Jazz Aces :: Peter Kane

Donald C. · Sep 27, 2009

I have posted this same trick several times, and have tried to fix everyhting flawed in it. Please tell me if you see anything that can be improved if not I finally perfected it after almost a year of intensive work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGkAre1VPxU

Things to look at:
Was the technique good?
How was were the elmsey counts?
Double Lifts?
Patter?
Words did they get srcambled up?

Thank you

kyle007 · Sep 27, 2009

a subtlety i use for performing jazz aces (don't really perform it prefer gimmicked assembly's) i use blank cards and reverse spread the 4 cards in my hand

its a very nice subtlety

jok3r · Sep 27, 2009

sleights looked perfect to me.
Everything looked good

i just thought the performance was kind of boring.

but thats just my style.

Donald C. · Sep 27, 2009

jok3r said:
sleights looked perfect to me.
Everything looked good

i just thought the performance was kind of boring.

but thats just my style.

Thank you for the comments, I would like to know what was boring about the presentation so I can change it.
Thank you.

RDChopper · Sep 27, 2009

magicman1212 said:
Thank you for the comments, I would like to know what was boring about the presentation so I can change it.
Thank you.

Nope, I do think the patter was fine.

Andy.Boss.Glass · Sep 27, 2009

Do you ever learn your lesson?

jok3r · Sep 27, 2009

magicman1212 said:
Thank you for the comments, I would like to know what was boring about the presentation so I can change it.
Thank you.

nothings wrong with it.

like i said its just my personal preference

Donald C. · Sep 27, 2009

magicfreak667 said:
Do you ever learn your lesson?

What are you talking about?

Donald C. · Sep 27, 2009

RDChopper said:
Nope, I do think the patter was fine.

Wait you think the patter was good? Awesome finally a compliment, thank you.

tally-ho · Sep 27, 2009

magicman1212 said:
Wait you think the patter was good? Awesome finally a compliment, thank you.

I think that was sarcasm. just a guess due to the image above.

Andy.Boss.Glass · Sep 27, 2009

magicman1212 said:
Wait you think the patter was good? Awesome finally a compliment, thank you.

double epic fail.

Donald C. · Sep 27, 2009

tally-ho said:
I think that was sarcasm. just a guess due to the image above.

I did try to add some patter, but now I am confused lol.

Andy.Boss.Glass · Sep 27, 2009

magicman1212 said:
I did try to add some patter, but now I am confused lol.

triple epic fail.

D ICE R · Sep 28, 2009

lets just refer to it as (epic fail)^3

Jo_Vision · Sep 28, 2009

D ICE R said:
lets just refer to it as (epic fail)^3

a little extreme dont ya think. triple epic fail would be the quivalent of 3*(epic fail) by the distributive property, which is (epic fail) + (epic fail) + (epic fail) whereas (epic fail)^3 would actually be (epic fail) * (epic fail) * (epic fail). A cubic of a fail on the order of epic is almost unfathomable.

(I have no idea wtf i just said)

Andy.Boss.Glass · Sep 28, 2009

Jo_Vision said:
a little extreme dont ya think. triple epic fail would be the quivalent of 3*(epic fail) by the distributive property, which is (epic fail) + (epic fail) + (epic fail) whereas (epic fail)^3 would actually be (epic fail) * (epic fail) * (epic fail). A cubic of a fail on the order of epic is almost unfathomable.

(I have no idea wtf i just said)

whatever you just said, magicman1212 just achieved it.

D ICE R · Sep 28, 2009

Jo Vision I appreciate your mathematics, however, I feel that the if we were to use the notion of 3*(epic fail) the implied nature is that he failed on three separate occasions. Whilst this is true the failure is still centralised around a common value fail in this instance. If we were to take the variables of the epic nature around the one true know of fail(ure) we would get the following idea;

Epic(1) Fail * Epic(2) Fail * Epic(3) Fail

Rewritten in an equation:

This thread = [Epic(1)*Epic(2)*Epic(3)]*Fail^3

shooting_rubber · Sep 28, 2009

Jo_Vision said:
a little extreme dont ya think. triple epic fail would be the quivalent of 3*(epic fail) by the distributive property, which is (epic fail) + (epic fail) + (epic fail) whereas (epic fail)^3 would actually be (epic fail) * (epic fail) * (epic fail). A cubic of a fail on the order of epic is almost unfathomable.

(I have no idea wtf i just said)

D ICE R said:
Jo Vision I appreciate your mathematics, however, I feel that the if we were to use the notion of 3*(epic fail) the implied nature is that he failed on three separate occasions. Whilst this is true the failure is still centralised around a common value fail in this instance. If we were to take the variables of the epic nature around the one true know of fail(ure) we would get the following idea;

Epic(1) Fail * Epic(2) Fail * Epic(3) Fail

Rewritten in an equation:

This thread = [Epic(1)*Epic(2)*Epic(3)]*Fail^3

I am sorry but it is (epic + fail)³.

Let's say epic=x and fail=y

So it becomes (x+y)³

Because of the distributive properties of addition or subtraction in a bracket, we must multiply everything through one-by-one.

(x+y)³ is really: (x+y)(x+y)(x+y)

(x+y)(x+y)(x+y)

x² +2xy +y²(x+y)

x³ +x²y +2x²y 2xy² +xy² +y³

x³ + 3x²y +3xy² +y³

Now we can substitute the epic and the fail back in for the x's and y's, respectively.

epic³ + 3epic²fail +3epicfail² + fail³

---------------------------------------------------------------

Back to Jo_Vision's point. Now I agree that (epic fail)³ is unfathomable, but (epic + fail)³ = epic³ + 3epic²fail +3epicfail² + fail³. That is simply inscrutable, incomprehensible, enigmatic and indecipherable...

Jo_Vision · Sep 28, 2009

D ICE R said:
Jo Vision I appreciate your mathematics, however, I feel that the if we were to use the notion of 3*(epic fail) the implied nature is that he failed on three separate occasions. Whilst this is true the failure is still centralised around a common value fail in this instance. If we were to take the variables of the epic nature around the one true know of fail(ure) we would get the following idea;

Epic(1) Fail * Epic(2) Fail * Epic(3) Fail

Rewritten in an equation:

This thread = [Epic(1)*Epic(2)*Epic(3)]*Fail^3

So that would make epic a state variable. This brings in an interesting perplexity

shooting_rubber said:
I am sorry but it is (epic + fail)³.

Let's say epic=x and fail=y

So it becomes (x+y)³

Because of the distributive properties of addition or subtraction in a bracket, we must multiply everything through one-by-one.

(x+y)³ is really: (x+y)(x+y)(x+y)

(x+y)(x+y)(x+y)

x² +2xy +y²(x+y)

x³ +x²y +2x²y 2xy² +xy² +y³

x³ + 3x²y +3xy² +y³

Now we can substitute the epic and the fail back in for the x's and y's, respectively.

epic³ + 3epic²fail +3epicfail² + fail³

Good pickup, but I was assuming that epic is an order of magnitude not an additive property. We may need to bring in an expert in the ways of internet lingo to explain whether epic should be multiplied or added. This could have huge bearing on our calculations. We are on the verge of something huge here, lets take all the precautions necessary to ensure our formulation is indeed right. (Did you do those supscripts in here or copy and paste that from word or something?)

Jo_Vision · Sep 28, 2009

What the hell is wrong with me? I am sitting here discussing the correct formulation of "triple epic fail" whilst i should be going over shear stress associated with extrusion so I don't fail this Manufacturing test that i have to take in 6 HOURS. Yeah, i need some type of mental help.