Peter Turner Guess Who

1
          Copyright © 2017, ementalism

              www.e-mentalism.com
          Secret products for mentalists.

     All rights reserved under all applicable law,
  including the Berne Convention. No part of this
   publication may be reproduced, distributed, or
      transmitted in any form or by any means,
     including photocopying, recording, or other
   electronic or mechanical methods, without the
prior written permission of the publisher, except in
  the case of brief quotations embodied in critical
 reviews and certain other non-commercial uses
     permitted by copyright law. For permission
    requests, email or write the publisher at the
                    address below.




                         2
Effect
The performer proposes to divine a merely thought
of name from the mind of his participant.
The performer does not however, want the
participant to think of someone they know, but
instead, create a random name in their mind. The
only rule, is that the name must not be unisex, so
that he (the performer), doesn't get confused and
thrown off by something as irrelevant as getting
caught up on the gender of the person the
participant is thinking of.

Within ten seconds of the participant thinking of a
name, the performer can reveal it.

Variant #2: The performer asks the participant to
think of a playing card and a name at random.
The performer is able to successfully deduce both.

Variant #3: The participant asks three people to
generate a name at random, in their mind. The
performer looks at the three participants and calls
out what he believes the names to be.

Each participant confirms that the performer was
correct!

                         3
Breakdown
I think you will be pleasantly surprised at how
simple this is. This was born off the back of not
wanting too much process, while making the
process easy to understand for the participant and,
as sure fire as possible.
The best way to show you how great this is, is to
perform an interactive-esque effect for you, the
reader.

In a moment, when you think of a name, see the
name in its simplest form. So, for example, Edward
would be, Ed. Also, don't pick a unisex name as it
will confuse
things. This is the only stipulation you must stick
to when creating a name.
Clear your mind, in this experiment we will utilise
numerology to generate a name at random.
Think of two digits from your pin code, largely in
the air in front of you. For example, if you picked a
9 and an 8, you would see a big 9 in the air and a
big number 8, but for obvious reasons don't go for
the same numbers as me, it needs to be your own
thoughts, not mine. Imagine, whatever two digits
you are thinking of as a two-digit number and now,
instead of seeing these digits in the air as numbers,
imagine them as words written in the air, like
‘ninety-eight’.
                          4
Now that you have done that, in your mind
gravitate toward the first letter in the words and
think of the first male name that pops into your
head that starts with whatever letter it is you are
thinking of. Again, please don’t go for a unisex
name and see this name in its simplest form, Peter
would be, Pete.
Have you got a random name in mind?
If you are thinking of someone you know with the
same name, it is only by chance that you are
thinking of this person, see this name at the
forefront of your mind.
Think of the number of letters in this name -
Ok, as there are a few people reading this
simultaneously, I will try to guess the names you
are thinking of - here goes.
One of you is thinking of, Frank or Fred (you were
changing your mind between the two); I see the
names, Tom and Steve?
Was I close?
If I wasn’t close, you were likely thinking of Sean/
Shaun. I rarely get those names come up, and when
I explain the method, you will understand why.
The method, if you haven't already figured, is
'restricting without seeming restrictive'.
Let's look at the restrictions.


                         5
First, as no unisex names are used in this
presentation, it drastically reduces the number of
names that the participant can think of. I kill the
number 9, which means all the names that begin
with N are also killed, and I kill the number 8,
which means all the names beginning with ‘E’ are
also killed.
Let's look at the numbers and the names that could
relate to those numbers, then we will look at how to
instantly get down to one name.
1 would be 'O' - (doesn't apply, as there is no way
the participant can choose the word 'one' the way
that we have framed the set up).
2 and 3 - start with 'T' - (After killing all the unisex
names, we are left with Tom/Tim, I always throw
out Tom, I don't mind missing by just a slight miss-
pronunciation) one thing to pay attention to is, if
you are in another country outside of England and
there are names more popular than Tom, then
change the name you use in your presentation to
whatever name the participant is likely to think of.
Take note of the fact that I ask the participant to
think of the first name that pops into their head
and again, this drastically reduces the amount of
possibilities.
4 and 5 - Begin with 'F' - (Fred/Frank, are the only
names I can think of).


