Bill to Unpossible Location featuring The Incorrect Prediction Marking Technique

Imagine

Last weekend, I was staying with my friend Tim in Maryland.

On Saturday, when we went out for lunch, I said…

“Do you have a dollar? I’ll show you something.”

He takes a dollar from his wallet and gives it to me, and I say, "Hold on," and I proceed to draw something on the front of the bill, shielding it from his vision. Then I turn the bill over and place it in the middle of the table between us.

"I've made a prediction. I have a list of famous people on my phone. You're going to choose one at random, and it will be the person I predict. If I'm right, I get to keep your dollar. If I'm wrong, you keep your dollar and... you get a prize."

"What's the prize?" he asks.

"Oh boy, it's something...," I look around as if scanning for what his prize might be. "It's something really great. I don't want to get you too hyped about it because you're not going to win. Go ahead, name a number between 1 and 100."

He names 16.

I furrow my brow a little. "I think that's right," I say. I turn on my phone and have him open the notes list and go to my list of famous people. "Who's at that number?"

"Ronald McDonald," he says.

"Are you sure that's 16?" I ask, turning my head to get a better look at the list. “It’s not Spock from Star Trek?”

He points out the number to me, so I can see it clearly.

“Oh… okay. Yeah. Let me clarify my prediction,” I say.

I turn the bill over. It’s clearly Spock. It’s labelled Spock.

“Just need to add a couple more details here so it’s really clear.”

I scribble out “Spock,” and add some clown details to the pictures.

“Bam!” I say, turning the bill towards him. “Ronald McDonald.”

“No, okay. I fucked up. It worked yesterday, and I really thought I had that down. I will think of a good prize for you.”

A couple of minutes later, I say, “Oh, I know. I’ve got your prize. I’m going to show you something amazing.”

I take the bill and ball it up and hold it in my fist [false transfer]. A moment later, I open my hand and it’s gone.

“I’ve sent the bill back in time. It is now in your wallet again, unmarked, and completely unwrinkled.”

Considering that would make the bill completely indistinguishable from any other bill in his wallet, this doesn’t seem like much of a trick

I acknowledge the look he gives me because of this fact and say, “Oh, right, that wouldn’t be much of a trick. Okay… it’s just back in your wallet.”

Unconvinced, he pulls his wallet out of his pocket and opens it. In amongst his bills is the uncrumpled (but still very wrinkled) and marked up bill. “Okay… that one actually is really messing with my mind,” he says. Which is just about as good as a reaction as I’ve ever been able to squeeze out of this guy.”

Method

This is not a method for bill to wallet, necessarily. It’s a method for bill to impossible location. I was able to do bill to wallet because I was staying with my friend and had access to his wallet the night before, and he happened to have enough bills in there that I could pre-load a dupe in the middle of them without it being noticeable.

I included this technique in another trick I’ve posted here in the past, but I think the concept deserved a little more attention than I originally gave it.

It’s an interesting concept because we’re using magic to get something wrong.

Let’s start with a bad Bill to Impossible Location effect.

You give me a bill, I make it vanish. It reappears taped under your seat.

You say, “It’s a different bill.”

A little better

You give me a bill, I sign it, I make it vanish. It reappears taped under your seat.

Maybe a brief moment of surprise, but you soon think: “Surely, that’s a different bill he signed.” If the purpose of “signing” it was to make it unique, then I would have had you do it, you realize.

A little better

You give me a bill. I write the date and time on it to mark when this event happens. I make it vanish. It reappears taped under your seat.

This is getting stronger. Now I’m not signing it “to make it unique.” I’m writing on it for another purpose, and the byproduct of that purpose is that it’s now a more distinct bill. But still, after a moment you’ll likely consider I may have timed it out and this is just a duplicate bill.

A little better

You give me a bill. I write the date and time on it to mark when this event happens. Oops, you inform me I got the date wrong. Let me cross that out and correct it. Now I make it vanish. It reappears taped under your seat.

You can see how this is getting more and more convincing of it being the same dollar. But despite that, a spectator can still work out that I’m the one who controlled everything that was written on the dollar. And while a duplicate bill with the same markings might not be the solution they come to as immediately, it’s still the one they’re likely to come to.

