Sign up Latest Topics Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
synapse

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 52
Reply with quote  #1 
Hi guys. I was just wondering if anyone would still frequently use the flushtration count for a false display over other false displays that accomplish the same thing such as the rumba count? I've never felt particularly comfortable with the discrepancy in the flushtration count to favour it over the rumba count where possible. The main advantage of the flushtration count would be that you don't need a table to do it, but would anyone here rumba count a packet of cards into a specs hands and just scoop of the three cards with the final card? (assuming that the final card is not purposely a double and you arent masquerading 5 cards as 4)
0
JohnnyNewYork

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 240
Reply with quote  #2 
Synapse -- I use the Flushtration count as well as the Rhumba count (also Boris Wild's Kiss count); similar to your opinion, I don't feel completely comfortable with any of them, but it seems to me that it all depends on the context of the routine. All three methods have some advantages (I think the Flushtration count's main advantage is it's relative quickness). The Rhumba is probably more convincing, but I don't think it (or the Kiss count for that matter) could ever be considered as "natural" -- the turnovers seem a little like a "tell" to me (but then again, I think like a magician). Therefore, I let the circumstances of the situation guide my decision. Ultimately, use the move that YOU feel the most comfortable with (in spite of its shortcomings, whatever they are), at the critical points of the routine. I never work without some sort of table, so the in-hands issue hasn't really come up too much for me. Hope this all makes sense -- johnny
0
Rudy Tinoco

Avatar / Picture

Founding Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,353
Reply with quote  #3 
Hi Synapse,

Have you ever seen this version of the flustration count by Eddy Taytelbaum?
I learned it by watching Tommy Wonder's explanation of his wild card effect. He mentions it as Eddy's but doesn't really go into depth about how it's done. I had to figure out through multiple viewings. 

As Johnny said, I'm not all that fond of the Rhumba count for the same reasons that he mentions. It could be argued that this move suffers from the same issues.


__________________
www.youtube.com/themagiciansforum
http://www.facebook.com/themagiciansforum
0
Michaelblue

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,177
Reply with quote  #4 
I like them both, and use them whenever i need to.  J.C, Wagner also has a cool way of doing the flustration
0
JohnnyNewYork

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 240
Reply with quote  #5 
Hello guys! Michaelblue -- I'm not familiar with Wagner's approach (but I'll definitely look that up). Rudy -- your demo looks very good to me -- I'm going to use that in the future, for sure -- thanks very much for the insight/tip! One thing that always impresses me is how imaginative magicians can be in diversifying methods! Thanks again -- johnny
0
Rudy Tinoco

Avatar / Picture

Founding Member
Registered:
Posts: 4,353
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyNewYork
Hello guys! Michaelblue -- I'm not familiar with Wagner's approach (but I'll definitely look that up). Rudy -- your demo looks very good to me -- I'm going to use that in the future, for sure -- thanks very much for the insight/tip! One thing that always impresses me is how imaginative magicians can be in diversifying methods! Thanks again -- johnny


Hi Johnny, The name of the trick is "Inflation" by Peter Pit and it can be found i Mark Wilson's Complete Course in Magic on page 227.

It always plays well.

Rudy 

__________________
www.youtube.com/themagiciansforum
http://www.facebook.com/themagiciansforum
0
magictropolis

Member
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #7 
It's not a matter of "which one is better", but rather about the style and design of your magic. 

The rumba has a more fluid, revolving, beautiful look. More flourishy per say. This is good for some things. 

The other one is used for a fast and simple display that is direct, and almost as intermediary in a routine.

It's a matter of styling of the routine, and this does matter. It's what makes the difference in aesthetics. 
0
luigimar

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member - Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,135
Reply with quote  #8 
A few months ago, Steve Friedberg gave a lecture on TMF (maybe you can get in touch with him and you can still get it, it was recorded by Rudy) and talked about the flushtration count and he showed a variation that for me makes it a little more deceiving. The original looks a little too repetitive and with what Steve showed us, it is more deceiving, at least for me.
__________________
Luigimar
Magic is Within...
0
Mike Powers

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,832
Reply with quote  #9 
Never liked the way the Rhumba count looked. If you're European and project a flourishy, artistic image, it would be fine.

Otherwise it'll draw attention to itself and send up the "something tricky is happening here" flag. It's not for me.

As always, these are just opinions and thoughts - not dogmatic rules.

Mike
0
Stevie Ray Christian

Avatar / Picture

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 449
Reply with quote  #10 
I have used Flustration to good effect. I wait until The spectator's heads are spinning and go for a laugh while giving 4 fast displays. In the scope of things it is a blur.
0
Waterman

Avatar / Picture

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 589
Reply with quote  #11 
I like both counts. I try to use them as a casual and somewhat unhurried display. If my attitude is that I don't really care if the spectators are burning my hands/cards when I'm counting and showing the faces I usually end up getting away with these counts easier.

Sometimes I use a Rhumba to start off a card set by going through the deck and saying that the manufacturer made a mistake and gave me four Ace of Spades by mistake. The explanation for getting them out of the deck (face down of course) is to show everyone a trick I came up with using the four identical cards.

I Rhumba count to show the supposed four Ace of Spades and leave one face down in three different spectators palms. I keep the original Ace of Spades and lightly tap the face down aces in the spectators hands. The reactions to the cards changing is sometimes way more than what I would expect...but that's fine by me.

Using a count like this early on when the spectators aren't really expecting anything to happen is advantageous IMO
0
synapse

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 52
Reply with quote  #12 
Sorry for being late to post. I agree that the turning of the rhumba count could look odd depending on who is performing it and their style of performing. Personally I think the turning action in the rhumba count when done to a consisently smooth rhythm is a touch more deceptive than doing a rapid flushtration count where some speed (I think) is needed to hide the discrepancy rather than a smooth rhythm (not that a smooth rhythm wouldn't help, I just don't think it would hide the discrepancy as well as I would want it to).
0
Cardshark Quixote

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 361
Reply with quote  #13 
I learned the count at the end from Daryl's Ambitious Card video. Don't remember the name. I use it for some of my effects.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.