talkmagic.co.uk

Yeah, I saw that. Gave up on what you were saying to be honest.

G

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Hopefully somebody gets it or I'm just wasting time?

I get what you're saying... but just cause you said it, doesn't make it true

Wayne Dobson demonstarted an effect close to this at Blackpool this year. Three people looked at a card anywhere in the deck, Wayne called out 3 cards and then the spectators confirms that he had called their card.

Slightly off the effect asked for but a really good trick. Can't remember what it is called but I can look it up when I get home.

Paul Daniels does a version of this, he offers cards to 4 or 5 gents in the audience, in turn they select one at random, memorise and return it to the deck. Paul then expalins how certain cards have a strange atrraction to men regardless of age, one such card is the QH. He asks all the men who selected the QH to stand and, of course, all the guys who selected a card stand at the same time. A 'Classic' in every sense !

Well, looking at the "active topics" on this forum, it seems few are really interested in performance skills or presentation...but maybe I haven't looked hard enough? I have thousands of posts on another very well-known forum, precisely because it concentrates on presentation and performance, and puts far less weight and import on effects.
Going back to the thread, though, I don't mean how can you force the same card on two spectators. That's really old hat...no, I mean, the spectators think of a card (or, if you like they can think of a number, and find their card at that number - this will ultimately play out very much the same).
OK, here is a strong method, which only works as one of 4 outs - using the wonderful "Nostradamus' Chest" from Collector's Workshop, and Kennedy's "Mind Power Deck". Use the MP deck to have spectator 1 think of card. Then, have spec 2 think of any number between 1 and 52 (or preferrably use the method suggested for NC). In one case out of four, the first spectator's card can be found at the postition thought of by the second spectator. For the other 3 occasions, you'll need a suitable routine which then makes sense. This is very easy, if you own the effects, and know what I'm talking about.
So, this is a way to have BOTH spectators apparently FREELY THINK of their card/number - yet in one case out of four, the cards will coincide. Even when you can't make this incredible reveal, you can have a quite remarkable and astonishing double-whammy ending to your effect. Either way, you win.
Hey, I have many other ways of achieving this effect, this is one of the most complex - the magi needs to have a brain like a computer to get the desired result every time. Certainly not for the faint-hearted.
I hope this example gives you some insight into my thoughts......and may stimulate some further consideration of methods that may be suitable to create this great effect.
There are a couple of fairly straightforward methods - but the more complicated you get, the stronger the impact, in my opinion!

I'd like to add that with experience, you can increase the probability of the ACAAN plot I described, using MPD and NC, work in one out of THREE performances, as there are little subtleties that can increase the chance of your success.

I still claim *** **** is better and doesn't need a deck of cards :p

I agree with Kolm on this. In fact, one of the best approaches to this very effect can be found in Phil Goldstein's "Blue Book of Mentalism" - "The Four Sided Triangle."

Good thoughts,

Bob Cassidy

Pirate Potty wrote:the spectators think of a card (or, if you like they can think of a number, and find their card at that number - this will ultimately play out very much the same).

You mentioned the MP deck. I imagine that you're considering spreading the deck and letting them choose one rather than just thinking about one?

Instead of that (assuming I was right ), why not have them just think of any card completely from their imagination. Obviously in a situation like that you'll need them to write it down, just in case they forget. It's a stressful situation helping on-stage...

Once they've done that you could take measures to ensure a similar result with spec. #2. A blind choice would be the easiest option, I'd have thought. Double-card prediction anyone? And/or use an inde*.

T.

EDIT: Does it have to be cards? Would a number be just as good? Paul Brook's Juxtapose would do the job well, I imagine. T.

Yes, Ted, your ideas are good.
the MP deck give the impression that the spectator thought of the card - as indeed, they do. Of course, it's only one solution to my question. There are many, many more ways achieve this effect.
As for Kolm, I think he assumes we're all mind-readers. A bunch of asterisks with NO letters to hint at your thoughts means we might as well assume all members can genuinely read minds, no? Why bother to post such meaningless nonsense? I can only assume he has no ideas to contribute, but wants to feel like he has......

I think Kolm was just being understandably circumspect given that this part of the forum is open to public viewing. (Most mentalists would know immediately what the asterisks stood for.) But if you take a look at the reference I gave in the post following hers, you'll quickly discover what she was talking about. (Note: The effect can also be found in Max Maven's Prism and it presents a very good approach to this type of effect.)

Good thoughts,

Bob

Pirate Potty wrote:A bunch of asterisks with NO letters to hint at your thoughts means we might as well assume all members can genuinely read minds, no?

I understand your frustration but it's possible to know what Kolm is referring to without being a genuine mind-reader. If you think about what you're trying to do and consider how this might be achieved without cards then there's a fairly well-known technique that has the same number of letters (with a space in the right place) as Kolm's coded reply.

Bob has provided another hint that will direct you to the correct general area. You don't need to own Max's work to discover what Kolm means. But you'll need it if you want to know how to perform the effect to which Bob refers

Sorry if that all sounds like smoke and mirrors. If it helps slightly, some of the ideas I've posed are compatible with Kolm's. And Kolm is a she, by the way.

Pirate Potty wrote:Going back to the thread, though, I don't mean how can you force the same card on two spectators. That's really old hat...no, I mean, the spectators think of a card (or, if you like they can think of a number, and find their card at that number - this will ultimately play out very much the same).

There are a couple of fairly straightforward methods - but the more complicated you get, the stronger the impact, in my opinion!

I don't think you are really understand the concept of having more than one person 'think' of a card, (or anything else) and 'forcing' a thought or a card.

Secondly I think you need more experience in performing if you truly believe that a more complicated method is more effective than a simple one. If the spectator is not aware of the method what difference does it make on how complicated the method is? Except that a more complicated method makes it more difficult to perform. I think however, only experience will show you the wisdom of my words.

Like you said it is your opinion that a more complicated method has a stronger impact. Again, experience and observation will eventually prove to you that a good performance determines the impact on an audience not a method. Unless of course you are showing method to a bunch of magicians and are having some sort of bizarre difficult method contest.

Thirdly you seem a bit upset that nobody seems to care about performance skills or presentation. Yet your words indicate that it is indeed you who are concentrating heavily on method and not on performance.

Fouthly, (yes I know it is not a word) I think you are just here to be a thorn in everyone's side. Your words very much remind me of Eshly who ended up being somebody else. Kind of sad, but to each their own.