Mr. Danger

Back in December I got an email from reader Brandon C. asking what I thought about an idea he had for Tenyo’s Mr. Danger.

If you don’t know the trick, here it is.

Here was Brandon’s idea…

Don't show what's inside. (The plastic man.)

Tell spectators this is a personality exercise. Give them the swords. Whichever area they attack (first) tells something about them. (Works best with group, each sword gets a reasoning....can be altered for solo) Oh, you went for the groin? Interesting. Have someone you'd like to John Bobbit, is it? Or, right for jugular -- pent up murderer are we, yada yada fun.

Then after all of it, reveal inside. The tissue that's been pierced, the solid man untouched. 

Point is, don't we know where we are going right off the bat with the standard routine? Reverse it to have more fun with the perplexing reveal... And, if audiences are one step ahead on their own -- that's okay, I prefer audience superiority over audience boredom.

I thought Brandon’s idea was an interesting one.

I find penetration effects to have an unusual blandness to them. You would think they would be one of the strongest effects you could do because your audience is seeing the actual moment of magic. What I mean is, when you do Ambitious Card, they see you put the card in the middle of the deck and then they see the card on top of the deck. They don’t see the magic, they see the result of the magic. Same with, like, Coins Across or something. You see the coin in one hand, then you see it in the other. Both of these are normal states of being for a coin. It’s just the fact that one state directly follows the other that makes it magical.

With many penetration effects, you’re seeing the moment of impossibility as it happens. But in my experience, they frequently don’t get the best response.

This, I believe, is why many people prefer performing a penetration where the impossibility of the penetration comes as a surprise at the end. Think of the brass block matchbox penetration effect. “I’m pushing a match through this box of matches. But look, it’s not just a box of matches, there’s a brass block inside.”

This type of presentation gives magicians the sort of twist that they appreciate in their effects. But there is a downside to it. And that downside comes from the fact that because your spectator doesn’t know you’re doing something impossible from the get-go, they don’t always pay attention as they should to the match going through the matchbox. Often they think that if they had known what to look for they would have caught you the first time. Maybe you snuck the brass block into the matchbox somehow after the match went through. Well… how else? That must be what happened. There’s almost no reason for them not to think that.

I gave some thought to this issue and offered a couple of solutions in this post (second email in that post). I got a lot of positive feedback from people who incorporated one or both of those ideas. They’re pretty simple and they go towards eliminating the “I must have missed something” answer, without totally eliminating the twist.

Now, what makes Mr. Danger so nice, is that your audience can pretty feely handle the prop and place the little daggers in themselves. And when they open it they’ll see the plastic guy in his compartment and it seems like there’s no way he could have moved from that spot. So that goes a long way towards preventing spectators from thinking you somehow slipped him in there.

But I agree with Brandon that the standard routine (as shown in the demo) is pretty busted. Once they see the little plastic man and you putting him in the case, they know exactly where this is going. And after you’ve put in a couple of the little swords, I’m not sure that more swords becomes any more amazing.

Here are a couple of ways I’ve been enjoying performing Mr. Danger (which is, by far, one of the best Tenyo tricks released in years). Neither of these will turn this little trick into some gigantic miracle (I can’t think of a single penetration effect that could really be described as such). But they’re both ways to allow for the audience not to get too far ahead of the trick, and they both allow for the “twist” ending.

Version 1: I trace the plastic man cut-out on a piece of tissue paper that fits in the frame. I do this before my friend arrives. When I want to perform, I show them the tissue paper with the man on it and place it inside the frame. (They don’t know anything about the plastic guy that is in there as well.) I tell them to take the swords and push them through the holes. Then I have them remove them. They do. “Isn’t that an incredible trick?” I ask. “You penetrated the swords right through the little guy.” They’re like, So what? It was tissue paper. “Oh, sorry. No. I wasn’t talking about that little guy.” I remove the clips holding the prop shut and allow them to open it to see what’s inside.

