http://www.theory11.com/wire/bedros--akkelian/sneak-peak/

Anyone has this?
I report this already to Millard.

Hoping that this isn't another one like the "Revelation Effect"

Hi Pablo!

I have it and it is different to AN.
It is actually very clever, I have not seen something like this before.
Yes it is based on AN but it is different.

It looks like AN from the demo.
Sorry Jose, your track record with such things does not inspire confidence in your statement.

I'll wait for an opinion from someone I trust.

Tony

I'll try to be cryptic as this is an open forum...

It has similarities to AN but is actually very different. Doesn't use any overlaps and the moment and action of the p**k is in no way similar. I can see that he probably developed it from using AN originally but has changed it almost beyond recognition. The only real similarity is the area of the b****t that is p****d at.

It's actually quite good too.

All the best
Sean

Sounds like a good "new" peek

So, you're "in"
I don't have it also but it has some similarity with Nimrod's peek except you don't peek exactly in the same way, also with Nimrod's peek you don't have to move you fist like this
Anyway, his idea is interesting.

That is fighting talk! :0

En garde...

No, Mr. Prager has pubicly displayed a pattern of selling ideas which, though perhaps independently developed, are clearly represented in the published record, and with full knowledge has published them anyway in a breach of accepted ethics. More on point, he has pubicly accused others of ripping off the work of known mentalists without evidence, and his statements have been conclusively proven to be false. Unfortunately, however well intentioned he may claim to be, his open behavior on this forum has left with a less than desirable reputation in the matter of his trustworthiness. Mr. Prager may well take umbrage at Tony's observation, but fighting is not the appropriate response. He has an opportunity, over time, to repair the damage done to his own character by acknowledging his errors as errors, and not repeating them in the future.

Maybe can be different but any creator that thinks that the art and previous thinkers deserve respect, MUST credit classic authors and especially if he is teaching his VARIATION on a existing concept.

Some time ago I share in one of my books a half b***t p**k technique similar to Al Mann´s and Millard Longman´s techniques. I share my idea with Millard and I ask him for permission. He kindly agree.


Also in my opinion putting the b***t on the fist and do all that crazy moves arent an improvement at all.

I wouldn't call it an AN ripoff exactly. Certainly, there are only so many possible ways to peek a quarter folded billet, and that this fellow has hit upon the most common one is no surprise. AN is a thing of beauty. This is ok. Nothing that hasn't been seen in the work of several others. I wouldn't call it a ripoff, but whether it warants release on itts own is subject to question. Watch the video and you will see the little touch he brings to the party. If a quarter turn counts as an impprovement, then this may be worth the money. As it is, Busch's work on the quarter fold billet is better to my mind.

I have to agree with Amirá that it looks fuuny to move your hand around like you just got stung by a bee. LOL

Ray

There is also no explanation as to why you would need to take the billet and hold it as if it were on fire, only to give it back again! Perhaps he gives ideas on the full DVD - but I think I'll pass....

OK, guys, I don't know if I can technically call this a rip off, but it DOES push the envelope in my opinion.

Evidently the guy in the demo video does not have a whole lot of performing experience because you don't have to move your fist aropund like it is some monster attached to your arm. it would be best, I think to keep your fist slightly in motion at one point in the routine, but whay this guy does is way over the top and really unnecessary.

I find it hard to believe that the guys at Theory 11 are unfamiliar with AN, but they may be...I don't really know.

By the way, there is a second effect on the video called "Conexion", which is pretty good.

Hey guys!

I credited Nimrod in the description and mention AN in the explanation many times.

As for the movement of the arm, that was simply to peek at it 5 times as mentioned in the demo, in reality you need to peek at it once and that takes one very small movement. I do it many many times in the explanation and its CLEARLY a slight movement, I assumed any seasoned performer would be able to CLEARLY understand that the more exaggerated movement for the demo was exactly that, an exaggeration.

as for the T11 guys, Dan White is one of the guys who decides what goes on and Dan knows his peeks like CRAZY!

thanks for the praise to those of you who enjoyed it, as for the rest of you, hope you get some use out of it

thanks guys,
Spidey

As for AN, did you follow Millard's simple rules of purchasing it snd asking if you can use it, crediting him and then sending him a copy?
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......forum=15

Tony, the only relevance between my effect and AN is the area where the peek is written, the fold is different, the method of getting to it is different. This project was filmed by Wayne Houchin who DID have the permission to use AN for his Stigmata project, in filming he judged it was perfectly fine to use this and it isn't close enough to the AN to pursue formal rights, any mentalist or magician who has seen this believed the same.

In 2000, there was another one of my principles which uses the AN peak published in Magic Magazine in Expert Talk, (that might disprove Tony Bazzano's "evidence" that I don't have much performance experience) that principle DID use the AN peek and so, Josh just wrote about the principle without covering the peek,

This peek is totally different than AN, like I said the only thing it has in common is the area where the info is written. Most people who have seen me lecture this WERE fooled by it, and replaced AN by this in their act. I though a bunch of pro magicians would understand that this needs to be done within a certain context not just take it, flail your arm around and give it back.

thanks
Spidey

Spidy,

His name is "Tony Razzano".
It's nice that you got Wayne Houchin's opinion, and he may be right. But shouldn't you "respectfully" have gone to the source?

Thank you for your reply,

Tony

Spidey,

You could at least spell my name right.

I disagree with you and your associates and I stand by my opinions. And please notice that I presented no "evidence"...just opinions. If you disagree, that's fine.


By the way, did you notice that I said that your other effect was good?

Sorry about the misspelling of the name, didn't mean any disrespect by it, I'm just not wearing my contacts so I misread the name (sorry Tony)


To be perfectly honest, I was not aware that the rules of this particular move were this tight, I figured (like in most magic) crediting is enough, I once again remind you that the ONLY similarity here is where the information is written, I swear the fold is 10000%.

Besides in Mr. Longman's own words in the thread you posted there is a definition which goes like this: " any method that peeks the info on a folded billet without unfolding the billet is using a variation of Acidus Novus." By that definition my peak is NOT a variation of Acidus Novus. I would gladly explain why, but I'm sure you can appreciate my attempt to not give my technique away.

In my opinion, I just released a peek that I created and that has served me really well and has been a huge hit at my lectures, I did it the best way I know how to and that's that.

thanks
Spidey