Dyment - Mindsights

Doug Dymem’s
Mlnd81hts
Tools ar'ld Performance Pieces

for the Mystery Emerjainer
Doug Dyment ’S
Mindsights
Tools and Performance Pieces
for the Mystery Entertainer
Published by
Doug Dymen‘r
www.0raTory.com
Doug Dymentic Mindsights: Tools and Performance Pieces for the Mystery Entertainer
for Lynne, who puts up with this stufl
Copyright 2002, Doug Dyment
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the
prior written permission of Doug Dyment.
Checkerboard shadow illusion ©1995, E. H. Adelson

Used by permission
Printed and bound in the United States of America
First Printing, 2002
Page 2
Doug Dyment’s Mindsights: Tools and Performance Pieces for the Mystery Entertainer
Table of Contents
FLASH SQUARED.................................................................................................. 5
THE COVER ILLUSION....................................................................................... 14
MAJOR ARCANUM............................................................................................. 15
PREMISE NV ...................................................................................................... 23
MUSINGS I .. ........................................................ ........ 26
1303’s YOUR UNCLE .......................................................................................... 28
MUSINGS II ........................................................................................................ 34
FOURSIGHT ....................................................................................................... 35
MUSINGS III ...................................................................................................... 41
QUICKSTACK ............................. . ....... ..... .. .......... ................................... 43

THE IMMODERATEDECEPTION ........................................................................ 57
“My abilities are not supernatural, they are areas every human can
achieve, entirely natural. [t is up to science to unravel the nature of
them, for then we shall all know very much more about many things.
Everything in this universe is governed by these same laws. Anyone
can produce psychic phenomena if only he can loose himself within
himself. In other words, the mind, at such times, must strip ojf the
veneer of normal materialistic habits and strive to reach a unity with
something beyond time, space, and causality. ”
Frederick Marion, from “In My Mind’s Eye”
Page 3
A Comment on Terminology...
It’s my belief that much of what is currently wrong with mystery
entertainment is reflected in—and exacerbated by—the language used by
the majority of its practitioners to describe the process. If we are to
believe the preponderance of publications for the trade, the players
consist of performers and spectators.
Thus we are encouraged to believe that the purpose of the endeavour is
for someone (the “performer”) to exhibit one or more skills, and others
(the “spectators”) to witness this, presumably in awe. Unfortunately, this
notion has arguably become a self—fulfilling prophecy, with the concept
of entertainment frequently falling by the wayside.
Further, mentalism—the focus of my own personal interests—cannot
even function in an environment consisting exclusively of performers
and spectators. Unlike other forms of entertainment, it exists solely as a
product of the relationship between the perpetrator and the audience.
Jugglers can throw objects in the privacy of their own rooms; magicians
can produce rabbits in empty theatres; singers can sing to vacant halls;
but the mentalist requires the existence ofa willing participant in order
to read a mind.
So you will not find these pejorative terms among my writings to follow.
My protagonist is an entertainer, and the involved audience members are
participants.
I feel similarly about the use of the word “trick”, which implies that the
intent is deception or fraud, rather than entertainment. 1 do employ the
term occasionally in some of the upcoming chapters, but always to make
a particular point.
£2
Page 4
Flash Squared
(A Magic Square for the Walk—Around Entertainer)
Rationale
The ability to quickly produce a magic square1 for an audience-selected
number is always impressive, and because of this has been featured, both
as a close—up performance item and as a popular “opener”, by many
mentalists. A grid filled with numbers that total the same when added in
almost any conceivable fashion is both curious and fascinating. If this
total is a value that has personal meaning to the participant, the square
will be kept; if it is written on the back of the entertainer’s business card,
that too will be kept. The version presented here diverts attention from
the mathematical nature of the construction process, by producing the
square so quickly that something other than calculation seems to be
involved. It can be offered as a demonstration of the entertainer’s mental
skills, or used (as suggested by Richard Webster) to produce a
numerological talisman for the participant. And unlike many magic
square constructions, you’ll find this approach to be easily understood,
learned, remembered, and performed.
Roy Johnson782 “ Flash Square” provides the jumping-off point. This
clever effect, although elegantly conceived, suffers from a lack of
repeatability, as it uses the same numeric pattern each time.
Consequently, only four numbers (in the identical positions) will differ
from one square to another, making at least a portion of the method
somewhat transparent should two such squares ever be compared. This
limitation makes it impractical for the walk—around entertainer (or even
one working to repeat audiences, such as a trade show presenter).
“A square containing a number of integers arranged so that the sum of the

I
numbers is the same in each row, column, and main diagonal and often in some
or all of the other diagonals.” (Merriam-Webster) Some designs, such as the
one presented here, offer considerably more ways to arrive at the “magic” total.
2
Roy Johnson’s Flash Square was first published in a set of audiotapes pro-
duced by Martin Breese in 1980, but a more accessible reference is likely to be
Johnson’s 1988 book, “Pure Gold”, pp. 1—6.
Page 5
Thus “Flash Squared” (or “Flash2”), described here, which advances the
original concept in three notable ways. First, it is based on a considerably
more sophisticated (and thus “interesting”) magic square, with a guaran—
teed 24 separate and distinct combinations that add up to the selected
value. Second, the minimal work necessary on the part of the entertainer
to create the square is even easier than in the Johnson version. Third, and
perhaps most important, there are 32 difi‘erent versions of the square,
along with a simple mnemonic3 cue to indicate how the missing portions
are to be filled in. Thus as many as 32 different participants can receive
individually customized magic squares, without any duplication whatso—
ever, even if their chosen numbers happen to be the same.
The Effect
The participant chooses a number. Any number will work, but values
less than 21 will result in negative numbers being incorporated in the
square, and large numbers are somewhat more likely to draw attention to
one aspect of the method. Johnson cleverly suggests obtaining an
appropriate (and meaningful) number by asking the participant to name a
particularly memorable age, one that holds special meaning in his or her
own personal adult (i.e., over 21) life. This number is written on the back
of the entertainer’s business card, along with the participant’s initials; the
entertainer then turns the card over, and autographs its face.
The entertainer now constructs, on the back of the card, a magic square
that adds to the Chosen number. This can be done in as little as five or six
seconds. Johnson’s approach is to emphasize the impossibility of same
(“I’ll show you something with this card that will take less than ten
seconds”), making it more of a magic trick. My style is simply to create
the square (in a very focused, almost trance—like state), and allow the
audience members to make their own observations (and draw their own
conclusions) about the rapidity with which I might accomplish this.
And after demonstrating the amazing properties of the resulting magic
square, the entertainer is free to leave the business card with the partici-
pant as a souvenir of the event.
I’m amazed at how often I hear this word (which means “memory aiding”)
3
mispronounced by those who should know better; it’s ni—mon-ic, not noo—mon-
ic or nee-mon—ic.
Page 6
Methodology (The Mechanics)

The first aspect of the methodology deals with the mechanics of
producing the square so quickly. This exploits the venerable “Out to
Lunch” principle to conceal the fact that most of the square has been
filled out in advance of the performance. You might employ one of the
special devices available to facilitate same (such as a business card clip,
or the Stockholder wallet), or simply use the classic approach: a rubber
band around a packet of business cards.
The cards are prepared (in the classic fashion) as follows:
CD Pre-draw the grid for a 4x4 magic square on one half of the backs of
several business cards. The grid can be an open one (like an expanded
tic—tac—toe game, as illustrated here), or closed, as shown in the Appen—
dix. These grids should be reasonably similar, so that discrepancies are
not apparent later; if you plan to perform the effect often, consider
having the cards preprinted, or perhaps obtain a rubber stamp with the
grid design. - - - -
® Cut one of these cards in half, and use adhesive tape to attach the half
with the grid to the end of a face down business card. Place this long card
on top of a face down packet of regular cards.
(3 Using the adhesive tape as a hinge, fold the 9

half card toward you and down to cover the
upper half of the lower card (to which it remains
attached). This completes the “permanent” setup;
the steps that follow are repeated each time the
effect is performed.
Page '7
@ 69 Insert a card, prepared as described in

the following section, under the hinged flap?
‘in
5'}
such that the empty grid on the flap hides
the (partially finished) magic square.
C5) Fold down the flap against the prepared card.
© Wrap a wide rubber band around the packet of cards, concealing the
seam created by the flap. You are now set to perform.
If you can obtain an appropriately sized rubber band, it is also possible to
cement it to the edge of the half card, and eliminate construction of the
hinge. This results in a less robust prop, and requires more care in
maintaining alignment of the half card, but allows several repeat
performances without inserting new cards under the flap; fresh cards can
repeatedly be drawn from the (almost) top of the packet.
Methodology (The Mathematics)

The second aspect of the methodology involves the mathematics behind
the construction of the square (don’t go away; this is truly simple). As we
have already discovered, the card flap hides the fact that 75% of the
magic square has been completed in advance. The remaining four
numbers are added during the performance, at which time you are
ostensibly filling in the entire square. Computing these numbers such
that they will produce the final target value is quite straightforward.
Page 8
Doug Dymenris Mindsights: Tools and Performance Pieces for the Mystery Entertainer
Begin by subtracting 2] from the target value (most easily accomplished

by first subtracting 20, then decreasing the result by one); this yields the
first number to be inserted into the square. The remaining three numbers
are merely the next three in numeric sequence. For example, if the target
number is 35, then the first number to be written is 14 (35-21), followed
by 15, 16, and 17. A target value of 50 would yield 29, 30, 31, and 32.
The squares are pre—filled with all of the numbers except for the final
four. There are thirty—two different ways of doing this (“patterns”), as
illustrated in the Appendix. Each pattern has four blank squares, to
accept the final numbers. These four numbers are always written in order
(i.e., numeric sequence), although the direction changes from pattern to
pattern. The initial square to be filled in (which always adjoins an outside
edge of the magic square) is indicated with a small tick mark on the
pattern; the position of this mark additionally specifies the direction in
which the remaining three numbers are to be entered (there are four
possibilities: left to right, right to left, top to bottom, and bottom to top).
In practice, the indicator marks (which are better made as small dots), are
not drawn nearly as prominently as suggested by these diagrams, and are
further obscured when writing in the first of the final four numbers.
Taking the initial pattern from the Appendix as an example: the first
square to be filled in (that marked with a tick) is located between the 8
and the 2. The position of the mark indicates that the squares are to be
filled from top to bottom, so the remaining numbers are added accor-
dingly. Using our previous target example of 35, the resulting square
appears as follows (in actual performance, of course, the final four
numbers are not highlighted).
The numbers in this magic square total 35 in

