Lucid ACAAN

Imagine

I’m meeting up with my friend Giana tomorrow, so I call her in advance to ask if she can help me try something.

“Do you have a deck of cards at your place?”

She finds one. I ask her to shuffle the cards, place them back in the card case, and then slide the deck under her pillow.

“I don’t want you to open the cards again until I see you tomorrow.”

I have her think of any card in the deck. “I just want this card to exist in your mind, so make sure you remember what it is. If you need to write it down somewhere, that’s fine, but make sure you put it in a place no one else can see it.

I have her go to a website where each card is paired with a description of a surreal image. She reads silently through the one linked to whatever her card is.

For example, she might read something like this:

In the desert at dusk, a sleek red fox approaches. Its eyes are glowing lanterns, and inside them, you see moments from tomorrow.

I ask her to read it a couple of times, then try to remember some of the imagery. “If you happen to think about it before falling asleep, that might help. Not required—just see what happens.”

Before we hang up, I add: “Also, if when you wake up tomorrow you happen to remember anything about your dreams tonight, do your best to hang onto those thoughts. You can write them down if you need to.”


The next morning, I text her a quick reminder to bring the deck of cards when we meet up.

That night, she comes over. We grab dinner and hang out for a bit.

As the evening winds down, she asks, “Hey—what’s the thing with the deck of cards?”

“Oh, right,” I say, and nod toward her bag. “Grab the deck.”

She pulls it out and hands it to me. I remove the cards from the case. “You never looked through the deck at all after you shuffled them, right? So you don’t know where any particular card is?”

She confirms she didn’t.

I give her the deck to hold.

“And those are in the same order they were when you slept on them? You haven’t changed anything?”

She agrees.

“Okay, I’m going to try and explain this, but I only know the basics—and I’m not even sure if what I know is accurate. There’s not much of a record of this stuff.

“So, in Prague, in the 1960s they were working on some experiments that were about… well, the only way I can think of them is as like a kind of reverse dream interpretation. So, like, the way we think of dream interpretation is that you’ll have a dream, and there will be some weird imagery in the dream. And then you’ll wake up and you will try and fit that imagery into understanding some aspect of your life. There are books on dream symbolism, but obviously it’s not exactly science.

“What they were doing in Prague was the opposite. Instead of taking some random imagery from their dreams and trying to apply it to the real world, they were focusing on some surreal images while awake and hoping to get concrete, real-world information in their dream state. They were seeding their dreams with these visuals.

“I think they were using it for some military purpose—something connected to remote viewing. Like, they had a way of linking specific dreamlike imagery to specific targets—weapons or troops or something—and by concentrating on this imagery while they were awake, the remote viewers could unconsciously retrieve actual location information about where those things were. The idea was that your dreaming mind might do some kind of pattern-matching your waking mind couldn't.

“I don’t know if it ever worked. I doubt there are records of that part. But this thing with the playing cards—that was a preliminary test. And apparently it survived.

“They developed a deck of imagery—one unique, surreal scene for each playing card. The theory was: if someone focused on a particular image before sleep, then during their dreams, they might receive a number. A number between 1 and 52. The exact location of the card they were thinking of.

“So… do you remember getting a number in your dream last night?”

“No,” Giana says.

“Do you remember anything from your dream.”

“Not… no. I think there was a clown in it?”

“Hmm… okay, well concentrate on that image of a clown and I want you to let a number between 1 and 52 come to your mind. Don’t tell me what it is, just let it come to you.”

She nods. After a moment, I say, “Got one?”

She does.

“Deal that many cards into my hand.”

She starts dealing. She stops a little before halfway through the deck.

I take a peek at the top card. “Were you thinking of a black card?”

“No,” she says.

“You weren’t thinking of the 4 of Clubs?” I ask.

She shakes her head and smiles. We both know what that means. We went through all that effort, and it didn’t work.

“Well, that’s good. Because this is not the 4 of Clubs. What card did you think of last night?”

“The 9 of Diamonds.”

“And what number did you think of?”

“Twenty-two.”

I gesture toward the pile in my hand. “Turn over the 22nd card you dealt.”

She does.

It’s the 9 of Diamonds.

She opens her mouth to speak—but stops.

I can see her mind working though things. It’s her deck. She shuffled it. She put it in the case. She never told me the card or the number (not until just now). She dealt the cards. She turned over the card. With no objections gaining traction, her mind stalls.

“That’s wild, right?” I say, watching her try to form a theory.

She asks to see the site again.

In the desert at dusk, a sleek red fox approaches. Its eyes are glowing lanterns, and inside them, you see moments from tomorrow.

We try to find a connection to the 9 of Diamonds in this imagery. “A lantern flame is kind of diamond-shaped,” she says.

Maybe it’s a reach. Maybe it’s not.

But without a clear explanation for how I could have done this, she’s left to at least consider this option:

That a surreal image—implanted in her mind the night before—somehow reached through her dream and gave her real information from the waking world.

Method

They Never Name Their Card

The website they’re sent to is a Xeno site. (Here.) Thanks to Marc Kerstein’s brilliant app, you can see exactly which card they’re focusing on—without them ever saying it out loud.

They Never Name Their Number

It doesn’t matter. When you meet up, you take the cards out of the case. As you casually spread through them and say something like, “You don’t know where any particular card is in the deck, right?”—you cull their card to the top.

They Deal The Cards And Turn Over Their Selection

You ask them to deal the number of cards they’re thinking of into your hand. They can deal one card or all 52. It doesn’t matter.

The card they were thinking of is now on the bottom of the packet in your hand.

There are a number of things you could do now. You could do a Bottom Change, a standard Bottom Deal, or a One-Handed Bottom Deal and give them (supposedly) the last card they dealt.

I prefer something easier and, for me, better.

I square up the cards in my hand, but I jog the bottom card to the right, while I peel up and take a peek at the last card that was dealt.

I now name the opposite color of the card I know they’re thinking of. “Was it black?”

This suggests that it didn’t work. And if they are hyper-focused on the deck, it gives them a reason to let down their guard a little bit. I just wait them out. As soon as they look away from the deck even slightly, I pull out all the cards above the bottom card to the left. I now tilt up the formerly bottom card, peeking at it similarly to how I just did with the top card. “It wasn’t the 4 of Clubs?”

I now drop the card on top and I extend my hand towards them, held flat.

Here’s the exposed view of what that looks like if you’re looking at the hands as it happens. In real life, the “move” is invisible if they’re not staring at the deck. (Even if you just look at the top of your computer screen or phone after my friend first looks at the card, you won’t really seem him do the switch out of your periphery. And you know what to expect.)

If you want, you can have them now name the card they thought of and the number they dealt. But if you prefer to claim that those things were never said out loud, you can simply have them turn over the card.

Personally, I think the build-up is better when they name both pieces of information. By the time they do, the card is already resting on top of the packet in your open palm—clearly not in a position to be touched or changed.


This combination of technology and simple sleight-of-hand is nearly impossible for non-magicians to untangle.

And the premise justifies everything.

This is not an ACAAN that you’ll do on the spur of the moment. But because of that, what you get is a trick that comes off as more than just a quirk of statistics or a demonstration of sleight-of-hand. Instead, you have something that bypasses probability and feels like a genuine impossibility—because the premise itself is surreal enough to defy explanation.

And you've given them something far more engaging than “One time I named a card and a number and the card was at that number.” I feel this story is more worth remembering and telling.

Mailbag: E.D.A.S. Evolution

We seem to be living in the golden age of decks of cards that are made to look like other things. Legos, magic eight balls, karaoke tunes, roulette, memory games, and so on and so on. 

Do you think you caused this with your EDAS concept, or is it just coincidence, or did you just so happen to hop on the bandwagon a little ahead of its curve?

I don’t recall there ever being such a fixation on making decks that masquerade as other things until very recently and now it’s like every other trick that comes out is exactly that. I’m not complaining, I like it and it’s great for EDAS, but I’m curious what you feel your involvement has been in this. —MH

One day I was telling a magician friend of mine that I think I’m the most widely read voice in magic. I mean, if you tallied the total number of words actually read, who else in the magic world comes close?

