Carefree Approach to Card Sleights

I’m in the process of refamiliarizing myself with card sleights. I had gotten out of the habit of just sitting with a deck of cards in my hands and randomly going through sleights, so I had gotten pretty rusty on things that I hadn’t used for a while.

This is my first time working specifically on sleight of hand since the development of the Carefree style, and I want to discuss how that affects the sleights I work on and maintain in my toolbox. If I had this perspective when I was younger, I would have saved myself 1000s of hours working on sleight-of-hand.

Here are some of the rules or guidelines I’m following as I go through this process.

I work on sleights that look like nothing happened (a top change), or that look like something that people actually do with cards (a double turnover).

I don’t work on flourishes. They can be beautiful. They can be impressive. But remember that the Carefree style is about a vibe. And the vibe of “I spent a lot of time practicing this” is not what I want to elicit. Flourishes are by definition performer-centric and non-collaborative. They kill the vibe I’m going for.

I also don’t bother with a sleight that doesn’t look like something a non-magician might do with a deck of cards. For example, the Faro Shuffle. I know in some countries, handling the deck like this is common. In the U.S., it’s not. It looks like, “I’m doing a special magician move. One that requires me to closely examine the deck while theoretically doing something that is haphazard and uncontrolled.” It makes no sense as a move. It’s anti-Carefree.

But there’s no other way to do some tricks other than with a faro.

Okay… so what? I can’t do Unshuffled by Paul Gertner. There’s a billion other effects I can do.

More than two ways of doing the same thing is likely a waste of time.

Look, if practicing sleights makes you happy and you want to be someone who collects proficiencies with sleights, then learn as a many as you want.

My point is, for people whose goal is to perform and engage people, then you don’t need to know five multiple shifts, four ways of a double lift, eight color changes, a half dozen false shuffles, etc. Unless you find you can stay sharp on these things with minimal effort, then it’s not a good use of your time.

If a sleight takes longer than a week to get decent at, I don’t bother with it.

A sleight should be usable (not perfected, but usable) in a week. Ideally, within 20 minutes.

If not, then it will almost certainly be a move that requires an unmagical level of attention or tension when performed.

Or it will require so much practice for it to come off as second nature that it is a bad Return on Investment. If you spent years working on a second deal or a pass, you’ve wasted your life. (Unless your goal is to do stuff for other magicians.)

---

These are the rules that are guiding me as I make my return to sleight of hand with cards. But this process has also provided me with an insight that may be my most controversial take yet. More on that tomorrow.

Spackle: The Atomic Deck

Spackle is a new feature here at the site. One of the most common types of emails I get is someone saying, “Do you do this trick? I like this trick, but I don’t like this one part of it. How would you handle this part?”

So, much like Spackle fills holes and cracks, I will tell you how I would fill these perceived or potential “holes” in an effect.

Two notes:

1. You may disagree that these are even issues in the first place. They may not be. I might just be answering them as a thinking exercise, not because I necessarily agree that the issue is an “issue.”

2. I’m not suggesting I have all the answers. I’m just speaking from my perspective. Especially if there’s some way to engage the Carefree Philosophy when possible.

GJ writes:

I picked up Craig Petty’s Atomic Deck at Blackpool. While the deck is cleverly constructed, I can’t say I like either way of accessing the crib needed. One option is to take a detour onto a dull website of “stats” that no one cares about and doesn’t really make sense. The other is to enter the information they give you into your “notes” app apparently so the specky won’t forget it which is completely unmotivated here. Will you be getting this trick? If so, how will you handle this part? With the website or the notes app?

First, no. I won’t be getting this. It looks like it has a really clever method built into the deck, but I just don’t really care all that much about ACAANs and wouldn’t likely carry around a fully gimmicked deck just for that trick.

While the Atomic Deck doesn’t give you complete freedom regarding what cards and positions can be named, it does allow a lot of apparent latitude to the spectator in regard to those choices. The downside here is that the magician has to deal.

My personal philosophy is that I would rather have more restrictions on the selection process and then allow the spectator to deal. I can hide or disguise the restrictions on the selection process (often in a way that makes it seem more fair). But I can’t hide or disguise the fact that I’m the one holding the deck and dealing through it. In my experience, me manipulating the deck in some way is going to be people’s first instinct, regardless of how cleanly I handle it. So my priority is to not have the deck in my hands.

But that’s just a personal preference.

As far as the crib goes, it’s going to have to be a digital crib due to how extensive it is. That’s why you’re given these two options (the stats website or the “notes” app). It’s not the sort of thing you could palm on a little card or something like that.

