How I Made $1000/Week Working 5 Minutes A Day: Part One

Two decades ago, I moved to New York City with a couple hundred dollars, no job, no place to live, and knowing no one in the area. I had one bag of clothing, a Discman and an 80 CD wallet. I had no computer, and obviously no smart phone. This was a challenging situation, but my attitude towards those types of situations has always been: “Eh… I’m sure I’ll figure something out.” The beauty of approaching life this way early on is that you realize you will just figure something out regardless of the situation. And that knowledge is hugely beneficial going forward in life.

I got off a Greyhound bus to the city in late November. Since it’s really really hard to get online with a Discman, I found an internet cafe, and looked for the cheapest housing I could find. That’s where I discovered the now defunct Hotel Riverview. Right on the edge of Manhattan in the West Village area, up against the Hudson River.

c682b1b5c84afa749fa1071103bb78af.jpg

At a time when the average price for a hotel room in NYC was about $275, the Hotel Riverview was a cool $24 a night. Bingo.

There was quite a bit of history to the hotel. It had once been used to house surviving crewmen from the Titanic. Built in 1908, it was originally the American Seamen's Friend Society Institute; intended to be a “temporary home for seamen in distress.”

Distressed and covered in semen was still an accurate description of the Hotel Riverview at the time I stayed there. A $24/night hotel in Manhattan is not a place where cost-conscious travelers stay. It’s a place where desperate people stay. Junkies, prostitutes, the criminally insane, and me.

My room was—and I’m not exaggerating here—4 feet by 6 feet. It held a bed and a little sliver of space next to the bed. There was a single, naked lightbulb dangling from the ceiling. For a few more dollars a week you could get a small TV on a rolling stand in your room. There was no cable. Just an antenna which would bring in nearly three whole channels.

Each floor had a communal bathroom. This wasn’t as bad as it sounds. Sure it was disgusting, but when you’re not eating much (as I wasn’t) you don’t have to go to the bathroom too often. And I usually had the facilities to myself. It turns out the other occupants of the building weren’t big on taking showers.

Although I stayed there through the winter, I never shut my window the whole time. The room was heated by a 4-inch diameter metal pipe at the foot of my bed, through which boiling water would run constantly. It wasn’t down near the floor. It was literally where my bare feet were at the end of the bed. So it was a fun game to try and not be scalded by it when laying in a bed in a room that isn’t as long as I am tall.

The blazing pipe created a balmy atmosphere in the room. So keeping the window open was a must. When it’s a moist 95 degrees in the room, and a crisp 10 degrees outside, and your window is open, you get a nice meteorological phenomenon where the two meet. Your own little personal weather-system. A tiny storm of charged air that is both hot and cold and—from what I can tell—really fucks up the reception on your antenna TV.

So things were not ideal. And it was made worse by the fact that there was a rule in place that you had to check out for one night every two weeks. So every thirteen days, in the dead of winter, I’d have to pack up my stuff and just wander the streets for a night until I could check back in the next day.

I figured to get an apartment it was going to run me somewhere between $2000 and $3000, in order to pay for first and last month’s rent and any sort of deposit or fees that might be involved.

I was doing some work through a temp agency. If I was lucky, I’d make about $55 a day, or $275/week. My room and food was around $35/day, or $245/week. So, if I was really tight with my money, I could just about save $30 a week. Which meant in a scant year and a half I’d be set up to get a place somewhere. Obviously that wasn’t a viable plan.

I probably could have asked my parents for a loan or harassed one of the people I’d met in the city to let me stay with them for a while, but that’s not really my nature.

One time my high school guidance counselor told me that my problem was that I liked getting backed into a corner. That I would allow myself to get into difficult situations so that I could try and get out of them. And there is probably some truth to that. But I don’t really see that as a problem. I honestly see that as one of the keys to a happy life. When you tell yourself, “I like challenges, struggle, and adversity,” those things are all off the table as a source of pain in your life. Not only that, but you will handle those situations much better than the person who laments, “Why me!?” all the time.

So there I was. No money, no job, no prospects, and no real marketable skills. Looking down the barrel of another couple years living a life of austerity in a room that was just bigger than a coffin, but no less depressing.

