Draw Cycle

This is a post about a new feature on the Jerx App that will be coming out today (or very soon).

First, a brief history of the app for those of you who are new here.

The app was initially designed as a free bonus for the people who purchased my very first book, The Jerx Volume 1. At first, it was going to be an app with one simple purpose to be used in one of the tricks in that book. During the process of creating the app, I realized there were many more uses for it than I originally anticipated. The main function of the app is really a utility function that can be used for a number of very different effects. (There are 10 or so effects listed in the instructions.)

The Jerx App is also a place where I dump other app ideas occasionally. Simple ideas that it wouldn’t necessarily make sense to release as their own app. So I just drop Marc Kerstein a line and ask him if some idea or another would be easy enough to program. And if so, he works on it and it’s added to the app.

I’m not trying to sell anyone on the app. It’s priced at a premium, and intentionally so. If I had people buying that first book for $250 when I had zero track record of putting out a physical product, and part of the allure for some was a bonus app—and then I go and sell it later for $15 or something, that would devalue the faith they put in me back then. For me the app is worth the cost it currently sells for because I use it all the time. And I intend to add more little ideas to it as time goes on. But it’s certainly not something anyone needs to have. As I said, I’m not trying to sell the app. I’m just giving some details about the history of the app for new readers. I don’t make any money when the app sells. Marc does, but there are plenty of other great apps you can buy if you want to give Marc some dough.

Draw Cycle

Here’s what the new feature in the app does:

It’s designed to look like a drawing app. And it cycles through a series of options while the phone is facing you, but then it locks onto one when you move the phone.

So, a boring way to use it would be to make your prediction, ask someone to roll an imaginary die and tell you what number came up. By shifting the phone when that number is on the screen you lock it in place and the phone can be given to the spectator and it acts just like a normal drawing program.

There are, of course, much more interesting ways to use it. I, for example, will be using it to perform my Fuck, Marry Kill routine I wrote about years ago. I used to use the iForce app for that effect, but the method was too complicated to remember if I didn’t do it for a couple of weeks. This will make it much simpler.

Obviously you don’t want to be staring at your phone while it’s cycling through the options. What you want it to feel like is that you’ve written something down on your phone and now you’re just holding it towards yourself until you’re ready to reveal what you wrote. You want to be able to spot what you need using your peripheral vision. (Although occasionally glancing at what you wrote wouldn’t be the weirdest thing in the world.)

You can also use haptic feedback so you don’t have to look at the phone at all. That will work best with a small number of potential outs whose order you know. (The numbers on a die, for example.)

You can make as many outs as you need, and change how long each image stays on screen, from fractions of a second to two seconds.

Imagine you had this set up so you could reveal one of 20 common zoo animals. I would draw the pictures and load them in alphabetically. That way if you’re at Bear, you know you can pay less attention for a little bit if they named Zebra.

But also keep in mind when you’re deciding what trick to do with this. If—in this example—they name Zebra, and it just looped around to the beginning of the alphabet (and the beginning of your outs) that you’re going to have to vamp for a little bit. In this case up to 40 seconds, if you have 20 images set to flip every 2 seconds. Do you have a hard time bullshitting for 40 seconds? I personally don’t. My tricks are usually at least 5 minutes of bullshitting. But if you do, you may want to avoid a trick with a lot of outs.

This tool would be ideal for situations where there seems to be a lot of potential outcomes, but there’s really only a handful. The Mind Power deck. Or how about using it for the thought-of words in WikiTest? Or a Svengali-style pad that forces a list of, say, 8 celebrities (but you flip through and show what appears to be hundreds of different celebrities). So they flip to any page, mentally select anyone on that page. And it’s someone you drew a picture of on your phone. The combination of methods there would be very strong.

You get the idea. There are a million uses here.

I’m going to go email Marc and ask him if it wouldn’t be too difficult to store different sets of outs so you wouldn’t have to re-do the options when you want to change tricks. That email will start the way most of my emaIls to him start, “Okay, this seems like it should be easy enough to do…” Because nothing is better than when someone who doesn’t know how to do what you know how to do tells you that what they want you to do is going to be easy.

