|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
JonHackl Regular user Western Australia 198 Posts 
|
As I said, we will make a moment with the spectator that is partly random and partly freely chosen. The value they choose is random (as far as they know!). The suit they choose is freely chosen (well, out three possibilities). Depending on the final outcome, you might circle back and ask if anything was free or random after all.
"Magic is the only kind of entertainment where 90% of the audience is trying to ruin it for themselves." - Pete Holmes
https://www.lybrary.com/ivy-p-925586.html |
|||||||||
|
JonHackl Regular user Western Australia 198 Posts
|
I hope we're not talking past each other due to different versions of TAS. I actually have the Further Thoughts version in mind. In that one, they pick a card that seems random to them, but they only use its value. They choose the suit freely. So my idea was to limit the suit choice like you did, but to do that by asking them to change the suit of the "random" card after they see it. Hence, the final card they think of is partly random (value) and partly freely chosen (suit).
"Magic is the only kind of entertainment where 90% of the audience is trying to ruin it for themselves." - Pete Holmes
https://www.lybrary.com/ivy-p-925586.html |
|||||||||
|
ipe Elite user 497 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 11, 2021, JonHackl wrote: Yes, we are talking about two different version of TAS. As EndersGame explained few posts ago, "there are two main versions [...]: a) The original uses Jokers, more sleights, and includes a shuffle by spectator; b) The revised version uses a key card, no jokers, less sleights, but also no shuffle by spectator". So you are talking about TAS-A. I'm talking about TAS-B from The Vault, here an edited performance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgSPL5zDv3Y As you can see, in TAS-B spectator takes a random number of card from the deck and this number determines the value of the card. I don't know TAS-A, but you can modify a little you scrip in this way: "in your mind, change the colour of that card and choose a suit of that colour". In this way, you eliminate two suits, not only one.
What would a real mindreader do?
|
|||||||||
|
JonHackl Regular user Western Australia 198 Posts
|
I can't help but wonder if there might be three versions. Further Thoughts doesn't use any jokers, but it does allow spectator shuffling, so it doesn't really fit the A or B description.
EDIT: But yes! Asking them to pick a suit that changes the colour of the card should probably work well. I'll test it out when I have a chance. That would simplify the TOO revelation process.
"Magic is the only kind of entertainment where 90% of the audience is trying to ruin it for themselves." - Pete Holmes
https://www.lybrary.com/ivy-p-925586.html |
|||||||||
|
ipe Elite user 497 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 11, 2021, JonHackl wrote: OK, it is free so I have just downloaded "Further Thoughts" to check it out. I don't like it at all. 
I think the force used is very weak. It is way way better (more deceptive and justified, shorter and less confusing) to use the Cross Cut Force instead, for example. Quote:
On May 11, 2021, JonHackl wrote: I think it is perceived as fair from the spectator and it simplifies our work. 
What would a real mindreader do?
|
|||||||||
|
JonHackl Regular user Western Australia 198 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 11, 2021, ipe wrote: Yes, you're probably right. I have a couple new ideas, but I need to think them through and tinker with them a bit.
"Magic is the only kind of entertainment where 90% of the audience is trying to ruin it for themselves." - Pete Holmes
https://www.lybrary.com/ivy-p-925586.html |
|||||||||
|
ipe Elite user 497 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 11, 2021, JonHackl wrote: If you would like, please keep us informed about your reflections.
What would a real mindreader do?
|
|||||||||
|
JonHackl Regular user Western Australia 198 Posts
|
It might be tough to describe them w/o going to the Banquet. I think I can manage describing one of them safely, which is an alternative force. It's a force I've seen a few times, but can only remember one reference, which is Bannon's Mark of the Fabulous in Dear Mr. Fantasy. He attributes the idea to Fred Lowe, but doesn't give a reference. I think it might be Question in Sharpe's Expert Card Mysteries, but I don't own that book yet so I can't check.
The idea is that the spectator cuts a random number of cards from the deck, in this case let's say anywhere from a few cards up to a quarter or so of the deck, and hides that packet. I would then deal off a number of cards from the deck into a packet (the exact number depending on my preparation). The spectator could then flip cards over from both his packet and mine simultaneously until reaching the last card in his. The next card in my packet would be a "random" card. It's this card which the spectator would use to keep its value and mentally change its suit. So, again, it's a partly random, partly free card selection. Then I could go into the TOO reveal. This force is mostly in the spectator's hands, but is less transparent than the Further Thoughts force (or cross-cut, or Balducci, or similar). It's not, however, so direct as some alternatives, which may be a weakness. The second idea is a way of using the TOO/AK-47 key card for a spectator's completely free selection of a card, but possibly disguising it better. I don't think I can explain it here safely. I'm going to think it through some more, and then post it "downstairs." I'll let you know, because I'll want feedback!
