Dustings #132

It’s my favorite time of year, Haunted Key Season!

That special time of year when a cylindrical object rolls over on your own hand, and you try to convince an adult with a brain in their head that only a ghost could do such a thing.


GLOMM Lodge #5, The Ghost Shrimps, has now been established in Savannah, Georgia.

They join these other four GLOMM lodges:

GLOMM Lodge #1: The Does
West Lafayette, Indiana

GLOMM Lodge #2: The Mastodons
Melbourne, Australia

GLOMM Lodge #3: The Coyotes
Eugene, Oregon

GLOMM Lodge #4: The Otters
Sacramento, California

The GLOMM, which is the largest magic organization on earth (because everyone with an interest in magic whose not a sex offender is automatically a member), is also now the fastest growing magic organization because the official chapters have gone from zero to five in the past year or so. Technically, that’s like infinite growth percentage-wise.


Here’s an email I received from Tomáš H. regarding the Damsel List Force shortcut as discussed in this post.

Thanks for sharing the Damsel List Force shortcut. I like it over the DFB because of it simplicity and use of native features of iOS.

However, I had few issues with the shortcut you shared. So i re-worked it and made improved version. Here is the link: https://www.icloud.com/shortcuts/c57623c992d341a795c46d2a2e897db3

There are two main improvements:

- The default list of items does not have to be numbered. The numbers are added during the list creation automatically. That makes editing and adding more items much easier. And there does not have to be empty line at the beginning.

- It works even with first and last number selected

But here is another, imho very interesting followup of the shortcut: https://www.icloud.com/shortcuts/0a7852b1fad04728bf0073cfc761839a

Instead of typing the number on the phone, the value is dictated. It tries to parse a number from the dictated text. The phone needs to be in a silent mode otherwise there is a "dictation" sound.

I did not have a chance to try it on real performance yet. But the way how I imagine it would work is that you start the shortcut just before the spectator is going to say the number. Or, alternatively, after the spectator tells the number you start the extension and repeat the number, like you are confirming the number they said.

I think it would require some testing and the shortcut can be further improved - e.g. re-trying the dictation if no number is parsed from the text. Feel free to experiment with the shortcut, if you find the idea interesting.


Big news for the Vanishing Inc. Boys!

First, Andi Gladwin shared this on facebook….

And now I’m hearing that an upcoming cover story on Joshua Jay smashes the record for the number of times Genii has used the word “cunt.”

A Hoy Book Test Tweak

I have five people in my life who I regularly test magic tricks on. Meaning, I’ll show them a trick with very little presentation, and then pick their brain about how it might be done in order to road-test the method.

These are people I would never perform for otherwise. They’re just so focused on method and not being fooled that there’s no point trying to show them anything more interesting or immersive. Are you surprised to hear they’re all men?

While I think their attitude towards magic is a little corny, I find it’s useful to have people like this in your life. This way I can test out tricks or ideas without having to burn them on someone whose reaction matters.

Here’s a tweak to the Hoy Book Test procedure that I tested on them recently.

After they say “stop” while I’m flipping through the pages of the second book, I say:

“Okay, one more choice. I can stay on this exact page, flip one page forward, or go one page back. What do you want?”

The reason I wanted to add this was because I thought it would add an extra element of choice to the page selection, which I felt was missing. Yes, they sort of “choose” where to say stop—but I don’t think that really feels like a “selection” on their part. Here they have a distinct choice. Of course, we know their choice doesn’t matter, but it feels like it should matter.

But I wasn’t sure it was a great idea. By slowing down here, am I just spotlighting a moment that’s better glossed over? Giving them a chance to think, “Hang on—I never actually saw that page number. He could’ve just been lying.”

So over the past few months I’ve been testing it out—including through my gauntlet of the five trick dissectors I mentioned earlier—and I’ve come to the conclusion that it does add to the impossibility and doesn’t draw attention to the force as I worried it might. As I broke down the effect with these guys and they tried to work out the method, two of the five actually mentioned that moment as a reason it couldn’t be one of the methods they were considering. As in, “If you somehow knew the page you’d stop on… wait, but you let me choose to go forward or backward from there.”

I just don’t think it occurs to people that you would make a big deal about what page exactly you were going to have them use… if your intention the whole time was to lie about the page number.

