Cold Hands, Warm Heart

Coming in The JAMM #8

Cold Hands, Warm Heart

Once again the Sultan of Brunei is traveling through town and you've been asked to join him in a poker game. You and your crew have a high risk plan to put the odds in your favor but it involves switching in a deck of cards while the original deck is in the Sultan's possession. (He trusts no one and never lets the deck out of his control.)

You need your friend to stand in for the Sultan as you practice invisibly switching in your cold deck for the warm one he has in his possession.

This is not a real gambling move, but an almost self-working demonstration of a deck switch done under next-to-impossible conditions.

JAMM subscribers will get it in the issue coming out next week.

Building the Perfect Peek

There are two things that had a significant impact on the way I handle peek-based effects. The first was a series of focus-group tests we did on peeks. The second was showing people a well-known mentalist doing a center-tear where the information is glimpsed in the process of tearing the billet and having many of the people watching it say something like, "He looks at the word while he's tearing it."

Strip away everything you know about peeking and assume you're a layman. You're asked to write down a word (or draw a picture or whatever) and then hand that word/picture to the magician. You are never going to be more suspicious about what's happening than when you first hand that information to the performer. And yet, that is often when the peek occurs. 

Here are the precepts I follow when peeking information that I find work best in my performance situations.

1. Don't Peek When Their Guard Is Up

I'm sometimes amazed that the idea of peeking the word during the process of doing a center-tear took off the way it did. There may be real logistical reasons to do it like that—for the sake of pacing and getting it done quickly. But for the sake of deceptiveness I think it's a step backwards. I think magicians/mentalists just like it because it's more clever.

Imagine that was the original way of doing the center tear (peeking the information mid-tear). If someone had come forward and said, "I've come up with a way to do the center tear where you can legitimately turn your head away, and close your eyes during the tear and immediately flush the pieces away or toss them in a fire or throw them off a cliff." Everyone would see this as a big improvement. But that's genuinely what you can do with the center tear when performed the "old" way. 

Trying to surreptitiously glance the information as you tear it is a loser's proposition. Just Occam's Razor it. The notion that you can get a glimpse of the information as you tear the paper up isn't that hard to conceive. (I would say it's easier to conceive that than that you could casually tear around the needed information and then conceal a hidden piece to read later.) Especially because they often do see you looking at the pieces.

"Oh, no, Andy. I demonstrate how they should hold out their hand to take the pieces so their mind is occupied and they don't see me looking at the word. They think I'm just looking down at my other hand." First, I think you're under-estimating people abilities to gauge sight-lines. And second, while I think it's a good idea to get the glimpse under the guise of something else, you can't expect people to forget what's on the forefront of their mind because of some lame justification. 

Imagine you're on a business trip with a sexy co-worker and because of some hotel snafu, you have to share a room. The bathroom is too tiny to change in so after her shower she needs to change in the room itself. You turn your back to give her privacy and every time she glances your way it's clear you're not looking at her. Your lack of guile in this moment—when she is most vulnerable—will go a long way towards building trust and allaying her suspicion. 

If, on the other hand, she comes out and is slipping into her clothes and while she does that you turn and say, "Did I leave my cell phone over there?" And give a half-hearted attempt to shield your eyes, she's going to know what's up. Magician's will say, "Ah, but I fooled her by justifying looking over there as if I was trying to find my cell phone." No. Your weak justification isn't enough to make someone forget their primary concern in that moment.

Similarly, if you write a word down, I tear it up, and glance at it at the height of your suspicion (and when you hand me the word you wrote down it's going to be the height of your suspicion) even if I give some alternate reason for glancing in that direction, you're going to know what's up. You might not understand all the details, but I've concentrated the moment where something funny happens to such a small bit of time EXACTLY when your guard is up that I don't really give you any other option but to suspect it happened when it did.

Don't peek when they're expecting it. My general rule is that I like to have my head turned away completely during the time where I'm dealing with the logistics of them giving me the information. When I'm placing the billet aside, or ripping it up, or putting the business card with the drawing in my wallet, or handling the cards during the process of them looking at one, these are all the moments when I look nowhere near the information.

Even if you feel like you have a decent justification to look towards the information (like that one where you act like you spazz out and can't put your wallet back in your shirt pocket so you need to look down to guide it in), wait it out and do it a little later when their guard is down.

