"Improvements"

[greg]

I change a few moves on this trick i was wondering what you think of the trick now.

the author is david stone"

New version.
1.the riffle force i replace for the clasic force.(why cause it look more like a free choice)
3.i replease a cut with the flip over move.(another move that is use in the ambitious card routine why i chosse this on because withou the cut the trick

ok here is my script for this trick.

Please can you pick a card...ok be sure to remenber your card.give your card back.them i say it goes into the middle in a casual way them i snap my finguers and deal the first card in to the espectator hand or the table them i say flip over that card(this is no they card)them i say i know what happen your card is being shy she only needs a litle cover and i put the card in between the espectator hands
them i do a few magic gestures and them i say open your hands and the card changes int othere card the nexct thing i do is ask for the card back put it on the middle of the deck disapear the deck leavind any four of a kind depends on which card the espectator chosees.

remenber this script does no include jokes or reactions that me and the espectators may say

 

[Sergey]

That's exposure big time!

 

[greg]

That's exposure big time!

no is not you need the david stone dvd to know what tricks is because i dont say the name of the trick you need the video to see the performance

 

[Aris.SA]

thats **** I think.. the move that u dont know the ''false put in'' is the marlo tilt...

 

[greg]

thats ghost I think.. the move that u dont know the ''false put in'' is the marlo tilt...

oh thanks can you please take the name of the trick out so people dont start wit hthe eposure thing

 

[Toby]

Too late lol

 

[CDarklock]

People have already started with the exposure thing. You've described the effect and how to achieve it; the name of the trick is not necessary.

I'd suggest you remove the list of how it's done to begin with, and simply assume people know how it works:

"When performing TRICK NAME by CREATOR NAME, I leave out MOVE A so the trick looks moveless; then I use MOVE B instead of MOVE C. Then I use this patter: SCRIPT. What do you think of this?"

The patter only describes the effect, which is just fine, and your modifications alone are insufficient to perform the trick. Thus, zero risk of exposure.

I'm not familiar with this trick, but it sounds like you're doing a pretty good job of adapting tricks to your own preferences, which is one of the steps on the critical path to inventing your own stuff from scratch.

Note that replacing one force with another can almost always be done, so IMO it doesn't really count as a modification of the trick. A great many tricks begin with "control the spectator's card to the bottom of the deck" - whether you force it or not, and what method you use to get the card into that location, is part of your foundation. As your repertoire grows, you'll end up with a series of initial setups and a series of final reveals, and you'll have a collection of those where there's a way to get from any setup to any reveal.

Being a software architecture guy means I tend to view magic - like many other things - as a nondeterministic finite state automaton. Yeah, I'm a geek. What of it?

 

[greg]

People have already started with the exposure thing. You've described the effect and how to achieve it; the name of the trick is not necessary.

I'd suggest you remove the list of how it's done to begin with, and simply assume people know how it works:

"When performing TRICK NAME by CREATOR NAME, I leave out MOVE A so the trick looks moveless; then I use MOVE B instead of MOVE C. Then I use this patter: SCRIPT. What do you think of this?"

The patter only describes the effect, which is just fine, and your modifications alone are insufficient to perform the trick. Thus, zero risk of exposure.

I'm not familiar with this trick, but it sounds like you're doing a pretty good job of adapting tricks to your own preferences, which is one of the steps on the critical path to inventing your own stuff from scratch.

Note that replacing one force with another can almost always be done, so IMO it doesn't really count as a modification of the trick. A great many tricks begin with "control the spectator's card to the bottom of the deck" - whether you force it or not, and what method you use to get the card into that location, is part of your foundation. As your repertoire grows, you'll end up with a series of initial setups and a series of final reveals, and you'll have a collection of those where there's a way to get from any setup to any reveal.

Being a software architecture guy means I tend to view magic - like many other things - as a nondeterministic finite state automaton. Yeah, I'm a geek. What of it?

now is better

 

[CDarklock]

Much better. And again, I like the changes you've made - looks like it would be pretty cool.

 

[greg]

Much better. And again, I like the changes you've made - looks like it would be pretty cool.

thanks....................