Although I have used these from time to time as needed or if part of a specific effect, I have never really committed to having these as a credible, useful tool in my arsenal of applications. Each year I commit to trying to incorporate new ideas and methodologies that I know, am aware of, or have tinkered with, and really try to "get them down" to be included in my performances as a reliable resource.

This year one of the first things I've decided is to approach the whole Equivoque, PATEO, Magician's Choice possibilities, as I've always been intriqued by the opportunities and possibilities these present. I was also inspired to pursue this after watch Docc's DVD series, attending his lecture, and spending time talking to him on several occasions in person.

I have searched and spent the last month reading threads and posts here, but my question is to Mentalist's specifically. What methods and reasonings do you have regarding these methods, and what do you prefer or use and why?

I guess I have always believed that PATEO was transparent to me (and audiences), at times I though Equivoque was tricky and often cloudy or complicated. But recently I've seen the possibilities of how clean for example Docc's E'Voque can be, and also how PATEO is just as much about the performance as the method.

As Mentalists what are your feelings on these and what have you found to be more believable, useful, and reliable to both you and the audience? Thanks!

I've had similar feelings and fears as you.

I know there are a ton of resources to consult, and I'm sure many will be suggested in this thread, but for me, Joshua Quinn's book ParaLies was a huge turning point in my confidence in using equivoque. His routine, Deckquivoque is fantastic. The thinking is clear, concise and thoroughly explained. Beyond the routine, Joshua goes into his thinking about equivoque in general. It's a fantastic resource for creating your own equivoque sequences.

I can't recommend it enough.

What's Equivoque?

What's PATEO?

MP, I think you should pick two, and hand one to me.

Pateo was the stage name of a little know Irish mentalist -- Paddy O'Reilly. He's line up five pints of ale and as a spectator eliminated various ones, Paddy would chug them down. The effect ended with Paddy, out cold on the bar floor.

So my question should have been WHO'S PATEO...

Thank you for your answer Mindbender... Now I know!

I do one with chairs and tables placed outside. I call it Pateo Furniture.

Greg

There is an extremely good use of the pateo force on Paul Stockman's new DVD "Connected" - He does a £20 in an numbered envelope routine, but gets a women to mix up the envelopes face down so that no one (apparently including the mentalist) knows which envelope it goes is in. They are then mixed even further. (and the envelopes are not marked in any other way apart from a big number on them)

It's all hands off as the women choses the envelope and does all the mixing and handling of them.

This brilliantly takes away any idea of a force as the mentalist can't possibly know anything more than the audience does. (it would seem)

No need to run as you are not being chased and nothing to find or spot.

I think this topic will SOONER or later will be moved to inner thoughts.

I try to explain my version, but its really hard for me

The believability factor was hugely increased for me by "creating a flow".
Imagine the decison chain as a river. If you and the participant drifting with the river, you don't watch if it is going left or right.
Imagine the worst equivoque with 4 choices : a,b,c,d (you want to force : c)

You : Choose any two from that
Spec : Well A and C
You : Now your last choice from these two would be...
Spec : a
You : Very good, the C reamined !...

This is a very poorly executed (bad as hell) equivoque, with no scripting, and the decisions contradict themselves. But!...

Question : What would be the difference if you didn't force anything, but must take the same route (select 2 and eliminate the next selection)?
Answer : You needn't think. If you needn't think, then you just created a flow. The events contradicts themselves, but the whole process is a whole continuos stream.

So what next? : Create a continuous experience (Docc's routine is a perfect example for this) for the spec. and s/he won't notice any discrepancy.

Well, I hope its understandable for you, cause I don't have the proper language skill in English to write down everything from my head.

Br,
Norbert

And don't forget about PATET!

The PATEO is fresh on my mind because a good use for it has been published in Richard Mark's new book, Mind Work, building on an idea Luke Jermay published in 3510. Though Richard Mark admits he's not usually "fond of the PATEO as it seems obvious and tedious to boot," he then proceeds to describe a presentation that makes sense and sounds like a heap of fun for the audience. He marries PATEO to another method, of course, to add another layer of decept-shone (that's Cajun for "deception"). Aside from a few contributions to SYZYGY, I'd never read any of Richard Mark's work until late last Saturday night. Already I'm addicted to his stuff.

I second Mindbender's recommendation of 'Deckquivoque'! It gave me the full confidence I needed to do an effect based largely on equivoque. I'm currently re-reading ParaLies after having not done so for a while and am loving it even more.

:D

Find Harlan's brilliant thread on Equivoque on the Café. One of the best threads here ever!

PATEO: don't bother in a stage show. It is slow and will be transperent to a percentage of the audience. The better way is to gaff up envelopes so that you can force information with direct choices from the participant; rather than this round about way of doing it. I have only used this once on a friend at a Café, there is stronger material to do, so why show people something average?


Magician's Choice: My advice on this one is go for the miracle. For example, find out what position the desired object (let's say a card) is most likely to be chosen (e.g. second from the left if you present four cards in a row). Then start with saying "touch a card". If they select that one, then bingo. This should happen most of the time if it is in the statistically most selected place. If it is not selected, the key here is that you still appear to be happy with their choice as if you expected as much "OH wow! This is going to be easy. You want to get rid of that one? Fine, so now push two more towards me. Any two."
Again, I wouldn't use this on stage, because a certain percentage of the audience will see through it. Close-up only.

One of the original equivoque masters? Moe Howard.

Pick one...

Mindpro;
If you haven't done already you should check out this thread

It's 4 pages of really useful information pertinent to the points you raise in your opening post in this thread.

Neal

Just to recap some of my (and others) old ideas and tips -



I would dare ANYONE to find the following combo to be too transparent...


1) USE PATET (FOR A CHANGE)

2) FREE GROUPING AND IMMEDIATE ELIMINATION OF ONE GROUP (CONDITIONING STEP)

3) MARKING

4) SHUFFLING AND RE-SHUFFLING IN BETWEEN STEPS

5) RANDOM REQUESTS TO OTHER SPECTATORS IF PRESENT

6) MULTIPLE OUTCOMES AND/OR EQUIVOQUE FOR THE FINAL PHASE

7) MISREADING FOR THE DOUBLE KICKER ENDING


OPTIONAL:

APPARENTLY BUTCHERED PREDICTION TURNING TO BE RIGHT AS A SURPRISE MOMENT


Enjoy and... Pateo away as you do!

Funny -- what was once old becomes new

Thanks for the tips -- they are always welcomed!

David

Isn't it always like that ???

Drinks on the PATEO from the Marc Spelmann and Peter Nardi DVD, Unexpected, is a wonderful combination of the PATEO force and equivoque.