Mailbag #76

How about this idea?

You have the spectator write down the name of a dead guy.

And 4 living people.

They each go in a different envelope.

You then place a deck of cards on top of each envelope.

5 envelopes/5 decks of cards.

And then one of the decks cuts to a card.

And that is the deck that is on top of the envelope that contains the name of the dead guy.

In this case the idea of a Haunted Deck is implied rather than said out loud, which I think makes it spookier. —JM

It’s a good idea, but maybe too much stuff required, for my taste.

I’d get rid of the envelopes and get rid of all of the decks but one. Have your friend write down the name of one dead person and four living. (The dead one is marked in some manner.) They’re mixed up and laid out on the table name-side down. The deck is placed near one of the names, you turn your back to the set-up for a few moments and then turn back around… nothing has happened.

Then it’s moved to the next name. You turn around. Again, nothing happens.

This is building up anticipation. What is it, exactly, that you’re expecting to happen?

Of course, on the third or fourth try, when you turn back around, the deck is now cut to the spectator’s selected card. And when you turn over the name, it’s revealed to be the dead person.

This would use one of the remote controlled haunted decks. The nice thing about this is that it would get the spectator touching the deck and moving it from name to name. So they’d be handling the deck a fair number of times, but not doing anything that would be likely to expose the gimmick. They’d just be picking up the deck and moving it to the next person’s name.

You might want to ask if they have a relative who has passed who was a regular card player. That would make the idea that we’re manifesting their presence through a deck of cards make a little more sense because it’s something they used regularly when they were alive..

Of course, you’d want to be careful who you perform this for and in what situation. If your friend’s mom died last week you don’t want to be like, “Hey, she played cards a lot, right?”

But I don’t think most people would be bothered if you invoke a card-playing great-uncle they once had for the purposes of some mildly spooky entertainment. But if you think the person you’re with might be bothered by that, you could always ask them to look up the name of a famous dead gambler or magician or whatever. That could be the name that’s written down.

And I wouldn’t frame it like a challenge, e.g., “I’m going to determine which one is the dead person!” Or even, “The deck of cards will determine which name is the dead person.” I would just suggest the other names are a way of making this ritual or this test/experiment extra fair. It lets us know we’re really making a spirit connection with the person we’re hoping to. Or something like that.

The original idea would work well in a more formal show. But for hanging out with a few friends, the multiple decks and envelopes might be too much.

---

I really enjoyed your blog on Iteration Testing Peek Wallets. Your observation that wallets are not something people tend to consider as gimmicked is validating of something I've long believed. 

[…]

I'm curious, have you found books to elicit suspicion of gimmicking? In a context where they belong my guess is, like wallets, they are less likely to raise suspicion than the other items that you mentioned. —BC

Unfortunately, a good number of people do intuitively guess the idea of a specially printed book. We’ve only tested book tests a couple of times, that I remember. And only once since we really nailed down our testing protocols. And while, “gimmicked book” was not the sort of thing that was suggested as frequently as “trick cards” for a card trick, it was something that was suggested with some regularity. (Of course they didn’t say, “gimmicked book.” They would just suggest there was maybe something unusual about the book.)

Obviously which book you’re using in your effect is going to make a difference with how suspect it is. Harry Potter will garner less suspicion, but it’s not completely above doubt. People “get” the idea of a specially printed book in a way they don’t get the concept of a specially constructed wallet. So you can’t just rely on them saying, “Oh, Harry Potter, I’ve heard of that. I’m sure it’s just a normal book.”

But at the same time you’re definitely better off using a book they’ve heard of rather than something like this goofball stuff.

As I once wrote about these books from the Flashback book test…

"Now I'm sure this trick is very clever and I'm sure a lot of thought went into it. Unfortunately though, you're expected to convince people you have psychic power by using the most totally bogus looking book I've ever seen. Check out the cover for "Band of Brokers," have you ever seen anything so completely shady in your life? That picture looks like it belongs on the cover of the "3M Corporation's Guide to Team Building and Diversity Training," or in an ad for an insurance company, "Our agents are waiting to handle your claim." The one thing it doesn't look like is the cover of any legitimate book published in the history of book publishing. "Stained Justice" is pretty shoddy as well. But "Band of Brokers" is so obviously phony it's amazing. That thing couldn't look more suspect if it had a bright pink cover and was titled ‘Gimmicked Magic Book’ by Fakey Authorton."