                           6
6 and 7 - Begin with an 'S' - (Steve/Sean, I have
found Steve, to be a hell of a lot more consistent
than Sean, but it is good to bear in mind that Sean,
might come up).
8 and 9 are dismissed at the start of the routine
and therefore the names starting with these letters
are dismissed also. The reason I chose to dismiss
those letters is, because there are a lot of names
that could be created using the letter 'N'. I dismiss
the letter 'E' because that letter has mostly four
letter names and for the instant reduction process
(outlined later), I chose to eliminate it. You
could decide to eliminate any numbers – I have
personally found these to be the best numbers to
eliminate.
Note:These names work perfectly here, if however,
you find that Sean/Shaun, is occurring more than
Steve, simply swap it in place of Steve. I can
honestly say, I have never had Shaun, come up.
But, talking to my American friends, they said that
Sean, may come up more frequently than Steve.
The principle is still the same, and if you were
under any worry about the participant going for
that name in the performance, simply add this line
of scripting - "If, for example, you ended up
thinking of the name Shaun, imagine what you feel
Shaun, might look like. For obvious reasons, now I
have said Shaun, don't go for that".

                          7
This, dismisses the name Shaun/Sean, from the list
entirely and stops any concerns about it being an
issue (which I have never found it to be).

The thing I found interesting about getting people
to think of a name this way is, that it seems so
random and yet it's very restrictive. Pay close
attention to the way I paint this red in the
performance (I do not frame it up as numerology).
You will notice, that I asked (when performing the
effect on you, the reader) to think of a male name.
There are ways to ensure the participant picks a
male name that is not so transparent, and if you
wanted your participant to pick either sex, I will
also cover that a little later, also.
By simply knowing the number of letters in the
name, you are instantly down to one or two names.
If there is a name that keeps cropping up, simply
add it to the list of names and utilise it as part of
your performance (I know I have repeated this
point several times, but I feel it is important to
note).
Try to keep the formula as simple as possible, you
will find that this is very reliable and it is startling
just how quick the routine is over and how great
the reactions are.



                            8
Now that we have the basic structure of the routine
outlined, let's put it all together and break it down,
piece by piece.
Full performance/breakdown of subtleties
Variation #1
Performing to one participant (for a group or one
on one)
We will assume, that the performer is acquainted
with the participant.
Performer: "If I asked you to think of a name, the
likeliness is that you will think of somebody you
know. I really don't mind you thinking of someone
you know; the problem is that the more sceptical
people watching, will always assume that I
somehow found out from Facebook or some other
social platform".
- One thing I always strive for is, to make the fairest
seeming moment in a performance, the moment
that the method occurs. As mentioned in the
introduction, I always try to appease the
participant's logic. This frame work allows me to
implement the method, whilst having the
participants agree that it is fairer than simply
thinking of a name.
Performer: "let's create a name in the strangest, yet
fairest way I can think of. Imagine, say... two digits
from your pin code and see those numbers as a
two-digit number, like 98. But, for obvious reasons,

                           9
don't go for those numbers as I have mentioned
them".
- What we have achieved here is to eliminate a 9
and an 8, which drastically reduces the number of
names. Notice, that this happens before I even
mention anything about using the numbers to
generate a name and therefore doesn't seem
suspect or restrictive. Notice also, I ask the
participant to think of two numbers, this subtly
makes the entire thing seem a little bit more
impossible, when the second digit is little more
than fluff to make the effect seem larger.
The participant could think of one number and this
would still work, OR, they could think of a random
number from something such as 'the life equation'
or any other force that guarantees an outcome and
again this would subtly restrict the participant to a
small number of names. One thing that aids this
routine in flying seamlessly, is to make it seem like
you are inventing the process off the top of your
head. If it seems that you made the process up on
the spot, the process is no longer a strange process,
it is random and random is good.
I think it's important at this point, to talk about
'Painting something red'. If you point out that a
process is going to be strange and random, it
doesn't seem out of place, instead it becomes a
natural part of the process. One rule I always stick

