|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..10~11~12~13~14 [Next] | ||||||||||
martydoesmagic Inner circle Essex, UK 2245 Posts 
|
Yes, it's the sort of approach Chan Canasta was renowned for. However, it is quite possible to plan "backup effects" so you always end with something that seems impossible. For me, that means reducing the trick from an ACAAN to an FCAFN (Forced Card At Forced Number). The latter feels more random and often, paradoxically, gets a better reaction than the ACAAN!
|
|||||||||
Claudio Inner circle Europe 2094 Posts
|
I’m a bit late to this discussion, as so much has already been said and nearly every point of view has been presented (and repeated) many times.
Still, for what it’s worth, I’d like to share my own experience with ACAAN. I don’t perform magic much these days, but when I was active, I performed ACAAN fairly often. ACAAN is a weird one. Magicians often present it as a coincidence, and I, too, sometimes received underwhelmed reactions—responses like, “So what?” In other words, it fell flat more often than I’d have liked. I developed my own twist on the effect—far from pure—where a spectator cuts the deck wherever they like and begins counting from that point. It introduces an extra element of hazard that other versions might lack, but even so, it didn’t always produce the strong reactions I hoped for. In contrast, I consistently had better results with Tamariz’s Mnemonicosis (also a coincidence effect). It’s easier to perform and, oddly enough, usually more procedural. Yet because the audience was more engaged, the reactions were stronger. I remember watching a YouTube video in which a skilled performer presented ACAAN and Mnemonicosis back-to-back, and I felt Mnemonicosis had the greater impact. If I come across that video again, I’ll post it here. Does this mean ACAAN is a bad trick? Not at all. As many have stated before me, it just means that success depends heavily on finding a presentation that truly engages your audience. That’s the hardest part of this effect: perfect(?) method and technique alone aren’t enough. Compare ACAAN with an effect Harry Lorayne performed: Numero Uno. By stretching the plot, you might consider it a very restricted type of ACAAN—though technically it could not be further from the truth. The spectator picks a card and selects a number between 10 and 20. The spectator’s card is then found at that number, with the performer cutting dead on the number of cards called out. With Harry Lorayne’s coaxing, the spectator would only name 17 or 18, and the effect always looked like a “miracle.” Harry was great at selling every trick he performed as a miracle. |
|||||||||
|
Merc Man Inner circle NUNEATON, Warwickshire 2767 Posts
|
You raise a very interesting point there Claudio.
My good friend, Keith Bennett, performs ACCAN using a Mnemonica stack. It cuts to the chase and is tolerable - because it's so direct and there's no 'faffing about'. Just an estimated cut to position their card, followed with a classic pass, as the pack is handed to the spectator to count down. However, I'll say it again. ACCAN is the revelation of a chosen card. That's it, in a nutshell. Granted, it's a clever way.....but there are better/more entertaining ways - in my opinion. As for revealing a card, indeed look no further than a terrific card trick - such as Numero Uno. Harry Lorayne's presentation is a masterclass in how to deliver a card trick to optimum effect. As far as the spectator is concerned, ask them after the trick what happened and they're very likely to say "my card was at the exact number I said AND the Magician cut straight to it". I think it's probably the raft of pretenders to the throne over the past few years that have swayed my judgement, and ultimate dislike of the ACAAN plot. Everything from fake cards, duplicate cards, trick packs, adding up numbers, rolling dice, using 2 packs, etc. have left me somewhat jaded. Nothing wrong with people using their creativity to think of new methods - but when some of these brainfarts are released with the sole objective of making money, I just think it's just oh so utterly pointless.....particularly when you can achieve the result with a normal pack.
