The Non-Binary Binary Prediction Principle

This is a variation on a Karl Fulves prediction idea that came to me from reader, Leo Reed. It’s not the sort of thing that you can base a whole trick around, at least not in my opinion, but it’s something that can be an interesting added element to a routine in a few different ways.

Gender Is Fluid

Here is the principle in its most basic incarnation. You would never do this as a trick by itself, but just to understand the concept, here’s what it might look like.

There is an envelope on the table. You tell the person it’s a drawing of a sign on a public restroom door.

“Do you think it’s a men’s room or a women’s room?”

They answer. You cut open the envelope and remove the paper from the envelope and they were correct.

Method

This is the prediction inside the envelope.

IMG_5665.JPG

The prediction should be in an envelope of approximately the same size. Depending on their response, you will cut open the envelope to reveal the prediction and, in the process, cut off the incorrect part of the prediction.

So depending on where you cut you will have one of these options.

IMG_5665.jpg

You don’t want to use a 3X5 card or something like that for the prediction. If you do, it will seem incomplete when they see it afterwards, because it’s not the dimensions they’re used to. Instead you want something that feels longer than you’d expect. So once you cut off the incorrect part, the remaining piece seems to be of normal dimensions.

Simple, and as I said, probably not that great in isolation.

Here are some uses of the principle that might be a little more interesting.

Gender Reveal

giphy (1).gif

You could predict the gender of someone’s unborn baby. Have the prediction set up so it says, “It’s a boy!” at the top and “It’s a girl!” at the bottom. Same stick figure drawing.

The “when” and “where” of introducing the envelope and then opening it are going to depend on your relationship with the parents and when they end up learning the sex of the baby themselves.

Ideally you’d want them to have the envelope in their possession before even they know the gender of the baby. They don’t know what it is. It’s just some mysterious envelope you had them sign and told them not to open. Then after they learn what it is you come over again and open the envelope to reveal you knew all along.

It may be hard to orchestrate that all in reality. But it’s an interesting idea.

Pendulum Proof

I’ve seen pendulum routines where a pendulum will go back and forth over a male’s image and in a circle over a female’s image.

“Skeptics will say you’re moving it yourself somehow without even knowing it. That’s nonsense, of course. Ideomotor effect? More like, idiot motor effect! Take that James Randi! Anyway, I can prove it’s real. I have a simple stick figure drawing of a man or woman inside this envelope. I don’t even know what it is myself. I sealed one man drawing and one woman drawing in an envelope before I left home, mixed them up randomly, and took just one with me. So I don’t know what it is and you don’t know what it is. I don’t want you to try and guess what it is. Just hold the pendulum and let it tell us what it is.”

Celebrity Paraphilic Infantilism Gag

I have a friend who does magic professionally who is using this in the following way. He tells people he has been learning to draw caricatures of celebrities. It’s his true passion and he hopes to one day drop magic altogether, but until then he has an effect that combines the two. He brings out a notepad and a sealed envelope. The first half of the notebook has different male celebrity names on each page, the second half has different female celebrity names on each page. He has one person open the notebook to a male name and another person open the notebook to a female name.“Inside that envelope is only one sketch of a celebrity. There are 100 celebrities in that notebook. You are each thinking of one random celebrity. We’ve narrowed 100 down to two. Now we need to select one winner from those two. How should we do it?”

This is the fun part. He lets them decided how to pick the winning celebrity (or winning spectator depending on how you want to frame it). Maybe they flip a coin. Maybe they play rock paper scissors. Maybe they arm wrestle. Maybe they have a 30 second verbal debate and a third-party at the table is the judge. Maybe they see who can throw an olive the furthest. It can be anything. And it’s not like you could have made an educated guess as far as which person would win because you let them decide the nature of the competition.

So now you know who won, and you also know if that means you need to remove the male or female version of the image.

Your prediction is set up like this.

IMG_8813.JPG

If you need to reveal the guy drawing, you cut off the bottom of envelope/prediction and pull the sketch down and most of the way out of the envelope to reveal the stick-man, but not the name yet.

IMG_1901.JPG

“There he is,” you say. “It’s a pretty good likeness, I think. I’m proud of it.” This is like the “baby gag” in magic, and was in Leo Reed’s original write up of the principle to me. You milk that for what it’s worth, then you say, “You don’t think it’s accurate? Did I not get it right? Who did you pick?” They name their celebrity and you pull the picture out the rest of the way and show the name. “That’s exactly who I thought. How could you not see that? Maybe the chin isn’t completely right, but it’s pretty close.”