Another method people use as a way to distinguish a bill other than a signature is to write a prediction down on it. I feel like maybe this is something I’ve seen from David Acer or Richard Sanders or someone else equally Canadian. [Update: It was Richard Sanders. Bill Anywhere from The Richard Sanders Show, Vol 2 (great DVD set, btw).]

So, for example, first I predict the card you’re going to pick on this bill. Later I make the bill disappear, and it reappears with that same written prediction on it, suggesting it’s the same bill.

While this adds another piece to the puzzle, if you could accurately know what card they would pick in advance, then it’s not so difficult to imagine you could write that down on a different bill.

When you predict their card, the question in their mind is, “How could he know what card I’d pick?” If they suspect a duplicate bill, then it’s still the same question in their head, “But how could he know what card I’d pick?” The impossibility of the situation hasn’t really strengthened. It’s still just predicated on you somehow knowing the card.

The Incorrect Prediction Marking Technique

Here, we’re going to force the outcome (in the example above, using the Digital Force Bag App) but we’re going to get the prediction wrong.

We then correct the prediction in a humorous way.

This leaves us with a seemingly uniquely marked object, that you (the magician) could not have anticipated.

What makes this so psychologically disarming is that it just doesn’t occur to people that a magician would use trickery to be wrong. This is so far from their conception of how magicians work and what motivates them. Here we’re actually using the negative stereotype of magicians—that we use trickery to make ourselves look smarter or better than other people—as a way to fool people.

You might say, “Just use a torn corner on the bill if you need a dupe that can’t be signed by the spectator.”

I would say: Use Both. The torn corner will make the Incorrect Prediction Marking Technique stronger. And the IPMT has a benefit the torn-corner doesn’t. (See if you can figure out what that benefit is before the end of this post.)

To be clear, this is not a Dollar Bill/Digital Force Bag/Bill to Impossible Location trick.

This is an Any Object/Any Force/Any Effect where you need a duplicate object technique.

For example, you show someone your book of baseball players autographs. You make a prediction on a baseball of the person whose autograph they’ll choose. They pick Mickey Mantle (via a Svengali pad autograph book). You wrote down Derek Jeter.

Refusing to admit defeat, you jank it up so it looks like Mickey Mantle. “See, I got it right!” you say.

In mock defeat, you throw the baseball into the lake.

“I’ll show you a better trick,” you say. And you mime grabbing some energy from the lake and projecting it to your lake cabin.

You go inside, and on a bookshelf, in a glass display case, is the baseball wrapped in seaweed.

The beauty of this technique? The added benefit of the IPMT that I mentioned above? Here’s what it is. This technique very strongly suggests a unique object. BUT… if it all falls apart—if they say, “No way… that’s a different baseball (or bill or whatever)”—then what you have is… a strong prediction trick that plays out in an entertaining way. There’s no downside.

Finding Your Style - What's a Great Trick You Wouldn't Perform?

A Quick Note On Yesterday’s Post: I got a number of people telling me they were going to pick up Deep X after my post yesterday. After seeing the instructions for Deep X, I myself won’t be getting it. I prefer Deep Clear. If you already have Deep Clear, I would wait for a full performance video of Deep X before you decide to “upgrade.”

✿✿✿

One of the hardest things for magicians, especially younger magicians to do is to find their niche and their performing style.

Personally, I don’t think you should overspecialize. You’ll often hear someone say something like, “I only do mentalism. Doing regular magic takes away from the power of my mentalism and makes those demonstrations feel like just tricks.”

If you think this way, I have some hard truths for you. When your friends mention your interests when you’re not around, they don’t say stuff like, “Oh yeah, my friend Paul is a genuine psychic savant. A bonafide clairvoyant who impossibly plunges the depths of the human psyche in ways both beautiful and terrifying.”

What they say is, “Oh yeah, my friend Paul does magic tricks.”

At the same time, though, I do think it’s helpful to focus your performances in some way. Not necessarily in the type of material, but in the feeling you’re going for.