Then I took it a step further: “You know,” I said, “I’m probably the most widely read author in the history of magic.” Not because I have more readers than someone writing for a mainstream audience. But in the niche of writing for magicians—in that narrow little corner—there might be more minutes spent reading my stuff than anyone else, ever.

As I was patting myself on the back, my friend brought up a Facebook group devoted to magic. I don’t remember the name, but I think it’s the biggest one. Anyway, he was scrolling through it, and I was reading along over his shoulder. Each post was dumber than the last. Dumb people, performing or talking about dumb tricks, in dumb ways. The way they performed, and the things they valued, were exactly the same as they were 20, 50, even 100 years ago.

So, yeah—I don’t think I’ve had any real influence on magic. Other than probably shifting the conversation towards casual/social performing, which hardly anyone was writing about before I started this site. Before that, most people wrote like their audience was made up entirely of guys table-hopping at the Magic Castle.

(I do understand that—for some people—my writing has been incredibly influential in shaping their approach to magic. But that’s a small group.)

So, no—I don’t think the E.D.A.S. concept created the current glut of non-playing-card decks you see everywhere. That feels more like a byproduct of how easy it’s become to design and produce custom decks these days.

But that does bring me to a change—or, more accurately, a refinement—of the E.D.A.S. concept and philosophy.

An E.D.A.S. display should prioritize actual decks of playing cards.

Decks that each have a curious story behind them.

After that, I think it makes sense for your E.D.A.S. display to include other card games that aren’t standard playing cards.

And after that—and long after that—you might consider including decks that aren’t playing cards or card games at all.

Currently, I only have two of those in my display: Evoke by Craig Petty and SNAPS by David Jonathan and Dan Harlan. They kind of stand out as the exceptions. And I plan to never have more than three “non-game” decks on display.

Why?

Because having a collection of interesting playing cards makes sense.

Having a collection of playing cards and card games makes sense.

But if your collection includes things like a karaoke deck, a deck of Lego structures, one with movie posters, and one showing different Rubik’s Cube orientations… then what are you saying?

“I collect small, stackable, curated data rectangles, in unrelated thematic categories, printed on cardstock."

That doesn’t make much sense. And because it doesn’t make sense, it starts to feel like all these decks were custom-made for magic tricks. Which, of course, they were. But we don’t want to emphasize that.

While any of those tricks might be fine when introduced individually, I don’t think they work when you’ve got a whole shelf full of them. That’s not really in the spirit of an E.D.A.S. display. (You get to define the spirit when you’re the one who created the concept.)

Decoration Part 2

Yesterday’s post elicited more positive emails than almost any post in the ten-year history of this site.

I was happy with the response because it’s one of those thoughts I wasn’t sure would connect with anyone but me.

So if that post resonated with you, I want to take the concept a step further.

If we treat “decoration” as something that beautifies or enriches what it adorns—and you connect with the idea of magic as a way to decorate reality—what does that suggest about the kind of material we should be performing?

Imagine this…

You walk into someone’s house, and their walls are covered with objects. Trophies they’ve won, certificates they’ve received for courses they’ve completed, pictures of themselves competing in Mr. Olympia, medals from the 5k walks they’ve taken part in etc.

No one would walk into that house and think, “Wow… this is so beautifully decorated!”

They might think, “Oh, wow. This is impressive.”

But that’s not going to enrich their life, as being immersed in a well-decorated setting might.

This is the problem with the way magic is often performed—it’s so performer-centric, it’s almost impossible to appreciate anything else about it.

If you think I’m suggesting you only concentrate on “beautiful” or “esthetically pleasing” effects, you’re being one layer too literal in your interpretation of what I’m saying.

What I’m trying to say is this: of all the responses a trick can generate—beauty, wonder, mystery, humor, joy, even fear—it’s very difficult for someone to genuinely feel those things if they sense your primary goal is to showcase your abilities, your power, your cleverness.

It’s almost like someone showing you a picture they drew of how muscular they are. It will be difficult for you to get past how self-serving it is, regardless of how beautiful and well-done the picture might be.

