• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Berglass Effect

Senex said:
Of your 4 alternatives only stooges is not a foolish option. I have noticed the cards are never shuffled. In the first video it would require a person famous enough to be on a talk show to be in on it and use a mnemonic device to memorize a stacked deck. Actors (especially British, who kick ass because they learn Shakespeare) must use mnemonic devices to memorize lines. So that is possible.

However, this effect is so famous that if he used a stooge every time one of those stooges would have sold him out by now. I am discounting stooges.

I like the fact there is a magic grail to try and figure out.
Click to expand...

Crikey, you're pleasant to talk to! My sincere apologies for presenting such "foolish options".

You are assuming there is only one method to "the Berglas Effect". I don't believe there is. In which case sometimes it will be stooges, sometimes other methods involving pre show work, stacked decks and the like.

On the first Marc Paul video some pre-show work would explain in perfectly. He's asked Michael previously to write down a number and keep it secret and he will be asked for it later. Likewise Martine has been asked for a card. The deck is set up for that information, handed to the other guy and the effect is complete. Why is that not a possible option?

On the second the deck could be stacked. The first spectator calls out a card, the second is a stooge who calls out the required number from memory.

As for Berglas's own reported effects, having multiple decks is very much an option since we've no idea how often he's asked for a card, realised he's not got the right deck and moved to another trick or even asked for a "less obvious card" or something to give himself another bite at the cherry. If done in his own house he can cover many possibilities.. You don't even need 52 if you allow for some equivocal speech. A self promotion artist like Berglas and Paul would go to any length to build a reputation. If you look at that Magic Cafe thread you'll see people even questioning the veracity of some of the reports since they come from someone who is financially involved in the book. Also the book supposedly does indeed give this system as part of the method. However I've not read it so I cannot confirm this.
 
Last edited:
Ahem... I think we're getting awfully close to openly discussing methods here... That's a no-no.
 
Alan said:
Not necessarily. There could be more methods.

I saw a Liu Qian (Luchen) performance on YouTube where he asked an audience member to name a number between 1 and 52...but there was at least one joker shown in the deck. Hmmm...


(number 37 at around 7:30)

He seems to be able to perform it reliably. He says he is going to perform the Berglas effect beforehand. He wouldn't do that if he's relying on people to happen to name a card/number combination that just happens to line up. And if you think that there would be lots of times when that doesn't work out and the videos just aren't released and people don't speak of it, including performances with people like Berglas in the room like the second video I'll link to, the number of videos that wouldn't be released and nobody there would be allowed to talk about would make stooges the far superior choice.


(also, it's between 1 and 50 in that performance)

Things are thrown by other people into the audience to select who names the things, making stooges and pre-show work implausible. It would involve a group of stooges. And they say that they didn't do anything beforehand. Just like it's a lazy method to use, it's a lazy method to accuse people of using.

I think that if someone says it's stooges or happens by chance, it likely just means they were fooled.

Here's another Luchen performance of a Berglas-esque effect, with a method that I am familiar with.
Click to expand...

That last effect isn't the Berglas one though is it - it's far more explainable. I can think of a possible method myself since the card is not mentally picked and the cards are dealt face down.

Whilst UI agree that sometimes when we cry "stooge" it just means we're fooled - and I certainly am on some of these - it's also true to say that magicians DO use stooges no matter what they claim. So some effects are explainable that way.

How would limiting it to 1-50, and even ruling out Aces and a few other cards as he does, allow a card named from the remaining say 30 cards to definitely be at a specific number named for the first time right there when the cards are dealt face up by an audience member?
 
NeilC said:
Crikey, you're pleasant to talk to! My sincere apologies for presenting such "foolish options".

You are assuming there is only one method to "the Berglas Effect". I don't believe there is. In which case sometimes it will be stooges, sometimes other methods involving pre show work, stacked decks and the like.

On the first Marc Paul video some pre-show work would explain in perfectly. He's asked Michael previously to write down a number and keep it secret and he will be asked for it later. Likewise Martine has been asked for a card. The deck is set up for that information, handed to the other guy and the effect is complete. Why is that not a possible option?

On the second the deck could be stacked. The first spectator calls out a card, the second is a stooge who calls out the required number from memory.

As for Berglas's own reported effects, having multiple decks is very much an option since we've no idea how often he's asked for a card, realised he's not got the right deck and moved to another trick or even asked for a "less obvious card" or something to give himself another bite at the cherry. If done in his own house he can cover many possibilities.. You don't even need 52 if you allow for some equivocal speech. A self promotion artist like Berglas and Paul would go to any length to build a reputation. If you look at that Magic Cafe thread you'll see people even questioning the veracity of some of the reports since they come from someone who is financially involved in the book. Also the book supposedly does indeed give this system as part of the method. However I've not read it so I cannot confirm this.
Click to expand...

This trick as well as all tricks has the woo.

NeilC wrote things I may not be able to fool the pagans with.
 
Last edited:
NeilC said:
That last effect isn't the Berglas one though is it - it's far more explainable. I can think of a possible method myself since the card is not mentally picked and the cards are dealt face down.

Whilst UI agree that sometimes when we cry "stooge" it just means we're fooled - and I certainly am on some of these - it's also true to say that magicians DO use stooges no matter what they claim. So some effects are explainable that way.

