Mail: Tag Question Alternative

/

This email came in after Monday’s post where I wrote about—what I’m calling—the “tag question” ploy. “It’s not a red card, is it?”

Tag questions (which is the name for the “is it” part of that statement) are so inherently confusing that there are dozens of youtube videos discussing how to even answer those questions.

Alexander F. C. writes in with this alternative, which is interesting, but may present other issues.

Relating to your latest post, I wanted to share a variation of that type of ploy that I've been using. 

Rather than asking a closed question and interpreting it (laughably transparent), I make a statement. You could argue it's a different technique altogether (a hanging statement vs a closed question), but it accomplishes the same thing for the performer. 

I start with a confident smile, and then say:

"Okay, so this is obviously a red card". Here I pause for a very short amount of time, gauging their response. If their card is a red card, most people will react almost instantly to this. If they don't react, I immediately follow up with: 

"or a black card, it's a 50/50 percent chance I guess this." Now I would know their card is black. Here I would continue bullshitting a bit, with that newly gained piece of information.

Both statements are natural, and unequivocal: 

"Okay so this is obviously a red card." 

"Okay so this is obviously a red card or a black card, it's a 50/50 percent chance I guess this."

It works great for Which Hand too. 

"It's obviously in this hand" (now I tap one of their outstretched fists) If no reaction:

or in this hand, It's a 50/50 percent chance (now I tap the other fist while saying this).

Let me know what you think of this. I think it's something I came up with and started doing a while ago, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's been taught somewhere before. —AFC

Thanks for sharing this idea. I can see this working quite well most of the time, but I can also see it failing a good amount of the time as well.

Here’s why…

You need someone who is expressive enough to react to you saying: “The coin is in this hand.”

But not so expressive that they react to you by saying, “No, it’s not.”

The only way to guarantee they don’t say “No,” is to tell them not to give anything away. But if you were to tell them that, then you wouldn’t know if the coin was in that hand.

I feel like, at the very least, you’d probably have 10% who are non-reactors, and 10% who react when you don’t want them too. Leaving a 20% failure rate. Which is just too much for me.

But I’m a baby. I don’t really like any technique that requires me to gauge my spectator’s reaction in some way. My friends are too unpredictable.

Techniques that require me to interpret what people are doing or saying in real time don’t follow my Carefree philosophy.

But I can see this working well for people who do like to take more risks in their performing. It’s just not my particular style.

Revisiting My Favorite Bedroom Trick

/

No, not the one where you wrap your penis around your wrist and ask your partner if she likes your “flesh bracelet.”

And not the one where you secretly insert a D’Lite in one of your lover’s orifices while fooling around, and then you say, “What kind of messed up STD is this? And you reach into their vagina or butthole and cause light to come streaming out.”

This is a trick called Paco, that I wrote about back in 2017.

This is a trick for when you’re at the stage in the relationship where you’re spending a decent amount of time together, hanging around in bed.

Over the years, my approach to this trick has changed slightly and I wanted to update you on how.

If you read that old post, you’ll see that I sort of took advantage of something that happened to come up during an interaction in bed. And over the years, that’s how I would usually do it. I’d play the game where you write or draw on the person’s back and depending on what the person drew on me, I would play it off as some weird coincidence with this drawing I found.

But in recent years I switched it around a little. And this allows you to do the trick without being in bed with someone (which, granted, limits your performance opportunities unless you’re a true whore).

In all honesty, I really only do this trick in bed, because I think it’s an interesting setting for the trick, but I’ll describe it as if you weren’t doing it that way.

You have some sort of prediction box that allows you to switch in a business card on a shelf somewhere.

You have a pre-folded business card and a crayon on you.

Your friend is standing with their back to you.

You draw a couple of letters on their back and have them guess what they are.

Then you write a short word.

Then you do a simple shape.

Then something slightly more complex, like a house.

Then you step back a few feet. “This time I’m going to try and draw something on your back, but just in my mind.”

Ask them to imagine they can feel it. Wait a few seconds and then say something like, “It’s probably going to feel like you’re making it up. But I want you to tell me what you think I was drawing on your back in my mind.”

They are still standing facing away from you. Whatever they say, you draw quickly with the crayon on the piece of card and re-fold it. If you find it too difficult to draw quickly, you can write the word itself.

You will need to buy yourself a few seconds, so I say something like, “And did you actually feel that on your back? Or did the image just seem to come into your head?”