11 8 14 2 24 different ways: the four rows, the four
columns, the two main diagonals, the two
15 1 12 7 pandiagonals, the four comers, the corners of
each of the four internal 3x3 squares, the
4 16 6 9 corners of five internal 2x2 squares, and the
two opposite central pairs. Each of these
5 10 3 17 groupings is illustrated in the Appendix.
Page 9
Be aware that not all possible internal 2x2 squares will add to the target
value. The five shown in the Appendix will always do so, as will the two
additional such squares that contain one (and only one) of the final four
numbers; the positions of these two, however, will vary from pattern to
pattern. I rarely point out the extra two, though occasionally suggest to
the recipient that s/he may find other ways of reaching the total as well
(which s/he can).
The reason for having thirty—two different patterns (and these are the
only ones possible) is obviously to ensure that different participants will
receive substantially different results, comparisons of which are unlikely
to reveal a consistent pattern of the magic square. When preparing the
cards ahead of time, therefore, work your way through all of the
patterns—ideally in the order shown—before repeating, in order to maxi—
mize this randomness.
Performance
Scripting is left to the individual entertainer’s chosen style; only a basic
outline is offered here.
Determine the participant’s target number (as discussed above),
and write it on the exposed lower half of the (secretly prepared)
card; write the participant’s initials next to this number.
Rotate the packet 90 degrees toward yourself, and then extract the
card, continuing to turn the card completely over in order to
autograph its front side (this is the motivation for removing the
card from the rubber—banded packet before constructing the
square). Be careful not to expose the partially completed square.
Turn the card over again so that the grid faces you (shielding it
from the participant’s View), and fill in the remainder of the
magic square. The time taken to do this should be made consistent
with your performing premise.
Briefly explain the resulting square to the participant, pointing out
the many ways in which it adds to the chosen number. Leave the
card as a souvenir, and move on.
To reset, insert another prepared card (with a different pattern) under the
flap in the packet of business cards.
Page 10
Doug Dymentis Mindsights: Tools and Performance Pieces for the Mystery Entertainer
On Stage
This particular approach to magic square construction is not restricted to
close—up use with business cards, of course, but also applicable to
cabaret- and stage—sized presentations of the effect. In such circum—
stances, the “Out to Lunch” component can be eliminated, with the
square simply drawn (using a dark felt marker) on the back of a large
piece of foamboard (or similar), the front side of which is used to record
the chosen target number. Care must naturally be taken not to expose the
prepared side of the board, but it should arouse no suspicion at this point,
since the audience does not know what you are about to do.
With a larger staging, it may (though not necessarily) be less desirable to
produce a square tailored to a single audience member, in order to make
it clear that no collusion is taking place. The “over 21” ploy to ensure an
appropriate target number will not work in such situations; here is a
possible alternative...
Randomly choose an audience member, and ask for a single digit from
one to nine to be named. If any number other than “one” is chosen,
you’re set; simply write it down and have a second audience member
also choose a single digit (if the first digit was greater than two, this
second time can include the choice of “zero”; if you wish, you can
remind them of that, implying that it was an option for the first person as
well). Write this second digit to the right of the first, and display the
chosen target value, prior to constructing the magic square.
If the first chosen number is a “one”, write it down and have the second
participant choose a different digit. This is written to the left of the
original digit, so the resulting target value will always be 21 or greater.
A Pedagogic Postscript
The more mathematically inclined may be curious as to the genesis of the
thirty—two patterns used for this effect. There are only four possible
magic square constructions that meet the various requirements for Flash
Squared; these can be represented with 32 different orientations: the
original 4 squares x 4 rotations x 2 reflections.
(2
Page 11
Appendix: The Thirty—Two Flash2 Patterns

2
7
61.6167 H P0 ha
oo 1.
L.—
F-§
7:
00
H
H
h 01
1 C)
4;
\O
H O
w
01
(A) H (I)
100
:
6
1‘ I
71‘?
1
7 9 1518 11 2 '1:19 4
3
\o
V
1 12 6 1 7 6 1 12 110 5 4>
121
8 1 1of 4 9 6310511_2_1"I 8 G18 11 1
711 4575105 31 2712

24 Combinations: Eigg central 2x2 square (1)
i
fl
rows (4) corner 2x2 squares (4)
III! shinIII!
3
n 9. C 2 (A AA v “III
III
I
IBM
OO 1 3 N 1 (A 0 ‘h .b X .b (A .0 CO 1 N AHv
I
. main diagonals (2)
St 3"
n O 1 3 N 1 (A .b v
‘1‘
IIIII1 III!
O —h (A)
X (A) (A .Q CD 1 N (A A
I III (I
II?
pandiagonals (2) E opposiTe cenTral pairs (2)
Page 12
Fill Values: X, X+1, X+2, X+3 (X = magic # - 21)

Fill Order: (marker in first square to be filled)
E rows, top to bottom El columns, left to right
E] rows, bottom to top E columns, right to left
Note: for maximum “distance" between similar squares, they should be used
in "row major" order (i.e., from left to right across each row, then
proceeding to the next lower row).
Page 13
The Cover Illusion

(A Visual Deceit)
The Checkerboard Shadow

Many of the more striking visual illusions are based on the fact that our
perception systems handle the concept of “brightness” in a largely
relativistic fashion. Nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than in
Edward H. Adelson’s4 brilliant checkerboard shadow illusion, repr0~
duced on the cover of this book (and again on page 27). In this picture,
the “dark” square at the leftmost comer of the checkerboard and the
“light” square in the immediate shadow of the cylinder are exactly the
same shade of gray!
If you find this as difficult to believe as most
people, you can convince yourself by making
a photocopy of the image, then cutting the
paper along the line shown and moving the
two squares adjacent to one another.
A Simpler Form
Here is a simpler—though not
quite as dramatic—example of
the same illusory phenomenon.
The four small diamonds in this
image are the identical shade of
gray.
Q
4
Dr. Adelson is, at the time of this writing, a Professor of Visual Science at
MIT, and maintains a website at www~bcs,mit.edu/people/adelson/. You can find
there, in addition to other information, his analysis of the checkerboard illusion.
Page 14
Maj or Arc anum

(An Unusually Clean Tarot Card Prediction)
Attribution
This effect is largely original with me, but was inspired by—and contains
the germ of an idea from—wan ESP card prediction once marketed by Bob
Mason. Employing a regular Tarot pack (Major Arcana only) and a pair
of (preferably) casino—quality dice, it is intended as a “squeaky-clean”
prediction effect to use for special presentations.
As Experienced in Performance
[In this sample script, the entertainer speaks to a particular participant—
Mary—as well as any assembled audience] Is the universe about us as
random and disinterested as some would have us believe? Or are there
little-understood forces at work, drawing connections in our lives that
often manifest themselves as strange and wondrous coincidences?
[Entertainer spreads cards face up on table; they are seen to be well
mixed] These are Tarot cards, the Major Arcana... powerful, mysterious
symbols from the fourteenth century that speak to many people today.
[Entertainer introduces dice] These are dice, an even more ancient tool
for invoking random events. But these are modern casino dice, using
twenty—first century engineering precision to ensure a certainty of
randomness unknown to the early alchemists and soothsayers. Choose
one of these dice, and we will use it to search for the connectedness that
is ever-present for those who simply choose to seek it. [Participant
chooses a die.]
Before we begin, Mary, let me describe exactly what we shall do. You
will roll this die three times, creating three numbers that none of us here
could possibly predict in advance. We will add those numbers to produce
a larger total. That total will specify one of these Tarot cards, whose
identity also could not possibly be known to any of us present at this
moment. And the contents of this sealed envelope, which we shall open at
the conclusion of the experiment, will attest to the significance of
whatever transpires.
Page 15
[Entertainer gathers Tarot pack together again, making room to cast the
die; the cards remain face up.] So now, ifyou will... a three, an auspi—
cious beginning! And again... a six, another apparently random occur-
rence. Andfinally... a two, for a total of eleven. Now Mary, I said when
we began that you would cast the die three times, but I don’t want you to
feel that I ’m controlling this unnecessarily. If you would like to roll once
again, I invite you to do so. You would? Fine... I see afive, bringing
your total to sixteen.
Mary, these cards have been here before you from the beginning, is that
so? And no one has changed their order in any way? [Participant agrees,
and entertainer hands her the pack] Would you please count down to the
sixteenth card in this pack, and turn it face up for us all to see? Ah, The
High Priestess. That would certainly seem an appropriate card, sugges-
ting inner wisdom, intuition, purity, and teaching. But your selection ofit
was no more than randomness and coincidence, was it not?
Let as finally turn to this envelope, the contents of which I will ask you,
Mary, to read aloud to our audience. [The paper inside reads, “Let the
skeptical ponder how it is that Mary’s life path should forever be en-
twined with The High Priestess... ”.]
Methodology (Part One: Preparation)

When properly presented, this is a strong effect, capable of eliciting
gasps from an audience. It is, however, unlikely to survive inclusion as
part of a regularly viewed performance, so should be used primarily on
special occasions, or by those with ever-changing audiences.
This is because it draws heavily on the notion of “multiple outs”, with a
healthy dash of equivoque5 thrown in. The script and actions presented
above are but one of several combinations, the choice among which
depends on the rolls of the die. The variances are minor, but someone
privy to multiple viewings over a fairly short time period could be
expected to spot them.
5
Aha! ...an opportunity to mount a favourite soapbox. Some appear to believe
that “equivoque” is a special term coined for the magical community, with the
consequent option of being pronounced in arbitrary fashion. It’s not. It’s a
regular, ordinary word, found in any decent dictionary (meaning “a word or
expression subject to two or more interpretations”), and it’s pronounced ek—wi-
voke (not e—kwi'v-o—kay).
Page 16
The effect works as follows: despite the apparent fairness of the selection
process, careful scripting and handling of the Tarot pack actually reduces
the available choices to a mere four cards, with an available prediction
for each.
The Cards
There are 22 Major Arcana cards (the named symbols, as opposed to the
Minor Arcana, those cards that closely correspond to modern playing
cards). In order for this force to work, however, one of them must be
removed, resulting in a pack of 21 cards. I generally remove the Fool, but
the choice is arbitrary. Any four cards can be used as the targets; pick
four that are appropriate to the performing situation, and about which
you can comment believably (as any of them might be selected). For this
description, we will call them simply A, B, C, and D. They are placed,
respectively, at positions 4, 8, 12, and 16 of the (face—down) pack.
Remember these numbers (they are the first four multiples of “4”), as
they are needed when determining how to handle the cards.
Incidentally, if you’d like to increase the odds of particular cards being
chosen, be aware that C will be the card most frequently selected (48%
of the time), followed by B (33%), D (15%), and A (4%). These numbers
vary so dramatically because the results of three fair throws of a die
exhibit the classic “bell—shaped” curve, with the mid—range values being
much more likely to occur.
The Envelope(s)
Use your “favourite method” (I’ve always wanted to write that) to reveal
the correct prediction (of the four available). It’s important to choose an
approach that permits a display of the envelope prior to the selection of
the card; this is no place for, “and over here, taped to the back of this
picture frame...”! An ideal solution is Roy Miller’s excellent (and
disarmingly thin) four—compartment Miller Miracle Walleté. A less
expensive solution is the use of multiple—compartment envelopes.
Designs have been published for 4-way envelopes, or one could use two
2—way envelopes in conjunction with a Himber—style wallet. Larry
6
At the time of this writing, the Miller Miracle Wallet is manufactured by
leather craftsman Ray Piatt, and available from him and selected dealers.
Page 17
Doug Dymenr’s Mindsights: Tools and Performance Pieces for the Mystery Entertainer
Becker’s elegant “Heads or Tails” envelope7 is an appropriate 2—way

method, though many alternatives are available. The downside of using
such envelopes is the subsequent inability to permit the participant’s
opening of the final prediction, which detracts somewhat from the
“hands-off” style of the presentation.
A particularly devious (and thus satisfying!) solution, using a Himber-
style wallet, is possible if you have good control over the audience’s
viewing angles. Simply place the most commonly required prediction
(i.e., that for the C card) in one side of the wallet, and the remaining
three predictions (in a known order) in the other side. When the wallet is
introduced at the beginning of the performance, it is opened to the side
showing the single envelope. This is briefly removed, and perhaps
finger—flicked, to reinforce the belief that there is but a single envelope in
the wallet; it is then replaced, and the wallet closed. Should C be selected
(which will occur 48% of the time), you can cleanly open the wallet and
allow the participant to remove and open the prediction envelope. For the
other 52% of your performances, tilt the wallet slightly away from the
audience while opening it to remove the correct prediction from among
the three on the other side; this is done while asking the participant about
her selection being “no more than randomness and coincidence”. As the
wallet was clearly seen a few moments before, and with only a single
envelope therein, the fact that it is not so clearly seen this time should
pass muster. And naturally. the participant is still permitted to open the
envelope. This clever ploy dates back at least to Billy McComb8 in the
19705.
Whichever method you use, be prepared to produce any one of four
individual predictions (i.e., for A, B, C, or D).
7
Heads or Tails can be found in “Larry Becker’s World of Super Mentalism,
Book 11” (July, 1979), pp. 203—205.
Billy McComb’s Thought Explosion Wallet used an extreme version of the
8
notion of the dual-compartment wallet as prediction index.
Page 18
Doug Dymentis“ Mindsights: Tools and Performance Pieces for the Mystery Entertainer
Methodology (Part Two: Performance)

