Hardin's Magic Brain

Hybrid Mentalism
By
Alexander Marsh

1
Copyright © 2008
Alex McAleer / Alexander Marsh.
All rights reserved.
No part of this book, in part or in whole, may be reproduced, transmitted, or utilized, in any form or by
any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage
and retrieval system without permission by the author. Play fair.

2
4
Intro.
Hello and welcome…
… to Hybrid Mentalism, my first offering to the mentalism
community. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t a little nervous about
how it will be received by my peers. I have attempted to give you a
mixed bag of ideas and effects so hopefully you will find something in
here that is to your taste.

As this is my first publication, I feel I should use this space to
introduce myself.

Hello…my name is not Alexander Marsh, it is Alex McAleer. ‘Marsh’
is the pseudonym I have adopted for publications such as this. This
being the age of Google, I really don’t wish for potential customers to
Google my real name (which is also the name I perform under) and
find a bunch of “magic books” filled with the secrets of our craft. For
those of you that are interested, Alexander is of course my full first
name and Marsh is my mother’s maiden name.

So why Hybrid Mentalism? How is it of mixed origin?

Well, there is several reasons behind the title, the main one being that I
personally think of mentalism (and in particular my mentalism) as a
hybrid. A hybrid of traditional conjuring techniques, applied
psychology, showmanship and the tricks and techniques of mediums
and spiritualists from days gone by.

This is also exactly what I tell my audiences it is, just not in quite so
many words. In my opinion, it is the amalgamation of all these things
and more that create strong mentalism.

6
You will also notice that the effects contained within this book are
hybrids in their own right. Almost all of the effects are fusions of
psychological gambits, classical methodology and modern twists.

So with the introductions out of the way, I sincerely hope you enjoy
my hybrid mentalism and I hope to be seeing you again some time
soon.

Alexander Marsh
2008

7
Swami Thing
A thing with a Swami

Effect:
At some sort of gathering at which he has been hired to entertain, the
performer approaches a group of perfectly ordinary spectators (they
can be examined). He introduces himself to the gang with his business
card in hand and asks if they wouldn’t mind experiencing some of his
mental wizardry.

He offers a taste of things to come by briefly explaining that what he
does is all about reading and anticipating people’s thoughts. He
chooses a volunteer and asks;

“Do me a favour and think of a low number – a single digit number.
Got one? Don’t say it, just think it.”

They do so and the performer looks at them for a moment and
confidently names the number 7. The participant confirms that this
was indeed the number they had been thinking of and is of course
impressed and ready for more miracles of the mind.

Method:
This effect, although not at all groundbreaking, is born out of a need
for a quick opener in a close-up environment and the idea of ‘The 30
Second Rule’. This is a well known rule of thumb stating that within
the first thirty seconds of meeting someone - and this include the first
time your audience meets you - they will form firm impressions about
you and their opinion of you based upon your appearance, tone,
attitude and a million other cues.

8
So, what’s the exciting method for this then?

Oh… it’s a psychological force.

One that can fail… How disappointing! Isn’t there even an out!?

Well, yes there is an out and it comes in the form of your trusty Swami
or Nail Writer. The clue was in the title but please don’t stop reading
yet, there is more to it than that.

The framing for the effect is such that if you hit directly with the
psychological force, then you have a minor miracle but if it doesn’t hit,
and the force has not worked you have an amusing and logical out that
does not feel like an out. Instead it feels like a cheeky and amusing
presentational hook, as if you where playing games with the
participant.

In the above example, if the participant had not thought of the number
7, the conclusion of the presentation would have been this:

“Not 7. Oh! Are you sure? What where you thinking of? 4! Not 7?
You’re sure about that? You’re not confused?! Well I can tell you that
you are confused. You actually ARE thinking of the number 7… you
just don’t know it… look.”

The performer hands the business card he has been holding the entire
time to the participant, it reads;

“You ARE really thinking of the number 7 but will get confused and
say that you’re thinking of the number 4.”

9
Obviously everything but the number 4 was pre-written and a space
was left so that you can nail-write in the information as you are talking
about them being “confused”.

Now, if you think about it, the reason and motivation for the business
card being in your hand is justified by the context of the situation. You
are introducing your self to the group, so with your card in hand,
making you look official and ever the professional, it seems natural.

If the force hits and they are thinking of the number 7, then you
simply smile, put the card away as you move on to your next effect.
By the way, I feel this next effect should be one that gives your
audience more of an idea of ‘how you do it’, your pseudo-methods of
mind reading.

However, if the force misses then the fact you have had the card on
view all along makes your prediction much stronger. It’s as if you
knew all along what number they would name but you where just
being cute and interesting by naming the wrong number.

This effect doesn’t just have to use the classic number between 1 and
10 force, which incidentally I personally find works much better if
presented in this off hand manner with the wording used earlier in the
text; “Do me a favour and think of a low number – a single digit
number.”

This effect can work equally as well with letters, colours or multiple
digit numbers. For colours I would verbally state BLUE and have on
the back of the card a list of colours each with a little tick box next to
it and with my swami I would put a tick in the appropriate box if
BLUE was wrong. This effect also acts as a great out for
experimenting with different and unusual psychological forces such as
ermMm, hmMMMmm, let Mmme think… letters!

For me this effect makes an excellent opener for close-up
performances as it offers a taster of what you can do, no matter what
10
the outcome. This allows you to both generate interest and inspire your
spectators in to wanting to see more, or alternatively allow you to
judge if the group does want you to perform for them and if not just
leave them to their own entertainment.

Credits:
“Psychological Subtleties” by Banachek, your one stop shop for all
things psychologically forceful and/or interesting.

Also massive credit to the inventor of the Swami Gimmick…. Mr.
Swami Boon I believe his name was although he did sometimes write
under the alias of Neil Writer.