And one of the ways to help you understand the vibe you’re going for, if you haven’t determined it yet, is to identify a trick you think is great, but that you don’t see yourself performing.

What’s a great trick you wouldn’t perform?

I’m not looking for an answer like, “I wouldn’t perform David Copperfield’s Flying. Because I’m too poor to buy it, and no one would pay to see me in a stage show.”

I’m suggesting you identify a trick that fits your performing situations, and that you think is really good, but that you wouldn’t perform. When you examine why you wouldn’t perform it, you’ll get some greater insight into the style of performance you do want to pursue.

For example, MiniBook Pro by Noel Qualter and Roddy McGhie is a great trick.

The little computer is cute, the way it gets plucked out of the screen is a cool visual, and the ending—where it transforms into their card—is a total surprise. Not to mention, it leaves them with a legitimately fun souvenir that will instantly remind them of the effect.

If I was performing professionally, I’d get this in an instant.

But I just don’t see myself performing this for my friends casually.

Why?

For my purposes, it’s almost too perfectly formed. And it announces itself as a trick too early on.

When I show someone something, I generally want it to not be framed as a trick. Or, if it is framed as a trick, I want it to feel very “rough” around the edges, as if there’s some uncertainty of how it will play out.

For me, magic’s greatest weakness is that it’s very far removed from the fabric of people’s everyday life. Music is seamlessly integrated into our everyday activities—it entertains us on our commute, it enhances social gatherings, it can pump us up or console us. Movies and TV are usually reflecting emotions and situations we can identify with on some level. But a two-minute demonstration of magical powers is a very artificial and contrived experience, exhibiting powers that people can’t relate to. So when I look at a trick, I’m often thinking, “How do I unravel this a little? How do I make it sloppier? How can I make it seem less performative? How do I make a MAGIC moment also feel more relatable and real?’

You wouldn’t have these concerns table-hopping. In fact, you’d probably be looking to do the exact opposite thing.

But that’s the style I go for. And part of identifying that style was looking at great tricks and realizing what it was about them that wasn’t for me.

You might look at this trick and think, “It’s a good trick, but I don’t like that it uses a little computer and a phone. I think I prefer when magic eschews all technology and feels more natural and elemental.” And that thought might give you a style to pursue with your magic.

Or you might look at this trick and say, “That’s dope. I want to do that.” Which makes complete sense. I only have good things to say about this trick. I only was using it as an example of the idea that by identifying what it is about a good trick that doesn’t work for you, you will be able to pinpoint areas you do want to focus on and develop your personal style.

Going Deep

The Anything Deck, by Paul Harris, is an effect he has been working on for decades. The original description of the effect, from his Art of Astonishment series, goes like this:

For reasons unknown you remove a secret packet of cards from your wallet and secure them under the card case. You then get a seeker to dig deep into her soul and come up with a personal, meaningful magic word. Let’s say her magic word is “ROSE.” You use “ROSE” to help you locate a selected card, then reveal that the name of the card is also written on the card case. You’re a mighty fine card guesser. But what about the secret packet? You SLOWLY, CLEANLY AND OPENLY spread the packet to display large bold letters inked onto the back of the cards…spelling out a single word: ROSE.

Basically, you’re using the deck as an index of letters, and you’re sneaking out the letters (cards) you need and then swapping that packet for the packet of cards you displayed at the start.

Paul has released a number of variations on this trick over the years, with the focus primarily being on creating a separation between the initial packet of cards and the deck you use during the preliminary portion of the effect.

That preliminary part of the trick has always been the big issue with the Anything Deck/Deep Astonishment tricks. If your trick is “this packet of cards has your thought of word on the back,” then it would make much more sense to remove a packet, have them name a word, and then spread the cards to show them. Of course, that’s not very doable. So you’ve pretty much been stuck with that first phase, which is relatively weak, and involves looking at the back of the cards.

Paul has a new version of the effect out called Deep X.

