Non-Cumulative Deception: The Threesome Heuristic

Last week I wrote about the idea of “non-cumulative deception.” This is the notion that you are better off leaving a really strong deceptive methodology on its own, rather than combining it with another method that’s not’s strong. Even if—theoretically—that would add some level of deception to the experience.

For example, if I could show you my empty bedroom, close the door, then make an elephant appear in the room, that would be an amazing trick. But if I did some mathematical force of the number 5 on you. And then had you count to the 5th letter in the alphabet. Then think of “any animal that begins with that letter.” And then I made your “freely thought of animal” appear in my room. That would be weaker than just making the elephant appear with no force. Because the weak force undermines the whole thing. Not just the force itself.

I got a couple emails asking how that idea meshes with an earlier post of mine about the Importance of Combing Methods. In that post I talk about when we tested marked cards and a peek blindfold separately and then together. And how together they were significantly more deceptive than they were apart.

I can see how these ideas might seem at odds. The distinction here is that in the “Non-cumulative Deception” post I was talking about the problem of pairing a strong method with a weak or average method. In the other post, I was talking about combing two “okay” methods. (Marked decks and see-thru blindfolds can be powerful methods, but they’re not overly deceptive when used on their own in a straightforward manner.)

Here’s a heuristic to use that I think helps clarify when you should combine methods, and what types of methods to combine.

Imagine you’re a guy who is interested in the idea of a threesome. It’s not your sole over-riding passion to have a threesome. But you’re definitely interested.

Now, let’s say I found a woman or a man (whatever you’re into) that wanted to have sex with you. And this person was a 10 out of 10 in the looks department.

I ask if you want to have sex with them, and you say, “Yes, please.”

“And,” I tell you, “her friend wants to join in as well.” And I introduce her friend who is a 9.

“That is very acceptable,” you say.

But what if her friend is an 8? Or a 7? Or a 6 in your eyes?

At some point there’s going to be a number where the other person isn’t additive to this sexual encounter. Their presence would take away from your experience with the 10.

Now imagine I say, “Hey, this 5 wants to get with you. And so does this other 5.” You would possibly find that to be a much more exciting experience than just being with the single 5.

So adding a 5 might detract from the experience of being with a 9 or 10. But being with two fives might be exponentially better than just being with a single 5.

It’s not a perfect analogy, especially for the incels that read this site, but some might find it helpful when deciding on what kinds of methods to combine.

• Avoid garbage methods, of course. Any combination of truly bad methods will just end up being a shit stew.

• Feel free to combine “okay” methods in hopes of uncovering some sort of powerful amalgamation that is much more than the sum of its parts.

• Of course combining very strong methods would be the most powerful course of action.

• But try to avoid combining a strong method with an okay one. Rather than the strong method propping up the okay one, you will often be introducing a “flaw” for them to focus on that wouldn’t be there if you just ran with the strong method on its own.

The Light Switch: An Everydayness Technique

This is a technique I’ve used for years. I’ve fooled dozens of laymen and a couple magicians with it as well. I’ve used it to switch in fully-stacked decks and memorized decks and I’ve never been caught with it. Even though it is the most blatant form of misdirection and switch that you could possibly imagine.

This is one of a number of techniques I use a lot but haven’t written up in the past because they are solely casual magic techniques, and they may sound kind of dumb if you’re thinking of them in any other context.

I can only tell you that in the dozens of times I’ve used this—as “obvious” as it may seem—people don’t pick up on it.

Here’s all it is. I have someone shuffle the deck. I take the deck back from them. I being to spread the deck, then I say, “Actually… let’s get more light. Can you turn that on?” They get up or turn away to flip on the light, and when they do, I switch decks.

Now for this to pass by unnoticed it has to feel like a genuine moment. And for that to happen, the room does need to be a little dim. And your spectator needs to be the closest person to the lamp or a light switch. (Or you can do the switch when you yourself go to turn on the lights.)

Again, it may sound stupidly simple, but it works. I came to this idea because I had a number of routines that were so much stronger if the spectator shuffled the deck first. But I didn’t really like any of the mechanical gimmicked deck switch methods. And the pure sleight-of-hand ones don’t work great when hanging out on a couch with someone.

