talkmagic.co.uk

hi
i have a question on the flustration count. it is always described as a subtlety rather than a sleight. but how subtle is it? I don’t think any intelligent spectator will be fooled by it. that’s why I’ve never used it. but what do you people think? does it really fool the smart people too?

I use it as part of The Web (which is possibly the best trick ever) and it fools people all the time. It's best use for a small packet of cards I can't imagine it working with a whole deck.

The idea is not to do it too fast it must be smooth and not look like your trying to hide something. This I think only comes with realworld practice. Buy The Web it's brilliant.

ANY spectator WILL be fooled, IF used properly. It's just a move, you do, as part of the whole routine, and you don't put alot of focus on the move. Earlier, I felt the same as you, how can anyone be fooled by this, - but trust me, they are. IF performed correctly.

Yeah and when it's done at the start of thr trick (as it often is) people aren't concentrating that much so it's easy to get away with.

If you ever have a trick where you are required to do this count twice (don't know one myself but I'm sure you crazy kidz could come up with something) then I think this would lend itself to people figuring out what you're doing.

In this instance I would recommend the Orion Count. If you've never seen it then check out how I count the aces in my Ashes video. It a very nice looking count which achieves the same thing and is, in my opinion, alot more convincing than the flustration count that you're counting the cards normally though. After saying that though, I think the Orion count is perfect for only showing one back, but it's not very convincing to show one face. See what you think and see if it suits your needs.

Its all a question of psycology, misdirection and suggestion (probably without the misdirection). You dont say Look all the backs are the same. You are just casually counting the cards showing a glimpse of the back of each card.

Pitto

magic_evmeister wrote:If you ever have a trick where you are required to do this count twice (don't know one myself but I'm sure you crazy kidz could come up with something) then I think this would lend itself to people figuring out what you're doing.

I do it 3 or 4 times when performing the web and I never get caught doing it. A magician would spot it straight away but noone else does.

Flustration count? Not sure.

The flushtration count, on the other hand, is a fooler every time. I've never been caught and is a real convincer when using a small packet of cards.

Johndoe wrote:

magic_evmeister wrote:If you ever have a trick where you are required to do this count twice (don't know one myself but I'm sure you crazy kidz could come up with something) then I think this would lend itself to people figuring out what you're doing.

I do it 3 or 4 times when performing the web and I never get caught doing it. A magician would spot it straight away but noone else does.

I agree. No one ever notices it.

I also haven't ever been caught out on the flustration count and as some have stated, it can be shown safely on a number of occasions in the same trick.

Paul Green in his 'In The Trenches' DVD teaches a few subtleties in performing the Flustration count in his 'Here, There , and Chicago Too' routine and if you've seen it then it's a Killer.

I'm embarrassed to say that I didn't spot it for what it was because of his different handling whilst performing the count.

This can't be spotted at all if you're careful with your patter, what you're doing (in the spectator's eyes) is self-explanatory and so they'd have no reason to doubt that what they're seeing is what you (seem to be) doing.
If you were to say, "see every one of these cards is blank" then the focus from the spectator will be on the "every one", if you just say "Ok, we'll take these cards" then the spectator will subconsciously believe that each card that they've been shown is quantitively different.

A subtlety I know, but I think an important one.

Another tip I picked up somewhere is that it's better to use it to 'prove' something than to show something that seems impossible - for example, if you want to show all the backs of a packet blue prior to a color change the Flushtration count would be the way to go - to show that all the cards are the 10H is a little stranger and draws more heat to the display.

Kati

I said the same thing about the Orion Count above, I don't know why I didn't say the same thing about the flushtration count. I think to get away with it in this circumstance you have to do it quite fast but still get it to flow with the rest of the routine. If you can't meet both of these criteria then I think it'll cause you problems.

as said above flustration is veri effctive if well done and not abused. I use also rumba count in order to obtain the same result and in order to add a variation.