Spont: Spectator Bingo

This is another Oliver Meech idea that is related to the one I wrote about last Thursday. He originally wrote me:

Non-tech challenges: do magic versions of existing 'mini quests' that people do. E.g. Like you get printable tick-box charts for a 30/60-day Press Ups challenge (or so I've heard from friends who actually work out!), you could make up something similar magic. Or initial bingo (doing tricks for people whose first names have those initials) - like a broader version of Justin Willman's Magic For Susans. Or location bingo (doing tricks at a range of locations). I like the idea of people helping you to complete your 'bingo card' (or at least a line of it) that's almost full.

I was in Toronto a couple of weeks ago, and I was sitting in the lounge/lobby of the hotel I was staying at, and I struck up a conversation with a woman seated near me. We were talking about how we liked the hotel and our takes on Toronto in general. My take was that it reminded me a lot of New York City, except without the really bad aspects and without the really good aspects. It’s like Mid York City.

After chatting for a couple of minutes she told me her name was Dasha. I told her I liked that name.

“Wait…,” I said, “Uhm, do you mind telling me what your last initial is?”

She told me it was G.

In my bag was a folded piece of paper. I pulled it out and said, “Oh, I need that one… Sorry, this is a little odd, but do you have a couple of minutes to help me with something I’m working on. It’s really easy.”

And from there, I rolled into the trick.

The paper I pulled out looked like this…

Except a bunch of the boxes had Xs through them and signatures in them.

I explained to her that the top row consisted of the most popular first initials and the side column had the most common last name initials.

“I’m part of a group that’s testing something out. It’s kind of a magic trick. But it’s more like a psychology game… like a mind-reading game.”

And I mention how this chart is part of the way that we’re tracking the testing, by testing for people with these initials.

She was interested and agreed to help and I went on to show her a Jerx App trick which crushed her.

When we were done, I X’d the box and asked her to sign her name there.

“How often does that work?” she asked.

“Uhm…,” I counted the Xs on my sheet. “Well, out of the 23 times I’ve done it, it worked that well just this once.”

I put a star in the corner of that box, as if to remind myself of how well it worked. Hopefully letting her feel a little special about this experience, despite the premise being that I’m testing this out a lot.

---

A few times people have asked what the point is of the chart. Like, they get the idea that I’m testing something out a number of times, but why with the initials?

I have two answers.

The first is that it’s just a way to game-ify the testing process. See who can fill out more of the chart. That sort of thing.

The other is that this is a simplified way to get a good cross-section of people since “certain initials are more common within specific ethnic backgrounds and age groups. So researchers often aim for a wide range of initials to approximate a diverse group of respondents without going deep into demographic data. You wouldn’t do it like this for rigorous scientific research. But for our purposes it works.”

---

The nice thing about this is that if their initials are on the chart, they feel like they’re helping you complete something. But even if they’re not, or that square is already filled in, you can still use the chart as a way of getting into the effect.

You just bring out the chart to check if their initials are ones you need. Even if not, you still get to explain what you’re doing and set the hook from there and show them the trick regardless.

You can download the chart here.

Fill in a few to begin with, so the chart looks a little “lived in.”

The chart is specifically vague. I don’t have one trick I use this with. I just have it in my bag and know that it’s just one more way I can use to roll into a trick when I feel it would work.

Scattershot Technique

The question I probably get the most is: What do you say when you want to show someone a trick?

I perform semi-frequently for people I don’t know. People who just happen to be near me at a coffee-shop or in some other social environment. I’ll strike up a conversation and at some point transition into a trick.

It’s that transition that people ask about. They can’t imagine me just saying, “Want to see a magic trick?!”

Out of 1000 magicians, maybe 201 are completely comfortable just saying, “Want to see a magic trick?” to someone they don’t really know. One of those people is just so self-possessed that he can deliver that line without a trace of self-consciousness. The other two hundred are just so socially awkward and clueless that they don’t realize how that statement might be ill-received by people.

The most natural transition is just to talk with people, and then when the subject of what our hobbies or interests are comes up, I can plant some seeds there, and if they show interest, I can follow that up by offering to show them something. But this works best when I can count on a longer conversation.

Sponts are another transition technique. Sponts are these little things that let you introduce a trick by coming at it indirectly. (Ctrl+F and search for “Sponts” to see other posts on the subject.)

Ideally, they will open the door for a performance based on something they say. If they say something about: astrology, psychology, games, or anything “mystical,” I can capitalize on that.