Oh, and if you want to do a “hands-off” version, you could place the phone in empty coffee cup or mug in such a way where you can still see the screen. “I won’t touch the phone again,” etc. Then just turn the cup/mug towards them at the appropriate time.

For those of you with the app, after you update it, you can check out exactly how to set-up and use Draw Cycle on the instructions page.

By the way, if you’d like a similar multiple outs type thing, but one where the phone is face down and you don’t need to touch it, I recommend Marc’s Amalgam app. In “season 1” of that app there is a program called Timed Out, which will let you do just that with 6 outs.

Monday Mailbag #66

How are you feeling about Lloyd Barnes new effect Lux? They spent a week or two doing a completely corny hype campaign which had the opposite effect they intended on me. All I could see when the trick was finally revealed were the flaws. But maybe that’s just confirmation bias. What do you think? —SC

Yeah, I get being turned off by the advertising campaign for this trick. It does make me feel like, “If this trick is so good… why do you have to try so hard to sell it to me?”

That’s not to say this trick isn’t good. I think it’s a good tool. It’s not (as advertised) “the most powerful everyday carry item ever created.” It’s a fucking UV marker and flashlight. Certainly the most powerful everyday carry item should look like something that people carry with them every day, right? Yes, a UV light and marker is something you could carry with you every day. If you’re a fucking weirdo. But let’s not devalue the usefulness of the EDC (everyday carry) designation so that it’s just synonymous with “small.” EDC in magic and mentalism should suggest not only something you can carry with your everyday, but also something that a normal human might reasonably carry with them everyday (and also something that requires little to no set-up to get into). That’s what “EDC” should refer to if the term is to mean anything other than that it fits in your pocket.

Because I’m in the midst of the book mailing, I wasn’t able to get this out to a new Virtual Focus Group to get their thoughts on the effect in the trailer. I did however show it to a few lay people who I know personally to get their thoughts. I would say the general consensus was that they thought it was a cool trick, but when asked if they had a guess how it was done, they all had an idea. Their ideas were wrong. But that doesn’t matter. To a layperson, a satisfying explanation is no different than the right explanation. And most laypeople have heard of disappearing ink or ink that appears with heat. So if they think this trick is just that technology applied to UV ink, that’s what they’re going to think.

That’s not a flaw of the prop, that’s a flaw of this particular usage of it. If you draw an X in UV ink and I make it disappear and then reappear on me. Your first thought might be, “Cool!” But your next thought will be, “Oh, there’s probably something special about that ink.” (Again, that’s not the solution, but it’s an “obvious” one.) If not, why would I have done it with UV ink and not a Sharpie? With a little bit of thought, the logic of the trick falls apart.

But I will still get this. I’m going to get it to do a perfect version of Teenage Dream aka Out of This World with cum covered nudie cards. In this version, all the cards would be treated with the UV ink, and you’d just make the necessary cards glow. So there would be no required "handling” for the OOTW portion. You would just hand them the deck and have them deal it into two piles. No switching. They wouldn’t even have to be even piles.

I would hesitate to use this with a trick where the UV ink appears or disappears. That will definitely be the tempting way to use it. But I’ve found it’s not a great idea to do something magical with something people don’t already full understand. Most people don’t have a firm understanding of how UV ink/light works in the first place. It’s already sort of magical. “I’m going to do a trick with this thing you don’t fully understand” is a less-than-ideal situation.

If I was going to do that, I’d prefer to have the UV ink at least be used in a context that makes sense to an audience. Perhaps a hand-stamp from a club or concert vanishes from one person’s hand and appears on another. (“This is how I go about getting me and my friend into the club, while only paying for one of us.”) Even better if you could secretly stamp someone at an earlier point and then the image could appear on them.

This idea presumes that the type of UV ink used in this effect is the sort of thing that can be purchased for use in stamps/stamp pads. I don’t know if that’s the case. If so, this type of idea may already be addressed in the instructions.


Regarding the post: Extinct - An Interactive Effect (Don’t read this email if you haven’t read that post yet.)