                         10
to is, if a routine has a flaw, paint it red and try to
make the flaw seem like it is the fairest part of the
process. The use of a pin code again, is I feel, a
great solution because you can say something like
“let’s take something more impossible than a name,
let’s say two digits from your pin code”. Let’s
continue from the point of the participant seeing
two numbers in the air.
Performer: "Instead of seeing these numbers as
digits, imagine seeing the numbers written in the
air as words".
Participant: "Ok".
Performer: " In your mind gravitate toward the
first letter (pause for a second) and let the first
male name starting with whatever letter you are
thinking of, pop into your head but, please don't go
for a unisex name, I need you to be definitive".
- This is a simple set of instructions; this paragraph
is the most important paragraph of all, as it
completely leads the participant to one of the
restricted outcomes.
Performer: "The name you are thinking of right
now, you may coincidentally know someone with
the same name but you've arrived at this name by
chance, not choice. Concentrate on the name".
- This is just to press the point that the name was
arrived at by chance, not choice.

                          11
Performer: "Imagine the name in its simplest form
for me, so for example, Peter would be, Pete".
- This is the only area where we must apply any
real work - Figuring out the number of letters. I
personally use, Michael Murray's CUPs principle,
as I think it is the most elegant tool for the job.
With Michael Murray's permission, here is how we
utilise his, CUPs principle.
Performer: "Think of the exact number of letters in
this name".
- If the participant responds instantly that they
have thought of the number of letters, it is a good
bet the name is 3 or 4 letters long, once you get
good at this technique you will be able to
differentiate between 3 and 4 letters. If they
struggle slightly, then the name is likely to be 5
letters long - This hesitation, in a nutshell, is the
CUPs principle.
It enables you to roughly know the number of
letters in a word. Please look toward Michael's
work to see all his wonderful uses for this principle.
Utilising the CUPs principle with a hanging
statement, will instantly give you the number of
letters.
First, work out if you think it is 3/4 letters or 4/5
letters, using CUPs and then address the
participant, for the sake of example we will imagine
that the participant is thinking of 3 letters.

                          12
Performer: "This is three... (Pause)".
- The participant will say you are correct. Let's look
at the same statement if the participant was
thinking of a four-letter name.
Performer: "This is three... (pause) no, four letters
long, right?"
- Notice how I finished the statement this time,
before the confirmation from the participant halted
me in the middle of my statement.
This same thinking applies to 4/5 letter names
also.

For fullness of explanation, here are a couple of
alternative methods to being able to deduce the
number of letters if you have used the CUPs
principle previously in your performance and for
whatever reason, you are not wanting to use the
same principle for fear of the participants catching
onto you using it (which shouldn't happen but
there is nothing wrong with playing safe).
One method is fishing for the appropriate number
of digits, this method is simple, as it's a one in three
chance of being right by guessing - the name can
only be 3, 4 or 5 letters long.
By addressing the participant and saying,



                           13
Performer: "Ok, so how many letters do I think are
in this name...hmm I'd say 4 (pause slightly as to
wait for the reaction) or 5"
If the participant reacts by nodding or affirming on
either of these, then you know the length of the
name, if not, then you are instantly down to one
name, 'Tom'. If the participant says no when you
deliver the above script, simply say,
Performer: "I wasn't asking, don't give me any
clues, I was speaking out loud".
This kind of quick sentence is something I have
always adored, very simple yet elegant and makes
the participant feel that they have accidentally
tipped something that they shouldn't have.
Another way, is to reduce the number of letters via
proxy. This is something I love to utilise in
performance, as it completely gives me the ability
without missing, to either know the exact number
of letters or reduce the number of letters (objects,
words or whatever you are using this for). We are
going to utilise a second participant for this,
addressing the second participant - Note: This
routine does require you to know the number of
letters in the name to bring the effect to a
conclusion. Once you are entirely comfortable with
the CUPs principle, miscalling the number of
letters to create this drama is a simple, yet elegant


