Hello!

I recently bought "Sonata", by Juan Tamariz. I was not really looking for it, but when it was the only copy facing me on the magic shop, I knew it was all lost and I would buy it. Totally worth it. That old man always surprises me, even though I already have high expectations about his work.

But I digress. I finally got to one of the tricks I was planning to perform since I first saw it... a long time ago: "Total Coincidence" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N1In1-QtNY in spanish, but don't let that stop you from watching it).

So, I've always heard that this trick was almost "Tamariz only", meaning that all the procedures the spectators have to go trough, all the counting and all the dealing makes it a challenge to retain the audience's attention. And Tamariz is the show itself!

So, here is the question: does anyone out there performs this gem? I'm familiar with all the procedures and what I would really like to know is more about your presentation, and the reactions from the spectators. Do you feel comfortable performing it? Did you adapted it to your presentation style? Do you have any presentation tips for the lengthy and dangerous (in terms of attention) parts?

Don't know if I'll get responses, though. I think this is not really performed out there...

P.S. Don't know if this is the right place. Tamariz puts this effect on a "Non- technique" section of the book, considering it a self-working trick. But I saw some older posts about it here on the workers.

First saw this when I first came to live in Spain some thirty odd years ago by a Spanish magician called josverd. I thought it wàs one of the best card effects I had seen, still think the same these days. I just got sonata so will have to see if I can do it, I'm not very good with cards.

It doesn't have to be "Tamariz only" but you definitely have to have the right performing situation and a persona that can hold the spectator's interest through the procedure.

I have used Scott Guinn' Conicidental and Aldo Colombini's Contact Colors. Similar premises with not as much procedure.

No matter what, you need to be able to play up the coincidence either with a story or the energy, excitement and astonishment like Tamariz.

I've seen Steve Cohen perform Total Coincidence in his show.

https://www.chambermagic.com/shows

And how was it, Barry? Any resemblance to the Tamariz's performance?

I didn't know him, I'll look it up! Thanks!


jcroop, I think I'll try to hold people's attenton with "Not blind, nor stupid" as a practice. It's a great self working, where you can completely focus on the patter and presentation.

Completely agree George! I think you'll be able to do it! It does not require any difficult sleights.

It is entirely practical and extraordinarily strong. It is definitely a "parlour" piece rather than walkabout

Leipzig would have loved this is also a strong coincidence effect check it out, way easier and quicker

Tamariz and Cohen are a study in contrasts. Tamariz is wild, crazy, and manic. Cohen is reserved, straight-laced, and controlled. Despite their stylistic differences, both are very energetic and effective performers. In the show that I attended, Steve Cohen used Total Coincidence as his closer. The procedure was clear and understandable. Steve did a great job of keeping it from dragging. The energy builds and builds until the stunning climax. The audience rewarded Steve with long, heart-felt standing ovation.

I'm convinced that in the right hands, Total Coincidence is an extraordinarily strong parlor piece. (With video cameras, it might even work on the stage.) It can be adapted to more than one style of performance. I'm also convinced that the script has to be rigorously constructed and tight so that the audience's attention doesn't wane. There's a lot of procedure, and the magician has to find a way to hold the audience's interest.

Try Caleb Wiles' "26!" for a super coincidence routine that only uses one deck. The spectators shuffle but there's no subsequent separation by dealing into piles. Nonetheless it appears that the half shuffled by the magi matches exactly with the half shuffled by the specs. Great routine.

Mike

Thanks, Barry!
Good to know the effect has the possibility to receive a standing ovation with the very opposite performing style from Tamariz's. Now comes the "work hard" part, to develop my presentation for it. I hope I'm one of those "right hands" you talk about!

I'll look it up, Mike! Is it in print? If so, where can I find it?

Thanks for the responses!

Ok, ignore those questions, Mike. Google just showed me everything I was asking. Haha...

Don't know why, but I thought it would be an overlooked effect in a old book. XD

Just watched the effect on youtube. Very interesting! Thanks!

I like Caleb Wiles' "26!" And since I teach probability, I like to compute the probability of things happening by chance in tricks that I perform. For 26!, we might ask, "what it the probability that if a deck is cut in half at random and then cards turned over in pairs from the tops of those two piles we should at some point turn over a card and its mate together?" The answer is actually quite large, 47603333807475276088647100145227/119209116549732434989049167756875 = 0.3993. However, the chance of a mate match at the selected card is of course 1/51 (as apparently happens in the first phase of 26!). The chance that every card matches its mate, as apparently also happens in 26! and Total Coincidence, is 1 in 3.35545*10^34.

When performing Out of the World, I like to comment that the chance of correctly separating reds from blacks simply by random dealing into two equal piles is 1/247,959,266,474,052 = 4.03292*10^-15. One in 248 thousand billions, if you like. This is less than the chance of choosing a star in the Milky Way at random and that star turning out to be our sun. If you could perform Out of this World the rate of one performance per second, relying on chance alone, then on average it would take more then the estimated life of the universe to see reds and blacks separated!

This is my first post on Magic Cafe. Cheers!

I have been doing a version of Total Coincidence with one deck like this. I bring out the deck from its case, cut in two and riffle shuffle. I show faces of cards. Spectator can see they are well mixed. Then I say, "we only need the reds", so I deal out the reds and replace blacks in the case. Now I do Total Coincidence with "matches" being cards mates, QH-QD, etc. At the end I reopen the card case and show that the blacks are also ordered in matching mate pairs. It is half as long to perform, although it is not quite as visually beautiful to see QH-QD rather than QH red back - QH blue back. I have had good spectator reaction to this.

To explain why I just use the reds, I talk about a famous Spanish magician doing this demonstration using the reds taken from two decks with different colour backs. "Today I will show you something inspired by his work, but using one deck".

You can see Steve Cohen performing the effect at Google here: https://youtu.be/hwB-aXB3kVE?si=fpmZxQqBN9xVZhPj&t=750

I perform my "own" one deck version of the effect. It's mishmash of different routines I've learned with couple of original things added.

I love the original and the premise, but for me it's a bit too drawn out to perform in casual situations.

Max

Tamariz has an amazing impromptu version in his Magic From the Heart dvd series.