No, Seriously, What the Flip?

/

Penguin released a new trick today.

I would love to see the raw footage of this live performance, because I’m pretty positive this is AI. Specifically this woman here…

And here…

To be clear, I know this is a real person who was really there. I'm saying her reactions—what she said and the expression on her face—were generated by AI. To me it's obvious.

I know Penguin has been using AI video effects in their demo videos for a while now, but this is the first time I've seen a video using it for the spectator's reaction. We're not okay with this, right? If this becomes commonplace, demo videos will go from their current state (mostly useless) to something that's actively destructive to your ability to sense if something is a good trick or not.

Now, I've always been a big Penguin Magic fan and I may be proven wrong on this. Maybe that's her real reaction and she's just on mescaline or something. If the raw footage matches up to the ad, I will buy 50 copies of the trick and distribute them to readers of this site as an apology to Penguin for questioning their integrity.

We'll see.

Salvage Yard: Pixx

/

So I grabbed Pixx off Penguin a couple weeks back. The method's solid — no surprise, it's Max Maven — but the trick itself feels arbitrary in a very “magic-y” way. The pictures are just random objects. And the predictions aren’t exact matches for the original possibilities. Which means someone in your audience could imagine that one prediction applies to multiple selections which just makes it feel less clean overall.

And then in this video they suggest you just use the method and come up with your own cards and images — cool, so I'll do the creative work you were supposed to do. Great division of labor.

I've got nothing for framing. Genuinely stumped.

So now it's your problem. Any ideas for a way to perform this that’s maybe more interesting? —HT

Actually… yes.

I had similar thoughts when this was performed for me. Strong method, but uninspired overall framing. But it's only $20, so I didn't really see an issue with it.

Here's an idea for a premise that is more interesting, more cohesive, less arbitrarily limiting (the part where there are colored frames around the original images lumping two together), and more memorable than the current version.

You'll have to go to a little effort to make it up, though, but with AI and online card printing companies it won't be that difficult.

Or, if Penguin wants to produce Pixx: Jerx Edition, they have my permission. Here's my signature signing the rights over to them.

Here's how it works…

You bring up the concept of "psychic detectives"—people who seem to have insights into crimes and their perpetrators they couldn't possibly know.

"These people come out of the woodwork all the time, but 99% of them are lunatics or bullshit artists, but 1% seem to be the real deal. And that's somewhat frustrating because—are the cops supposed to follow up on 99 bad leads for the one good one? Or do they just ignore these people and end up missing out on a key bit of information?"

"What they end up doing is giving these people a little test based on a crime that's already been solved. Even a fictionalized case will work, as long as a verified answer for the case has been created as well."

I want to try that with you today, because I get the sense you'd be good at it.

You bring out two envelopes. One labelled "Suspects," the other "Perpetrators."

From the Suspects envelope you remove eight police sketches and put them in groups of two. Each group has some very basic similarities between the individuals, but also some obvious differences.

Group 1 - Two white male "punk" types. One with a mohawk and clean shaven. The other bald with a long beard.

Group 2 - Two black males. One thin with a long face. One fat with a round face.

Group 3 - Two older women. One with dark straight hair, one with blond curly hair.

Group 4 - Two children. One boy, one girl.

"The scenario is a bank robbery gone wrong. 18 people killed. The authorities know it was a crew of four and they have sketches of people who were in the area. But anyone who could positively identify exactly who was involved was killed and all the security cameras were taken out."

"I'm going to ask you some questions about who was involved. I don't want you to use your brain or try to ‘logic’ out the correct answer. Instead, just go with your intuition."

"We're going to start furthest out and work our way towards the vault."

"On the street, in front of the bank, there were two individuals in cars. One was the getaway driver; the other was just an innocent person sitting in their car. Use your gut. Which of these groups had the getaway driver in it?"

They point to the two white males.

"Okay, and which of these was the actual getaway driver?"

They indicate the bald one.

You slide that picture off to one side, and put the other one in the start of a discard pile.

"Now there was an individual at the front door of the bank, guarding it and acting as a lookout. And there was another individual out there who was just an innocent bystander. Which group contains the door guard?"

They pick the two black males as containing the door guard. And then identify the thin one as the actual perpetrator.

They then decide it was the two children that were in the lobby and the one doing crowd-control was the little girl (the little boy was innocent).

And finally, inside the vault were the two older women. Although they both claimed they were innocent, your friend identifies the curly-haired one as the mastermind. The other one was just her final hostage.

As you place the unchosen individual's police sketches away, you recap. "You identified which person you thought was guilty and exactly where they were located during the crime. The odds of getting every one right are like in the 100s or 1000s to one." Maybe not exactly, but close enough.