That was fun and it was a perfect demonstration of your style of performing that you’ve been discussing the past few weeks. Even though I knew it was all fiction, I found myself really wondering if it was true. I knew it was a trick, but simultaneously, I was second guessing my memory. Knowing that it was all fiction, I found myself wondering how much was fiction and how much was true.

It basically played out as, “Clearly all the NLP stuff is BS… but maybe I really did forget the deer? No, I know for sure I didn’t see it there… but maybe I wasn’t paying as close attention as I thought? Well whatever it is, it definitely isn’t NLP because he’s basically making fun of NLP. But maybe there’s a little validity in it? He said it only works for 35% of people, so it has to be something psychological I guess.”

Obviously, all of that is taking place on a subconscious level in my “layman brain” and at the same time, my “magician brain” knew it was just a clever change of the site. But even still, I found myself WANTING to believe the fiction and consciously pushing aside the fact that I knew it was just a trick because believing in the fiction is more fun than discovering the trick. —MH

The “Extinct” interactive magic post from a couple weeks ago garnered as many emails as almost any post I’ve ever done on this site. It was all essentially positive feedback, although there was a subset of respondents that seemed to think I was genuinely suggestion the trick was accomplished through psychology and “wonder words.” I wasn’t. I was screwing around. (Given that I haven’t championed psychological methods in the seven year history of this site, it would be weird for that to be my thing now.)

But a lot of the responses were similar to the email above, in that they described a kind of ping-pong’ing of their understanding of the nature of the effect. With many readers thinking it was a joke at first, to then realizing the trick “worked,” or maybe it was a joke and they just also happened to forget that word, or maybe the psychological elements can actually influence people, but no it was probably just some kind of trick.

It’s not an impenetrable mystery because with a little bit of effort, it’s a trick that can be figured out. But for a few moments it seemed to nicely mess with people, and have them really questioning themselves, which I was happy to hear.

Now, what I do is I try and take that feeling, and instead of thinking of it as something that just happens during the trick, I try to instill it in people over a lifetime of performing for them. That’s my goal with amateur/social magic. To have them in a state of questioning things. So they don’t get bored or find the interactions predictable.


I’ve been helping my friend work on a new magic show called the M@gic Piz-za Guy. [The actual name isn’t that wonky, I just wrote it that way so this site won’t show up if someone searches for it.] Essentially you have a party completely unrelated to a magic show, and he arrives at some point in the night pretending to deliver extra pizza, which kicks off a "Twilight zone-esque" immersive fictional experience.

While getting ready to pitch this concept to a potential client she pointed out this to us,

“ Well, magic relies (imo) on the agreement between magician and audience that magician will lie and deceive, but it will be benign. The audience, by agreeing to watch, knows what it is getting into. Unexpected magic may lack that agreement, which could be disturbing or upsetting. Like the dupes on carbonaro's show- THEY don't enjoy the experience. The show is about seeing them confused.”

I thought the comment about the reactions you see for the people in the carbonara effect show really are much different than what you see and like a David Blaine show or a David Copperfield show was the most telling insight.

What are your thoughts about getting consent from people to participate in a more immersive Magic style experience? In your work it seems like you’ve got a lot of on ramps to get people to buy-in to the experience, whereas what my friend is doing is looking more to spring it on them in a way that they’re not expecting. It’s not quite as hit and run as what you see in the Carbonaro effect, and they do have to buy in and participate in order to get the most out of the story line at some point, but now I’m putting myself in the mindset of someone who finds himself having to play in escape room without having consented to participate in such an activity ya know? That sure doesn’t sound fun.

First, I love the idea for this show. I think it sounds great.

As to your question, I think it’s so easy to fool and deceive people when they’re not ready for it, that I can’t imagine wanting to do it, really. It would be like taking pride in having sex with the most attractive woman in your office while she was in a coma. That’s not really something to brag about.

If I was putting on a show like this, I would want people to know they are going to see “a type of magic show” or “a type of immersive theater.” Or something at least. I’m not saying I would spell out exactly what’s going to happen. I wouldn’t say, “There will be a pizza guy. But he’s a fake pizza guy. And that’s actually the magician,” and so on. But I would want people coming in with some expectations. Not just thinking they’re there for a party, and then being confused, and then having to sort of “figure it out,” and then be like, “So do I have to stop this conversation I was having in order to watch this thing I didn’t know about and didn’t come here for?”

