Mailbag #175

Do you have any tips for spotting AI? I thought you were reaching with Wednesday's post about AI in that magic demo but when Penguin came out and admitted it I realized I'm maybe falling for a lot of it. Anything in particular I should look out for? —NA

I don't really know what to tell you. To me it was obvious the moment I saw it—the way the facial features moved, the voice, etc.

You know, sometimes someone will say, "This diet soda tastes just like regular soda." And I taste it and it tastes chemically, fizzy, sweet piss. I just think some people's senses are attuned differently.

I pick up on AI content really easily, especially in magic or writing—but that's because I perform daily for people and I write professionally. So that's right in my wheelhouse. On the other hand, if you showed me an AI cricket match I'd probably buy it because I've never really seen a real one.

So it was just an immediate recognition. And then on rewatch, specific things stood out to me as strange.

"There's no way you're going to get this." That seems like an odd thing to say. The card is sitting face-up in front of her. He's turned away. He hasn't indicated he's going to try to "get" anything (that's not even the point of the trick). At this point in the routine he's only had her take a card and sign it.

Notice her eyes and facial expressions. They don't line up with looking at someone's back. That's a face that's making eye contact with someone.

Her reaction here is too intense for the trick.

The trick is a card turning over in the deck. At best this should be a fun surprise moment.

This expression is what's known as the "inner brow raiser." It's indicative of shock, but not "fun magic trick" shock. More of, "I forgot the baby in the hot car" shock. There's concern and fear there.

You can get this reaction with magic, but it typically has to be a very intense or personal effect.

AI often gets the magnitude of things wrong. Here it's like, "Oh you want her shocked? Sure thing." And it gives you a woman who looks like she found her husband in bed with her grandfather.

You wanted this 😮 and you got this 😱.

You see this magnitude issue in AI writing as well. People will ask AI to write an ad for their variation on Twisting the Aces, and it's like:

This isn't just a card trick. It's a weapon. This is a rupture in the fabric of what your spectators believe is possible.

One ace turns. Their pupils dilate. Their breath catches. Time itself seems to fold in on the moment.

It's not magic. It's inevitability.

And magic creators are like, "Hmmm… yeah that sounds about right. Let's go with that."

Everything is maximal, nothing is specific, and the actual mechanics or performance conditions of the trick are nowhere to be found—because the "writer" doesn't know what a real reaction looks like, just what "reaction-adjacent language" sounds like.

The truth is, online magic reactions have always been mostly worthless as far as judging a trick goes. Pull out a camera and start filming people's reactions and you're going to get performative reactions. It's actually less embarrassing to go, "Wow! That's incredible!" than to give a real reaction that's underwhelming.

So my point in calling this out was never to be like, "How dare you tarnish our beloved demo reactions with AI!" It was just to make the point that if there’s going to be any value to online demos we at least have to all understand exactly what we’re dealing with.

---

Just a quick heads up for a potential topic for your blog: As so many people are raving about Reid Ferry’s ‘Trident’, I’m wondering what you think of it. The prop-less version in particular is pretty obvious, isn’t it? I think it’s generous of Reid to post the uncut version on YouTube, but not only me even after showing this to a laymen, they immediately knew what was going on... However, if there would be a way to improve it, it would probably fit to the carefree approach.—SG

I think you should offer a service where you offer a “stamp of approval” for tricks before they come out. I’m tempted to by the new Trident trick but it’s SUCH an investment. And the endorsements just sound like the standard mutual cocksucking of all magic endorsements. I feel like you’re in a good position to confirm if a trick has merit because you’re known in the community but you aren’t ever marketing yourself or wanting people to like you, so you don’t have the “let’s scratch each others backs” thing going on. Think about it. —DA

What the fuck? I want people to like me! Do I come off that misanthropic? Well, to be fair, I don’t particularly care if other magicians like me. So I see your point.

I’ve actually offered a similar service in the past to people who are releasing effects. I don’t think anyone ever took me up on it.

As far a Trident goes, I found the propless version (shown here—five minutes in) pretty obvious. And that’s despite the fact that the demo is edited to hide the process somewhat. But what did you expect? Any truly propless “any word” revelation has to be obvious almost by definition.

I think the version with a business card is stronger (shown here) But if the method I’ve been told for this is accurate, you’re going to have a lot of unhappy people when they get this.

That said, there may be so much more to this than I understand and it may actually be great. But from what I’ve seen and heard, I’m skeptical.

---

I wanted to share one of my favorite hooks. I usually use it when I know I'll be spending my time with some of my friends that I see often (especially if I know that we will spend some time scrolling away and showing each other funny videos and whatnot). It's basically having a bunch of normal interesting posts saved on Instagram that make for an interesting magic hook... 