Version 2: I introduce the prop and the swords to a friend. I tell them I’m going to turn my back and I want them to take any number of the swords they want and put them in any of the holes they like. I turn my back and ask them to tell me when they’re done. When they tell me, I say, “Okay, believe it or not, I made a prediction of exactly how many swords you’d use and where you’d stick them,” I say, and hold up a folded piece of paper. I turn around with a big smile on my face. Then I look at the prop and I’m like, WTF?? “Uhm… okay. I got that wrong.” I open my prediction. It says: Zero Swords. “How the hell?” I start removing the swords. “I thought I had rigged it so you couldn’t put any in.” I pull off the clips and give them the prop to open. I shake my head. “I wasn’t cut out for this. I can’t even make an accurate prediction even when I rig the thing. And look at you! You’re doing magic and penetrating swords through solid plastic without even trying. Hold on… I’m going to think of a number between 1 and 100. What am I thinking of?”

“62?”

“Yes! Goddammit, how are you so good at this stuff?”

Mailbag #88

Did you pick up Scribe by Christian Grace yet? I’m wondering if it will be in next year’s Jerx Almanac as your go-to thumbwriter? —SL

I did, in fact, pick this up. I get almost every new secret writing device that I hear about.

No, it won’t replace the thumbwriter I currently use. That’s not to say it isn’t good. But I spent so much time working with a more traditional thumbwriter in order to get things legible, that my muscle memory is now all set up for the standard version. If I was a beginner, or I was recommending a thumbwriter to a beginner, I could see myself leaning towards Scribe. But as it stands I would have to relearn secret-writing with this gimmick, when I have something pretty workable already. I don’t see myself doing that. I’m lazy.

Again, that’s not saying that Scribe isn’t better, but in my hands, it felt clunkier and more awkward than what I have become used to. Like if you learned to ride a bicycle and then someone said, “I’ve got something much better.”

That’s definitely more stable and easier to ride, but if you already put the time into getting good on a normal bicycle, you might only see the downsides of this new version.

---

There’s a bit of a debate on hypnotism in this thread on the Magic Cafe. It’s a trick where you make it so a spectator can’t lift a sharpie from a table. There’s some debate about the usefulness of hypnosis and the spectator’s experience. What are your thoughts on this sort of thing? Or hypnosis in general?—LL

Every hypnosis thing I’ve looked into or experienced has involved the spectator playing along with the situation in some respect. That’s my understanding of stage hypnosis, clinical hypnosis, and these types of suggestion-based stunts. Perhaps there exists something where that’s not the case. Where the person truly feels they were compelled to do or not to do something and it was entirely beyond their control. But if so, I don’t know what that technique is.

I had a friend in NYC who used to stick people’s hands to the table with “hypnosis.” It seemed like their hands were really stuck and it was against their will. I watched him do this with many people over the course of a couple of years.

Then, one day, a mutual friend of ours who was out with us said to the person whose hand was stuck, “I’ll give you six dollars if you raise your hand.” And they raised their hand. This story got around our friend group and after that point, whenever my friend tried to stick someone’s hand to a table, someone else would say, “I’ll give you six dollars if you lift your hand.” And 100% of the time they lifted their hand. It wasn’t $1000 or some other amount that might be powerful enough to “break the spell.” No. It was just six bucks.

Perhaps some people are more or less conscious to the extent that they’re allowing these things to happen. But, I don’t know that anyone is completely in the dar. And, as someone who prefers to perform one-on-one, I’m not really into these sorts of stunts where the spectator going along with it is such a big part of the “method.”

---

From time to time, I enjoy practicing DayGame in my country, and I never perform sleight of hand during an approach, only on dates. It appears that you only perform magic when you are alone with the woman. However, if you were to perform a magic trick for a woman whom you approached on the street and wished to establish a connection with her, perhaps by guessing her zodiac sign or some other such nonsense, would you perform a trick? Do you have a particular trick in mind, or would you reserve it exclusively for a date?—DM

It’s not the trick itself that’s going to really matter, it’s the timing. I wouldn’t approach anyone on the street and perform a trick for them. If you’re recording a tv special, that’s one thing. But if this is meant to be a normal human interaction, then it would be way weird (at least in the United States).