You slide the contents of the perpetrators envelope out. On top of the pile is a cover card (my addition, just to delay and clarify the climax). It says something like:

Perpetrators

  1. Getaway Driver

  2. Door Guard

  3. Lobby

  4. Vault

"So first we have the getaway driver. You said the white males were in the cars outside. And between those, you thought the guilty one was the bearded man."


"And the actual getaway driver was…" You remove the cover card.

You then go through the rest of the cards, showing they found the full guilty "crew" and identified what their roles were.

The "patter" I'm giving here is pretty basic—just to get the idea out there. In reality I'd try to come up with something a little more interesting. And, of course, you’d want to emphasize your amazement that they got everything correct.

Maybe give them a picture of JonBenet-Ramsey at the end and be like, “Use your powers. Don’t hold back on us now. What happened to her?”

Mainly what I want to do is come up with a less arbitrary grouping of the two images (these are two suspects spotted in the same general area), a way of making the order meaningful (they're choosing what the people's roles were), and more generally interesting subject matter (psychic detective).

Note

I found it somewhat difficult to get AI to create something that looked like a real police sketch. It produced something too perfect looking each time. The closest I got was with this prompt in Google Gemini.

  • Create a black-and-white police composite sketch, like a witness-based forensic drawing rather than a polished portrait. The image should look imperfect, rough, and slightly amateurish, as if drawn by a competent but not highly artistic police sketch artist.

    Use graphite pencil on plain white paper. The subject should be shown front-facing in a simple head-and-shoulders composition, with a neutral expression and no dramatic lighting. The facial proportions should be slightly off in believable ways: mild asymmetry, uneven eyes, simplified nose and mouth, awkward jawline, imperfect ear placement, and features that feel approximate rather than lifelike.

    Use visible pencil lines, basic crosshatching, smudgy shading, and uneven line weight. Avoid beautiful realism, cinematic portraiture, fashion illustration, or highly detailed anatomy. The sketch should feel utilitarian, flat, and witness-driven — clear enough to identify a suspect, but not refined or artistically “good.”

    Subject: [Ex. A white male, in his 20s, "punk" look with a mohawk.]

    Do not make it a polished realistic portrait, charcoal art, concept art, glamour drawing, hyper-detailed illustration, or attractive finished sketch. Avoid perfect symmetry, perfect anatomy, dramatic lighting, and painterly rendering.

I then asked ChatGPT for a photo-realistic mugshot based on the image.

If I was going to pursue this further, I’d then use makeplayingcards.com or something similar to create the cards.

Mailbag #174

/

I love the absurdity of this “multi sauce” pack that comes with this effect. What are your thoughts on this as an EDC trick? —MIS

In my opinion, anything that doesn't seem like something you would carry around with you normally is terrible for an "everyday carry" trick. That's the metric I use.

Imagine someone said to you, "I need a quarter for the parking meter. Hold on." And they start emptying their pockets.

They pull out some bills, a credit card, their keys, a pack of gum. You would have no thoughts on that. That makes tricks that use these items perfect for EDC.

But if they pull out a little vinyl wallet with eight playing cards in it?

Poker chips?

Ketchup and mustard packets?

They'd look like a weirdo.

When performing socially, you don't want to start off unnaturally just based on the items you're using.

So no. This isn't good for an EDC.

Perform it at home, where you might have some condiment packets lying around from a food order.

Perform it professionally, because no one cares about the objects you use when performing professionally. They go into it assuming you're using strange stuff even if it's normal stuff.

But don't carry it with you and think you can roll into it "casually." No one's going to buy that.

The only potential I see for social performing is a one-phase thing where you just bring out the multi-sauce packet. "Have you seen these? I got them at that new diner. They don't like you to take extras because apparently they're pretty expensive. But I snagged one without them noticing. It's a multi-sauce packet…."

In this case, you're not some weirdo carrying around "normal" condiment packets to do a multi-phase trick with. You're a normal person carrying around "something weird" you found — which is much more justified.

I got Mosaic from Ellusionist and the reactions have been just okay so far. It seems like it gets more laughs than astonishment. Any idea why or suggestions on how to improve it?—DG

I actually wrote about this briefly in the most recent newsletter.

I think this is a case where the trick is so clever and polished—and it’s happening on a phone—that the only place for their mind to go is that an app or something similar is behind it.

If something visually interesting or unusual happens on your phone, it’s hard to get people to not just think of it as a “phone trick.” So while I think the trick generates a nice initial surprise, the nature of the reveal is so phone-centric they’re almost certainly going to fight against the mystery by shrugging it off as a “phone thing.”

It doesn't help that these types of photo mosaics are done by computers. So people already know your phone is assisting you to some extent. So their question will be, at best, "How did he know the celebrity I'd name?" Not, "How did he take pictures for the past two years in such a manner that when zoomed out they'd form the picture of the celebrity I would eventually think of?"

