Mark Elsdon ZOOMentalism
Mark Elsdon
17,521 wordsMentalismintermediate"The first ingredient in conversation is truth, the next good sense, the third good humor, and the fourth wit." – Sir William Temple “Three out of four ain’t bad!” – Mark Elsdon Copyright © 2020 by Mark Elsdon. Do not copy it, do not scan it, do not upload it. Thank you.
PalmDouble LiftPassPeekForceNail Writer
ZOOMentalism
The Very Best of
Conversation
As Mentalism
Re-tooled
For ZOOM
Mark Elsdon
ZOOMentalism
A Compendium
Of CAMs+
"The first ingredient in conversation is truth, the next good sense, the
third good humor, and the fourth wit." – Sir William Temple
“Three out of four ain’t bad!” – Mark Elsdon
1
Copyright © 2020 by Mark Elsdon.
All Rights Reserved.
Do not copy it, do not scan it, do not upload it. Thank you.
2
Contents
Introduction… p4
Maximum Zoomertainment… p7
The Finger Game… p12
The Ring Thing… p15
Game On… p17
The Key… p19
Dream On… p22
All Change… p27
Bet On L.A.… p30
Seven… p34
Deckless Wonder… p37
21st Century Telepathy… p40
Poetry In Motion… p42
Sixty Two Pence… p45
Serialist… p48
Dream Machine… p51
Calendrical… p54
ONVI… p57
Recommended Reading… p63
3
Introduction
Many thanks for buying this eBook. It is a compilation of material taken
from the five volumes of Conversation As Mentalism which I published
between 2012 and 2016. All of the effects have been chosen for their
suitability to be used over Zoom and other video streaming and broadcast
services. At the time of writing (April 2020) most of the world is on
lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, so many mentalists, magicians,
speakers and trainers are searching for material that requires no physical
interaction with the audience. Audience participation though is still very
much to be desired. The material has been re-written to take into account
this specific factor. When I refer to the audience, I am of course referring
to the viewers. In many of the tricks, the some or all of the viewers also
all become participants.
The original goal of these effects (referred to as CAMs) was to allow you
the opportunity to perform when you literally “have nothing with you”.
That is, no peek wallet, no swami, no loops, in fact no props, gimmicks or
gadgets at all. So minimalism is the order of the day. Of course, in a Zoom
or video show that is not a requirement, as you can have as many props
as you like! However, the minimalist nature of the CAMs means that they
are almost always very interactive, something which is very desirable for
Zoom shows. Having a group of people all sat in one (or several) room(s)
watching a performer on screen doing magic with props that cannot be
touched or examined is far from ideal; the interaction offered by the CAM
type of material is therefore a welcome, perhaps essential, element.
Most of the effects require not much more than just words and language.
They are effectively imagination games where nothing physically takes
place. A couple of them require the use some pocket change or a piece of
paper and a pen, but these are always completely justified and a natural
part of the performance. Some require just the participants’ hands. All of
them have been re-worked to involve the participants as much possible.
4
During performance, remember to work much slower than usual,
particularly during the tricks where the whole audience is interacting, as
the time delay in the video could cause problems. You don’t want people
falling behind and getting confused as this would be a disaster!
A word on terms: throughout this book I’m happy to refer to what we do
as ‘tricks’. That’s what they are. And for some audiences (and some
performers) the word ‘trick’ is absolutely fine. However, depending on
your market and how you sell yourself as a performer, the word ‘trick’
can have a negative connotations and so might well be best avoided.
Henning Nelms, the author of the book Magic and Showmanship
preferred to distinguish between illusion and tricks. Here is an excerpt
from his book:
“We shall call anything a “trick” which challenges its audience to discover
how it worked. We shall reserve “illusion” for those feats which actually
convince the audience.”
But again, the word ‘illusion’ might well not fit one’s personal style,
particularly if you are a mentalist intending that your audience question
the nature of psychological reality. As an aside, as magicians we think of
‘illusions’ as that branch of magic performed onstage with large props,
assistants and a lively soundtrack, as performed by Copperfield etc.
Laymen do not, and often use the words ‘trick’ and ‘illusion’
interchangeably.
Obviously we wouldn’t want to use the industry-only term ‘effect’ as that
is essentially meaningless to laymen in this context. So what about
‘experiment’? Ideal for some mentalists (thanks, Chan!) no doubt.
Magicians not so much. My solution is to use a term which sounds
specific, but has no real meaning other than that which I give it. So as you
will notice as you read the following material, I often refer to each piece
(another option) as an ‘imagination game’. This term is purposely vague
yet sounds fun and intriguing. Feel free to use it. Or not! Whatever works
for you. And if you think of something brilliant, I’d love to hear it
5
Many thanks to my generous contributors: Gideon Livnah, Stephen
Tucker, Andrew Brown and Ran pink.
And once again, thank YOU for buying this eBook and helping grease the
wheels for this writer. I hope you find success using this new Zoom
format of performing magic and mentalism, and I hope that some of this
material finds a place in your show. But most of all I hope that you and
your family stay safe and well as we all adapt to our new reality.
Mark Elsdon
Llandudno
April 2020
6
Maximum Zoomertainment
Performance insights for the online magician
Gideon Livnah
It’s no secret this article is inspired by Ken Weber’s master piece,
“Maximum Entertainment”. I will never be able to obtain the depth the
he goes into in his book. This is no substitute for his book. As I said it
before and I will say it again: make sure you have a copy of his book. It
has always been my bible.
As soon as I started to perform Zoom shows it hit me how much our art
has to change for the new medium. How many rules and facts are no
longer relevant for online shows, and how many more must be adapted.
A lot of people look down on Zoom shows saying that it’s not the same as
real shows. Of course it’s not the same. This is why we have to adapt to a
new performing style. The same way close-up is different from parlour
and stage: online shows require a change in mind set. If you try to
synthetically recreate the energy of your stage show you will have a hard
time and the result will be mostly be awkward and unnatural for you and
the viewers.
