The Unnamed Magician Speaks

/

Your first April post arrives a week early as there has been an update to a topic I wrote about last week.

If further updates occur, I’ll add them to this post.

Otherwise, I’ll see you back here Tuesday the 7th.

The Unnamed Magician has reached out to me to "clarify" the "trick" he's "selling."

He writes: (or SHE writes… Unnamed Magicians can be SHEs these days.)

This is Unnamed Magician. You can verify that this actually is my email from my profile on Lybrary.com. (So this isn’t a troll email from someone else pretending to be me.)

I have definitely thought about your offer, but as some other magicians have privately made me better offers (which were made after your blogposts), I am currently considering all my options. Hence why you haven’t heard back from me.

I do understand your position about why the effect appears to be impossible. But perhaps there is some confusion that needs to be cleared up here. 

Perhaps you are thinking that I am making the claim that the spectator can truly stop anywhere they want (during the deal), and wherever they do stop, the next card will be the one I predicted. 

If that’s how you’ve interpreted my trick, then you’re right to think it’s impossible. But that isn’t what I’m claiming 

Since a card can’t freely float around the deck changing positions, as we both know, the spectator can’t freely stop anywhere. Thus, in reality, the spectator only has an illusion of free choice in my trick.

Without giving away my method, I can tell you this much about it (I trust that what follows stays between us and doesn’t go anywhere else):

[Andy’s Note: There’s nothing in what follows that wasn’t already implicitly or explicitly stated in the Magic Cafe thread. So there was nothing for me to keep “between us.” And I did inform him I’d be sharing his message.]

My method is essentially a way to force the spectator to stop dealing at the correct point (a force that works about 95% of the time), but without them realizing that they’re being forced or cued to stop there.

On the other hand, consider a case where the spectator deals through the deck and you kick them or cause them to feel a vibration via some means, cuing them to stop dealing. In these cases, the signal or cue is something they consciously register / are aware of. Thus, these cases would fall in the instant stooge / dual reality camp.

With my method, the thing that’s influencing them or cuing them to stop dealing at the correct point isn’t something they are consciously aware of. Thus, after the effect if you were to ask them why they stopped dealing where they did, they will say “I just felt like it” or “I randomly did.” To them, it will appear like a free choice. Thus, they won’t be an instant stooge and they won’t be experiencing a different reality (compared to those watching). 

I can’t say more without revealing the actual method, but I just wanted to explain as much as I could without outright giving away the method. I’m definitely not claiming that the spectator can freely stop anywhere as a matter of fact, only that they have an illusion of that (in reality they are forced to stop at the correct point but in a way that they aren’t aware of it, and the force only works about 95% of the time). 

Of course, it isn’t a psychological force - those only work about 80% of the time in the hands of a good performer and aren’t repeatable. 

Furthermore, when performing this for lay people, I can simply tell them to deal through the deck and stop wherever they want. But when performing this for magicians, I will say beforehand “When you deal through the deck, don’t decide ahead of time where to stop. This won’t work in that case. For example, if you’ve already decided right now that you’re going to stop at a particular position in the deck, then this trick won’t work. In order for this to work, you need to deal through the deck without any knowledge of where you’re going to stop and just stop randomly somewhere along the way.” This is to prevent a CAAN type mentality from arising, as my method certainly can’t work in the context of a CAAN trick (as obviously I can’t force the spectator to think of a particular number ahead of time).

I hope this clears up some confusion.

Best,

Unnamed Magician 

Now, a younger version of me would probably be angry at this point. "This guy thinks I'm an idiot!" But I've evolved. Now I just feel embarrassed for him.

"I have definitely thought about your offer, but as some other magicians have privately made me better offers (which were made after your blogposts), I am currently considering all my options."

First, no. No magician is paying more than the $20,000 I offered you. I have a working relationship with the handful of people who actually spend serious money on rights, and this isn’t the kind of thing that commands that kind of price.

There are endless ways to do similar tricks already in the literature. Certainly none come with the fantastical conditions this one claims. But they would play mostly the same for a lay audience. Nobody is going to pay that kind of money just to impress magicians.

Second, my offer wasn’t just $20,000—it was $20,000 with you retaining the rights. That’s already an unusually favorable deal. So when you say you have “better offers,” it raises a more basic question: What would a “better” offer even look like?