Either answer will feel kind of miraculous at the conclusion of the effect.

When I’m ready, I put the crayon away and tell them to grab the small box on the shelf in front of them. This is my first time mentioning the box. The prediction box I use (Mark Southworth’s “The Box”) is no longer available, I don’t believe. But you’ll want a similar box that allows them to see a folded up piece of paper inside. (Vision Box 2.0 by Joao Miranda might be a good option.)

Take the box, open it, remove the paper and give it to them to unfold.

This makes a great extension of this series of effects.

Mail: It's Not a Black Card, Is It?

/

I wanted to react to an old post you recently referred to [This post on the verbal ploy of saying, “It’s not a black card, is it?” (or something similar) during a fishing sequence.]

I agree with what you say, but having seen a mentalist friend using the ploy with what seems like success to me, I was wondering if we couldn't think a bit further. 

Taking the example of what my friend does:

Situation 1:

- it's not a black card, is it?

- no

- no because you would've had more energy but here it was like a dull 'no'

Situation 2:

- it's not a black card, is it?

- yes

- yes as you have opened your eyes a little when I mentioned black

What my friend suspects is that the spectator thinks this: "he had elements pointing to the right direction, but not enough to be 100% sure, and that's why he asserted something in the form of a question."

Any thoughts? —DE

Yes. I appreciate your friend’s attempt to salvage this verbal gambit. And I think what he’s doing is better than just saying, “I knew it!” regardless of their response to the question.

But I still think it’s a bad, semi-transparent technique.

One that’s obvious enough to draw laughter…

I’m not saying this never works. I’m saying that leaving the spectator somewhat confused on what you’re saying and what you mean isn’t good technique. And this gambit is predicated on them not being 100% certain of what you’re saying.

Magicians think they’re being sneaky. They’re not. This stuff stands out to people.

Imagine you went to a used car dealership. “I saw your ad for the 2016 Jeep. Can I get a look at it?”

“Sure,” the used car salesman says. “Walk into this room and look through this slit in the wall. The Jeep is on the other side of the wall. You can look at it through the slit.”

Would you say, “Oh, okay. Thanks. I’ll just look through this slit then.” Or would you wonder what the used car salesman was trying to hide from you? Why can’t you just go and look at the car by standing right next to it?

When you’re showing someone a piece of magic or mind-reading, you are trusted less than a used car salesman. If you say or do something that’s confusing to people, they’re not going to see that as innocent, and they’re not going to interpret that as a “hit.” We need to strive for apparent clarity with what we say and do. People are on the lookout for anything else.

But if you think this technique actually does work well, I suggest ramping it up a bit like this. It allows you to accurately determine any one of 52 cards. Have them think of a card and then say:

"Would it not be considered unfair to never state that the card you might not be thinking of isn't not lacking a red color? And isn't the suit not dissimilar to the suit that it wouldn't be if it were not opposite to a heart, is that not inaccurate? And if I am not incorrect in my presumption, the value isn't not an 8, isn't it?"

Now, if they say they’re thinking of the Jack of Clubs, you reply: “Just as I said!”

Until July...

/

This is the final post of June. Posting will resume July 1st. The next newsletter will come out for supporters on the 30th.

For July (at least) this blog will be shifting to the MCJ schedule. What is that? MCJ refers to my 20+ year old blog that some of you were around for. Back then, the posts were usually shorter (and stupider) and not really on any schedule. That’s the plan for next month too.

The reason I started having a schedule for posts in the first place was so people wouldn’t feel the need to stop back just to check if something had been posted. You still shouldn’t feel that need. Check back every couple of days or once a week. I promise you won’t miss out on anything that’s time-sensitive. It won’t be like: “Anyone who responds within the next 24 hours will be eligible to win a trip for two for them and the 16-year-old of their choice to go to David Copperfield’s island.”

You can just continue to check back on whatever schedule you normally do.

DFB X was released by Marc Kerstein this week. Marc made the original DFB app for the creators Nick Einhorn and Craig Squires, and now he’s come to an agreement with them where he can release his own version of the app which has a ton more features. And, more importantly, this is now Marc’s app to do with as he pleases, which means you can be sure there will be continued support and many more features added over time. So if you’re at all interested, now is probably the time to get it. It’s not cheap. But it won’t be getting cheaper.

When I asked Marc why he wanted to release his own version of DFB, he told me: “I just hate Android users so much, I wanted to take one of the few good apps that’s available to them and make a better version that they can’t get for their phone.”