In this version, that first phase is handled in a kind of interesting way. I don’t believe a full performance has been released yet, but here’s my understanding of how it goes. You show a small ID wallet with some cards in it. The spectator thinks of a 4-letter word. They plug their thought of word into a website and the website gives them their “lucky cards” based on that word (?). You go through a deck of cards and find those cards. Then you show that the cards in your ID wallet match the cards the website gave them. And finally you show that on the back of the cards in your wallet are the letters that make the word the spectator thought of.

You know, I’m not certain how I feel about that approach. I think I’d have to try it out to see how it goes over with people. My initial instinct is that it feels like a mistake to have a presentation that suggests: “This specific card relates to this letter.” And then you start going through the deck and finding those cards. That seems weirdly close to the method itself. But I’m willing to give it a shot and see how it goes.

I’ll definitely be purchasing this. I have been using the last version of this effect called Deep Clear and killing with it.

My presentation/handling for Deep Clear is pretty much perfect for casual situations as far as I’m concerned. And I’ve heard very positive things from a number of other people as well. For example, Madison Hagler wrote me about it a few years ago:

“I absolutely LOVE your handling and presentation for deep clear. Gave it the wife test and it fried her hard. The time delay the explanation gives you makes it virtually impossible to back track.”

I’ll include a pdf with my handling (taken from an old newsletter) at the end of this post, but I’ll mention the benefits of my version first…

• The first phase feels both more necessary and also more removed from the second phase.

• The fact that the first phase isn’t a very good trick is a feature of the presentation, rather than just being a not-great trick that’s arbitrarily tacked on to a good one

• The rationale of why they’re picking a word is fleshed out in a more interesting way.

• There is better misdirection (both physical misdirection and time misdirection) for the load move.

• You never have to look at the back of the cards.

That last factor was always one of the primary weaknesses of the Anything Deck/Deep Astonishment methodology. Perhaps it flew by most laymen, but I’m sure there were some who correlated the part of the trick where you’re looking at the backs of cards with the finale. Regardless, in my write-up I offer something called The Alphabet Stack. A random-looking stack of 26 cards that you can associate with the letters of the alphabet with just a couple of minutes familiarizing yourself with the stack. You don’t even have to learn the whole thing if you don’t want to. Many of the card/letter combos are very obvious and as long as you know where those are you can figure out any other ones as well just by reciting the alphabet in your head.

Here is the pdf. Skip the section marked “Handling” (as that will only really make sense if you have Deep Clear in your hands). I’m sure you can take the other elements of this presentation and find ways to incorporate them into Deep X or other versions of the effect.

Mailbag #100

I really enjoyed [a review I gave in my last newsletter]. When I was reading it I realized you’re one of the only magic reviewers who I actually believe is giving his genuine opinion. And it made me wonder if you had any go-to magic reviewers these days? And who is your GOAT magic reviewer?—JA

For me, the GOAT magic reviewer has got to be Leigh Pendleton.

Wait… sorry… I got that confused.

Leigh Pendleton is not the GOAT magic reviewer. Leigh Pendleton is a reviewer of The Magical Goat.

When I was younger, growing up, flipping to the review section in MAGIC or Genii was one of the first things I did when I got the magazine. I loved getting informed opinions on new releases. This was especially valuable because without the internet, there was no easy way to see what a trick looked like. You needed the reviewers to know if it was even close to the product description.

For me, and probably for many, Michael Close is the Greatest Of All Time magic reviewer. (And I recommend you buy his 1300-page e-book of all his magic reviews for just $6.) David Regal is another favorite.

These days, there aren’t really any online magic reviewers who are a “must watch” for me. I usually just find a trick I like, get the general consensus about it on the Magic Café, and see if there are any third-party performances of it on YouTube (Craig Petty is often good for this as he tends to perform the things he reviews).

Here’s the thing, a lot of these people reviewing products on YouTube aren’t anyone I’ve ever heard of. I have no sense of who they are or what they bring to the table. That doesn’t mean their opinion is invalid. But if I want a bunch of nobodies opinions, I can scan the Café for that in a fraction of the time.

On top of that, a lot of YouTube reviewers seem to be courting free products (leading to abnormally positive reviews) or they’re looking for more viewers (often leading to needless controversy).