---

Help A Father Out

I received an email from supporter and new father, PG who asks:

So now in my new house I have space to practice magic, but with my new baby I have no time! I used to sit in front of the TV and practice getting into lateral palm or perpendicular control, or semi-relatedly on your advice the Giraffe switch. Now there's always a baby in at least one hand. Did I buy a used Rene Lavand book on Ebay? Yes! Do I have any time to read it? Definitely not.

What advice do you or your readers have for continuing to practice magic while juggling a tiny human?

Personally I have no advice, because I’ve successfully navigated through life without leaving any “little humans” in my wake. (As far as I know.)

So I’m asking any of the parents out there if they have any advice for this situation. It’s too late for my advice (pull out) but maybe some of you have some words of wisdom for a new dad on how to devote some time to his hobbies while not ignoring the kid. If so, send it to me and I’ll pass it along.

---

Help a Brother Out

This weekend I’ll be staying with some friends at a place that has a pool table. Do you have any pool table-based stunts, tricks, or bets that you’d recommend? If so, send me an email and let me know. Thanks!

Using Artificial Intelligence to Uncover Erdnase's True Identity

AI has been a common subject in my email recently. Mainly because of Wednesday’s post and also the popularity of ChatGPT, an AI that is optimized for dialogue that blew up online recently.

I think it’s good to check in from time to time and see how close AI is to taking over our creative endeavors. I was listening to someone on a podcast recently, and he said something like, “In the future, if you want to watch a new season of Cheers, you’ll just be able to ask AI to create it for you and you’ll be able to watch it instantly.”

I don’t really buy that. I think there’s some elements of the creative process that aren’t replicable by even the most advanced computing. But maybe I’m wrong.

I’ll keep an eye on things and let you know once or twice a year where AI stands on its abilities to create a magic trick.

---

With that in mind, here are some examples from ChatGPT that people have sent me this week…

First we have the response to this prompt:

“Explain an innovative new magic trick, done with everyday items.”

🤖 One possible way to perform a magic trick using everyday items is as follows:

1. First, gather a few items that you might find around the house, such as a pencil, a rubber band, and a coin.

2. Have the spectator choose one of the items, and then place it on the table.

3. Next, pick up the other two items, and place the rubber band around them so that they are tightly secured together.

4. Hold the items in your hand, and then ask the spectator to focus their attention on the chosen item on the table.

5. Slowly and carefully, use your other hand to lift the items (with the rubber band still attached) up and over the chosen item, making sure to keep the items hidden from view.

6. As you do this, you can use a simple misdirection technique to distract the spectator's attention away from what you are doing. For example, you could ask them a question, or make a comment about something else.

7. Once the items are lifted up and over the chosen item, quickly and smoothly remove the rubber band and release the items, allowing them to fall onto the table.

8. The spectator will be amazed to see that the chosen item has somehow disappeared, and the other two items are now lying on the table in its place!

This simple trick is a great way to entertain and surprise your friends, using only everyday items that you might have lying around the house. It's also a great way to practice your sleight of hand and misdirection skills. 🤖

I like how that had numbered steps. Like it was a very specific process you had to follow in order to do this magic trick which was just utter gibberish.

---

Is mentalism more your thing? Well how about this clever way to use your mental powers to reveal someone’s birthday.

Propless mentalism at it’s finest.

“Note, this trick will not work every time.”

Well, I’m going to have to disagree with you there, robot. Determining the month someone was born, and then the day, is actually a very efficient way to find out their birthday.

---

My conclusion is that magic creators are safe for the time being.

So far the trick ideas generated are either unworkable or not magic. You literally can’t do worse than that.

(Thanks to CF and JH for sharing these responses.)

---

Okay, but what about presentations as opposed to methodologies?

I tried to tease out some ideas from the AI in a few different ways.

First I asked:

What would be a good presentation to go along with the Ambitious Card magic trick?

🤖 A good presentation to go along with the ambitious card magic trick could involve telling a story or creating a narrative to engage the audience. For example, the magician could start by introducing themselves and explaining their passion for magic. They could then talk about the history of the ambitious card trick, highlighting its origins and the famous magicians who have performed it over the years.🤖

Yeah, no thanks. That’s some Ricky Jay shit that only he could make interesting.

So I tweaked the question:

What would be a good analogy to present along with the ambitious card magic trick?