If you need to reveal the girl image, you cut off the top of the envelope/prediction and pull the sketch up and out of the envelope to the “waist” of the image. “What do you think, does that look like your celebrity?” You go back and forth on this for a bit. You ask them to name the celebrity for the first time “for the people who live under a rock and can’t recognize my drawing.” They say, Natalie Portman. You then pull up more and reveal the stick figure is in a dress, “proving 100% I knew exactly who would be chosen. Famous dress-wearer, Natalie Portman.” They’re of course thinking this is just more of a gag because you had a 50/50 chance of it being a woman. You then pull the prediction out all the way to reveal the name.

This, I think, with the gags and stuff, is not the sort of thing I would do for friends. But I do like that part where they decide how winner will be decided between the two celebrities. That feels like it could lead to some genuinely spontaneous moments.

The method is, of course, one Svenpad®️ (or similar) with men’s names in the top half and women’s in the bottom, or you may prefer to use two separate pads.

Picklepants

“Whenever my niece stays with me, she tells me a bedtime story. I said that right. I don’t tell her one. She tells me one. Each one is about some royal family living in some mystical land somewhere, but they’re totally fucking insane. They all have these crazy names and get involved in totally messed up shit. Last week it was something like King Queefingham is building giant robot dogs to devour the moon or something. She has a crazy imagination. I keep a list of the characters she’s created in my phone. They’re strangely evocative and I’ve found out something weird that seems to work much more often than it should.”

You ask your spectator to name a number between 1 and 100.

You open your phone and go to your list of character names and have them read off some of the names they see there. King Sparkles. Shadow Charm. The Caramel Star Twins.

Next to the chosen number 78 is Picklepants.

“Picklepants. That was a good story if I remember correctly.”

You draw their attention to an envelope that’s been on the table the whole time. “I asked my niece to draw one of her favorite characters for me to show you guys tonight. One that she thought you’d be drawn to in some way. I have no idea what she drew yet. Let’s check…, oh wait. In the Picklepants story there was a king and his daughter, the princess. Do you think it’s the king or the princess?”

They say the princess.

You open the envelope and slide out the picture. It’s a crayon drawing of a stick figure in a dress with a crown.

“Yup, that’s her. Princess Picklepants. That’s crazy.”

They’re not convinced so you turn over the paper and there it says, “Princess Picklepants.”

The basic idea for this came out of Leo Reed’s email to me. I’ve expanded the story and tweaked the methodology and the nature of the prediction.

This uses the Digital Force Bag app, of course any other way to force “Picklepants” would work just as well. Cards with names on them, a forcing notepad, an actual force bag. In my opinion the phone makes the most sense.

The prediction paper is set up like this. This is on the front side.

IMG_5565.JPG

Then turn over the paper end for end so the head is at the bottom of the page and write this.

IMG_4111.JPG

If your spectator says it’s the princess you’ll refer to the character as Princess Picklepants. You’re not cutting off any of the image, just the words “the king” on the back.

if she says it’s the king you say, “Ah yes, Picklepants the King. An unforgettable character.” And when you cut open the envelope you’ll be removing the word “princess” as well as the bottom of the dress and legs from the image.

Combining a small, obviously free choice with a force is something I wrote about in Magic For Young Lovers. It’s very powerful. They can’t just say “the phone (or the notepad or whatever) was gimmicked” because that free choice somewhat lessens the importance of the force procedure. And the fact that the name of the character is written so large in a way that is apparently unalterable makes this a nice combination of methods.

There you have it. Thanks to Leo Reed for sharing the idea of turning a skirt into legs, and to Karl Fulves for starting us along this path with his trick, “How to Predict the Super Bowl” in his Big Book of Magic Tricks. If you’re interested in that you can find out more in a post I wrote three years ago about some modifications to his prediction system.

Mailbag #4

giphy.gif

I loved your experiment on the classic force [See the posts The Force Awakens and The Force Unleashed], and found the results fascinating, however I think you may be slightly off with your conclusions.

 Your participants were rating the various forces not in the context of a routine, but in a vacuum. It's true that the classic force doesn't cope too well with too much heat or scrutiny put on it, mostly as you mention in the article because it's over quickly, they can't change their minds, and also because it doesn't really stick in the memory. 