So from my personal testing, I think this is a tweak worth adding. Yes, in the trick’s reality, you knowing the word they’re thinking of from page 113 shouldn’t be any more impressive than you knowing the word they’re thinking of from page 111. It’s all technically the same trick. The benefit is just adding a distinct choice into the process, which I think helps trip them up if they try and unravel it in their mind.

Pacing

While you watch some of Craig's stuff on youtube, I somewhat doubt this video is top of your list. But this quote, to me, showed the complete difference in performance style between the two of you (and by extension professional vs amateur).

Quote from Craig Petty in his recent Introduction to Sponge Ball Magic video:

"Most tricks don't have multiple phases where lots of different things are happening one after another. The tricks that do are the ones that are most revered by magicians. Why does ambitious card work as well as it does? Why does card in the box work as well as it does? Why do coins across work as well as it does? Because it's happening again and again and again. You're almost beating them up with magic, which for me, at least in my opinion, is far better than having a seven or 8 minute buildup for one moment of magic at the end."

I would say what he says only applies to professional strolling close up. Anyone doing a formal show, stage or close up, would also include some slow builds. —DF

Yes, this is an important distinction in the amateur/professional divide.

Do you do the same thing over and over? Or do you build to one crazy moment?

If you’re performing a restaurant gig, or at a wedding reception, or for other magicians, then the same thing over and over is probably preferable. Those environments aren’t built for focusing on story or atmosphere, just the raw impossibility. So yeah, hit them with it repeatedly. That’s probably what I’d do too.

But in casual situations, it’s exactly the opposite. Especially if you’re performing one-on-one.

It’s the height of magician-centrism to repeat the same general effect again and again. It’s not a great look.

“Watch! The coin goes from my right hand to my left hand! Wait, wait. Look! Another coin went from my right hand to my left hand! Wait, hold up. Check this out. Another coin went from my right hand to my left hand!”

“Great trick, Timmy, Now, make sure you put your helmet on if you’re going to take your scooter out today. And I’m not going to buy you any more Play-Doh if you keep eating it…. What? Yes you have. It’s all over your lips.”

Craig says,

“You're almost beating them up with magic, which for me, at least in my opinion, is far better than having a seven or 8 minute buildup for one moment of magic at the end.”

I’ll buy that logic when you’re working a close-up gig. People want to see the moment over and over. They want to try to catch you, or watch how their friends react to it.

But keep in mind that tricks with multiple phases are inherently weak magic. They almost have to be. You can’t do an effect that truly blows people away… and then repeat it twelve times in four minutes.

Here is the key to keep in mind…

The pace you choose tells the audience how much the moment matters.

There may be dozens of moments of magic in your cups and balls routine, but none of them really affect the audience. The moments just sort of wash over the spectators. How special can this moment be if it keeps happening over and over again?

But you genuinely could do a one-phase cup and ball routine for someone, where the ball vanishes from your hand and appears under the cup. You could build up to that single moment over eight minutes where you set the conditions, and lay out the premise regarding how you learned this technique, etc. And I believe you’d have something far more interesting, engaging, and impossible-seeming, even though it has only 1/36th the amount of actual magic.

Of course, you wouldn’t do that table-hopping because it’s not the environment for it. That’s the environment for giving people a traditional magic experience.

Pacing is often the difference between someone thinking, “I just saw a pleasant magic routine,” and someone thinking, “I just saw… something strange.”

My general rule is to let the size of my audience dictate my pace. Usually (not always) the more people I’m performing for, the faster I’ll perform (or the more beats I’ll put into an effect). While my desire is usually to go slow and to put a lot of emphasis on each moment, I just don’t think that’s feasible with larger or unfamiliar groups. If you’re going to go slow, build tension, and craft an experience for people, then you need to tailor that interaction to the people you’re with. And you can’t tailor an interaction to 40 people at once.

Failsafe Trick Examples

A couple months ago I wrote about the idea of having a Failsafe trick in your repertoire. This is a trick that you can slip into at any time. If you space out on the trick you started to perform or if your mind goes blank when someone hands you a deck, for example.

For me, I like to have a Failsafe Trick in my back pocket if someone asks to shuffle a deck that can’t be shuffled for the trick I had planned. If someone asks to shuffle a deck and you don’t let them, you might as well just email them a pdf of the method. At that point they pretty much know how it’s done anyway. Your refusal screams “special arrangement” as blatantly as telling them, “No, you can’t shuffle the cards, they’re in a special arrangement.” So don’t fool yourself into thinking you’ve “saved” the moment by denying them.

