anyone know this trick's name?

[EricShoff]

hey again guys. I'm a new magician as you've probably noticed, so I saw this trick and it kind of blew my mind. I'm really curious as to what the name of this trick is, or if it's a David Blaine exclusive. But here's the link - basically he gives a guy 10 cards, which the guy counts out. Then without the cards changing hands it turns to 13. Then to 17, etc.

http://youtu.be/RAiWABRx9tM?t=38m17s

any info on the name of this trick / origen is appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to read this and further my magic understand, you guys are so rad.

 

[IsaacHaber]

This is a trick called cards across. Usually it is just 10 to 13. The addition second phase is the result of, what I'm assuming are, multiple outs and some pretty basic psy forses (if you would even call it that). The traditional cards across is a very common trick in my repertoire because it is impromptu, very easy, uses no gimmicks, and get great reactions however I'm not sure where I learned it. Maybe someone else can tell you a resource to look for.
-Isaac

 

[EricShoff]

thanks Issac!

as i continue to watch the special, david blaine does a bunch of tricks where he lets the person THINK fo any card they wish, and then ends up revealing that card to them.

This is called a psychological force, right? Any resources where I could read or learn how to do a psychological force?

 

[IsaacHaber]

there are numerous resources to learn psy forces. There are also multiple threads on this very forum about it.

 

[EricShoff]

I read a little bit about mental forcing and then tried it on my girlfriend. The first time, I just tried giving her "suggestions" by mentioning suit and number a few times the half hour before i did it (subtle of course) I tried for 2 of hearts, and she named three of hearts. Next I used a script on her and went for 6 of spades I believe it was, and she named 5 of spades.

Is it really that easy to "force" someone to think of a certain card? Or did I just get lucky both times? I'm thinking of trying Darren Brown's book

 

[IsaacHaber]

The three of hearts and five of spades are both very common cards for people to name. I can't speak to Darren Brown's book because I haven't read it. I'm not really an expert psy forces so I would suggest you look at the other threads on this site becasue there are working mentalists who are common contributors to this forum.

 

[FormlessMars22]

Peter Turner has the best Psy Force of a card ever, in my opinion. It can be found in Freeform Mentalism on Penguin Magic.

 

[IsaacHaber]

Peter Turner has the best Psy Force of a card ever, in my opinion. It can be found in Freeform Mentalism on Penguin Magic.

If you're referring to the force used in his ACAAN, that is not a psy force.

 

[EricShoff]

Hey guys, I just watched Peter Turner's version of ACAAN and read about other people who had seen him perform it.

Please, someone tell me what I'm missing here , because to me this is boardering "true magic" or telepathy

Someone brings out their own deck, Peter doesnt know the order. He asks them to name a card and a number, and without Peter ever touching the deck, their card is at that number.

Is this how the trick goes down, and if so, how is that a method if he never touches the deck? I'm guessing he somehow forces the number and the card on the people mentally?

 

[IsaacHaber]

I wanted to delete the post but I couldn't figure out how so I just edited to say this. Sorry for wasting space on the forum.
-Isaac

 

[TeeDee]

Isaac, I'd say that's bordering on exposure, so perhaps you'd like to consider whether you'd like to edit that post.

 

[EricShoff]

It's supposedly not Peter's cards.

The one guy he did the ACAAN trick on via skype, and used the other guy's cards, and still knew where the cards were. Call me crazy, but thats telepathy. How can there be a method when there is a truely random deck of cards, and you are not even in the same country as that person when performing?

In my opinion it's fact that telepathy and clairvoyance does exist. Why someone with that skill would be doing magic tricks for a living is what makes me curious.

PS. Whats the big deal with the censorship that goes on ? Aren't we all magicians here anyways so it's not a big deal to mention certain magic maneuvers?

 

[TeeDee]

In my opinion it's fact that telepathy and clairvoyance does exist. Why someone with that skill would be doing magic tricks for a living is what makes me curious.

PS. Whats the big deal with the censorship that goes on ? Aren't we all magicians here anyways so it's not a big deal to mention certain magic maneuvers?

You've just illustrated one very good reason why exposure isn't allowed on the forums, and not encouraged by the magic community in general. It can reduce the magic-ness of magic. You believe in telepathy and clairvoyance (so do I, by the way, so please don't read any mockery into what I'm saying). Now, if someone went step by step through an effect which was apparently the result of genuine telepathy and explained how it was done, showing that it was just a clever trick, doesn't that serve to diminish the effect? If someone gets enjoyment and inspiration from their choice to believe that they witnessed telepathy, why should we be allowed to take that amazing gift from them just for the sake of showing how much we know on a forum?

