talkmagic.co.uk

Do people consider the ba**slip to be a reliable for*e? I ask because Paul Wilson on his RRTCM DVD is pretty clear that he thinks it is a poor for*e. My preference is to use the cla**ic for*e but if I have to make sure the for*e works then I sometimes use the ba**slip and as far as I know it goes undetected. I rotate both hands to cover the movement. I think it is a perfectly good technique to use but do others have any views?

I should add that by reliable I mean deceptive - clearly it will always work if done correctly.

I'm with you.

I think (as long as it's performed correctly), that it is completely undetectable .

As long as you rotate both hands, as you mention, then it goes un-noticed (I think it's referred to as wrist-kill, but feel free to correct me ).

Got to agree with moonbeam. I've used the backslip for a force probably hundereds of times, and it is pretty much undetectable when performed correctly. However, if you can perform the classic force, then go with that as often as is possible...

I use this only if I've exhausted other for*es already. I prefer classic or riffle.

why are we (or administrators) dogding this magic f word.

In The Royal Road Dvd, R P Wilson is firmly against using the backslip as a force. (Look Ma, no asterix's) It is a lot easier, to use the backslip to get in position for a riffle force, which is a lot more deceptive.

A well timed and pulled off backslip is nice and will usually go undetected, but if you are needing to force, there are much more efficiant ways to achieve it.

It's a funny question - when people say "is it deceptive?" or "it's really deceptive" (and I say it too), I think, "well d'uh - if they don't work it out, of course it is!", but there's an extra quality that some sleights or gimmicks have that mean that not only do they not catch you, but it never occurs to them that something could have gone on at that point, and I think that's what we're aiming for. You see plenty of magicians perform a sleight and "get away with it", but you also see audiences smiling slightly because they feel that there's something fishy about whatever just happened, but don't quite know enough to challenge the magician... or just don't want to.

The point I'm gradually getting to (!) is that whilst I think the backslip "works" as a force, I don't like the odd hand movement, the incongruous show of the bottom card ("don't remember this card, because i've seen it, take this one..." - er, okay...). I think the riffle force is better because what they see is: they say stop, they see your thumb immediately make a break in the cards, you cut precisely to that break - done. There's no... fannying around, for lack of a better word! I think however well covered or "motivated" you think you can make the back slip, it's introducing unnecessary hand movement which is something I try to avoid.

But - it still fools people, so if you like it, use it

Farlsborough wrote: I don't like the odd hand movement, the incongruous show of the bottom card ("don't remember this card, because i've seen it, take this one..." - er, okay...).

I used to think that, but I get around it by:

Riffle off the cards letting spec say stop. "Do you want to stop here at the queen of clubs, or do you want me to carry on?" Riffle off a few more (if the spec wants you to) until they say stop again. "So are you happy with this one, the 8 of spades ?" Assuming they're now happy at this point, you then perform the backslip. "Now obviously you don't get the 8 of spades - that would be too easy fo me ( *performing the backslip at this point* ), you get this next one here that I can't see."

Job done .

Farlsborough wrote:You see plenty of magicians perform a sleight and "get away with it", but you also see audiences smiling slightly because they feel that there's something fishy about whatever just happened, but don't quite know enough to challenge the magician... or just don't want to.

Farlsborough - you've made exactly the point I was trying to make - I know the backslip works in terms of hiding the mechanics of the movement but I'm not certain that it leaves a spectator with no clue that a force has occured. I think it works unsuspected whereas I actually find the riffle force less deceptive (at least in my hands) as I do see the slight smile from the spectator that says to me they are not convinced.

I like the backslip, I think it is reliable and deceptive but I'm an amateur hobbyist not an experienced professional like Paul Wilson so what do I know

I'm interested to hear other opinions. Thanks everyone that has responded so far.

I personally like the sleight and have used it as an alternative to the often overused normal riffle force.

I don't think I generally draw attention to the fact that I've seen the face of the other card, I just push out the bottom half of the deck for them to take their card.

I probably need to work on other forces! There's talk of longer and short cards. time to corner short some cards with the old nail clippers I think.

Agecroft wrote:I personally like the sleight and have used it as an alternative to the often overused normal riffle force.

I don't think I generally draw attention to the fact that I've seen the face of the other card, I just push out the bottom half of the deck for them to take their card.

I probably need to work on other forces! There's talk of longer and short cards. time to corner short some cards with the old nail clippers I think.

If you haven't already, then take the time to learn the classic force. Sure it will take constant practice with audiences until you can get it practically every time, but it is well worth the effort. As a practice, what I do is, even if the effect I'm going to perform doesn't require a force, I still try it anyway. If it works then great, if not then it doesn't matter!

I'll go along with Farls re the backslip. Yes, I used to use it when I started but I think it just looks to 'suspicious'

Now I use the classic most of the time but where I have to guarantee a success I riffle.

I use it all the time, well, that and the riffle force. But I prefer the backslip. I suppose it's a question of what you're most comfortable with.

Agecroft wrote:
I probably need to work on other forces!

Look at Annemann's 202 methods of Forcing - there is some seriously cunning stuff in there!

="Sleightech"

just because someone has twenty years in the business (and this is a generalisation) doesn't always make them right.

I agree but I think their opinion deserves respectful consideration (I'm not saying you're not doing this by the way!)

I agree with what others have said about the movements of the backslip looking a bit suspicious but there are loads of sleights out there that also look suspicious in the cold light of day but are accepted in performance - the Ascanio spread or Elmsley count spring to mind.

I remember Harry Lorayne describing an unnatural looking DL in 'close up card magic' and more or less saying that the audience is forgiving of some strange card handling because it is a magician making the moves.