Dustings #69

/

Heh-heh… 69.

The hypnosis themed trick at the bottom of this post (a variation on the Just For You trick) got a lot of positive feedback in my email. A few people were using it within a week and reporting that it went over very well.

David Regal has a somewhat new switching box (currently sold out, but expected to be back next month) that might work really well for this trick in smaller venues. (I’m not sure how many billets it can switch). The fact that it’s see-through makes it seem very innocent. This is likely what I would use for that portion of the effect.

One of my favorite things you've come up with is Opia.  I use the cards when I introduce tone in my classroom every year.  I discovered today that there is now a book called The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows.

I'm going to get it and put it in my classroom library where it can both function as a Hook and as something cool for the kids to check out. — James R.

Excellent idea. The book itself is inherently interesting. And the idea that you’re trying to learn to pick up such obscure feelings (rather than just “happiness” or “sadness”) is also fascinating.

While you could do some sort of book test handling to force the word. I would likely stick to the cards. These would be the “flash cards” of the concepts you’ve become semi-adept at picking up on, so far.

Ellusionist has a new kickstarter magic kit called, The Vanishing Headphones and the Lowest Quality Version of a Bunch of Tricks You Already Own.

Only 16 more days to hop on that if you’re interested.

Remember Zoom shows and Zoom lectures? Does anyone still do that garbage? Well, iOS 16 is going to have something pretty dope for anyone who might be able to use it. Scroll to 4:45 in this video and watch the section on the “continuity camera,” specifically pay attention to the part called “desk view.”

I’m sure professionals doing Zoom shows already have a good set-up for that. But for people like me who only occasionally show friends stuff virtually, this looks like it could be a cool feature.

Abraham Presley

/

I have a really strong trick to talk about today. It has one significant drawback, which is why almost no one besides me will do it. But it’s worth talking about regardless.

The body of the trick isn’t something I came up with. But I’ve put together a few different pieces that work well together to give us a very strong trick, with a crazy Rep, and an impossible souvenir.

I’ll walk you through it.

Part 1 - The (Failed) Prediction

In Part 1, I borrow a bill from a spectator and say I’m going to make a prediction on it. I write something on it with a Sharpie and set the bill, writing-side down, on the table.

I tell my friend I have a list of 100 famous people on my phone. I say I’m going to predict which one they will randomly choose. And if I get it right, I get the dollar.

I ask them to name a number between 1 and 100

They name 13. It’s Abraham Lincoln.

I pause and look at what I wrote down.

Then I say, “Yup, I nailed it. It’s Abraham Lincoln without his hat or his beard, and with the word ‘Elvis’ written next to him.”

I turn over the bill and they see this:

“Let me make this a little clearer.”

I then draw a top hat and a beard on the picture. And cross out “Elvis.” So now it’s some weird George Washington, Elvis, Abraham Lincoln hybrid.

“Okay. That trick is a work in progress,” I say.

This phase uses DFB to force Lincoln.

Part 2 - The Materializing Bill

Part two is a single phase using Craig Petty’s Chop gimmick.

I highlighted this phase in the first issue of the Love Letters newsletter. For those who don’t have that, there is a phase where a dollar that’s been rolled into a ball disappears and “materializes” under an empty cup that’s overturned on the spectator’s hand. This is an incredible moment of magic. It’s too good to just be shoved in a long multi-phase, cup and ball type trick. I feel it gets lost in Craig’s full routine. It should be separated out. At least when performing socially. This is magic that they feel happening. And it’s quite difficult to come up with any explanation for what happened.

I’ve been doing this one phase on its own for a few months now.

Here’s how I use it in this situation…

A little while after the failed prediction (anywhere from 2 to 20 minutes—I do this trick at a cafe/bar/restaurant ) I will ask for their help with something else I’ve been working on.

I mention that I’ve been practicing something. “When it works it looks like something vanished and reappeared. But it’s more accurate to say it dematerializes and rematerializes.”

I take the bill from earlier and crumple it into a ball. I then do that phase from from Petty’s Chop where the bill disappears from my hand and appears under the cup in their hand. Supporters can read the details of my handling and tips for this effect in the first newsletter. But even if you don’t have access to it, you’ll figure something out that works, as far as how to do that moment as a stand-alone thing. It’s not that difficult.

This always gets a strong reaction.

The Rep

I give the bill back.

At some point, depending on the situation and how much they’re focused on the bill itself. They will either immediately say, “What the hell happened here?” Or it may take them longer to notice. It depends on when they uncrumple the bill and how much attention they’re paying to it.

Because, you see, when they eventually un-ball the bill and look at it, it looks like this.

I play this very low-key at this point.

“Oh damn. Yeah, that’s my bad. When the bill rematerializes, if you don’t have complete focus on it, it can get really screwed up. I still haven’t perfected some aspects of the trick. That’s why I wanted to try it out with you.”

This botched reappearance of the bill is one of those things I love that makes perfect sense, but only if you presuppose a world where a bill really could vanish and rematerialize. It’s not something that makes sense in the “It must have been sleight-of-hand” world. This is next-level weird.

Final Thoughts

At first, I thought of doing that thing where you fold their bill into quarters, switch it for the mis-made bill (which you can’t really tell is mis-made in the folded condition) then have them sign it, so they end up with a signed mis-made bill.

But I just don’t find that very convincing. Having them sign it when folded. And having their signature in one quarter of the mis-made bill is not that difficult to figure out if you work backwards. The ideal would be if they signed it across the bill and then when it was mis-made their signature was all jumbled up. But that’s not possible as far as I know.

Then I thought I would use a prediction effect as a “pseudo signature.” Making the bill apparently “unique.” And originally I was getting the prediction correct. But I realized that wasn’t the strongest way to do it. If I could somehow predict they would name Elvis. Then having a duplicate bill in this crazy condition with Elvis on it wouldn’t be that difficult. (I’ve already done the difficult thing: predicting which celebrity they’d choose.)

But what if I got the prediction wrong? Then I’d have this bill modified in such a way that included their “freely chosen” famous person. A person that is so obviously “freely chosen,” because if it wasn’t, I would have predicted it, of course! The psychology here is, I think, pretty strong. In the 1000s of hours I’ve spent coaxing method guesses out of spectators, they’ve never suggested something as devious as, “I bet he had a way to force me to choose Abraham Lincoln. And he purposefully got it wrong so he could mark the bill in a seemingly unique way that would appear innocent because it was a failure.” That’s a bit more complex than the type of solutions they come up with.

Now, I don’t ever say, “And obviously it’s the same bill because it has my modified prediction to look like your chosen person, Abe Lincoln.” I never mention anything like that. These are two separate things. One, a prediction that didn’t work. And one a vanish and reappearance of a bill that sort of worked, but got a little screwed up.

This leaves them with a pretty fascinating souvenir—the mis-made bill with the “unique” marking, now spread out across the bill.

The reason I said you probably won’t do this much is that mis-made bills cost like $8-$10 at least. But I feel it’s worth the investment.

Oh! The switch. I switch one balled up bill for the other using a shuttle pass or whatever feels right at the time, after the bill has materialized. You could likely work out a switch using the Chop gimmick, since it’s already in play. I just haven’t bothered doing that.

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.