see/buy the dvd if they want to learn it. It's very good!! It's Bill Malone - what better recommendation can there be?!
mrsmiles
(UK)
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4841 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2008-02-25 11:34, seraph127 wrote:
Quote:
I prefer Miller's Dunbury Delusion, though I do not perform it as often as I wish. Some sucker tricks, on the right person/audience, at the right place and time time, promote karmic justice. We do not want the spectators to ruin the effect by saying, "that's my card!" but then spectators should feel guilty letting you draw out your failure. Schadenfreude is the increasingly overworked word here. You can see the ****-eating grin on most of their faces; consequently, on some level, they need to admit they deserved to get fooled because moments earlier they could not contain their glee; it's a role reversal.


I'd never quite thought of it that way.
Still and all, presenting the Dunbury Delusion as sucker trick is simply one option. One could, for example, act confused when people want to check the "indicator" cards, and say something like "What? You thought it was one of these? THAT'S weird...I don't get it..."

Or maybe that's another way of invoking Cain's aforementioned "karmic justice" principle...


Personally, I have found that even this type of "ploy" still has a "gotcha"/"sucker" feel.

I do something similar, but different, which I feel completely eliminates the "sucker" feel.

Mind you, as soon as they see their card go down, they already set themselves up for it. The "sucker" feel is almost impossible to avoid. It is more of how you acknowledge it I think that has the final influence in how the spectator feel.


Any who, here is what I do, with DD at least.

Everything plays as normal until I have dealt the number of cards indicated to reveal their card, at which point I ask them to name their card. Do ask "what was your card?" or "which card did you choose?" as they may be more inclined to just go, "this one" as they turn one over on the table, or wherever. At this point you have no way out of the sucker feel, and the spectators actions only make them look "worse" in the over all. And they did nothing wrong. SO, I word it as asking them to say the name of the card. Encouraging specifically a "naming," rather than asking for the card to be identified.

As soon as they name the card, I look puzzled, and point to the pile saying "but didn't . . ." or "wasn't that card . . ." then act as if I have a solution, make a magical gesture from the pile to the deck, and then reveal the card.

This certainly gives it a more "magician makes good" feel, but acknowledges the situation, and "magically" resolves it, rather than indirectly telling the spectators that they were simply wrong.

This is what I find still inherit in the idea seraph127 suggested. This is because you you "play" ignorant towards what the specs know they saw. This is indirectly telling them they were wrong. Even though they know they saw it. Or they will honestly question if they saw their card go down, and may even conclude they were mistaken, then the effect is lost.

Even doing this "What? You thought it was one of these? THAT'S weird...I don't get it..." presentation with a wink to the specs says, "that's what I wanted you to think, you went right where I wanted you."


I feel that what I suggested (probably nothing original) acknowledges the situation and says, "that's ok, I'm a magician, I can fix this" rather than "well that can't be what happened, the card is obviously where I want it to be" or even simpler, "nope, your wrong spectators."
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Cohiba
View Profile
Special user
Michigan
749 Posts

Profile of Cohiba
The title "Sir" is often used as an acknowledgement of respect.
However, you can definitely show respect without using the title "sir".
On the other hand, you can also use "sir" in a mocking or derogatory way.

I feel like sucker / magician in trouble effects are similar to this. You can do a full-fledged magician in trouble reversal, and have the audience still like you (and not feeling belittled) if you play it right. On the other hand, you can try to really soften the sucker aspect, and still come off as being an idiot.

It's all in your persona. Not your presentation.

Therefore, work on your persona - and you'll have a much wider range of presentations available.

One of the times this trick has played the strongest for me was when performing for someone who was showing all the glee he could muster (the role reversal mentioned by Cain above). He was convinced that I had screwed up. Everyone went nuts at the conclusion because he was so sure he had me. Downplaying the effect like you're confused and will fix it in a Mr. Nice way loses some of the impact of the effect. Just keep that in mind with sucker type tricks - they were designed that way for a reason.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4841 Posts

Profile of gdw
Cohiba, what you describe still sounds like it has the same root problem.

The rest of the audience may have went crazy, but you've described the volunteer spectator as being ecstatic that he has you beat, as you put it, "he had me" as are your exact words.

The description here is exactly a challenge situation, which is exactly what you should be trying to avoid.

Sucker effects, played like this, no matter how you are as a persona, make the volunteer look, and feel, stupid.

Now, this is the way these types of effects WERE designed, as you point out, for a reason. However, it is not necessary. There are many ways to handle a heckler, for example, but they are not all good ways.

