The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » 99,99% Berglas (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page 1~2~3 [Next]
Silvano
View Profile
New user
Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovinia
36 Posts

Profile of Silvano
I'am finishing my version on ACAAN (Berglas effect). I like to share few words with others about this new version.

01. Performer puts card case in full view before trick start.
02. Performer don't touch the deck never after trick start. In 48 cases he don't touch even card box. Only in 4 cases magician must touch only card box, but not the cards.
03. Deck is full and regular
04. No double cards
05. No gaffed cards
06. No gimmicks
07. No extra stuffs only regular deck.

08. Spectator can name absolutely any position from 1 to 52
09. Spectator also decide which card wan't to see on named position.
10. Spectator take out cards from box in 48 cases.
11. Spectator count to named position.
12. Card and position are mach together.

I decide to name this trick "99,99% Berglas", because 4 cases, when performer needs to touch a card box.
Rest is 100% clean effect without touching deck. Smile
Michael J
View Profile
Veteran user
UK
334 Posts

Profile of Michael J
Hi Salvano,

Reads good. Any chance of a video demo.

Michael J
Dennis Loomis
View Profile
1943 - 2013
2113 Posts

Profile of Dennis Loomis
4 cases out of 52 rounds up to 92 percent. But call it whatever you like because it sounds teriffic. I would also like to see it, or have it explained. Doesn't seem possible.
Dennis Loomis
Itinerant Montebank
<BR>http://www.loomismagic.com
wilko7
View Profile
Regular user
UK
134 Posts

Profile of wilko7
Sounds really interesting. Very clean. Only 4 out of 52 chances does the performer need to touch the cards... I'd love to hear/see more.
Waterloophai
View Profile
Inner circle
Belgium
1183 Posts

Profile of Waterloophai
Sorry, NOT possible as described. (without a deckswitch and a memdeck).

Quote:
On 2010-12-11 16:36, Waterloophai wrote:
Sorry, NOT possible as described. (without a deckswitch and a memdeck).

I mean a "card case switch" in this case.
BarryFernelius
View Profile
Inner circle
Still learning, even though I've made
2531 Posts

Profile of BarryFernelius
Consider condition (or, if you prefer, constraint) 09:

09. Spectator also decide which card wan't to see on named position.

(I think he meant to say, "Spectator also decides which card he wants to see at the named position.")

This doesn't give you any insight into HOW the spectator makes his decision. For instance, in Michael Vincent's version of the effect, all of the constraints listed in the original post are met, and the performer NEVER has to touch the card box. In fact, the deck and box can be given away at the end of the show because there is nothing for anyone to find. And because of the ingenious way that Michael has constructed his entire show, anyone who describes the effect later will say that everything was completely fair.

The feeling that the effect gives to the audience and the way that the audience describes the effect the next day are much more important than the method. The problem is building up the suspense and the impossibility in a pleasing way.
"To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan and not quite enough time."

-Leonard Bernstein
Waterloophai
View Profile
Inner circle
Belgium
1183 Posts

Profile of Waterloophai
Quote:
On 2010-12-11 17:22, BarryFernelius wrote:
Consider condition (or, if you prefer, constraint) 09:
09. Spectator also decide which card wan't to see on named position.
(I think he meant to say, "Spectator also decides which card he wants to see at the named position.")
This doesn't give you any insight into HOW the spectator makes his decision.


If it is a method where you "help" or "lead" the spectator to name a particular card, I don't see why there would be 4 exeptions.
Silvano
View Profile
New user
Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovinia
36 Posts

Profile of Silvano
Selecting position is 100% free choice, but selecting card looks like free choice of card, but in reality is free choice of way to the desired card. There is 12 different outs, picture card. In short, when spectator names position performer instantly know which picture card is in play. For example if spectator say 41 performers instantly know that on that place is Jack of diamonds. And rest is pure verbal force presentation. Verbal force of any picture card is so clean that spectator think that he have free choice of any card. I will type out every detail of my ACAAN soon. And share with Berglas effect lovers.
poonchingyip
View Profile
Elite user
Canada
420 Posts

Profile of poonchingyip
When are you going to sell it??
Tom G
View Profile
Inner circle
2632 Posts

Profile of Tom G
It sounds interesting, but then again so didn't the last number of effects claiming the same. Most end up with some
convoluted handling that the spectator can't help but figure the card is being manipulated. Hope this is different.
panlives
View Profile
Inner circle
2087 Posts

Profile of panlives
Quote:
On 2010-12-11 17:22, BarryFernelius wrote:
Consider condition (or, if you prefer, constraint) 09:

09. Spectator also decide which card wan't to see on named position.

(I think he meant to say, "Spectator also decides which card he wants to see at the named position.")