The equivocal aspects of this effect come into play when counting to the
“specified” card. There are four possible routes to same, depending on
the total of the three (or four) rolls of the die. They are traced as follows:
0 If the total is a multiple of four (or a number immediately
preceding a multiple of four), pick up the pack and hand it to
the participant, while casually turning it “right side up” (i.e.,
with the cards now in face down position, which most people
consider the “normal” orientation of a pack of cards). This
was the case in the sample script presented above.
0 If the total is n_ot a multiple of four (or an immediately
preceding number), leave the cards as originally positioned
(i.e., in face up condition). In this case you can also use body
language to emphasize that you have not touched the cards
since the die—casting began (you could even point this out,
though that’s more like the style of a conjuror).
- If the total is an even number, count to the card location (as
in the sample script).
0 If the total is an odd number, remove that number of cards
from the top of the pack, and the selected card is the top one
of those remaining. (Would you please discard sixteen cards
from this pack? And now turn the selected card face up for
us all to see.)
Naturally, the prediction corresponding to the revealed card is now
produced as a conclusion to the presentation.
An Optional Element
In the sample performance script above, the participant was given the
opportunity to cast the die a fourth time. This is an option whenever the
existing total is 12 or less (as there is still no chance of the new total
exceeding 18). Whether it is an option that should be exercised is an
interesting question. . .
In general, I am not a proponent of “adding even more randomness” to
an effect. The odious “Would you like to change your mind?” is almost
always bad psychology, bad theatre, and suggestive of magic tricks
[Thank you, Gene Grant]. In this instance, of course, it is not being
Page 19
suggested that the participant change her mind; she is merely being
offered a previously unstated option to continue. Also, the random nature
of the activity is a central element to the theme. Nonetheless, I would
never do this just because it happens to be possible, but only when it can
achieve a superior outcome.
In this routine, a slightly better outcome results from counting directly to
the chosen card, than from “discarding” cards (i.e., from an even total,
rather than an odd one). In the sample script, the total was eleven (which,
along with ten, is one of the two most probable totals—12.5% each——of
three die rolls). As I’d prefer an even result, I allowed her to roll again.
She might choose not to, of course, and there’s only a 50-50 chance that
the result will improve in either case. But in this instance it did (I wrote
the script, after all!), and it led to a somewhat more satisfactory
conclusion.
Building on the Framework

The effect as described above can be considered a basic framework, to
which modifications can be applied and alternate versions constructed.
I’ll describe a few such ideas, in the hope that it may assist in devising
additional approaches that might appeal to you.
Numbered Cards
Many Major Arcana cards (such as the popular Rider—Waite design, used
in the following examples) are numbered, from zero (0) through twenty—
one (XXI). These numbers provide an additional opportunity for the use
of equivocal behaviour to determine the selected card. In fact, it is almost
possible to reduce the target set from four cards to three.
For example, use the cards numbered four (IV — The Emperor),
seventeen (XVII — The Star), and eighteen (XVIII — The Moon) as the
force cards, placed at positions 8, 12, and 16 (in whichever order you
choose). There are now these three targets only, with no force card (or
corresponding prediction) for position 4. Perform as before, except that if
the final total is four, seventeen, or eighteen, no mention is made of card
positions. Instead, the total is taken to be the number on the card, and as
you have predictions for each of these, you’re covered. Alas, this
approach does not provide an “out” for the one remaining possible total:
three. As this can only be rolled with three successive ones, it has but a
1-in-216 chance of occurring. So if you care to live dangerously, or feel
Page 20
confident that you can convince the participant to roll the die once more,
you might consider this approach. You do, of course, lose the ability to
choose those Tarot cards with the most “interesting” interpretations.
The Missing Card

What you could do with that annoying three is ensure that the
correspondingly numbered Tarot card (111 — The Empress) is the one
originally removed from the deck (to reduce it to 21 cards). Then, if that
rare total is rolled, you are in position to produce a miracle. Finish by
having the participant look for the #3 card in the pack (your never
touching same). When she fails to find it, you note that the apparently
complete pack is actually missing one card, which you dramatically
produce as your prediction. The problem now, is, of course, that you are
back to having four predictions again (one being the card, rather than a
written prediction). True, it does provide for the occasional stunning
conclusion, but as it only happens on average once every 216
performances, it may not be worth complicating the methodology.
Another Missing Card

That missing card is a terribly intriguing idea, however. Perhaps if we
improved the odds, by removing not the #3 card, but one much more
likely to be rolled. This would be #10 (X - Wheel of Fortune) or #11 (XI
—-
Justice). The latter is the better choice, as even though both have the
same basic probability (12.5%) of being rolled, judicious use of the
“fourth roll” option slightly improves those odds for #1 1. Now you could
bring off the “missing card” ending once in every eight performances.
Alas, though, you would now have five predictions to manage (the four
written predictions, plus the missing card). If you use the Himber-wallet—
as—prediction—index idea described above, however, you might prefer this
solution.
“Marked” Cards
In normal performance (assuming careful handling during the initial
display of the Tarot faces), the audience never sees the face of the card at
position 4, or the back of the card at position 16 (unless one of these is
the selection). Each of these cards can, therefore, be marked on the
appropriate side with a big “X”, which becomes the prediction, shown by
turning the card over. And now only two written predictions are
necessary, with a simple double envelope being adequate to deliver them.
Page 21
The downside of this approach (aside from permanently marking the

cards) is that you can no longer refer prominently t0 the prediction
envelope, as 19% of the time it would not be used.
ESP cards
Finally, note that this methodology can be used with a standard (five
symbols repeated five times each) ESP deck in place of the Tarot cards)
Four cards must be removed, to reduce the pack to 21 cards. Assuming
that it is desired to force the Star symbol, one and only one of the
removed cards should be a Star. The remaining Star cards are placed at
the standard positions: 4, 8, 12, and 16. The removed Star card can be
used as the prediction, and as the force is an absolute one (due to the
duplicated symbols at the force locations), this prediction is extremely
clean, and can be left under the complete control of a participant from the
outset.
Page 22
Premise NV
(A Response to a Performing Emergency)
The Title
Fellow PEA member Dick Christian once characterized the disdain that
many magicians express toward mentalists as a simple case of “premise
envy”. And although the title of this particular piece will become more
meaningful with exposition, it is clearly also a play on that insightful
observation. You’ll need to have visited the preceding routine (Major
Arcanum) in order for the following to make sense. And although it is
intended more as an example of dealing with challenging situations than
as an effect of any particular note, you may find an idea or two that
translates to more general utilization.
The Premise
Here’s the basic premise... The entertainer has been asked to include
Major Arcanum in a performance (because the client had seen it
previously). The client proffers a deck of Tarot cards, but nothing else is
available: no gimmicked wallets, fake envelopes, or even dice. How to
“make do”, and bring it off successfully?
The Response
The missing dice are no problem; the participant is encouraged to
imagine a die (in the fashion of the “invisible deck”), so some minor
humourous byplay is possible. The difficulty arises in fashioning a clean,
prop-less four-way prediction...
Several types of double envelope can be constructed with minimal
cutting and pasting. In a situation where even this is not possible, a
simple adaptation of Larry Becker’s previously mentioned “Heads or
Tails” envelope5 can be used (although it places more stringent con—
straints on the handling). Those familiar with that method will realize
that the interior fake wall can be eliminated, with careful handling used
to differentiate between the front (horizontal) and rear (vertical) predic~
tion slips. This will work better with some envelope shapes than others.
Page 23
Major Arcanum, however, requires a four—way “out”. Given that an

envelope switch is problematic here, we must somehow find a way to
produce two different results from the same written prediction paper.
The NV Prediction
My solution for this seems to me to be reasonably obvious, and I would
be surprised if someone has not come up with it previously (though I do
not recall having seen it anywhere). A different message is written on
each side of the prediction paper, and the paper is folded in such a way
that it can be selectively unfolded to reveal the required result. The
technique utilizes an N—shaped fold followed by a V-shaped one; hence
the title.
Begin with an approximately square sheet of paper, of sufficient opacity
that the prediction written on one side will not be visible when reading
the prediction on the other. Write a prediction (“B”) on the upper two
thirds of the paper, then turn the paper over from top to bottom, and write
V2
a second prediction (“A”) on the upper two thirds of the now uppermost
side (Figure 1).
Predic-
W“on A Figure 2 Figure 3
- -
Prediction B
on reverse
Figure 4 Figure 5
Fold the paper in thirds, folding the top third toward you, and the lower
third away from you; this results in an N—shaped fold whereby each
prediction is hidden in a “valley” fold (Figure 2). In practice, it is prefer—
able that the center “third” actually be a bit larger than the others, in
order that the original top and bottom edges of the paper fall slightly
short of the folded edges; this makes subsequent unfolding somewhat
eas1er.
At this point (Figure 3), if the paper were to be unfolded by pulling
upward on the foremost edge, the “A” prediction would be revealed.
Lastly, fold the left half of the (N—folded) paper toward you and over to
the right (Figure 4), creating the final prediction billet (Figure 5),
Page 24
approximately 1/6 the size of the original sheet of paper. The purpose of
this final V-shaped fold is to allow differentiation between the top and
bottom edges of the paper.
When unfolding the paper to reveal the appropriate prediction, do so in
one continuous motion (rather than unfolding the V first, followed by the
N), by pulling on the desired top and bottom edges of the paper, letting
the billet unfold accordion—style. Remember that if the exposed edge on
the inside of the V-fold is pulled toward the top, prediction “A” will be
revealed; if this edge is pulled toward the bottom, prediction “B” will
come into View. Experiment with this several times to be sure you
understand the orientation of the writing, and how to produce the desired
result.
In performance, once the paper has been unfolded, hold it by the edges of
the top two thirds, allowing the bottom third to naturally fold back, away
from the reader. This serves the dual purpose of disguising the fact that
the prediction is not written in the center of the paper, and helping to
hide the prediction on the opposite side. Further hide the rear of the paper
by placing it against the envelope (from whence it came), while holding
the paper for the participant to read the prediction.
All of this requires care in sight—line management on the part of the
entertainer, and as such is unlikely to replace “your favourite method”.
Nonetheless, it’s a useful technique to have in reserve for otherwise
challenging situations.
£2
Page 25
Musings I
(on Extrasensory Perception)
“Do you have ESP?” Well, of course... how else would you explain
these wondrous feats that I perform? My take on that popular acronym is
a bit nonstandard, however; I regard it as “Enhanced (or Extended)
Sensory Perception”, an interpretation that fits more easily with a non-
supematural style of presenting psychic entertainment. This is very much
in keeping with the late Ned Rutledge’s suggested view of the mentalist
as “perceptionist”.
Human sensory apparatus is far broader and more sensitive than most
people assume; a little additional knowledge in this area will stand you in
good stead when dealing with those who insist on knowing “how it’s
done”. Did you know, for instance, that the human ear can detect a sound
that moves the eardrum back and forth only 40 billionths of an inch
(about ten times the diameter of the smallest atom)?
And then there’s that old cliche about there being only five senses. Any
competent psychologist will happily inform you to the contrary; there are
five vision—related senses alone (each performed by a different physical
mechanism), and a total that includes at least:
0 5 vision senses: movement, colour, flicker, brightness, 3—D
Vision
0 hearing senses: pitch, loudness, localization
3
0 6 skin senses: cold, warmth, pain, touch, pressure, vibration
- a smell sense
0 a taste sense
0 3 organic senses: pressure, pain, (deep body) temperature
0 2 kinesthetic senses: position of limbs in space, muscle tension
0 2 vestibular senses: movement, stationary head position
(“sense of balance”)
0 several miscellaneous senses: time, causality, inferred (as
opposed to actual) motion, perception, recognition, recall,
long—term time cycles... not to mention “common sense”!
Page 26
Your presentations might well benefit from your learning more about
these natural abilities (consult any decent introductory psychology text).
The long~term time cycle sense, for example, is a function of the pineal
gland, the “third eye” of ancient lore (which detects light changes and
affects sexual maturity, menstrual functions, etc... some believe that we
may be interfering with our metabolisms by the large scale use of
artificial lighting).
As noted theatre arts exponent Professor Davey Marlin-Jones once
speculated, what we currently refer to as “psychic ability” may one day
be referred to as simply “paying attention”.
Finally, if you do nothing else with this information, at least remember
this: the next time someone asks you if you have a sixth sense, agree
wholeheartedly!
£2
Page 27
Bob’s Your Uncle

