The AdBlock Control

Here's something I've been playing around with. You might be able to help me refine it (or direct me to anything similar in the literature).

There is this effect I've been doing that may or may not appear in the upcoming book that requires a card control and then stealing that card out of the deck. And for the effect to be as strong as possible, this needs to be done with the least amount of handling on my part. What I had been using was a short card. This would be on top of the deck. The selected card would be placed on top of this and cut into the deck and the spectator could give the deck a quick overhand shuffle (which would be unlikely to separate the short card from the selection). I would take the deck, give it a quick cut (bringing the short card to the top and the selection to the bottom) then, in the process of reaching for the card case, I would let the selection drop into my lap. 

This worked well enough. Yes, it required me to handle the deck, but it was done in a very casual way. It was only in my hands for a few seconds after the spectator had shuffled it, and the trick was getting amazing reactions. 

But I've since stumbled onto an even sneakier control. One that allows me to flat-out say that I'm not going to touch the deck and I don't. Yes, this allows you to control a card and remove it from the deck without touching the deck yourself. Sounds crazy, yes? Am I leaving some details out? Somewhat. But the statement is still true. A spectator has a free choice of any card. It is lost in the deck and shuffled as much as they want. And, without you touching the deck, the card is controlled and removed from the deck. It just uses a normal deck (kind of).

It started with the Misdirection Pass by UF Grant. Basically this involves having a reversed card on the bottom of the deck. A selection is made and cut into the deck (so it ends up below the reversed card), and you overhand shuffle (taking a larger block in the middle that contains the selection and reversed card). You spread the deck between your hands saying, "You could have had any of these cards." Here you notice the reversed card and you suggest that it got turned over during the shuffle. In the process of correcting the reversed card the selection is cut to the top. 

While this is easy and somewhat clever, I don't think it offers any advantages over other types of controls that are, essentially, invisible.

Joe Mckay suggested using one of the double-sided advertising cards that comes in a deck instead of a reversed card. I think this is a better idea because if you spread through a deck and noticed an advertising card, you can remove it without much justification. So you don't need to say, "Oh, this must have gotten turned over when I was shuffling," or whatever.

While I liked the idea, there still weren't any advantages that were unique to this control that would make me use it.

But these ideas were the foundation for a technique that did have a unique quality (a card control where you don't touch the deck). I've only done it a few times (I just thought of it a week ago). I haven't done it enough to really find the potential flaws in it, so it may require some additional refining. But so far it's worked each time and I've fooled a couple knowledgeable magicians with it, so I think it's structurally a sound idea. 

This is done at a table.

The deck is given to the spectator and you state that you will not touch the deck again. They are asked to hold it under the table. You have them reach into the deck and remove any card. While you turn away you ask them to peek at the card. As soon as they have a good image of it locked in their mind, they are to put it on top of the deck and cut it into the middle of the deck. Then, almost as an afterthought, you say, "Actually, shuffle up the cards a bit so you don't have any idea where it is." You indicate that they should mix up the cards under the table. Because this all happens in their hands, it feels very fair.

But it's not. It's decidedly unfair. Because on the bottom of the deck you gave to the spectator was an advertising card, and the bottom side of that advertising card was treated with a roughing stick. So now their freely chosen card, which they shuffled into the deck is actually stuck to the underside of the advertising card. 

Now they bring out the deck and set it on the table. You have them spread it, as best they can, across the table. You hold your hands out as if you're trying to sense some information. "Only you know what card you picked. But even you don't know where it is. It could be any of these 52 cards." Here you notice the advertising card. You go to grab it, but stop yourself. "Could you slide that out? I don't want it to get in the way."

The ad card is slid off to the side and the selection along with it. You immediately get back into the presentation, hopefully leaving the ad card to be soon forgotten.

What do you do after? Well, that's up to you. I'll write-up the trick I use this with at some point in the future.

Potential Issues

As I said, this is a new technique for me and while it's worked the few times I've done it, there may still be some issues to get ironed out. Here are the potential issues as I see them.

1. Alignment - You want to make sure the ad card and the selection are not just stuck together, but aligned as close together as possible. Here is what I do. I have them place their selection on top and cut the deck. Then I say, "And square up the deck so we know your card isn't sticking out anywhere [wait a beat for them to do that]. Actually, go ahead and mix up the deck too, so you have no idea where the card is."

When they bring the deck up from under the table I turn away and tell them to place the deck on the table, square it up, and cover it with their hands. This seems like I'm being extra fair before I turn around, but again I'm just looking to make sure the alignment is right on. 

2. Thickness - You want your spectator looking down on the cards. Use the same judgment you would any other time you have a double on the table that's supposed to be a single.

3. Sticky Stuff - I've only done this with a roughing stick. I don't know if roughing spray or Science Friction or something would be any better. I considered double-stick tape, but I think there's too much of a chance of someone feeling that or of the cards being permanently misaligned. 

