talkmagic.co.uk

Another ID post, sorry

I currently have my deck in the traditonal (13) setup, but when I'm performing it I don't like the fact that I have to think about it when I should be concentrating on my performance

Having mentioned this to a couple of other members, they both separately suggested the Paul Brook setup. My only concern is that this looks a little too obvious to me. Has anyone here used the setup and had any problems with it?

I think his is probably the same as mine. One goes up, the other down, if you know what I mean. No one EVER spots it. EVER.

I have a memory system that pairs them. I don't need to do mathematics, I just know from brain pictures what goes with what.

5 and 8 = fate
queens are ace (arrogance, obviously)
sixes and sevens from the song "don't cry for me, argentina"

etc, etc...

I use the "Brook set-up" and have not once been caught out.

And blimey I like not having to think

I don't know Paul Brooks setup but from Tomo's comment I'm guessing that it's the same as mine. If it is, don't worry because it never gets spotted. You've got to remember that the specs don't know the working of the trick so there's no reason why it should seem suspisous.

Why not just hold the cards up in a fan facing the spec so you can see the 'backs' of the cards.

OK, not perfect for angles, but just SO much easier.

I like making my life easy...gives my brain space to concentrate on nothing but the performance...

I recently changed to using Paul's set up. Whether or not its any easier is open to conjecture, but as for the danger of it being spotted i really wouldn't worry.

If they're not going to spot the way an ID deck is initially set up, they're certainly not going to spot Brook's method.

Let's not give the specs too much credit, they're too concerned with the idea that the face down card might be theirs rather than noticing any pattern in the cards.

Tomo wrote:I think his is probably the same as mine. One goes up, the other down, if you know what I mean. No one EVER spots it. EVER.

That's how I have mine set up.

mrgoat wrote:Why not just hold the cards up in a fan facing the spec so you can see the 'backs' of the cards.

I wear glasses

Seems nobody's ever had problem then... that's what I like to hear
Thanks all

I had the privilege of seeing Docc Hilford lecture last week, and he had a fantastic bit of thinking, regarding an ID. It's not for all occasions, but it's a simple line of thinking that removes the need to remember anything.

I've always had a few minor hiccups with the original, so I'm always on the lookout for anything to help me with those problems. Where can I find info on Paul Brook's solution?

Demitri wrote:I had the privilege of seeing Docc Hilford lecture last week, and he had a fantastic bit of thinking, regarding an ID. It's not for all occasions, but it's a simple line of thinking that removes the need to remember anything.

I've always had a few minor hiccups with the original, so I'm always on the lookout for anything to help me with those problems. Where can I find info on Paul Brook's solution?

The effect where I share my ID subtleties is called Deuterium and is found in The Alchemical Tools.

It requires you not to memorise anything whatsoever and it is simple and effective.

Kindest,

-Paul

I use the original Joe Berg set up, and the only thing you have to remember is odd/even.

and ive written that on the outside of the card box.


( and i also hold it up to see the backs)

Tomo, if you drag out your copy of The Alchemical Tools and dust it off you will be able to read about it mate

I always recommend the ordering that I use as it requires no calculations on the part of the performer. During a performance, when the heat is on, the mind can do funny things and calculations can get confused.

Never met anyone who has been caught out so to speak. At the end of the day people never notice the fact that they are only seeing 26 cards instead of the usual 54. This is a larger discrepancy than anything to do with ordering. If you were caught, I do explain in the book, that you actually have a secondary effect with regards to coincidence. Remember it is only a failure to the participant if you acknowledge and frame that moment as a failure.

As mentioned in the book, I believe that there is a subconscious kicker for this effect. Obviously I cannot prove this, but it is something that I believe to be true for various academic reasons.

The best test is to get out there and use the setup to see how safe and secure it is for yourself. Asking people on here may not help that much, but the feeling of successful deception time and time again will provide the answer that you require.

Kindest,

-Paul

Do you know, I was going to call you tomorrow, Paul.

Never mind!