This is all a matter of personal choice, of course. For some people, the surprise factor will be enough to make this worth performing.

But I personally think the best apps make the phone feel a little more tangential to the effect than this one does.

I was wondering if you've seen this incredible 30-minute AI film called Holy Grail? It was made by one guy in 10 days and it's a historical sci-fi drama set in 1503 Florence. To my eyes, it's beautifully "shot" and "edited," and features a compelling lead "performance" by a charismatic "actor." It's the best integration of animation and live action I've ever seen; I mean, it's an animated film by definition but it doesn't look or read as such. And this is still early days; AI filmmaking will never again look worse than this.

Watching it was the first time I ever felt viscerally that traditional Hollywood filmmaking is toast. Within a few years it will seem unthinkable to spend $200-300 million to make a Lord of the Rings-type film, with hundreds of production people and actors when a couple of geniuses in their bedroom can produce epics for the cost of AI credits.

I have no idea what this kind of thing does or doesn't mean for magic. I'm inclined to think live magical experiences will only grow in value and preciousness when every visual experience imaginable can be manifested in the digital realm. But in any case Holy Grail is a hell of a yarn. —JS

Video available on YouTube

This video is age-restricted, so it can’t be played directly on this page.

Watch on YouTube

I agree with you on the magic front. I feel the advances in digital content have only made in-person magic a stronger experience.

As for the film, I thought it was a snooze, but I'm not the sort of person who would watch this if it was made by humans. So I'm probably not the best judge.

While it's impressive, I can't imagine anyone watching it who wasn't curious to see what could be done with AI.

They've got the spectacle down—and that's obviously going to change the way big Hollywood epics are made going forward. It already has, actually.

But the acting is still not quite there. I have a feeling it may never get past the uncanny valley stage. So I don't see it replacing actors. (To be fair, when I first started watching it I happened to skip forward to 3 minutes in where the lead "actor" says, "Holy shit we found it!" in this bizarre way. And all I could think of as I watched a lot of this was the poor guy who made it having to settle for certain "takes" because no matter how he prompted it, he was getting weak outcomes.)

One time I met a guy who told me that people would stop skiing in the real world because if they wanted to ski they could do it in VR at any mountain in the world. I told him he was a fucking moron. "You don't understand why people ski," I told him.

And I think the idea that AI will fully replace the human element in movies, TV, etc. is similarly flawed. Yes, it will be a tool for big epics. But that may backfire too. Look at the most profitable live-action films from the past couple months:

The Devil Wears Prada 2
Michael
Obsession
Backrooms

A character-driven sequel, a biopic, two small-scale/intimate horror pics.

What bombed?

Supergirl
Masters of the Universe
Mandalorian and Grogu

It may be that people are more interested in human stories than spectacle these days. Perhaps when spectacle becomes something someone can do in their bedroom, we care about it less.

Or maybe I'm just reading into things.

But it does seem telling this epic short film, showing the pinnacle of AI filmmaking, has, after two months, 2600 views. For whatever reason, people don't give a shit.

Over the same time period, Craig Petty telling you what's in his close-up case, has 3800 views.

Make of that what you will.

June Daily Check-In

/

June 30th

Okay, this is the last update. Posting will resume on Monday, July 6th. See you then!

June 29th

Supporter BK used one of the most pointless ceremonies on earth—accepting your diploma at graduation—to do something actually meaningful: flash the Jerx gang sign. Well done.

June 28th

Okay, pencils all sharpened. Time to start writing the book!

June 27th

“I think it’s cool you learn instruments just for the hell of it. Did your parents do anything to build a love for playing music? I’m trying to instill it in my kids and would love any tips. Start lessons early? Take them to see live music?” —LN

Hmm. If they already like the band, then yes, taking them to see live music will help. But just taking them to see some random local band will probably be torture for a kid.

The thing that made me want to play instruments was watching music videos and filmed live performances that showed the band playing their instruments. It’s easy to listen to songs and just hear them as single cohesive “thing.” But seeing the song being played allows your mind to really focus on the parts you see being played. Which, in turn, allows you to more easily imagine yourself as a person who could potentially play one of those “parts.” So if you can come up with a rationale to get them to watch such videos, that may help plant the seed.

In other words, I don’t think it’s primiarly by listening to music that one thinks, “I want to play instruments.” It’s by seeing it come together.

June 26th

Schedule note. I’ll be winding up the daily check-ins at the end of the month. Regular posting will resume on Monday, July 6th.

June 25th

I found this funny.

