If You Have...

If you have Declassified by Chris Rawlins…

Declassifed, by Chris Rawlins, is sort of an image duplication where your friend looks at a picture in a manuscript and you’re able to draw what they looked at with no questions.

What makes this particularly good is that it’s based on this legitimate document about the testing of Uri Geller. (I mean the document is “legitimate” in the sense that it’s a real thing. I’m sure whatever is written up in it is nonsense.) So it’s a drawing duplication/book test sort of hybrid that makes sense given the subject matter.

When I got my copy, I liked it a lot, but I didn’t think it was something I’d be likely to use. In casual situations it’s difficult to bring out some interesting object and then just hope that people aren’t too interested to look closely at it (as this isn’t something that can be examined).

But I had an idea that allows this to be used in close-up, casual performances.

You bring out the document and explain what it is, flipping through it, showing the different pages and images throughout. You have your friend look at an image, and then you read their mind or predict it or whatever.

At this point, the manuscript is at peak interest for the other person. If they’re going to want to look at it closely, this is the point where they will.

“Can I look at that?” they ask.

“Sure,” you go to hand them the document. “Actually… what is it you want to see? I have a bunch of my personal notes in here. I’d rather you not see them because I might want to use them for something in the future. Is there something in particular you wanted to see?”

You now flip through the document again, showing them the pages, reinforcing the idea they could have looked at dozens of images.

The idea being that you’ll let them get a brief glimpse at the document, but you don’t want to let them look through it fully because you’ve made some “notes” in there that aren’t meant for other people to see.

Of course, you’ll want to add some actual notes to the document to go along with this story.

While, in an ideal situation you would be able to just had them the document, I think this justification makes perfect sense within the storyline of the effect. You got a copy of this document so you could learn about these techniques. You made some notes in the document as you studied it. You don’t necessarily want those notes to be seen by someone else.

You can then tell them you’ll send them a pdf of the full document if they want to read through the contents more closely.

---

If you have Superimpose by Craig Petty…

I’ve had a couple of people ask me if I had any thoughts on how to present this trick. Specifically, how to clarify or contextualize the ending, where the selected cards “superimpose” themselves onto the aces.

I think the best idea is to play it off as some kind of mistake in the execution of the magic. You intended to transport the cards a second time, but you F’d up while reconstituting the selections between the aces and you got everything jumbled together.

Like when Jeff Goldblum’s DNA got mixed up with that fly in The Fly.

Craig may suggest this angle in the instructions, I don’t know. (Not the fly angle, but the angle of presenting it as something going wrong.)

Often, when you don’t have a good rationale for why something happens or why you would want something to happen, presenting it as a magical mistake is a good way to keep the impossibility and not have to deal with the incoherence of the premise.

Think of the classic (?) Milk to Lightbulb effect. If your presentation is just, “I can make milk go to a lightbulb,” it sounds like you went to the Mad Libs School of Random Impossibilities. But if you make milk disappear and say you’ll make it reappear in a glass across the room, there is a logic to that premise. And if—mistakenly—the milk ends up filling a lightbulb in a lamp between you and the target glass, you now have a “mistake” that fully contextualizes the effect.

The premise doesn’t make sense if it’s intentional, but if it’s a mistake, it doesn’t have to make sense, and it can still be magical.

Don’t overuse this idea. You want to leave the possibility that this was really a mistake. And if you constantly use that approach, no one will believe it.

The 70/30 Rule - Tweaking the 100-Trick Repertoire

Having a 100-Trick Repertoire is something I’ve written about for almost a decade now. First in my book, The Amateur at the Kitchen Table, and since then on this blog from time to time.

The make-up of my 100-Trick Repertoire and how I go about maintaining it is constantly changing. I don’t make note of every last tweak here on the site, just because it’s really not that necessary. How you go about building, rehearsing, and managing a similarly large repertoire is going to come down to what works for you personally.

But I have made a recent tweak I wanted to pass along to you. Especially if you’ve found the concept of a 100-Trick Repertoire to be overwhelming.

I now max out at about 30 tricks in my repertoire that have Advanced Methodology.

What do I mean by Advanced Methodology? I mean tricks where the methodology is unique to that trick. Or the thought required to perform it is unique to that trick. Or the choreography of sleights is unique to that trick.

For example, if I have a trick where the method is a simple business card peek, that’s not an Advanced Method. That’s something I’ve been doing in one form or another for decades. I’m completely confident with it. I can do it without thinking.

The mental real-estate required to keep that trick in my repertoire is almost none.

For those who get my monthly newsletter where I talk about the tricks I’ve been performing recently, I recently wrote about A.B. See by Spidey as well as the Penrose Pendant by Josh Prace.

A.B. See is a trick that requires some thought for me to perform. I need to keep the method fresh in my mind. It has an Advanced Method. Even if it’s a simple trick to execute.

On the other hand. If I was in a persistent vegetative state for 20 years and someone gave me an experimental drug that woke me up for 5 minutes, I could perform Penrose Pendant before even wiping the coma-crust from my eyes. It’s got a Simple Method.

Reswindled, by Caleb Wiles, is a modern-classic of card magic construction.

None of the moves used are particularly difficult. But it’s definitely an Advanced Method. Remembering all the steps is something that requires a bit of thought.

In contrast, Be Honest, What Is It (2 Card Monte), is something I’ve done for 20 years or more. With a half-second of thought, I’m fully ready to start performing that trick. There’s a few different moves involved, which could be considered intermediate level moves. But they’re moves I’m completely comfortable with. So to me this is a trick with a Simple Method.

This Advanced/Simple categorization isn’t inherent in the trick. It’s a matter of the performer’s comfort level with the method used.

It’s really a matter of how much concentration and focus the trick requires for you.

Thus, you could have a self-working trick that has an Advanced Method because of the steps you need to remember to accomplish the trick.

And you could have an incredibly sleight-heavy trick that is—for you—a Simple Method because it’s very easy for you to pull off.

As I said, in my 100-Trick Repertoire, I’m shooting for no more than 30 tricks with “Advanced Methods.”

This is part of the Carefree Magic philosophy.

100 tricks is a lot. I want to have a facility with a lot of tricks without the psychological weight of maintaining a repertoire with a bunch of tricks that are difficult to perform or difficult to remember.

You want to be nimble, and light on your feet with your repertoire. Of course, you also want to keep yourself intellectually stimulated and engaged with the magic, too. That’s why I’m shooting for a 70/30 blend. That’s what appeals to me at this point in time.

I can see myself weighing it even more toward the “simple” in the future. And I wouldn’t argue against someone who wants a 100% Simple repertoire.

For now, the 70/30 split feels good. I can make sure to practice one “Advanced” trick a day, and that hits on all of them each month. The tricks in the 70 don’t generally have to be “practiced” as much. I just have to remind myself of them and run through them in my head.

Ultimately, the goal is not just to know 100 tricks. It’s to have a 100-Trick Repertoire that is composed of very strong, doable material. And this new form of categorization has moved me even closer to that goal.

Types of Magic

Chris C. informed me of this interesting bit of taxonomy you can currently find on Google if you search for types of magic tricks. One of them is a little shocking.

That’s a little… unusual… isn’t it?

I mean… calling mentalism a “type of magic trick”? I was well-informed by the members of the “Penny for Your Thoughts” community on the Magic Café that mentalism is not magic. “Odd that you’re discussing it here on the MAGIC Café then,” I always thought.

But I get it. I don’t like to associate with magicians, either. But sometimes you just can’t deny what you are.

“We’re not magicians! We’re so different! Our thumbtips have a little tiny bit of lead on them!” That’s an awfully weak differentiation.