                         14
principle, that I feel if one dismissed it, would be a
shame.
I often feel that mentalism lacks an air of drama/
tension. Everything seems to flow all too smoothly
and it is easy for the participant to feel like you
know their thought, before it comes to the
revelation - that is something I believe we should
aim to avoid.
As mentalists, we should be predicting of others,
not predictable.
Let's imagine for a moment that we were watching
a show like; Holby City or
E.R (for those outside the U.K. these are television
shows about hospitals). Imagine a patient being
brought into the hospital, that is in a critical
condition and needs an operation and the surgeon
says "There's a 100% chance of success", before the
operation has taken place. After witnessing the
surgery, another story unfolds where the doctor
claims that the patient needs to take a tablet and
their condition will be resolved within 24 hours.
People checking in and out of the hospital with
injuries like paper-cuts or a sore throat, can
guarantee that the shows would become boring,
rather quickly.
In-fact, thinking about it, the most perfect show I
can think of to represent my point are animal
hospital based shows. 98% of the time, on those

                          15
types of shows, the animal survives BUT the show’s
producers have a way of editing the show so that
there is an air of suspense, each moment is
dynamic, from the voice over to the conversation
between 'the professionals' about the animal. Each
moment is carefully constructed to point toward
the chance of failure on the vets part and suggests
the possible demise of the animal.
It isn't until the very end of the show, that we
realise the outcome of each case. The show’s
creators have a way of painting an image in our
mind, that suggests that the animal is either going
to make it or not, keeping us gripped.
When an animal doesn't make it, it is instantly
upsetting for us, the viewer - The reason for this, is
not only because an animal has lost its life (which
is upsetting), but because they hit us with the sad
stories the moment we start to become comfortable
with the fact that the animals are surviving.
Haven't you ever noticed that the saddest stories
air during our most comfortable moments of
viewing? - That is no coincidence.
This kind of thinking should be applied to
mentalism. It will add an air of drama and
impossibility. If the participant thinks that you
know the number of letters in the name they are
thinking and you seemingly guess the number of
letters with ease, then it suggests that you are