11
Looch’s Swami Thing
A Simple & Direct thing with a Swami

The king of simple and direct mentalism gave me permission to
include his own ‘swami thing’ in this book. Looch also based this
quick, opening effect on the notion of the 30 second rule and
introducing yourself and your mentalism in a close-up environment.
This variant however works wonderfully with couples.

So here, in his own words, is Looch’s Swami Thing. Enjoy.

I walk up to a small group of people, usually a couple and
introduce myself along the lines of:

“Hi, my name is Looch, I’m one of the entertainers here today.
Are you both having a good time?”

“A hypothetical question for you, if someone who you had
never met before approaches you with his business card and
tells you that on the reverse side is a 2 digit number printed,
and that between you, you will be able to intuit the number
printed. What would you say?”

I then bring forth my business card from my pocket and hold it
with the reverse side facing me:

“Sarah…What is the first number that pops into your mind
now”

“Err… a 3” says Sarah.

12
“And Paul…What number comes to your mind?”

“A 9” replies Paul.

“So here’s the important part…Is it a 3 & a 9 or a 9 & a 3?”

Both spectators look at each other and decide. Once an answer
has been given I continue…

“I’m certainly glad you intuited it that way round and not the
other way…Look”

I then show the card to the couple after it has been swami'ed.

Lovely, thanks Looch.

13
The Ambitious Peek
The Swami Peek Thing

About:
I have long been obsessed with using my business cards for peeking
because not only is it an easy (if a little underhanded) way to get your
card in your audience’s hands but at the same time show them an
effect.

I am particularly keen to use a stack of business cards due to the fact
they lend themselves to all those card slights I have learnt but rarely
use (…because I’m a mentalist!).

Despite the fact that I have never performed as a more traditional
conjuring magician, I can pull off a rather lovely Ambitious Card
routine. All those delightful ways to either control a card to the top or
create the illusion of putting the card in the middle of the pack, have
always been thought-of by me as simply screaming out to be used as a
method for setting up a peek.

What follows is a routine that combines some of the moves of an
Ambitious Card routine, a simple peek and, to add another layer of
deception, the trusty swami gimmick. I like to call it “The Swami Peek
Thing”1

Effect & Method:
A spectator is asked for their name and the performer writes it along
the top of a business card. The participant is then asked to think of the
first person they kissed and requested to take the business card and

1
I’m good at naming effects aren’t I!?
14
write the name of their first kiss in the lower space on the card, just
below their own name.

Please, at every point in this routine and for the rest of your life, resist
the temptation to spread your business cards like a pack of cards, as if
to say “Pick a (business) card, any (business) card”, you may think its
ridicules but I have seen it done!

Now, why do I write the participant’s name on the top of the card? On
a technical level it will facilitate the peek that will happen in a few
moments by forcing them to write the first kiss’ name at the bottom of
the portrait (as apposed to landscape) card. See the image below for
clarification.

Notice that I have written their name in CAPITALS, this allows me to
encourage the participant to write their first kiss’ name in the same
way by saying something along the lines of:

15
“Please write your first kiss’ name at the bottom of the card, nice and
clearly just like I wrote your name.”

The other reason I write their name on the card is… I’m rubbish at
remembering names. In the heat of performance, with all the other
stuff to think about, my participant’s name just pops right out of my
head. So this extra step of me having to write their name (possibly
even asking “How’re you spelling that?”) will force me to remember
it a little better.

If all else fails, I always have the option of taking a surreptitious
glance at the name as I give them the card to keep at the end of the
routine.

You are probably way ahead of me here but you are now going to take
back the card and apparently place it into the middle of the packet but
in reality, you retain it on top. The peek I like to use, which is the one I
will describe in a moment, requires that the card be on top of the
packet and not second from the top, as is sometimes the case with
Ambitious Card moves.

You have a number of options regarding exactly how to retain the
‘name card’ (that being the card with the names on it, obviously) on
top. You probably already have your favourite methods, so I will leave
it for you to decide exactly how you do this.

Truth be told, I don’t have just one way of doing this. It all depends on
the situation I am in and what I think I can get away with.

I may perform a (sort of) top change like this: stack in a left hand
dealer’s grip, little finger holding a break under the top card. The
‘name card’ is placed on the palm of my right hand. I briefly put this
‘name card’ on top of the stack under the guise of showing that my
right hand hasn’t taken an ink impression nor has anything ‘funny’
about it. I then second deal the card from the stack apparently showing

16
the opaque nature of the card. This is then placed in the middle of the
pack.

Another option is to palm off an indifferent card under misdirection of
the participant writing the name. I then take back the stack with the
‘name card’ on top but as I do so, load the palmed card on top of the
packet. I then deal off this card and place this in the centre, leaving the
real ‘name card’ on top.

As you can see, you have the option to jazz it up a bit. My advice
would be not to use the fanciest, flourish-filled move in favour of a
simpler and more direct method. You simply need to create the illusion
that the card is now somewhere in the middle of the stack, you are not
demonstrating the dexterity of your fingers.

You should now be in a situation where the ‘name card’ is still on top
of the stack but the participant believes it to be buried within the stack.
I now ask for the pen back from the participant and double turnover
the top two cards as one. The casual manner with which this is done
and the image of a blank card should act as a silent convincer that the
‘name card’ really is safely buried in the stack.

I ask the participant to concentrate on the name of her first kiss and go
through my pseudo-methodical procedures of thought transference
(commonly known as B.S.). I seem to struggle a little at first, only
getting vague impressions and encourage them to:

“Really cast your mind back and think about where you were, maybe
how old you might have been when you kissed this person.”

The casual nature of the above line is important as you don’t want to
draw too much attention to the fact that you are asking them to think
about the age they were when they kissed this person.

17
I take a pause and begin to write something on the blank card that is
facing me. This, remember, is the top card of the double, the lower
card of which is the ‘name card.’
Initially I write so the participant and gathered spectators can see the
first few letters but then tilt the whole thing up claiming that I don’t
want anyone to see what I’m writing just yet.