If they ask to shuffle, or they ask to use their own deck, or whatever, I just immediately say, “Yeah, of course.” And I can do that confidently because I’m ready to switch to my Failsafe.

There are three qualities a Failsafe Trick should have.

It should be dead easy. The whole reason you’re reaching for your Failsafe is because you’ve already been thrown off balance. You can’t expect yourself to suddenly recall a complicated sequence of moves.

It should be structurally simple. Ideally, it builds toward one clear moment. That single beat gives you something to aim for and makes it easy to frame the presentation around.

It should be a blank-slate effect. That’s my term for tricks that can be dressed up in almost any presentation. On their own, these effects are borderline dull—and that’s a good thing. If an effect is too entertaining in its bare form, it’s probably too specific to fit as a fallback.

Why do I want something dull? Because this performance wasn’t planned. It needs to slot naturally into whatever conversation you were just having, or whatever premise you’d set up for the trick you meant to do.

If you start with, “Here’s a new technique I’m working on to cheat at cards,” and then they ask to shuffle, you can’t suddenly pivot to:

“Here’s a trick about two black-haired gentlemen who went on a double-date with two red-haired women.”

That type of trick doesn’t make a good Failsafe.

We want something bland and malleable.

To test that, I ask myself:

  1. Could I frame this trick as a technique to cheat at cards?

  2. As an example of psychic powers?

  3. As a game I used to play as a kid?

  4. As an old forunte-telling ritual.

If the answer to all of those is yes, then it’s probably the kind of trick I can bend to whatever situation I’m in.

Now, to be clear, the fact that I can frame it as anything doesn’t mean the presentation will be good. But that’s fine. We’re not looking for brilliance here. You’re not going to invent a masterpiece on the fly, and you don’t need to. The goal is “passable.” You’re just trying to steer the moment back onto the tracks, not win a FISM award.

Here are some good examples for Failsafe Tricks.

Sort of Psychic by John Bannon
From the Move Zero DVD or Download

This has been my go-to Failsafe for years. I’ve written about a few tweaks I’ve made to it before (Ctrl+F “sort of” if you’re curious), but in a Failsafe situation, I just do the standard version.

Effect: After a brief “warm-up” where your friend tries to identify which small pile their thought-of card is in, they’re suddenly able to cut directly to that very card from a full deck.

And here’s how easily it slips into different framings:

Card Cheat: “One of the most important skills in card cheating is learning to cut to an exact point in the deck. I’ll show you a quick process for picking up that skill.”

Psychic Powers: “I’m going to teach you a simple way to sharpen your psychic abilities. At least when it comes to sensing where a card is hiding.”

Childhood Game: “When I was in 2nd grade, we had a deck of cards in our classroom, but no one actually knew any games. So we would make up our own games. Each kid had a card that was their card for the year. Mine was the 5 of Diamonds. We had this thing we’d do where you’d cut to a random card, and whoever’s card that was became ‘King’ for the day. I learned a way to cut directly to my card each time. So I could always make myself King. It’s an interesting process. I’m not quite sure exactly how it works, but I’ll show you.”

Old Ritual: “There’s an old gypsy ritual where you pick a playing card as your ‘Happiness’ card and train yourself to tune into it. Supposedly, when you can find it in a shuffled deck, it opens your ability to find happiness in real life. I’ll show you how it’s done.

DFB App idea by Sean D.
From the DFB Facebook Group

Supporter Chris Y. pointed me toward this clever idea for a simple Failsafe Trick.

In the DFB app, create a list where every entry just says “NO.” Then make your force word “YES.” Give the list a vague title like “The Card” or “The Card’s Location.”

Now you can have them shuffle the deck as much as they want, deal through it while counting aloud, and stop wherever they like (or at the card you’ve prompted them to, depending on your framing). When they stop, you show them your list—and it proves you knew exactly where they’d land as that number says YES while all the others say NO.

Card Cheat: “It’s one thing to control a card when you’re the one shuffling. What I’ve been working on is getting someone else to shuffle the card right where I want it. Here shuffle these up. Let’s say the card I need is the Jack of Spades. Whenever you want, stop mixing the deck and deal through the cards, counting where the Jack of Spades lands.”

Psychic Powers: “I had a premonition early of something that would happen with this deck of cards.”

