Surprise vs expectations. I really like it when the audience expect something. Cause in theyre mind they will question the impossible. But then you show them the impossible.
Here’s a possibile solution with no stooges: If the first person chooses the queen of hearts, then you have 1/52 possibility to get the right position (in this case 8). The magician knows the position of each card in the deck, in this case it was not shuffled, but you have different possibilities to increase the probability of 1/52. In this specific case, the exact 8th position from the top was chosen, but you could do it from the bottom as well, you could actually ask the spectator to remove the first or last 8 cards (so now it is in the 9th). Now the probability increases to 4/52, but the magician could also be lucky if the queen of hearts was the first or the last, then the number of the position was not necessarily. It is just about luck, if the number is a mismatch, than the magician has to cut the deck, in this case he was lucky, the spectator could have chosen 7,8,44,45 and the trick was done perfectly in different ways, for all the other numbers the magician has to cut the deck
In his book, "Theatre of the Mind", Barrie Richardson describes being a passenger in a car Berglas was driving. He was asked to name both card and number, and then invited to look in the glove compartment, wherein he found a cased pack of cards... etc, however on this (anecdotal) occasion it would seem criteria number one was ignored.
Once my mind was controlled, with a reason and proven. It was proceeded with an experience with the same person, where my ability of telepathy was opened by stepping into her aura. The suggestion was beyond telepathy, for I didn't notice it. Q: How it is done in a distance?
I know exactly how this trick is done. I explained how this is done in a video on a similar trick. The trick is six audiences calling out one number, which later revealed matched lottery ticket in the Magicians wallet. This trick is done by assistance from non-human entities using, "Lower Voice to Skull (LV2K or LVTK) on the audiences the moment before a number was called out.
The old man dealer in the 2nd clip is definitely a stooge - he gets up immediately after Marc Paul says "sir" before receiving any instructions. My guess is he takes the named card out of his left pocket (the one that's not in view of the audience) at 4:07 and transfers it to his right hand (notice his strange "open" palm at 4:15 ). The named card is at the bottom of the deck, and he transfers it to the top some time after 4:36 (during the "wait" bit) to be dealt.
I think you're right, on this show at least.....I think they use different a method according with the situation, for example, sometimes they just blatanly look at the cards and rearrange them lol. But I doubt they have a high success rate, I find it hard to believe that if they get right all the time there would only be 2 or 3 videos, they'd be al over the place showing this impossible trick.....so I guess in this case is pre show like you said, on the second one looks like the whole thing was put together with the sole purpose to shooting the video, I mean, if he gets so few people in his live performances he'd be starving lol.....and on the other video he just plain cheats.
THE STOOGE IS ALWAYS THE CARD FLIPPER. I believe the named card is being prepared by the flipper who acts like a volunteer. Notice at 2:09 the guest suddenly does something with the card. The 2nd clip however was more obvious. As he stood on stage he gets something out of his left pocket (can be noticed at 4:10.) At 4:37 before flipping the 23rd card he covers the whole deck with his left hand and fixes it again (covers the deck the way a magician does.) The trick happens in the "wait a minute" part before the flipper flips the card, preparing to pull the named card which is already either on top or bottom of the deck. 😉
I disagree. The stooge is probably the guy that names the number which would be way easier. He knows the order so once the card is chosen he just has to say the right number.
The person that flips the card is in on the act in any settings. He is chosen before the show starts and pretends to be a regular spectator from the audience (aka a stooge). In the first clip, the camera went away from the flipping of the card after the fifth car was flipped (2:30), why? And then the person pretends like he didn't know how it happened. In the second clip, same thing. The person that flips the card is on the act. Look at his hand how he hides the deck at 4:37. So the person (stooge) that is chosen to flip the cards hears in advance the playing card and the number in advance. He has a similar deck in his pocket, ordered, and he grabs the playing card that a real spectator that paid to watch the show selects. He then palms it before he touches the deck and starts flipping the cards. When he gets to the right count, he makes sure it is stacked on top of the deck, while hiding the deck and viola. Why do the magicians risk telling different people the trick increasing the possibility that they'll divulge at at a bar to impress some hot chick someday? Well, they probably make them sign a legal contract. You participate, will will give you x percentage of the show's full take, but if you divulge the trick, you pay us 100 times what was given to you. I've learned something in this world. There is no such thing as magic. Everything is an illusion.
Yes, good theory. EXCEPT there are NO accomplices! I have said this so many times...The Berglas Effect is achieved without stooges, accomplices, paid assistants etc. ALL SPECTATORS ARE GENUINE and are just as amazed as everyone else, maybe even more so because they know they have thought of their own choices. Just because an effect is not easily explained by traditional methods does NOT mean stooges are used.
I guess the issue I have with your statement that there are simply no accomplices would be that… If the workings of the trick are unknown to the world… As in only the inventor knows how it is done… How do you know for a fact there are no accomplices? He could have lied about that?
As a Maths teacher I can say for certain the chances of this trick working is 1/52 and NOT 1/2704. Imagine the deck is randomly shuffled. Once the card has been named by the first participant the second participant has a 1/52 chance of guessing the correct position of that said card. There are literally only 52 places it can be NOT 2704! If he does guess right the trick succeeds and if he doesn’t the trick fails. Therefore the trick has a 1/52 chance of succeeding. The bottom line is that the selected card can be any card and the trick still has a 1/52 chance of working. The magician didn’t need Martine to select the QH. But when she did he NEEDS Parky to select 8.
The way I teach this to students to avoid them making the 2704 mistake is; imagine you were trying to win this game completely at random. After the card is selected can you lose the game? No because whatever the card is doesn’t matter, I can still hope to match up whatever card was picked with the right position number, whether it’s the QH in the first clip or the 4H in the second. After the number is selected can you lose? Yes because the number has to perfectly match the card. So the only jeopardy comes with the number, which is correct 1/52 times.
The chance can be higher than 1/52 if the magician asks to remove the cards from the bottom, or in this case to remove exactly 8 cards (then it is the 9th). Then it is 4/52, it is still low so he was probably lucky
This is not correct. The card the first audience member names absolutely does matter. The magician has to theoretically account for all 52 different cards to each be at any of 52 locations in the deck to make the effect work. That is 2704 possible outcomes for the performance. You're assuming that the card named doesn't matter and therefore the second audience member's decision is the only probabilistic element in play, which is simply not the case. Your expertise in mathematics does not supplant methodology in card magic.
@@benjaminfranklin4149 you’re completely wrong.. it’s 1/52, and the magician knows all the positions in the deck. I bought the book about Berglas effect. If a spectator chooses the ace of spades, then the second one has 52 different choices to make, so it’s 1/52 to get it right 😂
Rule 4 for Berglas Effect "A Third spectator is invited to count down to the choosen card." This rule never mentions 'goon' so the third spectator gets the crowd selected card and inserts it into position 22 then does a simple deck swap because he has absolutely 0 heat.... Notice he always takes the card first so the spectator can easily find the card first and then count the postion.. even more deadly the deck can be arranged in specific magicians order so that a skilled enough third spectator could know the position of any card cold and insert it at any number (since he knows every card in order he can know Jack of Spade is 43 and insert the choosen card in front).. really deadly really efficient. I wish I knew the name of the deck order but some memorization specialist have favorites and pay homage to them in many tricks so I would try and find one of those list maybe hypnosis... definitely not 1 in 52 guessing... if it was 1 in 52 guessing why wouldn't there be houndreds of videos of when he fails the trick... this trick is so widely seeked no way people would be quiet about failed attempts....
the third spectator looks like is doing a pass or something cos' his handling the deck like a pro. but I cannot explain how this was done in the first perfomance.