                          16
somewhat close to guessing the name they are
thinking of.
If, however, you wrongly guess the number of
letters in the name and you are not remotely close,
it will lead the participant to think you are
completely off track and then when you do reveal
the name, you will completely knock the
participant and audience for six. Of course, it isn't
as cut and shut as think of the name, here it is -
there has to be byplay but you get my point.
Performer: "Dave, I would like you to try and guess
the number of letters in the name, do you feel it is
three, four or five?".
Dave: "Three?"
If participant one says Dave is correct, then take
credit for the fact that you chose Dave, knowing he
could guess. If Dave misses, look at him and say,
"you were not too far out, this proves just how
much of a feat it is to even guess the number of
letters in the name". The most important thing to
remember here, is to say "you were not too far out"
as it makes it seem like you know the number of
letters in the name.
You must listen carefully to what Dave and the
participant say. If Dave guesses correctly, move
into revealing the information.
If, however he does not, which is a more likely
occurrence, you are down to two numbers.
                          17
If he eliminates four, then you know that it is three
or five letters long. If he eliminates five, you know
that it is three or four letters long and if he
eliminates three, you know it is four or five letters
long. This may seem like a given, but the number of
emails/ messages I receive each week because I do
not describe things like this in its entirety, is
ridiculous.
Let's look at each scenario, in turn.
Dave eliminates three letters, leaving the four
letter and five letter names. Meaning; Fred, Frank
and Steve are remaining.
The interesting thing here is that; Fred/Frank are
not worlds apart and can be thrown out together -
After first eliminating, Steve.
By far the easiest way to do this is using Derren's,
repeat it ploy. Address the participant, "Keep
saying the name to yourself over and over again
like Steve, Steve, Steve - If it's Steve, the
participant should react and your job is done. If,
however the participant doesn't react, you know
that you are down to the last two names.
I simply push the blame onto the participant for
now, throwing out two names -
Performer: "Stare at me, imagine saying this name
and imagine saying it to me... ok, I wouldn't usually
find it this difficult. I think it's because you thought
of one name and then changed your mind. Or, were
                           18
torn between two names, anyway that doesn't
matter, I'm going to tell you the two names, let's see
how close I get...Fred or Frank?"
This should be a hit, one thing that is very
important to remember here is, the moment I
mention that the participant thought of two names,
I quickly stop them from saying that they haven't
thought of two names, by saying "Anyway, that
doesn't matter" quite quickly and then continuing
to talk so that the participant has to listen. The
reason that this is an interesting technique is that
the audience will assume this to be true, and
therefore will assume that you not only pegged the
name that the participant is thinking of but the one
that they changed their mind from, also.
Once you have determined the number of letters in
the name, you instantly know the name or are
down to two names. Using any reductive process
(discussed many times in these volumes, you will
swiftly be down to one). The great thing about this
effect is that as soon as you know the number of
letters, you pretty much know the name.




                          19
Variant#2 -Psychological Playing card variant
This utilises the same method, but instead of
asking the participant to think of two digits from
their pin code, this time it will be a playing card.
The way that you frame this is entirely down to you
as a performer, I am only offering a guideline of
what I have found works nicely.
Performer: "One thing that I frequently get asked is
- can I use my powers for nefarious means? Whilst
the honest answer is yes, I don't tend to use what I
do outside of the context you are seeing here.
I often try to think of a range of scenarios where
my skills might come in handy. One such arena
would be in a card game. Obviously, I have gotten to
know a few of you somewhat so I need this to be
random. We are going to create a fake gambling
scenario wherein we make up a random playing
card and opponent. I think I will attempt this with
you".
The performer points towards a gentleman sat at
the table.
Performer: "I want you to think of a random
playing card, for obvious reasons don't go for a card
you feel everyone else might. See the card in the
air, largely... like the nine of hearts".
- This gives you the first opportunity for a hit, if
they went for the nine of hearts you have a

                         20
miracle! If not, you are using this card as an
example.
Performer: "obviously, now I've mentioned the
number nine don't go for that, but do you have a
card in mind? Good, now imagine the name of the
card written in the air as words. In your mind
gravitate towards the first letter in those words
and think of the first male name that pops into
your head but, please don't go for a unisex name, it
has to be definitive".
- Of course, this reduces us to roughly the same
number of names outlined in the first variation.
Performer: "You have now created a random
playing card and a random adversary for me to
attempt to play a game of psychological warfare
with".
- By asking the participant to think of the number
of letters in the name and knowing the exact
amount, you will now be down to one of two values
when it comes to the playing cards and will know
the name!
Fishing for the suit is easy and is outlined in the
psychological playing cards volume in this series.
One thing to remember is that certain values are
chosen more than others -
I have found that
3 is chosen more so than 2.

                         21
4 is chosen more so than 5.
7 is chosen more so than 6 (unless it's a magician
you are performing to, then its 6 more so than 7).
You can guess the name and the playing card in
one.
If you place an invisible deck on the table before
the effect, you have an out for any situation that
arises. Should you fail to name the card out loud for
whatever reason (if you are off by one etc.) you
always have classic methodology to rely on as the
perfect out for any situation. This again, expresses
the point I have tried to weave throughout this
entire volume, traditional methodology and prop-
less methodology work so well, hand in hand.