As I tilt the stack up and away from prying eyes, I bring it closer to my
body and gently but rapidly up-jog the top blank card just enough to
reveal the name written on the card below it. The larger motion of
bringing the entire stack up to my eye level hides the smaller motion
of up-jogging the card.

As I write, my writing hand hides the exposed portion of the ‘name
card’ so all I have to do is move my hand, which happens naturally as I
write, to get my peek. I have all the time it takes me to write the
message on the top card to get my peek. I can then square the top card
(i.e. slide it back down square with the rest of the packet) as soon as I
have read the name.

18
The message I write can be seen in the diagram below.

The [BLANK] space is left for the little bit of swami work that will be
done in a moment and of course [NAME] is replaced with the name
you just peeked.

One of the advantages with this peek for me is that being dyslexic2 all I
have to do is copy the name as I see it on the ‘name card’.

Once I have finished writing the message, I flip over the two cards as
one; this puts the name card back on top with the card I have just
written on, second from top.

2
Yes, I am indeed dyslexic. So despite having done my best to remove any spelling or
grammatical errors from this book – some may still exist. So if you do spot any typos you
have my full permission to feel big and clever.
19
I will then casually second deal the card leaving the name card on top
of the stack in my left hand. The entire stack then goes out of sight and
out of mind into my pocket, leaving the card that I have just written on
still in play.

I secure my swami gimmick as I put the writing utensil used back in
my pocket.

“I’m not sure I’ve got this one. The name was giving me trouble but I
have committed myself in writing. So I can’t change a thing. Out of
interest, what age do you think you where when you kissed this
person?”

The wording used here (“what age do you think you where when you
kissed this person”) is important as most people will struggle a little to
recall the exact age they were.

As soon as they have announced the age I ‘swami it’ in the blank space
on the card. There will be some heat on the card at this moment, which
is the reason behind the slightly nonchalant way of asking what age
they were. Much like earlier when I asked them to: “Really cast your
mind back and think about where you were, maybe how old you might
have been when you kissed this person.”

You don’t want too many people thinking that this information is
important to the effect; it’s the name you were going for so that’s what
they will assume is on the card. The fact you got the age as well,
which will be revealed at the end, will hit them hard.

I then hand them the card as I say something along the lines of:

“[Repeat Age]… OK. Maybe I did better at this than I thought. I
wasn’t too sure about the name, it was a bit vague but I’m committed
to what’s on that card. So for the first time, the name of your first
kiss…was”
20
By the time I have finished this sentence I want the card to be in their
hands but I don’t want them to have read it yet. I also want to be
physically as far away form the card as I can so keeping them engaged
by talking to them like this tends to stop them from reading it. This
also gives me time to take a step or two back before they announce the
name. As soon as they say the name, I smile. As if surprised that I ‘got
this one’.

“Really?! Well… read out load what I wrote a moment ago on that
card.”

I take another step back, ditch my swami gimmick and revel in the
reaction.

I feel it’s very important that you put a clear distance between yourself
and the card when the participant announces the name. The two
methods at play here hopefully cancel each other out, or at the very
least muddy the waters.

You were nowhere near the card when the name was revealed but also
have revealed something that was never written down by the
participant.

It’s a fun routine that may seem long in print but takes no time at all in
performance. The psychology of pretending to struggle with the name
combined with the two separate methods at play, I think, work well
together.

Notes:
One of my preferred handlings for controlling the ‘name card’ in an
‘ambitious way’ is as follows:

21
As the participant is writing on the card, split the stack of business
cards in to 2 equal-ish packets, one in each hand. The left hand packet
is held in a dealer’s grip and the right hand pile is held from above in a
biddle grip. You’re right hand is also holding a thumb break on the
bottom card of the right hand packet.

Request that the name card be put writing side down on the left hand
pack. When this is done, move the right hand pack as if you are going
to place it on top, as if you are going to ‘sandwich’ the card between
the two packets.

However, as the two packets meet for just a moment, you load/drop
the bottom card of the right hand packet (the one being held in a thumb
break) on top of the ‘name card’. Then, as if changing your mind,
separate the packets again (although it should seem as if they were
never really together) and thumb off the now top card of the left hand
packet, pushing it deep in to the right hand’s stack.

Give this right hand packet to the participant ‘for safe keeping’ as it
apparently has their card in it, but in reality the card is on top of the
left hand packet, allowing you to peek it in the manner described
earlier.

This apparently fair ‘splitting’ of the cards gives you a perceived
physical distance from the ‘name card’ throughout the effect.

How to make sure you get your peek.
You may be wondering, or perhaps you have been following along
with cards in hand and thought: what do you do if when you up-jog the
blank card to reveal the name card below it, all you see is the
participants name, upside down!?

Well rather than gently cry, leave the building and wonder why you
even bother… do this instead:

22
Your business cards are naturally marked. They are marked in the
same way a deck with a one way back design is marked. Let’s assume
your cards are printed in the normal manner: printed from left to right
when viewed in landscape (as apposed to portrait), just like the one in
the diagram below.

This means you can tell the orientation of the card simply by looking
at it. For ease of explanation lets call the left side Section A, and the
right side Section B. This means that when this card is rotated 90
degrees, counter clockwise, the card will now be in ‘portrait’ with
Section A at the bottom and Section B at the top.

23
All you have to do is notice which way the card is orientated in the
deck and hold the entire stack portrait fashion with Section A at the
bottom and Section B at the top (Again, see the diagram above for
clarification). Then, just flip over the card(s) in such a way that Section
A stays at the bottom with Section B at the top. Of course you also
need to make sure that the participant writes the name in Section A.
This is easily done by making sure that you write their name in Section
B.

