Mailbag #97

/

You recently mentioned that long tutorials aren’t necessarily a good thing. I just saw a phenomenal example of that. 

Craig Petty’s new release “Cube 52” is boasting a 9-hour video download. This is a good thing? I am overwhelmed just thinking about having to wade through 9 hours of video to find a decent trick. That’s a whole work day. Ridiculous. —MH

One time, I was in a long-ish distance relationship with a girl who lived in the Poconos, a couple of hours from where I was living in New York City. We were driving together through her small town and there was a sign on the side of the road. Not quite as big as a billboard, but still a very large sign that was clear from the road. It said:

See
Candles
Being
Made

I turned to my girlfriend and said, “That sounds like a punishment.”

I feel the same way when I hear, “Nine-hour instructional video.”

Look, the three volume Paul Harris Stars of Magic videos managed to perform and teach 37 wildly different tricks in less than 3 and a half hours.

I understand the impulse is to provide as much value as possible, but what about for the people that value their time?

These are cards with a Rubik’s cube back design and different colored faces.

There are apparently a lot of different things that can be done with these cards. But I would love an edited version of the instructions. Yes, I realize I could probably watch the first 45 minutes and get the basic ideas. But I don’t want the basic ideas, I want the best ideas. I want Craig to tell me from his experience what are the most powerful tricks. Which are the few that he is regularly performing the most?

I realize everyone’s hearts are in the right places with these long downloads. “Let’s give them all the ideas we have, and the history of the effect, and some unedited chit-chat about the trick, and multiple live performances of the same effect.” How can you complain about getting more? Especially when the hobby of magic is evolving to be less and less about performing for people and more about talking to other magicians about magic—on podcasts, and YouTube videos, and Facebook groups, and Discords. For most people, these long downloads are probably giving them what they want.

And if I were to fall in love with the trick, then sure, give me 9 hours to really savor all the ideas. But usually I’m in the mode that I just want to get out there and perform. Give me the Pareto Principle version of these downloads. Give me the essentials. I don’t need the deep cuts.

Re: Neo-Techniques

I understand very much where you want to get, and the double lift approach is good, but in the shuffling case not so much. The reason being is that they ARE capable of turning the top card of a deck, so its a matter of mimicking how a normal person does it. But they are NOT capable of shuffling a deck (and they know it), so in this case if we want to convey a shuffled deck, we cant mimic them. —BM

I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t fully agree. When people say they can’t shuffle, they mean just that, that they can’t shuffle. Because to them, “shuffling” often means the riffle shuffle with the waterfall, or something like that.

But if you said, “Can you mix these cards up?” They wouldn’t say, “Oh no, I’m incapable of that.” Because they can mix the cards. And that’s what we want them to believe. That the cards are “mixed” into an unknown state.

So, I believe it makes sense to make your mixing look like something your spectator would do or could do.

If people can relate to what you’re doing, they will be more amazed when the outcome surpasses anything that they could have made happen themselves. If you’re doing a one-handed shuffle with a waterfall (to take it to the extreme) then you are already doing something they can’t relate to, so the impossibility of the ending is lessened.

When you see a 6’10” athletic guy do an incredible dunk, it might be impressive, but it’s not unbelievable. But if some 5’6” chubby slob who looked like you took off from the foul-line and slammed it through the hoop, you would be shocked and amazed.

Whenever I can, I want to keep my handling of the props as familiar as possible to people so that the climax really feels wholly unexpected.

Re: The discussion of secret writing in Mailbag #94

I think the best way to disguise secret writing is to add another method to the trick that gets you the information you need to write _before_ the spectator thinks you have it, then pretend you have written it, but secretly write it _after_.

Simple example: someone picks any card; you thumbwrite the value on a business card; then reveal it

Disguised: Someone pushes any card out of a face down, marked deck. You read the value: Ace of Hearts. Pick up your business card and say “Before you did that, I predicted Ace of Hearts. Let’s see what you got." While they are turning over the card, you secretly write AH on the card and drop it on the table.

