Charismatic Magic

This is something I originally wrote in my post on Charms. But this concept is so fundamental to how I think about performing that it deserves its own post. In fact, it's going to be one of my personal focuses for 2026.

People don't like to be used, scammed, or lied to for the purpose of your self-aggrandizement.

And they're fairly indifferent to being fooled or impressed.

But, surprisingly, what I’ve found is this:

People like to be toyed with.

They like to be charmed, seduced, and messed with.

They don't even mind being lied to, if the lie is intended for their enjoyment and everyone knows it isn't meant to be believed.

So much of magic is just: "The card you named is at the number you named."

Oh, wow. Yeah. Huh… so it is.

They're fooled. But there's no sense you crafted this moment for them—just that you executed a procedure at them.

But when you embellish tricks with things like "Charms" or other "extra presentational" techniques I've written about—like Imps and Reps, or even just a lavish presentation—you are creating Charismatic Magic.

People understand you could have fooled them more directly. You didn't have to add these ornaments or take these detours. You only did that because you wanted to toy with them a bit more.

Being "toyed with" or teased may seem like a negative thing… but not when your lover or your friend does it. Then it adds energy and vitality to the interaction.

So much of magic is about efficiency. I got the card to their number. I did it quickly.

That's great, but this isn't the Department of Motor Vehicles. The value isn't in how quickly and efficiently you can accomplish the goal.

"In my ACAAN, if they name 40, I have them count 12 from the bottom of the deck to save time."

Do you have diarrhea? Are you on a NASCAR pit crew? What's the rush? Why are we killing tension in order to shave seconds?

My approach to magic (the Jerxian approach, if you must) follows two paths.

The Carefree Path: Can we make the effect simpler, more impromptu, more convenient to perform? Can we offload any element methodologically that might interrupt the flow of the performance?

The Charismatic Path: What can we add to the interaction to make it feel richer, fuller, more enchanting?

As magicians, it's easy to obsess over the mechanics—the sleights, the gimmicks, the details of the trick itself. We become like chefs perfecting a single dish, fixated on ingredients and technique to create the most impressive plate.

But the trick lives within a moment. And focusing on the broader experience has far greater impact than perfecting micro-details that only other magicians will ever notice.

To go back to the food analogy, this is the mindset not of planning the flawless dish, but of creating the perfect romantic dinner.

On the Carefree Path, what's a delicious but simple recipe that will taste fantastic but won't require me to be in the kitchen the whole time? What can I create ahead of time to get it out of the way? What shortcuts can I take that don't sacrifice quality but will allow me to be more present with my guest?

On the Charismatic Path, what music should I play? What should the lighting be? What should the tablescape be? What if I timed it so we went for a walk after the meal, and by the time we got back, the smell of dessert was meeting us from the oven? These are things that don't change the taste of the food, but they can create the memory of the perfect meal.

The Jerxian approach is to make the behind-the-scenes preparation and execution as simple as possible while layering the moment itself with details that don't just fool people but make them feel charmed, seduced, and toyed with.

There's a practical advantage here too: “Charismatic magic” is immune to the modern world. It can only exist in three dimensions, in real time, between real people. AI can't replicate it. Video can't capture it. No amount of online exposure can burn it. The magic isn't just in what happens—it's in how it feels to be there when it does.

Mailbag #159

Some people have asked if I'll be taking January off like I did last year. As this existence of this post suggests, the answer is no. Last year I took January off to work on the book for supporters that came out in May. This year I'll be taking June or July off to work on the next book, which comes out in October.

---

Regarding the trick you mentioned in your last post [Note: It’s a trick where any word the spectator names is predicted in the color they chose.] do you think the color aspect of the prediction adds much to the effect? I can’t decide if it’s overkill or if it’s the tweak that makes it impossible. —SS

My concern would be that it might confuse whatever premise you're trying to establish.

