My Version of The Biddle Trick

Sep 3, 2007
2,562
0
Europe
Honestly, I don't think your comment has any merit without some examples of what needed work, what was sloppy, what you caught. Just saying "it needs some work" doesn't hold any water with me.
 
Sep 1, 2007
1,356
2
Los Angeles, California
The concept is pretty neat, though I do agree it was not original. But you miss the WHOLE POINT of this trick. I will not reveal but I think you will know what I mean. This is suppose to be 100% IMPROMPTU and that is the whole beauty of this trick.
The only thing you should work up on is your spread... it should be big and nice not small or puny as you did in your performance.

Personally, I would just go with the original handling or something else that does not require what you have done in your variation.

And I give you props for actually talking.
 
Sep 3, 2007
2,562
0
Europe
Yes, I know what you're talking about when you say impromptu, but let's just say my deck is ALWAYS set up for something like this, so I don't necessarily have to worry about it. And the Classic Force does not allow a big and nice spread, or I would have a big and nice spread. ;)
 
Jan 6, 2008
355
0
54
Seattle
www.darklock.com
I like it. Good performance.

Keep in mind that on camera, the classic force doesn't impose anything on your spread. You can just do a massive ribbon or fan, and the "spectator" always gets exactly the card you want.
 
Sep 3, 2007
2,562
0
Europe
Touche'. But I wanted to portray it as if someone was actually there. But I do agree completely, and if I refilm it when I get my new camera, I'll be sure to keep that in mind.

By the way, assuming someone on here knows for a fact this is not original, can you point me in the direction of finding the "original" handing of this variation? Thanks.
 
Aug 31, 2007
263
0
Mmm.. meh. I don't like it. Not much of a variation at all, besides the handling of the trick. Keep trying though, it's good that you're thinking of different ways to do an effect.

Peace.

- harapan. magic!
 
Jan 27, 2008
202
0
MMmmm.

I don't really like the fact that you need to prepare the deck for this effect (if you know what I mean) and your variation doesn't make up for that drawback. Plus, I think it's a lot more difficult (in comparison) than it needs to be.

I could've created that same illusion that you did with performing the original versions of that effect.

HOWEVER, you did make that "estimation" seem logical and most people don't make it logical. That I'm glad you understood. You also did make the effect look more visual then the original variations, as, the jack of face up and on that 5-card pack and YOU made it disappear, which, I must admit, fooled me on the first look.

Over all, I don't see this to be a practical variation of the Biddle effect.

Take care.

..:Z:..
 
Adjones, you want constructive feedback, and you'll get it.

The tent vanish version was brillant, loved it, need some bit of tweaking to be perfect though. Other than that, here ya go:

I personally can't say that "you destroyed the trick" by making it demand a setup, because this is a taste for each performer, you're magic, you decide if you will take the effort to do the setup or not. I personally do use a version with the same setup ( way different version however .. )

Now, first of all, the spreading of the cards at first. Even though you plan to do a move, the spread could be more elegant. Don't be sooo *tight* about it, its true that it makes the move easier, but in practice you really can make the spread larger than that. Here's a tip: Move the right hand away and in towards the deck, spread em up forming a large spread then a smaller one, don't make it fixed like that. Check Card College for more info, as it has alot of helpful tips on this paticular move.

"Its not on the top or bottom", this is usually said when you do a move which is not soo clean looking ( shuffling, wierd looking move, or its done as a cover for a move ). Here, you push the card ultra-cleanly, if you're performing for laymen, this actually will make them suspect something. Its enough that they don't know that we can control cards invisibly, let alone pushing a card cleanly and instantly showing it on top or bottom.

After you "estimate" and show the five cards, you're not doing the biddle move here, so there is no need to count them this way ( you count: "1,2,3,4,5, is your card one of these?" ). Use a cleaner way ( since you obviously want this to be as clean as possible ), just take them with the right hand and table the packet into the deck, spread the cards cleanly and just say " I cut to five cards, Is your selection one of these? excellent*.

After you show them that you managed to correctly *guess* their card, then instantly go into vanishing it, then making it appear in the deck, from my experience this is just too bizzare for them, that you have to *prepare them* that you are going to do something. A perfect line to say here is "well, you don't seem that impressed, lets try something else" or anything like that, you get the idea. This actually makes you one step ahead of them, making it very hard for them to re-construct the trick, because as far as they're concerned, you showed them TWO tricks, not one.

Instead of that version of Tent Vanish, you can actually palm off the bottom card and do a vanish, vanishing the jack visibly, this actually has the bonus that it makes you automaticly in postion to do the count, without any fiddling with the cards. Try it out, up to you to see which one to use. If you still want to go with the version as in the video, instead of transfering the cards in a fishy way, just spread em up, then cut em. You can do this without looking at the cards at all.

