talkmagic.co.uk

Steve K wrote:We'll all find out when the book comes out next year, I suppose.

I wouldn't hold your breath 'The Mind And Magic of David Berglas' pretty much covers the whole thing and, if nothing more, proves that it is as much Berglas' ability to think on his feet and act accordingly to the specs choices as anything else.

I wouldn't hold out for a step-by-step guide to perform it - as I've said on other threads, it's called the 'Berglas' effect for a reason There are plenty of other ACAAN effects out there but I must concur with Mr Lewis, it's a good card trick... but there's hundreds of those!

Actually, I don't agree. I think we'll know more than what's in the other book. For a start it's all about his card magic and the chapter on ACAAN is massively long. The book is also called "The Berglas Effects".

mark lewis wrote:To me the trick is no big deal anyway. It is a good card trick I suppose but there are hundreds of good card tricks. I am not sure why I am supposed to get overly excited over this one.

I have to agree. I don't think this is any more impressive to a spectator than any other way of revealing a card, especially some of the more interesting ways...

I reckon the average punter would be more impressed by Cards Across...

Having said that, I guess as more of a serious mentalism piece it's more interesting. Though that's not the same as entertaining...

i have one big question i think i finally have a answer for this trick two things if anyone can help when berglas ever do this would he state it was acaan at the start or just say here is a trick secondly bdoes anyone know was the counting of the cards always done the same for example the spectator says 12 berglas lets 12 cards be counted the next was there card or counted face up and so on.

Are you thinking of a particular performance? There are quite a few different variants on youtube now.

berglas himself when he ever did it

For me it was the actual number and i got a choice of dealing from top or bottom. He didn't say he was going to do an ACAAN.

Why on earth would you announce the effect as any card at any number before you do the actual effect? Talk about anti-climactic.

I've never seen the Berglas effect, and I reckon most of the accounts are highly embellished at this point - it's inevitable. It might very well be as incredible as the legends tell it, but I don't understand why so many people feel they need to perfectly replicate the effect.

Like others have mentioned - I don't see a difference in the reaction from a spectator. I've used numerous methods - some easy, some difficult - all of which have brought identical reactions. I've tried to work with as many different variations as possible, to see if one was a true "end all be all" method. From my perspective, there isn't one.

This is only my opinion, but I truly believe ACAAN has become little more than an exercise in magicians needing to fool other magicians. This is even more likely since most "performers" will immediately turn their noses up at a variation that doesn't meet the mythical "standards".

After a good deal of searching for my own holy grail, I've settled on an extraordinarily dumbed-down version that removes almost all work on my part - and I've never been happier. It might not be "perfect", but it works perfectly.

Demitri wrote:Why on earth would you announce the effect as any card at any number before you do the actual effect? Talk about anti-climactic.

I've never seen the Berglas effect, and I reckon most of the accounts are highly embellished at this point - it's inevitable. It might very well be as incredible as the legends tell it, but I don't understand why so many people feel they need to perfectly replicate the effect.

Like others have mentioned - I don't see a difference in the reaction from a spectator. I've used numerous methods - some easy, some difficult - all of which have brought identical reactions. I've tried to work with as many different variations as possible, to see if one was a true "end all be all" method. From my perspective, there isn't one.

This is only my opinion, but I truly believe ACAAN has become little more than an exercise in magicians needing to fool other magicians. This is even more likely since most "performers" will immediately turn their noses up at a variation that doesn't meet the mythical "standards".

After a good deal of searching for my own holy grail, I've settled on an extraordinarily dumbed-down version that removes almost all work on my part - and I've never been happier. It might not be "perfect", but it works perfectly.

I like Colin McLeod's version on his 'Opening Minds' DVD. I think he calls it ANAAC (and opposed to ACAAN!) and it's just about as pure as you can get - and dead simple too (whch gives it bonus points in my mind )

However, I agree that it's an effect that appeals to magicians more than to 'real' audiences....

It's a trick for magicians and was already explained in his first book if you read it properly.

ajaxjones wrote:You know what, I've been doing Lazy man's card trick which is half of ACAAN and specs generally are under impressed, because they dont get it. They know its a trick and think regardless of how it must have been a trick. It's a great magician fooler, but they dont pay the wages.

From what I can see the spec guessed the card and guessed the number, in fact they did all the work and yes, the card was there. Now an ID, well that is more impressive, cos you pre-empted it and the magician did the work

The main problem I find with this trick is that sometimes it just takes for ever for the spec to cut to one of the "appropriate" cards. This leads to boredom and the feeling that you are bound to cut to the right point if you go on all night.

"The Berglas Effect" is to magicians what the Instanto Deck is to laymen. Both come across as exciting but not exactly magical yet not frustratingly puzzling either. Both leave their target audience with huge smiles on their faces and wondering aloud, "How the hell did he do that?". Shortly thereafter the consensus is along the lines of, "Skill with a lil' bit of luck."

Is "skill" magic? I dunno, but it sure is entertaining.

magicc wrote: secondly bdoes anyone know was the counting of the cards always done the same for example the spectator says 12 berglas lets 12 cards be counted the next was there card or counted face up and so on.

When he did it on telly there was never a definite number, he said to Omar "I reckon you cut about 14 cards off the top of the deck, I'll try and cut about 14 too" while at the same time there was some sort of fumbling with the cards you can just see at the side of the screen going on off camera and then he cut. He never actually did any counting.

Why not come and hear about the trick from the man himself at The Session?

http://www.Sessionconvention.com

V.E. Day wrote:
When he did it on telly there was never a definite number, he said to Omar "I reckon you cut about 14 cards off the top of the deck, I'll try and cut about 14 too" while at the same time there was some sort of fumbling with the cards you can just see at the side of the screen going on off camera and then he cut. He never actually did any counting.

I didn't think the Omar Sharif episode was ACAAN. I watched it on YouTube and was a little disappointed to see "you cut to a card and I'll cut to the same card in our brand new unshuffled decks" followed by "you cut to a card and I'll bring the same card to the top of my deck after a cut or two". Is there a TV performance of ACAAN?