Until 2026...

/

This, unbelievably, is the final post for 2025. I will see you all back here on Monday, January 5th.

The relaunched version of the newsletter, Keepers #1, will be in the email of supporters on January 4th.

Got a lot of positive emails on yesterday’s post. If you want to explore other stuff I’ve written from a similar angle, check out: The Three Highlights (about taking time to notice the things you appreciate) and Invest In Your Happiness (about feeding into the things that bring you joy).

Huh?

“Okay, we have two people applying for a job. A black guy and a white guy. Point to one. The black guy? Okay. So we eliminate him and hire the white guy.”

From Marc Kerstein, regarding an old post for a trick called Peruggia. His suggested tweak makes a lot of sense to me.

I tried this at a show(!) I did tonight and it went amazingly. Being able to really emphasise that the final card never left their hand was really great - they kept mentioning that particular point afterwards.

One small change I made was not to peek the bottom card on my stack of three (as you would do normally), but instead to double lift the top card of my stack as I showed it, peeking the one beneath it. It was really easy to do even with the index cards I was using as I just did a pinky pull down on the bottom one of my stack, and it also meant I didn't need to rearrange my cards before doing the Elmsley switch. It also left me holding one card which easily could’ve been the remaining TWO cards in my other hand, making that whole peeking part stand up a bit better to scrutiny.

To be clear, he’s suggesting you turn over the top card singly, then double lift it to display it, peeking the second card in the stack.

If you familiarize yourself with the trick, you’ll see why this is likely an improvement.

A heads-up to anyone marketing a magic trick: nothing reflects more poorly on an effect than making a trailer that doesn't show what the trick actually looks like.

You'd be better off not making a video at all. At least then I could convince myself the trick is great—you just couldn't shoot a trailer, or maybe you're keeping it low-key and not actively promoting it.

But when you set up cameras, shoot footage, edit it all together, and still don't show me what it looks like? Now I'm certain it must look like dogshit.

This is the first release of 2026 that I'm really looking forward to…

Chris showed me this a few months ago and I've been waiting to get my hands on it ever since.

I've been searching for a good impression pad for ages. I bought most of the highly recommended ones but never found one I loved. They either looked weird, required careful handling, or involved some odd procedure. Even the ones built into spiral notebooks weren't ideal—I'm not a hard-boiled private eye tracking down the killer of some Park Avenue heiress in 1947, so I don't actually carry spiral-bound notebooks around. Nor does anyone I know.

But I do carry these types of pads when I'm researching or taking notes on books. This won't seem out of place for me at all.

Looks like it drops in January.

We did it, guys. Another year in the books.

Have a great Christmas, Happy New Year, and all the rest.

Now step under the mistletoe with me and let me lay one on you, you beautiful son of a gun! Get over here!

Keepers

/

Every few years I like to mix up the newsletter format a bit. (For those who aren’t supporters, the monthly newsletter isn’t just a long email I send out or something, it’s a 10-30 page pdf zine/digest-type of thing.)

Originally (2016-2019) it was called X-Communiciation

Then, in 2020, it became The Wanderer.

After that, it became the Love Letters newsletter for three and a half years.

That marked a change in direction for the newsletter as it was where I decided to only focus on writing about things that I liked. Writing bad reviews is a lot easier, and they can be fun to read, but ultimately I don’t think they’re super valuable. If I want to trash something, I can do it on the site. Keeping the monthly review newsletter focused on the releases of others that I enjoyed gave it more of a purpose.

I believe the more energy you focus on positive things, the more positive things will come into your life—and conversely, the more you focus on negative things, the more negative things will follow

And I don’t mean that philosophically. I don’t mean, “if you have a better outlook, things will look better to you.” I mean it quite literally.

Think of your life as existing within a larger field of energy that’s always in motion.

Within that field are two masses: one oriented toward light and positivity, the other toward darkness and negativity.

At first, both are small. The energy flows evenly around them.

But your attention gives them weight.

