talkmagic.co.uk

I was reading the reviews for Double Back (I trick I don't currently own). Looking at the comments people talking are mentioning there are 2 handlings for the effect. One of which uses the EC and the other that doesn't. The comments were that the effect is not diminished by using the non-EC handling so there is no need to use it. Surely the more "convincers" (by that I mean actually showing the spectators what you are saying is true not just making them think becouse you have said it it must be so) you can put into a routine the bigger the miracle.

For instance take the routine "Sam The Bellhop" by Bill Malone. A story told by using an entire deck stack. Now you could this with one false shuffle to begin with and then proceed with the routine and patter, funny story everyone enjoys goes home happy. But if like in the B.M. presentation the deck is shuffled, cut several times by both him and the spectator as the routine is played out, this surely has a greater impact on the audience as it is impossible to follow the cards, so he must have a great skill to be able to locate the correct cards for the story to make sense.

So I guess I am saying persevere with those little extras as I think your performance will be enhanced. Not only that the audience loves to see things like a one hand card fans or a coin roll across the back of the fingers etc... Don't put them at the back of the draw saying something like "oh that's not for me".

BTW if you want a good audience fooler that uses the EC that I would suggest "Rainbow Cascade" from Davenports. The first packet trick I ever bought, as it happens.

I agree, I also don't have double back, though I have seen it performed using the EC. Whilst for my purposes it wouldn't have made any difference if it was used or not because I knew what was being done I'm sure that a layperson would have found it more convincing that way.

I back the idea of mastering every sleight that could possibly increase the impact or convincingness of an effect.

midas.

i think the point being said here is that there is no need to do the ec as people wont remember it being done due to the fact that most people dont remember half of what whent on only the effect, for example i do the cut and restored rope, i cut the center of a piece of rope tie it tougether and slide the knot off.
this is how they remember the effect done, even when i have made reference to the center loop several times, dropping it and reaquiring it, they still only remember that i cut the middle sometimes re-enforcement is just overkill.
anouther good example is when useing a change bag it is more than enough to pull the bag inside out just the once, you dont need to note that the bag is empty the soect minds will make that bit up, 9 out of 10 wont even rember the colour of the bag at the end, iv'e often said at the conclusion of the routine and now the inside of the bag is yellow not green and 99% of the audience are astounded, the other 1% think they must have missed it.

The point I was trying to make was imagine that being able to show the inside of the change bag being a difficult and complicated move. Would the fact of you just saying "and the bag is empty" be enough to convince them. Or would the time spent learning how to show the bag empty be a much better convincer.

This mild rant only comes from that old argument of whether gimmicks or sleights are better. But I thought that could be a discussion for another day

Great topic of debate! IMHO as soon as anyone states the obvious such as 'and the bag is empty' most folks know darned well it isn't! Much better to just casually show that it is empty or, better still, take something large out of it which 'proves' it must therefore be empty and let the specs draw their own conclusions. The all-time favourite in this respect must be when reference is made to something as being 'ordinary' - 'I take this ordinary deck of cards' - and you can almost hear the specs shouting out 'Oh no it isn't!' just like a Panto audience!

The point I was trying to make was imagine that being able to show the inside of the change bag being a difficult and complicated move. Would the fact of you just saying "and the bag is empty" be enough to convince them. Or would the time spent learning how to show the bag empty be a much better convincer.

if this was true regarding double back then i'd agree with you 100% i'd certainly practise the showing the bag empty move insted of saying its empty.
regards gimmicks or slieghts, this depends on wether you are repeating the same trick night after night in which case a gaff that makes you life easier is better than a long soak for tierd fingers, so my wife used to say

If I remember correctly the Elmsley Count is used as part of DoubleBack merely to ensure that if the spectator remebered the actual sequence of cards, then they wouldn't suspect anything fishy when the first card is shown to them.

The excuse for doing the Elmsley is that you are merely emphasising that there are only four cards involved (whilst secretly changing the sequence).

Hopefully I am right about that, as I don't have the instructions with me.

If this is true, then in this particular case I would suggest that the EC is not the move to use, as lets face it as much as the EC has its place in magic, and it is a funamental part of so many tricks, it is NOT (imo) the natural way we would prove to a spectator that there are only four cards.

Instead of doing the EC for this trick, I would suggest showing the cards face up. Clearly pointing out that two are red and two are black. Two are Kings and two are fives, and that you will be asking a series of questions about the cards. Then turn th ecards face down and say you are going to mix them up a little. It's very easy to do this and still end up with them in exactly the same sequence you started with (you should be able to work out your own method but pm if not).

At this point the spectator doesn't know the sequence, and and you can ask questions such as can you remember the suit of the red five?

Anyway, again I ramble, my point is that normally I believe that YES, if the sleight is part of a trick as a convincer, then the trick is better for doing it. Maybe not essential, but definitely better.

In the case of Doubleback though, I belive that the trick is actually better without this particular one. In saying that I will go home and re-read the instructions tonight as I may have totally got it wrong.

So K.I.S.S. still rules - OK!

I think this links in with the other recent topic about confidence. If you show confidently that the bag is empty or that it really has changed colour, it will be far more effective than hesitation and fumbling. I've got a video where Ali Bongo does a few bluff counts and he says you have to 'Believe in the lie that you're telling'.

I'm not sure that I agree that the elmsley is not a natural way to show four cards. If I ever show four cards there are two ways I do it, one is, as Bananafish suggests, just spreading them. The other is to physically count them from one hand to the other which looks identical to my elmsley. I would say that more often than not I count them rather than spreading beacause if I spread them regularly people might get suspicious of those occasions when it is not possible to do so and I have to revert to counting. This might just be a matter of personal preference though.