Until September...

/

This is the final post until September. Regular posting resumes Monday, September 1st. The next issue of the newsletter comes out Sunday, August 31st. If you are a supporter with an ad for the newsletter, try to get it to me in a week from today.

Someone asked me who the Jacob was in the “Jacob Holdout” from yesterday and I fucking have no clue. I wrote that post up over a month ago and it was late at night and I completely forgot what I was thinking when I named it.

The only thing I can think of is that because it was an alternative to the Ron Edwards Holdout, I was thinking Jacob and Edward… like a Twilight thing? But I can’t see myself actually doing that. But, I guess apparently I did.

Kane F. writes:

I’ve seen several bullshit facebook posts recently about brains emitting electromagnetic waves that travel vast distances. If you google it you get flooded with facebook, instagram and linkedin post about it (no actual evidence of course):

Seems like a great setup for some sort of mind reading effect. “Do you want to try out some of the tests they did in the study? It’s totally harmless as far as I know” etc could set up mind reading over the phone/video call as well with the “long distances” bit.

Remember when we thought the internet would make us smarter?

There is so much goofball shit on Facebook (and everywhere else) that you could really make your whole performing persona, “I believe every dumb thing I see on facebook. And, in fact, I can demonstrate these things to you.”

I won’t say this trick is bad…

but can you convince me it’s good?

Remember the Green Grass Test.

What about this trick would you say is good compared to other tricks where coins (or chips) go from hand to hand? Other than the fact that it’s new and we tend to value new releases over tricks that have been around for a while? Especially given the fact that most of the displays in this trick are of the edge of the coin?

SPOOX movie recommendation. I think Weapons lives up to the hype. If you’re a horror fan, check it out.

Not only that, but in the opening title, there is a triangle in the O in Weapons. So you could do the circle/triangle psychological force. As the movie starts, just say to the audience, “Think of a simple shape, like a square. And then place another simple shape around it.” Then just notice the astounded response from the audience as they say, “I can’t believe this! Sit the fuck down, we’re trying to watch a movie.”

See you back here on the first!

Spex Mix: The Jacob Holdout

/

Spex Mix is my series of posts on ways for the spectator to mix the cards while retaining a partial stack, based on my theory that letting the spectator mix the cards is far stronger than any false shuffle you might do yourself. Ctrl+F and look for Spex for other posts in this series.

This is a new technique I’ve been defaulting to recently. There’s nothing revolutionary here, it’s just a combination of beats that I’ve found works particularly well together.

It’s best when you’re maintaining a stack of up to six cards, I would say. You could get away with one or two more maybe, but six is about where I cap it.

Your stack starts out on the bottom of the deck.

1. Start by giving it a few riffle shuffles, protecting the bottom stack.

2. Cut off about 15 cards and give them to your friend to shuffle. The number, doesn’t exactly matter. Ideally we’re shooting for a little less than 1/3rd of the deck though.

3. When they’re done, have them set their pile on the table. Point to a place roughly aligned with your right shoulder.

4. Cut off another 15 or so cards and hand them to the spectator to mix.

5. As they do this, spread the remaining cards between your hands, as if to gauge about how many are left. Close the spread and obtain a pinky break above your stack.

6. At this point, I say something almost to myself like, “We’ll do one more.” As if to say, “We’re not going to split the remaining cards any further. We’ll just shuffle one more packet.”

7. Take the packet in your right-hand Biddle-grip. Taking over the break with your right thumb.

8. As they shuffle, or as you point to a place on the table for them to place their packet, allow your right hand to hang over the first packet shuffled and drop the cards below the break on top of that packet.

9. After they’ve set down the second packet, give them the third packet to shuffle. Have them replace it on the table when they’re done.

10. You now have three apparently fully shuffled packets on the table. Have them reassembled as in the Jerx Ose False(ish) Cut.

The benefits of this is that there’s a true sense that they shuffled all the cards and reassembled the deck in a random manner.

