The Five Movements

NOTE:

The post below may contain spoilers for the show The OA. I have no clue, because I haven't seen the show. It would be like if I had never read the Bible but I showed you this picture because I wanted to talk about... I don't know...my fitness goals. And you were like, "Dude, you just spoiled the bible!" And I'm like, "What? What do you mean? Who is this guy? Is he an important character."

So, what I'm saying is, if you plan to watch this show and you don't want to hear anything about it, even from someone who doesn't actually know anything about it, then you may want to skip this post.


Reader G.G. sent me the following email in regards to the post I had written about how lame "snapping" is as a magical gesture and how it relates to a Netflix show called The OA.

Regarding your post, “The Least You Can Do” (April 24, 2017), have you seen “The OA” (Netflix)? I watched it with my wife this week. It made me think of your remarks about using creative magical gestures. 

If you haven’t seen the show, the characters in The OA make magic happen by using intricate and physically demanding dance-like movements. The moves are even a little frightening. 

He then included a link to one of many youtube videos where people are recreating these movements. 

Like this.

And here is a video of it taking place in the show itself.

What I find interesting is that if you search the internet for OA and movements you'll find a bunch of videos with people imitating these movements and posts about people wanting to learn them. Something really captured people about the movements even though, in and of themselves, they're not that interesting or fascinating.

Can you see anyone being intrigued by this if the characters had just snapped and the magic had happened?

I'm not saying you need some choreographed movements to make the magic happen, just something that's not completely dismissive about the notion that something unusual is actually taking place.

I hadn't intended to write about snapping again so soon, or ever again for that matter, but I thought this was a good example of how a mysterious (even if ultimately meaningless) impetus for the magic can be interesting to people.

If you have friends who are magicians maybe you should come up with a series of movements you can do to initiate a magic moment. It doesn't have to be this dramatic, it can be much more subtle. It can just be with your hands and arms if you don't want to incorporate your whole body. People doing shit in unison is kind of inherently creepy. Some kind of pounding in rhythm, then sliding your hand across the table, then pushing in towards the center, then the energy that's amassed in the center of the table can be passed from person to person, and whoever has it at the end of the ritual can do certain things or know certain things he shouldn't be able to.

I also agree with something GG wrote me in the email when he said that the breathing is one of the more powerful elements of the OA movements. So throw in some funky breathing too.

That may sound like some witchcraft type stuff to you, but I think it's just a little bit of theater for an art that can use it. This goes back to a lot of what I've written about unbelievable premises and why I prefer them as well as the Romantic Adventure style I wrote about on May 3rd.

In this case, contrary to most of my ideas, you are taking credit for the magic, but only through some kind of byzantine procedure, which is ultimately just another way of suggesting that what's happening is bigger than yourself. 

(I just googled snapping and "when the magic happens," and found this thread on the Cafe on the subject. Djurmann, the creator of the thread, raised the question of whether snapping, waving a wand, or sprinkling woofle dust diminishes the magic. 

I've made my thoughts clear on snapping, obviously.

Magic wands? They do probably have the same issues as snapping. But at least it shows some effort. Unless you use an "impromptu magic wand." I never understood that idea. "Pick up a pencil and use it as an impromptu magic wand." Huh? Isn't the wand supposed to have some power, or allow you to transmit some power? Do it with a pencil? So, are we suggesting that all that matters is the cylindricality of the object? That's the important aspect about the wand? Seems dubious. And it seems like magicians would constantly be accidentally causing magic to happen, what with all the time they spend with their thin, cylindrical dicks in their hands.

The one trick I used a wand for regularly was with one of those vanishing coin boxes. I'd place the coin in the box. Then I'd take out a velvet bag. Out of the bag I'd dump a long wooden box. I'd open the wooden box and there would be wand in there. The kind that screws together in the middle. I'd take out the two pieces and polish them with the bag. Then I'd screw them together. I'd hold the wand in different positions, at each point I'd kind of "weigh" the wand with my hand to make sure it was in the correct position. Once I'd found the correct position I'd tap the box. Then I'd unscrew the wand. Polish the two pieces. Place them in the box. Place the box in the bag. Then place the bag away. The whole process took maybe 75-90 seconds. Then I'd open the coin box. "The coin is gone! Want me to bring it back I'd say?" When they said yes I'd reach for the velvet bag again. "Oh, forget it," they'd say. I could then make the coin reappear in some strange location later.

