Sign up Latest Topics Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Claudio

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 281
Reply with quote  #1 
Recently, I performed a variation of Simon Aronson’s Shuffle-Bored; the one with multiple revelations.

On the spur of the moment, I thought of forcing the Odd card, which is the effect’s surprise ending.

I did not go ahead but I’m thinking of doing so.

My current presentation is based around Chaos Theory and predictability.

How would you go about managing the force and handling the final reveal?

As far as the forces are concerned, I’m hesitating between the Hindu Shuffle Force and the Under-spread Force.

I realize that some might find the card force idea heretical

Please, share your thoughts.
0
Paul Hallas

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,172
Reply with quote  #2 
???
Do you mean the final card turns out to be one selected earlier? I think the danger is that it just gets remembered as another "He found my card", trick, diluting the impact of the previous revelations.


Have you seen Bannon's presentation for it in '"Dear Mr Fantasy"? For me that is the strongest presentation, though rather than the prediction just for the last card, I have them concentrate on it and read their mind, more powerful. No written predictions are used at all. Used it this way in my mental act. 
0
Harry Lorayne

Avatar / Picture

Honored Member
Registered:
Posts: 2,194
Reply with quote  #3 
   There's a post of mine relating to Shuffleboard in the thread about Aronson Stack tricks. You might find it interesting - if you're interested in Shuffleboard - It's about my routine called THE EQUALIZER.
0
Alan

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 82
Reply with quote  #4 
Claudio,
I've done a version of shuffle bored like that. I started out with a blue deck and a red deck on the table. I had a spectator pick a card from the blue deck. Told him not to look at it and not to show it to anyone. Then I gave him a coin envelope to slip the card inside and told him to put it in his pocket. We'll get back to that later I said, as I put away the blue deck. Then I took the red deck, split it up for people to shuffle up, and went into shuffle bored. So at the end, I let the spectators notice the odd card- and I did not include the odd card as my final prediction. I said, well that's too bad, I got darn close to perfection. Everyone relaxed because they thought the trick was over, and they were still impressed by the trick even though it appeared that I had missed 1 card in my final prediction. Then I mention the envelope with the blue card... Everyone had forgotten about it by then. Gotta say, it killed.

As far as the force, I used a Pop-Eyed Popper deck so it was an ultra-clean force and I had no issue using a gaffed deck since it was never back in play. As far as the final reveal, hopefully I have explained it well enough above. Hope it all makes sense.

-Alan
0
Bulla

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 202
Reply with quote  #5 
I like that idea Alan.  I was worried that having the odd card selected would ruin the surprise ending but having it be an unknown selection solves that issue for me.  I like having that moment of uncertainty of whether I actually messed up the effect or not.
0
Claudio

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 281
Reply with quote  #6 

Paul, I know the Bannon routine and kind of agree with him why a non-prediction effect might actually be better.

But I like my current presentation which is based around chaos and predictability. I have the spectators shuffle until they agree that the pack of cards is in a “perfect chaos(?)” state. The predictions are then read and the impact is very strong (and I have my own little subtleties to make the spectators shy away from a mathematical explanation.)

I’ve just started exploring whether there’s a presentation in which forcing the odd card (the exception one) would be even more impactful than the original.

I really like Alan’s idea and handling of the predictions, thank you!

Harry, I don’t know The Equalizer, but I’ll make sure to look it up, thank you.

0
Gareth

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 874
Reply with quote  #7 
This is one of those threads that gets me to really think about the underlying architecture of the effect both physical, technical and psychological. I love it, thank you Claudio. Shuffle Bored as presented in Art Decko 'Random Sample Shuffle Bored' is one of my favourites. 

I will qualify, Random Sample Shuffle Bored is my only direct exposure to Aronson's Shuffle Bored (Harry, rest assured The Equalizer and the book it's in is very high on my list). I don't own any other Aronson books (shameful I know) but I can imagine how he would broadly present it with his stack.

My first response was similar to Paul Hallas. Would it be remembered the next day as "Two of us shuffled the cards and he found my/our card." which I think grossly under-sells Shuffle bored. Also in the counting of the cards in the end game would the fact that his/their card appears in each pile might this tip-off the observant spectator to the final/chosen card reveal. Clearly Alan's approach solves this.

Aronson, in his 'Pondering Predictions' section in Art Decko, cites Darwin Ortiz who;

"...argues that prediction plots work best when the actual outcome is, in fact, not, predetermined, i.e. methodologically the prediction is made after the fact...Conversely, Darwin argues that when you do know the result from the start, a divination presentation is preferable, precisely to help hide the fact that you knew it." (Ortiz, D. Card Mastery 2012 p. 176 cited in Aronson, S. Art Decko (2014) p.290.)

Again, a qualification, I'm no mentalist and know very little of mentalism methods of divination and prediction but interestingly if we apply Ortiz' thinking what is the card problem we have.

Can we have the spectators each freely choose a card at the beginning of the procedure and those cards be the 'odd cards' in the shuffle-bored revelations? Alan's presentation achieves this. Can we eliminate the spectator reverse engineering the possibility of a force. Use a good force and there are lots of them.  Can we challenge ourselves to not use a force?

Physically getting freely chosen cards into the required section of the pack is simple. Producing the prediction revelation on the fly is the tricky bit, but to experienced mentalists it must be an achievable task, true?

Then the argument may be, why run when you aren't being chased, why worry about free choices when a force achieves this. True.

Perhaps this problem might only serve as a magician fooler. "oh here we go, Shuffle bored seen it...oh...hang on...ooooo..now...hmmmm????"  

Am I creating problems for my self or am I challenging myself to solve a card problem?




0
Gareth

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 874
Reply with quote  #8 
Just watching John Bannon's Move Zero Vol 2. His 'Rosetta Shuffle' perfect alternative if the spectator doing Shuffle Bored can't riffle shuffle.
0
Alan

Inner Circle
Registered:
Posts: 82
Reply with quote  #9 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth
Just watching John Bannon's Move Zero Vol 2. His 'Rosetta Shuffle' perfect alternative if the spectator doing Shuffle Bored can't riffle shuffle.


Another idea is to ribbon spread each half of the deck and let the spectator just "smush" them together. I think I first saw Tamariz do this, though not with a shuffle bored routine. It's a great visual!

-Alan
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.