2. Insert a Time Delay

There should be a break in the action before you peek the information. This is what will allow your peek to take place at a point in time where there's less heat. If you take the picture they drew on the business card and put it in your wallet and then immediately start saying what the picture is, then you're suggesting you got the information in that small portion of time when the card was put in the wallet. 

Similarly, if you take the billet, rip it up, then immediately start saying what you saw, you're drawing all the attention to the moment where you took and ripped the billet because that's all that happened. 

Magicians and mentalists are always concerned about justifying why they rip the paper for the center-tear and why they have to put the card back in the wallet for a peek wallet. But those moments are much less problematic if they're not the only thing you do before revealing the information. 

Instead, give them more to think over by extending the process. Take the drawing back and, with your head turned away, put it in your wallet and set the wallet aside. "We'll get back to that in a moment." Shift gears slightly, insert a time delay, and you can catch people off guard when you get the peek later. They are no longer at the point of highest suspicion. So when you move the wallet later on you're no longer under the same amount of scrutiny as you would be right after getting the drawing.

3. Start the Reveal of the Information Before the Peek

Whenever possible I try to do this. It definitely messes with people's ability to formulate a hypothesis of when and how you figured out the information. 

So let's say I have you draw any animal and slide the drawing into my wallet, site unseen. The wallet is set aside. This all happens while my head is turned. Now I talk about something. Maybe the parable of the blind men and the elephant. I ask you to imagine touching different parts of this animal you're thinking of to see if I can pick up on the feelings and assemble them into the right creature.

I concentrate. "I think I'm getting it. There's hair on this animal isn't there." If you say yes, then I'm all set. I can say, "Yes. It's not a bird or a fish or a reptile. But it's not all fur or hair. There's...." I trail off. I start rubbing my fingers against my thumbs as if I'm feeling what they're feeling. "Touch the different parts of the animal in your mind again. Yes... I'm getting a different sensation. Almost like maybe... leather almost?" During this I'm touching different things on the table. Trying to find something similar to what I'm feeling. When I say "leather," I pick up my wallet and rub my fingers against it and peek the information as I'm squinting and trying to place the feeling. Then I just play off whatever I see. If it says "dog" I don't immediately say dog after handling the wallet. The wallet is set aside and I continue on with trying to feel the animal. "But not smooth like that. It's more rough. There's a lot of hair or fur on this animal, but also this rough area. Oh... I know what that feels like. It's like a dog's nose or his paws or something?" Of course you adlib something that makes sense depending on what you see.

The idea is just to start the process pre-peek which will screw with their timeline if you never even looked in the direction of the written or drawn information.

(But what if you're wrong on your guess? Well, I think that's not an issue. Being wrong on some sort of 50/50 guess early on in the process isn't something I'd have a hard time talking my way out of. So, for example, I say the animal has fur and they say no. "Hmmm. Okay. Well I'm getting some sort of texture." Then I'd rub my arm a little. Rub the table. Pick up the wallet and rub that (getting the peek). Rub my shirt. This is all as if I'm trying to place the feeling I'm picking up. "Feel the animal in your mind again.....I'm still getting something hair-like." It's definitely not a fish or a snake. "Oh... it could be feathers." I'd then be feeling around as if the feeling of the animal is manifesting under my hands. "But not a normal bird. Oh, I know... I think it's a penguin.")

4. Justify Your Gaze With a Motivated Action

You need to justify your gays. Remember, god created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Whoops... confused this with my other blog (justifyyourgays.biz).

The final step is to get your peek under the guise of a motivated action. In the above example I look at the wallet in the moment I'm feeling it. Which makes sense in the context of that routine. 

In the routine posted Monday, he gets the peek as he asks if the item the person is thinking of is bigger than the wallet. 

If you've stolen out the center in a center-tear then you have almost unlimited justifications to peek the information because you're apparently not looking where that information is anymore. 

If the information is in a gimmicked stack of business cards, don't look anywhere near the stack until you've had some kind of time delay. Then you can clear the table for some reason and set the stack aside and get your peek at that point in time. 

The key word here is "motivated." A motivated action has a "because" in it that is obvious to the spectator. "He picked up the wallet because he wanted to feel it." "He picked up the stack of business cards because he wanted to clear the table." 

It's these factors taken together: not peeking at the height of their suspicion, including a time delay to take the heat off the location of the information, starting the revelation before doing the peek, and then obtaining the peek in a motivated action, that I've found generates the strongest reactions from effects that are peek-based.

Your Tuesday Ad Post

Hello.