Another reason not to expose magic here is that Peter Turner and other professional creators make a living from teaching their effects. Their product is information, and its value is directly proportional to its scarcity. In other words, by sharing the information freely on a public forum, you make the information less scarce and therefore less valuable. So, by exposing information online, you are reducing the value of their brand.

 

[EricShoff]

ah, yeah the scarcity of the information makes sense.

as for real magic or whatever, if I wanted to hold onto the fact that I thought a certain trick was truely magic, I wouldn't be looking up how to do it on a forum in the first place, so not sure that makes sense to me. No offense to you though, I can see what youre saying.

 

[TeeDee]

as for real magic or whatever, if I wanted to hold onto the fact that I thought a certain trick was truely magic, I wouldn't be looking up how to do it on a forum in the first place

Yes, that's you, but this forum is open and public. Anyone can read it. It's a slightly different case if you're having a private conversation.

 

[EricShoff]

so i'm trying to decide whether to buy Asi Wind's ACAAN (and possibly his chapter 1 book) or to get Peter Turner's mentalism DVD.

Does anyone know the specs on Peter Turners ACAAN? Is it "more magical" than Asi's? I've heard that on Peter Turner's I don't even need to use my cards, I can have a spectator use theres. If thats the case, I'd say Turner's is far more effective and practical.

 

[TeeDee]

I would say that to get the most out of Peter Turner's work you need to have a pretty strong grasp of mentalism basics and a fairly well-developed performance persona. If you don't, then I think you'll find some of his effects disappointing. His innovations are more in the realm of subtlety than method, relying on very delicately choreographed interactions with your participants, so you'll need to have a firm foundational knowledge in order to apply his thinking effectively.

With Asi Wind's ACAAN, on the other hand, you're buying a strong, practical method that you can practice on your own, in front of the mirror, and which you will still get good reactions from even if just presented as a trick.

 

[EricShoff]

thanks

I'm new to magic, especially mentalism, so if this is a stupid question forgive me. When I watch David Blaine's specials and see him ask someone to think of any card, and then he "knows" what card the person is thinking of without them saying what it is (assuming they aren't in on it for the show, of course) - is this an example of a "force", or is this more likely the intuitive side of mentalism? I'm trying to get a feel for what is actually possible here.

Also, I'm thinking of starting out with a Darren Brown book, any other recommendations? I've heard mixed reviews of 13 steps to mentalism, so i'm a bit shakey on how i feel about that one.

 

[TeeDee]

OK. If you really want to get into mentalism, then you will want to read 13 Steps, as well as Annemann's Practical Mental Effects and 202 Methods of Forcing. Knowledge of the principles in these books are usually considered as prerequisites for any serious mentalism. Even if you don't actually practice and perform any of the routines in them as written, they're an essential stepping stone.

How can you ask someone to think of a card and then know what they're thinking of? Well, there are many methods in these books to achieve that. Are they more mechanical and less psychological than you might like? Absolutely, but these are the principles that you need to understand before you move on to the more arcane and esoteric branches of mentalism.

Derren Brown, Peter Turner, David Blaine, and anyone else you've seen who does good mentalism will have read and absorbed the lessons from Corinda and Annemann, so you might as well too.

Out of interest, which Derren Brown book were you thinking of starting with? And what have people said about 13 Steps that's put you off it?

 

[IsaacHaber]

Many of those "mixed reviews" are from people who are new to mentalism. Ask any experienced mentalist and every single one will tell you to get 13 steps (keep in mind that I am NOT an experienced mentalist. I'm a magician who got interested in mentalism and is still trying to figure out how to combine the two). I got 13 steps a little while ago because I listened to what my betters said on forums and bought that instead of a DVD if fewer principle and skills. I haven't even come close to getting through 13 steps but I can tell that it was a really good investment. You need the building blocks and 13 steps has them.

On another note, TeeDee was saying that 13 steps methods are more mechanical and less psychological. That is true but there is nothing wrong with that. Sure it may not look as clean on camera but for real world performances you can certainly get the same results if your presentations and fitting and convincing. One routine on jinxed uses a mechanical method rather than a psychological method but having watched Peter perform solely psychological routines and compered to this one that didn't use a psychological method, they felt and came off the same way (I hope that made sense).

-Isaac