Mailbag #132

/

Hey Dudes and, of course, Dudettes.

Change of schedule this month. Instead of posts on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd weeks, they will be on the 1st, 3rd, and 4th weeks.

I had an idea while reading the Atomic Deck Magic Cafe thread clusterfuck, specifically this post…

I’ve been performing in restaurants for over 20 years. This guy describes the experience I’ve had for more or less every trick at every table I’ve ever performed at: the people laugh and clap and seem to be entertained. THAT IS THE SOCIAL CONTRACT. To claim a trick is good because that was the reaction you got is absurd.

But it gave me an idea, if you ever run out of things to talk about on the Jerx from the amateur perspective, you should get a job doing restaurant magic. It would be interesting to hear your take on it.—JR

Yeah, that’s an insane proposition, but thanks for the idea (I guess.)

I started this site a decade ago talking about the differences between amateur and professional magic and in my estimation, those differences are only growing. A lot of amateurs I hear from are pushing magic in really interesting ways. But I think the professional performer is still stuck as being something of a clown for people (often literally a clown). As this guy says, he’s there to “entertain” people, and I have no doubt he does. But when that’s your priority, that’s when you’re worrying about things like pocket space and memorizing jokes and stuff like that. Stuff that detracts from casual performances.

This guy’s description sounds like my nightmare scenario. “Nobody cares if the cards are normal. Nobody cares if the premise makes sense. They’re entertained and fooled and they clap at the end.” There’s not even the pretense of investment in what they’re watching. It’s almost like, “Of course the deck is phony. Of course, your premise is bullshit. Just get to the trick.” In table-hopping this is probably the default relationship between performer and audience. There’s maybe no way around it.

But if you want to do really powerful social magic—if you want to genuinely astonish people, or connect with them, or make them feel this moment is something truly special—you just can’t have elements of a trick where they’re just “helping you out.” It doesn’t work. If they think the cards are gimmicked and they’re being nice about not asking to examine them, you might entertain them, but you’re not going to thrill them.

The strongest social magic doesn’t come off like it was intended to be “entertainment.” And for that reason, a lot of the stuff that “plays” for the professionals will fall flat for the amateur. And a lot of stuff that is incredibly powerful for the amateur, won’t get any traction in a formal performing situation. It still boggles my mind that, for the most part, we treat these like they’re the same situation.

In professional performing, “entertaining” is a worthy goal. But many magicians don’t seem to understand this is makes for an awkward interaction in the real world. “Sit back, and get ready for some of the old razzle-dazzle!” This is weird energy if we’re just hanging out waiting for a pizza delivery.

I liked the RAP: The Gentle Sucker Trick post. It reminded me of Matthew Bich's Fool Us performance, with the sucker ending. It was so entertaining because the sucker element wasn't aimed at the audience, but directly at Penn and Teller. So you are, in effect, getting the same moment without having to physically have P&T there.

And maybe that is part of why their show is so successful - even people who don't "enjoy being fooled", do enjoy experts being fooled, and are rooting for the magician underdog to "win" since they are not the loser in it.—DF

That’s a good point. Fool Us has got to be one of the most successful magic tv shows of all time. And I think your interpretation is probably exactly correct. The “fooling” part of the show is filtered through Penn and Teller. This let’s people be more appreciative of the fooling, rather than feeling like they are the “victim.”

This is definitely the same goal as the Rehearsal as Presentation technique.

You’ve probably answered this before, but what do you consider to be the single most important piece of advice for stronger presentations? —BW

I probably have answered this, but I’m not sure what I said at that time. And if I said the same thing, it’s always good to revisit it.

My number one piece of advice (to myself) is: Slow down and treat it like it’s something interesting.

Don’t rush it and don’t come across as scripted.

I can take a trick that a 5 out of 10 and make it a 7.5 out of 10 just by treating it as if it’s something I find actually weird or fascinating.

At the same time, you could take a genuine, bona fide miracle and have it come off as a meaningless trick if you rush it and make a bunch of scripted jokes along with it.

Magic is strongest when it feels like a shared moment of fascination, not just a sequence of moves and punchlines.

Until March...

/

This is the final post of February. Regular posting resumes, Monday, March 3rd. The next newsletter will be sent to supporters on Sunday, March 2nd.

I mentioned a new effect coming to the Jerx App soon. I’m pushing that back to the beginning of March because I want to have a couple more videos to show you to demonstrate some of the possibilities with this new feature.

