talkmagic.co.uk

The Effect "Six stainless steel cups, which are numbered (by dice) from one to six, are shown on a beautiful Oak hand stained platform. In each cup, an amount of cash is placed. This can be a $100 bill, and five smaller bills or coins. Five spectators are picked from the audience. One by one they are asked to roll a die. They are told that whatever number they roll, they will get what is under that cup. For example: If a two is thrown on the die, the number two cup is lifted up and they get that prize. It is further explained that you will get the last cup.

As each cup is lifted the spectator is given the "small" prize. The magi will always be left the "big winner!" This is self working and everything is examinable at the beginning and end of the effect.

Cost $60-$70

Difficulty 1 - Easy

Review
Perhaps I should have titled this review "Death by Video". It's one of those tricks that almost every magician will figure out after a single viewing, and will certainly confirm it on the second playing. At the risk of getting scolded for revealing secrets, I am going to do just that. (Sorry, but it's so obvious it's a stretch to call it a secret) The die that the magician uses is gaffed. The die has no four (so the large bill is under the #4 cup) and two fives. Astonishingly, they didn't put the fives on opposite sides of the die! So you can see them side-by-side on the video.

They claim that everything is examinable--sure! There are no trap doors, or loaded dice, but those two side-by-side fives will surely be noticed. When a spectator examines your props, they are naturally very suspicious of your props. They are going to look carefully, and very few will miss the gaff.

Overall I am not sure who would buy this item. Professionals can't use it on stage. It's too cumbersome for walkaround. As an amateur, when I spend $70 I want more than a one-trick pony--or else that pony will have to be a thoroughbred Ascot Gold Cup winner!

Definately a two thumbs down trick!

The YouTube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHQUQf8tBfU

By the sound of it, all you're buying are the props. The use of a gimmicked die to avoid a particular selection is fairly well established. Bellars does a much stronger version of this; I forget whose it is, mind.

An almost identical effect is also included on Max Maven's NOTHING dvd. The prop/props aren't included but they are easy to source. That's about $60 odd dollars itself so it'd be a better idea to just get that!

I own one of these die, which I bought after watching the Max DVD. My die has no 2, and two fives opposite each other, so, like Simon & Garfunkel, you never see them side by side.

I was going to perform an effect with this die at an open mic night soon. When I read TerryC's assertion "It's one of those tricks that almost every magician will figure out after a single viewing, and will certainly confirm it on the second playing", I began to think, perhaps the concept is rather obvious.

Would anyone go further than TerryC and say that spectators are likely to guess too?

But then, surely if it's more obvious than TerryC suggest, and so obvious that the specs would guess too, as I suspect, Mr Maven wouldn't use this effect? Surely Mr Maven knows a thing or two?

(Note: As far as I recall, Max states on his DVD that the repeated numbers do need to be on opposite sides, and the die I own does have the repeated numbers on opposite sides. So my concern is that the concept of a gaffed die may be so obvious that the spectators will guess, not that they will see two identical numbers side by side.)

At the start of Max's routine, he hands an ungaffed die to a spectator and gets them to roll it lots of times to demonstrate that the die isn't 'loaded' or whatever. Then he switches in the gaff die. (It's amazing how rarely spectators suspect that objects have been switched.) Is it enough to just do that?

My overall quetion is: can anyone who has tried performing an effect like this say that, in general, the specs will just suspect the die too much for the effect to be worth performing?

Speaking without experience:-

if you make the effect about what's in the bags / under the cups (so the die is incidental);
if you demonstrate an ungimmicked die (or at a push miscall a few throws when no-one's near the die);
if you use the subtlety Bellars uses...

then it will help keep the heat off the dice. The die will never be above suspicion because you are using it in the first place.

Thanks for that. I watched it but the subtlety is so subtle I missed it!

The Devil's Tailor wrote:Thanks for that. I watched it but the subtlety is so subtle I missed it!

I believe the subtlety being referred to is the fact that there are three dice being used, and the spectator can choose any of the numbers each time

I also have to admit to missing the double five die and I may have missed it a econd time if I hadn't read the explanation.

The obvious way to perform this is to swap the die and on that basis I personally think that it's a nice little routine.

One thing that magic has taught me is to never assume that an audience will spot the obvious. In fact, sometime the more obvious something is, the harder it is for the audience to work it out.

This is where the deception of swapping the die works a treat because people all too often will fully trust what you say if it matches what they think they have seen. What we refer to as misdirection me thinks

It would also be a great way to introduce a cups and balls routine.

people never spot the obvious - we KNOW the secret, so yes it will look obvious to us...grrrr...makes me mad...

i have those dice, as said - if you really feel nervous about it - switch 'em out...

i mean isn't it "obvious" how an ID works? isnt it obvious how "the hoy book test" works? etc etc etc

I expect some people will think of 'loaded die' as that's a concept that is to some degree in popular culture. But I can't see that being much of an issue. It depends how the routine is structured but I'd have five people each roll for a prize (if they roll for a prize that's gone they roll again until they get the number) and then I roll for the final prize: the fact that I'm rolling for the final prize rather than just grabbing the prize suggests that the die can roll all six numbers.

At the start I'd get someone to play with the die for a bit, and I'd point out that, 'It shouldn't really matter anyway, I mean, we're all using the same die...' I think that's more or less how Max does it.

You could maybe argue that getting someone to examine or play with the die (before switching) will just draw attention to it, but, well, Max Raven does it, and he's no amateur, right? I mean, he must do this for a reason?

Would anyone do this sort of routine and NOT ask someone to check the die? If so, what do you think of the fact that highly experienced mentalist fella Max Raven gets a spec to examine the die? Just curious...

If I were performing this, and I might be as this post has sparked an interest, then I would ask the spec to play with the die, rather than using the word "examine".

I wouldn't have used that word either. I think I'd say, 'Can you roll it lots of times, make sure you can roll each number sort of randomly,' something like that.

Personally, I wouldn't try to present an effect with a die as being terribly serious and deeply meaningful. Ultimately, I think you could have lots of fun with one of these die, but if you present it without at least some degree of humour then you might run into trouble.

And if you present it as fun and humorous, then it doesn't even matter if 5% of the audience are suspicious of the die.

It's probably a good effect to start with, get people focused, get your personality across... then move onto something that goes a little deeper.

Just thought I'd add that the absolute killer effect that was talked about in Newspapers for a long time afterwards in Ricky Jay's most recent show was based on this principle. He has the die in a bottle.


Safe to say there was a very impressive climax to the routine.

You have to look at how you would present a natural die and then present the gimmick in EXACTLY the same manner.