Jack: It's in MY FAVORITE CARD TRICKS and LORAYNE: THE CLASSIC COLLECTION VOL. 1

Could someone compare Loraynes impromptu which I have been doing for many years and Seperation Anxiety. What are the advantages of each?
Steve

A lot of this obviously comes down to personal opinion. I knew immediately upon receiving the full performance of 'separation anxiety' is wasn't for me. There are a few reasons I don't love it.

1. It has 3 phases. Why? The brilliance of OOTW is that it can be described in one sentence- I separated the black cards from the red cards perfectly. That's amazing enough.
2. The 'move' (which every ootw has) is at the worst possible time. To me, it look very unmotivated, unnecessary and tricky. And the discrepancy is glaring.
3. It starts with a 'packet.' While perhaps easier to carry around, it's less relatable than pulling cards from an everyday borrowed shuffled deck.

Why I believe Lorayne's impromptu version is the best (for me)

1. You can do it anytime, anywhere using any shuffled deck.
2. By performing the first half, you very sneakily set up for the second half (time efficient with zilch spectator suspicion)
3. You can use as many or as few cards as you like.
4. The motivation for switching up the red and black marker cards is 100% natural.
5. Like Curry's original, the 'move' can naturally be done on an offbeat (not that it has to be).
6. If the spectator tries to mess with you (lays down all reds) this version gives you as much time as you need to manage/correct the situation.

It has two phases ... and I can get your point. That's why I wrote before:
"Personally I would do a mix in the first phase (Berntein / Armstrong) and leave the second phase as it is." Jan

Yes two phases. And if you want to pull 20 cards out of a full deck you certainly can.

Plus this one is geared more towards mentalism as in an experiment.

Not as a card trick.

Hi,
From the official description, phase 1 looks exactly similar to the version described by Pete McCabe in his famous book Scripting Magic.
Does anybody knows both versions and could detail if there is actually a difference between this phase 1 and Pete McCabe version? Does this one adds any value?
Thanks,

I am also curious about this question. If the spectator is freely dealing the cards into two piles, what prevents them from putting 15 cards in one pile, and only five in the other pile? If they do that, it would be difficult to convince them that they dealt 10 cards into each pile.

Because that would defeat the purpose of the experiment.
They're aware that there are "roughly" ten red and ten black.

d

I am also curious about this question. If the spectator is freely dealing the cards into two piles, what prevents them from putting 15 cards in one pile, and only five in the other pile? If they do that, it would be difficult to convince them that they dealt 10 cards into each pile.[quote]On 2013-10-31 19:57, BustedFinger wrote:


It's called audience management. It's the difference between a pro and an amateur. You control your environment without them thinking you r.

From the description of the effect, I thought there was no mention at the beginning of the trick that you are having the spectator seperate reds from blacks. Or that you mention the number of cards to them at all. I read it as you just have them deal the cards randomly into two piles as they see fit. Only after they have finished do you show them what they did. I see that as problematic for the second phase as well. The second time around, the spectator may be mentally keeping track of how many cards they dealt into each pile.

I tell them in the first phase to make the piles fairly even. If someone still deals 15 cards in one pile, which hasn't happened and isn't likely, I'll spread both face-down piles and have them point to cards in the big pile to be moved to the small one. "There are five cards in this big pile which belong in the small one. I'm not going to tell you which ones, but the first two are in this area here. Which two do you think they are?" They point and I haphazardly move them to the small pile in random-looking positions. Continue with the other three. I've used that ploy in a full-deck OOTW before.

I just like to show the first phase as I see no point for repeating a impossible miracle. (even I really like the second phase and new twist of it) really like SA! a lot. Well done Mr. Bernstein.

I love Separation Anxiety but if you want a really clean 3 phase 10 card effect (you can use ESP cards instead) Patrick Redford's "Small World" is an absolute steal for the price.

Agreed on Redford's "Small World." Patrick
and I just shot some performance video of that effect which should be available soon.

What's small world have to do with sa? This is an sa thread. HIJACK!

My Christmas gift to all you SA people out there.
It's something I'm having quite a bit of fun and success with.

On a stack of business cards are written 10 words that would generally be accepted as GOOD words;
Love, Happy, Smile, Relaxed etc
These are written in RED pen, nice and bold.

And 10 words that would generally be accepted as NOT SO GOOD words:
Pain, Sad, Lost, War etc.
These are written in BLACK pen, nice and bold.

The effect proceeds as normal for Phase 1 The GOOD words being separated from the NOT SO GOOD words.

When it comes to the part where the Ace of Spades is introduced in the original, another business card is introduced that has a word that is ambiguous as to whether it is GOOD or NOT SO GOOD.

Money, Religion, perhaps Marriage. This is written in both Red and Black

The person is asked if they perceive this as a GOOD word or a NOT SO GOOD word.
If they answer "NOT SO GOOD" then we continue with Phase 2 as per the original, saying "I will make you think that it is a GOOD word."
If they answer"GOOD" then we say "I will make you think that it is a NOT SO GOOD word."

So we can make this word be in any pile we choose.

This question means we can make them correct and it ends up in the pile they said.
Or we can make them see it opposite and it ends up in the opposite pile.

If using playing cards, a joker could be used in place of the Ace of Spades and the same question asked. Do they see it as black or red?

This gives us the possibility to have different endings if we wish.


Merry Christmas
Steve

Nice idea, thank you.

Awesome idea! Thanks, Steve!

Steve, Thanks for sharing, very nice idea