I appreciate you dropping by and explaining the background to the technique, Brandon.

Just wanted to chime in with my 2ps worth.

I purchased Oculus last night, and watched the video straight away. Loved it... Both for its simplicity and for its limitless potential.

Personally, I think it's really strong... It's one of those rare mentalism effects where you really are genuinely doing what most spectators ASSUME mentalists do. It's also a piece where the performance itself serves to build a connection between the performer and the participant, and I can definitely see that the participant would really feel like you were reading there mind throughout. Some people will be profoundly moved by this, and you will get VERY strong reactions from those people.

This is not (and I'm sure Brandon will agree with this) an effect that you can pull out anywhere at any time and know that it will always hit...save that slot for your current go to favourite. This is an effect that you should save for those participants who you feel will appreciate it, and on the occasions where you can give it space to breathe.

Thank you Brandon, this will be added to my repertoire immediately.

I'm going to have to side with Iain here. I became more and more disappointed as I viewed the performances included in the download. None of them are strong. The second is particularly uncomfortable. Too many questions being asked whilst looking through the cards. Then, after it's determined that the thought-of card is a queen, the cards are looked through again! Any spectator would deduce that, once the performer knows the card's value, a quick glance through the deck would tell him/her which one was missing. It's clear that the girl in the background is unimpressed. Not good. A simple card force allows the same effect to be performed with 100% accuracy, without all the questions, and it will look the same; in fact, much better.
The third performance with a coin is also not good. One successful guess, one miss, and another successful. No one viewing that would be impressed. It would appear to be two lucky guesses with a 50/50 shot (as the spectator even points out).

This is, in my opinion, the kind of thing that's better as a pseudo-method. That is, forcing a card or object, or peeking some information, then telling the spectator that you'll be able to tell what they're thinking based on *the method for this effect* (without actually having to do it).

The card routine is not my favorite, but the principle is sound and worthy. This is *NOT* NLP or EAC etc. There is real science to this. In fact, the means that Brandon employs to achieve the desired result in the process (if you've seen this than you will know) is but one of many that can do so. I honestly feel that there is much more to explore here.

OK guys. Sorry for my ignorance, but what does COG and for?

I agree. I watched this last night and really enjoyed the premise/method. I do not have a problem with it not being 100%. One should not always be right 100% in mentalism. I think there is a lot more to explore using this premise and look forward to trying this out.

Thanks for sharing this Brandon!

RNK

I own both COG and now Oculus and I can say that the methods are different. They can even be used at the same time for maximum success chances. Didn't get to try Oculus yet, but it seems workable. Once again, it's not COG.

I for one was grossly disappointed with COG's real world application. I travel and perform professionally and the issue with COG was that it wasn't as thorough in explanation as I would've liked, the methodology felt somewhat of a Frankenstein's monster rather than a cohesive approach, and as I began to test and still am testing the basic premise on random people, I'm finding that laity is more intelligent than pacticioners realize, and they either consciously don't do the thing, do it unconsciously but timing it strangely so that it doesn't apply, or afterwards they simply venture a guess that seems silly
But in truth is spot on. So at my best, it's a Sherlock Holmes style skill that is better at a setup for something more to the point and consistent. Rus Andrews Destination, combined with some other stuff, for me, is just much more in the realm of what I've seen work consistently in the real world: Southeast to Midwest USA is the main regions I work in.

I was considering buying Oculus solely for performance insights on the shared premise in COG. I'm looking for real world performance footage of this woking as consistently as people say it does. I may wait though because Brandon mentioned he is writing a book and I'm a big Brandon Queen fan. Is there a release date yet?

I also own COG and can testify the methods are different. I actually prefer Oculus over COG. I will say it's nice to have learned both which allows a sort of back-up/confirmation system to be in place. After watching the tutorial for Oculus I am looking forward to putting this method to work.

RNK

COG is a principle released by Ben Seward that allows one to discern a thought of card. It was released on Ellusionist in 2013 I believe.

Zack

Doesn't work 1005?

What??

I have now filmed four people included myself, very close all really concentrating on both situations many times again and again, but no difference noticeable at least noting reliable! Test results where so poor that I don't want to test this in the real world...

I have filmed four people included myself, very close all really concentrating on both situations many times again and again, but no difference noticeable at least noting reliable! Test results where so poor that I don't want to test this in the real world...

This is a serious problem with propless mentalism. Often, the king has no clothes. Or, rather, the method is not solid, but
people wrongly call it a masterpiece because mentalism is "not supposed to hit every time." I disagree.... Solid mentalism should
work every time and let you choose when you intentionally make a mistake. This hit and miss sloppy thinking is rampant in propless mentalism. and spectators are not stupid when they sense they are being taken on a long "fishing trip."

Even among the top creators of this junk, their writing is often
bad, so that the bad methodology is hidden in it. I say bah, humbug. Use a method that is solid that gives results almost all the time.
How people on the Café report their success with propless mentalism is often simply "propless lying." hehe.