But to me these are also its greatest strengths. Let me explain:

There are lots of very different contexts where we might need to force a card. For some, the selection procedure is pivotal to the overall strength of the effect. […]

But let's say you're forcing an odd-backed card which will be signed by the spectator. When their signed card changes colour, the question of "how the fuck did my card turn red" doesn't lead them directly to the real secret. In this instance the more forgettable the selection process the better. Imagine that same trick with an elaborate, 5-minute selection procedure involving card eliminations, dice rolling etc. It would only help point the spectator in the direction of a force.

The classic force is also brilliant for not getting in the way of the story of the trick. As you're talking, casually telling someone "grab one of these cards" allows you to keep the spectator in the fiction of the effect, since it requires the absolute minimum of effort and concentration from the spectator. A cross-cut force, on the other hand, forces you to pause the action while the spectator is sent crashing back to reality for a moment before you can pick up where you left off.

I still think it's a brilliant piece of research, and am looking forward to seeing more of these experiments in the future, but I just wanted to say that the results don't tell the whole story, and that the classic force has more going for it than the naked numbers suggest. —BD

First, just to be clear, I’m not trying to talk anyone out of the classic force.

That being said, I’m not sure I agree with your logic. Your email presupposes that there are a good number of tricks in magic that involve a selection, where the selection itself isn’t that important. I don’t think there are many tricks that fall into that category. The example you used, forcing an odd-backed playing card, doesn’t really track in that context. It’s one of the few things you definitely can’t do with a classic force. Unless you do it face-up, in which case it becomes an even more rushed procedure and feels even less like a choice because you’re showing them the faces of the cards but not enough to let them pick a particular one they like.

One other thing to think of is that even if a selection isn’t pivotal to the strength of a trick, the spectator probably doesn’t know that. To them it’s almost always important in that moment.

I agree there are some tricks where the selection isn’t important, in which case, maybe it’s best to just drop the selection altogether and just pluck a card off the top of the deck and say, “Here, sign this.” That seems perfectly reasonable for a torn and restored card, for example. David Copperfield didn’t have to a say, “Here, Gretzky, choose any one of these 52 Honus Wagner cards for me to tear and restore.”

Another thing about the classic force is—even with perfect execution—it can fail, or at least become obvious, if the spectator has an agenda. If they’re thinking, “I think I’ll pick a card near the top,” or, “I’m going to make him wait until he’s almost out of cards,” or, “I’m going to pick a card I’m really drawn to,” then the classic force feels exactly like what it is. (Yes, I know there are techniques to deal with those situations. But I wouldn’t say they’re great.)

To your point, BD, I’m sure there are some circumstances where the classic force is best. For example, when you want to keep your table-hopping set moving, or when you want to demonstrate how good you are at forcing a card. I’ve seen people delighted to have the same card classic forced on them over and over again. It’s impressive.

But generally I think it’s less useful than I had always assumed for the first three decades in my magic life. The impression I always had from the magic literature was, “If you can do a classic force, do that, of course. If not, use some other, lesser, force.” It wasn’t until testing the forces that I really understood some of the inherent flaws of the technique from the spectator’s perspective.

We’ve done some further testing on forces since those original posts were written. In this round of testing we did use them in the context of a trick. We also included, what I consider to be, a genuinely awful force for comparison, which was interesting. More details on that in the Testing Results Annual (or something more cleverly named) that will go out to supporters later this season.


At the beginning of this year you mentioned having shorter posts. I’m not complaining, but I don’t think they’ve gotten any shorter. —AL

Yeah, I know. I need to figure that out, because ultimately it’s probably not sustainable. Between the site, the newsletter and the next book (which looks like it will be 80%+ brand new material), that’s like 1200 pages of magic content this year. And I’m not someone who can sit with a deck of cards and come up with ideas. I really only get ideas in the process of coming up with something to actually show someone. Most of the content for this site and the books and newsletter come directly from performing for people and getting their feedback. So it’s not only the hours involved in the writing, but even more hours involved in trying out different tricks or ideas.

“Oh, poor Andy, he has to find time to perform magic for people and write about it for money. Boo hoo. So sad. Well, I’m off to my job: tarring a roof in 95 degree heat for $12 an hour. Take care, Andy. You’ll be in my thoughts. Try not to get injured at work. Like, maybe you’re having too much fun with your friends while showing them a trick and you laugh too hard and throw your back out. That would be terrible.”