Of course, handing the deck to the spectator is far better than putting it down, but I think you already know that, haha.

Hope this helps man, this actually can kill laymen if done at a relaxed pace.

The way I see it, the original has the advatage of being anywhere any deck, and they can count the cards after you vanish the selection. Again, you're magic, select your favorite and perform whatever version you like. its not like you're a working pro who's looking for cares alot for his pocket space and setups .. etc ( or are you ? :p )

Hope this helps man, glad to see someone asking for help, and I hope you got it. Bare in mind that these are my opinions based on how my magic look like.
 
Sep 3, 2007
2,562
0
Europe
I agree with almost everything you said, and thanks a lot for taking the time to give me all those tips. I don't setting up the deck at all, and if I was ever just handed a deck and asked to perform the same effect, I would do the standard version. This is just the version I would like to use when I have the chance to use my own deck.

I've gotten a lot of crap about the spread, and honestly I don't care. They're picking a card... it doens't need to be anything special.


I think the best tip that you gave me was the count and that I don't need to do it that way... that didn't even cross my mind.

Again, this is very rough, and I'm still working out the kinks on it. Here in a couple of weeks... even months, maybe, I'll post another video to show you guys how it's going.

Z- I don't agree... the trick is hard for "newbs", but I already knew all the sleights involved, so I just threw them together and came up with a rough idea of how I wanted it to look.

But thanks for everyone's advice, and I'm keeping it all in mind as I work out the kinks!
 
Sep 3, 2007
2,562
0
Europe
Mmm.. meh. I don't like it. Not much of a variation at all, besides the handling of the trick. Keep trying though, it's good that you're thinking of different ways to do an effect.

Peace.

- harapan. magic!

No, it's not much of a variation... the premise is the same. The only thing that I set out to change was the Face Up vanish... that's it. That's also the only reason that I added so many sleights and made it so much more complicated. I'm sure eventually I'll refine it and it will be a lot better, but for now that's what I have.
 
Sep 1, 2007
662
2
I really didn't like it.

The premise of the trick - a card travelling from one location to another - has been realised in a variety of different ways already, and much of the published material is superior to the method that you propose. There are ways, other than the use of a duplicate, to create complete conviction in the minds of the spectators that their card is present moments before the vanish. My advice is to study some other people's attempts at this plot if you are interested in taking it further. John G in particular has some very interesting thoughts on this in the Brainstorm DVDs. Larry Jennings' Classic Magic has a trick called the Mystery Card, the thinking behind which can be adapted towards what you are thinking about.

Interestingly, the combination of the packets BEFORE you reveal the travel of the card makes a dupe redundant. I know what you're thinking - but if you've managed to convince an audience that the card has gone, why should they care what happens to the leftover cards? This would also be an interesting moment for a gambler's cop or a drop addition. Anyway, if you leave it in the packet face up (and hidden of course), combine the packets and do a pass, you could get the same effect impromptu. That gives you your face up vanish FASDIU. As I think has previously been mentioned, a big sticking point is that having to conceal an extra card actually results in the method taking a HUGE step backward - the beauty of the biddle trick is indeed the fact that you really do only have four cards left after the vanish. You would need to figure out how you wanted to address this problem too...

(a solution of course is to really only have four cards a la the biddle trick, with one of them being the selection. The vanish is done face up, and the selection is concealed with whatever false counts you like - elmsley etc.)

Keep on thinking!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sep 3, 2007
2,562
0
Europe
I like your idea of having the four cards at the end. Once again, I realize that there are better methods out there, that the original may or not be better... this is just something I came up with on my own and was messing around with.

Oh, the card in the packet isn't reversed in there... it's the same way as the other cards, so a Half Pass then another Pass would be necessary. I'm not comfortable with the Pass, nor do I like the idea of me spreading through the cards, although it could be accomplished fairly easily.

I appreciate your suggestions, and right now I'm taking all of them and refining the effect to see where it takes me. Thanks again!
 
Sep 1, 2007
662
2
Half pass is not necessary - you can end up with the card reversed through the actions of showing the 5 cards as 4. Briefly:

cards are held in a face up spread - the bottom card is a double, concealing the selection. Flip the top 3 cards face down and place them under the double. Flip the whole packet over, then remove the bottom card, turn it face up as well, and replace it on the bottom (ostensibly just re-iterating the point that you hold only four cards - interestingly, you get to handle each card as a single with this sequence, which helps you out somewhat). Now you have three face up X cards, face down selection, face up X card. If you flip everything face down again you can back spread to show 4 backs.