This goes along with my overall approach to performing which to establish that things are “just a trick,” “just fiction,” etc. And then do all that I can to pull them into the moment and get them to “forget” it’s just a trick and for it to feel legitimate. That’s a seduction. You can take pride in that. That’s wooing the hottest woman at the office before she’s in a vegetative state. So that’s how I would handle it. Although reasonable minds may disagree.


Dusting #64

The site will be away for spring break next week. (Spring Break = Getting my taxes finished and starting the book mailing.)

Regular posting resumes April 25th.


Before we go further I want to clarify the upcoming schedule for current and (potential) future supporters of the site. “Clarify” might be the wrong word. I want to “finalize” the schedule because what I’ve said recently has been a little up in the air due to certain factors. But here, as of now, is the planned schedule:

This Weekend - An email will go out to supporters collecting their shipping fee and current address for the support rewards package.

Next Week Thru The End of the Month - The support packages will ship out.

May 2nd - The new support “season” will commence, with a new support structure in place. Current supporters will have first dibs on the available supporter slots. Depending on the interest of current supporters, I’ll decide if I’m going to keep going with the site and associated content. If so…

May 6th - Unclaimed supporter slots will be made available via this site.

That’s the plan.


With my concerns about the supply chain setting back the production of the books and decks this year, one thing I failed to consider was that it would have a negative effect on my ability to get packaging. In past years, I’ve had custom-sized packaging printed for all the orders. This year that was going to set us back weeks. So, sadly, supporters won’t receive your book in a box like this

Or last year’s box which was cleverly disguised as a box of “luxury pinecones.”

Fortunately, the packaging we are using does an even better job at protecting the book, despite being much simpler than what we used in the past (a box built to the specifications of the book, inside a padded envelope).

If you look closely at this gif of a dryer, you will see two things inside. The first is a beach towel. The second is stiff white envelope inside which is this year’s book and deck of cards.

I was testing the new packaging in a dryer to simulate a book being tossed around by careless postal workers. (The bath towel is there because that’s what I used to sneak the package into the laundromat. I didn’t want people seeing me toss a package directly into the dryer like a goddamn sociopath. “Young man, that’s not a mailbox.”)

When I took the book out of the package it was in excellent condition. So the packaging might not be as fun this year but it will do the job of packaging, at least.


Julien Losa is releasing Ted Annemann’s Jinx magazine, with a new layout and format for about seven bucks a month.

As he describes it:

Every Friday, one issue of The Jinx, retyped, corrected, with a better layout/design, making it a more comfortable experience to discover or rediscover the best magic and mindreading magazine of all time ! + Two videos a month with demos/tips of some tricks of The Jinx !

At first I thought, is this really necessary? But now I think it’s probably a pretty good idea.

I have the three-volume Tannen’s (?) set of the Jinx and while the material is great, it really isn’t the best reading experience—small font, and jumping around to finish an article and stuff like that. This could be considered part of the charm of reading the Jinx. But it also could just be considered a pain in the ass.

I think Julien’s enterprise is worthwhile, especially if you’ve never worked your way through the Jinx. Getting one issue per week could be a fun way to do it.

Here is the first issue of Julien’s re-formatting, so you can see if this is something you might be interested in. If so, you can sign up here.


Remember last year when I did a week or so of posts on artificial intelligence? And I even had a contest for people to make videos inspired by those posts?

Well, somehow this video on how to be a magician was not one of those contest videos. This is a real thing, put out by a real youtube channel, presumably to be a helpful resource to people.

It’s a crazy video. Not as crazy as the content created by the AI that I was using for those posts last year. But it’s somehow weirder in a way. Like some of the advice is on the border of being legitimate/useful. And then thee’s stuff like, “Make sure your vest pockets are big so you can vanish plates.” I’m not 100% if the video was written by a robot, or just a very dull idiot.

