Here Comes the Jerx: Petty v. Weber

There’s lots of excitement in the magic community as the battle heats up between Craig Petty and Michael Weber. As one of the few prominent names in the magic community who gives a shit about none of you, it has come down to me again to pass judgment on who’s in the right in this debate over the new release EDCeipt.

If you are blessedly out of the loop on this controversy, here is the rundown:

  1. Craig Petty is releasing an effect called EDCeipt. The basic effect is that someone thinks of an item from a group of receipts and you’re able to tell them what that item is.

  2. Michael Weber (and Tim Trono) had a trick back in 2012 called Age Receipts. The basic effect is that someone thinks of an item from a group of receipts and you’re able to tell them what that item is.

Weber believes this new version shouldn’t be released. Petty, obviously, thinks otherwise.


As your judge, I think I should disclaim any potential biases.

  1. Weber and Trono are supporters of this site, but I don’t know either of them personally. In the past, I’ve described them as “generous” because they usually send me their new releases for free without expecting anything in return. (I will happily describe anyone else as “generous” if they want to do the same.)

  2. I don’t have any relationship with Craig Petty. I like a number of his releases (my first review in Love Letters was praising Chop), but I’m neither a fanboy nor a detractor.

“Aha! Weber and Trono are supporters! He can’t be a fair judge!”

Wrong, dum-dum. Being a supporter doesn’t give anyone editorial control. I’m my own voice in the magic community. If I upset anyone with my opinions and they stop supporting the site, there is a long waitlist of people to take their place. So I don’t really give a shit.

I purposely set up my site this way. I don’t rely on advertisers. I have no relationship with any magic companies. I have no friends who are professional magicians. I’m beholden to no one.


Here are the facts in evidence:

Stipulation #1: The tricks are the same.

In the sense that they use the same method with the same types of props to achieve the same effect. If you showed someone Weber’s trick one day, came back a week later and started showing them Petty’s trick, they would say, “We just did this.”

Stipulation #2: You’re getting many more variations and ideas with the new release than you got with the original release.

The original release was a page of instructions where as the new version has hours of video teaching.


Arguments and Evidence

You can see Craig’s argument in his video here. It gets a little confusing because he reads a transcript of some emails and multiple effects get mentioned. The only thing to really keep in mind is that Real Secrets released an effect called Age Receipts in 2012 and it’s the same basic method and effect as EDCeipt.

I reached out to Weber and Trono a few days ago to see if they wanted to give their side, but they declined. Then, Sunday night, they provided me with a copy of all the communication that went back and forth between themselves, Craig and Murphy’s.


Precedent

Legally, Murphy’s Magic and Craig Petty are completely in the clear. You can take anybody’s trick and release a version of it yourself. You don’t need to ask permission. You don’t need to give them a cut of the profits. Obviously, this is frowned upon and can make you a pariah in the industry, so generally it’s not something people do.

The “gentleman’s agreement” in the magic industry is that if you’re the first person to put something out, that trick is “yours.” And if someone wants to release their own version they should work it out with you first.

As someone releasing a product, you’re not expected to know everything that has come out beforehand. But when someone does come and say, “Hey, I already released that.” You’re generally expected to either pull the product or work it out with them and get permission (and perhaps give them a cut of the profits). Even if you never saw the original. Even if it was only in a niche publication with 30 subscribers.

I don’t think this is a standard we want to get too far away from. The ethical standard can’t be, “I can release this because I didn’t know about your version,” or, “I can release this because I’ve added much more to your version.” Because that standard would be too easily gamed by people with ill intent.


My Sympathies

I can sympathize with everyone in this situation. I can sympathize with Weber and Trono because the core of the trick is theirs. And if they were planning on updating/re-releasing it as they say, then this version kind of steals their thunder (and money). From Craig’s video, it looks like he doesn’t believe they were really going to do that. But I do know they have other releases in the pipeline that were originally published via Real Secrets. So it doesn’t seem out of the question to me.

But I can also sympathize with Craig and Murphy’s. They’ve invested significant time and money into this. And it does expand on the idea as presented in the original. Assuming they had no knowledge of Weber’s version, it’s difficult to say they should just have to bury this project altogether.


What Really Happened

I think I now have more insight into this situation than possibly anyone else. I’ve exchanged emails with Craig, with Michael and Tim, with an insider at Murphy’s, as well as a couple of other tangential figures in this story who have asked not to be named. I’ve seen the correspondence that went back and forth between the parties involved. And I’ve seen the instructions for both releases.

In addition, I have something in short supply in the magic industry: emotional intelligence. So I can give you what I think is a pretty accurate accounting of how things went down (although anyone involved can feel free to correct me).

To understand why it played out the way it did, you need to remember the RED situation. RED was a trick released by Craig Petty in 2013 that was a rip-off of a Bob King effect. Everyone, including Craig, acknowledges that now. Craig and Weber/Trono were on opposite sides during that situation. The whole ordeal caused Craig to drop out of the magic community for many years. If you have seen Craig talk about this situation, it’s clear that it was traumatizing for him. “Traumatizing? But it was all his fault?” Yes, it was. But you don’t have to be victimized by someone else to be traumatized. Cratering your own reputation can fuck you up just as much, I’m sure.