Childhood Game: “When I was in 2nd grade, we had a deck of cards in our classroom, but no one actually knew any games. So we would make up our own games. We had this one thing we would do where each kid in the 2nd grade classes would get assigned a number from 1-52. And then we’d all put our milk money into a prize pot. And someone would shuffle the deck and deal through, and whatever number the Ace of Spades landed on, that kid would win the whole pot.”

“We did this on and off for most of the year, but then something weird started happening. I would win week after week. The kids thought I was cheating. I was like, ‘Cheating? I’m not touching the deck. I’m not dealing the cards. How could I cheat?” But kids aren’t really logical, so we stopped playing the game. But it’s true, I didn’t cheat. I never touched the cards. I’ve just been always lucky at this game. I’ll show you.”

Old Ritual: “There’s an old gypsy ritual where you think of any card in a deck and the gypsy determines a position in the deck. You shuffle the deck and then deal through the cards until you get to your thought-of card, and depending on how close it is to the fortune-teller’s number, that’s how lucky you’ll be in the coming year. So being two-cards away is luckier than being 12-cards away. Of course, being dead-on is ideal, but that hardly ever happens unless you’re going to have extraordinary luck.”

51 Fat Chances by John Bannon
From the Move Zero Vol. 2 DVD or Download

Effect: It’s sort of a lightweight Open Prediction. Your friend shuffles the deck. You make a prediction. Packets of cards are cut off and dealt through face-up to find your prediction, other cards are dealt off to the side. Eventually the spectator turns over every card but one—the one you predicted.

I originally overlooked this when I first picked up the download, but supporter James R. flagged it as a solid Failsafe Trick, and I think it works well in that context.

There’s an ending phase involving a down/under deal that some people might not love, but I think it works fine here, especially after all the shuffling and cutting. And if it’s not your thing, it’s easy to replace with another clean ending.

Card Cheat: “At the end of my poker nights, we play a game called Poison Card. Where you name a card and every card eventually gets turned over. You get $10 for every card that gets turned over before the Poison Card. I think I’ve come up with a way to cheat at this without touching the cards. Will you help me test it?”

Psychic Powers: “I had a premonition early of something that would happen with this deck of cards.

Childhood Game: “When I was in 2nd grade, we had a deck of cards in our classroom, but no one actually knew any games. We made up a game called ‘Poison Card,’ where we would turn over every card in the deck, looking for the Poison Card. You’d get a penny for every card that was turned over before the Poison Card. This is the only game I’ve ever been good at, and I don’t actually know why. I’ll show you.”

Old Ritual: “In old fortune-telling lore, there’s a card known as the Death Card. Most people think it’s the Ace of Spades, but traditionally it’s the Four of Clubs. There’s a ritual where you shuffle, then deal through the deck—and wherever the Death Card appears tells how close death is to you. If you turn it over early on, danger’s near; late in the deck and you’ve got plenty of time left. I’ll walk you through the process and we’ll see what fate says tonight.”

Clearly, these aren’t masterclass presentations. I’m repeating themes because I was improvising them as I wrote this post. The point isn’t that these are great scripts. It’s that these tricks can slip easily into a bunch of different premises, including whatever tone or story you’d already set up before you had to pivot into your Failsafe.

You might think of these effects as too simple. But that simplicity—and their flexibility—is the strength. Failsafe tricks aren’t your “go-to” favorites, the ones you plan out and look forward to performing. They’re your “oh-shit” tricks. The ones that save you when your brain blanks or the situation shifts. Having one or two in your repertoire lets you stay cool and unbothered regardless of what might happen as you get into an effect.

Mailbag #150

Thanks to everyone who took part in the Jerx Attic Sale this weekend. Everything sold out within a few minutes of the emails going out. I didn’t expect that. I assumed since it was going out to a limited mailing list, and that mailing list already had the opportunity to purchase most of these things recently, that things would stick around a little longer. That’s why I estimated they’d last about in hour in my final post before the break.

I often think of the group of supporters for this site as small, but passionate. I was remembering the “small” part but not considering the “but passionate” part when estimating how long the items would last. I’ll keep that in mind next time.

One other thing I learned from this is that email is not always immediate. Perhaps that should have dawned on me in the three decades of using it, but I genuinely had no clue. The announcement email was sent exactly at noon, but it looks like most people didn’t get it until a few minutes later. I don’t know why that happens, but if the delay cost you a shot at something, I’m sorry about that.

