Housing Your Repertoire: Satellite Hooks

/

The posts on housing your repertoire [Part One and Part Two] have really been slowly kicking in. I feel im getting a better habit of performing thanks to it.

So thanks. I needed it. I have been trying to perform more. Im doing it slowly.

Here is just a small idea for certain magic apps that you can use.

I have my main phone screen with the minimal apps stuff i use daily: notes, phone, spotify, calendar and 3 more. The “addictive stuff” is on my third screen. So not really accessible. I do the same with magic apps. I put them in my 4th screen. (This is from a book i read on habits and phone addiction. Its helped immensely)

I started just moving one of the magic apps to the main screen. That way i can see it and be reminded of it. When i see an opportunity, i can perform. And then after i just switch another app into that position and move the used one to the 4th screen again. Rotating them.

Its a small thing. But its another place where you can think of “rotational housing.”—JFC

Yeah, this is a good idea.

You can also use this in the “real world,” not just with phone apps. Having a “feature” or “highlight” trick is something you could expand to other areas of your repertoire organization.

For example, you might have a display of decks of cards somewhere in your house. Take one of those decks and place it on your coffee table. That becomes the “featured” spot from your collection of unusual decks.

Or maybe you have a display of “strange objects” on a bookshelf. You could feature one of those tricks by placing it somewhere more prominent—on the kitchen table, or even in a shipping box by the front door, as if it just arrived..

This does two things:

First, it highlights a trick you’ve been wanting to do. It’s a built-in reminder to perform it when the opportunity comes up.

Second, it serves as a hook for anyone who sees it. They know you have a collection of interesting decks… but what’s this one? They’ve seen your shelf of weird objects… but why is this one out?

Your deck collection or your weird-object display are already hooks that can lead into a performance. These featured items act as satellite hooks, expanding the range of those displays.

Another example: I have a bookshelf full of books on esoteric subjects, plus various gimmicked books—each one designed to flow into an effect. If I pull one off the shelf and put it on the end table, it expands the range of that bookshelf’s hook.

You might feel like having a “highlight trick” locks you into performing that trick specifically, but it doesn’t. You can use it to lead into any trick from the larger collection.

If a friend notices a book on my end table and I decide the related trick isn’t the best fit for them, I can just say, “Eh, nothing. I thought I remembered something interesting in that book, but couldn’t find it.” Then, as I go to put it back on the shelf, I can “remember” another book I want to show them instead.

So the “highlight” trick can either be the thing you want to perform, or just the thing that leads you back to the original collection. Either way, it helps you transition naturally into a performance.

This might seem like just a small habit shift, but little nudges like this can have an outsized impact on both your opportunities to perform and how easily you can slip into the effect.

Maibag #146

/

Idiot Savant is genius (pun not intended, but acknowledged). Thank you for sharing it on the site. I like the Savant Deck version but love being able to do it with a normal deck. I was wondering why you didn’t write it up with your usual format with “Imagine/Method”? I enjoy hearing the story of the trick’s performance. —DD

No real reason. I just hadn’t performed it much yet, so I didn’t really have a worthwhile performance to relay. When I lay out the full story of a performance, it’s describing a real interaction. I don’t just fabulize some scenario. So that’s something you’ll see less on the site and more in the books, because that’s where I put the tricks I’ve worked out fully.

That said, supporters will read a performance/presentation of Idiot Savant in the next book, because I’ve come up with an alternate presentation for it that takes it out of the, “I’m great at addition” sphere.

Did you help Craig Petty with his latest video? It’s very “jerx-coded” to the point of plagiarism in some spots. What do you reckon? I can’t be the only person to have mentioned this. It’s all about social magic and Craig has said he doesn’t perform socially, so where is this video even coming from?—VR

No, you’re not the only one.

But the full question you should be asking is… Did I help Craig Petty… or am I Craig Petty?

I’ll never tell. And unless you have some sort of futuristic de-pixelation machine to use on this photo of me ranting, you’ll never know for certain who I am.

Look, here’s the deal. Anyone talking about social magic is going to sound somewhat like me. And that’s because 99% of all the discussion on the topic has come from me. Before I started writing about it, “social magic” was basically just a loose way of saying “magic for friends and family.” And it was usually treated as if it were just a small-scale version of professional performance.