Okay, I get it. I know I’m lucky. I’m just saying it’s more time consuming than you’d imagine, and I need to get better at managing that time. Shorter posts are still coming. I think.


Sometimes people write with non-magic issues. I’m including this one here because it’s pretty much the standard advice I give everyone dealing with any issue: Get on with it, and find a way to turn it into a positive.

Yesterday was one of the worst days of my life. My girlfriend that I’d email you about broke up with me. Turns out she didn’t want to talk to me about anything after 5 years and then told me she had already been seeing another guy. So I’m fucking destroyed. -GC

Give yourself five more minutes to be sad about it then move on. 

Then, going forward, every time you think of it and it's affecting you negatively, you take that as a cue to do something positive to make yourself a better person (whatever that may be--take a walk, read a chapter of a self-help book, go to the gym, do some work on a business you want to start or whatever). Now you're using the thing that "destroyed" your life as the stimulus to build a better version of yourself.

Use this same technique anytime anything "bad" happens to you and you will soon realize that nothing bad can happen to you. The more difficult the situation, the more it inspires you to work on yourself, the more profound your positive growth, and the better off you'll be. Problem solved. 

An Exposure Koan

Imagine I give you a deck of cards, you shuffle it, select a card, return it to the deck, shuffle it, then you hand me the deck and I find the card. Assume I achieved this by the use of a marked deck.

You might say that’s not that interesting a trick. You’re probably right. In its most basic form, it’s not very interesting.

Okay, now let’s say I give you a deck of cards, you shuffle it, then I spread it on the table face-up and take a picture. Then you select a card, replace it, shuffle the deck and hand it to me. I spread it again on the table and take a picture of it.

“It’s a pretty complicated algorithm,” I say. “The program compares the order of the deck in the first picture to the order of the deck in the second picture, calculates in the shuffles, looks for the card that is out of sequence, and voila, it identifies the card you chose. How else?”

It’s a goof, of course. The truth is I just used a marked deck and all the picture taking and talk of algorithms was just presentation. A presentation that many would think is more interesting than just saying “pick a card and shuffle and I’ll find it.”

But, here’s where it gets complicated.

The fact is, there is an app—well, a combination of apps—that can do exactly what the “goof” presentation suggests. That is, you can have a deck shuffled, take a picture of it, have a card selected, returned to the deck, and have the deck shuffled again (multiple times), then you can take a picture and the app compares the first picture to the second and identifies which card was selected.

You need Vision: The Card Spread Analyzer by Martin Eisele

What is the point I’m making? I’m not sure, really. That’s why I called this a “koan” not “a well considered point on exposure.”

I guess what I find odd is this: if you do this trick with a marked deck, you’re a thoughtful magician putting some effort into presentation. If you do it with the app, you’re exposing the trick and breaking a cardinal rule of magic. But the experience for the spectator would be (essentially) identical regardless of which version you performed. In fact, even a knowledgable magician might have no idea which version you did if they were just watching. The president of the IBM might say, “If that trick doesn’t use an app, I’d like to write up your presentation in the Linking Ring. If that does use an app, then you’re kicked out of the IBM for exposure.”

I just find that interesting.

We’re probably due for a complete overhaul of what exposure means in an era where laymen can discover the secret to nearly any trick with a couple minutes of searching online. We can’t think of it the way we did in the 1950’s. “Call the ethics committee! Blackstone revealed the rubber pencil illusion on the back of a Sugar Rice Krinkles box!”

I don’t know what the answers are, but I have done pretty much the best writing on the subject. Specifically about how we can utilize exposure for stronger magic. See this post, Four Uses of Exposure, and the beginning of this post. That’s a starting point.

iEW2x-1457367008-2299-list_items-sugar_rice_krinkles.jpg

Dustings of Woofle #4

Congrats to finalist #9, MT, who god (or fate in the form of the New York Lottery) chose as the winner of the Exaltation of Joshua Jay contest. He donned a red jacket, put together a globe puzzle and smashed his hair down on his forehead and now he has the prize package coming his way. Of course, he happens to be in Greece so it’s going to cost me $60 to ship him this stuff. Damn me and my incredible cross-cultural appeal!