4. Erasing the Moment - My initial concern was that the moment where you ask them to slide out the advertising card would draw attention to itself. That hasn't been my experience, but I think it's something to be aware of. It may actually be better to slide it out yourself. That might be a more casual and "invisible" gesture. I'm not sure.

I've come to the conclusion that it probably doesn't generate much suspicion. And the reason I don't think it does is because removing an ad card is something most of us have done for real numerous times in the course of a trick, and no one ever yells, "Hey! What are you doing!?" In addition, I think there are too many other techniques involved that even if they do remember the ad card, there's no easy straight line solution between the removal of that card and the disappearance of a card they freely selected and freely shuffled back into the deck.

That being said, I don't remove the ad card and immediately say, "And your card is gone." In the trick I do, they case the deck and it's brought to another location. So there's some time misdirection. By the time they realize the card they thought they saw in the deck is no longer there, some time has passed and I think the ad card is forgotten.

Gardyloo #71

For a long time now, there's been a great concern in our art that magic is not homogenized enough. There are just too many great magicians coming up with too much original material and couching it in really compelling, unique presentations. Yes this is clearly magic's biggest problem.

But don't worry, Ellusionist is here to combat that issue. 

Ellusionist has determined the tricks for you to do and fully scripted an hour-long show for you too.

This presupposes a world where someone wants to perform an hour-long professional magic show for people, but doesn't want to, you know, figure out what tricks to do and come up with the words to say and all that junk. And the fact is, Ellusionist is going to sell a million of these things. They know their audience. Hell, most people got started in magic to take credit for something they can't really do. You think those people are going to have any issue with going up on stage and presenting someone else's routines and using someone else's jokes and passing it all off as their own? No! That's the whole reason they got into magic.

Trust me, the "Just Add Personality" box will remain unchecked.

And the worst thing is, I just heard Derek Delgaudio's next Broadway show is going to just be him going through this set. So it's going to be way overexposed.

But don't worry, my loves. I have something for you. It's an entire magic show that fits in a single-serving box of Stouffer's spaghetti with meatballs. Fully scripted and fully routined. It's $179. 

It's a DVD copy of Tom Mullica's An Evening at the Tom-Foolery. All you need to do is get a projection system set up to broadcast it to the crowd. No need to make any decisions on your own. You don't have to pick the tricks, routine them together, or write a word of patter. Ellusionist's Show-To-Go only allows you to sleepwalk through the performance. But mine allows you to actually sleep through it.

---

Here's an email I got from Justin Flom in regards to last Friday's post, The Magic "Magic Bucket List" List.

Thank you! Thank you for such a simple premise with a wonderful surprise ending.

My wife couldn’t stop giggling after the surprise of seeing her name in print. She hasn’t responded to a trick like that in a year! She’s jaded enough and well versed in method so that she was only fooled for a minute, but even after assuming the method, she was still laughing so hard her side hurt.

Yeah, the MMBLL is a good one. In my opinion it's just about the ideal quick and fun trick to have ready to go at any time.

---

Speaking of magic guys named Justin that you're constantly confusing in your head, Justin Willman has a show on Netflix called Magic for Humans. I have not seen it, but based on the number of emails I've gotten asking: "Did you work on this show?" "Did you see they stole this idea from you?" "Are you Justin Willman?" It leads me to believe that people who like this site might find the show interesting. 

Do I think he—or someone working with him—was influenced by this site? Sure, probably. This site is the best thing going on in magic these days. Only a knucklehead wouldn't be influenced by it. It doesn't bother me. I'm never going to pursue a tv show. I believe in any professional performing situation (tv show, theater show, table-hopping, whatever) there is a ceiling to the impact a magic effect can have that isn't there when the trick is a more organic moment in someone's life. That's the thing that interests me and what I want to write about here. To whatever extent people performing professionally can get value from these ideas too, I'm cool with that.

Also, I just saw the trailer for Magic for Humans Season 2 and it was pretty disappointing. It's just Justin doing Ellusionist's Show-To-Go for people.

---

What is this thing?

At first I thought it was a thumbtip with a vagina on it. But, after indulging in all the erotic fantasies that would imply, I realized it's a thumbtip with lips on it. I guess so maybe you can stamp lips on someone without them knowing? I have no idea how I acquired this thing. If you know what trick it's from, let me know.

---

I will never not post someone destroying a copy of Expert at the Card Table. Here is Chris Combs attempting to destroy an "indestructible Erdnase." And, I've got to hand it to Conjuring Arts who made the book, the thing actually holds together pretty well. Thank god. Now people can be bored to tears by this book for centuries to come.

The Neolift

The Neolift (Neophyte Double Lift) is the name I've given to the double lift/turnover that was inspired by asking a bunch of non-magicians to turn over the top card of a deck of cards. 

