talkmagic.co.uk

This is Las Vegas Leaper. Yet another wonderful creation of Paul Harris from his Art of Astonishment series. This time, it's from volume 1.

Las Vegas Leaper

Think the link's broke, dude =o)

~Sym~

I think your right Sym, it doesn't work for me either.

Same here.... ...Las Vegas Leaper is also in Easy to Master Card Miracles..not sure which one tho....

Sorry, something's not quite right and I can't figure out what. I'll try and sort it out ASAP.

I was being an idiot, sorry.

It's sorted now

Thats a very good routine, its also in one of Ammar's Easy to Master Card Miracles.....

Good effect. However, you're actions need a little bit more practice to get the counting down smoothly. I haven't got the DVD (or book?!) but it was pretty easy to figure out what happened so I would just say work on the smoothness a little bit more.

Overall, I would give the performance 8/10! Just a few bits to make it 10/10!

StEvEbO!

stevebo wrote:it was pretty easy to figure out what happened so I would just say work on the smoothness a little bit more.

Steve, bear in mind that a layperson wouldn't know what to look for, would have a different perspective of the situation (think of it from the 'lovely assistant's' eyes) and would only see it once, rather than a couple times on a replay. Also, misdirection is used during the counts - something else that is lost from the camera point of view.

It doesn't matter that you worked it out, Steve. You're a magician. Goldfish is a working professional and it was a great card trick.

Goldfish it was wicked. I really enjoyed it.

Huh.

Firstly, I liked the effect a lot. I mean, it's hard to make it cleaner than: spectator counts cards once: there are 10. Counts them again and there are 12.

However, I tried it on my father and he got it immediately. Not exactly - he didn't figure out the Biddle steal - but he realized that there was something fishy about the turning-over count. Seems to me that that's a weak point of the effect - it's very nice but that seems to make the speccy think that something fishy is going on. And unfortunately, even if they don't get it, this will convert the trick from magic to a puzzle.

So for that reason, I don't like it. However, the performance was good by you .

Kati

P.S. Seems to me it might add a bit of psychological fairness if you asked the spectator to spread out the cards on the table - it's just a little bit suspicious (even though it's clean...).

he realized that there was something fishy about the turning-over count. Seems to me that that's a weak point of the effect

I totally aggree. In the video you'll notice I count the cards under my breath and then ask Liz to double check for me; to make sure that there are ten cards. I then demonstrate briefly and then let here continue. She counts through and there are 11 cards. This is a "faux mistake" and helps direct attention away from the counting process. Basically it breaks up her thought pattern. Normally she may come to the end of the counting process and begin to think, "why did he make me count them like that?". If you build in an inconsequential mistake, by having one too many cards, it creates a little bit of confusion, tension and makes the spectator think about something else other than the counting process. Hopefully, the effect will be that she only recalls counting ten cards rather than counting ten cards in a wierd way. I hope that makes sense . It's the same idea as starting a trick with an intrigueing statement like "I'm not sure if this will work" but implying it rather than saying it and putting it in the middle. It also helps to break up the boring part of the trick (the counting of cards) and keeps the spectator's attention until the interesting bit (the cards jumping from my hand to her's). It's my solution for strengthening a weak aspect of the trick (I just hope it works ).

First of all - the best part of this video is that you had an actual spectator. This makes the effect work even more, since it's a real-world use.

Secondly - the effect is cool. It's a neat little cards across style effect. I like how the original count is handled by the spectator. I don't think it's particularly suspicious if you don't make it so blatant. Goldfish did a good job of placing this count in there - with a reasonable explanation behind it. He made it non-descript and here it worked like a charm.

I'm assuming the original 11th card was a miscount, so I won't make a criticism of that part.

However, I'm with Stevebo - a few of the counts had the slightest hesitation - and even a lay person may find it unusual. The pause after card # 7 was too long and is immediately suspicious. (I'm not sure of your count, but I thought I'd send a pm with my own personal ideas on this). One or two other counts had a similar pause - but this is hardly something that detracts from the overall effect.

The finish was strong - your patter was very good. Overall, you couldn't ask for more from an effect. Great job! Nice use of a spectator! 9/10!

I know that it is different for laymen. However, I just thought that mistake you made during the counting could cause some serious damage to the trick.

StEvEbO!

stevebo wrote:I just thought that mistake you made during the counting could cause some serious damage to the trick.

Sorry but which mistake? The 11th card? That was on purpose (see above) .

My apologies, I didn't know the 11th card was intentional. Nice touch! Now that I think about it, it might actually help in distracting.

I can't be sure, but I think Stevebo is talking about the first count of YOUR packet.