When you return again and again to positive thoughts, moments, objects, or events, the positive mass grows heavier. And like any heavy object, it begins to bend the space around it.

As that bend deepens, more of the surrounding energy naturally falls toward the positive mass and adds to it. The good in your life becomes greater—easier to notice and easier to access.

This creates a feedback loop: attention creates weight; weight creates gravity; gravity pulls in more experience of the same kind.

The same mechanism works in reverse: negativity, when repeatedly fed with your attention, also grows dense. It pulls more darkness into its orbit. Not because the universe is cruel, but because gravity is impartial.

You’ve seen this. You know these people. The ones who seem to move through life collecting beauty and opportunity. And the ones who catalogue every slight, every inconvenience, every setback—and only seem to draw more of that into their orbit.

Over time, your inner universe begins to curve toward whatever you have allowed to become most massive.

So anywayyyy.… this is why the monthly newsletter will continue to focus on the things I’m enjoying.

I'm a big believer in building routines that help you focus on the positive. Prayer, list making, journaling—whatever practice helps you notice what you're appreciating: the cool people you meet, the media you enjoy, incredible meals, perfect days, great conversations, moments that made you laugh.

Everything you want to remember or want more of.

The “keepers.”

So, after 41 issues, the Love Letters newsletter is being retired. But what’s coming next won't be all that different, just a change in name and a little less structure.

Love Letters was almost always a deep dive on the three things I enjoyed most that month. This incarnation may feature more or fewer highlights, giving me the freedom to offer shorter write-ups when I like something but don't have much to say about it. My target is about 12 pages per month, but we'll see if I can keep it to just that.

It will still come out the first Sunday of every month.

So, if you're a supporter, keep an eye on your inbox January 4th for...

Diddly Rounders

/

I think we need a new Judge Jerxy post regarding the Yigal Mesika vs Penguin Magic dispute. After watching his recent video, it doesn’t look good for Penguin imo. What say the judge? —RC

Well, to start, I don’t think it was called Judge Jerxy. I think it was called, Here Come the Jerx.

That important distinction made, I just don't have it in my heart to take a deep dive on this because Yigal brings up multiple issues, not just one.

Yigal presents his case well, but after reading Josh Burch's reply on behalf of Penguin in this thread, not all of Yigal's criticisms really land. You can read that to get the other side and decide for yourself.

I think part of the issue Yigal faces is that some of his complaints seem legitimate, but others seem so fucking stupid that it's easy to dismiss him as ridiculous or greedy or something like that.

I'm going to help Yigal out and point out how his claims resonate to an outsider.

Complaints About Spider Pen and Tarantula Knock-offs

These issues feel totally legitimate. I don't have a ton of knowledge in this field, but I don't know anyone who suggests Yigal didn't make a serious contribution to the technology behind devices like these.

Getting ripped off by other creators, or knocked off by Chinese manufacturers after all the money that went into developing these things, would drive me nuts too.

A-tier complaint.

Complaints About Having the Methodology Used in Your Loops Tricks Stolen

Again, this is valid. Yigal popularized a lot of these ideas, and I have no reason to believe he didn't create the methodologies too. Unfortunately, there are only so many ways to yank around stuff on a small loop of thread, so it doesn't necessarily feel like someone's getting their intellectual property ripped off. It can often feel like someone is just demonstrating the most obvious way of using a loop of thread to produce a given effect.

Yigal may rightfully feel like he invented that approach, but others see the technique for floating a dollar and think, “Well, how the hell else would you do it?”

A valid complaint, but hard to rally people around.

B-tier complaint.

Complaints About People Ripping Off Loops as a Product

Finn Jon invented Loops in the mid-80s and sold Yigal Mesika the exclusive rights a decade later.

Now... look, we all owe Finn Jon a debt of gratitude.

Buuuuuut...

Invisible elastic thread already existed and was used in magic.

Tying thread into loops was already used in magic.

If Finn Jon had died in a wakeboarding accident in the 60s, I am supremely confident someone else would have cracked that nut by the time the 80s rolled around and we had higher quality IET that made something like Loops feasible.