(“Bob’s ESP Demonstration” Revisited)
Some History
Bob Carver, perhaps best known for his “Equally Unequal Ropes” (aka.
“The Professor’s Nightmare”), was an influential close—up entertainer
based in the southeastern United States. His wonderful ESP demonstra-
tion, using nothing more than ten unprepared cards from a Rhine/Zener
deck, is masterfully presented in Charles Pecor’s Sinister Variationsg.
Charles, in his inimitable fashion, discusses it in somewhat more detail
than I do here (his presentational suggestions are a must for anyone
planning to perform this routine); what follows is a more concise
description of the effect and its methodology.
What is offered here is a significantly improved approach to managing
what Charles calls the “patterns” necessary to bring the routine to a
successful conclusion, thus making it much more easily—and thus
reliably—performed “under fire” (hence “Bob’s Your Uncle”10).
The Demonstration
All that is required are five matching pairs of cards from a Rhine/Zener
(or similar) ESP deck. In an “emergency”, colour—matched pairs of
standard playing cards could be used as well, though that would look
suspiciously like a card trick!
9
Bob’s ESP Demonstration is not the only Carver mentalism routine to be found
in the 1994 book “Sinister Variations”, by Charles J. Pecor, pp” 5—9.
10
“Bob’s your uncle” is a catch phrase meaning “you’re all set” or “you’ve got
it made”. It dates back to 1887, when then British Prime Minister Robert Cecil
(a.k.a. Lord Salisbury) decided to appoint one Arthur Balfour to the prestigious
and sensitive post of Chief Secretary for Ireland. Not lost on the British public
was the fact that Lord Salisbury just happened to be better known to Arthur as
“Uncle Bob”. In the ensuing furor over what was seen as an act of blatant
nepotism, “Bob’s your uncle” became a popular sarcastic comment applied to
any situation in which the outcome was preordained by favoritism. As the
scandal faded in public memory, however, the phrase lost its edge and became,
in effect, a synonym for “no problem”.
Page 28
One set (of five different cards) is laid out face up before the participant,
in any order. The entertainer retains the second set, not allowing the card
faces to be seen. The entertainer begins, selecting a card from his set and
placing it face down on the table. The participant, using whatever
instincts might guide her, then chooses a single card from among those in
front of her, turns it face down, and places it on top of the card previous—
ly dealt (to make a pair).
Setting the pair aside, the entertainer selects and deals a second card to
the table; the participant again chooses a card (by turning it face down
upon the dealt card), making a second pair. This new pair is then placed
atop the pair that had been set aside.
The process is repeated twice more, with the entertainer always dealing
first, the participant’s chosen card subsequently placed on the dealt card,
and the resulting pair moved to the pile on the side, The entertainer then
places his final card on the table, adds the one remaining card from the
participant, and drops this fifth pair on the accumulated pile.
While briefly recapping what has occurred, the entertainer deals the
formerly set~aside cards onto the table, restoring them to distinct pairs
(still face down).
For an appropriately dramatic finale, I can do no better than borrow from
the deliciously theatrical (what else?) Pecor dialogue:
“In ESP testing, one matching pair would be considered
chance. ”
The entertainer turns over the first pair of cards, and they
match.
”Two or three pairs that match would be above average. ’I
The entertainer turns over two more pairs; they are also
matches.
“Andfour orfive matching pairs would indicate the definite
presence of communication between minds.
The entertainer turns over the final two pairs, and they are
also matches!
Furthermore, and unlike many such demonstrations, this one can be
repeated (and also bears repeating, often to better effect than a single
showing).
Page 29
The Basic Methodology

The secret to this clever demonstration is a simple one, utilizing one
basic card sleight: the Glide. This is explained in standard card texts (and
in the Pecor book as well), so I’ll not describe it here; for those
unfamiliar with same, it involves holding back a single card on the
bottom of the pack, so the card immediately above it is actually the one
dealt to the table.
If this demonstration were truly being accomplished using telepathic
means, the participant would unerringly choose the card matching the
entertainer’s selection, and the resulting pile of ten cards would consist
of five perfectly matched pairs. In our more mundane reality, the partici—
pant will frequently not match the entertainer’s card; in such instances,
the entertainer simply chooses as his next card the one matching that just
selected by the participant! Thus the result pile will still contain matched
pairs, though there will likely also be one or (at most) two separated
pairs. (To use the mentalist’s vernacular, this is a type of “one behind”
technique.) Everything is eventually straightened out when the result pile
is dealt out as card pairs: any unpaired card is simply held back (via the
Glide) until its mate is reached, at which point it is dealt normally.
In his own description of the effect, Pecor innocently (?) observes, “You
must pay attention to where the cards are so that you will know when to
Glide and when to deal.” Indeed! This, as you may have surmised, is
more easily said than accomplished, especially in the heat of perfor—
mance! As it happens, there are sixteen different possible arrangements
of matched and unmatched pairs, so keeping track of them could be a
challenging task. To ease this chore, I have developed the following
simple two—phase procedure, largely automating the chore of ensuring
that everything gets properly sorted out, and consequently freeing the
entertainer to concentrate on presentation.
Page 30
Phase I — Building the Result Pile

During this phase, the entertainer selects and deals cards one at a time.
The participant attempts to choose the matching card for each card so
dealt. The resulting pairs are collected in a single pile (the “result pile”).
During this phase, the entertainer employs the following procedure:
1) Deal any card face down; this becomes the target card.
2) Participant chooses a card (by turning it face down on top of
yours); move the pair to the result pile.
3) Did participant’s chosen card match the target card?
a) Ifso, remember “Match”, and return to Step 1.
b) If not, remember “Glide”, select and deal (face down)
the card matching the one just chosen by the participant,
and return to Step 2. (Note that the target card does not
change in this case.)
After four pairs have been assembled, the entertainer will be
remembering a four-code—word sequence, such as “Match-Glide-Glide-
Match”, “Glide-Match-Glide—Glide”, etc. It is unnecessary to remember
anything for the fifth pair of cards, as they will always match at the
conclusion of the final deal. (Use of the words “Match” and “Glide” is
obviously not mandatory here; use any two you like, perhaps “No” and
“Yes”.)
This may appear complicated in print, but with a bit of practice you will
find that it comes fairly easily. The potentially difficult part is keeping
track of the (changing) target card at the same time as you are
constructing the list of four code words. I handle this by “recording” the
current target card with the help of my thumb!
Employing the traditional ordering for ESP cards“, the position of my
thumb on the cards remaining in my hand identifies the current target
card. When my thumb is:
1) at the top edge of the card, the target is the Circle;
2) between the top and the centre, the target is the Cross;
H
ESP symbols are commonly assigned corresponding numbers, using simple
mnemonic associations: Circle 2 (single line); Cross = 2 (two lines); Wavy
1
Lines 2 3 (three lines); Square = 4 (four lines); Star = 5 (five points).
Page 31
Doug Dymentis‘ Mindsights: Tools and Performance Pieces for the Mystery Entertainer
3) at the centre, the target is the Wavy Lines (Triangle, in some

non—standard packs);
4) between the centre and the bottom edge, the target is the Square;
and
5) at the bottom edge of the card, the target is the Star.
In this fashion, I can concentrate on assembling the four code words, as a
brief glance at my hand holding the cards tells me the target card at any
time.
If you are using playing cards (Card trick! Card trick!) instead of ESP
symbols, you might choose pairs of Aces through Fives in order to utilize
this idea.
And remember, this is an experiment in telepathic communication...
there is no need to rush things, so take your time and ensure that you’re
not losing track of the code words.
Phase II — Dealing out the Result Pile

When it comes time to deal the result pile back into individual card pairs,
simply follow the pattern defined by the four remembered code words:
> For each “Match”, deal a pair of cards (one at a time, from
the bottom of the pack) onto the table.
> For each “Glide”, hold back the bottom card, and deal the
pair of cards above it to the table.
Again, the fifth/final pair will always match, thus can be dealt normally.
And that’s it!
This routine is easily practiced, as shuffling five cards and subsequently
drawing them from a face down stack effectively simulates the role of
the participant. Work through everything several times, cards in hand,
and you will soon have a strong addition to your performing repertoire.
Some Concluding Remarks