Okay, that’s weird. But whatever the motivation was, I’m glad this new version exists.

Trumbull, Connecticut

August 8th, 1963

Mr. Fitzpatrick: Alright, gentlemen, settle down. We need to decide what products we’re going to advertise in the next issue of the Unknown Worlds. Ideas? Milty?

Wallace Milton: I’m thinking multiplying billiard balls. It’s a great trick. It never fails to bring roars of surprise and enthusiastic applause from your audience.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: Smart. Anyone else.

Langston Murphy: What about Nickels to Dimes? It’s so easy a monkey could do it. Or perhaps even a woman! Just cover the nickels with the Magic Cap and P-R-E-S-T-O… you got dimes! Now that’s what I call easy money!

Mr. Fitzpatrick: I don’t like it… I love it. Great job, Murphy. Who else?

Frederick Little: I believe we should go with the Dancing Hank. I think we all agree it’s truly a miracle. A big surprise. And very uncanny. But I also think it’s a socially responsible trick. Kid’s today…. ehh…I don’t know. With their loud music and louder cars. If they just had something to take their mind off mischief, I think we could recapture a more innocent frame of mind. And I think this Dancing Hank is just the thing to do it! Oh sure, it dances. But in a way that’s wholesome. Not overly erotic.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: Excellent point. Any other ideas?

Conrad Colton: Now listen, fellas. Hear me out. We think, “We’re selling to magicians, so we must sell magic tricks.” But what if we didn’t limit ourselves to that? What if we also sold other things your typical “magician” might want.

Frederick Little: What do you mean?

Conrad Colton: Well, think of the sort of guy who gets into magic. Picture him. Is he not also the type of guy who would like a double-sided mirror so he could spy on women??? You know darn well he is! So maybe in addition to magic tricks we should sell a mirror you can see through to watch a lady put on lipstick. And when I say “lipstick,” what I really mean is “a brassiere.”

Langston Murphy: A brassiere! Wow-wee!

Mr. Fitzpatrick: Colton, you magnificent son of a bitch, you’ve done it again. You sure know our audience.

See you back here in July! Get out there and enjoy summer. It will be over before you know it. If you don’t go to at least one beach party this year, I will be disappointed in you.

Becoming A Generalist

/

One of the least productive things I think you can do in amateur magic is specialize.

What I mean is, if you’re a professional magician, and you just do gambling routines, or mind-reading, or some shtick where you use “deductive reasoning to mimic having supernatural powers,” that’s fine. People are going to see you for one night and probably never again.

But as an amateur, you’re going to be in these people’s lives for (hopefully) years to come. Magic is already a niche enough way to entertain your friends and family. Limiting it down further seems insane to me. “I just do coin tricks.” Really? I promise you, anybody who has seen more than a few tricks from you probably has almost no distinct memory of any trick you’ve ever shown them.

In the early days of testing, we brought a couple small groups of six people (I believe) in to watch the performances from one of Michael Ammar’s money magic videos. Afterward, we had them describe the tricks they saw. For the most part, they were able to differentiate the tricks with coins from the tricks with bills. But beyond that, there was very little nuance to what they described. We didn’t do extensive testing of this. Just a dozen people or so. It took too long, and it wasn’t that fun for us. And the responses were pretty clear. But even though we didn’t look at a lot of people, I’m pretty confident in my takeaways from this.  If you think people understand the distinctions between Coins Across and Hanging Coins five minutes after they see them (much less five days or five months), you’re deluding yourself.

Douching tricks out of your repertoire with similar premises is essential. You just don’t need a ton of different tricks where cards switch places with other cards. Or where you “influence” your spectator. Or where you read their mind. 

“I can read your mind of what playing card you’re thinking of.”

“I can read your mind of what word you’re thinking of.”

“I can read your mind of what film from the AFI’s top 100 films you’re thinking of.”

We get it. It’s still impossible. But by definition, the more you see the same impossible thing, the less impressive and interesting it will become. 

It’s the same with mind reading as it would be with regular reading. If a kid tells you he can read, and he picks up a book and starts reading, you might say, “Wow. You’re a good reader.”

“I can also read the newspaper,” he says, flipping through the Wall Street Journal and then telling you about the inflation rate.

“Yup. There you go,” you say.

“I can also read a cookbook. Preheat the oven to 400 degrees. Lightly grease the pan.”