I hope that all makes sense, just have a bit of a play around and a bit of
a think and you’ll get it.

24
Rub-A-Dub DD
A Design Duplication

Effect:
In short, the participant draws anything on the back of your business
card. They keep this drawing safe by sandwiching it between their
hand and the table (or between their palms).

You then proceed to take them through a mental process that implies
mind reading and begin to draw something on another business card.
Your drawing is placed face down on the table to prevent you from
changing it and so that no one can see what you have drawn just yet.

You take the participant’s drawing, look at it and display it to the rest
of the group.

You then ask them to take a look at what you drew and it is seen to be
an almost perfect match.

Method:
Continuing the theme of using card sleights with business cards for
mind reading, here’s a simple but effective idea using a variation of
the ‘Rub-A-Dub-Dub Vanish’.

More precisely we will use a ‘Rub-A-Dub-Dub Change’ but without
anything being seen to have changed, so in that sense it becomes a
‘Rub-A-Dub-Dub Switch’

25
The set-up and peek for this effect are the same as in the previous one,
The Ambitious Peek, so with a stack of business cards held in portrait,
flip over the top card and write the name of your participant so it fills
the top half of the card, leaving space for the participant’s drawing in
the lower half.

Give them the entire stack with the card they are to draw on (which
also bares their name) face-up and on top.

Now, you will either need to have a blank, dummy card in your pocket
ready to be palmed and used for the switch in a moment, or you can do
the following.

When flipping over the top card of the stack to write the participant’s
name on, flip over 2 cards as one i.e. a double turnover. Write the
participant’s name on the face card of the double (leaving space at the
bottom for them to draw) and explain that in a moment you will give
them the cards and that they are to draw something, anything in the

26
space at the bottom. Once they have done that, they are to flip over the
card so no one can see what has been drawn.

As you explain that they are to flip over the card, demonstrate by
flipping over the top card in your hands but of course you will actually
be flipping over the double. Doing all this leaves a blank card on top
with the participant’s card underneath it.

This blank card will become your dummy card, so as you hand the
participant the stack, palm off this top card getting you ready for the
switch that is to come.

All this business may not be necessary as I tend to turn away as the
participant draws allowing me to obtain the dummy card from my
pocket.

Once the participant has finished, turn back to face them. Take the
stack from them in your left hand (presuming the dummy card is
palmed in your right hand) and openly side-jog the top card to the right
using your left thumb.

Turn your head away as you lift the stack (still with its top card side-
jogged) up to your participant’s eye level. Tell them to take one last
look at it and to really lock the image in their mind.

Bring the stack back down, keeping the card side-jogged, and perform
the ‘Rub-A-Dub-Dub Switch’ .

This is done in much the same way that the ‘Rub-A-Dub-Dub Vanish’
is performed, except minus the rub-a-dub-dubbing and rather than the
right hand containing nothing, it ditches the palmed dummy card.

27
This whole move is justified under the guise of explaining (and
demonstrating) that you want the participant to keep their hand on top
of their card.

I knew I was onto something with this ‘Rub-A-Dub-Dub Switch’ when
I was first rehearsing the move. My girlfriend walked into the room
and asked if I was practicing a new trick, to which I replied “Yeah.
Watch” and proceeded to perform the switch for her, without
explaining what I was doing.

She looked at me blankly for a moment and said, “Is that it? That’s
not a trick. You’re just dealing a card onto the table.” I just grinned.

The sequence should flow something like this:

The participant has finished their drawing and flipped over the card.

You then take the stack from them, side-jog the top card and bringing
it up to their eye level ask them to:

“Take one last look at your drawing and really burn the image in to
your mind.”

This hand then comes back down as you say:

“Now, I want you to keep your drawing safe under your hand, like
this.”

In that brief moment you have apparently dealt their drawing on to the
table and demonstrated how you want them to keep their hand on top
of it.

28
In reality you have pulled their drawing card back on top of the stack
(in the same manner as the Rub-A-Dub-Dub Vanish) and placed your
right hand down onto the table.

The card they now see and presume has their drawing on it is actually
the dummy card previously palmed in the right hand. This is ‘ditched’
as the right hand flattens-out against the table top.

Notice that I say: “I want you just to keep your drawing safe under
your hand, like this.”

This little bit of verbiage will help the participant convince them-self
and not really question the idea that the card under your hand is the
same one they just drew on.

If you are feeling a little bit bold and confident, you can replace the
table with the participant’s hand. Just ask them to hold their hand out,
palm up and perform the switch on to that hand, telling them to “Keep
your other hand on top, like this.”

Of course their card is still on top of the stack in your hand so you are
now in a position to perform the same peek as used in the previous
effect, The Ambitious Peek.

However, the handling for this effect is a little different:

As in The Ambitious Peek, perform a double turnover and flash the
blank (apparently) top card as you ask the participant to concentrate on
their drawing. Go through some imaginary process of thought reading
and claim that you have ‘got it’.

Tilt the stack up and at the same time up-jog the very top card, thus
revealing the participants drawing. All you have to do is copy what
you see.
29
With this routine being a drawing duplication, I feel it’s perfectly
justified that if instead of up-jogging the top card, you swivel it up in
to a landscape position. This will still expose the lower half of the card
below it, allowing you to get your peek.

Once you’ve finished (literally) duplicating the drawing, turn the two
cards over as one again and second deal your drawing on to the table.
This leaves the participants drawing on top of the stack.

Ask them to remove their hand from the dummy (but don’t call it
that!) and take it from them, placing it on top of the stack you hold in
your hand.

As you say something along the lines of:

“Let’s take a look at what you drew...”

Perform a double lift to display the participant’s drawing and make
some sort of comment about what they have drawn. Then ask them to
have a look at what you drew by turning over the card you left on the
table.

You can then use the misdirection of them looking at your drawing to
clean up i.e. disguise the fact that you have just turned two cards over
as one by any means you so desire.