This is a new concept to us, but I found there are other talents and traits
we can summon to make online performances smooth and enjoyable for
performer and audience. Some of them are the complete opposite of
what we learned and practiced our whole careers. Here are some tips I
picked up on with my initial one-month experience in online shows:
1 – Master your craft
When Ken says that “without technical proficiency, all else fails”, he
speaks about the techniques of magic. I will take it is a given you know
how to perform magic well.
7
In online shows, practice and master the technical aspects required to
operate the platform you use: be it Zoom, Facebook, Instagram, etc.…
make sure you know how to use is well. This might sound obvious, but
nothing is more awkward than technical hiccups that ruin the rhythm of
the program. Make sure you know how to open and close mics and
cameras, create a panel of viewers for multi assistant effects, create
breakout rooms for preshow work, insert slides and screen shares. These
things should be done smoothly as your double lift and pass. Practice and
rehearse them accordingly and PAY FOR THE PRO PLANS. If you have a
means to get a technical assistant – make sure you rehearse together.
2 – Communicate your humanity
Don’t try to over perform to compensate for the lack of feedback. Talk
like a regular human being. When people parody magic, they lampoon
the fake authoritative tone a magician uses to give instructions because
it’s cliché and insincere. In online shows this becomes even more
awkward because everyone knows you are at home alone. You can still
create a magical experience for people, just tone it down to the
proportions that are suitable for the setting. There is no room to read,
just be yourself and have real conversations with people, with the
addition that magic just spontaneously happens during them.
It’s important to live in the moment during the conversation, always
make time to acknowledge the comments and reactions of the rest of the
viewers on your live stream. People will feel more connected and inclined
to keep participating.
Don’t make fun of people's bad internet connection. There is nothing
more helpless then lack of Wi-Fi. Be empathetic to their situation and
move on to a participant that has a better connection. For some reason
people take this personally.
Ken talks about eye contact. This is impossible due to the fact that there
are no eyes to contact, and looking directly into the camera is not always
practical. Plus, if you stare constantly at the camera it will feel really
8
weird and violating for the viewers. In acting lessons, I was taught to look
a bit behind or next to the camera, that makes for an intimate vibe but
not creepy. Here is a neat way to do this with a webcam on top of your
screen: make sure that on your computer screen the window showing
yourself performing is quite small, and placed at the top of the screen,
directly under were the camera is. This way you can monitor the stream
and have subtle “eye” contact with the camera. Instagram live does this
automatically because your square is always on top near the camera.
3 – Capture the excitement
This is not the time to play your tricks down. It’s important to speak
naturally like a human. But if a trick succeeds when the spectator is
hundreds of miles away from you – it's completely legitimate response for
you to express the emotions you want your viewers to experience.
When I perform the nail writer on Zoom, I react before I show I got the
right number, because my inner text is that I am shocked that this actually
worked over the internet.
In short, don’t rely on the audience’s reactions because they are non-
existent. Supply your own reactions that will enhance the effect. Try to do
this without over acting; keep it authentic in the eyes of the viewers.
4 – Control every moment and 5 – Eliminate weak spots
In a regular show people who get bored escape into their cell phones.
When someone gets bored in your online show – they silently leave.
Make sure to monitor how many viewers you have and keep having and
use that as a reference to where your weak spots are. Try to analyse what
happened or didn’t happen at that time that made people leave.
The technical aspects of operating an online show may slow you down.
Like Pillar #1, make sure you master using your digital platform. Getting
people on and off air, sharing screens and transitioning into effects
should all be done as smoothly as possible. Dealing with technical issues
is dead time. It is also inevitable, but do your best to keep it to a
9
minimum. Do not waste time apologizing and explaining technical hiccups
or if a trick doesn’t work. They don’t care. Get on with the program.
6 – Build to a climax
Attention spans are getting shorter and shorter, especially on the
internet. My real-life show runs for 60-75 minutes. My online shows play
best at 25-35 minutes. I have heard of performs who do more than that,
but that’s me. You don’t want to overstay your welcome. But I do want to
over deliver the hell out of those 30 minutes with very strong material.
The viewers don’t care about technical limitations. They want strong
magic tricks, routined in sequence to a grand finale. The old dogma is
start strong and end strong, and put something in the middle. Bad for
online. You need every trick to be great and for that we need to dig into
material for online shows.
Like any show variety is king. A lot of the ‘hands off’ type effect that are
practical for long distance performance are predictions. But if you have
just prediction type effects this could become very monotonous. If you do
any manipulation type routines, the audience cannot inspect or see them
in real life, this diminishes their value and means they must be
exceptionally interesting to engage your audience, be honest with
yourself before you put them in your online show. A lot of manipulation
routines do not engage the audience actively, and the audience might as
well be watching pre-recorded magic trick on YouTube. You want to use
as few of these type of effects as possible. Watching amazing coin
productions is entertaining in real life because the viewer being physically
present increases the impossibility. This is non-existent in the medium of
video.
When choosing material try to think what effects add the value that what
you are doing is live. If you choose an effect that theoretically can be pre-
recorded, it probably is best not to put it in your online show even if it is
visually stunning. If you must do these types of routines, think how you
can change them to incorporate an element that proves that what is
happing is real time, one time, especially just for this crowd.
10
If you perform an effect with a long counting, calculating procedure of
just have to move around a lot in order to force a result - make sure that
you involve the entire audience and not just the one spectator or the rest
will be bored to death.
Don’t try to force old material from your regular show – pick material that
the medium does not harm – but amplifies.
As for the finish, well it’s on you to find that piece that knocks them out.
Ken says you must find a piece that is completely different than the rest
of your show. I close my online shows with a variation on Haim
Goldenberg CamFabulation that I set up in the beginning of the show.
This gives the ending meaning because of the anticipation from the set
up. Please refer to “Maximum Entertainment” for more depth on closing
shows because it is very relevant for any kind of performance including
online.
ME: Many thanks to Gideon for this excellent essay which I think is
essential reading for anyone who does or wants to do shows using Zoom.