I think the truth about magic products is that 10% are undeniably great, 10% are undeniably shit, and 80% are anywhere from bad to good depending on the performer’s abilities, performing environment, and goals. That’s the reason my review newsletter went from standard reviews of new releases to just talking about whatever tricks I’ve been getting the most out of the previous month. This way, I’m not forced to write about something I have no thoughts or opinions about.

---

I’m putting together some spooky magic for the halloween season and wanted to know if you have a version of the haunted key that you would recommend. —IL

I do not have a haunted key I would recommend.

In fact, I have bad news for anyone who is a fan of the haunted key…

A cylindrical object rolling on your hand is not a magic trick.

A cylindrical object rolling on a table might be a magic trick.

A cuboid object rolling on your hand might be a magic trick.

A cylindrical object rolling on your hand is not a magic trick. Because it’s cylindrical… and because it’s your hand.

“Yes, but the hand doesn’t seem to move.”

Okay, give your friend a pen, have them place it on their palm and see how little they have to move to make it roll, and report back to me.

How did they respond? We’re they like, “Oh fuck no! Help! There’s a ghost in this pen!!!”

I understand that the Haunted Key—in context—can be a somewhat spooky looking visual. But I don’t consider it a magic trick. I don’t consider it a magic trick because no matter how slow it rolls, or how invisible your movements are, people will come to the conclusion that it’s slowly rolling along on your palm.

If they don’t come to this conclusion, they’re actually not smart enough to be fooled by a magic trick. To be fooled, you have to have the capacity of some level of questioning.

Okay, so let me get this straight, Andy. You’re saying this trick that’s been around for decades and used by thousands of magicians isn’t actually deceptive? That we’re… what, exactly? Just deluding ourselves by being too scared to question what fools people, and instead blindly just assuming we’re smarter than our audience?

If you want to use the Haunted Key in performance, I would use it symbolically as a lead in to another trick with a ghostly theme—spirit slates, or the haunted deck or something.

You call on the spirits to arrive, and the key turning in your hand is the “sign” that they’re there.

This way, whether your friend finds it to be mysterious or not, it doesn’t matter. If they think, “Surely, that just rolled along his hand.” Then you’ve nicely lowered their expectations and can now hit them hard with something they can’t explain.

Until October...

Hey, if you’re someone who has been a supporter at the Rich Uncle Millionaire level throughout this season of The Jerx, you will be getting the next book shipped to you in October.

For this to happen, you will need to respond to the email that collects your shipping information that will be sent out next week. The book will ship at the end of October, but it will only ship to those have verified their address.

---

This is the final post until October. Regular posting removes Monday, October 2nd. The next issue of the newsletter will be in supporter’s email boxes on Sunday the 1st.

---

There’s been a good amount of chatter in my email box about the new card index called Dex.

The questions seem to be about if I’ll be getting it, or if I have another index I recommend.

I don’t have it. But I’ve seen some of the instructional download for it, and it looks well-made and well-thought-out. It’s not revolutionary in its approach. It’s the sort of thing you expect from an index. You’re not going to be like, “I never could have imagined something like this!”

If I was an index guy, I’m sure I’d get this. But I’m not, so I don’t see myself picking it up.

Card indexes are kind of in a weird grey-area for me. I can definitely see the incredible possibilities with one. But devoting a pocket to one, and then having to likely carry around another full deck as well… that’s just not my style. My EDC philosophy is to have a wide enough repertoire that performance opportunities abound even with minimal stuff on me. When it comes to EDC, I want to minimize what’s in my pockets and maximize what’s in my head. If I left the house with an index in one of my pockets, I’d feel obligated to look for opportunities to use it. When I walk out of the house thinking, “I’m going to use this (prop/gimmick/technique/trick) today, I feel I end up with more forced, less organic moments of magic. Whereas, if I’m focused on the situation and environment first and then think, “What do I know that would fit well here?” I tend to have stronger magic interactions that feel less forced.

So if I do get this, it will likely be to perform a specific trick at a specific moment in time that just happens to need a good index. At the moment, I don’t have that need. But that may change.

---

An interesting find from Joe M.

