Final Verdict: The spectator cuts to the four aces.

My handling for the last ace: I don't shuffle it to the top of the last packet. I shuffle it to the middle of the last packet with a breather crimped card above it. Now the spectator cuts automaticlly at the ace.

My question: Do you think that this handling fits with the procedure for the first three aces?

Sorry for my english...

For the first three packets the spectator sets the packet they've cut off onto the table. But in your case the 4th packet would be discarded and you would end up using the block left behind in your hand which does change the procedure a bit from the first three groups of cards. Can it work? Sure it can, but my guess is that you've changed this procedure because you either feel exposed or guilty about that last packet.

In my experience, I've never had anyone question the 4th packet even after I shuffle. In order to further enhance the deception, as soon as they take the 4th packet from the deck I say, "And you've left me exactly.... 9 cards." I spread the cards face up as I say this and then I set them aside. It creates the illusion that had they cut a different number of cards then the outcome would have been different--which is untrue. Long story short, I've never felt the need or the reason to alter the last packet because for me it works perfectly as designed.

If you really would like to use the breather for the last packet then I'd suggest you set the balance of the deck (with the crimp in the center) next to the other three piles and have them cut "just one more time." That way after the cut, they can hand you the balance of the cards and you are immediately set for the reveal. It might get a bit awkward if they miss the breather and then you would have to justify why they need to cut that last packet a couple more times. But overall, it's a perfectly workable solution if it assuages your angst about that last packet. Nice thinking.

I tried both versions and got good reactions.

Would it increase the effect if the spectator could name any cards?

I thought about the following stack: AAAAKKKKQQQQ - Joker with breather crimp - JJJJ101010109999 - Joker with breather crimp - 88887777666655554444 - get a pinky break here - 33332222


For example: The Spectator names the Queens. Shuffle off eight cards and start with the trick. If he names the Sevens I cut at the second breather. Shuffle off four cards and start with the trick.
Disadvantage: After the cutting procedure the spectator must reveal the selected cards and I give the deck a quick shuffle. After that I can show a mixed deck.


Alternative: I use the Tamariz-stack and do Denis Behrs procedure to get the four named cards to the bottom of the deck. Then I cut them to the top and start the trick. After the cutting procedure I can show a mixed deck.

Alternative: side-steal the bottom card and place it on top of the remaining cards before the final cut. This avoids the otherwise unmotivated shuffle.

J

That is excatly what I do as well.
If I am not mistaken, Mr. Bannon himself suggests, some readers might prefer the side-steal to the shuffle.

Aljaž

I use the following handling for the last card. I take a break above the bottom card and ask the spectator to cut a last time this way: I cut all the cards above the break onto the table, next to the other 3 packets, then I ask the spectator if he understands. I then put the last card, simulating holding a packet, onto the top of the pack, pick it up and hand it to the spectator.

I perform this at a brisk enough space. It's deceptive and motivated.

Darho,

Unfortunately not all spectators can cut to breather crimps, and it does change the procedure as Steven points out. I don't believe your adjustment would increase the reactions much, but since I haven't tried it I could be wrong. For magicians it would be disarming if they don't suspect a breather, though in this case I don't believe the "true cut" v. "cutting the top" is something spectators would pick up on. Good line of thinking nonetheless. If you were to use the breather, I think you would need to pantomime cutting the cards carefully and use verbiage which gives the spectator the direction that they must cut somewhere near the center.

Claudio,

I like that idea. Keeps the pace flowing more than an overhand shuffle, which can slow things down. While it's not necessary, an immediate dribble of half the cards after replacing the single will help sell the bluff.

TJ

I have noticed that none of the variations of the "Spectator REALLY Cuts the Aces" give Allan Ackerman the credit he is due. Ackerman published the original version of this concept in 1970. It's called "The Spectator Refuses to Cut to the Four Aces" and is found in Effects from the Magic Mafia (1970). The underlying methodology in the Wakeman version, the Malone version and the Bannon version is Ackerman's idea i.e. each time the spectator cuts, there's an ace on top of the deck. There are many ways to achieve this but it's this underlying concept that makes all these routines work. This is Allan Ackerman's idea. Denis Behr get's it right in his awesome resource at www.conjuringarchive.com.