If I asked you to imagine any living person—celebrity, friend, someone from your past, whoever—and then I said, "Also, picture them wearing any type of hat," and then I opened my closet door to reveal your childhood butcher wearing a sombrero... does the sombrero actually add anything? Yes, it technically makes it more impossible. But "more impossible" doesn't necessarily translate into stronger magic if it takes away from the purity of an already strong impossibility.

What I could do in that situation is something like this:

"I want you to think of any type of hat in the world. Focus on the style and the material. Hmmm... I'm not getting it. Do me a favor—I want you to think of any living person whose face you know well and imagine that hat on their head. That should strengthen the image and allow me to pick up on the style of hat."

Now when I open the closet door, someone steps forward with their head down and a sombrero on.

"Ta-da! I knew you'd think of a sombrero!"

Then the person looks up and it's revealed to be the person they were imagining too.

Now the hat is there not because it makes the trick more impossible, but because it adds an element of surprise and showmanship. We let them think it's going to be about the trivial detail, and then blindside them with the personal impossibility.

You could (in theory) do the same with this trick. You focus on the unimportant part and let the word reveal come out of nowhere.

"Last night I took a marker and scribbled on a piece of paper. I want you to see if you can focus on the color of the marker I used."

Later, you reveal your prediction and at first it just looks like you're showing they've accurately guessed a color you "scribbled" with. But as you further unfold the prediction, it's revealed to be a word they randomly thought of earlier. (Maybe you had them create a magic word earlier in the effect. Or maybe as part of the "color-focusing" bit you had them imagine any object and then think of it in a color it doesn't normally come in, and it’s that object that’s written on the paper. Either way, you make it seem like your focus is always on the color they're coming up with. This word or object is just tangential to the procedure.)

I don't know if this would work with the procedure from Pigmento, but that's generally how I would approach these things. Get them focusing on the smaller aspect, then hit them with the larger impossibility when they're not braced for it. It should feel like it comes totally out of the blue and completely overwhelm them—as opposed to focusing on the word and then saying, "It's also in the color you named," which feels completely superfluous.

Pigmento may actually use the approach I mentioned here. I have no clue because there's no demo of the effect.

---

I figure this might be a “it depends” or you have some general heuristics on this. 

When you have something pre planned to perform, is there a time during a gathering/social interaction you try to hit to transition to this. 

Thinking of a small gathering of people would transitioning to it earlier in the evening vs towards the end when it’s the last “thing” for the evening? —ZA

For most tricks, I don't think it really matters. But when I have something really immersive and strong, I tend to want to put it towards the end of the gathering or meet-up.

Here's why:

1. It provides a sort of climax to the evening. Structurally, it feels right.

2. It allows more time to build anticipation. "Oh, a little later there's something I need to show you. Don't let me forget." That little seed of curiosity gets to germinate while you're just hanging out normally.

3. Rushing into the performance early on can feel a little desperate. Like you showed up for the trick rather than the people.

4. A really immersive effect has almost a dreamlike quality to it. When you do it at the end of the night, you can leave people in that state when they go. They walk out the door still inside the experience. This is why I often have people text me after hanging out: "Okay, I'm still freaked out by..." or "I can't stop thinking about..." Whereas if you do it in the middle of the interaction, they need to snap out of the reverie just to get on with normal human interaction. The spell breaks because it has to.

Again, this is only something I think about when I'm doing something very strong—something I know is going to leave them a little rattled.

Until 2026...

This, unbelievably, is the final post for 2025. I will see you all back here on Monday, January 5th.

The relaunched version of the newsletter, Keepers #1, will be in the email of supporters on January 4th.

---

Got a lot of positive emails on yesterday’s post. If you want to explore other stuff I’ve written from a similar angle, check out: The Three Highlights (about taking time to notice the things you appreciate) and Invest In Your Happiness (about feeding into the things that bring you joy).

---

Huh?

“Okay, we have two people applying for a job. A black guy and a white guy. Point to one. The black guy? Okay. So we eliminate him and hire the white guy.”