I'm not suggesting Finn Jon doesn't deserve credit. I'm just explaining why even people like me, who are big supporters of intellectual property, don't see a huge issue with people releasing their own IET bands.

It's sort of like claiming to "own" the idea of roughing half of the back of a card rather than the full thing for easy separating.

Yes, that was an advancement, and it's great if we can credit and acknowledge the person who came up with that idea. But I don't know if it's an idea someone can own.

And in the case of Loops, we're not even talking about the originator anymore. We're talking about one person removed from the originator claiming people shouldn't be copying the idea.

Now, to be clear, I don't even know if Yigal claims people can't produce their own invisible elastic bands. But that's the understanding a lot of people have, and that colors their perception of his other complaints.

While I always want to support the originators, I can honestly say that I'm not super concerned about buying from the guy who bought the idea from someone else.

Do you have the strongest invisible elastic bands?

Do you have the most imperceptible invisible elastic bands?

Do you have the most stretchable invisible elastic bands?

These are the factors that most people are going to weigh and that are going to guide most people's buying decisions. I would rather time and money be spent optimizing these things than chasing down lawsuits.

C-tier complaint.

(I tested Penguin's TIES vs. Yigal's Loops in these categories a few years ago. You can see that testing here.)

Complaints About People Using the Word "Loops" When They're Not Using Actual Yigal Mesika Loops®

Sorry, Yigal, but this is an issue you brought on yourself when you named your product the thing that it is. You tied some thread in a loop and called it a Loop. If you had called it a Diddly Rounder, then I'd be sympathetic. I would fully support you saying, "Hey, don't call your loop of thread a Diddly Rounder. That's trademark infringement! Call it something generic, like a 'loop' or something."

Can you give a single other example in the history of the world where someone owns a trademark on the shortest, most generic description of the item itself? You can't. Because the notion is idiotic.

You've scared people into thinking they can't even use the word "loop" in the ordinary, descriptive sense when teaching an effect with invisible elastic bands. But they certainly can. See: Classic (Descriptive) Fair Use under 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4). Sorry if I'm blowing up your spot here.

Again, this is an issue you brought on yourself when you chose a name that was the thing that it is. If you had just chosen Diddly Rounders instead! Here, I'll give you the name Diddly Rounders for free. Go register it tomorrow, and we can all finally fucking move on with our lives regarding the Loops®/loops/Diddly Rounders situation.

F-tier complaint.

Refer to this chart for easy reference…

The Two Token System

/

Determining how frequently to perform magic for someone can be surprisingly difficult. In the past, I've burned people out on magic by showing them too much too soon. It wasn't that I was forcing it on them or that they didn't enjoy it—the pacing was just off, and it overwhelmed them.

The Teriyaki Turkey Jerky Problem

I remember in college I got this teriyaki turkey jerky that was really good. My girlfriend's mom gave me a package, and after finding out that I really liked it, my girlfriend would pick some up for me every time she went back to her hometown.

Then, one winter break, I was visiting her at her parents' house and found myself near the store that sold this jerky I really liked. "I'm going to get $80 worth of this stuff," I thought. So I got $80 worth of it—20 packs.

I brought them all back to college and filled up one of my cupboards with the bags... and promptly got sick of it after a few bags and ended up throwing out the rest.

Whatever receptor in my mouth or brain that loved the taste blew itself out when it got overwhelmed with repeated exposure. It lost the ability to appreciate it.

In another world, where I only got one package every few months, I'd still be traveling through that area a few times a year and picking up a bag, looking forward to it days in advance. Instead, I haven't had it in decades. I don't even know if it still exists. I have no interest in it whatsoever.

And this is where we get that old phrase: Magic is a lot like teriyaki turkey jerky.

Why Frequency Matters

Figuring out how much magic to perform for people is critical for the amateur magician who performs for the same individuals over and over. But you can't come up with one standard because everyone is different. Some people want to see magic whenever they can. Some people are into it, but more occasionally. Some people get the itch to see something very rarely. And some just hate it.

The Two Token System

Here's the system I use.

For every person in your life, you get two tokens.

Every time you decide to perform a trick for them, you have to use a token.

When you don't have any tokens left for that person, you can't show them any more tricks.

How to Get More Tokens

Can you get more tokens? Yes.

Every meet-up you have with the person where they mention magic, you get two more tokens. So if they:

  • Directly ask to see another trick

  • Ask if there's anything you're working on

  • Mention a trick you've shown them in the past

That gets you two more tokens.

Example: Mary (The Unlimited Token Machine)

Let's say I meet Mary and show her a trick. I started with two tokens, and now I'm down to one. The next time we get together, she asks to see something else. I have three tokens now (soon to be two after showing her something else). Pretty much every time we meet up, she asks to see something, adding two more tokens into her "bank" (a net of one if I end up showing her something).

Mary is, essentially, an unlimited token machine. I can show her a trick whenever I want because she's always asking for it.

I will still sometimes say I don't have anything to really show her, so that it doesn't become too regular or predictable. But Mary has given me enough tokens that I can show her something whenever I want.

Example: Bob (Two-and-Done)

Now let's imagine Bob. I meet Bob and show him a trick. The next time we meet up, I show him another. I'm now out of tokens with Bob. He seemed to like the magic—maybe even really enjoy it—but he doesn't mention anything about it in future meet-ups. So I stop performing for him.

And it may happen that I never perform for him again. If he's not interested enough to mention magic in the future, I don't feel the need to show him more. I'm perfectly content to interact with people in my life without magic, so I'll save it for those who truly enjoy it.

But, if we're being honest, that essentially never happens.

What usually happens is some time will pass and they'll say, "Are you ever going to show me a trick again?"

And I'll reply, "Oh, yeah, of course. I didn't know if you were interested in seeing more."

Now we've established that I'm happy to show them stuff—all they have to do is express some interest, and we get back into a more regular performing schedule.

Strategies for Borderline Cases

Another thing I'll do, if they seemed to enjoy the tricks they saw but don't mention magic after getting together a few times, is leave a deck of cards out on the table or somewhere visible when we meet up. In most cases, this will spur them to say something about seeing a trick. Clink! Clink! Two tokens.

A lot of people just don't know that they can request to see something. They might think they're going to catch me off guard or that if I had something to perform, I would show it to them without them requesting it. Putting a deck of cards or something similar out in the open is a low-pressure way to open the door for them to bring the subject up.

If nothing else, after months of regular meet-ups, if they don't mention wanting to see something ever, I would give it one last shot. In that situation, I would use a sort of oblique approach. Not, "Can I show you a trick?" But, "I'm working on a new trick—can I get your help with something?"

They may be more comfortable playing the role of "helper" than they were in the role of "audience" when I initially showed them magic. Either way, it’s a last chance to gauge their interest.

Eventually, you don't have to really track the Two Token System. You'll grow to know the pace for how often you should show people a trick. The system is simply training wheels that help you develop that social awareness and prevent you from overwhelming people (or boring them) with too much magic too soon.

Mailbag #158

/

I just read the post "A Cross-Cut Tweak Tweak"  and I wanted to ask what your thoughts are on a particular phrase I have a problem with. 

"Look at the card you cut to" I feel is problematic. I feel this line invites scrutiny from analytical participants, maybe because it actually is a lie. 

I would avoid lying at this moment and say something 'neutral' like "lift up the top packet and look at the card and remember it". 

I feel this will minimise scrutiny because I don't have to lie, and a participant doesn't know what to expect from a procedure in a card trick anyway. If they are convinced the deck is shuffled, and I ask them to look at a card, it shouldn't matter. But if I start lying about where the card came from, people can get hung up on that and guess that I know the identity, despite the shuffle? 

Depending on the presentation I could later ask them to bury it.

 And maybe you could reframe the events later? 

"You have yourself cut these cards and looked at a card, somewhere in the middle of this deck." Which is still true and a bit ambiguous, but suggests it was any random card in the middle.