I’ve been using this as an alternative to the Ron Edwards Holdout mentioned in this post, which I’ve always loved, but which I think is less convincing because the cards are shuffled and being returned to your hands. That is a little cozier and less clean than this method.

Addressing the Weakness

All methods have a trade-off. The trade-off with this technique is that the spectator doesn’t shuffle the full deck together.

The good news is that most people won’t conceptualize this as a weakness. It won’t even occur to them.

But still, I’ve built in some ways to address it.

First, I start by shuffling the full deck myself. This semi-satisfies the impulse to see the full deck shuffled. But still, it’s in my hands, so there’s only so much they can trust in it.

So now, when I cut a portion off and ask them to shuffle, it feels like this is more fair than what I was just doing.

But what if they ask why they’re not shuffling the full deck at the same time?

“Oh, we will,” you say, “but this is the way they do it in casinos to make sure things are perfectly mixed. Shuffle in small packets. Then shuffle those small packet together.”

Then, while they shuffle the third packet, you shuffle the first two packets together, leaving your stack on top. Then you have them push their packet into yours (like they’re Faro’ing the cards into yours). Because your packet is more than twice the size of theirs, you can protect the top stack just by adjusting it so they’re pushing their cards lower down into the stack.

But what if they still say, “Okay, but I want to shuffle all the cards, any way I want, all by myself.”

In this case, you have someone who is too hyperfocused on the shuffling. Give them the deck to shuffle however they want, a move into your Failsafe Trick.

Sample Usage

Here’s a simple, somewhat generic usage, for this.

The four aces start on the bottom of the deck. You go through this procedure and they end up on top.

“Pick up the deck and deal the cards onto the table.”

After they’ve dealt four, you say, “As you go, discard some of the cards by dealing them into the center of the table.”

So they’re dealing through the deck, dealing some to themselves, and discarding others.

Push the discards aside.

Have them deal the cards they kept into four piles. Back and forth, like dealing a card game.

The four Aces will end up one on top of each pile.

“You cut the cards, you shuffled the cards, you decided which cards to keep and which to discard. I haven’t even touched the deck since the beginning. Turn over the top card of each pile.”

Again, this is just a sample usage. I wouldn't necessarily use it to produce the four aces. But you can do a similar process to produce any small group of cards that has some greater meaning in the premise of your trick.

Hard Truths About My Saxophone Playing

/

Guys, can you help me out with something? Every time I play my saxophone for my friend, he tells me I screwed up the song—even when I know I didn’t. Or he says it wasn’t as good as the original. Do you know a saxophone tune I could play that would shut him up with how good it is, how cool it sounds?

Now… that’s a dumb fucking question, right?

And yet magicians ask versions of it all the time. “What’s a trick I can do that will shut up a heckler?” “What’s a trick I can do for my friend Todd? He always has some criticism or tries to expose me.” “What’s a trick I can do that will really wow my friends? I’ve shown them some stuff, but they don’t always seem interested.”

It’s time for some hard truths.

If your friends are paying attention to your magic and honest enough to tell you when they think they’ve caught the method—that’s a gift. That’s the quickest way you’ll ever improve.

But… if the only reason they engage is to try and bust you, then your friend is corny. Stop performing for them. They don’t want to share the experience; they just want to make you look stupid.

But, Andy, all my friends are like that. If I don’t perform for people like that, I wouldn’t perform for anyone.

Okay—let’s go back to the saxophone for a second.

If I said, “Everyone I know talks shit about my saxophone playing,” there are only two possible explanations:

  1. Everyone I know is trash.

  2. I’m terrible at playing the saxophone.

(Or, possibly, both.)

And here’s the point: neither of those problems gets solved by me hunting down a “better” song. Just like your issue isn’t fixed by finding a “better” trick.

Now, if you find yourself in this situation, it’s tempting to pin the blame on your audience. “Yes, everyone I know is just some unsupportive piece of shit who can’t stand me bringing joy into their lives with magic. That’s the problem!”