Third, even if you were considering some other offer… you’re also still taking pre-sales on this. Why wouldn't you still want the most public skeptic of your trick to confirm it’s legitimate.

Fourth, just to get this off the table, you no longer have a "better offer." As of now, I’m offering $5,000 more than whatever your highest offer is for the exclusive rights.

You can see the shape of the escape hatch forming.

At first, the likely explanation for why this would never be released was going to be:
“Not enough sales. That’s why you’ll never see it.”

Now, with that option gone, a new explanation appears:
“Someone else bought the rights. That’s why you’ll never see it.”

Different stories, but the same outcome.

Now let's get to the method he's suggesting.

"With my method, the thing that's influencing them or cuing them to stop dealing at the correct point isn't something they are consciously aware of."

mmhmm… sure.

Over on the Cafe you have some people saying, "You can't say this trick isn't real. You can only say you don't think it's real."

Actually, that's not true. When you start putting conditions on a trick it becomes very easy to say if a trick is real or not.

A folded card is removed from a coin-purse. It's the spectator's thought-of card.

Okay, that's fine.

A spectator brings their own coin-purse to the show. They look inside. It's empty. They think of any card. They open the purse and now there is a folded card inside. It's their thought-of card. You never touch the purse or the card. Completely impromptu. The card is a genuinely free choice and never spoken or written at all. You don't even know the card until the spectator unfolds it.

That's not real. And this can be stated definitively. It's not just: "Well you can't think of a method. That doesn't mean there isn't one."

When conditions are given for an effect, they cement certain "realities" of the method. When those realities are contradictory, you can safely say the trick isn't real.

The Unnamed Magician wants you to believe that he has a way of “influencing” the spectator that reliably gets them to stop dealing the cards 95% of the time, but that they don't sense.

That's not a thing. It doesn't exist.

If an external cue is 95% reliable then it will be obvious.

If an external cue is subtle, it will be unreliable.

What he's suggesting is a technique that:

  • Interrupts an ongoing action at a millisecond-precise moment.

  • Does so without crossing the threshold of conscious awareness (no sound, vibration, visual flicker, pressure, unease, etc., that the person registers).

  • Works repeatably across different people, dealing speeds, rooms, and attention levels.

What is this technology supposed to be?

Subliminal audio or visual cues have a success rate of about 10%.

Infrasound or sub-audible tones don't offer controllable reactions with pinpoint precision.

Guys… you wouldn't have a 95% success rate on this thing even with the most advanced brain implants. Even in a lab, using one of those things, influencing behaviors tops out somewhere around 70%. And that's with calibration, cooperation, the other person consciously engaging with the system… AND A FUCKING IMPLANT IN THEIR HEAD!

What he's describing is science fiction.

Doing this effect with a borrowed, shuffled deck, and having an external cue that is precise + reliable + invisible = incompatible conditions = not real.

There's a logical flaw with what he's suggesting too. Let's do a thought experiment. Let's imagine a scenario where he has stumbled onto something that offers reliable, precise, and completely unnoticed behavioral control in a complex voluntary task like stopping a card deal at one exact moment.

That still wouldn't work, because you would also have to get them not to stop earlier than the point you triggered your "invisible cue."

We've all done tricks where we ask people to stop dealing through cards at any random point. And what happens? Do they just deal through the deck to the end because they never got hit by our secret pheromone laser? No. Usually they deal a few cards and stop. Does this new technology prevent them from doing that before they get to the force card?

Also, in the demo video he asks the young lady if she wants to keep dealing. So we're suggesting that not only does this technology get them to stop dealing, but then it sort of… hypnotizes them to not want to deal a couple more cards? Okay. Sure.

The truth is simple: a cueing system that could invisibly and undetectably control someone's actions with this level of precision and reliability would be worth billions. It would revolutionize neuroscience, marketing, defense, and medicine. It wouldn't be sold on The Magic Cafe for a hundred bucks.

Look, I don't love having to write posts like this. And to the Unnamed Magician, who probably thought his email might throw me off the scent and buy himself a little more time to keep selling this without a credible challenge—it probably feels particularly harsh. But this is me being nice. I could have talked wayyyy more shit about this.

