Overproof vs Fake a Slide

Discussion in 'Magic Forum' started by shiflix, Feb 22, 2018.

  1. Hi guys

    I have been doing magic for the past 6 month and I'm facing with this issue: When to Overproof and when to Fake a Slide.

    With Overproof a mean showing the spectator what are you not doing, somethign like:
    - Saying a double it's one card.
    - Saying the deck it's not marked.
    - Showing the card it's in the middle of the deck.
    This can happens if you are or aren't doing those things, you could be lying or telling the truth. The point it's saying those things.

    With Fake a Slide a mean acting like you are doing something but actually you'r not, something like:
    - Keeping the hand close as if you where palming a card but you aren't.
    - Moving the deck as if you are controlling a card but you aren't
    - Making a fast move to hide a move that never happened.
    You could do this to distract the audience to focus on something that isn't important or to deal with hecklers, but I don't know if it's a good thing to do.

    I hope I explain my point.
    What are you thought on this subject?
     
  2. Personally, I would say avoid both of these behaviors in general.

    Here's why -
    If you try to prove something that should be obvious, you'll only raise suspicion. Think about it - If I take a drink out of a bottle, then pause, and say to the audience, "Uh, this is water." Most people are going to think it's not water. I know this is true, because I use that as a bit in busking show.

    In magic this is called running when you're not being chased. Don't do it.

    When you try to tip a false method, all you succeed in doing, usually, is keeping the audience thinking about your methods. This can be used effectively, but it's not a simple task and most times it just makes the whole thing into a puzzle.
     
  3. Going to have to agree with ChristopherT,
    I would think faking a slide is something for trying to fool other magicians...

    But other than that, I fully agree on the not running when you're not being chased phrase. If there's one thing I learned from Eric Leclerc, and made sure to hammer it into my head, it's definitely that.♤
     
  4. Thank you Chris

    I get your point about avoid those behaviors in general, but in witch scenarios would you use it?
    Sometimes this thing can be archived in a more natural way, like just showing the deck to proof all cards are different or handling a double like it's only one card. What kind of this more smooth methods do you use?
     
  5. You're talking about different concepts here.

    "Proving" and "Over proving" are two very different things.

    So, quick example - Back when I used to busk, the card section of the show started with an Ace transposition trick, where they'd see the back of the cards in a spread. The second trick was "Chicago Opener", and I'd hand them the cards to go through and "pick your favorite card. Or just whatever feels good" as I turned my back.

    So at that point they've seen all the backs, they've seen the fronts, and they've handled the cards - they are absolutely sure these cards are completely normal and I've never once said anything about them being normal.

    That's "proving". If I were to specify that the card are normal, the backs are all the same, the fronts are all different, etc. - that's "Over proving" and it makes people suspicious.

    Handling a double like a single is just how that is supposed to work. That's just executing that method correctly.

    I can't imagine a scenario where I would be trying to hint at one (physical) method when I'm using a different one. It's just not how I perform. As @Sendmindsacrosseons said, that's generally done when one is trying to fool magicians - I don't perform for magicians, I perform for laymen. My material is entirely designed to work for laymen, and I do not care if I fool magicians.
     
  6. Thanks for the clarification @ChristopherT

    What i mean to handle the double as a single was a to do unusual things with the double and not just handling. I think this it's call a convincer, when you throw or spin the double as a flourish and proving it's one card.
     
  7. Yes, that is called a convincer. But why are you convincing them?

    It's easy for a magician to forget what "normal" is. Hand a deck to someone who plays cards semi-seriously. Not a professional poker player, but someone who has a game with his friends maybe once a week. Ask them to show you the top card, see how they move. Probably they'll push the card over with their thumb, take it with the other hand, and turn it over between the thumb and index finger. If you do that, people will assume you're showing one card - even if you're holding two.

    If you then make special efforts to prove it's one card, it will either leave them at the same level of convinced, or they will start to wonder why you're making such a fuss about it being one card - could it be because it's not one card?

    Direct, natural actions are what we should be striving for.
     
    Sendmindsacrosseons and shiflix like this.
  8. Imo.

    I would personally just avoid both. Just try and recreate the most natural action possible.

    Christopher is spot on.
     
    shiflix likes this.
  9. I agree with everything Christopher has said.

    I'll add a couple of different rules:

    Show rather than tell.

    Every action should have a justification.

    Every sleight should look like a natural action.

    The less you handle the cards, the more magical the result.
     

Share This Page

Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results