talkmagic.co.uk

I currently use Banachek's method using index cards and a rubber band. What I really like about this is that after the numbers have been added and the total displayed at the bottom and on a board for everyone to see you can then go back and confirm with each person that it was the number they wrote and that the total at the bottom matches the one displayed on the board. What I don't like is that I have to hold the pad whilst they write their number in the first place.

Is there a marketed prop out there that acheives the same (ie. switching the actual numbers in and out whilst leaving the total alone) ?

I'm just wondering why you want to go back and have the audience check the numbers again? Are you perhaps over thinking things a little, I've used various add a number pads and never seen any need to get the numbers checked after they've been added up. You might want to check Ed Fowler's add a number pad on his Carlyle Touch DVD, you might be able to do something with that.

I may be over thinking it but I'm sure some people think 'he's switched the numbers somehow' and Banachek's method is very strong as it addresses this

I just tend to think that getting things checked too much just ends up putting suspision into the audiences minds. Treat something as if it's unimportant and then they'll tend to do the same. I had something similar a while ago with my murder mystery routine. If you don't know it, a victim is chosen at random from a phone book. In the past I used to just use a phone book and discard it after the name had been chosen, it was never questioned. Last time I decided to make things look 'cleaner' for no real reason and passed it out afterwards for inspection. After that, I heard a couple of coments about how clever the book was and how they couldn't find the trick. Just as a side point, the phone book is actually totally clean but as soon as I drew attention to it, people were looking for the trick.

I agree, just get someone to write the numbers and then do the dirty work as you pass the pad.
I'd also recommend looking at Annemann and his work on the Nile (I'm being cryptic, I know)

Kevin Cann wrote:I may be over thinking it but I'm sure some people think 'he's switched the numbers somehow' and Banachek's method is very strong as it addresses this

nah. used various versions of the pad, and have never ever had people say that. Ive even fooled a room full of magicians. the point is the mystery should focus on what you do with that number you have generated, rather than the creation of the number.