The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Gaffed & Funky » » Invisible Deck (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3 [Next]
Whit Haydn
View Profile
V.I.P.
5449 Posts

Profile of Whit Haydn
Quote:
On 2004-01-06 11:19, knibby wrote:
HI all (1st realy post) what I do with my ID is get another deck and force a card on the spec that way there's on need to ask for their card at all.


That way there's no need to use an "Invisible Deck" at all. Smile

Just put a blue-backed duplicate of the force card face-up in a red-backed deck.

To get this same effect without doing a force, see Eddie Fechter's wonderful routine in Fechter or Magician Nitely called "Fechter's Brainwave."

It actually uses the "Invisible Deck," or "Ultra-Mental" deck, not "Brainwave." The spectator takes a regular deck and reverses any card, as Eddie takes "another" deck and reverses a card. Eddie shows his pack with one card face up, and then spreads the spectator's pack to show that the spectator turned over the same card. "Great minds think alike."
TheAmbitiousCard
View Profile
Eternal Order
Northern California
13401 Posts

Profile of TheAmbitiousCard
Quote:
On 2004-01-05 21:45, Jafo wrote:
I read an idea a while back (I think it was on Richard Robinson's site allmagic.com; my apologies for not recollecting better) that was kinda nice.

It involved two decks, one inivisble, one marked.

The magician spreads out the marked cards on a pool table, such that no two cards are overlapping or even touching. The spectator hits a cue ball and lets it bounce around until it comes to rest on or near a card. That card is set aside (and the marking noted). The invisible deck (which has been in full view the entire time) is now opened and one card shown to be turned face down. Of course they match. Of course they worship you now.




I like this idea, however, I can't imagine using it very often. Too Bad.
www.theambitiouscard.com Hand Crafted Magic
Trophy Husband, Father of the Year Candidate,
Chippendale's Dancer applicant, Unofficial World Record Holder.
Larry Davidson
View Profile
Inner circle
Potomac, MD
5266 Posts

Profile of Larry Davidson
I also like the idea although it's obviously not practical in most performing venues.

Why not come up with a different truly random method for selecting the card that approximates the pool ball effect? For example, spread the marked deck haphazardly on your close up mat, give the spectator a wind-up toy that jumps randomly in different directions (I have a wind-up chick that does this), and set aside the card that's under the toy when it comes to rest. In many cases, the toy will be resting on more than one card, which is a good thing because you can ask the spectator which card she thinks the toy is indicating, making it appear even more random.

Regards, Larry D.
Reis O'Brien
View Profile
Inner circle
Seattle, WA
2467 Posts

Profile of Reis O'Brien
Frankly, I feel better knowing that I have a real killer in my pocket if I need it. I think that the ID is perfect for that. Especially when dealing with a rough crowd.
Homo vult decipi; decipiatur

http://www.myspace.com/liar_4_hire
Pete Biro
View Profile
1933 - 2018
18558 Posts

Profile of Pete Biro
Rough Crowd... and you use a Rough and Smooth deck... makes sense... Smile
STAY TOONED... @ www.pete-biro.com
Whit Haydn
View Profile
V.I.P.
5449 Posts

Profile of Whit Haydn
Quote:
On 2004-01-06 12:10, Frank Starsini wrote:
Quote:
On 2004-01-05 21:45, Jafo wrote:
I read an idea a while back (I think it was on Richard Robinson's site allmagic.com; my apologies for not recollecting better) that was kinda nice.

It involved two decks, one inivisble, one marked.

The magician spreads out the marked cards on a pool table, such that no two cards are overlapping or even touching. The spectator hits a cue ball and lets it bounce around until it comes to rest on or near a card. That card is set aside (and the marking noted). The invisible deck (which has been in full view the entire time) is now opened and one card shown to be turned face down. Of course they match. Of course they worship you now.




I like this idea, however, I can't imagine using it very often. Too Bad.




Actually, it is so associated with Mike Massy over the last fifteen years both in live and televised appearances that I don't think it would be a good trick to do ever.

My partner in the School for Scoundrels, two time national trickshot champion Chef Anton, has a trickshot which he and I created together called Super-Shape which is similar in effect, but does not use any trick decks.

A spectator spreads a shuffled deck of cards face up all over the pool table.

A spectator freely chooses any ball in the rack. Chef shoots the break, and the chosen ball lands nearest one card. It is the only red-backed card in the deck of all blue-backed cards.

Chef killed with this at his exhibition at the Magic Castle.
thehawk
View Profile
Inner circle
2275 Posts

Profile of thehawk
Malones version is one of the best and it has good audience participation.
charliemagic
View Profile
Special user
542 Posts

Profile of charliemagic
I always carry the ID..but in miniature as an 'OUT'.
Breather
View Profile
Elite user
449 Posts

Profile of Breather
I never use the invsible deck - I prefer Elmsley's BrainWeave - non-gaffed and impromptu. Ingenius.
Gianni
View Profile
Special user
WILMINGTON, DE
992 Posts

Profile of Gianni
Quote:
On 2004-01-05 21:51, Larry Davidson wrote:
Quote:
On 2004-01-05 15:03, Gianni wrote:
"...I think a magician should avoid ALL references to an 'invisible deck' to the extent possible. We should avoid calling our effect the actual name of the trick. Too many chances to be caught out...."