I've received a few questions about the technique itself, so I wanted to go over that here. 

First, let me explain what I see as the benefits of the Neolift.

1. The technique is natural and doesn't draw attention to itself. (This is true of most doubles, but not all.)
2. No get ready is needed.
3. It's easy.
4. The nature of the movement of the card helps keep the cards together, hides the edges, and covers any potential misalignment.
 

The technique is natural and doesn't draw attention to itself

I received a couple emails that said essentially "Okay, maybe that's the way someone with no training would turn a card over on the deck, but it doesn't look natural." 

Here's the thing, I'm not encouraging anyone who isn't interested in this technique to adopt it. I think there are some advantages to it, but nothing so dramatic that it demands you change from whatever you've done in the past. But if you think it looks "unnatural" that's only because of your understanding of what a double lift should look like. 

If you had never seen a deck of cards in your life and someone introduced one to you and said to hold it something like this:

Then they asked you to turn the top card over onto the deck, you would first slide it off to separate it from the other cards, and then you'd turn it over. And since the back end of the deck is the only "open" end (the only end without fingers in the way), it probably makes the most sense to slide it off that way. Q.E.D., it's natural.

No get ready is needed

Pick up a deck, give it a slight bevel towards yourself, and you're good to go.

It's easy

Here's my friend doing a passable single, double, triple, and quadruple turnover using the Neolift after about 30 minutes of practice (and he's no genius).

The nature of the movement of the card helps keep the cards together, hides the edges, and covers any potential misalignment.

If there's a particular strength to this double, this is it. Here's what I mean...

1. As the card (multiple cards) is drawn back, it's held fairly square on the sides by the left fingers and the heel of your palm. So the cards can't really shift from side to side.

2. At the same time, the front edge is riding along the top of the deck, which keeps things in alignment on the short edges.

3. When the card is flipped inward, that's the point where the cards could separate. But right at that moment, the back of your hand is in the way. By the time the edges are visible again, the card is back on top of the deck.

This may seem like more control than necessary for double lifts, and it probably is. But the nice thing is that it allows you to do turnovers of many more cards in a more casual way. If you're doing a quadruple-lift, for instance, you have a lot of edges exposed with a book style turnover. And you have to move at a decent clip to make sure that thickness or any potential misalignment isn't exposed. But with the Neolift, the natural movement hides that.

If you use your fingers to block the back edge (which is actually how I normally do it) you can get away with turning over large blocks. Here's a single followed by a nonuple (9 card) turnover. You probably don't have much use for a 9-card turnover (unless you have an 8 phase Ambitious Card routine) but I'm showing this more as a proof of concept. Any 9-card turnover will be a little clunky, but the edges are still hidden here, and If 9 cards can be hidden in the natural motion of the turnover, then 3 or 4 won't be a problem

The Technique

It's pretty much what you expect. You bevel the deck slightly towards you. Your thumb approaches from the back and contacts however many cards you want (2, 3, 4, etc). This is, obviously, the part that takes practice: being able to feel the right number of cards with your thumb tip. The desired number of cards are then pinched between your fingers and thumb. Everything else is very straightforward and there is really no "technique" behind it other than what you would actually do with a single card (pull it back, flip it inward, and replace it back on the deck).

Why Bother?

Well, I'm not suggesting you should. (Again, you'll enjoy this site more if you don't see it as me giving advice. I'm just talking about my path and what has worked for me. Take what you want. Leave what you don't.) If you see no benefit to it, then you shouldn't bother. I happen to like the feel of it, and the versatility of it, so it's the double I use in most circumstances now (except when I'm performing for people who play cards regularly). 

Since my style of performance is to downplay my role in what's happening, it makes sense to use the most unassuming type of handling, and for me, this is it. 

Astonishment and Mystery

If I could go back in time I would make this one of the first posts on this site because I think it would help people understand what my intentions are with some of the ideas I post here. But I couldn't have written this post at that time because it took examining all the ideas in concert to see the bigger picture. 

In his seminal (and—quite frankly, given how much I loved those books—semenal) trilogy, The Art of Astonishment, Paul Harris wrote about astonishment being our "natural state of mind." 

"Here’s basically how it works, give or take a few metaphors.
You come into the world a blank slate. No ideas about who you
are or what anything is. You’re just being. And it all feels great...
because there are no options, or opinions or judgments. There is
no right or wrong. Everything is everything. That’s what you see
in a baby’s eyes. Pure child’s mind. Then, very quickly, we learn
stuff. The names of ten thousand things, who we are, what we’re
supposed to be, what’s good and bad according to the current
rules of the game. And you organize all of this information into
little boxes. And when any new information comes along you
file it in the appropriate box.

...