Here is a funny story about a magic book (I reckon it is a copy of Psychological Subtleties - which also fits the time when the story would have taken place) involving Bert Kreischer and Louis CK.—JM

---

Thinking of Hot Rods recently, I was reminded of my friend Andrew’s approach to dealing with the Hot Rod force.

It would look like this:

Him: Name any number between 1 and 6.

Spectator: Six

Him: Great. And, generally, do you prefer—are you more comfortable with—letters and words or numbers and math?

Spectator: Oh, letters and words. I’m terrible at math.

Him: Okay, then we’ll spell six.

Of course, this doesn’t work with someone who is very comfortable with numbers. But most people consider themselves more comfortable with letters and words. So it’s a safe-ish bet. It worked every time I saw him try it. It’s sort of laughable because it’s not like counting to six requires knowledge of higher mathematics. But it felt like a somewhat legitimate question and course of action in the moment

---

Okay, I’m out of here for September. I’ll be back here soon for the SCARIEST month of all!

Autumn starts in just a few hours. I’m psyched. Enjoy it. See you soon.

Harvest Time Part Six

Most years, around the Harvest Moon (the full moon closest to the start of autumn) I have a Harvest Time post. Harvest Time is, traditionally, a time for gratitude. It’s also a time for renewal and transformation. In the same way crops are harvested, and the fields are cleared to prepare for the next planting season—I take this time of year to reflect and prepare for new growth.

The Harvest Time posts have also been my opportunity to make some declarations that ideally turn some people off from the site. This is my way of gathering up the readers and supporters I want to continue on with and leaving behind the ones who aren’t resonating with the vibe here. Separating the wheat from the chaff, to bring it back to harvest terms.

I’m genuinely not looking for more readers or more supporters. I think people think this is some reverse psychology type of marketing. “He says he doesn’t want more supporters as a way to get more supporters!” No, I just don’t want to be in the mindset of chasing a dollar with this site. Then I have to start thinking about what appeals to the broadest group of people, rather than just following my own interest. If I had to concern myself with appealing to a wide readership, I couldn’t go down rabbit holes like spending three posts talking about the Hot Rod.

It dawned on me the other day that the reason we’re getting 9-hour instructional downloads is because the people releasing the tricks are trying to appeal to as many people as possible. My desire—that they would just release a download with the most powerful uses of the trick or gimmick based on their experience performing with it—was rooted in my narrow experience of writing this site. It occurs to me now what a luxury my situation is. I can just write about my experience with things because I was never looking to make this site as big as possible or to appeal to people broadly.

I don’t have a message to spread. And I’m not trying to maximize my profits from this site. I do this because I enjoy thinking about magic and writing about magic and testing out magic ideas in the real world. The support structure of the site lets me identify a core group of people who are on a similar wavelength. Maybe they aren’t traveling the exact same path, but they are at least navigating the same constellation. And it affords me the time it takes to write and perform so much. That’s what the support structure is there for. Not to optimize my earnings. I’d rather be supported by 50 like-minded souls than 50,000 casual fans.

Wait… hold on a sec…

50,000 supporters X $25/month X 12 months in a year =

15 million dollars.

Okay, I take that back. For one year, if 50,000 of you want to support the site, I’d be okay with that. But after that I will regain my integrity and just write for the true fans.

As I mentioned, often the message of my Harvest Time post is intended to prune away some readers/supporters. And that’s true with this year’s message which is this:

Don’t support the Jerx as a financial investment.

Why do I say this?

Late last year, a copy of The Jerx, Volume One went up for bid at one of those fancy-pants magic auctions. They estimated it would sell for $300-$500. It ended up selling for closer to $4000.

Every few weeks, someone will email me about it and be like, “Holy shit…Did you see this?” They, understandably, assume I’d want to get on here and talk about what hot shit I am and rub it in the faces of the people who had an issue with the price of the book when I first released it.

But I actually don’t like that the book sold for that much.

