For those familiar with the 1089 force, I have a question. It doesn't work if in the number selected, the first digit and third differ by 1. For instance, try 312. Statistically, this problem will occur over 28% of the time. Has anyone adequately addressed this problem with the 1089 force?

Yes. In recent works, Banachek covers the "99" possibility in his Psychological Subtleties, as does Richard Busch in Number... Please.

... Doug

I know about Banachek's handling of the 99 possibility - but he really only uses half of the 1089 force. That's what made me think of the problem in the first place, while reading Docc Hilford's handling of the force last night. Does Number... Please handle the 99 possibility on the whole force, or just part of it like Banachek's?

When doing this effect, I usually just say, "Now, we need a 3-digit number for the next phase. So, if your total was, say, 76, just put a zero in front, making it '076'. Now, reverse your 3-digit number, in our example, that would now be '670'..." (Obviously, a total of 76 is impossible, but the use of it as an example is a great throw-off)

I've never read Richard Busch's or Banachek's work on the 1089 trick, but many of the books I have that teach this trick cover the 99 possibility in just that way.

One solution is to make sure that the answer to the subtraction is a three-digit number. Ask the spectator to write a zero in the hundreds position if necessary.
For example 312-213=099
and then 099+990=1089
The instructions would be more straightforward if the calculations are carried out on squared paper.

Thanks. As was mentioned by Mr. Dyment (and seconded by me), Banachek handles this problem nicely, but doesn't do the full 1089 force. On the other hand, I think his handling is also much stronger in the end than the traditional, so in the end it was just a question of academic curiosity for me.

And I'll share something with you all for being so helpful. It wouldn't surprise me if others have thought of this, but I did come up with it independently. In the 1089 force (and others), the spectator has to perform a subtraction. We have to have the spectator subtract the smaller number from the larger, usually without knowing what those numbers are. This can be an awkward moment, and I've seen some lengthy discussions on how to word the request in attempts to hide the method.

Well, you don't have to have the smaller subtracted from the larger. You can let the spectator choose for herself which number to subtract from the other. I always let the spectator use a calculator. It avoids potential arithmetic mistakes. Have the spectator write down on a piece of paper a three digit number with all the appropriate instructions for selection. Have her write the reverse. Now have her enter either number into the calculator, hit the minus sign, and enter the other number. If she entered the larger number first, it's the same old step we all know and love. If she entered the smaller number first, she'll get the same result, except that it's negative. Most people don't realize this fact. So I say, "Now punch either of those numbers into the calculator - don't tell me which one! Now hit the minus key. Now enter the other number and press the equals sign. Write down the number you got. But if it has a minus sign in front, don't write that down. That's just too confusing."

What if someone says a three digit number, where all the digits are the same? When I last did the trick, someome wrote 555 and messed up the trick because:
555-555=0
000+000=000

Robert quotes himself:

(The emphasis is new.)

Try saying something like, "Please write down a three digit number. But to make it really challenging, make sure all three digits are different."


On the assumption that this is the forum where we can admit we're math nerds...

Strictly speaking, you only need the first and last digits to be different, not all three. 224 will work as well as 234. But of course, if you try to incorporate that into your instructions, you'll reek of arithmetic trickery.

My idea is this.

You ask a spectator for three different digits and ask him to write them in descending order. Next ask him to write them in ascending order below the first row.

That's all.

Hideo Kato

Guys,

what about presentational aspects of this force? I never liked it, and never felt comfortable using it - too much math going on...

Any thoughts or clever presentation on that one?

nir

It is very funny to see the discussion of the force yet no mention of Richard Busch's brilliant approach to this and other numerical problems in "Number...Please?". I highly recommend it.

PSIncerely Yours,
Paul Alberstat

I first learned of the 1089 force when I was quite young from the book "The Magic of Numbers", by Robert Tocquet. It was first published in France in 1957 with the name "2+2=4", by Pierre Amiot. I still have my old copy of this book.

As already noted, the first difference can be 99 if the units digit and hundreds digit differ by one. This book recommended the solution that Alan Jackson already posted, i.e. making the digit a three-digit number by adding a leading zero so that the reversed digits form 990.

I don't own "Number Please", so I can't compare these two works. I expect “Number Please” is more targeted at practicing mentalists and “The Magic of Numbers” is more for amusement, although it does contain several mentalist routines. The book also spends a fair number of pages discussing the feats of real calculating prodigies, and then lists a plethora of calculating tricks, a number of magic and/or mentalist tricks, some puzzles, and even a chapter on animals who appeared to perform calculations.

I wouldn’t recommend this book over “Number Please.” I only mention this because it is the earliest reference that I know of that mentions the 1089 force. However, the force is older than this book.