If you do anything that’s meant to look “impressive” too early on when meeting someone (a magic trick, bragging about your bank balance, showing them your MENSA membership card) that’s going to come off as low-status and trying too hard.

I don’t think you can “establish a connection” with a magic trick. At least I never have. At least not a genuine connection. You can establish a connection between “audience and magician” but not really between two regular people. Once you know the person, then a good magic trick can further a connection. But not build one out of nothing.

Conversation is the only way I know to establish a connection. In that initial conversation you can plant some seeds about your interest in: magic, psychology, sleight-of-hand, astrology, mind-reading, gambling, or whatever the case may be. If the other person is intrigued, then you can transition into your trick after they demonstrate their interest in seeing something like that.

If someone walked up to you and said, “I’m going to sing you a song.” You’d find that weird. If they started up a conversation with you and at some point mentioned being a singer and you expressed an interest in hearing them sing, then it might be perfectly natural for them sing a few bars. And at that point, sharing that song with you might deepen your connection, but if they had just started with that shit immediately you’d be like

On the occasions where I do show someone I just met something (in a coffee bar or on a train/plane) then it’s very clear that I’m not trying to create a connection with them. I’m just asking for their help or their opinion on something. It’s very, very casual. “Could I get your help with something real quick?” It should feel like the equivalent of asking someone for the time. People usually don’t want to feel singled out by a stranger. So you don’t want it to feel like, “Oh, I want to do this thing especially for you.” Instead, you want it to seem like it could have been anyone and they just happen to be nearby. That takes some of the pressure and weirdness out of the situation. And that moment could then transition into conversation/connection, but only because it didn’t seem that was my intention from the start.

Until May...

This is the final post until next month. The next newsletter will be sent to supporters on May 1st and new posts will start that same evening.

Before we go, some follow-up on this week’s posts…

---

A recent email from JR-

I really loved Ryan Plunkett’s idea for the Instant Rebate effect and I’m planning on trying it out this weekend. Then I read this comment in the Wikitest facebook group…

Is he missing something or am I? You were just talking about hiding the tip in the area where the snacks get deposited right? Or am I misreading something?—JR

He’s confused. First, you can’t use “etc. etc.” after you give one example. That’s not how that works. And you’re correct, JR, you’re not hiding it in the inner workings of the vending machine. You’re just popping it into the area where the food gets deposited. It does take, maybe two seconds at the machine without the person you’re performing for. If that’s not “practical” enough, you can also buy yourself something from the machine first and load it while you remove that item.

I performed this a couple nights ago at an ice-cream parlor/bowling alley place with a friend. I didn’t have a thumbtip on me so I just folded the bill and stashed it in the area where the food drops out. Then I brought my friend over and had the bill reappear in her bag of gross veggie chips.

I just sort of finger-palmed the bill behind the bag and dumped it out with the contents of the bag. It wasn’t as clean as reaching in with the thumbtip would be. But she had video of evidence of me reaching into the machine with empty hands, pulling out the bag that she chose, and dumping out the bill that I had never touched before. There’s still no explanation. So you don’t even need to let a lack of a thumbtip prevent you from trying this.

---

After yesterday’s post, I’ve already received a few emails asking if we can create the ability to save some presets into the DrawCycle function for the Jerx app. I asked Marc Kerstein about it and he had it updated and approved within hours. You should see that update in the Jerx App soon.

---

Regarding Closed Circle, Tomas B. writes:

What a delight to read your method to Closed Circle!

It made me think of classic endings to such scenes with a built in silence delay, which I hope means that you don't even have to touch the cup:

After speaking of all the clues you say:

”Which means that the killer iiiiiiissss..."

and you first look over the assisting spectators, then focus on the wrong one, as if you are about to accuse him/her, which is funny since it's a corpse.

