stevebo wrote:I've pretty much always done it in the hands. I thought that's the way it was suppose to be! Anyways... I've made this video for you mjoel. I thought it might be easier to explain on video rather than text. Oh... and sorry about the baby in the background... my niece lol. Hope you find some use with it. Just my advise on the DL and the Elmsley count.
The password to the video is the answer to the following question: Who in the magic community is often referred to as "The Professor"? Just the surname in lower case.
http://vimeo.com/4691185
Thank you so much for the video!
As far as the Elmsley Count tutorial went, you helped me immensely! I had always used my fingertips even when naturally counting off cards, but after giving it a little thought, it seemed to me that even if I weren't doing a Ghost count, pulling the cards away with my fingertips rather than keeping them in the mechanics grip looks fishy regardless. So I've already begun forcing myself to count off cards in the mechanics grip all the time, so that my Elmsley Count will match the movements pretty well.
I'm also trying to pull my left hand away rather than the right hand like you said, and already it's looking a lot better! I cannot thank you enough! Anytime I was ever taught the count, no one ever explained it as well as you did.
Just let me say, however, that double lifts aren't my problem: double and triple lifts on a small packet of four to five cards only is what threw me off in the video. When I have the whole deck in my hands, it's a lot easier for me to let the cards fall naturally, but when I have so few amount of cards in my hand, it becomes a lot more difficult to determine if I have a solid grip on the right amount of cards, or not.
So could someone please give me some tips on how to do multiple lifts with only four to five cards in my hand? That's what scared me the most about that particular move.
Anyway, again I thank you, stevebo, for the very helpful and practical tutorial. Would you mind leaving it on the server so I can go back and check on it from time to time?
IanKendall wrote: . . . Being honest, there is so much wrong with the count it would take too long to go into here . . .
Oh, I dunno, Ian, everybody else seemed to be able to explain it rather well.
lol, good thing I didn't take your post too closely to heart, else I would have been quite disheartened.