Simplex Out Of This World

/

Here is an incredibly simple way to do Out of This World that is still very fooling. It uses any borrowed, shuffled deck and requires no real sleights.

There’s nothing clever here presentationally. I have a lot of different OOTW-esque effects that I do that are somewhat significant variations on the traditional OOTW theme. But this isn’t one of them. This is just an very easy way to do the traditional presentation.

Step 1: Take a well-mixed deck of cards (your own or borrowed). And give it a few overhand shuffles. When you’re done, spread the cards face-up in front of the participant and ask them to give the cards a look over for a few seconds. Then close the spread and hand them the deck face-up.

Step 2: Pull out your phone and open the timer app. Ask them to separate the deck into two piles, red cards and black cards. They are doing this face-up. You are going to time them as they do. Have them deal though the deck into two piles and then have them note how long it takes them to do this.

Step 3: Say something like, “38 seconds. Okay, that’s our baseline. That’s how long it took you to separate the cards.”

Step 4: Place one pile on top of the other and turn the deck face down. Give the deck multiple Red/Black Shuffles (also known as an Ireland Shuffle). The is a genuine overhand shuffle, but you run the cards singly near the middle of the deck. So all that happens is the top color becomes the bottom color after each shuffle. Do a few of these. As you do, say something like, “This is kind of an asshole thing to do since I just asked you to separate the cards, but I want to try that again in a slightly different way and see if you can beat your time.” The implication that you’re a bit of an “asshole” (or whatever word you want to use) because you’re shuffling the deck right after you had them separate the cards is going to reinforce the idea that the cards are actually being mixed. (Which they are, but not really.)

Step 5: Spread the cards toward you. Mumble, “They could be better mixed.” And give it another Red/Black shuffle. Again spread the cards toward you, make sure nothing got messed up during the shuffle. Say, “That’s good.” And close the spread.

Step 6: “This time you’re going to do the same thing. But you’re going to do it face-down. Don’t even bother thinking about the colors. Just deal the cards into two piles. Going by instinct. Keep them about equal. That’s all. I’m going to pause you part way through, so be prepared for that.”

Step 7: Have your friend deal the cards into two piles. Dealing on instinct. Time them again. Encourage them to go quickly and to try and deal faster than they did previously. This should be easy because they’re just dealing randomly.

Step 8: Once they’ve dealt about half the cards, tell them to stop and pause the timer. “I want to try something here. I want you to get this next card wrong. Whatever that means to you. So whichever pile you’re inclined to put it on, I want you to put it on the opposite one.” Let them make that decision and remember what pile they put it on.

Step 9: Re-start the timer and have them deal out the rest of the cards. Stop the timer when they’re done. 

Step 10: Point out that they separated the cards by color in however many seconds when they were looking at them. Now, when they weren’t looking at them it took them however many seconds less. 

Step 11: Pick up the pile that they dealt the card onto in step 8. And start dealing the cards face up in an arc, leading up to the second pile. All the cards will be the same color. “Somehow, just relying on instinct, you seem to have placed all the black cards in this pile.” 

Step 12: At some point, about halfway through, you will hit a card of the opposite color. It seems like something has gone wrong, because people don’t immediately remember step 8. “Ah… a red card. I know that seems like a mistake. But remember I asked you to deal a single card against your instinct halfway through? This is kind of like a ‘control’ in science. We get to see what would happen if you denied your instincts in that case. And if I had to guess…”

Step 13: Pick up the other pile (which is in the way of the arc you’re creating) and put it on top of the cards in your hand. Turn everything over and continue to spread all the cards along the arc you had started. When you’re done, break the spread at the divide between the halves. “Yes… just as I thought. The one card I made you move was the only mistake in the entire deck.”

This handling at the end is essentially Paul Harris’ Galaxy handling, but with one huge improvement. The problem with the handling in Paul’s effect is that the change in the process came out of the blue. It was completely unmotivated. You’re dealing cards face up, and then to “save time” or something, you put the halves together and spread them. It never felt right. At least not to me.

With this version the dealing of cards is already disrupted by the appearance of the opposite colored card. There is then a break in the dealing which is fully justified as you remind them that you asked them to make a single mistake. Then, because you want to quickly answer the unverbalized question, “Was this the only mistake?” You spread the rest of the cards to show that it was.

