talkmagic.co.uk

If one is describing a trick a trick to another magician, when does the information become a reveal? Let's say there is a hypothetical trick which requires:

quick setup
uses gimmick cards
uses external device
requires sleights
does not reset
is not examinable
uses a conferate

Would any of that information be a reveal? If not, how much further can you go?

Knee-jerk response, the last one would be a reveal, number 2 should, be shortened to 'gimmicks provided/'needed' the others would be helpful information as long as further details weren't given. I could be wrong.....

I can see the last one being a problem.

Can one say anything else and get away with it?

I'm thinking about this tricky db (my name, hands off) and how much detail above and beyond the effect you can give when describing the trick.

What's the point of the question?

In addition, if one could prove that someone owned the effect, would it be OK to give the method, even if that only consists of the sleights and gimmicks.

If it's a one to one conversation with a Magish then, assuming you feel you can trust them, you can be fairly open and explicit but in pubic like on TM, keep it as general and non specific as possible. I wouldn't even mention confederates or 'additional assistance' until absolutely necessary - i.e. when the cash is in your hands!

Marvell wrote:I'm thinking about this tricky db (my name, hands off) and how much detail above and beyond the effect you can give when describing the trick.

Ahh I now see where you're heading... sorry, but without context, I couldn't grasp what you meant.

Well, I think in relation to 'magish to magish' it's purely subjective, as the effect's workings should only be shared with someone who already knows the secret!

Marvell, I was talking to Davey about the exacxt same thing. We were thinking of using a kind of gimmick scale where 1 would mean no gimmicks used and 5 would be a trick deck for example.

We were thinking about a similar thing for both setup and clean up.

If you look at a dealers website. The trick will have a difficulty rating, if gimmicks are included if you need to get one etc etc.

Now the more learned amongst us will probley "guess" what gimmick is in use if any. I my self dont see it as a reveal, now if you do something and show a spec you used a gimmicked card then thats another kettle of fish.

A more relavent question is :

When performing a trick and I tip the gaff is this not a reveal?

seige wrote:Well, I think in relation to 'magish to magish' it's purely subjective, as the effect's workings should only be shared with someone who already knows the secret!

So do you think the above, less the stooge, are acceptable and can there be more?

Let's take RRTCM. I can't remember all the tricks that are in there, but I have access to all the secrets. Should I be allowed to be told that a particular trick requires the pass, say.

Lady of Mystery wrote:We were thinking of using a kind of gimmick scale where 1 would mean no gimmicks used and 5 would be a trick deck for example.

That's not actually that useful from a searching perspective. OK, no gimmicks is useful, but there is no way you'd search for a gimmick level four trick

In reality, I want to be able to search for tricks that use, or can use, a short card or tricks that have a repeat card or a double back.

Marvell wrote:That's not actually that useful from a searching perspective. OK, no gimmicks is useful, but there is no way you'd search for a gimmick level four trick

In reality, I want to be able to search for tricks that use, or can use, a short card or tricks that have a repeat card or a double back.

Totally agree with you, but the problem we had with that was that give someone all the gimmicked cards and sleights that are needed and they'll often be able to figure the trick. Which is something we don't want.

Very nice are all these data bases and ideas but is any one practicing magic?


I think every one is over complicating it,

Name of trick , type of tricks , gimmicked , what gimmick, over all diff

Lady of Mystery wrote:Totally agree with you, but the problem we had with that was that give someone all the gimmicked cards and sleights that are needed and they'll often be able to figure the trick. Which is something we don't want.

Unless it can be proven that they own the secret.

And yes, Markdini, I am performing and that's why I'm doing this, it's for routining, because that's where I'm at ... going from the odd trick to routines.

Marvell wrote:Unless it can be proven that they own the secret.

That's the whole problem though, how can we check that? There could potentially be hundreds of tricks and users, we're not going to want to police them