talkmagic.co.uk

Pete McCabe explains it pretty well in Scripting Magic. Naturally, he also includes a good script for it.

Soren Riis wrote:And maybe we could get a reference of who performed this effect for Einstein. When this is supposed to have happened and in what sense were Einstein fooled. It would also be nice with a short description of the effect. I am sure your girl friend is very clever, but the fact that she worked out the method might be down to poor performance. Most effects are easy to work out if they are performed incorrectly.

I hope your performance were better than your description of the effect? I must admit that I could not make any sense of your narration.

Blimey, this is all a bit harsh.

I wasn't 'describing' the effect. My post was quite obviously aimed at people who already knew the effect, and I wasn't intending to describe or in any way expose it here.

My performance may or may not have been partly to blame in this instance, but its an effect with which I usually get wonderful reactions despite its simplicity.

Blimey, this is all a bit harsh.

Sorry that my frustration spilled over. What I responded to is of course not your fault, but in 9 out of 10 cases I find descriptions of effects on talk magic very hard to follow.

Post 1: “Last night I performed EGGT . Really great effect”
Post 2: “Hope this is not exposure, but if you try with one more of the ***** cards it also works”

Post 3: “Where can I find something about this effect”?
Post 4: “ There is a description in Erik X. pensive’s book in the first paragraph on p 421”
Post 5: “Yes, this is the best card trick. Really clever”
…….
Now maybe some times this talking in code make sense, but in most cases I just find it annoying especially as most of this talking often - as far as I can tell - is done by beginners. On MC the there is less paranoia with respect to exposure and effects that are being discussed are usually described such that other magicians easily can follow the discussion.

Briareos wrote:@ part timer: I'm sorry, I didn't want to offend you and I am sorry that I apparently chose the wrong words to explain my point.

I wasn't offended at all. I just wanted to explain why I answered the question in a particular way, that perhaps wasn't mathematically perfect!

I'm sorry Soren but I don't understand your point. The example you give is fine:

Soren Riis wrote:Post 1: “Last night I performed EGGT . Really great effect”
Post 2: “Hope this is not exposure, but if you try with one more of the ***** cards it also works”

Post 3: “Where can I find something about this effect”?
Post 4: “ There is a description in Erik X. pensive’s book in the first paragraph on p 421”
Post 5: “Yes, this is the best card trick. Really clever”.....

If I were to ask a question and receive a reply that followed your format then I would be quite happy.

Now maybe some times this talking in code make sense, but in most cases I just find it annoying especially as most of this talking often - as far as I can tell - is done by beginners. On MC the there is less paranoia with respect to exposure and effects that are being discussed are usually described such that other magicians easily can follow the discussion.

Hey hold on here - I class myself as a beginner with any effect that is new to me, despite being a keen hobbyist for many years. Being a magician does exclude me from the consequences of stealing secrets.
The 'code' as you call it is used for a reason. This is a public forum. If it confuses you (a seasoned magician) then it'll sure confuse the spotty yoofs who come on here just to glean secrets.
The reason why I'm here (and not on MC) is because of the friendly reception that beginners get and the sensible attitude to protecting the workings of effects, even though it can be inconvenient at times.

I am sorry that you are irritated by this, and by beginners, and those that aren't experts in every effect. Perhaps you should stick to MC.

I thought that someone said (but cannot immediately see where) that this was Scarne's trick 92 in Scarne on Card Tricks. So it is. For fun, I have tried it out on a typical audience today (my daughter, then my PA) and both were absolutely astonished. I will not show it to my other colleague at work as he like me is a mathematician and will see straight through it.

___________
why do you always find things in the last place you look?
Because when you find it, you stop looking

The 'code' as you call it is used for a reason. This is a public forum.

I also appreciate the friendly tone at TM, and hope to help keep it this way.
I am of course 100% against exposure of genuine magic ideas, but am against unnecessary smoke screens that just confuse fellow magicians.
Its a matter of balance.

While the tone at TM is usually very FRIENDLY it is not always very USER FRIENDLY. And here the users I am talking about are magicians rather than spotty Yoofs hunting magic secrets.

Soren Riis wrote:I also appreciate the friendly tone at TM, and hope to help keep it this way.
I am of course 100% against exposure of genuine magic ideas, but am against unnecessary smoke screens that just confuse fellow magicians.
Its a matter of balance.

While the tone at TM is usually very FRIENDLY it is not always very USER FRIENDLY. And here the users I am talking about are magicians rather than spotty Yoofs hunting magic secrets.

Fair point Soren, I see where you're coming from.

I thought that someone said (but cannot immediately see where) that this was Scarne's trick 92 in Scarne on Card Tricks. So it is.

That was me, Bigtone, on the previous page.

This is one that I do, from time to time, when asked by folks who've seen much of my material over the years. The reason for this is simple:

It is self working and completely different than your basic "pick a card" tricks. I can do it anywhere, anytime without needing to practice it on a regular basis but still be able to do it with panache.

It's a good one to pull out on the spot and present it well.

Mike.

Agreed Mike. Having dashed it off twice, I will hone up my delivery for these circs to ensure the required panache.

I didnt know this Effect, so a quick search of the T'internet and i found three write ups of how to do it.

On a side note Thanks for bringing this to my attention - As all i needed for my titanic themed function was - a kinda Gamblers routine with coins.
Which i now have.
Thanks again

Lyndon

[quote="Soren Riis
Now maybe some times this talking in code make sense, but in most cases I just find it annoying

On MC ...[/quote]

MC, is that some sort of code? maybe you should explain clearly what that means.

Darrel wrote:MC, is that some sort of code? maybe you should explain clearly what that means.

I'm gonna guess that MC = Magic Cafe (Do I win a prize if I'm right ).

Soren Riiss wrote:On MC the there is less paranoia with respect to exposure and effects that are being discussed are usually described such that other magicians easily can follow the discussion.

Darrel wrote:MC, is that some sort of code? maybe you should explain clearly what that means.

moonbeam wrote:I'm gonna guess that MC = Magic Cafe

If MC does mean Magic Cafe, then the explanation is easy: The cafe is so convoluted that most magicians can't even be bothered to muddle their way through so many subforums and posts - a layman would give up in under 5 minutes.

TM, however, comes up as the #1 hit on google for “magic forum” and as easy as it is to navigate there is some need for discretion.

On the whole, however, I think a lot of extra care is taken for no particular reason. Simply saying "classic palm" in most situations is not going to even tip the common layman to much. Most know we can conceal things in our hands and the slight requires a decent amount of practice even if they googled the method.

MC, is that some sort of code? maybe you should explain clearly what that means.