I have recently had some success with Contimental, and am now looking to construct some of my own.

What is the best method of hiding the no answers?

Always seek yes's
Turn maybe's into yes's
No's into Maybe's
and avoid No's

Well with PA's....if you're wrong, you're wrong, and if there isn't an N in their star sign, you cant get a maybe!

There's two things to look at- how you make the question/statement, and how you label a wrong answer, or twist the category into something that's logical.

For making the statements... don't simply say "is there a U?"... which is what ive seen many people do, and it simply comes across as a question... it's see through and pointless. Instead, try to make statements ie "I am sensing there's a U", which suggests that you are TELLING and not asking.
Of course on the other hand you don't want to say "there's a U!!" with complete authority because 1- if you're wrong you look like an idiot! and 2- if it was this easy why on earth would you get it letter by letter instead of just revealing the word!.

It's hard to go too far into this simply because I have no idea what you're trying to achieve exactly; I guess you have to adjust your thinking and methods with whatever sequence your system works in, and what outs you can make based on that system.

If you've looked into cold reading...combining these methods with the sure fire PA'S can work like bricks and mortar.

This probably all sounds very vague, but if you want further help PM me and I'll help in whatever ways I can.

Check out Doug Dyments Sign Language. Doug has some valuable thoughts regarding anagrams. Anyone interested in creating their own would benefit from reading this before beginning.

What if someone says 'are you telling me or asking me if there is a <insert letter>?' You're stuffed right?

I think progressive anagrams are weak and transparent to anyone with average intelligence. If you genuinely were a mindreader you would tell someone what word it was without having to fish.

I don't agree with you, Darko.
You have to cover it with a story or telepathy or so.
"I get something that looks like an 'u', but could be a 'n', interesting handwriting you have"
You check two letters with this, and with one you'll probably be right.
That's a method for checking I use - and it works great (if you embed it into your frame)!


hth

amens

Yes I disagree too,

PAs need very careful handling and an intelligent and logical presentational structure. Performing them "as is" is going to be diabolical (in the worst sense of the word)
But then again poorly executed Billet work is also going to be as transparent as glass underpants too if performed badly.
I think one of the skills vital for any performer of mentalism is that of being able to choose with whom one is going to perform; PAs do require a participant who has already bought into your "powers," someone who is going to react. You really HAVE to test levels of skepticism (and weed out the trouble makers) with more foolproof methods before venturing into PAs.

As for not having to fish - this all depends on how you describe how and what you do. Of course if you were a sci-fi godlike mind reader fishing would be quite out of character, but then again so would 99% of all mentalsim methodology. If on the other hand you are an individual experimenting with strange and difficult skills, then having to "tune in" is quite plausable - and greatly adds to the dramatic tension of the revelation when you are correct - you have tamed the chaos of unpredictable skills rather than just demonstrated an obvious conclusion.

What a good answer Daniel! I couldn't have said it better myself:)

Chappy, is in Sighn Language a real tutorial on how to make your own PAs?

Thakns a lot

amens

Underground Collective apparently sell a nice little software tool for generating progressive anagrams called 'Panagram'.

They only accept PayPal unfortunately.

Thanks Mark



Has anyone tried "Sensory Projection" by the Underground collective too?

Sign Language is not a tool for creating your own PAs, it is a well structured presentation that contains several important points that helped me understand how effects using PA methodolgy should be properly presented.
Read all about it yourself at Doug Dyments website.
http://www.deceptionary.com
Hope this helps.

I have a copy of Phil Goldstien's aka Max Maven's book Thabbatical which has a bunch of PAs.. I would be interested in selling it if anyone is interested.

Isn't calling the two PA routines in the Thab a bunch to overdo it somewhat?
What you find there, is the original Contimental, and a modified on on the "Cowboy territory states."
Phil Goldstein regrets that there are too many of the US states to make them work in a PA.
That was the reason for creating the latter, above mentioned routine.

A lot has been said about PAs in general, and also about Contimental.
The borders are narrow, and it is easy to pass them from a miracle consept to something more or less resembling a guessing game.

The serious student should absolutely get Doug Dyment's Sign Language.
Here you get the real thing, with all the thoughts, bakcground, hints and philosophies.
By following Doug's advices and a lot of practicing, you have a treasure here.
A PA is not for everyone, though.

A hint to the one of you who have learned it, but don't think that they get the most out of it, or don't feel that mthis is for them;
Hide it as a part of a booktest, and reveal one word out of a full line.
This works very good.

The Underground Collective has a nice little program for constructing a PA. There are also a few others around.
It is important to be aware of though, that the program in itself not is enough for you to perform a PA routine.
It is how you work with it and your presentation that create the miracle.

Sven

"Hide it as a part of a booktest, and reveal one word out of a full line.
This works very good. "

Good idea, Sven.
You could also pick up a book and page thru it calling out "random" words, having someone think of one of the called out words (part of your PA)--creating an impromptu type booktest.

Cheers.
Tom

If memory serves me correctly, there is a booktest/anagram thingy in Lee Earle's Syzegy.

Yes. The booktest/anagram thingy is called Whenever - Anywhere on p171 of the digital Syzygy. It is a fanastic effect and is also on one of the Syzygy DVDs.
It uses the Sam Schwartz prog. ana. word list from his "Hidden Force."

A few other ways to "bend" a no into a yes.
I built a PA that was searching for a number from 1-12.

At one point, the branch has "ten" "one" and "nine":
---Me: "I'm seeing three letters..."
---If I see a no-face: "Yes, an N, an I, and an..E. Oh, I see! the N
--- is repeated twice! Nine is your number."
---If I see a yes-face: "It's a high number (No: like a high card...an ace
--- ...or a one!) (Yes: it's a ten)

Another branch had "six" "two" and "four":
---Me: "Spell the number out in your mind's eye" I trace a loop pattern in
--- the air with my finger and repeat it, "I see an O"
---No-face: my tracing seamlessly segues into a six pattern, "Oh I see.
--- you are more of a left brain person [insert some sort of
--- cold reading-esqe justification here] so you are still picturing
--- a number 6, not the word 'six'"
---Yes-face: my tracing changes to a cross shape that could be a T or an F, etc.

Obviously this isn't verbatum, I'm just trying to convey my point.
High/low, late/early, end/beginning ("you're spelling it left to right in front of you, but I'm seeing it reversed!"). All these things and more can be used instead of (or in addition to) just calling letters.

Cheers,
Bob

If there are any Microsoft Excel fans out there you can use a formula like =COUNTIF() to count the number of words in a range that contain a particular letter.

For example: =COUNTIF(A1:A50,"*r*")
Will look at the range from cell A1 to cell A50 and return a number showing how many cells contain one or more Rs.

Once you have all of the results in a single column, sort it numerically. The high frequency letters are your yeses--get them first! Your low count letters are your potential nos--get creative on these.

Cheers again,
Bob