Gimpzilla there is actually no stooges at all whatsoever if you would like to learn the effect you can find it in the book berglas effects written by Richard Kaufman with about 60 pages of the book being dedicated to just "the berglas effect" and ACAAN :)
I feel that the talk of statistics is missing the trick. I believe that stating that the odds of the trick working to be 1/2704 reveals something about the mechanics of the trick instead of an error in math. A matter of perspective. The way I figure, he has to manipulate something to make the trick consistently work. He can't manipulate the cards, so he must manipulate the participants. I think he's steering them toward a specific position and a specific card, which he is already aware of. It isn't a card trick at all, it's about suggestion. It's only a true success if the spectators pick the card and position which he was feeding them. Sure, the odds of a correct combination coming out may be 1/52, but the odds of the trick working - from the magician's perspective - is 1/2704. If he didn't steer them to his chosen card and position, the trick is a failure. At least, that's how I see it.
Towards the end of the performance, Lu Chen spans out the entire deck before revealing the numbered card. The spectators know that every card is different. I don't think it matters whether the faces of the counted cards are shown.
Interesting reading these comments. My wife and me attended the recording of this particular Parkinson, which for me being a magician was great when I found out the guest list. I'll probably make a video comment about what went on during the recording of the show and in particular the Berglas Effect. What you are seeing on this video is NOT and I repeat NOT what I witnessed being filmed. There is some clever editing during the Parkinson/Marc number selection. Not enough space here will post vid
The cards are never shuffled, which suggest they are pre-arranged. A suit is always chosen first, then a number. The deck is memorized by whoever chooses the number. There is always an accomplice.
Definitly this is the method in the 2nd version in this video. You can notice that because the number person is the only one that looks onto the card person. However the first version on this video i've heard that was just luck.
Why do I read these posts? No one can just enjoy an effect. The best magicians are those that make you forget its a trick. Its is not about FOOLING YOU. The most basic response . Like a bunch of kids...I know how he did it. Yeah...who cares
2:08 is the "spectator" riffling through the cards at this point and performing the shift? The cameras went off him so he could of did a one handed cut. I don't see any other way this could of been done. Either that or he just got lucky, 1 in 2704 chance.
Most woman choosin QH. We are in same idea , after Marc repeat choosen number and QH , the guy who has a cards he is providing the card at the same position.
I'm a big fan of Penn and Teller's "fool us", I'm not a magician myself, but I know quite a bit of slight of hand, and enjoy figuring out magic tricks and spotting mistakes. The one thing I can point out in this entire clip is, it's very peculiar to me how in depth they describe the first two volunteers are not stooges, planted, etc.. but then it's just said "a third volunteer does such and such" with no further description. that is all i will say.
The chick (actress) in the vid played the role of administrative assistant to the Prime Minister of Great Britain (Hugh Grant) in the movie Love Actually.
The dealer has the deck of cards in hand while the card and number are chosen. There is also hand covering of the deck in both videos by the dealer. Both videos have pauses before the final card is drawn. The only logical conclusion is supernatural forces at work.
You can see (in 2:30 for example), more clearly if you slow down the video (0.25x speed), that Alistair McGowan (who's holding the deck) is not dealing the top card.
I think, the person who gives the number is involved. The deck has a random order or is sorted by a system. The second person knows every position of any card. The first person says the card and the second involved person knows and says the correct position in the deck. The older guy in the first trick thinks about before finally saying the number although he had it ca. 20 seconds before already in mind.
Restriction #3 is a lie. Regardless of what card is chosen, the 3rd person simply names its position in the deck. That's why the cards are never shuffled.
@eppiefish The Berglas Effect has very recently been revealed in a book by Richard Kaufman called "The Berglas Effects". It advertises the effect exactly as it is on the video with no stooges. He's not really allowed to lie when it costs $125.
My logical guess: all you need to perform this trick is to make everyone believe the person guessing 1-52 is random. In fact, he need to remember all position of every card.
+Chris155au Well, not necessary subconsciously, the deck was not shuffled. Maybe there is a look up table written about the cards position. All David needs is ask for confirm and give more time for the back stage to look up the position and using a method to tell the person who will guess the number (position). All you need is to pay one person or two and perform this trick. Anyway, it is just my logical guess. You can have a better theory, I am willing and happy to hear that.
The person counting the cards switches the card. If you notice both times they pause before turning over the last card which gives them time to place the card on top of the deck before revealing the card.
The conditions don't insist that the 3rd volunteer is not a stooge. He might have a way of finding the card externally (some of the deck could be flipped upside down, or a have polarized markings that he sees with special contacts). There are opportunities for "doing something" for the third volunteer in both tricks. The reason I suspect this is because the magician does not allow the participants to inspect the cards at the beginning. I think there are more than 52 cards in that deck.
The old man's hand gestures in the second clip are rather suspicious. When he enters the stage he semi-casually puts his hand down his pocket, then hides his hand behind his back, then uses both hands in what seems to be an ordinary gesture to apply pressure to the card he just grabbed out of his pocket. You can see the thumb movement when he reaches the 23rd card, Berglar stops the countdown for a reason [so he can put the card on top]. This guy got nothing on the Great Danton.
@pollensalta - I am with you. The trick is too perfect to be performed without assistance. Since Berglas asks first for the playing card and THEN for the number, it makes a lot of sense that the one that counts the cards is the stooge. I think this is the reason why this trick is not as popular as other card tricks, it is too good to be true.
when you look closer, you will see, that the person, who is counting the cards do something fishi (about 02:10 )... it's just a theory, but it could be the answer on this trick :D
I've written about this performance elsewhere a few years ago, Myself and my wife were at the recording of that particular episode of Parkinson, and when I watched the show broadcast on the BBC a few days later, it was NOT what we saw in the studio! Michael made a mistake with his choice of number on the first take. This has been confirmed on forums with other audience members. You can say what you like about no stooges, I know what we saw, and it's not what you see here! Forget all the statistics and odds of naming a card and it being in the exact number position, think about it guys, it's not gonna happen (and magicians do not take gambles or rely on odds when performing on national TV!), believe it or not, there is no such thing as magic!
The David Blaine video where he does this trick with Eamonn Holmes and his wife (on UA-cam), she too chooses queen of hearts. Plus he too miscalls the card (in his case, he says "3 of hearts? Sorry, you said queen of hearts"). Is there a clue there to how this is done?
Hmm well, I'm stumped. No cuts, had nothing to do with the deck. I keep thinking that he tampered with it, but it in some order, but how can he get the exact card? You say there were no stooges involved... Overall, A fantastic trick, one that is really amazing to see :)
@TheSphinxNL Your idea makes some sense, but I see two problems: 1. To me it looks like the old guy's hands are empty (and I'm a magician, I know some pretty unusual palms). That doesn't rule out loading a duplicate though. 2. He's dealing face up. If the selection is above the chosen number, it will be seen. In order to prevent this, he would have to know where the selection is in the pack and make sure it's not above the number that was called.
I've seen only 4 holy grail productions here on youtube. Of course this is the most famous one. I know Berglas studied hypnosis and may be involved somehow in this trick, but since miracles can't happen people have invented their own methods to make this happen. Gimmicks, memorized deck, some pass, if you check Berglas doing this he clearly put the needed cards up to match the count. Shuffle that deck and make again the production without touching the cards, that would be a real miracle.