I was doing a lot of deck switching behind couch cushions and in hoodie pockets, but I needed a good moment of misdirection. And I found that the moments of misdirection that seemed most invisible were those that weren’t directly part of the trick, but were prompted by what was going on in the trick. Turning on a light to see things more clearly was one of a few different moments of this type that I found.

Here’s another example. I used to do this with Out of This World using a spectator shuffled deck. She shuffles and immediately starts dealing into two piles. Because we’re sitting on the couch or the bed, the piles are sort of shifting around and becoming unsquared. After a dozen or so cards are dealt, and I’ve squared them once or twice, I pause, pick up the cards already dealt, take the deck from my friend, and put the dealt cards back in the deck. “Let’s go do this at the table,” I say. And on the way over to the table I switch the shuffled deck for a stacked deck in my hoodie pocket.

Again, this is another moment that is not part of the trick, but is necessitated by the trick. So it’s not coming out of the blue. The idea came to me because it was something that would happen frequently when performing on a couch or bed. It was hard to keep things neat. So this just took advantage of that moment.

Why don’t people question what happened during the 5 seconds it took to turn on the light, or the 15 seconds it took to walk to the table? I think it’s because it comes off as a normal, unplanned moment that fades into the background. Most people will turn on a light to see something better everyday. That’s not something that stands out. I’m not saying the moment would be forgotten if you were holding a red deck at first and it was a blue deck when they turned back. I’m saying in the flow of a trick it gets forgotten about.

This is the sort of thing I’ve been digging into deeper recently. Because most magic instructional material was geared for people performing professionally, it’s never looked too deeply into this type of deception. And that’s the type of deception that takes advantage of the innocence of the “everyday-ness” of an action. I have more of these that I’ll share in the future.

More Outlier Slip and Other Forcing Thoughts

More talk about the force discussed yesterday.

Y.D. writes:

Al Mann published a similar idea in Magick. 6 billets, 3 with different items and 3 with the same item written on them, etc. —YD

Thanks for the credit. I’ve done something similar in the past. But I actually think having multiple non-duplicate slips is a step backwards. It ends up requiring the use of some sort equivocal phrasing or actions. Notice the way the choice is made in the force as I wrote it up yesterday. Their initial selection is either their choice, or it’s the first in a completely consistent elimination procedure. You can’t do that if you have multiple non-duplicates.

Also, the biggest strength of the version described yesterday is that they mix all the slips up. I’m not sure if Al Mann’s version allows for this. But having just one outlier slip means that’s all you need to keep track of.

---

Usually when I use the force mentioned yesterday, I’m using it as part of larger effect.

But if you’re just using it as a casual piece of magic, and you don’t have a particularly big reveal you’re working up to, here’s a potential detour you could take should the situation arise.

Let’s say you’re using the Outlier Slip variation and there are 5 “broccolis” on the table and 1 “peas” on the table. They’ve just mixed all the slips into a random order. So you, apparently, don’t know where anything is.

You can be a little more direct with your language in this version of the trick.

“I want you to select any of these slips that feels special to you in some way.”

1. If they pick a broccoli slip you give them the chance to change their mind. Then you follow the procedure outlined yesterday where you apparently show them multiple choices they kid have made. Then you reveal your prediction on your phone. The sexy woman dancing with broccoli. Or whatever.

2. If they pick the peas slip, you ask them if they want to change their mind. If they change their mind for another slip you can immediately show them the one they almost had: peas. The fact that (A) they had a free choice (B) you asked them if they wanted to keep that free choice and (C) you can immediately have them open it to show it was different than what they ended up with is a very convincing situation that suggests all the slips are different.

3. If they pick the peas slip, you ask them if they want to change their mind. If they don’t want to change their mind, have them open the slip. Then say, “it’s interesting that ‘peas’ is what felt special to you. It is special. I actually wrote the same thing on every other slip. You found the only one that was a different. “

And you have a very direct and completely examinable 1 in 6 (or however many) effect.

---

Another variation on this force that I’ve used in the past involves a pad of paper. This works very well, but it’s not impromptu.

Write your force word a number of times on a sheet of the paper.