Barry Allen
"It must be conceded that Magic has in the past been plentifully supplied as regards material upon card conjuring" Edward Bagshawe (Farelli's Card Magic).....and that was true in 1933!!!!! |
|||||||||
JuanPoop Veteran user Luckily for you, I only have 383 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 9, 2025, Claudio wrote: Do you mean this one featuring Nate Jester? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfKyvUNx......aWNvc2lz
aka Lucky John
Sydney, Australia |
|||||||||
|
JuanPoop Veteran user Luckily for you, I only have 383 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 10, 2025, JuanPoop wrote: Or maybe this one - Nate again . . . https://youtu.be/ewjB1NG93pI?si=QZ_FDdwS2ZkkrDHx
aka Lucky John
Sydney, Australia |
|||||||||
|
Claudio Inner circle Europe 2094 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 10, 2025, JuanPoop wrote: Yes, that’s the one—and of course it’s subjective. With Mnemonicosis, there’s less emphasis on counting since the performer subtly guides the spectator’s cut. This often leads to more direct hits—such as landing on the bottom or top card, or cutting to or near the selection—compared to ACAAN. Incorporating the spectator’s name into the counting process also adds a layer of engagement. And when the path to the named card isn’t straightforward, the calculator serves as an easy out. I believe that using a marked deck with Mnemonicosis would add to the impact. There’s no denying Nate Jester’s technical skill and mastery of the stack; both are excellent. Still, I feel the presentation could benefit from more context and build-up—especially in AWACAAN. For instance, the framing of “I put a card in a specific location…” quickly leads into the count, and the named card appearing feels a bit flat, i.e. at times, spectators may get a bit nonplussed. But he does get good reactions. That said, Jester’s technical execution remains undeniably strong. PS: I did not re-watch the whole video, so I may be a bit off on what I reported. |
|||||||||
Mb217 Inner circle 9683 Posts
|
Agreed, his technical skill here is excellent. I even like the way he presents this in differing ways. I have played with Mnemonicosis when first getting into Mnemonica. It’s actually why I endeavored to learn a mem deck for the ACAAN take. And I still like the method of it. Earlier it was said by David(?) that Asi Wind’s take was basically what Tamariz did, and I sorta remember thinking about that myself, obviously except for the use of the card box. I think it works really well either way, but takes a bit more attention management skill without the box, which Nate also does very well, and nice to see him here do it both ways. I never had that sorta mastery of it either which way.
 Which is why some of the alternative ways to do ACAAN resonated with me, as it gave me the still opportunity to do a good take on the trick using a different direction via a setup or SOH (as I mentioned some earlier on here to smithart). Anyway, enjoyed the vids and the continuing discussion. 
*Check out my latest: Gifts From The Old Country: A Mini-Magic Book, MBs Mini-Lecture on Coin Magic, The MB Tanspo PLUS, MB's Morgan, Copper Silver INC, Double Trouble, FlySki, Crimp Change - REDUX!, and other fine magic at gumroad.com/mb217magic
"Believe in YOU, and you will see the greatest magic that ever was." -Mb 
|
|||||||||
|
Claudio Inner circle Europe 2094 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 10, 2025, Mb217 wrote: I agree with you, and I think I can sum up my position—and perhaps a few others’ on this thread—with a relative, even tautological statement: “The best version of ACAAN for spectators is the one you perform best.” That said, if one's performance consistently gets lukewarm reactions from one's audience, it may be worth reconsidering or trying a different approach. I had to do the latter often enough! |
|||||||||
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 3322 Posts
|
If I can sum up my understanding of the thread:
ACAAN cons: It's a card reveal. ACAAN pros: It's a card reveal.
Typhoon Tuck
"As soon as you have succeeded at making a sustainable fire, your thoughts should turn to how you are going to start your next fire" ~Mors Kochanski "Work hard, study well, eat and sleep plenty. That's the Turtle Hermit way!" |
|||||||||
|
Merc Man Inner circle NUNEATON, Warwickshire 2767 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 10, 2025, critter wrote: That's basically it - but if I may add...... ACAAN cons: It's a card reveal - that's often more convoluted, drawn out, confusing and less entertaining than many other revelations. It also often requires set-ups, gimmicked and/or additional cards and gaffs. ACAAN pros: It's a card reveal - versions of which makes dealers and creators money (that element obviously being a 'pro' for them of course).
Barry Allen
"It must be conceded that Magic has in the past been plentifully supplied as regards material upon card conjuring" Edward Bagshawe (Farelli's Card Magic).....and that was true in 1933!!!!! |
|||||||||
|
UnbiasedMagicReviews Elite user 416 Posts
|
The ACAAN effect is much more than just a card reveal.
