On 2011-02-25 11:54, Gorecki wrote:
I've been experimenting with the principles contained in this clever ebook, and I thought I'd share some of my thoughts on the subject in the hopes that other practitioners will chime in with their own ideas.


1. THE "ANY CARD AND ANY NUMBER" SELECTION

In my experience, spectators tend to select a number somewhere in the middle of the offered range (I often get 25, 26 or 27).
Couple that with the fact that you have a 50% chance of the selected card currently resting in the lower half of the deck, and you've got some long and repetitive dealing ahead of you.
(Those who know the effect will understand what I mean.) For that first sequence, Tommy says that should you run out of cards, you simply ask the spectator to gather up the deck and start dealing again. And I'd like to avoid that if possible.

So while it is true that the spectator can select ANY number, it is preferrable (because of the reasons highlighted above) for the spectator to select as high a number as possible.
That will limit the amount of dealing you'll need done.
For that reason, I've started presenting the opening selection of a card and a number differently. Instead of saying "Name any card and any number," I say something along the lines of "Mentally select a card, any one in the deck, and select a number from 1 to -- well, you can go all way up to 52." (With a subtle emphasis on "up to 52.)
This tends to steer the spectator into a higher range, and I'll often get a number in the 30s or 40s.
This takes a lot of the dealing out and makes the effect more to the point.


2. THE OSE TRIPLE CUT & WHY SHOULD IT MATTER THAT THE MAGICIAN NEVER TOUCHES THE DECK

Right before spectator 1 counts down to his selected card (at his selected number, Tommy suggests using the Ose Triple Cut, and proposes having it done by the spectator so that the magician can claim (rightly so) that he never touched the deck up to that first revelation.

There are two things to discuss here.
First, the Ose Cut. It's certainly an effective move, but it's at its best when performed smoothly, with good rhythm and precise moves.
If you have this done by the spectator, you lose the rhythm and the precise moves, essentially because the poor guy is afraid to mess it up and wants to make sure he's going what you want. That makes the cut less deceptive -- still viable, mind you, but less deceptive. I've had spectators question the Ose Cut when they did it themselves, but NEVER when I perform it.
So I much prefer to perform the cut (or any other false cut) myself. (And that's if you feel you do need a cut there, which you may not.)

Which brings us to the second point: the magician never touching the deck.
This seems to be a prerequisite for a lot of people looking into ACAAN effects, but I honestly fail to see why.
It's all about what the spectators believe. In the particular case of Subtle Scam, what happens if I take the deck and give it a "cut" before I hand it back to spectator 1 so that he can deal down to his chosen position in the deck? The worst that can happen is that spectators will think I've somehow positioned the right card at the right spot.
Think about it -- if a spectator thinks my cut put the right card in the right spot, it means he believes that I have the ability to know exactly where the chosen card lies (in a shuffled deck) AND that I am able to cut exactly the right amount of cards required to put that selected card in the selected position.
Now how is that a bad thing? Nobody (all right, very few people) will believe you actually have magical powers. But they can very well believe you have the abilities I've just described, and that makes you a legend -- a lot more than some alleged mystical powers would.

Plus, your cutting the deck gives them an out that takes the heat away from mathematical considerations. And what's more magical (again, in the spectator's mind): that you've mathematically maneuvered things to that his card falls in the right spot, or that you can take a shuffled deck and instantly cut any card to any location without even looking?

On 2011-03-22 13:24, entermagic wrote:
Hi Andy,
in my opinion, if you don't see the conditions, Subtle Scam is not for you or any other
method, because Richardson's is already the best.

MPnest