And as far as Woofle Dust goes. I've made my position very clear on that. )

 

Any Man Behind Any Curtain

Coming in The JAMM #5

Any Man Behind Any Curtain

One of my ideas that is least loved by the magic community is that you should shift the focus of the effect off of yourself and your supposed powers. The primary benefit of this is presentational. If your performance style boils down to, "I'm a magician!" or "Look what I can do!" it's hard for that to come off as anything but childish. And it's all too easily dismissed. However if your performance style boils down to, "Look at this interesting thing," or "Huh... strange... what do you make of this?" then you're treating something weird not with patter or jokes or with a flourish and a "ta-daa!" Instead you're treating something weird as you might actually treat something weird in real life, and people feel thatThis is a fairly easy change to implement, but it's not a minor change at all. It's a pretty fundamental change in how you might choose to present your magic. 

And even when people completely understand it's a theatrical/"fake" experience, the fact that there's not an inherent neediness or show-off-iness to the presentation makes it an easier and more enjoyable pill to swallow and they'll want to play along more

Recently I've also begun exploring the benefits this approach has methodologically as well. One of my first explorations into this idea will be in The JAMM #5. It's called Any Man Behind Any Curtain and it's a version of ACAAN. The effect itself is fairly standard. But the interesting thing about this version is that it only works if you don't take credit for the magic. You need to present yourself as a witness to the magic, not the person behind it, or it completely falls apart.

This effect is really a "proof of concept" of an idea I think we may be able to take in some interesting directions in the future.

The Jerx is a reader-supported site. If you'd like to contribute you can do so with a monthly subscription to The JAMM

Gardyloo #24

"Card effects are the poetry of conjuring."

                                          -- J.N. Hofzinser


In a matter of a week or so, two services calling themselves "The Netflix of Magic" launched (Ellusionist's Magic Stream and Steve Valentine's Magic On the Go). And that's on top of Reel Magic, which has been calling itself the Netflix of magic for a while now. 

This is very confusing. To keep things clear, please only use these new designations when advertising your services.

Reel Magic - The CBS All Access of Magic
Steve Valentine's Magic On the Go - The Pley.com (the Netflix of Toys, but for videos and not toys) of Magic
Ellusionist's Magic Stream - The GayPornZone.net of Magic


In my failed vaudeville career I was known as the "King of Polaroid Zip Printer Magic." This is a product I've mentioned a few times on this site. Most notably in the tricks, The Look of Love and a presentation I offered for Tomas Blomberg's Konami Code.

If you own one of these printers, you may be interested as I am by this idea of JM Beckers where he hollowed out a book to put the printer in. As he writes:

I was wondering where I could hide the zip printer when not having a jacket or pocket. In some of my performances I use a notebook with fake statistics (strong bias towards strange coincidences of course) done by myself as a scientist with my participants. I thought that this book could be left in plain sight and hide the zip printer. I tried with a book that lay around and cut out the necessary parts. The printing is possible without problem with the printer still in place (I added two poker cards to help the printed image slide out). Sound is a little lower too and one would have the additional benefit that the book can be used as a transport protection.

Screen Shot 2017-05-09 at 11.58.50 PM.png

I like this idea.

Your wallet could be on top of the book and you could grab both the photo and the wallet at the same time (to then load the photo in the wallet).

The ultimate idea would be to build the printer into a photo album itself, and then have it set up somehow so it would print the photo and it would be delivered (through some kind of slit) onto a page into one of the little display pockets.

One thing I did with my printer, which I don't know if I ever mentioned, is I put a little velcro on it, and stuck the opposite pieces of the velcro on the underside of the tables in my apartment, so I could just stick it there when I wanted to perform. Then I could sit down at the table with apparently nothing in hand and pull off all sorts of tricks.


Rubik's Cube magic has become very popular. But just a quick heads-up: Rubik's Cubes themselves aren't very popular. You may want to mention why you're busting out this dated object (as many people view it). Yes, people recognize what it is, but it's not exactly an "everyday" object. So a little justification wouldn't hurt. Or just an acknowledgement that this isn't something you see much these days. Again, we think it's sort of common because it's become common in magic, but to the general public you might as well be doing a trick with an Etch-A-Sketch, a Teddy Ruxpin, or Gay Related Immune Deficiency.


