"Outfoxed"

Mar 29, 2017
16
4
Is anyone familiar with Danny Archer's "Outfoxed" from his Working Alone video? It is a version of the original Paul Fox routine.
 
Mar 29, 2017
16
4
I'm not familiar with that routine
A routine in which the Magician Secretly discover the identity of cards "thought of" by one or more spectators. Packets are handed out to spectators who are asked to shuffle and think of one of the cards...the Magician begins telling the spectators which card they were thinking of...great trick!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Josh Burch

RealityOne

Elite Member
Nov 1, 2009
3,744
4,076
New Jersey
I'm familiar with the basic premise of the routine. I like a couple of variations like Jim Steinmeyer's Princess Caraboo Deck and Max Maven's Horse Sense. There actually is a routine in Modern Magic (1876) with the self-descriptive title "To Guess Four Cards Thought of by Different Persons." There is a whole book devoted to variations of the effect titled "The Impostress Princess" by Peter Tappan.

So why are you asking?
 
Mar 29, 2017
16
4
I'm familiar with the basic premise of the routine. I like a couple of variations like Jim Steinmeyer's Princess Caraboo Deck and Max Maven's Horse Sense. There actually is a routine in Modern Magic (1876) with the self-descriptive title "To Guess Four Cards Thought of by Different Persons." There is a whole book devoted to variations of the effect titled "The Impostress Princess" by Peter Tappan.

So why are you asking?
Thank you for your response...In Danny Archer's version he hands out 5 packets of cards from a blue deck to 5 individuals...then after they shuffled the packet and thought of one card...he begins reading off cards from a red deck and asks the spectator to stand if they hear their card. In his performance nobody stood until the final 10 cards were read off and then all 5 stood up. He then proceeded to name the card they were thinking of...whew...my question is this...If 1 person stood during the first stock of cards read off...WOULD YOU THEN NAME THEIR CARD...then if you read off the 2nd stock and 2 people stood...WOULD YOU THEN NAME THEIR CARDS? or do you just go through the whole red deck and just take note of which stock belonged to each spectator(s). Hope that explained it!
 

RealityOne

Elite Member
Nov 1, 2009
3,744
4,076
New Jersey
From a method standpoint (going from my memory), you don't have to wait. From a presentation standpoint, I'd have them stand and remain standing and then name all the cards at the end, in order (spectator's standing left to right) and have them sit down. It just looks more impressive that way -- it appears that you are discerning their cards out of the whole deck, not just out of 10 cards AND it tends to disguise the method.

If you are using a second deck, all you need to do is select the card you think is theirs and put it at the top of the deck or on a table. If you are using a single deck (cards handed out, selected, returned then shuffled and handed back to the performer), it will require a little bit of memory to do the reveal at the end.
 
Mar 29, 2017
16
4
From a method standpoint (going from my memory), you don't have to wait. From a presentation standpoint, I'd have them stand and remain standing and then name all the cards at the end, in order (spectator's standing left to right) and have them sit down. It just looks more impressive that way -- it appears that you are discerning their cards out of the whole deck, not just out of 10 cards AND it tends to disguise the method.

If you are using a second deck, all you need to do is select the card you think is theirs and put it at the top of the deck or on a table. If you are using a single deck (cards handed out, selected, returned then shuffled and handed back to the performer), it will require a little bit of memory to do the reveal at the end.
I agree that it appears that you are guessing their card from 52 rather than 10. The second deck in this performance is a matrix/grid so it is easier to remember which stock belonged to which spectator, Thanks for your help!
 
Mar 29, 2017
16
4
By any chance are you familiar with a sleight in where you have the bottom card face up on the bottom of the deck and you perform a sleight in which it appears that you shuffled the deck face up into face down...for the life of me I cannot remember the name of this move!
 
Mar 29, 2017
16
4
I actually figured it out...It is Optical Reversal by Tim Ky's (Not sure if last name is correct spelling)
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results