In the future, if I do another time-sensitive drop like this, I’ll send the email in advance and then just have the store go live at the designated time. That’s a better solution.


Can you explain Craig Petty to me? I dropped out of magic for about a decade and last I knew he was half of a product review show. Now he’s on youtube giving advice and lecturing how to do magic? What did I miss? Can you show me a single performance of his that is in any way worthy of emulating? I’m confused. And it seems now he’s started reading AI drafted copy on different subjects. Who watches this? —DE

For years now I’ve felt like people have been quietly urging me to make Craig Petty my nemesis. Sort of the way I went after Steve Brooks twenty-plus years ago on my first magic blog. But I think people misremember that blog a little. I wasn’t destroying Steve Brooks with my words. It was more like taking a Wiffle-ball bat to his doughy buttocks. Yes, it was meant to sting a little. But I didn’t care enough about Steve to want to “destroy” him.

My issue with him was the corny way he wielded his power back when running the Magic Café actually was a position of power. It was the most popular place for online magic discussion, but it was being strangled by bizarre moderation and a total lack of vision. Instead of improving the site as the internet evolved, they just kept adding new forums so they could cram more shitty banner ads between them.

Do you know how many forums the Magic Café has? Eighty. They’ve split the conversation into eighty different subsections, which means most of the forums have withered up and died completely.

Actually, I lied. It’s not eighty. It’s 160. My point being that they have twice as many as a number that already sounded ridiculous. Of those 160, there are only a few that are healthy and regularly active. Some haven’t been used in literally decades.

Steve used to say it was his site, his rules. Fair enough. But that also made him fair game for critique, because those “rules” were shaping what was, at the time, the central hub for the magic community.

Craig’s different. It’s easy to avoid his YouTube videos if you don’t like him or don’t think he has anything to offer. So there wouldn’t be a reason to go after him even if he did bother me. I do mention his content from time to time. Primarily as a springboard to talk about certain ideas, because what he says often highlights the difference between his expertise (professional performing) and my interest (social performing).

The original writer asked if I could “explain Craig Petty” to him. Why does he have a following? Because he has a great work ethic. He puts out new videos like clockwork. It’s not that people were clamoring to perform like Craig Petty so he had to start a YouTube channel. He started a YouTube channel and slowly built an audience who either agreed with his performance philosophy or got something from the videos.

You could do the same thing and build your own YouTube channel to a good niche audience of 1000 or so regular viewers if you posted daily for five years. You just won’t do it.

To be fair, I think my natural inclination would be to tease Craig more on this site—since he’s made himself such a well-known figure in the art. But I’m not sure that he’s someone who appreciates being teased. He seems a little on edge at times.

Which is fine. When I need someone to joke about, I always have Josh Jay. I know he doesn’t care. Which is why I can say things like I was going to in the introduction to this post when I said, “I often think of the group of supporters for this site as small, but passionate.” To which I was going to add, “Not to be confused with the way Joshua Jay describes his penis on Grindr: Small. Butt passionate.”


Regarding the post: The Power of the Narrative How

Another possibility for this observation.

There is a trick i have done a few times that involves a facetime call with someone where you “send them” an m&m through video call.

I have done it a few times to notice another thing that might be happening. I know there are a few of my friends that actually figured out the method… but even if they did, when we are out with other people that havent seen me do magic they would bring it up in terms of: “yeah this guy actually sent me an m&m through videocall !!!! “

So even if they had figured it out, they actually sound proud of having this cool story to “showoff” to other people.

I think thats another benefit of giving cool narratives. Its just more interesting for them to tell this cool story than to destroy it.—JFC


Yes, I’ve noticed this as well. In a more broader sense. My belief is that stories are stickier than methods. Methods are usually tied to the procedure the spectator goes through. And we know people don’t remember procedures very well.

“This guy told me a word I was just thinking of!” someone might tell a friend months after a performance. And you think, Well… not exactly. You wrote it down. I put it in my wallet. There were like nine steps in between. But those details vanish.

And that’s good news. If you give your trick a meaningful or imaginative story, six months later that’s what remains—the feeling and the narrative arc, not the sequence of moves that might remind them of the method. Even if they figured out a trick (or thought they figured it out) it’s likely that what lingers is the experience they had.