So there you go, that’s “Rub-A-Dub DD”. It seems rather longwinded
in explanation but in performance it’s very simple and direct. Give it a
go.

Credits:
Whoever invented palming, double lifts and the rub-a-dub-dub vanish.
30
WANT
The Affecting Effect

Effect:
The performer places a few objects on to a table, namely a set of keys,
a mobile phone, a watch and a wallet. He then invites a spectator to
take part in a little experiment of ‘want’. He goes on to explain that in
a moment he is going to ask her to choose one of the objects but asks
her not to just nonchalantly choose one but choose the one she wants
the most.

The performer seems to induce the feeling of ‘want’ in the spectator
and at the very peek of this ‘wanting’, she makes her choice. The
performer has correctly predicted which object will be most desired by
the participant.

About ‘WANT’:
I will get it right out of the way now, that the mechanics of this effect
are not the important aspect: this is more of an affect than an effect. It’s
the presentational hook used that I want you to take note of. Any of
your favorite (or least favorite) methods for forcing or predicting a
choice of objects will do, but for the sake of completeness, in a
moment I will describe the method that I prefer.

As mentalists we often perform effects in which the ‘plot’ is that a
participant (who having become part of the effect is no longer just a
spectator) makes a simple choice of objects and we have predicted
which object it would be.

It’s an excellent introductory effect as it alludes to our ability to
control and predict a person’s behavior but can suffer from being quite
31
forgettable for everyone involved. I also find it odd that normally the
focus of such a routine is on the choosing of an object and not the
process the participant is going through and what they are
experiencing.

Most of you will be familiar with the idea that we should give a
process to our mind reading, which is something Derren Brown wrote
about brilliantly in his book “Pure Effect”.

Let’s say, just as an example, that to read a person’s mind you have to
take them through a process of vivid mental imagery e.g. imagining
the word on a blackboard, and one by one ‘looking’ at each letter. You
then begin to study this person and make statements about the word
written on this imaginary blackboard based on your observations.

This gives a mental process that you and the participant must go
through for you to be able to read his or her mind. The spectators
viewing this charade will have not only something to latch on to but
also have a feeling and a sense of how you do it.

I feel this idea of creating a process should be applied to other effects
beyond mind reading. In WANT this idea is applied to the plot of
influencing the participants mind.

Method:
We will come to the method of creating a feeling of ‘want’ and desire
in a moment, but first I will describe my preferred method for
predicting which object is chosen.

Personally I prefer to use multiple outs and a double envelope but any
multiple out method is fine. The double envelope I use contains two
predictions on each side. One is folded in half and the other folded in
to fourths, making it easy for me to quickly feel which one to take out.
I also ‘mark’ the envelope with a big, bold question mark, so that I

32
know which side is which, and there for which side to open. I keep this
envelope in my wallet so it is ready for any occasion.

The reason I chose to use outs and a gimmicked envelope is due to the
fact that I only ever use this effect as an opener and feel no need for
the envelope to be examined as I can quickly move on to the next
routine. I also have complete control over which objects are used.

The objects I use are everyday items i.e. a set of keys, a mobile phone,
a watch and a wallet. I like these objects as they seem ‘impromptu’ but
if you think about it, they are items that almost everybody (including
me) have on them at any one time.

I ask the group if they have something like a set of keys, a wallet or a
watch that we can use in a little experiment and to encourage them to
look I take my own wallet and keys out of my pockets. It may just so
happen that everyone is keen to help and you can gather these four
items without having to provide your own.

However some people may be reluctant to use their personal
possessions, so I always make sure that I have my own phone, keys,
wallet and watch available. This also comes in handy as I can use
some of these items, such as my wallet and watch for other effects
later in the performance.

Regardless of how the objects are gathered, have them arranged on the
table by the participant you intend to use for this effect. Display the
envelope that is either in your hand or take it out of your wallet on the
table. I don’t mention that it is a prediction; I just make a brief joke
about the mysterious question mark drawn on it and tell them that we
will come back to it later.

33
Explain that in a moment you will ask them to:

“Choose one, and only one, of the objects on the table but I don’t want
you to just casually choose one, I want you to choose the one you want
most.”

Now, here is where the ‘process’ comes in. I want it to be felt and seen
that I am affecting this person. I want it to be seen that I have to work
to get people to do my bidding and that the participant is under some
sort of ‘psychological spell’. To achieve this I use a mixture of
embedded commands, anchoring and a little showmanship. As ever,
the words in bold are said with eye contact and slightly more
emphasis.

“Forget for a moment about these objects. I want you to think about
something that you really want, something that you desire. I’m sure
you like me have seen something that you just know that you have to
have? Something that you see and immediately know that it has to be
yours, and you won’t stop thinking about it until you have it? You
know what I mean? This could be an object, or a person. Do you have
something in mind?”

Pause for a moment to let them find something and recall the emotion
of ‘want’.

“You know that feeling inside you get when it just penetrates you and
says [place your hand on their shoulder with a slight squeeze and eye
contact] Look at me. And you really want it. You know? Describe to
me how that feels…”

I then allow the participant to describe the feeling they have. As the
feeling of ‘wanting’ something is a highly subjective thing you will
have to build upon whatever they say. They are unlikely to give you a
detailed or succinct answer so you will probably have to help guide
them through this process. If they say something like, “I just have a

34
feeling” ask them where they have a feeling and to describe it. There
are no wrong answers.

They may say they feel it in their tummy. Ask them to, “Feel it there
now. Feel it spread. Where does it spread? Maybe up in to the chest
and the shoulders, yeah? What does it make you feel like doing?”

Essentially what you are doing is ‘stacking’ all the emotions and
feelings that they are experiencing, and then anchoring it to the notion
of wanting something. Keeping your hand on their shoulder and giving
a slight squeeze when they seem to be really experiencing the feeling
that they describe will act as a physical anchor.

