Ah, Alexander, you obviously got the much desired export edition of "SoT". I can only dream of having a Chroma Magnet.

Back on topic, the versatility of 50/50 Fantasia is another huge plus point, the freedom of the spectator to choose their own choices adds further bewilderment.

Just before I start getting emails and PMs about this, can I make it clear that johoyo and Alexxander are just having a bit of FUN! Neither my 'Sense of Touch' effect (long out of print) nor '50:50 Fantasia' have anything to do with concealed devices, lasers, magnets or anything similar. These comments are HUMOUR (British) or HUMOR (American), okay? Not to be taken seriously.

Just picked this up last night.. Absolutely terrific. Hands down one of the best purchases I made this year.

-Dustin Dean

In your advertising :

No pre-show, no dual reality, no stooges. No force or equivoque.

For me there is an equivoque.

"Equivocation (or the magician's choice) is a verbal technique by which a magician gives an audience member an apparently free choice, but frames the next stage of the trick in such a way that each choice has the same end result."


Otherwise, this effect and the presentation are very good. I will learn it and test it when I will be ready.

Good job mister Rowland.

Ha ha! The inevitable has happened! I did wonder how long we'd have to wait before someone came along and said '50:50 Fantasia' is an equivoque routine.

We actually did pretty well, all things considered. We got as far as the third page of this thread. Not bad! In my opinion, this intention to explicitly refer to the METHOD isn't what the Magic Café is for and sort of derails the thread, but hey, what can you do? I guess that's both the strength and the flaw of the internet: anyone can post anything they like.

Anyway, Dreda thinks '50:50' is an equivoque routine. I don't think it is. There's nothing I can do about Dreda's post, so he and I will just have to agree to differ, in the most friendly and mutually respectful way possible!

Of course, I said this for the future buyers who could be surprised like me.
But that doesn't detract in any way from the beauty of the effect and its construction / subtleties.

Anyone who really understands equivoque will easily understand why 50:50 fantasia is not equivoque...
Both methods share the fact that they use language and communication to create a prediction/influence effect, but through totally different means.
Equivoque !@#$*s an object through a process of elimination, 50:50 Fantasia is a method to win a 50:50 bet.

Please choose either the tomayto or tomahto...

I mean I can see the argument to both sides. But either way it's not something I would've easily came up with even knowing equivoque. It's extremely clever and fooled me when reading the initial effect from the perspective of the audience.

I would say it's not magicians choice. It does not force anything.

We all know that there is a lot of very bad equivoque around and while the term is not pejorative, it can create anxiety and reluctance to explore or adopt an effect.

I don't think that 50/50 Fantasia is an equivoque effect, but anyway I suspect that even those who dislike equivoque will like this.

The terminology as adopted by mentalists is not precisely or (ironically) unequivocally defined, so those who want to, can argue the point.

I have always found Ian Rowland's descriptions of his effects to be comprehensive and accurate to an unusually high standard and this is a great effect.

While Equivoque and Fantasia are not identical methods, they are at least fraternal twins.

Much of the disagreement here is a consequence of some folks conflating "magician's choice" with "equivoque".

A magician's choice is a forcing technique that make use of equivoque (i.e., equivocal statements). But that does not mean that equivoque ("statements with more than one possible meaning") is always used to implement a magician's choice. Equivoque is used widely in deceptive practices for a great variety of purposes.


And for the record, I think that 50:50 (or at least its earlier incarnation in Ian's lecture notes, which is the version I have) is a brilliant piece of work, easily worth the price asked.

This is one of those effects where the devil is in the detail. Ian Rowland's scripting is brilliant. Especially the final tactic. That is what makes it in my opinion.

Ian's gift for writing shines, and his scripts are reliably entertaining.

I have notified Ian of my mixed success with this effect. It is best performed with a segue into another effect, giving the audience less time to analyze it. A sophisticated spectator or audience can figure it out with a little thought.

It would be ridiculous for me to dispute your experience while performing this so I'll just share mine - I've used this mainly in casual settings and a number of times over the phone (yep, it works a treat that way too!) in discussions with prospective clients to book shows. It was THE ONLY (or the final) demonstration that I did for those performances and it has been meet with nothing but absolute belief that I knew what they'd think in advance and/or somehow influenced them to say what I wanted them to.

MANY of the people I've done this for are quite "sophisticated" (Attorneys, IT developers, etc) so your experience may be due to other factors than any inherent failings of the technique. This, more than most effects out there, demands MASTERY of the script and the performing vibrato to support it.

Best,

Drew

Thanks, Drew.

I have absolutely mastered the script and --as a trained actor-- have the appropriate performance gravitas. The effect works on most people except those naysayers who truly disbelieve that the performer could know what they would think in advance and then seek an explanation. I have heard the debate of a group of doctors after performing it for them. They were spot on.
There are those audiences who enjoy mentalism as theater but cannot bring themselves to believe in real mind reading. In the case of this effect, a 12-year-old (a gifted one) figured it out via pure logic.

I suspect as you continue to perform this effect you will encounter people who understand its workings.

Kind regards,

Chanor

For a 1-2 punch to eliminate the nay sayers - segue into Rigg's Coin toss not for Old Men routine.....

Hi chanor,

Can't this be said of ANY effect?

For sake of discussion, let's imagine that you presented (in this case) a 50-50 routine but used no "technique" and simply relied on luck - 50% of the time you're right and 50% of the time you're wrong. Wouldn't the "skeptical" audience members who witness you succeed STILL walk away with some sort of explanation for how you accomplished the feat?

Or, taking the point into complete hypothetical territory, let's assume that you GENUINELY could anticipate someone's decision with 100% accuracy every time. Again, the audience member(s) in question would likely come up with their own theory (that obviously wouldn't include genuine predictive powers).

I guess my point is that this routine, like all others out there, depends on deception and therefore isn't fully bullet-proof and ANY type of magic/mentalism will be met with resistance by a sub-set of our audiences.

I responded to your initial comments about the routine as I did because I feel they didn't do justice to the BRILLIANT bit of thinking that Ian has shared with the community in this release. Sure, it has it's trade-offs because it relies on linguistic/perceptual strategies and not "mechanical" operation but that's why it's so appealing to me (and others I presume).

Finally, at least in the way I present myself (and my abilities), I'm really not all that concerned about the few who might see through the ruse. Those individuals STILL walk away with the understanding that I can alter people's perceptions using words and psychology. I could see this posing a potential problem for those who play the genuine "psychic seer" angle - but as I don't the technique sits well within my wheelhouse of apparent skills.

In the end though, no effect is for everyone I respect that you have your own concerns about its effectiveness.

Best,

Drew

Of course this can be said of any effect. I agree with everything you say. In my personal PM to you I went into more detail. Although I have shocked certain people with it, I think this is an easy effect to figure out. A bright 12-year-old child did by deductive reasoning!
As I wrote to you, an effect that depends on a choice with multiple outs engenders the question "What if I had chosen another color, card, number, etc.? Here there is only one "out." I feel this effect is very clever but not BRILLIANT.
Just my opinion. That is what this forum is for.

Cheers,

Chanor