Among other things, this takes all the heat off the writing, because once you say the name of the predicted card, all attention turns to the card on the table. —PM

Yup, absolutely. If you can combine different techniques in your secret writing, you can remove the idea of secret writing altogether.

I have a friend who does this with WikiTest. He puts a folded business card on the table at the start of the effect and covers it with a glass. The person searches their word, and my friend writes it on a second (pre-folded and unfolded) business card in his lap. Then he can talk about a premonition he had the night before, and he wrote a word down a word on that business card. “For some reason, last night I was getting a clear vision of a groundhog. Is that what you were thinking of?”

While they react, he can casually remove the glass and unfold the business card, switching it in for the one he wrote in his lap.

By combining three deceptions: the WikiTest app, secret writing, and a billet switch, he has something truly impenetrable. (ABCM, as I said long ago.) Not only that, but all these methods take the weight off each other. Secret writing, when they believe the writing is already isolated somewhere, is easy to get away with. A billet switch that happens after the climax of a trick (after the word has been revealed) does not need to even be very good to get away with it. And the only “answer” to WikiTest (“somehow he must have seen what I searched”) is eliminated when you apparently wrote it the night before.

Dustings #92

/

Regarding book tests that require you to know the page number the person is on [See Wednesday’s post], a friend of mine uses this technique and has had some great success with it. I’m changing some of the details because he doesn’t want to give away his actual routine at this point. But if you have someone think of something from a long list in the Xeno app, and then go to the page number at their list position in the book, then you’ll know the thing they’re thinking of, the page number, and your book-test reveal, all without them saying or doing anything.

So, for example, they think of any character from a list of 100 Marvel comic’s characters. You tell them to go to the page in your book of Aesop’s fables that matches up with the number on the list of the character they’re thinking of. You then have them insert the character they’re thinking of into the fable they’re reading, so they have this screwy hybrid thought in their mind which you can then reveal.

“I’m getting… The Thing… and he’s… chopping down a cherry tree? Is that what you’re thinking of?”

You could do this entirely remotely, assuming you left the spectator with the book (which you could do with Aesop’s Favorite Book Test, for example).

This is undoubtedly a convoluted way to get someone to a page in a book, but I think you could sell it that you’re trying to expand your mind-reading capabilities. And to do so, you have to springboard from a subject you know very well (in this case, Marvel Comics) to one you don’t know well (in this case, Aesop’s Fables). I think that sounds pretty reasonable.

AI Giveth

Speaking of Xeno (or Digital Force Bag), ChatGPT is excellent at coming up with long lists of things. Just ask it to provide you a list of a certain length of a certain subject, and you should get what you need with a little tweaking.

AI Taketh Away

I asked Dall-E-2 to create an image of Marvel Comic’s The Thing chopping down a cherry tree to illustrate the first section of this post and this is what it gave me.

AI sucks.

In yesterday’s post I asked for you to email me with any examples of “neo techniques” that mimic the way a beginner might handle cards. One clarification: the “slop shuffle” is not the way a beginner would mix cards, it’s the way a fucking imbecile would. Maybe there can be another set of techniques that mimic the way a spazzy dipshit would handle cards, but that’s not what I’m looking for here.

Neo Techniques

/

I have a new project I’m starting for myself. And, like most of the projects I start for myself, I’ll share the details with you in the future if they’re worth sharing.

It started with a realization I had recently…

The less and less that people play cards in the real world, the more that when I hand a deck to people and ask them to shuffle, they do something that looks somewhat like a Charlier shuffle.

gif from TCMagick on youtube

This is great news because it means we have an easy false shuffle that mimics something people naturally do.

Similar to the philosophy behind the Neolift, I’m trying to collect techniques that mimic a non-card-handlers skills with cards.