A slightly different version of this essay and a lot of other great advice can
be found in Gideon’s eBook OK Zoomer, which you can get here:
https://www.gidilivneh.com/zoombooklet
11
The Finger Game
Effect:
The performer says that he recently read a book called The Finger Ratio
by John Manning. Manning’s claims are based on the scientific research
into the ratio between the lengths of specific fingers. These ratios are
calculated based on increments of 5:3:1. Whilst there is still a lot more
work to be done on the subject, it seems that Digit Ratios will eventually
find a place in modern science in a way that things like Palmistry have
singularly failed to do. He continues that he would like to demonstrate
another property of the hands, but one for which there is no known
scientific basis.
The participants (viewers) now hold up one hand and make some random
choices on their fingers, making genuinely random moves between their
fingers until all but one are eliminated. The performer opens his hand and
shows that on it are the words ‘THIS ONE’ and an arrow pointing to a
finger… the exact same finger that every single participant has chosen!
F.Y.I.
The delightful little finger-forcing trick has been in my repertoire for
almost as long as I’ve been interested in magic. It was taught to me as a
kid by the first magician I ever knew, John Leckie, who was one of the
founders of the magic club where I grew up.
Whilst it is a clever force, its CAM potential didn’t occur to me until I read
two books: Mitox (Self-published, 2007) by Phill Smith and The Finger
Ratio (Faber and Faber, 2009) by John Manning. Mitox is the first in a
trilogy of excellent books on contemporary mentalism by Phill, and
includes an effect he calls ‘Equifinque’, which is where I got the idea for
writing the prediction on my hand. Since I am a sucker for tricks where I
12
write on my hand, the adoption of Phill’s clever idea makes this CAM a
distant cousin of ‘One For The Road’ from CAM volume 1. I highly
recommend all three of Phill’s books by the way.
Now all I needed was a presentational hook. Enter The Finger Ratio book.
I’ll admit it; I didn’t get even a quarter of the way through. Whilst its
initial premise is sound, and scientifically-based, Mr Manning’s
extrapolation of the idea was pseudo-science nonsense of the highest
order and I had to bail. However, the subject of the Digital Ratio does
offer a lovely hook for this effect. One final thing, the numbers 5, 3, and 1,
which I reference when I talk about the book and introduce the CAM have
nothing whatsoever to do with finger ratios, I mention them solely to
make the force seem to make a little more sense.
This trick is a perfect opener, as it gets the whole audience involved and
lets them know that what you do will be fun, interactive and fooling.
Method and Performance:
There is some brief preparation: write the words ‘THIS ONE’ on the palm
of your left hand and draw an arrow from them pointing to your ring
finger. This can be done off-screen, before the start of the show. Just
make sure not to accidentally flash it your hand during your introduction.
Once you’ve introduced the premise of the effect, hold out your right
hand, as you ask all the participants to hold out their left. With your left
forefinger, point to your right little finger (pinkie for U.S. readers) and tell
the participants that this will be their starting point. Since the first ratio in
finger science is 5 (you prevaricate pleasantly) they will make 5 moves. A
move is simply a jump from the finger they are on to the finger or thumb
next to it. Tell them that for the purposes of finger ratios, the thumb is
counted as a finger. Demonstrate a jump by moving your left forefinger
from your right little finger to your right ring finger and counting ‘One’.
Continue by moving it again to your right middle finger and counting
13
‘Two’. Explain that they can jump in either direction, forwards or
backwards.
Once they understand, have them start again on the right little finger.
Turn away from the screen so that it’s obvious that you cannot see what
they are doing and ask them to make their 5 moves. Tell them that
although they made their own moves and could have ended up on any
finger, you are sure that they didn’t end up on their thumb or little finger.
They will confirm that you are correct. Ask them to close those fingers
into their palm (demonstrate with your own right hand by lifting it above
your shoulder and closing the thumb and little finger into the palm) and
do the next moves on just their three middle fingers.
Tell them that the next number in the ratio is 3, so they should make 3
jumps from the finger they are currently on. The reality is, wherever they
start, they will end up on the middle finger. Comment that you are pretty
sure they aren’t on their forefinger, so to close that one into their palm.
Again, you demonstrate with your right hand. They will confirm you are
correct and close that finger.
Tell them that the final number is 1, so they are to make 1 final jump. This
will put them on the ring ringer. Ask them to close the middle finger, as
you are sure they are not on it.
Tell them that you predicted which finger they would all finish on and as
you turn back towards them hold out your left hand, palm up, but with all
the fingers except the ring finger tightly closed, which will hide the
writing. Since they will assume that you just held that finger up right now,
they will think it is a joke. Slowly open your fingers so that they can see
the prediction, letting them know that pseudo-science really is no
laughing matter.
14
The Ring Thing
Effect:
The performer explains that he has witnessed many times that the human
mind becomes far more predictable when emotion or sentiment is
involved. He proposes a little imagination game to demonstrate what he
means. He says that the participants will make three separate choices:
one guided by random chance, one guided by a memory only the
participant could know and one guided by fact. Each participant removes
a finger ring and hides it in either hand behind his back and the performer
turns away. The participant then swaps hands multiple times in ways the
performer could neither know nor guess. Each participant brings both
hands out in front of himself and the performer immediately identifies
which hand the ring is in – all the participants have the ring in their left
hand!
F.Y.I.
This could of course be done with a coin or any other object, although as
you will see, the ring makes more sense in this particular context. Since
not everyone wears a ring, you should let the audience/attendees know
before the show that everyone should have a ring with them. Rather than
revealing where the ring is you could easily predict it, by having your own
ring in the same hand. It also makes a great lead in to my Tequila Hustler
effect if you want to go down that route.
Method and Performance:
After introducing the premise, ask the participants to remove a ring and
hide it in either hand behind their back. You now direct them to think of
any number they like, no limits, and swap hands that number of times.
15
Next they think of the person who bought the ring and use their name (if
they bought it themselves they use their own name), again swapping
hands, spelling the name to themselves and making one swap per letter.