And then along comes a focused piece of strange in the form of
a magical effect. Let’s say this book vanishes from your hands.
“Poof,” no book. Your trained mind races into action and tries
to put the piece of strange into one of its rational boxes. But no
box will hold it. At that moment of trying to box the unboxable
your world-view breaks up. The boxes are gone. And what’s
left? Simply what was always there. Your natural state of mind.
That’s the moment of astonishment. The sudden experience of
going from boxes to no boxes. If you can keep the fear-response
from arising you have the experience of going from a cluttered
adult mind to the original clear space. Gee, it almost makes you
feel like a kid again."

And he talked about the moment of astonishment, and ways to enhance that moment and even how to discuss it with your spectators so they can get the most out of that brief moment.

I think a lot of people gravitated to this idea, first because it makes some sense, but also because it makes magic seem important in some way. We're not just showing people tricks to get our jollies. We can do it to give them a moment they haven't experienced since childhood.

I think there's some truth here, but I think it's an incomplete way to look at the outcome of a magic performance.

✿✿✿

Let me explain by way of analogy.

It would be very easy to re-write Paul's essay on magic and astonishment and make it so it's about horror movies and the startled fear you feel after a jump scare. 

(I assume "jump scare" is a somewhat universally understood term. But if not, watch the video below.)

You could say that moment of fear after a jump scare is a moment of pure disconnect between what we had heretofore experienced and new information that was abruptly presented to us. And that being startled like that is similar to a child's mind being faced with brand new stimuli. And in that moment of fear our mind becomes like that of a child dealing with the completely unexpected. Or something like that. I'm not saying it perfectly maps onto what Paul was saying, but I think you see where I'm coming from.

If someone had written that essay and it was put out to other horror movie producers, they might think, "Ah, yes! The jump scare is a truly powerful technique that does something important for the spectator." And they might find ways to make that scare stronger and more focused.

But, if we take a step back, it becomes clear we're only talking about one definition of what makes a good horror movie.

Some horror movies make you jump in your seat, and some horror movies keep you up at night.

Looking at magic tricks strictly through the metric of Astonishment is like looking at horror films as being only about scaring people in the moment.

✿✿✿

The moment of astonishment, as Paul defines it, is brief. He writes:

For most people the moment lasts under ten seconds. Then
because we crave the security of our missing world-view, we
quickly build a new box. The “it-went-up-his-sleeve” box or the
“it-was-all-done-with-mirrors box” or even the “I-don’t-know-
what-happened-but-l-know-it-was-a-trick” box. And that’s all it
takes. One thought, one guess, even a wrong one, and the boxes
all come back, natural mind gets covered up, and the moment
of astonishment is over.

This is why I think Paul's essay is incomplete. Yes, magic is about that brief moment of astonishment (just as horror movies are about that brief moment of primal fear), but it's also about the long-term feeling of mystery that you leave people with. Astonishment and Mystery are the two "dimensions" of someone's reaction to a trick and you need to consider both of them because they're both equally valid reactions to shoot for.

✿✿✿

Are you an Astonisher or a Mystifier? 

You don't have to be one or the other, but you do have to know if you want to be one or the other, or some combination of both. And you have to recognize that being some combination of both may take away from your success at being one or the other. 

I'm going to clarify this if it's getting murky. And when I do, I'm going to be talking as if these are two completely distinct things. They're not, but to establish the idea, I need to talk about them that way.

Let's say you're performing for some friends. Would you rather:

A) Perform a trick that gets a profoundly strong, visceral reaction—a 95 out of 100—but that is never mentioned again by your friends.
or
B) Perform a trick that gets an okay reaction—a 40 out of 100—but weeks or months later your friends are still mentioning it to you and asking questions about it.

If you chose A, you probably tend towards being an Astonisher. If you chose B, you probably tend towards being a Mystifier. If you had trouble answering, you're probably more in the middle. If you chose both, you're one of those assholes who can't answer hypothetical questions properly. 

✿✿✿

In general, Astonishment is heightened by simplification of the effect. You want to give people something easy to focus on and then do something clearly impossible. You want that "moment" to be uncluttered and not require much interpretation by the audience. 

Mystery is created via complexity in presentation, where the nature of what they experienced is called into question. That's what a mystery is. It's unanswered questions. It's not knowing what is the truth and what isn't.

Astonishment is created by a simple plot executed well. Mystery is created by adding layers to the presentation, creating a somewhat un-navigable labyrinth with no wholly obvious direction to go.

✿✿✿

Yes, in an "astonishing" trick there is an unanswered question: How did you do that? But as Paul Harris says, after a few seconds, people will "box" that feeling in the "I-don’t-know- what-happened-but-l-know-it-was-a-trick” box. This is what I've referred to as the "Non-Explanation." And it's enough to satisfy most people, because while the trick may be this un-boxable moment of weirdness, the experience itself is completely boxable. It goes in the "It's a magic trick" box. And that larger "box" effectively contains the smaller mystery.

