The Magician Online

The Magician Online is a live, interactive, online experience - in the comfort of your own home. Starring Dan White. As seen by Ashton Kutcher, Ariana Grande, Chris Rock, James Corden, Jessica Alba, and President Clinton.

See details

Nick Ganesh | Sandwich?

CaseyRudd

Director of Operations
Team member
Jun 5, 2009
3,195
3,301
Charleston, SC
www.instagram.com
k i win.


nice unblocked vulgarity. we got a cool kid here

wow dude, you obviously havent read my last few posts, this proves you're ignorant. God, you need help. I said a PART of it in my first post you numnut. Have some common sense.

And nick, it'd be better with some patter, cause I don't get the shrinking half of the trick.
 
Sep 1, 2007
1,241
1
And nick, it'd be better with some patter, cause I don't get the shrinking half of the trick.

please god tell me your kidding...

Your arguing is pathetic. Are you 7? I thought the whole "I am clearly in the wrong but I don't want to admit it so I'll curse this guy out" strategy was for toddlers. You have no idea what your talking about, you don't know your stuff, and your a theory11yearold who needs to grow up. Maybe spend less time on maydey and spend more time learning magic. ya dun goofed
 

CaseyRudd

Director of Operations
Team member
Jun 5, 2009
3,195
3,301
Charleston, SC
www.instagram.com
please god tell me your kidding...

Your arguing is pathetic. Are you 7? I thought the whole "I am clearly in the wrong but I don't want to admit it so I'll curse this guy out" strategy was for toddlers. You have no idea what your talking about, you don't know your stuff, and your a theory11yearold who needs to grow up. Maybe spend less time on maydey and spend more time learning magic. ya dun goofed

I am not in the wrong. You're clearly doing the same thing because you're calling me out again. I'm not caving into your game. And why bring Maydey into this? Just because you don't like Josh doesn't mean you have to single out his company and his business. What a 2 year old move there. I spend more of my time reading and performing than watching DVDs. The books are where all of the goodies are at and maybe you should actually get out there and perform, rather than sitting on your lazy ass playing with your cards and talking like a 5 year old. You have some growing up to do kid. I said a PART of Compression, which essentially is correct. Nothing is wrong, I admitted that I didn't know much about the history of the inflated deck principle. I admitted my mistake, so why are you continuing this argument?

Enough said.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apr 20, 2010
286
0
I am not in the wrong. You're clearly doing the same thing because you're calling me out again. I'm not caving into your game. And why bring Maydey into this? Just because you don't like Josh doesn't mean you have to single out his company and his business. What a 2 year old move there. I spend more of my time reading and performing than watching DVDs. The books are where all of the goodies are at and maybe you should actually get out there and perform, rather than sitting on your lazy ass playing with your cards and talking like a 5 year old. You have some growing up to do kid. I said a PART of Compression, which essentially is correct. Nothing is wrong, I admitted that I didn't know much about the history of the inflated deck principle. I admitted my mistake, so why are you continuing this argument?

Enough said. Close the thread mods. This is going nowhere
I won't have you guys degrade an awesome trick for such a dumb argument. Then you have the nerve to tell the mods to close it? If you stopped bickering OR took it to PM, this would not be a problem!

Nick, you handle your double lifts like a champion. You do the back-and-forth like it's no-one's business. To clear this whole argument out, where did you learn your shrinking deck effect? I'm not doing it for purposes of entertaining the other posters, but genuinely interested and want to perform it.
 
Nov 15, 2007
1,106
2
34
Raleigh, NC
It seemed short, more like one phase and not an entire sandwich routine. If your patter draws it out more and explains things in between the actions then I guess it would make it better overall.

The deck compression was done brilliantly, the back and forth jumping of the card was pretty sweet as well. I didn't read the thread, did you explain your patter anywhere? I'm just curious.

Overall the technique was flawless and the effect was visual. Not something I'd perform personally, but it looks great.


you don't know your stuff, and your a theory11yearold who needs to grow up.

I could care less about the argument, Theory11yearold made me laugh.
 
Jul 28, 2009
116
0
Okayyy.. To answer some questions,

Casey | I understand what your doing, but maybe a private message or something like that would be a better place to talk about it and I would not really like the thread to close down because I am just asking for legit feedback.

nIvan | I completely agree with you on the whole argument thing. Also thanks a lot for the feedback, i appreciate it.

Dejavu05 | Thanks for the input. Easily my favorite post so far. :)

RikAllen | Thanks for the feedback as well though I did talk about my patter in some past posts. I am still refining my presentation for this effects, so I just put it up to show the idea to people.

Note | I learned the deck compression thing from true astonishments disk two in a trick entitled chengs riser and I just applied the same inflated deck principle to this.
 
Jul 1, 2009
648
1
28
Austin,TX
Hey Nick that was pretty good! If you don't mind where did you learn that move where the card goes back and forth?