🤖 A good analogy to present along with the ambitious card magic trick could be the analogy of a plant growing towards the sun. The magician could start by explaining that, just like a plant, the chosen card has an innate desire to rise and reach for the top. Despite the magician's attempts to keep it in place, the card will continue to strive for greatness and rise to the top of the deck.🤖

Okay, that’s still garbage. But not worse than many presentations for the Ambitious Card that you see magicians actully do.

Could I generate a Jerxian presentation for the Ambitious Card?

I asked:

How could I present the Ambitious Card magic trick in a way that it would feel like an emotionally affecting immersive experience for the person watching?

🤖To present the ambitious card magic trick in a way that it would feel like an emotionally affecting immersive experience for the person watching, you could focus on creating a personal connection with the audience and using the trick to tell a heartfelt story. For example, you could start by introducing yourself and explaining why you love magic. You could then talk about a specific time in your life when you felt like the chosen card, struggling to rise above your circumstances and reach for your goals.🤖

---

Then I considered an incredible short-cut to greatness. What if I just asked AI how a particular famous magician might present a trick (say, the Ambitious Card). Then I could just steal whatever it suggested.

So I asked:

How might Penn and Teller present the Ambitious Card magic trick?

🤖 Penn and Teller are well-known for their unique and entertaining approach to magic. If they were to present the ambitious card magic trick, they might approach it in a way that challenges the audience's expectations and subverts traditional magic conventions.

For example, Penn and Teller might start by explaining the rules of the trick and asking a member of the audience to choose a card. They might then perform the trick, but with a twist: instead of making the chosen card rise to the top of the deck, they might make it disappear entirely. This would surprise and intrigue the audience, and set the stage for the rest of the trick.

Next, Penn and Teller might reveal that the chosen card is actually inside a sealed box that was on stage the entire time. They might then open the box and show the audience the card, proving that it is not a trick and that the card really did disappear. This would add an element of mystery and suspense to the trick, and keep the audience guessing.

Finally, Penn and Teller might conclude the trick by revealing the true secret behind the ambitious card: the chosen card was actually a duplicate, and the real card was hidden in the box all along. This would surprise and delight the audience, and leave them with a sense of amazement and wonder. Overall, Penn and Teller's unique and playful approach to magic would make the ambitious card trick feel fresh and exciting. 🤖

Now, here’s where the AI really began to show it’s bullshit. I then asked how Criss Angel might perform the Ambitious Card, and it said.

🤖 Criss Angel is known for his high-energy, larger-than-life approach to magic. If he were to present the ambitious card magic trick, he might use his signature style to create a thrilling and impressive performance.

For example, Criss Angel might start by asking a member of the audience to choose a card. He might then perform the trick, but with a twist: instead of making the chosen card rise to the top of the deck, he might make it disappear entirely and then reappear in a different location. This would shock and awe the audience, and set the stage for the rest of the trick.

Next, Criss Angel might take the trick to the next level by performing the ambitious card in front of a live audience, in a public location like Times Square or the Las Vegas strip. He might also incorporate other elements of magic, such as levitation or mind reading, to add to the sense of wonder and amazement.

Finally, Criss Angel might conclude the trick by revealing the secret behind the ambitious card: the chosen card was actually a duplicate, and the real card was hidden in a secret location all along. This would surprise and delight the audience, and leave them with a sense of amazement and wonder. Overall, Criss Angel's energetic and dynamic style would make the ambitious card trick feel like a high-stakes performance and an unforgettable experience.🤖

This bitch is already out of ideas. It had one shitty idea for how Penn and Teller would perform it, and then it recycled the same dumb idea for Criss Angel. I’m not impressed.

---

I decided to try and get some definitive answers, because the creative stuff wasn’t working. So I asked who S.W. Erdnase’s real identity was and the chat app was like, “This can’t be known.”

So then I went to the art app and asked it to draw S.W. Erdnase and here were the results…

These are clearly four different people. So perhaps I needed a more direct prompt. So I asked instead for a portrait of the guy who wrote The Expert At The Card Table.

And finally, after 120 years, we have our answer.

Here’s what he looked like.

Mystery solved!

Case Study: Bottle

Let’s take a look at the trick Bottle by Michael Chatelain and see how we might approach it from the amateur’s perspective.

It’s a coin in bottle effect where the coin penetrates into a corked, squat, square bottle.

It looks good and it’s been getting generally positive reviews.