But if I’m Spont-less and no doors are opened during conversation, then my go-to technique is to ask for their assistance with something I’m working on. “It will just take a minute.” When you ask someone generically for help, you need to make it clear they're not going to be committing 45 minutes or two-hours.

I usually say something like:

“I’m testing out an idea for something I’m working on. It’s kind of a magic trick. But it’s more like a psychology game… like a mind-reading game.”

Obviously, this wouldn’t work for Cups & Balls, but it’s the type of general statement I could make work for a lot of the types of tricks I do casually. “Mind-reading game” is, I’ve found, a very intriguing yet nonthreatening way to phrase it. And when dealing with a virtual stranger, intriguing and nonthreatening is what you need to emphasize for their comfort.

If there’s no “mind-reading” element, I can throw in another word, “fortune-telling game,” “personal development game,” “a color-perception game.” It can be very vague and doesn’t even need to be hyper-accurate. You can also just stop at “psychology game.”

If there’s no possible psychological element to the trick, you can just say: “It’s kind of a magic trick… more like a game.”

This isn’t something I memorize. I’m sure I’ve never said that exact sentence in bold above, but that’s the general idea of what I say.

If it sounds a little unfocused and vague, that’s intentional. The reason I call it the Scattershot Technique is that I’m throwing out a bunch of words and hoping that there’s one of them that captures their attention. Usually they’ll focus on that and ignore everything else.

So they may be intrigued by:

• magic

• mind-reading

• psychology

• games

• “helping”

Or, if they’ve decided they like me by that point of the conversation, just seeing “something I’m working on” may be enough to intrigue them.

The idea is simply to verbally cast the widest possible net, and allow them to catch themselves in it.

For me, this works far better than directly asking them if they want to see a trick. Of course, if it’s someone who has been in my life a while and knows what to expect, then I can be more direct if I choose to be.

Mailbag #120

Your posts about examination (a topic magicians don't think about enough) reminds me of something I might have mentioned before.

There are lots of simple sleight-of-hand ways to apparently show a deck of cards all consisting of the same card. And then you turn everything back to normal by spreading the deck face-up.

I always thought it would be interesting to do a Svengali deck routine.

Then switch in the regular deck - and apparently continue the Svengali routine with some all-alike displays.

And then finish by showing the deck is back to normal.

You then leave the deck out to be examined - as you leave to go the bathroom.

A Svengali deck is one of the few routines where you can shift the focus by still apparently having the gaffed deck in play AFTER the deck has been switched out.

That is a powerful place to be.

I think what often confuses magicians about examinability is this. If a magic dealer (or another magician) shows you a trick - it is considered rude to examine the deck before asking. Particularly when in a magic shop - since it can lead to the magician learning the secret for "free" and thus ruining a potential sale.

Laypeople don't think like that. Why would they?—JM

Yeah, I like this, especially if you have someone in your life who is hyper-interested in the secrets to tricks.

You tell them you got a new “Trick Deck” in the mail. You demonstrate how the deck can be shown normal, or how it can be shown to be all the same cards. Don’t get into the details (short cards/long cards) just show how it can switch back and forth.

“Of course, you wouldn’t want to just do it like that, or they’ll know it’s a trick deck. But you can use it in more subtle ways too. Like always knowing what card they cut to.”

Have them cut the deck. Slide off the top card toward them. As they take a look at the card they cut to, switch the deck for a duplicate deck in your lap that doesn’t have the Svengali force card in it.

Put the card back on the deck, overhand shuffle it to the bottom, then cut the deck and riffle force it on yourself, showing how convenient it is because the card is “anywhere you cut to”. Then do the Hindu shuffle thing or one of those other proving techniques, casually, as you talk about the coolest part of the deck. It’s voice activated. “Hey Deck. Normal Mode,” you say, as if you’re speaking to a Siri or Alexa.

The deck can now be immediately handed out for examination. While that happens, you jam the deck in your lap in your pocket or whatever.

Two downsides:

1. There’s one short-card in the normal deck. I don’t know how much of an issue that is. It doesn’t really explain much of anything. But you can buy a reverse Svengali, and figure out a handling with that, and you wouldn’t have that issue.

2. If they genuinely buy what you show them, they’ll never trust any deck you do something with ever again.

---

I really like the 30-Day Challenge idea and how it gives laypeople a glimpse into a totally fake process of learning magic.