Many years later, Craig has come back. He’s a changed person. I genuinely believe he feels that way. Having kids probably makes you drop a lot of your bullshit. He’s doing what he can to try and give more than he takes from magic. He’s still polarizing and gets a lot of shit, but that comes with the territory of making yourself a prominent person in magic.

Now this situation with the Age Receipts/EDCeipt controversy comes up, and it’s about to trigger his trauma response.

On January 30th, Weber and Trono are advised of the existence of EDCeipt. They watch the trailer and send Craig an email that lets him know that this is not original to him and ask him not to release it. This email isn’t particularly friendly, nor is it adversarial. It’s fairly straightforward.

Craig doesn’t respond to this. I think that was a mistake. In fact, Craig has never responded to Michael or Tim directly about this issue. Maybe he feels they wouldn’t be receptive to what he has to say. Whatever the case, he passes the issue along to Murphy’s to handle.

This begins a series of emails between Weber and Murphy’s where they’re attempting to sort out the situation. This is another moment where communication suffered. Instead of just saying, “Here are the instructions for Age Receipts. You’ll see it’s the same trick,” they get into talking about other tricks and other variations that they published and it ends up diluting the argument and confusing the issue.

I’ve read through all the emails and they’re very fraught. It was clear to me this wasn’t going to reach a happy conclusion. Craig never chimes in, so we don’t get his side of the story. Weber/Trono use some language that comes off cold or perhaps legalistic—language like “Craig’s unauthorized copy” of their trick, which make his actions sound willful in a way they probably weren’t. And they don’t seem really open to anything other than the product being pulled. And Murphy’s just plays stupid. They’re like, “Huh? What? How are these tricks similar?”

I wonder how things might have gone if Craig had come to the table and said, “Shit. I really looked into this but this slipped under my radar.” If Weber and Trono had come to the table more open to some kind of compromise. And if Murphy’s had at least admitted, “Oh, yeah, these are pretty much the same trick. Short of pulling this product, what can we do to make this right?”

Then comes the turning point. In an email to Murphy’s, Michael concludes by saying:

“The facts do not favor Craig in this case and I sincerely would prefer that he gracefully step away from releasing this effect. It would be tragic for this to end up being another RED situation for him after all his hard work.”

This is the statement that Craig refers to as harassment and bullying. Because to him it’s a threat. Was it intended as a threat? I have to say, as an outsider reading the entire email exchange, it doesn’t read like a threat in the context of the emails. I think it was a genuine statement. They felt this situation would reflect poorly on him, similar to the RED ordeal. And that he would be undermining the work he’s done to restore his reputation.

But Craig—for whom the RED situation was not just a crediting debacle, but a cause of major distress in his life—understandably is much more sensitive to this and interprets it as harassment. It’s a trauma response. The same way someone who is attacked by a dog will be on edge around dogs for the rest of their life, someone who was devastated by a crediting “scandal” is going to be hyper-sensitive about another potential crediting scandal.

For them to invoke the RED controversy feels highly manipulative to Craig because in his mind there was one situation where he was completely in the wrong, and then this situation where he feels he tried to do everything right. He feels they aren’t comparable. So bringing it up seems like bullying.

Imagine you’re a 19-year-old gang-banger and you killed a woman in cold blood. Then you turn your life around and try and be a productive member of society. You’re feeling good about yourself. And then, one day in the future, a woman dies by accident in your presence, and maybe you could have prevented it. If someone goes and compares that accident to the murder, it’s going to feel like an attack. Because you’re going to interpret that as them saying that you haven’t changed, you haven’t grown, you’re still the younger piece-of-shit version of yourself.

So Craig makes a video that goes on the offensive. Essentially saying, “How dare you try and bully and harass me.”

Now cut back to Weber and Trono’s position. They don’t feel they’re bullying or threatening anyone. Threats don’t often begin with, “I sincerely would prefer.” They weren’t standing outside a local market in dark clothes, smacking a baseball bat against their palm and saying, “Sure would be a shame if something happened to your plate-glass window.” They were just comparing this situation to another crediting issue from his past. I don’t think they were taking into account the emotional impact of that comparison on Craig. So they see Craig’s video and see him so upset about something they feel they didn’t do, and they think he’s full of shit. They see it as performative. Using victimhood as a marketing tactic.

In reality, I think they’re both misreading the situation.

Craig was wrong to think that sentence was intended as a threat.

And Michael and Tim were wrong to think Craig didn’t genuinely feel it was a threat.

So now we have two parties operating under incorrect assumptions about each other and then continuing to push the issue based on those incorrect assumptions.


Verdict

By all traditional magic business standards, Weber and Trono have the ethical high ground regarding this release. It’s undeniable that they did put out essentially the same trick a decade ago.