Faced with that reality, I knew I needed to come up with a money-making plan to get me out of this situation sooner. Just over a month later, I had $4000 in my pocket and was on my way to my own place in the city. The story of that plan will come next Sunday.

I realize this sounds like I’m setting up a story that begins with, “So I got me a chisel and went to work on constructing a glory hole.” But the plan I came up with was one that was completely legal, safe, and didn’t involve me doing anything sketchy at all. There was no sex or drugs involved. I didn’t get into any dangerous situations. No one got scammed. It required no special skills on my part. And there was no luck involved. And while the time element may be slightly exaggerated for the sake of the post title (there was some time spent planning and prepping throughout the day) the time I spent “working,” on the days I worked, was literally right around 5 minutes.

I will spill the details in a week.

The Juxe: AV Undercover Favorites

The Onion’s AV Club has had a youtube series for years now where artists come in and cover well-known songs. For some reason they deleted a lot of the older entries in this series from their official youtube channel. But here are some of my favorites that remain, or that I could track down on random youtube channels.

The Regrettes cover Fox On The Run (The Sweet)

Punch Brothers cover Reptilia (The Strokes)

They Might Be Giants cover Bills, Bills, Bills (Destiny’s Child)

The Big Moon covers Total Eclipse of the Heart (Bonnie Tyler) —(and a little bit of the Pixies’ Where Is My Mind)

Lake Street Dive covers Take On Me (A-ha)

Snap Judgments: Banderaction

With 40% of the vote, the winner of yesterday’s poll was Banderaction by Cyril Thomas. Pardon me, he worked hard for his title, Dr. Cyril Thomas.

My Feelings on Rubber Band Magic

Rubber band magic is the weakest of all the common branches of magic associated with a particular prop. I’m not saying rubber band tricks get bad reactions, I’m saying they have to be much stronger than other tricks to get the same reaction. For example, the trick I performed earlier tonight from Banderaction involved a rubber band jumping from my hand, onto the spectator’s hand, then back onto my hand, in a very visual, camera-trick esque type manner. It got a nice reaction. But if that had been a coin that rested on my hand and in a blink was on the spectator’s palm and then just as quickly was back on my hand, that would have garnered much stronger reactions.

Rubber band magic has these issues:

  1. There’s often something to see. Even if the spectator can’t see precisely what happened, they can likely get a sense—on some level— that there was some motion that occurred that they didn’t quite catch.

  2. There’s often something to hear. If you could erase the THWAP! of a rubber band whipping around into a new position, rubber band magic would be much stronger.

  3. People are quite familiar with the elastic properties of rubber bands. They’ve stretched them. They’ve let them snap back into place. This isn’t some hidden feature of rubber bands that magicians stumbled over.

  4. Money has meaning. Cell phones are ubiquitous. Playing cards are timeless. Doing magic with these items feels a little more natural than pulling out some rubber bands you just “happen to have with you.”

  5. It’s very hard (at least I’ve found it very hard) to build up a rubber band trick into anything other than a “Hey, check this out” type of moment.

In the past on this site I’ve talked about a spectator’s reaction progressing through three stages: Surprise, Astonishment, and then Mystery.

Rubber band magic tends to get a nice “Surprise” moment, but then the reactions fade quickly after that. I don’t find there to be a ton of resonance with rubber band magic in general. It looks like trick photography, but it doesn’t feel magical.

It may sound like I don’t like rubber band magic. That’s not the case. I like it. It’s just difficult to create really hard-hitting magic with an object that feels so arbitrary and where the method is based on properties of the object that spectators know about.

The Download

But let’s talk specifically about Banderaction.

Dr. Cyril Thomas is truly a genius when it comes to rubber band magic. Is that what his doctorate is in? Rubber band topology? Because his ability to figure out the geometry of the method behind these tricks is something I find astounding. It’s so far from the way my mind works. If you are into magic for the cleverness of the methods, then this is a download you should absolutely get.