First, I don’t love the idea of people selling the books at all. In my utopia, everyone would just hold onto them forever because they cherish them so much. Yes, I know, that’s a ridiculous notion, but it’s genuinely how I feel. Imagine someone said to you, “Hey, you know that love note you wrote your girlfriend? She sold it for $300.” Would you like that? I mean, part of you might be flattered someone would pay $300 for a love note you wrote. But the other part of you would be like, “Hmm… I wish she didn’t sell the note I wrote her. Maybe I should be fucking the person who paid $300 for it?” For me, and the way I operate the site, the books are closer to a love letter than they are a copy of Scarne on Card Tricks, so it’s a little depressing when I hear of one being sold, regardless of how much it sold for. As corny as that sounds.

Second, it sets up a false expectation in people. “That book sold for $4000? I have that book. I’m going to sell it for $4000!” I promise you, you’re not. I think that price was a fluke based on there being a small number of people who really wanted it and it rarely being sold by anyone who had it. If others go to sell their copy it may only sell for 1/10th of that price.

"Geez, Andy. Don’t talk down the potential value of the book like that. What if I want to sell it someday?”

I'm just being honest. I've always said I would protect the value of the books by not reprinting them in any form, and I've kept my word with that. But I'm not going to promote the idea that they're worth so much money just a few years down the road.

There are a limited number of supporter slots. I want those slots to be filled with people who get some joy and value from the material, not speculators.

Aw, Screw It, Here's Another Hot Rod Idea

An email I received earlier today…

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the famous Hot rod stick.
I really like your handling with the imaginary die and the hand move.
However I’m still thinking on the motivation of this trick, the hook ?
how would you justify bringing out the stick ? What would be the motivation or maybe you think motivation isn’t always needed ?—KQ

Yes, motivation is definitely lacking here. I think the force I described makes the trick stronger, but it’s still just a meaningless exercise. It’s a little visual treat for the eyes. And I’m fine with that for a 30-second trick. This is the sort of thing I know someone might have a good reaction to, but I don’t expect them to be thinking about it months from now.

Even if you contextualize the Hot Rod, I don’t think anyone really believes it. If you say, as I used to in high school, “I stole this from the guy who was selling class rings. It was meant to show the different color options,” that sort of gives some justification for why the stick exists, but does anyone buy it? And if they do, it’s still something foreign to them, even if you’ve given it a justification. So it’s not like they think, “Oh yes, the old class ring sample stone plastic rod… just like my sweet mamá used to have!”

In general, my belief is, if you have a weird object, don’t try to sell it as something normal to your audience. They’re unlikely to believe it. Instead, frame it as something special or unusual or strange.

The Birth Date Gemstone Hexad Detector

[Speaking to someone I just met]

“Oh, actually, it’s perfect that I met you. I wanted to test out this thing I just got with someone I don’t really know.”

I dig into my bag and pull out the hot rod.

“Have you heard of the birth date gemstone hexad? Yeah, most people haven’t. So, you’ve heard of birthstones. Like each month has a different one. Well, the birth date hexad, is a series of six stones that are assigned to the days of a month. (A hexad just means six things, I think.) So for example, anyone born on the 8th of any month will all have the same stone. If we were born in the same month, our birthstone would be the same. But our birth date stone might be different depending. There’s only six total stones. And they’re distributed unevenly throughout the month. I think it’s based on the positioning of Saturn’s six largest moons… or something.

“Anyway, your birth date gemstone is supposed to be very lucky for you. I got this thing which is a Birth Date Gemstone Hexad Detector. It has the six stones on this side. And they’re on the other side here in the same order. They look the same, but they’re not exactly the same. One of these is the control side, and the other is the detector side.” I flip it back and forth a couple of times. “Uhm… I don’t really know which is which, but it doesn’t really matter. Here, hold it in your fist.”

I give it to them to hold in their fist so all the stones are covered.

“What day of the month were you born?”

She says the 23rd.

“Okay… I think that’s… I’m not 100% sure.”

I open my phone to a numbered list entitled Birth Date Gemstone Hexad. I show it to her. At the 23rd is Ruby.

“Oh, I thought that might be it. That’s cool. That’s rare. Only one other day has ruby assigned to it.”

I scroll through the list to show that while all the other stones are repeated multiple times, ruby only appears on the list twice.

“That makes you pretty rare. Let’s see if it worked. Open your hand.”

