The Open Selection Firewall

Tuesday, I explained why Open Selections can be so much more powerful than blind selections. Today I want to talk about their biggest weakness—and how to keep that weakness from undermining the effect.

If I show a non-magician a poker hand and tell them, “Think of any card,” and then name the card they’re thinking of, here’s what happens. First, there’s a brief moment of surprise. But then, if you ask how they think it was done, they’ll frequently say something like, “Does everyone pick that card?”

It’s an insane idea. Does everyone pick the 4 of Spades? What world would we live in where that might be the case?

But when people are confronted with something they can't explain, they don't necessarily come up with a good explanation. They come up with an explanation that's good enough to let them stop thinking about it. And "everyone picks that card" often does the job. As does the related idea that you somehow steered them toward that card with something you said or did.

If the premise of the effect is a genuinely free choice, then we need to eliminate this escape hatch from the spectator’s mind.

What we need is something I'm calling an Open Selection Firewall—a bit of scripting that prevents the spectator from explaining away their choice after the revelation.

How Not to Do It

Here are some things I believe you shouldn’t say before an open selection if your goal is to emphasize the freedom and unpredictability of their choice.

The problem with most of these is that they introduce some criterion for making the choice. And once you've introduced a criterion, you've given the spectator a reason to believe their choice wasn't entirely free.

1. "Don't pick the obvious one."

You're now directing them toward an unusual choice. If you predict it, they can reasonably suspect you were steering them away from the obvious choices.

2. "Pick something completely random."

People aren't particularly good at consciously generating randomness. They may still interpret this as guiding them toward particular “random seeming” options.

3. "Go with your first instinct."

This is almost the opposite of what you want. It makes the "everyone picks that" explanation especially appealing.

4. "Change your mind three times."

Changing their mind is fine, but specifying an exact number turns the process into a procedure controlled by you. It’s better to allow them to reconsider as often or as little as they like. (Again, unless you're trying to establish that you're controlling their thoughts.)

How To Do It

Here is the long version I use. I don’t always go into this much detail, but this is the fully fleshed-out idea. Then I’ll give you a shorter version.

At the end of this, you might think, “Well, I guess everyone picks that one,” or “You must have influenced me to choose that.” So I want you to give your mind as much freedom as possible in arriving at your choice.

Consider all the possibilities. The obvious ones and the less obvious ones. The ones that appeal to you and the ones that don't. Don't try to be predictable or unpredictable. Don't try to make a clever choice or a random choice. Just give everything equal consideration.

Then let a few possibilities come to the front of your mind. Move between them a little. And eventually, for no particular reason, settle on one. Even then, you can change your mind again if you want.

The important thing is that you arrive at a choice that even you couldn't have known, a few moments ago, you were going to make.

The purpose of this is to frame the selection as fully unpredictable and free from influence. There are a lot of words there, but they amount to nothing. What I mean by that is that they can’t point to anything you said as steering them toward or away from any particular choice. Consider everything, we’re telling them. A few possibilities will stand out (based on no stated criteria). And from those, you’ll settle on one. And you can keep it or change your mind from there.

I’m a big believer in slowing down in your effects at the moment of selection. So I have no issue with using the longer version as written above.

If you need something shorter that hits on the same ideas, use this:

“Consider all the possibilities, not just the obvious ones or the ones that appeal to you, and let a few come to the front of your mind. Move between them, settle on one for no particular reason, and change your mind again if you like, so you end up somewhere even you couldn't have predicted.”

The longer version is a lot of words to get someone to make a simple choice. But the words aren't really for the choice. They're for what happens afterward. You're not just trying to make the choice feel free while they're making it. You're trying to make it still feel free after you've demonstrated that you knew what it would be.

Independent Blind Selections

I have two follow-ups to yesterday’s post on how to strengthen open selections. One today and one tomorrow.

To be clear, an open selection is when the spectator freely chooses the actual object they end up with. The important distinction is this: A free choice somewhere in the process isn't necessarily a free choice of the outcome.

In Blox, the person has a free choice of when to stop the LEGO randomizer. But they don’t have a free choice of the LEGO pieces themselves.