---

From Marc Kerstein, regarding an old post for a trick called Peruggia. His suggested tweak makes a lot of sense to me.

I tried this at a show(!) I did tonight and it went amazingly. Being able to really emphasise that the final card never left their hand was really great - they kept mentioning that particular point afterwards.

One small change I made was not to peek the bottom card on my stack of three (as you would do normally), but instead to double lift the top card of my stack as I showed it, peeking the one beneath it. It was really easy to do even with the index cards I was using as I just did a pinky pull down on the bottom one of my stack, and it also meant I didn't need to rearrange my cards before doing the Elmsley switch. It also left me holding one card which easily could’ve been the remaining TWO cards in my other hand, making that whole peeking part stand up a bit better to scrutiny.

To be clear, he’s suggesting you turn over the top card singly, then double lift it to display it, peeking the second card in the stack.

If you familiarize yourself with the trick, you’ll see why this is likely an improvement.

---

A heads-up to anyone marketing a magic trick: nothing reflects more poorly on an effect than making a trailer that doesn't show what the trick actually looks like.

You'd be better off not making a video at all. At least then I could convince myself the trick is great—you just couldn't shoot a trailer, or maybe you're keeping it low-key and not actively promoting it.

But when you set up cameras, shoot footage, edit it all together, and still don't show me what it looks like? Now I'm certain it must look like dogshit.

---

This is the first release of 2026 that I'm really looking forward to…

Chris showed me this a few months ago and I've been waiting to get my hands on it ever since.

I've been searching for a good impression pad for ages. I bought most of the highly recommended ones but never found one I loved. They either looked weird, required careful handling, or involved some odd procedure. Even the ones built into spiral notebooks weren't ideal—I'm not a hard-boiled private eye tracking down the killer of some Park Avenue heiress in 1947, so I don't actually carry spiral-bound notebooks around. Nor does anyone I know.

But I do carry these types of pads when I'm researching or taking notes on books. This won't seem out of place for me at all.

Looks like it drops in January.

---

We did it, guys. Another year in the books.

Have a great Christmas, Happy New Year, and all the rest.

Now step under the mistletoe with me and let me lay one on you, you beautiful son of a gun! Get over here!

Keepers

Every few years I like to mix up the newsletter format a bit. (For those who aren’t supporters, the monthly newsletter isn’t just a long email I send out or something, it’s a 10-30 page pdf zine/digest-type of thing.)

Originally (2016-2019) it was called X-Communiciation

Then, in 2020, it became The Wanderer.

After that, it became the Love Letters newsletter for three and a half years.

That marked a change in direction for the newsletter as it was where I decided to only focus on writing about things that I liked. Writing bad reviews is a lot easier, and they can be fun to read, but ultimately I don’t think they’re super valuable. If I want to trash something, I can do it on the site. Keeping the monthly review newsletter focused on the releases of others that I enjoyed gave it more of a purpose.

I believe the more energy you focus on positive things, the more positive things will come into your life—and conversely, the more you focus on negative things, the more negative things will follow

And I don’t mean that philosophically. I don’t mean, “if you have a better outlook, things will look better to you.” I mean it quite literally.

Think of your life as existing within a larger field of energy that’s always in motion.

Within that field are two masses: one oriented toward light and positivity, the other toward darkness and negativity.

At first, both are small. The energy flows evenly around them.

But your attention gives them weight.

When you return again and again to positive thoughts, moments, objects, or events, the positive mass grows heavier. And like any heavy object, it begins to bend the space around it.

As that bend deepens, more of the surrounding energy naturally falls toward the positive mass and adds to it. The good in your life becomes greater—easier to notice and easier to access.

This creates a feedback loop: attention creates weight; weight creates gravity; gravity pulls in more experience of the same kind.

The same mechanism works in reverse: negativity, when repeatedly fed with your attention, also grows dense. It pulls more darkness into its orbit. Not because the universe is cruel, but because gravity is impartial.

