Over-rated tricks?

[Cain]

I struggled for a thread title. This is intended as more of a discussion on theory. I don't know how much leeway we have here to discuss design, which almost necessitates discussing methods (though in the most roundaboutway possible, I trust).

Unlike Paperclipped, which I think is an over-rated trick, I'm not as sure about Ortiz's "Unholy Three." Michael Vincent performs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dD75nFSj8c

Some people contend that the kicker gives away the method. Others say that because the selections are shown as blue, the kicker will fly, and we see a strong reaction in the performance video. (We can imagine how the effect would be weakened if the performer never showed the backs, instead finding each of the selections face up.)

In Designing Miracles Ortiz talks about the principle of conservation and how, under certain circumstances, a kicker can become an anti-climax.

The premise of the trick is that the performer will find the selections in a blue deck that has been thoroughly shuffled. Why doesn't he just use one deck, have it shuffled, spectators pick three cards, return them, and have the deck shuffled again. That standard of rationality may be too strict, so let's just ignore it. The procedure is not nearly as contrived as running through the deck in search of the four aces, and then announcing you will lose them and then find them again.

[Merko]

As a non-magician I'd like to say that I'm humble enough that I almost never claim to understand how a trick works. But this one did seem rather obvious really. It seems to me that it should be possible to improve the trick a lot by adding a final stage where the performer moves back to the first deck somehow.

[Bob Klase]

I'm somewhat confused about what the topic actually is. If it's tricks that are overated then I'd ask 'overrated by who and based on what criteria'.

It seems that you focused on kickers, but Paperclipped (the original, basic effect) really has no kicker (there have been many versions/variations and some of them may have kickers). While the climax to Unholy Three could be called a kicker it's actually the primary effect.

If the question is more concerned with whether a kicker can give away the method, obviously there are times when it can and other times when it may point to the method when done by one performer but not by another. Some times it may be poor technique or a poor performance but it can also be inherent in that trick regardless of technique or performer skills.

Originally Posted by Cain

Some people contend that the kicker gives away the method. Others say that because the selections are shown as blue, the kicker will fly, and we see a strong reaction in the performance video. (We can imagine how the effect would be weakened if the performer never showed the backs, instead finding each of the selections face up.)

If you're focusing on kickers I don't think this is a good example. The blue back cards changing in to the signed cards is the primary effect. You are right that it would be weakened if the cards were found face up. In that case the only question would be "how did he get those cards from the red deck to the blue deck. But now the question becomes "how did he change those blue back cards into the signed red back selections".

Originally Posted by Cain

The premise of the trick is that the performer will find the selections in a blue deck that has been thoroughly shuffled. Why doesn't he just use one deck, have it shuffled, spectators pick three cards, return them, and have the deck shuffled again. That standard of rationality may be too strict, so let's just ignore it.

No need to ignore it. Spectator's may question that at some point(s) in the trick, but the question is answered by the end of the trick- he didn't just use one deck because it wouldn't much of a trick to have the selected cards stay in the deck where they were placed. If, after the trick ends there's still spectators are still wondering why you didn't just use one deck then either they weren't paying attention or there's serious problems with your performance.

You could do Unholy Three without cutting to each card- just shuffle the blue back deck and spread it face down to show that the red back selections have been transported to the blue deck. While that might be as strong with some tricks (and has been done with many other methods and presentations), it certainly wouldn't be as strong here. Cutting to the cards, showing blue backs and then having them change to the signed red backs is much stronger than just having the red back selections appear in the blue deck.

If it hints at the method to the minor trick (finding the cards) it also diverts attention from the minor trick because the 'kicker' is much stronger.

Originally Posted by Cain

The procedure is not nearly as contrived as running through the deck in search of the four aces, and then announcing you will lose them and then find them again.

I'd agree that if you're going to lose the aces in the deck and then find them again it makes much more sense to magically find them in the first place, but I'm not sure how that question ties in with the discussion about kickers.

Another example of a non-kicker kicker would be Doc Eason's Opener where you show a deck of cards plus one card with a different back. A spectator selects a card and it matches the different-backed card. There are dozens (or hundreds) of tricks where a selected card matches a prediction (either a written prediction or a duplicate card). While that appears to the audience to be the main thrust of the trick, the major reaction comes when the rest of the deck show shown be be all blank cards (or all duplicate cards except for the one that was selected).

If the audience thinks about it for 3 seconds you'd think they'd realize that if the selected card was different than the other 51 cards then it makes absolutely no difference if the other 51 are the remainder of a normal deck or all duplicates of each other (or all blank)- the selection remains one out of 52. But in practice people don't think that. So in this case it's a totally meaningless kicker that actually makes a huge difference in how 'impossible' the trick is perceived as being.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

I'm somewhat confused about what the topic actually is. If it's tricks that are overated then I'd ask 'overrated by who and based on what criteria'.

It seems that you focused on kickers, but Paperclipped (the original, basic effect) really has no kicker (there have been many versions/variations and some of them may have kickers). While the climax to Unholy Three could be called a kicker it's actually the primary effect.