E.g. if the ring is in right hand and they spell the name ‘Jenny’ then they
swap it to the left hand (J), to the right hand (E), to the left hand (N), to
the right hand (N) and finally to the left hand (Y). Make it clear that there
is no way that you could possibly know where they started, what the
name is or where they ended up.
Finally instruct them to make one final set of moves: if the ring is in their
right hand they mentally spell the word ‘right’ and makes one swap per
letter, and if the ring is in their left hand they do likewise, spelling the
word ‘left’ and making one swap per letter.
Because of all the randomness at the beginning with a free choice of
number, then an unknown name, this all seems very fair to the
participants. That is of course nonsense; because of the final spell of
‘right’ or ‘left’ the ring must end up in their left hands. Everything that
goes before is simply camouflage. Reveal the ring’s location however you
choose.
This is another good opener as it gets everyone involved straight away.
And it’s open to plenty of other presentations than choice being an
illusion: coincidence, synchronicity, mass hypnosis, etc. And finally, if
someone doesn’t quite follow the instructions and messes up, just
congratulate them on being an “independent thinker” and tell them that
they “will be perfect to participate in the next imagination game” and do
something that uses just one participant.
16
Game On
Effect:
The performer chooses one participant and inquires whether or not he
has ever been hypnotised. Whatever the answer, the performer states
that whilst he will NOT use any hypnosis, he has already started using
‘suggestion techniques’ that render the participant 100% incapable of
winning the imaginary dice game that they are about to play. Sure
enough, despite allowing the participant to make all the choices, the
performer wins.
F.Y.I.
You’ll be pleased to read that there are no actual suggestion techniques
in this CAM and everything is sure-fire.
This is an example of how to take a bar bet and turn it into something a
lot more interesting. Essentially, you will play a short game with an
imaginary die (although I usually use the incorrect word ‘dice’ when
performing, to ensure that the emphasis is on the effect and not the
etymology). This game is a con and one that can only be won if you know
the secret, which you do and the participant doesn’t.
The bet is from the booklet I’ll Bet You Can’t (1946) by Lewis Kohrs.
Method:
The game takes this format: you and the participant each throw an
imaginary die, calling out any number you choose between 1 and 6. These
scores are added cumulatively and the first person to reach 50 wins. You
always win.
17
E.g. the participant throws a 6, then you throw a 2 which makes the
running total 8. He then throws a 4, making 12 and you then throw a 3
making 15. This continues until someone hits 50. And as I said – it’s
always you.
The secret is simple. You must capture the following key numbers: 8, 15,
22, 29, 36, 43. After you reach either of your first two key numbers (8 or
15) then you simply pick a number that when added to the participant’s
previous throw adds up to 7 (if he throws 1, you throw 6, if he throws 2,
you throw 5 etc.)
You can allow him to go first or second as he chooses. Since he knows
nothing about the key numbers, most of the time you will be able to
capture 8 straight away, however, if the participant chooses to go first
and accidentally captures 8, simply throw low and ensure that you get to
15 first. Remember, he is completely unaware of the key numbers. Or if
this scenario worries you (it shouldn’t!) simply roll first yourself and roll a
1 and take it from there.
During the performance part of this CAM, really play up the premise that
whatever number the participant chooses to throw is exactly what you
wanted, since you have somehow ‘programmed’ him using suggestion
techniques. Depending on his reaction, play the game again. His
exasperation will likely increase and any onlookers present will find this
hugely amusing.
You can, of course, easily repeat it with the same participant if they are
the competitive type. Take care to make sure that the running count is
done verbally and not written down, as you don’t want anyone to spot
the pattern. And finally, if the audience all know each other, get them to
choose the participant by deciding which one of the group is the most (or
least!) persuadable.
18
The Key
Effect:
The performer explains that the human mind is far more predictable than
people realise and that the illusion of choice is simply that – an illusion.
The performer proposes a little imagination game to prove his point. Six
participants are asked to imagine that one of their hands is a lock and
each draws a different number on that hand. A seventh participant holds
a key. Whilst the performer is turned away from the screen, this seventh
participant drops the key on any hand and following some directions from
the performer the hands are eliminated according to how the participant
freely moves the key. This continues until the key is resting on a final
numbered hand. The performer turns around and opens his hand –
written on it is the exact same number.
F.Y.I.
As fans of the CAM series know, I am a big fan of writing on my hands
(and encouraging others to do so too!) There is something very organic
about using your hand as a prediction and it feels very fixed, in a way
writing something on a piece of paper just doesn’t.
The key (pardon the pun) to the success of effects like these is to
emphasise the complete freedom of the participant’s original choice of
where to place the key and the fact that there is zero way that you the
performer can see what is happening as the participant moves it. You
need to make it crystal clear that you cannot see the action by making it
obvious that you honestly cannot see the screen or monitor. Turn your
back if necessary.
19
Method and Performance:
Write the number ‘5’ on your left palm, making sure that no one sees
what you write. Introduce the premise and invite seven people to
participate in a group experiment to show what you mean. Ask one
participant to find a key, removing it from a bunch if necessary. Have the
other six participants stand in a line and hold out their left hands to
represent a lock and ask each of them to take a pen and number their
hands, one to six, in order.
As they do so you explain that obviously the key can only fit one lock, not
all six, so you will allow chance to dictate which lock it should be. Turn
your back and stress that you cannot see the screen or monitor so cannot
see anything that happens, and that it is the participant who is controlling
all the action. (This is the misinformation that sells the effect, as in fact
you are controlling the only important part of the action!)
Ask the participant to drop the key onto any hand (“Into any lock…”)
When they have done so, ask them to look at the number on that hand
and make that number of moves, explaining that a ‘move’ consists of
moving the key to an adjacent hand. If the key starts on hand number
one, they make one move. If it starts on hand number five, they make five
moves and so on. If they reach either end of the line during the count,
then the next move must be back in the opposite direction.
