talkmagic.co.uk

kartoffelngeist wrote:Just remember to tell people that it's a "perfectly normal deck of cards" :p

I would avoid explicitly mentioning this. It's probably best to simply 'prove' it by riffling through on the side where the normal faces show. That will put an image of a normal deck in the spectator's mind without any suspicious verbal reassurances (after all, why would they assume it to be tricked?).

I also agree that it would be better to perform a few tricks with a regular deck first, though. And then make an excuse for the deck change, or do it when people aren't looking.

Laurence wrote:

kartoffelngeist wrote:Just remember to tell people that it's a "perfectly normal deck of cards" :p

I would avoid explicitly mentioning this. It's probably best to simply 'prove' it by riffling through on the side where the normal faces show. That will put an image of a normal deck in the spectator's mind without any suspicious verbal reassurances (after all, why would they assume it to be tricked?).

I have a sneaky feeling you missed the joke there.

hds02115 wrote:

Laurence wrote:

kartoffelngeist wrote:Just remember to tell people that it's a "perfectly normal deck of cards" :p

I would avoid explicitly mentioning this. It's probably best to simply 'prove' it by riffling through on the side where the normal faces show. That will put an image of a normal deck in the spectator's mind without any suspicious verbal reassurances (after all, why would they assume it to be tricked?).

I have a sneaky feeling you missed the joke there.

Yeah, sorry, was being slightly sarcastic, guess it didn't come across...

kartoffelngeist wrote:

hds02115 wrote:

Laurence wrote:

kartoffelngeist wrote:Just remember to tell people that it's a "perfectly normal deck of cards" :p

I would avoid explicitly mentioning this. It's probably best to simply 'prove' it by riffling through on the side where the normal faces show. That will put an image of a normal deck in the spectator's mind without any suspicious verbal reassurances (after all, why would they assume it to be tricked?).

I have a sneaky feeling you missed the joke there.

Yeah, sorry, was being slightly sarcastic, guess it didn't come across...

no it came across bud.... i think some people just don't recognise a joke when they see one

Laurence wrote:I also agree that it would be better to perform a few tricks with a regular deck first, though. And then make an excuse for the deck change, or do it when people aren't looking.

No need for excuses! Only need a reason to go into the pocket ie. getting a pen. Like I said, if this routine was to work the decks would need to look the same.

C.L.Ward wrote:no it came across bud.... i think some people just don't recognise a joke when they see one

Oh okay. Well that was absolutely hilarious.

ace of kev wrote:No need for excuses! Only need a reason to go into the pocket ie. getting a pen. Like I said, if this routine was to work the decks would need to look the same.

Yeah, I agree. That's what I meant when I said excuse, maybe 'reason' would've been a better word.

ace of kev wrote:No need for excuses! Only need a reason to go into the pocket ie. getting a pen.

With the same hand the deck is in hand? Alarm bells are ringing!

hds02115 wrote:

ace of kev wrote:No need for excuses! Only need a reason to go into the pocket ie. getting a pen.

With the same hand the deck is in hand? Alarm bells are ringing!

You couldn't be more wrong.

"Where did I put that god damn pen" as you go searching for it. I can think of a certain effect when a Mr G**** does this whilst looking for another object. And it works perfectly.

Plus its not as if you are doing a card to pocket routine. Spectators don't care what is going on in between a trick. You are thinking too much like a magician.

So, which routine is that you mentioned, and I'm assuming that you mean Lennart Green.

I'm not wrong, If you were to do something along those lines, it would be a very difficult area to tread, and if done badly, alarm bells would be ringing.

hds02115 wrote:So, which routine is that you mentioned, and I'm assuming that you mean Lennart Green.

I'm not wrong, If you were to do something along those lines, it would be a very difficult area to tread, and if done badly, alarm bells would be ringing.

No, not Lennart Green. I starred it for a reason, not to be a pain in the butt. Things usually do get starred for a reason . If I named the routine then the method to the said routine would become rather obvious. If I named the performer outright, it would be rather easy to deduce which effect is being spoken of.

And if anything is done badly alarm bells would ring. I am giving Alfred the benefit of the doubt that he is a good performer, or aspires to be a good performer. "Innocent until proven guilty" as they say .

Its all about how you manage it. If your hand goes into a pocket with a pack of cards for no reason the alarm bells would ring. But if there is a reason, alarm bells will not ring. As I said, spectators do not give a damn what happens in between an effect. Especially if you casually chat to them. This transitional period is probably the biggest off-beat you will ever get.

Now if you went into ONE pocket with ONE hand, highly suspicious. If you go into NUMEROUS pockets with BOTH hands searching for an object, then how can that be suspicious in the slightest? It is the most natural thing to do. You are merely looking for a pen. If you held the deck up in the air out of the way and reached across with your right hand to enter your left hand pocket the spectators would think you were mentally insane.

Spectators are not magicians. They will not suspect that you carry around 2 decks that look exactly the same. They will not jump to the same conclusions as us. But they are not stupid hence why if performed in the manner I stated no suspicion would be aroused. Its all about being natural.

Well, each to their own. I still think that this is a messy trick and dipping my hand into my pocket with the deck will never be going into my working routines. After years now of performing, I would still say to change the method so that you use one deck and keep it clean.