Mailbag #163
/I’m writing in relation to your recent post about John Bannon’s 51 Fat Chances. Like you, I also ran into issues with the final Australian count elimination. Much of my audience has a background in science, and they quickly realize that the process is entirely deterministic (although, admittedly, one probably doesn’t need a science degree to notice that).
For this reason, I very much welcomed your proposed alternative using prime number principles combined with a Flavio Josephus–style elimination procedure. I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that this type of elimination significantly expands the options and flexibility regarding the final number of cards in the remaining pile.
Specifically, in addition to 7, nearby prime numbers such as 11 and 13 (and even 5, though it may be a bit low) work just as well. With 11 or 13, the procedure functions in the same way and arguably looks even more impossible. Numbers one above or below those primes can also be handled using the same solutions you already propose for cases around 7.—MO
Yup, this is a good point. You’ll have to handle the original discards slightly differently (perhaps only doing it twice if you’re going with 5, or having them discard “3 or 4” cards each time if you’re going with 11), but this would definitely work.
I may end up shifting to one of these options. When asking for a “magic word” to use with the effect, I feel you often get something in the 6-8 letter range, which isn’t ideal as far as looking fully random. So doing it with 11 cards may be a better option. Although that does extend the final selection portion somewhat, it might be worth it.
As the #1 Jerx Points…haver… guy, I think it’s fair to say I’m your #1 fan. So maybe that makes me overly-defensive when it comes to your work, but I was wondering if it drives you crazy when you see your concepts shared without any recognition of your role in creating or popularizing the ideas. It makes me nuts. Like seeing someone cover your favorite band and not call it a cover song.
I read an article online about extending your magic tricks so they don’t conclude until hours or days later and your site wasn’t mentioned at all. As if this was just a common technique regularly used by magicians before you started writing about it. I see it all the time with various ideas you’ve written about. Even just the concept of “social magic” was something I never heard codified or talked about before you.
I told you before to start a Jerx Did It First series to deal with these guys. Don’t let your legacy be diluted! —EV
First, I appreciate your passion, but chill.
Second, no, it doesn't drive me crazy. If attribution was super important to me, I would have written this site under my own name.
A couple times a week people send me articles or posts that are reiterating concepts I've written about on this site without any reference back to it. I find it a little strange, but not upsetting. (It's even weirder when they're charging people for their reiteration of something I wrote here for free.)
As dumb as this site can be, I also know that it changed the way people think about amateur/social magic, because it wasn't something people considered much as its own distinct thing before I started. The problem, I think, for anyone writing about the subject after me is that it wasn't like there were a bunch of people talking about this branch of magic and they're just adding their voice to the chorus of people writing about it. Instead, it was a subject that was hardly ever talked about. Then I came along and blitzkrieged the subject for years. And then other people came to it later. So it’s difficult for them to seem like they’re doing anything other than repeating ideas I already covered.
I genuinely don’t care one way or the other about credit. But if you’re writing about a niche subject that’s been covered extensively by a well-known writer in that area, then—for your own sake—you should credit them. Not as a courtesy to them, but because it helps you. It shows people what you’re building on, which lets them see what your unique contribution actually is. Without that context, your ideas just get absorbed into work people already associate with someone else, and your own work becomes invisible.
When is the Zero Carry issue of Keepers planned for? —AMD
It probably won’t be a single issue. It will probably be a recurring feature in the magazine going forward. More details on this in a post later this week.
Any advice for someone starting a magic blog in 2026? (Other than “don’t waste your time.”) —CR
Yes. Do not use AI to do the writing for you. When people read a blog, it’s not just for information. The best blogs allow you to feel connected to the person writing them. You get acquainted with their style, sense of humor, thought patterns, personality. And then, on some level at least, you feel: “Oh, I know this person.” And that satisfies a biological need for connection.
You may see your writing as this imperfectly jagged crystal and think, “I’m going to use AI to polish this up.” AI will polish it to a smooth sphere. It polishes everything into a smooth sphere. It will polish you to blandness.
We thought AI would help everyone express their ideas by turning them into “good” writers. Instead, it made “good” writing so commonplace it’s meaningless. And now individuality and personality matter more than ever. So make sure your writing expresses that and sounds like you.
Also, don’t waste your time.