talkmagic.co.uk

Sometime over the last year I watched a DVD that included an effect where a playing card was mentally selected using equivoque. The performer used a subtlety that particularly interested me. I was thinking about this effect last night but my memory was a little hazy as to what exactly it was that interested me in the first place (i know, I should write these things down). I am convinced it was on the Colin Mcleod DVD so I flicked through it last night and couldn't find the effect anywhere. Am I going mad or can anyone think of a playing card equivoque effect on his DVD that maybe I keep missing. Alternatively can anyone think of anyone else who has released something of this ilk recently? It was definitely on a DVD, that's the only part my memory can be certain of.
Cheers, Ed

It is on his opening minds DVD set.

Stephen Ward wrote:It is on his opening minds DVD set.

Where??????
I was flicking through it last night and couldn't find it anywhere. Mind you, it was about 2 in the morning and I desperately needed sleep. I refused to go to bed until I found it but in the end had to admit defeat, which effect is it?

Can't really say without tipping anything. It's definitely there though and would be very difficult to miss, so just re-watch them.

The Deckivoque system as i believe it was called is described in detail in Joshua Quinn's book Paralies.
it feels amazingly fair doent it?

phillipnorthfield wrote:Can't really say without tipping anything. It's definitely there though and would be very difficult to miss, so just re-watch them.

How would giving the name be tipping anything?????????? Good post
It's anaac by the way.

TheMentalist wrote:The Deckivoque system as i believe it was called is described in detail in Joshua Quinn's book Paralies.
it feels amazingly fair doent it?

This is pretty much what Colin has taken his routine from. There is one line where he talks about eliminating the cards and then asking which the spec prefers that is truly brilliant.

Ed Wood wrote:How would giving the name be tipping anything?????????? Good post

Because it is the whole method? So maybe edit your post and, next time, use those cognitive wheels you seem to be oh so lacking before smacking us in the face with blatant exposure. Gracias.

ace of kev wrote:

Ed Wood wrote:How would giving the name be tipping anything?????????? Good post

Because it is the whole method? So maybe edit your post and, next time, use those cognitive wheels you seem to be oh so lacking before smacking us in the face with blatant exposure. Gracias.

What???? What is the whole method? The name? The name exposes nothing unless the effect is explained first. All I needed was a name which a few people so kindly gave me. Do you have any concept of what exposure is? For this to be exposure it would be necessary to explain what equivoque is, who Colin Mcleod is and which DVD I am referring too. Oh, and lets not forget exactly what the effect is and the slightly important part of how it is done.
Sure if an effect was performed on TV and someone made mention of it's exact name and creator and how it was published this would, to an extent, be exposure. Still someone would then need to go out and purchase the set of DVD's to learn what I am talking about by equivoque. Lets be honest, all you need to do is type equivoque into google and you'd find out a hell of a lot more a hell of a lot quicker without any expense.
By your reckoning every review on this site is exposure. They state what the effect is, what it's called and in same cases where it can be purchased and for how much. What you need to appreciate is that if someone goes to the effort of learning what an effect is and then purchases it, this is not exposure. Its learning how to be a magician. We all do it at some point in our careers. I'm sure even a genius such as yourself had to learn from somewhere, it didn't just come naturally like your charm and wit (lack of). How did you find your first magic book? Hang on a minute, your sig states that you are currently reading expert card technique, that's blatant exposure if ever I saw it, people could learn a name of a magic book!!!!!!!
To summarise, the name of an effect and even a description is not in any way exposure. Blatant exposure that you seem so concerned about is seen as describing an effect and saying how it is done and this site quite rightly forbids such actions.
I should mention I have been working as a full time pro for 10 years and like most workers have never overly worried about exposure. Whether it's the masked magician or penn and teller you'll soon realise if you ever get a paying gig that people won't ever recognise exposed methods as your own if you do them well enough. Try performing some time instead of mouthing off on the internet.
As for your petty insult (big man on the internet huh?) I'll let that go, i imagine you're young and have a lot to learn not only about magic but about social interaction. Honestly could you imagine someone asking a reasonable question in real life and yourself retorting with your bile filled nonsense. Oh, and not wishing to appear petty but you make mention of the fact that I am lacking cognitive wheels and then appeal to me to use the very same wheels you claim I am in fact lacking. Do you appreciate the irony in your statement?
Incidentally, did you come into this thread with anything positive to add? Or do you just like spending your days trolling the internet.

ace of kev wrote:Because it is the whole method? So maybe edit your post and, next time, use those cognitive wheels you seem to be oh so lacking before smacking us in the face with blatant exposure. Gracias.

He only asked for the name of the effect, which, if you're still convinced is exposure, can easily be found by reading a review of the product or just by reading the description of the DVDs on Alakazam; so no need to be so out of line.