If there’s an inherent weakness in the effect, it’s that the coin is going into a bottle whose mouth is far larger than it needs to be for the coin to easily fit inside. Part of the “wonder” of coin in bottle isn’t just that the coin is outside the bottle and now inside, but that it’s a bottle the coin could not get in any other way than by magic. If someone walked in after the trick and saw the coin in the bottle, that would still be amazing on some level if the bottle’s neck is too small for the coin. With this bottle you don’t have that inherent impossibility.

But that’s not absolutely necessary for a successful coin through glass routine. I’m just pointing out that’s a feature that’s lacking from this version.

The other issue is, of course, you’re not grabbing a beer bottle from the bar and performing this. You’re bringing out your own personal jar. If you’re carrying around a special jar with you, you might as well fill it with your feces. At least then you’ll have a reason for carrying around the jar. And it won’t make you look any crazier than carrying around an empty jar. In fact, my mind would be put at ease a little bit if it was filled with shit. If someone just brings out an empty glass jar that they’re carrying around with them I would think, “This person’s crazy. I wonder what weird thing they’re doing with their shit?” At least if it was in the bottle I’d have my answer.

So for the amateur performer this really needs to be an at-home piece.

What kind of presentation would I use with this trick?

None. Well, none of any significance. You can’t hang too long a presentation on a fast and visual piece like this. This trick isn’t a long, seductive striptease. It’s the flash of a titty. You don’t want too much build-up for it.

If I was going to extend it in any way, I would do so at an earlier meeting with my intended spectator. I would take a glass and a quarter and say, “Tell me how this looks.” I’d slap the quarter against the glass but it wouldn’t go in. I’d maybe try again. “Ah… it’s not going to happen I don’t think. I was getting it last night for a little while. If you line it up right, it goes right through the glass.”

This plants the seed and it tantalizes with the explanation. “If you line it up right”? Line what up right? The atoms???

So, anyway, that’s really the only way I’d extend the trick.

But how else can we polish this up a little for the social performer?

I received an email from Craig W., with an idea…

I have started using this Chatelain coin through jar gimmick as an apparently jury-rigged incense burner full time.

I like that. It’s a good start. But can we put something in the jar to further justify it? What about matchbooks? That would give the jar a bit more purpose. You could even put little mini incense sticks in it. It would look like a little self-contained incense station.

So this is on your coffee table or end table.

You’re hanging out with a friend watching some tv, having dinner or whatever. “Oh, I want to try something. Do you have a quarter?” They give you one or you grab one from somewhere.

You pick up the glass you’ve been drinking out of and sip the last of the liquid from it.

“Okay, I’m going to try and push this quarter through… actually, no… this is too wet. Uhm….” You set the glass aside.

You notice your incense jar. You open the jar, and dump out the matchbooks.

“I’m going to try and make the coin go through the glass. Hmmm…actually….let’s do this…”

As a “spur of the moment” decision, you take the cork (remove the incense stick) and put it on the jar. You don’t have to explain this. Don’t be like, “I’ll do this to make it more impossible!” Let it speak for itself.

Give them a good look at the empty and sealed jar. You can’t rush this point. Once that’s soaked in, pick up the coin and penetrate it through the bottle.

Their first guess will be a slit or hole in the bottle (because a slit or hole in the cork would be more easily evident). Remove the cork. Tell them to cup their hands. Pour the coin in their hands. Then place the bottle in their hands as well. As you do those things, switch out the cork (maybe the examinable one is behind a pillow on your side of the couch). Then set the cork on the table too. Don’t bring too much attention to it. You don’t want them to remember a gap in time between you giving them the coin and bottle and you putting the cork down. If you say, “Here, look at this too.” You’re accentuating that gap.

That is, I think, a way to sand off as many rough edges of the trick as possible in order to present it in the most casual, spontaneous seeming way.

Retirement Planning Update

As regular readers know, my plan is to turn over the creation of this site, the monthly newsletter and the books to artificial intelligence as soon as possible.

So far the writing output produced by AI has been… less than impressive. The “tricks” it comes up with are steaming hot garbage. And the way it describes the tricks reads like shit.

AI art, on the other hand, seems to be significantly far ahead of AI writing.

Which has me thinking that perhaps I can ditch my long-time friend and creative collaborator, Stasia, who has illustrated all my books, and replace her with an AI robot artist.

