talkmagic.co.uk

Does anyone perform this trick? And if so, what sort of reactions do you get from it...I quite like it, but the reactions arent as strong as I would have hoped (probably more me that the trick!! I know )

I am not quite sure which effect you talk. It it the one where you apparently give the spectator a free choice of every card and where you end up with a (royal) straight flush and the spectator get say a full house? This was one of the most brilliant new effects I learned in Blackpool.

This effect gets a very strong reactions and it is already one of my favorite poker routines.

A few points: The full deck should be first be (casually) 'shuffled" before the 10 cards are dealt. To indicate that the 10 cards somehow was selected in advance would be a serious mistake as this would remove any magic. It is crucial that spectators have NO idea that a setup is possible.

The effect does not use "magicians choice" however a weakness of the effect (if not presented properly) is that this could be how the trick is done. The spectator might find it strange that you first ask them to choose one card then another, and then choose one for you. If this bothers you its easy to modify the setup to accommodate a more normal progression of events.

To counter any suggestion that magicians choice is involved (it is not) I explain for each decision in advance what will happen.

Overall it is a very nice and fast routine and so far it got only strong reactions. I think it important that the magicians is relaxed and it is clear that all choice are free and that the cards not selected by the spectator is placed very cleanly - like explained in advance- back on on the bottom of the deck.

Thanks for the tip there with sing the full deck-probably an oversight of mine but I usually start with a packet of 10 cards and the deck away! I'll definatly do a f$$sle shuffle at the start. That is the routine I was talking about-it blew me away and couldnt wait to start using it! Many thanks again for the advice though!

Somewhere on youtube you can see Derren Brown performing this effect. I perform the same trick, followed by his oil and water with the same 10 cards which works well.

I start with a full deck, false shuffle, then count off ten cards. To my mind, picking a specific ten cards suggests that there is something significant about those particular cards, as Soren says.

I don't use the normal high-value cards for this. First, it sits ill with the idea of having shuffled the cards. Yes, the grouping still looks odd if they examine the cards closely, but my theory is that by using 'meh' cards, no one pays too much attention to the value. Also, it helps me conceal the 'thing' that's doing all the work! Well, that's the theory.

I have always done it with 10 cards. If your audience are bright enough to consider that the 10 cards may be specially selected, don't you think they may catch on to the fact that there are three 3-of-a-kinds?!

I don't think the strength of the effect lies in the "randomness" of the 10 cards you use, and I think a stack and a load of false shuffles just makes this a whole lot more complicated than it needs to be. The effect is that even though they get to choose exactly which cards they want, you win every time. They get to tell you which cards to have, they get to see the cards before they choose etc. but still you win.

if you make it about being dealt "random" cards, I feel the effect is almost diminished, because it could be any dealing routine in which you've cleverly used sleight of hand to get the best hand. As I said, they should feel they have a totally free choice all the way through, fairer than fair, and you still win - that's the trick.


I start with the line "you know, originally, poker used to be played with just 10 cards..." and go in from there. I don't even know if it's true but certainly no one has tried to contest this.

Farlsborough wrote:I start with the line "you know, originally, poker used to be played with just 10 cards..." and go in from there. I don't even know if it's true but certainly no one has tried to contest this.

Apparently the earliest recorded form of Poker used twenty cards (all the aces, kings, queens, jacks and tens) but of course there wasn't the modern range of combinations (no flushes, I understand). See http://www.davidparlett.co.uk/histocs/poker.html

There are some real 10 Card Poker gems out there. Until recently the best I had encountered was David Solomon's Power of Poker in John Bannon's "Dear Mr. Fantasy".

Then I found a bunch of reworkings of Solomon's effect and a whole host of other 10 Card Poker Deals in "Card Dupery" by J.K. Hartman - Solomon's effect always goes down well, but the handlings in Hartman's aforementioned book go down even better, removing the contrivances present in Solomon's as they do...

Farlsborough wrote:...zip...
I don't think the strength of the effect lies in the "randomness" of the 10 cards you use, and I think a stack and a load of false shuffles just makes this a whole lot more complicated than it needs to be. The effect is that even though they get to choose exactly which cards they want, you win every time. They get to tell you which cards to have, they get to see the cards before they choose etc. but still you win.
...zip...