I Love Watching Boxes

No real commercial message today. You know how to support the site. Please do so if you're inclined to.

Reader A.F. asked over email if I could reprint a post from the old MCJ blog it was about a trick called Watch the Box. This was a variation on a classic trick where a borrowed watch appears in the smallest box in a nest of boxes. How was this trick "improved" in this version? Well, in a shining example of magic creativity instead of borrowing a watch and making it appear inside the boxes, the magician borrows fifteen watches and makes them appear in the nest of boxes.

Great.

From May 13th, 2004

I Love Watching Boxes

Oh, what a marvelous day it is! I'm about to place my order for Erez Moshe's Watch the Box. It's a nest of boxes effect with not one watch, or two, or five, or ten... but fifteen borrowed watches! Now I have to tell you, I once tried to do a similar effect with (and I'm hideously embarrassed to admit this) a mere twelve watches. As you can imagine it was a miserable failure. At the conclusion of the effect there was nary a handclap, in fact there was only silence until one of the members of the audience screamed, "Grow a pair you asshole! And don't waste our time with effects in which you borrow a paltry 12 watches!" The rest of the audience joined in with this lone voice and the cacophony of boos quickly shamed me off the stage. Then, on the way to my car, in an effort to show their dissatisfaction with my watch-deficient trick, I was gang-raped by the unruly mob (as was the fashion at the time when a group was wont to manifest their dissatisfaction).

But now, thanks to Mr. Moshe, I can do this effect as it should be done, with 15 borrowed watches. In fact, the ad says, "you can even borrow more or less, depending on your comfortability level." Now, I haven't really gauged my "comfortability" level in regards to watch borrowing yet, but it seems to me there would never be any reason to do this effect with anything less than 15 borrowed watches. In fact, even if you were performing for an audience of oh, say, 10 people, I think it would be better to ask them to wear two watches each than to perform this with less than 15 watches. 16 watches would also be great. But I think 17 would be ostentatious.

I think we all remember those lines in Our Magic that say, "There is nothing more exciting for an audience than watching you borrow and return watches, so make sure you borrow as many as possible. This goes for other things as well. Why cut and restore one handkerchief when there are at least 60 gentlemen in the audience that have handkerchiefs? Why borrow and bake a cake in one hat when there are so many hats and everyone loves cake? You don't want an audience member to feel left out, do you? You don't want them spending the rest of your show thinking, 'What's wrong with my watch Mr. Magician? Is it not good enough to do a trick with?'"

In fact, when I do this effect, I'm going to not only take the time to identify 15 people wearing watches and retrieve them from the audience, but I'm also going to take a couple of minutes with each person to talk about their watch and where they got it and what it means to them. I think that would make the trick really something special. In fact only one word would apply to such a trick: Showstopper.

One of the more intriguing lines in that ad says, "in some mysteriously way, the watches completely vanish from within the paper bag itself!" In some "mysteriously" way, indeed! It's so mysterious they don't let you have any idea what it might look like. I'm hoping the vanish utilizes the mysterious square circle.

A friend of mine (who is apparently retarded) asked if I thought the effect might be better paced and simpler, but just as effective if only one watch was used. Hmmm....let me think. How about, "No way Jose." Are you kidding me? One watch? By that logic, David Copperfield should have just levitated one Ferrari, or made one Statue of Liberty disappear, or floated across one Grand Canyon to be with one Bonnie Tyler singing "Holding Out for a Hero." Not to mention the fact that with only one watch you lose all the audience participation. Audience members can sense that very-special place they have in the show when they are chosen for some audience participation, and what could be more significant and exciting than being one of a group of 15 people who let the magician borrow their watch? I'm hard-pressed to come up with anything. Seriously, wouldn't you feel you were a part of the magic if you had the honor of removing and later reattaching an accessory you wore to the show? 

I can't wait to get this in the mail! I've even come up with a kicker ending. It's kind of a mentalism thing (and don't even ask me to reveal it, this is my secret) where at the end I open an envelope that has a prediction I wrote before the show that indicates exactly the number of watches that were irreparably damaged during the course of the trick by being thrown around in a paper bag with 14 other watches. It's a killer!

Field Report: Little Man

If you want to feel like you've got one foot in the grave, I'd like to point out that the Paul Harris Presents' effect Little Man was first announced almost 10 years ago.

