Silent Poets

By Fraser Parker
Copyright © 2020 by Intuition Publishing and Fraser
Parker

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced

in any form without the written permission from the
author. For television rights and further information please
contact: [email protected]
 Foreword
Nathan Chandler
‘Some people believe language exists from birth. And what
is learned is the ability to attach words and structure to
the latent ability’ .

The thought provoking quote above derives from one of my

most treasured film favourites “Ex Machina”.

This one sentence I feel encompasses a general belief that is

held perfectly within the great mind of Fraser Parker and hints
towards how he approaches the creation of magic. An approach
that has become a trademark for his style of thinking.

Like each and every one of us to be blessed to be living upon

this Earth, he too was gifted with the magic and beauty of
language and this is a gift that for most, is never seen beyond
anything other than what it is …

A one to one demographic for communication, as a seemingly

mundane and ordinary way to induce a conversation between
two or more souls.

But Fraser is different. As different as his work often proves to

be.

From a very early beginning in life in which the majority of us

would be content only exploring the dirt and passing by many
1
of life's wonders … or at least only glimpsing these moments
rarely and the rest of the time taking it for granted, whilst
using our labels and language to understand our everyday lives
we lead, Fraser had a pull and deep sense of wonder and an
almighty urge towards something larger than himself.

Could it be that we miss the very magic at work all around us

in every moment? The words themselves not enough to
encompass all … that they only point towards what it is we try
to understand? And can these words be used to turn what we
perceive upon its own head so that through illusion we can
experience something true?

Perhaps …

But at the very least a Magician should be aware of the power

of their words. The fact they are used to describe our
experience of the world might mean that they can be used
themselves to shape and mould our experience of it too, so that
illusion is seen as reality.

Then by literally spelling we can be seen to cast spells to create

magic moments for our audience members.

He felt that our typical blind use of words wasn't enough, it

was somehow a dissatisfaction to him … surely language
could surpass far more than what we are generally taught
these days … maybe?

It is buried in the texts and stories of long ago of course. A

forgotten history, as if we are a species with amnesia. He knew
it and more importantly he felt it … Now nearly three decades
of exploration later, we are blessed with the Fraser Parker that
we know today.

2
The small boy who became a man who discovered the world
through a very unique creative process that he confessed felt
destined to be, all along.

He is a man who has spent literally his entire adult life

searching for underlying patterns in language as well as how
words can change perception to create a layering of language
that finds its use in creating the illusion of real magic.

It is what you use your illusions for that will matter.

This book ‘ Silent Poets’ I feel is like snap shot of his current
ideas, creations and secrets poured out onto the pages with
more than just blood sweat and tears. I cannot even begin to
tell you how these ideas have almost held him captive within
his own psyche for so long, sleepless nights and anxiety are
just the beginning here.

He has said in private that these ideas some how come to him
as if they are already fully formed and already exist
somewhere, he just has to bring them into this realm. Then
sometimes it is an intuition that something is important that
has to be worked on.

He tends to see in colours and shapes with ideas forming

spatially in his mind. These ideas of method and effect play
together whilst he at the same time visualizes each piece
having a sense of how one idea affects another aspect of the
overall concept that is constantly being reformed in his mind,
until the jigsaw falls into place seemingly on its own.

This ability to gain deeper insights can sometimes feel more of

a curse than a gift. But this doesn't have to be your concern.

3
The great news is Fraser has done all of the work for you and
brought back certain secrets he is now willing to share in these
pages. That is
not to say you won't benefit from thinking of your own ways to
use these ideas as well as be inspired to create your own.

Fraser's ideas should be read, rehearsed and more importantly

understood! And only then performed with a respect of
knowing what real mind reading is because what you are doing
when performing his work is ultimately real.

There is little difference in terms of the illusion created in

certain audience members minds.

Imagine all of those ‘holy grails’ of Mentalism that you have

ever wanted to perform and now really think about this for a
second … Because with Fraser's work both in this book and
from the past will give you tools that will allow what you
imagine to become a reality.

The contents of the book should be guarded with the highest

and most kept secrets in the art of magic, such things as a
spectator divining a word that another spectator merely thinks
of with absolutely no fishing, no anagrams and with nothing
said aloud at any time is something that previously could have
only ever been wished for … well now with 'Silent poets' this is
completely possible.

I will not reveal all of the contents here but one of the most
standout miracles for me that you will be presented with in this
book is as follows: in a casual open setting, a participant
shuffles a pack of cards, thinks of one, mixes again and then
cuts the pack and without saying a single word from either the
participant or the performer, you will be able to reveal their

4
thought of card.

The card is only thought of and is more importantly never even

taken out of the pack.

Believe me when I say that this miracle has slayed and baffled
the most knowledgeable Magicians and Mentalists of our
generation.

There is no way to turn with this. It is one of my favourite and

most cherished methods in mind reading I have ever been
blessed to learn.

I once described that I felt like I was sitting behind Fraser on a

train to an unknown destination and that I once caught a
glimpse of his map from over his shoulder before it was quickly
but discreetly put back inside his jacket pocket. The truth is …
I don’t think that what I saw was ever really a map of where he
was travelling to, I think this was a map of places he had
already been.

Thinking about it now I genuinely, hand on heart, couldn't

possibly tell you the next destination for Fraser but what I do
feel is, this book is the last of a three decade journey for
Fraser that acts as a beautiful summation of his current
thought processes.

It is a closed chapter of thought and for the sanity of Fraser it

has to be, until the next time he decides to ponder on these
notions once again.

I think the next instalment of work whenever that will come or

if we will ever see it from this man, will really nudge the world
of not only Mentalism but also dip into the impossibility of

5
what we consider as conscious thought today.

Something incredibly mysterious but beautiful is happening …

Nathan Chandler
February, 2020

6
 Introduction
Fraser Parker
The following work is a look into my most recent meanderings
of thought within the realm of modern Mentalism. It is always
my intention to create effects that appear as close to real as we
can get with as little compromise in terms of method, as
possible. This often results in the method and effect running as
close together as possible where the effect is the method and
visa versa.

The book you now hold in your hands goes into detail and
expands on certain notions I have become known for such as
“dual reality” and a form of real time pre show I have named
“now show”. It also takes certain unfinished ideas from my
note books and completes them in ways that I could not have
imagined would be possible, just a few years ago.

I am pleased to say that I have once again managed to create

some of my best work and share it within these pages.

I have written this in a modular fashion. The entire book

should be read from start to finish and then re-read until every
principle and subtlety of thought is fully understood before any
of the effects in this book are attempted in real world
performances.

Do NOT skip over any of this book.

7
I may teach something later on in the book that is relevant to
an effect already described and if you decide not to read all of
the way through the book in its entirety then this very
important component will be missed and you will not have all
you need to perform that particular piece correctly.

It is written this way on purpose.

I needed to slowly introduce each of the principles throughout

this book using various effects as the vehicle to teach these
different ideas and concepts.

As well as this I needed to be able to show you each of the

different options available in such a way as to not risk
repeating myself over and over.

This work is meant to be pieced together. It is my intention to

teach you everything you need to be able to do what I do and to
leave you with various different options so that you can put it
all together in the way you desire, combining whichever ideas
you want to create a particular experience for your audience.

I will not necessarily be explicit in how you should piece all of

this together. That is left up to you to decide, so be aware that
what I teach in certain effects in the book can also be applied
to other effects.

It is taken for granted that you will listen closely to all that is
being taught as you read through the book in its entirety and
with a small amount of thought do the mental work yourself
that is necessary for you to fully understand how all of this
works together.

I intend for you to ponder what is written on these pages so

8
that you can see clearly how certain principles can be
combined and made to work with one another as well as see
the bigger picture this body of work creates.

Now that is out of the way, I welcome you on a new journey

and invite you to take that first step onto the path that will
culminate in your complete walk through all of the many
discoveries, thoughts and ideas contained in this work.

Thanks for your continued support of my ideas.

Fraser
March, 2020

9
 Section One
NOKey
Shuffle + Cut
The following method is something that I have wanted to
achieve for a very long time. I envisioned the perfect think of
card routine where the spectator would be able to take a deck
of playing cards, shuffle it face up over-hand whilst I was
facing away, remember the card they shuffle to the face and
then give the deck another complete shuffle and I would always
know their selected playing card.

This went through many iterations until I finally stumbled

upon the perfect solution. I am pleased to say that my final
version of this effect has completely floored and fooled
magicians including some of the most well versed students of
card magic and pioneers of this field.

I was very pleased when after not seeing my good friend and
co-writer Ross Tayler for a couple of years I sprung this on him
and after he completed the extremely fair procedure of shuffling
and thinking of a card he handed me the deck back saying: “If
you get this now then I am fu***d!”. He is after all one of the
best and most knowledgable card magicians I know.

Another highlight for me was at a recent convention when I

10
was asked to do something for a group of magicians that had
already congregated to watch another magician perform and
upon performing this shuffle and nothing else, seeing their
stunned faces, as I slowly placed the deck back into my pocket
and walked away.

Magicians really have no-where to go in their minds when

searching through all of their previous knowledge of what
should be possible when searching for a solution. Not only is
this a magician fooler of the highest calibre it is also the
cleanest and fairest think of a card you can perform for a lay
audience and it is this clarity of effect and its hands-off nature
and entirely fair looking procedure that makes this appear
completely impossible to an audience.

It all started when a friend of mine, a few years ago, informed

me that he was performing a Hindu-style shuffle in the hands
of the spectator where he would get them to essentially force a
card on themselves. I loved the idea of a shuffle done entirely
within the hands of a participant but wanted to adjust the
handling so that it would also work with a standard over-hand
shuffle, as this is the type of shuffle that would be favoured
and known most to the type of audiences I typically perform
for.

I tried many versions of this method and realised that I didn't

want to have to use a table or have the spectator awkwardly
turning over cards throughout the process. It had to be simple,
quick, easy for the spectators to follow and effective. It also had
to look as close to how it would if the spectator was to do just
what my words imply I want them to do, so basically,
everything had to look natural and as it would if no deception
was taking place at all.

11
I also tried using a short card at one point but realised it
wasn't reliable. This was placed on the back of the deck as my
key with the hopes that it would stay in position but I soon
realised when trying it with lay audiences that the typical way
people shuffle is for them to first take a larger block than half
of the cards from the back of the deck and then shuffle those
on top of the remaining cards. This mean that they also picked
up the key with this block of cards and lost that within the
shuffle also.

I then went back to my first ideas and thought could I use a

stack that the spectator shuffles into and then pump for the
information which then lead to the following “no pumping”
versions I am about to teach.

One other variant of method has made it into this book and is
used in the open prediction effect which follows, as this I feel is
still a strong solution for lay audiences and fits the premise
and required set up for this particular plot perfectly. This was
one of the first variants I came up with and I will teach it in the
next section of the book. I also came up with many variants
that will either be briefly described in this book or will be left
out due to them being abandoned all together because of their
unreliability in actual performance.

So without any further ado, I will get right into explaining the
shuffle. But before teaching you the final version of this shuffle
that has fooled many knowledgable magicians I will teach you
the basic version of this shuffle as well as a slightly inferior
version I used recently at a convention to fool some of the best
names in magic.

This is the version I typically use for lay audiences, as it is good

enough and will get the job done with ease. The versions that

12
fool magicians are really just gilding the lilly but will be
preferred by those of you who want to always perform the most
impossible version of such methods.

First of all, go and grab a deck of cards and follow along with
the set up and execution of the trick. This way your actions will
match my instructions and you will have a visual cue
accompanying you as you learn this shuffle. It is a thing of
clear beauty and elegance and is really not hard to understand
at all but first I must teach you the foundations and ensure
they are locked in before moving onto the version of this
method that fools magicians also.

Spread through the cards face up and move all of the heart
cards to the back of the deck. This is an easy procedure to
perform in performance and is something I just blatantly do
right in front of everyone, in between effects, or on the off beat
when the heat has died away after the completion of another
effect.

If you have ever performed the effect out of this world then you
will realise just how easy this set up really is to get away with
in plain sight due to the fact, you would have already been able
to perform this sorting procedure successfully with all of the
red and black cards of the deck and in this case you are only
dealing with a quarter that amount of cards. It is therefore, a
much easier set up than you may already be familiar and have
already been getting away with.

If you are good with sleight of hand then you can cull these
cards to the back but I would suggest either beginning with the
deck already set how you need before going into the routine or
getting away with it during conversation and dead time in your
set.

13
You could even move parts of the stack at different moments in
your set and not all of the cards at once relying on the memory
of the deck to make the subsequent complete set up of all of
the cards in the stack easier, later on.

Make sure you include all of the Heart cards within your stack
otherwise stray cards can cause problems.

These Heart cards do not have to be in any specific order and

any other suit can be used in its place. It is essentially just a
way of elongating a key card principle to a larger block of cards
with a common identifier, such as a suit.

I would now cut all of these heart cards as well as one

indifferent card to the face of the deck. This leaves you with all
of the heart cards on the face of the deck along with an
indifferent card on top of these cards, so that if you were to
glance at the face of the deck all you would see is the
indifferent card. This acts as a kind of safety, so that the
spectator doesn't feel they have seen too many instances of
heart cards being on the face of the deck throughout the
routine. Not that this would really matter. It is just something
that I do as an additional layer of deception.

You are now set and ready to go into instructing the spectator
how you want them to shuffle in a moment.

It is important you give the spectator a visual example of how

you want them to shuffle alongside your precise verbal
instructions, so that they follow along correctly and don't mess
up the required procedure that needs to take place for the
shuffle to work. Although, these instructions and choice of
words have been chosen to ensure a perfect out come they are

14
still the same words you would use naturally to instruct the
spectator to shuffle the cards and remember one.

The only difference is they are specific enough when coupled

with the visual eduction of demonstrating the shuffle yourself
visually, to ensure the spectator actually follows along and
does what would be expected of them in a natural situation
anyway.

Your words and your shuffle example appear entirely normal

and should seem to be you simply explaining what it is you
want the spectator to do.

It is important you always give these specific instructions and

visual demonstration of the shuffle, as spectators left to their
own devices will inevitably shuffle in ways unexpected, either
not shuffling all of the way through the cards, or cutting the
deck before shuffling etc.

You need to give the instructions clearly and ensure the

spectator is focused on what you are saying but also need to
make these specific instructions sound casual and lose enough
to not seem like you are giving restrictions. It is a balancing act
that you will get used to as you go out and perform this effect.

The reason we cut the set up cards and an indifferent card to

the face of the deck is so that we can now demonstrate the
shuffle whilst at the same time secretly moving this stack of
cards, so that the deck will be set and ready to go by the time
we hand the deck to the spectator to shuffle, themselves.

I perform a basic overhand shuffle with the cards orientated

face up as I match my actions to the instructions and say the
following words:

15
 “In a moment, I am going to look away and
all I want you to do, is shuffle all of the way through the
deck once, like this …

“... Remember whatever card you shuffle to the face and

then give the deck a couple of cuts …”

I shuffle the deck face up taking about two thirds of the deck
from the back and shuffling these cards thoroughly onto the
face as a way of demonstration.

It is important you don't shuffle single cards all of the way to

the last card of the deck. This is not what you are aiming for
when demonstrating the shuffle and is not what you want your
spectator to do. It won't matter if they do run single cards
during the latter stages of their shuffle, in terms of method, but
you don't want anyone to think that this is how you achieve
the effect.

If you were instructing the spectator to run each card then

others could easily backtrack that they end up focusing on the
card that was on the back of the deck that you could have
somehow known ahead of time.
Instead you give the deck one simple overhand shuffle,
ensuring four to five blocks of cards have changed order
throughout this single shuffle.

The reason we begin by taking two thirds of the deck from the
back and then shuffle these cards is so that the stack
previously on the face of the deck is left in tact and is not a
part of the shuffling procedure. Instead, we shuffle all of the
rest of the deck on top of these cards leaving our stack in tact,
in the process.
16
This gives the spectator a visual cue for how you want them to
shuffle the deck of cards. They will copy your shuffle and due
to the visual example combined with your words for them to
“shuffle all of the way through the deck” they will now shuffle
in a manner that is expected, which will allow the trick to
work.

I have found this is the key line needed to ensure the spectator
shuffles in a way congruent with a competent basic overhand
shuffle. These words combined with your visual example,
create the understanding they are to continuously shuffle
through all of the cards of the deck in an even manner and are
not just to cut the deck a few times or only shuffle half of the
deck etc.

As soon as I have given my example of the shuffle and finish

the above piece of scripting I point to the face of the deck and
say:

“ … Remember the card on the face …”

I then quickly spread through the faces of the deck and cut
about half of the cards to the back of the deck as I say:

“ … Then give the deck a couple of cuts …”

As I give a visual example of the second cut of the deck and

match my physical actions to my words in the process, I slow
down the spread of cards as if I am estimating about half of the
deck.

“ … By spreading through the deck and taking about half

of the cards and putting them on the back of the deck”.

17
In reality, I am secretly finding the beginning card of my heart
stack so that I can cut all of the heart cards to the back of the
deck and be set for the shuffle.

I am now ready to hand the deck to the spectator to shuffle.

As I hand the spectator the deck I give them the deck face up
and restate my instructions for how I want them to shuffle.

“So shuffle these face up … take the deck and shuffle all of
the way through the cards once then remember the face
card … ”

It is at this point I now turn my head away.

I listen for when I can hear the spectator has performed the
shuffle and remind them to remember the face card they have
shuffled to the face of the deck, still facing away from
proceedings.

“ … Remember the card on the face of the deck and give

the deck a couple of cuts”.

The spectator will now typically tell you they are finished after
cutting the deck twice and this is your cue to turn back
around. If not then just wait a couple of seconds to ensure
enough time for the spectator to have buried their selection
somewhere in the deck with their cuts.

This is all basic audience and spectator management and may

be over-kill but I do feel it is useful to build in reminders for
spectators of basic instructions whenever possible in a routine.

18
They sometimes really do need “babying” and talking to in a
really basic and clear manner. Your instructions should be so
simple a child would understand them.

I now take the deck back from the spectator.

You are now in the perfect position to effortlessly read the mind
of the spectator.

All you need to do is spread through the deck faces towards

yourself and look for the first heart card you come to as you
spread the deck towards the right. The first card you come to
relative to the face of the deck will always be their previously
selected playing card.

Try it with a deck of cards set up in your own hands to fully

grasp everything.

The reason this works is because your words ensure they will
shuffle the deck thoroughly enough for them to first shuffle
into your stack of Heart cards. This heart card will always stay
on the face of the stack relative to the rest of the stack and will
therefore be easy to find just by spreading the deck towards
yourself.

Of course, the cuts don't make any difference as they will not
disrupt the order of the deck in any way including your stack.

As long as you begin with an indifferent card on the face of the

deck then you will always be able to find the first card in the
stack and this will be their selection.

At this point, if you find a Heart card is on the face of the deck
when you go to find their selected card, simply cut an

19
indifferent card to the face of the deck and then spread the
deck to find their thought of card.

If you want to forego needing to cut the deck yourself in this

situation then you can simply ignore the first block of cards on
the face and spread through the deck face up towards yourself
until you get to the next block of cards from your stack. Their
selected card will be the first card you come to in this
secondary stack. The way to think of this is in terms of the
deck being cyclical in nature and no matter how many times
the deck is cut the order of the cards within the stack will not
change.