So to amp up the mystery we need to give them an experience that can't be boxed. Or at least one that can't be boxed cleanly. So we create layers to what the person has seen. That was a trick. But was the whole thing a trick, or just the one part? Did he say something that wasn't a trick was to hide something from me? Did he really not know how that happened? Did he really get a headache? Was he really surprised by this? Could that have really happened by accident? Who was that other person? Were they in on it? Was I hypnotized? Did he really need to film that to send to a secret club? Did he really not know I was paying attention? Is there really something strange about that object? Is there something to that ritual we did? If it was a trick, why didn't it work the first two times? Why did we have to go to that part of the woods? What was in that pill? Who called him on the phone? Why did we have to wait until exactly 12:54 AM?

These types of questions won't increase the Astonishment, but they'll broaden the Mystery.

✿✿✿

When I perform, I probably lean 70% Mystifier to 30% Astonisher. Although the types of ideas I put forth on this site, specifically in regards to presentational styles and ploys, lean heavily towards the Mystifier side of things, just because I find that more interesting to write about.

If you like this site, then you're probably somewhere on the Mystifier spectrum. And the people who think the stuff I write is nonsense are probably hardcore Astonishers. The Jerx-style, as it is, is to present tricks with unanswered questions beyond just "how did you do that." That's a foundational element of a mystifying presentation, but it doesn't help with astonishment.

✿✿✿

Here's another example if you need help self-identifying as primarily an Astonisher or primarily a Mystifier.

Which would you rather do:

A) You borrow a quarter from someone. Place it cleanly in your hand. Close your fingers. Wait a beat. Open your hand slowly. And the quarter is gone.

B) You borrow a quarter from someone. Place it cleanly in your hand. Say, "I read this new technique to vanish a coin but I'm not having much luck with it. It might be bullshit." You squeeze the coin for 20 seconds. "Nah, it's not working," you say, and toss the coin back on the table. "Does this place have good calzones or do you-." Your friend interrupts you. He's holding the quarter. What did you do? he asks. "What do you mean?" you reply. The quarter is smaller, he says. He compares it to another quarter and it's about 75% of the size of a normal quarter. "Holy crap," you say, "I can't believe that was working! I thought I felt something, but I wasn't sure." 

I would want to do both of these effects, of course. I think a super-clean coin vanish is about as pure and beautiful a moment of astonishment as there is.

But if I really wanted to intrigue someone, I'd go with the second option. The astonishment factor is lowered because the other person has to first recognize what happened, and then put that in some kind of context (that this is a coin part-way on its way to vanishing). Then they have to consider: "Wait was that the trick? Making it smaller?  Or is it really possible there's some process that I don't understand where a coin could get smaller.  Well...maybe... but to the point that it could vanish? That seems unlikely. Okay, it must be a trick... but why isn't he taking credit for it? That's what magicians do. Why didn't he just call it the Shrinking Coin Trick, and then he could take the credit for it? I mean... unless that really was unintentional." And it's considering these factors that makes the experience itself more of a mystery.

(I've looked into it. Getting fake quarters that are 75% the size of real quarters is expensive and potentially illegal, sadly.)

✿✿✿

One of the valuable things about recognizing this distinction between Astonishing effects and Mystifying effects is that it helped me understand why some people like or dislike certain tricks and now I can tailor what I choose to show them more towards their likes. Some people love all magic. And some people hate all magic. But what I've found is that some people who I thought didn't like magic, just didn't like a particular type. Some people don't like an ambiguous mystery, but they're fine with an astonishing trick because—by it's nature—it's a transient feeling. It's not something they need to continue to process after the fact. Some people, on the other hand, find a trick that is just "astonishing" to be almost childish in a way. Like there's no meaning to it and they're looking for a more substantial mystery to get caught up in.

I like performing both styles, so I'm happy to oblige them. I'll put on my Astonisher cap for those who just want to see something cool and unbelievable. And I'll put on my Mystifier hat for those want to see something that hints at more complex mysteries. Everyone else will get some mix of the two.

✿✿✿

I want to be clear about what I'm saying (and what I'm not saying).

I'm saying magic tricks can be used to create astonishment and to create mystery and that, while related, these are very different outcomes. Neither is better or worse. It's just about what you prefer and what you're going for. And I think it's helpful to keep in mind that pursuing one can be to the detriment of the other (given that one benefits from simplicity and the other complexity). 

Astonishment, as Paul Harris says, is fleeting. That's not to say people won't remember an astonishing trick long after it's over. They will. But the feeling of astonishment is fleeting. Mystery is a less intensely concentrated feeling, but it's one that can linger for a person's entire life. If you want to give people the richest experience when you perform, it should probably be with some effects that are primarily astonishing, and some that are primarily mysterious. 