Just because they say there was no accomplice does not mean there was no accomplice. The whole deck could have been 4 of hearts and the accomplice is the one who shouted the card. Or the accomplice was on the other side and knew the position of every card.
There is no secret in both these clips, the guy who counts the cards is a stooge who quickly put the chosen card in the right place at the moment when the "magician" says "STOP" or "WAIT" right before that card comes. In the first clip the camera doesn't show the full view all the time, so that's when the stooge makes the switch. In the latter clip the guy from audience is clearly a professional stooge and magician assistant.
you do realise that all Parkinson shows were film before live audiences...i doubt an actor untrained in extreme sleights can do that type of a manipulation when 100+ people are burning that deck. Its a very well kept secret the Berglas effect and no layman can guess it nor will they buy it. You can buy SIMILAR effects but none that do this exactly as shown.
How many different videoes are there of Bergles doing the effect on UA-cam? I only watched one. The big difference in the one I watched it is the cards are laid on a table and it it is very clear they are just taking the top card on each count. No way for any funny business. Also in the video I watched he directed the people to choose a narrowed down number. Towards the middle of the deck. Does he always perform it this way?
Os desfechos perfeitos de TODOS " Berglas Effect" são quando a mágica funciona na sua forma IDEAL. Nem sempre é bem assim assim...Direto, "limpo", "off hands". Nem mesmo quando apresentado pelo próprio Berglas (depoimento de quem o assistiu diversas vezes "ao vivo"... E são estas "situações ideais" que são divulgadas na internet. As outras são, obviamente, simplesmente omitidas. Este é o motivo que Berglas não o apresenta todo o dia, para não destruir o mito criado.
Just a guess: He memorised the deck. He knows where the card is in the deck. He signals it to a helper. The helper says the number. No need to touch the cards.
I've heard just recently that David Berglas is releasing a new book on his card magic that is meant to cover the Berglas effect in detail. I don't think it will come cheap, but the secret may finally become known.
When executed properly, the odds are 1/13 of getting it right, so one time out of thirteen performances you will amaze the audience. For the other twelve times, you need to shrug off the failure and proceed to a more sure trick.
How is this mysterious? Anyone notice on how criteria '4'.. there is no mention made of the requirement that the third 'volunteer' must not be a stooge? So that means that the third volunteer (conveniently picked by the magician) can still be a stooge and not violate the '4 rules'. It's obvious that when the first guy chose his card, the third volunteer (who only needs to have palming skills), finds the picked card, palms it, and when the countdown is reached, slaps the palmed card on the top of the deck. Not sure why people make such a big deal out of this???
(continued) The evidence to backup my assertion about his first performance is that he never said the quote about 'how amazing it would be if ACAAN worked', thus he gave himself a way out by preparing to do another trick.
the chance is finding the correct card is 1 out of 52 and not 1 out of 2704. It would be 1 out of 2704 if he wrote down a prediction which says "the selection will be the queen of hearts and the selected number is 8"
icedragon769 Not really, it's one in 52 (and this jumped out at me, too, watching the video). He's not predicting the card and the position. Whatever card is counted down to, assuming a random deck, has a 1 in 52 chance of being the one selected.There's only 52 possibilities for what the Xth card can be. So if you were to perform this trick with no trickery whatsoever, just relying on luck, many times over, you should be successful an average of 1 in 52 times, not 1 in 2704. If you can program, it's pretty easy to set up a quick simulation showing this is true. Or, if you have the time, deal out about 500 trials and you should find yourself successful about 9 times or so, whereas if it were 1 in 2704, you'll most likely not even have a single hit.
The second constraint of adding the preselected number squares the odds. Like there is a 1 in 6 chance of someone winning the lottery tonight but a 1 in 125 million chance of you winning. Because you have constrained the numbers with your ticket.
first i tried to master the berglas effect acaan and soon i realised that we cannot master the probability and after wards i created my own technique which is kind of based on mentalism
Very astute. Yes--I concur that the only way to achieve this effect AS STATED is to control the countdown. In every version of this routine I have seen, the performer chooses the third participant and same always covers the deck with his or her hand just before the chosen card is revealed. An "unlikely suspect" is picked who has access either to a duplicate deck or to a duplicate card (supplied by the performer?). One may infer logically that the card is palmed and dropped onto the deck.
@@ewenyap3018the berglass effect is just an effect. The way the effect it's constructed by the inside doesn't matter. A pure berglass effect is just an utopia never achieved following it's pure rules. For example here, the deck is supossed to be shuffled before the selection according to a pure berglass effect, but here is not shuffled.
@@marcorosas7614 yea, but what has that got to do with stooges?. shuffled or unshuffled it doesnt matter.. a stooge makes the trick trivial.. an unshuffled deck doesnt.. its still the audience memebers that picks the cards and the positions. right ?.. so if I know the position of every single card in the deck.. it wouldnt matter.. its the spectator that picks the number and the card... there IS a difference..
The spectators are NOT stooges. They have completely free choices and can name any card or number. When something looks impossible it's easy to think that stooges are the solution.
@L33T97 "Spoiler"? What do you mean? A few things popped into my mind. Possibly the QH being the most popular card after the AS, or perhaps along side the AS?
3:18. No, it is not 52 times 52. It is just 52. This is a classic mistake people make when calculating probabilities - not realizing that one of the choices is completely free. Pick a number from 1 to 52. I pick #30. I had a 1 in 52 chance of picking #30 but that doesn't matter because any number I pick is valid. What are the chances of the Ace of diamonds being at #30? 1 in 52. There are 52 possible cards that could be in that position, each equally likely. Still a cool trick, though.
If I would pull a trick like this I would somehow influence the audience via neurolinguistic programming. If asked to pick a random card or number or color or whatever, if you are being asked without preparation you will just say what comes first to your mind. This can be influenced. I guess, that's how it works.
This is what I am assuming is happening. Kinda of what Darren Brown does to an audience. He's manipulating the audience to pick a specific number and card. It's about the only way you can effectively make this work, assuming the deck is real and it is never touched and no one is a stooge.
it wouldn't work all the time...Yes i believe you can narrow choices using NLP, but then again anyone can think of anything and a magician does tricks, any claim that they are using NLP is to misdirect you from his tricks...A very simple way to accomplish the berglas effect above 100% of the time (If the first 2 audiences aren't stooges), is that the 3rd spectator is a stooge and all he has to do is to take the chosen card and make it appear when counting down...Notice at the start of the video with the 4 strict criterias, it never ever claim the 3rd spectator is a stooge.. Now it all make sense doesn't it?
Check out Rebecca Herrera perform Michael Hart's acaan. One volunteer gives the cards a casino wash, then the second volunteer gives them a few riffle shuffles and a strip cut. First volunteer chooses a card, the second chooses a number. Then they count down to the chosen card. Rebecca never touches the deck. Remarkably, the trick is then immediately performed a second time. As a disclaimer in the description, it is not the Berglas effect.
I have no clue how this is done...but the actual concept (pick a card and a number) is incredibly simple...and that girl that was hosting the show had no clue what the hell she was supposed to do
There are multiple ways. The encyclopedia of card tricks has one in the Nicola system section- or if a stooge is used who knows the Nicola system - a variant of Vernon’s ‘The trick that cannot be explained’ (I suspect this is the Burglas method) or Harry Lorayne has a good method that avoids any calculation by use of a breather crimp.