Magic has an even bigger problem—and it’s the reason why it is so frequently dismissed as an art form. Not only does it seem self-serving, but also everyone knows it’s fake.

So it’s like someone showing you a picture they drew of how muscular they are. But they’re not as muscular as the person in the picture. And they didn’t actually draw it either.

Or someone walking you through their hallway decorated with fake diplomas, counterfeit awards, and trophies they paid for rather than won.

So what does it mean to perform magic that decorates reality?

It means turning away from tricks that seemingly exist solely to elevate the performer. (But wait… isn’t that every trick? Sometimes it feels that way—and I think that’s the problem.) Instead, it’s about crafting moments that elevate the experience, the interaction, the surroundings, the audience. It’s about creating pieces that live in the shared space between you and your friends—not in the glow of your own spotlight.

It doesn’t mean stripping away skill or cleverness—but hiding those things behind something more generous.

Decoration

Art decorates space.
Music decorates time.
Magic decorates reality.

This is my expansion of a Jean-Michel Basquiat quote.

I’ve argued before that using magic purely for self-aggrandizement is corny. And while that’s true, at least it’s a clear and relatable goal: “I want people to think I’m powerful or clever, so I’ll do tricks that fool them and (hopefully) raise me in their esteem.”

Without that kind of motivation, it’s easy to find yourself asking, “What’s the point?” when it comes to performing magic. Why are we faking doing something impossible?

That sentiment above is my answer.

Magic can be used to decorate reality. It doesn’t actually alter the world itself—it reshapes our experience of it, creating brief, concentrated moments where our perception of reality feels artistically elevated. Done well, this can be deeply interesting, compelling, even beautiful. And it doesn’t require us to pretend magic is anything other than what it is.

Hanging a picture doesn’t change the wall—it just gives us a momentary reprieve from the tedium of blank space.

Magic does the same thing for reality.

A Ranking of the 1991 Genii Magazine Coverboys Based On How Much I Want To Party With Them

Not every issue in 1991 featured an individual on the cover, but of those that did, these are the order in which I’d want to party with them.

#9 - John Fisher

Quite possibly the laziest magazine cover in the history of print.

This guy’s a magician? It looks like he’s cosplaying as a mid-grade insurance executive.

No, I don’t want to hang with this dude. He seems like the type of guy whose idea of a party is inviting you over to watch a documentary on the Parliament.

No thanks. Next!

#8 - Lance Burton

Lance Burton—seen here in his peak “magician as gentle vampire” era—doesn’t strike me as someone I’d want to party with. He looks like he’d rather recite Byron than funnel a beer.

But the goddess in the gauzy nightgown and white thong? She’s absolutely my speed. Please get her my number.

#7 - Stewart James

I honestly don’t know what is going on here. At first glance, I thought it was a simple image of the crypt-keeper signing a bible. But I guess that’s Stewart James?

But who’s the other octogenarian in the back? The one being attacked by (or dancing with) a bird of every color of the gay pride flag? I don’t want to party with Stewart. But the guy in the back seems fun.

#6 - Steve Spill

In reality, I get the sense I’d genuinely enjoy hanging out with Steve Spill. But judging strictly by this cover? No thanks. This all-grey aesthetic is a full-blown portrait in depression.

Honestly, it looks like the final photoshoot a disillusioned Men’s Wearhouse art director arranges right before hanging himself.

#5 - Eugene Burger

Hmm… yeah, look, Eugene was a force of nature in magic. But this cover doesn’t say “party.” It says, “I know when you’re going to die.”

Can you imagine Eugene Burger manning one end of a limbo stick? I can’t. I can imagine him as the headmaster of a mysterious monastery where the candles light themselves and everyone speaks in riddles, however.

You don’t look at someone like that and say, “What’s your go-to karaoke number?” You say, “So, when was the last time you made a pact in the woods under a blood moon?”

#4 - Randy Wakeman

So… like… how exactly did Genii Magazine work back in the day? Was Randy Wakeman like, “So when is my cover shoot?” And they were like, “Uhm, we’re a little busy. Is there a Sears Portrait Studio in your area?”