Reveal subtlety
Titanas
The following idea is from my good friend Evan Titanas
Charalampous which came about from us jamming after I blew
his mind with the other version of the method, taught in a
moment.

He suggested the following. If I am using a stack of a particular

suit and their selection will always be a suit that I already
know ahead of time then why not begin to reveal their thought
of card before going back to the deck. This way it will seem as if
I don't need to look through the cards in order to know their
card.

This is a beautiful subtlety to add to the card reveal that I feel

20
helps also make this effect just that little bit more deceptive
and impossible to back-track, so thanks for reminding me of
such a ruse Titanas and “fu** you!” too.

The way I now perform the reveal with this shuffle is to first get
the spectator to focus on the colour of their card and reveal
that piece of information first.

I then get the spectator to focus on the suit and reveal this.

Then I have them focus on the value and it is only at this point
I go back to the deck and spread through and take out their
card saying:

“I think I have got it now …”

I ask them to say their card for the first time out loud and then
turn over the card I have taken out of the deck to show its face
and complete the reveal.

This allows for multiple hits and a slower more gradual reveal
of the information and process of mind reading, as well as the
built in suggestion that you already know their card without
needing to go back to the deck.

If you prefer you could just have them focus on their card in its
entirety and then spread through and find their card. This is
good enough and is a good justification to go back to the deck.
It will appear as if you always intend to take their card out of
the deck and have them say what it is, so that you can reveal
you are correct in this way theatrically, first asking for their
card and then slowly turning around your selection as if to
provide a build up of effect towards the final reveal.

21
Some of the time, you may wish to spread through the deck
and then seemingly get their thought of card wrong by
revealing verbally a card you know their card not to be, due to
the fact you have just secretly identified the correct one. Then
you can use their actual thought of card in another routine
later on, using it as a way to get ahead of your audience. More
on this later.

Re-frame
There is also a beautiful subtlety of language I sometimes add
into my scripting when performing this shuffle and its variant,
taught next.

After the spectator has shuffled the deck and remembered the
card they shuffle to the face and after they have cut the deck a
couple of times I take back the deck and say the following as
way of a recap for what has taken place.

“Just to recap, I looked away and you shuffled the deck

and thought of one of the cards that happened to pass by
your eyes as you shuffled and then cut the deck a couple of
times. So there is no way I could know what card you are
thinking of?”

This is a slight adjustment and re-framing of events. It is not

true but close enough to the truth to be accepted by the
spectator. They may also feel that they slightly misunderstood
your original instruction and feel that the process was even
fairer than it was, themselves.

22
It will appear to everyone that the procedure was perhaps even
fairer. Instead of the participant shuffling and then
remembering whatever card they happen to shuffle to the face
of the deck they actually could have thought of any of the
random cards that happened to pass by during the face up
shuffle.

Not that it really matters as the true series of events is still

extremely fair and entirely fooling. It is just an additional extra
layer of deception you may as well apply seeing as you are
already using language to make it work.

You are just giving yourself the opportunity to create a false

memory and cause the effect to be misremembered by your
spectator and those who are watching you perform as
something even more impossible, after the fact.

Key
Shuffle + Shuffle
I will now briefly describe another version of this effect before
getting to my ultimate magician fooler method. This is one of
the methods I used recently at a magic convention to fool some
of the best and most knowledgeable card magicians in the art.

I should also let you know up front that this isn't always one
hundred percent reliable which is why I stated earlier that the
previous version is my go to version I perform for lay people.
However, if you do decide to take the risk and use this bolder

23
version it really can pay off massively the times it works
flawlessly. I would say that this works seventy to eighty percent
of the time without any problems.

The reason it can fail is due to the spectator not always falling
into the predictable patterns when shuffling overhand as well
as certain blocks of cards from your stack sometimes
combining with each other and in the process making it
impossible to find their selected card due to the loss of
information this causes.

However, in my experience the following approach will work

around seventy to eighty percent of the time.

It allows the spectator to pick up the deck deeper towards the

face when they initially begin to shuffle which I have found is
the normal way lay people and magicians tend to shuffle when
given no further instructions than what has already been
covered.

However, as I have already mentioned, even with this allowance

I have found there are some iterations of the shuffle that can
cause this to go wrong.

If you feel it is worth the risk then you will have a close to
perfect solution to an impossible thought of card that will
completely floor magicians and leave them with nowhere to go
in terms of possible method.

Having said this, the version that follows this is what I consider
the best way to do this and is the version I now use to fool
magicians and completely floor lay people. I feel it is the perfect
blend in terms of compromise of method versus the effect and
its reliability.

24
This is the ultimate version I now use whenever I want have
the spectator shuffle the deck face up, think of a card and then
shuffle again and have it nailed on.

It is an older solution that has a subtle restriction applied to

the script when I give instructions for how the spectator is to
shuffle. I feel this is such a small adjustment that it becomes a
non issue when presenting this to lay people and magicians
alike. This version will still entirely floor everyone and will also
fool some of the most knowledgable names in magic.

However, before moving onto this ideal balance for the two
versions of the shuffle I will first teach the variation using two
shuffles I used recently to fool magicians.

The set up is the same. The only difference is you need to

remember the first card in your stack of Heart cards. This is
the card that lays next to the first indifferent card in the deck
when the stack of Hearts is located at the back of the deck.

Remember this card as it will become a key card of sorts.

Again, these cards and an indifferent card are cut to the face of
the deck so that you can give a visual example of how you want
the spectator to shuffle, matching your words to your actions.

“I want you to shuffle all of the way through the deck once,
like this, remember whatever card is on the face and then
shuffle again”.

After I give the script for the spectator to shuffle again I spread
through the deck faces towards myself and give the deck a cut
in order to bring my stack to the back of the deck.

25
Of course, I also point to the face card during my example
when I say “remember the face card”. This is more visual
education and a way of ensuring your instructions clear.

If you want you can now false shuffle the cards overhand, face
down, retaining your stack on top of the deck and then remind
the spectators to shuffle face up as you turn over the deck and
hand them to the spectator to shuffle.

“So do this face up. Shuffle all of the way through the cards
and remember whatever card you shuffle to the face”.

Again, I turn away as I say this reminder for them to shuffle all
of the way through the deck.

Now I wait until I can hear they have stopped shuffling and say
the following as a way to continually guide them through the
process.

“ … Remember whatever card you have just shuffled to …”

I now give them an instruction to shuffle again.

“ … And give them another shuffle”.

As soon as I can hear they have begun to shuffle and I know

their card is again lost in the deck I turn back around. This is
so that I can stop them from shuffling any more than once
more.

I say apply time pressure here by saying the following

instruction before they have even finished their second shuffle.

26
 “... And give the deck a couple of cuts”.

If I have trouble hearing what it is they are doing then I just

use my common sense and timing for how long each of my
instructions should typically take to complete.

Again, it is all about spectator management.

If you get the spectator to follow along with your instructions

correctly then most of the time this will work.

There is a smaller chance the way they shuffle will still mess
things up but most of the time this will work as a mechanical
method.

Now all you need to do to find their card is spread through the
faces of the deck and take note of where your key card is. Their
selection will always be the first card relative to the face of the
deck in whatever block of Heart cards happens to be to the
right of your key card unless something has been messed up
during the shuffling procedure.

Of course, the deck is cyclical in nature so you have to imagine

the deck as a loop of information where the cards beginning at
the back of the deck are a continuation to the right of cards on
the face of the deck.

Therefore, if there is no block of cards to the right of your key

you have to continue your search from the back of the deck
until you hit the next block of Heart cards. If there is a Heart
card on the face of the deck then you will also have to check
the back end of the deck to see if there are any other Heart
cards left in that block that have been cut by your shuffle and
include those as belonging to the right of that block.

27
 NOKey
Shuffle + Shuffle
The following version for me is the ultimate version I now use
whenever I want the spectator to shuffle twice, in terms of
approach to method.

This is an older approach I have since come back to due to its

simplicity and reliability.

There are no key cards needed in this version.

The only difference between this version and the first version
taught is the way we instruct the spectator to shuffle the deck.
I provide one extra safe guard that ensures they will always
miss the stack of thirteen Heart cards during both shuffles
except for when they are required to hit one of the cards in the
stack when making their selection.

I instruct the spectator to always begin each shuffle by picking

up half of the deck.

This means that the only time they will be adjusting the cards
in the stack is during the first shuffle as per the original
version. Then after they have made their selection they will
only be mixing indifferent cards not in the stack. This means
that they can shuffle the deck twice either side of making their
selection and then cut the deck a couple of times and you will

28
always be confident you can find their card.

Here are the instructions to the spectator.

“I want you to take about half of the cards from the back of
the deck, shuffle these cards on top, remember whatever
card is on the face of the deck and then do the same
again”.

Again, we match our words with actions in order to provide a

visual cue for the spectators to follow as well as point to the
face card as an example of what the face card we refer to is.

This ensures they will understand what taking half of the cards
from the back means as well as ensure they hit our stack of
cards due to the fact they are all ready starting their shuffle
with half of the deck in hand.

In fact, I feel this is a better trade off in terms of the restrictive

language used as their picking up half of the deck will ensure
they shuffle the deck completely without having to use the
instruction for them to shuffle all of the way through the deck.

This is due to the fact they will only be shuffling one half of the
deck at a time and will therefore be much more likely to shuffle
into your stack as there are less cards for them to get through
during the shuffle.

As well as this, it will seem as if the entire deck is truly getting

shuffled during both shuffles as they will always start their
shuffle with the two different, relative halves of the deck.

This is the perfect solution to the problem of having the

spectator genuinely shuffle, remember the card they shuffle to

29
the face and then shuffle one more time.

It is entirely mechanical and almost entirely fail safe. As long

the spectator follows your instructions and can already
overhand shuffle fairly competently this will work.

If you are worried that the spectator could shuffle sporadically

and mess up the method then something I suggest doing is to
perform a different effect in your set first that requires a
spectator to shuffle a deck of cards overhand and observe how
well they perform the shuffle, as a way of testing if they will be
a good spectator to use for this particular method. You could
also get a few spectators to shuffle the deck overhand at the
start of a set as a way to ensure the deck is truly mixed and
then just pick the one who shuffles the best or in a way that
you feel will best suit this effect, as the person who you
perform this to, later on in your set.

The words “ … remember the card on the face and then do the
same again” will prompt them to only shuffle one more time
after making their selection.

So in many ways, this is the best compromise out of all of the

shuffles taught so far.

It will seem as if I am giving such direct instructions in order to

ensure a fair shuffling procedure as both shuffles will cancel
out each other in the spectators minds. It will appear as if the
reason I am asking them to pick up half of the deck each time
is so that each half of the deck respectively is shuffled
throughout both shuffles.

If you want you can also add the line “ … taking about half of
the cards from the back again and shuffling those on top”. This

30
will provide you with more safety, if you are worried they will
forget to pick up half of the deck to begin their second shuffle.

I feel that once they shuffle in this particular way then it is

enough to just get them to repeat the shuffle by saying “ … do
the same again” as you give them a visual example of what to
do.

They would have already conditioned themselves to shuffle this

way on the first shuffle so will naturally shuffle in the same
way when following your instructions for them to repeat the
shuffle.

Of course, as I give my example I am secretly setting the deck

up in preparation for the spectator to shuffle the deck
themselves.

I begin with the stack and an indifferent card on the face of the
deck. Then my first shuffle misses the stack and places it
somewhere near the back of the deck.

It is important you pick up about half of the deck yourself and

also in-jog a single card first as you begin this shuffle
demonstration.

Then after giving your instructions for them to remember

whatever card they shuffle to the face of the deck and tapping
the face card with your thumb as way of visual eduction I pick
up the cards at the back of the deck behind my jog and shuffle
those on top of the face up cards held in my other hand.

It is important when you perform this secondary shuffle that

you first drop a block of slightly more cards than half from the
front of the cards now being shuffled onto the face of the deck.

31
This ensures I shuffle the block of cards containing my stack of
thirteen cards onto the face of the deck first followed by a few
other blocks of indifferent cards, so that the order of the stack
is not disturbed. I can then spread through the deck faces
towards myself and say “ … and if you like you can take about
half of the cards and cut them to the back” as I cut my stack to
the back of the deck, completing my set up.

Now when you get the spectator to shuffle and remember the
card they shuffled to the face and then shuffle again and cut
the deck the stack will stay together perfectly.

All you have to do is take the deck back and spread through
the deck face up to first Heart card you come to. It will be their
thought of card.

Of course, if you begin your spread with a Heart card already

on the face you will still need to cut an indifferent card to the
face first before spreading thorough to find their card unless
you can easily imagine the deck as a cyclical stack. To do this
you would need to then continue looking through the faces
from the face of the deck.

All of the spectator management and verbal reminders as you

turn away that have already been taught apply to this version
of the effect also.

Most of the time the spectators will cut the deck without
spreading through the faces of the deck. This is just an
example you provide of how they can cut the deck that allows
you to get away with seeing where your stack appears in order
to allow you to cut it to the back of the deck to set up before
they shuffle.

32
If they do spread through the faces in order to cut so many
cards from the face to the back of the deck they will invariably
block shuffle past any block or blocks of Heart cards that are
set up in your deck will therefore not be noticed.

Also, in this final and ultimate version of the shuffle just

taught they will likely only spread to the middle of the deck in
order to cut half of the cards to the back of the deck and will
therefore, likely miss seeing the stack still hidden in the other
side of the deck yet to be spread fully.

If they do see one or two Heart cards together they will either
be missed entirely by the spectator or nothing will look out of
place as a genuinely shuffled deck with sometimes have
multiple Heart cards together.

This set up using one of the suits as your stack is perfect for
impromptu work where you may want to borrow a deck of
cards and perform.

However, if you prefer you can use the Annemann one way face
markings and scratch a small amount of each pip on thirteen
indifferent cards and make up your stack that way.

This way you will be able to spread through the deck and no
one will notice any set up whatsoever.

This is something I don't worry about and is only another

option if you wish to be able to spread through the deck or
display all of the cards as mixed in a face up spread on the
table.

I don't feel this is necessary as the mere fact the spectator is

shuffling the deck face up and selecting a card at random will

33
be enough to indirectly show all of the cards as different and
well mixed throughout the routine. Not to mention if you have
used the deck before hand or use it afterwards in other
routines.

For those of you interested in employing such a method you

can find details in Annemann's book on card effects.

In fact, if you mark an entire deck one way on their face using
this method then you can start off with the cards all pointing in
the same direction and whenever you want to go into this
shuffle simply reverse thirteen cards or so end for end at the
back of the deck.

This will create a stack automatically without you having to

spread through and displace any cards.

I have found thirteen cards is the optimum amount of cards to

use in your stack to ensure each of the variations of the shuffle
work as consistently as possible.

If you don't want to mark a regular deck on their faces yourself

then there are printed decks that already have this feature
built into their design. The deck I would recommend for this
type of work would be the “Phoenix Marked Deck” by Card
Shark.

I have also played around with a variation of the scripting and

handling for the above perfect solution to the shuffle. This
scripting and delivery feels a lot more natural this way and is
something that I suggest you try out yourself to see if it also
fits your performance style.

Not that there is anything wrong with the above scripting and

34
handling. I am just a perfectionist and feel that the following
variation in scripting and my slight adjustment to handling
may be slightly better, in terms of its naturalness and flow in
performance. It is as close to how this would look and feel
outwardly, if there was no deception at play at all.

If it feels right to you then this will be subtly communicated to

your audience members also. If they feel nothing is wrong or
out of place then they will be more easily fooled due to there
being no sense of anything out of line with their experience of
reality.

The change in script is as follows.

Instead of instructing the spectator to begin their shuffle by

taking half of the cards from the back of the deck at the start of
our shuffle example, we leave this part of the instruction until
the end of our demonstration and treat it as an isolated
instruction which is separate from the rest of the instructions.

It feels like we are adding on this instruction at the end as a

kind of after thought just to ensure the spectator shuffles
thoroughly.

I shuffle the deck as way of example the same way I have

taught previously in-jogging a card in the process, as I say the
following.

“I want you to shuffle all of the way through the cards,

once, like this … remember whatever card you shuffle to
the face …”

Here I tap the face card with my thumb.

35
 “And then give them another shuffle …”

This is where I take the cards under my jog and am careful not
to disrupt the order of my stack as I shuffle these cards in
blocks to the face.

I now say the key piece of scripting that ensures this routine
becomes sure fire.

“So do this face up and each time you shuffle take about
half of the cards from the back of the deck and shuffle
these on top …”

I now give one last example of the shuffle as I match my words

with actions and pick up half of the cards from the back of the
deck and shuffle those to the face.

This still does not disrupt my stack as it currently resides in

the half of the deck towards the face not being mixed.

I now spread though the deck faces towards myself quickly and
cut my stack to the back of the deck in preparation for the
spectator's shuffle. Here I prefer not to add a line about cutting
the deck and just do it. It will seem I am simply cutting the
deck in order to be fairer about proceedings.

It will be easily forgotten by your spectator as unimportant as

they get to shuffle twice anyway.

If you prefer you can keep the justification for spreading

through the deck faces towards yourself and cutting the deck
as an example of what you want the spectator to do after the
shuffle.

36
I feel this is too much for the spectator to remember all at once
and will only confuse them and muddy the clarity of your
previous instructions and it is for these reasons I prefer to just
cut the deck myself without referring as to why I am doing it
within my scripting.

The stack will be positioned towards the back end of the deck
so I suggest cutting the deck once sight unseen first and then
spreading through the faces to cut, if using this as an example
of how you want the spectator to cut the deck. This way you
will be able to demonstrate cutting around half of the deck and
your words will match your actions.

In fact, I may perform two cuts before handing the deck to the
spectator even if I don't give verbal instructions for the
spectator to do so. This in my mind looks more random and
feels more like I am casually mixing the deck a little myself
before handing the deck to the spectator.

I prefer to give the instruction for the spectator to cut the deck
a few times, after they have completed the shuffling procedure
themselves just to ensure I am not adding too many
instructions to proceedings earlier in the routine. This still gets
the job done but does so in a way I feel flows much better in
performance.

The key instruction is something we need to have exist in the

script but is something that can break the rhythm and delivery
of the other instructions if placed in the wrong place within the
scripting.

I also feel that isolating it on its own in this way also makes the
instruction itself stand out more in the mind of your spectator
and will therefore, ensure it is not forgotten about and is

37
followed along with. It will be one of the last things your
spectator hears before performing the shuffle themselves, so
they should have no problem remembering and applying the
instruction to each of their shuffles.

It also allows for you to make this instruction all encompassing

in nature, so that the spectator knows to always apply it each
time they shuffle the deck. This makes it less likely they will
forget to cut the deck midway both times they shuffle the deck.

It is for these reasons I chose to place the key instruction on its

own outside of the main script as an apparent afterthought.

What is great about giving an example of how you want the

spectator to shuffle, it not only allows you to set up the deck
and ensure the spectator has a visual cue of the entire
shuffling procedure, it also shows the deck is already shuffled
as well as proving indirectly that all of the cards are in a
random order.

They cannot imagine any stack exists in the deck as they see
indifferent cards randomly change position right in front of
their eyes throughout your shuffling example.

38
 Perfect NOKey
Shuffle + Shuffle
This is my final handling and scripting for the version of the
shuffle that utilizes two shuffles.

I have changed my scripting and handling yet again since

writing up the previous variations. This is a slight adjustment
and shift around of words and actions and will seem
unimportant to some but I assure you THIS is how it should be
performed to ensure it works flawlessly.

The reason I have left the other versions and slight changes in
this book instead of simply removing them altogether is so that
you can understand better the process I go through in finding
the perfect way to give instructions and communicate ideas so
that they are clear and easy for my spectators to follow.

I typically write up ideas as I create and then after trying them

out in the real world go back and change whatever adjustments
need to be made to the method in terms of the scripting used
and its specific structure.

However, in this instance I have decided to give you all of the

different variations I have considered that contain the various
elements that make up my perfected version as a way of
showing how an idea develops and can become more and more
refined over time.

39
Here is how my example of the shuffle now goes.

I decided to again place the instruction for the spectator to take

half of the deck from the back and to shuffle these on to the
face at the beginning of the process as I give my example and
visual eduction to the spectator, instead of treating it as a
separate instruction I say at the back end of the example.

You may still prefer the previous way to do this but after
thinking about this a lot and considering what would be easiest
for a spectator to follow I decided on doing it the way just
described.

I feel adding it as an extra instruction after already teaching

the spectator how to shuffle overly complicates the process for
the spectator and found in actual performance that it tends to
cause them to forget the rest of the instructions.

It is important when giving instructions to always get across

what it is you want them to do in as few words as possible and
to simplify these instructions to the point where nothing can be
misunderstood and no confusion arises in your spectator.

I have therefore opted for the following handling which in my

mind is now the only way this should be performed.

I realized that as I am performing for a lay person I can assume

theatrically that they may perhaps not know exactly how to
shuffle a deck of cards overhand. Of course, I still take the
precaution of seeing who can actually shuffle a deck of cards
earlier on in my set as an extra safety but now make it appear
as if I am simply teaching them how to shuffle, as if they are
not fully aware of the process even if we know that they are.

40
This assumption allows me to give the specific instruction of
having them take half of the cards from the back of the deck
each time without it seeming like a restriction of process. It will
seem as is I am simply showing them how to a typical over
hand shuffle would be done.

I say the following words to my spectator.

“In a moment, I want you to take about half of the cards

from the back of the deck and shuffle all of these cards
onto the face, like this …”

Here I match my words with actions and allow around four to

five blocks of cards from the back half of the deck to fall onto
the face of the deck thus demonstrating that I want the
spectator to shuffle the deck thoroughly in the same way. I also
jog the first card inwards in the same way I did in the previous
method so that I mark the half way point in the deck making
the next part of the shuffle demonstration easier for myself.

“ … Remember whatever card you shuffle to the face …”

Here I tap the face card of the deck to give a visual cue as to
what card I am referring to.

“... Then do the same thing again”.

I now perform a second shuffle as an example this time being

careful not to disrupt my stack and then finally add the line.

“And if you want you can spread through the faces of the
cards and cut about half of the cards to the back of the
deck”.

41
This is where I spread through the cards faces towards myself
and cut my stack to the back of the deck in preparation for the
spectator to follow my instructions.

As you can see everything now makes complete sense to the

spectator and is delivered in as simplified a manner as
possible.

The line “do the same thing again” followed by your visual
example of a further shuffle enables you to get across the idea
that they are to give the deck another shuffle in the same way
that they performed the first shuffle ensuring they again begin
their shuffle by picking up half of the cards from the back of
the deck.

The key line is therefore still communicated effectively and

applied to both of their shuffles without it having to be stated
on its own as a separate instruction that could confuse the
participant and make them forget the rest of your instructions.

This version also allows you to perform the ploy of hiding

setting up your stack with a demonstration of how you want
them to cut the deck after they have gone through the shuffling
procedure.

I think you can see how this has all of the ingredients of the
perfect process combined in such a way, it is now easy to follow
for the spectator.

Here are download links to a performance and video

explanation of the “perfect nokey” shuffle:

42
Performance:

https://vimeo.com/user35504753/download/393498282/86a
84ecd0b

Explanation:

https://vimeo.com/user35504753/download/392765983/bbe
2a6901d

If you want to access the videos uploaded to the Murphy's

website then here are the details:

URL:

www.murphysmagic.com/fraserparker

Passcode:

15WWTIY

Now Show Whispers

Open Prediction
I have always been interested in effects and methods that seem
impossible to accomplish even to magicians who already have a
vast knowledge of magic principles and tools at their disposal
yet can not fathom the method due to the fair conditions under
which the effect is said to be performed.

43
The Open Prediction is one of these mythical effects that has
stumped magicians for years as to how it could possibly be
achieved with all of the stipulations set by Stewart James in
his version of the effect which is considered the perfect version
of this classic plot in magic, “Fifty One faces North”.

In fact, even though many magicians have come up with their

own solutions to this plot they all fall short when compared to
the perfect solution Stewart James claimed to have worked out
before his death.

I suppose we will never know how he himself achieved this

effect with such conditions applied to the method and effect as
he sadly took his secret to the grave.

The basic effect outline is as follows.

The performer writes a prediction of a playing card, openly and

in full view, in front of everyone watching. This can either be
written down so that everyone can see what is predicted or if
you prefer can be spoken verbally instead, so that everyone is
aware ahead of time of the card prediction.

The deck is then shuffled by the participant and instructions

are given for them to deal each of the cards one at a time face
up and to stop dealing whenever they like.

The card stopped on freely by the spectator is then dealt face

down onto the table next to the face up pile. The rest of the
deck is then also dealt face up proving the predicted card is
nowhere to be seen in any of the face up cards of the deck. The
playing card dealt face down and freely chosen by your
spectator is then turned over to show it matches perfectly your

44
open prediction.

This is the effect in a nut shell and as mentioned already many

solutions have been created by countless magicians. However, I
always felt that for this to come close to the perfect solution set
by Stuart James before his death then certain conditions
should be adhered to that are unfortunately not always present
in other solutions.

My stipulations for this effect are as follows:

1. The performer does not need to know the position of his

predicted card in the deck, at the start of the effect.
2. The spectator feels like they have a free choice when to
stop dealing (or this decision is based on a free choice).
3. The performer does not need to know where the spectator
is going to stop dealing, ahead of time.
4. The effect is performed entirely hands-off by the performer.
5. The deck can be shuffled by the spectator and is never
handled again by the performer.
6. NO sleight of hand is employed.
7. The effect fools everyone. NO stooges or assistants used.

I wanted to be able to perform the effect as cleanly as described

above without any seeming additional process added to the
effect. I didn't want there to be any obvious selection process of
a playing card or any sleight of hand needed to be employed to
facilitate a switch of the prediction or any other such
compromise to the streamline nature of the effect.

It is for this reason I decided to clean up the outward

appearance of the effect by utilizing a form of real time pre-
show that happens within a close up set I have coined “now-
show” in various previous works of mine.

45
The following method uses an aspect of my now-show principle
and a use of the dual reality ploy in order to clean up the effect
and hide the secret work and compromise needed to make the
effect work.

The spectator is still fooled along similar lines to the rest of the
audience members watching and the differing perspectives
created by the dual reality is nicely wrapped up with the
scripting and how the effect appears to everyone involved.

Both experiences of the effect from the different perspectives of

the spectator and audience members share enough common
ground that the spectator will still be able to respond in a way
that fits with the outward appearance of the effect during the
performance.

The two diverging points of view match well enough for the
spectator and those watching to feel as if the same effect has
taken place, after the fact.

To help explain this clearly we should think of the method as

consisting of two parts; what takes place before the effect has
seemingly begun and what happens as the effect plays out.

In fact, once the set-up for the method has taken place there is
little else left to do other than perform the effect in the cleanest
manner possible, exactly as described in the effect description.

The set up consists of having a playing card freely selected by

the spectator followed by a whispered instruction.

This happens in advance and before the effect of an open

prediction is introduced to the audience. The selection of a

46
playing card and its use in the upcoming open prediction effect
are completely hidden and seemingly unrelated from the
audience members perspective.

The way I cover the use of a thought of card within the

performance and workings of the open prediction itself, is with
the whisper which follows their selection of a card.

I begin by having the spectator choose a playing card in as fair

a manner as possible and then proceed to unlink this card
from the open prediction that follows later in a set by killing its
relevance to anything that comes later. The way I do this is by
seemingly trying to read the mind of the spectator and failing
on an aspect of their card before abandoning it.

I may opt for a force at this point so that I can always fail on a
specific aspect of the card in as generalized a way as possible,
in case I want to reveal this card, later on. For example, if I
know the playing card they have seemingly chosen at random
is a number card because I have forced the three of Hearts, I
can throw out the following incorrect general impression, on
purpose:

“ … Just yes or no, this is a picture card, correct?”

Otherwise, I may use a key card or a different method that

allows the spectator to have a genuine free choice of card and
then just fail on the colour of this card.

In any case, I always say out loud an aspect of their card that I
know is wrong to suggest I am failing at the mind reading in
order for this card to be dismissed and forgotten about by the
audience at large.

47
The spectator will answer with a “no” and I would say “ …
okay, I'm not going to be able to get this card for some reason”.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Before going for the reveal of their thought of card and

guessing wrongly a detail of the card I actually whisper into the
ear of the spectator. This happens after I have had the
spectator select and remember a card and then shuffle it back
into the deck sight unseen by the performer. It is at this point I
typically apply the whisper.

This is so that I can lean back out from the whisper and then
immediately try to guess an aspect of their playing card.

Now when I get a detail of their card wrong and abandon trying
to guess the card entirely, it gives me a reason to move onto
something else.

Moving on will also make the previous whisper seem irrelevant

in the minds of everyone watching due to the fact, its only
purpose was to apparently help in some way with the process
of mind reading in order to ascertain the thought of card.

Now that I have failed at the mind reading whatever was

whispered must no longer be important as it didn't help with
the process anyway.

The whisper itself will be disregarded by the audience as

unimportant and will no longer appear to be related in any way
to the rest of my performance.

It will be forgotten about along with the chosen playing card.

48
The whisper which comes next is the one I use. I lean in and
whisper the following instructions, so that only the spectator
can hear what I say.

“In a moment, when I ask you to deal the cards one at a

time face up onto the table and to stop wherever feels right
– I want you to completely disregard your feelings and
instead, stop dealing as soon as you see your chosen card –
so ignore your feelings and stop dealing as soon as you see
your card, nod if this makes sense”.

It is at this point I give the instructions that are going to be

relevant when I come to perform the open prediction.

By apparently failing at the card guess and combing this with a

whisper of instructions is a great cover for utilizing this
information later on in a set and is something I will use in this
book again within the context of other effects.

The way I justify whispering in the ear of the spectator is

covered at the beginning of my set.

This is an global all inclusive type of justification that excuses

any use of this whisper technique to secretly give instructions
to spectators without the audience at large being aware of what
is whispered, throughout a performance. It happens up front
before I perform anything for a specific group.

Whenever I begin a set and intend to use this technique which

is an aspect of Peter Turner's bob principle and don't already
have a justification built into the routine itself, I typically make
the following statement up front, so that I am already covered
whenever I need to get away with a whisper that comes out of
nowhere.
49
 “After performing for a group of people those who witness
what I do go away feeling that what I do is real to some
degree and is not just a trick …”

This line is a nice way to suggest that what I do may be real

without saying this out right myself. I then continue.

“ … But the truth is, some of the time I need to whisper a

few words in someone's ear in order to momentarily change
their perception of reality in order to get something to work
…”

Here I am essentially painting the need for a whisper red and

am tipping to everyone what it is I will actually be doing.

I also add on the following line.

“If at any point I ask any of you to just play along then feel
free to expose me and tell everyone that is what I have
done”.

This is an important line as it will excuse any whisper further

and also help eliminate any suspicion a whisper may cause
during your performance. Everyone will be happy that you are
not just whispering for others to play along.

This sounds mystical in and of itself yet is exactly what I will be

doing as it basically describes how the dual reality principle
works. Now if anyone speaks after the fact, it won't matter as I
have only done what I have already openly said I would do.
Therefore, it won't feel like anything was hidden for nefarious
reasons.

50
If the spectator speaks about what was whispered to anyone
after your performance it won't appear that you have just
cheated and the effect be spoilt. Instead, it will only unravel the
effect up to a point. Those who the spectator discusses the
whisper with will still get the same effect as the spectator and
see it from their perspective.

They may see the beauty in your approach and appreciate how
you were able to create a different reality with your words but
that is all. There will be nothing to expose as you have already
seemingly exposed yourself up front and before performing
anything to the group.

I am not worried about the spectator perhaps telling one or two

people what was whispered and it is not something I focus on
due to the fact whoever finds out will still get an effect and
appreciation for what it is you do.

They will understand that you are doing exactly what you say
you are doing – using your words to change others perception
of reality to create a magical out come.

The chances of anyone wanting to find out what was whispered

are small when the justification for the whisper is handled so
openly.

If you want then you can add the following line onto these
opening remarks.

“ … The words I whisper will only be for you, so please

keep them to yourself, otherwise you will risk ruining the
magic for everyone else”.

51
Now if the spectator does tell anyone what was whispered it will
be clear that your warning for what would happen was also
entirely true; some of the magic will be ruined to an extent.

This is a beautiful idea; you are essentially telling everyone the

truth so that everything seems fair, whilst also making what it
is you do sound mystical at the same time.

Now it doesn't matter if the secret stays hidden or is exposed.

Either way, everyone will get a magic effect. But why wouldn't
you give yourself the chance of a miracle by hiding a piece of
the jigsaw from the audience at large, if there was a chance the
secret would be kept and the impossible version of the effect
remain intact? I would and this is how I choose to perform
certain feats.

I think of this principle as weaving in and out of realities as I

perform, constantly threading into the hidden and the seen in
order to create pure effect.

Of course, this use of the whisper technique as a way to

essentially perform effects at a level of effectiveness only really
found with the use of pre-show in a close up setting is to be
used sparingly and should be performed alongside other effects
not reliant on this principle.

This way there will be a sense and overall appreciation from

your audience that not everything you do can be explained in
these terms.

There are other options and ways to perform this and other
effects in the book without the need for this open justification
of the whisper. These will be explained as we advance through
the book but for now I would like to discuss one other elegant

52
alternative for justifying or hiding a whisper.

There is a really simple way to hide any whisper. This is a great

way to pass on an instruction to your spectator that will be
relevant later on in your set that relies on information you have
secretly obtained earlier on, such as specific details of a playing
card or thought of colour (more on this later) you have not yet
revealed.

If you don't want to say the justification for the whisper up

front at the start of your set then during your set you can say a
streamlined version of this scripting as follows.

“I am going to whisper something in your ear that will

create a different reality for you that will temporarily allow
magic to occur. If at any point I ask you to play along then
tell everyone that's what I've done”.

I then lean in and whisper my instruction with additional

scripting that lets the spectator know that these instructions
will only be relevant in a different trick I perform later on.

You then perform any effect that doesn't rely on the whispered
instructions which allows you to wait until later in your set to
perform the effect that is relevant to your whisper. The
audience at large will assume whatever you have whispered
was relevant to the effect which directly follows the whisper
and will therefore feel like the whisper is no longer important
once you have performed the effect that is unrelated.

It registers the relevance of the whisper redundant in everyone

else's minds and kills it, once it has seemingly served its
purpose which is to somehow affect the outcome of the first
effect you perform.

53
This allows you to get so far ahead of your audience they will
really have no way of working out or back-tracking the effect
that does in actual fact utilize the whisper when it comes time
to perform that specific effect.

They will have no need to ask what was whispered after you
have performed the effect that is actually relevant to the
whisper as the whisper has already been forgotten.

It allows you to perform the cleanest version of an effect

without there being any heat on the method.

If you move on to a different effect quickly after performing the

first effect that doesn't rely on the whisper then you won't give
the spectator a chance to ask any questions relating to what
was in fact whispered to the spectator.

This is a beautiful way of displacing the use of the whisper in

time throughout your performance and taking any heat of that
process.

The whisper will no longer be relevant to anything else you

perform once you have performed the first effect and moved on.
If you want then you could say the following scripting at the
end of the first effect and further kill the whisper.

“... Just answer with a yes or no … I didn't just whisper

anything that would make this effect work? …”

They will respond with a “no” and I continue.

“ … So you wasn't just playing along? … you genuinely

have no idea how that just worked?”
54
This kills any notion that I have used the whisper to cheat in
any way. I then add on the scripting, “Good … so keep what I
whispered to yourself!” and then move onto another effect. This
can either be the effect you plan on utilizing the whispered
instructions for or another unrelated effect.

Of course, if you are planning on breaking up your

performance in this way and performing unrelated effects in
between your whispering of instructions and the effect that you
will be utilizing those instructions in then you will have to be
specific during your instructions when referring to the effect
you want the spectator to apply these instructions to.

This involves telling the spectator exactly when you want them
to apply your instructions.

For example, you may say the following script at the start of
your whisper.

“I want you to remember these instructions and only start

to follow them when I touch you on the back of the hand
later on…”

I would now give my instructions. This is a way of creating a

switch that allows you to essentially turn on when you want
the spectator to begin applying your instructions, later on in a
set. It allows you to perform other effects that may use the
same prop such as a deck of cards without each of the effect
become confused with one another.

The way we would justify such a touch in performance would

be as a way to get the attention of the spectator. Let's say we
have just performed a different effect for someone else in the

55
group I would now turn back to the spectator I have previously
given instructions and gently touch them on the back of the
hand to gain their attention as I say, “Okay, let me try
something with you”. They will now know they are to assume
their role and be ready to follow your previous instructions.

I will leave it to you to decide which of these justifications and

ways of hiding the whisper you want to utilize in each of your
performances. After that slight detour we will now get back on
track with the explanation of the Open Prediction.

We will assume for now we are not making use of this way of
turning on the instructions with a touch of their hand but are
instead using a different justification for the whisper.

The structure for what is whispered is important. First of all we

create a memory peg for the spectator so that they are clear as
to when these instructions are going to come into effect and at
what time we want them to apply our directions.

This is stated as:

“In a moment, when I ask you to deal the cards one at a

time face up onto the table …”

They now have an anchor in time where the instructions which

follow will become relevant. The spectator will understand they
are to do as you ask at the point in time in the future when
they will be dealing cards face up onto the table, specifically.

It is also important to quickly recap your instructions before

leaning out of the whisper as well as asking for a nod to
confirm they have fully understood these instructions, so that
there will be no confusion or excuse for them not to follow

56
along correctly in a moment.

You have also pre-warned them that this won't happen just yet.
This allows you to now perform another effect in between their
card selection and the performance of the open prediction
effect.

I prefer to perform the open prediction straight away after this

whisper as a safety measure so that there is no chance the
spectator can forget their instructions.

However, those already familiar with pre-show techniques will

see how these instructions can be given and a time gap still be
created before its use.

If you intend on performing a different effect before going into

the open prediction where these whispered instructions will
take affect then you may want to be more specific on the time
frame and instead of saying “In a moment …” change your
instruction to include the words “ … later on I am going to ask
you to deal cards face up … ” then at the end of your whisper
also say “ … so when I hand you the deck of cards begin follow
these instructions”.

This line provides an anchor in their memory that will act as a

reminder later on in your set. The action of handing them the
deck of cards will act as a trigger and they will understand it is
from this point onwards that you want them to now apply and
follow the instructions you gave previously.

The instructions themselves will also act as a further reminder

and cue due to their relevance in the trick that you perform.
They will realise that this is the moment they should be
following the instructions you gave previously. For instance, in

57
your instructions for this particular effect, you provide them
with the cue to follow along when they begin to deal cards face
up.

It is therefore important, when you are giving your instructions

to also give a description of what will take place at the time you
want them to follow your instructions, such as dealing the
cards one at a time face up. This way they will understand
exactly when it is you wish for them to follow along, later on in
the set.

Now you have made your instructions even more specific to the
spectator and are free to perform something unrelated to
someone else in the group.

I would now perform something that doesn't need the use of

the deck. This allows the deck to stay sat in front of the
spectator after they have shuffled the deck after making their
selection of playing card.

I can now turn back to the spectator after performing a

different effect to someone else in the group and confidently
state the following.

“I have not touched the deck after you shuffled them. They
have stayed untouched in front of you this entire time,
correct?”

This helps to create a sense of distance from the deck itself as

well as from the previous selection procedure and trick you
abandoned earlier.

It is now possible to perform the open prediction without ever

going back to the deck. How?

58
 Hands Off
You already have the answer I just purposefully haven't told
you yet how to get into this position.

If you use the “perfect nokey” shuffle taught earlier as your way
to get the spectator to think of a card and use the one way face
markings as your stack all you need to do is look through the
faces of the deck and remember whatever card comes after or
is directly to the right of their thought of card in the spread, as
your open prediction.

The reason we opt for a stack utilizing face markings is so that

when the spectator comes to deal through the deck face up no
obvious stack will be visible. If we used a stack of all one suit
then it would be obvious the cards are in some sort of order.
However, if we use the face markings then the deck will appear
to be in a random order.

You then place the deck in front of the spectator, whisper and
then miss-call an aspect of their card in order to create the
illusion you are on the wrong lines and need to move on to
something else and abandon trying to guess their card.

If you want to be bold you can get the spectator to give the
deck another overhand shuffle as you write your prediction
openly for everyone to see. Then go into the effect proper.

Most of the time a simple overhand shuffle will not displace the
two cards and they will remain next to each other. This is a
bold ruse I often also use when utilizing a key card, to make
what occurs seemingly fairer.

59
Otherwise, you can get the spectator to shuffle the deck and
then spread through as if looking for whichever card you feel
the spectator will stop on and now take note of whatever card
is to the right of their thought card and then write your
prediction.

However, I don't feel adding this extra shuffle is necessary as

the spectator will remember fairly shuffling the deck prior to
you making your prediction and will be able to confirm they
have done so and that you haven't been back to the deck since
doing so, even if this isn't strictly true.

The exact order of events will be forgotten by the spectator and

your language and their confirmation will create a false
memory and serve to re-frame what actually is the case.

The effect is the same and everything is covered with scripting.

It will appear that the spectator has shuffled the cards
previously and you haven't touched the deck since that shuffle
procedure.

Instead of working harder you are working smarter.

To recap, you have had a card selected by the spectator. The

deck is placed in front of the spectator after the cards have
been shuffled. You then whisper your instructions and attempt
to guess a detail of their thought of card. After failing and
giving up on guessing their card you the move onto a different
effect with someone else in the group.

This effect doesn't use the deck of cards left in front of the
spectator.

60
After performing for someone else, you can now being the open
prediction effect proper.

Now all you need to do is write down the card that was directly
to the right of the card you know they are thinking of and
instruct the spectator to begin dealing the cards face up.

I would write down my prediction, show everyone in the group

and then give my instructions to the spectator.

“This is what is known as an open prediction. The reason

for this is the fact that everyone gets to see what I have
predicted ahead of time …”

Here I show my prediction and place it onto the table. This can
be a playing card with a different back colour or design from
out of another deck if you prefer.

I now address the spectator.

“I want you to pick up the deck and deal the cards slowly
one at a time face up, onto the table and to stop wherever
feels right …”

It is at this point your whispered instructions will come into

effect. The spectator will know that this is now the time to
follow along and will disregard their feelings and in the process
also disregard this part of your open instruction said to
everyone and will instead stop as soon as they see their
thought of card.

What is beautiful about your previous whispered instructions

is the fact you get them to ignore their feelings. This means

61
that you can openly state for them to follow their feelings when
it comes to performing this effect and they will still dismiss it
as a factor and follow you other instruction for them to stop as
soon as they see their thought of card.

This coupled with the fact your other instruction for them to
stop when they see their thought of card is in fact, hidden from
the perspective of the audience, will create the perfect effect in
the minds of those watching.

It will look exactly as it should. They deal face up and stop

wherever they like based on their feelings. However, you will
always be able to get them to stop and deal the next card face
down based on their previous choice and the fact they are
ignoring any of their feelings.

I also instruct the spectator to deal slowly, to begin with. This

is important as you don't want to inadvertently create a
situation where the spectator deals past the prediction due to
them dealing too quickly and not registering they have come to
their thought of card in time.

They will stop as soon as they see their thought of card. It is at

this point we direct them to deal the next card in the deck face
down and to place it beside the cards already dealt face up
onto the table.

This is were some sneaky language comes into play that helps
reinforce the effect from the audience perspective, as well as it
serving to cement the intended open prediction effect in the
mind of the spectator.

It is at this point both realities begin to blur together and

everyone begins to have a similar experience as the effect ties

62
itself up.

“Okay, just answer yes or no … this is a free choice? Just

deal the next card face down next to the face up cards”.

The spectator will answer correctly at this point in a way that is

in line with the open prediction effect from the perspective of
the audience.

To the spectator there is still no way you could know their

previously selected card. This is what enables the spectator to
still be fooled by the version of the effect you are performing for
them.

They will feel that their previous selection of playing card was
indeed a free choice and because where they stop is dictated by
this free selection they will also have to agree in their own mind
that where they just stopped was also a completely free choice.

I now typically spread the playing cards previously dealt face

down on the table and say:

“I've not seen my prediction dealt face up yet …”

I now continue the effect as follows.

“Deal the rest of the cards face up and if we see my

prediction at any point then we know this has failed”.

The spectator continues to deal the rest of the cards face up

onto the pile on the table until they have exhausted the entire
deck. If you want to speed up this process to kill dead time in
performance then you can instruct the spectator to deal a few
cards and then spread the rest of the cards face up on the
63
table.

You now recap everything that has happened and tie up the
effect from each of the differing perspectives in the process.

“You dealt the cards one at a time face up onto the table
and stopped somewhere.

“There is no way I could know where you would stop

dealing.

“You then dealt the next card face down and continued
dealing the rest of the cards face up.

“Is there any way either you or I could know what card you
would deal face down onto the table?”

They will answer with a “no” as it really does seem impossible

for you to know in advance which card would be next to theirs
due to the fact, only they could have known what card they
chose from the start. Their answer will then confirm the
impossibility of being able to predict this card ahead of time
and will in the process, wrap everything up for everyone
concerned.

Now the effect has come full circle. It has now fully become a
prediction effect in the mind of the spectator as well as in the
minds of the rest of the audience.

All that is left to do is have the spectator turn over the card
they placed face down and in doing so, reveal that it matches
your open prediction.

64
 Alternate Shuffle
Reverse Key
What follows is a different shuffle I designed to be used in
conjunction with the Open Prediction effect. This was one of
my first attempts at a solution to enable the spectator to freely
shuffle overhand face up and to think of a card on the face of
the deck.

This came about from thinking about a shuffle my friend Mijrin

showed me he was working on a few years ago that allowed for
the spectator to unknowingly perform a force on themselves.
They would shuffle the deck and always end up thinking of
your force card. The way he achieved this was to essentially
perform the Hindu-style shuffle force in their hands. I wanted
to be able to do something similar but instead of a Hindu
shuffle handling be able to do this with a shuffle that is
common to my culture and the audiences I typically come
accros. Therefore, I need a way to do something similar
utilizing the standard western overhand shuffle.

These thoughts are what lead to the following method involving

a key card.

What is nice about this shuffle is the fact your key card is
automatically placed below their thought of card during the
course of the shuffle. This means that you can write down your
open prediction without ever having to go back to the deck or
spread through the faces of the deck to find your prediction

65
card. It will always be the key card you set on top of the deck to
begin with.

It is as follows.

I begin with a key card on the back of the deck. This will be the
card I write down as my open prediction, later on.

Then I demonstrate how I want the spectator to shuffle the

deck by performing a face up overhand shuffle whilst at the
same time slip shuffling the key card so that it remains on the
back of the deck by simply applying a gentle pressure with the
fingers of the hand that supports the deck.

“The bottom card of the deck is what is known as a face

card … You can see that as you shuffle face up this card is
constantly changing …”

I tap the face card with my thumb nearest the face of the deck,
each time it changes, as I shuffle. This gives the spectator a
visual cue so that they understand what it is I am referring to
as a changing face card. It also ensures they don't think of any
other face up cards they may see during the shuffling
procedure when they come to handling the deck.

“I want you to shuffle the deck face up and before you run
out of cards stop wherever you want … remember whatever
card is on the face …”

Again, I tap the face card with my thumb as visual education.

“ … And then throw everything else on top of this card”.

66
Here I match my actions to my words and throw the remaining
cards in my hand on top of whatever card I have just pointed
out as the face card of the deck.

I then hand the spectator the deck as I turn away.

Because I have slip shuffled throughout my demonstration my

key card will still be on the back of the deck. This means that
when they follow along with my previous instructions in their
own hands they will inadvertently place my key card directly on
top of their selected card.

The slip shuffle will also allow me to show the deck is being
shuffled and no cards could be kept in any order prior to
handing them the deck to shuffle themselves.

I can now direct them to cut the deck a couple of times as I

turn back around and I am set to perform the Open Prediction
effect.

Cover for Whisper

Spec as Mind Reader
I mentioned previously that I have a different option for the
justification of the whisper that doesn't rely on you needing to
provide the more general justification at the start of your set.
This justification can be used during a set of different effects
whenever you don't have a natural justification for the whisper
that makes sense within the context of the routine you are

67
performing.

The following justification can be used instead of the generic all

inclusive frame up whenever you need to apply a whisper to
make an effect work.

Typically when an effect is about the spectator using their

intuition then a whisper can be easily justified as you teaching
the spectator how to be able to do what it is you do to read the
mind of a spectator or intuitively know a piece of information.

Most of the time however, the premise of what it is you are

presenting will not fall into this category of effect. It is in these
situations that the following ruse becomes useful.

You are going to create a moment in your set where the

spectator will try to use their intuition. This is an entirely
manufactured moment that allows you get away with
whispering in your participant's ear.

It will allow you to get “one ahead” in terms of giving an

instruction that will apply to a different moment and effect,
somewhere else in your set.

The whisper will only seem relevant to the effect that directly
follows it and the reason for you whispering instructions will be
appear to be to get that particular effect to work only. However,
the fact we perform an influence piece right after this whisper
is what allows us the cover to also give an instruction to the
spectator that will come into action and apply later on in the
set within the context of an entirely different effect.

The small intuition piece we perform after the whisper is

literally just misdirection for us to deliver the real instructions

68
we wish to hide that will become relevant in a different effect,
later on.

It is an entirely throw away bit of byplay between two

spectators that seems to illustrate just how difficult it is to use
your intuition to read minds and for this reason doesn't even
have to hit.

It is purposefully designed to be small and throw away in

nature as its only real use is to enable you to give other
instructions under the cover of setting up this moment.

I will show you an example of this within the context of setting

up the “open prediction” effect.

This is how it will look to everyone watching.

I perform the “perfect nokey” shuffle utilizing either the one

way face marking system or the “pointer” cards stack. Then I
take the deck back from the spectator and spread through to
note which card follows their thought of card. This will be the
card I write down in a moment when I come to perform the
open prediction effect.

I now place the deck down in front of the spectator and say the
following.

“I'm going to teach you how to use your intuition to read

the mind of someone else in the group. This will give you
an idea of how I do what it is I do”.

I now lean in and whisper the following words into the ear of
the spectator I wish to give my instructions to.

69
 “I'm going to ask someone to think of something specific
and all I want you to do is imagine for a moment that you
are that person and take note of whatever thoughts happen
to come into your mind as I speak to them. Then when I
ask you what you think it is they thought of just say these
thoughts out loud”.

I now tack onto the back end of the previous instruction any
instruction I want that is relevant to the specific effect I want to
perform in a moment. In this case, it would be the open
prediction effect.

“As well as this, in a moment when I ask you to deal the

cards face up and to stop wherever feels right, I want you
to ignore your feelings and instead stop dealing as soon as
you see the card you just thought of. Nod if you
understand all of this”.

I now lean out and get a nod from the spectator as

confirmation they have understood everything I have
whispered. If you can see that they need anything repeating
then you just lean in and recap with a further whisper.

What is beautiful about this set up is you have given yourself

the possibility of creating a genuine moment of mind reading
between two spectators whilst also hiding further instructions
relevant for an entirely different effect that follows in the set.

It will appear to everyone watching that the only reason you

whisper is to teach the spectator how to perform this first
effect. The audience at large will never suspect you have also
secretly set up another seemingly unrelated trick, in advance.

70
Therefore, once you perform the “spectator as mind reader”
mini effect, the whisper will be forgotten about and will become
redundant and no longer appear to be of any use in terms of
what follows this effect in the set.

To be fair this is a good effect in and of itself even without it

being used as an excuse to give additional instructions under
the cover of a whisper.

What is great is your first instruction allows you to essentially

perform a psychological force on two people at once, whilst at
the same time, making it appear like actual mind reading is
taking place, for everyone involved including the spectator.

“Okay, look at each other. I want you [instructions aimed

at the person having their mind read] to allow a colour to
pop into your mind [snap fingers] and now change it to a
different colour [snap fingers]”.

It is important you snap your fingers as if implying each

spectator is to quickly think of a colour and doesn't have
chance to change their mind until you give them the chance to
think of a different colour.

You are essentially performing the psychological force of two

colours on both spectators, aiming your force at one spectator
whilst the other spectator also listens to your words and
unwittingly follows along with the force.

Any psychological force can be utilized but what is nice about

the colour force as performed above is it gives you a chance on
hitting two different colours.

They will both now be thinking of the colour blue and the

71
colour red.

I now turn to the mind reader spectator and say the following.

“What two colours came into your head from the other
person's mind?”

The spectator should now answer with the two colours blue
and red and the other spectator will be able to confirm how
accurate they are.

Note: Because we are forcing two colours we give ourselves

higher odds of hitting at least one of the force colours. But
what is even more subtle is the fact, it won't matter if the
spectator says the colours out of order when compared to the
order they happen to come into the other spectator's mind who
is having their mind read. The fact they name both colours or
only get one of the colours correct will appear to be a hit.

Due to the fact, they are directed to allow thoughts to come

into their mind at the same time you perform the psychological
force on the other spectator they will feel as if their thoughts
are coming from the other spectator and they are genuinely
able to intuitively pick up on the thoughts inside someone
else's mind, in real time. You will also have the psychological
force working in your favour. Not only will this ensure most of
the time they will both having matching thoughts, it will also
feel as impossible to each spectator as a psychological force
would typically.

Everyone will be fooled but you will seemingly give one of the
spectators the ability to temporarily read minds, in the process.
This you get for free, as well as also giving yourself the perfect
excuse and cover to give additional instruction that will come

72
into play, later on.

It is perfect! If they spectator gets any of the force items wrong

then you can simply say:

“ … And this shows you just how difficult it is to read the

mind of someone else”.

It will not matter if they fail in this situation as it is the

spectator who has failed not you. This is such a small effect it
will seem fairly irrelevant within a larger set of other much
stronger effects. As well as you not getting the blame for any
failure, the spectator guessing wrong will also create an
expectation in the audience members minds that what it is you
are about to attempt is difficult. This will make the reactions to
what you perform that much more stronger as they will now
have an appreciation for how difficult something like mind
reading is.

However, most of the time you are going to get a perfect hit
with the spectator intuitively guessing what is inside the other
spectator's mind. When this happens it will feel real to both
spectators and you have just created a miracle.

The reason this feels so real is partly due to the power of

psychological forces but also due to the way this is framed up
for the spectator performing the mind reading. It will genuinely
feel like the correct thoughts just popped into their head from
out of the other spectator's mind and this happened in real
time. You are basically the conductor of proceedings.

73
 Clean Up
It is also possible to clean up the whisper whenever you use it
as cover for giving additional instructions to the spectator, as
follows.

After performing the above spectator as mind reader effect I

would typically say the following, as a way to wrap everything
up.

“And just for anyone who is curious and wants to know

what it is I whispered in your ear, so that you could read
the other person's mind…

“ … I told you to imagine you were the other person for a

moment and to take note of any thoughts that come into
your mind, correct?”

They will have to respond with a “yes” to your question, as

what you say is entirely true. It also sounds like a mystical
process so this exposing of your own instructions doesn't harm
the effect in any way. The audience are getting the same effect
as your spectator which still seems amazing and feels entirely
real to the spectator.

Because you are only addressing what was whispered first and
only refer to your first set of instructions means the spectator
will also respond in a way that is only relevant to the spectator
as mind reader effect that has just taken place.

The other instruction you give under the cover of the whisper

74
that is relevant to another effect, yet to be performed in your
set is not mentioned and stays hidden with no chance of it
coming under any possible scrutiny from the audience
members.

As far as the audience are concerned everything that was

whispered has now been brought into the light by you exposing
what was said along with the confirmation from the spectator
that what you say is true.

To the audience nothing else was said. They have no reason to

suspect anything else was whispered as everything appears to
tie itself up naturally with your scripting and how what
happens appears outwardly, in and of itself.

I now give the following justification for why anything had to be

whispered at all and this brings everything full circle.

“ … Of course, the reason I had to whisper these

instructions was so that the other person didn't start to
over think the process and think of anything too obscure
for you to read”.

This is the perfect way to get away with giving additional

instructions that stay completely hidden from the rest of the
audience's perspective when utilizing the effects that rely on
my “now show” principle, in this book.

I would suggest using a different psychological force such as

the triangle and circle force whenever utilizing this along with
the colour force that follows, as to not cause any confusion
between multiple colours in your spectator's mind.

The other option you can use to avoid any confusion due to

75
mixing up similar thoughts would be to perform this mental
force using two words instead of colours. The spectator will
then be focusing on one out of two specific words instead of a
colour which will allow you to use thought of colours elsewhere
in your routine.

This will become clearer as we move on but suffice to say the

scripting for the force utilizing shapes I would use would be as
follows.

“I want you to allow a simple shape to pop into your head,

like a square but don't go for that as I have already
mentioned it (snap fingers) …

“And now get another simple shape in mind that's different

the first (snap fingers) …”

You can now turn to the spectator who is performing the mind
reading and ask what two shapes they received from the other
spectator.

These thoughts will indefinitely match with both spectators

thinking of a Circle and a Triangle.

You have of course, killed one of the potential basic shapes

they could be thinking of by mentioning the Square already
and directing them not to think of it, which leaves you with
very little left in terms of simple shapes either participant could
be thinking of, thus, increasing your chances of getting two
hits.

To finish the example of its use as applied to the Open

Prediction. I would now perform a different effect to someone
else at the table and then come back to the spectator with the
76
deck left in front of them and attempt to guess their playing
card, aiming to get it wrong.

“Just yes or no is your card the King of Hearts?”

This serves as a reminder for them to begin to think about the

card they selected earlier during whichever shuffle I chose to
do in preparation for the Open Prediction. It is important when
asking if you are correct, to always preface your question with
the instruction for them to either respond with a “yes” or “no”
response, so that they don't reveal their thought of card in the
process and blow its potential use in the routine which follows.

Here I can either guess their complete card and get it wrong or
just guess one detail of their card such as its suit, as incorrect.

I can then seemingly change what it is I was going to do and in

the process render the previous shuffle and selection of a card
redundant in the minds of everyone else watching.

“Okay, let's try this a different way”.

I now write my Open Prediction in plain sight and instruct the

spectator to pick up the deck and to begin dealing cards face
up onto the table stopping wherever feels right ala. my take on
the Open Prediction.

If I utilize the alternate shuffle taught previously then I can

feign struggling to read their card and forgo the need to
mention one that I know is incorrect. Of course, with the
alternate shuffle there is no need to go back to the deck as
their thought of card will always be set in the deck directly in
front of my key card.

77
The fact I don't need to know their thought of card when
utilizing this shuffle in the Open Prediction effect means that I
also can't throw out the wrong card or wrong details about
their thought of card, as I don't know it. Hence, why I opt to
just struggle without explicit mention of any card before
moving on.

“Okay, focus on your card for me … I'm struggling to get

this, so let's try this a different way”.

I now write down my Open Prediction which will be whatever

my key card was I used in the alternate shuffle and I am good
to go, never having to touch the deck.

Mental Force
Two Colours
The following is a way to force a colour out of two options
completely prop-less.

It came from me trying to solve a different problem I had. I

wanted to be able to know what colour a spectator had started
on before changing their mind between two colours. It then
occurred to me that if I break up the instructions slightly I can
always force the spectator to begin on a specific colour so that I
wouldn't have to apply any further method to force the colour
they end up on. Then with a little more thought the following
complete forcing method fell into place.

78
I begin by saying the following words to my spectator.

“I want you to imagine the colour red in front of you

here …”

I hold out my hand palm facing the spectator and hold it in

front of their eye line slightly to their left, as if indicating where
I want them to imagine this colour resides in space.

Then I take my hand down and place my left hand out in front
of them just as before but this time it is positioned towards
their right.

“ … And now just imagine the colour blue over here …”

Having the spectator focus on each colour in turn as opposed

to getting them to imagine both colours next to each other at
the same time and breaking your instructions up in this way
allows for this beautiful ploy of forcing their thought of colour.

Now when I instruct the spectator to change back and forth

between each of these colours in their mind and to settle on
one they will always have to first jump back to the opposite
colour to the last one they were just focusing on.

“ … And now just jump back and forth between each of

these colours and stop wherever you want”.

The fact they imagine each of the colours separately means

they will be left focusing on the second colour you mention
before you give your instructions for them to change back and
forth between each colour. They will then always jump back to
the first colour they imagined as this is the only colour they
can mentally jump to, if they are currently focusing on the

79
opposite colour.

They then continue to alternate back and forth between these

colours, eventually settling on one.

So for clarity, in the scripted example, they will first imagine

the colour red then the colour blue next to this colour. They
will then jump from the colour blue they are currently thinking
of to the colour red then change back to blue … then red … so
on and so forth until they decide to stop on one of the colours
at random.

They will always jump first to whatever colour you had them
imagine on their left hand side to begin with. This means you
will always know what colour they jump to first in their mental
sequence of changes. You can then use this knowledge and
apply the following adjustment to always force the colour they
end up focusing on.

“So you have a colour in mind?... If this happens to be the

same colour you instinctively jumped to first then change
one more time, just to keep this random, otherwise just
stick where you are”.

This little adjustment makes what you do appear even fairer

whilst also secretly directing the spectator to always end on the
colour of your choosing. It seems as if you want to make the
process even more random and fair by getting the spectator to
change one more time to ensure they are not just making the
same decisions they would typically make based on instinct.

This is a partial re-frame and flies by everyone watching as well

as fools the spectator entirely.

80
Of course, if they are on the colour they first jumped to they
have to change otherwise they stay on the colour that you
would have them change to anyway. They will always end up
focusing on the second colour you presented in front of them
earlier. In this example, they will now be focusing on the colour
blue.

I now say the following words and their “no” response acts as
confirmation as to the fairness of the procedure. As soon as
they confirm what you say to be true they will not be able to
easily back-tack the method and their response also convinces
themselves of the false notion as well as everyone else
watching.

What is beautiful about using words as your method is after

the fact, the exact order of your instructions and details of
what took place will become lost as your words have long
disappeared off into the either along with your method.

This makes what happens much harder to remember and

therefore, it becomes less likely they are able to reconstruct the
method and back-track to a solution. If it feels right in the
moment and they confirm the false reality to be true it will be
almost impossible for them to back-track to the method.

“So there is no way I could know what colour you are now
focusing on?”

It is a perfect illusion.

I then finish by either revealing their thought of colour right

away or leaving it as a thought they hold in their subconscious
so that I can use this information secretly in other routines,
later on.

81
 “The reason I have you focus on a specific colour is so that
I can better get in tune with your thoughts, so just allow
this colour to float back into your subconscious mind … we
may come back to it later”.

This force can then be utilized in other effects within a “now

show” context that rely on binary to make them work.

I will expand on this concept in the next section but first I

would like to wrap up my work on cards by sharing with you a
few other uses for my “perfect nokey” shuffle procedure as well
as a few additional ideas on the open prediction plot.

NOKey
Date of Birth
I mentioned earlier in the explanations for the various different
shuffle methods that utilize a stack or block of cards that I
think of the use of a series of cards sharing a similar defining
feature or commonality such as the same suit as being a kind
of extended key card principle in concept. The block of cards
acts as the entire key method as opposed to a single card. This
then by way of extension means that it can be used as a key in
order to help you find a card or series of cards placed next to
this block of cards during the course of a routine by your
spectator.

82
This means that you can now perform key card work but with
the deck being freely shuffled by the spectator first before any
selection process begins.

This destroys any notion that a key card principle could be at

work in the minds of those who watch you perform. Of course,
it is a lesser known principle in terms of how well known this
principle is amongst lay audiences. However, I have found that
it is an idea quite well known amongst non magicians.

It is something that tends to be passed down throughout the

generations as a basic card trick that everyone seems to know.
This does not mean that you can't get away with using a key
card principle at all. If it is applied correctly then even
magicians familiar with the principle will still be fooled by its
use.

Needless to say, adding the ability to have the spectator shuffle

first and in the process they themselves setting up the key is
something that completely fools magicians.

It may be gilding the lilly to perform this way for lay people.
However, I feel adding this degree of fairness to the process is
something that is worth doing whenever you can. It will
increase the seeming impossibility of what you do as well as
cancel out any ideas they may already be familiar with
regarding glimpsing a face card in order to know the card
placed next to it.

To perform this shuffle utilizing a stack as a key I would

typically begin with my stack of cards of all of one suit in the
middle of the deck.

I now explain to my spectator how I want them to make a

83
selection of a playing card whilst matching actions to words.
Again, this is the visual education and mimicking principle at
work. This helps the spectator better follow your instructions
and makes clear with a visual example what it is you want
them to do in a moment.

“I want you to spread through the faces of the cards until

you see a card you like …

“Take out this card and place it on the face of the deck …

“Focus on it for a few seconds and then cut about half of

the cards to the back of the deck”.

I spread through the deck faces towards myself and match my

words with my actions. This allows me to cut my stack from
the middle of the deck towards the back of the deck which also
ensures I can direct the spectator to shuffle the deck face
down, without disrupting my stack in the process.

Of course, when you take out a card from the deck as per your
instructions you don't take one of the cards from your stack.
Otherwise, you would displace this card and move it out of
your stack which would in turn cause the method to fail.
Therefore, whenever moving cards around in this way you
should always avoid taking out cards from within your stack.

“ … But before you do this I want you to shuffle all of the

way through the cards face down once, like this …”

Again, I match actions to words and physically demonstrate

how I want the spectator to shuffle.

84
Here I just shuffle the deck face down myself making sure I
demonstrate a thorough shuffle as well as miss picking up any
of the cards of my stack, in the process. This ensures I don't
disrupt the stack during my example of how I want the
spectator to shuffle in a moment.

I then spread through the faces of the deck and cut the stack
to the back of the deck followed by another cut placing the
stack onto the face of the deck.

This should be done in an off handed and casual manner as if

little importance is being placed on where you are cutting the
deck specifically. It should look and feel to your audience as if
you are simply mixing the deck a little further and as
seemingly inaccurately as possible before handing the deck to
the spectator to complete your instructions.

It sets the deck ready for the spectator to shuffle.

I can now turn my head away as I hand the deck to the

spectator so that I can't see anything the spectator does.

What is beautiful about this approach to the key card principle

is the fact the spectator can genuinely shuffle once the deck is
handed to them and your head is turned away thus cancelling
out any ideas that you could have glimpsed any of the cards of
the deck.

They also create the key during the shuffle which is supposed
to actually undo any order the deck could be in.

Of course, it is a simple matter of now spreading through the

deck and noting the card that is positioned next to the very last
card in my stack, as I spread the deck from face to back, in

85
order to know what card was selected by the spectator.

This works exactly the same way a key card placement would
work it is just we are treating the key as consisting of the entire
stack or block of cards instead of just a single card.

If I am having one card selected then I would prefer to use the

“perfect nokey” shuffle where the deck stays in a face up
orientation all of the way through the procedure.

I feel this is a much easier process for the spectator to follow

with less steps needed in order for a spectator to think of a
card from out of the deck.

It also means there is no awkward movements that have to be

performed by the spectator such as them having to turn over a
face down card on top of the deck, if the “nokey” shuffle were to
be performed face down. It also allows for the re-frame of the
spectator seemingly having a completely free choice of any of
the cards that happen to pass
by their eyes during this face up shuffle.

However, having a card selected in the more traditional way as

typically done when utilizing a key card as just described can
be useful for when we wish to know multiple cards taken from
the deck.

It is for this reason I have included my handling in this book.

The above handling of the shuffle and set up of the stack

allows for the following date of birth revelation.

Instead of directing the spectator to take out a single card and

focus on it after placing it onto the face of the deck, we instead

86
give additional instructions for the spectator to take out
multiple cards from the deck that are relevant to their date of
birth expressed as a four digit number.

“I want you to focus on your date of birth as a four digit

number. I was born on the fifteenth of July so I would
focus on the numbers one … five … zero … seven, for
example.

“And just to help you focus on this number I want you to

take out cards that represent each one of these digits …

“So if the first digit is a two you would take out a two …

“Focus on it for a few seconds and then place it on the face

of the deck … ”.

Here I would give a visual example of what it is I want them to

do in a moment. Then continuing my visual education I would
demonstrate taking out another three cards to fully represent
their four digit thought of number.

“If the next digit in your date of birth is a three for example
then you would take out a three, focus on it and then place
it onto the face …

“Do this for each of the four digits of your date of birth and
then cut about half of the cards to the back of the deck”.

I would now cut my stack from the centre of the deck and place
these cards to the back of the deck as already described in the
single card variation of this handling.

87
Here I also add on an instruction for how to represent more
obscure numbers such as zero and one that don't easily
translate into a playing card number.

“If you need to represent a zero then use a Joker and use
an Ace to represent the number one …”

Now I continue with the instructions and implement the use of

the shuffle.

“But before you do this – shuffle all of the way through the
cards face down once, like this …”

I now perform my shuffle example and then spread though the

deck face up towards myself and casually cut the stack back to
the face of the deck before handing the spectator the deck and
turning my head away.

Now everything is set to allow you to use the shuffle as a key in

order for you to know a series of digits, such as a date of birth
or any other small series of numbers.

If you want you can get the spectator to cut the deck multiple
times after their initial shuffle and setting of their cards in
place. I would recommend instructing them to cut a few more
times after they have followed all of your previous directions
before turning back around just so that they don't feel it is
possible for you to estimate where there cards have been
returned back to the deck.

You can also take the deck back and perform a false shuffle
that retains the order of all of the cards yourself if you wish to
create the illusion of the deck being further mixed to create the
impression there is absolutely no way you could now locate any

88
of their cards.

Do whatever you feel is necessary to ensure everyone is fooled

and the spectator is certain their cards are lost in the deck and
undiscoverable.

I now say the following as I pick up the deck and spread the
cards face up towards myself.

“So even if I was to spread through each and every card of

the deck … there's still no way I could know what cards
you were just focusing on?”

This is a casual handling of the deck designed to convince the

spectator that even if you were to look through the cards it
wouldn't matter. The logic is that because they cut the deck
multiple times and you shuffled the deck afterwards there is no
way you would be able to locate any of the cards previously
selected by the spectator.

It also appears as if you are simply giving an example of

something you might do whilst actually doing that exact action
at the same time. It is an odd little ruse that allows you to
perform your glimpse of the information recorded in the deck,
without any heat being on that moment. The reason there is no
attention on this moment is due to it being done under the
pretence of an action that you
speak about hypothetically.

The spectator will agree with you and as soon as they answer
to confirm your false notion, the illusion comes full circle and
is cemented in place.

What is beautiful about confirming everything is fair in this

89
way is, the act of spreading through the deck allows you to get
a glimpse of the information, right in front of everyone.

You are using the cover of denoting how impossible finding out
their information would be to actually obtain their information,
in real time.

This happens right under the noses of everyone watching.

This specific scripting will match your words with your actions
so that nothing seems out of place and will allow you to spread
through the deck relatively slowly which will enable you to
easily get your glimpse of the information.

It is important you spread through the cards at an even pace

and don't pause when you get to their information but instead
leave your eyes in a fixed position as you continuously spread
through the deck and allow their information to pass through
your field of vision.

This is so that all that appears to be happening is you are

casually glancing at the faces of each card as it is spread
between your hands, as way of providing an example.

All you need to do is look out for the four cards positioned next
to the last card you come to in your stack as you spread
through the cards from their face and remember the four digit
number these cards represent.

There cards will read from left to right in order.

I would now get the spectator to give the deck one more shuffle
and then move into something else. I now secretly know their
date of birth and can reveal however I want to later on in my

90
set.

The pretence of having the spectator focus on specific cards in

the deck in this way is so that they can better focus on each of
the numbers. My silent script and reasoning for having them
do this is due to the fact playing cards are more visual in
nature and will therefore, be easier for me to read once they
have been focused on consciously and then forgotten about
and left to float around in their subconscious.

I may also add on the following line before moving into

something else.

“Okay, just allow the images of each of these cards to fade

into the back of your subconscious mind as we try
something else”.

NOKey
Deal a Card
Spectator Intuition
The following use for the shuffle utilizes the first variant taught
in this book where the spectator only shuffles through the deck
overhand once and then cuts the deck. They only cut the deck
once in this version and the other difference is they shuffle the
deck face down.

91
This enables this shuffle to be used in a very different way that
allows for a two person version of the open prediction minus
you stating card that will be chosen by the second spectator.
The premise of the effect is the spectator stopping on the
correct card via their intuition as opposed to stopping on a
card that is stated up front and predicted ahead of time by the
performer.

It plays out as follows.

Two spectators are asked to help out. The first spectator is

instructed to shuffle the deck of cards face down, take a look at
whatever random card was shuffled to the top of the deck and
to then cut the deck.

As the spectator does this the performer teaches the second

spectator how to use their intuition to deal down through the
deck and successfully stop when they feel they get to the card
that was chosen and is being thought of by the other spectator.

The difference between the shuffle used to accomplish this

effect and the first variant of the shuffle is the orientation of
the deck. It is shuffled face down as opposed to face up and
then the playing card that will be thought of is selected from
the top of the face down deck instead of simply being whatever
card the spectator happens to shuffle to the face of the deck.

Not only does the following method dictate that the shuffle be
performed this way due to the required mechanics and
ordering of the deck necessary to get the second part of the
effect to work, it also fits the premise of the effect perfectly and
is how the shuffle needs to be performed to stay theatrically
sound.

92
The performer will be teaching the second spectator with a
whisper whilst the first spectator is shuffling and selecting a
card. This means that the spectator will essentially be looking
away from proceedings.

However, there is still a chance the performer may have been

able to get a glimpse of the face card selected at some point if
the other handling was utilized. Having the spectator shuffle
the deck face down and to lift up the top card slightly to get
their glimpse makes more sense within the context of the
routine being performed and will seem that much fairer, whilst
at the same time making the effect possible.

The combination of the shuffle and whisper allows any dead

time to be eliminated from the routine and ensures everyone
watching is certain the performer could not know the first
spectators playing card which in turn makes the effect appear
that much more impossible. It will also fool the second
spectator to a degree, who will effectively become an instant
stooge throughout the proceedings.

How would it be possible for the performer to stooge the second

spectator if they themselves have no idea what playing card
was selected randomly by the first spectator? They couldn't
and this is what makes the following method and effect so
strong.

The performer never needs to go back tot he deck after the first
spectator has shuffled the deck and in the process selected a
card to focus on.

They shuffle a deck of cards, think of a card, cut the deck and
then hand them immediately to the second spectator.

93
This happens whilst the performer whispers instructions in the
ear of the second participant under the guise of teaching them
how to use their intuition.

The second spectator then picks up the deck and deals each of
the cards one at a time face up onto the table using their
feelings to stop on one card. This card is then dealt face down
next to the pile of cards already dealt onto the table. Then the
rest of the deck is dealt face up.

What is great is throughout the dealing procedure it will begin

to dawn on the first spectator what must be unravelling right
before their eyes. They will realize their playing card has not
been dealt face up and so must be the card seemingly freely
selected by the second participant and placed off to the side
face down. The first spectator will therefore get a similar effect
to the open prediction.

The first spectator is then asked to say out loud for the first
time their thought of card and the face down card dealt by the
second spectator is turned over showing a perfect match and
ultimately proving the second spectator was able to use their
intuition to sense which card was the spectator's thought of
card.

But how?

You may be thinking how is this possible using the tools we

have already discussed in this book. It seems like it truly is
impossible for the deck to ever need to be referred back to or
touched by the performer after the first spectator has chosen a
playing card.

94
The secret is the one way deck principle. However, instead of
constructing our stack out of one way face markings we simply
use a standard one way deck that has one way markings on its
back design.

The deck I use is the “Ask Alexander ?” deck put out by

Conjuring Arts but any deck with a back design that has a
distinguishing feature that is easy to reference in your script so
you can quickly teach your spectator how to easily read the
orientation of the cards can be used.

These cards have a large image of the head of a famous

performer from the past in the centre of the back design of
each of the cards.

It is easy to refer to this image when giving my whispered

instructions to the second spectator. This is an obvious
marking for the spectator to read and ensures I will be able to
easily instant stooge the spectator and they will not find
following my instructions difficult. All they have to do is look
out for the moment this large head design turns upside down.

It is that simple for them to follow!

They don't have to look for an obscure marking or try to read

border sizes or do anything that may be demanding of them.

If you prefer to use a one way back design that is not so

obvious for everyone else watching then a perfect choice is the
“Bicycle League Back” design. These cards are obvious enough
for the spectator to follow and for you to yourself read the one
way markings from twenty foot or so away and yet the design is
still obscure enough to not instantly flag up any notion that a
one way orientation of cards is used in the trick.

95
Utilizing this deck you would instruct the spectator to look out
for when the fan design in the middle of the back design flips
upside down.

We will assume you are using the bolder method of utilizing the
deck with the large image of the head of a famous performer for
my example.

I begin by having the deck set up with thirteen or so cards

turned end for end on top of the deck so that these cards are
in the opposite orientation to the rest of the deck.

This can be done with a simple cut. I also remember the card
on the face of the stack. This will be used as a key so that I can
reposition this stack to the face of the deck easily simply by
spreading through the faces of the cards.

I now give a demonstration of what it is I want the spectator to

do in a moment following my words with actions. These actions
provide a visual reference that ensures the spectator follows my
instructions perfectly.

“I want you to shuffle all of the way through the deck face
down once, like this …”

Here I make sure I give the deck a thorough shuffle as an

example of how I want the spectator to shuffle in a moment.

It is important you pick up about half of the cards from the

back of the deck and shuffle these on top of the remaining
cards. This will ensure you don't disrupt your stack or move
any of these cards out of their respective block.

96
“ … Take a look at the top card being careful only you can
see it …

“Remember it …

“Then place it back on top of the deck … ”

I match my words with actions by turning over the top card

pretending to look and remember it and then placing it back
face down on the deck.

Now I spread the deck faces towards myself and cut the deck
so that my key card is brought to the face of the deck.

“Then give the deck one complete cut taking about half of
the cards from the face and placing them onto the back of
the deck”.

It appears I have matched my words with actions even though I

will be cutting short in the deck in my example. They will
remember to cut about half of the deck and to only do it once
thanks to your scripting and the specifics of your instructions.

Cutting the key card to the face of the deck sets up the deck
perfectly for the shuffle which follows. All of the cards reversed
end for end will now be on the face of the deck.

This means that when the spectator shuffles face down once
they will hit your stack of cards whilst also rearranging the
stack so that the card that becomes the top card of the deck
and their selection will also be the first card of the stack of
cards turned end for end somewhere in the deck, after the first
spectator has given the deck a single cut.

97
This effectively marks out their selected card from the rest of
the cards of the deck.

Now when the second spectator deals through the deck they
will be able to notice when the back design of the cards held in
their hand changes orientation and turns upside down and
this will allow you to apply a whisper that enables the
spectator to find the chosen card.

The selected card will be the first card in this block of cards
turned end for end in the deck.

This makes it possible for your second spectator to easily find

the thought of card with very simple and easy to follow
instructions whispered into their ear.

What is great about performing the shuffle selection in

conjunction with a one way deck applied to the back design is
the selected card doesn't ever need to be turned around end for
end during the routine as this effectively happens on its own
thanks to the mechanics of the shuffling procedure and how
the method works in and of itself.

As the spectator follows your instructions for them to shuffle

the deck and make their selection and then cut the deck, you
whisper the following instructions in the ear of the second
spectator after prefacing what you are going to do out loud to
everyone else.

I say the following words directed towards the second

spectator.

“I am going to teach you how to use your intuition to find

98
 their thought of card”.

I now lean in and whisper my instructions for the second

spectator to follow.

“In a moment when I ask you to deal the cards one at a

time face up and to stop wherever feels right – I want you
to ignore your feelings and instead stop dealing as soon as
you see the head on the back of the cards held in your
hand flip upside down … nod if you understand”.

I now lean out and get confirmation from my spectator that

they understand these instructions. If the don't nod and give
confirmation that they understand I lean back in and give my
instructions again under the cover of a whisper.

You now direct the first spectator to hand the deck to the
second spectator and say the following openly to the second
spectator.

“I don't want to touch the cards at all … Deal the cards

slowly, one at a time, face up onto the table and stop
wherever feels right”.

The second spectator will now stop dealing as soon as they see
the one way design on the back of the cards held in their hand
flip upside down.

I now direct the spectator to deal the next card face down next
to the pile of face up cards already dealt to the table and then
direct the spectator to deal the rest of the cards face up.

“For the first time tell everyone the card you are

99
 thinking of …”

I get the spectator to say out loud their previous selection and
then turn over the face down card seemingly chosen by the
second spectator.

They match and we have a miracle! The second spectator has

seemingly used their feelings to find the first spectator's
thought of card.

I then coyly turn to the second spectator and say:

“Don't tell them how you do it!”.

This line in itself should be enough to ensure the second

spectator never reveals what you whispered in their ear. They
will not want to take away from themselves the accolade for
being able to successfully find the other participant's thought
of card or diminish their new found apparent magical abilities.

It is an aspect of Kenton's “Kentonism” bind and a line he

often uses to ensure an instant stooge doesn't speak after the
fact.

That's it!

This is a fun effect to perform and is I feel an interesting

combination of all of the principles we have discussed so far.

You may want to get the second spectator to close their eyes as
you whisper your instructions and whilst the first spectator
shuffles and cuts the deck, so that no one will suspect they are
able to track where the selection ends up in the deck. You can
then direct them to open their eyes again once your whisper

100
and the selection procedure is over.

I would instruct them to close their eyes before handing the

deck to the first spectator to shuffle and then continue with my
scripting.

This will make sense within the context of the routine. Because
the second spectator is going to be finding the card the first
spectator selects, you don't want them to be looking during the
selection procedure. It seems the reason you ask for them to
close their eyes is in order to keep everything fair.

Section Two
Binary Techniques
If you have not already read the previous section where I
outline the two colour mental force then go back and read that
method otherwise what follows will not make much sense.

The following effects and various different approaches to

method rely on this single binary choice being made by the
spectator at the beginning of your set.

Then this seemingly free choice of colour is secretly linked to

further choices the spectator will make in order to achieve an
effect that appears larger than the sum of its parts from the
point of view of everyone else watching.

In fact, the audience members will often not even be aware that

101
the spectator's previous choice between two colours is relevant
or has anything to do with the effect being performed.

The way we hide this connection between the binary choice and
other subsequent choices made by the spectator from the
audience's perception is with one of the whisper methods
already discussed.

I have purposefully taught the work in this book in a modular

fashion giving you different options for you to consider and
piece together in whatever way you feel they should be.

Each of the effects that rely on this binary principle consist of

the following three distinct components:

1. The spectator mentally chooses a colour out of a

possibility of two colours (binary choice).
2. The performer whispers instructions in the ear of the
spectator that relate to their choice of colour in some way.
3. The spectator acts in a specific manner based on their
choice of colour.

Of course, the steps carried out above will appear very different
to the audience from their specific point of view.

This is where the “dual reality” principle comes into play. The
spectator will have a different version and understanding of
what takes place compared to how the audience members at
large perceive what happens.

The easiest way to show you how everything fits together is to

explain each of these steps and various principles at work
within the context of each of the specific effects I use them for.

102
I typically perform the mental colour force at the start of sets
that I know I am going to want to utilize the force in. This is
done in order to create a sense of distance and isolation from
the force and its subsequent use in another seemingly
unrelated effect, later on in the set.

If you prefer then you can perform the colour force closer to the
moment of its secret use in another effect but I prefer to get it
out of the way early on so that it feels like it applies in a more
general and less localized sense.

Handling it this way also allows for me to more purposefully

frame it as a way for me to get in tune with the spectator's
thoughts. It should appear that the reason I have the spectator
choose between two colours and focus on their choice of colour
and then allow it to drift back into their subconscious mind is
so that I can calibrate with their thoughts on a subconscious
level which then allows me to have access to the rest of their
thoughts on a conscious level.

I think of this as a base thought that carries a specific mental

frequency which corresponds to the frequency of their thought
of colour I am then able to tune into. Kind of like tuning into a
specific radio frequency in order to hear the rest of whatever is
playing on that specific channel.

I suggest performing the mental colour force first then

performing other effects unrelated to the force in between this
and the effect that eventually utilizes the force as leverage to
make it work.

For the purpose of explanation we will assume that I have

already performed the mental colour force up front at the
beginning of my set and then seemingly dismissed it to the rest

103
of the audience.

“Okay, just allow that thought to go back into your

subconscious mind as we move on and try
something else …”

I would then typically perform one or two other pieces totally

unrelated to the force in terms of method and am now ready to
begin applying what we already secretly know in another effect.

The Secret Nailed On!

Binary Intuition
Playing Cards
The following effect utilizes the mental colour force already
discussed.

If you have followed everything so far you will now be in a

position during your performance where you secretly know
which of the two colours: red or blue the spectator chose
previously.

They will always be focusing on or have chosen the colour blue.

It is therefore possible to use this information to build on the

simple binary nature of the mental colour force and create

104
something much larger in terms of effect.

Instead of revealing the correct choice out of two you can take
this fifty fifty choice and use it to create the illusion that the
spectator had a much larger field of choice; such as a one in
fifty two choice of a playing card.

The effect is as follows:

A playing card is taken from the deck by a spectator, sight

unseen and is then placed face down on the table. This is a free
choice of playing card as far as everyone is concerned.

The performer then declares they are going to teach someone

else how to use their intuition to intuitively pick up on the
identity of the card which has been freely selected from out of
the deck by the first participant. They lean in and whisper
these instructions into the ear of the spectator tasked with
using their intuition.

The participant confirms for the audience that they currently

have no idea what card has been placed face down on the table
by the first spectator.

The performer then asks the participant who has been given
the whispered instructions whether they intuitively feel the face
down card is a number or a picture card.

They answer out loud. Then the performer instructs the

spectator to only answer silently in their head from this point
onwards and begins to ask further questions pertaining to the
specific details of this card.

The participant answers the rest of these questions in their

105
head and is then asked to build up an image in their mind of
whatever they feel the face down card is based on all of their
answers.

They say a playing card out loud and the card placed face
down on the table earlier is turned over to show it matches
their intuitively chosen card perfectly. This is seeming
confirmation they were able to truly use their intuition
successfully in order to intuit the identity of the card placed
face down.

I will now break down the method and teach you all of the
subtleties of scripting as well as explain why the structure of
the effect is important.

First of all we have a playing card selected out of the deck. This
can be any force as long as it is one that looks and feels
completely fair and hands off to everyone involved.

I force the Queen of Hearts.

The reason for this will become clearer in a moment. Any

Queen can be forced at this point but it is important your force
card is one of the Queens from out of the deck. This card is
selected and placed face down onto the table without anyone
looking at its identity.

This is important!

Don't look at it yourself and if you can look away as it is

chosen out of the deck and arrange to have a spectator place
their hand over the back of the card or place a book or other
item on top of it to rule out any notion that you could be
reading markings or know the identity of the card.

106
The reason for these additional precautions will become clear
in a moment and are not essential but can increase the
seeming impossibility of the effect.

You are going to offer your spectator a series of binary choices

by asking them questions and having them answer each of
these questions silently in their head. In this way you will
funnel their choice down to one playing card (the force card).

It is much easier to box their choices into the picture cards

first and to then narrow down to one specific picture card when
dealing with binary choices than it is to get down to any other
playing card in the deck. The Queens are easily distinguished
from the rest of the picture cards with a simple binary choice
between male and female. There is only one female picture card
and two male cards, for instance.

This is why I always force one of the Queens.

However, it is possible to perform this effect using any force

card you wish. More on this in a moment.

I always really loved Kenton's “The Secret” as a method and

whilst it is not my method to teach here it is enough to say that
you are essentially presenting the spectator with a series of
genuine binary choices literally having the spectator trust their
intuition to decide between two options each time and in doing
so guide them to intuitively pick up on playing cards and other
information hidden from view.

The following method is my take on Kenton's idea.

My method doesn't rely on actual intuition to make it work but

107
creates the illusion of such abilities being present in your
spectator perfectly in what I feel is a more sure fire manner
than Kenton's wonderful method. If you like this premise and
want to do it for real then check out Kenton's work. Otherwise
continue reading to see how I fake this in such a convincing
manner.

I will assume you have already performed the mental colour

force that underpins this method previously in your set and are
now ready to teach the same spectator how to use their
intuition to somehow know the identity of the card placed face
down on the table.

You secretly know the spectator chose the colour blue

previously.

I address this spectator out loud in front of the group with the
following script.

“I am going to teach you how to use your intuition – if at

any point I ask you to play along then tell everyone that's
what I have done …”

I now lean in and whisper the following instructions so that

only they can here.

“In a moment, I am going to ask you more than one

question. If you were thinking of the colour blue before I
want you to always answer each question with the first
option I give you, otherwise answer however you want …
nod if you understand”.

It is important to always state that there will be more than one

108
question they will need to answer in the same way. If you don't
include this scripting then there is a chance the spectator will
answer correctly the first time and then answer haphazardly
for the rest of the questions.

I now lean out and wait for confirmation that they understand
the instructions. If they don't nod right away or seem unsure
then lean in and deliver your instructions again before they
have a chance to speak.

You are now set to perform the effect.

Because they feel they had a free choice of which colour to

think of previously it will still seem like the instructions you
have given are fair to a certain degree.

How would you be able to influence their choices if you don't

know what colour they were thinking of previously? You
wouldn't be able to.

The worse case is they think you are helping them based on
having already read their mind to know what colour they
chose. They will still be impressed that you somehow know
their colour and are able to use it as a guiding factor for them
to successfully intuit which card has been placed face down on
the table.

They also won't want to take away from their apparent abilities
and own achievement once they successfully guess the correct
playing card and will therefore likely keep the little help you
gave them secret from everyone else.

Not only will they get this minor effect of you somehow knowing
all along what colour they were focusing on they will also be

109
impressed in a similar way they would be if you were to also
guess the card taken from the deck yourself.

The fact you seemingly don't know the identity of the selected
card also makes it seem impossible that you can guide their
choices.

They will be fooled off the fact the card is forced and this will
give them a greater effect.

Their larger reaction will then act as a substitute for the lack of
a reaction that would be expected from the audience's point of
view if they were truly able to use their intuition to know the
identity of the face down card.

The dual reality will blend together in this way and nothing will
be questioned.

But we are already getting ahead of ourselves.

The first question I ask is one that doesn't apply to the binary
choices that follow and is a simple way of establishing to
everyone else watching that the spectator doesn't know the
identity of the card to begin with.

I gesture towards the face down card and ask the spectator
who is going to be guessing the card the following.

“Is there any way you could know what card this is?”

They will answer with a “no”.

This is great as it fits how this effect should look outwardly.

They really don't know what the card is at this point and so

110
their answer will confirm the effect from the audience's
perspective as well as indirectly tell everyone that the spectator
isn't just playing along or has been told the card in the
whisper.

“So first of all … Do you feel this is a picture or a number

card?”

I ask the first binary question openly before muting the

spectator's responses and directing them to answer silently in
their head. The reason for this is so that they will say their first
choice out loud.

This will allow me to see if the spectator is following along with

my whispered instruction. If they answer with the first option I
give then I know I am on track for them being able to
successfully guess the card. If not then I know that they have
not followed along and the trick will fail.

They will indefinitely respond with “a picture card” at this

point.

Not only is this a little built in safety measure it is also

essential to being able to easily nail them down onto a specific
card in a way that makes sense from a theatrical point of view.

If I had them make this first choice silently without verbalizing

their answer then it wouldn't make sense later on when I begin
to narrow down their choice between the possible picture cards
unless I was somehow reading their mind throughout the
process.

I can have them focus on something as specific as which

picture card they feel this is and doing so makes logic sense

111
because they have essentially told me up front which general
group they feel the card falls into and seemingly made this
choice themselves.

Now I have got this first answer verbalized I can continue

asking questions and have the spectator answer silently in
their head with questions that make sense in regards to this
more generalized first choice.

It is also important to always say the words “So first of all …”

so that the spectator knows that what comes next is the first
question out of the series and now is when you want them to
begin following your previous instructions.

“Okay, from now on just answer silently in your head –

don't say anything out loud, okay?”

Here I give the instruction for them to stay mute for the rest of
the routine. I feel having them answer in their heads creates a
nice aesthetic for this routine and also allows you to adjust
their final answer.

It also means that the spectator's won't be able to work out the
card being built up based on the spectator's answers. If they
were able to follow each answer and arrive at the card
themselves then this could potentially spoil the reveal and take
the impact out of the climax of the routine.

I always ask them if they understand and if they give me a

verbal answer at this point I can quickly remind them not to
say anything out loud. This is a great way of checking and
reaffirming your instruction for them to stay silent I learnt from
Peter Turner.

112
Now I continue to ask questions always placing the binary
choice I want them to make first in my list of options.

“Do you feel this is a red or black card?”

They will choose red.

“Do you feel this is a Heart, Spade, Club or Diamond?”

Here I offer more than one choice but due to my previous

instructions they will still understand to pick the very first
option I give.

This helps misdirect away from the method even further as far
as the audience are concerned and makes this impossible to
back track.

It will appear as if you are giving much more choice to the

spectator than you actually are. The spectator will feel they
could have chosen the first option or any of the other options
offered.

It is on the last question I begin to change things up a little. I

place the choice I want them to make that corresponds to the
force card out of order and instead of placing it as the first
choice I place it as the second choice.

“You said you felt this is a picture card so … Do you feel

this is a Male or Female picture card?”

The reason for this is so that I can again misdirect away from
the method from the perspective of everyone else watching. It
also allows me to apparently read the mind of the spectator
and catch them making a mistake.

113
“I feel the answer you just thought of is wrong … so change
this last answer to the opposite choice”.

I feel this is a nice bit theatrically. It looks as if you are perhaps

able to see their thoughts each step of the way and help them
whenever they need guidance on using their intuition.

This of course fits the premise of the effect as well as being

close to the truth in terms of how what you are doing is
experienced by the spectator. There is therefore, little for them
to expose as you appear to be helping them use their intuition
on every level.

I suggest only doing this change up once and on the last

question whenever utilizing this method just to ensure you
don't confuse the process and cause the spectator to go off
track with their answers.

They will of course change from their first choice which was
“male” to “female” and can now successfully guess the force
card based on all of their answers.

Here I further solidify for everyone watching the notion that the
spectator is genuinely using their intuition by creating a
moment where they build an image of the card in their mind
that appears to rely on their previous intuitive decisions.

“Take your time to slowly build an image of whatever you

intuitively feel this card is based on your previous answers
and when you've got it, say it out loud!”

They will name your force card the Queen of Hearts.

114
I then instruct them to turn over the face down card and now
you have a miracle!

The scripting is important in this effect as with all of my effects

that rely on words to make them work. I have outlined certain
words in bold to highlight their importance but in either case
always ponder on the scripting and think about why I may say
the things I say in the ways that I do. It is the subtlety of
language and the precise scripting that is sometimes the
difference between something working reliably and failing
completely.

If you wish to use a different force card such as one of the

number cards then you can perform the effect in exactly the
same way as previously described but instead of nailing down
on the Queen nail down on the number by providing a choice of
three numbers placing the force number first, after already
narrowing their selection with high or low qualification.

Here are the questions I would ask if I was to force a number

card such as the three of Spades.

“Do you feel this is a Low or a High card?”

I ask this question openly and then mute the spectator for the
same reason already discussed, so that I can call back to their
own choice when nailing down on the specific card.

“Do you feel this is a black or red?”

“Do you feel this is a Spade, Club, Heart or Diamond?”

“Do you feel this is a three … four or five?”

115
As you can see performing the effect this way is not as specific
and as streamlined as when you force a Queen but I have
included it for completeness.

I prefer to force one of the Queens and go from there.

Before moving on I would like to make a point about the way I

handle giving the binary instructions in each of the effects in
this book that utilize this as the core method.

I always give a specific instruction for the option relating to

their thought of colour and then give them a completely free
and open choice of how to respond for the second option.

This helps create the illusion that they have a completely free
choice in the mind of the spectator due to the fact they could
have easily thought of a different colour. It helps nudge this
effect into being considered by the spectator as being much
more than a simple choice between two options.

It also ensures the spectator will not feel that you are somehow
picking up on a pattern of behaviour throughout the
performance of these effects that rely on multiple choices being
made by the spectator. They will understand that it is not
possible for you to rely on any of their previous choices to
inform you of their next choice due to the fact these choices
could have been made at random, if they happen to be thinking
of a different colour.

This method and the various principles involved can also be

used to create the illusion that the spectator is able to
successfully guess other information using their intuition as
opposed to it just being limited to playing cards.

116
 Animals
Binary Intuition
It is possible for the spectator to guess thoughts belonging to a
wide variety of categories such as names, star signs, numbers,
objects and animals.

In fact, most categories can be used providing the target

thought is something that can be easily broken down into its
constituent parts where each of its defining characteristics fit
into a binary type of questioning.

I will give you an example of how I would apply this method to

the spectator guessing an animal written on a card first and
then show you how you might utilize this with other categories.

The first part of the method lies in having a specific word or

thought freely selected from out of a deck of cards. I typically
write on my playing cards as well as have spectators write
information down and then subsequently peek whatever they
have written during my performance.

I think of a deck of cards as a tool or fifty two pieces of card I

may as well write on because they are already there. This
allows me to perform various peeks I have invented over the
years that utilize a deck of cards.

My deck of cards has pretty much replaced all of my billet work

and this means all I need on me is a deck of cards and a

117
marker pen and I am good to go. I no longer need to carry
billets or additional pieces of card around with me.

This means that at any one time I may have a series of words
written on the faces of the cards in my deck including names,
star signs, numbers etc. This information includes information
that I have either peeked or written down as part of a reveal.

All I need to do to perform this effect is ensure I have a few

different words written on cards throughout the deck as well as
the force item or thought you are aiming for the spectator to
successfully guess using their intuition.

If you prefer then you can make this up using business cards
or blank billets but I feel there is something organic and less
suspicious about using a deck of cards that is already in play.
That is if you already use a deck of cards in your performance.

I now perform a force of the playing card with my force item

written on its face. This can be any force as long as it looks and
feels fair to everyone involved including the person who will be
selecting the card.

The force is performed face down so that no one, not even you,
can see what is written on the cards face. Only the participant
who takes out the force card from the deck will see what is
written on its face.

If I was performing a classic force I might say something along

the lines of:

“Take a card out of the deck don't look at it and place it

face down on the table”.

118
If you are performing with a deck of cards that only has ten to
twelve different words written on separate cards then I might
opt for the following forcing method.

Before performing any force I would openly spread through the

faces of the deck stopping on two or three of the cards with
writing on as I state the following.

“I have a few different words written on each face of the

cards. These are words that people have written down for
me to try to guess. There are probably twenty to thirty
different words written in this deck, so far”.

This is done face up and in full view of everyone watching as a

way to show the condition of the deck. Here I simply over
estimate the amount of words I have written in the deck. This
is a bold faced lie but if you casually spread through the deck
and don't try to hide anything and explicitly show a few of
these different words then what you say will be accepted as
fact.

Be sure not to show the force item written down. This is just so
that it doesn't become something that the audience members
remember.

The card with the force written on it is usually positioned near

the middle of my deck in preparation for the force so will be
easy to hide by block pushing a few cards as one near the
middle of the deck during the display.

In fact, only a few cards will ever be fully displayed so as long

as you don't display the faces of any of the cards in the middle
of the deck all the audience will ever be able to see is the edge
of the cards as you spread the deck and this will keep the force

119
word hidden.

Thinking about it now, you could literally get away with only
having one card with anything written on and just spread
through the deck face up and boldly state the following.

“ … as you can see most of the cards have something

written on them”.

This is a bold bluff type of display.

Of course, you wouldn't actually show any of the cards have

writing on including the force card.

Everyone will have to assume what you are saying is true.

Why would you confidently spread through faces of the cards

to show different words written on their faces, if none of the
cards had writing on their face?

They have to assume you wouldn't and therefore what you say
must be true.

Spreading through a deck of cards in this way doesn't really

show much of each card face anyway, so as long as you don't
rush through spreading the cards or do so in a way that
suggests guilt to onlookers then you will get away with such a
bold display of the cards.

The audience members will only be able to see one edge of each
of the cards as you fairly quickly spread through the faces of
the deck.

Don't spread to quickly as to arouse suspicion that something

120
is amiss but also don't take too long when displaying the cards
in this way.

It should look like you are being as open as possible but also
efficient with the time it takes you to display the faces of the
cards. If you rush this procedure too much then it will look like
you are trying to hide something.

The key to getting this display correct is is to act naturally, as

if you truly do mean to show each of the cards have something
written on their faces.

It is all about your attitude. If you act as if what you are saying
is true then it will be seen as true to everyone concerned.

The reason for miss calling the number of words written in the
deck and making it appear as if most of the cards are written
on is to make what you do in a moment appear that much
more impossible.

Not only will it make the effect more impressive for the
spectator the same way it would when they are guessing a one
in fifty two choice of a playing card but it will also cancel out
any notion of a force being utilized in the minds of everyone
watching.

The fact you don't need anywhere near as many cards with
writing on in the deck means you don't have to wait for your
deck to become full of words written by spectators to perform
the effect.

It also makes my force of choice that follows much easier to

accomplish thanks to the amount of blank cards or cards
without writing on that also exist in the deck.

121
To recap, you have displayed a few of the cards with writing on
by spreading through the deck face up or have opted for the
bold bluff display already talked about.

The force card with your target thought written on it is near the
middle of the deck surrounded by twenty or so blank cards or
cards with nothing written on their face.

I now perform a false overhand shuffle that retains the

complete order of the deck. The “island” shuffle is a useful false
shuffle that can be utilized in this situation.

Now I can perform the easiest classic force I know.

I spread through the cards and instruct the spectator to take

out a group of cards from the middle of the deck.

“Take out seven or eight cards from the middle of

the deck …”

It will seem completely fair due to your previous false shuffle.

They will assume the cards are in a mixed order so it won't
matter to them that they are taking a bunch of cards from out
of the middle of the deck. This will seem as if you mean to
make their selection process as easy and convenient for them
as possible.

This allows for a beautiful subtlety of language that creates a

further seeming free choice being made by the spectator.

“Be careful not to show anyone else the cards. Take out a
card with something written on it and place it face down on
the table. If there is more than one card with something
122
 written on it then chose between those cards”.

Of course, there will only be one card with anything written on

it contained in their group of cards.

This will be the force card thanks to your previous

arrangement of the deck.

Due to your instructions they will have to now take this card
out of the deck and in doing so they effectively force the card
on themselves.

However, your words will make it seem as if they had a

completely free choice as to what card to take.

The participant will assume the other cards with writing on are
shuffled somewhere else in the deck and they just happened to
take out a group of cards that only contained one written on
card.

Of course, the participant gets to see what is written on the

card but no one else does as you instruct them to place this
card face down on the table.

You are now ready to begin performing the effect the same way
you would if you were doing this with a selection of a playing
card. However, in stead of the second spectator using their
intuition to guess the identity of the playing card itself they are
going to try to guess what word is written on the card.

First of all, I announce to everyone that I am going to teach

someone how to use their intuition to guess what is written on
the card.

123
I address the spectator who I have previously performed the
mental colour force with.

“I am going to teach you how to use your intuition to guess

what is written on this card. If at any point I ask you to
play along then tell everyone that's what I have done”.

I now lean in and whisper the following instructions in the

spectator's ear.

“In a moment, I am going to ask you more than one

question. If you were thinking of the colour blue before I
want you to always answer each question with the first
option I give you, otherwise answer however you want …
nod if you understand”.

I lean out and get my confirmation that they understand the

instructions. They will confirm they understand my
instructions with a nod of the head. If they don't then I repeat
my whispered instructions, as already explained.

Then I ask a question that acts as confirmation that they are

not set up in any way.

“Is there any way you know what is written on this card?”

They will answer with a “no” and this proves nothing has been
set up to the rest of the audience as well as establishes that at
this moment in time the spectator genuinely doesn't know what
is written down.

“So first of all … Do you feel this is an animal … a name …

a number … an object or a star sign?”

124
They will of course answer with the first category I mention due
to my previous instruction for them to so so.

Of course this will be the animal category.

This works in the same way as when the suit is selected when
utilizing this method with playing cards.

The spectator will always name whatever option I say first due
to my previous instructions. It is still a binary option: either
they choose the first option or one of the other options.
However, due to the audience not being aware of the binary
choice at play it will appear as if the spectator truly has a free
choice out of all of the categories in the list.

This is beautiful.

What is especially nice about its use in this scenario is the fact,
it appears the spectator is nominating the category to work
with themselves.

They are apparently using their intuition to narrow down on

the generalized category or theme of whatever word they feel is
written down before answering more specific details about this
word.

I always get the spectator to verbalize this first answer as this

allows me to now ask questions that relate to the force word
without appearing to lead the spectator in anyway.

They chose this category so it makes sense from everyone's

point of view to now ask questions specific to this group.

125
Here is when I now instruct the spectator to stay silent and
only answer the rest of my questions mentally inside their
head.

“Okay, from now on stay completely silent and only answer

in your head”.

As already explained in the previous playing card version

having the spectator now answer in their own head allows for
me to change their last answer as well as ensures the audience
at large are not able to follow along with the answers given by
the spectator.

This is important as it stops them getting to the same force

item as the spectator and potentially spoiling the surprise of
the subsequent reveal to follow.

To be on the safe side I may intermittently remind the

spectator not to speak throughout the rest of the process.

“Just answer in your head … Do you feel this is something

that resides in water or is land based?”

They will answer silently in their head that they feel this is
something that lives in water.

“Do you feel this is something that is large compared to say

an Elephant or do you feel this is something smaller?”

Again they will answer with the first option I present:

something larger than an Elephant.

“And finally … remember say nothing out loud … Do you

126
feel this is something that is dangerous and likely to attack
other animals or do you feel this is something that can be
considered more peaceful?”

It is important to remind the spectator not to say anything out

loud at this point as this is when you apply the ruse of having
them first answer incorrectly in their head so that you can
seemingly pick up on this wrong answer and then get them to
adjust.

If they say their answer out loud at this point then you will not
have any leverage theatrically to get them to adjust this
answer. You will be forced to use this wrong answer and this
will lead them down the wrong path and cause the effect to fail.

I suggest always reminding them in this way whenever utilizing

this ploy on the last question no matter what item you are
forcing.

You now get the spectator to form an image of whatever they

feel this item could be based on all of their answers.

“Take your time to slowly build an image of whatever you

intuitively feel this is based on your previous answers and
when you've got what you feel this is, say it out loud!”

They will name your force item of a whale and all that is left to
do is have them turn over the face down card to show they
have successfully guessed what was written.

If forcing a whale I suggest writing the words “Killer Whale” on

the card as the target thought. This creates a slight ambiguity
as to whether this animal could be considered dangerous or

127
more peaceful and helps create the notion in everyone's minds
that perhaps the spectator's choices were not as restricted as
they actually are due to the binary questions effectively leading
them to the correct animal.

The reason they don't pick a shark for example is because they
now know based on their answers that what might be written
down is something that is not typically considered dangerous
and likely to attack other animals.

Although whales can be considered dangerous because of their

size they can also be seen as cumbersome animals that
peacefully swim through the ocean not being bothered by any
of the smaller creatures (as they are the largest and most
powerful).

There is therefore, no reason for them to attack other animals

in the way we may imagine a shark attacking other animals or
even humans that may temporarily occupy the same area of
sea.

Due to this and the fact the spectator has pretty much no other
choice left when considering all of their answers they will
indefinitely choose a whale after we funnel their answers down
and box them into this final choice.

They know that what is written is something that lives in the

sea, is larger than an Elephant and can be considered peaceful
as opposed to something dangerous that also likely attacks
other animals.

The only animal they can think of that fits all of these criteria
is a whale.

128
 Names
Binary Intuition
Of course other categories can be used such as star signs,
names, numbers, objects etc. as long as the force item is
something that can be forced via a series of binary questions.

If you wanted you could get the spectator to write something

down from out of one of these general categories. They
themselves don't even specify verbally which category they have
gone for.

You can then peek this information so that only you know what
is written along with the first spectator and then apply this
same method to a secondary spectator to create the illusion
they are able to use their intuition to guess what the first
spectator is thinking of.

This is a lot harder to perform than when we use a force as

freeing up their choice makes it difficult to control certain
variables and means we will have to think on our feet when
choosing which binary questions to ask the participant.

Therefore, I suggest either always using a force written on a

card or always choose the category yourself and simply direct
the spectator what to write down. This way we can use certain
restrictions to ensure the spectator will get close with their
guess.

129
This is a big hint and something I will leave for you to try out
after briefly explaining how you can utilize this principle with
other force items from different categories.

I will now run through the various scripting I may use when
utilizing this method with other force items that are already
pre-written in the deck.

The fact we have the force item already written means we can
control various attributes of the item to ensure it is something
we can force.

For example, when forcing a name we may want to make this a

common name that someone could easily guess as opposed to
one that is difficult to guess.

We want to also only use force names that lend themselves to

being easily guessed using methods that we would typically
employ when doing this in a prop-less manner ourselves. The
only difference is we are shifting these various ploys so that
they can be applied to binary questions that a spectator can
easily answer in order to nail down on a specific name
themselves.

If we are using a force I suggest using a male name that has a

common spelling. These are names with much fewer outs then
female names in my culture and will allow us to ask certain
binary questions that will lead to the spectator successfully
guessing the name or getting close.

Let's say we have forced the name Tom and we want the
spectator to use their intuition to be able to guess this name
written on a card.

130
I would ask the first question as follows.

“Do you feel this is a common name or something more

obscure … like a star sign, object, animal or number?”

This serves a dual purpose. It not only allows the spectator to

seemingly choose the category of names themselves but it also
restricts their choice of name to one that is a common spelling
whilst we seemingly refer to the rest of the possible choices of
category as more obscure pieces of information.

The slight pause is what breaks the meaning of the sentence as

a whole to ensure the spectator follows the correct path we lay
out in front of them.

They will of course say out loud that they think this is a
common name.

We now have the spectator answer the rest of the questions

silently in their head now that they have apparently specified
the category we will be working with themselves.

“Do you feel this is a male or female name?”

“Do you feel this is a short name of three letters … or a

longer name consisting of four, five, six or even more
letters?”

They will now chose the shorter option of three letters due tot
he fact this is the first option you give broken up by a slight
pause. But what is nice is that once the entire sentence has
been spoken the slight pause disappears and the audience at
large remember hearing a much more varied amount of options

131
concerning the length of the name and amount of letters.

The reason we use a three letter name is due to the fact there
are not many possible names for the spectator to choose from
once they know the first letter which gives us more chance of
them getting a hit and guessing correctly.

There are two options for feeding the correct first letter to the
spectator. You can either tell them what letter the word written
on the card will begin with during your whisper as you set up
the effect and instruct them to always go with the first option
you give or you can do it during the performance as you ask
questions.

If you are going to apply it to the set up whisper then you can
frame it as you helping them. They will still not know how you
knew the name because they are not aware of the fact you
peeked it and will still be impressed you somehow knew what
this word would begin with in order to be able to help them.

This means that you have to perform the peek before teaching
the spectator how to use their intuition if you are performing
this with a free choice of name another spectator thinks of
instead of a force.

If you want to do this with a longer name then I would suggest

forcing the spectator to think of a four letter name as these still
have less possible outs and not only provide them with the first
letter but also the second letter of the name during your
whisper.

The first and second letters can be whispered to the spectator

during the set up whisper or you can use the following ruse.

132
 “There are a few letters floating around in your
subconscious … remember only answer in your head …
which of these do you feel are relevant to the name … t … s
… d … p … j … e … o … i … or l?”

They will choose the letter “t” silently in their head.

Of course, we need to force a specific letter but don't want it to

be obvious that we are providing the letters and restricting the
process in this way. The way we handle this theatrically is by
labelling these letter choices as coming from the subconscious
of the participant. They can not argue that these are not their
own choices as they come from a part of their mind they are
not conscious of.

It is now we apply a relevance to this letter for the spectator

whilst at the same time obscuring their choice even further
from the point of view of everyone else watching.

“Do you feel this is the first letter … second letter… third
letter … forth letter or a letter in a completely different
position?”

They will of course think of this letter as the first letter of the
name.

We can now get them to say out loud what name they feel this
is based on all of their answers or if we are working with a
slightly longer name we can give them a clue as to the second
letter.

Here we create the illusion that we have picked up on the fact

they may have thought of a wrong second letter in their

133
previous answer. This is why it is important to provide a few
vowels in the list of possible letters when giving them the above
choice so that what comes next makes logical sense.

“Just look at me for a moment … I feel like you may have

the second letter of the name wrong … This is the only
piece of information I am going to give you out right … The
second letter is an O”.

This bit of by play causes the audience members at large to

assume the spectator thought of the wrong letter in the second
position of the name which in turn makes their previous choice
and the letters you verbalize appear irrelevant and not
important in enabling the spectator to accurately guess the
name.

This kills the method for the audience and stops them thinking
in terms of you somehow being able to influence the spectator's
choices.

How will they be able to guess the name when all they really
have is the second letter? To the audience this seems to be an
impossible feat.

It makes their subsequent guessing of the name seem

impossible even when they are only close. They will still have a
name that sounds similar due to the fact it starts with the
same letter and therefore the spectator getting this close to the
correct name will still appear impressive to everyone
concerned.

You may prefer to leave the question pertaining to a male or

female name until last and use the ploy of getting the spectator
to reverse their last answer as an additional throw off to

134
method from the audience perspective.

If you are performing this utilizing a peeked name then you can
restrict the choice of name being written down in the following
way.

This can either be performed directly as a set piece with the

category being chosen by yourself or you can add the following
restrictions after you have offered a free choice of category to
the spectator writing information down.

“There are a few people who are close to you that have been
on your mind recently.

“I want you to write down a male name with a common

spelling and write this in its short form so Peter would be
Pete, for example … just so that this isn't impossible for the
other person to guess”.

You frame the reason for your restrictions as making it easier

for the spectator to guess, which in reality it does but do it in
such a way it doesn't appear like you are giving any
restrictions.