It’s important to establish (in the participants’ minds) the strongly paired
nature of the cards. This is why they are isolated as individual pairs (and
some emphasis thereby given to same) on the table. Always wait a
moment before removing them to the result pile; it is often appropriate to
Page 32
make a remark here, or ask a question such as “Did you feel any compul-
sion to choose that particular card?” The very act of collecting these pairs
in a pile is, of course, destroying the strong pairing that you are
suggesting (which is how the illusion works!), so you need to distract
attention from this element as much as possible.
The final pairs (from the result pile) should not be placed in any
discernible order on the table, but rather dealt somewhat haphazardly,
using roughly the same orientation as the five spots on a die. This makes
it difficult to reconstruct the actual order in which the pairs were
assembled, for any audience member who may be paying unusually close
attention to such things.
By using marked ESP cards, the participant’s and/or your cards can be
face down during the entire matching process. This makes it less of an
impromptu feat, certainly, but may occasionally be useful as a
“convincer”.
If you’re one of those rare individuals who can perform an undetectable
second deal, you can deal the result pile from the top; just work
backwards through the remembered code words, dealing a pair of
“seconds” for every “Glide”.
This routine offers much opportunity for exploiting fortuitous circum-
stances that may occur in the creation of the pairs (e.g., if the partici—
pant’s first choice is a true match, you might casually show it as such,
and remark along the lines of “Well, we’re off to a good start here, but I
don’t want you trying too hard; just breathe deeply, relax, and choose the
card that most speaks to you”). Similarly, if the final pair matches,
casually flash your card as you collect the pair before placing on the
result pile). Charles Pecor offers several ideas along these lines, so I
again urge you to seek out his book if you intend to use this routine in
performance.
$2
Page 33
Musings II
(on Predicting the Future)
“If you can predict the future, why don’t you make a fortune on the
lotteries?” How many of us have heard that challenge, or some version of
it, when doing prediction effects? While a number of approaches might
be employed to deal with this question, here’s one with which I’ve had
success...
Did you ever read one of those science fiction stories dealing with time
travel, in which the protagonist goes backward in time and is
subsequently confronted with some paradoxical situation, one in which
his actions could have a contradictory effect on the future? For example,
he is put in a position where could kill his parents prior to his own birth.
Such an event can’t be allowed to occur, for obvious reasons. Indeed, the
plot of such stories is often based on the resolution of the potential
conflict, usually in a way that preserves the essential elements of the
future as it is known to have unfolded.
It’s clear that the time traveler is allowed to have some effect on the past,
just nothing that could disturb future events in a seriously conflicting
fashion.
Well, traveling forward in time (e.g., forecasting future events) could
well work in the same fashion: as long as the occurrence of the
prediction has no significant effect on the event itself, everything is all
right. If it were to affect the predicted event in some notable fashion,
however (e.g., you win the lottery instead of the “natural” winner), the
laws of causation would have been violated, which can’t be permitted to
happen. This view also serves to explain why, typically, predictions are
only viewed after the predicted event has occurred.
“But wait a minute”, some might insist, “Time travel in any direction is
an impossibility.” Not necessarily... quantum physics strongly suggests
that our concepts of the flow of time may well be based more on our
belief structures than on any objective reality.
Q
Page 34
FourS i ght
(A Participatory Numeric Prediction)
Paternity
This routine is a further development of a principle incorporated in an
impromptu card routine by Martin Gardner”. I liked the concept enough
to want to build a feature audience-participation item around it, but felt
that its effect was compromised (and inherent mathematical nature was
exposed) by the fact that the entertainer selects half of the numbers. The
offshoot that follows, though no longer in the impromptu category,
creates the impression that participants have selected all of the numbers
in a completely random fashion. The use of playing cards is also
eliminated.
Presentation
The general tone here is one of a reasonably formal (“scientific”)
experiment. A prediction is written, and placed under the control of
someone who will act as the experiment’s official “judge”. A second
participant is chosen to be the experiment’s “mathematician” (and
optionally loaned a calculator if appropriate). Thirdly, an “experimenter”
is selected to actually conduct the experiment.
The audience is then informed that, prior to the show, four participants
were each asked to randomly select two numbers, writing them on
opposite sides of shipping tags. The experimenter is asked to collect
these tags, and hang them in any order on the four empty hooks of a
simple display board. While this is being done, it is confirmed that the
numbers were indeed randomly selected, and the entertainer could not
have known in advance what they would be.
The entertainer now retreats to a location behind the display. Although
being able to see the numbers would not appear to have an effect on the
outcome, it is wise to suggest that the entertainer has no interest in them.
'2
Gardner’s “Four Tell” appeared in Charles M. Hudson’s column in “The
Linking Ring”, Volume 58, Number 4 (April 1978), pp. 82—83.
Page 35
The experimenter is now instructed to invite audience members to

indicate tags on the display, which are consequently turned over to reveal
the different numbers on their opposite sides. This continues until a
reasonable percentage of the audience has had an opportunity to affect
the outcome. The mathematician then totals the four currently exposed
values, and the judge reads the written prediction, revealing an exact
match!
Participation
This is staged for a reasonably large group, with plenty of audience
participation. Seven people are actively involved (the judge, the
experimenter, the mathematician, and the four who initially select the
numbers). Additional audience members participate in the final
randomization process.
Properties
Needed are four large shipping tags, similar to the illustration in Figure
1. These may be purchased, or constructed using fairly stiff card stock. In
the performance of the routine, it is necessary to distinguish between the
two sides of the tags. If a commercial tag is used, this may already be
characteristic of its construction. If not, or should you choose to make
your own, a hole reinforcement could be added to one side, or a light
pencil mark made. Whatever you use, it should look sufficiently natural
that the back/front nature of the tags is not blatantly obvious. In what
follows, one side will be referred to as the “marked” side.
©
0000
72 24 51 95
Figure 1
Figure 2
Also necessary is some sort of stand on which to display the tags,

hanging side by side as in Figure 2. You might use a piece of corkboard,
with four small nails or pushpins. I have used the top of an opened
Page 36
briefcase, to which are temporarily attached four suction cup hooks

(straightened somewhat, to avoid fumbling with the tags). Use whatever
fits best with the nature of the event and your performance style... a
practitioner of “mental magic” might choose to use a fancy chrome and
Plexiglas stand, with coloured plastic tags on which to write the
numbers!
During the presentation, it will be necessary to designate individual tags
on the display. Different coloured tags could be used for this, or their
positions marked with numbers or letters; I prefer to simply suggest that
the tags be called—from the leftw—the first, second, third, and fourth.
Preparation
This entire piece is a straightforwardwthough elaborately staged—force;
the most important part takes place prior to the performance, when the
numbers are chosen. The goal here is the selection of four pairs of
numbers that bear a certain mathematical relationship to each other,
without the participants being aware of it. This is done using the
following selection process (apparently to ensure the “randomness” of
the choice).
Inform each participant (they are approached separately and individually,
after verifying that they will be present for the later performance) that
you wish to have two numbers chosen, but that it is important that they
be truly random selections, not consciously arrived at by either of you.
Suggest that you each secretly write down a value, then arrive at one
random number by adding the two values together, and at a second by
subtracting one from the other.
For example, say you choose 13
/
fOIded and the participant chooses 59;
here the “randomly selected” numbers
_13 then become 72 (59+13) and 46

_
3521?:
(59—13). I handle this by folding a
business card in half (see Figure
3), then writing my chosen value
Figure 3 such that it will unfold to become
the bottom half. The card is
handed to the participant such that this value is hidden (i.e., underneath),
permitting him to write a value on the other half. When the card is
unfolded, and both values revealed for the first time, they can now easily
Page 37
be added and subtracted (as will become clear, the entertainer’s value is .
always subtracted from the participant’s).

The first “random” number, arrived at by adding the two values, is
written (by the participant!) on the “marked” side of the shipping tag
(which you have provided, along with a dark marking pen with which to
write). The second number, arrived at by subtracting the values, is
written on the other side; this number will always be the lesser of the
two. You must remember this lower number, at least until you get a
chance to write it down after the participant departs with the shipping
tag.
This may all seem quite fair and aboveboard, but if you repeat the
procedure for each of three additional participants, and use the same
value each time (your value, that is; the participants will obviously
choose differing values), you will end up with four pairs of number, the
difi‘erence between each of which will be identical!
To continue with the previous example (where the entertainer chose ]3),
the following results might emerge:
#1 chooses 59 — numbers are 72 (59+l3) and 46 (59—13)
-
#2 chooses 37 numbers are 50 (37+13) and 24 (37-13)
#3 chooses 64 — numbers are 77 (64+13) and 51 (64—13)
#4 chooses 82 — numbers are 95 (82+13) and 69 (82—13)
Notice that, in all cases, the difference between each of the number pairs
is a consistent 26 (72—46=26, 50—24226, 77—51=26, 95—69=26), and that
this is twice the value chosen by the entertainer (2x13=26). This is the
crux of the secret; a couple of details need to be managed.
First, your chosen value must be less than the participant’s. This is easily
handled: explain that it is important you don’t choose the same value, as
this would yield zero as one of the random numbers. To prevent this,
you’ll choose a value less than (say) 25, and they should choose one
greater than this; this solves the problem. Incidentally, try to prevent the
participant from choosing a huge value; it will work with any value
greater than yours, but if they choose 2020, you’ll end up with the
numbers 2033 and 2007 on a tag, which looks somewhat peculiar.
Restricting their choice to a two-digit value should be acceptable.
Second, don’t let any participant choose an already—selected value (which
would result in two identical tags, and look extremely peculiar). I know
Page 38
of no way to absolutely prevent this from occurring; I avoid it pretty

successfully by using previously chosen values as samples of what I
want: “Think of a two—digit value greater than 25, such as 59 or 37.”
People are much less likely to choose a value that you’ve already
mentioned. If it happens, be honest and tell the participant that someone
else has already chosen the very same value, so s/he should choose again
in order to avoid duplication. Then tear up the business card and begin
again (you, of course, actually choose the very same value, which passes
because what you originally wrote has not yet been seen).
A nice touch, incidentally, is to have the participants write their numbers
on the tags with different types of markers. This will later enhance the
notion that each participant simply arrived at two numbers on his or her
own.
Finally, ensure that the participants are satisfied with the selection
procedure, and prepared to verify that the numbers were randomly
chosen, there being no way you could have known them in advance. And
make sure that they save their tags for later! As a precautionary measure,
I always have a fifth tag at my disposal, with numbers different from the
four chosen pairs, to be used in case one of the participants manages to
disappear prior to the performance.
Performance
Your predicted total is computed as follows: add together the four “low”
numbers (which you remembered during the preparation stage), plus four
times your originally chosen value (which you used with all four partici—
pants). In our ongoing example, this would be 46+24+51+69+(4x13) =
242. Now it will take some simple management on your part to ensure
that this predicted total is in fact the final result of the experiment...
Although sixteen orientations of the four tags are possible, these are
easily grouped into only three unique “patterns”, determined by the
directions in which the tags are facing (i.e., whether their marked or
unmarked sides are visible); their order is irrelevant. A brief glance at the
tags (when you summarize what has occurred during the experiment)
will tell you which pattern has resulted from all the mixing. This
determines the subsequent handling:
> “2/2” Pattern (two tags facing each direction): This pattern
will occur 37.5% of the time. When it does, the work is over
Page 39
Doug Dymenti; Mindsights: Tools and Performance Pieces for the Mystery Entertainer
(i.e., the total of numbers visible on the tags will be the