It can be an astounding prediction or even a shocking coincidence. Some may even take the route of telekinesis and claim to be able to will the thought of card to their thought of position... The reason why it is so intriguing is because of the improbable nature of the effect. Given ideal conditions, the entire thing is absolutely impossible. A GOOD ACAAN is VERY entertaining to people. Magicians who look down on the effect are those that are either performing a rubbish version or don't even perform it... If you are performing some ridiculous version like those John Carey versions that use a horrible force and 5 dupes, then of course it is going to be lame because the conditions suck. Ask yourself if you want to perform something that looks REAL or just another convoluted trick? ----------------------------- The ideal ACAAN has just enough structure to keep it interesting.... and just enough uncertainty to keep it alive! I ONLY get extremely strong reactions from my ACAAN effect. I will leave you with this short clip to show you the reactions I get from real people in the real world with my ACAAN. I am simply sharing the end of the effect so you can see the impact it creates. I'm done with this thread...
YouTube & Instagram - UnbiasedMagicReviews
I buy/review magic to help you make better decisions Unbiased The Definitive ACAAN -The BEST Ungimmicked ACAAN - https://youtu.be/YtAAETDIouA |
|||||||||
|
martydoesmagic Inner circle Essex, UK 2245 Posts
|
No one is denying that ACAAN can get a great reaction from an audience (as can any card reveal or location effect). But the plot, void of any meaningful presentation, is often dry and unmemorable. This is one of those routines that needs a large dollop of showmanship to highlight the impossibility of the situation.
I'm not sure why you're criticising John. Have you tried his methods? If not, I'd keep quiet on the matter. His work is excellent, and he's a kind, humble, and generous person. Marty |
|||||||||
|
threadman77 Veteran user 347 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 12, 2025, UnbiasedMagicReviews wrote: Actually it "is" simply just a card reveal, and it most cases, a weak, stunt, puzzle, challenge, non engaging feat, where you just get to the finish line to see if it worked out, card reveal. What it is not, is a magic effect, especially the way you present it. Very unnatural way to remove the cards from the deck, guide them along with awkward, non engaging patter, and then "ask" them if that was amazing. Your relatives over for dinner - that's your real people in the real world performance? I've got better reactions from a thumb tip and silk! |
|||||||||
|
martydoesmagic Inner circle Essex, UK 2245 Posts
|
Returning to Brad's original thesis (the best ACAAN for spectators), I'd argue that the two most important conditions of ACAAN to maintain for lay people are (1) that any number can be named and (2) that the cards are in the spectator's hand when the number is verbalised. The card can be forced in a way that makes it appear like a random choice. It is far more challenging to influence a spectator to name a specific number (although I've had great success with a two-digit number that rhymes with heaven).
I'm a fan of "dirty ACAANs" that maintain these two conditions, and I get as good a reaction from them as I do with "A.A.C.A.A.N." by Asi Wind. My favourite uses both duplicates and a mathematical force!
Marty |
|||||||||
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1548 Posts
|
Claudio has rightly pointed out that there is a lot of repetition in this thread. Nevertheless, I will respectfully reiterate my disagreement with the notion that ACAAN is just another card revelation. I think it CAN be just another card revelation - if the magician handles the deck. But if the magician is perceived never to touch the cards, it becomes something else. I would say that it IS truly magical - if you have the right conditions. (And the required showmanship, as mentioned by Marty).
Imagine if you could perform the following effect: The magician places a deck of cards on a table. The spectator freely names any card. The spectator freely names any location in the room (eg. his own shoe, the magician's hat, the lampshade etc.) The spectator looks through the deck to discover the named card is missing. The spectator then checks the freely-named location, and discovers the card is there. I think that would be a bloody miracle. The problem is, of course, that there is almost certainly no method to accomplish the bit about a freely-named location. But if we could accomplish it, I don't think anyone would dismiss it as just another card revelation - because (1) the location is freely named (2) the spectator, not the performer, checks the location. Obviously, a card being at a particular position in a deck is not the same as the above - but it has the advantage that it IS possible, and it is (I re-re-re-iterate!) in my opinion pretty miraculous if the conditions are right. I.e. IF it is perceived to be completely hands-off, so there is apparently zero opportunity for foul play. This I believe is the attraction of this plot. Anyway, moving on... I think Marty hits the nail on the head when he suggests that the deck should be in the spectator's hands before the number is revealed. This adds another layer of mystery by appearing to move the Critical Interval to when the deck is outside the performer's control. Presumably David (Unbiased) used such a technique in the video above. At 6.30 in this video, you can see this in action. The spectataor is clearly flummoxed by the "fact" that he didn't know her number till the end. This also of course takes the heat off the shift. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhNseRz9F74 I would just add to what Marty said that it could be the card, rather than the number, that is unannounced - or ideally both? |
|||||||||
|
UnbiasedMagicReviews Elite user 416 Posts
|
Quote:
On Sep 12, 2025, threadman77 wrote: Eddie You sure talk a lot of **** for an armchair magician…. Lets see YOU post up a live performance of you performing what you consider to be the best ACAAN and show us all how it is done. talk is cheap. Are you not a pro?!?? Those are not my relatives.