I'm not a musician exactly, but I enjoy learning instruments well enough to play them at an amateur level. And I like to play in front of people, but at an open-mic situation where people don't know you, no one gives a shit about hearing a novice guitar player. But here's a tip for you if you want to get out and perform even if you're not that great: what I would always do is start with an amusing or interesting non-personal story and then roll from that into the song. This almost always would make me stand out from the other performers and win the crowd over a little bit despite not having much to offer with my musicianship.

One of my go-to story/song combos was to tell the Mike Piazza story, laying out the beats similar to the way the guy does in the video above, and then go into the song that follows. The few times I did it, it was a crowd favorite.

June 24th

About a week left. That means I'm at the point where I'm completely exhausted by all the writing, but not yet close enough to the end to feel the pull of almost being done. In a few days, though, I'll finally get that "the end is near" rush—the same energy as a long-suffering wife who's finally decided tonight's the night she smothers her husband in his sleep.

June 23rd

I’m really liking this custom leather dice case with the GLOMM logo I picked up from Josh S at Hide and Secrets. (Note: Don’t bother contacting me about this, as I have no info to give. If you check out his creations and want him to make you something, reach out to him on Instagram.)

June 22nd

"I read something recently saying appearances were stronger than vanishes? Do you agree? And what do you think is the strongest appearance or vanish?—GA

Hmm. In my experience, vanishes tend to be much stronger.

Put yourself in the spectator's shoes. If something magically appears, you think, "Somehow he was hiding that from me…but it was probably there all along." There's an easy answer.

If something vanishes and it's nowhere to be found, then the trick is ongoing. They know they saw the object, and now they know there's nothing to be seen. Both states are equally cemented in their mind.

Vanishes allow for greater certainty. "I know I saw the ball. And I know there's no ball now."

With an appearance, the best you're likely to get is, "I know there's a ball there now. And I'm pretty sure it wasn't there before."

As for what I think is the strongest vanish or appearance, I'd say the lit cigarette vanish with a pull is the strongest.

June 21st

Happy Father’s Day to those of you who’ve nutted into someone producing a child.

June 20th

June 19th

Okay, literally like 2/3rds of you have suggested “Performer as Spectator.” I promise you, I wouldn’t write a whole book devoted to that.

And if you supported for 18 months and I sent you a book that was a
”Progressive Anagram System,” you would have every right to hunt me down and beat me about the head and shoulders.

It has to do with magic—although you wouldn’t necessarily know that if you just heard it. It’s not a phrase I made up. It will take some lateral thinking to figure it out.

June 18th

Since yesterday’s post, I’ve already received some guesses, so I might as well make it a contest.

For a $100 gift-card to the magic shop of your choice, guess what the subtitle of the forthcoming book is.

It’s not:

  • People Are Strange

  • Pepperoni and Sausage

  • Piece-a-Shit

It’s something specifically magic related. And it’s a subject I’ve hit upon in the past, although not this exact phrase. I’ll take guesses until someone gets it right or until the cover reveal which will give it away.

June 17th

(2021) WWCV1: The Entertainer
(2023) WWCV2: Young Girls Are Coming to the Canyon
(2025) WWCV3: Escape!
(2026) WWCV4: P.A.S.

June 16th

An email I received after the most recent issue of Keepers:

“I know; I'm an old fart.

I know; you've addressed the question several times before.

But I still can't believe that anyone actually likes cellphone magic as magic, and that you think cellphone magic is worthwhile.

No, a thousand times no, cellphone magic is not magic. It just isn't. Certainly not in a world where AI exists. Please, I know you're better than this. I'm not saying your surrounding premises aren't ingenious and probably better than what the inventors of such imagined; I'm not even saying I wouldn't be fooled--even amazed for a few moments; but politely, it's lipstick on a pig. Give it up before it destroys you...”

Before it destroys me! Yikes. That's a bit histrionic.

The truth is, I generally prefer tricks that don't involve the phone. But avoiding the phone in an equally weird impulse.

It's not 2004. People don't automatically get suspicious when you pull out a cellphone. It's the most ubiquitous object in the world—your spectator is more likely to have a phone on them than a coin, a bill, a watch, a business card, paper and pencil, a book, a newspaper, or any of the other objects that used to anchor impromptu magic.

When you ask someone to add something up on their calculator, snap a photo, or look something up, they're not thinking "this must be a phone trick.” Because as long as they're under 80, this is just the way they would go about doing that activity. It would be weirder to pull out a separate calculator than use the one on your phone. DFB is more normal than bringing out a spiral notebook.

I've mentioned cutting back on phone magic tricks myself. I certainly think it can be overused in magic, especially when all the attention is concentrated on the phone itself. But I wouldn't write it off entirely. When the phone is involved naturally as part of a process, and the climax pulls the focus and energy back into the real human moment between you and another person, you can have wildly strong effects that don't register at all as "cellphone magic."