If you weren't around for that release, you missed quite a clusterfuck. 

It started when the ad was released which stated this...

A LUMP OF CLAY COMES TO LIFE! 

You bring out a small gift bag and pull out a standard container of kid's clay. You peel off the lid, pull out a lump of clay and let your audience freely squish, pull and play with it. You then help the audience mold the clay into a little man (or woman!) The only reason you help is to insure that his little proportions are correct. 

YOUR HANDS ARE ALWAYS EMPTY. THERE'S NOTHING INSIDE THE CLAY! 

A spectator then takes a final bit of clay and shapes it into a tiny clay heart. She warms the heart in her hands... and for a moment... she THINKS SHE MIGHT feel a tiny heart beat. She gently sticks the tiny clay heart onto Little Man's chest. You then stand the little guy on the flattened empty bag. Someone gently blows on his heart. Then a moment later...unbelievably... Little Man takes his first step! 

YES, HE'S MOVING FORWARD AND ACTUALLY WALKING... ONE ASTONISHING STEP AT A TIME! 

This is where you have to see the on-line demo to experience the devastating wonderfulness of it all. His entire clay body VISIBLY TURNS AND LURCHES FORWARD with each dramatic step. And not that you'd want to, but you could leave the room, go out for a burger, and Little Man would keep on walking! And after about 10 steps, when Little Man finally stops, anyone can immediately SQUISH HIM INTO A BALL OR TEAR HIM APART... AND THERE'S NOTHING TO FIND BUT A LUMP OF CLAY! 

Based on people's reactions to the trick once it was released, it seems like they were expecting the little clay man to move something like this.

Or at the very least like this...

And instead it moved like this...

I think the problem was their usage of the phrase "actually walking" in the ad copy. I don't know what that thing is doing, but it's not quite walking. If your friend started moving like that you wouldn't say, "Oh, Bobby's walking." You'd say, "Dear god, Bobby's having a stroke!"

But I think if you just saw the trick without coming in with preconceived notions of what it was going to be, you'd actually find it cute or charming. Instead of a letdown. You might not think it's $300 worth of charming, but you might find it at least a worthy release, which was not quite the consensus when the trick eventually came out (after numerous delays, if I'm remembering correctly).

I have two friends, Andrew and Michael who have had a significant influence on the style I've developed for my performances. Andrew in regards to writing and scripting, and Michael who was one of the first people I saw do what I think of as Tantric Magic. That is, tricks that don't need to conclude in 2-5 minutes, but instead can be extended over the course of half an hour or so. I've taken this and run with it, extending effects for hours and days.

A couple years after Little Man came out, my friend Michael was putting out the feelers to buy a used copy of the effect. I wondered what he had in mind. A few months after that, I found out.

We were at Michael's apartment in Astoria, Queens. We were getting ready to go out. There were four of us—Me; Michael; Michael's girlfriend, Tara; and my girlfriend, Heidi. We were going somewhere. Somewhere we needed to be at a specific time. It was probably a movie or maybe dinner. I can't remember.

We had met up maybe an hour before we had to get going and we were just talking and watching tv or whatever. Michael told us he had something he had to do for his niece before we left. "I've been putting it off for like two weeks now. I told my brother I'd make her this stop-motion animation thing she needs for one of her classes. I used to do stuff like this when I was a kid."

He pulled out the Little Man stuff and started going into the process of forming the man with Tara. I immediately knew there was something up, but I didn't know quite where he was going with this. He gave me a conspiratorial look. We have a pretty long history of being magical wingmen for each other so he knew I wasn't going to bust him or something.

So he's making this stop motion animation "movie" with Tara's help. Heidi and I are off to the side, half paying attention. Michael has his phone on a mini-tripod. He takes a picture of the little figure, moves it slightly, then takes another picture. He tells us he needs to make a video of the figure walking along this little black pad (actually I think it was a flattened bag if I'm remembering correctly), then have it turn at the end. His brother (the father of his niece) would then add sound and some titles to it. I forget all the details of the story he spun, and so does he.

Time was ticking and we needed to get going. It had been about a half hour and the little figure was only halfway across the pad. Michael was being very particular about things. "Let's see how this is looking," he said. He was using an app that strings all the pictures together to create a stop-motion film from them. He watched it, then he played it for Tara, then he plays it for me and Heidi. I'm immediately excited by what I'm seeing.

