Mail: It's Not a Black Card, Is It?

I wanted to react to an old post you recently referred to [This post on the verbal ploy of saying, “It’s not a black card, is it?” (or something similar) during a fishing sequence.]

I agree with what you say, but having seen a mentalist friend using the ploy with what seems like success to me, I was wondering if we couldn't think a bit further. 

Taking the example of what my friend does:

Situation 1:

- it's not a black card, is it?

- no

- no because you would've had more energy but here it was like a dull 'no'

Situation 2:

- it's not a black card, is it?

- yes

- yes as you have opened your eyes a little when I mentioned black

What my friend suspects is that the spectator thinks this: "he had elements pointing to the right direction, but not enough to be 100% sure, and that's why he asserted something in the form of a question."

Any thoughts? —DE

Yes. I appreciate your friend’s attempt to salvage this verbal gambit. And I think what he’s doing is better than just saying, “I knew it!” regardless of their response to the question.

But I still think it’s a bad, semi-transparent technique.

One that’s obvious enough to draw laughter…

I’m not saying this never works. I’m saying that leaving the spectator somewhat confused on what you’re saying and what you mean isn’t good technique. And this gambit is predicated on them not being 100% certain of what you’re saying.

Magicians think they’re being sneaky. They’re not. This stuff stands out to people.

Imagine you went to a used car dealership. “I saw your ad for the 2016 Jeep. Can I get a look at it?”

“Sure,” the used car salesman says. “Walk into this room and look through this slit in the wall. The Jeep is on the other side of the wall. You can look at it through the slit.”

Would you say, “Oh, okay. Thanks. I’ll just look through this slit then.” Or would you wonder what the used car salesman was trying to hide from you? Why can’t you just go and look at the car by standing right next to it?

When you’re showing someone a piece of magic or mind-reading, you are trusted less than a used car salesman. If you say or do something that’s confusing to people, they’re not going to see that as innocent, and they’re not going to interpret that as a “hit.” We need to strive for apparent clarity with what we say and do. People are on the lookout for anything else.

But if you think this technique actually does work well, I suggest ramping it up a bit like this. It allows you to accurately determine any one of 52 cards. Have them think of a card and then say:

"Would it not be considered unfair to never state that the card you might not be thinking of isn't not lacking a red color? And isn't the suit not dissimilar to the suit that it wouldn't be if it were not opposite to a heart, is that not inaccurate? And if I am not incorrect in my presumption, the value isn't not an 8, isn't it?"

Now, if they say they’re thinking of the Jack of Clubs, you reply: “Just as I said!”