I think when people watch an obviously skilled card magician, there is a limit to the sense of wonder they can feel. The magician’s feats can seem impressive to them, but I still get this sense that on some level they’re thinking…

“If what’s happening is magical… then when does he have to be so skilled?”

Of course, we know the audience isn’t going to really think they saw true “magic” when you show them a card trick, but why let them off the hook so easily by demonstrating skill with your card handling abilities?

I mean, unless the role you’re playing is one of a cardsharp, then you don’t gain anything by them thinking you’re good with a deck.

So I’m looking to collect some of these “neo techniques” (neo as in neophyte—as a beginner would handle things). You can help because a lot of you are more well-read than I and likely know of some techniques I haven’t heard of. So email me if there’s any specific sleights or techniques you think fit the bill. If there are enough of these techniques to make an interesting post in the future, I will do so.

What's the Worst Thing About: Aesop's Favorite Book Test

/

“What’s the Worst Thing About” is a rarely utilized feature of this site where creators can send in their product and I will tell people what the worst thing about that product is. It’s one of the ways of getting free advertising on the Jerx. I had thought this would be something a lot of creators would take advantage of but very few have. I would guess out of every 50 people with a product to push that reach out to me, one takes me up on the offer.

Of course that’s the case, Andy, why would anyone send you a product for you to tell people the worst thing about it?

Let’s examine that logic for a moment. The whole purpose of this manner of reviewing a product is that I believe it’s difficult for a magic reviewer who gets a product for free to remain objective. At least, it is for me. So, I’m making it a point that I’m definitely going to mention the worst thing about someone’s product. But I’m not going to make things up, and I’m not going to needlessly bash a product. All I’m saying is that I’m going to point out the primary weakness of the product.

So why don’t more creators take advantage of this? Because they want to send their product to someone who likely won’t tell you about the product’s primary weakness.

That should tell you what you need to know about online magic reviewers.

Aesop’s Favorite Book Test

Aesop’s Favorite Book Test (or with the proper English spelling I’ve also seen it listed under, Aesop’s Favourite Book Test (or with the even more proper Ultimate English spelling, Aesoup’s Favourite Bououk Test)) is—as you might guess—a book test using a book of Aesop’s Fables.

The spectator opens the book to any page, reads any fable (about a paragraph long), and with no fishing you’re able to tell them details about the fable they read.

Good Things About Aesop’s Favorite Book Test

- The book is fully examinable.

- Your friend can really open the book to any page.

- The book looks legitimate. That is to say, it looks like an inexpensive copy of Aesop’s Fables. 

- There are certain books that you might imagine people having some innate connection with. Things like the Bible, Grimm’s Fairy Tales, or the Tao Te Ching. Aesop’s Fables fits in with those. If you’re doing a book test that requires a specific book, it sort of makes sense that you’d use a book that people might connect with on a level deeper than they would with some random thriller.

- The person for whom you’re performing isn’t directed to a single word. They read a fable, and you’re able to pick up on a major thematic element of it (or more than just one of the major elements, depending on how much work you want to put into this).

- After you tell them about the fable, you can have them turn to any illustration in the book (there aren’t a lot, but there are enough to present the sense of a choice, and they’re all different) and you can tell them what the illustration is. The method for this that Dan Harlan teaches in the download is much better than the method taught in the written instructions.

- There are a couple of other small ideas built into the book. There’s an idea of Theo Annemann’s that essentially forces a word onto the spectator. There’s a procedural element to it, using playing cards, but I think it would feel relatively fair despite that. The deck is cut, three cards are dealt out, and those cards are used to pick a fable and a word, and that’s all forced. And that word is predetermined. Then nice part is, they can truly cut the deck anywhere, if they want they can dismiss the cards they cut to and use a different set of three cards further in the deck, and they can even choose which order to lay the cards out in (if you have two outs rather than just one). I thought it was a pretty interesting method that I was unfamiliar with.

The Ambiguous Thing About Aesop’s Favorite Book Test

To use this book test to its fullest potential will require memory work or a crib.