In a touch force, the person has a free choice of which back of a card to touch, but not a free choice of which card they’ll end up with.

With DFB, the person freely names a number, but they don’t freely name the item on the list they want.

So an open selection has to be a free choice of the end result.

The one weakness of open selections—and I’ll delve deeper into this tomorrow—is that they introduce the possibility of psychological influence. If someone consciously chooses an object, perhaps you knew what they’d be drawn to. Or perhaps you somehow influenced them to choose it.

That’s fine if that’s your premise, but if not, it can undermine the impact of the trick.

One approach to this issue that works is to turn the choice into a blind selection.

But didn’t you just say yesterday that blind selections were inherently weaker?

Yes, but this is a very special type of blind selection.

Last night, one of my fellow testers reminded me of something we tested back in 2019.

We let people touch a card and then revealed that we had predicted it.

Then, for a different group, we allowed them to name any card they saw in the deck and revealed that we had predicted it.

The second group rated the version they saw as considerably more impossible than the first.

But there was a third group, too. And the selection we used with them scored even higher for impossibility.

We handed that group the deck. They examined it, shuffled it, spread through it, and removed any card face down. After they looked at it, they were also told they could exchange it for a different one if they wanted to. This was how the most highly rated card prediction effect began.

Yes, technically it’s a blind selection. But it’s a special type. It’s an independent blind selection. Everything happens in the spectator’s hands, and there’s no disconnect between their blind choice and the final object they end up with. Nothing gets translated. There’s no magician-controlled procedure. And therefore no obvious opportunity for deception.

Based on our testing, an independent blind selection with the opportunity to change the final object is likely the strongest form of selection in magic.

You can’t turn a typical blind selection into an independent blind selection. But you can often turn an open selection into an independent blind selection.

Instead of having them name any card, they get to choose one in their own hands.

Instead of having them freely name a country (“Oh, I bet everyone says France.”), they get to flip through an almanac and point to any one at random.

Instead of naming a two-digit number, they grab any product from their kitchen, point randomly at the barcode, and take the first two digits after their finger.

And, of course, after any of these, they have the chance to change their mind.

This isn’t always feasible with open selections (tomorrow’s post will give you another option when it isn’t), but when it is, you have a selection procedure that’s more than just a “free choice.”

It's a selection that doesn't feel like it could have been forced, because you weren't involved. And it doesn't feel like something you could have predicted psychologically, because they weren't making a conscious choice.

They can't blame you. They can't blame themselves. And when the prediction turns out to be correct, there’s no easy answer they can hide behind.

Blind vs. Open Selections

There are two recent releases I’ve really been enjoying performing, but I still haven’t found a way to push the reactions to the next level. I’m getting reactions in the 7 range, when I think the impossibility of these effects deserves something closer to a 9 or 10.

The first is Six Pro by Lloyd Barnes.

The other is Blox by David Jonathan.

[Note: For those unfamiliar with these tricks who can’t watch the videos right now, Six Pro is a lottery prediction effect where the spectator randomly selects numbers on a lottery website, and those numbers match a preprinted lottery ticket. Blox is a LEGO figure prediction where the spectator stops a website that randomly cycles through different heads, torsos, and legs, and the resulting figure matches a prediction made by the magician.]

I’m performing both pretty much as they’re explained in the instructions, so maybe I’m missing some element that could elevate the effects.

Any thoughts? —TD

I think you’re dealing with two strong effects that have pretty much the same two weaknesses.

The first is the involvement of the phone. Having the phone handle the selection process is going to put a ceiling on the reactions you can get. The non-tactile, non-physical nature of the selection is an inherent weakness of these types of effects. But it’s also a difficult one to get around. You’re not going to carry around a ping-pong ball hopper to generate lottery numbers or a box of LEGO pieces to assemble a random LEGO figure. The phone makes all of that incredibly convenient. But you're trading some of the impact of the trick for that convenience.

For the second weakness, I need to bring you back to something I wanted to tell you seven years ago.

---

From my post on August 28, 2019

So imagine this. I have a bag and in the bag are 100 slips of paper. On each piece of paper is a different animal. You pull out a slip of paper and it says, “Tiger.” I reveal my prediction and it reads, “Tiger.”