"...YOU!" Quickly turn to the only survivor and hit your fist hard on the table to freeze the cycling in the app.

Does that work, or is it the compass direction that needs to change for it to stop?—TB

Unfortunately, no. I don’t think that would reliably stop the cycling of the outs. It could probably be made that sensitive, but then that would prevent using the feature in other ways.

But still, I like the idea of using the “built in silence delay” you talk about, that is inherent in stereotypical detective revelations. As the cycling comes around to the number you need, your pause can be seen as building dramatic tension. “Putting all the clues together, it’s clear the murderer is…[wait for the out you need]. You!” And in that moment you can push the mug out of your way to stop the cycling.

---

Also in regards to Closed Circle, Leslie T. writes:

Really like the routine.

In the spirit of keeping it self contained…

How about using Quinta to force a murder weapon that people have on their person?

Could be pretty funny if the object is miles away from what people consider a weapon.

The killer bludgeoned their victims to death with a cell phone, stabbed them in the jugular with a house key, or suffocated them with tampons. —LT

I considered something similar and I will probably add it to the outs to see how it goes. I just have to think of where it would fit in the flow of the routine.

But yeah, that’s definitely a good addition to it that would keep it completely anytime-anywhere (as long as you have your phone).

---

Okay, everyone, see you back here on National Black Barber Barber Shop Appreciation Day for a dope-ass high-top fade and more magic discussion.

Closed Circle - Method

Okay, let’s solve the mystery.

The part that I left out in yesterday’s description is that when you write down the prediction, you don’t do it on a piece of paper—because who carries around paper and pen with them all the time?

So you write it on your phone.

Actually, this trick uses the Jerx App. Specifically the Draw Cycle feature of the app.

Draw Cycle is a way to do an index of outs. The phone cycles through the outs and whenever you move the phone in some semi-significant way, the out that’s on the screen freezes.

With one killer and three victims, there are 24 possibilities you need to account for.

“So what am I supposed to do? Just stare at my phone and wait for the out I need to come up?”

Not quite. It’s actually slightly more clever than that.

The characters in the play are the robot, the billionaire, the chef, and the duchess. Let’s call the robot an “automaton.”

Automaton, Billionaire, Chef, Duchess.

A, B, C, D.

A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4

As the characters are killed you will keep track of the order in which they die. And that will give you a three-digit number. So, in yesterday’s example, they died: Duchess, Automaton, Billionaire. So the number we remember is 412.

At the top of each prediction in the Draw Cycle app, there will be a “speed” for the NW wind. You don’t need to read the entire prediction to know which one you need. You just look for the speed that corresponds to the number you remembered. Because I remembered 412, I was looking for 41.2.

The numbers go in order, so if I look at my phone and see a number that begins with 1 (and I’m thinking of 412) then I know I can take my eyes off the phone for a little bit as I have some time to kill. But if it’s a number that starts with a 3, then I know my number is coming up soon and I shouldn’t let my attention stray too much. As soon as the number appears, I just have to slide the mug out of the way and the prediction freezes in place.

---

Writing the predictions.

You’re going to have to do this yourself. It will take you about half an hour. I considered having them pre-populated, but really it should be in something close to your handwriting (at least your handwriting as written on a phone).

You’ll probably want to get a stylus that works with the iphone, as you’re going to be doing a bit of writing.

Here are the numbers you need to account for.

• 123

• 124

• 132

• 134

• 142

• 143

• 213

• 214

• 231

• 234

• 241

• 243

• 312

• 314

• 321

• 324

• 341

• 342

• 412

• 413

• 421

• 423

• 431

• 432

Bring up the blank page for the first out in the Draw Cycle feature. Your first number is 1,2,3. That tells us the order of who was killed. The number that’s missing (4) tells us who the killer was.

So first you write down the windspeed note - NW → 12.3

Then you write “Almonds” or some other random “clue”

Then you write the killer. The killer, as I said, is whoever is associated with the missing number. In this case, you’d write: “Killer is Duchess!”