My whole contribution was saying: no, social magic should be the opposite of professional performance. Scripts, routines, audience management, sitting behind a close-up mat like you’re auditioning for the Magic Castle—that stuff smothers the social connection aspect of social magic. That’s the drum I’ve been beating for over a decade. So now, whenever someone makes a similar point, it’s going to sound like me. I don’t mind it. If I was writing this site to make a name for myself… you’d know my name.

The only issue I have with Craig’s video is he once again brings up this trick when talking about me. That’s one of the weakest ideas on the site! At the time, it was fine. There was maybe a three-month window where it was viable, back when programmable colored lights were new. But once everyone knew about them, the method was cooked.

So, while I appreciate the kind words, there are literally 1500 posts I’d probably recommend before that one.

Here is Justin Flom’s response to last Monday’s mailbag regarding magic on the internet. You can agree or disagree with him, but if anyone can offer some informed perspective on the subject, it’s him.

Your mailbag on magic and the internet was 100% spot on. With Magic Live in town and some renewed heat around my online videos, I had this conversation a lot last week.

The rules of retention are not the same in person as they are online. Astonishment and wonder are absolutely worthy goals and if you can reach them, grab them. Absolutely. But on a screen, wonder is almost impossible. Too many variables get in the way: viewers can’t trust it’s not a camera trick or an actor, and they can’t fully invest because their life won’t be changed by what they’re seeing. Nobody online will sit through a slow, procedural counting card trick even with a romantic presentation. However in person people will take that ride because they’re actually involved and can touch and feel the trick with the critical eye that’s required to be fooled or astonished.

As AI keeps eroding trust in what we see online, live experiences become the only way to know something actually happened.

If you looked only at online metrics, you’d conclude that no one ever wants to see a card trick again. Retention graphs for them are a cliff. But in real life, the same people who swipe away in two seconds online will happily give you three minutes in person, even for a complicated card effect.

Here’s the challenge with magic in a news feed online: magic traditionally starts ordinary and ends extraordinary. Ordinary doesn’t stop swipes. A bottle of Coke being placed in a paper bag isn’t novel. It’s just a couple inanimate objects and a viewer isn’t really apt to believe that it’ll lead somewhere interesting. There’s no reason for someone to believe it’ll end anywhere worth waiting for. And if the viewer knows they’re watching a magician they also know they won’t learn the secret at the end so why hangout if they can’t even trust that it’s “real” (e.g. not a camera trick)

So I’ve flipped it by starting these silly videos with the secret and show something novel, interesting, and marginally educational up front. Magic secrets check all three boxes, and once you’ve earned attention with the secret, people stick around for the payoff. Totally different game than live magic.

One note that I’ve taken from the internet for my live interactions however...No matter your feelings on magic exposure I’ve found it useful in person to lower a participant’s guard. When someone sees I’m willing to share a secret, they stop thinking I’m there to fool them for my ego, and that openness lets me fool them harder. (I combine that with your Peek Behind the Curtain saying, “Can I show you something I’m working on?”) So I’ll start by showing a finger-flicking-angle-sensitive-color-change then transition into a simple two card transpo. After being conditioned into believing that magic secrets are highly complicated and angle sensitive, a double lift flies past them even easier. —JF

What's Happening On the Socials?

/

Michael C., informs me this is making the rounds again. It’s a filter that makes it look like your eyes are closed so you can “intuit” how many fingers people are holding up.

It’s fairly well F’d out now for people on Instagram or TikTok, but I did think that maybe “exposing” this would be a good lead in to doing it “for real” with Echo Sync.

But I quickly dropped that idea. I don’t think you want to implant the idea of manipulation of the audio/video in any way when you perform that trick. I’ve never had anyone suggest that as a method, but they might if introduced via something similar.

So I wouldn’t bring it up myself.

But… If someone happened to mention this trick/filter to me, then I might consider building off of it and saying, “You know, there’s actually ways of doing it for real. In fact, I’ll have you guess how many fingers I’m holding up.”