They open they see all rubies. (Or, possibly, they open their hand and the stick looks the same. “Maybe that’s the control side. Turn it over.”)

Method

This was the trick I originally started performing a few months ago when I reintroduced myself to the Hot Rod. A version of the Hot Rod that not only eliminates spelling… but also counting!

It uses a standard Hot Rod and the Digital Force Bag app to put Ruby (or whatever your force gemstone is) at your spectator’s birth date position.

So you’ll make your list in DFB with the other 5 gemstones repeated frequently, and not in any particular order. So it might be

1. Diamond

2. Diamond

3. Amethyst

4. Sapphire

5. Amethyst

6. Citrine

And so on.

I like to put the force stone only one other time on the list. This makes it seem less likely that the stone would be picked, of course. And it has the added benefit of maybe making them feel like it’s mildly special that they have this stone on their birth date.

There’s one problem with this trick, and that’s the fact that I meet a lot of people who:

1. Believe in astrology

2. Believe in crystals vibrating at certain frequencies

3. Believe they give off a unique energy due to when they were born

So, if I tell those people, “I have this special stick with stones on it that change color depending on when you were born due to the energy you’re emitting,” they think, “Hmm… of course. That seems reasonable. Just more evidence that what I believe in is accurate. Thank you for validating my science.”

The strength of it as a magic trick is inversely correlated to their belief in crystals, astrology, etc. But because it also hits hardest for someone I just met (and therefore couldn’t know their birthday) I never really know what their beliefs are.

So now I present it like this, as I remove the Hot Rod.

“Do you know your Lucky Hexad color?”

I don’t just ask them if they know their “lucky color” because then they just name their favorite color and then I have to talk my way around that. By giving it a proper name, they’re certain to say “No.”

I inform them about the Lucky Hexad—six stones that are said to be the most lucky—and how each correlates with a person’s lucky two-digit number. And how this little detector can sense someone’s lucky stone just by them holding it.

They hold the hot rod. We look up whatever they tell me their “lucky number” is (or just a number they like or has some significance to them) on a list.

“Okay, 66 is correlated with the ruby. That’s the rarest, actually. I think the ruby only correlates with 3 or 4 numbers on the list. Let’s see if this worked. Open your hand….”

The benefit here is that even people who believe in “luck” don’t expect to manifest some physical proof of the concept. So it definitely comes across as magical regardless.

And while it’s possible for you to research someone and know their birthday, there’s no obvious way you could have determined their lucky or favorite 2-digit number, unless you know them really well.

So this works equally well for believers or non-believers (in luck or in anything of a similar nature).

In fact, the strongest reaction I’ve gotten with this was with a total “rational” asshole guy I met. I introduced the stick, told him how it can detect someone’s Lucky Hexad color… blah, blah, blah. I asked him for his lucky number, and he said, “I don’t have to tell you.”

I was like, “Oh, okay. But then we’ll never really know if it worked.”

I had him open his hand, we saw that the detector side had turned red. “Hmm, it must be a ruby number then. That’s rare.”

“What does that mean?” he asked.

“Your lucky number must be correlated with the ruby hexad stone. I can’t say for sure because you won’t tell me what it is.”

“You’re supposed to tell me what it is,” he said.

“I don’t know where you got that idea from.” I said.

“Okay, it’s 34,” he said.

“Let’s check.” I opened my phone to my list of Lucky Hexad Correlations and showed him the list as I scrolled down it. Next to 34 was one of only three “Ruby”s on the entire list. “Yup, looks like it worked,” I said. “Crazy how it knows.”

He was kind of amazed by this. But then seemed to get angry that he was amazed. It was funny. He would think about it and try to figure it out. But he would just come back with stuff like, “There’s no such thing as a Lucky Hexad Stone!” Yeah, no shit. The last thing he said was, “How did it know?” I consider that a victory. Even if he didn’t really believe it, Mr. Rational was forced to consider that somehow this stick “knew” his secret number.

People will ask you to do it for someone else, or people watching will ask you to do it for them. I just say that it takes a few weeks for the detector stones to return to their normal state. Problem solved.