June 15th

Frequently I’ll get a message that says, essentially:

"I've always wanted to go to a magic convention, but I can't because:

  1. I'm an anti-social weirdo.

  2. I have a severe body odor condition. My physician describes it as 'enthusiastic perspiration with environmental impact.'

  3. I have no money."

Well, I have great news. Points #1 and #2? Completely table stakes at a magic convention. Nobody will bat an eye.

The better news is re: #3—Brent Braun is running a "pay what you will" magic gathering in New Albany, IN from August 20–22, and the lineup includes some of my favorite close-up magic creators. If you're within reasonable driving distance, this one's worth the trip.

June 14th

Here’s a video of people in infomercials struggling to do easy things.

And here’s a gif from the demo for Lubor’s Gift where he’s trying to put the brown box inside the black box.

June 13th

I’m exhausted. Took a jaunt to NYC to hit one of the watch parties for the Knicks and was out until sun-up (setting buses on fire and what-not). This screwed up my schedule a bit, but it’s been 53 years since their last championship, so I had to work it in.

June 12th

Help Wanted: If you know some cardistry moves, and if you can act a little or at least aren’t completely awkward speaking in front of the camera, send me an email. There’s a post I’ve been wanting to do for a while, but none of my regular people who record videos for me have flourishing skills like I’m looking for. It’s a paid project.

June 11th

I was sent an email questioning this ad from Murphy’s.

What is an "approachable" color match, you might ask? Is this just more of Murphy's typical gobbledygook?

No, it's actually a brilliant bit of marketing.

Murphy's knows their audience: socially awkward weirdos. So now they're just sliding words and phrases into their advertising they know will connect with that demographic.

Approachable? A color match? Does that make sense? No, but for the type of guy who rehearses his Starbucks order in the car so he doesn’t freeze up in front of the barista, it's a soothing word that subconsciously makes the product more attractive to them.

I went poking around the site and found a few other examples of this strategy in action:

"These are our most unintimidating and nonjudgmental sponge balls yet."

"This breakaway wand is made of high-quality plastic and it doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with you for crying at Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.”

"This Haunted Deck uses no strings or electronics. And it won't laugh at you for wearing that shiny shirt which you thought looked cool. Unlike that bitch, Coleen."

June 10th

June 9th

Marc Kerstein just updated his Earworm app. I'm too in the weeds to take a look at it just yet, but I do want to remind you of my favorite premise for this app.

I have my friend go to YouTube and lower the volume on their phone. I borrow the phone, search for a song on YouTube, press play, and place the phone face-down on the table—so no one can see or hear what’s playing.

"Okay, I'm going to think of the song in my head and dance to it, and I want to see if you can tell from the sheer majesty of my rhythmic expression what song I'm dancing to."

I then stand up, take a deep breath, and do any spastic, bad, or ridiculous dance I want.

They blindly guess at what song I could have been dancing to, they turn up the volume on their phone, and that's the song that's playing. Always kills.

June 8th

“I don’t mean to interrupt your book month, but now seems like an appropriate time to ask if you have any tips about how to motivate oneself to actually write a book. You’ve written 7 or 8 in the time I’ve been trying to write my first. Are there any systems or techniques you recommend I put in place to get my motivation right and get it done?”—RR

Systems and techniques will help you do things more efficiently, but they won’t help you with motivation.

If you've been putting off doing something you really want to do, it's because there is a demon inside you that tells you to do something easier instead: to watch TV, play video games, have another drink, whatever. We all have this demon. The trick it plays is making its demands feel like self-care. It makes it feel like you're treating yourself, giving yourself a break, being kind to yourself. But usually you're not indulging yourself at all. You're indulging the thing inside you that wants comfort above all else, even at the expense of growth and accomplishment.

I don't know how to create motivation. I can't manufacture enthusiasm and inspiration on demand. But I find I can generate an equivalent kind of drive by identifying that demon and refusing to be a slave to it.

June 7th

I’ve already received an unusual amount of positive feedback about the just-released issue of Keepers—perhaps because the site is on break while I write the book and people feel compelled to be supportive.

Just to get ahead of it… the next issue might be a bit of a mess. Since the newsletter covers the things I’ve been working with the previous month—and since this month is primarily spent with my head buried in my laptop and socializing very little, the next issue might seem a little off. You’ll survive.

June 6th

For Juxe subscribers, a new mix will be coming early next month. And then I may be changing the timing on them. Perhaps doing a short mix monthly. I haven’t quite decided yet.

To tide you over, this new single from The Last Dinner Party is sick—really leans into their 70s influences with a bit of PJ Harvey as well.

June 5th

Ellusionist not quite understanding how FOMO is supposed to work in their recent email…

You heard it, guys. They have a scant 300 of these to go around.