You mentioned using it for something like vanishing a coin. What kind of steps would you use along that process other than the shrinking coins? —HF

Hmmm… it’s going to depend on how “mechanical” you imagine vanishing a coin to be. In my mind, it’s sort of a process of visualization and then being able to lay that visualization on top of the real world.

So the first steps can just be holding a coin for increasingly long periods of time. As if you need to train your hand to memorize the feel of a coin.

The next step may involve carrying a coin with you in your hand until you forget you’re holding onto it for longer and longer periods of time. As if part of vanishing a coin is “forgetting” about it.

Then there would be steps where you do visualization exercises of the coin shrinking or dissolving or whatever.

Then there would be steps where you’re trying to vanish smaller, less dense objects. A tiny tab of paper. A drop of water.

Finally, you move onto coins. And you would build up to vanishing a piece of a coin, or shrinking a coin, or vanishing some of the mass of the coin (so it weighs slightly less). And so on.

That’s the type of trajectory I’d use.

Dustings #112

As most of you know by now, the Vanishing Inc warehouse was wiped out by a fire last week. No one was hurt. And the response from everyone affected has been fairly positive and optimistic given the circumstances. So you may expect me to come here and take the situation lightly. Especially given the fact that I’ve been suggesting for a decade that the “business relationship” between Josh and Andi is only a cover for something else.

You probably expect me to say, "fire investigators have conclusively determined that the fire originated from a spark caused by the friction of one biological entity being repeatedly thrust into another with what they describe as 'impressive vigor.'"

C’mon, guys. Now's not the time for such things.

Although Murphy’s Magic may not have my sense of decorum. As Sean P. pointed out to me, look what’s on their “new releases”…

Oookay.

At any rate, make sure you’re on Vanishing Inc’s mailing list or follow their blog to keep up with the best ways to support them as they rebuild.

---

Bouncing headphones, a fun little idea with Distracted Artist potential from Javier Fuenmayor. Full details can be found here…

---

If you ever do a trick with a gimmicked Sharpie and you get called out by your spectator afterward for using a “trick marker,” just do this… Reach into your pocket and say, “You’re right. It’s not a normal Sharpie. You caught me.”

Then pull out one of these self-defense Sharpies, uncap it, and stab them in the fucking neck.

#jerxhecklerstoppers

Spont: 30-Day Challenge

Last month, Oliver Meech sent in some ideas for Sponts, and I’ll be sharing at least a couple of them with you in the next week or two. Here’s the first:

Do magic versions of existing 'mini quests' that people do. E.g. Like you get printable tick-box charts for a 30/60-day Press Ups challenge (or so I've heard from friends who actually work out!), you could make up something similar for magic.

This is good. I always like putting the spectator in the position of helping me. People are so much more comfortable in that role than in the role of “spectator” or “person who should be impressed by what they’re seeing.” In my experience, if you seem to be doing what you’re doing for some other reason than their reaction, it relaxes people and allows them to actually be more genuine and less reserved with their reactions.

What Oliver is suggesting is having something similar to a Plank Challenge…

For example, you know those versions of Out of This World that just use 10 or 12 cards? That could work well for something like this.

You could have a sheet that says, “Color Intuition Challenge.”

Day 1-25 gradually works your way up to being able to determine the colors of a full deck of cards

Day 1 - Separate a deck face-up in under 30 seconds.

Day 2 - 30 minute meditation focusing on red cards.

Day 3 - 30 minute meditation focusing on black cards.

Day 4 - Rest

Day 5 - Mix 2 red and 2 black cards face-down, separate by color face down until correct.

Day 6 - Mix 4 red and 4 black cards face-down, separate by color face down until correct.

And so on.

Up to day 25, the “challenge” is all about your ability to find.

On day 26 you begin to attempt to channel that ability through someone else. As they are meant to separate 4 cards, 2 red and 2 black.

On day 27, the challenge is to get them to separate a mixed group of 12 cards.

Up through day 30, where they separate the whole deck.

You have the printout of this challenge, which has ✔ next to every day, through day 26.

Now you can ask someone for their help and introduce this printout, or you can just leave it out somewhere to be “discovered” by someone you’re spending time with.

You tell them about how it works. It’s a 30-Day Challenge designed to build certain abilities.

“I’m pretty good at knowing the colors on my own. But now I’m on the part where you channel the ability through someone else, which I have much less confidence in. I did it yesterday with my friend, Simon. But that was only four cards. It feels like it could have been luck. The odds with 12 cards are like 5000 to 1.”