With this squeeze of the shoulder at the peek of their emotional arch, I
will tell them to “Look at me.” This subtlety will further aide the
anchor to be used later on. Eye contact is also a powerful tool here as
they will tend to attribute you with a powerful gaze that penetrated
them, which adds to the effect that you some how got inside their
mind.

Through out this process of anchoring the experience of ‘want’, I will
give them lots of affirmation by telling them “That’s good…
Excellent”

After each, “Look at me.” I will tell them to look briefly at the objects
and then tell them look at me again and squeeze their shoulder i.e. fire
off the anchor.

The whole thing takes less than a minute but can be a powerful
experience for the participant and this will be seen by the spectators at
large. Once I think they really have the ‘state’ and the process has been
seen and felt by the audience, I will tell the participant to look at the
objects one more time and fire off the anchor as I say:

35
“Look at me. And answer honestly, which of those four objects do you
feel you want most?”

Which ever one they name, I tell them to pick it up. This not only
keeps their hands busy, allowing me (and forcing me) to open up the
prediction envelope but also acts as some kind of closure to the whole
process, as they finally get to pick up and touch the object they wanted
most.

I will ask if there is; “Any reason why they wanted that one? Did it
just feel like the one you wanted?”

They will more than likely just say yes, which is nice of them.

I will also state for the spectators that “I didn’t tell you to choose that
one in any way did I? No. And it really is the one you wanted most.”
Which not only acts to dispel any notions of stooging but also as a
final convincer that this process you took them through of building up
a feeling of ‘want’ was necessary for the effect to work.

I pick up the envelope as I ask them these final few questions and I
simply reach inside and take out the correct prediction. Again, I don’t
make a big hoo-ha about the envelope, it wasn’t the point of the
routine, neither was the selection of the object, that’s why they just
said which one they wanted and picked it up. I unfold the prediction
and ask them to read it out as written. It reads:

“If all has gone to plan, and I have been as good at this as Alex
thought I would be, the object I want the most is the watch. How did I
do?”

Obviously changing my name for yours and the object to the one
selected, depending on which out is being read.

36
I quite like the prediction to be written in first person because as the
participant reads it out, they are referring to them self i.e. I will choose
the watch.

Also, having them read out at the final line; “How did I do?”, means
you can bring the whole thing to a close by replying with, “You did
brilliantly, give them a round of applause!”

Credits:
The basis for the anchoring script used is taken form Derren Brown’s
“Pure Effect”, and can be found in the chapter “Working With the
Spectator… In Mind”.

Also, it has to be said that the notion of creating a process was inspired
by Mr. Brown as well.

I have recently been informed that this effect shares ideas with Richard
Busch’s “The Destiny Response”. Although I haven’t read the book,
judging by Busch’s use of Eriksonian ploys in his other works, he
certainly deserves a nod of appreciation for this effect.

37
37th Deception
Or… How to create a room full of mind readers.

Effect:
The performer invites everyone in the room to think of a childhood
friend, someone they remember from school.

“This can be a best friend you haven’t seen since you left school… it
can be that weird kid, a teacher, someone you had a crush on… even a
teacher you had a crush on.”

A member of the audience is chosen at random - let’s call him Alan -
and they are asked to come up on stage and are handed an envelope by
the performer.

The performer asks Alan if he can see what is inside the envelope, to
which the answer is no. The performer opens the envelope and reveals
what is inside. It is another, smaller envelope and again asks Alan if he
can see what is inside this one, encouraging him to hold it up to the
light to really make sure.

Alan confirms that the envelope is completely opaque.

The performer then opens up this envelope and takes out the business
card that rested inside and shows it to Alan.

“Inside is a business card and on it, it asks you to write the name of
the childhood friend you have in mind just here and to think of a
number. Yeah. You can see that, correct?”

38
The participant confirms this to be true. The performer hands him a
pen and turns away as Alan writes the name of his childhood friend on
the card. As Alan does this, the performer asks him to:

“Please really focus on the name and number and imagine this person
back at school standing in front of a blackboard and on that
blackboard, imagine the friend writing the number really, really big.
So he has to stand on tip toes to reach the top of the numbers.”

Once the participant has written the name, the business card is put
back inside the smaller envelope, sealed and then put back inside the
larger envelope which is also sealed and the whole thing is given to
Alan to look after.

The performer explains that his mind reading abilities are skills we all
have to a certain extent, but he has just fine tuned it. He explains to the
room that he would like to try an experiment with everyone to prove
this.

Everyone is told to relax, take a deep breath and look at Alan. Alan is
asked to focus on the number he has imagined his old school friend
writing on the blackboard, he is to imagine he can project it to the
audience.

The performer picks up a pad, explaining that he will help the room
pick up on the number as it wouldn’t be that much of a surprise if he
guessed the number on his own and to have a room full of mind
readers is much more exciting.

The performer starts to receive impressions about the number. These
impressions help guide the room to work out for themselves what the
number is. The performer writes a number on his pad, unseen by the
audience. He very casually shows it to Alan who confirms it is correct.

39
Alan is asked to name the number he had in his mind and names the
number 37. There is a gasp from a few members of the audience.

The performer shows that he (unsurprisingly) guessed the number 37
correctly and asks for those in the room who also got the number 37 to
raise there hands. A large number of people raise their hands.

The performer congratulates Alan for being such a good ‘sender’ and
the audience for doing so well, joking that they will all put him out of
a job.

The performer, not wishing to be outdone by his audience, reveals the
name of Alan’s childhood friend in dramatic fashion.

Method:
This effect is more than the sum of its parts.
It will probably come as no surprise that you peek the name that the
participant has written and the reason the audience think of the number
37 is no coincidence. It is of course the classic psychological force.

Hopefully, you already know this force and its older brother (the 68/86
force) and hopefully you know it because you possess Banachek’s
brilliant “Psychological Subtleties” and not because you saw it on that
masked street magician show.

Briefly; if you ask someone to think of a two digit number and ask
them to make both digits odd and both digits different from each other,
they will tend to think of the number 37, with 35 coming in a close
second. There are a number of psychological helpers that can increase
the odds of the force working properly, almost all of which are
detailed in Banachek’s must-have book, mentioned above.

The classic way to present this effect is as if the audience is reading
your mind. However, I have always felt that adding all the restrictions
40
(2 digits, both odd and both different from each other) make the force
rather transparent, leading to the possibility of the audience members
(correctly) assuming that ‘maybe everyone thinks of that number’.

I personally think it works much better if the force is presented as if
the audience at large is reading the mind of someone else, one of their
own. Then the restrictions mentioned above needed for the force to
work can be presented by you as ‘impressions’ that you are receiving
from the participants mind. Think of it as if you are simply saying
these ‘restrictions’ incidentally out load and by proxy helping to guide
the audience at large to the participant’s number. I feel that framing
the force in this way makes it far more deceptive and convincing.

For this to work I knew I needed to make sure that the on stage
participant definitely thought of the number 37.

Originally I thought of forcing two cards on the participant (a 3 and a
7) as if it where a means of selecting a random number but this idea
seemed rather weak to me. I then thought about combining it with a
book test, by riffle forcing the page 37 and culminating the effect by
divining the first word on that page. This is a much better idea and if
you want to use it that way then by all means go ahead, but seeing as I
don’t use books or book tests in my show, it doesn’t suit my needs.

Eventually I decided the best way to ensure that the onstage participant
would think of the force number was to simply tell them to. Using
ambiguous wording and the dual reality principle, we can convey the
idea to the audience at large that the number has been randomly
thought of by the participant but in the participants mind he will not
feel stooged or ‘in on it’.

You may remember from the effect’s description that the participant is
shown a business card which bares written instructions. They ask him
to write the name of the childhood friend he has in mind and to think
of a number.

41
As you show him this card you say;

“On this card it asks you to write the name of the childhood friend you
have in mind just here and it asks you to think of a number. Yeah. You
can see that, correct?”

Due to the wording, the audience at large takes the statement at face
value but in reality instructions on the card are much more specific and
read as follows:

By asking the question “You can see that, correct?” you are helping to
convey the idea to the audience that what they believe to be true is
true, but to the participant you are simply inquiring if they can read the
instructions.

Please read the following wording carefully to see how the words used
convey and reinforce the two separate perceptions that the participant
and the audience have.
42
Let’s assume that you have just shown the participant the card he is to
write on.

“On this card it asks you to write the name of the childhood friend you
have in mind just here and it asks you to think of a number. Yeah. You
can see that, correct?”

As you say “just here” use your finger to indicate the line drawn on
the card which indicates exactly where he is to write the name.

“So do that for me now, I will look away. Have the number clearly in
your mind and the name of your old school friend and please write it
nice and clearly, in case we need it as proof later on but make sure no
one sees it, especially me!

As you write the name I want you to imagine that person back at
school, standing in front of a blackboard. And in your mind imagine
this old friend writing the number on that blackboard really, really
big. So big in fact that they have to stand on tip toes to reach the top of
the number. Yeah? Can you imagine that for me? Excellent.”

At this point you turn back around to face Alan telling him to keep the
writing on the card hidden. This card is placed inside a small pay
envelope which is in turn placed inside a larger envelope. It is at this
moment I get my peek of the name.

To do this I use Bob Cassidy’s brilliant “Two Envelope Test” also
known as “The White Dwarf” which sadly I am not at liberty to
describe fully but, as the saying goes, one of your favorite peeks will
suffice.

In brief, the “Two Envelope Test” works like this: the smaller of the
two envelopes has a window cut out of it on the address side, allowing
you to peek the name as you place this smaller envelope in to the
43
larger. The larger envelope is then sealed and given to the participant
for safekeeping. For a more concise handling instructions please see
Bob Cassidy’s “The Artful Mentalism of Bob Cassidy”.

I personally prefer to present the participant with two normal, un-
gimmicked envelopes and switch the smaller one for the window
envelope at an opportune moment.

Using the 37 force:
As mentioned earlier, we want to convey the idea to the audience at
large, who believe that Alan has thought of a number at random, that
we are receiving ‘impressions’ as to what the number is and simply
saying them out loud.

However, we need to word the ‘impressions’ in such a way that the
onstage participant isn’t confused and doesn’t feel stooged in any way,
as he knows that he has been asked to think of a specific number. To
him, it must seem as if you are confirming certain facts about the
number, i.e. it is a two digit number, both digits are odd, and different
from each other. What follows is the basic scripting I use to convey
these two ideas.

“Alan, I want you to re-imagine your old school friend standing in
front of that blackboard, writing that number you have in mind, over
and over. Can you do that for me?

I would like you to close your eyes for a moment and just keep
replaying that image in your head, almost like a mini-film clip that’s
on a loop. Does that make sense? Yes?

And keep saying the number silently to yourself, over and over at the
same time. Perfect.”

The rest is directed to the audience at large unless otherwise stated:
44
“The rest of you, I want to try something now that I hope will work
with at least some of you. Each of you is going to personally try and
pick up on the number that Alan has in his mind. So please just forget
for a moment if you think it’s possible or anything like that, just relax
and do as I say in your heads. Alan is doing his part by focusing as
best he can on the number, I will help guide you along the way as
well.”

Pick up your pad and pen.

“All of you please put both feet flat on the floor. Hands on your lap
and take a deep breath in… and out… in… and out. Alan, I would like
you to do the same, in time with the audience. Deep breath in and
out… in… and out. So that all of you, and Alan here, are breathing in
time together, aligning your physiology and therefore aligning your
psychology.

