Hi guys,

I am working on the original hangling. Love the trick but I got a question. I am pretty sure that it was answered in the past but I didn't find nothing via the search engine (BTW, is it just me or it was easier to find things via the search engine a while ago...?)

In the middle of the effect. How do you justify (do you justify?) the change of pile. I mean, from a standard point of view, I cant see the logic for the change.

Not sure if my question is clear, let me know what do you think.

thanks

If by the change of the pile, you mean switching the red and black cards while dealing them out, it can be "justified" by saying that you want to make it harder by mixing it up. This goes along with taking the deck from the spectator who and shuffling them first and then picking out the cards that you lay face up on the existing piles and then handing the deck back to the spectator.

If you have two specs dealing out the cards in a male-female "experiment" on intuition, ESP, etc., then laying out two new cards when you take the deck from the male and give it to the female seems entirely logical.

--Rick

Devilix,
Trust me there are many magic effects that defy logic. I believe the original Paul Curry manuscript had the magician laying the reds & blacks down where the spectator pointed. At the switch point you were to say "it seems you are getting confused about the colors as you just miscalled one". So you switched around so as they would not be confused.And of course at this point the spectator could lay them down as he deemed were red / black.
There are many variations of OOTW, my absolute favorite is Harry Lorayne's impromptu. Spectator shuffles deck and you go from there, no black / red separation needed.
Rennie

Paul Harris' Galaxy doesn't need any switch/change.

Thanks guys for the answer. I will work on this with your comments in mind.

I agree that we often do illogic things. I guess that its the kind of thing that no one cares when you really do the effect.

You are correct. I forgot about that one..
Rennie

You try the "Out Of Your Mind" variation, here you switch the cards and tell them the truth about why you've done it

Seriously though, check out Lorayne's Impromptu version for a do anytime with no switch.

This is quite true, but very strange handling is done in the most important moment.
This never improved OOTW. (just in my ciriteria, though).

Hideo Kato

Oops, I confused versions on my Mar-11 post. Harry's version is still worth checking out, but does have the "switch". He has some notes on collecting the cards at the end whihch eases the handling though.

One way is to make sure you use up the available space top to bottom on your working surface with the first run-through of the cards. Then set down new indicator cards BESIDE the first two indicator cards.

Let's say I start the trick with a red indicator on my left and a black indicator on my right. After doing a bunch of cards and laying them down overlapping each other, my close-up pad is filled up with cards from top to bottom. Oops. No more space left.

Now I lay down a black indicator to my far left and a red indicator to my far right. The two columns of cards from the left are the ones that will work out without fudging the indicators.

At the climax, I show the cards in the two columns on the left face up one by one. Then I scoop up the two columns on my right, turn them over, and quickly fan them out, showing that the red cards are together and the black cards are together, and I toss them down on the table. I never do show the second pair of indicator cards at that point.

"okay - just stop for a second. Looks like you've done about half the cards by now. You were getting pretty cocky there I think, weren't you? Four in a row back there? You rascal! Sooo....just to keep you on your toes, we're gonna mix things up a little here. Not too much - no funny business - but now deal the blacks HERE and the reds HERE! That's confused you hasn't it?! Ok - off you go...oh, and give the cards a shuffle if you want. Go ahead, I won't even look."

Or... there's a line I THINK Paul Daniels used (don't know if it's original with him): "Right, we're going to swap over now: reds here and blacks here. Two reasons for that: one is to confuse you, the other is to confuse...me!"

"To make the last climax more dramatic, let's swap red & black".
The audience don't need to understand what you mean by this at the moment.
The final display justify it.

Hideo Kato

As Ricky B suggests - Do it on two spectators. You justify the change on the basis that you want to see how they compare.

Even better, try Derren Brown's version off 'Devil's PictureBook'. No change halfway at all, and the spec can shuffle beforehand. I 'love' this version and it always blows them away.

Oh yes, there is also a thread on exactly the same question in the Workers forum - just can't find it a the moment.

Steve

Devilix,

There are many versions that don't use a switch, so no need to justify anything. Lorayne's version (with added impromptu benefit) was mentioned. Giobbi's Card College Light has a version that is awesome that doesn't use any switch. There are plenty of others too but I can't think of them off the top of my head. Good luck.

Fritz

Thanks guys for all the answers. In fact, I don't have a problem with the switch. However, I was looking for a nice patern to do it instead of just saying "ok, let switch piles".

Here's what works for me:

I stop them and say "It looks to me like you're trying to keep the piles too even." (They always do, if you think about it.) After all, you know you have to end up with 26 over here and 26 over there. I want you to go by your first impulse, though, so I'm qoing to switch things around so you don't know how may cards have to go where."
I do think that the trick is otherwise so logical and magical and impossible it needs good cover patter there, not just a joke or "magicians logic." Mine explanation isn't really all that logical if you stop and think about it, but it seems they never do and they seem to genuinely buy into my patter.