Here's me being even nicer…

I know the Unnamed Magician is feeling pressure in his real life and money has become an issue. And with this attempt to make some quick cash crumbling around him—and his reputation taking a hit—he's probably feeling a bit trapped. I don't love that for him.

Here's the thing: I've seen people dig themselves out of worse holes than this. The magic community has a short memory for people who own their mistakes and a long one for people who don't.

So if he ever wants help finding his way out of this predicament, he can reach out. I'll work with him on it. I have no issue with the guy. Only with this particular approach at a cash grab.

Until April...

/

This is the final post of March. Regular posting resumes Monday, April 6th.

The next issue of Keepers will come out on Sunday, April 5th.

Regarding the open prediction trick mentioned earlier this week (here and here). I have now received confirmation from someone in the know that this is complete horseshit.

My $20,000 offer and endorsement still stand though.

In fact, I’ll open the offer to anyone who wants to take me up on it. Create a trick that looks like that, and meets the requirements set forth in the advertisement:

1. Uses a borrowed, shuffled deck.

2. The deck is never touched by the magician.

3. The prediction is made verbally before the dealing begins.

4. Works 95%+ of the time.

5. Uses no dual reality or stooging and “if you were the participant, you would experience the effect exactly as you do while watching the video.”

And I will buy the rights to sell the first 200 copies of the effect off you for $20,000. After which the rights will revert to you .

This offer is completely genuine (as is any offer I make on this site).

I got a lot of positive feedback regarding Thursday's Zero Carry post. Thanks for those messages.

Ultimately this is just an extension of the most basic ideas I wrote about amateur/social magic years ago: that its power is directly correlated to how much it doesn't feel like a professional performance.

Carrying around unusual props and objects for the purpose of showing people magic tricks is what the professional performer does.

Or, as I put it five years ago…

"This is a general concept in amateur magic. When you're a professional, you bring your props to the show. When you're an amateur, you bring your show to the props."

First Banksy was identified. And then this guy gets “unmasked.’

Are you worried you’re next? —GM

Not really. First off, nobody really cares.

I'm not someone making millions of dollars anonymously, like Banksy.

And I’m not someone exposing magic tricks online because no one will pay attention to me otherwise.

So there’s not much incentive for people to want to “expose” me.

Second, the way I’ve set things up from the beginning is that there’s a disconnect between me as the person creating the content and the way that content gets to you. In the next year or so, I’ll probably explain what that “disconnect” is and you’ll realize why it would be essentially impossible to “discover” who I am without interviewing people in the real world. And then the only people who would give you a name would be trying to mislead you.

Third, okay, I confess. I’m that guy in the video. Mamma mia! It’s a-me, Mago Dominik. You already figured me out. You can move on with your life.

Chris Rawlins sent me an extra copy of his effect Fair Play, which is a version of Miraskill but disguised as a color-matching card game. The design is excellent and could certainly pass as a simple game you picked up at some bookstore or game store.

I will be giving away this extra copy via a contest I call:

Who Can Name the Most Average Number?

To enter, fill out the form below with your email and your guess for the most average number.

On April 2nd, I will determine the median number from the entries and whoever submitted that number will win.

I don’t hang onto your email addresses, they’re just so I can contact the winner. (If you think I’d ever do something to harvest email addresses for… like…marketing or something, you genuinely have no idea how I run this site.)

Peace out. See you back here in April.

Fundamentals: Zero Carry

/

The final fundamental concept I want to examine this month is the newest of the three.

When I first introduced the term Zero Carry, it was a designation for one trick I wanted to have in my repertoire—a go-to impromptu effect with an engaging premise.

Since the time I first wrote about it, it has evolved into something else entirely and become a guiding principle I'm using to design my current 100 Trick Repertoire.

This is an example of me introducing a term for a concept that still wasn't fully formed. I knew there was something I was circling around in my brain that went beyond just wanting to do "impromptu" effects. But, like I was with the Magic Eye portraits of my youth, I was too focused to see the full image. I needed to let my vision blur for the image to come clear.