Here's another way to think of it. Suppose you're a man who wants to be the world's greatest lover (magician). For some of you, that might mean giving women the most intense orgasms of their lives (moments of astonishment). For others, it might mean finding a woman and instilling in her intense feelings of passion and romance (mystery). Ultimately, you'll probably want both techniques in your arsenal, because while there are some women who just want to be wooed and charmed, and others who just want you to ball their brains out, most are probably looking for some combination of the two.

The Magic "Magic Bucket List" List

In regards to this post, I had an email that asked if I had a use for the DFB app that didn't use the phrase "fist fuck" quite so often. I'm not sure why you would need such a thing. Perhaps if you were performing for a religious leader who was, like, super orthodox or something? Well, whatever, my absolute favorite use for the app is in the spring issue of X-Comm (available to supporters at all levels here). There it's used as a component of an effect that is as strong as anything you can do close-up.

But that presentation is a little involved, so it's not something I get a chance to do as much as i want. 

Here's something I do all the time. All it requires is your phone. No other gimmicks or props. Not even a pen and paper.

Let's say I'm getting coffee with someone named Katherine. Maybe we're old friends, maybe we just met. Regardless, the subject of magic as one of my interests comes up and she asks what sort of things I'm working on now. And I say...

"Actually, I've created something of a magic bucket list recently. I have about 100 tricks that I want to do before I die. I'm just working through the list randomly. Yesterday I figured out a way to change one dollar bills into 100s. I'm going to start on another trick soon. Hey, name a number between 1 and 100. That will be the next one I work on."

She says 65. I give her my phone and ask her to open the Notes app and look at my Magic Bucket List note. She opens that up and scrolls past things like, Vanish an Elephant, and Walk on Water, down to 65 where it says, Accurately predict the freely chosen number from 1-100 that Katherine names.

"Well, that wasn't that hard at all, actually," I say.

There it is. It's quick, it's easy, the self-referential nature of the whole thing is kind of funny. 

It's always ready to go in my phone. (The generic prediction there says: "Accurately predict the freely chosen number from 1-100 that someone names." So I can perform it completely impromptu. But if I know I'll perform it for a specific person, I'll change "someone" to their actual name.)

As a trick, I like this a lot. But what I truly love about it is the way it seamlessly sets you up for other performances.

Let's rewind...

"Actually, I've created something of a magic bucket list recently. I have about 100 tricks that I want to do before I die. I'm just working through the list randomly. Yesterday I figured out a way to change one dollar bills into 100s. I'm going to start on another trick soon. Hey, name a number between 1 and 100. That will be the next one I work on."

Here, of course, instead of talking about changing 1s to 100s, you can mention any other trick you may have on you. "I just learned how to make rubber bands penetrate each other." "I just learned how to penetrate a cigarette through a quarter." 

So now you've just done this really quick prediction effect. If the other person is really into it, then you have a perfect, natural transition to another trick. "Oh, let me show you that other thing I was working on... [blah, blah, blah]." And if they're not that into what you just showed them, you can drop the subject.

My "Magic Bucket List" doesn't actually have things on it like "vanish an elephant" or "walk on water." It's a list of 99 other tricks I can actually do. Not tricks I could do that very moment, but trick I conceivably could do with some prep time. 

So now think how this plays out... I meet with someone, we're talking, the subject of magic comes up. I show them the quick prediction trick with DFB. If they really like it, I show them the other trick I have ready to go that I hinted at when introducing The List. Let's say that one goes over really well too. Now I say, "I'm glad you like this stuff. Here... look through the list and pick the next one for me to work on for the next time we see each other." Maybe she picks levitate an object. I act a little concerned, "Eh... okay... that's going to be a hard one. But I'll try. It's not going to be like a car or a dog or something. It will be like a dollar or a raisin."

You see what I'm doing here, yes? I get to build up some low-level anticipation for this trick days or maybe weeks in advance. It's no longer just an arbitrary effect that last a few seconds and then I move on. It's a trick they asked for. Perhaps I give them updates along the way. I may send them a text: "Tried levitating a raisin. Not working. May try with a finger ring. More surface area." (As if that makes some sense.) Maybe I even have a meet-up where it doesn't quite work. Maybe the ring wobbles on the table, but it doesn't float. The next time we meet, it does work. So they get to see the trick done successfully, but they're also a party to the evolution of it. This type of thing is what I've written about before as the Smear Technique; giving your effects a greater context and blurring the lines of when your presentation begins or ends. 

The idea is you have this cohesive experience for someone that builds organically (and only progresses based on their enthusiasm for this sort of thing) rather than just disconnected moments. The app makes this very natural and easy to get into, but it's not absolutely necessary. You could do something similar with a written list or a little blank book you're filling out. You could explain that you've set yourself a challenge of mastering the "100 Classic Effects in Magic" or maybe you need to perfect them before getting entry into some secret society. Either way, having a magic  "bucket list" or "to-do list" or "challenge list," or however you want to frame it, is a nice over-arching narrative for the amateur magician and a way to contextualize everything you do so it's all connected

A Recap of Derek Delgaudio's Final In and Of Itself Performance

If you're not on Twitter, you may have missed me kindly recapping the final NYC show of In and Of Itself. When I perform a valuable service like this, I don't intend to limit it to one platform, so for those of you who don't follow me there—and who weren't at the show—here is what you missed.