I found his teaching to be very good. He goes through the steps of the set-up clearly and repeats them a couple of times. Unfortunately, there was one decision made in the production of this video that I found to be monumentally retarded and wildly frustrating. It may take 10 minutes for him to describe a particular effect. This is done over his shoulder with him breaking the move down into steps. That’s perfectly fine. But once you understand the steps, you want to see them done all in one action. And you want this to be easily found so you’re not scanning through 10 minutes of download to find that spot. Wisely, they decided to show the set-up for each effect briefly at the end of each explanation. Insanely, they decided to show this from the spectator’s point of view. Which is essentially a useless viewpoint for teaching magic—especially rubber band magic. So now instead of having one location in the video that I can go to in order to see the set-up in brief, I have to try and scan through, and find the pieces of the set-up and put them together while my fingers are trying to hold a rubber band in place that’s been doubled over a dozen times.

All magic teaching should be done from the performer’s view except for the parts where you want to show me what it looks like from the spectator’s perspective. Why we haven’t cracked this simple concept in 40 years of magic video instruction is beyond me.

Okay, moving on. The trick I decided to learn from this download is Quantum Paradox. A rubber band is wrapped around the palm of your hand. The spectator’s hand is placed next to yours. The band jumps onto their palm. Then it jumps back onto yours. You can see this at 1:55 in the trailer (and earlier in the trailer where it’s performed with a cell phone instead of someone’s hand).

My Experience

I ordered the download Thursday afternoon. I learned the basics of the trick in about 30 minutes and I was pretty comfortable with it with about another 45 minutes of practice.

The set-up for the effect is a little daunting. While you can do the set-up in front of people, it’s not going to look like just a casual stretching of the band, or something like that. You’re clearly doing something (if the person is looking).

I was able to perform this five times tonight. I would generally do the set-up as I was in conversation with someone. So—best case scenario—in their mind I was just absentmindedly stretching and twisting a rubber band I happened to have on my wrist. (And you do have to have multiple rubber bands on your wrist for all the effects on this download. (I think all of them.)) I would then bring attention to the band around my palm, take their hand and place it next to mine, and then have the band jump to their hand and then back mine.

Three out of the five times, it worked perfectly. A couple times the other person pulled their hand away when the rubber band appeared around their palm. And that sort of ends the trick there. This was my fault. I didn’t emphasize that they needed to hold completely still. And I didn’t emphasize that because I didn’t want to. The method requires their hand to remain still but I wanted to see if I could get away without actually saying that or holding their hand in place—just so they’d feel less controlled. But no, you can’t really get away with that.

The trick got the reaction I expected, which was a quick “Whoa!” when the rubber band went to their hand and another “Whoa!” when it went back to mine.

The reactions were good, but brief. I think it came across as a quick fun trick, but not too much more than that. This trick really didn’t have enough resonance for me. But as I said, that’s been my experience more or less with most rubber band magic.

A significant downside to the Quantum Paradox effect—and likely other effects on the download—is that, like many rubber band tricks, the moment of magic is over so quickly that people naturally want to see it again. But the set-up is so extensive that it can’t be executed invisibly if they’re paying attention. So the spectator will often feel caught off-guard by the magic moment and when they ask to see it again you have to refuse. This, of course, leaves them feeling like you were only able to fool them because you caught them off guard. Which isn’t really a satisfying feeling to leave them with.

Why is Crazy Man’s Handcuffs still such a classic of rubber band magic when we have more intricate methods and more visual effects like the ones on this download? It’s because CMH can be done slowly, it can be repeated with no set-up, and it doesn’t look like rubber bands simply snapping into new locations. I wish creators were keeping these benefits of CMH in mind when coming up with new effects, because as clever as the methods may be, they don’t always make for useful and usable rubber band tricks.

My Verdict

Does Banderaction get a bad reaction? No.

Does Banderaction get a bland reaction? No.

Does Banderaction cause dissatisfaction? No.

A sad erection? No!

This review has been as much about my feelings on rubber band magic as it has been on this particular product. The truth is, if you like rubber band magic, then you’ll like this. If you like clever methodology, then you’ll like this. If you’re happy with the response that you get from rubber band magic generally, then you will likely be happy with this as well.

I like the download and I think the thinking involved is worth the price, but I doubt anything from this download will crack my regular repertoire.

A number of effects on the download require a kind of “cozy” handling. There is so much going on with the band behind the hand, that angles can get a little sensitive. And occasionally there is so much tension in the band (when from the spectator’s perspective there shouldn’t be) that it looks a little unnatural. Due to those types of issues, this may be better suited for instagram than real life performances.