(We had a Magic Eye store in the mall near my house when I was young. It was just people standing around staring at pictures on the wall with their eyes glazed over asking themselves if they were seeing something or not. What did they imagine the shelf-life of that business would be when they opened it? Did they put their arm around their 6-year-old son and say, "Someday, this will all be yours." Cut-to four months later: "Going out of Business!" "Everything Must Go!" "Buy 1 Get 14 Free!")

I now realize that what I was circling around with Zero Carry originally was not an impromptu trick or repertoire. But a genuinely carry-less approach to performing.

Why?

The stuffed-pockets of the EDC crowd often leads to magic that feels stilted, inorganic, and scripted. That doesn't mean bad magic, but it's frequently magic that is more dismissable. The magic is seen in the gimmick or the prop rather than in the moment.

The minute you pull out a fake red button to do a trick with, you've eliminated the element of spontaneity which is one of the cornerstones of powerful casual magic.

It may be a strong trick, a fooling trick, and great for walk-around magic at a restaurant gig. But for casual performing in social situations it creates a weird vibe. It comes off almost as desperate. People frequently see magic tricks as an attempt for you to show how clever you are… and now you're carrying around something to do that with? It's not a great look.

That level of seeming preparation dials down the impact of what you do.

It's the difference between making an off-hand funny comment or telling a funny story, and carrying around a small box that says Genuine French Birth Control Device on it, which, when you open it, reveals a little guillotine to chop your dick off.

Oo, la, la, indeed.

Even if you think that's funny, it's canned funniness.

Carrying around stuff to show people tricks feels like canned magic. Not farm-to-table astonishment.

There are three elements to my Zero Carry Philosophy

Impromptu Magic

This is the obvious one. Magic with objects that can be entirely found in your environment.

The issue with impromptu magic though is that it's frequently a little too quick and meaningless. "I take the ring off my finger and it appears back on my finger!" It's a fine trick, but it's not going to stick with people long-term.

So what I find myself looking for these days are impromptu tricks that feel like a full experience—that have a full storyline to them. So it's not just a brief, throwaway moment, but a genuine little story for them to walk away with.

Wonder Room

The Wonder Room is my concept of having magic tricks in some sort of permanent display in your house. There are various approaches to this that I've written about on the site, but a "basic" setup would be to maybe have a shelf somewhere where you display "weird objects" you've come across due to your interest in magic, and then maybe another display of interesting decks you've stumbled upon.

You're not carrying around these objects or decks with you on the regular. Instead, they're openly displayed in your house. This leads to a very natural way of presenting magic where people can just ask you about something you have exhibited and you can show them what makes it "weird" or "interesting."

There's a very pleasant flow to this type of interaction. Rather than you seemingly having a secret stash of magic props in some other room that you bring back when you want to perform something. Instead you have an interest in something (magic and/or strange phenomena), and, like most people with an interest in something, you have it on display where you (and others) can appreciate it. People ask about things and you talk about them.

You treat these things like objects of interest. Rather than treating them like shameful objects—hiding them under the bed like Nazi memorabilia or furry porn.

Organically Housed Tricks

"Housing" your repertoire is a term I came up with which means having a place for a trick to live where you can easily perform it whenever you're inclined to.

For example, if you keep Color Monte cards in your wallet at all times, you can always perform Color Monte whenever you feel like it.

Organically Housed Tricks are tricks that live in a natural context.

Your wallet isn't a "natural" context for a card with a red diamond, a card with a blue diamond, and a card with a guy gloating because he won $14.

But really no context is normal for such a trick.

On the other hand, think of Jeff Prace's Random Card Generator. Put that in your wallet, and again you're just seen as carrying around a magic gimmick.

But I will frequently use it as a bookmark. And that's an "organic" house for the trick. People use cards of all types as a bookmark. If the subject of magic comes up I can say, "Sorry, I don't have any cards or anything on me." Then I can "notice" my bookmark. "Wait, they were giving these away at the casino the other day... it's supposed to help you identify a lucky card." And then we're off.

This may seem like a small thing—using a card as a bookmark rather than carrying it around in your wallet, but it's an added bit of authenticity that I find adds a lot to the casualness of the best social magic.

Further examples from Jeff Prace (since I'm on his site).

Penrose Pendant could live around your neck.
Mon-key could live on your keyring.
Chapstick-Addict and The Passenger Wallet could live in your pocket.