Okay, next scenario. There are 100 animal names on a list in front of you. I ask you to name any animal you see there. You say, “Tiger.” I open my prediction and it reads, “Tiger.”

Which is stronger?

I think most of us would agree that the second version is stronger, where the spectator is making a free (open) choice rather than the first one where the spectator is making a random (blind) selection.

Now let’s change the second scenario. Now they’re making a free choice between just two animals. Is that still more impressive than the random selection of 1 in 100 animals? Probably not.

So let’s start with that premise…

1 in 100 free choice vs 1 in 100 random selection
Free choice is more impressive.

1 in 2 free choice vs 1 in 100 random selection
Random selection is more impressive.

The question is, when do these cross over? How many objects need to be in play before the free choice is as impressive as the random selection? 50? 25? Even less?

We’ve been focus group testing this in multiple sessions all year and the results will be in the October X-Communication newsletter.

---

Now would be the point where I’d like to look back at what I wrote in that newsletter about the results of our testing on blind vs. open selections. And I would do that, except I just went back to find the article and discovered one small problem: I never wrote it.

Apparently, I’d intended to write it when I made that post, but then a month or two went by, and I forgot to write it for that newsletter. And looking back, I just always assumed I did because I’d written it half a dozen times in my mind while we were doing the testing.

Somewhere in the world, there’s a hard copy of the results from that testing, including feedback from the people who participated. But at this point, I have no idea where it is. And the people I reached out to who likely helped conduct those tests don’t know either.

Maybe I should be embarrassed by this. But I’ve convinced myself that part of the charm of this site—and my published work in general—is that you’re following along with an actual human being pursuing whatever happens to interest him at the moment, rather than someone working from a carefully planned editorial calendar. So the fact that I managed to forget to publish an entire article and not notice for seven years isn’t really a failure on my part. It's proof that I'm delivering exactly the kind of experience I want this site to provide. That’s what I’m going with.

But I do remember this: The impact of an open selection on the perceived impossibility of a trick was far greater than any of us expected, across every type of trick we tested.

Once an open selection reached somewhere around 15 or 20 options, it didn't seem to matter how many possibilities a blind selection had. None of them could beat the perceived impossibility of that relatively small free selection.

For example, if I had you freely select one of 20 names displayed in front of you, that would seem just as impossible as having you blindly select one of hundreds of names written on folded slips of paper.

Now, let’s look again at the two effects mentioned in the original question.

In Six Pro, you aren’t predicting someone’s consciously chosen lottery numbers. You’re predicting the random numbers they happen to poke out on the phone. I don’t currently own this, but it looks like Lloyd has built in some strong deceptions to help overcome that weakness, and it’s hard for me to imagine a much more impossible lottery prediction that uses a single, ungimmicked prediction that’s isolated from the start.

But even so, the reactions you can get are still going to be limited by the fact that you’re predicting blind, random selections rather than open, free choices.

The selection process in Blox feels even less like something the spectator has any control over. Essentially, it’s like telling someone to pull the arm on a slot machine and then saying, “Okay, you selected Lemon, Cherry, Watermelon.” No, they didn't. They pulled a lever. So predicting that outcome wouldn’t have much impact.

The strength of Blox is the novelty of the effect, not the selection procedure. No magician would bother doing the trick if it were a website where you “randomly” stopped on three characteristics of a playing card: color, suit, and value. And then you showed that you’d predicted the card. It’s the LEGO guy that makes it worthwhile.

You could always try adding other deceptive elements, such as having multiple people create LEGO figures and then using some kind of force to select the person who created the figure that matches your prediction. That could be a fun way to involve more people while further disguising the method.

But ultimately, this is just an inherent weakness of these types of effects. People will say, “Predictions just scream ‘force.’” Maybe. But I think that’s primarily true when you’re dealing with blind selections.

There are techniques you can use to make blind selections feel more open, and I’ll share some of those in the future (seven years from now, probably). But the important thing is to recognize the difference between blind and open selections so you can have a mix of both in your repertoire.