And when they sell out, you’re going to have to wait all the way to “mid-2026” to get one. I mean… what will the world even be like in far-off “mid-2026”? Will Ellusionist still be in business? Will the internet still work? I’m not taking my chances. I’m ordering a dozen.

June 4th

On days when I finish my work early enough, I’ve been going to a late movie showing. So far this month I saw Backrooms and Obsession. Backrooms was good. Obsession was outstanding.

I will use the random emoji generator to determine my new rating system.

Obsession gets five mailboxes.

📬📬📬📬📬

June 3rd

“The Unnamed Magician’s most recent youtube video about the Open Prediction trick is one of the most unintentionally funny things I’ve ever seen. I almost thought you made it to make fun of him. So it looks like no bet will be happening? 😂”—MW

Sadly no, guys. I offered a wager in my last post on the subject. And I said that the bet can be whatever amount he wants it to be.

A week or so later he emailed me and said he wanted to do the bet for $100,000.

Great! I told him how we could proceed. I was ready to fund an escrow account that day for my half of the wager. And I already had people in his city who could witness the testing. Just as soon as he put up his money.

His response tells us everything we need to know about the type of intellect we're dealing with here. He told me he didn't understand that he would have to put up money too. He said he thought "this was a one-sided bet in the sense that I perform the trick and upon successful completion I get paid. And in the case I don't successfully deliver, I simply don't get paid (not that I have to pay you)."

Yes. Seriously. A "one-sided bet." What the fuck is that? you might be wondering. Don't ask me. I have no clue.

He said he was confused because I said there was "no risk" for him.

Yes. Because he says the trick exists—and we're betting on whether or not the trick exists—so of course (if he's not lying) there's "no risk" for him.

If the trick was real, he would have easily understood why there was no risk for him. But because it doesn't exist, that's why he got confused.

Also, if it's a "one-sided bet"… why stop at $100,000, goofball?

He then fumbled over himself explaining why he wouldn't take the bet. He said he was worried the person who bought it would sue him if he performed it (yet oddly that person allowed him to record it just the week before and put it up on YouTube?). Of course such a clause would never be in the contract to begin with, as you can't prohibit someone from performing an Open Prediction privately for people. Even if you could, there's no way to prove he used the same method that was sold. And most importantly, there's no damages. In fact, if this was verified as a real trick via this bet—this (non-existent) buyer would have a much more valuable item in his collection.

He also told me that on the 3–5% of the time the trick fails, the method gets exposed to the audience. And he didn't want to take the chance of me learning the secret.

Hold on…

Just a sec…

Damn. It doesn't seem like the internet has a gif of someone laughing hard enough to accurately reflect my response to that idea.

Just think… When he was originally selling the trick he said this was "the best thing he's ever created." Since that time he's said:

  • Nobody would like the method.

  • Nobody would want to perform it.

  • The person who spent $60,000 on it didn't like it.

  • When it doesn't work, the trick doesn't just fail, but the method gets exposed.

Look, I tried my best. I let him choose the bet amount. I sent my people to him. I offered my testing infrastructure. I gave him options so we wouldn't have to pay escrow fees. I told him I would cover any legal fees he incurred from performing the trick. I told him he only had to show an 80% success rate—nowhere near the 97% he claimed. I offered to have Genii magazine do a story on the whole thing—the $100,000 Bet—one that would make me look an idiot and him look a hero for eternity in print.

Sadly, he wouldn't demonstrate the trick despite all of that. Oh well!

June 2nd

Aaron S. brought my attention to this gem from the DFB Facebook group…

A lot of people would consider this corny, manipulative, desperate, beyond pathetic, etc. And they'd be right. Whatever approach you're using to try and get a kiss, the word "Force" should probably not be part of the process. (“Digital” and “Bag” probably shouldn’t factor into it too much either.)

To be honest though, there is nothing more believable than the idea that a person who does strolling magic would have "get a kiss" on their fucking bucket list. "Hmmm…. let's see. I want to cliff dive in Thailand. I want to see the Northern Lights. And hey—if the universe is feeling generous—maybe someday I'll work my way up to a kiss.”

June 1st

Book writing month has officially commenced. But give me a month to write a book, and I will spend the first couple of days dicking around and getting myself set up and finding a rhythm.

Today I was laying out the chapters and the writing schedule for the month and working out my writing stations in the location I'm staying. I don't like to write in one place. And I don't just mean hopping from cafes to parks to libraries. I mean, even when I'm working from home I like to work at a desk, then laying on the couch, then in some sort of standing situation. And I'll switch from one to the next with each section of the piece I'm writing. It's a natural way to mix things up so I'm not stuck at a desk all day, where I usually end up procrastinating.

So today was an axe-sharpening day.