How does this differ from EDC? you might ask.

The difference is that Jeff Prace could be walking around with all these tricks on him, get hit by a bus, and the people at the morgue wouldn't be like, "This guy sure liked carrying around a bunch of magic tricks."

I'm not suggesting building your repertoire around impressing the mortuary attendant, I'm just pointing out how invisible and inconspicuous organically housed tricks can be.

Impromptu magic gives us a stable of effects that we can go into at any time in many different situations. It’s Zero Carry because you literally don’t have to carry anything with you.

The Wonder Room concept gives an outlet for tricks that don’t have to be carried around with us. And it allows our friends to guide the interaction by what objects they take interest in. It’s Zero Carry because they objects are on display, not carried on you.

Organic Housing is an approach to props and gimmicks which emphasizes their everydayness by putting them in a natural context. It’s Zero Carry because you don’t *seem* to be carrying anything with you solely for the purpose of showing someone a trick.

The goal of these three branches of Zero Carry is to create magic that seems more spontaneous, natural, unrehearsed, free-wheeling, and in-the-moment. This is what casual magic should feel like.

Zero Carry isn’t exactly about having nothing. It’s about never seeming like you needed anything.

Save Your Money

/

I saw your new post on the Unnamed Magician’s open prediction trick. I have collected a lot of his published work. So I am familiar with his thinking. 

There are some tricks that he’s already published that also appeared impossible prior to his publishing them. It’s because of this that I suspect this open prediction trick of his may be real. This wouldn’t be the first time he’s come out with a trick that seemed impossible. 

As an example of a seemingly impossible trick that he’s already published, have a look at the demo video contained within this product page:

There are also some conditions listed in the page. In light of those conditions, I and many of my magician friends thought this trick to be impossible before it was published. It was originally released as a magic contest, which I was a part of. I was sure that one of the conditions had to be false, but that wasn’t the case in reality. —M

A bunch of people have emailed me to ask if I'd been taken up on the offer in my last mailbag post to promote and purchase 200 copies of The Unnamed Magician's Open Prediction.

The answer is no. Which means you can pretty much put this one to bed. It's vaporware.

To the emailer above I wrote:

There's a big difference between the tricks though. The Gift has all the hallmarks of a magic trick: the performer's deck, no shuffles, very rigid procedure, the deck going out of play behind the magician's back. Even if you don't know exactly how it's done, you can see the areas that can be exploited to make the trick work.

If you look at the Unnamed Magician's work, it all has very unnatural, procedural methods. To think he all of a sudden figured out a straightforward trick with no apparent method seems unlikely to me.

This is sort of how you know the trick isn't real—by comparing it to his previous releases. There's no connective thread between the types of tricks he has released in the past and this one.

And he just happens to have a completely different marketing strategy for this effect: "If enough people pay me, I'll release the trick." Oh, that's convenient.

I feel bad for the guy, because it seems he needs money. But this isn't the way to go about it.

I'm not trying to pick on him. I'm in a position where I can help him (if this is real). Or help everyone else (by pointing out it's not real).

No need to email me to see if he's been in touch about taking me up on my offer. I will update this post if that ever happens.

A Thought Experiment: The Impersonator

/

Imagine this… You're on a business trip to Nashville. Your first night there you go down to a little club near the hotel you're staying at. You settle at the bar and order a drink. On the opposite end of the club is a small stage and a Taylor Swift impersonator is doing her thing. It's a fun time. There's a great energy among the small crowd. As a big fan of Taylor Swift—she's probably your favorite modern artist—you're really enjoying yourself. The singer's look and vocals are very close to the original. And since you could never shell out thousands of dollars for a seat at her concert, this is kind of a pleasant alternative.

You sit at the bar, enjoying the music and playing a game on your phone. After a couple more drinks, the place is getting more crowded, so you make your way out of the club and into the warm night air. "That was fun," you think, "I wish my town had venues like that where you could relax and enjoy a drink and some good live background music."

The next night you head back to the club. It's not as busy tonight, but there's a good country-folk trio playing.

You turn to the bartender and say, "Is the woman who was here last night a regular performer?"

"Huh?" he says.