If the question is more concerned with whether a kicker can give away the method, obviously there are times when it can and other times when it may point to the method when done by one performer but not by another. Some times it may be poor technique or a poor performance but it can also be inherent in that trick regardless of technique or performer skills.

Fair enough. The topic somewhat confused, as I think I admitted, but it has three aims:

-Others should feel free to submit tricks they think are over-rated.
-I think Unholy Three is over-rated.

It's not really a discussion about kickers, but since this uses a kicker, I thought I'd discuss that aspect. The comment about Paperclipped was needlessly confusing, so I'll just proceed as if I said no such thing.

Quote:

If you're focusing on kickers I don't think this is a good example.

No, the priority is THIS trick, whether or not the kicker hints at the method. I agree this trick would make for a poor illustration of kickers.

Quote:

The blue back cards changing in to the signed cards is the primary effect. You are right that it would be weakened if the cards were found face up. In that case the only question would be "how did he get those cards from the red deck to the blue deck. But now the question becomes "how did he change those blue back cards into the signed red back selections".

Yes, and this goes to my central concern: does anyone else think spectators will deduce that the performer never found the blue-backed cards at all.

Quote:

No need to ignore it. Spectator's may question that at some point(s) in the trick, but the question is answered by the end of the trick- he didn't just use one deck because it wouldn't much of a trick to have the selected cards stay in the deck where they were placed. If, after the trick ends there's still spectators are still wondering why you didn't just use one deck then either they weren't paying attention or there's serious problems with your performance.

I think this is an overly-blunt interpretation. In one of his books Ortiz mocks a magician who asked him to choose a number between one and six. Ortiz chose "six" and the magician spells from the side, "S-I-X." Ortiz sardonically says, "Oh, I should have known that if I really wanted six that I should have picked "Eleven." There are certain conditions that don't make sense. "I'm going to find your card, but first I'm going to do something with these four aces." Why did the performer do something with the four aces? Well, obviously, because he was prepping finding the card. I don't think "Unholy Three" is nearly as bad, which is why my comment was more of an aside, but it does require introducing another prop -- the second deck.

Quote:

If it hints at the method to the minor trick (finding the cards) it also diverts attention from the minor trick because the 'kicker' is much stronger.

I think this also cuts the nut-meat of the matter. We agree there are basically three procedures that would produce different effects.

1- Cards from a red deck are selected and signed, and identical (blue-backed) cards are found in a blue backed deck. (This is the first phase of the routine, and it's a location effect).

2- Cards from a red deck are selected and signed, and then found in a blue backed deck (i.e., you spread the blue deck face down and reveal the signed selections). This is a translocation effect.

3- Cards from a red deck are selected and signed and then found in the blue backed deck. Abracadabra, those blue backed cards change into the signed selections. This combines elements in order to effect a color change.

We agree the color change (second phase) is more powerful than the location (first phase), but I wonder if the color change suggests the location of the blue cards never even took place, and if the location of the blue cards never took place, then the color change did not really happen.

I'm sure Ortiz contends that because you're showing the cards as blue in the first phase, the spectator hits a barrier and stops thinking, or can't think past it. He'd probably also contend that I'm thinking like a magician and my reservations are unfair.

Quote:

Another example of a non-kicker kicker would be Doc Eason's Opener where...

I think this is a good example of how people respond emotionally rather than logically to a certain type of kicker, but I'm not sure if Unholy Three is that same type of kicker.

I think that with the Eason type of effect, the spectators' response has some rational validity to it. Some magicians want to say that the spectator response should -- if people were Spock-like -- be NO different than if a regular pack of 51 cards are shown. Spectators reasonably suspect the method is that the deck is full of cards matching the stranger, and the kicker thwarts that suspicion with a stunning visual display. However, showing a regular deck wouldn't have the same impact because it does not immediately convey the same vital information -- that all of the cards are different than the selection.

Anyway, I've made similar comments about "Stolen Cards"

Here's a link for people who are interested in seeing this quite cool trick: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj0h9fSEE4M

Check it out, Merko! And thanks for your above reply.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Bob Klase

I'm somewhat confused about what the topic actually is. If it's tricks that are overated then I'd ask 'overrated by who and based on what criteria'.

Yup. Based on just the question, what tricks are overrated, my answer would have to be almost any stage illusion that uses great big boxes or thick tables or whatnot. They just don't do anything for me.

[Bob Klase]

'Overrated' still seems to be the wrong word (and you did admit you're not sure it's the right one). I'm not particularly hung on on what the correct word would be, but without a better word or description I'm still a little confused on what you want the topic to be.

Going by 'overrated' the question would remain, overrated by who and by what criteria. I haven't seen a lot on Unholy Three. Ortiz rated it high enough to include in a book. If you think it's such a bad trick that it shouldn't have been published then you could say he overrated it. One person apparently rated it high enough to include in her act at the Magic Castle. That's two people who may have overrated it, but whether you agree with them or not I don't think you could say it's overrated by anyone other than those two.