Oh, and that same youtube channel put out the video below on how to french kiss. I figured a loser like you could probably use this. It’s three minutes longer than the video on how to become a magician. I guess that speaks to the relative difficulty of each enterprise.


Extinct - An Interactive Effect

I want to try something a little different with today’s post. Today I have a sort of interactive trick for you. If you’re distracted and aren’t able to give this post your full attention for the next few minutes, come back to it later. It definitely won’t work if you don’t follow along carefully. Read it straight through at a comfortable pace.

Besides your focused attention, you won’t need anything else to take part in this trick.

The trick we're going to do today deals with animals. Before we go any further, you need to remember these three animals: a bear, an elephant, and a goose.

For real, don’t continue reading until you have those animals fully memorized. I know it’s not a huge task to memorize a few animals but it can be more difficult than you’d imagine. So burn them into your brain now. I’m going to test you on them at the end of this post and I want to see how well you retain them without being reminded.

Once you have them in your mind, I want you to give some thought to the animals you’ve had in your life. Don’t focus too much on a current animal, focus on one you’ve lost.

Recently I remembered a traumatic experience from my childhood where I went hunting with my uncle.

Generally, you assume when you’re going hunting that you’re going for a trophy or meat or maybe both. But my uncle was just sadistic. He just wanted to kill something. He didn’t care what it was. The second animal we saw he just <BOOM> obliterated it completely. It was just gone.

Ever since then I’ve been a little skittish about owning or being around animals. They just seem too impermanent to me. So I never had pets. No dear animals for me.

That’s pretty much my history with animals.

That’s also why I probably never got into tricks with rabbits or doves or anything.

Heaven knows I couldn’t handle a trick utilizing a gun or something like that. Too traumatized for that.

Each of you should now be thinking of an animal from your past. I want you take just a second and imagine, in your mind as that animal vanishes. That’s it. That’s all the preparation you need.

Do you want to experience the trick now?

Everyone should look at the gif below for a few moments.

Each time the center of the gif turns red. I want you to think, “Gone.” Do that three or four times.

Ready?

Okay, that’s the end of the set-up for the trick. In truth this is probably only going to work for about 35% of you. But I’ll still consider that a success.

There was a group of animals I told you to remember at the top of this post. If this has worked, some of you will have forgotten the deer.

Now, how did I do that? The gif, of course, has nothing to do with it. That’s just there to distract your mind. In reality this trick is accomplished with neuro-linguistic programming and the power of some Kenton Knepper style Wonder Words.

I kept on talking about a “lost” animal to prime your mind to forget one of the animals mentioned.

Some of you may have forgotten one of the other animals listed, but I attempted to focus you on the deer (without specifically naming it) by mentioning its position as the second animal in the list.

“The second animal we saw he just <BOOM> obliterated it completely. It was just gone.

“Each of you should now be thinking of an animal from your past. I want you take just a second and imagine, in your mind as that animal vanishes.

I even told you, “No dear [deer] animals.”

And, of course, I’m sure some of you noticed (at least on a subconscious level) that the first letter of the paragraphs between the list of animals and the gif spelled out FORGET THE DEER.

Hopefully this trick worked on enough of you that you will put a lot of time and energy into creating effects that are based solely on psychology and the manipulation of words, as many people were doing 15-20 years ago after Derren Brown came on the scene. I think this trick proves that the manipulation of thoughts via language and suggestion is a real thing that really works well enough to base workable tricks around. It wasn’t just a 10 year detour that the most gullible mentalists went on because they confused Derren’s presentations with his methods. With any luck, the success of this effect has shown how strong and truly powerful a method that is SOLELY psychological can be. And it’s so much better to use those types of methods than to rely on some cheap trick.

Monday Mailbag #65

I’m breaking this first question into pieces to make it easier to answer.

Thanks for sharing the 3 act structure for audience members who you've just met. The 3 examples you gave [for the “third act” Audience-Centric trick] though all seem very believable.