The story that played out was, “We travelled to a parallel universe.” Being a character in that fiction is much more memorable than: “He turned over two cards as one.” (For example.)

So even if someone is aware of both of these things, one is much more likely to remain with them over time than the other.

I’m not suggesting you be any less protective about the method. I’m just pointing out how important the story they experience is, to the point where even if the method does get exposed, there is still frequently something for them to hold onto in the experience. Something that will be around longer than the method. This is not true if your trick is solely about fooling them. If it’s just about fooling them, and they figure it out, there’s no memorable experience for them to look back on. Other than the memorable experience of figuring out your dumb trick.

Until October... and the Jerx Attic Sale

This is the final post for September. Regular posting resumes, Monday, October 6th. The next issue of the newsletter will be sent Sunday, October 5th.


The Jerx Attic Sale

Whenever I produce a book or other item for sale, I need to order a few extra in case things get lost or damaged in the mail. My friend who handles most of the mailings has held onto these extra items for the past few years. However, he is moving soon and I want to get these off his hands and into the hands of people who want them.

So, on Saturday, October 4th, at noon New York time an email will go out to current supporters with a link to the Jerx Attic Sale.

What will be available?

There are a few copies of the most recent book. Anyone who picks up one of these will also open up a slot for themselves in the Rich Uncle Millionaire support tier if they want it.

There are a few copies of the hardcover version of my monograph The Amateur at the Kitchen Table.

There are a few copies of the E.D.A.S trick I released a couple of years ago.

The very last of the stock of Jerx Decks (only 2 or 3 of each are available, I believe).

A few sets of the Twickle Hands will be available, with the profits going to charity.

I will have some GLOMM pins available as well.

There will also be a couple of one-off collectible items available. They will likely go quickly.

I don’t think you need to be there immediately at noon to pick up the other items since:

A) This sale is only open to supporters.

and

B) Most supporters who wanted these items in the past would have already picked them up.

That being said, I wouldn’t wait too long. I would expect the one-off items to be gone in minutes and everything else to be gone within an hour or so.

These items will sell at the original price supporters paid at the time. There won’t be a mark-up because they’re the last pieces.

So if you’re interested, set a reminder or an alarm. Or really get into it and wake up at 4am and camp out in front of Walmart like it’s Black Friday. A few hours later, when the doors open and people ask, “What are you doing?” Say, “I’m in line for the Jerx Attic Sale,” like that’s a sentence that makes sense. At 11:58am, rush into the store, unnecessarily trampling people on your way to the computer section so you can hop on a laptop for the noon email


In the last Love Letters newsletter, I wrote briefly about the Invisible Harmonica trick from Penguin.

I’ve seen a lot of bad performances of this which look like you fiddling with something underneath an object, then you blowing into it and making the harmonica sound, then you fiddling with the thing in your hand again.

Here’s a handling tip I didn’t mention in that write-up that helps disguise some of that.

I like to use a folded napkin. It blurs the line of believability—“Wait… folded edges of a napkin can’t produce a harmonica sound… could they?”—in a way that, say, blowing into a banana doesn’t. With a banana, the audience just thinks, “Okay, where’s he hiding the mini-harmonica?”

But it also has the added benefit that getting the edges of the napkin “just right” accounts for fiddling needed to get the gimmick in place.

To clean up, I bring the napkin and my hands from my mouth down to chest level and take a shallow bow. That little motion helps mask whatever my hands are doing to clean up.


As I said a week or so ago, this site isn’t going to become an anti-AI or anti-online-magic space. But I am leaning more and more into the idea that the most potent usage of magic is as a tool for real-world connection. Which means that when I come across writing about the value of human interaction, I see that as magic content—even if the author didn’t mean it that way. Because to me, those reminders of presence and human connection are as much a part of magic as sleight of hand.

Take, for example, this bit from Kurt Vonnegut.


See you all back here in October where I will give you helpful tips for your spooky season shows. I’m the Martha Stewart of Halloween magic. Maybe try drawing jack-o-lantern faces on orange sponge balls for added spooky cheer. Or doing the Mummy’s Finger illusion by placing your little weenie in the hole in the box for a fun Halloween thrill.

Uglying Effects

When you do a well-polished, lovingly-structured effect for people in social situations, they can’t help but picture you practicing this and refining it before you show it to them. You, sitting in front of a mirror, counting coins into a little brass box doesn’t make them think “mystery” and “wonder.” It makes them think, “dork” and “no prom date.”

