Mailbag #165
/A note to supporters who got yesterday’s Keepers #3. The first item I mention in that issue is—at the time of this post—half price. It doesn’t say that on the sales page, but if you add it to your cart it will show it as 50% off.
I have a question related to the idea of forcing multiple cards rather than just one (as shared here: https://www.thejerx.com/blog/2026/2/17/a-revelation-pro-tip)
Do you think this also applies if the multiple cards are obviously related to each other?
If you force the four aces, or a royal flush for example. Does that feel like forcing “one thing” in the same way that forcing one card does. Or does it still benefit from forcing multiple items —SW
That's a good question.
While this wasn't part of our testing, I would think the answer is yes.
This is based on my experience with something like Spectator Cuts to the Aces or Chad Long's Shuffling Lesson. The best reactions I've had with these methodologies is when I don't force four of a kind.
Do I think people perceive these types of things as "forces"? No. But there is something like an inherent inevitability to this kind of climax that can feel a bit too clean.
You can feel it yourself. Think of doing a Shuffle-Bored style trick where cards are shuffled and mixed face-up and face-down. In the end, it's revealed the face-down cards are all diamonds. And your prediction says, "All the face-down cards will be diamonds."
Now compare that to a standard Shuffle-Bored where the face-down cards are a mixture of all sorts of different cards. That you could have predicted that seems much more impossible—even though, mathematically, it's all the same.
I think it's also about how the magic moment unfolds. Turn over two aces on top of two piles and people already know what's going to be on top of the third and fourth pile. There's no surprise with those last cards, so the trajectory of their response diminishes over the climax. Whereas if you turn over four random cards, you have unresolved tension that you can ratchet up as you conclude the trick—with one unexpected climactic moment when you reveal the prediction or revelation.
It all depends, of course, on the trick and the premise. But generally I'd say a procedure that forces a known group is weaker than one that forces a seemingly random group, even if the person doesn't perceive the procedure as a "force."
Do you have any experience with magnetic coin detectors? I have a routine in mind but have never played with these and was wondering if you had a recommendation. —OR
I can recommend Sixth Sense by Hugo Shelley if you can find one anywhere. I've had one for at least a decade and it still works perfectly fine.
I also have Flux by ProMystic. But that conked out on me after maybe six uses, so it's hard to recommend—although ProMystic is usually noted for their quality. I just got a lemon in this case.
The Goblin from Lewis Le Val is another intriguing option. It's not a device, it's an app on your phone. I don't have it, so I can't comment on whether it's any good, but it might be something to look into.
Good lord. I just found your site and love what I’ve seen so far, but where do I start? —TD
Well, I would say start from the beginning if you want to get the whole story. Otherwise you can just jump around.
There are three fundamental concepts that currently guide my magic that have evolved from writing this site. This month I will be doing a post on each. So even if you just read those you’ll have a good base of knowledge to go forward (or back).
Good point about speed. On a related note, I nicknamed the sudden burst of speed that many magicians (including me sometimes) do when performing a secret move as the 'scared sprint'.
I notice it most when skipping through magic videos to find a certain trick. Even if the technique is flawlessly done by an expert, you can usually still tell when the move is, as their pace suddenly quickens e.g. diving their hand into a pocket to load a palmed card into a wallet.—OM
Tempo is one of the biggest tells in magic. I’m tempted to only perform tricks that would still fool at half speed. That might be extreme, but it gives you a lovely buffer to know that you never have to rush for a trick to be fooling.
This isn't, like, some sort of esoteric concept that I'm harping on, but only because I spend so much time thinking about and performing magic. This is a fundamental issue with laypeople when they watch magic. "He's going too fast. I just can't follow what's happening."
When I was a teenager, I used to do a coins across routine that used the Han Ping Chien move. If you know that, then you know it's a lot of tossing the coins around and slapping them to the table. It's a very kinetic move. The routine fooled people, but also didn't look "magical" in the least. It looked like someone who was dexterously juggling the coins in his hands in a way that gave the illusion they went from hand to hand. At that age, I was too dumb to know the difference. If people couldn't follow exactly what I was doing, I considered that a success.
These days, I wouldn't bother with a trick like that. Trying to make people feel like they've seen something magical while rushing through moves is embarrassing for both of us. I'm trying to make someone feel something impossible happened…but then I'm being cagey with the way I present it to them? That doesn’t work.
If I say, "I bought a bag of broccoli florets for dinner," and I flash you the bag quickly, you probably believe me, even if I actually showed you a bag of peas.
But if I say, "I won the Oscar for best actor," and quickly flashed this…
you would be unconvinced because my claim—if true—is not the sort of thing I would be furtive about when presenting the evidence.
Similarly, speed is incompatible with the feeling of magic because it eliminates conviction, which is necessary for wonder.
"I know that top hat was empty, but then he pulled a bunny from it." That’s magical.
"I think the top hat was empty. I'm not 100% sure because he only flashed it. But it did look empty. Probably." That’s nothing.