What are your thoughts? —PK

I understand where you’re coming from, and I wouldn’t say it’s a mistake to do it that way, but it’s not the path I would choose.

I have pretty strong faith in the deceptiveness of the Cross-Cut Force. In my experience, most people are just naturally inclined to believe that’s the card they cut to, and I think referring to it as that helps cement that reality in place, rather than creating suspicion.

And because of that, I don’t think your proposed wording adds much. Yes, if you have someone who naturally sees through the topology of the Cross-Cut Force (surprisingly rare) they can’t accuse you of lying. But they can wonder what the point of cutting the deck was if you were just going to have them look at the bottom card in the first place.

If you want to maybe blunt the “card you cut to” language. You could maybe say, “Memorize the card you cut to.” Which puts the focus on the fact they have something to do in that moment (memorize the card). Which hopefully takes any mental energy away from them thinking, “Ah, but is this the card I cut to?”

The beauty of the Cross-Cut Force is that you can’t get busted on it. As I mention in the post referenced above. If someone ever says, “That’s not the card I cut to,” you just say, “Huh? It’s not? Wait…okay, I’m confused then. Go ahead and just take the card you cut to. Or cut again to any card.” Yes, you’ll have to tap dance your way into a different trick, but there’s full plausible deniability here.

With the whole Ted K situation going on, I began wondering if you ever heard directly from anyone you put on the GLOMM’s banned member list?—DA

Yeah, there are two or three posts in the archive where I respond to someone who got kicked out of the GLOMM who ended up writing me directly. Honestly, I admire the gumption. “How dare you tell people I was convicted of sexual assault!” That’s a big swing to take.

The more impactful letters I’ve received are from the victims of some of these guys. (And they are all guys. No woman has broken the GLOMM’s glass ceiling, yet.)

I’ve also heard a couple of times from magicians who told me they struggle with these desires, and one of the factors that keeps them in line is thinking they’ll be splashed on my site if they ever did anything and it was found out. Good! Look, I don’t blame anyone for whatever fucked-up thought their brain has. I feel bad for them, so long as they don’t give in to a desire they know will harm someone else. So if imaging me busting your ass on this site is beneficial to you in any way, I’m happy to exert that extra bit of pressure.

Your post [The Coin Vanish Paradox] reminded me of this section in Designing Miracles (Darwin Ortiz page 26):—BG

In volume two of his Expert Coin Magic... Made Easy! DVD seres, David Roth teaches his handling of the visual retention coin vanish. (This is a method of pretending to place a coin in one hand while actually retaining it in the other.) In Roth's hands this is one of the most amazing visual illusions you'll ever see. Any observer would be willing to bet at least one gonad that the coin is really in the hand. Yet, after demonstrating this uncannily convincing sleight, David observes: "But, remember, as in all coin vanishes, no matter how well you do this move—even if you do it perfectly—once you open your left hand to show that the coin is gone, the spectators will look at the other hand. He goes on to say that even if you really did put the coin in your left hand and then vanished it by some other means, "When you open your hand, they will look at the other hand." He then explains, "This is where routining is most important. It's the routining that will keep spectators from suspecting the other hand." Routining is a term that magicians use to mean a variety of things. In this case, I believe that what David is calling routining is what I call design.

The Roth example demonstrates that perfect technique is not enough to create an enduring magical mystery. Similarly, misdirection is not enough, and even presentation is not enough. It's not a failure of technique, mis-direction, or presentation that leads people to look at the other hand. It's simply that it just makes sense. If the coin isn't in one hand, it's probably in the other. It's this pesky common sense that often allows laypeople to figure out what you thought was a pertect illusion. It's precisely this common sense that good design can defeat and even turn to your advantage.

Yeah, I agree with David Roth here. Even if you really put the coin in your hand and made it disappear by magic, people would still look to your other hand. As I said in that post, it’s the transfer that’s the issue. That action gives them the “answer” they need.