When they have done this, explain that if you are correct in your
assertion that choice is just an illusion, then the key will not be in lock
number one, so ask that person to drop his hand, he is out of the game.
Ask the participant to make one move. Tell person six he cannot have the
key, and to drop his hand. Ask the participant to make four more moves.
Tell person two that he is out. Have the participant make three moves.
Inform person three that there is zero chance he has the key – he is out.
Finally, three more moves and then you tell person four that he was so
close, but there was never really a chance that he would end up with the
key.
20
To conclude, address person five as you turn back around telling them
that there was no chance of it being anyone but them and open your own
left hand to show your prediction is correct.
Obviously the performance should build, as the participants become
more and more impressed that you are able to eliminate people who do
not (cannot) have the key, despite the fact that the participant chose
where to begin and is controlling how the key moves and you cannot see
anything of what is happening. The pace should pick up as you proceed;
only slowing down at the end before you reveal the prediction. Many
times the participants will forget that you even have something written
on your hand.
As you are giving your instructions, you have two options regarding the
choice of the number of moves you are requesting the participant to
make. Either you can make them seem random, as if you are just making
them up and they don’t matter, or you can ask the participant a random
question each time (“Do you prefer sun or snow?” “Dog person or cat
person?” etc.) And then give your instruction apparently based on their
response. Whichever you choose is up to you, depending on your
performance style and persona.
Credits and inspiration: Bob Hummer, Mel Stover, Stewart James.
21
Dream On
Effect:
After discussing the power of dreams and the meanings of certain
dreams, the performer confesses that like many people he can rarely
remember his dreams. However he states that the one dream he does
remember is because of the fact that he keeps having exactly the same
dream over and over again: one in which he wins the Lottery. As
confirmation of the yet-to-happen events in this dream, he writes down
three pieces of information – the date and the year of his future ‘win’ and
the final Lottery number that gives him the six perfect numbers required
for the Jackpot.
A participant now uses his intuition to discern the date, the year and the
final lottery number that was required to make your ticket a winner.
Unbelievably, he is 100% correct with all three!
F.Y.I.
All that is required to perform Dream On are some slips of paper or
business cards and a pen. No sleights, no gimmicks, no dual-reality. As
you may have guessed (from the use of the slips of paper) this relies on
the venerable one-ahead principle. However, I have taken the direct
opposite approach to its normal use, an improvement which has far wider
applications than just this effect.
Usually with one-ahead, the participant makes three choices and each
time the performer makes a written prediction as to what he thinks the
participant will choose. So in effect, the performer is trying to
deduce/guess what the participant is thinking. I’ve reversed this: in
Dream On the effect is that the spectator is the one trying to
deduce/guess what the performer is thinking. The shift of focus both
22
increases the impact of the effect and further obfuscates the nature of
the method. All the heat is now on the participant’s choices, not the
performer’s.
As usually used, the one-ahead methodology leaves the participant and
audience thinking, “Why do I have to say my choice out loud straight after
the magician has written it down? Why doesn’t he just show me?”
With this approach, you are writing down information that you already
know (after all, it was your dream!) and which the participant does not. It
makes complete sense for him to make his guess after you’ve written
down each ‘fact’.
Further, this tactic opens up a multitude of other presentational uses
which will be discussed in detail in a future publication, although I’m sure
you will no doubt think of some possible applications immediately.
This specific presentation seeks to solve the other huge problem with
one-ahead - the force of the final object. You know how it usually goes:
Question 1, name any person who ever lived. Question 2, name any place
in the world. Question 3, pick any playing card! The final choice is always
so narrow in scope compared to the previous two that it jarringly points
directly to the method. In this instance he is picking from an already
limited field (the lottery numbers) but you make it even easier for him by
telling him that the final number you needed was a number between one
and twenty. And it makes sense that you’d want to help him with the last
choice, as you obviously know how well he has done with the first two
attempts.
One final thing: although you could use three participants to guess/intuit
one piece of information each, thereby involving more people, in this
instance it would be counter-productive, as the cumulative effect is
much, much stronger with the continuity of just one person trying to read
your mind.
23
Method and Performance:
You will need 3 slips of paper, double-blank business cards (don’t use the
back of your actual business cards as somewhere to write, as this treats
them as just bits of paper, which cheapens them immeasurably) beermats
or whatever. All three must look the same, since the order in which they
are written on will be lost as they are folded in half and dropped one at a
time into an empty glass or cup. You will also need another couple of A4-
sized sheets of paper which are big enough to tear into ten pieces each
for the force at the end.
Introduce the premise of the effect by claiming that you had a very vivid
dream in which you won the Lottery and that you will use the details to
text how intuitive one participant is. Explain that you remember all the
details about exactly when you will win and with which exact numbers.
Tear the sheets of paper into ten pieces each and write the digits 0
through 9 on the first ten pieces and then again on the second ten, so
that you end up with two ‘0’s, two ‘1’s, two ‘2’s etc. Clearly let everyone
see what you are doing. The number 18 will be your force number, so
give the numbered pieces of paper “a bit of a mix” (definitely not “a
shuffle”, please!) and make sure that you end up with a ‘1’ and an ‘8’ on
the top of the stack.
Tell the participant that you are going to write down the exact
information from your dream and that he will get the chance to use his
intuition to see if he can discern what it was you dreamt.
Next you pick up the first slip of paper and write down the name of your
force number, 18. Fold the slip in half and drop it into the empty cup. Tell
the participant that you have written the year in which you won the
Lottery in your dream. Ask him to think carefully for a moment and then
tell you which year he thinks. Whatever he says, reply enigmatically,
“Really? That’s the year you think? Interesting…” If he says a year very
close to now, next year for example, continue by saying “So… just one
more year ‘til I hit the big time!” or something similar. Likewise, if he says
a year that is a long way off, you comment, “That means of course that I’ll
24
be 82 years old when I win!” Whatever he says, make a bit of a joke out
of it.