First the bad news, then I’ll get to the good news.

I don’t really like the stats website version either. What’s nice about it is, with that version, the spectator never has to name the card they’re thinking of. But it just doesn’t make any sense to me. I would have a hard time passing this off as anything legitimate.

Like… huh? Almost seven percent of the respondents said the 5 of Clubs and position #8. 1 in 14 people? Or the card is in that position 7% of the time? Either way, it’s inane.

Also, the notion of a “study” on commonly named cards and number combinations is bonkers. And the fact that the decimal goes out that far would mean that they must have conducted one of the largest research studies in history to get that granular. Who the fuck is funding this survey? And… to what end?

“We did it, everyone! We learned the most common card and position possibilities. Where do we pick up our Nobel Prizes?”

The notepad version is a little more reasonable. It doesn’t involve a fake, purposeless study of 100,000+ people that came up with unbelievable data.

But if you watch that clip, you’ll see the notes version is a little weird. “I’m going to write down the card and number you named, in case you forget it.” And then you immediately start counting down that number to the card?

I realize that people do forget cards sometimes, but usually there has been some time between the time the card was picked and the point they forget it. In this version, the only thing that happens between you getting the card and the number and you using those pieces of information, is you writing those things down. The time you take to write it down is the only chance they could have to forget the information. It doesn’t make logical sense to write it down. If the person you’re performing for is so disengaged, disinterested, or dementia-riddled that they might forget two pieces of information they literally just gave you a second ago, they’re probably a poor audience for this effect.

“Name a card and a number.”

“4 of Spades and 32.”

“Okay, just so you don’t forget that, we’re going to write it down.”

“Write what down?”

“The 4 and 32.”

“No. It’s 6:15.”

“No, I mean the card you named and the position you named.”

“A card and position? Uhm…. American Express and reverse cowgirl. Who are you? Where am I?”

But here’s the good news…

While both of these methods of accessing the crib aren’t great, and may come off as suspicious or phony, no one is going to be able to tie either of these things back to the method of the trick. They’re just too disconnected. So they may make for a somewhat awkward presentation—depending on the audience—but they’re not going to ruin the deceptiveness of the trick.

The other good news is this. You don’t have to say, “Let’s write these in the Notes app so we don’t forget them immediately.” You just need an excuse to open your phone and look at something on your phone.

It would probably make more sense to say that you’re writing it down so YOU don’t forget it. Like for some reason you want to return to their response later and you don’t want to have forgotten it at that point. This is more rational than, “I don’t trust you to remember the thing you said two seconds ago.”

I would likely go in that direction.

Or I might go in, get the information quickly, and the go into my camera to have them record the rest of the effect. So they just see me doing something on my phone and then handing it to them with the camera open.

But any excuse to use your phone would work. Remember how the first guy who won Who Wants To Be A Millionare used his lifeline to call his dad and tell him he was about to win?

You could “call your dad” to tell him you were just about to nail that trick you two had imagined together 20 years ago.

Or maybe your dad told you that you’d never be good enough to do that trick and you call him to tell him, “Kiss my ass, old man.”

Either works.

Mailbag #131

I bought Gabriel Werlen’s Penguin Lecture based on the rave reviews on the cafe with dozens of people saying it’s the best mentalism lecture ever. 

I genuinely don’t know how people can see these routines and think their audiences will be entertained by them. One that everyone is raving about involves the mentalist revealing which clear plastic cup holds two different colored imaginary balls. Like… I get that the method can be exciting but the experience of watching that and/or participating in that is a nightmare. Maybe I just perform for really stupid people, but as soon as a trick involves someone tracking the way they mix two invisible balls, I’m screwed. My audience would think that’s part of the fun and they get to just make up where the balls end up. But no—they must actively concentrate on multiple “colored” imaginary balls as they move cups around. The other one that has really excited people involves a magician finding one card out of 10 after they flip cards over and switch them in pairs. Like… why would any lay person be more impressed at a magician finding their card out of 10 than out of the whole deck? Especially since this involves a very specific switching of cards and no mixing. Again, I get that the method excites magicians, but this entire lecture was full of material that is boring as dirt to watch/take part in. I feel sorry for the poor laypeople who are going to be forced to watch some dude do these tricks on them because they are genuinely saying it’s some of the best mentalism they’ve ever seen.—XX

I won’t say that the Venn diagram of tricks that excite magicians and tricks that thrill laypeople are two completely separate circles, but it’s close enough to being true that you might as well just assume it’s true when analyzing magic.