It took me about an hour to get the memory work really solidified. And I’m probably pretty average at this type of thing. I find the memory stuff satisfying to learn, so I don’t mind it. But if you don’t like learning that sort of thing—and the upkeep it will require to remember it long-term—then you’ll probably want to go with a crib.

The Worst Thing About Aesop’s Favorite Book Test

More clearly than it is with probably any other type of effect, book tests are an issue of trade-offs. What do you value when performing a book test? Do you want them to be able to think of (apparently) any word on the page? Do you want there to be no procedure? Do you want something impromptu?

There is no book test where the spectator opens a normal book which you’re unfamiliar with, just thinks of any word in the book, and then you name it. That doesn’t exist. So the question becomes which trade-offs are most acceptable to you. For me, the trade-offs required by the Hoy book test are worth it for the ability to do the trick impromptu with any books given to me. So as of now, that’s still my go-to.

The worst thing about Aesop’s Favorite Book Test is the same as the worst thing about any book test—its trade-offs. And those trade-offs are: you need to use this particular book, and you need to know the page number they’re on.

How do you find out what page number they’re on? There are three general methods, none of which are ideal.

  1. Openly get the information. For example, just ask them to name any page. Or have them roll dice. Or have a third party name the page. The problem with that, when using your own book, is that it then becomes a trick that screams memorization. This is especially true for a slim book, where you’re picking up on the “general vibe” from each page. In fact, this is almost the method you’re actually using. Yes, it may be hard to believe you could memorize the book, but if the alternative is that you read their mind, then they’ll just assume you memorized the gist of what was on each page.

  2. Peek the page number. This is a pretty standard technique in book tests. You riffle the corner of the book and stop wherever they tell you to. While they note what page you’re on, you get a peek at the opposite corner, and now you know what page they’re looking at. If you’re okay with this method, then this particular book makes that peek very easy due to the size of the book and the placement of the page numbers. I, however, don’t like having the page selected while the book is in my hands. One of the most frequently guessed methods when testing book tests that used a peek like this is that the performer somehow saw what page they were on. So I don’t use book tests where the book is in my hands. However, I think by combining the first phase of the book test with the second phase (where they flip to any illustration) you could lessen the thought that you somehow just peeked at the page they were on. And maybe combining the Annemann idea, where you predict in advance the word they’ll end up with—that would fully confuse them on what to think methodologically.

  3. Secretly get the information. If, for example, they wrote down a two-digit number, you peeked it, and then they went to that page, you would know what page they were on without apparently hearing it directly, and without having to hold the book. The issue here is that it requires an additional level of procedure and usually other props. “Write down a number. Now let’s put that in an envelope. Now go to that page in the book over there…,” that’s a little screwy. If I was going to go this route, I’d use a marked deck with the picture cards removed. I’d have them shuffle the deck then deal out cards in a pile and deal any two cards they want, from any part of the deck, onto the copy of Aesop’s fables. I’d walk across the room and tell them to look at their two cards and arrange them in either order in their head, and then go to that page in the book. I would know what cards they had, so there’s a good chance I can discern which way they organized the cards in their mind by where they turn to in the book. For example, it’s not difficult to tell if they turned to 16 as opposed to 61. With closer numbers, I may have to do some fishing. I would justify the procedure by saying this produces “truly random” numbers, so I’ll definitely have no clue where they’d end up.

So that’s the “worst” part of Aesop’s Favorite Book Test.

One of the other good parts that I didn’t mention is that it’s only $40. It’s available from Dan Harlan Mystic Tower and MindFx and maybe some other places as well. For book test lovers, I think it’s definitely worth the investment. And for anyone else, if you weigh the pros and cons above and think it’s something you’d like, then the price is definitely fair.

Spex Mix: Small-Packet Palming Alternative

/

Last month I wrote about the strength of having the spectator mix the cards, and how I believe it to be significantly more fooling than even the most well executed false shuffle. I’ll be collecting a number of these techniques in a series of posts called Spex Mix.

