Follow the Leader Final Beat

Here’s an ending for Follow the Leader-style effects. I’ve always been intrigued by the effect and have enjoyed practicing it, but in performance, I think the reactions are rather weak.

Here’s Juan Tamariz performing it.

I would describe the trick as repetitive, confusing, anticlimactic, and entirely magician-centric.

It’s repetitive because it’s essentially the same thing happening every time. It’s confusing because the spectator has to keep track of which face-down packet is where. It’s anticlimactic because there’s no real ending. And it’s magician-centric because the audience has no influence over anything that happens.

Here’s a simple ending you can add to the routine that helps address these issues.

You do the routine as you normally would, and the audience will react to it as they normally would—i.e., “This is kind of interesting, but surely the magician is secretly moving those packets around somehow. I don’t know…I’m not following it 100%.”

That’s fine. In this version, those early phases aren’t being asked to carry the entire trick. They’re building toward a climax—one that’s narratively consistent with the traditional Follow the Leader effect but places the outcome in the spectator’s hands.

To accomplish this, you’ll need a card like this:

You’ll also use Paul Harris’s Pointer Anomaly principle (explained here).

After the main body of the trick is completed, you explain, “Now, you’re going to say, ‘Oh, I don’t know exactly what he was doing, but I’m sure he was secretly moving the cards around somehow.’ I swear, that’s not how it’s done. In fact, I won’t even touch the cards during this final round.”

You introduce the red-and-black arrow card. You allow them to spin it between the piles and turn it over in either direction. No matter what, it will end up pointing to the correct piles.

To make the arrow card, put the image on a blank-faced card. From the back of the card, you’ll need to mark the opposite end from the point of the red arrow. That’s the end you want facing the red pile when the card is face down.

Allow the person to rotate the face-down arrow card between the piles, stopping whenever they want, with the card lying horizontally between them.

If your mark is near the red pile: Give them the choice of turning the card over from right to left or left to right. Imply that this is the final, most important choice.

If your mark is near the black pile: Say, “And now, so it’s a totally blind choice on your part, I’ll swap the piles a few times so you don’t know which is which.” Put the piles under the table or behind your back and exchange them once, although you pretend you’re doing it multiple times. Bring them back out, making sure to set the red pile on the appropriate side of the arrow card. “Now for the choice that will make all the difference: Turn that card over to the left or to the right.”

Ultimately, of course, it’s just a 50/50 hit. But the important thing is that it no longer feels like they can write the whole thing off as sleight of hand. The spectator positions the arrow, chooses how to turn it over, and apparently determines everything that happens. Yet the red arrow still points to the red pile, and the black arrow still points to the black pile. The trick finally ends with one clear image that was seemingly out of your control

My favorite version of Follow the Leader—although I’m no expert—is Peer Pressure, which can be found in this Liam Montier book. It’s very simple and straightforward for both the performer and the spectator to follow.

The Alright Force

Today I have a Toxic Force alternative to share with you that’s significantly better than the Toxic Force in almost every respect. (The only drawback is that you need to be using an iPhone.)

It has three significant advantages:

1. All the math is real. Spectators can follow along on their own phones or calculators.

2. The initial numbers are freely chosen, and the final number is apparently generated at random by the spectator.

3. Everything happens out in the open. The phone never needs to be turned over or hidden from view.

This comes from supporter Dave Mason, who built the web app and gave it to me to share with you today.

Here’s what it looks like: Your spectator performs a series of calculations on your phone. For the final one, they apparently enter a random number by drumming their fingers across the screen. When they press equals, the result is whatever force number you’ve set.

For example, you ask for a random number. The first spectator offers the number 69. You enter it in the calculator. You ask another spectator for a number to multiply it by. They also choose 69. Such clever spectators you’ve assembled. “Now let’s add a completely random number.” You have a spectator drum their fingers across the screen, apparently entering digits at random. When they press equals, the result is your force number—in this case, 123456789.

If you want, you can have one or more people follow along on their phones to confirm the total.

I call it the Alright Force because toxic things are bad, while alright things are, at minimum, alright. More importantly, Dave Mason of Traffic wrote “Feelin’ Alright”, and you don’t get many opportunities for that sort of naming synergy.

Instructions

[Note: This is designed for iPhone and has been successfully tested on an iPhone 14 Pro and an iPhone 15 Pro Max. It think itshould work on other modern iPhones as well, although it has not been tested. The code will be provided at the end for anyone who may need to make a modified version.]