Also, by having the videos on the saved page on Instagram, you can showcase the video as if you had just stumbled across it while scrolling with a few taps on the video (going down with a few upward swipes after clicking on the saved video, then swiping downward as u look at the reels yourself with the audio on). I find that feeling of spontaneity adds to the fun of the experience for smaller effects compared to "look at this interesting video I saw last week" even though I still love that line if the presentation makes sense for me to use it. —KA

Yeah, this is a goood idea. That style of interaction: “Let’s hang out and look at stuff on our phone and show each other anything interesting we find” is so common and natural these days that using that as an “in” to an effect makes a lot of sense.

I’ll try to remember to mention any good posts that I come across for this purpose. Perhaps it’s time to turn this blog into a similar Instagram.

Until then, you’ll have to find your own useful posts. Which sadly means branching out from the bear-focused balloon fetish content you usually peruse on Instagram.

Penguin Responds

In regards to Wednesday’s post about my suspicions of the use of AI in the spectator’s reaction to the effect, What the Flip? Acar Altinsel, the owner of Penguin Magic writes:

Thanks for your thoughtful blog post. It was actually more helpful than you may realize.

I hate to admit, I didn't realize the trailer had AI in it. So when you posted about it, we had a meeting and immediately took down that video and ripped the AI stuff out, and put up a new cut.

I'll write a newsletter about this topic at some point, but I feel very strongly that we definitely *do not* want AI to help reactions OR effects.    There was a trailer that was submitted to us a year ago that used an AI reaction and it triggered me to say very clearly to our team that people won't trust us if they think we do this. Since then, until "What the Flip", as far as I know we haven't done this.

And *because* I've been very clear to our team about that, I kind of assumed our videos didn't have it, so it was really disappointing to find out some had made it into our new video.  Thank you for pointing it out in a respectful way.

We work with a lot of editors, which makes it difficult to police especially as AI gets better, but we added a new requirement that editors we work with give a complete list of *any* AI that was used to help work get done no matter how, to hopefully prevent this kind of thing again.

Anyway, just to be clear, I hate the idea of AI being used to enhance effects or reactions, and frankly find it creepy in general, and I'll always appreciate another set of eyes helping us catch it. You helped us quite a bit today. —AA

Now, you may be saying, "That sounds good, but he's only saying it because they got caught."

That's not the impression that I get. I take him at his word. More importantly, I take him at his actions. They re-cut the trailer, pulling out the AI content. And he okayed me posting this email that publicly states they're not going to use AI to enhance effects or reactions in future demos.

That's good enough for me.

Speaking of me and my incredible AI-dar and ability to spot digital manipulation, I don't want this site to become just me calling people out, but I have to be honest… I don't think this is Craig's real physique.

Anti-Mastery

For a long time, before starting this site and refining my approach to performing social magic, I had the same issue most amateurs face when performing for friends and family: a generally steady decline in interest and appreciation for the tricks I was showing people..

The first time they see a trick from you, they're completely enthralled—even if the trick is nothing special. Months later there is less engagement. Years on, you have the "magician's wife" situation where they're significantly less interested in what you have to show them unless it's profoundly strong. Just a gradual decline in enthusiasm over time.

My solution at that time was to continually find new people to perform for. I'd perform regularly for a new person in my life, and then as time passed and their reactions lessened I'd start performing for them much less—maybe only every few months—and find fresh faces to focus on instead.

But then I stumbled onto a different approach that has proven to have much more enduring appeal.

It's very simple. The key is just never implying mastery. Nothing should ever feel "done."

In the past, the experience for people was:

Andy does magic tricks.

• He showed me a trick.

• He showed me another trick.

• He showed me another trick.

That might happen all in one night or over the course of a year. But each thing was its own separate experience—the feeling being that I had perfected this one thing and was now presenting it for their approval. And that's terrible for ongoing interest.

Imagine it this way. Let's say someone shows you some artwork they've done. Finished pieces. They're masters of their craft. At first you're like, "Wow, this is great! You're so talented." But as time goes by, you stop being surprised by their talent. It's expected now. So you're just comparing piece to piece: is this new one measurably more impressive than the last? If yes, maybe a reaction. If not, more of the same.

Now imagine a friend who is no master, but just someone who is interested in art and always experimenting with new techniques. Their pursuit is likely to hold your interest much longer even if their work is nowhere near as good as the first person's. Even if they're a total amateur. Even if the quality is all over the place. In fact, that only makes their pursuit more interesting.

This is the heart of anti-mastery.

Say "I can read minds" to someone you see regularly and you've put an expiration date on the experience. There's only so many times that premise can land before it stops feeling impossible and starts feeling expected. Even if someone could actually read minds, you'd lose interest in watching it pretty quickly.

But if it's something you're working on—something you've been reading about, experimenting with, trying to get a handle on—that same premise stays alive indefinitely. It's no longer a claim, now it's a thread that makes sense to return to again and again. You can come back to it, push it further, try a different angle, let it succeed, let it miss, let it evolve. People stay interested because it's still in motion.