This seriously looks like a senior picture from my older sister’s high school yearbook. In fact, I’m kind of coming around on the idea of partying with Randy. Sure, he looks like a dud here, but so did my sister’s friends in their yearbook photos and those guys were lunatics in real life.

By the way, Genii, could you put a little effort into the cover? What the fuck is this?

That’s it. That’s the whole headline. Not even "Unlocking the Secrets of Flag Magic!" or "Top 10 Patriotic Tricks to Unleash at Your Next BBQ." Just—Flag. Magic. Period. Is that supposed to entice me to buy the magazine?

I like to imagine there was one young intern in the art department who fought for the headline to be “Waving Wonders: The Dazzling World of Flag Magic,” and some ancient Larsen cousin acting as the creative director was like, “Hey, tone it down.”

#3 - Joe Givan

Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. This guy looks like a partier. Maybe a little too much. He’s got the 1000-yard stare of a regular ayahuasca user. And not someone who does it on a spiritual retreat, but someone who does it in a mall food court with his Arby’s beef n’ cheddar.

And that hair? That’s the hair of a guy who’s freebased incense off the album sleeve for Joe’s Garage. He’s a good time, no doubt, but he might be a little too intense for me.

#2 - Doc Eason

I think Doc has got a fun-uncle thing going on here. Sure, there’s no excuse for wearing a bowler hat, suspenders, and a bow tie—unless you’re in the unlikely situation of being cast as a flamboyant 19th-century haberdasher in an episode of Quantum Leap. But I like his energy. That’s why he’s #2 on my list.

#1 - Ramon Galindo

Oh, hell yes.

I’ve never heard of this guy before, but I’d definitely be thrilled to spend a crazy weekend with him.

This is the type of guy who rolls up with a bottle of tequila, a deck of marked cards, and the kind of stories that start with: “Back in '74, I accidentally got married.”

Do I want to party with this guy? 10 times out of 10, yes. Lead the way, Amigo.

The Open Evite

Some scheduling notes:

The Lucid ACAAN will be posted next Tuesday. I’ve finally got the pieces in place and will be testing it out this week.

I’ve been looking into TOXIC force alternatives since I asked about them last month. I will be doing a post on them in the last week of posting in April. I’ve come across a replacement that I’m pretty happy with, and I think is better than TOXIC in some ways.


In the most recent newsletter, I shared a trick where you intuit the combination to a padlock during a video chat.

In my opinion, magic over video chat is fully back as a viable, fun way to perform. It’s no longer the depressing necessity it became during Covid.

One way I like to lead into a video chat performance is by sending a mass email to a group of friends. For example:

Hey everyone,

I’m doing some research on a new type of virtual safe-cracking, and I could use your help. If you have a combination padlock at home and a few minutes to video chat, let me know. Miss you all!

The key elements here are:

  • A very brief description of what you’re doing.

  • A low-pressure invitation to help.

  • A heads-up about what objects they’ll need to participate.

The benefits of this type of approach:

  1. You’re reaching out to as many people as you want in one fell swoop and potentially setting up a bunch of performances.

  2. You’re creating anticipation minutes, hours, or even days in advance. This is especially true if you ask them to gather a few random objects: “If you’re free tonight and can round up a deck of cards, a candle, and something that belonged to a dead relative, let me know.”

  3. You’re putting your friends in the driver’s seat. You’re not pressuring anyone to let you perform—they don’t feel obligated to do it just to “be nice.” They’re reaching out because they want to see something interesting.

  4. You get to reconnect with friends.

  5. It helps justify the virtual format because you’re reaching out to a bunch of people at once. If you’re just reaching out to one person you see regularly, it might make more sense to show them the effect in person. But if you’re contacting a group, it makes sense that some of those people might be people you see regularly, and some aren’t—and, for ease of things, you’re offering a virtual performance to all of them.

Some notes:

  • You want to use this for the right trick. Obviously, don’t use this if the premise is: I have something special I want to show you specifically.

  • I tend to BCC everyone if I don’t want people comparing notes.

  • Along those lines, I often don’t reach out to different members of the same friend group. Instead, I’ll reach out to one work friend, one old high-school friend, one friend from yoga class, etc. Unless, of course, I want them to talk about it behind my back.