So instead of a spectator randomly separating 6 red cards from 6 black cards, they are part of this much larger story and progression.

By putting them near the end, but not right at the end, of this challenge, I can also do other tricks for them with a similar premise, if they’re interested. A couple of weeks later, if they ask about the challenge and if I completed it, I can now show them a full deck version of Out of the World.

Giving your spectators a reason to consider that this brief exchange is part of something much bigger is a strong way to get them to give more weight to the trick in their mind.

OOTW is just an example effect. You could do it with anything, really. Perhaps it’s a 30-Day Rubik’s Cube Challenge. It starts off normally enough. Solve the cube in 10 minutes. Then the time gets shorter each day. And near the end you just have a split second. Or you’re supposed to solve it so it matches a random cube mixed by the spectator.

You could use this technique for believable skills like memory, gambling sleights, psychological observation.

Or completely unbelievable skills like vanishing a coin. If you have a super clean coin vanish, one of the issues with it is that it’s over so quickly. And if you make a routine with multiple coin vanishes, you dilute the impact of the vanish. But if you have a reason to build up the focus on a single vanish, you can make it very powerful. So you would walk them through some of the stages you went through to learn to vanish a coin. You’ve been able to make coins slightly lighter. You’ve been able to shrink coins. But you haven’t yet made one completely vanish. Now with their attention primed, you can focus them on a very clean coin vanish (using a Raven or something similar).

Rough Draft: Something Or Other

Here’s a dumb idea I had for a trick. It relies on dual reality and an audience of some size, so it’s not anything I would use. Or anyone would use, most likely. But I find the method a little funny.

A member of the audience is brought on stage, you ask for someone with a wide knowledge of popular music from the last several decades.

A deck of blank-faced playing cards is introduced. On the blank side of each card is the name of a famous song and the artist who performed it. The deck is given out to be shuffled by a couple members of the audience, who each shuffle half. Those two halves are then mixed together.

This complete deck can be examined by someone in the audience, and it is exactly what it appears to be. The person examining the deck will confirm that all the songs are different and there are various artists represented.

You hand the deck to the on-stage participant.

They cut the cards so they’re starting at a random spot and deal cards on the table, stopping anywhere they like. You ask them to take the card they stopped at and put it in their pocket.

You tell them to show the cards before and after the one they stopped at. One card has Y.M.C.A. by the Village People on it, the other has Mambo No. 5 by Lou Bega on it.

You ask them to look at the card they chose and concentrate on it. This happens while your back is to them. You have them focus on the song.

You think for a bit. “It’s a love song,” you say. Correct.

You’re struggling.

“Actually, just focus on the artist for me, okay?” They do.

“Oh!” it hits you. You pick up your pad and scribble something on it. As you write, you say. “I couldn’t get it at first. But then I saw George Harrison in my mind. Does that make sense? I thought so.” You hold up your pad to the audience to show your guess. “Is the song you’re thinking of, in fact, ‘Something,’ by The Beatles?”

You are correct.

No stooges.
The cards are genuinely shuffled.
The spectator is free to stop on any card.
You do not know where they stopped or what card they are holding until the end of the trick.

Method

The primary method comes down to this.

The audience hears, “Is the song you’re thinking of, in fact, ‘Something,’ by The Beatles?”

The person onstage hears, “Is the song you’re thinking of, in fact, something by The Beatles?”

You’re priming the audience by showing them what you wrote down, which is:

“Something”
The Beatles

The person onstage has been told that you’re “just going to focus on the artist.” So when you ask if it’s “something by the Beatles,” that doesn’t seem odd. It might seem odd to them that you end the trick there. But so be it.

The rest of the method…

26 cards with random songs on them.

26 cards with Beatles love songs on them and a mark on the back so you know they’re the Beatles songs.

Allow those separate groups to be shuffled. Then, when they’re returned to you, faro shuffle them together.

You can let someone other than the primary participant look at the deck and confirm the songs are all different and many artists are represented. They may notice a lot of Beatles, but from their P.O.V., you’ll nail the exact song at the end.

Let the onstage person cut the cards and deal through the deck. When they stop, look for the marking to know if you should tell them to put the last card they dealt or the one on top of the deck in their pocket.

When you say that you envisioned George Harrison, the audience will interpret that as a specific reference to Something—perhaps his most famous song.