The exceptions are:

If you want to claim an ability with someone you'll never see again, go ahead.

If you want to claim something so frivolous you'd only ever do it once, go ahead. For example: "I don't know why, but ever since I was little I could tell how many grapes someone can fit in their mouth."

But never claim the big abilities: mind reading, sleight-of-hand expertise, psychological manipulation, seeing the future, etc.

This is the best approach for an amateur who wants to play the long game. You're always learning. You've never mastered anything. You're exploring different approaches and you want their feedback. You're growing, you're on a journey and you're inviting them along for it.

No, Seriously, What the Flip?

Penguin released a new trick today.

I would love to see the raw footage of this live performance, because I’m pretty positive this is AI. Specifically this woman here…

And here…

To be clear, I know this is a real person who was really there. I'm saying her reactions—what she said and the expression on her face—were generated by AI. To me it's obvious.

I know Penguin has been using AI video effects in their demo videos for a while now, but this is the first time I've seen a video using it for the spectator's reaction. We're not okay with this, right? If this becomes commonplace, demo videos will go from their current state (mostly useless) to something that's actively destructive to your ability to sense if something is a good trick or not.

Now, I've always been a big Penguin Magic fan and I may be proven wrong on this. Maybe that's her real reaction and she's just on mescaline or something. If the raw footage matches up to the ad, I will buy 50 copies of the trick and distribute them to readers of this site as an apology to Penguin for questioning their integrity.

We'll see.

Salvage Yard: Pixx

So I grabbed Pixx off Penguin a couple weeks back. The method's solid — no surprise, it's Max Maven — but the trick itself feels arbitrary in a very “magic-y” way. The pictures are just random objects. And the predictions aren’t exact matches for the original possibilities. Which means someone in your audience could imagine that one prediction applies to multiple selections which just makes it feel less clean overall.

And then in this video they suggest you just use the method and come up with your own cards and images — cool, so I'll do the creative work you were supposed to do. Great division of labor.

I've got nothing for framing. Genuinely stumped.

So now it's your problem. Any ideas for a way to perform this that’s maybe more interesting? —HT

Actually… yes.

I had similar thoughts when this was performed for me. Strong method, but uninspired overall framing. But it's only $20, so I didn't really see an issue with it.

Here's an idea for a premise that is more interesting, more cohesive, less arbitrarily limiting (the part where there are colored frames around the original images lumping two together), and more memorable than the current version.

You'll have to go to a little effort to make it up, though, but with AI and online card printing companies it won't be that difficult.

Or, if Penguin wants to produce Pixx: Jerx Edition, they have my permission. Here's my signature signing the rights over to them.

Here's how it works…

You bring up the concept of "psychic detectives"—people who seem to have insights into crimes and their perpetrators they couldn't possibly know.

"These people come out of the woodwork all the time, but 99% of them are lunatics or bullshit artists, but 1% seem to be the real deal. And that's somewhat frustrating because—are the cops supposed to follow up on 99 bad leads for the one good one? Or do they just ignore these people and end up missing out on a key bit of information?"

"What they end up doing is giving these people a little test based on a crime that's already been solved. Even a fictionalized case will work, as long as a verified answer for the case has been created as well."

I want to try that with you today, because I get the sense you'd be good at it.

You bring out two envelopes. One labelled "Suspects," the other "Perpetrators."

From the Suspects envelope you remove eight police sketches and put them in groups of two. Each group has some very basic similarities between the individuals, but also some obvious differences.

Group 1 - Two white male "punk" types. One with a mohawk and clean shaven. The other bald with a long beard.

Group 2 - Two black males. One thin with a long face. One fat with a round face.

Group 3 - Two older women. One with dark straight hair, one with blond curly hair.

Group 4 - Two children. One boy, one girl.

"The scenario is a bank robbery gone wrong. 18 people killed. The authorities know it was a crew of four and they have sketches of people who were in the area. But anyone who could positively identify exactly who was involved was killed and all the security cameras were taken out."

"I'm going to ask you some questions about who was involved. I don't want you to use your brain or try to ‘logic’ out the correct answer. Instead, just go with your intuition."

"We're going to start furthest out and work our way towards the vault."

"On the street, in front of the bank, there were two individuals in cars. One was the getaway driver; the other was just an innocent person sitting in their car. Use your gut. Which of these groups had the getaway driver in it?"

They point to the two white males.

"Okay, and which of these was the actual getaway driver?"

They indicate the bald one.

You slide that picture off to one side, and put the other one in the start of a discard pile.

"Now there was an individual at the front door of the bank, guarding it and acting as a lookout. And there was another individual out there who was just an innocent bystander. Which group contains the door guard?"

They pick the two black males as containing the door guard. And then identify the thin one as the actual perpetrator.

They then decide it was the two children that were in the lobby and the one doing crowd-control was the little girl (the little boy was innocent).

