talkmagic.co.uk

I saw this trick:

http://www.penguinmagic.com/product.php?ID=1165

Now then, I did not find this any Reviews, maybe there is one. But anyway, if some one has this could you tell me how this is working (as performing, not secret...) when doing magic?

The effect is very powerful. It's definitely worth the investment.

I believe Osterlind called it one of the strongest card-based effects in all of mentalism on his Easy to Master Mental Miracles sets. It's hard to disagree with that opinion.

The spectator's choice to stop is completely free - and the prediction is always correct.

It is an incredibly useful effect if you're doing walkaround. One of the greatest strengths is that, unlike other effects of this nature, the prediction is not always the same card - so that helps if anyone should happen to watch the effect a second time.

I know this is slightly off topic, but don't you think the guy in the video's presentation of the trick is rubbish? The spek reaction was like "oh".

presentation was terrible, he should perhaps by absolute magic from derren

I hope this is not exposure, if it is, please delete.

Why buy a gimmicked deck with which you will have to perform a deck switch after using and handing out for examination when you can accomplish the same effect with a normal deck and a simple glide?

This is a strong effect but I wouldn't spend $18 on a deck when you can accomplish the same thing with a normal deck and less than an hour of practice (hopefully more, but you can get the move down in an hour max).

You can probably find out how to do the glide in various sources. The only one that comes to mind right now though is Daryl's Encyclopedia of Card Sleights Volume 1. I highly recommend getting it along with the other volumes.

~David

Because of your post David I actually watched the demo again carefully and I did spot the secret. And now when I know how the trick works, I do agree with you that this is much better with a regular deck of cards + sleights.

The problem with using the glide and/or other sleights - is that it CAN detract from the effect.

As was stated earlier - the handling of this effect was terrible. The entire process was poorly done, and the revelation was incredibly anti-climactic. The demo on penguin is not a good selling point for this effect.

Yes - the trick can be done with a sleight and a totally clean deck - but it could never be as open and fair as this effect is when presented properly. As for the need for a deck switch - simple - there is no need for a deck switch. I'm afraid you're thinking too much like a magician in this instance. The entire effect is perfectly fair and open - the cards are dealt face up, and the spec says stop when they want to. The entire presentation is so perfectly orchestrated, that there should be ZERO heat on the deck.

I see your points - but sometimes it doesn't HAVE to be perfectly clean to be perfect.

Demitri wrote:The problem with using the glide and/or other sleights - is that it CAN detract from the effect.

As was stated earlier - the handling of this effect was terrible. The entire process was poorly done, and the revelation was incredibly anti-climactic. The demo on penguin is not a good selling point for this effect.

Yes - the trick can be done with a sleight and a totally clean deck - but it could never be as open and fair as this effect is when presented properly.

If your second comment was meant to say that with better presentation this effect would have been a lot more appealing to the spectator when done with the gimmicked deck, then you have two completely contradictory points in one post.

If what you say is true, along with every other professional magician, that performance is the key to the effect. If the outcome is the same, the different methods should not be detectable by the spectator. If you are performing the trick right, and present it properly, it will not matter to the audience (using the glide) if you deal the cards while they are face down, from the bottom of the deck, flipping over each card as you go along, or if you use the gimmicked deck and have them face up to begin with and deal them straight onto the table from the top. This type of detail only matters to the magician, not to the normal spectator unless they attend 20 of your shows and notice something fishy is probably going on during the dealing of the cards.

To give an analogy of this (the best one I can think of right now) I will pretend that your wife or parents signed you up to a monthly book club at a local library and you just hated reading books (well, at least non-magic related books). Now lets pretend that you are very sneaky and decide to get the audio book version of the book and instead of reading the text version of it, you listen to it while on a nice warm beach (let's all picture that for a moment for everyone who lives in the freezing northern part of this beautiful planet). Will it matter to the librarian (or whoever runs the program) if you read it or listened to it? No! In fact they would not even know the difference. That is the whole premise behind sleights in my opinion, accomplishing feats which some people would only imagine would work with advanced, gimmicked, decks of cards with a normal deck and making it look like the exact thing.

As for the need for a deck switch - simple - there is no need for a deck switch. I'm afraid you're thinking too much like a magician in this instance.

And, with all due respect, I believe you are not thinking "long term" with that remark. There would be no need for a deck switch if you are only performing one trick. But if you are going to perform a card trick before and after this effect, you need to perform multiple deck switches. To do this you would need to keep the deck after the effect, casually box it up ignoring any possible "May I please see the deck?" questions, casually stick it in your pocket, and casually pull out the normal deck, casually opening it up and giving it out for examination, hoping that no one thought that you did something to the deck while it was in your pocket. For some effects this is quite easy, I can perform a deck switch while using my ID 99.9% of the time without any trouble at all from the spectators, I just do not see that happening with this effect. You could also perform a very easy type of deck switch- show a trick with a normal deck, put it away, show a non-card trick, put that away, get out the gimmicked deck, perform that effect, put that away (hoping that no one will ask to re-examine the deck because if they do you need to perform a really quick deck switch- assuming that this gimmicked deck cannot be handed out for examination, on the off chance that it can, let's use this as a general remark to gimmicked decks- which would be almost impossible to make look casual) get out another non-card effect, put that away, and grab the normal pack of cards again and continue on with your routine.

