Sign up Latest Topics Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Steven Youell

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 762
Reply with quote  #1 

This effect is on page 84 in The Encyclopedia of Card Tricks.

It has occurred to me that if you do this right after a Four Ace Trick, you could use the three “smaller” Aces as the key cards. This idea can also be used for a multitude of effects that use multiple key cards.

So you’d put the Aces back in the deck after the four ace trick and bring the AH, AD and AC to the top with a multiple shift.  No memorizing at all and the set is easy. This is a ready made miracle. Dealing the three heaps is both clean and easy since after the first 10 cards or so you can say “All we really need is three piles so just put groups of cards on the piles so they’re about equal.” Each pile can also be cut before the piles are assembled back into a deck.

All it would take to turn this into a miracle class trick is a bit of finesse in recovering and revealing the cards. The location however with the above addition would be devastating.


__________________
 
0
Rudy Tinoco

Avatar / Picture

Founding Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,798
Reply with quote  #2 
Man, I haven't pulled that book off of my shelf in a long time. Thanks for the great idea, Steven!!

Rudy

__________________
www.youtube.com/themagiciansforum
http://www.facebook.com/themagiciansforum
0
arthur stead

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,047
Reply with quote  #3 
I like it a lot!  This will fit right in to the end of my multi-phase 4-Ace routine.  

Thanks for sharing your ingenious idea, Steven!

__________________
http://www.arthurstead.com
0
Mike Powers

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,546
Reply with quote  #4 
Thanks for the reference and ideas Steven. Very cool.

I thought I had the book here. A quick search came up short. But meanwhile I checked the books I got for free from Conjuring Arts and Encyclopedia of Card Tricks is there. So I'm all set. BTW - Conjuring Arts has given away a load of excellent material in ebook format. Get on their list and get notified.

Mike
0
Mike Powers

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,546
Reply with quote  #5 
Here's a thought to add to the mix:

Now that you know that the selections are next to the keys (aces) you upjog them in a FU spread to yourself. Then, you "realize" that these might be wrong and use a Vernon style multiple shift from the FU deck (without flashing the selections of course) to get them to the bottom of the FU deck. Now obtain a break over the three selections as you openly spread and upjog three random cards. Use a FU NoLap switch (using a wrist turn to kill the FU switched in cards) as you toss the three switched in selections FD on the table. The specs say that none of them are selections. You look at the three and then ask for the names of the selections. Finally show that you have all three.

Mike
0
Medifro

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 199
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Powers
Here's a thought to add to the mix:

Now that you know that the selections are next to the keys (aces) you upjog them in a FU spread to yourself. Then, you "realize" that these might be wrong and use a Vernon style multiple shift from the FU deck (without flashing the selections of course) to get them to the bottom of the FU deck. Now obtain a break over the three selections as you openly spread and upjog three random cards. Use a FU NoLap switch (using a wrist turn to kill the FU switched in cards) as you toss the three switched in selections FD on the table. The specs say that none of them are selections. You look at the three and then ask for the names of the selections. Finally show that you have all three.

Mike


I love that Micheal! Great idea. I would do it with a spread cull. So spread face up upjogging any 3 random cards and as you do, cull each selection ( easy to locate as each is next to an ace ). You can then do the an Ed Marlo switch out by removing the outjogged random cards, taking them to under the face up deck below the culled cards, turn everything face down and deal the top 3 cards.  

I hate dealing cards so alternatively: 

1- Get one ace to the bottom and two to the top. Slip cut one ace from the top to the middle and keep a break below it. 

2- deal the top card on the table, followed by a bunch of cards haphazerdly. 

3- Start another pile by spreading till your break, table this packet.

4- Table whats left of the cards.

You've set up the key cards without dealing, in a chaotic way that I think is more deceiving. 


The book is available for free ( legally, its a free domain ) here: http://52kards.com/ebooks/
0
Steven Youell

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 762
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medifro
I hate dealing cards...

Neither do I. However in the effect as stated, only a few cards are dealt before the deck is divided. So I find that small price well worth the advantage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Medifro
You've set up the key cards without dealing, in a chaotic way that I think is more deceiving.

I am curious. Why do you believe it's more deceiving?

__________________
 
0
Steven Youell

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 762
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Powers
Now that you know that the selections are next to the keys (aces) you upjog them in a FU spread to yourself. Then, you "realize" that these might be wrong and use a Vernon style multiple shift from the FU deck (without flashing the selections of course) to get them to the bottom of the FU deck. Now obtain a break over the three selections as you openly spread and upjog three random cards. Use a FU NoLap switch (using a wrist turn to kill the FU switched in cards) as you toss the three switched in selections FD on the table. The specs say that none of them are selections. You look at the three and then ask for the names of the selections. Finally show that you have all three.

MAN that's a lotta work! LOL. I'm WAY too lazy! [biggrin]

__________________
 
0
Medifro

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 199
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Youell

I am curious. Why do you believe it's more deceiving?

Because it looks haphazard and unstudied.
0
Steven Youell

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 762
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medifro
Because it looks haphazard and unstudied.

So does the other method if done correctly. The magician has second thoughts: "In fact, all we need are three piles of cards about the same size so you can put groups of cards down until we have about three equal piles."

Now what this looks like is that the magician changed his mind on the fly. The spectator starts to deal cards and the magician decides to take a shortcut to speed up the process. The spectator is then putting on cards in a random and haphazard manner after only dealing at most around 10 single cards.

Therefore, IMO, neither procedure is more deceptive than the other. It's just a way of getting to the same point. No?

__________________
 
0
Medifro

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 199
Reply with quote  #11 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Youell

Therefore, IMO, neither procedure is more deceptive than the other. It's just a way of getting to the same point. No?

Dealing three equal piles is not my style as the spectator handling the cards takes time, which adds to the time needed for them to think of one. "Equal" also suggest an overly studied procedure. 

 I can see Harry Lorayne making it work. If it's more deceptive in your hands, all the power to you. Definitely not in my case.  
0
Steven Youell

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 762
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Medifro

Dealing three equal piles is not my style as the spectator handling the cards takes time, which adds to the time needed for them to think of one.

I timed it. It took less than 20 seconds before three piles were on the table once the spectator starts dealing. Of course, a slow spectator could add a few seconds.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Medifro
"Equal" also suggest an overly studied procedure.

But putting random groups of cards to get three "approximately" equal groups of cards does not. An actual fact is that the number of cards in each pile IS random with this procedure and I think the audience will recognize that as well.

Anyone who wants to can make this deceptive...OOTW, Daryl's Untouched, and Juan Tamariz' Neither Blind Nor Silly, all involve a spectator dealing out the entire deck but it's hard for me to believe that anyone would label those effects as not being deceptive.

Having said that, I'll leave this alone now. I think I've vexed you enough! [biggrin]

__________________
 
0
Medifro

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 199
Reply with quote  #13 
I’m not vexed lol. I’m not sure how the tricks you mentioned relate to this trick as they are totally different.

At any rate, I tried both approaches today and showed an educated laymen both of them and it seems the approach I suggested plays better. At least that’s the case when I perform the trick.

If your approach works for you, it works for you, and I’m glad.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.