IAIN wrote:if it looks like (to the participant) that your left hand is empty and waves over the deck, it doesnt matter what method you are using to retain a coin in that same hand...to the participant your hand is empty...
there are many ways of retaining that coin, but the only one that should be used is the one that enables you to do the next stage in the cleanest and/or easiest way possible...
That's bad example; the different palms would be different techniques rather than different methods. Using two different methods, I would palm the first time then do something else (that appears to be the same process to the spectator) that doesn't involve any palming the next time so that the two methods (i.e. palming and non-palming) negate the very possibility of palming in the mind of the spectator (the palming one would have its own benefit that helps make the non-palming method seem impossible as well). The particular technique I use to palm is irrelevant assuming it allows both reps to appear virtually identical. Basically, with two different methods, the spectator can be sure that I'm not palming and they won't even consider it as a possibility; and, of course, eliminating all natural possibilities is necessary to create that "magic" moment.
And of course the method is invisible. Having multiple methods to cancel each other out doesn't make the method more visible... In fact, rather than having the mechanics be "unseen"-- out of sight-- it makes the mechanics be out of mind as well. Even a skeptical spectator will be trying to come up with a solution that would work for all of the repetitions when, in fact, such a method does not exist. This leads them to conclude it's impossible.
