That seems fair enough, I don’t think this is the place dispute this sort of stuff - it’s no fair on Timone.

So has anyone who’s purchased this effect actually out there using it competently or are most people still in the practise phase? Would be cool to hear if people are out there gigging this already.

I've been working with this method and have gotten to the point where I don't feel like I need my fl*x as a fall back. I have however been very careful in selecting my spectator for this though. Timon may have more experience and guts to have a wider variety of types to pick from and be confident with that, I haven't graduated to that level yet.

I think much of the work with Timon's method has more to do with the presentation rather than the actual method. The actual method itself is very reliable IMO, it's learning your choreography I think which will require the most practice (he does note this in the book thus the book is just a few pages on the actual method and then the rest of the book is really about how to choreograph it and essentially how to build a routine).

I too have been out working it. I work in restaurants and pubs mostly so picking the absolute ideal spectator doesn't always work. I have also had a few misses but it was my own fault pretty much and as soon as I got it wrong, I knew why. That being said, because of Timons use of Marc Oberons fantastic Way Out, if you don't hit, it is fine. When you reveal your prediction, you end up being right all along and it just looks like part of the effect. Reactions have been great and I am confident that the more I work it, the better I will get and I believe this will get to the 99% correct mark!

Jamie Daws

But even that sugggests the 100% advertising was not very honest

I do think saying electronics go worng / nothing is 100% is misleading the discussion

As by those outs - someone can bring the most 'bold' routines out and say 100% .... then when it only works 1 in 52 times - just say ... 'well yeah of course nothing is 100%'

I see this as being much less reliable than electronics, but that doesn't mean it isn't a great book. It's just calling it 100% was, to me, not being truthful...

Yeah TH has a much higher hit rate... but they both have different 'pluses' and 'minues' - so it depends which method or methods are the best for you

I personally think that, someone like Timon who has obviously worked this a lot and had seen every eventuality does have this at 100& and I believe, if I put the time in, I too will have it at 100%. I don't understand why you wouldn't. It is purely a matter of practice.

Jamie Daws

I haven’t had a chance to read the book yet but Timon taught me the method a little over a year ago and since using it I have had no more misses with this than I have had with Tequila Hustler or verbalist. On the very rare occasions that I have missed with this it has been my own fault compared to when using logic puzzles where the error has been on the spectators side.

I personally prefer this to logic puzzles because it is much more in my control. On those rare occasions that I have missed it has been on the first round and I have immediately seen why I missed and have been able to hit on every other round and when I have revealed the prediction it then looked like the initial miss was intentional. The prediction part of this is 100% (more on this later).

Incidentally I have missed with flux approximately the same number of times as I have with this even though I have been using this since around last July whereas I only picked flux up at Blackpool and then lost my flux about a month or two later. I used flux to determine when my desired object was in their hand rather than which hand and because it turned itself off without me realising I missed.

I personally don’t believe it is unfair to point out that nothing is 100% because with logic puzzles for example participants forget to lie. I also found the same with prevaricator although with that you are not relying on logic so you can point out they were telling the truth. The beauty of Timon’s routine is that as long as you open the prediction correctly you will always identify which hand correctly for every round. The last time I missed on the first round I knew why and so was able to intentionally miss on every single round before revealing the prediction making the misses look intentional.

Now when it comes to ad copy claiming something is 100% I read that to mean that as long as you don’t mess up you can always get a successful conclusion. The prediction gives you that successful conclusion where you have correctly predicted which hand the coin will be in each round with 100% accuracy. However that does not prevent the performer from having a brain fart and showing the wrong prediction.

Anyone who tells you ANY effect cannot fail has not performed it enough for real people or simply hasn’t performed enough for real people. A one way force deck can fail on the wrong spectator. Virtually nothing is immune to the performer having a brain fart. We all make mistakes, which is why they put erasers on top of pencils.

For me with the prediction ending this fits into reasonable use of the phrase 100% because the prediction is part of the routine rather than an out and the brain fart clause is down to the performer not the effect.

Mark

I think everyone takes 100% to mean that the effect will always work if performed correctly. The ultra-mental deck is a 100% effect due to the mechanics of the effect; a psychological card force can never be 100%. Of course you or the spectator can mess up in either effect, but that is not what we are talking about when we talk about effects being 100%. I think that has been pretty firmly established for decades.

This effect is not 100%(in terms of guessing which hand). But it is a beautifully written book with a great presentation and method. I'm very happy I bought it.