You've cleared up that you don't want the discussion to center around kickers (and that could easily take up an entirely different thread although there might be a lot of overlap) so maybe it'd be more accurate to make it a discussion about weak points in tricks, or weak points that could be reduced or eliminated, or tricks where the effect hints at the method. But I'm still not sure if any of those would more accurately describe the points you want to talk about.

I read Unholy Three when CardShark was first published. I never really thought about it after that and had never seen it performed until I looked at your link. It did occur to me that the trick might be stronger if you could immediately (after the 'kicker') spread the red deck and show that the blue backed mates of the selection had actually changed places with the signed selections. I can think of a couple ways that could be done but personally I couldn't do them quickly and smoothly enough to be deceptive and any significant amount of handling would detract more from the effect than it would add.

Originally Posted by Cain

Yes, and this goes to my central concern: does anyone else think spectators will deduce that the performer never found the blue-backed cards at all.

It's a valid question. I think the chances of a typical spectator making that deduction is insignificant (depending on presentation and technique). Most tricks have an inherent bit of illogical somewhere. Whether spectator's will make a deduction on that bit (and then form an actual conclusion based on the deduction) is always a concern. A big factor is their level of conviction that certain things are really as they appear to be (Michael Close has some thoughts on conviction in Workers 3). If there's a high level of conviction that the cards are blue backed when you show them and place them down then it becomes a question of how well the spectator can back track and remember details. Personally I don't think it's a major problem in Unholy Three, but since I haven't performed it or seen it performed I could easily be wrong.

Originally Posted by Cain

In one of his books Ortiz mocks a magician who asked him to choose a number between one and six. Ortiz chose "six" and the magician spells from the side, "S-I-X." Ortiz sardonically says, "Oh, I should have known that if I really wanted six that I should have picked "Eleven." There are certain conditions that don't make sense.

That's a good example of a bad (and much overused) procedure. It's transparently illogical. Almost every trick has some condition that doesn't make sense, but the spectator has to realize that it doesn't make sense before he can make deductions based on it.

Originally Posted by Cain

There are certain conditions that don't make sense. "I'm going to find your card, but first I'm going to do something with these four aces." Why did the performer do something with the four aces?

Without details you can't compare that to the 6/11 choice. What did you do with the four aces? What reason (justification) did you give the spectators for doing it and how does that fit with the rest of the trick? How significant did it seem to be at the time (to the spectators) and how much time occurred between the time you did it and the time the spectators might have realized it could be significant (the less significant it appears to be and the more time between those two occurrences, the less chance the discrepancy will be noticed.

Originally Posted by Cain

Cards from a red deck are selected and signed and then found in the blue backed deck. Abracadabra, those blue backed cards change into the signed selections. This combines elements in order to effect a color change.

It would be a color change if the cards weren't signed. Since they are it's more than just a color change- either a transformation or translocation effect. You could sell it either way.

Originally Posted by Cain

I'm sure Ortiz contends that because you're showing the cards as blue in the first phase, the spectator hits a barrier and stops thinking, or can't think past it.

I don't know that he'd contend that, but if the level of conviction is high enough in the first phase then it would probably be correct.

Originally Posted by Cain

I think this [Eason Opener] is a good example of how people respond emotionally rather than logically to a certain type of kicker

Originally Posted by Cain

Some magicians want to say that the spectator response should -- if people were Spock-like -- be NO different than if a regular pack of 51 cards are shown.

That was my point- people aren't Spock-like. They don't remember seemingly insignificant details and they do respond on things other than logic.

Originally Posted by Cain

Anyway, I've made similar comments about "Stolen Cards"

There are several different variations on that. I've seen several that are identical to Stolen Cards but without the kicker (the rest of the deck being duplicates). But again I'm not sure exactly what part of it fits with what you want this topic to be.

The first kicker doesn't lead to any deductions that would be different than the initial effect. It does show that the response is emotional rather than logical- having the cards match on the both sides doesn't really give any more information than having them match only one the face (or the back).

Having all the other cards duplicates (but different than the selections) doesn't increase the (logically) apparent difficulty or imply any other information about the method. And since there are two selections there's little chance the spectators are going to think all the other cards are duplicates.

The selection process may be the weak point you're talking about. Alan Ackerman's Gemini Mates improves that by using 4 cards (and by adding a small discrepancy that is unlikely to be noticed or remembered. John Guastaferro's Gemini Prediction (a version I've used a lot) improves on Ackerman's by improving the premise, adding more time between discrepancies and the finish and also adds an 'all the other cards are the same' kicker.

So maybe somewhere in that 15 or so paragraphs I managed to hit on what the topic is supposed to be.

[MagicFan]

I've long thought the Lota Bowl was overrated. The amount of water that comes out gets smaller and smaller until eventually its just a trickle. Classic case of diminishing climax.

[Azrael 5]

Sadly seeing that Unholy Three trick as a "magician" spoils it I guess. More impressive to sign the faces and have the backs change colour and spec can keep the card.