I have studied this effect for months. I agree to say you need some stooge. Let´s analize: 1) If the effect depends 100% on the magician, he needs to touch the cards somehow after the card and number are called. Marc doesn´t touch the cards. So that is not the method. 2) The stooge is not the one that count the cards, because at that moment everyone is focused on the cards and you need two things: Misdirection and a very good sleight of hand. The stooge is the one that calls the number.
@TheSphinxNL : This doesn't explain the first performance. I think there are 104 cards in that "deck" and the magician actually flips the bottom 52 (a legitimate deck) upside down. When she announces the Q of hearts, the "stooge" fans the cards towards his own body, so only he sees this. He locates the card, then makes a "break" and pushes it out so he can access it quickly. The magician stops at 7 cards and does the misdirection, so the stooge can "prepare the card" then he produces it.
The "pick a number" exercise is just selecting the criteria by which you can tell whether the "pick a card" game is correct. I.e. It's not a separate game that changes the odds, so much as it is just a person choosing the rules for the "pick a card" game. In the end, you're still only selecting one item, not two, and you're selecting from a set of 52 items. Assuming they are shuffled randomly, your odds are still 1/52.
The odds would be 1 in 52^2 if he gave the deck to an audience member and told them to mark each card of the deck with 52 different colors. So each card in the deck has a unique color and face. Then one person guesses burnt Orange queen of hearts or lime green 3 of spades. And another person guesses which card to pick out of the deck. There’s a 1 in 52^2 chance that the card that’s picked will be the combination of color and face that was guessed.
I know exactly how this trick is done. I explained how this is done in a video on a similar trick. The trick is six audiences calling out one number, which later revealed matched lottery ticket in the Magicians wallet. This trick is done by assistance from non-human entities using, "Lower Voice to Skull (LV2K or LVTK) on the audiences the moment before a number was called out.
Well, both performances meet all the criteria, unlike *every* other version... apart from Berglas's, of course. I thought I had a clue after the first performance, but the second performance cancelled my theory out... he doesn't even pick up the cards from the table to hand them to the spectator. ???
yeah i bought ''affected'' ! and i checked forums and they say that the routine in this video is not the same as 'affected' wich is ashame ! David berglas's effect is not published ...so im afraid that we wont know how its done :( i hope David will publish his effect before he dies !
eheheh .... You are wrong!!! If you see the second video there isn't any cut!!! In the first video you have the illusion that the guy cut the deck. The Stephen Tucker's use the adjustment, in this version there isn't any adjustment...
I reckon I know how this is done. Read the notices carefully. Nowhere does it say that the person dealing is not a stooge. Now watch the guy pulled up in the second clip. Clearly a magician from the way he handles the cards. When Marc tells him to wait, this gives him time to cut the cards to the 4 of hearts and you can see him doing this! It's not possible without at least one stooge and it only says the first 2 spectators are definitely not stooges.
True. There will of course be a card selected, there is a 100% chance of that. After that, there is a 1/52 chance it will be at the selected position. Still very unlikely. With some variations in performance (shift to count from bottom instead of top; expose the next card AFTER counting off the specified number) the odds of getting it right increase to 1/13. I'm not suggesting this trick only works 1/13th of the time, but it would be interesting to know if it works 100% of the time.
in both tricks, the 3rd spectator (one holding the deck) is doing something funny. both times marco stops them before the final card, and draws attention away from the deck. you will notice both times that the 3rd spectator fiddle around with the deck right before revealing the final card. just saying...
2. If he cant hypnotise then the second spectator must be working for him and he/she knows exactly where each card in the deck is positioned. (This is simple you can develop some simple sequence for it.) The deck of card was not shuffled so it is very likely that each card has been positioned to a known sequence.
@batesy1996 yes. the effect is u have a prediction card to the side and the spectator names any number 1-52 and the number the called on is the same number as the prediction.im not sure how it works all i know is that it has a similar effect..a hint to the way the berglas effect is done:its a mem deck and uses hypnosis? to force a certain card ..very diffucult technique that no amateur magician can execute.
It's easy, he travels ahead in time, learns the card and the number goes back in time and simply prepares a deck. Next trick please.
Dmitry Kudryavtsev you got that from be amazed you piece of shit
Dmitry Kudryavtsev be amazed
would any one tell me what that girl said at 2:14?? because i dont understand accent thanx
faiza doll She says “So you better make it happen quick”.
Dmitry Kudryavtsev tyyt
Surprise vs expectations. I really like it when the audience expect something. Cause in theyre mind they will question the impossible. But then you show them the impossible.
Here’s a possibile solution with no stooges:
If the first person chooses the queen of hearts, then you have 1/52 possibility to get the right position (in this case 8). The magician knows the position of each card in the deck, in this case it was not shuffled, but you have different possibilities to increase the probability of 1/52. In this specific case, the exact 8th position from the top was chosen, but you could do it from the bottom as well, you could actually ask the spectator to remove the first or last 8 cards (so now it is in the 9th). Now the probability increases to 4/52, but the magician could also be lucky if the queen of hearts was the first or the last, then the number of the position was not necessarily. It is just about luck, if the number is a mismatch, than the magician has to cut the deck, in this case he was lucky, the spectator could have chosen 7,8,44,45 and the trick was done perfectly in different ways, for all the other numbers the magician has to cut the deck
In his book, "Theatre of the Mind", Barrie Richardson describes being a passenger in a car Berglas was driving. He was asked to name both card and number, and then invited to look in the glove compartment, wherein he found a cased pack of cards... etc, however on this (anecdotal) occasion it would seem criteria number one was ignored.
Siapa yg kesini, karena dari channel demian aditya collab dengan om deddy... Wkwkkw
gua, sueeeee
Sama wkwk
Sebangsa san setanah air emang satu pemikiran buat nyari video ini..wkwkwk
Keren variasi om deddy @mastercorbuzier decknya demian padahal 😂
Salam Wkwkwk
I simply can't think of a possible way this could have been done without a stooge.
Mind=Blown
Once my mind was controlled, with a reason and proven. It was proceeded with an experience with the same person, where my ability of telepathy was opened by stepping into her aura. The suggestion was beyond telepathy, for I didn't notice it.
Q: How it is done in a distance?
ive heard it's a mentalism trick with multiple outs.
I know exactly how this trick is done. I explained how this is done in a video on a similar trick. The trick is six audiences calling out one number, which later revealed matched lottery ticket in the Magicians wallet. This trick is done by assistance from non-human entities using, "Lower Voice to Skull (LV2K or LVTK) on the audiences the moment before a number was called out.
"You may need to boost your audio"
Immediately lowers it.
The old man dealer in the 2nd clip is definitely a stooge - he gets up immediately after Marc Paul says "sir" before receiving any instructions. My guess is he takes the named card out of his left pocket (the one that's not in view of the audience) at 4:07 and transfers it to his right hand (notice his strange "open" palm at 4:15 ). The named card is at the bottom of the deck, and he transfers it to the top some time after 4:36 (during the "wait" bit) to be dealt.
***** I'm referring to the 2nd clip, not the one on Parkinson.
***** how is it done then?
I think you're right, on this show at least.....I think they use different a method according with the situation, for example, sometimes they just blatanly look at the cards and rearrange them lol.
But I doubt they have a high success rate, I find it hard to believe that if they get right all the time there would only be 2 or 3 videos, they'd be al over the place showing this impossible trick.....so I guess in this case is pre show like you said, on the second one looks like the whole thing was put together with the sole purpose to shooting the video, I mean, if he gets so few people in his live performances he'd be starving lol.....and on the other video he just plain cheats.