I don’t like to “hype” anything (I’ve sold my last six books without even telling people anything about the contents) but because I’m leaving you hanging a little bit, I’ll mention some of the things you can do with this feature. There isn’t one specific trick it’s intended for. It’s a utility app that can be used for very direct mind reading, but, I use it almost exclusively for Spectator As Mindreader effects. They can pick up on numbers, words, shapes, playing cards. It’s great for Rock Paper Scissors effects. PK Touches effects. And I have a feeling there are going to be a lot of other ideas that come up for this feature as well.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the price of the app goes up in the not too distant future. It’s not up to me. I let Marc handle all of that. While the app is based on my ideas, Marc is the one who builds it and updates it and gets the meager sales for an app that I prefer not to advertise or have a facebook group for or anything like that.

Because of the nature of the app—that it’s made up of a bunch of different, sometimes-unrelated ideas—it makes sense that as new distinct features are added, the price is going to go up. At least it seems that way to me.

If you were on the waiting list for a supporter slot, and you received an email earlier this month offering you one of the vacated slots, you have until the end of the month to claim it before it goes to the next person in line.

As an FYI, the wait time for slots to open up for people on the lower level support tier to the upper level support tier is currently about a year.

Here’s an idea from Landon Stark, from his new $4 book, Bag of Tricks.

It’s about using a rubber band as a crib.

While the notion of using it as a crib for a full deck stack is a bit… ambitious. (And by “ambitious,” I mean, crazy enough to make the Stack Watch seem practical.) I do think it’s the sort of thing that could be used when you have a smaller number of things to keep track of (the Wikitest words, for example).

This is a good trick for people who get called “needle-dick” a lot. (60% of you)

In fact, if you could actually push your spindly cock through the box, then you’d have something truly memorable.

Catch you all back here in March.

Sleight of Hand

/

Okay, I mentioned in yesterday’s post that I had, what may be, my most controversial opinion yet.

Sleight of Hand is a Method of Last Resort

And I don’t mean this to say that most people do sleight of hand poorly (which, they do). I mean this to say that sleight of hand, in and of itself, is quite often a very bad method, if your goal is to create a feeling of impossibility and magic.

This isn’t an easy thing to say, especially since there was a time when sleight of hand was almost synonymous with magic for me.

Here are some disjointed thoughts on the matter….

— Sleight of hand frequently requires fast or unnatural movements. While these can fool people, they’re not going to charm people or fill them with wonder.

—I know some people reject the romantic notion of using magic to truly capture people’s imaginations, or enchant them, or make them question reality. But if that’s not the goal, I don’t know what it is. Is it just to get people to say, “I’m not 100% sure what exactly happened there”?

Here’s Derek Dingle doing sleight of hand. I genuinely do not know what the experience of this is supposed to be for the spectator. I don’t know what emotion it’s supposed to be tapping into.

— We all agree that when a trick obviously uses technology, it’s not a very good trick. Yet magic is full of tricks that are obviously done with sleight of hand, and yet we don’t see them as bad tricks. I think we probably should.

— Sleight of hand is usually the most direct-line method. It’s the equivalent of stealing the Mona Lisa by blowing a hole in the wall of the museum, breaking open the security case, yanking it off the wall, and running off with it. At some point, the authorities find you with the Mona Lisa and your response is, “Ah, but you didn’t catch me while I was doing it.” Like… that doesn’t matter. They know you did it and generally how you did it. There’s no mystery here.

Now, if the Mona Lisa was gone and there was no hole in the wall, and the security case was intact, and nothing seemed out of place, then we would have a mystery or an impossibility.

Sleight of hand magic too often feels like, “I did it without you catching me.”

— Magicians are spectacularly bad at understanding what good sleight of hand looks like. They think if the thing they’re trying to hide is hidden, then that’s good sleight of hand. It’s often not.

Here’s someone who is teaching the pass on youtube.

I admit that I don’t see the two halves switch places. But I do see a completely unnatural gripping and rocking of the deck accompanied by flailing fingers. So maybe I don’t know exactly what was done, but I know you did something weird and exactly when you did it. This is equally not good.

—Yes, I use sleight of hand all the time, but I try not to do tricks that rely just on sleight of hand. I really want a mix of deceptions going on: sleight of hand, gimmicks, psychology, mathematics, misdirection, subtleties, linguistic manipulation etc.