Here’s Eva Anderson (Harry Anderson’s daughter) on the Doughboys podcast with a couple quick anecdotes about David Copperfield and Criss Angel. They’re amusing, but not particularly surprising. After each story I thought, “Yeah, that sounds about right.”


If you like dumb jokes in your patter, here’s a mildly funny one I heard on an old Cheers episode (there are no new Cheers episodes, in case you were waiting for them). It’s similar in structure to some other jokes I’ve heard magicians tell, but I think it’s a little funnier.

“Do you believe in intuition?” you ask. They respond with whatever.

“Interesting. I don’t believe in intuition. But I have this strange feeling that someday I will.”


Oh my god… this poor woman. Can you imagine being locked in prison 10 years for a murder you didn’t commit, only to finally be set free. And then, just when you think your nightmare is over, you have to sit through a Joshua Jay show?

Whose demented idea was this? After all she’s been through.

“Andy, you’re looking at it the wrong way. She lost 10 years of freedom, and this 90 minute show feels like it takes about a decade to finish. So perhaps seeing this show helped balance the scales in some way—gave her a greater sense of time on the outside.”

No, that’s not how it works. All they did was steal an hour and a half more of her precious freedom. Those monsters. My heart goes out to her.

The Self-Working Hook

An email I received recently:

Here's a quick testimonial,

Monday night, I met with a friend to catch up and talk a little about magic. He's been learning a few things so I brought both of us a deck and "Self Working Card Tricks by Karl Fulves" just so he'd have some easy tricks while he learned to handle the cards.

We were at a bar and as the night went on our waitress saw the cards and book each time she came to check on us. They weren't terribly busy, so when she brought the checks, I used Peek Backstage but using the book as icing. "Hey, we're trying to learn magic, can we try a trick if you have like a minute and a half?" 

I kinda expected her to half-heartedly sit through one but she seemed genuinely interested in seeing a trick. So I performed a short magician-in-peril type plot where the card in her hand becomes hers, all the while consulting my "Self Working" book. I ended it with "It says: 'If the card she stops on isn't her card, then have her turn over the card in her hand'"

Great reaction, only did the one so we didn't hold her hostage, and all the credit went to the book. 2 minutes later another waiter came over and said "I gotta see this trick". 

10/10, would recommend presenting yourself as amateur at the bar table.

—TW

Yes! I use magic books all the time as a Hook. There is really no more natural segue from someone saying, “What is that?” To you saying, “Oh, it’s something I’m working on for my nephew’s birthday [or whatever reason]. Can I try something out on you?”

Hooks make the transition into an effect feel essentially seamless. The reason they’re not a more popular concept in magic is because the best ones take the “power” from the magician. Obviously, sitting around with a self-working card magic book is not a power move. In fact, it probably undermines your actual level of skill. And that’s not a look most people who perform magic tricks want to portray. But for me, a magic book makes an ideal segue into performing

I’m not suggesting you go around with The Art of Astonishment stacked up on your table at Starbucks, but there are a few benefits to carrying something like the Karl Fulves book mentioned above.

51OW3wEIekL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_ (1).jpg
  1. It’s small and slim. It may even fit in your back pocket. When people see it, it draws attention, but it doesn’t obviously demand it.

  2. It’s a perfect gift to give someone on the fly if they show an interest in magic. I’ll buy a few copies at a time to have some to give away.

  3. If someone picks it up and flips through it, they’re unlikely to stumble on any important secret of magic.

  4. It misdirects their suspicion. When I use a self-working book as a hook, I don’t actually perform a self-working card trick (at least, not generally). And I’ll take advantage of the implication that they don’t need to be on guard against sleight-of-hand.

  5. Here’s something I would never have realized until talking about it with laymen: The phrase “self-working” magic can be very intriguing to people who aren’t familiar with the vernacular of learning magic. Erase what you know about magic. You see a book entitled, “Self-Working Card Tricks.” What would that even mean? And then someone says, “Yeah, let me show you something unbelievable. I have no idea how it works.” That can seem almost believable. If it’s something that works, “by itself,” the implication is that it doesn’t need the performer to direct it.

Okay, but what if I show them something and then they say, “Let me see where that’s written up in the book. I want to try it.”