I still didn't know exactly what his plan was at that point, but he had created a stop-motion video where the little figure moved exactly as he does in real life when you perform the trick. So he's established this motion as being the motion of this figure when it's animate.

At this point everyone was agreed that we didn't have time to wait for him to finish this movie before we left for our engagement. "Shit," he said, "I promised my niece I'd have this done and over to them by 8." We sat there for a moment. "I didn't want to do this," he said. He asked for a strand of his girlfriend's hair. He lit it on fire and blew the smoke at the the little clay man. Then he started chanting something under his breath.

"You guys can't tell anyone you saw this," he said.

He put his camera back on the tripod and started recording video.

30 seconds passed and nothing happened. 

Then the little man started to move. The girls screamed. I screamed. He walked across the little black pad, just like we had seen him do in the video. It was surreal. We were seeing claymation in real life.

He finished his walk and turned out towards us. 

Michael stopped the video, said, "Great, that's done now," and squished the little man.

"Let's get going he said," putting on his jacket.

I asked him this weekend if he ever performed the trick again and he said he doesn't believe he did, other than to show some magic friends what it looked like. I asked him if it was worth the $240 he spent on it. His response was, "It was too much for that trick. But it's a fair price for the memory."

The Jerx Glossary

I make up a lot of terms here. It's not because I believe I have concepts that I think need to enter the magic lexicon at large. It's just because this blog is a record of my thinking over time. And rather than reintroduce concepts in a generic sense time after time, I put a label on them so I can refer back to them. If you've been reading from the beginning these phrases may be established in your mind at this point, but for new readers I will track and update them in this post. And I will eventually link this in the sidebar.

Amateur At the Kitchen Table (also AATKT) - A long essay containing my thoughts in regards to performing, practicing, and creating magic from the perspective of the amateur performer. Published in 2016 and available here

Amateur style - When I talk about "amateur" magic I'm not just referring to magic the performer isn't getting paid for. I'm talking about an amateur style. The amateur style is defined by lacking the trappings of a professional performance: the traditional audience/performer dynamic, heavily scripted presentations, smooth transitions between effects, the notion that everything they're seeing is pre-planned. The amateur style that I am a fan of is a way of presenting casual magic in informal situations. Even when you are showing someone something, you are not "presenting" it to them in a proper "performance." Instead you are just showing them something interesting. 

Audience-centric magic/Story-centric magic - Performing magic in a way that shifts the focus of the effect off you and your skills. Since the magician is not exhibiting a power, a story needs to be generated that explains the phenomenon we’re witnessing. And in the process of crafting that story, the audience’s role should change from just watching a demonstration or a “show,” to one where they’re playing a more active role, even if the magician is still guiding the experience along.

Buy-In - A moment in the presentation of an effect where a spectator has to invest in some way in order for the trick to proceed. See this post.

Distracted Artist - A Performance Style where magic happens on the offbeat, as if it is happening unintentionally. Someone who immerses themselves in the study of dance will find themselves dancing absentmindedly while doing mundane things. This style suggests the idea that maybe someone who studies the performance of magic would slip into an effect without thinking. See this post.

Engagement Ceremony - A Performance Style for process heavy tricks that focuses on the process itself. Instead of trying to hide the process, you highlight it by giving it a name and a history and a supposed purpose. Named in this post. First described in this post

Field Reports - Posts describing performances that you might not be able to replicate but might find interesting to read about.

Hooks - A "hook" is anything that causes the other person to (seemingly) initiate the interaction that will lead to the performance of a trick. See this post.

Immersive effects - Tricks that aren't shown to people or presented to them, but which unfold around them. Tricks in which they play an important role.. If a trick can be performed for a tree stump, a corpse, or a monkey, it is not an immersive effect. If people are unaware what's going on, immersive effects can be unsettling or feel like practical jokes. However, if they understand and willingly play along with it, then it becomes a Performance Style called The Romantic Adventure. See this post.  

Imps (short for Impetuses) - The actions or procedures that you claim are causing the effect in the moment. See Smear Technique.  See this post.

JAMM - The Jerx Amateur Magician Monthly. A 20+ page ebook in the style of a magazine that is released once a month and goes to people who support the site. It contains tricks and reviews. It's one of the bonuses for the people who keep this site going. 