That being said, looking at EDCeipt, this is clearly not a money grab where they just stole an idea and rushed out their own version. This isn’t a floating match situation.

It’s also hard to say that Craig and/or Murphy’s “should have known” about this previous version. There’s really no easy way to find information about the original trick because it was intentionally released in a relatively low-key manner.

I don’t think this is another RED situation for Craig. I think he did his due diligence and genuinely didn’t find information about this effect. Given that, I think it’s too punitive to say, “No, you can’t release that,” when they are this far along.

In an ideal world, I think Craig and Murphy’s should give credit and some financial considerations to Weber/Trono. (Someone with a better understanding of magic business financials could determine what’s fair there.)

In an ideal world, I think Weber and Trono should say, “Okay, this is unfortunate. But we’ll take you at your word that it was unintentional.” And not necessarily frame it as something nefarious.

You, as the potential purchaser, can make the decision if Murphy’s should have pulled this product once they were aware of the history behind the trick. It’s a moral grey area, so it comes down to your personal conscience.

In my utopia, when everyone found out about this issue, they would have collaborated together to try and bring all the good ideas regarding this trick into one package. The cover art would have an image of Petty and Weber holding hands skipping through a daisy field together. EveryDayChums.


The Wisdom of Solomon

But none of the parties are going to give a shit about what I feel about this, so I’m going to split the baby down the middle and say…do you really want to do this trick?

One thing to consider for the social performer…

Imagine I told you I had a trick that would be good for casual performing situations because it used “everyday objects.”

And you said, “Oh, yeah? What does it use?”

And I responded, “112 nickels.”

Quantity affects the “everydayness” of an object. Having one grocery receipt on you is pretty standard. But five?

Is this you?

I’m just saying, if you’re going to try and pass this off as a “casual” moment of magic, you’re going to have to come up with a rationale for why you “casually” have five grocery store receipts on you.

As I mentioned in a previous post. I used to do the Real Secrets version, and I could pass the receipts off as restaurants I visited on a work trip and was planning to expense. But that was 10 years ago. I don’t know that I’d do the same today. If I wanted to read someone’s mind of a word they were “just thinking of,” I’d use the Xeno app in some form.

Okay, do you hear that Craig, Michael, Tim, Murphy’s? Turn your ire towards me. I’m not the biggest fan of multiple-receipt-based-mind-reading. Let me be your common enemy.


Postscript

I received a number of emails saying, “Can you believe Michael Weber was posting on the Cafe under a different name?” (This was uncovered in the EDCeipt thread.)

Yes. There is nothing that makes more sense to me in the world than that. I’m not shocked in the least that Weber would want to get certain things out there but not have to deal with the Cafe riff-raff as himself. That wasn’t as much of an explosive revelation to me as it seemed to be for others. The way that information was revealed on the Cafe thread, I thought it was going to come out that he was the Zodiac killer.

That said, it’s too late for Weber now, but for all the other well-known magicians writing under a pseudonym on the Cafe, check back tomorrow for my post: How to Respond When Your Sock-Puppet Account is Revealed On the Magic Cafe.

New Release Round-Up #5

Time for more uneducated opinions on new releases based primarily on the advertising copy and first impressions.

EDCeipt by Craig Petty

I saw this recent release from Murphy’s Magic. It uses receipts to perform an effect like the Magic Age Cards except instead of thinking of a number, people are asked to think of a food item.

This seemed very familiar to me and I remembered that Real Secrets put this same effect out back around 2012 and I kept it in my wallet for a while back then.

As far as the benefits of this version, I’m sure Craig’s release goes into much more detail and variations than the original did. (Real Secret’s instructions were intentionally minimalist, like the magic instructions of old). And it looks like there’s an added receipt so there are more potential choices. And I’m intrigued that the receipts are made of Tyvek. That will definitely add to the longevity, but it seems like that wouldn’t really feel like a receipt, you know? But maybe they have a different type of Tyvek than I’m familiar with.

At first, I thought it was better that they went with national brands. But now I’m not so sure. I don’t love the stores they’ve chosen for the receipts with this release. It looks like primarily grocery stores with California addresses? I don’t know why I’d be carrying receipts from grocery stores. Especially ones that are 3000 miles away from me. (And the prices that are visible in the demo seem bizarrely low.) I’m not suggesting everyone is automatically going to pay attention to these details, but when you’re 100s of miles from the nearest Safeway, it’s going to be weird to be carrying around a receipt from one of their stores. “Yes, I kept this Safeway receipt in case my Doritos are defective and I want to drive 12 hours to return them.”

When you’re doing a trick with receipts, you want it to come off as a purely spontaneous moment. The reason you’re using receipts is because that’s what you “just happen to have on you.” You certainly don’t want it to seem like you’re providing your “special” receipts that you brought with you for this purpose. The nice thing about the Real Secrets receipts was they looked like local places that could conceivably be found anywhere. They consisted of restaurants and food marts so—if anyone asked—I could pass them off as places I visited while on a business trip and I was holding onto the receipts so I could expense them.