"Magic is the only kind of entertainment where 90% of the audience is trying to ruin it for themselves." - Pete Holmes
https://www.lybrary.com/ivy-p-925586.html |
|||||||||
|
ipe Elite user 497 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 11, 2021, JonHackl wrote: Hi Jon, if I understood correctly, you are talking about a variant of the Clock Card Force (I don't know the precise name, if this exists). You can see it in Harris' OverKill here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOTkimjyP8k
What would a real mindreader do?
|
|||||||||
|
JonHackl Regular user Western Australia 198 Posts
|
Yes, that looks like the same idea.
"Magic is the only kind of entertainment where 90% of the audience is trying to ruin it for themselves." - Pete Holmes
https://www.lybrary.com/ivy-p-925586.html |
|||||||||
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1097 Posts
|
Hi
I know AK47 from Destination Zero. I bought the download of Think of One to satisfy my curiosity. On another thread someone said it was harder but better than AK47. It does not seem harder to me at all. Very simple handling, and straightforward "process". I also don't think it is necessarily "better" - just different. I have NOT got Think & Sync - I have just watched the heavily edited promo video. They all have strengths & weaknesses. I would not use the initial peek as the basis for comparing them. In fact Bannon and Kronzek both cover the same options as alternatives. I think ipe makes a great point that the missing cards in AK7 could be seen as revealing the value of the thought card. But the magician would not need to "estimate", as ipe said - he could in theory COUNT the remaining cards! Even though this is not the actual method, a spectator could guess it is - so it needs to be eliminated. (TOO does this automatically because the deck is cut into two halves, so the magician cannot count the total.) I rather like the aspect of TOO where he guesses from 3 possible locations. AND the open spread of the cards. AND the way he openly asks if the card is there. This kind of justifies the use of the box/pocket. But not the specific number of cards counted. I really DON'T like the idea of generating a "random" number in T&S. But nor do I like the idea of taking cards to "commit". These both seem very artificial to me. What I like most about AK47 is the fact that sometimes the thought of card turns out to be in the box. I think this can be a powerful kicker. And I think this is the BEST justification of using the box at all. And by implication it justifies removing some cards (and NOT returning them to the deck). Another way to justify removing cards rather than "committing" (whatever that means) is to keep the spectator honest (which maybe is what is meant by committing?) Or to make sure they don't forget (which is much more polite!). These seem to be more plausible reasons than "commit" or "random card". So my idea is that they (or a second spectator) should also remove 1-4 cards to represent the suit, and put them in a different place. This would be done by cutting the deck, so that the value & suit cards are removed from different halves. This has the additional benefit that the total removed no longer correlates directly to either the value or suit. I don't think it would be a good idea to even mention this, but it would mess with the head of anyone thinking along those lines. So, at the moment, that is my preference - AK47 with an extra 1-4 cards removed to record the suit. |
|||||||||
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1097 Posts
|
Here is another subtlety that would work with AK47 ( and T&S I think). But not with TOO -
Get a glimpse of the bottom card, as well as the standard k** card. Have the spectator count cards off the top as usual. (in T&S they are returned to the middle I believe). In AK47 they go in the box. Then have the spectator cut the deck. (In my version above, they would now remove an additional 1-4 cards). The information you need will still be available but in a different location. |
|||||||||
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1097 Posts
|
Yet another thought on AK47 -
JB's instructions include various "contingencies" for when certain combinations of cards turn out to be not in the deck (therefore in the box). But it's really easy to check which cards are in the deck, rather than just remove the first one you come to. This puts you in a better position to manage the contingencies creatively. |
|||||||||
|
JonHackl Regular user Western Australia 198 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 5, 2021, Nikodemus wrote: I considered that, but it lead to another idea. It suits the presentational premise that I've built around mental type effects. "Mind reading" is a misnomer. It's more like tuning into a frequency than reading something off a page. There are things I can do to tune in more accurately, and things the other can do to "amplify the signal." These concepts justify all kinds of processes. So here, stimulating your senses gets more of your brain active, which "amplifies" your thought of your card and makes it easier for me to tune in. First step, you think of a card. Second step, you cut the deck in half, one to the left and one to the right. Third step, I point to one half (we'll call it the first pile) and ask you to take a number of cards equal to the value of your thought-of card (I turn my back when you actually do it, of course). Now you play around with these in your hands, shifting them around, getting a feel for that number of objects. This engagement of your sense of touch will stimulate more of your brain and help me. Now you put those cards down in the middle, starting a third pile. Next you take one card at a time from the second pile and look at the suits. If the suit doesn't match your thought-of card, just put it in the third pile in the middle. If it does, then I want you to hold that card for a bit and just look at the suit. Focus on the colour and the shape, blah blah blah. This engages your sense of sight along with your sense of touch, getting even more of your brain active so I can tune in to the card you're thinking of. Finally, put that card in the middle pile as well, and then take a random small number of cards from pile two and add those to pile three also. We now have three piles, and only now do I turn back to the spectator. So I never got a chance to see the number of cards they took off from the first pile, and I have no way of knowing what card they took from the second that matched the suit. But the presentation justifies the process that achieves the method. Now I can spread the first pile on the table to figure out the value, and use the TOO method to get to the suit. I hope I've explained this adequately.