This doesn't give you any insight into HOW the spectator makes his decision. For instance, in Michael Vincent's version of the effect, all of the constraints listed in the original post are met, and the performer NEVER has to touch the card box. In fact, the deck and box can be given away at the end of the show because there is nothing for anyone to find. And because of the ingenious way that Michael has constructed his entire show, anyone who describes the effect later will say that everything was completely fair.

The feeling that the effect gives to the audience and the way that the audience describes the effect the next day are much more important than the method. The problem is building up the suspense and the impossibility in a pleasing way.


Barry,

You beat me to the punch.

Anyone who sees Michael Vincent’s version will understand exactly what you described.

Thank you for the bull’s-eye commentary.
"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.
inaciolino
View Profile
Veteran user
372 Posts

Profile of inaciolino
Where can I see Michael Vincent’s version of ACAAN? See you!!!
Silvano
View Profile
New user
Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovinia
36 Posts

Profile of Silvano
Rapsody in silver (4 DVD set) from Michael vincent, disk 2, I think.
:)
BarryFernelius
View Profile
Inner circle
Still learning, even though I've made
2531 Posts

Profile of BarryFernelius
Quote:
On 2010-12-14 17:21, panlives wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-11 17:22, BarryFernelius wrote:
Consider condition (or, if you prefer, constraint) 09:

09. Spectator also decide which card wan't to see on named position.

(I think he meant to say, "Spectator also decides which card he wants to see at the named position.")

This doesn't give you any insight into HOW the spectator makes his decision. For instance, in Michael Vincent's version of the effect, all of the constraints listed in the original post are met, and the performer NEVER has to touch the card box. In fact, the deck and box can be given away at the end of the show because there is nothing for anyone to find. And because of the ingenious way that Michael has constructed his entire show, anyone who describes the effect later will say that everything was completely fair.

The feeling that the effect gives to the audience and the way that the audience describes the effect the next day are much more important than the method. The problem is building up the suspense and the impossibility in a pleasing way.


Barry,

You beat me to the punch.

Anyone who sees Michael Vincent’s version will understand exactly what you described.

Thank you for the bull’s-eye commentary.


You're welcome! Since the Christmas season is a time for giving, here's a link to Michael Vincent at the Magic Castle.

The bad news: this is NOT a high quality video, from a production standpoint.
The good news: you can learn many important lessons by watching Michael work.

The armchair magician will watch this video and think to himself, "What a bunch of nonsense! Michael isn't doing ACAAN at all. This is clearly a SCAAN effect. I waited 10 minutes for that?! What a rip-off!"

If you've ever done much performing for real people, you'll see a very different video. Honest to goodness, this is the Real Work my friends.
"To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan and not quite enough time."

-Leonard Bernstein
edh
View Profile
Inner circle
4698 Posts

Profile of edh
That was very good. Michael Vincent is an excellent performer. I enjoy his style of performing.
Magic is a vanishing art.
Silvano
View Profile
New user
Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovinia
36 Posts

Profile of Silvano
Michael Vincent card at any number is very good trick but totally different version. In that version performer use two deck and forcing a card. In my version I use only one deck, and rest is speaking with spectator. I try this trick on many peoples and reactions are very good. After few days describe of the trick is: "He gives me a deck of cards, I named one number from 1 to 52, I chose a my favorite card, I count to named number and my favorite card is on that number." Smile

Short describe is like this:

01. Performers put card in the box on table in full view or give it to the spectator to hold it.
02. Than performer ask spectator to name any number.
03. After that he ask about favorite card (Did spectator prefer pictures or number cards, black or red ones etc.)
04. After spectator name number and decide which card he like mostly (or at last he think that he have free choice), performer ask spectator to take out card from box and count to the named number. On that number is spectators card.

P.S.
There is only one deck and very simple method beside effect. There is no hands manipulations only pure conversation and instructions.

I develop method for rest 4 cases so now performer never touch card. but in that 4 cases effect is little less powerful but still good. In fact in that 4 cases you can always switch the trick (Ambitious card for example), if you think that alternative 4 outs are not powerful enough.

You put cards, number is named, card is chosen (but without using another deck), the chosen card is on named position.
edh
View Profile
Inner circle
4698 Posts

Profile of edh
Ummmmm...Memdeck and force? Smile
Magic is a vanishing art.
tenchu
View Profile
Special user
Europe
903 Posts

Profile of tenchu
So, the number is picked first, then the 'freely chosen' card? Well, I see some similarities to ANAAC (don't wanna get into details but it's awesome, just like the whole dvd set).
panlives
View Profile
Inner circle
2087 Posts

Profile of panlives
Quote:
On 2010-12-15 12:36, BarryFernelius wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-14 17:21, panlives wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-11 17:22, BarryFernelius wrote:
Consider condition (or, if you prefer, constraint) 09:

09. Spectator also decide which card wan't to see on named position.

(I think he meant to say, "Spectator also decides which card he wants to see at the named position.")