You’ve seen this. You know these people. The ones who seem to move through life collecting beauty and opportunity. And the ones who catalogue every slight, every inconvenience, every setback—and only seem to draw more of that into their orbit.

Over time, your inner universe begins to curve toward whatever you have allowed to become most massive.

So anywayyyy.… this is why the monthly newsletter will continue to focus on the things I’m enjoying.

I'm a big believer in building routines that help you focus on the positive. Prayer, list making, journaling—whatever practice helps you notice what you're appreciating: the cool people you meet, the media you enjoy, incredible meals, perfect days, great conversations, moments that made you laugh.

Everything you want to remember or want more of.

The “keepers.”

So, after 41 issues, the Love Letters newsletter is being retired. But what’s coming next won't be all that different, just a change in name and a little less structure.

Love Letters was almost always a deep dive on the three things I enjoyed most that month. This incarnation may feature more or fewer highlights, giving me the freedom to offer shorter write-ups when I like something but don't have much to say about it. My target is about 12 pages per month, but we'll see if I can keep it to just that.

It will still come out the first Sunday of every month.

So, if you're a supporter, keep an eye on your inbox January 4th for...

Diddly Rounders

I think we need a new Judge Jerxy post regarding the Yigal Mesika vs Penguin Magic dispute. After watching his recent video, it doesn’t look good for Penguin imo. What say the judge? —RC

Well, to start, I don’t think it was called Judge Jerxy. I think it was called, Here Come the Jerx.

That important distinction made, I just don't have it in my heart to take a deep dive on this because Yigal brings up multiple issues, not just one.

Yigal presents his case well, but after reading Josh Burch's reply on behalf of Penguin in this thread, not all of Yigal's criticisms really land. You can read that to get the other side and decide for yourself.

I think part of the issue Yigal faces is that some of his complaints seem legitimate, but others seem so fucking stupid that it's easy to dismiss him as ridiculous or greedy or something like that.

I'm going to help Yigal out and point out how his claims resonate to an outsider.

Complaints About Spider Pen and Tarantula Knock-offs

These issues feel totally legitimate. I don't have a ton of knowledge in this field, but I don't know anyone who suggests Yigal didn't make a serious contribution to the technology behind devices like these.

Getting ripped off by other creators, or knocked off by Chinese manufacturers after all the money that went into developing these things, would drive me nuts too.

A-tier complaint.

Complaints About Having the Methodology Used in Your Loops Tricks Stolen

Again, this is valid. Yigal popularized a lot of these ideas, and I have no reason to believe he didn't create the methodologies too. Unfortunately, there are only so many ways to yank around stuff on a small loop of thread, so it doesn't necessarily feel like someone's getting their intellectual property ripped off. It can often feel like someone is just demonstrating the most obvious way of using a loop of thread to produce a given effect.

Yigal may rightfully feel like he invented that approach, but others see the technique for floating a dollar and think, “Well, how the hell else would you do it?”

A valid complaint, but hard to rally people around.

B-tier complaint.

Complaints About People Ripping Off Loops as a Product

Finn Jon invented Loops in the mid-80s and sold Yigal Mesika the exclusive rights a decade later.

Now... look, we all owe Finn Jon a debt of gratitude.

Buuuuuut...

Invisible elastic thread already existed and was used in magic.

Tying thread into loops was already used in magic.

If Finn Jon had died in a wakeboarding accident in the 60s, I am supremely confident someone else would have cracked that nut by the time the 80s rolled around and we had higher quality IET that made something like Loops feasible.

I'm not suggesting Finn Jon doesn't deserve credit. I'm just explaining why even people like me, who are big supporters of intellectual property, don't see a huge issue with people releasing their own IET bands.

It's sort of like claiming to "own" the idea of roughing half of the back of a card rather than the full thing for easy separating.

Yes, that was an advancement, and it's great if we can credit and acknowledge the person who came up with that idea. But I don't know if it's an idea someone can own.

