Invisible Deck

[Stevie -G-]

I have an Invisible Deck - a good trick that the average punter will not be able to guess. But, they can ask awkward questions, and I would welcome suggestions on how to present the trick that avoids these questions:

1. If you predicted my card before the reveal, why did you have to reveal it as an upturned card within a deck? (as opposed to as a single card in a sealed envelope, for example).

2. Why did you ask me to name/show my card before you showed me that you had chosen the same card? If you are magical, surely you can tell me my card first??



Stevie -G-

 

[Bob Klase]

1. If you predicted my card before the reveal, why did you have to reveal it as an upturned card within a deck? (as opposed to as a single card in a sealed envelope, for example).

Have you actually had that happen? I've used ID for 40 years or so and have never had a single person ask that (type of) question.

And if you did have the prediction as a single card in a sealed envelope do they ask "why did you have to reveal it a single card in an envelope (as opposed to an upturned card in a deck)?

2. Why did you ask me to name/show my card before you showed me that you had chosen the same card? If you are magical, surely you can tell me my card first??

Two good ways to deal with that- 1- secretly find out what their is card first. 2- say that they have to name their card first because you're already committed but they could change their mind or change the card (lie) after you show the prediction.

 

[Azrael 5]

Ask them to name a card first before you show the deck-or just put deck on table and ask them.They wont know what you are going to do and thus can't ask silly questions!! Presentation as with every trick is the key!
But as Bob said its extremely unlikely anyone is going to ask either of those questions..especially as their jaw should be on the floor!!

 

[Stevie -G-]

Thanks for the advice.

Maybe my problem is that I have tried to do it on my friends, who are generally very suspicious, and don't want me to appear more clever than them! (and they do ask silly questions, worst luck). I don't think they would guess it, but they would realise there was a reason for that style of reveal.

All 3 ways of asking them to name their card first work - and I now realise that the key is how to get them to choose a card. I have been asking them to select from a "pretend" (i.e. truly invisible!) deck, but maybe this is not the best way - any way of choosing is valid.

I particularly like Bob's #2 - giving them a chance to change the card/their mind adds an extra element of "mind-reading" that should ensure jaws on floor.

Stevie -G-

 

[Garrette]

This may or may not help:

I can't remember where I first read it, but some useful advice I read long ago is to add the opportunity for a "move" in situations where you're afraid the effect will be too perfect.

So in the case of the ID, once the card is named you could pick it up and turn it around in your hands in a manner that the spectators will assume is supposed to be nonchalant but didn't quite succeed.

If you do it right, they'll not really notice it at the time, but in thinking on it will focus on that false move as the likely explanation for when you did your sleight of hand.

 

[Brown]

Here's a couple of ideas.

David Blaine just approaches somebody on the street and asks him to name a card, "but not the ace of spades." After the card is named, he pulls out a deck of cards and says something like, "That's funny. I reversed just one card in my deck. Look. Just one card. Look. Pull it out. It's your card. Look. It's your card. Look."

Another performer, whose name escapes me, relied upon information overload. He had his subject follow a procedure in which the subject's card was chosen by an elaborate but apparently uncontrolled or random process, and then he used the invisible deck to show that he knew what the outcome would be. The spectator typically is left wondering, not how the deck was rigged, but how the card-selection process was rigged.

 

[Bob Klase]

I can't remember where I first read it, but some useful advice I read long ago is to add the opportunity for a "move" in situations where you're afraid the effect will be too perfect.

Some people would agree with that and some wouldn't. I'm one that wouldn't. The advice stems from Rick Johnsson's 'Too Perfect Theory' which is generally misstated and misunderstood anyway.

I agree with Michael Close- the whole idea of magic is that the spectator is left with NO explanation. If you intentionally create an explanation then it's not magic.

And if you're going to make it look like you did a move then why not just learn one of the versions of Invisible Deck that actually uses a move and a normal deck? There are several published.