That’s a possibility. For that reason, I generally don’t present it as TW does in his email to me, where I’m constantly referencing the book. I just use it as a hook. They see the book and ask something about why I have it or whatever, and that propels us into the conversation. I only imply that what they’re seeing is straight from the book, but I don’t reference it. If, at the end, they say, “Okay, show me where that is in the book,” I’ll spend a minute or so looking for it and then say, “Hmmm… that must be in Volume 2.” The book has already served its purpose of naturally guiding us into the trick.

The Exaltation of Joshua Jay Finalists

Below are the 10 Finalists in the Exaltation of Joshua Jay contest as chosen by members of the Jerx Advisory Board.

The ultimate winner will be picked by the New York Lottery Commission. Next to each finalist is a three digit number range. The winner of the Exaltation of Joshua Jay Contest is the person whose range contains the selected number in the midday three-digit Numbers drawing on 4/30/2019.

Below the finalists are a number of Honorable Mentions.

Thanks to everyone who entered. It’s a very special situation when the public can recognize a genius/messiah in his or her own time. In this respect, Joshua Jay is way ahead of Christ, who had essentially no photo contests done in his honor when he was still alive.

For those who entered and don’t end up with the prize package, keep this in mind… Your life situation is such that you have internet access, a camera, and enough free time that you’re able to read this site regularly. Your mindset is such that you were willing to engage in some mindless stupid fun for a chance at a prize. And your picture is bringing some small level of joy to people you don’t know. You’re all winners in the big scheme of things.

Finalist #1 - CL - 000-099

Untitled 2.jpg

Finalist #2 - DM - 100-199

DM.jpg

Finalist #3 - KG - 200-299

KG.jpg

Finalist #14- SW - 300-399

SW.jpg

Finalist #5 - CG - 400-499

CG.jpg

Finalist #6 - AI - 500-599

AI.jpg

Finalist #7 - MH - 600-699

MH.jpg

Finalist #8- SC - 700-799

SC.jpg

Finalist #9 - MT - 800-899

MT.jpg

Finalist #10- LH - 900-999

Animated.gif

Honorable Mentions

MJ.jpg
RK.jpg
ST.jpg
RD.jpg
SM.jpg
RR.jpg
VR.jpg
Joshua.jpg
AG.jpg

Being Neighborly

The Exaltation of Joshua Jay Contest ends today at noon, New York time.

The entries will be voted on by the Jerx Advisory Board (i.e., some friends of mine). The top vote getters will be announced on Monday with the winner chosen in some random manner on Tuesday.


Just a quick anecdote today…

The apartment across the hall from where I’m staying had been vacant for a few weeks. The door was unlocked during that time and I would go in and walk around the empty apartment wondering if there was some things I might be able to set up and utilize in a trick at a later point in time. Maybe months from now. This may seem psychopathic, but it was kind of just a mental exercise.

So I set up for the Time Traveler’s Toilet (they certainly may lift the toilet lid in the ensuing months, in which case they might be a little confused, but I don’t think they’d find it that weird). And I carved a little something on the underside of a drawer to be used as part of a revelation in a routine. And a couple other little things.

I figured I may never even end up speaking to these people, and even if I did, we may never have the sort of relationship where I’m showing them magic. But that’s okay. I don’t mind planting a seed that might never grow.

The other night I got home around 9:30, grabbed some items from my place and went across the hall and opened the door to the other apartment.

And there are three people sitting on cardboard boxes eating pizza.

And there’s me with a bottle of anti-fog spray in one hand and a q-tip in the other. (Long story. Part of a trick idea I had with their bathroom mirror.)

“Oh…hey,” I said, cleverly, as they all stared at me.

“Sorry, I didn’t know anyone had moved in and I heard noises and I came to check it out.” So I just barged right in instead of knocking in this scenario? I guess. And what was my plan? Was I going to blind the intruders with anti-fog spray and bludgeon them with a Q-tip? I tried to play it off like I just happened to have those objects in my hands from something I was doing back in my place. I’m not sure how convincing I was at changing their perception of me from “home invader” to “good samaritan,” but I did my best.

I sort of salvaged the interaction by being warm and welcoming and normal for the next 15 minutes or so. But sadly I lost that element I had hoped to take advantage of in a future interaction: the notion that I had never been in their apartment and obviously couldn’t have arranged anything there. Now if I ever do something I’m sure they’ll think, “Oh, he probably set that up when he was creeping around our house like a maniac before we moved in.”

I’ll update you if I ever take advantage of anything I set up over there. Don’t hold your breath.