If I was sitting on a plane or train with someone, or randomly met up with them somewhere, I would find it much more natural to “find” a few restaurant/small market receipts in my wallet, than I would to have five large grocery receipts on me. Mainly because I don’t know anyone who hangs onto grocery store receipts, nor do I know anyone who shops at five different grocery stores (for essentially the same items).

That being said, perhaps these issues are covered in the instructions for EDceipt. From performing the original version, I know this can be a good bit of casual magic. I doubt I’ll be picking this version up. I just don’t feel I’d have a great excuse to be carrying around receipts that look like this. So it’s not ideal for me.


Picture Consequences by Joel Dickinson

In this effect, the spectator chooses a head, body, and legs from a set of picture cards to create a person/creature. You then reveal that you predicted they would choose those particular “pieces” when forming their person.

This is one I actually have seen in person, as a friend of mine has it and I saw a couple of performances.

The reactions were stronger than I anticipated. It really feels like there must be more possible outcomes than there actually are. And all the outs involved are pretty good.

I’ll be picking this up for myself, although I do have some concerns about it.

  1. I’m not sure what the story of the trick is supposed to be. Is it a children’s game that you’re using as a psychological experiment? Or is it a psychological experiment that you disguised as a children’s game? I wish the story was a little clearer in that sense.

  2. Also, I don’t think the “influence” aspect of it really works that well. You’re supposed to suggest they were “influenced” because they saw dots of certain colors on the instructions or on the box. 🤷🏼‍♂️ Okay. I just don’t find that to be a compelling demonstration of “influence,” so I’d probably leave that out.

  3. And finally, please, people… I beg of you: Stop printing the name a trick is marketed under on the trick itself. The box says “Picture Consequences.” Google that and you find the trick for sale. That’s not great. And the more someone is intrigued by the trick, the more likely they are to wonder if they can find more information about the game or the psychological experiment.

Beyond those concerns, I still like the trick. Creating the image has a feeling of something you’ve done as a child. And it’s one of the better uses of multiple-outs that I’ve seen.


ISO by Marc Kerstein and Noel Qualter

I’m psyched about this one. I got a chance to see the app in action, and I get the feeling people are going to come up with a lot of good uses for this. My mind is still working on a couple ideas, which I think will either solidify or evaporate once I see the full instructional video.

It’s a utility app. It’s iPhone only, and I think the spectator has to be using an iPhone as well. So if you don’t have an iphone, and don’t tend to perform around people who do, then this won’t be for you. If you do I think it will allow you to do some cool things.

The effect with which the app was originally demonstrated for me was a bill-to-impossible-location. You borrow a bill. Take a picture of the bill on the spectator’s phone. Vanish or destroy the bill. Then remove the bill from wherever you like. They can verify from the picture on their phone it’s the same bill.

(Maybe force them to crumple up the bill and swallow it, but then remove it from your own asshole. This proves to your spectator that you two have a “special connection.”)

It’s going to be interesting to see what people come up with for this app.

Dear Jerxy: Talking Shit

Back in the [Magic Circle Jerk] days, you used to bash tricks a lot, which you rarely do anymore. Did you change or has the magic being released gotten better? And what do you make of all the talk going back and forth regarding Noel Qualter’s effect Fall?—BT

2023 marks the 20th anniversary of when I started my old blog. When I was writing that blog it was 95% me commenting on other tricks, magicians, websites, and the Magic Cafe. Then there was 5% me talking about my own ideas. At that time I wasn’t performing enough to come up with my own ideas regularly.

But there was another thing about that era that made it the perfect time to be commenting on other people’s shitty tricks, shitty websites, and shitty personalities. And that’s the fact that there wasn’t a ton of magic related content online. So I could oversee everything going on in magic and comment on the 20% of it that was genuinely bad.

For the sake of discussion, let’s say 20% of things in magic are unredeemable garbage, 77% is somewhere from “okay” to “great,” and 3% is undeniably excellent.

Back in 2003, I could “see” the 20% which was garbage very easily. The magic world (online) was so much smaller. You could survey everything that was happening, good and bad, just by visiting the Magic Cafe a few times per week. We were a bit starved for content.

For example, back in the early 2000s, someone could go on the Cafe and start a thread about a new self-levitation they had created. It wasn’t for sale. They had no video of it. And yet the thread would go on for a year and many dozens of pages while people talked about this product that likely didn’t even exist.

These days, if someone didn’t post a video of the effect within 12 hours, nobody would pay any attention to the thread. There is so much publicly available magic content now that it’s tough for the genuine garbage to get any traction.

If I wanted to talk shit about stuff as actively as I did back then, I’d have to really dig to find shit to talk about. And I really don’t have the time or inclination to do that, because I don’t care. I didn’t care back then either, but the shitty stuff was so much more prominent that it was hard to ignore.

Regarding your other question…

Noel Qualter recently released a trick called Fall where a selected card is pushed through a clear plastic bag (or other thin plastic sheet).

