Interesting notion. I would caution that if one WERE to do this experiment, one should do an ungaffed B'Wave for obvious reasons.

Ahimsa,
Vlad

Hey, do you ever get the guy, while doing B'wave, that instead of going along with the black queens or red queens, he decides to say, "One of each...One red, one black." Man, it takes all kinds, don't it?

I typically just ask them to go with either the black cards or red cards to keep it simple but in this case I went with his snide selection, and it still works. It just adds a step as with the resulting now one black and one red card you have to basically do the first step over but for one card this time, and it still comes down to black or red.

In the end, you're still right where you need to be as to turning face up whichever red queen they say. Still worked like a charm and when the guy first made that choice of both color queens, I just responded, "Oh, I see you are really into this" and I could tell it made him feel like he was even more in control than he thought he was. So to spice it up a bit on this added step, I ask the spec to play along and let her pretend to take out the black or red queen.


There was a time when someone doing this would just aggravate me to no end in presenting this trick but not anymore.

I carry B'wave with me all the time. Spectators usually are more amazed each time I do one of the reveals.

On the first reveal, they're just kind of like "Yeah, okay.."

On the second, they say "Whoa! That's crazy!"

On the third, they're absolutely amazed.

It's a fantastic effect. I recommend it.

Personally, I love B'wave BUT I alway perform it with giants card. I personally bought it here: http://www.magicshop.ch/zaubertricks/new-giant-bwave.php
They deliver it to you with black AND red kings… that way you could also perform it without equ******. In my opinion B'wave is perfect for stage but it looses a little bit of its power
when performed close up. It's really important IMHO that the spectators understand that you don't manipulate the cards. Anyway I think that the three phases of the revelation are just perfect.

I would like to know why it looses a little bit of its power when performed close up.

Hideo Kato

I started performing B wave when I lost half of my twisted sisters set LOL! Absolutely love its simplicity as a mentalism effect. 'Overkill' occurs when the spectator starts getting confused because of complexity or length of effect etc. I also partially agree with Federico that this is a very good stage effect. Yes, but I also think its just fine as a close-up! Lynn

This is a great trick

I love B'Wave, its usually the second trick I do in my strolling work. The first being Wonderland Bill (since the patter for wonderland bill is about imagining going thru a tiny door I continue the topic of how magic is about imagination then go into B'Wave) The Wonderland > B'wave combo I got from an old EricHenning post and has served me well over the last couple of years.

The patter I use is more or less Eugenes Burgers that he had on his website which ends with me taking the cards out of their hands before they have time to examine it (tho noones ever asked if they could)

BWave gets great reactions every time I perform it,in my humble opinion its much better than TSisters.

I like the idea of doing B'wave with an ungaffed card. Completely examinable. 52 different set-ups. Why not just do it that way? Thoughts from folks more experienced with the effect?

Anybody able to post a video of Eugene Burger performing B'wave? I understand that he has a unique version.

Try this.

http://www.yourmagic.com/catalog/product......ts_id=11

Since nobody has mentioned it so far, I will: What about John Bannons Twisted Sisters? That certainly sheds a different light on the second reveal (different coloured back). Insofar, you only have one "redundant" reveal.

Thanks, QuailCreek -- I'm hoping to find just the script. I already own the cards.

No worries, BeThePlunk. There is also a like to a live performance on the same web page.

It has always puzzled me why everyone seems to prefer doing this trick with the gaff. The first time I saw it performed I realized there was a gaff and exactly what it was. Instantly I wondered "why not just do it without the gaff?". It certainly doesn't make it any less deceptive to add a step of equivoque if you are proficient with the technique. You would never need 52 different setups. I use an ace instead of a queen but that is just a preference. This is the way I have always performed it... even AFTER I purchased the original because I thought if everyone raves about the original so much, it really must be better than just using equivoque as the method. Experience proved it is no better than using ungaffed cards and more verbal technique. I went back to doing it the way I always did it because I end with perfectly examinable cards and an identical effect. Maybe more people perform it ungaffed and just don't talk about it here.

QuailCreek - Thanks again. I hadn't noticed the video link before.

The fritz - I agree. I still have trouble loving this trick as much as everyone else does, so here's something I've added to justify why I need four cards and why I specify queens at the set-up. I start with a red bike deck, ask the spec to select a card, and force my choice -- any card that matches the pip of the card to be revealed (let's say I force QC when I'm going to reveal QH). "Aha, OK, queens are the choice. Here I have four cards from a blue deck -- I EC the four blue backs. Let's imagine they are the four queens, as you selcted." Then go from there. To me this justifies everything and makes the point of the effect the strength of their imagination rather than my predictive powers.

One more thought. Burger's idea of putting the cards (with the eleastic band to prevent slipping and peeking) in the spec's hands, adds to the idea that the spec influences the final card. But notice that he puts the cards away as soon as the effect is over. How much stronger if you use an ungaffed card and let the spec handle the cards afterward? From start to finish, the spec appears to do the work.

I just start with the standard "let's play a game of imagination" plot followed by asking the person to imagine the four aces. It is after that, that I bring out the packet of four cards. I hold them myself the entire time... less to go wrong but I do like the idea of having a rubber band around the packet. To me there is value in holding the cards myself because when a person asks if they can see the cards, I can give them out. The challenge aspect is there when they ask and the person is, I think, trying to solve the puzzle, making the important moment of wonder last longer when they realize there is nothing special about the cards. Just an extra layer added to the mystery. I think this way about a lot of my magic. I would rather a person wonder what might be happening behind the curtain than seeing it happen. The mind is so much more powerful than the senses. I have purposely shyed away from the seductiveness of some eye-popping visual moments just to let a person imagine. Makes the magic deeper and last longer, I think. Take a coin and vanish it three-fly style and pit that against putting the coin under a handkerchief or cup and revealing it is gone. The difference is great.

I love B'wave but usually perform John Bannon's version called Duplicity (which is actually an ungaffed version of his Twisted Sisters.)
It uses no gaffs and very minimal "e", plus the spectator handles the cards throughout the routine.
It also has almost like a "do as I do" feel to it which seems to really draw the specs in and get them involved.

Here's an additional problem (IMHO) with B'wave -- there is no point when the "magic" happens. The conclusion is: "I knew which card you'd pick. I didn't even bring the other queens." So, the mentalist achievement happens even before the person was chosen from the audience. It's not mind-reading because the queen was in the pack of cards even before the cards came out of the magician's case and the "mind" was chosen from the audience. It's more like predicting-the-future in general than knowing someone's mind. It's a pleasant 3-part surprise, but it needs more "zap" in the presentation, IMHO.

I'm leaning toward a presentation that goes like this: "The mind has powers that most people never cultivate. I want to show you the sort of thing you're capable of. With my assistance, you're about to achieve an amazing feat of the imagination." Then I'll go into the presentation I described above. This way, I feel, the miracle happens randomly, on-the-spot, in their hands, with a "zap," and everything examinable. The spec could even go back to the original deck to discover that the QH is no longer there.

Might not suit everyone's taste. I'm just sharing my thoughts for others to consider.