I am not sure we are talking about the same effect. You end up with a (Royal) Straight flush. This is the main kicker and will come as a complete surprise. This combined with the fact that the spectator apparently freely decided how the cards should be distributed between the two players is the kicker.

I think it is possible to pull out the 10 cards directly and still do a good effect, but in my view it take out the edge of the effect since many spectators first though when the royal straight flush is revealed is that the magician combined slight of hand with the fact he chose the 10 cards.

To pull out the 10 cards from the deck might actually take more time, than just give the deck a very brief shuffle and dealing down 10 cards. The effect is quite fast. The shuffleling should of course not be made an issue its more to make the kicker stronger and made it harder to backtrack (parts of) the method.

basil horwitz is the one for me...

i have the ten at the bottom of the deck, shuffled to the top by me, then two false cuts, with a riffle in between...sorted...

Soren Riis wrote:I am not sure we are talking about the same effect.

Hmm, this is quite possible! The one I'm talking about is also known as the Jonah card, is this the same?

Soren Riis that sounds like a real nice 10 card deal, could you tell me where I could buy the book/DVD from.

I've done the Jonah card method but it was lacking something IMO, so it got left by the wayside.

Wills wrote:Soren Riis that sounds like a real nice 10 card deal, could you tell me where I could buy the book/DVD from.

I've done the Jonah card method but it was lacking something IMO, so it got left by the wayside.

Yes, it is in my mind a very nice routine. The effect I have in mind is called "Revised Mexican Poker" (The Blomberg Variation) on page 22 in "The Wisdom of Solomon" by David Solomon and Jeff Siegfried.

I can highly recommend "The Wisdom of Solomon". The book contains a version of the 21 card trick that is fun to do if a spectator asks if you know the 21 trick (which as we know happens quite often). You say yes. Pick out 21 cards and ask the spectator to pick up any of the pile and just think of one of the cards. Ask the spectator to shuffle the pile and shuffle all remaining together. Ask the spectator to shuffle further and then to deal the now completely shuffled cards into three (roughly equal) piles. Ask which pile the card is in, and then after a bit of acting the card is being named!

Don't forget to ask the spectator if this was the "trick" he thought of

Cheers!! This could be the 10 card poker deal for me.

I'll have a shifty at that book and the 21 card trick as well. I love tricks like that lay people think they know like the 21 and the 4 robbers. I'll use a different handling that they can't explain. Not for onemanupship or boostful claims but it does impress people and lets them know you mean business.

Farlsborough wrote:I have always done it with 10 cards. If your audience are bright enough to consider that the 10 cards may be specially selected, don't you think they may catch on to the fact that there are three 3-of-a-kinds?!

You do only do it with 10 cards, once the trick actually begins. I know for certain that people have seen through the standard version using high value cards. In my version, if they do catch on, they will have to be very observant and have a very good memory. It can happen, but the rest of the trick is exactly as it is in regular versions.

I don't think the strength of the effect lies in the "randomness" of the 10 cards you use, and I think a stack and a load of false shuffles just makes this a whole lot more complicated than it needs to be.

Fairly similar to what abraxus said, it just has a false shuffle or two at the start. I don't even bother with cuts. It's not like 'Sam the Bellhop'. The problem I have is that, once someone spots the basics of how the trick works, it really is just a trick about the performer's skill, possibly even a 'sucker' trick. Yes, they might still spot it in my version, but the mechanism is better concealed, in my opinion.

I don't think it's wrong doing it the classic way (Lior Manor's version with giant cards is extremely effective), but my version evolved from the realisation that people do see through the underlying method, even if they can't catch the rest of the working.

The effect is that even though they get to choose exactly which cards they want, you win every time. They get to tell you which cards to have, they get to see the cards before they choose etc. but still you win.

Which is exactly how the trick progresses.

if you make it about being dealt "random" cards, I feel the effect is almost diminished, because it could be any dealing routine in which you've cleverly used sleight of hand to get the best hand.

No, because it is the 10 card poker deal trick (mine is based upon the Basil Horwitz one abraxus mentioned). Once the 10 cards are in play, the deck is put to one side. The first phase is the spectator shuffling the 10 cards themselves and dealing out two poker hands. There is no possibility of it being based upon my sleight of hand.

As I said, they should feel they have a totally free choice all the way through, fairer than fair, and you still win - that's the trick.

That's exactly what happens.