— In recent years, I’ve become more discerning with my sleights. If it requires unnatural speed, tension, or abnormal movements to do, can it ever really be deceptive? I don’t think so. The moves may be fine for people who want to make it known that they’re doing sleight of hand. But as a casual performer—performing in the Carefree style—I now consider sleight of hand to be something of a last resort.

Carefree Approach to Card Sleights

/

I’m in the process of refamiliarizing myself with card sleights. I had gotten out of the habit of just sitting with a deck of cards in my hands and randomly going through sleights, so I had gotten pretty rusty on things that I hadn’t used for a while.

This is my first time working specifically on sleight of hand since the development of the Carefree style, and I want to discuss how that affects the sleights I work on and maintain in my toolbox. If I had this perspective when I was younger, I would have saved myself 1000s of hours working on sleight-of-hand.

Here are some of the rules or guidelines I’m following as I go through this process.

I work on sleights that look like nothing happened (a top change), or that look like something that people actually do with cards (a double turnover).

I don’t work on flourishes. They can be beautiful. They can be impressive. But remember that the Carefree style is about a vibe. And the vibe of “I spent a lot of time practicing this” is not what I want to elicit. Flourishes are by definition performer-centric and non-collaborative. They kill the vibe I’m going for.

I also don’t bother with a sleight that doesn’t look like something a non-magician might do with a deck of cards. For example, the Faro Shuffle. I know in some countries, handling the deck like this is common. In the U.S., it’s not. It looks like, “I’m doing a special magician move. One that requires me to closely examine the deck while theoretically doing something that is haphazard and uncontrolled.” It makes no sense as a move. It’s anti-Carefree.

But there’s no other way to do some tricks other than with a faro.

Okay… so what? I can’t do Unshuffled by Paul Gertner. There’s a billion other effects I can do.

More than two ways of doing the same thing is likely a waste of time.

Look, if practicing sleights makes you happy and you want to be someone who collects proficiencies with sleights, then learn as a many as you want.

My point is, for people whose goal is to perform and engage people, then you don’t need to know five multiple shifts, four ways of a double lift, eight color changes, a half dozen false shuffles, etc. Unless you find you can stay sharp on these things with minimal effort, then it’s not a good use of your time.

If a sleight takes longer than a week to get decent at, I don’t bother with it.

A sleight should be usable (not perfected, but usable) in a week. Ideally, within 20 minutes.

If not, then it will almost certainly be a move that requires an unmagical level of attention or tension when performed.

Or it will require so much practice for it to come off as second nature that it is a bad Return on Investment. If you spent years working on a second deal or a pass, you’ve wasted your life. (Unless your goal is to do stuff for other magicians.)

These are the rules that are guiding me as I make my return to sleight of hand with cards. But this process has also provided me with an insight that may be my most controversial take yet. More on that tomorrow.

Spackle: The Atomic Deck

/

Spackle is a new feature here at the site. One of the most common types of emails I get is someone saying, “Do you do this trick? I like this trick, but I don’t like this one part of it. How would you handle this part?”

So, much like Spackle fills holes and cracks, I will tell you how I would fill these perceived or potential “holes” in an effect.

Two notes:

  1. You may disagree that these are even issues in the first place. They may not be. I might just be answering them as a thinking exercise, not because I necessarily agree that the issue is an “issue.”

  2. I’m not suggesting I have all the answers. I’m just speaking from my perspective. Especially if there’s some way to engage the Carefree Philosophy when possible.

GJ writes:

I picked up Craig Petty’s Atomic Deck at Blackpool. While the deck is cleverly constructed, I can’t say I like either way of accessing the crib needed. One option is to take a detour onto a dull website of “stats” that no one cares about and doesn’t really make sense. The other is to enter the information they give you into your “notes” app apparently so the specky won’t forget it which is completely unmotivated here. Will you be getting this trick? If so, how will you handle this part? With the website or the notes app?

First, no. I won’t be getting this. It looks like it has a really clever method built into the deck, but I just don’t really care all that much about ACAANs and wouldn’t likely carry around a fully gimmicked deck just for that trick.

While the Atomic Deck doesn’t give you complete freedom regarding what cards and positions can be named, it does allow a lot of apparent latitude to the spectator in regard to those choices. The downside here is that the magician has to deal.

