One idea that I didn't mention is to use a single level of equivoque on the start of the card selection, perhaps to eliminate all number cards. This strategy permits the performer to memorize locations for court cards only which could be centrally stacked. All other questions related to the card selection can be completely fair and the end result would be identical to a full stack method! Good luck and happy magic-ing!
Amazing! I think you've pretty much cracked it. Any direction this method takes, it seems like the spectator truly makes every decision themselves. Equivoque for the win.
Thanks. I've been doing well. I am a NY State public school teacher and we have been open for students, live 5 days a week in my district since day 1. Going pretty smoothly with only a few bumps.
@@thecommonmagician it's a fascinating problem for us to try and come up with cleaner solutions to. I use ice cold acaan by Mitchell Kettlewell along with mnemonica stack mostly
@@erebus5024 buy any books by Simon aronson, he's a genius when it comes to stack. In general it's also an amazing tool to put into your regular tricks. Any pick a card effect can now be a named card, and in the process of overhand shuffling or cutting the cards you can bring the named card to the top without ever looking at the faces
@@erebus5024 To use Mnemonica specifically, you should get a copy of the book Mnemonica by Juan Tamariz. Personally, I do not use it. I have my own stacks (some that I have shared on this channel). In this presentation I am using a variation of this one: ua-cam.com/video/puJGgfk1xRQ/v-deo.html There are a few alterations in there that help me do a couple of other effects. You also have different routes to take in stacked or stacked/memorized work. You can go with a non-sequential stack or if you use a 13 card sequential stack like Si Stebbins, then you can do a lot of 13 card sequential tricks. As mentioned here, Aronson has a lot of material on stacked deck magic as well. In all honesty, I rarely work from a stack. The ACAAN that I often do for people is impromptu and depends heavily on recap to get the spectators to believe that we truly followed all of the rules.
The May 23 edition of the NY Times published an article by David Segal on David Berglas and the Berglas Effect. Berglas performed the trick for the author with a one-off result.
I think we overthink the negatives vs positives in regards to forcing cards. Because of 2 or maybe 3 things. This is my opinion only. One being the action of either riffling, dribbling or something to that effect but the phrasing always ends in "just say stop" "please say stop" or any similar phrasing.. , I think anyone that has performed card magic for a lot of different audiences....has had the person who says "can I show you a trick" they borrow your deck. Do their version of a glimpse of the bottom card. The runs their finger along the edges and says "say stop"....and does a version of the slip force. Followed by them just naming the card they forced to you. as the effect.....all these things combined I think start to diminish using a force as a method for an effect...this idea that alot of lay people know about or can perform a basic riffle card force. And magicians saying the phrase "just say stop" triggers in people's mind that anything of they nature is a force. which shouldn't make any of use shy away from forcing. We just need to improve our language when forcing as well as finding other technical methods that stray from riffling......the 2nd thing I think is...I've always been taught that forcing a card. Followed by the effect being simply the Revelation of what it is. Or having an it "appear" in an impossible location. Without utilizing other tools to first show it gone, to mark with a tear etc....giving away the method of it being obviously a duplicate and a force was involved.....anyway, what I'm getting at is. If we change our phrasing, "please say stop" etc....followed by what we do with the information. What we do with the fact that we know what card they have or will have beforehand....using a force in conjunction with another force or for the process of something else.....like when doing cards across. 10 cards in one spectators pocket....and 10 cards in another spectators pocket. However, after the secret method has taken place and one spectator now has 7 and the other 13. Without them knowing yet.....now we utilize a force and say "I need you to randomly touch a card. The Value of the card you touch. For example if it's a 5. I'll make 5 disappear from your pile and jump to yours".....etc....you now proceed with a force. I think utilizing a force in a scenario like this, where the value and suit of the card isn't the main characters to the finale of the effect...but rather the force being layered with psychology, different plots, uses and needs for the force. Makes forcing alot more deceptive. ...when using a force for other things, we just need to step up out methods in regards to forcing in general. Not specifically technique. But psychology.......most dismiss the cross cut force....because of it's simplicity. however, it's a perfect example of utilizing other aspects of the tools we as magicians are able to use. Time misdirection user with the cross cut force....makes what seems like a weak way to force a card. So utterly deceptive and strong and therefore viable and useful. I remember in one of your previous posts. You had some extremely nice thoughts on the cross cut force. That explained all this so beautifully. Anyway, sorry for the long comment...your videos and psychology talk surrounding certain things and how deeply you dive into it....just makes me start typing and probably saying way to much haha. So sorry. Great content. I'm really digging your channel a lot. And for me personally it's Mainly because of your talks about psychology and theory within your performances and with what you are teaching. Love it! Keep it up!
It should be that the regular odds are 1 in 52 that a specific card is at a specific number. If the target is widened in size to 2 spots then it is reduced to 2 chances in 52 or 1 in 26. If the target is quadrupled to 4 spots (anywhere) then the odds are 4 in 52 reduced to 1 in 13. The odds often given in the presentation of the effect are 1 in 2,704 (52x52). But those odds are an illusion (although certainly worth presenting due to the size and suedo-logical rationale that can support it). Keep in mind that the odds only come into play when the second figure is chosen. The first figure, either card or number, is just the initial reference variable. What odds did you calculate?
One idea that I didn't mention is to use a single level of equivoque on the start of the card selection, perhaps to eliminate all number cards. This strategy permits the performer to memorize locations for court cards only which could be centrally stacked. All other questions related to the card selection can be completely fair and the end result would be identical to a full stack method! Good luck and happy magic-ing!
Amazing! I think you've pretty much cracked it. Any direction this method takes, it seems like the spectator truly makes every decision themselves. Equivoque for the win.
hi nathan
Love your content!!! 💕 Pls keep doing this never give up !!