For some reason this trick has generated a weird amount of backlash.

You can follow the drama on this thread at the Magic Cafe.

There are video reviews about the trick, and responses to those reviews, and responses to the responses of those reviews, and responses to the responses of the responses to those reviews. You could easily waste 5 hours of your life watching the videos going back and forth about this trick (although it looks like some of them have been taken down at this point).

I have no clue why this has generated so much discussion. While I don’t think this is an all-time classic type of trick, it’s not in the bottom 20% either. It’s well within that 77% range of OK to Great. Your life is too precious to be watching hours of debate regarding a trick that is, at worst, perfectly fine.

Some of the criticism leveled against it is that it’s not a “Card thru Window” as advertised. I guess there’s some validity to that. I thought this was a Card thru Window at first. But after 5 seconds looking at the ad, I realized they were mentioning that as an analogous type of effect—not a card going through an actual window. I guess if you saw the phrase, “Card thru Window,” stopped reading, entered your credit card number, ran away from your computer, then waited for the package to show up, you’d be understandably disappointed. But if you read thru the ad or watched the video, it’s hard to think you were being intentionally misled. (Perhaps misled enough to pay attention to the ad, but not misled enough to buy the trick.)

Another criticism is that it can’t really be performed strolling with people seated at a table. It should not come as a surprise to know the trick isn’t designed to be performed for people seated (unless you’re seated with them). Look at the demo and use your head. Obviously this is a trick that is best performed looking down on it. Like Card Thru Window, this looks best for people who are facing the plane through which the card is being penetrated. Certainly you wouldn’t buy this imagining you would perform it for someone sitting some distance away and looking at the edge of the plastic bag (or below it). You don’t need to know the method to know that much.

And there’s the criticism that you can’t do this trick if you have small hands (because you’re stealing away something). Look, I’m very much a believer that there are certain things that absolutely should be disclosed in magic advertising. But if you have little rinky-dink hands that can’t hide a playing card that’s something that’s up to you to account for in your magic purchases. When you watch the demo, does it look like maybe something is stolen away? Now look down at those stubby little nubs on the end of your palm. Can you do the math at that point and figure out if this is right for you? I think you can. You’re a big boy—except your hands—you can figure this out. It has been demonstrated throughout the history of card magic that even people with below average hand size can palm a card deceptively. But if you know that’s not you, then it’s up to you to be extra vigilant with the effects you do and don’t buy. The magic company doesn’t have to go out of their way to explain this to you.

Here’s the thing, if you watched this demo and didn’t have a good idea of what was going on here (like if you were surprised they couldn’t look underneath or that there was some amount of set-up before the card penetrated the plastic), then you might not be the best person to be reviewing magic tricks. I’m not trying to gate-keep anything here. But it does take some understanding of things to be qualified to give a useful review.

That being said, there is—no doubt—a lot of mutual dick-rubbing going on in the magic “review” community as well, and it’s good to see that challenged from time to time. But in this case, going in hard against this particular trick seems a little thirsty.

This sort of goes back to what I was talking about at the beginning of this post. People enjoy when you go off on things. That was the main draw of my site 20 years. But back when I was turning shit-talking into art, there was a lot of prominent dumb shit to talk about. These days, the really dumb stuff rarely makes any noise, so you end up having to go off on something that’s fine—but maybe just not right for you. And it seems weird to get too passionate about a trick that is unquestionably at least “okay.”

This is why my review newsletter only has reviews of stuff that I’m really into. When I like a trick, I end up performing it at least a few times and have some thoughts on how it can be presented in a way that gets the best reaction. That gives me something interesting to write about. Writing about the tricks I’m not into becomes dull, because I just don’t get worked up about tricks that aren’t for me. And usually I’m smart enough not to buy the tricks that truly suck in the first place.

The Power of Shifting Power

Here’s a simple experiment you can try to test the impact that comes from shifting the power behind an effect from yourself to someone else. (What I call a “3rd Party” type of presentation.)

Test #1

Give someone a marked deck. Have them shuffle it and remove one card and look at it. Hold your hand a few inches over the card and tell them what color it is. Do it again, but this time reveal the whole card.

The person you’re performing for may be mildly impressed.

But if you ask them how they thought you did it it, the majority of people will suggest maybe the cards are marked.

Test #2

When someone is at your home, pretend to take a phone call. At some point, say something like this…

“Okay, I’ll let you know about Friday, that would be fun.

“Huh?

“Oh, yeah, my friend is over…

“Uhm, probably…let me see.”

From the other room you turn and ask your friend, “Hey Nina, is there a deck of cards near you. Can you grab it?

Okay, she has one… what do you want her to do?”

Through the supposed person on the other end of the phone, you have your friend shuffle and select a card. Don’t have her look at it just yet.

“Okay, yeah, she did that. What now?”

You listen for a moment, then turn to your friend.

Okay, he wants you to put your left hand on the card…[listening] Now extend your right index finger… and touch my finger.”

You extend your left finger for her to touch.