Here are my initial tests.

I wanted to start out simple and see how AI would replicate this image from my third book.

I simplified it by just asking for an image of two hands holding a sheet of paper with 6 Post-Its on it.

I got this.

Okay, that’s literally the wrong number of hands and Post-Its. But it’s at least somewhat recognizable as hands and things that could be post-its. So I’ll consider that a win.

Next I tried to see if I could replicate this image from my second book. Here’s the original photo and Stasia’s illustration.

I asked AI for an image from behind of a girl holding a playing card in her outstretched hand. I got this.

I guess the concept of “outstretched” hasn’t reached the AI consciousness yet. And I’m pretty sure this girl has six fingers. Why are the fingers so often messed up in AI art? And why couldn’t they get the number of hands I asked for in the previous image correct? Getting the number of things correct seems like it would be the easiest part of an AI generated image.

Wait, I want to test something. I’m going to ask for an image of a guy with 8 fingers on his right hand. Let’s see what they give me.

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON??? Why can’t it handle this simple request? AI can generate the most surreal images, but not this? I don’t understand it.

Sadly, I just don’t think the AI does a great job at depicting what I’m trying to illustrate. Like, what do you think were the prompts that generated these images…

If you said, “a playing card sticking out of a toilet tank,” “a snowball with a D’lite stuck in it,” and “a tampon with a $5 bill wrapped around it.” You’d be right. You’d also be lying because there’s no way you thought that.

These concepts were all easily understood by my human artist.

So, sadly, it looks like I’m going to have to stick with a real human for the time being.

I guess we’re still some ways away from making this site and the various publications completely self-sustaining via AI. I’m hoping to turn everything over to the computers by next March (I want to have nothing on my plate so I can watch the NCAA tournament uninterrupted. Fingers crossed!)

Just to test one final thing, I asked the AI to generate a portrait of “Andy the writer of the Jerx blog.”

And it gave me this…

So flattering!!!

Christmas Magic

I received an email asking if I had any recommendations for Christmas tricks. Now, Christmas does offer a lot of opportunities to perform, and I do take advantage of those although I try not to push it too much. It really depends on if the situation calls for it. If a party is really cooking and you stop it to get everyone to pay attention to you, that’s pretty corny. But at a low-key get-together, or if I’m spending time with one or two other people, I’ll definitely take the opportunity show a trick if it will energize the interaction. That’s probably good performance advice generally. Is what you’re about to do going to liven things up or slow things down? If it’s the latter, maybe now’s not the time to break out your little miracle.

Even in the holiday season, I don’t necessarily do a ton of stuff that is specifically holiday themed, but here are some of my favorites that fall into that category..

Probably my favorite Christmas-y trick—and a reader favorite as well—is the Red Pinetree Gift Lottery from the JAMM #11. It’s a trick you do with a larger group of people where one person randomly wins a present in a “gift lottery” and that present is a gift that only they would want. Or, as I like to do it, it’s an artistic representation of themselves winning the gift lottery. So it’s a self referential gift. For instance, the first year I created this trick I performed a version where the “random winner” won a snow globe. And in that snow globe was a little scene… of them winning a snow globe. It was clearly them, down to the outfit they were wearing at that time. (You can get kits to make your own snow globe. I knew the person I was going to perform it on so I had it all ready to go besides the outfit. And I painted the clothes on her little figurine after she arrived at the house, but still hours before the performance. Later I assembled the snow globe and all was good to go.)

---

Another Christmas trick I like is my presentation for Hanson Chien’s Omamori, which takes the gimmick and turns it into Christmas ornament that can hang on your tree all season.

For those of you who were supporters a couple years ago, the full write-up of that trick is in The Wanderer newsletter. Volume 1, Issue 9. from December 2020.

---

I like Michel Huot’s Socks trick, but the Christmas version.

I cannot emphasize enough that the trick is vastly stronger when you perform it in the opposite way that Michel does. In other words, you perform the card matching part first, and then you perform the part where the socks they choose match the ones on your feet.

I go into greater detail about that in this post.

For the first half of the trick, I use a handling by John Bannon from his trick Poker Paradox which can be found on his Bullet Party DVD or in his book High Caliber. 16 sock cards are shuffled. You show they’re unpaired. Then they magically become paired up. For the second phase I add the rest of the cards into the mix, allow the spectator to shuffle, and the use the Liam Montier variation that’s included in the instructions.

