talkmagic.co.uk

Well by the too perfect theory, I mean things like Ultimate 3 Card Monte and how it does look too good to be true, and some people will believe that. I think I read in the booklet that Michael Skinner suggests that you do some kind of "tricky" move to make it look less perfect. Not that I fully believe that you should do that. I know a ton of professionals who most likely use effects like that and still manage to entertain people with the too perfect effects. I guess it's all just up to personal preference and style. Some guys want to be seen as Sleight of hand masters, and others want to be seen as Magicians in the old time sense of being able to pull off impossible things.

In the long run, it really shouldn't matter as long as the audience walks away entertained and with an impossible memory.

The main problem with Toms ideas is that he's not really improving on the effects, he's over complicating them and over proving them. Which to anybody, Magician and lay person alike. Looks way to suspicious. Plus like I said before hand, people generally don't want to have to think too hard when they are being entertained.

Also the reason the Original Brainwave works so well for what it is, is because they have a free choice to literally think of ANY card. Thus in their minds you did not MAKE them think of a card. Also if Tom wants it to seem psychological. He could simply come up with some BS line like "Well, I saw the way you were holding the drink and I deducted that you would be the type of person to favor the Queen of clubs.." etc etc.

tomterm8 wrote:It’s worse with magic. If you drop as a juggler all the other jugglers are sympathetic. If you flubber it as a magician all the other magicians will snigger behind your back.

Not at all. We're all a friendly bunch here really and if you come with a routine chances are you'll get some amazing feedback

Even moreso with the regional meets. It's there for practicing and showing stuff to other magicians and getting feedback. Only the last Manchester meet I got some valuable feedback on both the aforementioned force and my handling of coinvexed.

And last month I met outside of the meets with a couple of members who helped me perfect the force. At that time, it was c*** (not the best). It was completely obvious what I was doing. I had the handling completely wrong (ironically because of magician's guilt). They didn't laugh at me, they showed me where I was going wrong, and how to improve it. Even come up with a couple of other solutions if my guilt got too bad

All they asked is that I listen, take note, practice it, and give it a go

Eshly wrote:You may not care, but I find that the psychological forces, and hands off presentation, help my persona and presentation of the effect.

A psychological force isn't a presentation, it's a method

Hands on decks such as an ID is a method. And the ID (I don't know how the brainwave deck works so I can't comment) is flexible enough to let you use any presentation you like. Even, if you so desire, one where you pretend to be using a psychological force

kolm wrote:

Eshly wrote:You may not care, but I find that the psychological forces, and hands off presentation, help my persona and presentation of the effect.

A psychological force isn't a presentation, it's a method

Hands on decks such as an ID is a method. And the ID (I don't know how the brainwave deck works so I can't comment) is flexible enough to let you use any presentation you like. Even, if you so desire, one where you pretend to be using a psychological force

Using a psychological force IS part of the presentation, because instead of saying "Name any card", I give them a selection process, similar to (but not quite) equivoke.


Tom
xx

Eshly wrote:

kolm wrote:

Eshly wrote:You may not care, but I find that the psychological forces, and hands off presentation, help my persona and presentation of the effect.

A psychological force isn't a presentation, it's a method

Hands on decks such as an ID is a method. And the ID (I don't know how the brainwave deck works so I can't comment) is flexible enough to let you use any presentation you like. Even, if you so desire, one where you pretend to be using a psychological force

Using a psychological force IS part of the presentation, because instead of saying "Name any card", I give them a selection process, similar to (but not quite) equivoke.

Sounds like a classic force to me!

Randy wrote:Well by the too perfect theory, I mean things like Ultimate 3 Card Monte and how it does look too good to be true, and some people will believe that. I think I read in the booklet that Michael Skinner suggests that you do some kind of "tricky" move to make it look less perfect. Not that I fully believe that you should do that. I know a ton of professionals who most likely use effects like that and still manage to entertain people with the too perfect effects. I guess it's all just up to personal preference and style. Some guys want to be seen as Sleight of hand masters, and others want to be seen as Magicians in the old time sense of being able to pull off impossible things.

In the long run, it really shouldn't matter as long as the audience walks away entertained and with an impossible memory.

The main problem with Toms ideas is that he's not really improving on the effects, he's over complicating them and over proving them. Which to anybody, Magician and lay person alike. Looks way to suspicious. Plus like I said before hand, people generally don't want to have to think too hard when they are being entertained.