I would agree that it’s not going to be 100% on every which hand guess any more than a logic puzzle is 100% despite the fact that it would be if you could guarantee the spectator wouldn’t make an error. However Timon’s routine ends with the prediction and that part is 100%. So the routine will have a successful conclusion 100% of the time (not counting brain farts).

The guessing which hand by skill alone is always going to come down to how honed your skills are and how well you pick your spectator. When it comes to skill based methods this will get you as close to 100% as it’s possible through skill. No skill based method for anything will be 100% even Rory missed a 3 inch putt during the masters.

Mark

I'd also like to add, I think someone was pointing out how having to pick the ideal spectator for Timon's method is a hindrance of sorts, this is much more so for the verbal methods for which hand. Reason being you do need to find participants that will follow your directions. So even with coming down to picking spectators, IMO it's far easier to find an adequate one for Timon's method then it would be for a verbal method. There's a lot more control over the variables with Timon's method than there are compared to the other methods apart from something like fl*x where that failing would be operator error or equipment malfunction. Timon's ending for You Have No Choice is excellent though and I loved your thinking on your feet to continue to miss so that you still have that fitting ending. Excellent thinking.

For the record, I am not implying that anyone was dishonest. In fact, I am quite sure that no one was being dishonest, especially considering where this came from. I just think the use of 100% is being very liberally applied in this case. I have read most of the posts in response to my original discussion, and I still don't agree in full. But I can't really get into it without discussing the method. I do, however, appreciate people taking it into consideration and the respectful dialogue, and it is my hope that this phrase will be at least scrutinized (100%) more in the future.

The claim that this will work 100% of the time is false advertising. And there was no need for it as the book and effect is superb.

Do you mean before a publisher uses it?

As if you mean afterwards - than it's too late

If this was a poor book - everyone would be complaining about the use of 100%.

The only reason ppl are defending it, by saying things like - 'it's not 100% for me, but I am sure it is for the author' [hmm] - is because the quality of the work is so high.

Also this is all an old argument - and from the past [and in this thread] I always think to myself that the ones defending the use of the term [usually it's just the publisher, and friends] - I always think they have lost the argument when they start to say, 'well no effect is 100%'

A 'self-working' or an electronic device that may fail because you don't follow the instructions correctly 1 in 150 times... is very different from a method that you are told pre-purchase is 100% - that will fail a lot more often than that, even if you follow the instrcutions correctly.

There is no way this should have ever been advertised as 100%

What is 100% though, is that I really like the book though

I personally don’t believe the term 100% should be used advertising any magic product. However I do think we need to be able to distinguish between a solid mechanical method, a skill based method and the you may just hit on this if the stars are correctly aligned and your luck is in type of releases.

Mark

"100% success rate" is just a short-hand for "a mechanical method that will work unless someone buggers up". It is a very useful shorthand which shouldn't be misused. As it has been here.

The method here is in essence mechanical and due to the nature of it, if you adhere to the guidance of the book especially on participant selection, if you don't hit it's most likely operator error. I understand a lot of the heavy hitters in this industry and community had been tipped Timon's method ages ago personally by Timon but from what I'm reading on the posts in this thread by the people already in the know on the method, they may not have read the book yet. There's essentially a key point Timon makes and suggests in the book in order to take any guess work, etc. out of this method (it has to do with you demonstrating what it is to be going on as well as taking note of something that on face value seems not as important as taking note of the more obvious thing to take note of).

When you're working this method, you start to understand the importance of these little touches which really makes this more or less as foolproof as any of the other methods available like fl*x. Owners of the book, please don't discount the small nuances and tips Timon gives in regards to the method part of this.

Over 23,000+ views!

F this effect...F this book...there is ONE section in this book that is WAY more valuable than the simple effect that is presented. This is a positive review.

Nathan

For clarity, this is the ‘full contextual quote’ direct from the ad copy and I will say that if Timon had any doubts whatsoever over the reliability of this I don’t think that he would have risked performing it on live TV or indeed as part of the Pen and Teller Act.

“Which Hand will work 100% of the time, provided you follow the exact process laid out here and fulfil the necessary conditions to ensure the method will do its work.”

Best Wishes to All!

Michael

And Nathan, I agree completely

Is there another TV performance of this [?]

I thought it was only on Fool Us

If there is, if anyone could drop a link that would be very interesting to watch...

Thanks