Always enjoy your style of magic, my man. Hope you've been doing well during this strange past year.
Thanks. I've been doing well. I am a NY State public school teacher and we have been open for students, live 5 days a week in my district since day 1. Going pretty smoothly with only a few bumps.
I love your ACAAN videos and always watch them. Great stuff my friend. Keep making them!
Working on a book right now.
Don't give up brother
Are you going to talk about versions of Out of the World in the future?
Nice thinking.
ACAAN's are so cool and astonishing !!
Any magician that says they don't know what the big deal is with ACAAN... is lying.
@@thecommonmagician it's a fascinating problem for us to try and come up with cleaner solutions to. I use ice cold acaan by Mitchell Kettlewell along with mnemonica stack mostly
@@hudders11 I wish I know how to use mnemonica stack , so powerful but I don't have any idea how to use it with tricks , any advice?
@@erebus5024 buy any books by Simon aronson, he's a genius when it comes to stack. In general it's also an amazing tool to put into your regular tricks. Any pick a card effect can now be a named card, and in the process of overhand shuffling or cutting the cards you can bring the named card to the top without ever looking at the faces
@@erebus5024 To use Mnemonica specifically, you should get a copy of the book Mnemonica by Juan Tamariz. Personally, I do not use it. I have my own stacks (some that I have shared on this channel). In this presentation I am using a variation of this one: ua-cam.com/video/puJGgfk1xRQ/v-deo.html There are a few alterations in there that help me do a couple of other effects. You also have different routes to take in stacked or stacked/memorized work. You can go with a non-sequential stack or if you use a 13 card sequential stack like Si Stebbins, then you can do a lot of 13 card sequential tricks. As mentioned here, Aronson has a lot of material on stacked deck magic as well. In all honesty, I rarely work from a stack. The ACAAN that I often do for people is impromptu and depends heavily on recap to get the spectators to believe that we truly followed all of the rules.
The May 23 edition of the NY Times published an article by David Segal on David Berglas and the Berglas Effect. Berglas performed the trick for the author with a one-off result.
Yeah, I caught that one!
What do you think about Dani DaOrtiz´s ACAANs? I find them really great, Totally Hands Off is my favorite.
Love his stuff. He believes in presentation and style above all.
I think we overthink the negatives vs positives in regards to forcing cards. Because of 2 or maybe 3 things. This is my opinion only. One being the action of either riffling, dribbling or something to that effect but the phrasing always ends in "just say stop" "please say stop" or any similar phrasing.. , I think anyone that has performed card magic for a lot of different audiences....has had the person who says "can I show you a trick" they borrow your deck. Do their version of a glimpse of the bottom card. The runs their finger along the edges and says "say stop"....and does a version of the slip force. Followed by them just naming the card they forced to you. as the effect.....all these things combined I think start to diminish using a force as a method for an effect...this idea that alot of lay people know about or can perform a basic riffle card force. And magicians saying the phrase "just say stop" triggers in people's mind that anything of they nature is a force. which shouldn't make any of use shy away from forcing. We just need to improve our language when forcing as well as finding other technical methods that stray from riffling......the 2nd thing I think is...I've always been taught that forcing a card. Followed by the effect being simply the Revelation of what it is. Or having an it "appear" in an impossible location. Without utilizing other tools to first show it gone, to mark with a tear etc....giving away the method of it being obviously a duplicate and a force was involved.....anyway, what I'm getting at is. If we change our phrasing, "please say stop" etc....followed by what we do with the information. What we do with the fact that we know what card they have or will have beforehand....using a force in conjunction with another force or for the process of something else.....like when doing cards across. 10 cards in one spectators pocket....and 10 cards in another spectators pocket. However, after the secret method has taken place and one spectator now has 7 and the other 13. Without them knowing yet.....now we utilize a force and say "I need you to randomly touch a card. The
Value of the card you touch. For example if it's a 5. I'll make 5 disappear from your pile and jump to yours".....etc....you now proceed with a force. I think utilizing a force in a scenario like this, where the value and suit of the card isn't the main characters to the finale of the effect...but rather the force being layered with psychology, different plots, uses and needs for the force. Makes forcing alot more deceptive. ...when using a force for other things, we just need to step up out methods in regards to forcing in general. Not specifically technique. But psychology.......most dismiss the cross cut force....because of it's simplicity. however, it's a perfect example of utilizing other aspects of the tools we as magicians are able to use. Time misdirection user with the cross cut force....makes what seems like a weak way to force a card. So utterly deceptive and strong and therefore viable and useful. I remember in one of your previous posts. You had some extremely nice thoughts on the cross cut force. That explained all this so beautifully. Anyway, sorry for the long comment...your videos and psychology talk surrounding certain things and how deeply you dive into it....just makes me start typing and probably saying way to much haha. So sorry. Great content. I'm really digging your channel a lot. And for me personally it's Mainly because of your talks about psychology and theory within your performances and with what you are teaching. Love it! Keep it up!
When do you up your next video?
Hard to say. Pretty busy lately. Have a couple projects in mind though.
Wao
If I'm not wrong the math behind the odds mentioned in this video is wrong
It should be that the regular odds are 1 in 52 that a specific card is at a specific number. If the target is widened in size to 2 spots then it is reduced to 2 chances in 52 or 1 in 26. If the target is quadrupled to 4 spots (anywhere) then the odds are 4 in 52 reduced to 1 in 13. The odds often given in the presentation of the effect are 1 in 2,704 (52x52). But those odds are an illusion (although certainly worth presenting due to the size and suedo-logical rationale that can support it). Keep in mind that the odds only come into play when the second figure is chosen. The first figure, either card or number, is just the initial reference variable. What odds did you calculate?