“Okay, I get it. That’s how reading works.”

The only way that watching someone demonstrate mind-reading over and over is interesting is if the nature of the interaction is one where you’re like, “Try to catch what I’m doing as I pretend to read minds.” 

(Perhaps counterintuitively, if your presentation is bad, you can use the same premise over and over without wearing it out. Because people aren’t paying much attention to the premise in the first place.)

I’m currently in the process of blowing up my repertoire and rebuilding it with the Carefree magic philosophy more in mind, and limiting the number of tricks with the same premise.

As I’m rebuilding the repertoire, I’m creating a database and tracking the premise of each trick in one of the columns. It helps me notice when I’m accumulating too many tricks that might seem different to me, but will possibly feel very similar to the people I perform for regularly.

Try to remember that most laypeople’s understanding of the nuances of magic tricks is like your understanding of something that doesn’t naturally fascinate you. (Go to youtube and look up the top Mariachi songs of all time and see how good you are at telling them apart.) This is helpful in some ways, because it means you can use the same methodology for different premises, and they will rarely catch on. But if you’re using different methodologies for similar premises, you will burn out an audience much quicker.

Spont: Spectator Bingo

/

This is another Oliver Meech idea that is related to the one I wrote about last Thursday. He originally wrote me:

Non-tech challenges: do magic versions of existing 'mini quests' that people do. E.g. Like you get printable tick-box charts for a 30/60-day Press Ups challenge (or so I've heard from friends who actually work out!), you could make up something similar magic. Or initial bingo (doing tricks for people whose first names have those initials) - like a broader version of Justin Willman's Magic For Susans. Or location bingo (doing tricks at a range of locations). I like the idea of people helping you to complete your 'bingo card' (or at least a line of it) that's almost full.

I was in Toronto a couple of weeks ago, and I was sitting in the lounge/lobby of the hotel I was staying at, and I struck up a conversation with a woman seated near me. We were talking about how we liked the hotel and our takes on Toronto in general. My take was that it reminded me a lot of New York City, except without the really bad aspects and without the really good aspects. It’s like Mid York City.

After chatting for a couple of minutes she told me her name was Dasha. I told her I liked that name.

“Wait…,” I said, “Uhm, do you mind telling me what your last initial is?”

She told me it was G.

In my bag was a folded piece of paper. I pulled it out and said, “Oh, I need that one… Sorry, this is a little odd, but do you have a couple of minutes to help me with something I’m working on. It’s really easy.”

And from there, I rolled into the trick.

The paper I pulled out looked like this…

Except a bunch of the boxes had Xs through them and signatures in them.

I explained to her that the top row consisted of the most popular first initials and the side column had the most common last name initials.

“I’m part of a group that’s testing something out. It’s kind of a magic trick. But it’s more like a psychology game… like a mind-reading game.”

And I mention how this chart is part of the way that we’re tracking the testing, by testing for people with these initials.

She was interested and agreed to help and I went on to show her a Jerx App trick which crushed her.

When we were done, I X’d the box and asked her to sign her name there.

“How often does that work?” she asked.

“Uhm…,” I counted the Xs on my sheet. “Well, out of the 23 times I’ve done it, it worked that well just this once.”

I put a star in the corner of that box, as if to remind myself of how well it worked. Hopefully letting her feel a little special about this experience, despite the premise being that I’m testing this out a lot.

A few times people have asked what the point is of the chart. Like, they get the idea that I’m testing something out a number of times, but why with the initials?

I have two answers.

The first is that it’s just a way to game-ify the testing process. See who can fill out more of the chart. That sort of thing.

The other is that this is a simplified way to get a good cross-section of people since “certain initials are more common within specific ethnic backgrounds and age groups. So researchers often aim for a wide range of initials to approximate a diverse group of respondents without going deep into demographic data. You wouldn’t do it like this for rigorous scientific research. But for our purposes it works.”

The nice thing about this is that if their initials are on the chart, they feel like they’re helping you complete something. But even if they’re not, or that square is already filled in, you can still use the chart as a way of getting into the effect.

You just bring out the chart to check if their initials are ones you need. Even if not, you still get to explain what you’re doing and set the hook from there and show them the trick regardless.

You can download the chart here.

Fill in a few to begin with, so the chart looks a little “lived in.”

The chart is specifically vague. I don’t have one trick I use this with. I just have it in my bag and know that it’s just one more way I can use to roll into a trick when I feel it would work.