Khaled A., brings this post to my attention…

With millions of views, it wouldn’t seem out of the blue to use it as a springboard for a drawing duplication effect.

“This came up on my feed the other day, and I was wondering what the big deal was. I’ve always done this sort of thing with my friends. I thought it was just something people could naturally do if they spent a lot of time around each other.”

Or whatever premise you want to go ahead with.

Watching Justin Flom squeeze his little daughter into this box was funny. But I really wanted to see him toss it into a wood chipper to really send those dolts on Instagram spiralling.



Twickle Hands

/

For those of you who were interested in the Twickle effect from a couple of months ago, here are some files that allow you to 3D print hands of various number reveals.

The nice thing about these is that they don’t just look like a baby doll’s arm that’s stuck on your finger. You can also print them in whatever color makes sense to you for the creature that’s supposedly passing along this information

I have just a few sets of these that I will make available in some way in the future if you’re too lazy to figure out the 3D printing.

Some notes from the friend of the site who sent along these files:

  • These require supports because of the overhang of the fingers

  • I printed this out of 95A soft TPU and they feel amazing, better than the dealer little hands on the market

  • I sized the models up to 110% scale to fit my fingers

  • Finished with an 80-grit sanding sponge

One finger

Two fingers

Three fingers

Four fingers

Five fingers

Thanks, Twickle-Hand-File providing friend!

Between A Flea and a Blue Whale

/

Here’s something I did two weekends ago for my friends and their young child.

It’s a little idea, and normally not something I would tend to write up here, but it went over very well so I thought I’d share it.

Imagine

I ask my friends to work together to think of a number between 1 and 100. “But don’t tell me what it is,” I say.

I jot down a prediction and set it aside.

They finally settle on a number. “Okay,” I say. “What number did you choose?”

“Ninety-three.”

I pull up a list on my phone—100 animals, numbered 1 to 100—and hand it to them.

“Find the animal at that number,” I say. “Don’t tell me what it is. I haven’t memorized the list or anything, so I really don’t know. But concentrate on the animal… let me tune in…”

I furrow my brow. “Can you imagine the size of the animal for me? That might help.”

I pause dramatically, then smile.

“I really need a win here… So I’m going to say… it’s somewhere between a flea and a blue whale, correct?”

They’re thinking of a cow, so they’re like “…Yeah, I guess.”

“Yes!” I say, and pump my fist. “I knew it.”

I open my prediction, which says, “Somewhere between a flea and a blue whale.”

“I f’ing knew it!” I say, unreasonably excited.

It’s at this point I bring their attention back to the list…

92: flea
93: cow
94: blue whale
They picked the only thing “between” a flea and a blue whale.

“Honestly,” I say, “this whole thing wasn’t really about me reading your mind. It was about you reading mine. I came in here tonight with one number on my mind I wanted you to name, and you nailed it.

From my bag I removed a wrapped present and gave it to their daughter. She tears it open.

The present was just the stuffed cow, not the joshua jay book. A child shouldn’t have to look at that.

Method

The new DFB “cut” algorithm or the Damsel List shortcut both will allow the “somewhere between this and that” revelation.

As I said, I didn’t really intend for this to be a “big” moment, just a way to add a little element to giving their kid this gift. But it played much bigger than that. So make of that what you will.

Pill Imps

/

This might have been mentioned somewhere in your writings, and I'm doing a Marlo on you by suggesting an imp I forgot I read before. Nevertheless, just in case that it isn't so, here it goes.  

The idea is to talk about how when you were young you weren't good at a certain subject, let's say maths and at the time there was a study to use a medication to increase the skill. You show a beaten up pill container from a pharmacy with the label and all with the name of the medication (e.g. arithmeticalic acid) and you state that the study was eventually shut down. But you always thought it actually did help, maybe it was a placebo effect, but who knows? 

Now you go into any maths based routine, such as the Idiot Savant one. 

It will be fun and easy to create a label that looks real and just sand it down enough to make it look old but still legible. The pills could be any vitamin. 

