Ok, it's close-up mentalism, from what it looks like and ticks all boxes: nothing extra to carry, nothing to prepare, no setup, no clean-up, repeatable, ready to go at a moment's notice and still self-working. Sounds too good.

I'm talking about Wunderkind by Andreas Dante (http://www.penguinmagic.com/p/11705).

Anyone tried it yet?

Dan

Welcome to the Café, but my comments will not seem that way

I looked it up and consider it far to much work to achieve a less than impressive result. Not magic, at a moment or otherwise

Even if one carries a phone with a calculator, its use seems a barrier between the performer and spectator.

I could see them saying, "Seri is terrific rather than thinking the performer has paranormal abilities.

All of the hyped "advantages" are actually drawbacks if one is planning on following up with a better mentalism demonstration.

What would be amazing is finding a person who can do calculations without an electronic device.

I guess it matters what one desires to follow .up with or what preceded this.

Anyone asking to see some magic is going to be disappointed. Ditto for anyyone asking for mentalism.

Dear funsway:
Thank you for your warm welcome and thank you for taking the time for a detailed reply!

Interesting throughts - possibly with a bit of subcontext? I have to admit that I had quite a bit of a difficulty following your argumentation:
You start by saying "Even if one carries a phone with a calculator,...". This sounds to me like: in general people don't have phones with calculators. Hm, with a market share of 87% for Android and around 12% for iOS, your sentence really surprised me...

I can follow your thoughts on asking the spectator to multiply random numbers on their phone or any other means to achieve a magical moment is not by far as clean as simply saying "Think of any number" and then to reveal that number straight away.

Then you say: "What would be amazing is finding a person who can do calculations without an electronic device."
However, the trailer and even the full performance video do not show any calculations to be done by the mentalist. He just shows the remaining digits and argues they don't give any clue about the secret digit. It's kind of plausible - at least to me.

You say: "All of the hyped 'advantages' are actually drawbacks". Not sure what you mean. There is no hype. Maybe you talk about the "What's great:" section of the ad copy "Easy, no force, no arts and crafts, ..."? What could be the drawbacks if something is easy to perform and requires no construction and the participant has a free choice?

So once again thank you very much for your thoughts. I was hoping to hear from someone who has used it and can tell me about his or her practical experience with this trick.

I'm realizing: for $9.95 maybe I should just get it and tell others later about my real-world experiences with the trick.

Dan

Yes, perhaps I tried for a bit o'f irony that rarely works on the Internet.

You can look at the market you are intending to entertain or inflict. Last I checked only about 36% or the world population had more than a basic mobile phone.
Even if higher in your chosen market, why risk the success of a mental based effect on their having the right phone and know how to use it accurately.
While a conjuror can screw up and dance about, a mentalist who fails will loose the audience. Why didn't you know they did not have what you need?

While I have a mobile phone I do not carry it around with me at all times and would never answer it if engaged in a conversation with a live person.
I have a Service Dog too, but do not take it everywhere and never if she will not perform a task at that location.

So, my actual point is that surely you have some better way to demonstrate mental acuity with less risk or reliance on a non-mental device,

I find it underwhelming. Maybe no explanation is necessary. I feel the entire description is hype rather than accurate info - perhaps because Ii don't see this as mentalism at all.

Is playing with a smart phone actually a "real-world experience?" Will the other person remember it that way? Sorta joking.

I purchased Wunderkind yesterday and have watched the first half of the download so far. From what I have seen it is very well done and I have the initial setup all done. I like it and can see myself using this.

Ed

I also bought it and it is really great!
The explanation video is well done and understandable.
I like it very much, it is repeatable, self working and you do not need a setup!
For at the moment less than 10.-$ you get a great mentalism effect.
It is really near "Think of any number" ... depends how you present it!
I can recommend this.

@LenaTom and @Ed: I agree with both of you! It is a great bargain at the moment. I also purchased it and have written a detailed review here:
https://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/view......orum=303

Maybe you can comment on it.
Jason

Johdan says above that the performer "just shows the remaining digits and argues they don't give any clue about the secret digit." That is a very strange justification for putting all the spectator's rejected digits on the performer's calculator! In my view, this is the biggest problem with Wunderkind. You're saying, "See? I put all the other digits you didn't choose here on my calculator, and they don't help me at all in figuring out your secret digit!" To say that seems to me to suggest to the spectator that that IS, somehow, the way the trick works. What better reason can you give for putting all those rejected digits on your display?


Maybe you could say something like, "I want to be sure you have narrowed down the possible choice of a digit to just one. So, as you eliminate the other digits, I will put them one at a time here on my calculator -- then you can verify that they're all there except the one secret one you have chosen." How's that?

Interesting effect, but personally I think your money is better spent elsewhere if you want powerful mentalism. Consider this, right now the calculator apps on iPhones and some androids still accommodate certain tricks and prediction effects, but who's to say they won't change in next month or next week's update to something that limits your method or eliminates it all together. Also, tech assisted magic means the tech often gets the suspicion and the credit from my experience. IMO, tech doesn't do great magic, tech is impressive, but never magical. Like the Genie app that can play 20 questions. It "reads your mind" and you're not blown away, maybe amused or a little impressed, but never astonished. Human magic is astonishing, tech magic is just cool.

I'm not claiming to be any kind of authority, I'm only 27, but I've been performing for 17-ish years. In that time I've seen a lot of tech assisted magic come and go, but it's not nearly as strong or lasting of an impression as something like Annemann's One Man Psychic Routine or Bob Cassidy's Q&A or Name and Place.

My opinion? Take that $20 and go get Elliott Bresler's Switchcraft. It's $20 for over 875 pages of valuable mentalism insights, techniques, routines, and effects. It's over 10 years old and still being updated periodically for free by Elliott! In terms of bang for buck, I can promise you that you'll get more from the first 50 pages of that than you will from the entirety of this single, phone dependent, effect. I only wish I had found it sooner!

Just my two cents, hope this helps!

YES!!! Anything by Cassidy...

Doug

Goodness $19.95 ?

This is the simple "Power of 9 effect".

The "repeatable" part reminds me not to do a trick more than once - an old rule.