talkmagic.co.uk

Sorry. I was talking about what Demitri was talking about the 7th card, not the 11th card.

That slip on the 7ths card can cause suspicion because if you are a working professional, you wouldn't usually drop your cards if counting the cards normally if not performing a sleight.

StEvEbO!

I presume that you're refering to the second count (8 cards), where I drop a card whilst counting? In that case, I totally aggree, working professional or skilled hobbyist, you would arouse suspiscion. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world and no matter how much you practise and how much you perfect your technique, mistakes will be made and unforseen problems will occur. But this is the beauty of performing, each situation will be different, for better or worse. What matters is how you deal with that. Performance is not just about being technically proficient.

Coldly and simply, that was a one off mistake and if you think it was anything else but that I think you are being naive. No offense intended and I take on board all of your comments and appreciate them, but I think you are reading too deep into something that was relatively trivial.

I wasn't talking about the count for 8 - dropping the cards doesn't bother me - we all do it from time to time.

I still say Stevebo was talking about the pause on your first count (for 10). There was a beat there between 7 and 8 - that's what I think he was talking about.

I totally agree - we all make mistakes. As I said before, the pauses in NO WAY took away from the effect. Everything was handled well, and you did a great job. I hope you didn't think my comments meant otherwise.

I still say Stevebo was talking about the pause on your first count (for 10). There was a beat there between 7 and 8 - that's what I think he was talking about.

I see what you mean. Watching it back I saw the pause, and probably because I'm biast, I don't think it was an issue. But that's just me . I can see what you mean, but in all honest I think Stevebo is over reacting to this point for some reason. Demitri, I really appreciate your comments, they have been well thought out and have made me re-evaulate my handling. This isn't to say that Stevebo's comments are not thought out or unappreciated, but I cannot fully agree with you because I think it is a minor point.

I think that from the angle of the camera you can't see my hands fully and if you could you would see an extra "finesse" that I use. It isn't something I have worked at, but instead it is a natural reaction that I discovered and now try and use whenever there is a pause in my counting. As I am counting the cards, if for an reason I need to pause, I cover the action by tapping the front of the packet with my fore finger in a squaring action. It's difficult to describe here, but basically you square up the cards as you do the move. It's a natural reason to pause.

Thanks for the comments, I really appreciate them.

Just in case anybody is even remotely interested , I've decided to drop the 11th card thing from Las Vegas Leaper as it just makes the magician (i.e. me) look stupid.

Seeing as I'm constantly trying to build up my prestige and reputation during a performance, I want everything to look good and work first time. By miss counting 11 cards instead of 10 it detracts from that, even though it actually has nothing to do with the mechanical working of the effect (if you see what I mean).

I just thought I'd mention this in case people were thinking of trying it or indeed are using it. Of course it all depends on what you want your audience to think of you, and some might argue that little minor mistakes like that help to strengthen an effect and I am inclined to aggree to an extent; I just don't think it is right for this particular effect from my perspective.

Well, I see your point but personally I think that it's very much needed. The count is rather awkward from the spectator's perspective, so it would be good to have something to distract them and you can't rely on misdirection - not if they're supposed to be counting it.

You could always cop off the [you-know-what] and then have them count the cards off the deck...then you can blame the extra card on them.

Kati

katrielalex wrote:Well, I see your point but personally I think that it's very much needed. The count is rather awkward from the spectator's perspective, so it would be good to have something to distract them and you can't rely on misdirection - not if they're supposed to be counting it.

I completely aggree with you Kati and I've actually been working on a completely different way of doing the dirty work for the count and I think it's much stronger. I mentioned this as it was a variation to the original method and therefore relevant for anybody using the original count. The new method I'm thinking about accomplishes the same thing but in a very different manner. However, I haven't audience tested it yet so we'll have to see . I'll let you know how it goes.