Whereas the onstage person will—knowing he’s thinking about the Beatles—just assume you’re saying that was the first member that popped into your head. So that works even if he’s not holding a George Harrison song.

Again, I wouldn’t call this a good trick. There are better ways to achieve a similar effect.

But I do sometimes feel like there’s something to be gained by trying to build a trick around a sliver of a method, just as an exercise. Here, the sliver of a method is the idea that if you hear the phrase “something by the beatles” it has two different meanings.

Curtis Kam's Judo Switch

Curtis Kam shared this idea with me a couple of days ago, and I like it a lot. The psychology of the switch is similar to a switch I put in a book a couple of years ago called the Can’t Touch This Switch. Similar in motivation, at least. It also has a similar feel to the Munchhausen switch I mentioned in this post. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are other precedents as well, I just don’t know enough about coin magic to say.

Curtis wrote me after last Thursday’s post on using the shuttle pass to clean up at the end of a coin routine. I don’t believe this fools people for the reasons stated in that post.

Now, when it comes to handing out items for examination, Curtis and I have different philosophies. He tells me: “I physically cringe when I see a magician end a trick by shoving the props into everyone’s hands.”

He also writes; “Sure, we know they want to examine the coin, but they also know, or at least feel, that if you are thrusting something into their hands and insisting that they examine it, it’s probably okay (and therefore you’ve switched it).”

While I understand what he’s getting at, in a casual magic situation, handing out an item for examination is the most natural thing you can do at the end of a trick.

Imagine someone found a rock that changes color when you shake it. It’s not a magic trick. It’s a real color changing rock. They shake the rock and it changes color. Now, can you image a situation where they do anything other than drop that rock into your hands to look at? What if they showed you this rock and then… put it in their pocket(?!) like a fucking psychopath

So, while I agree you should never be forcing someone to examine something (and should probably never be using the word “examine” for that matter) I also believe that ending the trick with the items in the spectator’s hands is the most natural way for a trick to end.

But I also agree with Curtis that unless the object is going directly into their hands, they’re going to assume it was switched. (Hence my issue with the shuttle pass as a clean-up.)

The Judo Switch

This is the name I’m giving to the switch because, like in my posts on “Examination Judo” linked above, the idea is to turn their suspicion against them. The more suspicious someone is, the more this will fool them. Similar to how you might turn someone’s advantages against them in judo.

The problem with the Shuttle Pass as a clean-up isn’t that you place the coin from one hand into the other. It’s that you place the coin from one hand into the other in order to hand it to the person. That’s the suspicious part.

Here’s an example of how the Judo Switch leverages suspicion for our own purposes. Let’s say that you finish the trick with the object in your right hand. You shuttle pass it for an examinable object in your left hand, as you set it off to your left out of the way.

So now you’re transferring the object from one hand to the other in order to set it somewhere on that side of you. That’s natural enough to be essentially forgotten.

And the fact that you’re not giving them the object to look at means their suspicion is still fully focused on that examinable object sitting on the table. They won’t believe it was switched because why would you switch it to not let them see it?

They want to see that coin (or whatever the object is). But they may or may not ask to see it, depending on how much they care about potentially “embarrassing” you by finding out you’re using a trick coin. If they don’t outright ask, you’ll need to engineer an opportunity for them to look at it. Maybe get up and go to the bathroom so they’re alone with the coin. Or “accidentally” knock it off the table where they can pick it up for you.

This doesn’t have to be done with coins and shuttle passes. It can be done with any object and any type of switch.

The ideal switch has continuity. We usually want a visual continuity: I see the quarter the entire time from when the cigarette goes through it until it gets handed to me. In the Judo Switch, their own suspicion provides the continuity. There’s some level of suspicion on the object while it’s involved in the trick, and that suspicion is maintained and increased as you set the object aside afterward, and the suspicion continues for the object now resting on the table. It’s one unbroken chain of suspicion, which subtly suggests there is only this one object in play.

---

Here was Curtis’ original description, which condenses what I’m saying down to a few sentences.

[Referring to the cigarette through coin.] I did this trick a lot when cigarettes were everywhere, and more recently with a pen in strolling gigs. Along the way, I discovered a solution with two requirements: 1) have a decent switch; and 2) put the coin down on the table, near you, don’t hand it to them. Try a little too hard to direct their attentions to the cigarette or the pen.

Turns out, if they think examining the coin is their idea, they are much less likely to think you switched it out.