How would limiting it to 1-50, and even ruling out Aces and a few other cards as he does, allow a card named from the remaining say 30 cards to definitely be at a specific number named for the first time right there when the cards are dealt face up by an audience member?
Click to expand...
I called the last effect "Berglas-esque" (that effect's name is actually called the Bogus Effect :)).

I'm not making any claims about knowing how the Berglas effect is actually performed, but I was just noticing anomalies in the performances that I found interesting.

Is being able to pick any position in the deck part of the Berglas requirements? Not just any number between 1 and 52?
 
Alan said:
Is being able to pick any position in the deck part of the Berglas requirements? Not just any number between 1 and 52?
Click to expand...


Yup--the Berglas Effect is literally Any Card at Any Number.

And with regards to method, there are many--even David Berglas himself has said he uses various different methods depending on the situation.
 
Last edited:
AdMan said:
Yup--the Berglas Effect is literally Any Card at Any Number.

And with regards to method, there are many--even David Berglas himself has said he uses various different methods depending on the situation.
Click to expand...

This is the Randi site and we do not encourage woo.

Anytime you come across a magic trick you should not think it is as especially problematic. It can be explained. This trick is no different than others. It has been deconstructed (I could deconstruct TV stuff).

No bulloney - I used to perform and I will again.
 
Senex said:
This is the Randi site and we do not encourage woo.

Anytime you come across a magic trick you should not think it is as especially problematic. It can be explained. This trick is no different than others. It has been deconstructed (I could deconstruct TV stuff).

No bulloney - I used to perform and I will again.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about--"woo"?

This is a magic effect. There is a trick and a method to it. There is no "woo".

I never claimed it was real magic. It would be stupid to do so.

I think you're somewhat confused, actually...
 
Last edited:
Senex said:
This is the Randi site and we do not encourage woo.

Anytime you come across a magic trick you should not think it is as especially problematic. It can be explained. This trick is no different than others. It has been deconstructed (I could deconstruct TV stuff).

No bulloney - I used to perform and I will again.
Click to expand...

When I was in college I stole Uri Geller's act. I bent things. I was gifted. At parties I performed. I was a woo. I could use leverage to bend anything

I performed magic tricks but at one point everyone wanted to know about my bending stuff. Many people stared at my hands all the time. It was a problem. I prebent silverware sometimes. Who the hell does that? I did that. I was a woo.

The point being there is no magic - it's a card trick.

Maybe not a card trick - but a trick nonetheless.
 
AdMan said:
What are you talking about--"woo"?

This is a magic effect. There is a trick and a method to it. There is no "woo".

I never claimed it was real magic. It would be stupid to do so.

I think you're somewhat confused, actually...
Click to expand...

I was born confused.

I apologize for over posting to this thread.

I am, was and will be capable of being an ass. You should be like my friends and neighbors who make allowances.
 
I am interested in suggestion. I believe I know about suggestion. I have over a dozen books about hypnosis/suggestion in arms reach as I post this. I know suggestion. Suggestion is very limited. If there actually was something to suggestion Cindy Crawford would be my sex slave.

The Berglass Effect is problematic. Some people think he is brilliant and uses crazy mind powers (suggestion) to perform this trick. (You can not do this trick because your woo isn't as good as his if you read some literature).

I ALWAYS step back and think anyone who tells me my woo isn't as good as another is pissing me off. I know darn well that some people are not clumsy like I am and can perform crazy ass card effects. However, if you put a deck of cards on a table and ask someone to pick a number and that card will be at that number, well now you are on my territory. It is no longer a card trick but a woo trick. I am an expert at woo.

Knowing how something is done and performing it is completely different.

The bottom line is it is woo and if I I choose to perform for the Wiccans at Beltaine I could do this trick and I just might.
 
What is woo?

Tricks and effects are nether woo nor not woo. Some alleged explanations of them may be woo, but the effects themselves are not.
Its
No one here has suggested anything woo.

You're the conductor on an empty train of thought.
 
Garrette said:
What is woo?

Tricks and effects are nether woo nor not woo. Some alleged explanations of them may be woo, but the effects themselves are not.
Its
No one here has suggested anything woo.

You're the conductor on an empty train of thought.
Click to expand...

OK, Garrette, if you are thinking I'm an ass I need to explain myself. (I happen to respect your opinion).

I have looked up "The Berglass Effect" on the Internet. Many times it says "You can't do this trick because there are subtleties beyond your powers."

Bulloney, I am nothing if not subtle. I can perform subtle.

The point is this particular trick is couched in woo. No one knows there is no woo as well as me. I am the most stone cold atheist on this website. Woo is a very negative word to me.

I am just surprised that some people think this trick is better than other tricks.
 
Senex said:
I am just surprised that some people think this trick is better than other tricks.
Click to expand...


You called the effect "brilliant" and the "grail" and now you're saying you're surprised some people thing it's better than other tricks?

You're not making any sense.
 
You are the right audience to read this. When I was in college I tried very hard when I performed. At a college reunion I risked life and limb to put a playing card behind a window. I climbed the side of the building to put it there. Ice and height were involved. I was scaling a restaurant back room knowing if I fell no one would care. I did it nonetheless.

The trick was a girl (who I should have married) picked a card and I threw the deck at the window and that card was stuck to the outside of that window. It was brilliant. Jaw dropping brilliant.

There is no explanation for this trick (except the truth which is woo).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom