I don't do many card sleights, I have way too many windows on my hands (and, I guess my stroke in 09 is not helping much either).

Anyway, there are a few card effects I would love to do, (WOW, or no palm card to wallet), but I cannot control a card to the top (basic stuff I know) so, with that in mind, I am considering using/making either a short card or a long card to help....I know we have the sleight of hand purists who are probably going nuts right now but,

someone has made/invented/thought of these tools, that non magicians have no clue about, why not use them if need be...?

I totally agree with you. Like you said, there are probably slight of hand guru's who will disagree with you all day long. However, with that being said, magic is not about how many slights you can do or any of that other fluff. Magic is about the lasting impression we create as entertainers in our spectators minds. don't get me wrong, fooling your fellow magician buddy's is fun but that's not what our art is about. We set out, like I said to create mystery, intrigue and wonder, and in my honest opinion friend I say you do that however you feel comfortable. Keep the magic alive!!!

Always in magic

-Bobby

Most magicians would agree that it is not the method that is of primary importance, but rather the effect. Here is a thread that provides a number of options for locator cards. After reading through this you may have a better idea on focusing your search.

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......&forum=2

I use a thick card - and have done for around 30 years.

Horses for courses but personally, I really can't see the point of most sleights to achieve a goal - particularly when using something basic is even more convincing.

There is absolouteley nothing wrong with a short card, or indeed any type of locator. When working on my own effects I will use whatever suits the purpose best. It could be sleight of hand, a short card, a gimmick, subtlety, anything. If a gimmick makes something look better or cleaner to the audience, then by all means use it - we'd be foolish not to.

For years what I did was this...

look through the deck quickly and break the deck at the card I wanted at the top.
riffle it to the bottom
overhand it to the top

Not elegant, but no one ever busted me for it. If the card was too close to the top or bottom to look reasonable for a break for the riffle, Id brak the deck into 3 or 4 pieces and do multipel riffles. Just looked like a flourish to laymen.

I sometimes do something similar (riffle + overhand). I even pause after the riffle, look the spectator in the eye and casually say something like "you don't think your card is really lost? hey no problem, let's shuffle the deck a bit more" and then overhand it to the top like it was unplanned. Nobody has caught on this. I agree it is far from the best way to handle it, but it does work.

I do mainly kids shows, so the card routines I do (not many) are very simple and easy to follow. I also always have the kid sign their card, which makes it easier to identify later when they forgot what card they chose. And they ALWAYS forget what card they chose.

One thing I don't do, unless specifically asked, is shuffle the deck. My experience has been that once you've done that, the spectators assume that's when you did something sneaky. My feeling is that not shuffling keeps the routine cleaner and less suspicious. However, if you're card location techniques relies on shuffling I think it would look better to make the shuffle look sloppy, giving the impression that you couldn't possibly have done anything sneaky. This is where an overhand or hindu shuffle excel, because they are, in my mind, the least suspicious shuffles of all. Unless of course your routine allows the spectators to shuffle the deck.

Check out Peter Cassford's DVD, Miracles with a Short Card http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/1495

Should get you over your guilt in using the gaff, and will keep you busy for quite awhile. Got great reviews, too.

My magic is heavily skill-based, but there's little sense in promoting sleight of hand if someone is physically unable to do it (although I will mention that windows are more of a management issue than a skill-level one). Even heavy sleightsters, though, make regular use of locater cards such as shorts, crimps and breathers. It's all good.

Don't overlook crafty methods, also, where the spectators control cards for you, unwittingly bringing them to the top on your behalf, for instance, or other ploys such as Arthur Findley's, that allow you to subtly discern exactly how many cards down lies their selection.

Since sleights are best used in subtle ways and subtleties can often replace sleights altogether, it might be argued that sometimes subtlety is more valuable and pertinent to good magic than the sleights themselves. Indeed, the greatest masters of sleight of hand are that precisely because they've also mastered the art of subtlety. If you can find subtle yet effective means to achieve your objectives, you'll be further ahead than most magicians, so I say go for it. The key is that no matter which path you choose, excel at it. Otherwise, what's the point?

I'm just a hobbyist, so don't have many sleights. I can only do basic ones, some false shuffles, and false cuts. Every now and then I learn new technique to force which is nice, it gives you a wider knowledge and you can change your 'style' of choosing card in case you end up with the same group of audience.

IMHO, spectators won't and don't need to realize the number of sleights you can or cannot do. What they will only know and see is the routine and effect. However, in my case, having some different types of sleights give me more confidence and comfort when handling the deck.

But then again, everyone is different. Hope it helps.

Obsidian:

As everyone has said, it is the effect that matters and not the method.

There are some great non-sleight of hand methods for controlling a card. A stripper deck can work wonders. A belly stripper deck will go undetected even by most magicians.

There are also methods of controlling a card that require minimal sleight of hand. Shoot me a PM if you are interested and I can suggest some.

Well, not everyone has said that. If method doesn't matter, than in every case, any method would be as good as any other...but we know that's not true. The method affects the effect; it has external manifestations that change how things look. It's more accurate to say that there are always considerations, and the challenge is to find the best balance that gives you the strongest impact.

