|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 | ||||||||||
Nikodemus Inner circle 1534 Posts 
|
I've pondered a bit more.
I think Jon's "playful:" approach (including the suits) is the least suspicious, as you end up with a third pile that is a more random number. From here you can proceed to select one pile, which is the TOO approach. Or you could just gather the three piles together, and go into T&S. I also re-watched the TOO video. Allan does not go through every scenario. He covers a few, then says you can figure the rest out for yourself. He does not cover what I consider to be the worst case scenario. This is when you guess the pile wrong, and there are none of the relevant cards present. This means you have already failed once, and you have no information about the suit/colour. Yes you could use verbal fishing. But I think this would be a good situation to gather up the other two piles (maybe ask spec to shuffle them), look through and remove a prediction. Then you can finish off by asking them to find their card. There might be other scenarios where you would want to do similar. So basically you can "jazz" your way through, with various gambits to draw on. The key point being there is no "rule" that forbids you picking up any of the cards, and proceeding as you please. |
|||||||||
|
JonHackl Regular user Western Australia 198 Posts
|
I haven't actually seen the TOO video. I read it in Genii. I'll go back and see if he covers that worst case scenario there.
EDIT: He doesn't cover that scenario there either. Seems an odd omission. Oh well!
"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 |
|||||||||
|
John7 Regular user 140 Posts
|
I came across another version of this. It's called You Think of a Card by Tom Craven. It's a bit more direct than the other versions and has a couple of touches that are different to the others. I'm not saying they make it better or worse but it's just more ideas for the pot and some may like them. For example, he suggests using a red deck. You cut a portion off the top of the deck and spread it face up on the table (which allows you to get the information you need) and then you say "You picked a red card". If the spectator says "No" then you turn the cards over and say something like "I was talking about the backs". If using a blue deck, then you say "You didn't pick a red card". If they say "Yes I did" then you do the same thing - turn them over and show that they are all blue.
While reading this trick, another thought occurred to me (which isn't in this trick but follows on from it in the way it plays out). Once you've narrowed it down to two possible cards you could palm off the most likely possibility. Then hand the deck to the spectator and ask them to look through the deck, take out their card and put it face down on the table (as in AK47 and TAS). If they find their card then you name it. If they don't find their card then you take it out of your pocket. (I have AK47 and TOO but not TAS so I don't fully know what the procedure is in that one) |
|||||||||
|
shakuni Inner circle 1199 Posts
|
Where can I find Think of a Card by Tom Craven? Thanks.
|
|||||||||
|
Francois Lagrange Elite user Paris, France 438 Posts
|
My (Almost) 50 Years in Magic by Tom Craven. Probably in some other publication too.
Protect me from my friends, I'll deal with my enemies.
|
|||||||||
|
John7 Regular user 140 Posts
|
Regarding You Think of a Card by Tom Craven, I read it in "Anytime, Anyplace, Anywhere: with a deck of cards" by Aldo Colombini which is available on Lybrary for $10
https://www.lybrary.com/anytime-anyplace......148.html |
|||||||||
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1534 Posts
|
I have recently become interested in this idea again.
My favourite of the genre now is THINK OF ONE by Allan Kronzek. My reason is simple - the initial attempt to divine the location of the card (whether successful or not) has the potential to give you so much more information than all the other approaches I have seen. For me, this out-weighs the arguments in favour of using the whole deck. Additionally, if the spectator says their card is not in the first packet, I think there are some scenarios where it would be beneficial to to pick up the second packet. This is something Allen K doesn't do. Also, you might want to use some of Bannon's ideas. Generally this would be with the second packet; but is worth considering if all four mates are in the first packet. |
|||||||||
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1534 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 28, 2023, John7 wrote: I downloaded this, and I was not at all impressed with Craven's ideas on the subject. I believe he first published this effect in the 1950's; so maybe it was the precursor to Mindreader's Dream by Bob Hummer? If that's the case, then Craven deserves respect for coming up with the basic idea. But either way, his approach seems really weak compared to the more modern variants discussed in this thread. I haven't read the rest of the book yet, but hopefully there will be some better material in it. |
|||||||||
JuanPoop Veteran user Luckily for you, I only have 379 Posts
|
Has anyone had a look at the new(ish) John Bannon update to his Move Zero project - called Move Zero Max?
There is a routine in there that looks a lot like a streamlined AK47. It is called "Dream Sequence". From the performance video, it looks like the way he can find the required information is different and he seems to have removed a step to get to the spectator's selection. I wonder if he references AK47 in the explanation.
aka Lucky John
Sydney, Australia |
|||||||||
|
Golem13 New user 42 Posts
|
It's a much more streamlined (and better IMO) version, but does require a very small 'set up', which can easily be done live. The handling is completely deceptive and the question is more direct, which creates the feeling of a hit regardless of the answer. He doesn't reference AK47 but it's obviously based off that trick.