And in the case of Loops, we're not even talking about the originator anymore. We're talking about one person removed from the originator claiming people shouldn't be copying the idea.

Now, to be clear, I don't even know if Yigal claims people can't produce their own invisible elastic bands. But that's the understanding a lot of people have, and that colors their perception of his other complaints.

While I always want to support the originators, I can honestly say that I'm not super concerned about buying from the guy who bought the idea from someone else.

Do you have the strongest invisible elastic bands?

Do you have the most imperceptible invisible elastic bands?

Do you have the most stretchable invisible elastic bands?

These are the factors that most people are going to weigh and that are going to guide most people's buying decisions. I would rather time and money be spent optimizing these things than chasing down lawsuits.

C-tier complaint.

(I tested Penguin's TIES vs. Yigal's Loops in these categories a few years ago. You can see that testing here.)

Complaints About People Using the Word "Loops" When They're Not Using Actual Yigal Mesika Loops®

Sorry, Yigal, but this is an issue you brought on yourself when you named your product the thing that it is. You tied some thread in a loop and called it a Loop. If you had called it a Diddly Rounder, then I'd be sympathetic. I would fully support you saying, "Hey, don't call your loop of thread a Diddly Rounder. That's trademark infringement! Call it something generic, like a 'loop' or something."

Can you give a single other example in the history of the world where someone owns a trademark on the shortest, most generic description of the item itself? You can't. Because the notion is idiotic.

You've scared people into thinking they can't even use the word "loop" in the ordinary, descriptive sense when teaching an effect with invisible elastic bands. But they certainly can. See: Classic (Descriptive) Fair Use under 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4). Sorry if I'm blowing up your spot here.

Again, this is an issue you brought on yourself when you chose a name that was the thing that it is. If you had just chosen Diddly Rounders instead! Here, I'll give you the name Diddly Rounders for free. Go register it tomorrow, and we can all finally fucking move on with our lives regarding the Loops®/loops/Diddly Rounders situation.

F-tier complaint.

Refer to this chart for easy reference…

The Two Token System

Determining how frequently to perform magic for someone can be surprisingly difficult. In the past, I've burned people out on magic by showing them too much too soon. It wasn't that I was forcing it on them or that they didn't enjoy it—the pacing was just off, and it overwhelmed them.

The Teriyaki Turkey Jerky Problem

I remember in college I got this teriyaki turkey jerky that was really good. My girlfriend's mom gave me a package, and after finding out that I really liked it, my girlfriend would pick some up for me every time she went back to her hometown.

Then, one winter break, I was visiting her at her parents' house and found myself near the store that sold this jerky I really liked. "I'm going to get $80 worth of this stuff," I thought. So I got $80 worth of it—20 packs.

I brought them all back to college and filled up one of my cupboards with the bags... and promptly got sick of it after a few bags and ended up throwing out the rest.

Whatever receptor in my mouth or brain that loved the taste blew itself out when it got overwhelmed with repeated exposure. It lost the ability to appreciate it.

In another world, where I only got one package every few months, I'd still be traveling through that area a few times a year and picking up a bag, looking forward to it days in advance. Instead, I haven't had it in decades. I don't even know if it still exists. I have no interest in it whatsoever.

And this is where we get that old phrase: Magic is a lot like teriyaki turkey jerky.

Why Frequency Matters

Figuring out how much magic to perform for people is critical for the amateur magician who performs for the same individuals over and over. But you can't come up with one standard because everyone is different. Some people want to see magic whenever they can. Some people are into it, but more occasionally. Some people get the itch to see something very rarely. And some just hate it.

The Two Token System

Here's the system I use.

For every person in your life, you get two tokens.

Every time you decide to perform a trick for them, you have to use a token.

When you don't have any tokens left for that person, you can't show them any more tricks.

How to Get More Tokens

Can you get more tokens? Yes.