Also, like I mentioned, a major concern for this "misdirection" was that it detracts from the atmosphere that I'm trying to create. Otherwise it works very well and as long as you don't mind that loss in prestige (no matter how small) then I would recommend this method whole heartedly (and not just because I came up with it ). Honestly, it does work, so don't let my rantings put you off. Just bear in mind how your audience will percieve this "mistake" and go from there.

GoldFish wrote:Just in case anybody is even remotely interested , I've decided to drop the 11th card thing from Las Vegas Leaper as it just makes the magician (i.e. me) look stupid.

I really like the idea of an additional card! When the initial cards are being counted under the breath, they are not explicitly counted onto the table. It's almost an apparantly quick "shuffle" of "10" cards from one hand to the other. The spec is asked "can you just check that I've counted out 10 cards for you and this is how I'd like you to do it .... ". The "casino" count is the awkward bit and I agree that the unusual way that this is done needs explanation or misdirection. I'm sure there are other ways of achieving the required arrangement after the spec has counted the cards (I don't know of an easy method) but this must be achieved without the performer touching the cards. That would defeat the object of the spec counting the cards.

I'm sure there are other ways of achieving the required arrangement after the spec has counted the cards (I don't know of an easy method) but this must be achieved without the performer touching the cards. That would defeat the object of the spec counting the cards.

Not neccessarily , but like I say the new count I'm working on hasn't been tried yet so we'll see how convincing it is

GoldFish wrote:Not neccessarily , but like I say the new count I'm working on hasn't been tried yet so we'll see how convincing it is

Yes, I'm looking forward to seeing it! I *hope* it'll be obvious with those with magi's eyes, otherwise we might, reluctantly, have to resort to saying "how ever did you do that?"

The thing I like most about this, is that you don't see the face of the cards, one of those good rare tricks. I liked it a lot.

I have just had a look at Las Vegas Leaper in Art of Astonishment. I am new to magic & initially tended to perform every trick exactly as written. Now I am starting to appreciate how magicians (eg Goldfish) keep refining an idea to 'smooth out the rough edges'.

I do think there is a big problem with this 'casino count' - it is not how the spectator would naturally choose to count the 10 cards.

I also think there is another presentation problem as the trick is described in Art of Astonishment - which is that there is no double-check that the performer also has exactly 10 cards.

I think in this case maybe "two wrongs can make a right" - it would be great if the performer and the spectator both did the 'casino count' TOGETHER. Wouldn't this act as a 'convincer' for both counts??? Now I admit that I don't now exactly how the performer would execute his count - some kind of Elmsley variant??? But I am a mere beginner. Maybe someone more experienced can help me out with the details? But do people agree that this would make sense in terms of the presentation being much more congruous?


PS As an aside, there is an excellent trick in RRTCM called "Lightning Card". The spectator sees their thought of card in their pile. Spectator & magician count down their piles to the thought of card. It is no longer in the spec's pile - it is in the magician's. Totally impromptu. No duplicates or gaffs. Uses a couple of basic sleights & some misdirection. (This is a single card across trick. The number of cards in each pile is never counted - you each have roughly half the deck)

People never figure it out when I do it. I just tell them i want them to count 'Las Vegas' style. Remember nothing has happened yet there is no reason to be suspicious.

I tried this on my Step Dad who is reallly cynical and figures all sorts out and he loved it.

Pitto

I have answered my own question!
I thought of all sorts of complicated idea - then a very simple one!
It requires a tiny bit of misdirection & a very simple 'move' that you wouldn't even call a sleight.

You explain you want to double-check you both have exactly 10 cards.
You will do the "Monte Carlo count" (or whatever) that is used in casinos to prevent cheating. You explain exactly what to do & you both count your stacks slowly card by card together.

Half-way through the count (ie after exactly 5 cards) you interupt briefly to ask the spectator to hold his cards slightly higher or lower. You momentarily take the cards from your left hand into your right hand, as your left hand adjusts his position. When you resume counting at 6, you take the cards back into your left hand. And count the 5 cards now on top. You have thus apparently counted 10 cards at exactly the same time as the spectator.

Could you please reupload the vid?

Thanks I just get a broken Link