If you’re a big rubber band magic fan, I think there is some incredible thinking on here and you’ll enjoy this product despite the performance issues you might encounter.

If you’re just casually into band magic, I don’t think your “new favorite rubber band trick” is on here. But if you have the money to burn and you’re interested in checking out the intricacies of the methods, you’ll likely still find it worth your time.

Today's Post Will Be Late

If you’re one of those people who read this site on a schedule and come here soon after the 3AM posting time, you’re going to have to wait a bit for today’s post. I’m still writing it. My notion of buying, learning, performing, and then writing a review for a product over the course of 12 hours (with a party thrown in for good measure) may have been a little ambitious.

I’m still working on the post now and it should be up in a couple of hours.

Snap Judgments

Okay, I’m going to try something here to set up tomorrow’s post.

I don’t really do many reviews on the site itself. I save those for the newsletter. But tomorrow I’m going to share a review here. Of what product? I don’t know. Here’s how it’s going to work.

I’m going to give you an option of five different effects—recent releases that are available via instant download. You’ll vote on the one you’d most like to see reviewed. The voting will end at 3pm, New York time, today, Thursday the 10th.

When the voting ends, I’ll purchase the top vote-getter and learn it. If it turns out to be too difficult to learn in a couple hours, I’ll jump to the next trick on the list.

Tonight I’m attending a small get-together for a friend’s birthday. And while I’m there I’ll try to get in one (or more, if possible) performances of the trick.

Late tonight, when I get back, I’ll write up my review.

This idea might be a total flop. The trick might be no fun to perform. I might not have anything worthwhile to say about it. It might not fit in well with my style of performance.

But who gives a shit. It will be good for me to have one dud post after 1000+ straight bangers.

Below are your options. I haven’t really done any research on any of these. I just plucked some newer releases/bestsellers that seemed viable.

With the Band by Dan Harlan and David Jonathan

Banderaction by Cyril Thomas (there are multiple rubber band tricks, but of a similar nature. So I would just pick one to do.)

The Five Acts by Nicolas Pierri

Fright by Jeki Yoo

Spellebrity by Nikolas Mavresis

You can vote below for which one you’d like for me to try out.

Update: Voting Has Ended

Mending Socks

Did you ever end up working on the Michel Huot trick Socks? I know you mentioned it in a previous post, but I don’t believe you had it at the time. If you picked it up since then and have any thoughts, I’d like to hear them. It’s gone over well, but not great in my experience. —AJ

I don’t own this, but I see a fairly significant issue with the way it’s presented.

In every performance of this trick that I’ve seen, the construction of the effect is terrible. In the first phase, the spectator picks two cards with socks on them that match the socks you’re wearing. In the second phase you make all the sock cards match.

Nobody cares about the second phase.

Not only does nobody care about it, but it makes the first phase less impressive because it no longer feels like they plucked two random cards out of a mess of different cards. The feeling now is that you actually had more control over the cards than they originally thought.

So I wouldn’t bother with the second phase.

Or, if you’re going to do both phases, reverse them so the trick builds properly. First you have the “card trick” portion of the effect, followed by the socks matching in the real world. This makes much more sense than a match that happens in the real world, and then following it up with a little card trick.

Here’s the construction I’d use. You want the effect to build, but you also don’t want the sock revelation to be too far after the selection of the sock cards.

I would have the force sock cards in my breast pocket (the pocket that’s in front of my beautiful breast). I wouldn’t have them involved in the first phase.

I’d offer to demonstrate an incredible power I have. I’d show all the cards as non matching, then I’d explain:

“When I do laundry at home I don’t have to go to the trouble of matching up my socks. All I do is dump them in my sock drawer and wiggle my fingers.”

I’d then wiggle my fingers at the cards for an uncomfortably long period of time.

“That should do it,” I’d say. And then I’d show that now all the cards match.

Then I’d put the cards away in my pocket, on top of the force cards. After a few beats I’d say something like, “I can teach you how to do it too.”

I’d remove all the cards from my pocket, shuffle them up, and then force the two cards on the spectator in some manner.

“Let’s see if you found a matching pair.”

I’d show their chosen sock cards didn’t match.

