Finishing Touches: The Jerx Ose False(ish) Cut
/I really like testing ideas and experimenting with little touches to tricks in order to see how they affect the spectator’s reaction. This is like, a sub-hobby of mine within magic. Kind of like how you might like setting fires to derelict houses, but you also enjoy the sub-hobby of killing hobos.
In my experience, small presentational changes can lead to an obvious and significant impact on the spectator’s reaction. But small changes to the techniques and methods used in a trick generally have effects that are much more difficult to spot and interpret. It usually requires the spectator to specifically mention something about the change I’ve made for me to be certain it’s had a specific impact on their reaction, and that I’m not just reading into a response that I hope to see. (Seeing things you hope to see but aren’t really there is the basis for most magic theory.)
For example, for a long time, if I had a trick that required a small set-up on top of the deck, I would just shuffle the deck in a way that retained the top stock. Then, as an experiment, I started to palm those cards in and out so that the spectator could shuffle the deck at the beginning instead. I didn’t know if this would register with people as meaningful or not. My shuffles already seem pretty sloppy and chaotic. And when just retaining a small top stock, you can be pretty open with the fairness of your shuffle. So I wasn’t sure if having them shuffle would make a big difference. My initial impression was that it was generating a stronger reaction. But again, I thought maybe I might be seeing something that wasn’t really there. But more and more I was finding that it did make a significant difference and that was evidenced by the people who would say something like, “Wait… but I shuffled that deck,” which seemed to dash the hopes for whatever explanation they were formulating in their mind. Or I’d be recapping the effect (“And you could have stopped anywhere. And the cards were in the order you shuffled them.”) And their reaction to that reminder convinced me that this was, indeed a change that meant something to them.
Recently I’ve been playing around with a change to the Jay Ose false cut that has had a similar positive impact.
Here’s Jay Ose.
Apparently he’s a real guy who really existed and not—as I assumed—the result of a very white magician (an Andi Gladwin type) mispronouncing and misattributing a false shuffle by a guy named José.
For those who don’t know, the Jay Ose False Cut looks like this.
There’s no secret action going on there. It just looks as if that should disturb the order of the deck, but it doesn’t. Since there isn’t a secret action there, performers have realized that you can have the spectator do the actions of the cut themselves. You have them cut off a third of the deck. Then another third to the right of the packet they just cut off. Then they place the final third to the right of both. You gesture for them to pick up the packets from left to right and they have just done a full deck false cut for you.
I believe the first time I saw a trick where the spectator performs the Ose false cut was in The Art of Astonishment by Paul Harris in Chad Long’s effect, The Shuffling Lesson. Since then I’ve seen the idea used quite often.
If there’s a weakness to the technique it’s that you have to tell them how to cut the deck and how to reassemble the deck. It’s not a huge deal, although on occasion someone will cut them oddly or reassemble them in not the right way and you have to step-in, which doesn’t make complete sense if this is supposed to be a “random” cut.
I was working on a trick several months ago and I realized that often this technique isn’t used with a fully stacked deck. It’s used to keep a top or bottom stock intact. And when that’s the case, you have a lot more freedom with how they cut and reassemble. That’s when I came up with
The Jerx Ose False(ish) Cut
This cut retains a small top or bottom stack. The benefit of this over the traditional Jay Ose False Cut is that it is more random seeming and more memorable. The potential downside (that I was wary of) is that maybe it would draw too much attention to the cut and the deception at play would be noticed. I found that not to be the case. This is a technique you would use when you want the cut to be remembered. If you don’t want that, then stick with a different false cut.
What makes this particularly deceptive, I think, is that there are some genuinely free actions, followed by a couple genuinely free choices.
Here is an example of what it looks like. Well… sounds like.
Magician: Cut the deck into three piles.
[Spectator freely cuts the deck into three piles in any orientation on the table.]
Magician: Pick up any pile.
[Spectator has a free choice of any pile.]
Magician: And drop it on any other pile.
[Spectator drops their chosen pile on any either remaining pile.]
Magician: And drop that combined pile on the remaining pile.
You can probably figure out what’s happening here, you’re essentially just going to direct them to reassemble the deck so that your top stock (in this example) is maintained. But you’re going to do it in a way that suggests some freedom on their part.
I’ll walk you through what the process would be to maintain the top stock. This shouldn’t be something you actually have to think of and process in the moment when you’re doing it. It will just be sort of obvious what to do. But for completeness, I’ll write it out.
The spectator cuts the deck into three packets. Top, Middle, and Bottom. (Top is the “target” pile, Middle and Bottom are the non-target piles.) They don’t need to cut in a nice line. They can just cut however they like, so long as you keep track of the top packet.
You say:
“Pick up any pile.”
If they pick up the Top pile, then you say, “And drop it on any other pile. Now take that combined pile and drop it on the last pile.”
If they pick up the Middle or Bottom pile first, then you say, “Take any other pile and place it on top of the cards in your hand.”
If they pick up the other non-target pile, you say, “And place the final pile on top of those"
If they pick the Top pile, you say, “And drop those cards in your hand on the pile that’s left, so the deck is complete.”
I think the key moment that makes this deceptive is that free choice in the middle. Where they either drop the pile in their hand on either remaining pile, or they drop either remaining pile on the cards in their hand. This is a moment that can apparently only exist if you don’t care about the order of the deck. (Which you don’t, you only care about one card (or small group of cards). But the spectator doesn’t know that. So this feels quite free.)
Strangely, as the Jay Ose cut proves, once a deck is cut into three parts, people don’t seem to be able to follow what packet started where. Now, that being said, I still wouldn’t immediately say, “Turn over the top card, that will be your selection.” This would be part of a selection or forcing procedure that I would remind them of later on. “The deck was shuffled. You cut it into three piles, anywhere you wanted. Then reassembled the deck in any order you chose,” etc.
You can figure out how to maintain the bottom stock yourself, right? I think so. It’s the same thing as the top stock, but just the inverse. You’ll figure it out.
Two Person Variation
I find this works nicely with two people. The first person cuts the deck and swaps the packets around while the second spectator looks away(to “keep it 100% fair”). Then the second person reassembles the deck, “however they want.” This is, obviously, overkill if you’re using it as just a false cut. But as part of the process of a “randomizing procedure” or something like that, it makes sense.
As I mentioned in the beginning, I wasn’t sure what, if any, effect this would have on the impact of the routines I was using it with. But in recapping the effect with them, it seemed to be something they were zeroing in on. I would say something like, “Before you dealt out these hands of cards, you saw me shuffle, and you saw the cards genuinely mixing. Then I gave you the deck and never touched it again. You cut the deck into three piles wherever you wanted. And you reassembled the deck in any order you wanted. Had you cut in different places or reassembled it in a different way we would have different cards on top of these piles, but your actions gave us these four cards….” And when I get to the part about them cutting and reassembling however they wanted, there is often a comment or an acknowledgment that the moment did carry some weight with them. And it’s the sort of acknowledgment I’ve rarely gotten with the traditional Ose cut when I remind them, “And you cut the cards.”
But again, it’s a matter of time and place. If it’s a pacing thing, and you want to get through it as quick as possible, then the traditional version would work best. But if you’re happy with emphasizing that moment, I’ve found this to be a nice finishing touch.