And finally, inside the vault were the two older women. Although they both claimed they were innocent, your friend identifies the curly-haired one as the mastermind. The other one was just her final hostage.

As you place the unchosen individual's police sketches away, you recap. "You identified which person you thought was guilty and exactly where they were located during the crime. The odds of getting every one right are like in the 100s or 1000s to one." Maybe not exactly, but close enough.

You slide the contents of the perpetrators envelope out. On top of the pile is a cover card (my addition, just to delay and clarify the climax). It says something like:

Perpetrators

1. Getaway Driver

2. Door Guard

3. Lobby

4. Vault

"So first we have the getaway driver. You said the white males were in the cars outside. And between those, you thought the guilty one was the bearded man."

"And the actual getaway driver was…" You remove the cover card.

You then go through the rest of the cards, showing they found the full guilty "crew" and identified what their roles were.

The "patter" I'm giving here is pretty basic—just to get the idea out there. In reality I'd try to come up with something a little more interesting. And, of course, you’d want to emphasize your amazement that they got everything correct.

Maybe give them a picture of JonBenet-Ramsey at the end and be like, “Use your powers. Don’t hold back on us now. What happened to her?”

Mainly what I want to do is come up with a less arbitrary grouping of the two images (these are two suspects spotted in the same general area), a way of making the order meaningful (they're choosing what the people's roles were), and more generally interesting subject matter (psychic detective).

Note

I found it somewhat difficult to get AI to create something that looked like a real police sketch. It produced something too perfect looking each time. The closest I got was with this prompt in Google Gemini.

• Click for Prompt

  Create a black-and-white police composite sketch, like a witness-based forensic drawing rather than a polished portrait. The image should look imperfect, rough, and slightly amateurish, as if drawn by a competent but not highly artistic police sketch artist.

  Use graphite pencil on plain white paper. The subject should be shown front-facing in a simple head-and-shoulders composition, with a neutral expression and no dramatic lighting. The facial proportions should be slightly off in believable ways: mild asymmetry, uneven eyes, simplified nose and mouth, awkward jawline, imperfect ear placement, and features that feel approximate rather than lifelike.

  Use visible pencil lines, basic crosshatching, smudgy shading, and uneven line weight. Avoid beautiful realism, cinematic portraiture, fashion illustration, or highly detailed anatomy. The sketch should feel utilitarian, flat, and witness-driven — clear enough to identify a suspect, but not refined or artistically “good.”

  Subject: [Ex. A white male, in his 20s, "punk" look with a mohawk.]

  Do not make it a polished realistic portrait, charcoal art, concept art, glamour drawing, hyper-detailed illustration, or attractive finished sketch. Avoid perfect symmetry, perfect anatomy, dramatic lighting, and painterly rendering.

I then asked ChatGPT for a photo-realistic mugshot based on the image.

If I was going to pursue this further, I’d then use makeplayingcards.com or something similar to create the cards.

Mailbag #174

I love the absurdity of this “multi sauce” pack that comes with this effect. What are your thoughts on this as an EDC trick? —MIS

In my opinion, anything that doesn't seem like something you would carry around with you normally is terrible for an "everyday carry" trick. That's the metric I use.

Imagine someone said to you, "I need a quarter for the parking meter. Hold on." And they start emptying their pockets.

They pull out some bills, a credit card, their keys, a pack of gum. You would have no thoughts on that. That makes tricks that use these items perfect for EDC.

But if they pull out a little vinyl wallet with eight playing cards in it?

Poker chips?

Ketchup and mustard packets?

They'd look like a weirdo.

When performing socially, you don't want to start off unnaturally just based on the items you're using.

So no. This isn't good for an EDC.

Perform it at home, where you might have some condiment packets lying around from a food order.

Perform it professionally, because no one cares about the objects you use when performing professionally. They go into it assuming you're using strange stuff even if it's normal stuff.

But don't carry it with you and think you can roll into it "casually." No one's going to buy that.

The only potential I see for social performing is a one-phase thing where you just bring out the multi-sauce packet. "Have you seen these? I got them at that new diner. They don't like you to take extras because apparently they're pretty expensive. But I snagged one without them noticing. It's a multi-sauce packet…."

In this case, you're not some weirdo carrying around "normal" condiment packets to do a multi-phase trick with. You're a normal person carrying around "something weird" you found — which is much more justified.

---

I got Mosaic from Ellusionist and the reactions have been just okay so far. It seems like it gets more laughs than astonishment. Any idea why or suggestions on how to improve it?—DG

I actually wrote about this briefly in the most recent newsletter.

I think this is a case where the trick is so clever and polished—and it’s happening on a phone—that the only place for their mind to go is that an app or something similar is behind it.

If something visually interesting or unusual happens on your phone, it’s hard to get people to not just think of it as a “phone trick.” So while I think the trick generates a nice initial surprise, the nature of the reveal is so phone-centric they’re almost certainly going to fight against the mystery by shrugging it off as a “phone thing.”