Where I would disagree is to say that I don’t think you can easily “routine” or “design” your way out of this issue. Sure, you can add a bunch of junk surrounding your coin vanish so that it’s no longer just a single coin vanish, but that’s not what we’re looking for.

Dustings #137

/

I’ve talked a lot of shit about AI, but actually it’s quite insightful.

This Week In Unnecessary Branding

I love Danny Garcia. I like what I see from his new deck of marked cards.

But what do I say if someone looks at this card and asks, "Who's Danny Garcia?"

He's the magician who designed this marked deck.

I feel like that might make them a touch suspicious about the deck.

If I just claim he's the “artist” who designed the deck, that just draws more attention to the back of the cards—which is exactly what we're trying to avoid. And anyone who actually looked at the back design would think, "What 'artist' would be clamoring to take credit for this?"

I'm not saying it's likely they'll comment on it—and sure, you could just toss the Ace of Spades to eliminate the issue. But for the life of me, I don't understand why we're doing anything that might draw extra attention to a marked deck of cards. Let alone giving people the name of the magician behind it. Oh, and it says Vanishing Inc. on the box? Great. Why not just make the back design a QR code that leads directly to the for-sale page?

Please adhere to these rules when putting out a marked deck:

  1. Market it under a different name than what's on the box.

  2. Don't put a magic manufacturer on the box.

Let's go, people. Get your shit together. Not everyone is performing solely at magic conventions or for disinterested spectators. Some of us are dealing with engaged audiences who are dying to be seduced by an impenetrable mystery! Help us out here.

I was watching the demo for Nova Rings….

And as I watched it, I thought, Wait… who is this person talking?

Moments later, I realized that was Carisa Hendrix, the woman behind Lucy Darling.

The thing is, that character is so fully realized to me that I don't really consider the person underneath. Hence why the "real" her didn't register with me immediately. I mean, I'm not an idiot. This sort of thing doesn't happen to me often. If I saw Rudy Coby offstage, I wouldn't be wondering where his other legs are. My confusion is a compliment to her. Her level of comfort in the character is totally disarming.

That being said, magic is for men. It takes a man's insight to understand complicated concepts like mouth coils or Ed Marlo's Tilt.

Sure, Carisa is a great magician, but can you imagine how good she'd be as an assistant? Think of the gesturing. Think of the SMILING.

For this reason, I can't support this Nova Ring project, or Vanishing Inc. for indulging her silly and capricious feminine whims by producing this product. We don't need to encourage this kind of thing.

If ladies insist on being magiciennes, I do hope they'll stay in their lane. Linking finger rings is really something for the gentleman conjuror. Remember, it's a Himber ring, not a Herber ring.

Women shouldn't be gallivanting around town linking finger rings. It's just not ladylike. Instead of fussing around with these Nova Rings, have you considered linking a NuvaRing? That seems like something you gals could have a lot of fun with, without stepping on daddy's toes.

The Coin Vanish Paradox

/

We recently attempted some focus-group testing to identify which false transfer technique was the best for vanishing a coin.

Different groups of laypeople each watched a video of a different coin vanish based on a false transfer, ranging from a simple French drop to much more complicated modern coin techniques.

Which one was the most fooling?

In a way… none of them.

Almost every respondent (we had planned to do more, but stopped at 40) when asked if they had an idea of how the coin vanished, said some variation of exactly what happened. "He never actually placed it in his other hand."

I expected that response with simple false transfers. But the same thing happened with beautiful, advanced moves like these:

Here's the paradox: if the coin hadn't vanished, spectators would be fairly convinced it was in the empty hand. But the moment it disappears, they reverse-engineer their memory: “Well, I never clearly saw it in the other hand. So it must have never been there.” The vanish itself undermines the illusion the false transfer establishes.

The problem with the false transfer is simply... the transfer of the coin itself. It doesn't allow for conviction in the spectator's mind about where the coin actually is.

So spectators can enjoy and be in awe of your magical-looking small object manipulation. But if, like me, you want to create effects that they can't easily write off as "skill," then it's likely there's no false transfer that will accomplish that goal.