Add CalcDM to Your iPhone

CalcDM doesn’t need to be downloaded from the App Store. You can add it directly to your Home Screen:

1. Open Safari on your iPhone.

2. Go to calcdm.com.

3. Tap the Share button—the square with an upward-pointing arrow.

4. Scroll down and tap Add to Home Screen.

5. Tap Add in the upper-right corner. (Keep Open as Web App on)

An icon will now appear on your Home Screen. It looks identical to the normal calculator icon. In the future, open the calculator by tapping that icon rather than returning to Safari.

Because the two icons look identical, put CalcDM somewhere you’ll remember—or move Apple’s Calculator app somewhere else—so you don’t open the wrong one during a performance.

Set the Force Number

Before performing:

1. Open CalcDM from your Home Screen.

2. Enter the number you want to force.

3. Press and hold the clock icon in the upper-left corner for about one second.

4. The calculator display will clear.

5. The clock hand will swing to the 9 o’clock position. This is your confirmation that the force number has been set.

The calculator is now ready to use normally.

If you need to confirm the force number later, press and hold the calculator icon in the upper-right corner. The stored number will be revealed so you can peek at it.

Perform the Force

1. Begin with ordinary calculations

Let the spectator enter numbers and perform calculations using addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division.

You’ll generally want to be careful with division here, as it’s likely to produce some decimal monstrosity you don’t really want to deal with. It will still work; it may just make things messier than necessary.

Continue until you’re ready for the final calculation that will produce your force number.

2. Choose the final operation

You can force the number using any of the four operators: addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division.

For the simplest handling:

• If the current total is below your force number, use addition.

• If the current total is above your force number, use subtraction.

2.5. Check the required number

This isn’t a necessary step—hence the .5—but it allows you to check whether a particular operation will produce a convenient number before you commit to it.

Press and hold the operator you’re considering. CalcDM will show you the exact number that would need to be entered with that operation to reach your force number.

For example, holding × will show the number by which the current total would need to be multiplied. This allows you to check whether the required number is a whole number, a decimal, or longer than you’d like.

Release the operator after checking it. Nothing has been armed yet.

3. Arm the force

When you’ve chosen your final operation, tap its operator twice in succession.

For example, tap + twice to arm an addition force.

The app automatically calculates the number required to bring the current total to your force number. You do not need to calculate anything yourself.

4. Have the spectator drum their fingers

Ask the spectator to drum their fingers across the face-up screen. Each tap secretly enters another digit of the required number.

Watch the clock icon as they tap. When all the necessary digits have been entered, the clock hand will move to the 6 o’clock position. This is your cue that the number is complete. At that point, have them stop tapping.

You don’t need to keep an eagle eye on the clock icon. It will likely be obvious when the entire number has been entered. The icon is just there so you can be sure.

If you’re worried they’ll notice that the digits appearing on the screen aren’t necessarily the ones beneath their fingers, I don’t think you have much to worry about. But to eliminate even that possibility, ask them to look into your eyes—or simply away from the calculator—as they drum.

5. Complete the calculation

Have the spectator press =.

The result will be your previously selected force number.

Because every previous calculation was legitimate, they can enter the same numbers into another calculator and confirm the final result for themselves.

Quick Performance Summary

1. Enter the force number.

2. Hold the clock icon to save it.

3. Perform any ordinary calculations.

4. Hold an operator if you want to preview the required final number.

5. Double-tap the operator you intend to use.

6. Have the spectator drum their fingers on the screen.

7. Wait for the clock hand to reach 6 o’clock.

8. Press = to reveal the force number.

CalcDM was created by Dave Mason and is available at calcdm.com. The source code is available on GitHub.

Mailbag #181

Just wanted to add some additional context to the part about Paul Romhany in the latest Dustings.

He's been obsessed with AI for awhile now. I actually sent you an email about him awhile back. He has a second Facebook "Paul R" (and an Instagram) where he posts a combination of AI generated performances and real performances of tricks. The real performances are a mix of Paul doing magic, other magicians doing magic at conventions, or snippets from trailers.

According to Jeff Prace, Paul doesn't ask permission before posting these performances at conventions and does not credit the original performer in the videos.

A new thing he has been posting lately is clips of magic trailers with their voices dubbed over with AI. Like here’s one where he just took a clip of Craig Petty from the new Sucker Punch trailer.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Paul R (@paulrmagic)

There was also a big controversy where he used AI [for an image in CAM Magazine] and it turned Rachel Wax into a completely different person. She called him out for it and then he said he had a family emergency and didn't have time to edit the [image] and that he was being bullied and harrassed for it.