My personal philosophy is that I would rather have more restrictions on the selection process and then allow the spectator to deal. I can hide or disguise the restrictions on the selection process (often in a way that makes it seem more fair). But I can’t hide or disguise the fact that I’m the one holding the deck and dealing through it. In my experience, me manipulating the deck in some way is going to be people’s first instinct, regardless of how cleanly I handle it. So my priority is to not have the deck in my hands.

But that’s just a personal preference.

As far as the crib goes, it’s going to have to be a digital crib due to how extensive it is. That’s why you’re given these two options (the stats website or the “notes” app). It’s not the sort of thing you could palm on a little card or something like that.

First the bad news, then I’ll get to the good news.

I don’t really like the stats website version either. What’s nice about it is, with that version, the spectator never has to name the card they’re thinking of. But it just doesn’t make any sense to me. I would have a hard time passing this off as anything legitimate.

Like… huh? Almost seven percent of the respondents said the 5 of Clubs and position #8. 1 in 14 people? Or the card is in that position 7% of the time? Either way, it’s inane.

Also, the notion of a “study” on commonly named cards and number combinations is bonkers. And the fact that the decimal goes out that far would mean that they must have conducted one of the largest research studies in history to get that granular. Who the fuck is funding this survey? And… to what end?

“We did it, everyone! We learned the most common card and position possibilities. Where do we pick up our Nobel Prizes?”

The notepad version is a little more reasonable. It doesn’t involve a fake, purposeless study of 100,000+ people that came up with unbelievable data.

But if you watch that clip, you’ll see the notes version is a little weird. “I’m going to write down the card and number you named, in case you forget it.” And then you immediately start counting down that number to the card?

I realize that people do forget cards sometimes, but usually there has been some time between the time the card was picked and the point they forget it. In this version, the only thing that happens between you getting the card and the number and you using those pieces of information, is you writing those things down. The time you take to write it down is the only chance they could have to forget the information. It doesn’t make logical sense to write it down. If the person you’re performing for is so disengaged, disinterested, or dementia-riddled that they might forget two pieces of information they literally just gave you a second ago, they’re probably a poor audience for this effect.

“Name a card and a number.”

“4 of Spades and 32.”

“Okay, just so you don’t forget that, we’re going to write it down.”

“Write what down?”

“The 4 and 32.”

“No. It’s 6:15.”

“No, I mean the card you named and the position you named.”

“A card and position? Uhm…. American Express and reverse cowgirl. Who are you? Where am I?”

But here’s the good news…

While both of these methods of accessing the crib aren’t great, and may come off as suspicious or phony, no one is going to be able to tie either of these things back to the method of the trick. They’re just too disconnected. So they may make for a somewhat awkward presentation—depending on the audience—but they’re not going to ruin the deceptiveness of the trick.

The other good news is this. You don’t have to say, “Let’s write these in the Notes app so we don’t forget them immediately.” You just need an excuse to open your phone and look at something on your phone.

It would probably make more sense to say that you’re writing it down so YOU don’t forget it. Like for some reason you want to return to their response later and you don’t want to have forgotten it at that point. This is more rational than, “I don’t trust you to remember the thing you said two seconds ago.”

I would likely go in that direction.

Or I might go in, get the information quickly, and the go into my camera to have them record the rest of the effect. So they just see me doing something on my phone and then handing it to them with the camera open.

But any excuse to use your phone would work. Remember how the first guy who won Who Wants To Be A Millionare used his lifeline to call his dad and tell him he was about to win?

You could “call your dad” to tell him you were just about to nail that trick you two had imagined together 20 years ago.

Or maybe your dad told you that you’d never be good enough to do that trick and you call him to tell him, “Kiss my ass, old man.”

Either works.

Mailbag #131

/

I bought Gabriel Werlen’s Penguin Lecture based on the rave reviews on the cafe with dozens of people saying it’s the best mentalism lecture ever. 

I genuinely don’t know how people can see these routines and think their audiences will be entertained by them. One that everyone is raving about involves the mentalist revealing which clear plastic cup holds two different colored imaginary balls. Like… I get that the method can be exciting but the experience of watching that and/or participating in that is a nightmare. Maybe I just perform for really stupid people, but as soon as a trick involves someone tracking the way they mix two invisible balls, I’m screwed. My audience would think that’s part of the fun and they get to just make up where the balls end up. But no—they must actively concentrate on multiple “colored” imaginary balls as they move cups around. The other one that has really excited people involves a magician finding one card out of 10 after they flip cards over and switch them in pairs. Like… why would any lay person be more impressed at a magician finding their card out of 10 than out of the whole deck? Especially since this involves a very specific switching of cards and no mixing. Again, I get that the method excites magicians, but this entire lecture was full of material that is boring as dirt to watch/take part in. I feel sorry for the poor laypeople who are going to be forced to watch some dude do these tricks on them because they are genuinely saying it’s some of the best mentalism they’ve ever seen.—XX

I won’t say that the Venn diagram of tricks that excite magicians and tricks that thrill laypeople are two completely separate circles, but it’s close enough to being true that you might as well just assume it’s true when analyzing magic.