And keep in mind that a 7 out of 10 reaction isn’t a waste of anyone’s time. That’s still good! Don’t get caught up in judging a trick against some nonexistent ideal. “I want to do a trick where they hold a lottery ticket from the beginning, and it matches their freely named lottery numbers, and there’s no electronics or secret printers.” Well, that’s not a thing.

Strive to make the 7 effect as enjoyable as possible rather than lamenting the fact that it isn’t some mythical 10.

Mailbag #187

I was just catching up on the live blogs from Magic Live 2026 […] one of the effects everyone seems to be jizzing about is 'Pass The Salt' which I believe is an Alakazam release. Is it me or am I the only one thinking 'When the fu*k will you perform this?'

Strolling - "Has anyone got a set of salt and pepper shakers ... no?.... OK,let me do a trick with these salt and pepper shakers I happen to be carrying"

Restaurant - "Let me do a trick with these salt and pepper shakers I happen to be carrying... unfortunately I cannot use the ones already on the table which you have probably used to season your lovely meal"

Do you see an issue ?—NB

I understand the jizzing. It’s a really strong, straightforward trick.

But I understand your concern as well. In most performing situations, carrying around your own salt and pepper shakers would be weird and/or redundant. You’re either performing somewhere that already has salt and pepper shakers, in which case, why did you bring your own? Or you’re performing somewhere that doesn’t have salt and pepper shakers, in which case, why did you bring them at all?

It’s going to take some fairly deft routining to avoid looking like a goofball who showed up with his own salt and pepper shakers. But I doubt most magicians are going to worry about that. The trade-off most magicians are happy to make is looking like a goofball, just so long as they can fool people.

The bigger question for me is… can they taste the “salt” that’s left in their hand? If I changed pepper to salt in a friend’s hand, I guarantee the first thing they’d do is stick a finger in it and taste it. I’m curious if that’s something you can do with Pass the Salt, or if they end up with a handful of asbestos or ketamine or something.

---

I’m wanting to upgrade to the iPhone Duo soon. But I don’t want to if the Jerx app won’t be optimized for it. It’s by far my most used magic app and Echo Sync has sealed more deals for me than any trick. I’m willing to carry around a second phone if necessary but if it’s going to updated to work with the Duo I would be thrilled. —SV

Yeah, what you’re going to need to do is solder your old phone to the iPhone Duo. (Essentially making an iPhone Trio.) Then you’ll be able to use all your magic apps on the one device.

Actually, Kerstein is already on this. He wrote this weekend:

I’ve gotten myself a (fancy) new iPhone Duo and realised the app needed a bit of work to support its bigger inner display and weirder outer one, so am working through making it all look better on there.

(This would have to be done sooner or later anyway - Apple are insisting that any app that’s updated from April 2027 or so *must* support the iPhone Duo..!)

I’m also making it look much better for iOS 26/27 on all devices at the same time too - the fake Notes, Safari and Camera UIs are now all updated and look much more accurate.

So there you go. The one thing you don’t have to worry about when buying one of Marc’s apps is if it’s going to be maintained.

The rest of your magic apps may end up being a clusterfuck on the Duo, but the Jerx app and others from Marc should be good.

---

You’ve given your thoughts on the perfect card trick to teach a layman in the Almanac.

But what if the person wants to become a magician, or is a beginner magician who doesn’t know any card magic yet?

I’ve found myself mentoring someone. What is a good trick to teach someone just starting out?—CB

I wouldn’t start by teaching them one particular trick. I’d start by teaching them three different types of tricks.

1. A basic sleight-of-hand trick using a double lift. (E.g., a two-card transposition.)

2. A relativley strong self-working trick. (E.g., Collusion by John Bannon.)

3. A dead-simple mentalism effect that relies more on presentation than method. (E.g., a key-card effect or peek where you “read their mind.”)

These three will give me a sense of what excites them about magic. Do they enjoy the challenge of learning sleights and performing straightforward card effects? Do they prefer clever methods that allow them to accomplish something amazing without a lot of technical work? Or are they less interested in methods altogether and more drawn to the performative aspects of magic?

Another reason for starting with a double lift is to get a feel for their tolerance for shitty-looking sleights. Early on, I’d record them turning over a card. After teaching them the double lift and having them practice for a while, I’d ask them to compare their double lift to how they originally turned over a single card. It doesn’t need to be identical, but it shouldn’t draw attention to itself by looking bizarre.

One of the biggest problems with magicians—beginners and people who have been doing this for decades—is their inability to recognize when their own technique looks like shit. This is a habit you want to beat out of them early on. “It doesn’t matter if they specifically know you’re turning over two cards as one. If they suspect anything weird is happening in that moment, your technique has failed.”

That’s the approach I’d take. But I have no idea how well it would work. I’ve never actually mentored someone who was seriously interested in performing magic. (I’ve been asked, but I always deflect. I just tell them, “Everything I know I learned from a blog called The Jerx. The guy’s a genius. Start there.”)

Dustings #154

This is your annual reminder not to buy any new magic for the next few weeks. You’ve got Black Friday coming up, and you don’t want to miss out on a deal just to get something a few weeks early. [The Jerx: Magic companies hate him.]

Yeah, I know magic companies don’t love me reminding you of this. But it’s just general good advice for all purchases around this time of year. I don’t even shower for the first few weeks of November in case the water company runs some kind of Black Friday deal. [The Jerx: His girlfriend hates him.]

Even if the product you’re interested in is older and unlikely to be discounted, it might count toward a spending threshold that gets you some freebies. (Or free bees if you’re ordering from Mann Lake Ltd., the #1 Choice of Professional Beekeepers.)

A note for magic companies: Consumers believe the minimum discount for what constitutes a “good deal” is 30%. [Source] That’s the minimum. I see companies post on The Magic Cafe with their 15% Black Friday discounts and seem confused when there’s no interest. That’s not a Black Friday deal. That’s a random Tuesday deal.

---

Help Wanted

In the 11+ years I’ve been doing this site and talking about products I’ve purchased here and in the review newsletter, I’ve never actually purchased any of those products myself. (It would be fairly easy to unravel my identity by looking at who bought what or signed up for which service.) Instead, I’ve always used proxies to buy stuff for me.

One of my proxies is going off the grid for a little while, so I’m looking for someone new to purchase things for me. It will mostly be digital products. And (obviously) I’ll pay for everything.

If you’re interested in helping out, send me an email.

[Update: Thanks for all the responses to this. I’m all set now. 🙏]

---

I was reading about the movie Deliverance the other day (I like to know as much as I can about what I’m masturbating to).

You know that scene where the hill-country kid is playing the banjo?

Well, it turns out he wasn’t really playing it. The actor had the right face for the part, but couldn’t play the banjo, so they had a kid who could play reach his arms through the sleeves and do the fingering.

This reminded me of Kevin James’s trick Instant Magician, where you (the actual magician) stand behind someone and reach your arms around them, performing the magic with your hands while they play the role of the magician.

And I thought, this provides a great bit of lead-in patter for Kevin’s trick. You tell the people about Deliverance and how the banjo kid didn’t really play the banjo. It was actually someone’s arms coming from behind him.

Then you say, “I thought this same technique could be used to make someone look like an equally dextrous yet vacant, inbred imbecile… a magician!”

Commercial Interruption

I picked up Ringo and Amazin Box from Trick Trick Go while I was at Magic Live. Figured I’d lean into this whole vibe of magic that’s funny and cute but still totally impossible. Ideally I’d construct a repertoire around that type of material.

The reactions haven’t lined up with what I expected, though. I thought sprinkling in some humor would dial down the whole “look how clever I am” energy and just let people enjoy the moment. Instead, folks seem a little more closed off if anything.

Do you have thoughts on these tricks—or this style of stuff in general—for casual magic?—EM

There’s a counterintuitive concept behind your question.

We often talk about “commercial” magic. Tricks with a clear premise, built-in entertainment, and a reliable payoff. They’re made for real-world performing: walkaround, table-hopping, corporate shows.

Combining Ringo and Amazin Box looks like an incredibly commercial routine. You borrow a ring and then drop it into a small clear bag filled with other rings (which you also theoretically borrowed). Their ring then appears inside a tiny Amazon package. Funny, cute, commercial magic.

