I think your calculation of the odds is a tad inaccurate.
You mean having a randomly shuffled deck and a spectator calling out any card and any position in the deck isn't 1:52? Or did you mean something different?
Berglass Effect
- Thread starter Galteeth
- Start date
You mean having a randomly shuffled deck and a spectator calling out any card and any position in the deck isn't 1:52? Or did you mean something different?
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
If you have a spectator call out any card to guess which one is on top of the deck and it turns out the called out card is on top of the deck, that's one in 52. If you have a spectator call out any card (one in 52), and then have another spectator randomly call out any number from one through 52, and the called out card is at that precise number, what are the odds? (Genuine question; I'm not a math wiz.
)ETA2: Now that I think about it, the "top of the deck" is an arbitrary position like any other, so it would still be 1:52 for any position once a card is called out. I think the randomly selected card plus the randomly selected position was throwing me off. It would still be one in 52 for the card and position coinciding, right? (Sorry for the thinking out loud. I had to work it out in my head.
)
Last edited:
If you have a spectator call out any card to guess which one is on top of the deck and it turns out the called out card is on top of the deck, that's one in 52. If you have a spectator call out any card (one in 52), and then have another spectator randomly call out any number from one through 52, and the called out card is at that precise number, what are the odds? (Genuine question; I'm not a math wiz.
ETA2: Now that I think about it, the "top of the deck" is an arbitrary position like any other, so it would still be 1:52 for any position once a card is called out. I think the randomly selected card plus the randomly selected position was throwing me off. It would still be one in 52 for the card and position coinciding, right? (Sorry for the thinking out loud. I had to work it out in my head.
You are correct.
After thinking about it, pre-show work in this case would probably mean he had discussed the trick beforehand with people who would be doing the picking, (indicating the second performance in the video was not truly randomly selected audience members) and while not stooges, he had somehow instructed them in a way that eliminated options, possibly without them realizing he was doing so.
...
ETA2: Now that I think about it, the "top of the deck" is an arbitrary position like any other, so it would still be 1:52 for any position once a card is called out. I think the randomly selected card plus the randomly selected position was throwing me off. It would still be one in 52 for the card and position coinciding, right? (Sorry for the thinking out loud. I had to work it out in my head.
You are correct. And Kudos to you for getting it so quickly. Many magicians don't and some will claim odds of 1:2,704 when they present the trick, either because they think the audience won't figure it out or they don't understand it themselves.
One other thing about pre-show to add to what Galteeth said. If you don't get what you need (say no one is driving a Chevy Volt and there's none in the parking lot) then you know ahead of time and can alter the effect or leave it out. I don't do it, but some of the stuff you can accomplish is truly stunning, especially, but not exclusively, in the realm of mentalism.
By the by, are we allowed to do any "reveals" in PM or is that streng verboten as well? I only ask because I have a great pre-show story.
Furcifer
Guest
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 13,797
Ha, and the other 51 times the show mysteriously ends abruptly?
"LOOK OVER THERE! It's Justin Bieber!"
Honestly? Well, the trick is that when it isn't going to work as planned, you change the ending into something else.
If we could discuss methods, I'd have a nice example from Mnemonica. But, I think I can say this much: If the audience doesn't know it was going to be an any-card-at-any-number, it could easily morph into something else, like, "Here's your card in my shoe."
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
pg 129.
If you use the moves from that, you can show the card isn't at the right number (surprise!) but isn't even in the deck at all. It turns into a card to wallet/pocket.
With the Tamariz deck, you'll "hit" quite often -- using the move from the Grail, which gives you a range of 7 numbers "off the top." Otherwise, there's the Eureka ACAAN and the half-pass used in Mnemonica. The tough part is the figuring out which you'll do before you uncase the deck. To be honest, the default is often just to miss and do a card to pocket while showing the card isn't in the deck at all.
You get about a 1:7 chance with the Tamariz deck and the Grail, but this gets extended by the usual ambivalence about taking the next card and, you can do a TP to subtract another number as you hand the cards over. That gives you a range of 9/52 or about one in six.
One other nuance is to ask for multiple numbers as in some of the magic square routines (eg. Lois de Matos) to make it more "random."
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
Hmm... Do I have a different edition of Mnemonica than you do?
Pg. 129 is "Cards Called For to Pocket" in my edition.
PM me if that is easier.
Thanks!
Last edited:
Lu chen got pretty lucky, considering it was a room full of magicians.
But so worth it.
Hmm... Do I have a different edition of Mnemonica than you do?
Pg. 129 is "Cards Called For to Pocket" in my edition.
PM me if that is easier.
That's the one I meant, yes. As an example of an "out" and changing the end of the effect if the ACAAN isn't going to work. So, for example, you have a 1:6 of being (apparently) spot on (actually better if you use the magic square dodge), and a 5:6 of altering the effect when you know it isn't going to work out.
Hmm... Do I have a different edition of Mnemonica than you do?