So the first part is me doing the magic, and it has the feel of a card trick. The second part is all in the spectator’s hands and becomes something much cooler than “just a card trick.”

---

Michel Huot has another Christmas trick called D’Christmas Tree where you pluck the illumination from an individual bulb on a strand of Christmas lights. You can find it in the December 2007 of Genii magazine. You need the right kind of Christmas lights, but it’s a cool spontaneous seeming moment if you get the right situation. It

---

Finally, one I enjoy is Angelo Carbone’s The Gift, but wrap the box and put it under the tree. The fact that your accurate prediction is sealed in a wrapped gift makes it even stronger. It doesn’t have to be a card trick. (And for Christmas, it probably shouldn’t be.)

One thing I’ve done in the past is write a bunch of potential gifts on blank cards. One gift per card. Use a “cutting the aces” type sequence to force four of the cards. (Or any other forcing or equivoque handling to narrow it down to four cards.) Now they have a free choice of which of the remaining four gifts they would like the most. Let’s say the final present options are: a new laptop, a trip to Disneyland, a diamond bracelet, or an indoor sauna. The gifts don’t really need to be this expensive, I’m just using them as an example. For the trick to make sense, the final gifts all have to be of a similar value, and each has to be something the participant might want, and you should be prepared to get the person one of these gifts.

So let’s imagine I perform this for someone and narrow down dozens of different presents to four, and from those four they pick the laptop.

They open the box and inside is a slip that says:

Coupon for ONE FREE HUG!

I look through the other cards and pull one out and say, “I really thought you were going to end up with this one. The one for a free hug. Damn.”

Then the person notices, or I point out, the fine print on the coupon.

Terms and conditions apply. Good for one free hug during the calendar year 1/1/2023 to 12/31/2023. Hug must be platonic and no squeezing of my firm yet supple buttocks allowed. Oh, and yes, of course I’ll get you the laptop too.

Mailbag #75

On the topic of wallets I was looking at different no palm card to wallets. Was trying to avoid the huge Mullica looking ones. Came across fellow Canadian Shawn Farquhars wallet which is a no palm.

Unique thing is that you show the wallet empty, and then the card appears at the end. What do you think about this? Do you think that is more advantageous or deceptive? I’m a bit on the fence.

I thought it’d be fun to have a presentation with an invisible “pen pal” and have a little stamped envelope appear in the wallet or something.

Just appreciate your thoughts on wallets, and was curious to see what you think on this one. —AFC

I like your idea of an envelope appearing from your pen pal and it having the spectator’s card inside. That gives card to envelope in wallet some meaning besides, “I can make a card go to an envelope in my wallet.”

That said, as for this wallet, I don’t know that I could like it much less (with apologies to your countryman). You’ve got a wallet that opens horizontally and vertically, like no wallet I’ve ever seen. It’s almost confusing in the way it opens, which is not what you’re going for when doing something as common as opening a wallet. Now, perhaps such wallets exist. I’m just saying I’m a grown-ass adult and I’ve never seen a wallet like this.

I also don’t like that the card, when it does appear, is just kind of floating around in the wallet. It’s not in an a pocket or anything. Why would you magically make it go into the wallet if you weren’t going to make it go into the area where things go in the wallet? It would be like vanishing a hamster and saying it was going to appear in your car, and then instead of it appearing on one of the seats or in the trunk, it appears on top of a tire in the wheel-well.

But the most unforgivable thing about this is that the logo is a 3 with a spade symbol around it. You might as well have “Trick Magic Wallet” embossed on it.

As for the general idea of showing your wallet empty before showing the card in it, I think that could be an added moment of mystery in a CTW routine. But maybe not. Maybe it would just tell the spectator, “It’s really easy to get cards in this wallet without you seeing. I don’t really know, but in either case that moment isn’t really worth it for the negatives I see with this wallet.

---

Will you be picking up Three Skulls on a Spike by Andy Nyman? I love the look of the trick, but it’s a bit pricey for a 1 in 3 effect. What do you think? —PC

The key words you said were that you “liked the look.” If you think the price is worth it for an intriguing display piece that you can do something magical with, then I’d recommend you get it. If you’re looking for the most bang for your buck in a magic sense, then your $100+ is going to be better spent elsewhere. While a 1 in 3 effect like this can get a nice response, there is a ceiling to the impact it will have. I’ve had people disagree with me on this fact, but this is just basic understanding of the human mind. Obviously an effect that is just slightly less improbable than predicting a single coin flip isn’t going to have the potential impact of something considerably more improbable or impossible.