Now, pick up the second slip of paper and write down the year that he
said. Fold that in half, drop it into the cup say that you’ve written the
exact date down. Then ask the participant which date in the year he
thinks you will win on. Whichever date he says, immediately say “No! Not
even close! Think again, but please concentrate this time…” Of course,
this is just bluff, since any date he says will work, but your rebuttal further
serves to hide the method. When he gives his second response, simply
reply “Oh… OK. Now, you’re letting your intuition guide you.”
Pick up the final slip of paper and write on it the date he just gave you.
Again, fold it and drop it into the cup. Say that you’ve written down the
name of the final number that always completed your dream Jackpot win.
Explain that for this final choice, you will allow chance to play a part, as in
the real (dream!) game. And that as in the lottery the number will be
decided totally by chance.
Pick up the stack of papers and start to slowly deal from the top into a
pile on the table. As you are dealing the first five or six pieces tell the
participant that he is to choose a random place to stop, and from the
random place he stops you at, you will use that random pile of pieces to
generate a random lottery number. Wherever he stops you, discard the
pieces in your hand out of sight (i.e. off screen), pick up the dealt pile and
then cleanly deal that into two piles, explaining that the resulting top digit
of each pile will be used to form a random two-digit lottery number.
Leave those top digits face-down for now.
Turn your attention back to the cup and tip all the slips of paper out onto
the table. Find the one with the year on it. Ask the participant to repeat
what year he said and then read and show the paper to confirm that the
participant was correct. Do the same with the date – again proving that
the participant’s intuition was correct. Finally, read and show the last slip,
identifying 18 as the sixth and final number that won you the Jackpot.
Slowly turn over the top paper on each of the two dealt piles to show a ‘1’
and an ‘8’ - 18. Everything in play can be examined should you so choose.
25
A couple of things need to be mentioned. Firstly, you may wonder, as
many have with other effects using the one-ahead principle, whether it
might strengthen the effect to work things so that the participant doesn’t
get the date exactly right, maybe out by one or two days. In the past I did
try that and found that in this instance it didn’t seem to make any
difference. Instead I eventually opted for the ruse of telling them “No!
Not even close! Think again, but concentrate this time…” when they make
their initial date guess. This offers plenty disconnect I think.
Secondly, pay attention to your actions when are writing on the slips of
paper. In the first instance you are meant to be writing down a four-digit
number. So, writing just the two digits for ‘18’ must be extended by
miming the writing of two more numbers. Similarly with the second thing
you write. You are only writing a four-digit number (the year) but are
supposed to be writing a date, so make it look a little longer, maybe
miming the writing of a couple of extra characters.
Finally, yes of course you could use TOXIC or various other methods to
force the lottery number. Personally, I quite like the organic feel of the
numbers being written on torn pieces of paper. For some shows such as
corporate or business clients you might want a different approach, so a
pack of number cards would be a good idea. I highly recommend the
Cipher Deck:
https://www.magicworld.co.uk/CIPHER-DECK-James-Anthony-Mark-
Elsdon-magicworld.html
26
All Change
Effect:
An audience member is asked if they know how much change they have
in their pocket. They reply “No”. The performer claims that he is the
world champion at identifying amounts of money from sound alone! He
can even do it over video!! Preposterous though this claim sounds, he
says he will prove it. The participant removes some coins from their
pocket and shakes them in his closed fist. The performer does the same.
He then makes a multiple prediction about the amounts of money
involved. When the participant and performer both count their coins, the
performer’s prediction proves to be correct to the exact penny!
F.Y.I.
Al Koran’s brilliant ‘Jackpot Coins’ trick took an old stunt which usually
used matches or cards and quite literally turned it into ‘the trick that
fooled Einstein’. But it took the clever and under-appreciated Will Dexter
to turn this effect into something suitable for modern consumption. You’ll
remember the old version (if you haven’t already) as soon as I mention
the prediction format, which goes along the lines of: I have as many coins
as you, five more and enough to make my total up to £3.65. Dexter’s
handling can be found in A Little Magic Amongst Friends (The Supreme
Magic Co. Ltd., 1981) and perceptively focuses the prediction on the
amounts of money rather than the number of coins used.
Method:
You will need £4.69 in coins (or use US$ or Euros, depending on where
you live) comprising a reasonably large amount of change. You could do it
in 7 coins (2x£2, 1x50p, 1x10p, 1x5p and 2x2p), but don’t. Instead, make
27
sure that the total of £4.69 is comprised of plenty 1p pieces, 2p pieces
and 5p pieces as well as some 10, 20 and 50p coins, plus maybe just a
single £1 coin. You want around 30 coins in total. This both further hides
the method when you count up later and makes what you are claiming to
do much more impressive as an effect.
At some point in the conversation you introduce your supposed skill of
being able to identify the value of money purely from listening to the
sounds the coins make clinking against one another. This is, of course,
said with tongue firmly in cheek. Nevertheless, you will go on to prove the
point in a seriously amazing way! Ask the participant to reach into their
pocket and remove ‘some’ pocket change but without looking at how
much they have. You say that you will do the same and remove just a bit
of change (it must seem like you don’t know how much). In fact, you
reach into your pocket and remove all the change.
As soon as you both have a fistful of change, you make the following
statement (which is Dexter’s fantastic opening gambit): “Nobody could
possibly know for certain how much each of us holds. The best anyone
could hope to do would be to make a guess and hope that he was
somewhere near correct. I am not going to make such a guess… but I am
going to say that I am sure I know how much money I have, and more
important, how much money you have!”
You then make your prediction: “I have exactly the same amount of
money as you do, 46 pence extra and enough left over so that when it’s
added to your money it will total £4.23”. I have reworded this slightly
from the usual prediction to make it clearer.
The £4.23 total you mention is simply the whole amount of £4.69 minus
the “46 pence extra” that you mention. By the way, the great idea of
adding the money you have left over to the participant’s total and not
your own is Jon Racherbaumer’s.
Say your prediction slowly and clearly several times, so that you are
certain they have it.
28
All that remains to do is count the money and prove that you are correct.