That's about it. Just wanted to let you know how deep the Paul Romhany AI rabbit hole is.—AO

Oooh…I see. So this isn’t a one-off. He’s like a weird goon, then? That’s good to know. I was feeling kind of bad for him because he had to use AI to generate discussion about his magazine. If he hadn’t tried to pass the AI hosts off as real people, I would have just quietly pitied him.

But I guess he’s into all sorts of weird AI stuff. He’s definitely got a “grandpa just discovered ChatGPT” energy about him. A “Grok, take this picture of my neighbor and put her in a bikini” vibe.

Most confusing to me is, of all the things about Craig Petty you could use AI to replace…you chose his voice? That’s the part of Craig you take issue with?? If you asked Craig what he’d change about himself, I’m not sure his voice would make the top 50. If you’re going to steal his content and unnecessarily alter it, at least go all-in. Give us Craig Petty post-LASIK, post-hair transplant, and six months into a vigorous course of GLP-1s.

---

I need your advice. I have a venture in the magic world that I’ve been trying to get off the ground for a while now and I’m having a hard time getting traction with it. I’ll spare you the details so you don’t think I’m just trying to get you to promote it, but it’s similar to what you’re doing: putting out magic content and having readers support it. I’ve been trying my best but haven’t found an audience yet. My question isn’t how to get an audience but at what point do you bail on a project if you’re not finding support?—AH

Ideally, you decide that before you start. That's when you're least likely to confuse "I still believe in this" with "I've already put too much into this to stop."

Let’s say I'm opening a restaurant. (It’s a grilled cheese and chocolate milk restaurant. But that’s not important.) Before I sign a lease, I decide what would make me want to keep running it two years from now. Maybe that's two metrics:

1. $10,000 a month take-home.

2. More customers walking through the door than a year earlier.

If I hit both marks, great. If I miss both—I'm nowhere near the income I need, and the customer base isn’t growing even slowly—the decision is painful, but it isn't mysterious. If I hit one, I have a judgment call to make. But at least I know I’m partially on pace.

You can do the same thing now, even though you didn't do it at the start. Pick a date, maybe six months from today, and decide what would make the project worth continuing for you. It could be a number of paying readers, a monthly income, or steady growth that suggests you're on your way. Include what the work costs you, too. A project that earns little but gives you enormous pleasure is different from one that earns little and makes you dread sitting down to write.

Then give it an honest shot until that date. When it arrives, judge the project by the standards you set today—not by how much you've already poured into it, or by the one encouraging comment you got on a day you were thinking of quitting.

Dustings #150

I’ve never read a page of Vanish Magazine, and this—quite possibly the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen in magic—won’t be what changes that.

He had AI create a podcast "discussing" his magazine. And he's trying to pass it off like these are real people. They're not. They're fake hosts, fake enthusiasm, fake opinions—and he's promoting it as "NON-MAGICIANS talking about the latest issue of Vanish."

They're not non-magicians. They're non-humans.

That tells me two things.

One: he thinks so little of the material he's publishing that an AI-generated summary of it counts as worthwhile content to him.

Two: he thinks so little of his audience that he expects them to mistake two digital sock puppets for actual people having an actual conversation.

The kicker is—"non-magicians talk about a magic magazine" would already be the dumbest fucking thing you've ever heard if it were real. The fact that he looked at that premise and thought this needs to be faked takes a special kind of imbecile.

Of course, now I’m left wondering how much of the magazine itself is written by AI.

---

Here is the same magician selling his snowstorm effect. And what could be more aligned with the delicate beauty of producing a magical blizzard of snow than wincing and grimacing like you just took a sledgehammer to your scrotum before you activate the gimmick? He does this every time he activates it in the demo.

If only Houdini had braced himself this thoroughly before taking that punch to the abdomen. He’d still be dead, of course, but maybe he would have stuck around long enough to give us a sequel to The Grim Game.

---

I like to have fun, but on a day like today, I’m grateful to the Magic Café for setting frivolity aside and reminding us of the solemn importance of the occasion with its annual, breathtakingly beautiful tribute to those we lost.

P.A.S.

There was a hint hidden in the P.A.S. clue that only one of you picked up on. The periods between the initials suggested we were likely dealing with a name.

That name?

Peggy Ann Snow.

Who?

From the opening of the new book:

This volume is named after one of my favorite characters in film: Peggy Ann Snow, played by Ann-Margret in the 1978 psychological horror film Magic. The movie contains one of the best—and possibly only—depictions of the peculiar power of one-on-one magic. And Peggy Ann is more or less my ideal person to perform for: engaged, animated, open to the experience, and, crucially, Ann-Margret.

