talkmagic.co.uk

I was wondering if anyone knew a way to influence someones choice from 3 face down cards, and then 2 for a routine that I've been working on.

Basically, I've started working through RRTCM, and it mentioned how you could control 3 cards with an overhand shuffle, something I'd never thought of doing. The routine is that I get 3 people to pick a card each, telling them not to show each other. Those cards are then shuffled into the deck. I then show 3 cards, none of which is their cards, although not letting them know I know that, and place 3 cards on the table. Then I get them to pick a card individually.

Now I've done this twice, and coincedently they've all picked their card, I do have a back up plan if they don't, as I know who's card is who's, just say I'll now see if the card you picked fits your personality, and then rearrange them accordingly, but the reaction I got on both the occasions when they all picked their cards was brilliant. So if anybody does know any ways to influence their choice, or knows of something that could be useful to teach me how to do that (Book, DVD) could you please PM.

Thank you

MagicalJim wrote:I was wondering if anyone knew a way to influence someones choice from 3 face down cards, and then 2 for a routine that I've been working on.

That's actually two forces (3->2, then 2->1). Whatever you do, don't use the same force twice! Annemann's "202 Methods of Forcing" is probably what you need. It's very cheap these days, but it'll give you lots of ideas for which two to use.

Thanks I'll have a look into that, the sort of force I'm looking for, is I'd have the 3 cards face down on the table next to each other, and let them pick the card, but influence which card they pick without touching the cards.

Could you not have them point to two of them and emliminate one, then repeat it with a simple equivocation leaving the card of your choice?

Yeah, that would work really well, thanks I'll give it a go.

Is that not the same force done twice, though?

Just give them a magician's choice.

I use this sort of force quite a lot. Here's how I'd do it...

"So, we've got three cards left, I'd now like you to discard two of them. So point to any one you like..."

You've got a 1/3 of them picking the one they're meant to, but if they don't it is equally natural that you meant them to pick the first discard. In which case...

"Right, two left. Which one would you like?"

This last sentence has a neat double meaning - which would you like to discard next OR which one would you like to have.

To force one of the two discards on the next spectator I would ask them to hand you any one they like and offer your hand. If they hand you the correct one, reveal it as theirs. If not, hand it to your third spectator and have them turn over the one they left as theirs.

If you get me.

The main thing, as anyone will tell you, is to keep the selection process relaxed and natural, like it really doesn't matter.

John

jdcarr wrote:"So, we've got three cards left, I'd now like you to discard two of them. So point to any one you like..."

I prefer "we've got three cards and we only need one".

I have never liked the point to one...and another type of line. Yes it allows a direct hit, but I prefer to ask them to pick up two of the cards (allows a direct hit with the one remaining) and (if nescessary) give me one.

We might be wandering into Monty Hall territory here, but I'd be inclined to go with two choices first too.

Yeah, I have played with both options, but I tend to use a variation of the method I described. It just seems fairer somehow, more logical.

Whatever gets the job done, though, eh?

I do a trick using a full deck of cards where, through a series of very fair choices like this one, I end up forcing one of two cards for a multiple-out revelation. This kind of subtle equivocation, relying on the spec not knowing exactly what you're going to do next, can be very strong. The 5-6 force in particular is probably my favourite, for things other than playing cards too. It just couldn't be any fairer.

John

Thanks for all the advice, I'll try wording it differently each time I do it, and see which seems to get better reactions.