The examples were:

  1. “If you like that, you should see what my mentor can do.” (Third Party presentation)

  2. “Actually you could probably learn to feel the colors if you want to try it.” (Spectator as Magician presentation)

  3. “You should see this strange object I picked up from this weird guy at a magic convention.” (Unusual Object presentation)

Take the second one for instance, and let's say you go into some pseudo explanation of some phenomenon before doing OOTW. Isn’t the most natural response to accept the explanation at face value: believe that you are saying all this sincerely? (Which is what you don’t want).

Hmmmm… I”m not sure that’s the most “natural” response. Think about it this way…Imagine I performed OOTW in a magician-centric way as the “Third Act.” So you’ve seen two tricks and then I say, “I’m going to cause you to separate the red cards from the black cards via my my powers of mind control.” Or whatever.

How would you describe that full interaction? Well, you’d say you saw three magic tricks.

So now let’s imagine it with an Audience-Centric presentation. Maybe I guide you through this breathing technique that triggers a release of a certain chemical in your brain which briefly heightens your “color intuition.” (That’s not a particularly good example, but it will work for out purposes.)

Now, how would you describe that full interaction? Would you say?

“He showed me two magic tricks followed by a completely legitimate demonstration of heightened color intuition.”

Probably not. What I think you would say—or at least what I’m shooting for with this structure—is something like this:

“He showed me a magic trick. Then he showed me this new trick he’s working on that’s not completely finished yet. Then he showed me this thing which… it must have been a trick… or maybe?…hmmm…. Well, I was able to separate the red cards from the black cards. And we did this breathing technique beforehand which supposedly affected color intuition… but… that was probably just a story. I think? It had to be… I’m pretty sure. But the thing is, I did separate the colors. So how could that have been a trick? But also how could it not have been?”

You see, I want to play with your belief. (Belief is the medium.) That’s my goal at least.

In isolation, perhaps the “natural reaction” to the Audience-Centric trick would be for someone to believe you. But when it’s on the heels of seeing two magic tricks, I think it’s more likely that they’ll be fairly certain it’s a trick, but there will be elements that seem “un-trick-like” to them. The biggest of these “elements” being the fact that I’m not taking credit for what they’re seeing. Which goes against what people expect from a magic trick.

Lastly, what is the spirit of the performing style? Is it tongue in cheek, or matter of fact? —RK

I don’t do anything “tongue in cheek.” I don’t do anything with a wink. To me that feels like infantilizing the audience. “If I didn’t change my tone to suggest I’m not serious, then you would believe me when I said I can read your dog’s mind.”

If I’m ever concerned someone is taking things too seriously, then the “tool” I use to fix that is just to present something even more unbelievable with the same tone and attitude I present the thing they believed. Eventually people will catch on that they should engage with these interactions as they would any other piece of fiction. If there are elements that seem real or feel real in the moment—great. But it’s not my goal to get them to believe in the breathing technique, or the “area of reverse-gravity” in my kitchen, or the leprechaun who gave me the lucky coin.


Do you do a pass, and if so, which one? Is there an “amateur’s pass” or something like that? —SS

No, i don’t really do a pass too often, other than in some very rare circumstances.

One thing I learned when helping to conduct the “suspicion testing” many years ago, is that holding the deck with two hands is enough to pique people’s suspicion. So just getting into the position to do a pass can already put you at a disadvantage because that alone can seem questionable to people. So if you do do a pass, that’s something to consider. When are you naturally holding the deck with two hands? When turning it over. When replacing a card. When squaring it up. If I was doing a pass I would always try and anchor it to one of those actions. Because otherwise it doesn’t matter how “invisible” your pass is, because what they’re noticing is the moment you hold the deck with two hands for no reason—not necessarily the moment you actually shift the packets.

I’m sure these are ideas that are well-discussed in circles where the pass is done frequently. I’m just mentioning it because in our testing we saw actual hard data that supports this.

Is there an amateur’s pass?

Yes, kind of. There is in the sense that there’s a secret deck cutting action that is more useful for the amateur performer than the professional. And that’s the Charlier Cut. The Charlier Cut is, of course, a completely visible cutting action. But, as an amateur performer, you often only have one set of eyes you need to account for. So as long as your spectator isn’t looking at the deck in that moment, you can get away with a visible cutting action, because it’s not visible if no one is looking at it.