I agree. Every method has trade offs that make it more or less useful in a particular effect.

However, the point I was making is that if you can present the same effect using two different methods (one with heavy sleight of hand and one without). the method doesn't matter because the audience cannot see the difference between the methods.

You can't agree with what I said and then immediately make a statement that runs directly in opposition to it, unless you didn't understand what I said. It does matter what method you select, because most of the time the method changes the way the trick looks. The only reason an audience doesn't see the difference is because they don't have the benefit of comparison, but there's little denying that the same effect done with a self-working method and then done with a sleight-based one would look very different in each case. The fact that the audience never gets the chance to see the difference doesn't mean there isn't one.

[quote]On 2011-04-24 00:14, Opine Traveler wrote:


I completely understood what you said.

I disagree with your statement "MOST of the time the method changes the way the trick looks" to the extent we are talking about audiences NOT comprised of magicians.

Let's take a force for an example. To a lay audience, there is no difference between a riffle force, a classic force or a roll over force. They believe that they freely selected a card. Now, they may describe the effect differently -- "he riffled down the deck and I said stop and took the card where he stopped" vs. "he spread the cards and I took one" vs. "I cut the deck and flipped it over and then spread the deck to see which card I selected." So let's take that a step further and compare several methods of doing a riffle force: the standard method, using a backslip force, a flip force and Bannon's Christ-Cross force. For each of those, the spectator is going to describe the effect identically, "he riffled down the deck and I said stop and took the card where he stopped." So the the spectator what happened in each instance is identical.

However, to a magician, each method has its advantages and disadvantages. The standard riffle force requires a get ready and has bad angles only over your right shoulder for an instant when you take the top packet. The backslip force doesn't require a get ready and has a slightly larger range of bad angles over your right shoulder. A flip force doesn't require a get ready but relies on an optical discrepancy and there are no bad angles. Bannon's Christ-Cross force similarly relies on an optical discrepancy and similarly doesn't have any bad angles. From a standpoint of designing an effect, each force will have advantages and disadvantages. If I have a totally blank deck except for the force card, Bannon's Christ-Cross force wouldn't work because half the deck is turned face up. If I need to do multiple forces, it is easier for me to do that using a classic riffle force. If I have multiple spectators, I find that the flip over force and the slip force work very well because the natural body movement obtained by addressing a different spectator provides great misdirection for doing the force.

Now, I think there are some forces that are stronger than others. One of my favorites is Christ's Perfect Force which requires no sleight of hand but instead uses a gaff card. I hand the spectator the deck, have them cut it and turn the packet over. They then spread to find the first face up card. I think it is more powerful because it completely happens in the spectator's hands. However, it has limitations because of the use of the gaff card. Even though I love that method, I have to admit that in the audience's recollection of the effect, there wouldn't be a significant difference between that method and a double turnover force.

Now Obsidian is talking about controlling a card. In that case, the spectator should see NOTHING (or nothing of importance). If you are using a double undercut, they should see you simply cutting the cards. If you cut at the selected card (using a short card as a locator or a stripper deck) and riffle shuffle, the audience should see you shuffling the deck. If you are using an overhand shuffle control, the spectator should see you shuffling the deck. If you are using a diagonal insertion or a Marlo Tilt, they should see the card being put in the middle of the pack. If you are using a pass, they should see nothing except the cover action.

So I do agree that there are differences in methods which are particularly important in designing an effect, but in MOST cases the audience will not be aware of those differences unless you perform for other magicians. That is, the audience will be focused on what happened and now how it happened.

I agree with what you say, right up to your conclusion. If I present a trick with one method and then on another day with another, just because the audiences only focus on certain things doesn't mean those changes in method have no consequences. Those changes can and often will affect how the effect looks, how it feels, and in the offing, how it is received. It works the same way as with two different people telling the same story, each in their own way. Just because the listener of either one may not be aware of the other doesn't mean that the stories might not be radically different.

A double undercut will have a completely different look (and leave a different impression) than overhand shuffling the deck or table riffle shuffling the deck or...doing a pass. In all cases, ideally, the audience will have no clue that a card was controlled to a specific location -- just as you say -- but these different methods all send different messages and change the trick. It doesn't matter if an audience is AWARE of the differences. What matters is whether the trick you're doing is the best it can be.

As a fellow Magician said to me just the other day....even if you do a totally undetectable Elmsley Count 5 flawless double lifts etc, and god forbid....produce the wrong card, then it was all completely pointless then wasnt it?

I submitted a pretty decent false cut control to Harry Lorayne's Apocalypse magazine used in context of a card transposition. It's served well for the "lose your card" type situations over the years.

One sleight you might want to play with is the Hofzinser spread cull. That would take care of ninety percent of the problem you described. Another winner is the Kelly/Ovette sleight which permits a display and shift of a card under pretty fair looking conditions.

One more you might find useful is Craig Dickson's Ultimate Card Control. That's the one he uses for his card to wallet and other tricks.

Some very deceptive magic can be accomplished with a short card. Another option might be taking a look at Martin Nash's "Infinity" work. It is named infinity because you can do an infinite number of things with it. In the latter part of Martin's career/life, according to him, most of what he did was with the infinity. Never give up!

--Best

John