                         22
Variant #3 -The Hoy variant
This variation is very similar to the interactive
effect I performed on you at the start of this effect,
except with an audience.
If you perform this effect on three participants
simultaneously, you can simply say,
Performer: "Keep a straight face and don't give
anything away. Even if I say your exact thought,
please don't react.
Close your eyes for me and remember to keep a
poker face. I feel (point towards one of the
participants) Frank or Fred, (point to someone
else) Tom, and (point to the last participant) Steve.
Open your eyes for me, just yes or no - Did I get
your thought?" First participant: "Yes".
Performer: "Yours?"
Second participant: "Yes".
Performer: "And, yours?" Third participant: "Yes".
- By pointing at the participants (while their eyes
are closed) the audience will assume that you are
guessing each person's individual thoughts. The
participants of course, cannot see this so never
know you have pointed at them. When they confirm
that you hit on the name, that's all the
confirmation the audience need. If one participant
says no, ask them what name they are thinking
about and say "two out of three isn’t bad".

                          23
This is a simple variation but is so powerful,
imagine sitting at a table and nailing three thought
of names without using billet peeks or the use of a
one ahead!

Additional Thoughts
If you wanted to apply this same logic to all names,
you would have to make a list of the female names
that crop up the most frequently in your area.
Again, I would recommend eliminating unisex
names.
Female names are a lot more difficult to get a hit
from, than male names. 2/3 might be Tina or
Teresa
4/5 might be Fiona or Faye
6/7 might be Sarah or Stacey
These are the names that I can think of from the
top of my head. Being honest, I have always
performed this routine using male names. I did
experiment with female names but it wasn’t sure
fire, and I quickly reverted to using male names.
I did however, think of a clever way to get the
participant to tell you the sex of the person they
are thinking of, without them ever knowing they
have.
The performance would have to be slightly longer;
this adds a slight amount

                         24
of process to the routine but this is entertaining
and therefore, doesn’t detract from the overall
performance.
Performer: “I don’t know if you know this but,
someone’s characteristics and traits can
completely lead you to someone’s name. Don’t
believe me? How many people called Herbert or
Percy, do you know that are cool?
Jokes aside, the person you are thinking of, are
they tall or small? Let the participant answer.
What colour hair?
Let the participant answer.
What are this person’s hobbies?
This is the answer that is important; the person’s
hobby will usually lead you to the sex of the
person! When you get the participant’s answer, you
will find that they are overly obvious, which should
lead you to the sex.
As an additional thought, you can also get extra
hits from the characteristics.
I have found that if you wanted to add the
characteristics phase to the routine while
performing this and asking the participant to think
of a male name, the usual description selected by
the participant is –




                         25
Tall
Dark hair (brown, black etc.)
Medium build
The way to approach this is simple,
Performer: “I want you to think of this person, in a
moment you are going to make up some
characteristics about this person”.
Write down the word ‘tall’ and keep it towards
yourself. Performer: “Is this person tall or small?”
If the participant says tall, then turn it around and
show the participant that you were correct. Write
the words ‘dark hair’, the reason that I use dark
hair is, it covers a range of colours.
Performer: “What colour hair does this person
have?” Participant: “Brown”.
Again, turn your piece of paper around to show
that you hit. Write down the word ‘Medium’.
Performer: “Is this person thin, heavy set or
medium?” Participant: “Medium”.
If you were feeling particularly bold, you could
write the word sport and ask for the hobby of the
person and if that hits, BOOM! Miracle.
If none of the above hit (which can be the case),
simply say,
Performer: “I am going to make some notes as you
go along”


                          26
Simply write down what the participant says and
then finish by saying,
Performer: “You said the person was XX and their
hair colour was XX and their hobby XX, there is
only one name I have in my mind right now – XX”
This wraps up the routine in such a way that
makes the participant believe that by the
description that they have given you, you have
somehow deduced the thought of name!




                        27