Fizzling ACAAN
/A recent email asked:
Are you keeping up with the ACAAN Wars? It’s wild. I just can’t seem to find anyone worth rooting for among this bunch of losers.
I’m pretty satisfied with the Atomic Deck in terms of both method and handling, but the reactions could definitely be stronger. I remember you once posted something about reactions following a curve or something like that. This trick gets a nice initial pop, but the excitement fades fast. Is there a way to stretch it out, or is that just the nature of the trick? —MLC
Yeah, I think I called that the “surprise fizzle,” referencing a series of posts I wrote back in 2019.
My issue with ACAAN is that it’s entirely deck-focused. “The playing card you named is at the position in the deck that you also named. This is fun, right guys?”
Your experience is about what I’d expect: a strong initial reaction, followed by a sharp drop in interest. Because the trick is entirely deck-centered, there’s nothing for the spectator to ruminate on. They’re likely to default to “trick deck” or “sleight of hand”—whatever their usual go-to explanation is for this kind of effect.
As you said, that’s just “the nature of the trick.”
The other issue is that it’s just not impossible enough to capture someone’s imagination long-term. If you asked everyone on Earth tonight to name a random card and a position in the deck, 154 million of them would get a match.
Back in 2021, I said that if you wanted to sum up the ethos of this site in the fewest words, it would be this sentence:
The experience of MAGIC is created by the gap between what the spectator knows to be true and what feels real to them in the moment.
That single sentence encapsulates most of what I write about.
The problem with ACAAN, in my opinion, is that it doesn’t create that “gap.” The card is at the position they named. Sure, it’s unlikely—but it doesn’t feel like it violates what they know to be true, especially when it’s the magician’s deck and the magician dealing.
So you have to give them a story to consider that they no can’t be true.
Here’s a thought experiment:
Magician A says: “Name a card. Name a number. Look, as I deal through the cards. Your card is at your number.”
The spectator’s mind thinks: “Huh…that’s crazy. Is that a normal deck. Did he do something funny when he was dealing?”
Magician B brings a goat into the room and says, “Name a card. Name a number. I will slice this goat’s throat* and my dark lord will put that card at your number in the deck.” He kills the goat. Counts the cards. And your card is found there.
Magician B has “created the gap between what the spectator knows to be true” (that killing a goat can’t alter the position of a card in the deck) “and what feels real to them in the moment” (That guy just killed a goat, and now my card is at that position in the deck… it couldn’t be related, right?)
It’s a thought experiment. Please don’t kill a goat. Or anything.
My point is that unless you give them something more impossible to at least consider—even if they ultimately dismiss it—you’re unlikely to get a lasting response to ACAAN (or any other deck-focused trick).
Regardless of the arguments going on, there is no ultimate ACAAN. What you value in magic generally is likely going to be the deciding factor in what version you like. If you’re a big sleight-of-hand guy, then you’ll like the sleight-of-hand methods. If you’re someone who markets tricks, the best method is probably one you can market. If you’re someone who likes very “do-able” methods, like Sankey’s or Bannon’s style, then you’re going to be drawn towards that style of routine.
I appreciate the trick in a meta way. I like seeing how different people’s minds approach it.
In that spirit, I’ll give you an ACAAN probably later this month. It’s a very “Jerxian” solution to the trick. Borrowed, shuffled deck. 100% free choice of any card and any position in the deck. The card is never named aloud or written down. The number is never named aloud or written down. More or less impromptu. Spectator deals.