predicted value), and you may conclude with appropriate
fanfare!
> “4/0” Pattern (all tags facing the same direction): This
pattern will occur 12.5% of the time. You finish as follows:
noting that neither the mathematician nor the experimenter has
had an opportunity to select a number to be changed, request
that they each place a hand on a tag (simultaneously, so they
cannot choose the same tag). When they have done so, have
the two chosen tags turned over (resulting in the “2/2” state).
Then have the total calculated & verified, and take your bow.
> “3/1” Pattern (three tags facing one direction, one the
other): This is the most common pattern, occurring half of the
time. In this case, without breaking stride, you note that the
mathematician did not have an opportunity to affect the
outcome, and have him now indicate a tag to be turned. Three
out of four times, this will result in the desired “2/2” state,
from which you finish. In the remaining case, you conclude as
in the case of the “4/0” pattern, except that the judge (rather
than the mathematician) is called into play along with the
experimenter.
Postlude
As is frequently the case with mathematically based concepts, this one
reads much more complicated than it actually is in performance. Once
you understand what is going on, the various steps are all perfectly
natural and obvious. Try it and see for yourself.
$2
Page 40
Musings III
(on Psychic Guilt)
A highlight of the 1983 “Meeting of the Minds” (the annual convention
of the Psychic Entertainers Association) was a series of simulated inter—
views, pitting a hard—nosed “investigative reporter” (real-life investiga—
tive reporter and PEA member Ward Lucas) against a series of psychic
entertainers, each of whom was assumed to have successfully completed
a dramatic headline prediction. The interviewees handled themselves
with varying degrees of success, and the exercise convinced us of two
things: if you’re trying to “do an Uri Geller”, stay away from Ward
Lucas, and whatever you’re trying to do, be extremely clear about the
nature ofyour own performing persona before trying to sell it to others.
“Are you really psychic, or do you use trickery?” Several entertainers
had difficulty responding to that, due in part to some discomfort with the
word “psychic”, and in part to the leading nature of the question, which
encourages an either/or response (when the preferred answer may simply
be “yes”). One entertainer admitted to the use of “psychological
trickery”, but the most successful (the late, irrepressible, and much
missed Irv Weiner) calmly assured the reporter that everyone is psychic.
A decent dictionary agrees, the principal definition of “psychic”—when
used as an adjective—being simply, “of or pertaining to the human soul
or mind”. Dionne Warwick’s friends notwithstanding, most common
uses of the word in our culture have no supernatural implications: the
“psychic bid” (a Bridge term), “psychic energizer” (a medical term for
antidepressants), “psychic distance” (a reference to maintaining a degree
of detachment), “psychic income” (a personal or subjective reward), and
so on, So don’t feel in any way guilty referring to your psychic abilities.
Don’t feel guilty about forecasting future events either: economists and
meteorologists do it all the time, and are rarely burned at the stake.
Much of the above, ultimately, can be seen as a sort of footnote to the
late Al Koran’s insightful dictum that it is the words that do thefooling...
all else is but window dressing.
£2
Page 41
A Precursory Comment to
QuiCkStack
This book could easily not have been written. The field
of mystery entertainment needs better entertainers, not
more “tricks”, so I was never particularly motivated to
put down these ideas on paper. When I first revealed my
new solution for the memorized deck problem, however,
confidante and fellow PEA member Roger Ferriby per-
suasively insisted that I document it and make it part of
the literature.
My first thought was to produce it as a separate item,
which has been done successfully with several earlier
card stacks. Upon reflection, though, I felt that as long as
I was going to the trouble necessary to create a market—
able document, it might as well include a few other items
that I am occasionally asked about. Thus Mindsights.
So now, for better or worse, here is QuickStack. In
keeping with magical tradition, I have relegated it to a
place near the end. And I hope that those who discover
and use it will find it to be exemplary of another great
magical tradition: “worth the price of the book.”
Page 42
QuickStack
(aka. The Half—Hour Memorized Deck)
The Problem
Most entertainers are aware of the potential of a full—deck stack, one that
associates each card with its position in the deck (i.e., the “memorized
deck”), A great deal of literature exists on this stratagem, which makes
possible a variety of “impossible conditions” effects obtainable by no
other means. The considerable reputations of entertainers such as Simon
Aronson, Mike Close, and Juan Tamariz depend in no small measure on
their command of this technique (and their writings offer a goodly
number of astounding effects that depend upon its use). Even Bert
Allerton, arguably the founder of close—up magic (and unquestionably
one of its most successful practitioners), adhered to the admonition that
“You can take a stacked deck and follow any great artist with cards, and
your spectators will think you are the better magician.”l3
The many published full—deck stacks (well summarized in Martin Joyal’s
encyclopedic The Six—Hour Memorized Deck) can generally be grouped
into two categories. First is the truly memorized deck, where mnemonic
techniques (or simply brute force) are used to commit all 52 cards, and
their corresponding positions in the pack, to memory. This approach has
three distinct advantages: first, once thoroughly learned, it allows for the
fastest “translation” of card identities to stack positions (and vice versa);
second, it permits a deck ordering that can appear truly random, thus
examinable by participants to any extent desired; and third, it allows for
a stack that can be specially constructed (often referred to as “wired”) to
facilitate other demonstrations, such as poker deals, etc.
Unfortunately, it has a substantial corresponding disadvantage: thorough—
ly committing 52 cards and their positions to memory is no easy feat,
even with the aid of various mnemonic devices. Further, unless the stack
is used on a regular and consistent basis, it is all too easy to forget the
associations, rendering the technique useless (often at an embarrassing
moment!). This is particularly true for the mentalist, who often avoids
‘3
This quote was originally ascribed to Dr. Zola, as reported by Robert Parrish
in “Bert Allerton’s The Close-Up Magician” (August, 1958), pg. 36.
Page 43
the overuse of playing cards (who may, in fact, have only one or two
card effects in an entire performance repertoire), and is thus not
constantly using the stack.
The second category utilizes some sort of algorithmic relationship (i.e., a
formula or set of rules) between each card and its position, enabling a
calculation to be used to convert from one to the other. The advantage
here is that it’s easier to learn (though this is arguable for some of the
more complex proposed solutions); the disadvantage is that the
translation algorithm determines the stack order. This has its own set of
consequences, as there is typically a direct correlation between the
complexity of the calculation and the apparent randomness of the cards.
The challenge, then, is to find a method by which the cards appear
genuinely mixed, but the name/position translation can still be done in a
consistent, easily mastered fashion, Proposed solutions for this problem
have, by and large, been unsatisfactory: the conversion formula is
complex and/or inconsistent across all of the cards; there are many
exceptions to the rules; etc. Nonetheless, a solution of this type is
unquestionably the long—sought grail for memorized deck work.
A Rationale
The approach offered here, a member of the second category as defined
above, makes one particular assumption that may or may not be accep-
table to you (if not, you’ll need to keep looking for the elusive perfect
solution). I believe that it’s unnecessary for the card sequence to be able
to withstand exhaustive examination by the audience. In support of this
position, I offer two related ideas as examples:
It has traditionally been believed that, for a marked deck to be
effective, the markings must be difficult to detect, yet the users of
Ted Lesley’s classic Working Performer’s Marked Deck know
that it flies in the face of this “rule”, to great effect. Here is a deck
where, if markings were suspected, an observant person could
find them in a moment; the true secret of its use lies in the
entertainer’s ability to rule out the use of marked cards, either by
presentational or structural methods. The resultant gain is
markings that are extremely easy to read!
Page 44
Similarly, the evergreen Eight Kings14 rhyme for a sequential card

stack yields an ordering in which the pack is divided into four
“banks”, with an identical numerical sequence in each. Further,
the suits consistently alternate between red and black, and cycle in
the identical sequence throughout the deck. And yet casual
examination of such a deck (when irregularly ribbon spread, for
example) suggests randomness. Once again, the real secret lies in
the entertainer’s role, ruling out any suggestion that the deck
might be in some known order (and including perhaps a casual
false shuffle or two, or even a deck switch).
In the stack described here, the deck is also divided into four 13u-card
banks, the numerical sequence being identical in each. There is no
apparent ordering of the suits, however, so the sequence appears
completely random. To convince yourself, you might want to arrange a
deck of cards as follows, and see if any but a fairly careful inspection
suggests a prearranged sequence:
10v 54 Kv 24. 9A 74- Qv 64. A9 J4. 80 4o 10-i- 5v 3. K4- 2v
3-!-
9v 7. Q4. 6v As Jo 84 4A 100 5-1- 34 Ko 24- 9-1. 7* Q0 6.7.

Av Ja 8v 4v 104 50 3V Kg 20 99 7V Q4 60 A-T- 3v 8:» 4.1.
If you’re comfortable with the random appearance of this stack, you’ll be
pleased to discover that the conversion from any card’s value to its
corresponding position (or vice versa) is straightforward and consistent,
and both learned and remembered quite easily.
Three Algorithmic Stacks

Three previously published algorithmic stacks (i.e., from the second cate-
gory discussed above) deserve particular mention here. Bart Harding’s
system15 , though forty years old, remains one of the best such
approaches, and yields the most random appearance of any stacks
discussed here. It works by using a mathematical formula to convert the
stack order into a “new deck order” (i.e., as the cards might come from
‘4
“Eight kings threatened to save, nine fine ladies for one sick knave” is a
mnemonicrhyme for: 8~K~3— lO—2—7—9—5—Q—4—A—6—J
15
Bart Harding’s Stacked-Deck System was originally released in pamphlet
form in 1962, and later augmented by Alan Shaxon (January, 1990) with some
additional ideas.
Page 45
the factory). There are a couple of exception cards, and the process is not
quite as simple as it first appears, as it begs the question of how the new
deck order is memorized in the first place (even though a straightforward
name/position relationship exists here, it does add another level of selec—
tion and mathematical operations, resulting in a significant number of
mental steps to be performed overall).
Boris Wild’s recently published solution16 has garnered some attention,
due in no small part to its association with his extremely practical
marked deck system (an evolution of the Lesley technique). The stack,
however, consists of 13 four—card groups, each in strict sequence, both
numerically and with respect to suit; it is thus unlikely to survive any but
the most cursory examination. As discussed earlier, this is not necessarily
a Showstopper (Wild clearly uses it with notable success). The compu-
tations necessary for the name/position conversion, though, are no
simpler than those of the method presented here, which offers a consider-
ably more random presentation.
In 1997, independent thinker Harvey Berg offered his own contribution17
to the literature of full deck stacks, with a clever scheme that subse—
quently became the departure point for the solution presented here.
QuickStack
QuickStack owes much to Berg’s approach, both in its use of four (13-
card) banks of identical sequences, and in the way it deals with values
and suits as two separate computations. It differs in that the locations of
the cards within the banks are ascertained using simple mnemonic
associations, rather than by having to memorize the numerical positions
of every card in the 13-card sequence. Further, the suit groupings build
on these same associations, permitting significantly faster calculation in
performance. There are no special cases or rule exceptions.
As with most algorithmic stacks, the name/position relationship takes
some explanation. Do not dismay, however: it has been designed to be
rapid and direct in use, and most people will find that they can manage it
16
The BW Instant Memorized Deck is included in “The Complete Boris Wild
Marked Deck” (2001, Camirand Academy of Magic), by Boris Wild.
Harvey Berg’s stack is described in his 1997 book, “Sleight of Mind”, along
17
with several excellent memorized deck effects (his The Immaculate Perception
routine is alone worth the modest price asked).
Page 46
Doug Dymenf’sMindsights: Tools and Performance Pieces for the Mystery Entertainer
reasonably well after no more than a half-hour’s practice with cards in

hand. And that’s for the complete, S2—card packl
QuickStack is most easily learned in three steps: (1) relating values and
positions in the first bank; (2) determining the suits in the first bank; and
(3) extending the method to the rest of the deck (i.e., the remaining three
banks).
Beginning: The Values

There are thirteen cards, Ace through King (1—13), in each bank. The
first step consists of learning the numerical position of each card. This is
remarkably simple...
Three of the cards—the 3, the 7, and the Jack(l 1)——occupy the
positions represented by their values. That is, the Three is the 3rd
card, the Seven is the 7'h card, and the Jack(11) is the l 1‘h card in
the bank. This is easily remembered, as these are numbers that
people commonly choose, or consider “lucky”.
The remaining card values are arranged as pairs...
The 2 is paired with the 5, easily recalled, as each digit resembles
the other flipped top—to—bottom. This means that the Two is the 5Lh
card in the bank, and (conveniently) that the Five is the 2“Cl card.
The 6 is paired with the 9, which it resembles when rotated 180
degrees, telling us that the Six is in the 9“1 position, and the Nine
is in the 6h.
The Ace(l) is paired with the 10, which you might think of as l =
l + 0, so the Ace(l) is in the 10‘[1 position, and the Ten is in the ISI
position. This is the least mnemonically suggestive of the pairs,
and I tend to remember it for that reason alone!
Page 47
Doug Dymentfs Mindsights: Tools and Performance Pieces for the Mystery Entertainer
The 4 is paired with the King(l3), as the “4” and “K”

are both three—stroke characters, similar in appearance
(see drawing at right, where the upright stroke of the 4
is merely tilted to make the K); you could also recall that 4 = l +
4 \é
3. The Four, then, is in the 13th position, and the King(l3) is in
the 4th position.
Finally, the 8 is paired with the Queen(12), memorable because
the 8 has a distinctly Rubenesque female shape to it. This
completes the thirteen—card bank, with the Eight in the 12th
position, and the Queen(12) in the 8th position.
You should find it easy to learn these relationships, and thus be able to
respond quickly to a card value with its corresponding position (and to a
position with the associated card value).
Although unrelated to the value/position calculation, it is helpful (for the

suit calculations) to think of these relationships as consisting of three
separate groups, as illustrated in the following diagram:
The 2/5 and 6/9 pairs are grouped
because each is formed by
transposing numeric characters.
The 3, 7, and Jack are grouped
because their values and bank
positions are identical.
The remaining three pairs (A/ 10,
4/K, and 8/Q) are grouped because
each is a letter-number pair.
Page 48
Continuing: The Suits

