Slightly Wrong = More Powerful?

[Maaz Hasan]

So I was messing around with some prediction ideas and thought of this:

If I was making it look like a genuine prediction, wouldn't it be slightly stronger if I was a little off? If done right, I feel like you could pull it off as you mentally influencing them, or even a legit free prediction.

 

[DisasterTheory]

This is an aspect I use on the few occasions that I dabble with mentalism/prediction stuff. I generally rely on the law of statistics and play with that until I'm either right on the money or until it gives me a viable alternate out.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

Delivering a prediction is one of the more difficult things a performer can do.

Sometimes being slightly off is a good thing. Sometimes being spot on is a good thing. Sometimes pretending you're off but actually being spot on is good, too.

The important thing is to keep it consistent with the premise of the prediction and the persona of the performer.

 

[VagueTheory]

Luke Jermay mentions this in a few of his writings. I've tried it, but personally got ridiculed for it. Spectators would go, "Oh he was almost right, but he still messed up." Maybe it's the way I presented it or maybe it differs from spectator to spectator.

I personally make sure it's 100% correct now. If you were going for that Nostradamus character though, then the "off by a bit" presentation may suit you well.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

If you make it out to be this all knowing powerful god figure (which is what most magicians do) then yes, being off will be a problem. The situation there is that the performer is positioning himself above the audience, and the audience perceives the performance as a challenge. They are working from the idea that their job is to figure out methods and catch out the performer.

In short - in this situation, people are actively working from the idea that the performer is doing tricks.

A magician's job is to create the suspension of disbelief. A mentalist's job is to create belief.

That's pretty much the major distinction - whatever you're doing when it comes to mentalism seems like it could genuinely be real (And often is). So if you set it up so it looks like you're demonstrating a skill rather than simply trying to fool people, then getting close seems like an incredible accomplishment.

 

[Josh Burch]

The "too perfect theory" may apply here, although it is often misrepresented and I might be adding to that confusion.

There are times where getting something perfect communicates the method and that imperfection adds to the authenticity. There are times when you need to get the prediction right though.

I think a good balance in my repertoire is the a superhero routine I do. Throughout the routine I make a series of guesses, some are correct and some are not. By the end the prediction is spot on though. The imperfections give the audience a look at my process, the most common feedback I get from these performances is that I'm some how following body language. That's not the case but it's helpful to hide the method.

 

[RealityOne]

Let's say someone is wrote down the name Robert on a piece of paper and stuck it in their pocket. They are told to think of that person. You ask them "The person you are thinking of has a nickname or go by a shortened version of his name? They answer "yes." You say, "That is what I thought, I'm getting the sense that their name is Rob or Bob." That enhances the effect because you aren't revealing what they wrote down, but something beyond that (i.e. they don't go by Robert but like to be called Rob).

If they pick the 8 of Hearts and you tell them their card is 9 of Diamonds... not so much.

Another technique is to correct yourself before the reveal. if they are thinking of their zip code and it is 90210, you first write 60201 and then correct the 6 to a 9 ("I sense one of the numbers is backwards") and then switch the 01 to 10 (and that I've got something reversed). That would strengthen the effect because you show it is a process and that you are doing something further by sensing that your answer isn't exactly correct.

A better technique is using a more detailed reveal. Let's say they are thinking of having spaghetti and meatballs. You ask them to imagine the scene. You mention thatthere is a checkered red table cloth, a cheese shaker on the table, there is another bottle on the table... perhaps a Chainti?; the waiter has a sleight european accent.. You tell them that they pick up the menu and there is a lot of choices of fancy dishes, but they are going for something simple. Spaghetti with a meat sauce? Then you say "Wat no, you are imagining a huge bowl of spaghetti with meatballs the size of baseballs -- are you thinking of spaghetti and meatballs?" There are ways to fine tune your description - a simple "You're not thinking of one of those fancy restaurants, are you?" at the beginning can dictate whether you describe the local italian place or the fancy restaurant in the big city.

The "too perfect theory" may apply here, although it is often misrepresented and I might be adding to that confusion.

Don't go there... that's another thread altogether.

 

[Maaz Hasan]

What if it were more of a pure prediction effect?

E.g. let's say I use the advocate to get a regular named card in a blank deck. Let's now say that I hand then the blank deck with the card in it. If they named the 4 of hearts for example, and I am playing it off like a pure prediction effect, would it be possible to make it stronger by instead showing a 4 of diamonds?

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

It depends on what premise you're using/power you are claiming to be displaying.