I know for sure you mentioned taking a pill to give you temporary super powers. I'm just not sure you ever mentioned the idea of an actual prescription. —GT

Yeah, I don’t know if I’ve written about this exact idea, but probably 90% of it in the past. It’s good to re-mention it now with the Savant Deck release and the Idiot Savant post. “I’m great at math” is just too believable a premise. And I’d be devastated if someone thought I was actually trying to convince them of a real skill. So building a backstory is essential for me. They need to know we’re in the realm of fiction—or at least that I’m not taking genuine credit for being good at math.

To give it some “depth,” I wouldn’t just say, “These are pills that make you good at math. Now watch as I’m good at math.”

I’d set it up so the math thing was a weird side effect. Maybe I got put on these pills for being a hyperactive kid. They calmed me down, but also gave me brief bursts of hyper-focus with numbers.

“The pills worked to calm me down. And the math thing was just an added benefit. My parents were thrilled. But there was another side effect as well… they shrunk my testicles down to the size of peas. I may have been a hyperactive lunatic without the pills. But still, my parents were like, well… we can’t do that to him.”

I’d say I kept a couple dozen of the pills for decades and would pop one every few years just to see if the math thing still worked. And, actually… it did.

“Let me show you…”

By now we’re clearly in the realm of the fantastical, but when I do then perform some impossible mathematical feat, it still might make them second-guess what’s real—or wonder what’s going on with my testicles at that moment.

Mailbag #145: Magic and the Internet

/

Convince me people actually want to see magic anymore. The only things I see online that get views are people exposing magic tricks. Did the internet kill magic?—TW

Magic isn’t made for the internet. It’s meant to be experienced offline, between humans, in person.

Secrets are the only part of magic that gets traction online because they’re the only aspect that really works there.

It’s amazing how few magicians seem to grasp this:

Magic is a real-world, interpersonal experience.

Magic on the internet doesn’t really exist. Even on TV, you still need an audience there to replicate the person-to-person connection.

Saying, “People don’t like magic because all I see online is people exposing magic,” is like saying, “People don’t like romance because all I see online is hardcore pornography.”

Yes, but that’s because “romance” doesn’t translate well online either. Done well, in person, it’s wildly effective.

My friends have two daughters, Sarah (9) and Evie (13).

At the end of each season, their parents ask them to list three highlights from the past few months—special moments they want to remember.

At the end of June, my friend sent me his daughters’ “highlights” for spring. They were:

1. The taffy pull.

2. The beach scavenger hunt.

3. Forming their “band.”

Now, what these highlights had in common was:

  • They were all fully offline.

  • I was there for all three.

  • They took place over the course of about 10 hours.

A “taffy pull” couldn’t be less online. It’s the sort of thing you would find done at a party, like, 100 or 200 years ago.

The “scavenger hunt” was really a magic trick where a bunch of clues led us to a deck of cards. A card was selected and signed, and the rest of the deck was assembled to reveal a treasure map on the back of the cards. We followed the treasure map to find the card they just signed, buried in a locked box. (A variation on a trick from one of my previous books.)

The “band” was me and my girlfriend teaching them to play “When U Love Somebody” by the Fruit Bats.*

My point: these are two girls who live online. The 13-year-old often has one earbud in, streaming TikToks while talking to you. But their seasonal highlights were entirely offline. The things they remembered and wanted to remember were all in the real world.

People worry that face-to-face interaction has been replaced by the internet and AI. It hasn’t. If anything, those pale imitations make real-world connection more valuable.

Do magic online, and you’ll find people chasing secrets.

Do shitty magic in person, and you’ll find people wishing they were online.

But do fascinating things for real people in the real world and you will find an unending pool of people who enjoy magic.

* Teaching a group of people “When U Love Somebody” by the Fruit Bats is one of my favorite things to do. You can teach non-musicians the keyboard part (you don’t need a keyboard, you can play an app on your phone), the “drum” part (just banging out quarter-notes on an empty box) and the tambourine part (anything that jangles) very simply. The lyrics are easy to pick up too.

I do the guitar part myself, usually. But if there’s someone else in the group who knows guitar or ukulele, I’ll give it to them. It’s very easy to pick up. I just wouldn’t try and give those parts to an absolute beginner. But they can handle everything else.