This is a typical Tuesday/Thursday post letting you know that if you like this site you should consider supporting it by subscribing to The JAMM.

(And this is a small heads-up to say that there will be some changes to the way this site operates in the coming months. If you already support the site, it's not going to affect you, except perhaps in a positive way with more exclusivity to certain content and physical items in the future. I won't go into too many details at this point as I don't know them all. More info on that is coming soon.)

Law and Order: GLOMM

I always enjoy when magic is used in any capacity other than the "look at me!" style. I am least interested in magic as a way to win friends and gain attention or approval. That's what your personality is for, my dear boy! 

So I particularly enjoyed this story from a reader, Chris, last name withheld, as you'll soon understand why. Chris is a friend of the site and a homicide detective in the Northwest U.S. 

A few weeks ago he sent me this email in regards to how he has used magic in his line of work. Apparently when he dusts for fingerprints he calls it "woofle dust" and this gets people to think he's an idiot which makes them lower their guard and become more susceptible to his interrogation techniques. 

No. I made that up. Here is the email he sent. Even if you have no interest in the use of magic outside of a traditional performance, this write-up has a peek justification that I really love.

I am a police detective, and I carry my business cards in a leather Jaks business card wallet, which does not look out of place because I wear a suit. 

For the last several years I have been doing a drawing duplication (obviously after the peek), but I do it in the following context. 

At a key point in the interview I will steer the conversation to Sherlock Holmes, and talk about how he was the greatest detective ever, etc. I ask the person to make a simple drawing of an object they either owned or still own that is very important to them.

Then I talk about how Sherlock Holmes was famous for being able to ask someone four questions and be able to figure out what they had drawn. 

When they are done with the drawing it goes back in the wallet “so there is no way in hell I can see it,” and I then ask them these four questions:

1. Did you own this item when you were a kid, or when you were older?
2. Is it bigger than this wallet?
3. Does the item have monetary value?
4. Do you still own it?

Okay, let's pause here for a second. It's in that moment where he asks "Is it bigger than... this wallet?" that he picks the wallet up off the table and gets the peek. I think this is perfect peek justification. Peak peek justification, if you will. I have a theory on peeks that is partially born out of the type of  testing I wrote about on Friday, and then reinforced based on my experience. I've talked about it a little bit before (and gave an example in The 10% Peek), but I will write it up more explicitly in Wednesday's post. Now, back to the email...

Those are just the basic questions, I obviously elaborate on both the questions and the answers they give me. 

I then make a quick drawing of what I peeked on a second business card and set it face down on the table. I act like I am not sure, and then ask them to tell me what they drew. Here is where it gets interesting. With just a little encouragement you are going to get a long story about the object, why it is important to them, how they came by it, etc. Crying is not unordinary. 

When I do this for regular people, I just let the conversation flow onto other things, never pushing the “look what I did! I got it right! look at the drawing I made!" I just wait until they remember the whole point of this and ask what I drew, then I push it towards them and let them take a look. 

So, it is a lot of fun with just regular folks, and really gets a person to open up. But more importantly, it does the same thing with a suspect. Not only do they open up and you make a connection with them, which greatly aids in getting a confession, but they generally stop lying to you after that, because in their minds you must be able to tell if they are lying. 

This may seem slightly manipulative, and it is, of course. But you're allowed to be manipulative when interrogating someone. At least in the U.S. You can just straight-up lie to them. You can tell them you found their fingerprints at the scene if you haven't. You can tell them their friend confessed to everything in the other room even if they haven't. You can tell them they failed a polygraph test regardless of the results.

So I'd be doing this type of shit all the time if I was in Chris' situation. In fact, I'd really push it and start doing the most ridiculous stuff to see what might spur a confession. 

"You know, these little sponge balls were developed by the CIA. They're drawn to guilty parties. Oh wow, mine disappeared from my hand, and now you have two. Oh... that does not look good for you. Wait... just hold on to those. Maybe it was a false positive. Oh no! Now they've turned into a penis. The judge isn't going to look kindly on that... it's the ultimate sign of guilt. I guess this interrogation is over. Take him away, boys. I mean, unless you want to confess and maybe get some leniency."

A/Bracadabra: Testing Magic

This February was the most recent round of focus-group style testing of magic effects and presentations in NYC. This is something I've been a part of for years in different forms. And it has had a truly significant effect on the strength of my material. 

As magicians, we like to lie to ourselves and each other. "People don't suspect the deck in a color changing deck routine. I mean, unless you're a poor performer. I do the trick every night in my restaurant show and no one ever asks to see the deck."