I also believe having the mistake show up in the middle of the face down packet, and then it remains as the one “mistake” in the face up packet at the end, add some continuity to that packet. We know the cards that comprise that packet have changed. But this one card in the middle of the face-down and face-up packet, suggests it’s the same grouping of cards.

As I mentioned, this is a pretty straightforward presentation. All the decisions I made when putting this together were to make it as simple as possible. There’s no set-up. There’s no false-shuffles (the shuffle is real, it just doesn’t do what the spectator thinks it does). There are no leader cards. You don’t have to count how many cards are dealt. You don’t have to reverse the piles. You can do it with an incomplete deck in any condition. 

It’s not my favorite OOTW presentation. But it’s the simplest, and a good one to have in your back pocket, because there’s so little to remember. 

If I was going to enhance the effect in some way it would be in the Imp I used to create their ability to separate the reds from the blacks. Perhaps you have them look at something unusual, or listen to something strange, or you apply some pressure to one of their chi meridians or something. Then, as a “control” during their dealing procedure, you remove the Imp for a period of time (which causes the “mistake” that is witnessed during the reveal).

The idea of letting the spectator set up OOTW for you is something I first explored in this post. You might not think the Red/Black shuffle is convincing enough to “destroy” the set-up in their mind. But it is. I’ve tested it overtly (specifically asking about the fairness of the shuffle) and covertly in the past. The procedure that makes the Red/Black shuffle work is not something people can unravel, unless they’ve paid close attention to the mechanics of an overhand shuffle at some point in their life, which most people haven’t. Of course you can add in more false shuffles if you’re so inclined, but then this wouldn’t be the easiest OOTW I know of.

How NOT To Reduce Magician-Centrism

/

Magician-Centrism is the style of performing that focuses a trick’s premise on the performers “powers.”

There’s nothing wrong with it. But in my experience this doesn’t usually go over great in social situations, especially with people who are in your life long-term. It feels like asking people to indulge in a little performance about how special you are. How often are they going to want to do that?

So instead, I try to use premises and contexts which take the focus off me. I call these Audience-Centric or Story-Centric tricks.

In the past couple of months I’ve seen some performers do something that seems less Magician-Centric, but really it’s just plain bad.

When the trick is over the spectator is like, “What the hell just happened?” And the magician says, “I don’t know!”

While it’s perfectly fine to say you “don’t know” how something happened. And I say that all the time. You can’t just spring it on them at the end of the trick. You need to set up that you’re doing something and—for some reason that you explain in your presentation—you don’t know if it will work or why it works or whatever.

If you say, “This is something I found in an old book in my grandfather’s library,” or, “This guy sold me these lucky beans and they have a very weird influence on games of chance,” or, “There’s a ritual I was taught that generates synchronicities.” Then you’ve told the spectator the “world” we’re living in for the duration of this trick. And that’s a world where you can end the trick saying, “I don’t know how this happens.”

But if you just go through the effect, telling them exactly what to do and directing them how to cut and deal and all of that, you can’t then claim you “don’t know,” why something happened. If you didn’t know it was going to happen, what exactly were you doing for the past 5 minutes? You were certainly setting the stage for something.

Either take credit for what’s going to happen, or set up a premise where the machinations behind what they’re about to see are somewhat unknown, even to you. Just saying, “I don’t know how that happened,” is kind of lazy. And it denies the spectator a way to frame the memory of the experience, which makes it bound to be forgotten.

Add to Cart: The Mind

/

Add to Cart is a new series where I will recommend some things that are for sale that aren’t, strictly speaking, magic products. But which I think work well in a magic context.

Product: The Mind, card game

Use: Imp, Hook, Prop

The Mind is a cooperative card game. Meaning, everyone is on the same “team.” You win or lose as a group.

The idea is simple. There are 100 cards numbered 1-100. In each round, everyone playing gets a certain number of cards. (The number of cards you get goes up each round.)

So, imagine it’s me and you playing.

I get the numbers: 2, 4, 69 (hell yeah)

You get the numbers. 26, 50, and 88.

The goal is for us to lay down the cards we hold in sequential order. We don’t know what cards each other has and we can’t signal to each other in any way what the cards are that we have. If we go out of order, then we lose the round.

So I would obviously put down 2 very quickly, and then 4 as well. (Since it’s relatively unlikely you have the 1 or the 3. Which are the only ones that matter at this point.)