The two big problems with this is the fact that you can not incorporate it into a long card routine, which you can do when performing this using the glide, and that you have to carry two decks of card with you at all times, if not also 2 other non-card effects that will easily fit into your pockets without weighing you down or making your pockets look bulky, where-as you only need one deck when performing this using the glide.

That's just a little "food for thought". Don't take this as an argument, but more as a debate.

Keep the opinions coming,
~David

just watched the effect and to me it sucked i would rather suggest buying jay sankey secret files 1 or 2. I forget which one but there is a better version of that effect and plus the card is marked which is a nice effect but that presentation sucked. I would suggest going with Jay Sankey if you want an effect like this.

I sort of understand where you're coming from David, but my experience has led me away from bottom deal tricks and this style (trick, not his) is so much better.

Now, unless there is some enthralling way I can patter to make people not care that I'm (openly) bottom dealing, I don't see how I can get away with it. I don't really see the excuse for bottom dealing. It just smacks of trickery. Here's why I don't deal from the bottom any more.

"You dealt that from the bottom"
"I know, I'm going to deal them all from the bottom"
"Why?"
"Because I'm practising my card cheats at the same time I'm doing tricks. I'm obviously not concealing it well. Thanks for pointing it out. Anyway, how many did we get to?"

I couldn't really justify why I dealt from the bottom, just like I can't really justify a Hindu shuffle in a trick until such time as I've got my mates used to it in normal card games.

In real life, when does anyone ever deal from the bottom?

erm...shouldnt the point of dealing from the bottom be that it looks like you're dealing from the top? no one should know that you're doing anything different...

there's a fair few uses to be fair with bottom dealing...anyway, back to the main discussion...

abraxus wrote:erm...shouldnt the point of dealing from the bottom be that it looks like you're dealing from the top? no one should know that you're doing anything different...

You mean to tell me all these glide tricks in RRTCM are supposed to done using a concealed bottom deal? It didn't go into that very well.

I'm just saying a bottom deal should be "seen" as just your normal deal...the people around you should have no idea whatsoever that you are doing anything different...thats all...

unless you're giving a demo of how card-sharps cheat, in which case you'd be making a feature of a slowed down bottom deal if that suits the effect...

That's never been made clear. Bottom deals are always obvious to me unless they are very very professional or misdirected. I don't think that chapter 2, or whatever it is, of RRTCM would expect you to be able to carry of a hidden bottom deal.

I didn't contradict myself - I simply stated that the effect in that demo was a poor example of HOW to perform the effect. Presentation would have made it better, yes - but I still maintain that the effect itself is more fair and open with the supplied deck, then with a clean deck.

Your analogy doesn't apply to this situation, because in both cases - no one is actually watching what I do. You can't compare how I do something in total privacy to how I would do something in front of people. It's apples and oranges. Instead of an analogy - keep it to the idea of the effect itself.

In order to use a sleight like the glide - you would have to start with the deck face down. This is where the presentation on the penguin demo ruins the effect. Jay performed this with the deck face down and turning each card up as he went along. This is NOT how the effect was originally performed! This is where I believe your problems with the effect come from - and the entire debate here would be a moot point if you watched the effect performed properly. I suggest you check out Osterlind's Easy to Master Mental Miracles Volume 2 - which has this effect.

This effect is meant to be done with the deck FACE UP. You don't turn cards over as you deal, you just deal them face up and they stop you whenever they want to. Using the glide would force you to either start with the deck face down, dealing from the bottom (a completely unnatural approach) or doing it face up and then turning the deck face down when the "glide" is needed (even more unnatural). You could do a straight bottom deal - which would be far easier and more natural looking - but then you are still dealing the cards starting from a face down position.

What's more fair? Turning cards over AS you deal - or dealing them face up from the beginning? This is why I said you were thinking too much like a magician. You're worried about discrepency and people backtracking - but the very method you said you would employ would be far more suspicious than the deck itself.

I see your point on using this in an extended card routine, and in some ways I agree. I do believe this could be part of a longer routine - but I wouldn't necessarily use it as such. I would use this more in a mental magic routine, not just a straight card act. But that's just me.

However, the original point of this topic was not to judge the effect in relation to an entire card routine - but to judge the effect itself. I didn't think in the long-term because the original poster wasn't asking me to. I was simply answering his question.