Danny with all due respect, I don't care that you don't care, and I don't care that you try to command me to not give my reasoning especially after you raised the question about what morals or ethics I could possibly have. I answered, and your response was you don't care and that I should not have explained my reasoning.

I am sorry Bob for derailing the conversation, I have said what I said prior, I have no interest in getting into further argument and back and forth with Danny.

No worries, 1tepa1.


Bob

Anyone can write whatever they like here within the bounds of the rules. If your only contribution is along the lines of "I'm smarter, more experienced and better looking than you and you are deluding yourself if you think xxx is good/fooling/magical, and if you take offense to anything I write that's *YOUR* problem", then cool. But you're not adding to the conversation and people are just going to argue with you or ignore you. But maybe that's your goal. I have made my contributions for whatever they are worth and I am on to the next topic.

Being delusional is fine. Just don’t be upset when someone mentions the Emperor has no clothes.

I get it. These things take work. Everyone wants to be a busy builder but nobody wants to lift the weight.

I think Danny makes a valid point about the "Emperor's clothes". When we assume spectators are blind and/or idiots, we are lying to ourselves.

Here are my thoughts...

It was generous of itepa1 to make a video and share it for discussion. Thank you.
I have seen him do some great sleights in his other videos - but I think this one is really obvious. Sorry, but it is (to me). They idea that "spectators" won't notice is silly. You can clearly see his thumb take the top card.

I disagree with the guys above who described it as "discrepant". I think we should be stricter with the words we use. Discrepant refers to something else. In this case the move is blatant(!)

I checked the Jennings book. There is a difference from 1tepa1's video. Some may think it changes everything; others may think the move still sucks...

The difference is that Jennings side-jogs the genuinely selected card (ie top card of the bottom packet). THEN he briefly places the top packet on top of the side-jogged card, as he flips over the force card.
Presumably the move is supposed to look like using the top packet to flip over the side-jogged card. I can see how this could work in theory (for Jennings anyway). When you side-jog the card, you kind of isolate it. The flipping over then becomes more of an afterthought. Maybe you could raise your eyes and speak to the spectator as you do it. if they relax attention at the crucial moment you could maybe get away with it. Kaufman doesn't say this, but he does say it's all about timing.

Personally I don't have the cajones for something like this; but apparently it worked for Larry Jennings.
Discuss...

I posted the video because when I read the description for the Jennings slip force being "open" and as the forced card being face up I was intriqued and as I had a deck of cards in my hands at the time this was the only solution I could come up that matched that description. I posted it because I wanted to know if that was what Jennings had. It wasnt something that I had put time to practice or given any thought into. Maybe it could be modified in some way to make it better but that wasnt the point, the point was that I just wanted to know if my initial thought about the Jennings sleight was right or not without getting my hands on the book lol. Thanks to Nikodemus for confirming what I thought, and sharing the added nuance that Jennings used.

I certainly don't feel comfortable trying that force even the Jennings version now that you described his handling in front of a spectator. Even if it does work with right timing, I see no reason to actually do that instead of another type of force that doesn't have that issue. I don't even particularly like any kind of riffle forces, although I have recently given them more consideration. I feel like a dribble force is just better than a riffle force in most cases but it could just be my own feeling also.

There is one use that I would be comfortable using the thing I did in the video, and that is to use it to flip over a "random" card in a trick where that is used. Instead of flipping the top card over on top it gets flipped in the middle, done casually it would work. Even if someone sees it comes from the top its not a big deal in that context.

I also thought about ways to mask the move as a force but the only way I came up with is to lift the hand towards the spectator so the slip is concealed in the action of raising the hand up to show the card, something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Eyw9kt2M7c

The newer variation I think could actually be viable to use in real life with practice because the slip is actually concealed by the action of rising the wrist, its invisible from the front. The action of the thumb going behind the deck as is necessary to slip the card is also motivated because the thumb is used to push that card off so it can be shown.

As far as all these variations of the slip cut I’d like to cite the case of “Ain’t broke vs. Don’t fix”.

You are drifting into legal areas, I might suggest being more careful.

There is indeed an expectation of privacy in public in some situations. For example, Arizona is
a one party consent state, meaning someone involved has to consent, that person can be you.

But if you walk away, like in your example, you can no longer consent meaning someone else
being recorded would have to. Or you publicly declare they are being recorded.

Violation of this is a felony in Arizona and some other places.

As for them not talking about anything else but you after you walk away, I would suggest
putting the ego back in your pocket and consult your nearest lawyer, which I'm not one.

You’re not a lawyer? I’m shocked.

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a bar. It begins and ends there. Even in Arizona sorry to tell you.

But the real point is even more ready. You are using 2 minutes of audio to learn about your act. It never goes into public, nobody but you ever is going to hear a word. Go ahead and explain to me the legal ramifications. “Can” there be some if very specific things happen in a very specific way? Sure probably. Odds of it happening. Almost none.

1tepa1,


Could you explain in more detail what you're doing in your most recent video? -- in a PM if you feel explaining here would constitute exposure. I'm not sure where the force card is starting. I was expecting to see you show the same card each time you performed your move, but that isn't what happened. Maybe that means that you fooled me! I'm definitely intrigued.


When I'm learning a move I like to try several variations before settling on the one that I'm most comfortable with, so this is definitely helpful.


Thanks,


Bob

Nick, you make a good point: what worked in a master's hands might not work in the hands of people who don't have his talent, or his willingness to devote all his waking hours to his art.

Bob, its a force of the top card. The reason for why its not the same card is for two reasons. Only the last two are actual forces. The ones before are real and not forces. But also the force card goes into the middle, that is why the last two are different.

The force is mechanically the same as the first video. Its just that the slip is done as the left hand tilts and lifts the packet up and forward to show the card. If you need more infomation you can send a dm I can make a video.

Ah, thanks, tepa. I'll look at your video again and this latest message tomorrow, and let you know if I need further clarification.

How does this improve the slip force?

All of this is just getting you right back to a standard slip force.

It doesn't need to be an improvement.

There are many reasons for creating something. Sometimes its just fun and play. But even so the very act of creating improves your thinking abilities and ability to create other things. And even if it doesn't, if you enjoy it, that in itself can be a good enough reason to do so.

I agree with this.

Bob. If you want to learn the slip f"rce, you've gotta see Carney and Kurtz as I mentioned earlier. I made a brief video of the Jennings move you mentioned.
Now a few things first. Heed Mr. Kaufman's instructions about tempo.
Second, LJ was a master and had huge hands.
Third, this isn't meant for a camera. In my opinion, it's about attitude, and casualness and the action should be done while engaging. The mastery here is less in the mechanics and more in the misdirection- which every sleight requires. It worked for Jennings who I'm sure to great delight in executing this simple bold move. It isn't for everyone, perhaps it's for you.
Again, it must never be done for the staring lens of the eye nor the camera .
https://youtube.com/shorts/EIwlNtSoDxk?si=dAqh5ZCledfqPtoT

Sorry, here it is again with the same above caveats:
https://youtube.com/shorts/xgts5PPN3Ic?si=0nnaUxgH-zEgoRUF

@tepa, done casually I can see how your handling could be deceptive- after all, even Al Koran used a f'rce where he literally just handed someone the force card. Good for you. I was semi fooled by one of your attempts and that's with me staring at the deck. Yours is a riffle action with the thumb. Jennings dribbled the cards and pushed the selection to the right with the left thumb.