Sucker effects will get a reaction, and for the reason they were "designed" to, but that doesn't mean it was the BEST way to get a reaction, even using the same effect.

They WERE designed to be used this way, but, now, "we know better" you could say.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
TheAmbitiousCard
View Profile
Eternal Order
Northern California
13416 Posts

Profile of TheAmbitiousCard
For those that perform for lay audiences a lot, a sucker trick has a HUGE place for many reasons and different types of possible spectators. And it creates a lot of comedic interaction.

Many of the tricks I do have built-in sucker moments where an audience member can take the bait or not. If I'm performing for a group of business owners, perhaps nobody will take the bait. If I'm performing for "self-proclaimed intellectuals" or "engineers" one of them will usually take one for the team and spout off. The whole group learns immediately that they run the risk of looking like a "non-intellectual" when their buddy is caught. It's not me doing the stinging. it's the wise-guy's buddies.. teasing, poking fun, etc. Not me. I'm on his side. It wasn't his fault!!!

If nothing else, it quiets the loudmouths so you can actually get your routines done in a professional manner, so you don't end up looking like a hack.

The great thing about performing is the interaction. That is what will get you re-booked. No matter how good your tricks are, that will not get you a repeat booking unless people like you. Sucker tricks as well as many other things provide more moments for your audience to get to know you and you about them. Used wisely, they are fantastic.

Think about it. Those that don't perform much for real audiences often say "i don't like spongeballs because you have to explain what they are". That's either a rank amateur talking or someone trying to sell spongeballs that look like earplugs. A real worker loves spongeballs for the same reason. More chances to joke around and interact. Theorize all your want, but handled well, a sucker trick like those described are pure gold.

But I am NOT talking about a bunch of card tricks one after the other.
I'm talking about 1 card trick, a move in my spongeball routine, a feint in my rope routine, a gag load in my chop cup routine, etc.

Sucker tricks are used as a tool. But you don't go poking people in the eye with them, one after the other, laughing, pointing at them , and screaming "loser" to their face.

No I would not do more than one card trick like DD in a single card set. Does not make sense.

For those that care, "That's It" is Fechter's trick and is toally different than "I've got a Surprise for you".
www.theambitiouscard.com Hand Crafted Magic
Trophy Husband, Father of the Year Candidate,
Chippendale's Dancer applicant, Unofficial World Record Holder.
The Burnaby Kid
View Profile
Inner circle
St. John's, Canada
3157 Posts

Profile of The Burnaby Kid
Quote:
On 2009-06-17 22:25, gdw wrote:
Cohiba, what you describe still sounds like it has the same root problem.

The rest of the audience may have went crazy, but you've described the volunteer spectator as being ecstatic that he has you beat, as you put it, "he had me" as are your exact words.

The description here is exactly a challenge situation, which is exactly what you should be trying to avoid.

Sucker effects, played like this, no matter how you are as a persona, make the volunteer look, and feel, stupid.

Now, this is the way these types of effects WERE designed, as you point out, for a reason. However, it is not necessary. There are many ways to handle a heckler, for example, but they are not all good ways.

Sucker effects will get a reaction, and for the reason they were "designed" to, but that doesn't mean it was the BEST way to get a reaction, even using the same effect.

They WERE designed to be used this way, but, now, "we know better" you could say.


Nah, I don't buy this at all.

First off, our spectators are not little emo children who will cut themselves or jump off a bridge if they're fooled badly. For the most part, they can take whatever we give out. At the end of the night, we're frequently silly tricksters who were hired for an event to provide amusements. That's a low standard that is pretty easy to transcend, but if the standard were higher, we'd have a much more uncomfortable performing situation -- just ask mentalists about disclaimers.

Secondly, we've got to get off this silly notion that all spectators come into a magic performance with the same psychology. Darwin Ortiz's Strong Magic is one of the finer works of modern magic theory out there, but Ortiz's statement that there are more similarities amongst non-magician audiences than there are differences is way off. Some people come to us because they want to see surprising things, and we could give them stuff out of a beginner magic book and fry their brains. These people comprise a wonderful audience and need to be treated very carefully. On the other hand, work for enough people and you'll get those who've either (a) been around the block, or (b) think they've been around the block, and no matter what you as the magician tries to do, they'll want to be one step ahead of you. These people, you've got to fool, and fool badly. Otherwise, you're denying them astonishment.

Our job as magicians is to provide mystery. The gloves are off, and we don't have to play fair. If sucker effects allow us a tactical advantage, then we dismiss them at our peril.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » That's It! vs, Fingerprint Card Trick (vs.Dunbury Delusion...) (0 Likes)
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.08 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL