Through a layman's eyes, which looks fairer?

Were you a layman watching a magician, in which case would you deem a card best lost?

  • The card is returned to the middle and the deck is squared.

    Votes: 15 48.4%
  • The card is returned, the deck is squared then cut a few times.

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • The card is returned, the deck is squared, then shuffled.

    Votes: 14 45.2%

  • Total voters
    31
Sep 1, 2007
379
0
UK
This is a follow-up to my previous poll regarding what people consider their "go-to control" for situations when a card should appear lost but is actually needed at the top.

My question now requires that you try to think, for a moment, from the perspective of a layman. Really think about this. Maybe you could even ask a layman friend their opinion?

Joe
 
Sep 2, 2007
1,182
118
28
Houston, TX
I think it is fair, and I like to have them place the card onto the bottom half of the pack. I place the top half of the pack onto the bottom, look into their eyes and start talking. The cards are given a pass, and both hands drop to my side. This is all done in pretty quick succession...my hands are only together for a short moment before they drop to my sides
 
Feb 17, 2010
194
0
Moscow, Russia
If you perform magic, each of those three options should look fair. But if you position yourself like a cardman, none of those are applicable. But that's just my opinion.
 

RickEverhart

forum moderator / t11
Moderator
Sep 14, 2008
3,655
465
43
Louisville, OH
I actually voted for the last choice. If anyone has ever watched Lennart Green....he is a master at this. His uncertain (yeah right) handling and a little bit of added fumbling with the cards really sells to the spectator that the cards are in a mess and the selection is definitely lost.
 
Sep 1, 2007
379
0
UK
If you perform magic, each of those three options should look fair. But if you position yourself like a cardman, none of those are applicable. But that's just my opinion.

By this logic, it would be just as fair to an audience were the magician to hand them a card rather than letting them choose one themselves. After all, if it's magic, it's magic, right?

An audience never assumes you are doing magic. In order for them to experience magic, you must ensure that they can conceive of no reasonable explanation to something you did, and in the case of finding a selection, the less than can be known about the location of he selection prior to finding it, the stronger the magic.

Also, if you assume the actions ARE completely fair in each of the cases I have presented, in which case would the card be harder to find?

In the first instance, even with no breaks or anything, you no roughly where the card is in the deck. The audience knows roughly where the card is in the deck. In the second case, while it is not possible to know where in the deck the card is, it is clear that the cards have not been mixed much, so the cards the selection was placed with are still with the selection. In the final case, there is no knowing where the card is or what cards it is with. These are things which an audience can still understand even without making a concious effort to do so.

Of course, in some rare cases, it might be better for the audience to believe that a card is in the middle of the deck, for example, during an ACR; however, this is quite different to a card being lost, which is preferable in most routines.

Joe
 
Jan 12, 2010
64
0
I actually voted for the last choice. If anyone has ever watched Lennart Green....he is a master at this. His uncertain (yeah right) handling and a little bit of added fumbling with the cards really sells to the spectator that the cards are in a mess and the selection is definitely lost.
In case of Lennart Green, I definitely agree that the uncertain handlings make cutting and shuffling the fairest looking things in the world. However, if you don't add the uncertain handlings (and I wonder who in this forum actually performs with those) having the card lost in the deck without any cuts and shuffles really is the most fair. Still, all three would and should be fair enough from a laymen's point of view though.
 
Sep 1, 2007
379
0
UK
In case of Lennart Green, I definitely agree that the uncertain handlings make cutting and shuffling the fairest looking things in the world. However, if you don't add the uncertain handlings (and I wonder who in this forum actually performs with those) I bet that having the card lost in the deck without any cuts and shuffles really is the most fair. Still, all three would and should be fair enough from a laymen's point of view though.

Hi Mark. Out of interest, why do you feel it is fairer to not shuffle or cut the cards when trying to give the impression that you cannot know where the card is in the deck?

Cheers,

Joe
 
Jan 12, 2010
64
0
Hi Mark. Out of interest, why do you feel it is fairer to not shuffle or cut the cards when trying to give the impression that you cannot know where the card is in the deck?

Cheers,

Joe
When there is absolutely no possibility to have the card controlled due to the lack of any motion, I guess it's rather obvious. It has been confirmed by my hecklers and normal spectators guessing, the first poll option being the most succesful, the shuffling one comes second, and the cutting one third.
 
Sep 1, 2007
379
0
UK
When there is absolutely no possibility to have the card controlled due to the lack of any motion, I guess it's rather obvious. It has been confirmed by my hecklers and normal spectators guessing, the first poll option being the most succesful, the shuffling one comes second, and the cutting one third.

Have you mainly recieved such comments during an ACR, for example, where the card is supposed to be somehwere in the middle, rather than "lost"?

Also, logically speaking if a card could be deemed lost simply by having it returned to the center, then adding a shuffle should not make it possible that the card was controlled, as the original location of the card could ot be known. To suggest that the card could have been controlled during a shuffle, you would have to accept that it was not lost for the period where it had been returned no the pack and no further motions were made.

Often when I start to shuffle the deck after having a card returned, I get a funny look and comments such as "Wait... you're ACTUALLY shuffling it!?". People are surprised because they expect that I am going to dos omething tricky, and they think I will avoid having the deck shuffled otherwise I'd lose their card.

To me, avoiding shuffling the deck in the cases where the card should be lost (rather than specifically in the middle) is a very "magiciany" way of thinking.

Joe
 
Nov 15, 2007
1,108
2
33
Raleigh, NC
Inserted, shuffled, and cut by the spectator. That would be the fairest to a laymen. Wouldn't hurt if your back was turned.

As for those options, it depends on the trick. Like you said 'somewhere in the middle' is perfect for ACR's and other routines, but completely lost is better for others.
 
Jan 12, 2010
64
0
Okay, I get it now. Sure it depends on the trick but the first option would be the way to go in most situations I find myself, maybe having the spectators shuffle the deck or asking them if they would like that (as they often decline that offer).

In 'Card To Any Number' effects, shuffles may as well be required. In 'Card to any place outside of the deck' effects, they could help but aren't required. In 'ACR's, 'Sandwich' effects, and such, I definitely don't recommend shuffles or cuts at all.

So I guess it depends on the value of the word "lost" here. If you give it a value you gave it yourself in the replies, then I guess the first option isn't really an option. When having it based on what I do the most because of the kind of effects I perform in which I want the spectators to be sure the card is somewhere in the middle of the deck, it'd be the first option.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oct 16, 2010
67
0
Blacksburg, VA
I usually have the spectator place the card back somewhere near the center and just do an overhand shuffle control. It looks natural and it practically is natural.

-Jarrod
 
Mar 6, 2008
1,483
3
A Land Down Under
It all depends on the context of the effect. However cutting is far and away the least fair in my opinion.

The real best method is palming the card and let them go nuts.
 
Nov 27, 2009
456
3
I had a friend of mine answer. He's only been a magician for a few months, so he is more familiar with the "layman's eyes" than I. He said the last one.
 
Jan 8, 2010
968
5
A shuffle will always be more convincing that it is "lost". Without a shuffle, anyone can see and guess where it was inserted and that makes it less convincing that it's "lost".
 
Searching...
{[{ searchResultsCount }]} Results