Agreed, bravo
The old man is dealing like a pro, so obvious.
THE STOOGE IS ALWAYS THE CARD FLIPPER. I believe the named card is being prepared by the flipper who acts like a volunteer. Notice at 2:09 the guest suddenly does something with the card. The 2nd clip however was more obvious. As he stood on stage he gets something out of his left pocket (can be noticed at 4:10.) At 4:37 before flipping the 23rd card he covers the whole deck with his left hand and fixes it again (covers the deck the way a magician does.) The trick happens in the "wait a minute" part before the flipper flips the card, preparing to pull the named card which is already either on top or bottom of the deck. 😉
So you mean two named card?One is prepared，the other is in the deck.
How to make sure the other will not appear before 23?
This is the right answer. Obvious once you have seen it.
It looks to me like the first guy is dealing seconds though I can't figure how he gets the queen of hearts to the top should that be the case.
I disagree. The stooge is probably the guy that names the number which would be way easier. He knows the order so once the card is chosen he just has to say the right number.
@@timscoviac That can be true, since the deck is never borrowed or shuffled... but didn't you say there's no stooge?
The person that flips the card is in on the act in any settings. He is chosen before the show starts and pretends to be a regular spectator from the audience (aka a stooge). In the first clip, the camera went away from the flipping of the card after the fifth car was flipped (2:30), why? And then the person pretends like he didn't know how it happened. In the second clip, same thing. The person that flips the card is on the act. Look at his hand how he hides the deck at 4:37. So the person (stooge) that is chosen to flip the cards hears in advance the playing card and the number in advance. He has a similar deck in his pocket, ordered, and he grabs the playing card that a real spectator that paid to watch the show selects. He then palms it before he touches the deck and starts flipping the cards. When he gets to the right count, he makes sure it is stacked on top of the deck, while hiding the deck and viola. Why do the magicians risk telling different people the trick increasing the possibility that they'll divulge at at a bar to impress some hot chick someday? Well, they probably make them sign a legal contract. You participate, will will give you x percentage of the show's full take, but if you divulge the trick, you pay us 100 times what was given to you. I've learned something in this world. There is no such thing as magic. Everything is an illusion.
Not how its done
Yes, good theory. EXCEPT there are NO accomplices! I have said this so many times...The Berglas Effect is achieved without stooges, accomplices, paid assistants etc. ALL SPECTATORS ARE GENUINE and are just as amazed as everyone else, maybe even more so because they know they have thought of their own choices. Just because an effect is not easily explained by traditional methods does NOT mean stooges are used.
the problem is when a trick has no other physical explanations, there must be a stooge.
Completely agree it's just little preshow working
@@motherisape are you sure?? There must be a real explanation
@@byevrolex There are other explenations
I guess the issue I have with your statement that there are simply no accomplices would be that… If the workings of the trick are unknown to the world… As in only the inventor knows how it is done… How do you know for a fact there are no accomplices? He could have lied about that?
0:37 So, a third spectator can be a stooge?
As a Maths teacher I can say for certain the chances of this trick working is 1/52 and NOT 1/2704. Imagine the deck is randomly shuffled. Once the card has been named by the first participant the second participant has a 1/52 chance of guessing the correct position of that said card. There are literally only 52 places it can be NOT 2704! If he does guess right the trick succeeds and if he doesn’t the trick fails. Therefore the trick has a 1/52 chance of succeeding. The bottom line is that the selected card can be any card and the trick still has a 1/52 chance of working. The magician didn’t need Martine to select the QH. But when she did he NEEDS Parky to select 8.
The way I teach this to students to avoid them making the 2704 mistake is; imagine you were trying to win this game completely at random. After the card is selected can you lose the game? No because whatever the card is doesn’t matter, I can still hope to match up whatever card was picked with the right position number, whether it’s the QH in the first clip or the 4H in the second. After the number is selected can you lose? Yes because the number has to perfectly match the card. So the only jeopardy comes with the number, which is correct 1/52 times.
The chance can be higher than 1/52 if the magician asks to remove the cards from the bottom, or in this case to remove exactly 8 cards (then it is the 9th). Then it is 4/52, it is still low so he was probably lucky
This is not correct. The card the first audience member names absolutely does matter. The magician has to theoretically account for all 52 different cards to each be at any of 52 locations in the deck to make the effect work. That is 2704 possible outcomes for the performance. You're assuming that the card named doesn't matter and therefore the second audience member's decision is the only probabilistic element in play, which is simply not the case. Your expertise in mathematics does not supplant methodology in card magic.
@@benjaminfranklin4149 you’re completely wrong.. it’s 1/52, and the magician knows all the positions in the deck. I bought the book about Berglas effect. If a spectator chooses the ace of spades, then the second one has 52 different choices to make, so it’s 1/52 to get it right 😂
were you drunk while commenting this shit
the "nobody is a Stooge" is a part of the act. its like saying any other part of the presentation of a trick.
Rule 4 for Berglas Effect "A Third spectator is invited to count down to the choosen card." This rule never mentions 'goon' so the third spectator gets the crowd selected card and inserts it into position 22 then does a simple deck swap because he has absolutely 0 heat.... Notice he always takes the card first so the spectator can easily find the card first and then count the postion.. even more deadly the deck can be arranged in specific magicians order so that a skilled enough third spectator could know the position of any card cold and insert it at any number (since he knows every card in order he can know Jack of Spade is 43 and insert the choosen card in front).. really deadly really efficient. I wish I knew the name of the deck order but some memorization specialist have favorites and pay homage to them in many tricks so I would try and find one of those list
maybe hypnosis... definitely not 1 in 52 guessing... if it was 1 in 52 guessing why wouldn't there be houndreds of videos of when he fails the trick... this trick is so widely seeked no way people would be quiet about failed attempts....
I still cant believe people are speculating about how this trick is done. Just buy "The Berglas Effects" book and you will KNOW how its done!
the third spectator looks like is doing a pass or something cos' his handling the deck like a pro. but I cannot explain how this was done in the first perfomance.
carlostucho a lot of people perform this trick and plan for the card to not be the spectator card and they move into a different trick from there
Gimpzilla there is actually no stooges at all whatsoever if you would like to learn the effect you can find it in the book berglas effects written by Richard Kaufman with about 60 pages of the book being dedicated to just "the berglas effect" and ACAAN :)
I feel that the talk of statistics is missing the trick. I believe that stating that the odds of the trick working to be 1/2704 reveals something about the mechanics of the trick instead of an error in math. A matter of perspective.
The way I figure, he has to manipulate something to make the trick consistently work. He can't manipulate the cards, so he must manipulate the participants.
I think he's steering them toward a specific position and a specific card, which he is already aware of. It isn't a card trick at all, it's about suggestion. It's only a true success if the spectators pick the card and position which he was feeding them.
Sure, the odds of a correct combination coming out may be 1/52, but the odds of the trick working - from the magician's perspective - is 1/2704. If he didn't steer them to his chosen card and position, the trick is a failure.
At least, that's how I see it.
The power of suggestion through paying people money before the show and telling them what to do, then lying through his teeth about it.
No stooges. Yeah right!
Towards the end of the performance, Lu Chen spans out the entire deck before revealing the numbered card. The spectators know that every card is different. I don't think it matters whether the faces of the counted cards are shown.