Allow the participant to count their amount first and then in a pile in front
of you, match it exactly. Then in a separate pile count out the 46 pence
and then finally in a third pile, right next to the participants coins,
continue counting on from his original amount to prove the grand total of
£4.23.
The instruction for the participant to just remove ‘some’ pocket change is
very important, especially here in the UK where we have a £2 coin. In you
find yourself regularly working for people who carry and therefore
remove from their pocket more money than the £4.69 you are holding
then there are two alternatives: either carry more money as the
prediction (add 2x£2 to make the total up to £8.69, and re-word the
prediction accordingly) or specifically instruct the participant to “remove
five or six different coins” from their pocket. My preference would be for
the latter, as the former will ultimately involve a lot more counting.
It’s important with this effect not to have any kind of printed prediction;
in order for it to be believable it really must seem that whatever you are
doing to ascertain how much money they have, that you are doing it in
the moment.
29
Bet On L.A.
Effect:
After talking about one of his favourite films, The Sting, and the kind of
cons and proposition bets featured in the film, the performer proposes a
simple bet – but one that simply deals with words, rather than some kind
of trick or con. Here is the bet. The performer shows a piece of card
printed like this:
THE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SURGEON
WAS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ TO OPERATE
BECAUSE HE HAD _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The participants are told that exactly the same seven letters, in exactly
the same order fit in each of the three empty spaces. There is no tricky
language con – it really is the same letters in the same order in each
space. If anyone is able to solve the puzzle, his or her prize is that he will
have discovered an unusual new ability. Since you are a nice guy, there
will be no forfeit if they fail.
(By the way, please have a go at solving this puzzle before reading ahead
and finding out the solution. It is a tricky, but genuine, word puzzle and it
will feel much more satisfying if you work out the answer for yourself.)
After the participants give up (and unless they already know this puzzle,
they will!) the performer claims that the participants are struggling
because they are focusing their cognitive minds too narrowly on the data
they don’t have and that if one participant is willing to try plugging into
his subconscious the answer may well present itself. A participant is
30
selected and although he seems sceptical, he agrees to play along and see
what happens.
The performer takes another piece of card and tears it into eight pieces,
writes a single letter on seven of the pieces and bins the final one. He
then mixes up these seven pieces of card and they are dealt onto the
table, with the participant randomly choosing when to switching the
order of several pieces as they are dealt.
The performer turns over the pieces of paper that have been mixed and
randomly dealt and reveals the following letters: N, O, T, A, B, L and E.
The participant’s intuition has somehow revealed the answer: the
NOTABLE surgeon was NOT ABLE to operate because he had NO TABLE!
The exact same seven letters in exactly the same order each time.
F.Y.I.
I do hope you had a go at solving this. It is quite a difficult puzzle, so well
done if you solved it. I did my best and gave you a clue in the title of the
trick! Here is how the completed solution looks after you fill it in on the
piece of paper the participant sees:
THE NOTABLE SURGEON
WAS NOT ABLE TO OPERATE
BECAUSE HE HAD NO TABLE.
I’ve always enjoyed bar bets and puzzles but too often when you show
someone the solution the response is, “Oh. Right. Very clever.” Implying
that it’s not actually very clever at all, but REALLY rather annoying! So I
wanted to find a way to turn this, one of my favourite word puzzles, into
something more interesting and entertaining.
31
Method and Performance:
The first part is easy enough – you simply print the puzzle on a piece of
card (capital letters make it far more legible) as shown on the preceding
page. At first they might think that you are tricking them with the
conditions somehow (as is usually the case with this kind of bet) but
reassure them that you are being honest, that it really is the same seven
letters in the same order. If you’re feeling cruel, you can supply them with
a couple of additional clues if you like: that all seven letters are different
and that whilst it IS the same seven letters in the same order, this doesn’t
necessarily mean that it is the same word in each of the three spaces. This
will likely just confuse them even more.
Once they give up, explain that using their intuition might help. Use
another piece of card and tear it into eight; in half, in half again and then
one final time. Bin one of the pieces and then on the other seven pieces
write one each of the letters N, O, T, A, B, L and E, in that order from the
top down. It’s actually easiest to write them in reverse order, placing each
one writing-side down into a pile as you go. Use a thick black marker so
that the letters are visible (you might want to make sure that the card is
300gsm so that the ink doesn’t bleed through to the other side). Make
sure the participant doesn’t see what you write on the card – no clues!
This second piece of paper should also be A4 so that the pieces (and
letters) are clearly visible on camera.
Appear to mix these up (please, don’t use the word “Shuffle”) but really
just give them a Charlier (false Haymow) shuffle or just a series of sloppy-
looking running cuts. At the conclusion cut the ‘E’ paper back to the
bottom.
You will now do Paul Curry’s Switchless Switch as the participant directs
you: you deal the pieces of paper one at a time into a pile on the table,
but at any time he likes the participant can tell you to switch the positions
of the next two pieces about to be dealt and place them onto the table as
a pair. Thanks to Curry’s ingenuity, nothing has really happened, no
matter how many times the participant tells you to switch. Once you have
32
finished dealing, the sequence isn’t affected, although of course the
letters are now in reverse order.
Pick them up, casually flashing the bottom letter (the ‘N’) and deal
through once more, again allowing the participant to switch where he
likes. This sets them back in the correct order ready for the reveal. Turn
the letters up one at a time, placing them into a row, completing the
word ‘NOTABLE’. Now copy the letters onto the piece of card containing
the puzzle, saying the solution out loud as you do so, “The notable
surgeon was not able to operate because he had no table.”
The participant will no doubt be amused at the puzzle and amazed by his
capability of randomly finding the correct letter order, so congratulate
him on his new-found ability to use his subconscious mind for problem
solving. And the whole group will have a cool new puzzle that they will be
keen to try out whenever they get chance.