Totally my favourite version of this now! |
|||||||||
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1534 Posts
|
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JRoMzmsEYA
Overall, JB seems to have gone for the most direct approach possible here. I think there is a mixture of good and bad in this version. I immediately noticed that the deck was not shuffled by the spectator. This weakens the effect, in my opinion. You could let the spectator shuffle, then casually add your own shuffle to do what you need to do - but this is still not as straightforward or subtle as the procedure of AK47 or Think Of One. No cards are removed from the deck, which eliminates the need for various "contingencies". I also noticed, he went straight for the colour, rather than remove a card first. I think his "close as I can get" approach from AK47 is rather cunning, so I would probably want to keep it in. (I presume this is still possible - why wouldn't it be?). |
|||||||||
|
JuanPoop Veteran user Luckily for you, I only have 379 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 6, 2026, Nikodemus wrote: From what I can ascertain from the performance video, it looks like the deck could be fully shuffled by the spectator, as long as you get some simple info from the deck before the spectator commits to a card. The video you attached includes JB saying the cunning line you mentioned, so that looks like it can stay. It all feels a bit more direct and as you say, devoid of the potentially annoying contingencies. On the surface, it looks a little better.
aka Lucky John
Sydney, Australia |
|||||||||
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1534 Posts
|
Without revealing too much, I think you need TWO pieces of information, whereas you only need one for AK47. The info is obtainable, but you would need to be a bit careful how you go about it.
Re the cunning line - I was actually referring to the fact that in AK47, as far as I recall, Bannon removes a card BEFORE he mentions the colour. If they say he is wrong, he turns it into a joke, and does NOT change his card. This is the devious ploy I love. |
|||||||||
|
Rizzo Inner circle East Coast 3446 Posts
|
Only need to know the color with this one.
|
|||||||||
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1534 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 6, 2026, Rizzo wrote: Hi Rizzo, I'm not sure if you were responding to my previous post. If so, I was being too cryptic. The two pieces of information I was referring to were what you need in order to determine the value of the card. (In Ak47, you only need one piece of information at this stage). Nick |
|||||||||
|
JuanPoop Veteran user Luckily for you, I only have 379 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 7, 2026, Nikodemus wrote: I have now picked this up (as part of Move Zero Max) and am happy with the tweaks to AK47. It does feel more streamlined and therefore a bit more direct. The method to determine the card is what I was expecting, but as always, the explanation and slight variations always offer more context and choice. Personally, if I can sneak it in, I will position the two important pieces beforehand and false shuffle/ cut to keep everything in place. However, if handed a deck, I would back myself to use some casual movement and memory to do what is needed. I am looking forward to trying this variation on some unsuspecting spectators soon.
aka Lucky John
Sydney, Australia |
|||||||||
|
mlippo Inner circle Trieste (Italy) 1273 Posts
|
Lemme step in ...
This kind of effect is good, but many of the versions have issues... "In Primis" (that's Latin), Bannon's version (which I've got in two of his books - no video, sorry), always bothered me because of the cards placed in the card case. But anyone with little experience/knowledge in card magic, should be able to come out with a solution that is satisfying. I managed. If you haven't got enough experience/knowledge, please do not attempt this trick as explained by Bannon in his books. As for the video I've just seen, which should be the "ultimate" version, please don't try to kid me. That is the best take possible. Maybe they shot multiple version and published this one? They were lucky the first time? Dunno, but we all know what I am referring to. Make your own choices. Mine was to give it a little thought ... and that, apart buying Bannon's books, was free of charge. Mark P.S.: I'm a big JB fan. I consider him a half genius. But I can't stand that sad pony-tail look. Dunno how old he his, definitely older than I am (I'm 61). Dignity should come first. P.S. #2: Counting the cards on the table, making THAT racket should never be an option. And no one should ever suspect that could be part of the method. My version, of course, removes this issue. |
|||||||||
Wravyn Inner circle 4241 Posts
|
I will stick with Max Maven's Destiny.
|
|||||||||
|
Claudio Inner circle Europe 2092 Posts
|
Quote:
On May 7, 2026, Wravyn wrote: Max Maven’s Destiny is a great trick, but both the effect and the modus operandi are completely different from JB’s AK47/Dream Sequence. In fact, you could easily perform them back-to-back. I may be wrong, but I think the renaming of the trick from AK47 to Dream Sequence is a reference to Bob Hummer’s seminal effect The Mindreader’s Dream. Hummer’s method was far more complex — and spawned many variations in the search for simplification — and it required two pieces of information to accomplish the effect. Personally, I prefer AK47 to Dream Sequence, as it requires less memory and allows you to obtain the necessary information on the fly, so to speak. You can also easily eliminate the “contingency” aspect by having the cards returned to the deck. And, if desired, you could closely mimic the Dream Sequence procedure — i.e. have the deck cut, cards counted back onto the deck, the talon dropped onto the tabled cards, and finally a complete cut of the deck. A very simple manoeuvre would be required to accomplish this. EDIT: I should have mentioned that I use an adapted Kronzek handling. |
|||||||||
| 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 | ||||||||||
Posted: Aug 5, 2021 01:44 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2026 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.04 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 < 
|