Interesting reading these comments. My wife and me attended the recording of this particular Parkinson, which for me being a magician was great when I found out the guest list. I'll probably make a video comment about what went on during the recording of the show and in particular the Berglas Effect. What you are seeing on this video is NOT and I repeat NOT what I witnessed being filmed. There is some clever editing during the Parkinson/Marc number selection. Not enough space here will post vid
Have you ever posted the vid? Would be interesting to know what went on during the recording. :-)
The cards are never shuffled, which suggest they are pre-arranged. A suit is always chosen first, then a number. The deck is memorized by whoever chooses the number. There is always an accomplice.
There are versions of this trick where the deck is shuffled by the one that choose the card.
Definitly this is the method in the 2nd version in this video. You can notice that because the number person is the only one that looks onto the card person. However the first version on this video i've heard that was just luck.
Why do I read these posts? No one can just enjoy an effect. The best magicians are those that make you forget its a trick. Its is not about FOOLING YOU. The most basic response . Like a bunch of kids...I know how he did it. Yeah...who cares
2:08 is the "spectator" riffling through the cards at this point and performing the shift? The cameras went off him so he could of did a one handed cut. I don't see any other way this could of been done. Either that or he just got lucky, 1 in 2704 chance.
Most woman choosin QH. We are in same idea , after Marc repeat choosen number and QH , the guy who has a cards he is providing the card at the same position.
2:22 is the signal
+joblagz That person says 'kept it!', if I am not wrong.
Hm... What did you see/hear there???
The eye
I'm a big fan of Penn and Teller's "fool us", I'm not a magician myself, but I know quite a bit of slight of hand, and enjoy figuring out magic tricks and spotting mistakes. The one thing I can point out in this entire clip is, it's very peculiar to me how in depth they describe the first two volunteers are not stooges, planted, etc.. but then it's just said "a third volunteer does such and such" with no further description. that is all i will say.
I might have ruined this by picking a card that is a card that you will find in a regular deck of cards.
You can see the "assistant" do the move in the second video. In the first the camera is not even on the cards during the move.
There are no assistants and no move to see.
Link please....
The chick (actress) in the vid played the role of administrative assistant to the Prime Minister of Great Britain (Hugh Grant) in the movie Love Actually.
The dealer has the deck of cards in hand while the card and number are chosen. There is also hand covering of the deck in both videos by the dealer. Both videos have pauses before the final card is drawn. The only logical conclusion is supernatural forces at work.
Hahaha 🤣 please tell me you’re joking. I’ve been a magician for 8 years pal you people are adorable
You can see (in 2:30 for example), more clearly if you slow down the video (0.25x speed), that Alistair McGowan (who's holding the deck) is not dealing the top card.
He would still have to look for the card unless they're all in on the trick!
I think, the person who gives the number is involved. The deck has a random order or is sorted by a system. The second person knows every position of any card. The first person says the card and the second involved person knows and says the correct position in the deck. The older guy in the first trick thinks about before finally saying the number although he had it ca. 20 seconds before already in mind.
Restriction #3 is a lie. Regardless of what card is chosen, the 3rd person simply names its position in the deck. That's why the cards are never shuffled.
@eppiefish The Berglas Effect has very recently been revealed in a book by Richard Kaufman called "The Berglas Effects". It advertises the effect exactly as it is on the video with no stooges. He's not really allowed to lie when it costs $125.
My logical guess: all you need to perform this trick is to make everyone believe the person guessing 1-52 is random. In fact, he need to remember all position of every card.
+cfsscfsshk So you think Parkie knew the position of every card and then subconsciously chose the 8th card after Martine chose Queen of hearts?
+Chris155au Well, not necessary subconsciously, the deck was not shuffled. Maybe there is a look up table written about the cards position. All David needs is ask for confirm and give more time for the back stage to look up the position and using a method to tell the person who will guess the number (position). All you need is to pay one person or two and perform this trick. Anyway, it is just my logical guess. You can have a better theory, I am willing and happy to hear that.
cfsscfsshk Well its just that Micahel Parkinson isn't a poor man and doesn't need to be paid any money.
+cfsscfsshk this trick is marketed so you buy it and see the secrets no one is on it
I think you're right. In the first clip you can see Parkinson isn't even impressed and shakes the performers hand like "you're welcome"
The person counting the cards switches the card. If you notice both times they pause before turning over the last card which gives them time to place the card on top of the deck before revealing the card.
The conditions don't insist that the 3rd volunteer is not a stooge. He might have a way of finding the card externally (some of the deck could be flipped upside down, or a have polarized markings that he sees with special contacts). There are opportunities for "doing something" for the third volunteer in both tricks.
The reason I suspect this is because the magician does not allow the participants to inspect the cards at the beginning. I think there are more than 52 cards in that deck.
But that 3rd guy is famous impressionist in the UK not a magician
The old man's hand gestures in the second clip are rather suspicious. When he enters the stage he semi-casually puts his hand down his pocket, then hides his hand behind his back, then uses both hands in what seems to be an ordinary gesture to apply pressure to the card he just grabbed out of his pocket. You can see the thumb movement when he reaches the 23rd card, Berglar stops the countdown for a reason [so he can put the card on top].
This guy got nothing on the Great Danton.
Something definitely happened during a commercial break or something that they didnt air the program
@pollensalta - I am with you. The trick is too perfect to be performed without assistance. Since Berglas asks first for the playing card and THEN for the number, it makes a lot of sense that the one that counts the cards is the stooge. I think this is the reason why this trick is not as popular as other card tricks, it is too good to be true.
when you look closer, you will see, that the person, who is counting the cards do something fishi (about 02:10 )... it's just a theory, but it could be the answer on this trick :D
+AlHa Musik i agree
would any one tell me what that girl said at 2:14?? because i dont understand accent thanx
@@faizadoll34 "I want the queen of hearts... so you'd better make it happen quick." I hope it's been worth waiting a year to find the answer.
I've written about this performance elsewhere a few years ago, Myself and my wife were at the recording of that particular episode of Parkinson, and when I watched the show broadcast on the BBC a few days later, it was NOT what we saw in the studio! Michael made a mistake with his choice of number on the first take. This has been confirmed on forums with other audience members. You can say what you like about no stooges, I know what we saw, and it's not what you see here! Forget all the statistics and odds of naming a card and it being in the exact number position, think about it guys, it's not gonna happen (and magicians do not take gambles or rely on odds when performing on national TV!), believe it or not, there is no such thing as magic!
+djmarkalmond It's very possible that is correct, ut Berglars Effect (ACAAN) is real
Thanks for make it more clear
The David Blaine video where he does this trick with Eamonn Holmes and his wife (on UA-cam), she too chooses queen of hearts. Plus he too miscalls the card (in his case, he says "3 of hearts? Sorry, you said queen of hearts"). Is there a clue there to how this is done?
Hmm well, I'm stumped. No cuts, had nothing to do with the deck. I keep thinking that he tampered with it, but it in some order, but how can he get the exact card? You say there were no stooges involved...
Overall, A fantastic trick, one that is really amazing to see :)
@TheSphinxNL Your idea makes some sense, but I see two problems:
1. To me it looks like the old guy's hands are empty (and I'm a magician, I know some pretty unusual palms). That doesn't rule out loading a duplicate though.
2. He's dealing face up. If the selection is above the chosen number, it will be seen. In order to prevent this, he would have to know where the selection is in the pack and make sure it's not above the number that was called.