But it can still be a fascinating piece of art. And if anyone can wring the most entertainment of this type of effect, it would Andy Nyman.

I would say that if you’re not going to indulge in the weirdness of this prop in your presentation, it seems like it would be a waste of money. If you’re going to perform the prediction (or however you frame it) the same way you would with dice or coins or gumballs, it would make more sense to use one of the other variations of this effect.

I, however, will be picking this up. It will work well with the other tricks I do with fetal skulls.

Iteration Testing Peek Wallets

Here are some semi-disorganized random thoughts and conclusions I’ve come to so far, approximately 360 days into Iteration Testing peek wallets. Performing at least once every day and cycling through numerous variables in different combinations.

The biggest question with peek wallets is how you justify:

1. Having them write down the word.

2. You taking the word from them

3. You putting it in your wallet.

If you read me regularly, you know I want everything to feel logical. I don’t buy into the “you’re a magician so you can do whatever you want” mentality. I think the only way to get people to give themselves over to the experience in a way that will get them really caught up in it, is if things make sense to them (up until the moment of magic or mind-reading). I go into a trick assuming my spectator is bright and curious about what they’re seeing and the conditions surrounding what they’re seeing. So trust me when I say I resonate with the concern that people might question the need for them to write the word down and the actions of you putting it away in your wallet.

However, after performing this every day for a year, I’m beginning to believe it’s not that big of a concern. Well, I should say that I think there’s a very easy way to make this not a big concern.

Keep in mind that every piece of mind-reading has some sort of procedure. They flip through the book to find a word to think of. They choose a card to have a playing card to think of. They’re writing things down. They’re selecting something from a list. They’re telling you which of the lotto tickets have their number on them. Every mentalism effect has some element that would be unnecessary if you could genuinely read minds. But we still do all those other tricks.

And now I’m going to say something that I didn’t think I’d say before beginning this testing.

Having someone write down a word and putting that written word back in your wallet is one of the least questionable things we do when mind-reading.

The reason I say that is because the actions don’t really need to be a part of the “mind-reading” process. You can get them done early on. In fact, you should get them done before the subject of “mind-reading” comes up.

✿✿✿

If I say, “I’m going to read your mind. Think of any word. Write it down here. Give the card back to me. I’m going to put it in my wallet.”

Yes, of course, that’s dumb.

But it’s only the first sentence that’s dumb. Imagine this instead.

“I want to try something with you. I’d like you to write down a word for me. It can be anything. I’ll turn away. When you’re done, put it writing side down on the table.” They do and tell me they’re done. I say, “The writing-side is facing the table?” They say yes. I turn back around. “Good. I don’t want to see it just yet. I’ll put it back for now and we’ll get to it later if we need to.”

Now, there is nothing genius about that scripting. But it’s a good example of a generic introductory script for a mind-reading presentation.

“I want to try something with you.”

Notice what’s not said at this point? What’s not said is any talk about reading their mind. I’m not bringing it up, so they can’t question these actions at this point in the context of having their mind read.

What I’m going to show them hasn’t quite started yet. We are setting up the “mise en place.” We’re getting things in position and out of the way. This is the nice thing about using a peek wallet. This can all feel like “set up” for what’s about to come. Whereas if we have envelopes and billets or book tests or center tears. These are often in play at the exact moment we’re supposed to be focusing on the person’s mind.

“The writing-side is facing the table? Good. I don’t want to see it just yet.”

I’m establishing I don’t want to see the word just yet. This is mandatory. I’m gently telling them to be on guard that I don’t just take a peek at the information. You might think that you wouldn’t want to bring up the idea of you seeing the information because you don’t want to put that notion in their mind, but it’s the opposite. During the Iteration Testing participants have been 12 times more likely to suggest maybe I got a peek at the word when I put it in my wallet as being a possible method when I don’t mention that I don’t want to see the card.

You need to inform them what to take notice of.

“I’ll put it back for now and we’ll get to it later if we need to.”

This is some subtle justification at this point. Because they don’t know what’s about to come, this is not the time to overly justify your actions. The card is going “back” to my wallet. That’s where it came from, so it makes sense that’s where it goes back to.