Pg. 129 is "Cards Called For to Pocket" in my edition.
PM me if that is easier.
Do you think the book would be interesting to someone who isn't necessarily going to perform magic but has some interest in the psychology of how it's done?
No. It's a fairly technical book about a particular "tool" in card magic. It has a cult following, but I'd put it as too esoteric for general interest. In my estimation, it would be about like someone casually interested in music buying a treatise on the nuances of Beethoven's Adante Cantabile and overlaps with his quintet and Mozart.
I could be wrong though if someone else wants to weigh in on it. I'm just a magic hobbyist, not one of the elites.
Last edited:
I'm with Marplots on this, and since I, too, am merely a hobbyist (more people call me a collector, really, which is probably closer to the mark), I think you can safely say that 2 out of 2 polled hobbyists think the answer is now. For what that's worth.
If you're into the psychology of it, I'd recommend a few other books, though this is not really a well-informed opinion. One that I will include is a relatively recent book that has received, to my knowledge, very little attention even in the magic communities. I happen to think it's an instant classic.
I don't think naming books crosses into exposure, but so as not to risk it, I'll pm.
Bob Klase
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2002
- Messages
- 2,937
As slightly more than 'merely a hobbyist' (with a mention that hobbyists are often just as knowledgeable as many professionals) I'll join Garrette & Marplots.
If you're into theory (not just psychology but other aspects such as misdirection, plot, etc) then there are a number of good books. I don't know which Garrette PMed but one of my top recommendations would be Ken Weber's 'Maximum Entertainment. I'd also give recommendations to Darwin Ortiz 'Strong Magic' and 'Designing Miracles'.
If you're into the psychology of it, I'd recommend a few other books, though this is not really a well-informed opinion. One that I will include is a relatively recent book that has received, to my knowledge, very little attention even in the magic communities. I happen to think it's an instant classic.
I would be beyond surprised if naming books was considered exposure. Even naming books available for free in a local library isn't exposing anything and books which you would have to either buy (for $45 or $50) or find someone willing to loan them to you would require even more effort to find out any secrets.
If you're into theory (not just psychology but other aspects such as misdirection, plot, etc) then there are a number of good books. I don't know which Garrette PMed but one of my top recommendations would be Ken Weber's 'Maximum Entertainment. I'd also give recommendations to Darwin Ortiz 'Strong Magic' and 'Designing Miracles'.
If you're into the psychology of it, I'd recommend a few other books, though this is not really a well-informed opinion. One that I will include is a relatively recent book that has received, to my knowledge, very little attention even in the magic communities. I happen to think it's an instant classic.
I would be beyond surprised if naming books was considered exposure. Even naming books available for free in a local library isn't exposing anything and books which you would have to either buy (for $45 or $50) or find someone willing to loan them to you would require even more effort to find out any secrets.
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
Got it--thanks.
And while I think Mnemonica is a great book, as another hobbyist I'll join the others in saying it's not something for someone who just has a general interest in the psychology behind magic.
I'd be interested in hearing which book Garrette was referring to. Surely we can name titles here without any problem.
BTW, here is a recent one with good reviews that was written for a general audience on a related subject:
Sleights of Mind: What the Neuroscience of Magic Reveals about Our Everyday Deceptions
Okay, I'll reveal, though what I pm'd weren't directly psychology-of-magic books; they were, rather, books that in my opinion reveal a lot of the psychology anyway.
Mystique by Richard Osterlind (the one I think hasn't received enough attention).
The entire Psychological Subtleties series.
And Harry Lorayne's The Magic Book, which is the book I always recommend to those who want to start in magic.
Oh, and Derren Brown's books.
I agree with Bob's recommendation of Strong Magic. I also have and highly regard Maximum Entertainment, but I'm not sure I'd class it in the psychology-of-magic category. It's been a while, though; I should re-read it.
Mystique by Richard Osterlind (the one I think hasn't received enough attention).
The entire Psychological Subtleties series.
And Harry Lorayne's The Magic Book, which is the book I always recommend to those who want to start in magic.
Oh, and Derren Brown's books.
I agree with Bob's recommendation of Strong Magic. I also have and highly regard Maximum Entertainment, but I'm not sure I'd class it in the psychology-of-magic category. It's been a while, though; I should re-read it.
Bob Klase
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2002
- Messages
- 2,937
Strictly speaking it's more about the application of theory and psychology than it is about the psychology itself (and much of it would apply to any type of entertainment). And having thought about it I'd have to change my recommendation. Maximum Entertainment would be my number one recommendation for anyone wanting to perform magic but no so much just for someone interested in the psychology.
What Garrett said. And I'd go with The Magic Book as well. Funny thing though, that one is probably easier to find through your library than it is to buy new. (Correction -- I see Amazon has used copies.) The copyright is 1977.
Still one of the best. We used it in a beginners magic class at the local community college as a textbook (mid 80's).
Still one of the best. We used it in a beginners magic class at the local community college as a textbook (mid 80's).