The technique I’m writing about today is one I use a lot when I don’t want to palm, and I don’t have a large surface area to work on, like in the Wash Replacement.

Start with the cards you need, for example four aces, on the bottom of the deck.

Ask your friend to take about half the deck.

Tell them to shuffle their cards and shuffle yours while they do.

Maintain your bottom stack by taking most of the cards above your stack and overhand shuffling them back on to the cards in your hand.

At some point stop shuffling, spread the cards in your hand a little and get a break above the bottom four cards.

Take your cards in right-hand Biddle grip, holding the break with your thumb.

Ask for their cards back with your left hand. Your left and right hand should be in a straight line between yourself and your friend.

In the process of handing your pack to the spectator to shuffle, let the cards below the break drop onto the half you just took back.

You don’t have to do this quickly if you don’t want. You can bring the hands together as if you’re just going to reassemble the deck and then say, “Actually, shuffle these cards too.”

You will then mix their half yourself without disturbing the stack on top. After that, reassemble everything and you’re all set.

A variation on this that I sometimes do is that I shuffle in a way that maintains my stock on the top of my half.

I turn my cards face-up and spread them between my hands, and make some sort of comment. Then, when I close up the spread I get a break above my stack and half-pass them, so it’s face down on the bottom of my face-up half.

Now when the packets come together, and I drop off my stack, it feels even more innocent because the half I’m handing to my friend is face-up, so it doesn’t seem like anything could be dropping off from my packet.

While I do this from time to time, it’s probably more just for my own amusement, I don’t think it’s a necessary “improvement.”

The technique is good for controlling up to 8 cards or so. Although the fewer, the better, as the more cards involved, the more likely it is for the change in packet size to be noted after the drop-off.

I assume this technique is fairly standard, but maybe not. I was describing it to someone over email who has a good bit of knowledge, and they hadn’t done this before.

I used to use it constantly with a borrowed deck, spectator cuts the aces routine.

Borrow the deck. Spread them face-up to “see if they’re all there,” cull the four aces, shuffle them to the bottom, use the technique above to allow the person to seemingly shuffle the whole deck, and then they cut the aces from their shuffled deck (Bannon’s Directed Verdict). For a non-magician, that’s a borrowed deck, shuffled by them, that they cut the aces out of. There’s no explanation for that.

Why Spaghetti?

/

Hi, Andy! I am utilizing the 'Hydra' application to incorporate playing cards into my Instagram biography. However, upon contemplation, I find myself dissatisfied with this 'phenomenon.' I have conceived an idea that I would like to share with you, albeit untested as of yet. I eagerly await your opinion or any superior notions you may have regarding a card prediction on Instagram. Do bear in mind that the character limit is a mere 150. While I have posted the photograph in Portuguese, I shall now provide the text in English:

'I shall retain the current state of my biography, harboring the expectation that eventually, someone shall choose the illustrious 'Jack of Spades.' Thus, I shall bask in the glory of my impeccable prescience, haha! '

To reinforce this sentiment, I may further exclaim: 'Goodness gracious... This has resided on my Instagram for over a month now. I am elated that it has proven successful on this occasion'. Perhaps by magnifying its effect, it shall appear as though I am 'playfully' engaging in divination. Anyway... what are your thoughts? —DM

Hmmm… okay.

I’m not quite sure what you’re going for with the current bio you have there—this may be a language/translation issue.

It sounds like you’re trying to play if off as just a coincidence. If you say, “I’m going to keep this biography hoping someone eventually names the Jack of Spades.” You seem to be undermining the effect and sort of defeating the purpose of having an app that dynamically inserts the card in your Instagram bio.

People already default to the idea that “maybe you just got lucky” with these sorts of things, you don’t want to reinforce that belief. 1 in 52 isn’t enough to hang a coincidence effect on.

Now, if your twitter bio said, “My psychic powers tell me that I will meet someone today carrying a bill with the serial number D2584402353. (Okay, I don’t really have psychic powers… but I figure if I keep asking people, one day I’m going to luck into asking the person with that bill, and for that person it will be a miracle.)”

That’s essentially the same presentation, but there’s a twist there because this actually is something that would be an astronomical coincidence. If it did happen for real, no one would ever say, “He probably just got lucky.” So playing it off as a lucky coincidence still feels magical.

So what would I write in my Instagram bio? I don’t know that revealing a card in my Instagram bio is a trick I’d do. I mean, I definitely wouldn’t do it because I’m not on Instagram. But even if I was, I don’t know if I’d do it.

But just as a thought experiment, here’s how I’d approach it.

There are a lot of tricks in magic where it’s something like, “The spectator thinks of a card, and then you reveal their card in the strands of spaghetti!”

(And before you think I’m just making up a dumb idea for a trick, here’s a trick where the spectator’s card is—for no reason—found on an Oreo cookie.)

The question is, why is the card appearing on an Oreo or in a plate of spaghetti? Why is that how you reveal the card? Why didn’t you just write it down?

Because it’s more memorable, Andy.

Maybe. But I think the arbitrariness probably counteracts the memorability. What you gain from the novelty of the reveal, you might lose by being seen as the guy walking around with a fake Oreo.

But if we can work backwards from the plate of spaghetti or Oreo, then maybe you have something that’s memorable in a way that has some meaning.

Maybe your grandmother, an old Italian, had psychic powers, and now she communicates with you from the grave through classic Italian dishes.

Yes, I know. That’s not great, but it gets us somewhere. It’s not just a needlessly elaborate way to reveal a card or your prediction. Why is the card reveal in the spaghetti? Because that’s the only way Nonna has to communicate from the beyond.

Similarly, if we work backwards from an Instagram bio… the point of a bio is to tell something about yourself. So why would the card someone thought of be in your bio? Because, when you think about it, it’s far less impressive for your prediction to be in your Instagram bio than, say, written on a piece of paper on the table. An Instagram bio is designed to be easily changeable. And they know someone besides yourself could change that bio in a matter of seconds from anywhere in the world. It’s not secure in the way a physical piece of paper is. So it doesn’t make a ton of sense that you’d put your prediction there, unless it somehow had a “biographical” nature to it.

That’s the beginning of the direction I would take it. If I had an Instagram. And if I wanted to put a card prediction in my bio on Instagram. I prefer the idea that this is some weird quirk that happens around me, rather than that I made this public pronouncement to try and impress you. That doesn’t work for me because I’m not a professional magician who would be using Instagram to promote myself in that way.

If we’re talking about something not in the realm of a card reveal, then a trick I’d want to do with an Instagram bio would look like this…

I’d be out somewhere, and I’d approach the sexiest, blackest, most well-built brother I could find—someone at least 20 years younger than me. I’d approach him tentatively and say, “Excuse me… I know this is unusual… but what city were you born in? Really? Oh… and what’s your birthday?… Oh my god… it’s you! My long-lost twin! I just sensed it when I saw you.” Then I’d “confirm” it by showing them my Instagram bio which mentions my search for my twin from whom I was separated at birth on Oct. 20th, 1990, in Oakland, CA.

Dustings #91

/

I was performing my handling of Socks by Michel Huot for a friend the other day. She loved it.

Then later on, she noticed there was a playing card reveal on the bottom of the socks.

I’d gone to the trouble of establishing the sock cards as cards from a children’s game, so when my friend noticed the playing card reveal on the bottom of the socks she said, “Oh, those are for a trick?”

So she had really enjoyed the trick when I showed it to her—and she knew she had seen a trick, obviously. But when she saw a playing card on the bottom and realized these were “prop socks” the charm of it all vanished.