I haven’t seen Gabriel’s lecture yet, but I’ve seen some of his other work and I understand why magicians are intrigued by his thinking. But I see your point as well.

It used to drive me crazy when magicians were hyping up some trick that I knew wouldn’t mean much of anything to laypeople. It felt like gaslighting to me, in a way. But I think the most helpful mindset to have is that some people are interested in magician-centric (which could also be called method-centric) material, while others are focused on audience-centric material. Whenever you see people praising the method, or the performer’s skill, or the cleverness of the gimmick—they’re approaching things from a magician-centric perspective, and likely there’s not a whole lot you can take from that about a trick’s appeal to a real audience.

---

I was at Blackpool convention and saw Dom Chambers show which was excellent.
He performed an OOTW routine with ladies on cards, Uv light used to show cum on the back of the cards as a climax and made me think of your routine.
Did you work with him on this ?—KQ

No. I mean, not in any way beyond the fact that I posted the routine (based on an idea from Jon Shaw) and he saw it and decided to do his version in his show. That was the extent of my “work” on it.

Anyone is free to take an idea from the site and perform it. I would suggest maybe using the phrase, “my friend Andy” during the presentation. That way, people who are in the know will know that you’re not taking full credit for the idea.

---

I do like what you've outlined as a way of presenting sucker tricks, but as I was imagining myself as the friend who is becoming your "co-conspirator," I found myself wanting to say to the magic guy, "Oh that's great, you're really going to fool the other guys with that," (and after a few seconds) "...but wait, how did you do that?" Now I think you're in a difficult place...WWJD? (What Would Jerxie Do?)—JS

The thing about this presentation is that it frames this interatction fully as a trick and the method behind the trick as something secret and valuable. So I think it makes people less like to ask you to tell it to them. As opposed to if you just did the trick in a standard presentation.

If you want to emphasize the value of the secret than at some point in your presentation, mention that part of the way the group works is that if you fool them, the other four guys in the group each pitch in $400 to learn the secret.

Then, if the person you’re performing does ask how it’s done, you can be like, “Look, if you want to come up with $1600, I’ll tell you. But part of the deal is that we haven’t shared these secrets with anyone else.” Or something like that.

And what if they do pay you $1600?

Then tell them the secret, bonehead. And enjoy your $1600.

Dustings #120

A few people wrote in to ask if yesterday’s post was real.

Real as in… what exactly?

Yes, you can really buy those endorsements and use them on anything you want. (Three already sold.)

Real in the sense that I think it’s a good use of your money? No, not necessarily. Who knows.

It was just a commentary on endorsements. (Sorry to have to explain the bit.)

---

There’s a new (awesome) trick coming to The Jerx App soon. Details on that coming later this month.

One other thing you’ll find in the next update is this idea from Marc:

“I’ve made the ‘Read The Jerx’ feature a bit clearer, and have added an 'eBook Mode' setting: I thought it’d be fun to have a setting to disguise the blog as an eBook to make it look like you’re reading a novel or something. I styled it so it looks great in both light and dark mode. Videos don’t come across with the feed, but that’s probably okay for that covert eBook setting.”

Now you can read the blog in public and if someone looks over your shoulder and asks what you’re reading, you can be like, “Ah, it’s a selection of Chaucer’s finest works. I’m a bit of a bibliophile for classic literature. It’s so much more witty and enlightening than what you might find on a… oh, I don’t know… like a magic blog or something like that. Wouldn’t you say?”

That way you’ll come off like a real intellectual fancypants, and not some dope who reads magic blogs.

---

Easy Money?

David Copperfield is the third most likely name to be on Jeffrey Epstein’s list. Always nice to see magicians in the news.

You can bet on this on polymarket.com. At this time, a $100 bet gets you $187 in return.

---

What a charming looking magician on this old valentine. He simultaneously looks like a baby AND a pedophile. Tough to pull that off.

Endorsements for Sale

I haven’t endorsed many releases since I started this site 10 years ago. I’m not against it, exactly. People don’t ask me that often. Which I guess is a good thing. If you want a genuine endorsement, the best thing to do is probably to send me your product. If I like it and use it, I’ll end up writing about it in the Love Letters newsletter for supporters. And then you can scavenge that write-up for an endorsement. Of course, that probably means you wouldn’t get your endorsement until the product was released, so that might not serve your needs. Oh well.

I find most endorsements so phony-sounding, I’m surprised they’re persuasive to anyone. It’s clearly a mutual back-slapping society where if you say nice things about my product, I’ll say nice things about yours. “Back-slapping” may be too innocuous for what it is. It’s like a circle of guys with their dicks in each other’s asses. Is there a name for that? I’m sure there is. But I’m not googling it. My computer is already disgusted by the things I search.