You hear that sort of thing a lot. So one of our earliest tests was to show people a color changing deck routine on video by one of the masters of magic. When asked to offer solutions in regards to how it was done, 100% questioned the make-up of the deck in their written response, either using the phrase "trick deck" or writing something like, "I don't know how it was done, but I feel like I'd know if I could look at the deck."

Just because they don't ask to look at something doesn't mean they don't think it's suspect. They're being nice. You might not ask the stripper, "Hey, can I squeeze dem titties?" But that doesn't mean you think they're real.

As I wrote in an earlier post: If you change one object to another, or tear and restore something, or harmlessly penetrate something, or change the color of something—and if you do these things in a close-up situation—then I would argue that the trick is not complete until the audience has examined the object of the effect at the end. 

In later groups, we would go on to test a color changing deck effect performed in real life for audiences in two ways. The only difference between the two performances was: in the first performance the deck was put in the performer's pocket at the end, and in the second it was handed to someone and they were free to look at it.

We would often present the testing as part of the initial stages of a magic show that was being worked on (and in some cases that was true). So the premise of the whole thing was that we were trying to select material for a show and we were only looking to go forward with the most amazing tricks. So they would see a handful of tricks and they would rate each one on a scale of 1 to 10 in regards to how "amazing" the trick was. (We found it best to phrase it this way for certain tests. If we instead asked, "How amazed were you," we found the scores got compressed to a smaller range. I think people might be unwilling to say something on the extreme ends about themselves or their experience. But if you ask, "How amazing was the trick," the scores covered a broader range.)

Going back to the color-changing deck, those who got to examine the deck at the end rated the trick 60% more amazing than those that didn't. It wasn't even remotely close, even though it was the identical trick. 

This is something of a microcosm for how this focus-group testing evolved. Originally it was pretty much just us showing people tricks and asking, "Do you have any idea how that's done?" It wasn't "testing" so much as it was making bets with my friends on what sorts of things are obvious in magic and what aren't. (I was right about most thread effects being obvious. I was right that any time you palm a card and remove it from your pocket or fly it's 100% obvious. I was wrong about Miraskill being obvious. The one-ahead principle is something I thought was more obvious as well. (It IS obvious to a good portion of people. But it can be salvaged. More on that another day.))

Eventually we moved into a type of A/B testing with effects. We would perform a trick one way for a group of people and then another way for a different group, just changing one thing. Now, because we weren't dealing with 1000s of people, a 5% difference in whatever we were measuring from group to group wasn't that significant. But we were often seeing things that were 25% or 50% or 100% more "amazing" or "enjoyable" for spectators depending on which version they saw. So even with just a few dozen people we could still make some strong conclusions.

And my performances got significantly better once I incorporated those conclusions into my performing styles. 

I'll be writing up some specific concepts we tested in the coming months. Some might seem "obvious" but it can be telling to see just how much of an impact certain things will have on people's enjoyment of a trick. I'll also be taking suggestions for other things to test for our next round which will likely be early next year. (We'd like to do it more frequently, but it's pretty expensive. You bring in 50 people and give them $40 each, so that's $2000, then another few hundred to rent the space. Even split a few ways it's a little bit of an investment.)

I've held off on some of the specifics of this testing in the past because one of the people involved was planning on writing an essay or a book on it. But he recently texted me saying, "I'm a bitch. I'll never get to this. Feel free to write about anything you want." So there will be more on this to come.

Some people have argued with me and said, "Well, I wouldn't put my act in front of some focus-group." They say it like it's some brave artistic choice. But this isn't like some sitcom that's being watered down by a focus-group to appeal to the lowest common denominator. This is using the focus-group as a means to get honest feedback about very practical questions in regards to what people enjoy and are fooled by. And that's pretty scary to some people. But I think it's valuable to learn what the audience is really thinking. The alternative is like saying, "Hey, if I don't get that AIDS test, then I'll never have to hear that I have AIDS!" Like... that's not a helpful way of handling things.

Footnote

One year I predicted the score of the Super Bowl for my friends at a Super Bowl party. I just used a variation of a headline prediction. It went well. They were generally impressed. But I've spoiled myself. Things "going well" and people being "generally impressed," is not really a win in my book. You see, it was a situation where some people were celebrating the outcome of the game and some people were bummed out about it. So to come in and be like, "Now let's see if my prediction was correct!" that didn't feel as natural as I like this sort of thing to be. When you think about it in your head you think, "Oh, this will be a cool climax for the night." But for the people who are really into the event/occasion, they're not really looking for you to "top" the evening for them.