“If we need to” is deftly doing a lot of work in that sentence. It suggests a rationale for why you put the card away (because there’s a good chance you don’t need it anymore). But it also justifies why the card exists in the first place… because it might be needed.

The wallet goes back in my pocket or in my bag. We’re getting it out of the way. The card is no longer the focus of attention.

Now is the point where I talk about what we’re going to do. Something like…

“Okay, so you have a word in your mind now. Wait… just to clarify… are you thinking of a word or a name?”

(It’s always good to ask a question like this at a point when you already know the word. It reinforces the idea that you’re still in the dark.)

“Okay, so there’s this technique I’ve been studying that will hopefully allow me to determine the word in your head.”

Here is where you discuss whatever the process is that’s going to allow you to read their mind. Don’t rush this part. If you write a word down, I put it in my wallet, and immediately tell you the word you’re thinking of, then of course the wallet part will be suspect, because that’s all that fucking happened. But if there’s some sort of process that takes place—and if it takes some time—then all the focus isn’t just on the card and the wallet.

✿✿✿

Now, here’s the cool thing about Iteration Testing. For the majority of the people I perform for, I have their feedback on how the experience was for them. Including a rating of how much they enjoyed it and how impossible it seemed. I literally just tell them that I’m working on a project and looking for feedback and people are happy to give it once I convince them I want their honest critiques.

So I have their ratings, but I also have all the variables I’m testing out coded in a spreadsheet. And I can isolate one of those variables and then compare all of the performances with that variable to all the ones without it. For example, of the 360 performances I’ve logged so far, in 40 of them, I’ve had the person put the card back into the wallet themselves. Now I can look at the scores for those 40 performances and compare them to the average score across all performances and get an idea of how changing that variable affects their enjoyment or their perception of the strength of the effect. This isn’t necessarily scientifically definitive, but it’s a good enough estimate for our purposes.

✿✿✿

One thing I’ve change my mind on is how much you should justify having them write down the word. I used to advise that you shouldn’t justify it at all unless they ask why they had to write down the word.

But I’ve since tested this with three levels of justification and come to a different conclusion.

The three levels of justification I’ve used are:

1. No justification - I never give a justification for why the word is written down, unless they ask for it.

2. Direct justification - Example: “Now, the reason I had you write down the word is to give your brain a focal point for both of us to zero in on. If I ask you, ‘What are you thinking?’ You’re going to have numerous conscious and unconscious thoughts at any given time. Trying to unravel all of that is not something I can even come close to doing. It’s probably not something anyone can really do. Mind-reading requires some level of organized thought. Just like normal reading does. If a book was just a pile of jumbled words, the message would never get through. But if you put those words in order, then you can communicate. Rather than wading through disorganized thoughts, writing the word down allows us to have you think directly of what you wrote.”

3. Casual justification - Example: “As we go through this process, your mind might wander. That’s okay. You want to treat this like meditation. When you sense your mind wandering from your original thought, I want you to bring it back to the word and see it written on that card in your mind. That’s what it’s there for, to give you a focal point.”

The highest ratings came with a casual justification. Not ignoring the written word, but not overly justifying it either. The difference wasn’t staggering, but it was statistically significant.

Now if I had to recommend something I would recommend a casual justification and then having a more direct one chambered if someone questions you about it.

✿✿✿

By the way… the worst rated justification? “I’m having you write it down so you can’t lie to me later on.” You can perhaps get away with that as a rationale when performing professionally or in a large group. But in small groups and one-on-one, it comes off as weird.

✿✿✿

Here’s something you might find reassuring. I’ve been involved with testing tricks in one fashion or another since 2005. When asked to suggest a potential method for tricks, people regularly guess trick cards, trick coins, trick rubber bands, trick pens, trick bottle caps, trick whatever.

But oddly enough, hardly anyone has suggested “trick wallet” as a possible solution for most of the peek wallets I’ve been using in this testing. It just doesn’t really come up. That’s a concept that seems to be completely foreign to most people.

The wallets only ever seem to draw suspicion when:

A) They look considerably different than a normal wallet

or

B) You have to go in a second time to get the peek.

Only in those cases did the wallet draw any significant amount of attention.

So if you have a wallet that looks normal-ish, and you don’t have to go back into it to get the peek, you don’t really need to worry much beyond that.

✿✿✿

I’m still about five months away from completing this testing. The full write-up with all the “highest scoring variables” will be in the next book.