It doesn't help that these types of photo mosaics are done by computers. So people already know your phone is assisting you to some extent. So their question will be, at best, "How did he know the celebrity I'd name?" Not, "How did he take pictures for the past two years in such a manner that when zoomed out they'd form the picture of the celebrity I would eventually think of?"

This is all a matter of personal choice, of course. For some people, the surprise factor will be enough to make this worth performing.

But I personally think the best apps make the phone feel a little more tangential to the effect than this one does.

---

I was wondering if you've seen this incredible 30-minute AI film called Holy Grail? It was made by one guy in 10 days and it's a historical sci-fi drama set in 1503 Florence. To my eyes, it's beautifully "shot" and "edited," and features a compelling lead "performance" by a charismatic "actor." It's the best integration of animation and live action I've ever seen; I mean, it's an animated film by definition but it doesn't look or read as such. And this is still early days; AI filmmaking will never again look worse than this.

Watching it was the first time I ever felt viscerally that traditional Hollywood filmmaking is toast. Within a few years it will seem unthinkable to spend $200-300 million to make a Lord of the Rings-type film, with hundreds of production people and actors when a couple of geniuses in their bedroom can produce epics for the cost of AI credits.

I have no idea what this kind of thing does or doesn't mean for magic. I'm inclined to think live magical experiences will only grow in value and preciousness when every visual experience imaginable can be manifested in the digital realm. But in any case Holy Grail is a hell of a yarn. —JS

Video available on YouTube

This video is age-restricted, so it can’t be played directly on this page.

Watch on YouTube

I agree with you on the magic front. I feel the advances in digital content have only made in-person magic a stronger experience.

As for the film, I thought it was a snooze, but I'm not the sort of person who would watch this if it was made by humans. So I'm probably not the best judge.

While it's impressive, I can't imagine anyone watching it who wasn't curious to see what could be done with AI.

They've got the spectacle down—and that's obviously going to change the way big Hollywood epics are made going forward. It already has, actually.

But the acting is still not quite there. I have a feeling it may never get past the uncanny valley stage. So I don't see it replacing actors. (To be fair, when I first started watching it I happened to skip forward to 3 minutes in where the lead "actor" says, "Holy shit we found it!" in this bizarre way. And all I could think of as I watched a lot of this was the poor guy who made it having to settle for certain "takes" because no matter how he prompted it, he was getting weak outcomes.)

One time I met a guy who told me that people would stop skiing in the real world because if they wanted to ski they could do it in VR at any mountain in the world. I told him he was a fucking moron. "You don't understand why people ski," I told him.

And I think the idea that AI will fully replace the human element in movies, TV, etc. is similarly flawed. Yes, it will be a tool for big epics. But that may backfire too. Look at the most profitable live-action films from the past couple months:

The Devil Wears Prada 2
Michael
Obsession
Backrooms

A character-driven sequel, a biopic, two small-scale/intimate horror pics.

What bombed?

Supergirl
Masters of the Universe
Mandalorian and Grogu

It may be that people are more interested in human stories than spectacle these days. Perhaps when spectacle becomes something someone can do in their bedroom, we care about it less.

Or maybe I'm just reading into things.

But it does seem telling this epic short film, showing the pinnacle of AI filmmaking, has, after two months, 2600 views. For whatever reason, people don't give a shit.

Over the same time period, Craig Petty telling you what's in his close-up case, has 3800 views.

Make of that what you will.

June Daily Check-In

June 30th

Okay, this is the last update. Posting will resume on Monday, July 6th. See you then!

June 29th

Supporter BK used one of the most pointless ceremonies on earth—accepting your diploma at graduation—to do something actually meaningful: flash the Jerx gang sign. Well done.

June 28th

Okay, pencils all sharpened. Time to start writing the book!

June 27th

“I think it’s cool you learn instruments just for the hell of it. Did your parents do anything to build a love for playing music? I’m trying to instill it in my kids and would love any tips. Start lessons early? Take them to see live music?” —LN

Hmm. If they already like the band, then yes, taking them to see live music will help. But just taking them to see some random local band will probably be torture for a kid.

The thing that made me want to play instruments was watching music videos and filmed live performances that showed the band playing their instruments. It’s easy to listen to songs and just hear them as single cohesive “thing.” But seeing the song being played allows your mind to really focus on the parts you see being played. Which, in turn, allows you to more easily imagine yourself as a person who could potentially play one of those “parts.” So if you can come up with a rationale to get them to watch such videos, that may help plant the seed.

In other words, I don’t think it’s primiarly by listening to music that one thinks, “I want to play instruments.” It’s by seeing it come together.

June 26th

Schedule note. I’ll be winding up the daily check-ins at the end of the month. Regular posting will resume on Monday, July 6th.