“Okay, now what?" Listening some more. To Nina, “Okay… he says the card you’re touching is red. Let’s see.”

She turns over the card. He’s right.

“Haha. Okay. Nice. Is it just a guess?” You pause and listen for a bit. “No,” you say, “That’s not possible…. Okay…Yeah, she can.”

To Nina, “He wants you to slide out another card.”

You go through the finger touching process again.

Listening on the phone, you then say, “No way. Seriously, I’m going to vomit if that’s right. He says it’s the King of Diamonds.”

She turns over the card and he’s right again.

Toss your phone over into a chair. “What the hell? Are you fucking kidding me?”

Go grab your phone and continue your “conversation” with the person on the phone. “Seriously… how did you do that? That was awesome.” For the next few minutes after getting off the phone, act a little stunned, as if your mind is racing.

You will likely find your friend to be far more amazed and impressed than the person for whom you performed Test #1.

And if you ask them if they have any idea how he did it, they are very unlikely to suggest the deck is marked.


Shifting the power from myself usually leads to reactions that are considerably more intense and longer-lasting. Why? I think these are the two biggest reasons.

  1. Because I myself get to act so amazed, they feel open to feeling the amazement as well. They don’t have to feel self-conscious or stupid that they might have missed something obvious.

  2. When I show someone a trick where I’m the “magician,” they can easily categorize that interaction. “Well, that was Andy showing me a trick. I don’t know how it’s done. But… it’s just a trick, of course.” Just a trick is the ultimate “Easy Answer” people come up with. But if I’m not the person behind the trick, it becomes harder to categorize. Especially when I’m there complicating the issue. “How could he have… I mean…it has to be just a trick, right? But I’ve studied all sorts of ways of doing that, and I can’t even begin to imagine how he could have done that.”

People are so sure that magic is about making yourself look clever, that you can often fool them badly with something simple, just because they’re not prepared for you to be “in” on something where you’re not the star.

Until February...

This is the final January post. New posting will resume February 1st. The next issue of the Love Letters newsletter will come out that day as well for supporters of the site.


A reminder, if you didn’t read yesterday’s post. Starting next month, new posts will be up in the afternoon New York time. This doesn’t matter for most of you, except those of you who read the site daily and are used to posts appearing at a set time.

I had a couple people ask me to reconsider and keep the morning release schedule because it was part of their morning routine. Here’s the deal… you can still come to the site in the morning. No one is stopping you. If you don’t read the post that comes out on the 1st of the month until the morning of the 2nd, you now have your Jerx post in the morning again. Voila. Problem solved.


Vanishing Inc. recently released a Collapsible Wine Glass.

Whatever you’re picturing that being, it’s not what you’re picturing. The glass doesn’t “collapse” by any definition of the word I’m familiar with. The base unscrews. So it’s an Unscrewable Wine Glass.

When I reached out to my mole inside of Vanishing Inc to ask why they called it a “collapsible” wine glass, I was told it’s because both Josh and Andi are super sensitive to the term “unscrewable.” Apparently it was thrown around a lot with them throughout their lives.

Fair enough.


Someone has taken me up on the offer to submit the “most average” item from their multi-effect release. (I don’t take any money for advertising on this site. But if you’d like your exposure for your product here, this is one of the ways to do it.)

Larry Travis has offered up an in-the-hands open prediction handling called “Maybe,” from his recently released ebook, Ivy.

You can read it here. If you like it, know that he considers at least half of the material in the rest of the ebook to be better than this. So give his ebook a look as well.


Martin C. pointed out this cute bit of sexism to me from the ad for the Albo Card which I linked to a couple weeks ago. It sounds like it’s straight out of the Mad Men era.

Imagine giving an astonishingly impossible card to someone important. Imagine the story he would tell!"

Because once you establish you’re giving this impossible card to “someone important,” we know what gender they are.

Now look, don’t gang up on the guy who wrote the ad copy. He’s not suggesting women don’t add to society. Of course they do (in the form of housewives, nurses, ballerinas, etc). But, come on, when we’re talking about someone important… that takes a cock and balls.


That said, all you important gentlemen (and you silly, darling gals too) have a good rest of your January and I’ll see you back here February 1st.

Evening News

This is a story about the most magical three seconds of my life.

I grew up in the suburbs of a mid-size city.

In those days—the 80s and 90s—even a moderately sized city could support two daily newspapers. (It barely supports one now.)

Where I lived, there was a morning newspaper that was delivered by a guy in a car who would stick the paper in your mailbox. And there was a competing evening newspaper that was delivered by paperboys and girls onto your front porch.

From the ages of 13-15 or so, I was the paperboy for the route in my neighborhood.

That meant every late afternoon/early evening I had to sling a bag across my body and deliver the paper to all the subscribers along one of the roads that looped around my neighborhood.

It took about 40 minutes and was a mostly pleasant experience, assuming the weather cooperated.