Mike

Thanks for the clarification, Mike. Made me want to revisit Las Vegas Kardma.

Ackerman offers his follow up called "The Spectator Cuts Double" wherein the spectator cuts to the Kings and the climax is that the Aces are on the bottom of each packet. He credits Bannon with the Kiss placement executed before the spectator cuts the second packet to the table. In "The Spectator Cuts Triple" Ackerman offers an excellent idea of using an open "double deal" before the third Ace packet is cut off. This eliminates the need for the Kiss placement and also means the original top is the second packet cut to the table. After toying around with it I think the double deal route is better as it minimizes the amount of time that the original top packet is in the right hand. The open double is also perfectly motivated.

TJ

Hi ThomasJ

I had forgotten about "The Spectator Cuts Double." I'll be revisiting that tomorrow! Thanks for point it out.

I'm a big fan of Allan's work. He's one of the most creative guys around and is THE most enthusiastic card guy I know.

Mike

No problem, Mike. That book is excellent. I don't know Allan personally, but he definitely has a great mind.

TJ

The last packet is just a quarter of the deck. In the past the spectators always cut at the breather.

We understand the last packet is a quarter of the deck. The problem is that it doesn't fit with the procedure of cutting the first three packets.

Hi ThomasJ,

I think you're pointing out that the magi holds a small packet at the beginning and does not do so on the last cut. I don't see that as a problem. It moves toward more freedom for the spectator since you could even table the last 1/4 deck for the cut. Even if you don't take advantage of the greater freedom, I don't think specs are wondering about the slight change in procedure.

Also, why take a chance on the breather at the end? Just have the spec cut as before and hold her packet.

I like what Malone does. He makes it a "high card wins" game. At the end each player is holding his/her packet. He says, "Take the top card and hold it face down. OK 1, 2, 3 turn them over. WOW! It's a tie!"

I think that any of the versions that simply get an ace to the top before the cut are felt to be equivalent by the specs i.e. if someone who had participated saw you do a different version for another group, they wouldn't see any difference.

Mike

I really like the "high card wins" presentation. I am trying this out next time.
Thanks Mike for the tip and of course thank you Bill Malone.

Hi Mike, I shouldn't write before my morning coffee. I don't have a problem with that. What I meant was this: Let us assume we're using the breather method. Given the way the first three packets are cut to the table, the spectators should expect that the last packet being cut off (the cards above the breather) will be placed next to the other three packets. The packet above the breather is instead discarded, and the bottom half of the talon is placed next to the other three packets. If the previous three cuts were done in this fashion, the final cut would make more sense.

I don't like the inconsistency - cut from the top, place that packet on table; cut from the top, place that packet on the table; cut from the top, place that packet on the table; cut from the top, get rid of that packet and use what's remaining to put next to the other three packets. Maybe I'm being picky.

TJ

I see what you mean TJ. Sorry for my confusion. I think that you may be correct in thinking that this discrepancy might be noticed, even if not verbalized.

With a bottom cutting breather on top of four aces, you can have the spec cut, sending the breather to the bottom and the four aces to the top. Now you hand the spec the top card to hold and centralize the breather... If they hit every time...

Of course you could use Marlo's Estimation Aces concept with spec cuts near center.

I think Ackerman's original idea is much better than these methods, though. It's a total bluff that experience tells us works very well. I'd forget the breather and do Ackerman's or Bannon's routine just getting the last ace on top. Then there's no discrepancy and we know the effect is what you want it to be.

Mike

I agree, Mike. One would be hard pressed to improve upon the Ackerman or Bannon handlings. While I'm not entirely risk averse, a breather crimp does not seem to pay off in this instance.

TJ