If I’m performing for you and I’ve put your card into the middle of the deck, and my hand drops down. I can now stand next to you and focus your attention outward and the deck is completely out of view. This is perfectly natural. We did something with the deck, and now I’m just holding onto it casually until we need it again. The idea that I’m doing something with one hand without looking at the deck is not something that is going to occur to most of the people I perform for because that would be giving me credit for a skill I’ve never really exhibited to them. (If you’ve openly done a lot of one-handed cuts and shuffles, that might be different.)

I could even make an argument that holding a deck in one hand below a table edge as I focus on the spectator or something on the table, is less suspicious than the deck held above the table in two hands.

So yeah, the Charlier Cut is what I would consider the Amateur's Pass. Not because it’s easy, but because you can get away with it as a hidden action more in amateur performing situations than you could in professional ones.

(Getting from a pinky-break to a Charlier cut isn’t too difficult but might take a few times to get the feel for it if you haven’t done it before. You simply kick the top packet to the left and then lift it up with your thumb to get into the Charlier cut action. If it’s a little messy, that’s okay because you’r not doing this as a flourish.)

Dustings #63

There is a moment of sheer terror I face once a year. It’s the moment when my new book gets delivered to my publisher’s house. I meet up with him there and we crack open the first box. What will we find? Will it look as we planned or will it be totally jacked up in some way I didn’t expect? You might think, “Well, Andy, don’t you see some sort of proof copy of the book before they print all of them?” No, not really. There is certainly some way to do this, but my publishing schedule is so tight that taking the time for this step never seems worth it. So we just look at a pdf proof and roll the dice from there.

I think I have PTSD from my second book, Magic For Young Lovers. I can’t remember if I told this story before. Probably. But anyway, the cover for MFYL had a silhouette of a couple looking at each other.

It seemed like a fairly simple cover. But what no one at the book printer mentioned to us was that some of the detail on the cover was too fine for the pigment stamping process that we were using. So when the books were delivered to us, instead of looking like they do above, they looked something like this. (This is just a bad photoshop recreation)

So details in the hair and lips were covered over. And it was clear pigment was in areas it shouldn’t be in because the stamping process debosses the image and there was splotches of color all over the raised areas as well. (You don’t need to be able to picture it. Just trust me that it looked jacked up.)

So when I opened the first box of books to see how they came out, I was like:

So what do you do at that point? It’s not the sort of issue you would get the printer to fix. Even if you did send back a pallet of books, you’d end up waiting weeks or months to get them back. Do you just ship the book off to people and tell them to deal with it? I had no clue. What we ended up doing was getting some small knives and razor blades and painstakingly scraping off the excess pigment on the areas of each and every cover where it shouldn’t be. It sucked.

That’s why book #3 had such a simple cover. I wasn’t going to fall into that trap again.

I got my balls back with book #4 and we did our most intricate cover yet.

With the upcoming book we changed the type of cover, printing and binding we did with previous books. So I was once again holding my breath when we cracked open the box to see what we would find. I was relieved to see the books looking almost perfect. (There was an issue of something not being perfectly centered on the spine due to the inexactness of the book printing/binding process, but I can deal with that.)

All in all, I think the new book looks dope, and I’m excited for supporters to receive their copy.

I’m waiting for the shipping supplies to arrive. An email will go out to supporters collecting their shipping fee and current address next week. Then the books will be sent out over the course of the rest of the month.

(For those who have been wanting a supporter slot for upcoming seasons of the Jerx, I will be launching the new support structure later this month. I’m not going to be adding any more full-supporter slots. But some current supporters are very likely to drop out due to the change in structure. So if you’re interested, that will likely be your time to grab a spot.)


Supporters will also be receiving the next Jerx Deck.

It’s a very bad marked deck. A concept I first described four years ago in this post. But unlike the deck I mentioned in that post, the markings aren’t small. They’re simultaneously obvious, and also completely incomprehensible. It does work as a marked deck. It’s just a terrible one.

If anyone ever accuses you of using a marked deck you say, “Are you kidding? Have you ever actually seen a marked deck? They’re really not like you imagine. The type of marked deck where you can just immediately know the card by looking at the back is the stuff out of movies not real life. In reality, marked decks aren’t that useful. I think I have one I can show you. Hold on.”