The counterintuitive idea is this: The elements that make a trick commercial tend to weaken a trick in social settings.

Commercial magic is often so polished and self-contained that it can really only come off as a mini-performance. People can laugh, react, and participate, but they can also sense that the whole thing has a predetermined course. Whatever they contribute, you’re still heading toward the same ending.

When you pull out your bag of rings and cute cardboard box, there’s no real way to play that off as anything other than a meticulously planned routine.

If, as you say, you find people more “closed off” with this type of material, that’s likely the reason. It’s not that they dislike what you’re doing. They’re just giving you space to do what is clearly a structured performance. You’ve shifted from hanging out together to putting on a little show, and they’ve shifted into audience mode. From your side, that can feel like they’ve pulled back.

If you want to incorporate routines like this in an amateur setting, I recommend the approach I laid out in Rehearsal as Presentation.

“I’m working on something I might perform at [whatever event]. Can I try it out on you?”

Now there’s a reason you have a bag of rings and a tiny Amazon box ready to go. The routine is still a routine, but the interaction around it has a purpose: they’re helping you work on something. That gives them a role beyond just being your audience.

What Would Diane Freeling Do?

For me, probably the hardest part of a magic presentation is reacting to something I’m supposedly not responsible for. What I mean is, if I’m doing a Spectator as Magician plot, or I’m demonstrating some “strange object” I found, it’s difficult for me to respond in a way that’s congruent with that premise. It’s so much easier to perform in a magician-centric style. Something impossible happens, you give a slightly smug nod and a wink. “Pretty cool, huh?” Your job is done.

I’m not an actor and have no real skill in that area. And I would guess reacting with genuine awe, amazement, or confusion is one of the more difficult things for an actor to do. You usually just end up with something like this.

But I’m trying to get better at it.

If someone separates the deck into red and black, purely on instinct, and your response is, “Hey, good job,” you’ve made it so easy for them to completely dismiss it as “just a trick.”

But if you can show genuine confusion and shock—maybe you suggest they cheated somehow—and finally you just express amazement, then you’re going to have them really chewing on what the nature of the experience was.

In an attempt to get better at expressing amazement, I remembered a technique a podcaster once talked about. He said he watched stand-up comedy before every social situation he put himself in. He said it put him in the right mindset and boosted his energy.

I thought maybe I could try something similar, but with awe and amazement rather than humor. I’m not great at producing those reactions on demand. But maybe I could borrow the energy of someone who is.

One of my childhood crushes was JoBeth Williams in Poltergeist.

In early scenes in Poltergeist, she finds the house is doing some strange things. JoBeth’s reaction, as Diane Freeling, isn’t fear at this point. She goes from confusion to wonder to awe. By the time her husband returns from work, she’s almost drunk with delight.

A month ago, I watched this clip a few times, paying special attention to JoBeth’s performance as she encountered these unusual things. I decided to try running that scene in my head before showing people tricks, borrowing whichever part of her performance fit the situation. Her initial confusion turning to amazement when something strange first happens. The way she tries to calm her husband into a state where he might be willing to appreciate what he’s about to see at 2:30 in that clip. Or her joy when the weird thing actually “works.”

I’m not a naturally ebullient 33-year-old woman, so it’s not like I’m completely mimicking her. But it’s her energy filtered through my own.

Believe it or not, this has been wildly effective for me. My reactions are starting to better match the story I’m asking people to go along with. When someone separates a deck into red and black, or matches up ESP symbols, I’m having a far easier time seeming as amazed as I should be. When an “old ritual” actually works, I’m appropriately incredulous. When an object we’re focusing on across the room moves on its own, I’m as thrilled as the situation warrants.

It feels a little odd to me, because in real life I’m not someone who has big reactions to things that are strange or unusual. I’m almost pathologically even-keeled regardless of what happens. So it was hard for me to play certain emotions because they just don’t register with me much in real life. But by letting myself channel a character, I’ve found it much easier to access those reactions. And when I treat what happened as something worth being amazed by, the people I perform for seem much more willing to do the same.