I haven’t seen Gabriel’s lecture yet, but I’ve seen some of his other work and I understand why magicians are intrigued by his thinking. But I see your point as well.

It used to drive me crazy when magicians were hyping up some trick that I knew wouldn’t mean much of anything to laypeople. It felt like gaslighting to me, in a way. But I think the most helpful mindset to have is that some people are interested in magician-centric (which could also be called method-centric) material, while others are focused on audience-centric material. Whenever you see people praising the method, or the performer’s skill, or the cleverness of the gimmick—they’re approaching things from a magician-centric perspective, and likely there’s not a whole lot you can take from that about a trick’s appeal to a real audience.

I was at Blackpool convention and saw Dom Chambers show which was excellent.
He performed an OOTW routine with ladies on cards, Uv light used to show cum on the back of the cards as a climax and made me think of your routine.
Did you work with him on this ?—KQ

No. I mean, not in any way beyond the fact that I posted the routine (based on an idea from Jon Shaw) and he saw it and decided to do his version in his show. That was the extent of my “work” on it.

Anyone is free to take an idea from the site and perform it. I would suggest maybe using the phrase, “my friend Andy” during the presentation. That way, people who are in the know will know that you’re not taking full credit for the idea.

I do like what you've outlined as a way of presenting sucker tricks, but as I was imagining myself as the friend who is becoming your "co-conspirator," I found myself wanting to say to the magic guy, "Oh that's great, you're really going to fool the other guys with that," (and after a few seconds) "...but wait, how did you do that?" Now I think you're in a difficult place...WWJD? (What Would Jerxie Do?)—JS

The thing about this presentation is that it frames this interatction fully as a trick and the method behind the trick as something secret and valuable. So I think it makes people less like to ask you to tell it to them. As opposed to if you just did the trick in a standard presentation.

If you want to emphasize the value of the secret than at some point in your presentation, mention that part of the way the group works is that if you fool them, the other four guys in the group each pitch in $400 to learn the secret.

Then, if the person you’re performing does ask how it’s done, you can be like, “Look, if you want to come up with $1600, I’ll tell you. But part of the deal is that we haven’t shared these secrets with anyone else.” Or something like that.

And what if they do pay you $1600?

Then tell them the secret, bonehead. And enjoy your $1600.

Dustings #120

/

A few people wrote in to ask if yesterday’s post was real.

Real as in… what exactly?

Yes, you can really buy those endorsements and use them on anything you want. (Three already sold.)

Real in the sense that I think it’s a good use of your money? No, not necessarily. Who knows.

It was just a commentary on endorsements. (Sorry to have to explain the bit.)

There’s a new (awesome) trick coming to The Jerx App soon. Details on that coming later this month.

One other thing you’ll find in the next update is this idea from Marc:

“I’ve made the ‘Read The Jerx’ feature a bit clearer, and have added an 'eBook Mode' setting: I thought it’d be fun to have a setting to disguise the blog as an eBook to make it look like you’re reading a novel or something. I styled it so it looks great in both light and dark mode. Videos don’t come across with the feed, but that’s probably okay for that covert eBook setting.”

Now you can read the blog in public and if someone looks over your shoulder and asks what you’re reading, you can be like, “Ah, it’s a selection of Chaucer’s finest works. I’m a bit of a bibliophile for classic literature. It’s so much more witty and enlightening than what you might find on a… oh, I don’t know… like a magic blog or something like that. Wouldn’t you say?”

That way you’ll come off like a real intellectual fancypants, and not some dope who reads magic blogs.

Easy Money?

David Copperfield is the third most likely name to be on Jeffrey Epstein’s list. Always nice to see magicians in the news.

You can bet on this on polymarket.com. At this time, a $100 bet gets you $187 in return.

What a charming looking magician on this old valentine. He simultaneously looks like a baby AND a pedophile. Tough to pull that off.