The worst part of the job was Sunday mornings. The only Sunday newspaper in town was published by the paper I delivered. But people don’t want their Sunday paper in the evening. They want it when they wake up. So, on Sunday mornings at, like, 5:00 am, gigantic stacks of newspapers would be dumped on my driveway. I would have to drag them into the house, assemble them, and then deliver them in the wee hours.

The Sunday newspapers were huge. They weighed a few pounds each. You couldn’t carry them all in a bag on your body. Instead, there was a hand truck you’d use and wheel around the road. It wasn’t fun. On days when it was raining or the streets were covered with sloppy, melting snow, and you had to deliver the paper while also trying to keep it dry, it genuinely sucked.

But that was just one day a week.

Most of the time it was a carefree walk through a neighborhood that was loaded with kids and friends.

The weirdest part of the job was called “collecting.”

If you’re under the age of… say, 35, this is going to sound batshit crazy to you.

I was a paperboy in the 90s. Online payments weren’t a thing yet. But Credit cards existed. Checks existed.

So how did people pay for their newspaper subscriptions?

The paperboy would go around the neighborhood every week, knock on people’s doors, and collect the money in cash. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE AN EFFICIENT SYSTEM TO YOU??

I don’t really get it. But that’s how it worked. I’d knock on your door every Tuesday or Wednesday night and collect the $3.80 you owed for the paper that week.

Most people would give me $4 and let me keep the 20 cents change. Some would let me keep the change on a $5. They were the high-rollers. Some would actually want their 20 cents back. Even at 14 years old I pitied those people.

Anyway, collecting was my favorite part of the job. It took me forever to get that done each week. In a given week, half the houses wouldn’t just pay, but they’d also invite me in for a while. Maybe have a bite to eat, some dinner or dessert. Play a video game. Watch something on TV. Help them move a dresser (I probably made more money doing little tasks for these people than I did delivering the paper.) Or just chat for a bit.

Most of the houses in my neighborhood had kids, but I wasn’t always spending time with kids. I’d hang out with some kids, but also many adults who found me entertaining, and a few elderly people who enjoyed having someone to talk to. I’d socialize with anyone pretty much.

My route circled around to a dead end that went into a wooded area through which we would ride our dirt bikes.

The last house on the road where it met the dead end belonged to the Lowe’s. This wasn’t a house I was ever invited into. I just got the money and left. It was purely transactional.

The Lowe’s were a man in his 40s and his daughter who was about four years old.

Every time I would come collecting, his daughter would answer the door, then run to get her dad.

Victoria, the four-year-old daughter was very sweet, but there was something unsettling about her.

She didn’t have “cute” child-like features. She had the features of an attractive older woman, just on a smaller human being. (And no, this isn’t some story about a dwarf pretending to be a child.)

To be clear, I wasn’t attracted to her. She was a little kid. But it was obvious she would probably grow up to be a beautiful woman. (Anyone who can’t differentiate between these two thoughts and says something to me like—“Oh man, you were attracted to a four-year-old!”—is someone I don’t trust around kids. They’ve only got one mode of thinking.)

One day, I went collecting at the Lowe’s house. I rang the bell and Victoria answered. She opened the front door and greeted me, then she shut the door partway. A moment later she opened it again and—like a magic trick—she had transformed into a piping hot 25-year-old woman. She was about 5’8”, thin but curvy, and blond. A real 1990s fox. The features that were striking but out of place on her as a four-year-old, were now just stunningly gorgeous on this grown woman.

My mind was blown.

It was the most amazing three seconds of my life.

Then rational thought started creeping back in a moment later: “This is probably someone else, not the little girl magically transformed.” (In my memory they were even wearing matching outfits, making the transformation all the more perfect, but I think I just made that up in my head.)

I would learn this was Victoria’s mother. I thought she was out of the picture. But no, she lived there the whole time. Somehow her presence had escaped the notice of the horn-ball teenage boys who lived in the area. It may have been because the house was set back near a dead end. But the larger reason was that she didn’t leave the house much. Mr. Lowe kept his much younger wife in the house, apparently, as much as possible.

Why was I seeing her now? Well, because Mr. Lowe had just been sent to prison for a couple years for not paying his taxes.

The first time I collected my $3.80 from her, she invited me in and we had a little chat.

The next week I came there and she took me over to the couch and cried about her husband and her situation for 30 minutes. It might seem super weird that she was opening up to a teenager, but she had married very young and had lived a very sheltered life. We felt more like peers. If anything I was the more confident and self-possessed one.

It became something I could count on every week, these conversations with her. She’d always invite me in and we’d talk for 20 minutes, at least. Sometimes much longer.

“This chick likes me!’ I said to myself. But even at that age, I had the insight to know that was unlikely. She was a ravishing 25-year-old woman. I was a 15-year-old. Yes, most people thought I was 17 or 18. And sure, I did have decent calves from lugging around a newspaper bag every day—you can’t deny that. But I was obviously not in her league.

And then…

One week I stopped by and she answered the door in a bath towel that just barely covered the areas it needed to cover. Her daughter was away, staying with her grandmother for the night.