"Magic is the only kind of entertainment where 90% of the audience is trying to ruin it for themselves." - Pete Holmes
https://www.lybrary.com/ivy-p-925586.html |
|||||||||
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1097 Posts
|
Hi "Jon"
I like this! I had a similar thought myself of asking spectator to remove a few random cards - specifically so it apparently becomes impossible for the performer to link the total number of missing/moved cards to the thought-of card. My approach would be something like - Only you know the card you are thinking of. This is essential. BUT unfortunately there have been times when people forget in all the excitement, which is embarrassing all round, and spoils the fun. So when my back is turned, please remove the number of cards corresponding to the value, and hide them in the card box. Now cut the cards and remove 1-4 cards [explaining CHaSeD] to represent the suit, and put in your left pocket. If you want, remove 2-3 extra cards as "camouflage" and put in another pocket. My preference for the broad approach of AK47 is primarily based on the fact that I don't believe spectators are stupid. They are NOT going to actually believe any story about "focusing the energy" etc. They will play along for the sake of being polite, humouring you, and enjoying the fun. But they will know you must have an ulterior motive, even if they can't figure out the exact details. And they will be right! In order to allay their suspicions you need to give them a rationale that makes sense in the real world. Not just a fairy tale. A great example of this is the magician who turns his back so he "can't see" what the spectator does, but his real reason is so they can't see what he is doing. His action is justified in their eyes, so they don't give it any more thought. This is basically how all misdirection works. The problem with the 3 tricks we are discussing is this particular bit of procedure, and how to justify it. Keeping the spectator honest is the only justification (so far) that I personally think an intelligent spectator might actually believe. [Re T&S - The idea that a "randomly generated" card is harder to guess than a freely thought-of one is of course absolute poppycock and wouldn't fool anyone]. So that's why I think it's best to isolate the cards. And remove 1-4 to represent the suit - this provides consistency. And a few more because of IPE's point. Having chosen the AK47 path, there are a couple of other benefits - 1. I like the fact that in AK47 (& T&S), the spectators action of trying to find their own card is the final piece of the jigsaw. Whereas in TOO you are obliged to fish in a more obvious way (unless you get lucky) 2. I like the fact that sometimes their card turns out to be in the cards they removed. Obviously, everyone is entitled to their opinion. For me this discussion is very useful. |
|||||||||
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1097 Posts
|
PS. I can see a risk in your approach to cutting the two piles. You are going to give them instructions, then turn your back. It is essential to the method which pile is which, but you cannot emphasise this. As far as the spectator is concerned it doesn't matter. So there is a risk they will take the cards from the wrong piles.
If you had two spectators, maybe one could choose the value and the other the suit. Then they would each have just one pile and one instruction. So no room for error. OR, you can glimpse the bottom card, then make it more step-by-step as I have described above. OR Maybe I am worrying unnecessarily - but these things bother me!!! |
|||||||||
|
JonHackl Regular user Western Australia 198 Posts
|
Yes, great discussion. One hesitation about using the "insurance against forgetting the card" procedure is that every other trick I've done for the spectator(s), I'm not doing that! It's a bit convoluted for a security procedure, too, and could easily result in ineffective ambiguity (Wait, was it the 5 of Spades or the 6 of Clubs?).