For what reasons do you believe that calling the effect by its actual name increases the chances that laymen will figure out the method?


The wisdom of avoiding the name of an effect seems self-evident. There is one current thread on this board lamenting the use of the word "TimeTrix" imprinted on a watch effect currently being marketed. There are older posts on other effects.

But to be more responsive to this question, do a Google search on "Invisible Deck." Would you still be proud to perform the effect if you knew your audience had access to this information or would you prefer that they not?

Gianni
Larry Davidson
View Profile
Inner circle
Potomac, MD
5266 Posts

Profile of Larry Davidson
Quote:
On 2004-01-07 00:30, Gianni wrote:
Quote:
On 2004-01-05 21:51, Larry Davidson wrote:
Quote:
On 2004-01-05 15:03, Gianni wrote:
"...I think a magician should avoid ALL references to an 'invisible deck' to the extent possible. We should avoid calling our effect the actual name of the trick. Too many chances to be caught out...."


For what reasons do you believe that calling the effect by its actual name increases the chances that laymen will figure out the method?


The wisdom of avoiding the name of an effect seems self-evident. There is one current thread on this board lamenting the use of the word "TimeTrix" imprinted on a watch effect currently being marketed. There are older posts on other effects.

But to be more responsive to this question, do a Google search on "Invisible Deck." Would you still be proud to perform the effect if you knew your audience had access to this information or would you prefer that they not?

Gianni


No, it doesn't seem self-evident (to me) or I wouldn't have asked.

The "TimeTrix" discussion is irrelevant to this discussion in my view. The problem with the "TimeTrix" watch is that the word "Trix" screams gimmicked watch. The Invisible Deck, on the other hand, looks like a normal deck and doesn't have the word "CardTrix" printed on the back -- that would scream gimmicked cards. I don't follow your analogy.

Regarding your question, "...Would you still be proud to perform the effect if you knew your audience had access to this information?" - - my answer is YES! I've performed the ID professionally for about 30 years and have ALWAYS presented the effect as and referred to it as an invisible deck. In literally thousands of performances, I've not had one person say "Oh, I GOOGLED that and know that an 'Invisible Deck' is a gimmicked deck."

In my opinion (notice that I don't say this is "self-evident") the issue here is whether or not to present the effect as the "Invisible Deck," regardless of what you call it, and in my opinion that decision is somewhat dependent on WHERE you perform it. For example, if I performed in Vegas, I wouldn't perform an "Invisible Deck" effect (as well as some other effects such as floating dollar bill) because IN THAT AREA the low-end magic shops sell it en masse to tourists.

Regards, Larry D.
Gianni
View Profile
Special user
WILMINGTON, DE
992 Posts

Profile of Gianni
Quote:
On 2004-01-07 08:15, Larry Davidson wrote:
Quote:
On 2004-01-07 00:30, Gianni wrote:
Quote:
On 2004-01-05 21:51, Larry Davidson wrote:
Quote:
On 2004-01-05 15:03, Gianni wrote:
"...I think a magician should avoid ALL references to an 'invisible deck' to the extent possible. We should avoid calling our effect the actual name of the trick. Too many chances to be caught out...."


For what reasons do you believe that calling the effect by its actual name increases the chances that laymen will figure out the method?


The wisdom of avoiding the name of an effect seems self-evident. There is one current thread on this board lamenting the use of the word "TimeTrix" imprinted on a watch effect currently being marketed. There are older posts on other effects.

But to be more responsive to this question, do a Google search on "Invisible Deck." Would you still be proud to perform the effect if you knew your audience had access to this information or would you prefer that they not?

Gianni


No, it doesn't seem self-evident (to me) or I wouldn't have asked.


Then I suppose we must leave it that we disagree. It continues to be my view that the name of an effect should neither be inscribed on a prop or identified by name (unless it is integral to the effect). It offers nothing but a downside.

You also mention that you have been performing this for some 30 years. At least 25 of those years have been internet-free. It is increasingly difficult to maintain obscurity.

Gianni
korttihai_82
View Profile
Inner circle
Finland
1802 Posts

Profile of korttihai_82
I am amazed that nobody mentioned Steve Bedwells, Shake, Shuffle & something (I can´t remember). It is great triump type routine where cards are mixed in two nudel cups and then spectator names a card and all the cards are mixed back same way around except the named card. It is on Steve Bedwells video M.D not reguired. A killer trick!
Larry Davidson
View Profile
Inner circle
Potomac, MD
5266 Posts

Profile of Larry Davidson
Gianni -

Thanks for the response. In my view, if you're presenting the effect as an invisible deck, which is what I do, there's nothing wrong with calling it an invisible deck. It makes sense to me. I agree that the vast majority of the time I've been performing the effect the Internet has not been an issue, but I haven't run into the issue one time in the years the Internet has existed and see no reason to change my performance of the effect unless it starts becoming a problem. If it ain't broke, I ain't fixin it. If it becomes broken, I'll have to try something else.