Sorry, that doesn’t let you off the hook. Sure, it stings to realize you might just be bad at magic. But telling yourself “I only attract jerks into my life” should actually feel worse, given what it says about you.

So now it’s time for an honest assessment.

If the people in your life suck, it’s time to douche out your contact list and get some new friends.

I’ve written about that here.

If you know your friends are good people, and it’s more likely that you’re just bad at magic, then this is what I would do…

Take some time off. Maybe a year. If people aren’t reacting, something in your approach is broken. Do you lack confidence? Are you making it too much about yourself? Are you pouring all your energy into fussy sleight-of-hand while never actually connecting with your audience? Are all your tricks obvious little trinkets and unexaminable gaffed items that the audience just dismisses as your little magic toys?

During this break, don’t buy new magic. Instead, pick up Scarne on Card Tricks for a few dollars. Work through every trick on your own. Identify your five favorites. Master them. Build presentations you genuinely find compelling.

After your hiatus, go up to someone you used to perform for a lot and say, “You’ve probably noticed I haven’t been doing magic for a while. I just sort of lost interest in it. But the other day I learned something genuinely fascinating. It’s not magic exactly. It’s… I’m not sure what you’d call it. Here, can I show you?”

Try this out a few times. Are you getting better reactions? If not—and you’re sure your friends aren’t dicks—then you just might not have the instincts to perform magic. It’s okay. Not everyone is good at the things they’d like to be good at.

Does that mean you should stop performing?

No. Not in my opinion. Keep going. You suck. Your audiences aren’t happy. You’re unfulfilled. But it’s just magic.

A lot of people think bad magic is bad for magic. I disagree. Your shitty magic helps set a low bar for what audiences expect. That’s actually a service to anyone who’s figured out how to get good reactions. You’re not “harming the art.” I mean that sincerely. It’s fine to be bad at something you enjoy—so long as it’s not something that eats you alive.

“I enjoy this. I’m not great at it. My friends mostly don’t care. But certainly they’d rather sit through 45 seconds of bad magic than three minutes of me singing poorly. So all in all, they’re making out okay.”

If that’s where you land, that’s fine. Just don’t spend a fortune chasing the trick that’s going to turn it all around. It doesn’t exist.

It’s okay if your hobby doesn’t fill your soul. Just don’t let it drain your bank account at the same time.

Housing Your Repertoire: Satellite Hooks

/

The posts on housing your repertoire [Part One and Part Two] have really been slowly kicking in. I feel im getting a better habit of performing thanks to it.

So thanks. I needed it. I have been trying to perform more. Im doing it slowly.

Here is just a small idea for certain magic apps that you can use.

I have my main phone screen with the minimal apps stuff i use daily: notes, phone, spotify, calendar and 3 more. The “addictive stuff” is on my third screen. So not really accessible. I do the same with magic apps. I put them in my 4th screen. (This is from a book i read on habits and phone addiction. Its helped immensely)

I started just moving one of the magic apps to the main screen. That way i can see it and be reminded of it. When i see an opportunity, i can perform. And then after i just switch another app into that position and move the used one to the 4th screen again. Rotating them.

Its a small thing. But its another place where you can think of “rotational housing.”—JFC

Yeah, this is a good idea.

You can also use this in the “real world,” not just with phone apps. Having a “feature” or “highlight” trick is something you could expand to other areas of your repertoire organization.

For example, you might have a display of decks of cards somewhere in your house. Take one of those decks and place it on your coffee table. That becomes the “featured” spot from your collection of unusual decks.

Or maybe you have a display of “strange objects” on a bookshelf. You could feature one of those tricks by placing it somewhere more prominent—on the kitchen table, or even in a shipping box by the front door, as if it just arrived..

This does two things:

First, it highlights a trick you’ve been wanting to do. It’s a built-in reminder to perform it when the opportunity comes up.

Second, it serves as a hook for anyone who sees it. They know you have a collection of interesting decks… but what’s this one? They’ve seen your shelf of weird objects… but why is this one out?