Then you’d write the order the people were killed in. This is just the order of the numbers in your wind speed. 123 = “Killed Robot then Billionaire then Chef.”

Remember the Robot is the same as the Automaton

Then you will add a new prediction and write out the prediction for the next number on the list. (NW → 12.4 - Almonds - Chef is the killer! Killed Robot, then Billionaire, then Duchess.)

You will continue this until you have all 24 outs.

---

“Writing” the Prediction

When it comes time to apparently write your prediction on the phone, you will just appear to write it with your finger. Keep the phone tilted toward you and take some time to write it. The “cycling” of the outs doesn’t start until you touch the screen, so don’t touch the screen until the phone is placed in the position where it will rest during the performance.

You might say, “If you were really going to do this, wouldn’t you just type the note rather than write it with your finger?” I don’t think you need to worry about that. First of all, taking notes on the digital equivalent of a small pad is more in line with the “detective” archetype than typing in the notes on your phone. And secondly, a scribbled prediction is more unique and less susceptible to be messed with (from the spectator’s perspective) than a typed out note.

To make the hand-scribbled note even more “necessary” you could draw a little sketch of some “clue” in the corner of each note.

The only thing that might come off as somewhat suspicious about writing the note on your phone is if there’s actually a pen and paper near at hand. So I just don’t perform this when there is.

---

Settings and Timing

In the Draw Cycle settings, turn off the Image Change Haptic, and turn off the Confirm Haptic. Because the phone isn’t going to be in your hand, you don’t want these on.

Change the Delay (the time between outs) to whatever you’re comfortable with. Mine is set at 1.5 seconds. But you can go up to 2.

Go with 2 seconds if you’re nervous about it.

Here’s one of the great things about this presentation. You will know which number/out you need the moment you know the third person who was killed (and you’ll be building up the number in your head until that point).

Now, even if you learned the number you needed, and when you look at your phone you realize you just passed it, the most you will have to kill time for is 48 seconds.

That may seem like a lot of time. And it would be for other presentations.

But what happens at the end of a detective story?

That’s right. The detective rambles on about what just happened and how he solved the case. The bullshitting time is baked into the presentation.

I place the phone in a mug or leaned up against something in front of me after I “write” my notes. I want to be able to gaze out as if I’m thinking and staring forward and be able to see the numbers as they pass by, without it looking like I’m staring intently at my phone.

When the number hits, I move the phone or the mug aside as I talk and put it somewhere near the “killer.” What I usually do is pause when I see my number coming up. I stare out as if I’m thinking and processing what just happened, while I’m actually noting the numbers pass. And when the number I need appears, I slide the phone to the person and say, “I’m going to have you read what I wrote in just a second.” And then I go back to recapping what just happened.

When I do this trick, I can easily filibuster long enough to go through two complete cycles at the slowest speed. Although I’ve never had to. But I pretty much always talk much longer than I actually need to.

---

Anytime, Anywhere

Once you have this set up on your phone, you’re ready to do it at any time in any situation, as long as you have four people who can play the characters.

If you have more than four people, then choose the four most outgoing people to act in this little play and encourage the other people to see if they can identify the murderer when you do (before the murder happens).

I love having such a big, extended effect on me that requires nothing on hand. Since the killer is chosen genuinely randomly, any method you want to use can be used to determine who the killer is. They can draw straws, decide between themselves, or one of the other people watching can choose.

I knew I wanted to do a trick where I talk about being a detective who figures out a crime before it occurred. When I thought about using the Jerx App’s Draw Cycle feature as the method I was pretty happy. But I wasn’t looking forward to writing new predictions for each group I performed it for.

It was a very satisfying stroke of inspiration when I realized that if I had them playing characters, I could write specific seeming predictions that were actually generic. I could name who exactly killed who, but without using real names. This made the trick 1000 times more practical, as you can now get into it with no notice at all. And it adds a whole element of fun to the proceedings as you have the people playing these different characters.

