talkmagic.co.uk

it means what i said in my post above.

mobi wrote:

Lenoir wrote:It's an old gambling term.

....and means...?

So essentially you just want to know how Michael's effect worked?


And Dale, a cold deck doesn't have to be unstacked. You're right in that the deck is hot if it's been through regular shuffles and is in regular play. A cold deck is one that hasn't be through normal procedure. Whether or not it is stacked (why wouldn't it be?) is irrelevant.

I'm amazed Mike had the balls to bring in a cold deck like that, right under both their noses. Mind you had me fooled....

This was easily the TV highlight of the year so far and I do hope that they do another.

Well done to everyone that performed.

I really enjoyed the show, it was actually alot better than i had expected. Many here will know that Im a huge fan of Michael Vincent so Im a bit surprised at how some of you percieved his performance - I suppose you cant please everyone.

While Im not usually 'into' comedy magic, John Archers performance was fantastic, congratulations on his win.

jim

While we're on the subject of fooling Penn and Teller, does anyone remember their 'Magic and Mystery Tour' show ? In Egypt they met the grandson of Luxor Gali Gali who fooled Teller with a sneaky cups and balls sequence - much to the amusement of Penn

Very memorable! Also the revelation that they took their own food, had serious breathing difficulties in the polluted air and then the final change of scene to the Luxor was very well done!

PS see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgtgOs_OkTU

All the Penn and Teller shows where they went
Abroad...India, China and Egypt are available in full on Vevo.

At the risk of being controversial... (and I truly did LOVE the show)... It appeared to me that none of the acts actually fooled P&T at all really. At the risk of exposure, I'll say no more than it was purely the 'technicalities' of the routines that they didn't get 100% (esp Archini's Blank Night routine...! )

Anyone else think that they had to let at least some of the acts through, in order to make it good telly???

Having said that, I agree with the posters above. John Archer will go down an absolute storm in Vegas. Without doubt my favourite mentalist with a personality that the Vegas audiences will love!


Sean

It was a good show and I also loved Ali Cook's trick but I found it surprising that both he and P&T stated that it hadn't been done anywhere in the world. I saw David Copperfield do the exact same trick on TV a few years ago

Klangster1971 wrote:At the risk of exposure, I'll say no more than it was purely the 'technicalities' of the routines that they didn't get 100% (esp Archini's Blank Night routine...! )

Archer's effect was pretty bullet proof. The Just Chance plot is pretty hackneyed, so right away P&T would have been relaxed about seeing it play out; then the script was genuinely engaging, and therefore distracting; and finally the moment the method actually takes place in is so brief that P&T would have had very little to go on. I think it's fair to say that when you see someone performing this effect, and you're familiar with it, you are expecting certain things to happen when that last envelope is opened. It's an almight rug pull for none of those things to happen. To then have only a few minutes in which to work out how the effect was done puts the method quite far out of reach. I'm positive that P&T would have known before the end of the recording how the effect was genuinely done, but by then it would have been too late.

Kevin Cann wrote:It was a good show and I also loved Ali Cook's trick but I found it surprising that both he and P&T stated that it hadn't been done anywhere in the world. I saw David Copperfield do the exact same trick on TV a few years ago

Copperfield also does the shrinking man effect, doesn't he? Maybe P&T have a blindspot.

Klangster1971 wrote:At the risk of being controversial... (and I truly did LOVE the show)... It appeared to me that none of the acts actually fooled P&T at all really. At the risk of exposure, I'll say no more than it was purely the 'technicalities' of the routines that they didn't get 100% (esp Archini's Blank Night routine...! )

Anyone else think that they had to let at least some of the acts through, in order to make it good telly???

Having said that, I agree with the posters above. John Archer will go down an absolute storm in Vegas. Without doubt my favourite mentalist with a personality that the Vegas audiences will love!


Sean

Yeah, that was my sort of thinking, depends how you define 'fooled' for me it's not having ANY ideas how it's done, which is very difficult to pull off.

Take Blindfolds for example, I don't know how every single one works, BUT I do know the basic principle which they give you. Same with John's routine, no-one was fooled that it was real, they just didn't know the method.

phillipnorthfield wrote:Same with John's routine, no-one was fooled that it was real, they just didn't know the method.

When you say no one - do you mean magicians or lay people?

bananafish wrote:

phillipnorthfield wrote:Same with John's routine, no-one was fooled that it was real, they just didn't know the method.

When you say no one - do you mean magicians or lay people?

Magicians, definitely P & T would have understood the basic principle behind what was going on.