---

UPDATE

Hmm… okay. I guess I totally misunderstood why Chris sent me this image.

A lot of people seem to think mentalism isn’t the weird thing on this list. Let me relook.

…

Okay. I’m not getting it.

Levitation is definitely a trick. Transformation is definitely a trick. And Sexual Penetration, when done by a magician, is almost always some kind of trick. I mean… how is a magician going to achieve sexual penetration if not through deception? God knows it won’t be via his personality.

So I see no problem with the list.

---

UPDATE #2

Okay, now I’m getting a bunch of people emailing saying I’ve mischaracterized a lot of magician’s sexual penetration. It’s not always based on a trick. I guess this is true. It’s a matter of definition. I don’t consider the number one form of magician’s sexual activity (sliding your dick between the mattress and the box spring and grinding away while looking at your cousin’s cheerleading photo) to be “sexual penetration.”

But yes, I guess if you include that, then not all of their Sexual Penetration is a trick.

---

Note: As of 11 am EST on July 10th, that’s still what you get on Google when you search for types of magic tricks. I don’t know how long it will last.

Mail: Googleability

The randomizer took me to "Is He Still Talking About Google-ability? He Is.” and I realized something.

A while ago I was at the movies with two quarters I was going to use on a candy machine when one of the quarters vanished. A magic trick in real life. And what I noticed is that it took a while before I was sure it was gone. I had to search everywhere it could be.

I think this is part of any vanish effect—you have to give the audience time to look (mentally, maybe) everywhere before they’re convinced it’s gone.

But today I realized that this can also apply to people googling tricks. If you do a trick that fools me, I’m not going to be completely fooled until I have looked everywhere for the secret. Googling is just that same impulse. Maybe.—PM

I still get people who will debate this with me. That is, the idea that sometimes a spectator who is fooled will Google the specifics of a trick to try and figure it out. And by “sometimes,” I mean, “more often than not, if they really have no clue.”

When people deny this happens (or deny it happens to them), I usually ask them to consider this thought experiment. Imagine we’re not talking about google and the internet. Imagine we’re talking about a book. Your spectator has a book in their pocket that they’re pretty sure might have the secret to the trick with which you just badly fooled them. You think they’re not going to crack that fucking book open after you leave?

And yes, there are things you can do to hopefully dissuade them from doing so (as written about in the post above and others). But the best course of action is to take steps to make your magic ungoogleable in the first place.

Astrological Cycle

In the last newsletter, I wrote about various star sign reveals I’ve used.

After writing that, my friend and publisher of the site, Andrew, wrote me and said I was missing the best star sign reveal in my write-up. I asked him if he would demonstrate it for me. Andrew is one of a handful of people I often ask to learn a trick before I get it, so I can be on the spectator side of an effect before learning the inner workings.

“No, I’m not going to bother demonstrating it for you,” he said. “It’s not going to fool you.”

“You never know,” I said. “You’ve seen me be fooled by stuff I should know.”

“Yeah, but that won’t be the case this time.”

“Why not? Whose trick is it?” I asked.

“It’s yours,” he said. “It’s your app.”

The beauty of this star sign reveal is that there is no process. You could meet any stranger anywhere and immediately write down their star sign. That’s it. And it’s essentially impromptu.

That being said, you need to have a process. Otherwise, you’ll have the most boring trick imaginable. One where people will walk away thinking, “Well, he must have got my birthdate somewhere, somehow, I guess.”

When I say there’s “no process,” I just mean there’s no process required for the method.

But do something.

You could ask them some psychological questions to build up a quick profile and figure out their astrological sign from their answers.

You could ask them their favorite breakfast cereal and their least favorite breakfast cereal, and from that you “calculate” their sign. “I don’t really buy any of that astrology stuff. I’ve looked into it for years. I don’t see any real correlation between personality and when you were born. Except when it comes to your choice in breakfast cereal.”

Or your process could be to take them outside and look at the reflection of the stars in their eyes.

Just give them some story to hold onto.

The method uses the Draw Cycle utility on the Jerx App.

This feature cycles through a number of outs you’ve written on your phone and then locks in that out as soon as you move the phone.

Normally, using this method, you might say, “I’m going to guess your star sign.” You write something on your phone. “Okay, what’s your star sign?” They tell you, then you show them you got it correct.

That moment where you’ve apparently written it down, but then you ask for it before revealing what you wrote, is a Hitch in the process. It doesn’t ruin the trick, but it can stand out as a little weird for people. (And occasionally people will lie to you at that point just to mess with you.)

Andrew has a way of getting around that Hitch that I like a lot.

So here’s what the effect looks like. You meet someone, and somehow it comes out that you can figure out their astrological sign.

“Do you have a pen? That’s okay… I’ll use my phone,” you say.

You go through your process to figure out their sign, then you write something on your phone to “commit” yourself. “Wait…,” you say, “Hmm. Maybe it’s not that. Maybe it’s…. Okay. I think I got it.”

You go into your reveal. “You were born in a warm month, correct?”

Yes.

“I sensed that immediately. I actually picked up that you were born in the middle of the summer. The end of July, You’re a Leo, yes?”

No.

“Damn. Was I close?”

Ehh… I’m a Gemini.

“Oh… okay. Yeah, for some reason my first instinct was Leo. But I’m a Virgo. And Virgos never trust their first instinct.”

You show them what you wrote…

So your phone is cycling through the outs like this:

All have “Leo” crossed out at the top. (Except for Leo, of course.)

So, with this structure, you can immediately start going into the reveal, without them giving you any information. That feels like what you would expect if you were doing it for real.

Then, by getting it wrong, people’s guard drops, and they feel comfortable outright telling you what it is. You’ve apparently already failed. Again, this feels like how things would progress if this was playing out for real.

Because the flow is so natural, there’s nothing for them to question, really. Then, at the end, your intentional misdirect also has a purpose because it adds a little more drama to the proceedings. It wasn’t something you just did for nothing. It wasn’t something that must have had a methodological purpose.

And, of course, one out of 12 times, you just nail their zodiac sign completely directly.

You’re not limited to zodiac signs. Anything with a reasonable number of outs could use this structure.

• Directly go into the reveal just hoping to get lucky

• Get it wrong (most likely)

• Reveal that you knew you got it wrong, and that you knew what the correct option would be.

There’s something about the wrong answer being crossed out that almost makes this feel more legit than if it just had the right sign there by itself. (If you disagree, you can certainly just have the right sign on there by itself.)

Thanks to Andrew for the idea, Marc for maintaining the app, me for coming up with the concepts behind the app, God for creating astrology, and the stars for letting me know deep insights like, when it comes to home decor I like, “aesthetically pleasing interiors.”

Mail: Tag Question Alternative

This email came in after Monday’s post where I wrote about—what I’m calling—the “tag question” ploy. “It’s not a red card, is it?”

Tag questions (which is the name for the “is it” part of that statement) are so inherently confusing that there are dozens of youtube videos discussing how to even answer those questions.

Alexander F. C. writes in with this alternative, which is interesting, but may present other issues.

Relating to your latest post, I wanted to share a variation of that type of ploy that I've been using. 

Rather than asking a closed question and interpreting it (laughably transparent), I make a statement. You could argue it's a different technique altogether (a hanging statement vs a closed question), but it accomplishes the same thing for the performer. 

I start with a confident smile, and then say:

"Okay, so this is obviously a red card". Here I pause for a very short amount of time, gauging their response. If their card is a red card, most people will react almost instantly to this. If they don't react, I immediately follow up with: 

"or a black card, it's a 50/50 percent chance I guess this." Now I would know their card is black. Here I would continue bullshitting a bit, with that newly gained piece of information.

Both statements are natural, and unequivocal: 

"Okay so this is obviously a red card." 

"Okay so this is obviously a red card or a black card, it's a 50/50 percent chance I guess this."

It works great for Which Hand too. 

"It's obviously in this hand" (now I tap one of their outstretched fists) If no reaction:

or in this hand, It's a 50/50 percent chance (now I tap the other fist while saying this).

Let me know what you think of this. I think it's something I came up with and started doing a while ago, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's been taught somewhere before. —AFC

Thanks for sharing this idea. I can see this working quite well most of the time, but I can also see it failing a good amount of the time as well.

Here’s why…

You need someone who is expressive enough to react to you saying: “The coin is in this hand.”

But not so expressive that they react to you by saying, “No, it’s not.”

The only way to guarantee they don’t say “No,” is to tell them not to give anything away. But if you were to tell them that, then you wouldn’t know if the coin was in that hand.

I feel like, at the very least, you’d probably have 10% who are non-reactors, and 10% who react when you don’t want them too. Leaving a 20% failure rate. Which is just too much for me.

But I’m a baby. I don’t really like any technique that requires me to gauge my spectator’s reaction in some way. My friends are too unpredictable.

Techniques that require me to interpret what people are doing or saying in real time don’t follow my Carefree philosophy.

But I can see this working well for people who do like to take more risks in their performing. It’s just not my particular style.

Revisiting My Favorite Bedroom Trick

No, not the one where you wrap your penis around your wrist and ask your partner if she likes your “flesh bracelet.”

And not the one where you secretly insert a D’Lite in one of your lover’s orifices while fooling around, and then you say, “What kind of messed up STD is this? And you reach into their vagina or butthole and cause light to come streaming out.”

This is a trick called Paco, that I wrote about back in 2017.

This is a trick for when you’re at the stage in the relationship where you’re spending a decent amount of time together, hanging around in bed.

Over the years, my approach to this trick has changed slightly and I wanted to update you on how.

If you read that old post, you’ll see that I sort of took advantage of something that happened to come up during an interaction in bed. And over the years, that’s how I would usually do it. I’d play the game where you write or draw on the person’s back and depending on what the person drew on me, I would play it off as some weird coincidence with this drawing I found.

But in recent years I switched it around a little. And this allows you to do the trick without being in bed with someone (which, granted, limits your performance opportunities unless you’re a true whore).

In all honesty, I really only do this trick in bed, because I think it’s an interesting setting for the trick, but I’ll describe it as if you weren’t doing it that way.

You have some sort of prediction box that allows you to switch in a business card on a shelf somewhere.

You have a pre-folded business card and a crayon on you.

Your friend is standing with their back to you.

You draw a couple of letters on their back and have them guess what they are.

Then you write a short word.

Then you do a simple shape.

Then something slightly more complex, like a house.

Then you step back a few feet. “This time I’m going to try and draw something on your back, but just in my mind.”

Ask them to imagine they can feel it. Wait a few seconds and then say something like, “It’s probably going to feel like you’re making it up. But I want you to tell me what you think I was drawing on your back in my mind.”

They are still standing facing away from you. Whatever they say, you draw quickly with the crayon on the piece of card and re-fold it. If you find it too difficult to draw quickly, you can write the word itself.

You will need to buy yourself a few seconds, so I say something like, “And did you actually feel that on your back? Or did the image just seem to come into your head?”

Either answer will feel kind of miraculous at the conclusion of the effect.

When I’m ready, I put the crayon away and tell them to grab the small box on the shelf in front of them. This is my first time mentioning the box. The prediction box I use (Mark Southworth’s “The Box”) is no longer available, I don’t believe. But you’ll want a similar box that allows them to see a folded up piece of paper inside. (Vision Box 2.0 by Joao Miranda might be a good option.)

Take the box, open it, remove the paper and give it to them to unfold.

This makes a great extension of this series of effects.