(To be clear, I don't think Lincoln actually ever said that quote. Which is probably a good thing. That's wayyyyyy too much sharpening time. Four hours?? The hell? "Okay, sweetie. I think the axe is probably sharp enough—can we start hitting the tree with it now?" At three hours and 45 minutes there can’t even be much axe left to sharpen. You’re just kind of rattling the handle against a rock at that point.)

Until July...

/

It’s a big day here at The Jerx. First, my letter to Miss Manners was finally published.

And second, as I mentioned previously, I will be taking next month to do the writing for the next book, so there will be no posts during that time. So this is the final post until Monday, July 6th.

Sort of. I will stop in daily during the month of June for a brief check-in. Just a sentence or two most days. So if you need to hear from Daddy to make sure everything is okay, I’ll be here for you.

Otherwise, there will be a new issue of Keepers for supporters on June 7th, and regular posting will resume here on July 6th.

Oliver Meech writes:

Enjoyed your Onyx eyes suggestion. For a less plausible alternative/follow-up, you could mention how there's some truth to the Pinocchio-nose thing, as lying can make people feel guilty or embarrassed, which increases blood flow to the face (similar to blushing), including the nose, which becomes very fractionally larger. Then show their face photo with a ridiculously long Pinocchio nose. Very silly, but could be fun for the right crowd.

It’s a good idea, but I think I’d go the opposite way with it. I’d want it to be just noticeable. The question is, can the AI do it in a manner that’s noticeable but subtle? The long nose is funnier, but probably less interesting. And then the trick is clearly “how did he modify the picture on my phone?” As opposed to riding the edge of believability.

Benjamin from ThoughtCast Magic is considering a new platform for connecting people working on their magic to professionals who might be able to help.

To gauge interest, he’s asking if people will fill out this form. It’s quick. Even if you’re not interested, that’s probably helpful for him to hear.

Nathan W. writes:

About a month or so ago, I started using [the Pseudo Chatbot] to do the “trick that fooled Einstein” with cards. It’s been playing really well and getting great reactions. Makes the language feel more natural coming from an unnatural AI chatbot. 

Smart. That contextualizes the weird form of the prediction very nicely.

I might have it set to go with “candies” instead of cards—so it would be a non-card effect I could go into anytime there’s a bowl of candy, or by grabbing a bag of M&Ms or something when I’m out with someone.

In Love Letters #39, I recommended an app for a voodoo doll/PK touches style trick. I think a better option for that same trick is MultiDraw, which is a way to easily access any drawn prediction on your phone—with up to 100 possible outcomes per effect. It’s simple to operate and the input looks very innocent.

For a smaller number of outs, I will still use Draw Cycle, because I like that you don't have to touch the phone. But that can get unwieldy when you get beyond 10 or so possibilities.

After book-writing month is through, I'll explore this app more fully and let you know if I come up with any particularly interesting uses for it. But Antonio, the app's creator, has always been on a similar wavelength to myself, so if you like my ideas generally, he'll probably have some ideas that appeal to you with the app as well.

In an email, Jonathan S reminded me of a David Blaine’s special where he’s asked? “Can you look into my mind?” and David replies, “It’s different than you think.”

Later someone asks, “Is it magic?’ and he responds, “It’s not what you think it is.”

These are probably the most succinct “kind of but, not really” statements you can give as they naturally have both elements baked into just a few words.

For you Oz haters, Salim K. draws my attention to the backlash against him currently happening in sports media.

Pablo Torre
Pat McAfee
NFL on NBC

This could have gone no other way for Oz.

“Here I have a perfectly normal box of three bags of Skittles.”

The trick is fine, but for the love of God, use it to produce something that might actually come in a box like that.

Here’s a good idea and a question from Tomas Blomberg…

On my walk just now I saw this, and thought "What the hell kinda game is this?!"

And then it struck me: I can draw any strange looking game like this and just happen to come across it during a walk with someone and say "That brings back memories." Of course they'll ask about it. "We used to play it all the time. Well, at least until no one ever wanted to play it with me again. Let's see if I remember the rules, and I'll show you why."

Something like that. Surely there are procedural magic tricks that would fit that format.

But which ones, that don't need more props than the crayon playing field and perhaps rocks or branches or whatever you can find nearby?

Anyone have any thoughts?

Okay friends. That’s all for now. See you back here for brief check-ins in June and back to full-time posting in July. Wish me luck.


When Onyx Eyes Are Lying

/

This is a use for Marc Kerstein's newest app, Onyx. I haven't had a chance to work with the app yet, so this is just a theoretical use at the moment. Although I intend to play around with it later this summer once the next book is complete.

Onyx allows you to manipulate photos taken on the spectator's phone.