You obviously don’t have to use the same characters and qualities that I use. But you’ll want characters who are easy to act out, and easy for you to associate with the numbers 1-4.

---

Weapon

I’ve considered adding in a force of a weapon so the prediction can list the murder weapon used as well, but without the need for any more outs.

I decided against it for the time being because I don’t want to add another app to the equation or other props in order to force a weapon. But it’s something I may consider in the future.

---

There you go. It’s a great little trick and one of the stronger ones I do that requires me to have nothing extra on me. It gets everyone involved in a fun way and the revelation gets a great reaction. It’s sort of got the feel of a “chair test” but one that can be done casually and close-up.

Closed Circle

Today I’m going to describe a trick for you and tomorrow I’m going to give you the method. To set expectations, not everyone will be able to do this. Well, technically everyone can do this, they just might not have the “thing” necessary in order to do it.

Originally, this was a presentation I had in mind for a Craig Petty trick. I reached out to Craig to get some information but never heard back from him, so I started thinking about other potential methods and hit on one that is incredibly clean.

As I describe the trick, I will be leaving out a certain element (that relates to the method), but everything that follows is true.

Imagine

I’m getting dinner with a few friends. We’re talking about the movies we’ve watched lately and what we liked and what we didn’t like. We all dug “X.” “Bodies, Bodies, Bodies,” was okay, but not a stunner. “Missing” was a fun found-footage mystery. “Glass Onion,” was alright at best.

“I was hoping that would be better,” I say. “I’ve been sort of obsessed with these mysteries that take place in an isolated location with a small group of suspects.

“I’ve actually been working on something related to it. I might write it as a story or a comic someday. It’s based on an old party-game I used to be pretty good at. Where a ‘detective’ would have to identify a ‘murderer.’ I got to the point where I could ‘solve’ the murder before it was even committed. That gave me the idea for this detective character who could do something like that.”

This is not the most clear concept in the world. My friend Justin says, “Solve it before it happens?”

“Uhm, like… here, I’ll demonstrate it. I’ll play the part of the detective. You four are going to be four characters in the story. Here are the characters you can choose from. Hmm… okay. So one of you will be a stupid billionaire. Like, you have a ton of money, but you’re also super stupid. There will be a drunken duchess. Very high status, but also very drunk. Uhm… an angry chef. One of the world’s greatest chefs, but everything sets him off. And finally, one of you will be a brilliant robot, who also loves sex.”

The group chooses their characters, one is the stupid billionaire, one is the drunken duchess, one is the angry chef, and one is the sex-fiend robot. These choices are made freely, whoever wants to choose a character gets to.

“Okay,” I say. “Three of you are going to die tonight. The other person will be the murderer. I—being the detective—am going to interview you before the crimes take place. I’m going to ask you two questions. ‘Are you the murder,’ to which you’ll all say no, because no one has yet been killed. And I’ll also ask you what you’re going to do tonight. And you just tell me what it is your character’s plans are for the night. Okay?’

I go around asking each character if they’re the murderer. They all respond, “No.”

“Hmmm… interesting,” I say.

I then ask each person what their plans are for the night. We’re staying at a secluded country house, and it’s just the five of us, so their options are limited.

The stupid billionaire is going to play checkers. “By yourself?” I ask. Turns out he sets the checkers on their edge and lines them up and pushed them over like dominos.

The drunken duchess is going to do body shots off her own body.

The angry chef is going to prepare tomorrow’s breakfast, assuming his dumb fucking sous chef remembered to get the goddamn eggs.

And the horny robot is going to watch Porky’s and jack off.

“Okay,” I say, “Now I shall look for clues.” I lick my index finger and hold it up in the air. “Ah! A strong northwest wind.” I take a deep inhale. “What is that? Almonds? Yes! I think I have all the information I need to solve these murders!”

I take a minute or so to write down a prediction. That prediction is placed in a coffee mug and never touched by me again. Remember that.