Every meet-up you have with the person where they mention magic, you get two more tokens. So if they:

• Directly ask to see another trick

• Ask if there's anything you're working on

• Mention a trick you've shown them in the past

That gets you two more tokens.

Example: Mary (The Unlimited Token Machine)

Let's say I meet Mary and show her a trick. I started with two tokens, and now I'm down to one. The next time we get together, she asks to see something else. I have three tokens now (soon to be two after showing her something else). Pretty much every time we meet up, she asks to see something, adding two more tokens into her "bank" (a net of one if I end up showing her something).

Mary is, essentially, an unlimited token machine. I can show her a trick whenever I want because she's always asking for it.

I will still sometimes say I don't have anything to really show her, so that it doesn't become too regular or predictable. But Mary has given me enough tokens that I can show her something whenever I want.

Example: Bob (Two-and-Done)

Now let's imagine Bob. I meet Bob and show him a trick. The next time we meet up, I show him another. I'm now out of tokens with Bob. He seemed to like the magic—maybe even really enjoy it—but he doesn't mention anything about it in future meet-ups. So I stop performing for him.

And it may happen that I never perform for him again. If he's not interested enough to mention magic in the future, I don't feel the need to show him more. I'm perfectly content to interact with people in my life without magic, so I'll save it for those who truly enjoy it.

But, if we're being honest, that essentially never happens.

What usually happens is some time will pass and they'll say, "Are you ever going to show me a trick again?"

And I'll reply, "Oh, yeah, of course. I didn't know if you were interested in seeing more."

Now we've established that I'm happy to show them stuff—all they have to do is express some interest, and we get back into a more regular performing schedule.

Strategies for Borderline Cases

Another thing I'll do, if they seemed to enjoy the tricks they saw but don't mention magic after getting together a few times, is leave a deck of cards out on the table or somewhere visible when we meet up. In most cases, this will spur them to say something about seeing a trick. Clink! Clink! Two tokens.

A lot of people just don't know that they can request to see something. They might think they're going to catch me off guard or that if I had something to perform, I would show it to them without them requesting it. Putting a deck of cards or something similar out in the open is a low-pressure way to open the door for them to bring the subject up.

If nothing else, after months of regular meet-ups, if they don't mention wanting to see something ever, I would give it one last shot. In that situation, I would use a sort of oblique approach. Not, "Can I show you a trick?" But, "I'm working on a new trick—can I get your help with something?"

They may be more comfortable playing the role of "helper" than they were in the role of "audience" when I initially showed them magic. Either way, it’s a last chance to gauge their interest.

Eventually, you don't have to really track the Two Token System. You'll grow to know the pace for how often you should show people a trick. The system is simply training wheels that help you develop that social awareness and prevent you from overwhelming people (or boring them) with too much magic too soon.

Mailbag #158

I just read the post "A Cross-Cut Tweak Tweak"  and I wanted to ask what your thoughts are on a particular phrase I have a problem with. 

"Look at the card you cut to" I feel is problematic. I feel this line invites scrutiny from analytical participants, maybe because it actually is a lie. 

I would avoid lying at this moment and say something 'neutral' like "lift up the top packet and look at the card and remember it". 

I feel this will minimise scrutiny because I don't have to lie, and a participant doesn't know what to expect from a procedure in a card trick anyway. If they are convinced the deck is shuffled, and I ask them to look at a card, it shouldn't matter. But if I start lying about where the card came from, people can get hung up on that and guess that I know the identity, despite the shuffle? 

Depending on the presentation I could later ask them to bury it.

 And maybe you could reframe the events later? 

"You have yourself cut these cards and looked at a card, somewhere in the middle of this deck." Which is still true and a bit ambiguous, but suggests it was any random card in the middle.

What are your thoughts? —PK

I understand where you’re coming from, and I wouldn’t say it’s a mistake to do it that way, but it’s not the path I would choose.

