talkmagic.co.uk

Now knowing the method, I find it absolutely baffeling that magicians/mentalists find that they can perform this at every table with no one sussing the method.

It's a case of "hidden in plain sight", in a way.

But then, it fooled me when I saw the video clip AND when I saw it performed (by Mike Stoner if I recall, or possibly not).

I might be completely wrong, but the method seems a bit too transparent to me. There is something not in the video which could make it great (or just break it for me), though...

You could have them shuffle, if that's what you're referring to.

I do agree that the method is too transparent. In that there really isn't anything to stop the lateral or just logical thinker from backtracking. Lots of performers may say that they've had no one suss the method, but they can't know for certain that no one has backtracked after they've moved on. However:

This isn't a problem if you see/present your act as light hearted fun comedy mentalism, i.e. entertainment.

If it's essential to you that everyone is convinced that it's real mind control (whether psychological or whatever else), this is probably not an effect you'll want to perform.

Mr Grumpy wrote:If it's essential to you that everyone is convinced that it's real mind control (whether psychological or whatever else), this is probably not an effect you'll want to perform.

It's not, but as a mathematician I (and most people I know) tend to see some things as logical consequences of evident premises that I backtrack without even trying (it is my job, after all) and that spoils the fun a bit for some effects...

I find this effect quite fascinating because, having spoken to a few magicians about it, there seems to be a fairly standardised reaction - they at once see the possibilities for the effect in terms of byplay and banter, and absolutely see the very strong commercial applications for it, but at the same time, kind of don't like it.

Who it was exactly escapes me at present, but someone had said "it's entertaining, but is it magic?" (come to think of it, that might have been the WPR) and that's the real nub. The effect proposes what is a false methodology, that men and women will react to different images in different ways. This is potentially too convincing. It's perfectly feasible, considering the pseudo-scientific talk of man-brains and woman-brains, that we really do have gender-aligned biases when it comes to picking out our cucumbers from our hand-cuffs. One reaches the end of the effect, and "ta-da", the images have been correctly separated, but you've already given a believable, real-world reason of why this happens. At best it's "clever" rather than "wow".

OOTW is probably one of the most powerful things you can do with a deck of cards, but I don't think Genetics is as powerful, despite it being ostensibly the same trick. It robs the effect of its magic, however many giggles were had along the way. Is it possible to tug the rug from beneath this methodology and still have fun with it? Is it possible to make it a magical effect again, without killing the mirth?

I think it might be possible.

Begin as normal with initial success, but then try and "go one better" by having the participants responding to the images without being able to see them, but where everyone else can see then. This might be getting somewhere. Blocking for this would take a little doing (the participants mustn't see the images *or* the backs), but the tension in having to make these decisions sight-unseen, the potential humour arising from any byplay that hinges on everyone knowing what the performer is talking about apart from the participants, and the final revelation that, in spite of all this, they still managed to separate out the "right" images, ought to pay dividends.

Just my tuppenceworth.

Just my tuppenceworth.

YES! Doing it "blind" really takes it to the next level. Great idea

Call me harsh but I wouldn't buy this effect as it just seems like I'd be paying for some cards with pictures on. It's not hard for laymen to guess what is happening and it seems very weak to me.

It seems the point of this trick is that it makes for very entertaining patter and conversation which is great but the trick element itself is nothing more than a reason for showing them the cards and it actually has quite a dull and disappointing end for such a long build up. You might as well just discuss the pictures and not do the trick.

It's not for me.