But then what happens? Well, we’d wait a little bit. I know I have 69. I would guess you have at least one card below that, so I’m going to wait for you to play a card. You know the first card you’d play is a 26, but you’re going to wait at least a bit, because maybe my final card is somewhere between 5 and 25.

After a bit of waiting you’ll probably figure my card is something higher and you’ll play the 25. And then the next period of waiting begins. Since neither of us have a number that comes super close after 25, there’s going to be another feeling out period.

The idea is that you’re building a “group mind” between yourself and the participant(s). What you’re really doing is learning each other’s timing.

It’s a surprisingly fun game. There’s a real sense of accomplishment and camaraderie when you complete a round.

And, of course, it’s a perfect lead-in for any effect with a presentation that relies on a melding of the minds. This isn’t an idea that you’re shoe-horning into the game. That’s literally what the game is about: connecting people’s thoughts.

As an Imp: You can say the game is sort of a fast-track way to get you and the people you’re with on the same page, mentally. You could even suggest that’s what it was created for originally. You don’t need to play the full game (although you could. Just a single round with a few cards each can be enough of a warm-up that allows you to go into some kind of mind-reading presentation.

As a Hook: In this case, the game wouldn’t be seen as a prerequisite for whatever demonstration you have planned. But it would just be a natural progression from talking about the “group mind” to your premise. “Actually, there’s something sort of similar I’ve been wanting to try out.”

As a Prop: These are cards with one and two digit numbers on them. After playing the game you could say, “These cards would be good for something else I want to try.” And, of course, from there you could force an individual card or group of cards for any effect you have that uses “random” numbers.

Consider this… the deck has been handled and shuffled over and over by everyone involved. When you’re done playing you have someone cut the deck in two (it’s 100 cards, so it’s rather large). Set either half aside. (“Whichever half you choose to set aside is completely out of play.”) Then have them touch any five cards in the remaining half and go into your trick.

All the shuffling. The free choice of which half to use and which to discard. And the free choice of which cards to touch, make this virtually impossible for them to believe you could know the cards in play. But really all you have to do is hold out those five cards throughout the course of the game. Then add them to the bottom of the other half while they set aside the cards that are out of play. Then use a four-for-four switch to switch them for the touched cards (e.g. the move Sankey refers to as the Vernon Substitute Transfer on many of his projects, the Vernon Stripout Addition, Derek Dingle’s No-Lap Switch, among others.) I wouldn’t just “predict” this group of cards straight-up (you could, I guess). But really it’s just an ultra-fair method to have a certain amount of “random” numbers with which to do any trick you want.

The Mind is available for like 12 bucks on Amazon. Thanks to Clement L. for bringing it to my attention.

Helping Out an Old Friend

/

A lot of you probably know that this site wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the owner of the Magic Cafe, Steve Brooks. I won’t get into that whole story. If you want, scroll way down to the month of December, 2015. That whole month is dedicated to my old site, which Steve was responsible for. And if that site never happened, this one wouldn’t have either.

As a thank you to Steve, I would like to direct you to this Instagram full of his political cartoons which you can find here @artistSJBrooks.

Mmhmm. Yes. This is a thing. No. I did not make this. It’s real. Yes, it’s the same Steve Brooks.

Please, I beg you. Take a look at it.

As of now, they’re still trying to get The Magic Cafe back online. With any luck, it will be back soon. Until then, this other creative outlet of Steve’s will hopefully keep you entertained.

As you read through his work, it’s likely your first thought will be: “This is sheer perfection. This could not be improved at all.”

I disagree. There is one flaw there.

I can almost feel the vibration of my entire readership shaking their heads: “No. There is absolutely nothing wrong here.”

But look closer…

There’s no way for the blind to enjoy Steve’s social commentary!

Until now.

I have created audio commentary tracks to describe some of Steve’s greatest pieces. I hope now all people can enjoy his work. Here’s a look at (and a listen to) three of them. Enjoy. I’m so happy to be able to collaborate with Steve and bring his work to a bigger audience.

Crack the Seal

/

Here’s a quick tip that has had a fairly significant impact on the ease with which performing opportunities have arisen when people visit my home.