Keep focusing on the number Alan, seeing it on that blackboard. The
rest of you please imagine an empty blackboard, in a moment you will
begin to imagine a number on that board and it’s… it’s a two digit
number. That’s right isn’t Alan, yes?”

The following combines the ideas of Derren Brown and his brilliant
effect “Reminiscence” with the notion of using the 37 force under the
guise of ‘receiving impressions’.

“Alan, please just think of the first digit for me, the first digit, and
think about if it’s odd or even. I’ll write this down [write ‘ODD’]. Got
it? Alan, tell everyone is it odd or even? Odd!

Excellent, little bit of a reaction from the audience there.

45
Now let’s do the same with the second digit, odd or even. [Pause] The
same again [Pause] Just think. Got it? [Leave the word ‘ODD’ written
on your pad] Alan, what is it? Odd! Brilliant!
There not the same number are they… both digits are different, yeah?”

The following is said to the audience and yet almost to yourself - as if
thinking out loud.

“So everyone, we are looking for an odd number, both digits are odd,
both different… so that means something like 15 or 97. But not those…
that would be too easy! Got it?!

Don’t think about it too much, so just let a number come to mind now.
Quick as you can. Once you think you have it, imagine it on that
blackboard, nice and big. I’m just going to write it down…[write ‘37’
nice and big on your pad]

Now before I show the rest of you, I just want to make sure I’ve got it
right. Alan, just answer yes or no, so you don’t give anything away just
yet, is this correct?”

You show the number to Alan and he of course confirms it to be
correct. This is a nice little convincer to add on at the end. You then
ask him to say the number he had in his mind and simultaneously turn
around your pad to show the audience. Ask for those people who also
got the number to raise their hands. This will obviously be a large
percentage of the audience due to the force but to get even more hands
raised, the following ploy works brilliantly.

Hold the pad so everyone can see the number and ask those who were
“one number off” to raise their hands. Also add, “Something like 35,
just one number off…”, this will get plenty more hands raised due to
the fact that 35 is the second most common choice and the ambiguous
nature of the phrase “one number off”, so the extra hands will include

46
those who did get the last digit as 7 but the first as any number
between 1 and 9 and vice versa.

There should now be a large number of people with their hands raised.
Personally I like to act a little surprised and delighted that it worked so
very well. Remember at the beginning you said that this should work
with only a few of them, but you were not expecting almost all of
them!

Tell them to give themselves and the participant a nice round of
applause, you could even invite the audience to try and pick up on the
name, see how they do.

Notes:
You may be worried that during the performance the on stage
participant might inadvertently give away the fact that the card asked
him to think of a specific number. This shouldn’t really be a problem.
Just remember that you are in control when on stage and keep in mind
that most spectators are quite nervous when up on stage.

However to avoid this unlikely event I try to restrict him or her to one
word answers or ask simple yes or no questions, “…both digits are
different, yeah?” and after all that ‘breathing in time with the
audience’ bit and making them focus on the thought, they are unlikely
to spoil the mood. Besides which, they don’t have a microphone!

I use this effect almost exactly as written for shorter performances but
for longer shows this becomes the first phase of my “3 Envelope Test”
a.k.a. “4th Dimensional Telepathy” and the peek used is how I achieve
my one ahead for that effect.

Jeff Richards suggested to me that one could use a device such as John
Riggs’ excellent “Brown Hornet Impression Bored” to obtain the
peek. The paper the participant writes on would contain the same
instructions as the business card described earlier. Thanks Jeff!
47
Also, it will probably have crossed your mind that you could use the
86/68 force instead of the 37 force, either for repeat bookings or just in
general. If anything this may increase your hit rate as it will allow you
to ask the audience to raise their hands if they got “…the same number
as Alan, 86, but backwards.”

Every time I perform this effect, I come away thinking of ways to
improve the wording or the structure of it. Every performance is a
lesson in how to improve it. The same can be said for any effect you or
I perform, so I encourage you to do the same. Take the ideas I have
given you and work on your own wording and subtleties until you find
a place where it works for you. Then continue to refine it, the reactions
from the audience are well worth the extra effort.

Credits:
As mentioned in the text the 37 force in it’s original form can be found
in Banachek’s “Psychological Subtleties” and the method I use for
obtaining the name is Bob Cassidy’s brilliant “Two Envelope Test”
a.k.a. “The White Dwarf” which can be found in several of his books.

It’s worth noting that Jim Callahan has also published an effect using
psychological forces to create the effect that the audience at large is
reading the mind of an on-stage spectator. Jim’s effect appeared on his
DVD “Something” and is different in method and presentation to my
own.

48
In Dramatic Fashion
The Sixth Sense Ploy

In the previous routine I finished the effect’s description by saying that
the performer reveals the thought of name “in dramatic fashion”.
There have been countless suggestions, presentations and ideas
throughout mentalist literature as to what that ‘dramatic fashion’ could
entail, ranging from having it appear in blood on your arm, writing it
backwards on a mirror in blood or even the frightfully entertaining and
knock’em dead presentation of having it written on a dry erase board
(in blood).

What follows is one such presentational idea that I have been working
with. This idea of mine first saw print in Jerome Finley’s “Thought
Channel” but appears here for the first time in full. It’s a very
enjoyable presentation to perform and can add that air of tension and
dramatis that is all too often lacking in a mind reading performance.

I loosely refer to this as “The Sixth Sense Ploy” not because I weave
some ridicules story of people having a sixth sense in to the
presentation3. No, I call it this because in the film “Sixth Sense”, there
is a scene in which Bruce Willis, who plays a child psychologist,
challenges the young boy (the one who sees dead people) to a ‘game’
of sorts. Bruce is trying to prove that he can help the boy and knows a
lot about him just by observing him and his life. He tells the bo

Alexander Marsh Hybrid Mentalism2