Saw @derek_del's final @InandOfItself the other night. It was a little... odd. I think it was the right time to end the show. I thought I'd recap it for those who couldn't make the final performance.

— The Jerx (@TheJerx) August 21, 2018

DD seemed drunk (high?) when he came out on stage. Hair disheveled. Smoking. Thanked, "Everyone involved in the show. Kristin Scott Thomas, or whoever." I think he meant @ActuallyNPH .

— The Jerx (@TheJerx) August 21, 2018

DD got very angry with @TheFrankOzJam. Said: "If he wants to control the star of the show he should go back to working with puppets. I'm not Fozzie bear, I'm a grown-ass man!" Started crying.

— The Jerx (@TheJerx) August 21, 2018

"You ready to watch me redefine the art of magic?" he said. Then he blew a fart noise in the crook of his arm.

— The Jerx (@TheJerx) August 21, 2018

He did a trick where a jar of peanut butter switched places with a jar of jelly under two black tubes. Said the peanut butter represented his "childhood ambitions" and the jelly his "suicidal ennui." When it was over he pointed to a guy in the 1st row and said, "Deep shit, bro."

— The Jerx (@TheJerx) August 21, 2018

He told a really long story about his "sexual awakening" and a Kathy Ireland poster he had on his bedroom wall in eighth grade. The whole time he flashed a D-lite on his thumb. Everyone looked at each other like, "That's all the magic in this part?"

— The Jerx (@TheJerx) August 21, 2018

He was asked if he was going to vanish the gold brick in this final show and he said, "Sorry. Can't. I used that to smash in a drifter's skull last night. This city is becoming a cesspool. Thanks, deBlasio!"

— The Jerx (@TheJerx) August 21, 2018

Got really excited at one point and said, "Let's prank call Helder Guimarães!" But then he took a Totino's Pizza Roll from his pocket and bit into it and it squirted all over his shirt and he seemed to forget this idea.

— The Jerx (@TheJerx) August 21, 2018

Weirdly he gave a 45 minute workshop on the bottom-deal to an audience of primarily non-magicians. Everyone got a deck and they were half-heartedly dealing into their lap. Cards were falling everywhere. A/C broke and the heat kicked on for some reason. Really miserable.

— The Jerx (@TheJerx) August 21, 2018

Told a woman her "body was so hot" & she "should be a weather girl" He googled "magic tricks to get girls" on his phone but it was hooked up to an onstage projector from a previous trick so we all saw. She wouldn't give him her # & he said "ur ugly anyways. I was just being nice"

— The Jerx (@TheJerx) August 21, 2018

Did Color Monte twice.

— The Jerx (@TheJerx) August 21, 2018

Ended with a word-for-word copy of @D_Copperfield's Snow illusion. When asked why he didn't do the normal ending he said, "'Cuz this whole show took place in the snowglobe of an autistic child." Then he left and yelled over his shoulder, "No refunds!"

— The Jerx (@TheJerx) August 21, 2018

The show may have suffered from the weight of expectations. I give it a B-.

— The Jerx (@TheJerx) August 21, 2018

One moment I forgot to write up was when he did a floating dollar bill trick. It really didn't seem up to the same level as most of the material I've seen him perform in the past. And at one point the thread broke and the dollar fell to the ground. At least, I thought that was what happened. But at that point Derek dropped his head and said—somewhat under his breath—"Oh, great Moloch, almighty King, chief of Satan's angels. I beseech ye, make the bill rise. In turn, I, your loyal servant, will make the soil red and saturated with the scrotal blood of a dozen boy scouts." And, wouldn't you know it, the bill started to rise again. 

Here I was, trying to figure out if he was using a loop or a thread reel, and it turns out he was using a blood sacrifice to the god Moloch from the scrotums of young boys! Well, he got me good with that one. 

The Jerx Pre-Order Protocol

There is another classic magic debacle unfolding at the moment. I'll briefly summarize it for you, but you can read more about it here and here. (At least for now you can, these types of threads have a tendency to vanish.)

About a year and a half ago, a magician named Dave Forrest, who runs a company called Full 52 productions, created a Kickstarter to sell a chop cup that looks like a dice cup (it's a actually a cups and balls set that includes a chop cup). A couple hundred magicians purchased it generating about $25,000 for Forrest. That's when shit went south.

There were numerous delays with manufacturers, missing shipments, a bout of "jet lag," "personal issues," and all of this amounted to a product that was supposed to ship in June of 2017 that still hasn't been shipped yet, and no one seems to know if and when it will.