YouTube & Instagram - UnbiasedMagicReviews
I buy/review magic to help you make better decisions Unbiased The Definitive ACAAN -The BEST Ungimmicked ACAAN - https://youtu.be/YtAAETDIouA |
|||||||||
|
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 3322 Posts
|
This is really making me miss Jerry Springer.
Typhoon Tuck
"As soon as you have succeeded at making a sustainable fire, your thoughts should turn to how you are going to start your next fire" ~Mors Kochanski "Work hard, study well, eat and sleep plenty. That's the Turtle Hermit way!" |
|||||||||
|
martydoesmagic Inner circle Essex, UK 2245 Posts
|
And everybody take a deep breath; it's only a darn card trick!
In David's performance, the trick clearly flumoxes Jeff, and he is thinking carefully about it at the end (when the focus shifts to the next trick). However, he does recognise the key moment of the routine when the work took place, although he says, "You didn't do anything to them when you took them out". This is the central weak point of "A.A.C.A.A.N." and its variations. If you nail the execution of the method, then all is good. But if you fumble the mechanics, then you're in trouble. That's too much pressure for most magicians. However, I do think David "Unbiased ACAAN" is a well-constructed card trick (the thought-of number is a nice touch). Still, I prefer an approach where the number is only chosen when the cards are 100% out of the magician's control (I like to highlight this in my presentation of the effect). This method gets quite close to the Holy Grail, but the main issue is that there's a lot of heat on the box once a card and a number are selected, and there's not much you can do about that. And, yes, Nick. In an ideal world, the card and the number would both be unannounced. That's actually why I prefer using a force or a key card location when performing ACAAN in a casual situation. In fact, my favourite impromptu handling is R. Paul Wilson's "YAMFACAAN" (Yet Another Method For Any Card At Any Number) using a key card location so that you don't know the card's identity (?) when the number is named. If I could only perform "A.A.C.A.A.N." or "YAMFACAAN", I'd actually choose Paul's trick because it is more versatile and less restrictive. Marty |
|||||||||
|
Nikodemus Inner circle 1548 Posts
|
Hi Marty,
I assumed "MF" stood for something a lot ruder than "method for"! I found a video here of someone apparently performing YAMFACAAN - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn_hDMN4Z9Q But in this demo, he clearly does know the card's identity. Is this actually YAMFACAAN??? The method reminds me One For The Money by Bill Goldman, which I think is a great impromptu piece. (In this case, I have to agree that counting to the card is just another card revelation). Re the Unbiased/AWACAAN handling - I don't think there is a huge amount of heat when the move happens, because it is such an innocuous moment. Jeff refers to it because he is trying to backtrack and it's the only moment when something could have happened. But he discounts it because clearly he didn't notice anything untoward. Anyway, it's all a matter of personal preference. I think it's a pretty good method, but I don't think there is any such thing as an "ultimate". In particular it's worth remembering that different contexts create different priorities. As a hobbyist, examininability is much more important to me than a for a typical professional. So I like methods that use a an ungimmicked deck (especially if its in a stack I can use for other effects). If I ever do a stage show (which is unlikely) my priorities would be different. |
|||||||||
|
critter Inner circle Spokane, WA 3322 Posts
|
I think it's a plot based around a revelation and because it's a somewhat complex plot audience engagement outweighs everything else.
Look how Harry Lorayne did his stacks right in the open. He got away with it because he was Harry Lorayne and could keep their interest on him first and foremost. This isn't exactlt that, but the skill applies. In this case, you need enough interest so they are listening and following the plot. So the best method (in all tricks, but especially more involved ones) is whatever you can do automatically enough to focus on your presentation.
Typhoon Tuck
"As soon as you have succeeded at making a sustainable fire, your thoughts should turn to how you are going to start your next fire" ~Mors Kochanski "Work hard, study well, eat and sleep plenty. That's the Turtle Hermit way!" |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » The Best ACAAN for Spectators (46 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..10~11~12~13~14 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Sep 5, 2025 03:45 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2026 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.11 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 < 
|