I love your videos but can you at least put some patter in your videos....I'm don't really understand why would you need to reduce the deck in size? Can you please explain

Great Job Nick!
 
The speed of your routine I would say is spot on and the visuals are nice but resembles other approaches with the sandwich plot that exist on the market already however bravo on your creativity.

Your presentation leaves me guessing as to what your motive is and what your trying to accomplish as if your moves are all thrown together but not in the right order. My suggestion to you is to organize your routine in another order where the routine makes sense and go from there.

I like where your going with this and I think it will be a solid routine once you tweak it up a little, props on the support!

Shane;)
 
Sep 1, 2007
109
0
CR, whether you said "Part of" or not, youre still wrong. Its like the equivalent of being like "Oh hey, that uses part of Chicago Opener!!!" just because it uses a double lift... Technically its not wrong, but its stupid and uneducated, and god knows if anyone ever said that they would get ripped on.

I don't know a lot about magic history so stop calling me out and stating false claims to make yourself look superior.[\quote] This makes no sense. I said you didnt know your magic history, and you agreed then told me I was making false claims. Well done sir, very impressive, way to understand how arguments work.

The k thx was made to show you how stupid this whole freaking argument was.. But feel free to take it otherwise.

And lets be honest, if anyones a whiny 12 year old here....


Now, Nick.

The trick looks sick on camera, but I fail to see how it actually adds anything to a sandwhich effect for laymen. Its very cool methodology wise, and it looks badass, but I'm just not sure it really adds anything to the effect itself, not to mention complicating the patter a little.

What I can see being done for patter here, which would make the effect make sense though, is to be talking about mirages and how something can look completely different from what it really is. That way you can talk about how it can look like its there, when in reality its not, but for fractions of seconds, our eyes seem to trick us. Talk about how magicians use this to their advantage so that the card looks like its in the deck, but isnt, etc.

Or, we can take it the other direction, which I believe Bill Goodwin uses, and talk about how it looks for a fraction of a second like its in between the aces, do what we see on video, and then do a vanish from in between the aces to prove it was never there at all... The do the move AGAIN (except that the selection is probably on top of the deck after the vanish) so we use a similar move to tivo to display that the card is still in the middle.

I think it looks great, but that there is for sure work to be done with this before its real world ready.

Cheers,
Lucas
 

CaseyRudd

Director of Operations
Team member
Jun 5, 2009
3,195
3,301
Charleston, SC
www.instagram.com
CR, whether you said "Part of" or not, youre still wrong. Its like the equivalent of being like "Oh hey, that uses part of Chicago Opener!!!" just because it uses a double lift... Technically its not wrong, but its stupid and uneducated, and god knows if anyone ever said that they would get ripped on.

I don't know a lot about magic history so stop calling me out and stating false claims to make yourself look superior.[\quote] This makes no sense. I said you didnt know your magic history, and you agreed then told me I was making false claims. Well done sir, very impressive, way to understand how arguments work.

The k thx was made to show you how stupid this whole freaking argument was.. But feel free to take it otherwise.

And lets be honest, if anyones a whiny 12 year old here....


Now, Nick.

The trick looks sick on camera, but I fail to see how it actually adds anything to a sandwhich effect for laymen. Its very cool methodology wise, and it looks badass, but I'm just not sure it really adds anything to the effect itself, not to mention complicating the patter a little.

What I can see being done for patter here, which would make the effect make sense though, is to be talking about mirages and how something can look completely different from what it really is. That way you can talk about how it can look like its there, when in reality its not, but for fractions of seconds, our eyes seem to trick us. Talk about how magicians use this to their advantage so that the card looks like its in the deck, but isnt, etc.

Or, we can take it the other direction, which I believe Bill Goodwin uses, and talk about how it looks for a fraction of a second like its in between the aces, do what we see on video, and then do a vanish from in between the aces to prove it was never there at all... The do the move AGAIN (except that the selection is probably on top of the deck after the vanish) so we use a similar move to tivo to display that the card is still in the middle.

I think it looks great, but that there is for sure work to be done with this before its real world ready.

Cheers,
Lucas

Lucas, at that part of my statement I was talking to Creeper. Not you. Sorry. Now lets stop talking about this and start talking about the awesome sandwich please!
 
Jul 28, 2009
116
0
Thanks guys for the feedback. I understand what you are saying lucas and the reason I did not add patter is for that exact reason, as I have not fully developed the presentation for the effect. I would possibly use duplicates and do the same effect or something along those lines. Just an idea.
 
Mar 1, 2010
163
0
Hong Kong
Thanks for clearing that up casey, yes its by dan white and dan hauss and it is completely impromptu and can be done with a shuffled and normal deck.

Really? I've no idea about that. I remember when i first saw David Blaine performs this, i thought that was gimmick. Btw, very nice sandwich;).
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results