Mailbag #134

I saw a show from the local magic circle. Most of the material was 9 linking rings, Rocky Raccoon with Davis Williamson’s script and stage proofed jokes "No, the clean hand".

But the audience liked it.

So why investing thoughts, time and energy in an immersive experience for the audience?

Isn't "Good enough" - "Good enough"?

What are your thoughts on this?—SD

I think with no talent, no creativity, and very little effort, you could perform a platform magic show that would be “good enough” by copying the work of those who came before you.

I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with that. I don’t think it’s the same as a comedian who steals people’s jokes because—unfortunately—most people seeing a magician in this setting aren’t really expecting anything new or original.

And while it might be “good enough” for a baseline level of entertainment, and is maybe something you could supplement your income with—it’s not “good enough” if you want to express part of yourself or achieve any level of notoriety.

It’s even worse for the casual magician performing for friends and family. If you’re doing standard tricks with standard lines, you’re going to come off as a complete lunatic to the people in your life. Sure, you could probably get away with doing that once a year for the neighborhood Christmas party. But if you want to regularly include magic in your interactions, then you need to do something that feels personal and unscripted and like a genuine human interaction.

There’s no version of the linking rings at a dinner party with your friends that is “good enough.” There’s only “Why is Craig doing this?” and “Should we be worried about him?”


Been catching up on the Carefree post and had a question: Do you think there is a separation of a lack of tension from natural actions? Natural actions usually lead to a lack of tension. But as someone who used to study some hard sleight of hand, there are some moves I've practiced enough, specifically to do so without tension, that I think could be Carefree for me at this point.

So are there certain sleights that qualify as Carefree? Or do you yourself make a sleight Carefree? —CR

First, there’s no sleight so easy that some magician isn’t out there fucking it up somewhere. (That’s another one for The Jerx Complete Quotes: A Compendium of Magical Wisdom)

Second, while there’s likely some magician who has mastered even the most difficult sleight—to the point where they can execute it with no visible tension or thought—99 times out of 100, it’s the opposite. The magician thinks he’s doing something invisibly, but there’s some giveaway in his actions or body language that feels off to people.

The problem is, you are in the worst position to judge this.

Another magician isn’t much better. They’ll say your move looks good, when what they really mean is: “As a magician, I know you’re doing something funny there. But that’s because I have special magic knowledge. A normal non-magician would never know.” But he’s overestimating what he’s picking up because of his magic knowledge—assuming it’s invisible to a layperson just because he knows exactly why it looks off.

So how do you know if your move is invisible?

Here’s how (you’re never going to do this, but this is how you would):

Record a video of yourself doing the move—say, a Double Lift and turnover.

Now record a video of yourself doing what that move is supposed to emulate: just turning over the top card.

Ask people if they can spot the difference between the two videos, or if they look like the same action. Tell them that in one video you’re doing sleight-of-hand, in the other you’re not. If people are guessing more or less equally, then you’ve probably got an undetectable sleight. If most people are calling out the sleight video as looking “off,” then you know it’s not truly tension-free and normal-looking.

It might still be good enough for most performances, but you don’t have to lie to yourself that comes off completely Carefree.

As for the mental effort it takes to pull off a move? Only you can know if it feels truly Carefree.


In your last post you said this regarding Steve Brooks:

I always thought the best storyline for the Jerx would involve us collaborating in some way.

I’m intrigued by this 😆 what would a jerx/cafe/steve brooks collaboration look like???—DD

One of the oldest drafts in my blog is titled Saving the Magic Café.

Years ago, I worked with a web designer, a UX specialist, and a brand strategist to create mock-ups for a completely reimagined version of that site—one with real functionality, community features, and modern usability. It would have made the Café indispensable for magicians, magic suppliers, and companies alike, while creating meaningful revenue streams for Steve beyond just static banner ads that never change and no one clicks.

So it was always my intention to come full circle and try to help revitalize the Café—because that was the site that, unintentionally, gave me my start in the magic community by kicking me out all those years ago. But Steve and others at the Café were committed to maintaining an adversarial relationship (which I’m perfectly okay with) so the project never moved forward.