I certainly don't expect anyone to believe that I'm really tuning into electrical signals in their synapses, and I don't expect them to think that I want them to believe that, either. In other words, I don't take this stuff too seriously and don't present it very seriously either. But I do think they will have very little reason, in the presentation I'm using, to think the process is anything more than part of what I'm make-believing. Regarding the TOO fishing, you've always got the option of using the AK-47 ploy to reduce your number of questions, if necessary. In that case I certainly recommend Andy's improvement (not sure if we're allowed to link to that site these days). But I think the fact that you haven't tipped yet that you know the value makes the fishing not so bad. You can get the colour wrong, then get the suit wrong, which is only two misses, but then you suddenly nail the whole card, including the value (which theoretically should be the hardest part). Spectators always have trouble back-tracking multiple methods. If you were fishing, how come you didn't have to fish for even or odd, face or spot, high or low? And there's yet another way to smooth out the misses, which is something else I learned from Andy. Change the presentation. So if I miss colour and miss suit, then I can just come out and say that activating their vision and their touch wasn't enough. It's not working. Let's try something else... and then bang, that new thing works. Heck, since I now know the card exactly I can do anything. I can give up, and later in the evening pretend it suddenly came to me. Or I ask them to combine their senses by drawing the card while my back is turned. Or they could take it out of the deck themselves, while my back is turned and there's no way to see it, and they focus very hard on it, touching each of the pips and repeating its name silently in their head; what we tried earlier didn't work, but now I can pick up on what they're thinking and call it out.
"Magic is the only kind of entertainment where 90% of the audience is trying to ruin it for themselves." - Pete Holmes
https://www.lybrary.com/ivy-p-925586.html |
|||||||||
|
JonHackl Regular user Western Australia 198 Posts
|
Ah, my thinking about making sure they take the correct pile is I would say something like, "Take that pile in your hand. Ok, so in a moment I'm going to turn my back so I can't see what you're doing. When my back is turned, I want you to take a number of cards off that pile in your hand..."
"Magic is the only kind of entertainment where 90% of the audience is trying to ruin it for themselves." - Pete Holmes
https://www.lybrary.com/ivy-p-925586.html |
|||||||||
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1097 Posts
|
You make some great points!
Yes - if you want "proof" of what card they thought of, you could just have them write it down! Counting off cards is not the natural way to record that information. I like your idea of keeping it playful, and ending up with a situation where there is no clear link from the "play" to the divination of the card. Specs may suspect that it had some relevance, but with your idea they will hit a brick wall. Allan K also makes the excellent point that you never choose the group which (in his version) would seem to give you the information you need. I think counting cards to represent the suit is important for consistency. It provides a smoke screen of the real method. Re introducing the AK47 ploy into TOO - I presume you mean asking them to find their card? I didn't consider this because there are multiple piles. And one of them is face up. I was assuming you meant they would look through a specific pile or piles. But you could gather them all up together, and go from there. So AK47 becomes an alternative Out for OOT? |
|||||||||
|
JonHackl Regular user Western Australia 198 Posts
|
Quote:
On Aug 5, 2021, Nikodemus wrote: The crucial point (which I don't think he emphasises enough) is that when you guess "wrong" and say you were just teasing them, you do NOT change your prediction card. Actions speak louder than words in this case. Of course you were teasing - because your prediction is subsequently shown to be correct. Re: Andy's tweak, I felt the same. He didn't emphasise enough that the colour you miscall should be opposite to the colour you put on the table as your guess. Then if your miscall is wrong, you don't have to do anything. But if it's right it looks like you get a hit on the colour, followed by a self-correction on value before you commit. So, no real miss. Yes with using this as an out for TOO, it depends on circumstances. For example, if the packet you spread has their card and its soulmate, and they say they do see their card, it might be best to AK-47 out of this (pull the cards up and remove one, then ask them to remove theirs, and they can either find it or not). Or if none of the right value is in the spread, you might just reshuffle the whole deck and do AK-47 with Andy's tweak, but from the whole deck. Anyway, the ploy of committing to a card once you know the colour, and knowing you get the mate if not spot-on, is a an out you could apply in some cases to minimise fishing in TOO.
"Magic is the only kind of entertainment where 90% of the audience is trying to ruin it for themselves." - Pete Holmes
https://www.lybrary.com/ivy-p-925586.html |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » All in the cards » » Bannon's AK47 vs Carey's Think and Sync (9 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: May 11, 2021 09:44 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2023 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.09 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|