Another solution is this: same starting point, spread off the top three singles, flip them over and "place them under the remaining card" - when in actuality, you buckle the double and place them into the break. Now you can flip the remaining face up card over as a single card and you have got to the following situation - four face down X cards, face up selection. This leads nicely into:

To reveal the selection reversed in the deck, you could use the following sequence: Get a break under the bottom two cards of the packet (face up selection, face down X). Add these to the top of the deck as you pick it up and deposit the packet off to the side for a moment. Spread through the deck showing that nothing is out of the ordinary (block spread the top few cards to hide the face up card). Show the faces, breaking the spread in two in a casual gesture. Then reassemble the deck by placing the original top half underneath the original bottom half (i.e. CUT the deck, centralising the selection). Now hand it to them. You can do a 3 as 4 count with your packet, reassuring the astute ones that the situation has not changed. Pretend to pluck the card out of someone's ear (what a great opportunity for a bit of byplay - "an old fashioned magician might pull the card from behind your ear...I'm going to do one better - I'll make it invisible too!"), throw the card towards the deck that you've now handed to a spectator, and let them find it face up in the middle.

So there you have it, a solution which requires neither a pass nor a half pass. A cunning add on combined with a false count eliminates the need for palming or duplicates and you load the card into the centre of the deck whilst showing that nothing's happened yet, which is always an interesting time to do the dirty work. Incidentally, this concept is lifted straight from an Allan Ackerman trick (vanishing aces I believe) where it is done with a tabled ribbon spread - well worth a look (Las Vegas Kardma). The spectator still gets to find the card, and you have an interesting presentational angle to explore with the invisible card theme (from Paul Cummins' work on the same trick - check out FASDIU vol 1).

I know the description is long, but it doesn't take long to do - try it with cards in hand and you'll see what I mean. Moral of the story is that there is more than one way to skin a cat!
 
Sep 3, 2007
2,562
0
Europe
Wow... thanks a lot for taking the time to write all that! I actually came up with a way on my own to get it reversed into the pack, but I'm definitely going to try yours, too. Thanks again, I appreciate it!
 
Sep 1, 2007
662
2
Here's a presentational angle unique to the situation we're discussing - namely having all 5 cards there. The problem with the Biddle Trick and its varations is that it's difficult to justify the mechanics. Sure the effect does alright, but there's a lot of weak lines - "I've only been practising for a short while so I get 5 tries"..."I'm pretty sure this one is yours"...is all kind of meh. You have the opportunity to make more out of the revelation seeing as you actually HAVE the card in the packet. Here's one thought:

Mix the 5 cards, making sure the selection ends up on the bottom. Tell the spectator that they will find their own card (the justification now is that because THEY are going to find the card, you're going to give them a 1 in 5 chance instead of the regular 1 in 52...premise is a beautiful thing). Indicate the bottom of the packet as being card number one, and the top as being card number 5. Place the bottom card into glide position (actually side glide is my preference but hey). Let's say they name 3. Pull out the card immediately above the selection, turn it face up and count it as one. Repeat for 2. Pull out selection and leave it face down for 3 and do 4 and 5 in the same style. You are building suspense a la the "open prediction" plot - along with a hint of "card at any number"...your only issue is if they pick number 5 (the top card). Here I would go for a move from "Power Plays", which is essentially a covered side steal of the bottom card under the top card - very easy in a small packet like this one.

Food for thought - I have a presentational angle for the biddle trick (almost the original handling) that creates absolute conviction in the minds of the audience that their card is in the packet before it vanishes, and they never see the face. Presentation and patter can be far more powerful than complicated mechanics, plus the end result is easier on the old fingers. The more creative energy you spend on it, the better in my opinion.
 
Sep 3, 2007
2,562
0
Europe
Once again, a brilliant idea, and if you don't mind, I'm going to use it! You've been an immense help, and I'm really greatful for it. I'm gonna brainstorm a little bit and see what ideas I can come up with on my own. Thanks again!
 
Sep 1, 2007
662
2
No problem my friend, feel free. You may as well take full advantage of the situation you're working with!

I look forward to an update when you've had a chance to put it all together. As an aside, this discussion has benefitted me also - I've been playing with refinements for the biddle trick for years (it always felt so darn unfinished!|) and thinking about your problem gave me a couple of insights into mine.
 
Sep 3, 2007
2,562
0
Europe
Awesome! It will probably be a few weeks before I get it to where I'm ready to show you guys again, but hopefully it will be a lot better... thanks a lot to your suggestions!
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results