Obscurity is a funny thing. I know many magicians who wouldn't be caught dead using a TT because they're paranoid that too many laymen are familiar with the gimmick. I've also never run into a problem using that particular gimmick and will continue to use it unless a problem develops. I once performed an effect using a TT and had a spectator come up to me afterwards and tell me that a friend of his does something similar but that his friend uses a fake th---and he has no idea how I accomplished the effect. The funny thing is, I was wearing it when he was telling me this!

Korttihai_82 -

The effect is called "Shake, Shuffle and Twist," and it's brilliant. I prefer the invisible deck presentation because of how long I've been performing it, because of its comedic possibilities, and most importantly because of how strong it plays, but those who want to avoid an invisible deck type of presentation should seriously consider Steve Bedwell's use of the ID. Darwin also has a strong effect that uses the ID and that also uses a stacked deck (if the deck is marked as well the effect is even stronger in my opinion).

Larry D.
James F
View Profile
Inner circle
Atlanta
1097 Posts

Profile of James F
I honestly don't see why you would have to keep from saying the name "Invisible deck." I don't think most people would take the time to look it up nor would they know that's the name of the trick. There are many tricks that I call something but that isn't the name they are under to buy.

James
domcoke
View Profile
New user
35 Posts

Profile of domcoke
Hmmm,

There seems to be a lot of hot air over a non-argument. If a person is interested in magic, or how to do a particular trick, then he/she will seek it out. It really is not that difficult. Where there is a will there is a way! How did any of you lot get into magic... you saw someone perform a trick or tricks, and you found out how they were done. Yes, the internet is a tool for finding such things out, and it does increase the chances of someone who is internet savvy being able to find information, but so what?! This is an open forum, and despite the ridiculousness of feigning privacy and confidentiallity on this forum, many secrets are alluded to. I've learn't a thing or too, and I don't have access to the secret section.

The same argument must surely run to TV magicians in the age of video recording. For example, when I re-kindled my childhood interest in magic, I was watching an early David Blaine special, and decided to video it. I then played back the card tricks. And yes, through a tiny amount of lateral thinking (about 2 mintues worth), I figured out Blaine's reliance on the DL (A move I had never even heard of, or seen explained - All I had was what I saw, and the logic of how it could be done) It is often said that it is dangerous to repeat the DL, as a slightly more than casual observer wouldn't take long to figure out the mechanics of the trick...

Anyway, my point is, if someone wants to find out about magic, or tricks, then they will.

dom
Gianni
View Profile
Special user
WILMINGTON, DE
992 Posts

Profile of Gianni
I don't wish to instigate a huge back-and-forth on this topic. There are 2 camps and neither side will convince the other.

To me, this is a very simple situation. Magic depends - in large part - on secrecy and mystery. Where we can easily take steps to preserve some secrecy, it is in our interests to do so. This includes keeping the names of effects off of the props, avoiding stating the name of the prop or trick, requiring some sort of password or other minor obstacle to websites, etc. We give up nothing for these minor nods to preserving secrecy in an age of unprecedented information.

I am not hysterical on this topic. It just seems like common sense - where secrecy is an asset, take some steps to preserve it. After all, you gain nothing by naming your effect, etc.

Gianni
Micheal Leath
View Profile
Inner circle
1046 Posts

Profile of Micheal Leath
When you say "Invisible Deck," it is not like youa are saying "This trick is called the Invisible Deck." You are only saying you have an invisible deck of cards. How would they possibly know that this is also the name of the effect? So are we not to use the words cups & balls during that routine? How about now saying the words 3 Card Monte during a 3 Card Monte routine? Saying words that happen to also be the name of the effect will not cause a spectator to think they can google those words and figure out a secret.

Micheal Leath
KapBoy77
View Profile
Loyal user
Ottawa, Canada
213 Posts

Profile of KapBoy77
I use "Thought Transmitter" whenever I perform this effect. That way they never have to name their card out loud. I've never had a problem with this.

But then again I never had any problem before I started using the Transmitter. So why even use it? Because people just don't like saying selections out loud. And if they really did turn a card over then it should be right there... turned over without them ever saying anything.

Andre
Any day I'm walking on top of the grass instead of looking up at the roots is a good day!
johne
View Profile
Special user
960 Posts

Profile of johne
Nice touch with the Thought Transmitter...But here's the important thing...in your performance, do you say, "Here I will put your paper in my "Thought Transmitter" to see if I can transmit your thoughts to my "Invisible Deck." LOL

I think one on one this would be a nice touch, but as far as audience participation goes, I think it will play much larger if the number is selected by one participant, then the color, then suit, etc...as has been mentioned. It plays more as a feat of mentalism, but that is why it is so fascinating.

John Eddington
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Gaffed & Funky » » Invisible Deck (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2020 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