"Does the Taylor Swift impersonator from last night come here regularly? Like every week? She's talented."

The bartender says, "There wasn't a Taylor Swift impersonator here last night."

You feel like you're losing your mind. "There definitely was. I sat here for almost an hour playing Candy Crush and listening to her last night."

The bartender looks at you quizzically. "That was Taylor Swift. She dropped in for a surprise performance to rehearse the setlist for her upcoming tour."

What are you left with after this experience? Did you see a Taylor Swift show?

Kind of, I guess. But you can't really go back and have the experience of actually having seen the show. You were half-paying attention to it—lost in your phone and your thoughts. Even if you had been paying attention the whole time, there's a difference between watching it thinking you're seeing Taylor Swift and watching it thinking you're seeing a cover artist. You didn't really have the experience of seeing Taylor Swift in an intimate setting at a small club, because you didn't know that's what was happening.

I try to keep this in mind when performing.

You can't go back and retroactively impress someone with what they saw.

I frequently see magicians playing it too cool when they perform and then having to go back to clarify what the spectator saw, and how that was better than what they remember seeing.

"No, don't you remember? I showed you my hand was empty before reaching into the bag and pulling out the egg. Yes. I swear."

"No, I dealt the packet and there were only 10 cards before I gave it to you. Do you remember? I dealt them out slowly. I said, '1, 2, 3,' and then silently counted out the rest up to 10. You weren't paying close enough attention?"

Not in those exact words. But that's the general gist.

It happens because there’s this philosophy that you shouldn't go overboard clarifying the conditions when you perform.

"Don't run when you're not being chased," they say.

"A real magician wouldn't say, 'Notice my hand is completely empty.'"

Actually, that’s exactly what a real magician would be doing. He would be making the conditions explicitly clear so you could be certain of what you were experiencing in the moment.

There is an art to this, but that art isn't about subtlety. It's about making the conditions completely clear while not undermining the surprise element.

Think back to the Nashville bar. If you'd known it was actually Taylor Swift, every moment would have been vivid, meaningful, and memorable. You would have paid attention and you would have been there.

This is what we should be trying to give our spectators: the full experience of what's happening, as it's happening—not a post-performance clarification session.

Mailbag #167

/

Is there any chance this trick is real? It’s an open prediction with apparently no method or procedure. It’s being released in a couple of months if it sells enough copies at $100. What do you think?—AM

I think it's 100% bullshit, and obviously so. If you got taken in by this, please have your grandchildren screen your text messages in the future because you are clearly susceptible to some pretty blatant frauds.

And when I say it's bullshit, I mean there is no trick like this that uses a borrowed deck, no process, and would actually work one-on-one as implied by this "demo."

Isn't it awfully convenient that the trick might not get released if not enough people buy it? I guarantee you… not enough people are going to buy it. Because that would mean releasing it.

It sounds like this guy needs a quick influx of cash and he can't take out a bank loan so he's taking out a "Dupes on the Magic Cafe" loan instead.

If you had cracked the code on this "holy grail" of an effect, would you maybe put a touch of effort into a demo for it? Multiple performances for different adults to show how impressive the trick is? Here, we have multiple performances for the same bored ten-year-old (and apparently a busy open-air street market outside the window).

Why? Because it's hard to get actual adults to play along with your fake trick.

Andy, you're going to feel pretty stupid if this is real.

I'm not, because it's not real. But if against all odds it turns out to be real, I'll be delighted.

In fact, I'm going to provide a service to the person releasing this effect: send me the explanation.

If this is a real effect with a real method that will actually fool the spectator taking part in it, I will come on here and let everyone know. I have 10+ years of credibility built up. It would be a huge endorsement for your product and you would have many times the preorders.

In addition, I will guarantee 200 sales ($20,000) that I will cover up front.

You have absolutely nothing to lose. (If this were real. (Which it's not.))

You asked for tips for nervousness in your post today. The best advice I ever got was to contextualize your nervousness and give them a reason for it. I sometimes tell them I’m nervous because I need to get this trick right for some future big event. Or I’m nervous because I’m worried whatever we’re doing actually MIGHT work which I frame as being unsettling. This seems to completely negate any actual nervousness I’m feeling.