That's why, as I wrote yesterday, you need to put thought into if injecting yourself into a special occasion is a good idea or not.

But there's something I didn't mention yesterday that you should also consider.

At a Super Bowl party the following year I performed a handful of tricks for people who were completely fascinated and really into it. I forget exactly what I did. I know I predicted the number of corn chips someone would take from a bowl (a la the Trick that Fooled Einstein). They were delighted by this nonsense.

Why did it go so well that year? Well, because I was performing for people at the event who didn't want to be there. I was showing stuff to significant others of the sports fans watching the game in the other room. They gave me their full attention and were totally happy for the distraction. 

This subset exists at almost every special occasion you can think of. Some people who got dragged to a party or some other function. Someone at a wedding who knows the bride and groom but literally no one else, and isn't particularly social. If you're really looking for more opportunities to perform, seek out these people. They're at the special event, but they actually fall into the first category mentioned yesterday. They're somewhere they don't necessarily want to be and they're looking for something to pass the time.

I try to have my eye out for these people in general. I recommend it. I've met a lot of great people (who are just maybe shy or not very social) by going up to someone standing alone at a party or a bar, stirring their drink and looking around. You are almost a hero to these people. You've saved them. And if you turn the conversation to magic they will prove to be a completely captive audience. And even if you don't, you've maybe made a new friend, or at least helped out a fellow human by reaching out to them when they were feeling alone or uncomfortable. That's no small thing.

Choose Your Spots - The Three Types of Situations Where You Should Perform Magic

This was originally a tangent in my post from last Friday, but I think it's important enough to excise it and make it its own post. In fact, knowing when to perform is one of the more critical aspects of being an amateur performer. Misreading the situation and thinking, "Ah, this place could use a little of me and my wizardry!" when it's not the right time will make you come off as a total weirdo. Even if your material is strong.

So when should you perform?

I wrote in The Amateur at the Kitchen Table that amateur magic "can add color to dull grey situations, or amplify the joy of happy times."

In accordance with that, I like to perform in situations that occupy those opposite ends of the spectrum:

1. I like to perform during the lulls in life: waiting for food at a restaurant, in line to ride a roller coaster, after dinner, around a campfire, waiting for a bus, during some downtime at a business function, in a bar or cafe when conversation has died, post-coitus. I think magic is perfect for these moments.
2.  I also like to perform magic during special occasions: holidays, weddings, circumcisions (I restore the foreskin), parties, dates, mid-coitus.

We'll get to the third situation in a moment, but first, let's examine these two:

1. During Dull Moments

This one is easy. During the dull moments in life, people will welcome a trick, even if it's done artlessly. It's next to impossible to fuck this up. When people are truly bored they'll give their focus to anything. Just like when people are truly starving they'll eat pretty much anything.

I'm not saying you should perform magic that is the equivalent of empty calories, I'm just saying you don't have to worry too much about whether what you're going to perform is perfect for the moment or if it will be accepted or seem strange because, in these circumstances, people are pretty undiscriminating. They're hungry.

2. During Special Occasions

To pause a special occasion, where people are already engaged in a joyful experience, to show them a trick...that requires a fairly deft touch.

You really need to approach this with the "audience-centric" approach in mind. Audience-centric magic, by definition, is magic that enhances people's experience. And I can say that's true "by definition" because I made up the goddamn term.

If you're shifting focus to yourself—if you're attitude is, "Hey everybody, gather round, eyes on me"—that's almost guaranteed to be a magician-centric performance that will come off as awkward, at the very least. (It's different if you've been hired to perform. But that's not what I'm talking about here.) Magicians think, "Well, my Ambitious Card routine is good and it fools people, so if I perform it here at this baby shower, it will make the baby shower better." No. That's not how things work. Imagine a ventriloquist pulls out his dummy and draws attention to himself at some event. Even if he's very good, we can all understand that might actually detract from the occasion and not add to it. Well, magic is no different.

Now, obviously there's a big difference between a wedding reception, a normal party, or sitting around the table after Christmas dinner. These are all "special occasions," but the extent to which it might be appropriate to steer people into a magic performance is different for each. However, the same basic rule applies: Only perform if it's going to heighten the experience. Don't interrupt a good time. 