Like many of you, I have a somewhat significant number of decks of cards on display in my house. I’m not a true fanatic about it, but I’ll generally have somewhere around 50-60 decks of cards out. (I use these displays. They have a small footprint, hold 40 decks, and are pretty cheap.)

A couple months ago I was looking at some of my collection. About 75% of those decks were sealed. And that got me wondering… Why? Did I buy these decks as an investment? No. I bought them because I liked the look of the deck. And the purpose of having a collection (for me) is to draw people in and get them looking over the cards in a way they wouldn’t be if I just had a couple Bicycle decks on my end table.

So I decided to open all the decks of cards. I wanted the display to say, “These are things to be interacted with. Not just to be looked at.”

Since doing so, people have been so much more likely to take a deck down that interests them, open the case, and pull the cards out. It’s clear to the people who visit that I’m not trying to keep them “pristine” so I can make a $12 profit a decade down the line. And, of course, once someone takes down a deck that interests them, it couldn’t be easier to transition into a trick.

Even if they don’t take down a deck themselves, being able to say, “Hey, I want to show you something. Grab a deck for me and one for you from that shelf over there,” and giving them the freedom to choose anything they want is a more interesting moment than having them choose from a few open decks.

Of course, this is all predicated on the fact that my priority is to make transitioning into a trick as easy as possible. That’s really why I have a deck collection in the first place. I want people to want to touch and engage with the cards. If your deck collection is intended to be an investment, then you certainly wouldn’t want to do this. But let’s be honest, you’re not going to sell that collection. It’s just going to get dumped in the garbage by your loved ones when you die. Open ‘em up.

WWJD, Would He Wear an M-Ring?

/

Today’s WWJD question comes from Anthony O.

I know you're a fan of interesting rings and of things you can wear that help you transition into a trick.

I was just wondering if you had an opinion on the "M-Ring"

I find it kind of fascinating as it was worn by magicians like Nate Leipzig and Harry Blackstone Jr. and is known as like a secret sign that you're a magician since it's vaguely M-shaped for "Magic" or "Magician". Apparently magic clubs have been known to give them out when you win a competition or if you like attain a certain level.

I've heard various reasons for why magicians like it such as how the shape prevents it from impeding sleight of hand or how it also allows you to hold out cards easily.

Part of me finds all of this stuff really interesting but part of me thinks its also extremely nerdy. I'll probably pick one up at some point.

I was just curious as to what you think of its history and connotations and whatnot. If it's something you'd wear, I was also wondering what you'd say about it if someone were to comment on it? —AO

Well, purely as a fashion statement, I find it kind of hideous.

But I do like the story behind it and the symbolism and all of that.

The problem is, if you tell someone about this ring and they look into it, they aren’t going to find details about Nate Leipzig and secret symbolism. They’re going to find something they can buy on ebay for $25. So any cachet or mystique the ring might have is completely gone. Which means it’s kind of fucked out for me. At least as a presentational tool.

Now, the idea of secret clubs, secret rings, and secret knowledge are all intriguing concepts to laypeople. So I wouldn’t necessarily throw away the idea of a ring you got as part of some secret society. I would just go out and find some other ring that is interesting looking and use that as my Hook. I’d look around vintage stores, flea markets, or maybe etsy to have something custom made. Perhaps get something engraved on the inside.

Now if someone says, “What’s that ring?” I can give it whatever backstory I want as far as what organization gave it to me, or what accomplishment I had to achieve to get one, or who I’m wearing it for as a “secret signal” that we’re both in the same club.

In my telling, I would probably be one step removed from the person who received the ring. That way I can talk up that person’s greatness without talking myself up.

“Oh this ring? This used to belong to my great uncle. The one who got me into magic. You see the IML engraved in there? That’s not his initials. It’s from the International Magic League which was a group that he was in back in the 50s. Did you ever see Good Will Hunting? You remember how they would put some impossible math equation on the chalkboard for people to try and solve? Well the International Magic League would do something similar with magic tricks that were deemed ‘impossible.’ They would post them in their monthly newsletter, and if someone eventually cracked a way to do it, they would receive a ring like this. I think over the course of a century they only gave out 12 rings. So my uncle was very proud of it. Do you want to see the trick he discovered?”

Monday Mailbag #71

/

I noticed this new, supposedly convincing, vanishing bottle gimmick. 

And immediately recalled the Theory of Mind thing you once posted. Wait lemme check... Sally Andy Trick. 