By the way, I got this advice from YOU in a post a while back. —DE

I got a few different emails from people on this subject which referenced this post on nerves and fear that I forgot I wrote back in 2023. Reading it now, I can see some seeds of the Carefree philosophy idea beginning to sprout here.

This isn't a specific email I want to reply to, but a sort of general response to a type of email I get a lot. People will ask:

"Why do a big card revelation? People will know it's a force."
"Why use a peek? People will know you somehow saw the information."
"Why do a levitation? People will know it's somehow suspended from something."

And on and on.

I understand this kind of thinking, but honestly it feels like armchair theorizing that comes from thinking about magic instead of performing it. I don’t find this to be an actual issue in performance.

For example, I once had an issue with forces and reveals because people were saying to themselves, “It must be a force.” So I started developing the techniques I've written about on this site to eliminate that potential explanation, and now I rarely have anyone suggest that the card was forced. I saw the issues and I addressed them.

Yes, you might be thinking, but if the card shows up frosted on a sheet cake, they're going to know it's not real magic. So even if you seemingly eliminate the idea of a force, they'll still know it must have been a force.

Don't think so hard you get your head stuck up your own ass. Spectators aren't doing some sort of deep Aristotelian logical analysis of the tricks. They're not like:

This trick would traditionally use a card force.
From everything I can tell, no force was used.
But epistemologically we know a force must have been used.
Ergo, a force was used.
Q.E.D.—I'm not impressed.

They don't go that deep with it.

When spectators watch something impossible, they reach for an Easy Answer for it.

The card was forced.
He peeked at what I wrote down.
It's hanging from a string.

If you address that Easy Answer in your handling or presentation of the effect, then you've done what you need to do and you've laid the groundwork for feelings of astonishment, wonder, mystery, etc. (The issue with many magicians is that they never attempt to address the Easy Answers in the first place.)

"He must have seen what I wrote down… but how could he have? I put it in that envelope and it's completely opaque. But he must have."

That feeling—I know what he must have done, but I have no idea how he could have done it—is still the feeling of magic. They can only conceive of one potential explanation, but they don't know how that could be the case. That's a success. You've done what you set out to do.

You don’t need to get ahead of the philosophical underpinnings of what it means to be fooled. You just need to leave them with a mystery.

Dustings #143

/

On Tuesday I wrote about the idea of using duplicates with other people’s decks. Most of you probably know this, but if not, Google does a really good job of tracking down things based on pictures. If you’re visiting a friend’s house and they have a unique deck and you take a picture of it, you can just drag that picture into the search bar on Google and there’s a good chance it will be able to find it if it’s available somewhere online.

Here are some Epstein file magic deep-cuts from supporter, MC. (Supporter of this site, I mean. Not an Epstein supporter. (Well, to be fair, I didn’t ask))

- Molester-enthusiast Lawrence Krauss advising Epstein that Penn Jillette's wife, Emily, is "too old for you though". The message thread of Krauss bungling an intro to Penn is something too.  https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01747351.pdf

- David Blaine arranging to comp tickets in 2013 to Nothing to Hide [haw-dee-haw-haw] by DelGaudio & Guimaraes.  https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01755209.pdf

- And David Blaine seemingly filming for his 2013 special Real or Magic in Epstein's bathroom with everyone's favourite upstanding citizen, Woody Allen.  https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01952288.pdf

Not to make light of the horror of it all but it does seem pretty on-brand for magic that Epstein would be really into it.—MC

I don’t know what to make of this. I think people misremember and assume Epstein was a household name pre-2016, but he wasn’t really. So it’s certainly possible those who interacted with him just thought he was some rich idiot who liked magic (or comedy or science or art or whatever thing caused their paths to cross with him). Or maybe I’m naive and everyone who interacted with him in some way knew exactly who and what he was? If that’s the case, I can certainly understand not wanting anything to do with someone even just tangentially involved with him.

I’m just glad he never found this site and wrote me. I respond to everyone and never google your names. I would have had some dumb multi-email interaction with him about the Ellusionait video Brad Christian’s Kard Klub or some other stupid shit. Next thing I know I’m lumped in with Bill Gates and Bill Clinton and the world is asking “Who is the Jerx?” and “What does it mean to be in the Kard Klub? What goes on there?”