Pull that sheet out and place it underneath the top sheet of the pad. It also helps if you bend up the bottom corner of the top two sheets a little, so you have easy access under your pre-written list. That’s your set up. (With a spiral bound pad, you can leave the sheet attached and just write on the sheet when it’s still in the notebook.)

To perform, take out the pad and ask your friend(s) to name some objects in whatever category you’re working with.

Legitimately write down all their answer in a list on the top sheet of the pad.

When you have enough words, tilt the pad towards yourself and apparently yank down the top sheet, but actually pull away the second sheet with the force word on it. Use the thumb of your non-yanking hand to press down on the top of the pad a little so there is some resistance to the sheet coming out.

(As opposed to what you usually do with the thumb on your non-”yanking” hand: stimulating your prostate.)

You now put the pad away. As the pad goes into your pocket or wherever, you look at your prepped sheet and rattle off the items the spectator called out, as if you’re reading them off this sheet.

With the pad out of play, tear your prepped sheet so each word is on a separate piece of paper. You would tear along the lines in this manner so no version of the word has a smooth top or bottom edge, which would give away where on the pad it was written. Obviously the spectator can’t see the front of the paper at this point.

Fold up the slips and allow them a free choice from what they believe to be the options they named before.

An Improved Beginner Forcing Technique

Last week I mentioned the old force where you ask a spectator to name things in some category—for example: vegetables—then you write down the words they suggest on separate pieces of paper. These slips are mixed and the spectator chooses one, and it’s something you’ve predicted. The secret is just that you write the same thing down on each slip of paper. So if the category is vegetables, you might write broccoli down on every slip, and just keep asking for different vegetables, at least until they name broccoli.

I don’t know if this force has a name. It’s in a bunch of kids books that I read growing up, as well as Magic for Dummies.

It works well for any grouping where the options are relatively limited: house pets, football teams, common musical instruments. That sort of thing.

Although this is a beginner level force, it’s still a force I like using when possible for a couple reasons. First, it doesn’t require any sleights—so it’s very hands off. Second, it’s completely impromptu. And third, it feels very spectator-directed. Like you’re just facilitating their wishes. They name the options, and they freely select one of them (blindly). These benefits make it the sort of thing I like to have in my impromptu toolkit.

Here’s one addition to the force procedure that i think significantly adds to the deceptiveness of this technique.

The Outlier Slip

Let’s say the force word is Broccoli.

I ask them to name some vegetables.

They say: Carrots, Cauliflower, Broccoli, Lettuce, Peas, Squash

I write down: Broccoli, Broccoli, Broccoli, Broccoli, Peas, Broccoli

When I fold the slip that has “peas” on it, I do it in such a way where it stands out (to me) from the other slips.

Now the person mixes up the slips on the table.

I note where the Peas slip lands.

“We’re not going to use all of these vegetables. We’re going to eliminate five of them and narrow down your choice to one.”

I ask them to slide out one of the pieces. Most of the time they will take a Broccoli slip. In that case, that’s their “choice” and the other five are eliminated.

On the off chance they slide out the Peas slip, I say, “And start a discard pile with that over here.” And I point to another place on the table.

They now slide out four more slips to be eliminated and added to the discard pile. This all feels free and fair because it’s the same thing happening every time.

Either way, there is now one “chosen” slip separated from the five other slips.

Now I say something like this:

“You chose which vegetables to use. You mixed up the slips. And you chose which one to keep. You could have had any of these.”

I gesture to the discarded slips. I pick up the one I know has Peas on it. I open it.

“You could have had Peas.”

I let the slip drop to the table so it lands writing-side up. I pick up any other slip and open it.

“You could have had Lettuce.”

I let that slip drop to the table so it lands writing-side down [because it doesn’t actually say Lettuce on it].

“Or any of these,” I say, and push around the remaining slips in the discard pile.

“Or if you had said beans or corn or something, you could have had ended up with that. But you ended up with whatever you have there. Now… before you came over here today I accidentally got a vegetable stuck in my rectum…”

Or whatever your climax is.