Mr. Toquet didn’t think much of this force himself. He starts this section of the book with the following text:


He then describes a routine using the 1089 force. He goes on to describe how a mentalist named Caroly made the effect of divining a number more mystical by using a totally different technique which allowed an arbitrary number to be provided by a spectator with no calculation involved. That method is well-known today, but dated, because it required a slate chalkboard.

There is much to learn from "Number...Please?" whether one does magic or mentalism. The psychology used within is applicable beyond the effects outlines within the pages. Richard Busch draws heavily from his hypnosis training and his extensive knowledge of magic and mentalism and so relies heavily on psychological ruses and mental manipulation instead of difficult sleight of hand. Make no mistake, one must learn the material thoroughly to do it successfully, but it will work for all. I highly recommend it. Richard also has a brilliant "number" effect using number cards called "Mind over Number".

PSIncerely Yours,
Paul Alberstat

Hi Guys

I don't know if you know this, but you can add one more phase to the trick and make the force any number you like.

Say you want 3823 to be the force number. All you have to do then is take 1089 from this and remember the result. This is done secretly of course. Do the effect as normal up to the result of 1089, then just add the remembered number from before and you will get the number you want which in this case is 3823.

Magically

Aus

As I read Aus's advice of adding a specific number to 1089 to get any number, I felt we don't have any good reason to add the number to 1089. However I soon found a good method.

At the beginning, you and the spectator write down a number on separate papers without showing each other your numbers. Then after the spectator calculated and got 1089, you show your number and the spectator adds it to 1089.

Hideo Kato

I think Kato that the whole math process could be questioned if no good reason is given for it to be done. This is I feel a major floor with all math tricks. As long as you can find a reason to perform the whole math process, I think this extra phase will be taken by the audience. The only problem I see is that the trick becomes even longer than it already is.

I also just want to give an example of the process I talked of in my other post. Before the effect, take 1089 form the number you want at the end. In my example it was 3823. The result of this should be 2734. Remember this number. Now do the math as normal up to the 1089 then add the result of the secret math you did before. This in our case is 2734, which brings the end result to 3823.

Magically

Aus

How about the spectator and magician do the same procedure of calculating and the magician gives a false number as the result, then the two numbers are added together.

Of course this duplicate action has no good reasoning either, but I feel it looks neat.

Hideo Kato

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but I figured it would make more sense to add to the existing discussion here rather than create a new discussion.

As far as presentation goes, I present it as an exercise to ensure that we have a completely random number. I have the spectator select his three digit number, and then change his mind several times to ensure it is truly random. Then I introduce the math, to make it even more "random". One idea is to suggest that the equation is unplanned. For instance, I suggest that the spectator multiples the two numbers. Then I appear to change my mind, "Wait, that's too complicated, let's make it simpler, just add them together". This suggests that the process of calculation is unplanned. Another idea is to "miss-call" the final number when it's announced, and allow yourself to be corrected by the spectator - this also creates the illusion that the number 1089 was not planned. Any other ideas?

What are some of the possibilities for revealing the force? I've used it as part of a Book Test, as described in the thread My Own Mother of All Book Tests:
http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......forum=15
I have the spectator use the first three digits as the page number of the book, and the fourth digit as the word on that page, which I introduce by saying that I'm going to bring in a further random element, namely, a book. It can be presented as a prediction (with the chosen word predicted in advance in written), or as a mind-reading effect (with the chosen word "divined" from the spectator).

For years, I have enjoyed sharing the 1089 one-on-one to audiences as large as several 100. With large audience shows, I use various themes; diversity-everyone is unique (your number is as unique as you) and we can bring folk together.
When I facilitate teams- my role is to bring all of you together on the same page. Each person starts from a difference place and with a couple of steps we are focused on a common goal. Turn flip chart revealing 1089.
Rarely do I encounter 99, but it is easily dismissed.
I have built small teams in large audiences in round table set-ups; toss a koosh ball to find random team leaders, pass out tool bags (sharpie, notepad and pay envelope), encourage table team participation in the math, open pay envelope and enjoy the gasps <smile>.
I have audience members who have participated more than once, always surprised that it worked again <grin>
cheaha bill

The 99 situation is an old, old problem that many of our heroes from the past have dealt with. (I have sources dating back to 1928 in my notebook.) There are, in fact, a number of ways of handling it, some psychological, some presentational and some numerical. If you've got the the _Linking Ring_ on CD-ROM do a quick search to find several approaches.

Don't let it rattle you. I suggested a number of solutions in a book last year which I suspect many folks missed. The 1089 Force is still a stunner in the right situation.

Thomas Henry