Frequently, one of the strongest things you can do for a trick is to ugly it up.

I’ve hit on this a lot in the past when talking about patter. If your story is too smooth, it comes off as rehearsed. And that’s not helpful if you’re trying to create a feeling of “we don’t know what’s going to happen next.”

But it goes beyond patter. That feeling of things being too “clean” can be baked into the structure of a trick as well.

Today I’m going to show you a specific example of how I messed up the structure of a trick I liked to make it markedly more powerful for social situations.

You’re going to need a few minutes to watch a video to understand this, so if you’re at work or mid-funeral or something, circle back later.

The trick is called The Pink Lotus, and it comes from the Charms Deck project by Nikolas Mavresis & David Jonathan. You can see the performance on the product page for the effect (third video) or watch it below.


The trick uses a deck of good luck charm cards and a few bad luck cards.

In the original handling, the deck is cut at the beginning. Then five good luck charms are mixed with five bad luck charms. The spectator separates the cards face-down, and it’s revealed they’ve separated the good luck charms from the bad luck charms. Then we reveal the card they cut to earlier is actually spelled out by the imagery on the good luck cards.

It’s a strong reveal, but structurally the trick is a little too “tidy” for it to come off as anything other than, “this is how it was always going to play out,” which undermines the strength of the effect in my opinion.

Here’s how I uglied it up for social performances.

The setup

The “LOTUS” spelling cards are face-down in the box. On top of them, five bad luck cards face-up. Then the rest of the deck above that.

I bring out the deck and remove everything above the bad luck stack.

I show it to be a deck of good luck charms. And explain how it’s designed as a deck that allows you to find a good luck charm for yourself and then test it to see if it really works.

I start by forcing the Lotus card on them. This can be done through an extended procedure or just by having them touch a card. Instead of waiting to the end to reveal this card, I reveal it up front. I give it a purpose. We are going to test if this is a genuine lucky charm for them.

“Okay, so you were drawn to the Lotus. Now the next step is to test this. We need five other random cards. It doesn’t matter what they are. Just touch any five.”

I have them touch any five cards, which I strip out and place on top of the deck (still face down).

“We’re also going to use five bad luck cards.”

I dump the cards from the box onto the deck face-up, which secretly brings the LOTUS stack into play under the bad luck cards.

I show the bad luck charms, describe them quickly, then flash the five good luck charms they “chose” as well. I don’t bother to explain each one because my attitude is that it doesn’t matter what they are. This prevents the notion of a switch coming to them, since I don’t seem to even care what those cards are.

I “mix-up” the good and bad luck cards and we test their chosen card (the Lotus) by seeing how “lucky” they are at separating the good cards from the bad cards while they rest their hand on the Lotus card. At the end, it’s revealed they separated them perfectly

“That’s crazy,” I say. “I’ve never had it work out that well. I’m going to take a picture of this”

I snap a photo of the layout.

And… that’s the end.

What has happened here? They were drawn to one good luck charm card. We tested it. And it proved to actually be lucky for them.

Story-wise, this is actually much simpler and more straightforward (and hence, stronger) than the original version. Story-wise we’re cleaner. It’s effect-wise where it’s going to get uglier and less structured in a moment.

TWO DAYS LATER

The original routine is a tidy little four-minute package.

What I’ve done is cleave it in two, left the climax dangling, and let it resolve itself days later.

It’s definitely a messier structure—“uglier” by design—but it’s also more powerful. And as a social performer, that’s the only metric that matters.

The original feels like a clever trick. But even if people don’t consciously recognize it, on some level it’s obvious that the only reason that card was cut to at the beginning was so you could show the other cards spell it at the end. It’s a neat moment. But it’s a very magic-trick-y logic and structure.

By uglying it up, that climax feels fully unplanned. It resonates as an aftershock of genuine weirdness or coincidence—the kind of thing people keep thinking about long after the moment.

And that’s the bigger point: the “prettiest” tricks are usually the easiest to dismiss. Their edges are too neat, too defined. People can pack them away in their minds as a harmless little puzzle.

Ugly tricks can be much harder to shake for people

A pretty trick is like your dog leaving one solid turd on the hardwood floor: something to deal with, but easy enough to scoop and forget. An ugly trick is more like doggy diarrhea smeared deep into the shag carpet. It lingers. It stays with you.