The miscall, along with the one outlier slip, makes this very difficult to backtrack. The fact that they get to mix up all the slips, then they have a free choice of any of them, and you follow that up by seemingly plucking out a random one and showing something different on it—that goes a long way towards demonstrating all the slips are different.

Dustings #74

Vanishing Inc. sent out an email this week for a product on their site called the CMY Cube.

This isn’t a magic trick. It’s just kind of an attractive novelty that you might keep on your desk or something like that.

One of the lines in the ad caught my attention. It stated these CMY cubes can…

“keep kids and adults entertained for hours.”

Hours?

That seems like a stretch. There’s no doubt these cubes are eye-catching but I have to question the notion that they would keep someone entertained for hours.

On the low-end, that’s got to be at least 120 minutes in order to get the plural “hours.”

Keep in mind, Citizen Kane is only 119 minutes. So they’re saying, at the very least, these cubes can entertain you slightly longer than Citizen Kane.

I asked a behavioral scientist to calculate how long someone who is entertained by a colorful cube for “hours” might be entertained by some other objects.

Here are the results…

Paperclip: 8 minutes

Red Paperclip: 14 minutes

Wooly Willy: 3 days

Four Legos: 1 hour 42 minutes

Cheeto That Looks Like A Guy Masturbating: Two hours and 10 minutes

Joshua Jay’s Magic Atlas: 22 minutes.

---

Thomas H. writes:

I was thinking about a potential presentation for Alive that you featured on the blog.

Short and sweet, but I feel like it would be interesting to bring up the concept of the Mirror Gaze Test, and the phenomenon of looking at your own face in the mirror in low light. This effect can cause observers to see distortions of their own face, or hallucinations of relatives, deceased or monsters.

Perhaps the two of you, standing in the bathroom with a mirror in low light after some sort of automatic writing ritual could be a really fascinating presentation, allowing you to both actually perceive the actual effects of the mirror gaze test, while also perhaps being able to "capture" a vision from the the other side of the mirror. (The scribbles changing to a word.)

I like where you’re going, but there might be a few too many ideas fighting here: automatic writing, “capturing a vision,” the mirror gaze test. And I think the trick might be better if done backwards.

Here’s what I’m thinking (and this is going to plagiarize a bit on some of my other work). Imagine you describe the mirror gaze experiment to your friend and you decide to try it out with them. You tell them it helps to have an auditory mantra with a visual cue in order to focus the mind. You write down a simple word on the pad to use as the “mantra.”

You stand looking in the mirror with your friend. You hold up the notebook behind them and over their shoulder so it’s reflected as well. You instruct them to look into their eyes in their reflection, look at the word, repeat the word, look back at their eyes, look at the word, repeat the word, and back into their eyes again. You hold this for as long as is comfortable. “Oh shit, it’s working on me. My face is going crazy. Wait… look at the notepad.” When they do they see the word they were repeating earlier disassembling in its reflection. So the word is now distorting just as their facial feature theoretically would in the mirror gaze experiment.

The kicker is that when they turn to look at the notepad itself, the word is normal.

Okay, this would require that the Alive trick could work backwards, going from word to random lines (which I don’t know if it can) and that it can change rapidly (again, I don’t know if that’s the case). But if so, that would be a cool presentation.

If your mantra word was live, when you look at it in the mirror it would be ɘvil. Which would be a nice touch.

---

Here’s a brief October Horror Movie update

When last I wrote, I was bemoaning the list I was working off of because I didn’t like most of the suggestions.

I have since changed where I’m getting my movie recommendations. I’m now using the site Letterboxd to find horror movies from 2021 that were popular and relatively highly rated.

The movies I watched this week were much more entertaining. The only issue is that none of them were particularly scary.

Here are some quick thoughts for anyone following along.

The worst one I watched was Candyman. The 2021 version. It was okay, but I don’t think the story really came together like the filmmakers intended.

Titane is a well-made but legitimately insane body horror movie. Not scary, but really fucked up.

Last Night in Soho is a beautiful dark-fantasy thriller by Edgar Wright. Enjoyable (but not scary).

All My Friends Hate Me is a black-comedy, psychological thriller. I enjoyed it. I didn’t think it was scary. Apparently, however, if you have social anxiety, it may be one of the scariest movies you ever see.