I know someone who once took the mic at a wedding reception to show the bride and groom Anniversary Waltz. The trick went well. It got an okay reaction. But he wasn't asked to perform. This was just his addition to the proceedings. And it felt awkward. He was adding a new element to the day, but it just sidetracked the experience people were already enjoying. His argument would surely be, "Yeah, but the trick is about them and their connection." Yeah, kinda. But if you haven't been specifically asked to show them something it can sure as hell feel like you're interjecting yourself into the day to show people a card trick. 

As I said, it takes a certain level of social awareness that many don't possess to determine if it's a good idea to perform at an already special occasion. A good rule of thumb is this: Could you do this same trick tomorrow, for different people at a Burger King? If the answer is yes, then it probably doesn't warrant injecting yourself into the moment. If, on the other hand, you have a trick that requires specific circumstances (it needs to be done for these particular people, in this particular location, during this particular activity) and those needs are met by the situation you're in, you likely have something that will feel relevant to the special occasion and will add to the experience of those who witness it.

Finally, here is the third situation I feel you should perform in.

When They Ask For It

One of the biggest and earliest indicators to me that I didn't fit in with magicians and that they're not "my people" was when I would hear some say, "Don't perform when asked." Their justification was that it would devalue the experience if it was done on request—that it would make it seem less special. 

I guess that's true if you're dumb enough to immediately launch into your close-up set at the first provocation, but no one is suggesting that. 

Here's what I do when someone asks me to show them something. I immediately say sure. I then pause as if I'm having second thoughts. "Actually... I don't have anything on me. Maybe tomorrow I could bring something." I want to momentarily play into their suspicion that I need some special circumstances or magic props to perform. I then reverse my position again. "Hmmm... you know, we could try something... do you have any change?" I then go into something that feels genuinely spontaneous and of the moment. My tentativeness seem legitimate because I didn't initiate the performance myself. (They don't know I've practiced it 100 times and have been carrying around a gimmick in my pocket just for this opportunity.) There's a little bit of an emotional push and pull to the moment—will or won't it happen. This is interesting to people. And in the end, when something (hopefully) amazing happens, I look good, the spectator gets what they want, and it's good for magic. It's a win for everyone.

The alternative? "Oh, you do magic? Can I see something." 

"No, maybe some other time."

What's the point of that? Maybe you come back later and blow them away. But then they think you had to prep for it. You look worse. You don't give them what they want in the moment. And the magic feels less spontaneous and exciting.

And this was the common wisdom in the magic community. That's how backwards they are.

I have a feeling this started with a bunch of professional magicians who didn't quite get the response they wanted when they didn't have the structure of a formal show propping them up. So instead they justified the idea of not performing in social situations when people asked as if it was somehow the more righteous path. In reality, it's just the magician-centric way of thinking. The only reason not to perform when asked is because you get off on withholding.

You don't get it, Andy. I'm a professional. Does a dentist clean teeth at a party when someone asks her to?

Oh, get off it. You're not a dentist. You're (supposedly) an entertainer. No one is telling you to "do your job" in social situations. But you can certainly utilize your skills to give people a quick enjoyable moment. Doing a little something to bring joy to people around you shouldn't be some huge burden. That should be your default way of going through life

In my opinion, as an amateur, If you only perform magic in one circumstance, it should be when you're asked. 

Putting It All Together

These may seem like three separate circumstances, but I really see them as part of the larger whole of a cohesive approach to performing amateur magic. 

1. You start by performing tricks in low-key situations. During the "dull" moments when almost anything would be appreciated. But you don't do "just anything." You hit people with really strong little moments that are visually or emotionally resonant and stick with them.

2. This leads people to ask you to perform more regularly. Even when there's netflix to watch or a party going on. If you've established what you do has its own merits (and isn't just good for filling dead time), they'll ask to see something more frequently.

3. If you continue to gain a reputation for curating interesting experiences, then, when special occasions occur, people will be more on board to take a little detour because they know you wouldn't waste their time with something meaningless or self-indulgent. The awkwardness will be gone.

But even more importantly, once people have truly bought into your performance as being worth their attention, you can have them set aside time in advance. "I have something interesting I want to try next Thursday. Do you want to come over for dinner then and give me a hand with it?"

This is the culmination of performing strong magic in the situations described above. Not only can you use magic to enhance an already special occasion, you can use it to turn an ordinary evening into a special occasion. The best magic performances are not just an adjunct to the experience, they are the experience.