Also the reason the Original Brainwave works so well for what it is, is because they have a free choice to literally think of ANY card. Thus in their minds you did not MAKE them think of a card. Also if Tom wants it to seem psychological. He could simply come up with some BS line like "Well, I saw the way you were holding the drink and I deducted that you would be the type of person to favor the Queen of clubs.." etc etc.

Well that's fair enough- but I always thought the idea of the suspicious move was something John Rhamsey used to do as misdirection. Once again, it is about controlling the subtext of the spectators. Creating a suspicion and then shattering it. 'Oh I see what he's doing he must be x, y, z'. Then they watch the trick with that belief, no longer looking for the real method. Then at the end a subtle gesture to show the hand is empty or whatever it may be, and voila, you have shattered their theory.
But it is up to the performer how they want to present it. Do they want the audience to believe that they have been coerced subconciously to make their decisions.. then thats fair enough. Do they want to believe that you can read the person so well you know in advance their behaviour?(Wonder Words, most of which comes from M. Erickson/Bandler/Grinder I believe, talks about faulty cause-effect which is great for false deduction). Again, fair enough- its personal choice: Influence, mind reading, people reading... But they are all equally valid. The worst thing to do is: bam: 'name a card' '2 of clubs' 'wow look at that, its reversed in the deck'. Even an amicable and pretentiously friendly voice cannot pretend that is presentation.

But I have not seen Tom perform it, so I do not know if he is overcomplicating things superflously.

Eshly wrote:Using a psychological force IS part of the presentation, because instead of saying "Name any card", I give them a selection process, similar to (but not quite) equivoke.

Would you go through the process if you didn't need it for the method? No. Ergo, method

kolm wrote:Not at all. We're all a friendly bunch here really and if you come with a routine chances are you'll get some amazing feedback

Even moreso with the regional meets.

Hi Kolm, nice to meet you. I wasn't really talking about performances in front of magicians, but in the "real world". When magicians get together they are generally very nice.

But there is much more of an expectation that when you take the next step (perform in the real world) you do it flawlessly. Part of that is that if you make a mistake in a trick, you can tip the method and ruin the trick for other magicians.

kolm wrote:

Eshly wrote:Using a psychological force IS part of the presentation, because instead of saying "Name any card", I give them a selection process, similar to (but not quite) equivoke.

Would you go through the process if you didn't need it for the method? No. Ergo, method

YES!

I did with ID.

Your presentation is all wrong. Why on earth are you not giving them a free choice? Free choice trumps the cards being handled by the spec every time

Eshly wrote:

kolm wrote:

Eshly wrote:Using a psychological force IS part of the presentation, because instead of saying "Name any card", I give them a selection process, similar to (but not quite) equivoke.

Would you go through the process if you didn't need it for the method? No. Ergo, method

YES!

I did with ID.

You know you don't need a force with an ID, right?

This thread is stupidly addictive!

Yes we can always improve. Talking about forces, I use a force that best suits the presentation.

For example:

Cross cut force is great in bizarre magic, why? it uses a cross! and a cross may be part of the presentation. or it may be used at a 'cross roads' the cross part becomes a metaphor so to speak. Is a classic force better in such a case? Absolutly not, the classic force simply doesn't add anything. (Please don't confuse this for presenting method, it is not. I am not performing a card trick, I am creating a moment, the cards are simply a vehicle, I'm not performing a force, the force is just a minor part)

If however I am performing walk around style am I going to seek out a table for the cross cut force? Nope, in such a case, for me anyway classic force is the way to go.

Interestingly enough in neither case would I hand out the cards to be examined, they may be handed out to be shuffled, but even that is doubt ful.

tom's saying that theatrically, he wants it to look like he's influenced them into a decision, and he hopes by doing/saying what he does - it will look like that to the people watching it...

Let me get this straight. Do you use the presentation of making it LOOK like a Psychological force? Or do you ACTUALLY use a Psychological force with the ID?

If it's the 2nd one, then you have completed botched the effect and ruined it. if it's the first, than I guess that's OK.. Though the idea of the ID is that they have a free choice.

But why would you want your audience to think you made them think of something? To me, (and maybe only me) that makes no sense, there is no magic or mentalism in that, unless of course it is reversed and the audience is going to reveal the prediction, and then what is the performer doing on the stage?

Am I missing the point? perhaps.