She invited me in. She didn’t say, “I’ll just change real quick.” Or, “Let me throw on a robe.” Instead, she sat with me on the couch as usual. At this point, the towel wasn’t quite covering everything it needed to, so she crossed her legs to maintain some decency.

Then, as our conversation went on, she uncrossed her legs.

But that’s a story for another time.

I mention this as a prelude to this announcement:

Much like I was 30 years ago, I am going back to an afternoon delivery schedule.

Typically I schedule posts to go up in the middle of the night here on the east coast of the US. That means they’re available relatively early for Jerx: Europe. And pretty much first thing in the morning for Jerx: America. But that’s going to change. Starting in February, posts will appear in the afternoon. I’m not sure if there will be an exact time every day or not. I’ll let you know as I feel it out. There’s a reason for this move, but it’s not interesting. It’s just going to help me with some other things scheduling-wise.

So if reading this site was part of your morning routine, you may need to change it to be part of your evening wind-down. Settle into your favorite chair. Have your dog bring you your slippers and iPad. Pour yourself a brandy or a glass of Papa John’s Garlic Sauce (whichever you prefer). And dive into The Jerx as the sun sets.

Spectator Belief and Dicebot 5000

After Monday’s post, I got a handful of emails expressing a concern that I seem to get in one form or another after most tricks I post. The concern is that the spectator is going to believe the idea of these dice being controlled by this app. Or that you’re going to be in an awkward situation where the spectator doesn’t really believe this app exists, but they might think you want them to believe this is a real thing.

This seems to be a common concern. Especially with people who are new to this site, or new to the style of tricks I write up.

Here is my thinking regarding this particular trick. And some thoughts on putting this issue to bed for all tricks.

Spectator Belief and DB5k

In Phase 1, the trick is on the verge of believability. It’s too close to believable, in my opinion.

But then phase 2 takes it past the point of believability. At least for most people. It would be one thing if an app could control the roll of five dice. But how would it know which three they were going to select and in which order they’d stack them?

I trust that people who have seen me perform before will know we’ve crossed over into fiction at some point. They won’t know it immediately at the start of the trick, but that’s fine.

By the end, when I’m telling them they have $2500 worth of electronic dice, they’ll get that it’s a bit.

If I picked the wrong sort of person to perform this for, maybe they’d challenge me thinking that I wanted them to believe it. But I rarely have that sort of issue. If someone did try to challenge me, I would just dig deeper and make it even goofier that they were taking it seriously.

If they said, “No, those aren’t programmable dice. That was just a trick.”

Me: “A trick? Ha. I wish. I wish there was some sort of trick where you could predict how real random dice would roll and how someone would stack them.”

Them: “Okay, then how does it work then? How did it know how I’d stack them?”

Me: “Beats me. I don’t know electronics very well.”

Them: “What’s the name of the app?”

Me: “The app that allows you to control the dice? DiceBot 5000.”

[Don’t actually tell them DiceBot 5000. That will lead them here.]

Them: [After searching for it.] “I didn’t find any DiceBot 5000 in the app store.”

Me: “Wait…, really? Let me look.” [I look at their phone.] “Oh, what are you doing? No, of course it’s not in the regular app store. These dice are totally illegal. You need to be in the Dark Web App Store.”

I hardly ever have to play with people in this way anymore. They get what’s going on at some point when things become just a little too unbelievable.

If you’re doing this type of trick with someone who needs to be reassured at the end that it’s “just a trick,” then they’re not a good audience for this style of performing. They’re still thinking that you’re genuinely trying to convince them that this stuff is real. They should be out of that mode of thinking.

If you’re worried someone is going to believe (or think you want them to believe) that something you’re showing them is real, then you haven’t done a good enough job in previous tricks making it clear that obviously these things aren’t supposed to be taken seriously.

You don’t need to tell them not to take things seriously. They should know you’re interested in magic (we’re not trying to keep that secret—we’re doing tricks, not practical jokes). So everything you do should be seen in that context.

If you’re concerned, use sillier premises at first, but still with a storytelling angle. “When I was a child, I fell through the ice while skating alone on a pond. I was trapped under the ice and couldn’t find the hole to get out. The water could have killed me. Instead, I blacked out and woke up laying on the ice and ever since then I’ve had the power to control sponges. (Sponges being waters natural enemy.) Whether this was a gift or a curse, I may never know. But check out these red sponge balls and witness my awesome power.”

That sets a precedent. In the future, when you then go into more immersive stories, or less outrageous stories, they’ll get that it’s fiction and not intended to be believed.

Almost everyone gets it quickly. People aren’t dumb. Once you’re going a little deeper with people presentationally, they should have such a clear understanding what type of stuff you do that they don’t need you to disclaim it. For the same reason they shouldn’t need someone to come on screen at the end of a film and say, “Hey, just so you know, we tried really hard to make everything look real in this movie. But it was just a movie. This stuff didn’t really happen. I’m Chris Evans. I'm an actor. I don’t teach at a school in the inner city.”