Paul Harris has one that can be done impromptu with a borrowed deck. Michael Close has a version that isn't impromptu, but it does use a normal deck- I think the best use for Close's version is to fool the crap out of other magicians because it looks almost exactly like the gimmicked version.

Added: The Too Perfect Theory says (basically) that it's too perfect if the only possible explanation left to the spectator is the correct one. Then it's suggested (by some) that you create an incorrect explanation for the spectator to come up with.

The real question is what does that gain you? If the spectators think they know how a trick is done then what difference does it make if their explanation is right or wrong?

Generally the correct solution if the trick falls into the 'too perfect' catagory is to eliminate the correct method from the spectator's line of thinking during the presentation. If that just can't be done then don't do that trick.

In the original essay (written in 1970), Johnsson says:

It is obvious that by not pointing the spectator in another direction, we permit him to travel down a dangerous path, one which leads him to the only possible open solution and most probably the correct one. Correct or not, the result is the same

So essentially he already admits that his advice (to leave the spectator with an incorrect solution rather than the correct one) has the same result.

Few people have read the complete essay, so many don't know that it also says:

Before beginning, it is worth mentioning for the sake of completeness, that there is another approach. You eliminate all possible solutions. In the hypothetical trick of our example, you could use the spectator's deck and leave it with him when the trick is over. Now what can he think? But an easier approach is to make the trick imperfect.

I met Rick Johnsson several times- he was an excellent magician/performer and a nice guy. So I never understood why he'd advocate taking the easy way out.
While sometimes 'easier' is also 'better', that's extremely rare when approaching magic with this view.

 

[Garrette]

Thanks, Bob. I was unaware of the full details or reasoning.

I agree almost completely with your analysis and conclusion.

I would, however, make the exception that providing a false explanation in situations described in the OP, i.e. not a formal performance but a demonstration among friends or associates, such cases, in my experience, being more likely to lead to the follow-up questions and investigaions attempting to solve the mystery.

ETA: I've re-read the OP and find that my answer above does not actually apply to it but rather to my misinterpretation of it.

Apologies.

 

[Billy]

Performing the trick for your friends can be part of the problem. They probably know you well enough to suspect that you haven't suddenly develped amazing psychic powers. And are a lot more likely to ask akward questions and ask to inspect the deck etc. Another problem is that they want you to repeat it for them or they want you to show it to someone else - while they watch you closely to see what you are doing.

You don't say if you do a lot of other card magic or not. If you don't, it would be worthwhile doing some research into it and learning a few other routines that use a normal deck. I have the ID routine in the red bicycle design and I do other tricks with a normal red bicycle deck. There are many routines (some already mentioned) that predict a chosen card (including producing it from an envelope if you want to) using a normal deck.

After I have done the ID trick I casually put the deck in my pocket while I am talking, as if I am done. If they want to see it again I bring out the normal deck and say "OK but let's try it another way" and do a different version, or just do a completely different trick. Anything that takes the heat off the gaffed deck.

As has already been said - it really is all in the presentation. The ID is a fantastic trick, just don't overdo it!.

 

[richardm]

Another performer, whose name escapes me, relied upon information overload. He had his subject follow a procedure in which the subject's card was chosen by an elaborate but apparently uncontrolled or random process, and then he used the invisible deck to show that he knew what the outcome would be. The spectator typically is left wondering, not how the deck was rigged, but how the card-selection process was rigged.

This works very well, especially if there are a few people involved.

I've used a piece of paper that gets passed from person to person. The first person writes down a card (4H), then passes it to the next person, who changes one part, and so on. It gets them all involved and interested.

In fact come to think of it if you were to pretend to think hard and then write down the first card yourself, then proceed as above, you've got quite a nice Derren Brown-ey sort of routine.

 

[Stevie -G-]

These are all really good ideas - thanks JREF-ers.

They go beyond the suggested routine you get with the deck, which i found difficult to get away from, and are good examples of thinking outside the, ahem, box.