Regardless, I thought I would start offering a new service.

Endorsements for Sale, Series #1

I have pre-written some endorsements. You can buy them at the paypal link below. You can attach them to any product you want. You don’t need my permission. Once you’ve paid the price, you can do whatever you want with it—although it must be published in full. Each endorsement can only be purchased once. So you will have a true exclusive.

Endorsement #1 - $78.00

“When I saw that ping-pong ball get sucked up into the bottle, I was pretty impressed. But when Bobby said, ‘And you can keep that as a souvenir.’ MY JAW DROPPED!!! Best trick of Magic-Live.”— Andy (The Jerx)

This one is pretty cheap. And it’s really only best suited if your name is Bobby, and you have a trick where a ping-pong ball gets sucked into a bottle. If that’s the case, you’re making out like a bandit here. But even if you’re selling an e-book on the 3 Shell Game, you could still buy this and put it in your ad. Perhaps the incongruity of the endorsement will draw more eyes to your product.

Endorsement #2 - $135

“Honestly bro… this is pretty average.” —Andy (The Jerx)

Okay, this isn’t the most glowing endorsement, I admit. But it is almost universally applicable to any release. And there’s a decent chance it’s more positive than your release deserves.

Endorsement #3 - $225 [SOLD OUT]

“No, no, no… are you kidding me? No. no, no… seriously? No, no, no… I mean… Noooooo… for real? No. Just no. No, no, no… I can’t even… like… wait… hold up…. No, no, no… you didn’t just do that. No. That’s not… I can’t…it’s just…there’s no way. No.” —Andy (The Jerx)

Endorsement #4 - $300 [SOLD OUT]

This one would work well in a subject line for an email as well as in the ad copy itself.

“Wow. I just shitted my pants. BIG TIME!” —Andy (The Jerx)

Endorsement #5 - $500 [SOLD OUT]

“I don’t think you should sell this. I want to be the only one doing it! LOL. Seriously though. Please don’t sell this. It’s just too good. I want it all to myself. What can I do to make you not sell this? I’ll do anything you want. Anything. Dude, I’ll do that. I will. I’ll suck your dick. For real, man. Just think about it. The tip, the shaft, the balls. The whole ‘kit and kaboodle.’ Both of your kaboodles, as a matter of fact. It doesn’t mean you’re gay. You can close your eyes. I just really want to be the only one doing this trick. So please, let me do that for you. Please!”—Andy (The Jerx)

Endorsements may be purchased below. Only one of each is available.

Endorsements: Series 1

Endorsement #1: Ping-Pong $78.00 USD Endorsement #2: Average $135.00 USD Endorsement #3: No, no, no. $225.00 USD Endorsement #4: Shitted $300.00 USD Endorsement #5: BJ $500.00 USD

RAP: The Gentle Sucker Trick

This is an idea in the Rehearsal As Presentation series.

It’s a concept I call “gentle sucker” tricks.

I think sucker tricks in casual/social situations come off as profoundly corny.

The worst part about magic is that people feel “set up” by it, and it can make them feel dumb. Sucker tricks are intended to emphasize these two things.

This was an idea I had years ago in an email conversation with Joe Mckay. The trick we were discussing was something like this…

You open a briefcase on your table, and you tell your friend that inside you have a deck of cards. You ask them to name any card. You look into your case and after a moment you remove a deck of cards. You spread the deck to show them all the cards are blue, except the one card they named is red.

With a little thought, your friend might rightly assume you have more than one deck of cards in the briefcase. In fact, you might have one for every possibility.

You admit they’re right and that you do have 52 decks in the case. You turn the briefcase around to show them it’s full of decks of cards.

But then you tip it over to show all the card cases are empty.

This is pretty classic Sucker Trick structure (using a single Brainwave deck). And while I’m not suggesting this sort of thing will piss people off or upset them, I do think it plays into the “this is me vs you, and I’m going to show I’m smarter than you” element of magic which is the least attractive part of it.

But let’s filter the same trick through the Rehearsal As Presentation concept.

You tell your friend that you’re part of a group of magicians who get together and try to fool each other. “Can I test something out on you? I want to see how fooling it is.” Just this slight twist is already a more compelling premise than, “Let me try and fool you.”

But now, let’s continue forward. You do the trick. You bring out the blue deck with one red card that happens to be the card they named.

“Do you think that will fool them? Or do you have some idea of how it works?”

“Well, can I look in the briefcase?”

“Uhm…. so you think they’ll want to look in the briefcase?”

“Yeah, I would. They probably will too.”

“Oh boy…. that’s not good,” you say, and slowly turn the case around to show it’s loaded with decks. “52 decks. Busted.”

Your friend will likely find this amusing.

“But actualy,” you say, conspiratorially. “That’s just what I want them to think.” Then you tip over the briefcase to show all those cases are empty.

It still has the sucker element to it, but now they’re on your side. They’re still fooled by the trick, and still taken in by the twist. But now they’re playing a part in helping you test how “fooling” this trick is. It’s a subtle change, but they no longer feel like “the mark.” In fact, when I’ve used this structure on other “sucker” type tricks, I find that the more “duped” they feel, the more they like it.

It’s like getting a peek behind a prank that’s about to occur. Sucker tricks have a “prankish” feel to them. But instead of them feeling like they were mainpulated, they’re getting an insider look at how you are planning to manipulate someone else.

Dells

I have a new concept for us to think about. I write about it in the upcoming book. But the books are intended to be specific examples of stuff I write about here on the site. So just reading the site alone will give you the groundwork for anything I talk about in the books. I don’t want anyone to feel like because they can’t support at the $25/month level that they’re going to be left out of something.

Today I’m going to introduce you to the concept of Dells, which goes along with other concepts I’ve introduced on this site: Imps, Sponts, Buy-Ins, Reps, etc.

Dells

In nature, a dell is a small, secluded hollow, it can be a grassy valley or a little stream surrounded by trees or something like that.

Dells are often romanticized in stories and folklore. Places where fairies might gather, or lovers will meet for a secret midnight tryst.

A dell creates its own little world—a cool, sheltered space with its own atmosphere that feels separate from the surrounding landscape. Unique plants and animals can thrive there because it’s cut off from the usual wind and sunlight. 

In magic, a ‘Dell’ does something similar. It, too, can create its own “little world” for a trick, giving it meaning and context that’s separate from both the real world, and the typical magic presentation.

“Dell” is the name for the Delivery Method for predictions and revelations. This isn’t some mystical or hard-to-define concept. It’s literally the actual, concrete way the prediction is delivered to the person—that’s what a Dell is.

Prediction have an inherent “sameness” to them. “I wrote down the precise word/number/playing card/emotion/time of day you would think of.”

In one show, over a single night, it might not matter that this all feels the same. But if you’re always doing the same sort of thing for people over months and years of knowing them, it’s likely to grow stale over a short period of time

One way to breathe life into a prediction or revelation trick is to change the Dell.

One of the earliest examples of a Dell on this site is the Creepy Child revelation for Spectator Cuts the Aces, where the cards the spectator cuts to are predicted in a child’s drawing on your refrigerator.

The trick itself could end with you pulling out a piece of paper where you predicted the cards they would cut to, and it would be the same trick technically.

But you see how this Dell—the manner in which the prediction is delivered—is enough to build a story around and create its own little fictional world of a precocious or creepy child who can predict what’s going to happen.

Let’s look at another example. The Hoy Book Test. They’re thinking of a word, and you say, “Are you thinking of lemon?”

What if you change the Dell, and instead you go into a trance-like state and this strange voice comes from deep in your throat. “𝔄𝔯𝔢 𝔶𝔬𝔲 𝔱𝔥𝔦𝔫k𝔦𝔫𝔤 𝔬𝔣 𝔩𝔢𝔪𝔬𝔫?”

This is a completely different experience for your audience.

You might be saying, “I don’t get it. Do you just like coming up with new verbiage or something? Your “Dell” thing is just another way of talking about a trick’s premise. The premise is of a creepy child who predicts the cards they’ll cut to. The premise is of a spirit that takes over your body to know what word they’re thinking of. This isn’t anything new.”

You have it backwards. The Dell is solely the delivery method for the prediction or the revelation.

The point I’m making is that once you come up with a new Dell, a premise will naturally grow out of it.

What if you didn’t write down your prediction but…

… it was on an old, unlabeled V/H/S tape you found. Delivered by some guy speaking in a dull monotone, staring into the camera.

… it was carved into a tree behind the school you went to as a child.

… you farted into your phone’s voice memo feature, and then you used a “special app” to slow down your fart by 20,000%, and it’s this low voice saying, You will pick the 9 of Diamonds. “That’s weird, right?” you say, as if you need confirmation.

As I write those ideas, I don’t have premises to go along with them, but it wouldn’t take much thought to expand those different Dells in to greater premises, stories, and worlds.