Your deck collection or your weird-object display are already hooks that can lead into a performance. These featured items act as satellite hooks, expanding the range of those displays.

Another example: I have a bookshelf full of books on esoteric subjects, plus various gimmicked books—each one designed to flow into an effect. If I pull one off the shelf and put it on the end table, it expands the range of that bookshelf’s hook.

You might feel like having a “highlight trick” locks you into performing that trick specifically, but it doesn’t. You can use it to lead into any trick from the larger collection.

If a friend notices a book on my end table and I decide the related trick isn’t the best fit for them, I can just say, “Eh, nothing. I thought I remembered something interesting in that book, but couldn’t find it.” Then, as I go to put it back on the shelf, I can “remember” another book I want to show them instead.

So the “highlight” trick can either be the thing you want to perform, or just the thing that leads you back to the original collection. Either way, it helps you transition naturally into a performance.

This might seem like just a small habit shift, but little nudges like this can have an outsized impact on both your opportunities to perform and how easily you can slip into the effect.

Maibag #146

/

Idiot Savant is genius (pun not intended, but acknowledged). Thank you for sharing it on the site. I like the Savant Deck version but love being able to do it with a normal deck. I was wondering why you didn’t write it up with your usual format with “Imagine/Method”? I enjoy hearing the story of the trick’s performance. —DD

No real reason. I just hadn’t performed it much yet, so I didn’t really have a worthwhile performance to relay. When I lay out the full story of a performance, it’s describing a real interaction. I don’t just fabulize some scenario. So that’s something you’ll see less on the site and more in the books, because that’s where I put the tricks I’ve worked out fully.

That said, supporters will read a performance/presentation of Idiot Savant in the next book, because I’ve come up with an alternate presentation for it that takes it out of the, “I’m great at addition” sphere.

Did you help Craig Petty with his latest video? It’s very “jerx-coded” to the point of plagiarism in some spots. What do you reckon? I can’t be the only person to have mentioned this. It’s all about social magic and Craig has said he doesn’t perform socially, so where is this video even coming from?—VR

No, you’re not the only one.

But the full question you should be asking is… Did I help Craig Petty… or am I Craig Petty?

I’ll never tell. And unless you have some sort of futuristic de-pixelation machine to use on this photo of me ranting, you’ll never know for certain who I am.

Look, here’s the deal. Anyone talking about social magic is going to sound somewhat like me. And that’s because 99% of all the discussion on the topic has come from me. Before I started writing about it, “social magic” was basically just a loose way of saying “magic for friends and family.” And it was usually treated as if it were just a small-scale version of professional performance.

My whole contribution was saying: no, social magic should be the opposite of professional performance. Scripts, routines, audience management, sitting behind a close-up mat like you’re auditioning for the Magic Castle—that stuff smothers the social connection aspect of social magic. That’s the drum I’ve been beating for over a decade. So now, whenever someone makes a similar point, it’s going to sound like me. I don’t mind it. If I was writing this site to make a name for myself… you’d know my name.

The only issue I have with Craig’s video is he once again brings up this trick when talking about me. That’s one of the weakest ideas on the site! At the time, it was fine. There was maybe a three-month window where it was viable, back when programmable colored lights were new. But once everyone knew about them, the method was cooked.

So, while I appreciate the kind words, there are literally 1500 posts I’d probably recommend before that one.

Here is Justin Flom’s response to last Monday’s mailbag regarding magic on the internet. You can agree or disagree with him, but if anyone can offer some informed perspective on the subject, it’s him.

Your mailbag on magic and the internet was 100% spot on. With Magic Live in town and some renewed heat around my online videos, I had this conversation a lot last week.

The rules of retention are not the same in person as they are online. Astonishment and wonder are absolutely worthy goals and if you can reach them, grab them. Absolutely. But on a screen, wonder is almost impossible. Too many variables get in the way: viewers can’t trust it’s not a camera trick or an actor, and they can’t fully invest because their life won’t be changed by what they’re seeing. Nobody online will sit through a slow, procedural counting card trick even with a romantic presentation. However in person people will take that ride because they’re actually involved and can touch and feel the trick with the critical eye that’s required to be fooled or astonished.