This doesn't give you any insight into HOW the spectator makes his decision. For instance, in Michael Vincent's version of the effect, all of the constraints listed in the original post are met, and the performer NEVER has to touch the card box. In fact, the deck and box can be given away at the end of the show because there is nothing for anyone to find. And because of the ingenious way that Michael has constructed his entire show, anyone who describes the effect later will say that everything was completely fair.

The feeling that the effect gives to the audience and the way that the audience describes the effect the next day are much more important than the method. The problem is building up the suspense and the impossibility in a pleasing way.

Barry,

You beat me to the punch.

Anyone who sees Michael Vincent’s version will understand exactly what you described.

Thank you for the bull’s-eye commentary.

You're welcome! Since the Christmas season is a time for giving, here's a link to Michael Vincent at the Magic Castle.

The bad news: this is NOT a high quality video, from a production standpoint.
The good news: you can learn many important lessons by watching Michael work.

The armchair magician will watch this video and think to himself, "What a bunch of nonsense! Michael isn't doing ACAAN at all. This is clearly a SCAAN effect. I waited 10 minutes for that?! What a rip-off!"

If you've ever done much performing for real people, you'll see a very different video. Honest to goodness, this is the Real Work my friends.

Barry,

Once again, your observations are spot-on...

...and thank you for the link. Mr. Vincent is a class act, through and through. His Cups and Balls performance is so clean and “articulate.”

Posted: Dec 16, 2010 4:40pm
Quote:
On 2010-12-16 09:16, Silvano wrote:
Michael Vincent card at any number is very good trick but totally different version. In that version performer use two deck and forcing a card. In my version I use only one deck, and rest is speaking with spectator. I try this trick on many peoples and reactions are very good. After few days describe of the trick is: "He gives me a deck of cards, I named one number from 1 to 52, I chose a my favorite card, I count to named number and my favorite card is on that number."

Short describe is like this:

01. Performers put card in the box on table in full view or give it to the spectator to hold it.
02. Than performer ask spectator to name any number.
03. After that he ask about favorite card (Did spectator prefer pictures or number cards, black or red ones etc.)
04. After spectator name number and decide which card he like mostly (or at last he think that he have free choice), performer ask spectator to take out card from box and count to the named number. On that number is spectators card.

P.S.
There is only one deck and very simple method beside effect. There is no hands manipulations only pure conversation and instructions.

I develop method for rest 4 cases so now performer never touch card. but in that 4 cases effect is little less powerful but still good. In fact in that 4 cases you can always switch the trick (Ambitious card for example), if you think that alternative 4 outs are not powerful enough.

You put cards, number is named, card is chosen (but without using another deck), the chosen card is on named position.

Ok, it seems you are missing the point –which is understandable because Barry is pointing out a subtle yet essential distinction.

I suggest you re-read his post above.

You seem to be focussing on methodology. Barry is trying to explain how the audience may perceive and remember the effect.
"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
"The dog did nothing in the night-time."
"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.
Silvano
View Profile
New user
Doboj, Bosnia and Herzegovinia
36 Posts

Profile of Silvano
Like I side I really like work of mr. Vincent and of course I do some of his act too. Everything is brilliant about Mr. Vincent.

What is interesting about my version is this.
Performer need to memorize only 3 cards on position 2, 6, and 10, so it is not memorized deck work. Rest is simple mathematic calculations and conversions for find out identity of the card which need to be verbal forced in second part of the routine. Actually you can use this system for any kind of forcing card. I use "Magician choice" for any picture card because in that way trick is most like Original Berglas effect. I don't know any kind of method where the performer gives the Deck at the start of routine and do 100% ORIGINAL BERGLAS PLOT with just one regular deck of the cards. Substitution for that for me is verbal force. I am rally big card magic lover and I treat card magic as a very smart act. I also believe that everything is possible, but I never find any method where spectator just take a deck from performer, than name a position and card, and imidiatly count to that position and find named card there. Actually my work is in big part is inspired by WTF! acaan trick. I was used to do that trick several times and few times peoples ask me "Can I just a name number" cause forcing positions with hand fingers is to complicated for someone. So My version is extended version of WTF! acaan, to all 52 positions, with no finger forcing method. Smile I just like to think a lot about playing card and I really hope that someone will like my method and use it well.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Shuffled not Stirred » » 99,99% Berglas (0 Likes)
 Go to page 1~2~3 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2019 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.19 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