I've seen only 4 holy grail productions here on youtube. Of course this is the most famous one. I know Berglas studied hypnosis and may be involved somehow in this trick, but since miracles can't happen people have invented their own methods to make this happen. Gimmicks, memorized deck, some pass, if you check Berglas doing this he clearly put the needed cards up to match the count. Shuffle that deck and make again the production without touching the cards, that would be a real miracle.
What's the Womens name in the first clip? She looks like an actress but I cant think of her name? Does anyone know? Thanks
Just because they say there was no accomplice does not mean there was no accomplice. The whole deck could have been 4 of hearts and the accomplice is the one who shouted the card. Or the accomplice was on the other side and knew the position of every card.
as usual with berglas,only the best will do.
regards, Tony sadar.
There is no secret in both these clips, the guy who counts the cards is a stooge who quickly put the chosen card in the right place at the moment when the "magician" says "STOP" or "WAIT" right before that card comes. In the first clip the camera doesn't show the full view all the time, so that's when the stooge makes the switch. In the latter clip the guy from audience is clearly a professional stooge and magician assistant.
ya he transfers the bottom card to the top at 0441
you do realise that all Parkinson shows were film before live audiences...i doubt an actor untrained in extreme sleights can do that type of a manipulation when 100+ people are burning that deck. Its a very well kept secret the Berglas effect and no layman can guess it nor will they buy it. You can buy SIMILAR effects but none that do this exactly as shown.
wrong answer.....
How many different videoes are there of Bergles doing the effect on UA-cam? I only watched one. The big difference in the one I watched it is the cards are laid on a table and it it is very clear they are just taking the top card on each count. No way for any funny business. Also in the video I watched he directed the people to choose a narrowed down number. Towards the middle of the deck. Does he always perform it this way?
Os desfechos perfeitos de TODOS " Berglas Effect" são quando a mágica funciona na sua forma IDEAL. Nem sempre é bem assim assim...Direto, "limpo", "off hands". Nem mesmo quando apresentado pelo próprio Berglas (depoimento de quem o assistiu diversas vezes "ao vivo"... E são estas "situações ideais" que são divulgadas na internet. As outras são, obviamente, simplesmente omitidas. Este é o motivo que Berglas não o apresenta todo o dia, para não destruir o mito criado.
would any one tell me what that girl said at 2:14?? because i dont understand accent thanx
"So you better make it happen quick!"
Just a guess: He memorised the deck. He knows where the card is in the deck. He signals it to a helper. The helper says the number. No need to touch the cards.
I've heard just recently that David Berglas is releasing a new book on his card magic that is meant to cover the Berglas effect in detail. I don't think it will come cheap, but the secret may finally become known.
I'm coming from future. Is that book released?
@@aliakar8086 lol
@@aliakar8086 Yes, the book came out in 2011/2012, it's called (appropriately) "The Berglas Effect"
Hope Ben is okay :/
@WianBergMagic what about "instant-stooges" ?
I think he's just really really really ... lucky.
Ya he did look a little too happy. Like he himself was pleasantly surprised or shocked.
When executed properly, the odds are 1/13 of getting it right, so one time out of thirteen performances you will amaze the audience. For the other twelve times, you need to shrug off the failure and proceed to a more sure trick.
How is this mysterious? Anyone notice on how criteria '4'.. there is no mention made of the requirement that the third 'volunteer' must not be a stooge? So that means that the third volunteer (conveniently picked by the magician) can still be a stooge and not violate the '4 rules'. It's obvious that when the first guy chose his card, the third volunteer (who only needs to have palming skills), finds the picked card, palms it, and when the countdown is reached, slaps the palmed card on the top of the deck. Not sure why people make such a big deal out of this???
This magic proves men cannot read
He has performed this trick over 5,000 times and nailed it twice!
Lmao great comment :D
Who has?
I am curious is a new deck as it, unshuffled, with the jokers and extra cards removed a good set-up deck for memorizing? Or are others easier?
(continued) The evidence to backup my assertion about his first performance is that he never said the quote about 'how amazing it would be if ACAAN worked', thus he gave himself a way out by preparing to do another trick.
the chance is finding the correct card is 1 out of 52 and not 1 out of 2704. It would be 1 out of 2704 if he wrote down a prediction which says "the selection will be the queen of hearts and the selected number is 8"
It is one in 2704 because both the card is predicted as well as its position in the deck, both of which are provided by audience members.
icedragon769 Not really, it's one in 52 (and this jumped out at me, too, watching the video). He's not predicting the card and the position. Whatever card is counted down to, assuming a random deck, has a 1 in 52 chance of being the one selected.There's only 52 possibilities for what the Xth card can be. So if you were to perform this trick with no trickery whatsoever, just relying on luck, many times over, you should be successful an average of 1 in 52 times, not 1 in 2704. If you can program, it's pretty easy to set up a quick simulation showing this is true. Or, if you have the time, deal out about 500 trials and you should find yourself successful about 9 times or so, whereas if it were 1 in 2704, you'll most likely not even have a single hit.
The second constraint of adding the preselected number squares the odds. Like there is a 1 in 6 chance of someone winning the lottery tonight but a 1 in 125 million chance of you winning. Because you have constrained the numbers with your ticket.
interesting point :)
first i tried to master the berglas effect acaan and soon i realised that we cannot master the probability and after wards i created my own technique which is kind of based on mentalism
Very astute. Yes--I concur that the only way to achieve this effect AS STATED is to control the countdown. In every version of this routine I have seen, the performer chooses the third participant and same always covers the deck with his or her hand just before the chosen card is revealed. An "unlikely suspect" is picked who has access either to a duplicate deck or to a duplicate card (supplied by the performer?). One may infer logically that the card is palmed and dropped onto the deck.
the berglass effect does not use stooges. its been said over and over..try again
@@ewenyap3018the berglass effect is just an effect. The way the effect it's constructed by the inside doesn't matter. A pure berglass effect is just an utopia never achieved following it's pure rules. For example here, the deck is supossed to be shuffled before the selection according to a pure berglass effect, but here is not shuffled.
@@marcorosas7614 yea, but what has that got to do with stooges?. shuffled or unshuffled it doesnt matter.. a stooge makes the trick trivial.. an unshuffled deck doesnt.. its still the audience memebers that picks the cards and the positions. right ?.. so if I know the position of every single card in the deck.. it wouldnt matter.. its the spectator that picks the number and the card... there IS a difference..
The spectators are NOT stooges. They have completely free choices and can name any card or number. When something looks impossible it's easy to think that stooges are the solution.
@L33T97 "Spoiler"? What do you mean? A few things popped into my mind. Possibly the QH being the most popular card after the AS, or perhaps along side the AS?
3:18. No, it is not 52 times 52. It is just 52. This is a classic mistake people make when calculating probabilities - not realizing that one of the choices is completely free.
Pick a number from 1 to 52. I pick #30. I had a 1 in 52 chance of picking #30 but that doesn't matter because any number I pick is valid. What are the chances of the Ace of diamonds being at #30? 1 in 52. There are 52 possible cards that could be in that position, each equally likely.
Still a cool trick, though.
Didn't know Bobby Knight had a brother.
If I would pull a trick like this I would somehow influence the audience via neurolinguistic programming. If asked to pick a random card or number or color or whatever, if you are being asked without preparation you will just say what comes first to your mind. This can be influenced. I guess, that's how it works.
This is what I am assuming is happening. Kinda of what Darren Brown does to an audience. He's manipulating the audience to pick a specific number and card. It's about the only way you can effectively make this work, assuming the deck is real and it is never touched and no one is a stooge.
