Privacy Protection

Okay, once again I’m going to take a look at a trick with a bad presentation and attempt to improve it by giving it a context that is more interesting.

I haven’t done one of these posts in a while, so here again are the basic definitions I’m using.

Presentation: Is a motif or subject matter that is laid over a trick.

Context: Is a “real life” situation into which a trick is placed.

If, for example, you do an ace assembly and you say the Ace of Spades is the “leader” ace. And he calls all the other aces to join his pile. That’s your (shitty) presentation for an ace assembly.

If, however, you perform an ace assembly and you talk about a new cheating technique you’re working on that allows you to steal cards out of other people’s poker hand and swap them invisibly for cards in your own, then that would be an ace assembly done within the context of the demonstration of a gambling technique.

Contexts are integral to the nature of the interaction. Presentations are usually just slapped onto a trick so the performer has something to say.

Let’s take a look at a trick that was described recently during a free event hosted by Murphy’s Magic to pimp their decks of Cherries playing cards.

The trick we’re going to look at is at 10:30 in this video. Here Jeremy Griffith teaches a trick where two cards lose their faces.

Here is the presentation he uses for this trick. (In the longer version of the trick, the two cards start off on the deck and then lose their faces once they are removed from the deck).

“If you ever seperate a small amount of cards from the rest of the deck, it can make them very nervous. And it makes them want to hide their faces from you. And they are very good at hiding their faces.”

So this is a trick with a presentation that is about “cards getting nervous.”

This is as bad as presentations get.

You’re anthropomorphizing the cards to say something totally boring. It would be one thing if you were doing that type of hokey “these cards are like people” presentation and you had something interesting to say. But to just be like, “Cards get nervous,” that’s no good. Many people already find watching magic to be an infantilizing thing to do. These types of presentations make it doubly so.

Now let’s imagine the same trick, but with a Context instead.

A deck of cards is sitting on the table.

“Have you seen these types of cards yet?”

You take out the deck and spread it for your friend face up and face down. It looks like a normal deck.

You have them touch a couple face up cards. Or just remove any random pair.

“These things are pretty cool. When all the cards are together, you can see them just fine. But if we take a couple of cards away from the deck…. you’ll see that after a few moments the privacy protection kicks in and you can’t see what cards they are.”

“I can still see the faces—whoever is holding the cards can still see the faces—but you just see…what exactly? Blank faces? Or the back design on the front too, I guess.”

You’re implying you’re not seeing the same thing they’re seeing in this moment.

“So if these were my hole cards in poker, I wouldn’t have to be overly cautious of you seeing them, because they’re attuned in such a way that after a few seconds, only the holder of the cards can see them once they’re away from the deck. And, of course, it would work the same for a full hand of poker, or gin rummy, or whatever. No one but you can see the cards in your hand.

“Not until they’re back with the other cards does the privacy protection drop away.”

Now, the goal—as I’ve said a million times—is not that you’re hoping they’ll believe the premise. The hope is just that your premise adds to the effect. “This inanimate object is nervous.” Doesn’t add anything to the faces vanishing. In fact, I’d say it makes it worse.

But demonstrating a new technology that allows cards to only be seen by the person who is holding them is at least a somewhat interesting concept. If you did have such a deck, you likely would show it to people.

Okay, when you’re done with the trick, set the deck on the table face-up. Your spectator will be almost certain you’re bullshitting them, but they may still take a look at some of the cards. If they pick up a few cards, you can now pretend like you can’t see what the faces of the cards are that they hold.

“Yeah, I can’t see those cards at all. It’s pretty amazing technology. I guess each card vibrates at a certain frequency when away from the deck and it tunes into the vibration on the ocular nerve of the person who is holding it. Something like that. Science is amazing.”

If they ask you to demonstrate it again, take a few cards off the deck and act like they can’t see them. When they say they can see the faces, just be like, “What the heck? Damn, these things are flakey. That’s why the World Poker Tour hasn’t adopted them yet.” Reassemble the deck and smack the edge on the table, as if you’re trying to jar the deck into working again. Half-pass the bottom of the deck and go into a very brief all-backs display. As if now none of the faces are showing even when the deck is back together. Smack the cards again on the table again. And now the deck is normal again, but the privacy protection seems broken for good. Toss the deck in the trash. “There’s $240 down the drain.”

If at any point they pick up the deck and look through it and happen to find the double-backer that’s used, that’s fine. That doesn’t expose any part of the trick. You just say, “What are you talking about? That’s the joker. You don’t see the face of the joker here? And his hat here?” Pointing as if you’re seeing these things on the “face” of the card. “Hmm… I don’t know why you’re not seeing it, since you’re holding it. As I said, these things are pretty flakey.”

The nice thing about a premise that suggests: “We’ re perceiving these cards differently,” is that there’s really nothing the other person can do to prove that’s not the case.