I take four packets of sugar substitute, three blue packets and one pink, and crinkle them up into four ball-like shapes. I tell my friend next to me to take them under the table and mix them up and then pass them along to the next person who should also mix them up blindly. All four people mix the packets without looking. And, also under the table, each person takes a sugar packet for themselves.

“Hold your packet tight in your fist. In a second I want you to look in your fist to see what color sugar packet you have. If you have the pink one, you’re the killer. But don’t say anything. If you have a blue one, you’re one of the victims. Don’t let anybody else see what you have. I’ll also cover my eyes just to be extra fair.”

I cover my eyes and they all look in their hand. I tell them they can now put the sugar packets in their pocket or under their ass or something.

I uncover my eyes. “Now, one of you knows that you’re the murderer. But no one else here knows who it is.” This statement is completely true. “In a moment I’m going to cover my eyes again and I want the murderer to point to any of the other people here. That will be the first victim. If you get pointed to, you’re dead.”

I cover my eyes. My palms are flat against my eyes. There’s no peeking going on. I genuinely can’t see anything and that’s clear to everyone.

“Okay, I’m going to open my eyes in a couple of seconds. And when I do, one of you should be dead.”

When I uncover my eyes, the duchess is slumped back in her chair dead.

“What a tragedy,” I say. Then I let my friend know she doesn’t have to play dead the whole time.

I cover my eyes again, and when I uncover them the next person—the robot—is dead.

“Sweet Jesus. He was gone too soon.”

I look over the remaining characters. The killer is either the chef or the billionaire. But which???

I cover my eyes a final time. When I uncover them, the billionaire is dead.

“Damn,” I say. “Maybe money can buy happiness. But it certainly can’t buy… being not-murdered-ness!” I put on a pair of invisible sunglasses after this clever quip.

“Okay, so let’s put the pieces together. The first to get killed was the duchess. Why? She’s small, female, and drunk. Perhaps the easiest prey for our killer. The next to go was the robot. Probably killed while he was watching Porky’s and his attention was divided between the boobies on screen and his robot genitals. And finally the billionaire. Choked to death on his own checkers. It’s a difficult puzzle, but I believe the murderer was… The CHEF!!!” I point an accusing finger at my friend Amber, the angry chef.

“Well, I’m the only one still alive,” she says.

“Okay. Fair point,” I say. “But remember, I said that I solved the case before the murders even happened. You’ll remember I wrote a note before the murderers happened. In fact, I wrote it before you had even settled on who would be the murderer.

“Amber, please read what I wrote.” I slide the mug over to Amber and she pulls out the prediction and reads it. It says:

NW ➡ 41.2
almonds

”Yes, the strong northwest wind. And that smell of almonds,” I say. She continues reading my notes.

Killer is
CHEF
__________
Killed
Duchess
then
Robot
then
Billionaire

My notes, which were written before the killer was known to anyone, predict who the killer was and the order in which they’d kill their victims.

Consider these facts:

• Once you’ve learned the trick, it can be done on the spur of the moment with no setup.

• The prediction is written before any of the decisions are made.

• After the prediction is written, the magician doesn’t touch it again.

• The choices are all genuinely free.

• There are no stooges or secret assistants.

• The choice of who the murderer is (which I did with sugar packets in the performance I wrote up above) can be done in any manner at all. It can be done blindly and randomly. Or the characters can all go to the other side of the room and determine who the killer will be.

• You don’t do any secret writing during the effect.

• The prediction can be worded however you like.

• It’s easy.

• It works 100% of the time.

As I said, I left something out of the description, but it’s not a secret action or anything like that.

Come back tomorrow for the method.

Instant Rebate

The ISO app got an add-on feature that allows you to use augmented reality to replace the serial number on a dollar bill in a photo on a spectator’s phone.

Ryan Plunkett wrote in with this idea:

I just saw this ISO app update come through, and this is what popped into my head.

You have someone take a bill out of their wallet and you take a photo of them holding it. You then drag them over to a vending machine and have them pay for a bag of chips. They have a free selection. You show your hands empty, reach inside the vending machine to pull out the bag of chips, then cleanly open the bag to show the bill inside.