For better or worse, we have zoomed past the point where a photo on your own phone will be good for much, magic-wise. AI manipulation is too obvious an answer. You really need something on the spectator's phone, or something printed. (Onyx also has a print feature that I can see being great for The Look of Love.)

My idea is a perhaps too subtle use for the app, as a magical Rep for any “lie detecting” plot.

You start by asking your friend to tell you some true statements, then some lies, then go back and forth. “People think they’re good at lying, but most people have one thing they can’t hide. I want to see if you have one.”

After a bit, you say, "I think I've got it."

Now you ask them to hide a coin in one of their hands or tell you details about a card they selected. (Any trick you have that you can frame as "lie detecting.") They can lie or tell the truth and you're able to tell them which they're doing.

You repeat this a couple of times.

"Want to know how?" you ask.

You borrow their phone and take their picture twice—once after they tell you a true statement, once after a lie. Then you show them the pictures.

"See? Your pupils dilate like crazy when you lie. No one's ever told you this?"

I like the idea of suggesting to someone they have a somewhat obvious tell when they lie—and actually "proving" it.

(Originally I thought it would be interesting if you could have their pupils compress slightly. But the AI couldn't do that subtly. They looked like an animal's eyes. Which is actually kind of an interestingly crazy premise: "When you lie, your pupils squeeze in. Almost like a cat's.")

The nice part of this routine is how the first part supports the second part. Even if they question the photo, they will get pulled back to the first part of the effect and think, "Well he was able to tell when I was lying. So maybe I do have a tell."

If they should call you out on it later—e.g., "I asked my sister to see if my pupils got bigger when I lied. She says they don't."

Then you just say, "Oh, that's because it was a subconscious tell. Once you know about it, they go away. But you likely have a different tell now. Here, put this coin in either hand."

Pretend you find their new tell, but this time don't tell them what it is. "I'm going to keep that info to myself. But I'd be really careful about lying around me."

Copperfield’s Snow Job

/

David Copperfield has said some unbelievable things in his life:

—I'm going to walk through the Great Wall of China.

—I can fly.

—Any suggestion I was his friend is totally false and a mischaracterization made by the media. We were at most, acquaintances who met on a handful of occasions. I was completely unaware of his horrific crimes.

But I think the most unbelievable thing he ever said was in the introduction to his snow effect…

"I never saw snow for myself when I was a kid. I grew up in New Jersey, but every winter my parents and I drove to Florida to visit my aunt. So I never got a chance to experience winter or snow for myself."

I'm not sure what he's suggesting here. I mean, I understand that for the dramatic arc of the story it's important that he's never seen snow. But his version of events only makes sense if winter in NJ is like cherry blossom season in Japan—where you could "miss" it by going on vacation each year.

But that's not how winter works in NJ. So did he and his parents go to Florida for four and a half months? That seems like a bit more than a "visit." What about his schooling? How did his aunt feel about all of this?

It just doesn't work very well as an intro to the effect.

Copperfield has assured us he's not slinking off into retirement, but instead has much more to come in his performing career.

Should he decide to bring back the snow illusion, I thought I'd come up with some alternative—and much more believable—stories for why he'd never seen snow.

"I never saw snow for myself when I was a kid. My dad was a violent drunk and turned increasingly angry when the weather got cold. So every November my mom took me to Florida where we stayed with her sister until spring."

"I never saw snow for myself when I was a kid. Did you ever see the movie Room with Jacob Tremblay? Yeah, I grew up in one of those situations."

"I never saw snow for myself when I was a kid. My parents were part of a sun-worshipping sex cult. Cold weather was considered spiritually contaminating by the group's elders, so every winter the entire congregation migrated south. We spent November through March in Florida. I have complicated feelings about my upbringing, but I never saw snow."

Or… try wrapping your head around this idea…

Use the Out-to-Lunch principle. Have your spectator sign a business card verifying the statement on it is true—the statement being It regularly snows in New Jersey. You pull the card from the stack and say, "You've confirmed that's true?" They agree. "Good. Because I'm about to change the entire world to one where it isn't. Abracadabra… we now live in a world where what's written on that card is false, and your memory of the old world has been completely erased."

"You signed this card. Said the statement was 100% true. Correct?" They agree. You show them the card—which, via the OTL principle, now reads It never snows in New Jersey. "True statement?" They admit it's not. "Ah-ha! It was when you signed it. Back when the world was different. Before I rewrote history, reality, and everything you thought you knew."

Applause. Transition.

"Now, because I grew up in the 'before world,' I never got to see snow as a kid. Because it didn't snow in New Jersey. As you verified when you signed that card."

Simple!

Or, just repurpose that introduction for another Copperfield classic.

"Because I grew up in New Jersey, I never got to see a tornado of fire as a child…."