How did that go? Could you divert attention from the crumpled bag effectively?

I kinda want to get it, just to have a pseudo-psychological framing when calling my friend "a fucking braindead idiot.” Worth doing? —RS

It depends on what you’re going for. The Sally Andy Trick is fun to do. But because the ending is a “punchline,” in a way, it doesn’t quite capture people’s imaginations the way a non-funny trick would. The trick is fooling but nowhere near “enchanting.” This is probably true of any trick that ends with a punchline.

To get people to feel like what they saw was “special” in some way, you have to present it in a manner that you would something special. And putting it in joke structure doesn’t do that.

But that being said, I think it’s an enjoyable way to present the vanishing bottle. It’s just not some enduring mystery (which may be true of most, if not all, uses for such a gimmick). So depending on what you’re going for, it may or may not suit your needs.

And, no. I haven’t had anyone suspect the crumpled bag. But, again, it’s because the presentation is humorous that spectators don’t feel an overwhelming urge to prod at the method too much. The fact you’re presenting it as a joke suggests it’s not something they need to work too hard to understand.

Whereas, if I were to present the vanishing bottle in some other way…I don’t know… like some Time Travel thing where the bottle went back in time. And I presented it not as a “joke” but as this weird anomaly. People would understand that it’s “fiction,” but their mind might be drawn to the crumpled bag. Not because they’re looking to “debunk” what just happened. But just because I haven’t given them the pressure release of “this is just a joke.” And that will cause people to poke around a little more. Even if just in their mind.

You’ve written in the past quite a bit about self-contained Haunted Decks. Did you get Waken? If so, do you have thoughts on it? —AS

I played with it. It’s good. It didn’t replace my current version though (Vertex by Taylor Imagineering).

Here’s why:

  1. Waken has a motor and thread. So that’s two different things to possibly go wrong (or for me to screw up).

  2. The “haunting” action looks a little too smooth to me. But I admit this is a matter of personal preference. I may have just become used to the look of Vertex, which isn’t quite so “neat” looking.

  3. The haunting happens under just a few cards in Waken (8 cards, I believe). In Vertex it’s under half the deck.

  4. With Waken, the full deck is gimmicked. With Vertex, half the deck is normal cards so you can shuffle and have a fairly free selection.

Waken definitely has benefits. It’s half the price of Vertex. And you can do a rising card with it. I can’t say how it holds up in the long term, but in the short time I messed around with it, it did what it was supposed to.

Any idea what’s going on with The Magic Cafe? The site had been down for a week or so. Do you think it’s gone for good? —SD

I heard Steve Brooks said on facebook that it’s just down for maintenance. I believe him. That would be a weird thing to lie about. Although it’s hard to conceive of a reason why a website in 2022 would be down for a week for maintenance. Other than the fact that it might be so poorly put together that it’s completely fucked up on the back end. Like, imagine you brought a woman back to your apartment and things started getting sexual and she said, “Give me a moment to freshen up.” And she went to your bathroom. That’s fine, and perfectly reasonable. But if she’s in there for 90 minutes, then brother, something’s not right.

I hope the Cafe comes back. It’s a good resource for researching some older tricks. It could have been a great resource, but it’s not clear that anyone ever cared enough to make it such. As the magic community evolved the past two decades, little has been done to evolve the cafe. And thus it was doomed.

It’s easy to picture an alternate reality where the site changed to suit the times and became a better resource. You can imagine a version of the Cafe that got rid of all the clutter of the barely used forums. Had a cleaner layout, not strewn with dozens of banner ads. Had a proper, powerful search engine that made researching things easier. Instituted threaded comments and voting, so conversations would be grouped together, and off-topic discussion/trolls would be eliminated automatically. And included a section—in conjunction with Murphy’s and any other magic producer who wanted to opt in—where people could have access to private forums for the products they’ve purchased. So instead of going to Penguin, Vanishing Inc., and 100 different facebook groups, you could just go to one site for discussions, updates, new handlings, etc.

But making the site better was never really a focus of the Cafe. I used to have access to a secret forum there called “The Kitchen” which was where the administrators would talk, and there was never any discussion about how to improve the site.

And these days I’m sure it’s even less of a priority for Steve. My understanding is that he and his wife have had serious health problems, which, of course, would make a magic message board feel even less consequential than it already is.