As AI keeps eroding trust in what we see online, live experiences become the only way to know something actually happened.

If you looked only at online metrics, you’d conclude that no one ever wants to see a card trick again. Retention graphs for them are a cliff. But in real life, the same people who swipe away in two seconds online will happily give you three minutes in person, even for a complicated card effect.

Here’s the challenge with magic in a news feed online: magic traditionally starts ordinary and ends extraordinary. Ordinary doesn’t stop swipes. A bottle of Coke being placed in a paper bag isn’t novel. It’s just a couple inanimate objects and a viewer isn’t really apt to believe that it’ll lead somewhere interesting. There’s no reason for someone to believe it’ll end anywhere worth waiting for. And if the viewer knows they’re watching a magician they also know they won’t learn the secret at the end so why hangout if they can’t even trust that it’s “real” (e.g. not a camera trick)

So I’ve flipped it by starting these silly videos with the secret and show something novel, interesting, and marginally educational up front. Magic secrets check all three boxes, and once you’ve earned attention with the secret, people stick around for the payoff. Totally different game than live magic.

One note that I’ve taken from the internet for my live interactions however...No matter your feelings on magic exposure I’ve found it useful in person to lower a participant’s guard. When someone sees I’m willing to share a secret, they stop thinking I’m there to fool them for my ego, and that openness lets me fool them harder. (I combine that with your Peek Behind the Curtain saying, “Can I show you something I’m working on?”) So I’ll start by showing a finger-flicking-angle-sensitive-color-change then transition into a simple two card transpo. After being conditioned into believing that magic secrets are highly complicated and angle sensitive, a double lift flies past them even easier. —JF

What's Happening On the Socials?

/

Michael C., informs me this is making the rounds again. It’s a filter that makes it look like your eyes are closed so you can “intuit” how many fingers people are holding up.

It’s fairly well F’d out now for people on Instagram or TikTok, but I did think that maybe “exposing” this would be a good lead in to doing it “for real” with Echo Sync.

But I quickly dropped that idea. I don’t think you want to implant the idea of manipulation of the audio/video in any way when you perform that trick. I’ve never had anyone suggest that as a method, but they might if introduced via something similar.

So I wouldn’t bring it up myself.

But… If someone happened to mention this trick/filter to me, then I might consider building off of it and saying, “You know, there’s actually ways of doing it for real. In fact, I’ll have you guess how many fingers I’m holding up.”

Khaled A., brings this post to my attention…

With millions of views, it wouldn’t seem out of the blue to use it as a springboard for a drawing duplication effect.

“This came up on my feed the other day, and I was wondering what the big deal was. I’ve always done this sort of thing with my friends. I thought it was just something people could naturally do if they spent a lot of time around each other.”

Or whatever premise you want to go ahead with.

Watching Justin Flom squeeze his little daughter into this box was funny. But I really wanted to see him toss it into a wood chipper to really send those dolts on Instagram spiralling.



Twickle Hands

/

For those of you who were interested in the Twickle effect from a couple of months ago, here are some files that allow you to 3D print hands of various number reveals.

The nice thing about these is that they don’t just look like a baby doll’s arm that’s stuck on your finger. You can also print them in whatever color makes sense to you for the creature that’s supposedly passing along this information

I have just a few sets of these that I will make available in some way in the future if you’re too lazy to figure out the 3D printing.

Some notes from the friend of the site who sent along these files:

  • These require supports because of the overhang of the fingers

  • I printed this out of 95A soft TPU and they feel amazing, better than the dealer little hands on the market

  • I sized the models up to 110% scale to fit my fingers

  • Finished with an 80-grit sanding sponge

One finger

Two fingers

Three fingers

Four fingers

Five fingers

Thanks, Twickle-Hand-File providing friend!