Determination of the suits utilizes the same simple groupings of the card
values described above, in conjunction with a standard sequence of suits.
I have long preferred the SHOCKED sequence (popular in Europe) to the
more common CHASED or the rarely seen HIS DECK, so that is what
QuickStack uses. You can easily construct a similar stack using the
others if you prefer (see Appendix for a CHASED version), though there
are good reasons for my particular choicelg.
Each bank of thirteen cards is assigned a “base suit”; for the first bank,
this is Spades (first in the SHOCKED sequence). The numeric value
groups determine the corresponding suits, as follows (again, for the first
bank), illustrated by the accompanying table:
Cards in the first group (2, 5, 6, 9) take the
base suit; that is, Spades. These cards are 2:
____
5:
marked with an “=” Sign in the table on the _.6_____E__9
= =
right.
'
Cards in the second group (3, 7, Jack) take the 3X

other suit of the same colour as the base suit,
namely Clubs. These cards are marked with a ___________________
“x” sign in the table on the right. JX
For the remaining group, we consider whether
the card in question is the lower- or higher— A 10 i-
_____ i ________
valued of its pair... 4 _ K+
The lesser-valued cards (Ace, 4, 8) take the suit 8' Q+
one less than the base suit; that is, Diamonds.
18
“Shocked”? “Chased”? “His Deck”? All three mnemonics yield an alterna-
ting colour sequence of suits. In the first, however, the suit icons provide
additional visual cues to their numeric order: Spades are commonly considered
the #l suit (cf., the Ace of Spades); Hearts have two lobes; Clubs have three
“leaves”; and Diamonds have four points. It’s easier for me to imagine the Club
as the third suit than the first (as in the “chased” mnemonic). The “shocked”
sequence is also less familiar to North American magicians, so somewhat less
likely to be spotted by them (although that isn’t an issue with QuickStack, as the
suit ordering is too well camouflaged).
Page 49
They are marked with a 5, sign in the table.

LL
The greater—valued cards (10, King, Queen) take the suit one
greater than the base suit, or Hearts. They are marked with a “+”
sign in the table.
Remember that the suit order “wraps around”, so Spades are one
“greater” than Diamonds (and Diamonds are one “less” than Spades).
Once more a reminder that, while all this sounds complex in explanation,
it is easily learned, and designed such that transposing from a card name
to its position (or vice versa) can be done with surprising ease.
With the above rules, we have now specified the full set of 13 cards in
the first bank:
10v 54 3+ Kv 24 9A 74- Qv 60 A0 La 89 4.
When given any of these thirteen card names, you should be able to
respond rapidly with its position; conversely, when given a number from
1—13, you should immediately recall the card at that position. Work with
these a bit until you’re convinced that you know them thoroughly, and
then move on to the final stage.
Concluding: The Other 39 Cards

To learn the card positions in the remaining three banks, we just apply
some simple addition to the bank we’ve already learned. You’ll need to
remember the numbers 13, 26, and 39 (the position “offsets” for banks
two, three, and four respectively). To remember these three numbers,
think of the multiplication table for three: 3 X 1 = 3; 3 X 2 = 6; 3 x 3 = 9.
Recall that the numeric sequence of cards in the second, third, and fourth
banks is identical to that of the first. Therefore, in order to find the deck
position of a Five (for example) in bank three, simply add its standard
position (2) to the bank—three offset (26), yielding, in this case, 28; thus
the 28‘h card in the deck is a Five. The Queen in bank two would be in
position 8 (its standard position) + 13 (the bank-two offset); thus the 21St
card is a Queen. The Ace in bank four would be the 49th card in the deck
(10 + 39).
The suits (which of course differ in each of the banks) are computed
exactly as they are in the first bank, using the individual “base” suits of
the corresponding banks. As you might expect, these follow the
Page 50
SHOCKED order: bank two is Hearts, bank three is Clubs, and bank four
is Diamonds. So the Five in bank two is the same as the bank—two base
suit (a Heart), while the Queen in bank three is one greater than the
bank-three base suit (Clubs), making it a Diamond. The Jack in bank four
is the same colour as the bank—four base suit (Diamonds), another Heart.
We have now specified the complete deck stack:
10v 5* 3+ Kv 24 94 Qv 64 A9 7-1. J4. 89 49 (bank 1)
10+ SV 39 K4. 2vi9v 79 Q4. 6v A4 J9 8a 44 (bank2)
109 5+ 35 K9 2+ 9+ 74. Q9 6+ Av J4. 8v 4v (bank 3)
104 59 3v K4 29 99 7v Q4 69 A4. JV 8-:- 4a. (bank4)
Summary: To Convert from a Location to a Card Name

Four brief mental steps will reveal the name of the card at any specific
location. For example, what is card #23?
1) Determine the bank: Recall that locations 1—13 are in the
first bank, 14—26 the second, 27—39 the third, and 40—52 the
fourth. Card #23 is in the second bank.
2) Determine the position: Subtracting the corresponding bank
offset from the location yields the position within the bank.
The card is the 10th one in the second bank (23 — I3).
3) Determine the value: The associated mnemonic rule yields
the card’s value. The 10th card is an Ace.
4) Determine the suit: The bank’s base suit is adjusted as
specified by the card’s value group. An Ace 's suit is one less
than the base suit (Hearts), so it’s the Ace ofSpades.
Page 51
Summary: To Convert from a Card Name to a Location

Three steps will take you from a card’s name to its location in the pack.
For example, where is the Seven ofSpades?
1) Determine the bank: The card’s numeric value tells us how
its suit is related to the base suit; this determines the base
suit, and thus the bank. A Seven ’s suit is the same colour as
the base suit, which in this case must be a Club; this specifies
bank three.
2) Determine the position: The associated mnemonic rule
yields the card’s position within the bank. A Seven is the 7m
card in the third bank.
3) Determine the location: Adding the appropriate bank offset
to the position results in the card’s location. The card is at
position #33 (26 + 7).
Practice
Here are a few more sample conversions, in some cases determining the
location of a specified card, in others naming the card at a specified
location.
Where is the Two ofSpades? A Two’s suit is the same as the base
suit, which must therefore also be a Spade; this is the first bank. A
two is always in the 5‘h position, thus it is the 5‘h card in the deck.
What card is 11m from the top? The 11th position is in the first
bank, and refers to a Jack. A Jack’s suit is the same colour as the
base suit (Spades), so it’s the Jack of Clubs.
Where is the King of Diamonds? A King’s suit is one greater than
the base suit, which must therefore be a Club; this is the third
bank. A King is always in the 4th position; adding the bank-three
offset (26) makes it card #30.
What card is at location #19? The 19‘h card is the 6‘“ card in the
second bank (19 — 13 = 6). The 6‘h card is always 21 Nine. A
Nine’s suit is the same as the base suit (Hearts), so it’s the Nine of
Hearts.
Where is the Four of Clubs? A Four’s suit is one less than the
base suit, which must therefore be a Diamond; this is the fourth
Page 52
bank. As the four is in the 13th position, adding the bank—four

offset (39) makes it card #52.
What is the 27* card? The 27th card is the 1st card in the third
bank (27 — 26 = l). The lSI card is always a Ten. A Ten’s suit is
one greater than the base suit (Clubs), so it’s the Ten of
Diamonds.
For a more extensive exercise (and an excellent way to
g ‘6';become thoroughly familiar with the stack), arrange an old
deck of cards in stack order, and then number them (with a
dark marking pen) clearly on the backs, from 1 to 52. If you number
them at both ends of the card, as shown, you can mix the cards more
freely, and there will be less confusion with reversible digits such as 6
and 9. Shuffle the cards, and then run through them, front and back.
When looking at the face of any card, you should be able to determine
the numeric location written on its back; when looking at the back
(which gives its location), you should be able to calculate the card’s
value and suit. With a modest amount of regular practice, you should be
able to do this quite rapidly.
Over time (and assuming considerable usage), you will find that the stack
will become more and more truly memorized, and that you will
“automatically” know many name/position associations. Nonetheless, a
great value of this approach is the reassurance of knowing that you can
always rapidly calculate the associations whenever necessary.
Three Useful Tips

Several memorized deck effects entail the surreptitious counting of cards
while the participant is dealing them, in order to determine their
identities. When using such a method, it is more efficient to count in
batches of thirteen, remembering the current bank number (i.e., when the
count reaches “thirteen”, start over again with “one”, remembering that
you are now in the next bank). In this way, no subtraction will be
necessary to determine a particular card: you will instantly know its
value, and almost as quickly its suit.
Itshould go without saying that the use of a deceptive false shuffle is of
immeasurable value when performing with a stacked deck. For an appro-
priate recommendation, see An Immoderate Deception in the following
chapter.
Page 53
Finally, use a consistent method to keep track of your stacked deck, to

ensure that you are using the correct one, and that it is “ready to go”. I
keep mine in a regular card box, in the normal face down position. I mark
the box itself on the flap end, using two indelible dots; to me, this
indicates stacked deck inside. Should the stack become disturbed for
any reason, I return the deck to the box in face up condition, as a remin-
der that some rearrangement is necessary before using the stack again.
An Ultra-Mental Update
QuickStack is also applicable to effects that require a partitioning of the
deck into two or more groups of cards. It reinforces your memory of the
stack, and sometimes offers additional benefits. A good example is Joe
Berg’s Ultra-Mental Deck (popularly known as the Invisible Deck, after
Eddie Fields’ presentation of same—often mistakenly attributed to Don
Alan). Instead of the usual pairing of cards that total thirteen (with the
Kings treated differently), consider using QuickStaCk, with banks one
and two facing in one direction, matched with the cards from banks three
and four facing in the other (you can assemble this from a standard Ultra—
Mental deck, or construct19 your own). To display a specific card, simply
find its colour-matched equivalent, and separate the card behind it.
(2
'9
Making your own rough-smooth deck is quite straightforward. One good
roughing spray (often relabeled and sold to magicians at an inflated price) is
Testors 1260 Dullcote lacquer, available in model shops. Another is Krylon
Matte Finish (not Dulling Spray). Spray from a distance of about six inches in a
well—ventilated area. Don’t over-spray; a light back—and—forth motion is suffi-
cient (you’re not painting the card). Use good quality, flat, linen—finish cards;
roughing works poorly on high-gloss surfaces.
A more contemporary approach employs a reusable adhesive (such as found on
Post—It® notes). An example is the Zig 2—Way Glue Pen, widely available where
craft supplies are sold. Place a dot of glue in the centre of one card from each
pair and let it dry before placing it in contact with its mate. The (many would
say cleaner) handling differs only slightly from that of a rough—smooth deck.
Page 54
Appendix: QuickStack
Here’s a simple? all-in-one—place summary of the stack and the important
values required to perform the necessary calculations. Make a copy of it
for reference while learning, or to carry with you if needed to refresh
your memory.
Bank1 Bank2 Bank3 Bank4