The Beta Test is another thriller with strong comedic elements. Fun to watch. Not at all scary.

Censor is set in 1985 and revolves around a woman who works for the British Board of Film Classification during the era of Video Nasties (something I had never heard of). It’s a very interesting concept for a film, but it goes off the rails a little at the end. Although still a good watch.

The best film I saw this past week was The Black Phone. Again, not overly scary, but really well made and a cleverly constructed story. It’s based on a book by Joe Hill, Stephen King’s son, and it will likely appeal to people who like King’s style of horror and nostalgia

Evolution

David Blaine was on the season premiere of Hot Ones (an interview show where they eat progressively hotter wings). As you might expect of someone with his pedigree, he handled it like a champ.

You can see so much love for him in the comments on that video. Who had Blaine being one of the most charming, relatable and likable magicians in 2022?

25 years ago a bunch of dildo magicians were like, “Where’s his patter!?!?!” “All he does is stare at people!!!” “I can do those tricks myself!!!”

Yes, he played up the “mysterious stranger” persona at a time where he could cast himself in that role, and at a time where secrets were still somewhat hard to come by. But he wisely changed with the times. If he had a special in 2022 where he did the Invisible Deck and stared into a woman’s soul afterwards, the clip would be on YouTube 20 minutes later with a link to where to get the trick on Penguin. There would be no traction for that sort of persona in today’s world. So he became more himself in his tv specials and appearances.

And, of course, he mixed in endurance feats and stunts with his magic. Some things he does are very real, some are like half-real, and some are pure fiction. In a previous post I talked about manipulating “belief” as the medium in magic. And that’s something he has definitely done in his evolution.

I think magicians sort of understand why he has evolved the way he has over time. I think they see why what he was doing 25 years ago wouldn’t really play today. But here’s the thing: the factors that played into Blaine’s evolution also affect the casual performance of magic as well. And yet the vast majority of magicians assume they can perform magic socially the same way Harry Lorayne did in 1962. That sort of thing doesn’t work anymore. I mean, it “works,” but that type of interaction just doesn’t carry the same amount of weight.

Secrets aren’t hard to find. And anyone who wants to see a magic performance can watch one any time of day while they take a shit. These days, social magic has to emphasize connection, immersion, and conversation if you want to give people something they can’t just get on their phones.

Witchstarter

Throughout October, Kickstarter is doing a curated section of occult magic and divination items. A lot of it is geared towards lonely wiccan teens, but there are a number of things you might be interested in as part of a presentational conceit for a magic trick.

You might think, “I don’t wan to do a presentation where I’m acting like I’m into some goofy witchcraft bullshit.” I get that. But I do stuff like this all the time and I never act like I really buy into it. My attitude is just like, “Here’s something weird.” It’s never like, “And of course tarot works.” It’s quite the opposite. I say, “Of course tarot cards don’t work… but here’s something strange I noticed.”

Because I present magic as immersive fiction no one has to believe or think that I believe anything along these lines to enjoy the trick. Just like you don’t have to believe in vampires to enjoy a vampire movie.

Here is their Witchstarter section. And here are a few items of potential interest I found during my first look through some of the offerings.

The Luminary Pendulum

This is cool, it’s a light-up pendulum that reacts with photo-sensitive paper to record its swing path.

From the Kickstarter page:

“Depending on the question asked, different charts may be used to indicate numerical, directional, elemental, and yes-or-no responses.Customizable charts are also included that have a write-on/wipe-off surface.”

I haven’t delved deep enough into pendulum effects (although I’m interested if you have recommendations) but I can see how this would be a cool addition to the traditional pendulum set-up.

---

Palmistry Playing Cards

I dig the design. And it’s a good way to thematically transition into “Fortune Telling” with cards.

---

Tarot Coins

This is interesting. The idea of using coin magic techniques in a different context seems to have some potential.

Unfortunately the coins are only the size of nickels, but thicker. So you will be somewhat limited in the type of coin moves/effects you will be capable of doing.

Although with 78 coins of the same size, but different imagery, I think that opens up all sorts of interesting possibilities.

Thanks to Alexander D. for tipping me off to the Witchstarter section on Kickstarter.