talkmagic.co.uk

*Cough* shiner *cough*

It was good enough for James Bond in Moonraker (the book, not the film).

Q:

Serendipity wrote:Why do you want it to be so fair? You've got to remember that audiences don't think like magicians. We cheat, that's half of the beauty of magic, the elegance of the deception...

A:

TakWah wrote:... But I've learned over the past couple of month that no matter, what I thought was impossible, I eventually came by accident across a performance that did someting I never thought someone could have a method for, because I couldn't imagine one, and thus I thought though I believe it not possible under given constraints, that maybe I just don't have the imagination yet.

So I wondered if it was pulled off before.

I did not put any constraints in the posting that prohibited or discouraged "cheating", though I think the better term is using "method" in combination with deception, for creating the illusion that mimics the outcome of what one would expect if it was for real, which it never is. So anything thats simple and straightforward from the outside, which is the audience, can't be that wrong, no matter how cluttered up on the inside, because even though it is preferable that simplicity and elegance is on both sides, the only view that counts in the end is what is perceived from an external point of view.

Ted wrote:*Cough* s****r *cough*

It was good enough for James Bond in Moonraker (the book, not the film).

Well, that was a first fast thought of mine too, but that would violate the "performer never comes near the deck or touches it" condition.

Though a s****r is surely a favorited solution for a borrowed deck that you have shuffeled by an audience member and handled by the performer afterwards, as long as if fits your style, in case of r****s, which are the only ones I know of atm.

Le Petit Bateleur wrote:What about Out of this World, or a variation thereof? Isn't it even more magical if your spec separates him/herself all the reds from the black?

I think there are some impromptu methods to do that. Michael Ammar has a method in one of his DVDs which can be used with a borrowed deck.

Do a search on OOTW on this forum you'll find loads of ideas.

LP.

I don't know OOTW, but last time I read about it was in connection with Psny*p*e, so I guess it has similarities. But the point is, that would be a different kind of effect I guess then, than a simple ESP.

It's is indeed an impressing effect to have a spec seperate all or a certain amount of the cards, and I think I've seen that as presented as spooky L****g & D**d test on tv. But its a totally different thing I think.

Please feel free to edit, censor and/or delete my post if it violates any exposure rules.

I have to admit, I can't be bothered decrypting all these ***s.

I think you should be able to, I just used your vocabulary most of the time I think

Ted wrote:I have to admit, I can't be bothered decrypting all these ***s.

Im with Ted. if you want people to discuss this, then write it in a language that people can read.

daleshrimpton wrote:

Ted wrote:I have to admit, I can't be bothered decrypting all these ***s.

Im with Ted. if you want people to discuss this, then write it in a language that people can read.

I have to comply, but I don't understand it. Wheres the exact line, I don't wanna get accused of disclosure. If I just spelled out the L&D thing I felt it was disclosure of the effect which I don't know who invented but I have seen on tv, so if I say that a certain method was used in this effect, though of course I am guessing only, wouldn't that qualify as disclosure in an openly from afaik even google searchable forum?

Confused now.

Naming items, such as....

ID

for example, isnt exposure. how can it be ?

it doesnt describe the method, meerly the name of an effect.

daleshrimpton wrote:Naming items, such as....

ID

for example, isnt exposure. how can it be ?

it doesnt describe the method, meerly the name of an effect.

I understand, I will watch my asteriks in the future, but I mutilated PSNYPE with asteriks because I expierence a whole lot of false positives when using the search engine, so I put it in places where it doesn't affect readability of the word itself at least so I thought, but would prevent exact hits by the search engine, because its mentioning in this thread is not directly related to it and thus someone looking for reviews or discussion of that topic would come here just see that he wasted time again.

Nontheless, thanks for the differentiating of terms, I will check my future use of asteriks properly or edit my posts afterwards if necessarily.

Didn't ment to start a fight