June 25th

I found this funny.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by John Franklin (@_johnfranklin__)

I'm not a musician exactly, but I enjoy learning instruments well enough to play them at an amateur level. And I like to play in front of people, but at an open-mic situation where people don't know you, no one gives a shit about hearing a novice guitar player. But here's a tip for you if you want to get out and perform even if you're not that great: what I would always do is start with an amusing or interesting non-personal story and then roll from that into the song. This almost always would make me stand out from the other performers and win the crowd over a little bit despite not having much to offer with my musicianship.

One of my go-to story/song combos was to tell the Mike Piazza story, laying out the beats similar to the way the guy does in the video above, and then go into the song that follows. The few times I did it, it was a crowd favorite.

June 24th

About a week left. That means I'm at the point where I'm completely exhausted by all the writing, but not yet close enough to the end to feel the pull of almost being done. In a few days, though, I'll finally get that "the end is near" rush—the same energy as a long-suffering wife who's finally decided tonight's the night she smothers her husband in his sleep.

June 23rd

I’m really liking this custom leather dice case with the GLOMM logo I picked up from Josh S at Hide and Secrets. (Note: Don’t bother contacting me about this, as I have no info to give. If you check out his creations and want him to make you something, reach out to him on Instagram.)

June 22nd

"I read something recently saying appearances were stronger than vanishes? Do you agree? And what do you think is the strongest appearance or vanish?—GA

Hmm. In my experience, vanishes tend to be much stronger.

Put yourself in the spectator's shoes. If something magically appears, you think, "Somehow he was hiding that from me…but it was probably there all along." There's an easy answer.

If something vanishes and it's nowhere to be found, then the trick is ongoing. They know they saw the object, and now they know there's nothing to be seen. Both states are equally cemented in their mind.

Vanishes allow for greater certainty. "I know I saw the ball. And I know there's no ball now."

With an appearance, the best you're likely to get is, "I know there's a ball there now. And I'm pretty sure it wasn't there before."

As for what I think is the strongest vanish or appearance, I'd say the lit cigarette vanish with a pull is the strongest.

June 21st

Happy Father’s Day to those of you who’ve nutted into someone producing a child.

June 20th

June 19th

Okay, literally like 2/3rds of you have suggested “Performer as Spectator.” I promise you, I wouldn’t write a whole book devoted to that.

And if you supported for 18 months and I sent you a book that was a
”Progressive Anagram System,” you would have every right to hunt me down and beat me about the head and shoulders.

It has to do with magic—although you wouldn’t necessarily know that if you just heard it. It’s not a phrase I made up. It will take some lateral thinking to figure it out.

June 18th

Since yesterday’s post, I’ve already received some guesses, so I might as well make it a contest.

For a $100 gift-card to the magic shop of your choice, guess what the subtitle of the forthcoming book is.

It’s not:

• People Are Strange

• Pepperoni and Sausage

• Piece-a-Shit

It’s something specifically magic related. And it’s a subject I’ve hit upon in the past, although not this exact phrase. I’ll take guesses until someone gets it right or until the cover reveal which will give it away.

June 17th

(2021) WWCV1: The Entertainer
(2023) WWCV2: Young Girls Are Coming to the Canyon
(2025) WWCV3: Escape!
(2026) WWCV4: P.A.S.

June 16th

An email I received after the most recent issue of Keepers:

“I know; I'm an old fart.

I know; you've addressed the question several times before.

But I still can't believe that anyone actually likes cellphone magic as magic, and that you think cellphone magic is worthwhile.

No, a thousand times no, cellphone magic is not magic. It just isn't. Certainly not in a world where AI exists. Please, I know you're better than this. I'm not saying your surrounding premises aren't ingenious and probably better than what the inventors of such imagined; I'm not even saying I wouldn't be fooled--even amazed for a few moments; but politely, it's lipstick on a pig. Give it up before it destroys you...”

Before it destroys me! Yikes. That's a bit histrionic.

The truth is, I generally prefer tricks that don't involve the phone. But avoiding the phone in an equally weird impulse.

It's not 2004. People don't automatically get suspicious when you pull out a cellphone. It's the most ubiquitous object in the world—your spectator is more likely to have a phone on them than a coin, a bill, a watch, a business card, paper and pencil, a book, a newspaper, or any of the other objects that used to anchor impromptu magic.

When you ask someone to add something up on their calculator, snap a photo, or look something up, they're not thinking "this must be a phone trick.” Because as long as they're under 80, this is just the way they would go about doing that activity. It would be weirder to pull out a separate calculator than use the one on your phone. DFB is more normal than bringing out a spiral notebook.

I've mentioned cutting back on phone magic tricks myself. I certainly think it can be overused in magic, especially when all the attention is concentrated on the phone itself. But I wouldn't write it off entirely. When the phone is involved naturally as part of a process, and the climax pulls the focus and energy back into the real human moment between you and another person, you can have wildly strong effects that don't register at all as "cellphone magic."