The method is rather simple. The final bill is in a thumb tip that you hide inside the base of a vending machine. The ISO app switches the serial number and they actually spend it. When you reach inside of the lower compartment, you place the thumb tip on, and reveal accordingly.

This seems incredibly practical and possibly something that fits your style. —RP

I’ve seen a similar trick done in the past with a torn corner, but doing it with the ISO app and the Serial AR functionality takes it to another level because you don’t have to ever touch the bill before it’s inserted into the machine.

And I really like Ryan’s idea of having the thumbtip ready to go inside the base of the machine.

What I would likely do is take the picture of them holding the bill, have them insert the bill, then give them the camera to record a video. That way they’ll have video evidence of me reaching into the machine with empty hands, pulling out their freely chosen chips, and finding their dollar inside.

The strongest element of using ISO with a bill to impossible location effect is that you never have to touch the bill at the start of the trick. You don’t have to switch the bill or switch a corner or anything like that. And using the vending machine as a way to “vanish” the bill (in a manner of speaking) lets you maintain that hands-off element of the trick while allowing the spectator to get rid of the bill. And unlike burning the bill or tearing it up and flushing it down the toilet, you get chips out of doing it this way.

Mailbag #87

A good friend of mine is getting married in june and he asked me if i would like to perform (sort of walk around). Im finding myself being very critical of the type of magic that would actually suit the venue, style, rhythm. And at the same time, the slower pace higher investment type of magic i enjoy performing im not sure would play out that greatly. i have performed before in walk around but im trying to see if there is a way of not performing lets say... the "classic image of a magician".

My first solution right now would actually be, to perform one trick per table (12-14 tables total) and maybe make more out of those tricks. Something more fun, invested, and all around interesting for each table.

Any thoughts? —JFC

I would try to do something that creates some kind of memento for the wedding couple along the way. For example, The Rehearsal Dinner effect as written up in this post.

Or maybe plan on doing an Anniversary Waltz type of effect for the bride and groom and as you go from table to table showing the groups something beforehand, you get people to sign and write messages to the new couple on the other 50 cards in the deck. So when all is said and done the couple would have a deck of cards will all sorts of greetings from their friends/family. And they’d have the merged card souvenir from Anniversary Waltz.

You wouldn’t even have to force the two Anniversary Waltz cards, because they would be the only ones left without writing on them.

I wouldn’t worry too much about how you come off during this. If it looks like you’re entertaining people while trying to do something special for the bride and groom, then you’ll come off fine.

---

I wanted to share an idea that I’ve performed a few times with pretty solid reactions that was inspired by an off hand comment in [a previous Love Letter newsletter].

In the letter you mentioned the idea of trading pants with someone. I found that super interesting but particularly impractical for me and my audience. But we could trade shoes. 

Essentially I am doing Wayne Houchin’s French kiss routine but after the card is folded, it is placed under their foot. To make the magic happen the spectator and I take off our shoes (trying to keep the card under them and not lifting too far off the ground.) and physically stand where the other person was standing. 

Been super fun and gets people truly interested in what’s happening. —NW

French Kiss is a great structure, but it has felt increasingly desperate to me as the years have passed. At least when performed for a stranger or someone you don’t know well. I have a couple variations I’ve worked on and at least one that will see print someday, but I like this idea of using your feet.

If switching shoes is even a bit too impractical, you could do something where they write “left foot” on a card, it’s folded and put under their left foot. You write “right foot” on a card and place it under your right foot. Imagine you’re facing each other, so the cards are under the feet in a mirrored position. If you both step to your right (his left) so now the card is under the opposite foot, you would expect the designations no longer to match the foot on top of the card. But when you reach under you’ll have his “left foot” note under your left foot, and he will have your “right foot” note under his right.

Perhaps not an earth shattering miracle, but it could be fun. And at least there’s some “logic” to that presentation. Whereas French Kiss can come off as, “I want to pretend to kiss you.”