You come back holding a deck.

“Okay, first thing to do in order to determine if someone is using a marked deck is to check the case. By law they have to mention that it’s a marked deck on the card box. See here?”

And you take it from there to explain to them how a “real” marked deck works.


Our boys over at Vanishing Inc are going to solve the Ukraine issue this weekend in the only way it can be solved… with a virtual magic convention! So long, Mr. Putin, your days are numbered!

Actually it looks like a good line-up and it’s a good cause. The schedule is here. And you can sign-up here.

I mean, what else do you got going on this weekend? A date with some attractive guy or girl you won over with your charming personality? Let’s get real, we both know that’s not the case. Your options for this weekend are either this, Elden Ring, or that thing you do where you go to a public bathroom and you “accidentally” forget to lock the door so you can get your sick thrill when someone walks in on you with your pants around your ankles.


How awesome would it have been to see Tom Mullica redo this scene, except with like 40 cigarettes crammed into his undoubtedly disgusting mouth? That would have been the best.

Quinta Ideas

If you don’t have Phill Smith’s Quinta, in one of the many forms it has been released, you can skip this post. It won’t make much sense. I’m not going to explain everything because I assume if you own it then you’ll be able to put two and two together. (Or instead of skipping this post you can buy Quinta. His Penguin Live lecture gives the basics of the effect. And his ebook gives a real deep dive into it.)

When I perform Quinta, I like to have the rules of the procedure clarified verbally (or printed somewhere) so that I can’t change anything. So the audience always know I’m counting from the left and starting with the first object as number 1. If you know Quinta, you know that requires me to control two variables. I have a number of techniques I use to control those variables. Here are a few…

[I’m almost positive these are my ideas, but I’ve learned Quinta from Phill in a bunch of different formats, so it’s possible one of these ideas was mentioned there and I forgot that’s where I learned it and thought I made it up. In which case, Phill, let me know so I can update this post.]

Idea #1

Number choice for two spectators.

“We’re going to try and create a synchronicity. Adam, think of a number between 1 and 50. Bob, I want you to try and focus in on Adam’s number. Adam, give him a hint. Is it odd or even. Okay… now Bob. Do you have something in mind? 40? Adam… what were you thinking of? 8. Hmm….

“Okay, that’s not actually the synchronicity I had in mind. I was just hoping for some dumb luck. As you can see on this sheet. Before the show I wrote some instruction. The first line says to add up your two thought of numbers…”

Idea #2

Number choice for one or more spectators

“Okay, we’re all going to write down a secret number from 1-30 on your napkin. Don’t let me see. Then we’re going to add up our numbers so we have one ‘group number’ none of us could have foreseen.”

Everyone (including you) writes down a number and places their napkin face down on the table. You go around the table with each person turning over their napkin to reveal their numbers.

By paying attention to how many odd numbers are revealed you’ll know if you have to say, “And my number was 12,” or, “And my number was 21.”

You can do this with just one other spectator. Or, however many you have. But after four or so people, the number could get pretty high. I don’t actually mind a high number myself. I like the time it takes to count. But I’m weird that way.

Idea #3

Pre Count Positioning Technique

This is an idea that can be used on its own, but for the sake of this description, presume it’s used with the previous idea.

On the table is a set of instructions that look like this

In each circle is a coin. The instructions are folded over so you can’t read them.

Now, depending on what the total is, you either do this

In which case the circles on the sheets are seen as placeholders for where to set the coins.

Or you do this

You let the coins slide out, and now those circles are just an illustration of what the spectator sees before them.

Either way, the instructions are so direct and definitive it would seem very unlikely the spectator would be able to think of this as a force.

Now, would I go to this trouble to force one in five coins? No, most likely not. I’m just explaining a basic concept here that can be extrapolated into a routine that has some meaning. This particular technique with the paper doesn’t need to force coins, of course. it could force any small flat object (which could be representative of some larger object or concept).

I have a similar technique to this that I use which works with any small non-flat object too. But that’s for another day.