June 15th

Frequently I’ll get a message that says, essentially:

"I've always wanted to go to a magic convention, but I can't because:

1. I'm an anti-social weirdo.

2. I have a severe body odor condition. My physician describes it as 'enthusiastic perspiration with environmental impact.'

3. I have no money."

Well, I have great news. Points #1 and #2? Completely table stakes at a magic convention. Nobody will bat an eye.

The better news is re: #3—Brent Braun is running a "pay what you will" magic gathering in New Albany, IN from August 20–22, and the lineup includes some of my favorite close-up magic creators. If you're within reasonable driving distance, this one's worth the trip.

June 14th

Here’s a video of people in infomercials struggling to do easy things.

And here’s a gif from the demo for Lubor’s Gift where he’s trying to put the brown box inside the black box.

June 13th

I’m exhausted. Took a jaunt to NYC to hit one of the watch parties for the Knicks and was out until sun-up (setting buses on fire and what-not). This screwed up my schedule a bit, but it’s been 53 years since their last championship, so I had to work it in.

June 12th

Help Wanted: If you know some cardistry moves, and if you can act a little or at least aren’t completely awkward speaking in front of the camera, send me an email. There’s a post I’ve been wanting to do for a while, but none of my regular people who record videos for me have flourishing skills like I’m looking for. It’s a paid project.

June 11th

I was sent an email questioning this ad from Murphy’s.

What is an "approachable" color match, you might ask? Is this just more of Murphy's typical gobbledygook?

No, it's actually a brilliant bit of marketing.

Murphy's knows their audience: socially awkward weirdos. So now they're just sliding words and phrases into their advertising they know will connect with that demographic.

Approachable? A color match? Does that make sense? No, but for the type of guy who rehearses his Starbucks order in the car so he doesn’t freeze up in front of the barista, it's a soothing word that subconsciously makes the product more attractive to them.

I went poking around the site and found a few other examples of this strategy in action:

"These are our most unintimidating and nonjudgmental sponge balls yet."

"This breakaway wand is made of high-quality plastic and it doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with you for crying at Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.”

"This Haunted Deck uses no strings or electronics. And it won't laugh at you for wearing that shiny shirt which you thought looked cool. Unlike that bitch, Coleen."

June 10th

June 9th

Marc Kerstein just updated his Earworm app. I'm too in the weeds to take a look at it just yet, but I do want to remind you of my favorite premise for this app.

I have my friend go to YouTube and lower the volume on their phone. I borrow the phone, search for a song on YouTube, press play, and place the phone face-down on the table—so no one can see or hear what’s playing.

"Okay, I'm going to think of the song in my head and dance to it, and I want to see if you can tell from the sheer majesty of my rhythmic expression what song I'm dancing to."

I then stand up, take a deep breath, and do any spastic, bad, or ridiculous dance I want.

They blindly guess at what song I could have been dancing to, they turn up the volume on their phone, and that's the song that's playing. Always kills.

June 8th

“I don’t mean to interrupt your book month, but now seems like an appropriate time to ask if you have any tips about how to motivate oneself to actually write a book. You’ve written 7 or 8 in the time I’ve been trying to write my first. Are there any systems or techniques you recommend I put in place to get my motivation right and get it done?”—RR

Systems and techniques will help you do things more efficiently, but they won’t help you with motivation.

If you've been putting off doing something you really want to do, it's because there is a demon inside you that tells you to do something easier instead: to watch TV, play video games, have another drink, whatever. We all have this demon. The trick it plays is making its demands feel like self-care. It makes it feel like you're treating yourself, giving yourself a break, being kind to yourself. But usually you're not indulging yourself at all. You're indulging the thing inside you that wants comfort above all else, even at the expense of growth and accomplishment.

I don't know how to create motivation. I can't manufacture enthusiasm and inspiration on demand. But I find I can generate an equivalent kind of drive by identifying that demon and refusing to be a slave to it.

June 7th

I’ve already received an unusual amount of positive feedback about the just-released issue of Keepers—perhaps because the site is on break while I write the book and people feel compelled to be supportive.

Just to get ahead of it… the next issue might be a bit of a mess. Since the newsletter covers the things I’ve been working with the previous month—and since this month is primarily spent with my head buried in my laptop and socializing very little, the next issue might seem a little off. You’ll survive.

June 6th

For Juxe subscribers, a new mix will be coming early next month. And then I may be changing the timing on them. Perhaps doing a short mix monthly. I haven’t quite decided yet.

To tide you over, this new single from The Last Dinner Party is sick—really leans into their 70s influences with a bit of PJ Harvey as well.

June 5th

Ellusionist not quite understanding how FOMO is supposed to work in their recent email…

You heard it, guys. They have a scant 300 of these to go around.

And when they sell out, you’re going to have to wait all the way to “mid-2026” to get one. I mean… what will the world even be like in far-off “mid-2026”? Will Ellusionist still be in business? Will the internet still work? I’m not taking my chances. I’m ordering a dozen.