Magic manufacturers… I beg of you… you don’t have to cram every fucking dumb idea you have into your props. “We can put a playing card reveal on the bottom of the socks!” Does this seem like a smart idea, given that the whole purpose of the trick was to take a card trick/revelation out of the realm of playing cards? Sure, you can stamp a playing card reveal on the back of any prop, if you want, but it detracts more than it adds. For the extra revelation, you’re paying the price of highlighting the fact these are special magic prop socks.

Because here’s the thing, the socks in this trick should—in the “story” of the trick—just be the socks you put on that morning. Or they should be socks that have just now magically appeared on your feet. In the story of the trick, these shouldn’t be special magic trick socks that you bought to show you could know where they would stop dealing cards because that’s a shitty story.

While I’m writing here specifically about this trick Socks, the same logic goes for all unnecessary markings, logos, reveals or whatever that highlight something is a magic prop and not a real world item.

Hey, speaking of not cramming every dumb idea you have into something, can we stop saying things like, “And the trick comes with a three-hour tutorial video!” like that’s a good thing?

I understand that there’s value in the content, and that it’s done with the best of intentions of being “thorough,” but part of what I’m paying for when I buy your trick is your experience from performing it. I want you to tell me the most powerful version of the trick based on your history showing this to a lot of people. I’m not interested in a brainstorming session. I want to get the polished gem. I don’t want to have to mine for it myself.

When I buy a box of cake mix, it tells me how to make the cake on the back of the box. It doesn’t squeeze 100 other recipes in 2-point font on the back.

Obviously, a utility gimmick with a lot of different uses might have an extended tutorial. But frequently you’ll have a trick that really only just has one or two primary uses, and they build out the tutorial with countless variations for seemingly no reason.

What do you care, Andy? Why are you complaining about getting more content?

Because I have a fucking life to lead. Loved ones to see. Friends to spend time with. A three-hour download that could have been covered in 8 minutes is not a gift to me. Having to sift through your brainfarts to find something worthwhile is not a fun use of my time.

And here’s the other thing, if this is really a trick you’ve used for the past 10 years, I would expect your instruction to be more focused and more concentrated on the strongest use for the trick that you’ve found during your time performing it.

Similarly, if I was seeking advice from a hitting coach in baseball, I would expect him to have an idea of the best way to swing the bat, and maybe offer a couple modifications. But I wouldn’t expect him to tell me everything I could do with a bat. “Well, you can swing horizontally, or you can swing down on the ball, or you can hold the bat at both ends and cross-check the ball, or you can poke the ball with the tip of the bat like a pool cue. or you can put it between your legs….”

Maybe I’m alone here. Maybe everyone else loves the long downloads. But I don’t think so. There has to be others who would appreciate your condensed wisdom on the trick. “Here’s how it works. And here’s the most powerful use I’ve found for it.” Make that available its own tutorial. And then if you want to include all the other stuff for people to wade through if they choose to, they can download the exhaustive tutorial.

Some news from Marc Kerstein about some upcoming functionality changes with the Jerx App…

Default Launch Mode

Because the Jerx iPhone app is a collection of different tools and features, you’ll now be able to go in and set it to open to a particular function. Obviously, if need be, you can swipe out of that function to get to the main menu. But if you have a feature you use primarily, or you know you’ll need a specific tool for an upcoming performance, you can set it to open right to it.

Fake Home Screen

Relatedly, you can now set a fake home screen from which to launch effects. For those of you who want that extra layer of deception.

Pseudo Chatbot API

From Marc:

What I’ve done here is to make the chatbot look for $clipboard$ in the text, and it’ll replace that with whatever is on your clipboard.

That way, you can easily swap out a name, or even the entire response from the chatbot by copying something from your Notes app.

Alternatively, other magic apps might put something on your clipboard, which the Jerx app can then read and put in to the response.

Thanks to Marc for working on this. He’s the best app developer since the guy who made the beer drinking app.

Hey, let’s see if we can get Marc to kill himself or someone else. The beer drinking app used to make that app developer $20,000 a day.

Do you know how much Marc has made from Wikitest? $250.