The strangest (and dumbest) cause for the delay was a fiasco regarding a close-up mat. You see, if you're going to do a chop cup routine with dice, you need to do so on a soft surface. Otherwise you have the situation: "I'm just going to set down this empty cup. [CLICK-CLACK CLACKETY-CLACK!]" So Dave decided to include a 4-inch circle mat with this release.

And, apparently, wrangling this little circle of foam has made it impossible to get this thing out to the people who paid for it. 

Do you see why this is especially moronic? The whole purpose of having a chop cup made with a dice cup and dice was to make it seem like an "everyday object." That makes sense. And performing on a normal, full-sized close-up mat is somewhat logical, at least in a formal performance. The mat is sort of your stage, defining your performance area. But isn't it kind of idiotic to say, "Here are my normal dice, and my normal dice cup. Oh, and here is my little cup-sized mat to turn the cup over on. Perfectly normal little dice cup mat. The kind you would turn a dice cup over on at home." You're turning that "everyday object" into a precious little magic prop, and emphasizing the fact that this particular object needs to be set down on something soft. It's dumb. No one was going to use that mat anyway. It's a pretty weak excuse.

Now, let me say this. I like Dave Forrest's material. I've used a few tricks of his quite frequently in the past. He seems to be a likable enough guy, and I don't think he got into this planning on ripping anyone off. That's just not enough money to ruin one's reputation as a magic producer. I think he's probably got himself into a position a number of people in magic have. They collect money for a pre-order, then they have the money, and they spend the money. But the work isn't done. The money is gone, but the work remains. So then it feels to them like, "Shit... now I have all of this work to do... for nothing!?" 

And I don't doubt that he is dealing with personal issues too. But here's the thing: so is everybody else. That's what life is—a bunch of fucking personal issues. Do I have sympathy for anyone dealing with significant personal issues? Absolutely. But whatever is going on hasn't prevented him from conducting all other sorts of other business if my spam mail is to be believed:

The problem with these sorts of situations in magic isn't a lack of sympathy. It's that magic has a history of letting this kind of behavior off the hook. You pre-order something that's supposed to come in a couple of months and you end up waiting years for it? Haha, oh well, that's magic, I guess.

Even in those threads linked above you can see how cucked some magicians are; implying that if you conduct business over Kickstarter, or you have personal issues, that actually it's not so bad if you default on your obligations and make shit up about the status of a project. 

But look, I'm not here to pile on Dave Forrest. As I said, I like Dave's work, and I would be happy to help him out here. Dave, you are doing a horrible job of communicating with the people who supported this project. Let me mediate. Your credibility is shot. Tell me what the situation is and I'll communicate it to people in a way that makes sense. People trust me because they know I don't give a shit about any of you, and I will give them the straight dope.  

Yes, I know, I know. It's "personal issues." Here's the thing, if you find out you have cancer and you're devastated because you can't afford the treatments because you just finished paying for the funeral services for your entire family because they were struck head-on by a drunk-driver... you still have to communicate to Burger King that you're not going to come in for your upcoming shift. That's part of being an employee. "Ah," you say, "but I'm self-employed." Nope. Not after you take someone's money with the promise of something in return. You're their employee until that's taken care of.

Dave won't take me up on my offer, sadly. Nobody ever does. I'm just the ding-dong with a magic blog. 

Look, I may be a knucklehead, but—while I don't do traditional "pre-orders"—people do pay me money in part for something they won't be receiving until many months in the future. I'm not here to lecture anyone, but I'm in my third year of doing this, perhaps more successfully than anyone in the history of magic. So, for Dave or anyone else interested in doing a kickstarter or a pre-sale or something along those lines, here are the rules you should follow when conducting any type of pre-order.

The Jerx Pre-Order Protocol

1. Provide customers with a general UNambitious release date. If you think you can get it done in 9 months, then tell them, "It's going to be ready in about a year." No one will be mad if they get their product sooner.

2. Give regularly scheduled updates on where production stands.

3. If you're not going to meet your deadline, then the moment you realize this, you make a public announcement in regards to why not and you give people a new release date.  If your product is supposed to ship in June and you make an announcement on June 30th that there's a delay, that makes you an A-hole. Yes, magic is something of a "community" and we can be a little less rigid when holding people to release dates than you might be when dealing with Apple or some other big corporation. But this sort of goodwill is a two-way street. You don't get to take advantage of it on the one hand and then mislead people and not be forthcoming on your end. 

If you embrace these rules, the pre-order system can be pain-free for everyone. That's not to say it will be hiccup-free—there will be delays and unforeseen issues—but those are absorbed by both sides being candid and considerate with each other. If you're honest, and people can tell your intentions are good, it will feel like you're on the same side when dealing with any outside issues that may arise. If, on the other hand, you act sketchy and uncommunicative, don't be surprised when the relationship between producer and supporter becomes adversarial. You chose to make it that way.