I have pretty strong faith in the deceptiveness of the Cross-Cut Force. In my experience, most people are just naturally inclined to believe that’s the card they cut to, and I think referring to it as that helps cement that reality in place, rather than creating suspicion.

And because of that, I don’t think your proposed wording adds much. Yes, if you have someone who naturally sees through the topology of the Cross-Cut Force (surprisingly rare) they can’t accuse you of lying. But they can wonder what the point of cutting the deck was if you were just going to have them look at the bottom card in the first place.

If you want to maybe blunt the “card you cut to” language. You could maybe say, “Memorize the card you cut to.” Which puts the focus on the fact they have something to do in that moment (memorize the card). Which hopefully takes any mental energy away from them thinking, “Ah, but is this the card I cut to?”

The beauty of the Cross-Cut Force is that you can’t get busted on it. As I mention in the post referenced above. If someone ever says, “That’s not the card I cut to,” you just say, “Huh? It’s not? Wait…okay, I’m confused then. Go ahead and just take the card you cut to. Or cut again to any card.” Yes, you’ll have to tap dance your way into a different trick, but there’s full plausible deniability here.

---

With the whole Ted K situation going on, I began wondering if you ever heard directly from anyone you put on the GLOMM’s banned member list?—DA

Yeah, there are two or three posts in the archive where I respond to someone who got kicked out of the GLOMM who ended up writing me directly. Honestly, I admire the gumption. “How dare you tell people I was convicted of sexual assault!” That’s a big swing to take.

The more impactful letters I’ve received are from the victims of some of these guys. (And they are all guys. No woman has broken the GLOMM’s glass ceiling, yet.)

I’ve also heard a couple of times from magicians who told me they struggle with these desires, and one of the factors that keeps them in line is thinking they’ll be splashed on my site if they ever did anything and it was found out. Good! Look, I don’t blame anyone for whatever fucked-up thought their brain has. I feel bad for them, so long as they don’t give in to a desire they know will harm someone else. So if imaging me busting your ass on this site is beneficial to you in any way, I’m happy to exert that extra bit of pressure.

---

Your post [The Coin Vanish Paradox] reminded me of this section in Designing Miracles (Darwin Ortiz page 26):—BG

In volume two of his Expert Coin Magic... Made Easy! DVD seres, David Roth teaches his handling of the visual retention coin vanish. (This is a method of pretending to place a coin in one hand while actually retaining it in the other.) In Roth's hands this is one of the most amazing visual illusions you'll ever see. Any observer would be willing to bet at least one gonad that the coin is really in the hand. Yet, after demonstrating this uncannily convincing sleight, David observes: "But, remember, as in all coin vanishes, no matter how well you do this move—even if you do it perfectly—once you open your left hand to show that the coin is gone, the spectators will look at the other hand. He goes on to say that even if you really did put the coin in your left hand and then vanished it by some other means, "When you open your hand, they will look at the other hand." He then explains, "This is where routining is most important. It's the routining that will keep spectators from suspecting the other hand." Routining is a term that magicians use to mean a variety of things. In this case, I believe that what David is calling routining is what I call design.

The Roth example demonstrates that perfect technique is not enough to create an enduring magical mystery. Similarly, misdirection is not enough, and even presentation is not enough. It's not a failure of technique, mis-direction, or presentation that leads people to look at the other hand. It's simply that it just makes sense. If the coin isn't in one hand, it's probably in the other. It's this pesky common sense that often allows laypeople to figure out what you thought was a pertect illusion. It's precisely this common sense that good design can defeat and even turn to your advantage.

Yeah, I agree with David Roth here. Even if you really put the coin in your hand and made it disappear by magic, people would still look to your other hand. As I said in that post, it’s the transfer that’s the issue. That action gives them the “answer” they need.

Where I would disagree is to say that I don’t think you can easily “routine” or “design” your way out of this issue. Sure, you can add a bunch of junk surrounding your coin vanish so that it’s no longer just a single coin vanish, but that’s not what we’re looking for.