In the movie, Anthony Hopkins plays a ventriloquist and magician who ends up sleeping with an old flame after she falls for him following a particularly intense Do As I Do card trick.

That’s not a joke. That’s something that really happened in a mainstream Hollywood movie.

He does this while his puppet sits impotently in the other room.

The cover of the new book (illustrated as always by our friend Stasia) is a nod to this scene and the seductive potential of amateur magic—figuratively and, apparently, quite literally.

But it presupposes an alternate version of the story where she ends up fucking the puppet instead.

And it’s Anthony Hopkins’ character in the cuck chair outside.

Jerx Publishing History

During the June Check-In thread, I dropped the news that the subtitle of the next book was P.A.S. and instituted a contest for anyone who could guess what it stood for. I knew it wouldn’t be easy, but I wasn’t prepared for how bad some of the guesses would be.

Palms And Shifts?

Seriously, guys? What blog are you reading? I barely like describing sleights when I have to in the books. If someone told me I had to write an entire book about palms and shifts—200-something pages of me telling you exactly where to put your fingers—I’d put the first phalange of my index finger on the trigger of a gun and blow my brains out.

Tomorrow is the P.A.S. name and cover reveal. But first, as 2026 represents 10 years of writing books for supporters of the site, here are all the previous releases.

The Jerx, Volume 1 (2016)

The Amateur At the Kitchen Table (2016, hardcover reprint 2024)

Magic for Young Lovers (2018)

Thinking of You (2019)

Here Be Bunnies (2020)

White Wand Chronicles Volume 1: The Entertainer (2021)

WWCV2: Young Girls Are Coming To the Canyon (2023)

WWCV3: Escape (2025)

Staying One-Ahead

I'm rediscovering the power of one-ahead routines in social situations. Do you have a go-to method for handling the switch, numbering or identifying the billets, or just generally handling one-ahead when you're out and about?—HP

The one-ahead principle suffers the indignity of being explained in nearly every beginner magic book, always sandwiched between a trick that requires cutting a trapdoor into an oatmeal container and instructions for turning a length of dowel into a magic wand. Surrounded by company like that, it's easy to file it away as something you're meant to outgrow. I certainly did at one point.

But one-ahead is far more powerful than its humble surroundings suggest. We shouldn’t throw the baby (one-ahead) out with the bathwater (dowel-based magic techniques).

I have a couple of different approaches I use, but I’ll give you the easiest and most universal one.

Billets: I just use small slips of paper. Or, if I’m somewhere that has blank-backed business cards on display, I’ll take a few of those.

Labelling: I don’t bother with any subterfuge that allows me to label each billet #1, #2, #3, or otherwise identify them. The best methods for doing this typically require some prep and working off a stack of business cards—two things I want to avoid. And the versions that don’t require preparation tend to feel more suspicious to me than simply not labelling them.

In fact, I’m not sure labelling makes a ton of sense logically. There’s no real need to know the identity of the billet from the outside. In a sense, they’re already labelled on the inside with the information we were supposedly writing down in the first place. So labelling just highlights the idea that maybe you’re going to try to pass one off as another—which is not something I think you want to plant in the spectator’s mind.

Handling: I don’t do any sleight-based switching either. This is all I do…

I write down the force item on the first slip, fold it into quarters, and ask my friend to put it in their pocket.

I have them name the first item.

I write that down on the second slip, fold it into quarters, and have them put it in their pocket with the other one.

They name the second item.

I write that down on the third slip, fold it into quarters, and have them put it in their pocket.

Now we go through the force procedure.

I have them pull the slips out of their pocket and dump them into my cupped hands.

Letting them hold on to the slips feels like you’re being extra fair. When really, having them put the slips in their pocket, remove them, and dump them into your hand is a natural way to confuse which slip is which.

I open all of them toward myself.

Then I recap. What did you name first? Lay that one down. Second? Lay that one down. And for the first time, what was the [card you chose, item at your number on the list, word in the book, or whatever]? Pause a beat, then lay down the final one.

This, to me, feels about as straightforward as it gets. There’s no overproving and nothing that feels oddly structured for the sake of making the trick work.

✿✿✿

The mistake people make with the one-ahead structure is treating the force at the end as the price they have to pay to clean everything up. So they’ll do some quick Cross-Cut Force or something just to get it out of the way.

When really, the procedure lives and dies on the strength of the force. I think you should consider a one-ahead structure as a way to build out a really strong force. You might have an incredibly deceptive force, but on its own, it’s over too quickly to really resonate. Making it the finale of a one-ahead routine gives that force the buildup it needs to really register as impossible. But if the force is weak, it can make the method behind the entire routine transparent.