“That’s okay, you haven’t done the matching wiggle yet.” And I’d have them wiggle their fingers at the cards. “Wiggling fingers” is as dull an Imp as snapping is, but in this case that’s part of the joke of the effect.

When she wiggles her finger I would continually criticize and correct her.

“No, not like that. Like this.”

Disgustedly: “What are you doing? Are you even paying attention to how I’m doing it?”

I’d slap her hands away. “Stop. You’re embarrassing yourself. Do it like I’m doing it.”

The joke being, of course, that there is no difference between the way we’re wiggling our fingers.

Eventually I’d say, “Okay, thats close enough.” Let her wiggle her fingers towards the cards. “Let’s see how you did.” I’d turn the cards over and show nothing had changed.

“Hey, I didn’t say it was easy. You just don’t have ‘it',’ I’m afraid.”

As I’m condescending to her, I would sort of shift in my seat a little and look down and “notice” something.

“Dammit… what did you do?” I’d ask. And reveal that—instead of causing the cards to match each other—her inexpert, indiscriminate wiggling has caused my socks to match the selected cards.

“Please, please, please,” I’d say. “Wiggle them back. I have a big business meeting later. I can’t go in with mismatched socks. They’ll laugh me out of the room.”

For me, this would be a much more fun way to play the trick. Having your prediction on your feet is good, but it’s also a little like, “Hey… aren’t I clever?” Whereas this presentation lets me play conceited and condescending as I preen over my incredible wiggling technique and sock-card matching skills. (Imagine the way Will Ferrell would do that part.) And then when my socks “change” in the real-world, it comes off as a magical punchline, rather than just a clever way to reveal a prediction.

Relatability

Here’s my pal, Mike Hanford, “getting in his head during a self-tape audition.”

What makes this funny isn’t necessarily the mistakes he’s making, but his frustration with his own mistakes. You don’t need to be an actor who has had to self-tape an audition to find it funny. Many people have been in a situation where they had to recite or repeat something and found themselves talking without thinking or getting lost in their heads. Or even if you’ve never had that particular situation, we can all relate to the frustration of continually messing up something that shouldn’t be difficult.

The impact of a piece of art or entertainment is predicated on our ability to relate to it.

Magic has a relatability issue. We try to make it look like we’re doing something that can’t be done (often something no one would ever care to do even if it could be done) and then we do our best to hide how we’re really doing it. They can’t relate to what we’re doing. They can’t relate to how we’re doing it. And often, they can’t relate to why anyone would bother doing it. To push past just fooling the audience and actually capture their imagination in some way, I think they need a performer they can empathize with, or at least some aspect of the performance they can identify with.

This is why, when I’m establishing my relationship with magic to others, the last thing I would want to be seen as is: The Magician with real powers. To me that’s a dead-end artistically and intellectually. Instead, I want them to see my relationship to magic as one of me as a student, a seeker, an enthusiast, a researcher, a historian, a collector. These are all roles they can relate to in some manner.

Similarly, when performing a trick, I very rarely want it to be a situation where the magic happens with a snap of the fingers. I usually want to approach it in some manner where the magical pay-off is strong, but we get there in a manner that the spectator can relate to. Consider the presentation I offered last week for Club Sandwich. The magic moments are the same, but they have a different feel to them because they’re more indirect. I performed it a couple times this weekend and the reactions were stronger than I had anticipated. And I think it was, in part, because when I’m sitting there smacking the deck against the table trying to get the trick to “work,” people could relate to that situation. Everyone has smacked their remote control against the palm of their hand trying to get it to work, or otherwise resorted to physical violence against an inanimate object as a last resort when it wasn’t functioning like they wanted it to.

If you find yourself with a trick that is fooling people but isn’t connecting with them, you may want to consider ways of making it less direct and instead more relatable. This isn’t the most intuitive way to approach things when trying to hone an effect. Usually we think, “How do I make the trick itself stronger?” But consider this: If a juggler is expertly juggling 10 balls to polite applause from the audience, it’s unlikely that adding an 11th ball is going to ramp up the response in any significant way. The truth is, audiences would rather watch someone fail and struggle and crack some jokes and fail again and finally overcome with three balls than watch them expertly juggle twelve balls without breaking a sweat.