33
Seven
Effect:
The performer talks about the film ‘Seven’ starring Brad Pitt and Morgan
Freeman. After mentioning some of the disturbing images in the film the
performer asks a participant to think of one of the seven sins and to
mentally picture the scene from the film which matches that particular
sin. Claiming that the image he is ‘receiving’ is too confusing, the
performer asks that instead the participant imagine the sin written down
on a scrap of paper, much the same as most of the sins in the film are
written in either blood or dust. Letter by letter the sin is revealed.
F.Y.I.
A simple branching anagram effect, this time using a film as the source
material.
This routine is based on an earlier one of mine called Sinner! Once I
ditched the printed card I used in that effect the impact upon the
participant became far stronger. Shortly afterwards I began using the
‘Seven’ presentation and surprisingly I got a better reaction than when
the participant was imagining himself sinning. I think the reason is that in
fact few participants were actually imagining themselves committing a sin
but were instead merely choosing one of the words from the list. This
film-based presentation plugs into the imagery of quite a provocative film
and provides an emotional hook that was otherwise missing.
Method:
Basically, a branching anagram and some simple pumping.
34
Here is a list of the seven deadly sins as categorised by Pope Gregory the
Great:
GLUTTONY
LUST
SLOTH
ENVY
PRIDE
ANGER
GREED
This is not the order in which they appear in the film, but the order in
which the anagram progresses. It is important to mention each of them as
you discuss the film, as many people will not remember all seven. In fact
if you intend to actually perform this effect it would probably be worth
your while watching the film ‘Seven’ again to re-acquaint yourself with
how each of the sins is dealt with. If you are going to be seeing the film
for the first time, enjoy the visceral thrills, and don’t bother with any
popcorn.
Here, then, is the anagram:
E
s - gluttony
h - lust
- sloth
R - envy
G - pride
D - anger
- greed
35
Standard procedure is followed in that you call out each capital letter
until you hear a ‘No’ answer and then proceed on to the lowercase
letters. If the letter (capital or lowercase) has a word next to it, then when
you hear a ‘No’ answer then THAT is the word. If you don’t receive any
‘No’ answers then the word is ‘greed’. Note that I have used ‘Greed’
instead of ‘Avarice’ since it makes the pumping procedure easier, plus it’s
a more commonly used word in this day and age.
The word is thus revealed ‘one letter at a time’. In my opinion the only
justification for revealing a word one letter at a time is if you are trying to
perceive a written or printed word – otherwise you would just announce
the whole word, which, of course, the method will not let you do. Read
the previous sentence again. They must be imagining the word written
down, or revealing the word letter by letter is nonsense. In this particular
effect, it is natural for them to imagine the words written, since most of
the sins are seen written in either blood or dust in the film itself.
This ‘must be written down’ rule holds true for every effect that relies on
anagrams or pumping as the method, unless (and this is the sole caveat)
you are using additional/alternative revelation techniques from
Banachek’s Psychological Subtleties Vol. 1 (The Brain Game, p61-70).
The idea of using an anagram (progressive, branching, interlocking or
otherwise) is the brainchild of Stanley Collins, first published in 1920 (see
also Stanley Collins: Conjuror, Collector, and Iconoclast by Edwin A.
Dawes, p196). Finally, thanks to Peter Lipp for his fantastic anagram
generating software which I used to devise this anagram.
36
Deckless Wonder
By Stephen Tucker
Effect:
After talking about the power of the imagination, the performer offers to
show a participant a card trick. However the performer doesn’t use any
actual playing cards or, in fact, anything at all, not even a scrap of paper.
Here’s what happens: the participant thinks of any playing card in the
deck. He writes nothing down and tells no one. The performer removes
‘nothing’ from an imaginary card case and explains that it is an invisible
deck of cards. He handles the ‘nothing’ as if it really is a deck of cards and
eventually reveals the actual card thought of!
F.Y.I.
This brilliant CAM is from the fertile brain of my good friend Stephen
Tucker. In Stephen’s handling a real deck was involved too, but I have
removed the need for that, making this an example of the CAM ethos at
its purest – no props whatsoever, just conversation.
As well as the fact that this is a great piece of mentalism, Tucker gets my
award for best trick title of the year with this one.
Method and Performance:
You will need to memorise this simple prompt list:
Line 1: A - 3 - 5 - 7 - 9 - J - K
Line 2: 2 - 3 - 6 - 7 - 10 - J
Line 3: 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - Q - K
Line 4: 8 - 9 - 10 - J - Q – K
37
In the original write-up of this trick I urged the reader to resist the urge to
make a crib on their phone or anywhere else and just spend 10 minutes
and brute-force remember it. I used the Tamariz technique of turning it
into a song when I learnt it. For use on Zoom though, it’s a simple matter
to have a crib in your eye-line but not visible to the audience. So no need
to skip this killer trick because of memory issues!
Ask someone to think of any card in the deck. Remove from your pocket
an imaginary deck of cards and mime shaking a deck of invisible cards out
of its box. Mime shuffling then looking through and removing one card.
Place the rest of the invisible cards on top of the imaginary card case and
explain that you are holding one card, and you will use it to reveal the
very card that they are thinking of.
Say, “Imagine that this card is the same suit as the card you are thinking
of. In other words, if your card is a spade, this card is a spade, but if you
thought of a diamond, this card is a diamond. Do you understand?” Make
sure they do before you continue. You now pass a hand back and forth
over the invisible card as you say, “If I do this – the card changes into the
ace, then the three, the five, the seven, the nine, the jack, and finally into
the king. Was one of those the card you are thinking of?”
If they say “yes,” you remember the number 1. If they say “no,”
remember the number 0. If they say something like, “Slow down! I wasn’t
paying attention. Do it again!” Simply repeat the above actions and
patter, and remember the required number 1 or 0.
What you have done here is to call out the first line on the prompt, i.e. A -
3 - 5 - 7 - 9 - J - K. You now do the same with the other three lines from
the prompt, but when you call out the second line, you remember the
number 2 if they say “yes” or 0 if they say “no.”
With the third line remember the number 4 if they say “yes” or 0 if they
say “no,” and with the final line r