While not necessarily the best route to take, Ace of Kev DOES make a valid point. While the description of the DVD and reviews will name all of the effects, it doesn't name the METHOD behind the effect. Naming the effect can actually expose the method.

Demitri wrote:While not necessarily the best route to take, Ace of Kev DOES make a valid point. While the description of the DVD and reviews will name all of the effects, it doesn't name the METHOD behind the effect. Naming the effect can actually expose the method.

No, under this reasoning a dvd description does something far worse. It describes what the effect is before naming it. Imagine this from the point of view of the layman, If the DVD description says "a spectator just thinks of a playing card and the performer can immediately describe the playing card". Sounds interesting right, it might peak the laymans interest enough to look into it. If the DVD description says "On this DVD the performer has an in depth look at equivoque". This is pretty much meaningless to the layman.
Neither of these circumstances are exposure unless you believe that every published effect constitutes exposure. You claim that "naming the effect can actually expose the method". If that was correct so can publishing and reviewing.

I think, In Demitri's defence, he was referring specifically to this thread, which named the effect and the method together. However, I think on your part Ed, it was the only way you could actually describe the effect to us for us to know what you were talking about.

Publishing and reviewing the contents of a DVD is not even close to exposure, and the inferences you keep making don't hold up, Ed. The reason being, no marketing materials or reviews will name the method behind an effect.

You started this thread with the name of a method - thus naming the EFFECT would instantly expose it. How is that difficult to comprehend? As well, how does that even remotely compare to "a spectator thinks of a card, and you immediately describe it" - that's apples and oranges, sir.

I would also like to point out that the concept of exposure here ( at least from me) was NOT geared towards laymen. I don't believe laymen troll magic forums, and unlike your post above, I certainly don't think they're reading descriptions of magic DVDs. BUT, someone else is. Exposing the method does Colin (and anyone who has purchased his material) a disservice because it allows magicians to reverse engineer an effect, then go out and perform it (badly), without actually learning everything about it. That is where I have a problem, and, while I don't believe you did so intentionally; it is bordering on exposure.

Demitri wrote:Publishing and reviewing the contents of a DVD is not even close to exposure, and the inferences you keep making don't hold up, Ed. The reason being, no marketing materials or reviews will name the method behind an effect.

You started this thread with the name of a method - thus naming the EFFECT would instantly expose it. How is that difficult to comprehend? As well, how does that even remotely compare to "a spectator thinks of a card, and you immediately describe it" - that's apples and oranges, sir.

I would also like to point out that the concept of exposure here ( at least from me) was NOT geared towards laymen. I don't believe laymen troll magic forums, and unlike your post above, I certainly don't think they're reading descriptions of magic DVDs. BUT, someone else is. Exposing the method does Colin (and anyone who has purchased his material) a disservice because it allows magicians to reverse engineer an effect, then go out and perform it (badly), without actually learning everything about it. That is where I have a problem, and, while I don't believe you did so intentionally; it is bordering on exposure.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. If we look at the effect in question only half of the effect actually uses equivoque, the main purpose of it being on the DVD is to demonstrate another technique and it's this technique that would fool many magicians. Ergo, mentioning equivoque does not expose the effect. For this to be exposure a person would have to see the effect and the only way for that to occur would be to buy the DVD in question, once again not exposure. The fact is that any magician would recognise the equivoque used in this effect, the main reason for it being on the DVD is for Colin to teach a number of beautiful verbal subtleties. It's not the fact that equivoque is used its how it's used that makes this special and to learn that you would need to watch the explanation.
Can anyone go out and perform this effect now from what I've said? No, absolutely not, it would be impossible to reverse engineer. People will have no idea what the effect is and they won't be able to discover that until they buy the DVD.
This effect cannot be viewed unless you already own the DVD. Basically what has been exposed is that on Colin's DVD he uses and teaches equivoque and does it very well. Therefore if you want to learn how to force a card using equivoque this DVD would be a worthy purchase. You claim that my mention of equivoque does a disservice to anyone who has performed this effect. How? For this to be the case before performing it they would have to say I am now going to perform an effect called ANAAC by Colin Mcleod from his Opening Minds DVD and be unfortunate enough to perform in front of one of the 100 people who have bothered to read this tedious thread. No one is going to decide against buying the DVD now, there are maybe 20 effects on it and equivoque is a very small part of one of those effects and like I said before, the use of equivoque shouldn't fool any magician it's how it is used that makes this so good and why I wanted to refer to it in the first place.
People need to stop getting their panties in a twist and being so precious about exposure. Laymen and amateur magicians know all about forces, palms, TTs etc. What they don't know is the subtleties and techniques that can only be learnt through years of practice. If you're good enough no one will suspect any underhand techniques are in use even if they saw the masked magician exposing it the day before.