Jerx Points - Imaginary points I award on a semi-arbitrary system. They're mostly meaningless but I have secretly released things in the past to people with high levels of Jerx Points, and there is an ebook coming out at the end of summer, 2017 exclusively to people with over 100 Jerx Points called 20/20 which includes write-ups on my 20 favorite tricks/most performed tricks that were created by other performers over the last 20 years. See this post.

Gloaming -  A blurred area between reality and presentation, and between method and effect. See this post. 

GLOMM - The Global League of Magicians and Mentalists. The world's largest magic organization. Everyone who has an interest in magic is a member unless they're a jerk or a sexual predator. You can upgrade to GLOMM Elite status as well, to let people know you're a member in good standing. 

Jerx, Volume One (also JV1) - The Tarbell Award winner for Best Magic Book of 2016. It was given to people who pledged $5/week to support this site from Oct. 2015 - Oct. 2016. This book is now long gone. As are the other books I’ve written since then.

Magic Circle Jerk (also MCJ) - My first magic blog which ran from 2003 to 2005. It doesn't exist anymore. You can find some of it on the internet archive. And I have most of it saved somewhere. But a lot of it is just lost forever.

Non-Explanation - We think that if an audience is fooled, then they will be affected by the magic. But I've found that people will often comfort themselves with the Non-Explanation. For example. You make their ring disappear and reappear on your necklace. You want them to get swept away in the impossibility of it, but often people will just say, "It's a trick." "It's a trick, and I don't know how it's done, but apparently there's some way of doing it." It's a Non-Explanation, but for some people it satisfies the need for an explanation, and thus puts up a roadblock to any engagement in the mystery. To battle the Non-Explanation you can blur the edges of trick and explanation which forces them to engage at least to the extent of knowing what they're dismissing and what they aren't. See Gloaming. See this post

Peek Backstage - A Performance Style where you present an effect as "an effect you're working on" and one which you're actively looking for your spectator's input. This is the most natural, relaxed style for both the performer and the spectator.

Performance Styles - A broad concept under which all your effects could exist (although I recommend having multiple performance styles). For example, your performance style could be, "I was struck by lightning as a child. Now when it rains I can manifest weird anomalies in reality." The tricks themselves may have individual presentations, but as long as you only performed when it rained, that would be your overall performance style.

Reps (short for Repercussions) - These are theatrical elements that can be added to the end of a performance blur the edge of where the trick begins and ends. See Smear Technique. See this post.

Romantic Adventure - A Performance Style based on the concept of immersive magic. It's a performance style you must build up to with people. They must have faith that if they surrender themselves to the experience they're going to have a good time, they're going to see something they've never seen before, and you'll look out for them and not do anything that's going to put them in a dangerous or awkward situation. Effects in this style often play out over a longer period of time. Hours (or even days) are not uncommon.

Smear Technique - The idea that instead of having clearly defined boundaries on a trick, you can blur the edges using different tools (See: Imps, Reps, Buy-Ins), and that by using this technique, magic tricks will feel more enmeshed with your spectator's life experience, rather than just being a disconnected, isolated moment. See this post.

Splooge - My "lifestyle blog" that took over this site for a week in 2016. Now an infrequent column in the JAMM for non-magic content.

Universal Presentation - A presentation that can be used for numerous tricks. For example, many tricks can be presented as a sobriety test in a context where people are drinking. My position is that universal presentations are stronger than trick-specific ones because, by definition, they tap into ideas that have some universal appeal or understanding. See this post.

Wonder-Room - A Performance Style where examinable and interesting objects and artifacts are on display in a room or in some kind of case. Your presentation is directed by the spectator who is free to look at and handle the objects, and if they so choose they can bring them to you so you can tell them the history of the object or how it's used. See this post. 

This Weekend

The cover of this month's JAMM (in your email this Saturday night) is a tip of the fedora to the man who is unintentionally responsible for anything I've done in magic. The inspiration behind my former blog and the Tom to my Jerry...

Breanna, the JAMM Muse for May, challenged us to a game of strip Spectator Cuts the Aces. She didn't really explain the rules all that well and I think she hustled us because, within moments, she had us down to our birthday suit and I was forced to wrap my penis around myself for warmth. The photo below might imply she was losing, but this girl had so much confidence that's what she started the game wearing.