June 4th

On days when I finish my work early enough, I’ve been going to a late movie showing. So far this month I saw Backrooms and Obsession. Backrooms was good. Obsession was outstanding.

I will use the random emoji generator to determine my new rating system.

Obsession gets five mailboxes.

📬📬📬📬📬

June 3rd

“The Unnamed Magician’s most recent youtube video about the Open Prediction trick is one of the most unintentionally funny things I’ve ever seen. I almost thought you made it to make fun of him. So it looks like no bet will be happening? 😂”—MW

Sadly no, guys. I offered a wager in my last post on the subject. And I said that the bet can be whatever amount he wants it to be.

A week or so later he emailed me and said he wanted to do the bet for $100,000.

Great! I told him how we could proceed. I was ready to fund an escrow account that day for my half of the wager. And I already had people in his city who could witness the testing. Just as soon as he put up his money.

His response tells us everything we need to know about the type of intellect we're dealing with here. He told me he didn't understand that he would have to put up money too. He said he thought "this was a one-sided bet in the sense that I perform the trick and upon successful completion I get paid. And in the case I don't successfully deliver, I simply don't get paid (not that I have to pay you)."

Yes. Seriously. A "one-sided bet." What the fuck is that? you might be wondering. Don't ask me. I have no clue.

He said he was confused because I said there was "no risk" for him.

Yes. Because he says the trick exists—and we're betting on whether or not the trick exists—so of course (if he's not lying) there's "no risk" for him.

If the trick was real, he would have easily understood why there was no risk for him. But because it doesn't exist, that's why he got confused.

Also, if it's a "one-sided bet"… why stop at $100,000, goofball?

He then fumbled over himself explaining why he wouldn't take the bet. He said he was worried the person who bought it would sue him if he performed it (yet oddly that person allowed him to record it just the week before and put it up on YouTube?). Of course such a clause would never be in the contract to begin with, as you can't prohibit someone from performing an Open Prediction privately for people. Even if you could, there's no way to prove he used the same method that was sold. And most importantly, there's no damages. In fact, if this was verified as a real trick via this bet—this (non-existent) buyer would have a much more valuable item in his collection.

He also told me that on the 3–5% of the time the trick fails, the method gets exposed to the audience. And he didn't want to take the chance of me learning the secret.

Hold on…

Just a sec…

Damn. It doesn't seem like the internet has a gif of someone laughing hard enough to accurately reflect my response to that idea.

Just think… When he was originally selling the trick he said this was "the best thing he's ever created." Since that time he's said:

• Nobody would like the method.

• Nobody would want to perform it.

• The person who spent $60,000 on it didn't like it.

• When it doesn't work, the trick doesn't just fail, but the method gets exposed.

Look, I tried my best. I let him choose the bet amount. I sent my people to him. I offered my testing infrastructure. I gave him options so we wouldn't have to pay escrow fees. I told him I would cover any legal fees he incurred from performing the trick. I told him he only had to show an 80% success rate—nowhere near the 97% he claimed. I offered to have Genii magazine do a story on the whole thing—the $100,000 Bet—one that would make me look an idiot and him look a hero for eternity in print.

Sadly, he wouldn't demonstrate the trick despite all of that. Oh well!

June 2nd

Aaron S. brought my attention to this gem from the DFB Facebook group…

A lot of people would consider this corny, manipulative, desperate, beyond pathetic, etc. And they'd be right. Whatever approach you're using to try and get a kiss, the word "Force" should probably not be part of the process. (“Digital” and “Bag” probably shouldn’t factor into it too much either.)

To be honest though, there is nothing more believable than the idea that a person who does strolling magic would have "get a kiss" on their fucking bucket list. "Hmmm…. let's see. I want to cliff dive in Thailand. I want to see the Northern Lights. And hey—if the universe is feeling generous—maybe someday I'll work my way up to a kiss.”

June 1st

Book writing month has officially commenced. But give me a month to write a book, and I will spend the first couple of days dicking around and getting myself set up and finding a rhythm.

Today I was laying out the chapters and the writing schedule for the month and working out my writing stations in the location I'm staying. I don't like to write in one place. And I don't just mean hopping from cafes to parks to libraries. I mean, even when I'm working from home I like to work at a desk, then laying on the couch, then in some sort of standing situation. And I'll switch from one to the next with each section of the piece I'm writing. It's a natural way to mix things up so I'm not stuck at a desk all day, where I usually end up procrastinating.

So today was an axe-sharpening day.

(To be clear, I don't think Lincoln actually ever said that quote. Which is probably a good thing. That's wayyyyyy too much sharpening time. Four hours?? The hell? "Okay, sweetie. I think the axe is probably sharp enough—can we start hitting the tree with it now?" At three hours and 45 minutes there can’t even be much axe left to sharpen. You’re just kind of rattling the handle against a rock at that point.)