I’ve been playing with some shuffle sequences. You can see one of them at this blog post from a few days ago called Red / Black Separation. In a natural extension of that shuffle sequence I came up with what I’m calling A Shuffle and a Cut to Order.
I like the progressive nature of this routine where the cards go from shuffled, to separated by color to finally them all in new deck order! The trick has three different beats to it (but not three effects) which I like and each builds upon the previous. The other night thing about this over the previous Red/Black Separation is that this is much easier to do!
Many years ago there were several matrix effects using pennies. I think Bruce Kalver and Steve Duschek both sold versions. If I’m remembering correctly, both used steel pennies. I was cleaning up and found some copper plated steel pennies and wanted to put together a little coin assembly. I don’t think it’s technically a matrix as the coins aren’t in a square.
What I like about this is that it has an ending, while the ending isn’t very magical, it’s an ending and it has a tag line. As for method, there’s really nothing new here.
Sometimes “working” magicians are pieces of sh*t. I posted a video of a trick with bills on TikTok, and Joe Rodiguez (Jrod Illusions) decides to post how he thinks it works. That’s part of TikTok’s game with magic videos for amateur magicians and I understand that and am OK with that. But when a supposed working magician exposes stuff, it’s makes me want to post on all of their videos how they do stuff. I won’t because that gives them engagement, which is TikTok gold.
Ok, you’ve seen the video, now here’s his comment:
Here’s the problem with his comment…he’s 100% wrong. Like a beginner magician should know there are no magnets involved in the trick…and he calls himself a professional. It really makes me wonder about the quality of the material of his show based on the lack of knowledge displayed in that comment. While I haven’t seen his show, I would suspect it’s pretty much garbage tricks done poorly by someone who doesn’t understand magic. I could be wrong, and that’s just my opinion.
A couple of months ago I published Elmsley Plus count in Vanish Magazine. This is a way to do a face up Elmsley Count and not show the same card twice. It’s a little tweak that will make tricks where you have to pass the first and fourth card of the count as different cards hold up better on video.
If you post a video there and there’s a discrepancy like showing two of the same card when there shouldn’t be two of them, people will mention that in the comments. The routine above passed the TikTok test with no one noticing the method behind the Elmsley Plus count. I think the reason it works is that the count shows exactly what the audience thinks they should be seeing.
Is using a gaffed card to remove the discrepancy in an Elmsley Count worth it? For recorded video, YES! In a live show I don’t think it’s necessary.
The new hot trick right now is the Atomic Deck, which is an ACAAN, here’s the trailer, then I’ll give you my thoughts on it:
When I watched the trailer and the first thing that jumped out at me was this:
That’s a very specific statement, not “NO ROUGH AND SMOOTH”, so that instantly tells me that it’s roughed, just not by traditional methods. I don’t know how I feel about that in its marketing as it’s technically correct, but very misleading.
That aside, the trailer above leaves out something very important, this trick requires a phone or computer. Of course this part of the trick is completely left out of the trailer. It is mentioned in the ad copy, so it’s only sorta deceptive in its omission from the video.
With the current issues that Inject 2 is having, relying on app or website isn’t a good long term solution. The site is only good as long as the deck is selling and they’re paying for the hosting. You’re relying on something outside of your control for the trick to work.
OK, not to the effect, it’s not a true ACAAN in my opinion. You have multiple cards named and multiple numbers and then you essentially pick the combination that will work the best. So instead of Any Card at Any Number, it’s more of a “Selected Card from a Selected Group of Cards at a Number from a Selected Group of Numbers“. That’s a huge thing that to me distances this from the Berglas Effect.
It should look like this: Spectator names a card and a number. The cards are dealt and the card is at that number!
Here’s a video of me doing ACAAN at a gig that I was just supposed to be playing the organ at, however someone requested I do a magic trick.
In playing with the fake “Movie Money” another trick I wanted to do was something like a card across where a selected bill travels from one packet to another.
I like how this trick turned out, it’s got a less packet trick feel to it that many of these other tricks do. I think it feels very similar to Phil Goldstein’s Shinkansen, but has a different method.
It’s interesting, but not the greatest trick ever. There’s too much process, it needs to be more direct for it to be good. I like the idea of the upside down bill moving up the stack. It reminds me of a trick that Alan Ackerman (I think) showed me when I was a teenager in the 1990’s with a stack of coins. It was 3 half dollars and an English penny. The English penny started on the bottom of the stack and moved up to the top one position at a time.
This trick with the upside down ten dollar bill moving up the stack was an early experiment with rough and smooth with bills. This one used different areas being roughed and I think that has possibilities with bills.
If you follow me on TikTok, you know I’m into vintage magic tricks and really into old packet tricks. I’ve wanted to come up with an original Emerson and West style packet trick with full story patter. I didn’t want to come up with a variation of something that already existed.
The other day I threw some cards into my backpack and with my time between gigs I came up with this:
This is actually the second version of the story. The first version is more personal to me and my story, where the one above is more generic. I think this is fairly close to the Emerson and West style, it’s got all the mini effects and the pun/kicker ending.
The handling sequence just worked itself out. It was too easy, so I’m assuming someone has to have come up with it before, but it’s original to me.
A few days ago I posted a video of a packet trick where 4 one dollar bills turned into 4 two dollar bills. It’s essentially a packet card trick with dollar bills. Turning $1’s into $2’s is alright, but I got to playing with a slightly different arrangement that I like more:
The bills changing into different bills makes the trick feel a little less like the same trick four times. Also the ending with the hundred dollar bill seems like more of a finish to the trick.
