talkmagic.co.uk

well, yes. Lenart Green's version of O.O.T.W has an error thing in built. Naturally you can predict the outcome.
Ive seen many other versions in which you can predict errors.


But, remember the main point of O.O.T.W is that the spectator sorts out the cards, not the performer, and that the spectator getting it wrong is not that magical.. in fact, Its incredibly common.!


And the strength of this effect is that it is Unbelievable.....

I will often have a couple of errors in OOTW, but not by design. I use Derren Brown's handling, more or less, and would rather retain the naturalness of the handling at the cost of one or two cards occasionally ending up where they shouldn't. I find that in the moment it doesn't detract too much from the effect - to some extent it underlines it.

What I usually do is take out the wrong card and openly dump it in the right pile while commenting on it. I want people to be left with the image of it as a 100% success rate, even though it hasn't been, to make it a little harder to remember accurately.

Best tip I ever heard for OOTW was from Raymond E. Carlyle (not sure if it was his to begin with...) - Only use half the deck. Get the spec to shuffle and split the cards and then ask them to choose which half they want to use.

Gets the trick over and done with in half the time - same reaction

kartoffelngeist wrote:Just a random thought I had the other day...

Does anyone ever present OOTW with say an 80-90% success rate, rather than 100%? (By which I mean 80-90% of the cards are in the right place, not that it fails one or two performances out of ten...)

Reckon it could be potentially quite believable. (Though I suspect that this just means my presenting it is bad in the first place...)

Been thinking about this a bit recently...I think the near miss thing has it's place in serious displays of mentalism, but not in magic shows with bank night routines and the like...Maybe I'm just plain wrong though...

Sorry in advance that I forgot who taught me this subtltie and sorry I can't spell.

While I never miss an 'error' does occur in OOTW. In brief, spectator shuffles up the deck, as this is being done I mention that once the deck is suffled it is often bad luck if 5 cards in a row are of the same colour. We go through the deck (odds are you don't see five in a row in that way). Two things take place, one the spectator now sees the cards are indeed all mixed (even though the spec just mixed them it still enforces the point) second, in the same maneuver I've set everything up in full view.

On with the OOTW. Spectator is calling out black or red, I'm putting them in the perspective piles. Neither of us are looking at the cards however I get a feeling and turn over one of the cards already dealt and sure enough it is the wrong colour for that pile. For the spectator it shows that there are or can be mistakes and the cards are still mixed. For Eshly it proves that I am the real deal. Otherwise how could I have possible known that it was the wrong card. They are not marked as chances are I'm using a borrowed deck and at no time could I have possible seen the face.

Now all that is left to do is explain to the spectator that I am a magician not a psychic or a mentalists as those are people that only want to scam you out of your hard earned cash. They hardly ever believe me and insist I am psychic in some way.

Bring on the hate mail.

The only guilt in getting it 100% is because you know its a trick. As long as you act as a real mind reader would there is no need to worry.

I have found that acting pleased and surprised at the dead cert methodologies and non-chalantly and matter of fact with the riskier and more 'real' methods then it can be very deceptive.

I never think its good to get ANYTHING wrong on purpose, but I say this because I often use methods which have no certainty and if they mess up I either have outs which make the effect quite easy to backtrack, or fall flat in which case I act as though it is a rarety even if it happens regularly. There is no room for purposefull failure if you are inviting it elsewhere.
Also I am a klutz at times and the mechanical methods can occasionally be messed up too. I am not lying but I have even forgotten to actually do the method once, because I was so caught up in the effect- it is both a virtue and incredibly, incredibly stupid. But in terms of how the audience percieves it, a failure, be it on accident or purpose is indeed convincing, but it has to be in severe moderation and suitable to character all I am saying is leave room for legitimate failure.

Finally, a thought I had a long time ago which I haven't explored much is the use of sucker effects to enhance believability without any of the detriments of actual failure. The concept works on the principle which I continually discovered was that people adopt beliefs for various reasons and experience and logical trains of thought, and once that belief has been established the logic and motive behind it is no longer needed to enforce it as it is a belief and who needs to convince themselves of their own beliefs? Thus, if you 'fail' and the audience percieves it as genuine the internal dialouge may follow 'Oh... would a magician get it blatantly wrong like that? Probably not, this guy must be doing it for real': the belief being adopted is that of authenticity. Then the performance continues and the audience retains that belief and then later on you pull out the sucker and show that you weren't wrong and it doesn't negate the belief that you are not a spurious magician. As I've said, this is merley theoretical and I haven't explored it as of yet. Hopefully it is interesting.

I know it's been said a number of times in this thread, in a number of ways. Here is another way......

Out by one... Is an OUT .

spot on, is a miracle.