Spades Hearts Clubs Diamonds
10v 10.1. 109 104.
54 5v 5+ 5.
3+ 39 35 3v
mummth-x
Kv K* K. K¢
2a 2v 2-!- 20
9a 9v 9* 99
7* 79 7A 7v
Qv Q+ 09 Q4
6* 6v 6+ 60
A9 Ag Av A+
A—‘A
rel—tow
J+ J9 J4 JV
4- K+
8. 8; 8v 8+
8- Q+
.x M 4o 26 44. 39 4v 52 4.1.
Page 55
For the diehard CHASED aficionado, with that sequence already perma—
nently burned into memory, here is the equivalent stack with the Clubs
and Spades exchanged.
Bank 1 Bank 2 _Bank 3 Bank 4 2= :

5=
Clubs Hearts Spades Diamonds ----- : —————
1 10v 10¢ 10. 10.1. 6: j

9=
2 5-1- SV 54 5o 3
3 34 30 3.1. 3v _____ X____
4 KV K4. K0 K-Y-
7 X—_—_
5 20'- 2V 2‘ 2. _____
6 9-1- 9V 945 90
Jx
7 7A 7. 7+ 7'
8 Qv QA O. Oct-
9 6+ 6v 64. 60 _5‘_- _1_0_:
10 A6 A4. Av AA
11 J4 J0 J-r- JV __4_"_- _511
12 89 8-7- 8v 8A
8 Q+
13 4o 26 4+ 39 4v 52 44 “
Page 56
The Immoderate Deception

(An Unfathomable “Pick A Card” Routine)
Progenitor
This is essentially a different presentation for Harvey Berg’s The Imma-
culate Perception20 effect. Although the methodology differs but slightly
from his original, the staging is more in keeping with my personal
performing style. And as I believe that mentalists should tread very
carefully when using playing cards in their performances, I boldly
introduce this as “a card trick”!
Presentation
When I was young, I had one of those uncles who do card tricks. He was
good, and though he tried to teach me some of them, I never had much
aptitude for sleight of hand. Eventually, though, I discovered something I
did have an aptitudefor, so was finally able to do a card trick that fooled
my Uncle Henry! Let me show you, with the help of three assistants,
preferably people who enjoy card games. [Entertainer selects three
volunteers, brings them to the stage, and introduces them to the audience;
here they are assumed to be Tom, Dick, and Harry] We ’11 use a deck of
standard playing cards, well mixed, though as you’ll see, that really
doesn’t matter here. [Entertainer removes a deck from a standard card
case, shuffles the cards several times, and shows their faces to one or
more of the participants] Tom, you’re familiar with the names of all
these cards? I’m going to place them face down here on the table, and
give you some instructions in just a moment. [Entertainer turns cards face
down, gives them a couple of additional quick shuffles and final cut, then
tables the deck]
I’ll stand well away, so you—and Uncle Henry—will know I can’t be
using marked cards, and I’ll ask each of my assistants to be careful not
to let anyone—even each 0ther——-see the fronts or backs of the cards
being chosen. Now each of you please, beginning with Tom, cut ofi‘ a
2° The Immaculate Perception is described in Harvey Berg’s 1997 book, Sleight

ofMind, pp. 37—39 (more about which in the preceding chapter).
Page 57
portion of the cards, look carefully at the card you have cut to—that is,
the bottom card of your packet—and then hold the packet to your chest
so that nobody can see the cards. Tom, you’ll need to be careful not to
cut off too large a portion, as both Dick and Harry have to follow you.
[Participants choose cards]
Clearly I’m not using accomplices here, as the cards available to each
person depend on those previously chosen. No one has shown his
selected card to anyone, so nobody here could be signaling me in any
way. And will you all agree that I’ve done nothing to influence your
selections? [Entertainer turns away.] Now each of you take one last look
at your card to fix it in your mind, then mix your packet to the point
where not even you know where the card is.
Tom, we’ll begin with you... I’d like you to deal your cards down onto
the table into three separate piles. At this point, nobody—including
you—knows where your chosen card lies. Now pick up each pile in turn,
and look through it for your card. If you find your card, place it face up
on the top of the packet; otherwise, choose any card you wish and place
that one face up. When you’refinished, one of the three visible cards will
be yours, but your challenge is to keep a straight poker face and not
signal to me which one it is. My job is to find your card. [Entertainer
turns away from the participant while he complies, then turns back and
unerringly identifies the selected card.]
Perhaps this wasn’t sufficiently impressive. Tom did a good job of hiding
his emotions, but after all, I did have a one—in-three chance of just
guessing correctly. So let’s make it more difi‘icult. Dick, would you
please deal your cards into only two piles? Now as I again turn my back,
look through the two piles to find the card you selected earlier, and place
it face down on top of its packet, then place the other packet on top of it,
burying your card once again. [Participant complies, and once again
entertainer identifies the selected card]
For you, Harry, I’d like to make the challenge the most difificult of all.
Do the same as Dick, dealing the cards into two piles, but instead of
using your packet, use the cards remaining on the table. Your chosen
card isn’t even among these, of course, so as I turn my back, I 'd like you
to simply imagine finding it, move the imaginary card to the top of the
pile, and cover it with the remaining pile. Now remove all the cards from
the table, and just think of your selection. [For the final time, entertainer
correctly identifies the selected card] Rest in peace, Uncle Henry!
Page 58
Performance
Given this effect’s proximity to QuickStack, you perhaps have guessed
the basic secret. To an audience, however, all of the above appears
unfathomable. Yet its execution couldn’t be simpler (providing that you
have mastered a memorized deck methodology).
The initial shuffles and out are false. I prefer to use a good overhand
false shuffle, as it is less suggestive of proficiency with card handling.
My favourite is unquestionably Dan Garrett’s excellent. Underhanded
Overhand Shufllefl; I can’t recommend it more highly. I table the cards
using the Winnipeg False Cut”, also a very natural-appearing move.
To identify the cards, one need only know their original locations in the
deck. These are easily determined by counting the cards while the parti-
cipants deal their cut-off packets into smaller piles. The fact that they
have been shuffled by this time is immaterial; it is only their quantity that
matters. If the first participant deals out sixteen cards, his is the 16th card
in the stack. If the second deals out twelve cards, his is the 28th card
(16+12). If the third deals out ten cards (recall that this is the remaining
card stock, not the packet he cut off), his is the 42“1 card (52-210).
Postscript
This routine bears some resemblance to Cody Fisher’s23 “Three—Card
Mentalism”, which also employs a stacked deck, but uses a marking
system in place of counting the dealt cards. As such, that effect is less
impossible seeming, is more prone to discovery, and you obviously can’t
rule out the use of a marked deck (as it requires one). It does play faster,
however, which will be of benefit in some venues, and it certainly
warrants consultation for additional presentational ideas.
Finally, if you use QuickStack to perform The Immoderate Deception,
you will be able to exploit the first suggestion under that chapter’s
“Three Useful Tips”, by counting in batches of thirteen, and keeping
21
An illustrated description of Dan Garrett’s Underhanded Overhand Shufi‘le
can be found in his 1992 book, “Garrett in the U.S.A.”, page 20.
22
Fellow Canadian Mel Stover’s Winnipeg False Cut is described and illustrated
in Frank Garcia’s 1972 book, “Million Dollar Card Secrets”, pp. 93—94.
23
Three-Card Mentalism can be found in “Required Reading” (2001), by Cody
T. Fisher, pp. 15—17.
Page 59
Doug Dyment? Mindsights: Tools and Performance Pieces for the Mystery Entertainer
track of the current bank number (for the third participant, remember to
count backwards from thirteen). In this way, no subtraction is necessary
to determine a particular card: you will instantly know its value, and
almost as quickly its suit. Even if your mental conversions are a bit slow,
you’ll have plenty of time to perform them while the participants follow
your instructions. And should they mess up your directions a bit, you’ll
still know what cards they selected, as most of what they are doing is
merely window dressing. The only important part is that they look at
(and remember) the bottom cards of their cut=off portions of the original
stack.
£2
Who the Heck is Doug Dyment?

It’s your pretty—much-generic story: received a Mysto Magic Set... did
magic at schools and birthday parties... did magic at college... grew up,
got a real job, and got busy... eventually returned to magic, interested
more in performance than methodology... grew up, got into mentalism,
and got busy...
A past president (and long—time Board member) of the Psychic Enter«
tainers Association, he nonetheless manages (by choice) to keep a fairly
low profile. So while he is understandably enthusiastic about your buying
this book, he is somewhat ambivalent about your actually reading it...
£2
Page 60

Dyment - Mindsights

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Dyment - Mindsights

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Doug Dymem’s

Tools ar'ld Performance Pieces

for Lynne, who puts up with this stuﬂ

Copyright 2002, Doug Dyment

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

Checkerboard shadow illusion ©1995, E. H. Adelson

Printed and bound in the United States of America

First Printing, 2002

THE COVER ILLUSION....................................................................................... 14

MUSINGS I .. ........................................................ ........ 26

1303’s YOUR UNCLE .......................................................................................... 28

MUSINGS III ...................................................................................................... 41

QUICKSTACK ............................. . ....... ..... .. .......... ................................... 43

“A square containing a number of integers arranged so that the sum of the

Methodology (The Mechanics)

(3 Using the adhesive tape as a hinge, fold the 9

@ 69 Insert a card, prepared as described in

C5) Fold down the flap against the prepared card.

Methodology (The Mathematics)

Begin by subtracting 2] from the target value (most easily accomplished

The numbers in this magic square total 35 in

Appendix: The Thirty—Two Flash2 Patterns

711 4575105 31 2712

Fill Values: X, X+1, X+2, X+3 (X = magic # - 21)

The Cover Illusion

The Checkerboard Shadow

Maj or Arc anum

Methodology (Part One: Preparation)

Becker’s elegant “Heads or Tails” envelope7 is an appropriate 2—way

notion of the dual-compartment wallet as prediction index.

Methodology (Part Two: Performance)

Building on the Framework

The Missing Card

Another Missing Card

The downside of this approach (aside from permanently marking the

Major Arcanum, however, requires a four—way “out”. Given that an

Bob’s Your Uncle

The Basic Methodology

Phase I — Building the Result Pile

Lines 2 3 (three lines); Square = 4 (four lines); Star = 5 (five points).

3) at the centre, the target is the Wavy Lines (Triangle, in some

Phase II — Dealing out the Result Pile

Some Concluding Remarks

The experimenter is now instructed to invite audience members to

Also necessary is some sort of stand on which to display the tags,

briefcase, to which are temporarily attached four suction cup hooks

_13 then become 72 (59+13) and 46

always subtracted from the participant’s).

of no way to absolutely prevent this from occurring; I avoid it pretty

(i.e., the total of numbers visible on the tags will be the

Similarly, the evergreen Eight Kings14 rhyme for a sequential card

9v 7. Q4. 6v As Jo 84 4A 100 5-1- 34 Ko 24- 9-1. 7* Q0 6.7.

Three Algorithmic Stacks

reasonably well after no more than a half-hour’s practice with cards in

Beginning: The Values

The 4 is paired with the King(l3), as the “4” and “K”

Although unrelated to the value/position calculation, it is helpful (for the

Continuing: The Suits

Cards in the second group (3, 7, Jack) take the 3X

They are marked with a 5, sign in the table.

Concluding: The Other 39 Cards

Summary: To Convert from a Location to a Card Name

Summary: To Convert from a Card Name to a Location

bank. As the four is in the 13th position, adding the bank—four