Also it's called "effect", not "trick"
NLP is a pseudo science and even then, this trick wouldn't work 100% of the time if you were gambling on people being manipulated
it wouldn't work all the time...Yes i believe you can narrow choices using NLP, but then again anyone can think of anything and a magician does tricks, any claim that they are using NLP is to misdirect you from his tricks...A very simple way to accomplish the berglas effect above 100% of the time (If the first 2 audiences aren't stooges), is that the 3rd spectator is a stooge and all he has to do is to take the chosen card and make it appear when counting down...Notice at the start of the video with the 4 strict criterias, it never ever claim the 3rd spectator is a stooge..
Now it all make sense doesn't it?
*Never ever claim in the 4 strict criteria that the 3rd spectator is NOT a stooge...so he is one...
I agree that some things in magic should remain secret. If you can figure it out, have at it. But I'm content being amazed.
No stooges used...Any number between 1 and 52...Any card in a regular deck of playing cards...How the hell did he do it?
@TheFireFurnace can you perform this exact trick of a variation of the trick?
@Olaf177 I honestly don't remember but I heard that Marc Paul was mentored by David Berglas who taught him the Berglas Effect.
Check out Rebecca Herrera perform Michael Hart's acaan. One volunteer gives the cards a casino wash, then the second volunteer gives them a few riffle shuffles and a strip cut. First volunteer chooses a card, the second chooses a number. Then they count down to the chosen card. Rebecca never touches the deck. Remarkably, the trick is then immediately performed a second time. As a disclaimer in the description, it is not the Berglas effect.
Lol 😂
The second performance's participant is quite a gambler
In the first performance i've chosen the three of spades in the sixiest card but he revealed a nine of diamonds instead ... So he's fucked up
WONDERFULL!!! I buy it Yesterday !!! Thank you for your suggestion on SILENT ACAAN. There is other ACAAN effect in ebook... wonderfull
I have no clue how this is done...but the actual concept (pick a card and a number) is incredibly simple...and that girl that was hosting the show had no clue what the hell she was supposed to do
There are multiple ways. The encyclopedia of card tricks has one in the Nicola system section- or if a stooge is used who knows the Nicola system - a variant of Vernon’s ‘The trick that cannot be explained’ (I suspect this is the Burglas method) or Harry Lorayne has a good method that avoids any calculation by use of a breather crimp.
nice. I have no idea how it's done. Can I suffle the deck please?
I have studied this effect for months. I agree to say you need some stooge. Let´s analize:
1) If the effect depends 100% on the magician, he needs to touch the cards somehow after the card and number are called. Marc doesn´t touch the cards. So that is not the method.
2) The stooge is not the one that count the cards, because at that moment everyone is focused on the cards and you need two things: Misdirection and a very good sleight of hand. The stooge is the one that calls the number.
There is no stooge in this trick.
@TheSphinxNL : This doesn't explain the first performance. I think there are 104 cards in that "deck" and the magician actually flips the bottom 52 (a legitimate deck) upside down. When she announces the Q of hearts, the "stooge" fans the cards towards his own body, so only he sees this. He locates the card, then makes a "break" and pushes it out so he can access it quickly. The magician stops at 7 cards and does the misdirection, so the stooge can "prepare the card" then he produces it.
The 4th criteria does not specify that the chosen spectator is not a stooge. Clue, or error?
The "pick a number" exercise is just selecting the criteria by which you can tell whether the "pick a card" game is correct. I.e. It's not a separate game that changes the odds, so much as it is just a person choosing the rules for the "pick a card" game. In the end, you're still only selecting one item, not two, and you're selecting from a set of 52 items. Assuming they are shuffled randomly, your odds are still 1/52.
I believe so
I was racking my brain about that as well. And it does seem to be just 1/52 no matter what.
The odds would be 1 in 52^2 if he gave the deck to an audience member and told them to mark each card of the deck with 52 different colors. So each card in the deck has a unique color and face.
Then one person guesses burnt Orange queen of hearts or lime green 3 of spades. And another person guesses which card to pick out of the deck.
There’s a 1 in 52^2 chance that the card that’s picked will be the combination of color and face that was guessed.
He cut that deck somehow and shuffled it in a certain way before he brought that deck out.
I know exactly how this trick is done. I explained how this is done in a video on a similar trick. The trick is six audiences calling out one number, which later revealed matched lottery ticket in the Magicians wallet. This trick is done by assistance from non-human entities using, "Lower Voice to Skull (LV2K or LVTK) on the audiences the moment before a number was called out.
I wanna see him ask the number before the card. I'm convinced he has a stooge memorize the entire deck, so that he can give a number matching the card
Were can i learn this
Well, both performances meet all the criteria, unlike *every* other version... apart from Berglas's, of course. I thought I had a clue after the first performance, but the second performance cancelled my theory out... he doesn't even pick up the cards from the table to hand them to the spectator. ???
wow, where cain i get some of thoose s
tooges??
So want to know how 🤔
yeah i bought ''affected'' ! and i checked forums and they say that the routine in this video is not the same as 'affected' wich is ashame !
David berglas's effect is not published ...so im afraid that we wont know how its done :(
i hope David will publish his effect before he dies !
eheheh .... You are wrong!!! If you see the second video there isn't any cut!!! In the first video you have the illusion that the guy cut the deck. The Stephen Tucker's use the adjustment, in this version there isn't any adjustment...
The whole time the guy was counting the cards, he held the deck loosely, but 4:36, I think, explains the whole trick.
Assuming the words for the description is 100% accurate. The third one is the stooge. The first two are stated they are not, but the third isn't.
@SpankyBurrito
this is to you genius
"then i read the last sentence"
got it? or I have to explain it to you?
I reckon I know how this is done. Read the notices carefully. Nowhere does it say that the person dealing is not a stooge.
Now watch the guy pulled up in the second clip. Clearly a magician from the way he handles the cards. When Marc tells him to wait, this gives him time to cut the cards to the 4 of hearts and you can see him doing this!
It's not possible without at least one stooge and it only says the first 2 spectators are definitely not stooges.
His math, 52 times 52, is wrong
True. There will of course be a card selected, there is a 100% chance of that. After that, there is a 1/52 chance it will be at the selected position. Still very unlikely. With some variations in performance (shift to count from bottom instead of top; expose the next card AFTER counting off the specified number) the odds of getting it right increase to 1/13.
I'm not suggesting this trick only works 1/13th of the time, but it would be interesting to know if it works 100% of the time.
It does.
in both tricks, the 3rd spectator (one holding the deck) is doing something funny. both times marco stops them before the final card, and draws attention away from the deck. you will notice both times that the 3rd spectator fiddle around with the deck right before revealing the final card. just saying...
2. If he cant hypnotise then the second spectator must be working for him and he/she knows exactly where each card in the deck is positioned. (This is simple you can develop some simple sequence for it.) The deck of card was not shuffled so it is very likely that each card has been positioned to a known sequence.
There is mind control. No hypnosis needed. It is for real.
Can anyone tell me who’s the actress in the middle? Think I’ve seen her in a movie but I forgot which one
"Love actually". She was working in prime minister's house.
@batesy1996 yes. the effect is u have a prediction card to the side and the spectator names any number 1-52 and the number the called on is the same number as the prediction.im not sure how it works all i know is that it has a similar effect..a hint to the way the berglas effect is done:its a mem deck and uses hypnosis? to force a certain card ..very diffucult technique that no amateur magician can execute.
@corporateentertainer How did you learn the trick?