It seems as if you are already picking up on specific names that

the spectator is thinking of or has recently had on their mind
and are simply directing them to write down the name that you
feel will be easiest for the second spectator to guess based on
your own impressions.

Everyone will still be impressed if the spectator even gets close

to guessing what is written.

135
Now you can peek the information secretly and allow the built
in restrictions and your binary questioning to do the work for
you.

If you offer a free choice of category to the spectator writing

information down then you also have to stipulate each of the
restrictions relevant to each category after you have stated
each of the possible categories they can choose from.

I think this is too much work and not worth the additional pay
off you would get from doing it this way, namely the spectator
using their intuition to seemingly guess the correct category as
well. I therefore recommend always stating what specific type of
information you want the spectator to write down in the way
already discussed so that everyone including the spectator
using their intuition is already aware of the target thought and
the restrictions applied to it.

If the spectator says a name that is only close to the name you
have peeked then you can take back the hit by saying the
following script before having the spectator confirm their
thought.

“I feel like you are close. This shows you just how difficult
it is to read someone else's mind”.

I now turn to the spectator who wrote down the information

and reveal what they are thinking.

If I am performing this as a force written on a card then I will

just state that they are close and then turn the card over on
the table. This will be good enough.

Of course if you are performing utilizing a peek then all you

136
need to do is adjust your questions so that the letters are
relevant to the name you have peeked to enable the spectator
using their intuition to nail down on the name or get close.

Star Sign
Binary Intuition
If I am using this method with a star sign that is forced on a
card I would first get the spectator to chose the category out
loud as already taught.

“First of all … Do you feel this is star sign … object …

animal … name … or number?”

They will say “star sign” out loud and appear to have chosen
the category to work with all by themselves.

I would then mute them as usual and instruct them to only

answer in their head from now on.

This is where I differ my approach to what has come before.

Typically, I would start of with more generalized questions

pertaining to characteristics of the target thought. However,
due to the nature of star signs not falling into instantly
recognizable traits or having characteristics that others are
generally familiar with I need to get the spectator locked onto
one star sign from the start whilst at the same time making it
look like they haven't yet made a decision.

137
The way I do this is by listing various signs up front yet making
it seem like I am talking about specific signs in a general sense.
I then ask questions afterwards that seem to be informing the
spectators decisions based on their own answers to these
questions that in fact, are irrelevant to their initial choice.

“Okay, from now on just answer in your head …

“Do you feel this is the most common sign people are born
under: Virgo or more likely one of the other twelve signs of
the zodiac?”

Most of the audience will now be thinking that it is likely a

different sign to Virgo based on the odds and will assume the
spectator has also chosen to go on the same path as them. This
helps misdirect away from the method and makes this first
question seem to be somewhat of a throw away meant as an
elimination before nailing down on a specific sign out of the
eleven remaining.

The audience will be impressed even if they remember that this

sign was said out loud at the start because it will appear that
the spectator somehow intuitively knew to choose this sign
even though it was against the odds and therefore a seemingly
counter intuitive choice.

I can now ask questions that are irrelevant to this choice to

ensure they don't change their mind throughout the process.

“Okay, so do you feel this sign belongs to someone who is

more of a creative personality type or someone who is more
analytical?”

138
The fact that I continue questioning the spectator indirectly
suggests to everyone watching that they have not chosen Virgo,
otherwise why would there be a need to continue at this point?

The audience members will assume that I somehow know that

the spectator has dismissed Virgo as an option and that is the
reason why I am now asking further questions to help them
use their intuition to nail down on a specific star sign that is
different.

This is the only way any of this makes sense logically.

This question also doesn't refer to the signs but actually to the
person they feel this sign may belong to which means you can
also add further similar questions and say these characteristics
back to them before the reveal seemingly proving they have
picked up on the person who wrote this information originally
and in doing so obtain additional hits.

“Do you feel this person is more of an extrovert and is the

life and soul of the party or more of an introvert?”

These are general questions that seem relevant to the star sign
but actually are not. It appears I am asking the spectator to
nail down on their choice of sign based on what they intuitively
know about the signs, whether they know this information or
not whilst at the same time linking this to a specific person
they are envisioning in their mind.

This means that the spectator will not change their initial
choice of sign as long as they are following your instructions
correctly.

139
“If I am correct I sense the person who wrote this sign was
actually very out going as well as creative … so just yes or
no … Did you pick up on both of these traits?.. you can
answer out loud now”.

They will respond with a “yes”. If you prefer you can write down
these traits and show the audience without showing the
participant and then have the spectator name the traits and
get additional hits here.

“The only way we can prove that you really did pick up on
these characteristics and traits would be if you also
managed to get their star sign correct – what star sign did
you go for from the very start?”

They then turn over the card and it matches their impressions.

Naturally, you can use the inversion ploy on the last

characteristic and have the spectator change their mind if you
wish to use this ruse as a further throw off to method, as you
would with other categories.

I would handle this differently if using this in conjunction with

a peek of another spectator's written down star sign.

The way I would do is is, forego having the spectator seemingly

intuitively guess the category and instead simply get the first
spectator to write down their star sign and peek it
unbeknownst to everyone present and then state I am going to
teach someone else how to read their mind in order to guess
this person's star sign.

If I am doing this with a peek of a playing card or billet that is

140
written on I would peek the spectator's writing during the
course of having it shuffled back into the deck and then as an
after thought ask the spectator to find their card or billet with
the writing on and place it face down on the table.

I then use the whisper technique to apparently teach the

second participant how to read their mind exactly the same
way I would if they were guessing a playing card chosen from
the deck. However, I also whisper some additional information
in their ear that can be used during the star sign reveal.

My additional whispered instructions are as follows.

“ … I only recently met someone who's star sign is …”

Here I say whatever sign I have peeked from the card followed
by the words:

“I feel this will be important in a moment”.

I then lean out and continue as usual.

“I haven't just told you what is written on this card?”

They will respond with a “no” as what you have just said is
true. The spectator thinks you have told them a piece of
information not relevant to what is written on the card. You
have in fact indirectly told them but this information doesn't
come into play or appear to be relevant just yet which allows
you to openly state the fairness of proceedings and have the
spectator confirm this to be the case.

“And there's no way I could know what is written on it

anyway. So right now, is there anyway you could know
141
 what star sign this is?”

Again they will have to respond with a “no” and in the process
will confirm you couldn't know what is written which validates
the force as well as that they don't already know the sign which
kills the notion they are instant stooges.

“So from now on I want you to just answer silently in your

head …”

“Do you feel this sign could belong to someone who is more
of an analytical personality type or someone who is more
creative?”

“Do you feel this sign denotes someone who is more out
going or is more of an introvert?”

Here I ask a few questions that are irrelevant in terms of the

spectator being able to successfully guess the correct sign.
They are provided for purely theatrical reasons.

I prefer not getting additional hits from their answers in this

version and instead leave their answers unaddressed. The
reason for this is because they are going to appear to relate to
the spectator who wrote down the star sign after the fact and I
don't want to create a moment where these characteristics
could be challenged as not belonging to this person.

This is then followed by the last question which is what

ultimately leads the spectator to think of the star sign I
whispered to them in my previous instructions.

“And finally, do you feel this is coincidentally the same star

142
sign as someone I have only recently met or do you feel this
is likely completely different?”

It is this final question that directs the spectator back to the

star sign I secretly whispered in their ear previously. They will
choose the first option I have given them which will be that
they feel this is the same star sign as the person I recently met
which will cause them to now go with the star sign I whispered
and linked as belonging to this person.

It's similar to creating a memory peg you can call back to with
pre-show but done in real time within the context of a close up
performance but what is especially nice about this approach is
I am able to create an association between the pre-show
information and its use in the moment. This allows me to
dismiss the fact I have told them the information up front, at
the start of the effect before it is made relevant to the routine.

It reminds me of Peter Turner's ploy for dismissing a pre-show

procedure. He would get someone to write information down on
a billet and then rip up the billet and ask the spectator to
dispose of it.

This happens before the show and this allows him to then
confidently state that their information doesn't exist in written
form anywhere as a throw off to magicians. Of course, the
spectator has to confirm what he says to be true as their
writing has been torn up and discarded prior to the
performance.

Now it is a simple case of getting the spectator to say out loud

whatever star sign they feel is written down.

“So just say out loud whatever star sign you feel this is …”

143
They will now say the star sign you previously peeked and
whispered in their ear and you can direct them to turn over the
card proving they were correct.

If you want then you can bring everything full circle theatrically
by saying the following scripting to the spectator who guessed
the sign.

“Of course, this is the person that I have recently met I was
referring to.”

I say this line as I gesture to the person who wrote down their
sign and now everything I said previously makes sense. It is as
if I was somehow tricking the other spectator into going with a
seemingly unknown person's sign who was actually in our
company all along.

It also seems as if I am exposing what I have done to the

audience at large so the spectator guessing the sign will be less
likely to feel the need to explain what has happened in terms of
what was whispered previously. To them I have just told the
audience that I referred to this person during my whisper.

If you prefer to not use something as weird as indirectly

referring to the person who you have only just met then you
can replace the additional instruction with the following.

“My girlfriend's star sign is …”

Again place whatever information you have peeked previously

at the end of this sentence and then continue.

“I think this will be important in a moment”.

144
And then instead of asking the spectator if they feel the written
sign is the same as someone you have recently met say the
following instead.

“Do you feel this is coincidentally the same sign as my

girlfriend?”

This will achieve the same results but in a way that is less
bizarre. Of course, you can use any personality in place of your
girlfriend. This is just my preference. I suggest not asking if
they feel it is the same as my own star sign as this is
something they could easily look up if they have access to your
social media.

They are not likely to go as far as look up your spouse or

girlfriend to check but if you are worried you can make this
something less specific and non de-script as a best friend they
will not be able to know.

If I you are using your girlfriend or friend as reference for the

sign you may want to also say that the sign just revealed does
actually belong to that person once the effect has come to its
conclusion.

“This is actually my girlfriend's star sign”.

Then if the spectator asks how you knew it was there sign this
line of questioning will not feel so out of place to everyone else
watching. The audience members will have to assume this that
you somehow knew it would relate to this specific person and
this is why you gave this as an option to the participant earlier
on in the routine.

145
 Playing Card Utility
Star Sign
If you prefer not to use the mental colour force when utilizing
this binary questioning method then another option is to force
a playing card early on in your set and to appear to attempt to
read the spectator's mind and instead of revealing their card
claim to not be struggling to pick up on it. The script would be
as follows.

“Okay, just focus on your card for me …”

I look at the spectator and pause for a few seconds and before
dismissing the reveal.

“I'm struggling to get this … perhaps we will come back to

it later”.

Now I can perform something different for someone else in the

group and when it comes to setting up the binary method I
simply refer back to this card when I whisper in this first
person's ear.

I use one of the justifications for the whisper previously

described and give the different instructions as follows.

“In a moment, I am going to ask you more than one

question. If you were thinking of a red card before I want

146
you to always answer each question with the first option I
give you, otherwise answer however you want … nod if you
understand”.

This achieves the same results as the binary mental colour

force but is slightly less risky as it is nailed on with a card
force. If you are worried about relying on the mental colour
force then this is yet another option. Of course you can use any
information you secretly know that has a binary element built
in such as the red or black characteristics of a playing card.

The various suits of the playing cards can also be used to

provide seemingly more possible choices for the spectator and
an increase in odds at play when they are linked to four
distinct thoughts as opposed to only two.

If you are using the “perfect nokey” shuffle to have a card

selected and are using a stack containing all of the cards of one
suit then you can know the colour of their chosen card and
suit without ever having to back to the deck after they have
shuffled and made their selection. This is something worth
considering.

I will cover this more later on when I explain my use for this
principle to create a ridiculously clean three phase which hand
routine but in this section of the book I would now like to cover
how I use a playing card force as well as the four different suits
to create a spectator as mind reader effect where they use their
intuition to guess what has been written down by a secondary
spectator.

If you are using various aspects of a playing card to make

something seemingly unrelated work then this means the
playing card is dismissed to begin with.

147
This leaves it as something that can either be forgotten about
altogether or revealed later on in your set after it has been
secretly used to help make something else work.

Due to the fact you are only utilizing certain aspects of their
thought of card in another routine such as it's colour or suit
means that you can reveal the rest of their card as a complete
thought later on, if you so desire and in doing so bring
everything full circle for the spectator who selected and
thought of a card previously.

The way I may do this is to first pretend to struggle to reveal

their thought of card then say we will try something else and
perhaps we will come back to their card later on. Then after I
have performed something else say the following.

“Okay, now I feel like I know more about how you think
focus on the card you took out of the deck from
the start …”

Now I can take out their card or nail it verbally. The spectator
will know themselves that I already know various details of the
card such as its colour or suit but will still react and be
impressed that I was able to reveal their whole card including
its value.

I would suggest always revealing their thought of card in this

way and doing so as soon as you have used details of this card
in another routine.

This way, if the spectator then mentions anything to do with

their thought of card or asks how you were able to guess
certain aspects of it then their curiosity will now make sense in

148
this context. This will not appear odd or out of context now
that you have had them overtly focus on their playing card and
finally revealed its identity.

I will now get into how I use a playing card I have forced and
dismissed as too difficult to read to begin with as a way to
create a spectator as mind reader.

Let's say I have had a secondary spectator write down their

star sign on a playing card or billet and I have secretly peeked
this information in the course of the deck or stack of billets
being shuffled in order to loose their card somewhere in the
deck.

The usual justifications for something being written down can

be used here.

I have also already had the first spectator think of a card from
out of the deck.

Now I turn to the spectator who chose a card previously and

teach them how to read the other person's mind.

“I am going to teach you how to read the other person's

mind … If at any point I ask you to play along then feel free
to tell everyone that is what I have done”.

The standard set up of premise occurs then I lean in and

whisper my instructions.

“I feel everything is connected via synchronicity … all I

want you to do is base your guess on this synchronicity …
so if you were thinking of a heart card previously this

149
 means they will be a Gemini …”

Here I say whatever star sign I know the other spectator is

based on the information I have secretly peeked. I then
continue with my script.

“If you were thinking of any other suit it means they will be
one of the other signs of the zodiac”.

I now lean back out and address the spectator I have just
whispered to saying the following words.

“So just answer with a yes or no … is there any way I could

know what star sign you are going to say?”

They will respond with a “no” due to the fact from their
perspective there seems to be no way I could know what suit
they were focusing on and therefore no way I could know
whether or not they will follow my suggestion of star sign that
was seemingly based on synchronicity.

This serves the same purpose as asking the spectator to

confirm I have not told them what the spectator is thinking of
without having to state it out right. My words indirectly suggest
this is the case. If I couldn't know what the spectator is going
to say then this means I couldn't have just told them what to
say.

It is important to prefix questions like these with a stipulation

for the spectator to only answer with a one word answer of
either “no” or “yes”. The reason for this is so that they don't
begin to say anything that could potentially tip the method
when answering the question.

150
Now all there is left to do is create the illusion that the
spectator is coming up with their guess in real time as opposed
to already knowing what the spectator's star sign is based on
their thought of card suit.

“So just look at (insert name of other spectator) take a deep

breathe in and let it out … and when you know what this is
just say out loud whatever star sign you feel belongs to
them”.

Of course, the participant already knows what sign belongs to

the spectator so they will not hesitate to say it. It will appear to
them that you are just making sure they have the correct sign
in mind before saying it out loud. To the rest of the audience
this will look as if there is an actual process the spectator is
following to be able to intuitively pick up on the other
spectator's thoughts.

Having the spectator first breathe in and out and pausing

slightly before instructing them to reveal the star sign they
think the other spectator is thinking of also helps create the
illusion that an actual process is taking place that enables
them to read minds.

151
 NO Force
+ Whisper Clean Up
+ Dismissive Intuition
It is possible to perform a spectator as mind reader using a
peek without needing to have previously performed either a
mental colour force or a card force.

Yes, that's right!

There is a way to create the illusion of one spectator reading

another's mind without the need for any additional process
other than the whisper you use to seemingly teach the first
spectator how to do it.

The following technique can be used with pretty much any

information providing it can be written down and peeked by the
performer without anyone knowing.

If using this for a name guess it is no longer required to restrict

the participant's choice of name in any way when giving your
instructions for them to write down a name of someone close to
them.

This is a clever way to basically tell the spectator what the

other person is thinking of whilst still allowing you to get the

152
spectator to confirm they don't know what the spectator is
thinking after the whisper.

Imagine I have already peeked a piece of information after

having one of the spectator's write down their thoughts.

I am now ready to teach a different spectator how to read the

other person's mind with a whisper.

“I am going to teach you how to read the other person's

mind. If at any point I ask you to play along then tell
everyone I have done this”.

I now lean in a whisper the following.

“In order to read their mind you have to know what being
wrong feels like first to be able to tell when you are correct
… so just focus on the sign …”

Here I say the star sign I know belongs to the other spectator
or whatever information they have written down I secretly know
after my peek.

“... I feel this is wrong so dismiss it!”

Now I can lean out and confidently state the following.

“So right now is there any way you could know what star
sign they are thinking of?”

They will respond with a “no” and in the process confirm they
don't already know the star sign which indirectly proves you
haven't just told them what to go for.

153
This is beautiful as it kills any method that could exist in the
minds of those watching.

You haven't told the spectator the other person's information

as far as everyone is concerned. However, you have in fact
actually given them this information. They are just not aware of
this yet as it doesn't seem relevant other than from a theatrical
stand point. If anything the spectator guessing their thought
believes you have told them what you feel isn't their thought.

This labelling of thoughts is later reversed for the spectator so

that they are able to guess the information correctly.

“So just allow whatever sign you feel this is to come into
your mind and feel free to change your mind a few times”.

They will now be thinking of a star sign you know is incorrect

which leaves you in the perfect position to now adjust their
thought for them.

This appears as if you are helping them use their intuition. It

seems as if perhaps you already know the thought via some
kind of mind reading and now you are just nudging them in
the right direction.

I look at the spectator for a few seconds and then say the
following.

“I feel like this has worked in reverse so just stick with

whatever sign you dismissed from the start and say it out
loud … ”

They will now cast their mind back to the star sign you told
154
them to dismiss during your whisper and say this as their
impression.

To audience members it will appear as if you have given the

spectator a free choice to change their mind a few times after
instructing them to settle on a star sign. Then you have used
your own abilities to see where they may have gone wrong with
their impressions in order to adjust their thoughts for them.

It looks as if you have picked up on the fact that their intuition

is working in reverse and can tell that they have dismissed
their first correct impression and changed one or more times to
the wrong answer falsely believing these impressions to be
correct.

However, the spectator will perceive this in reverse and think

that you were the one who was applying their intuition in
reverse. They will think you made a mistake by telling them to
dismiss the first sign and that you somehow realized this at the
end of the routine just in time to adjust their answer to ensure
they could end successfully.

They will be fooled based on the fact you were able to somehow
single out the correct sign even when it was a negative
impression to begin with as well as choose to direct them back
to this thought in order to provide a successful conclusion to
the routine.

To them you were still able to know the correct information to

make the effect work and this is what they are impressed with.

They realize you were the engineer behind all of this and are
still fooled by the fact you couldn't have known the information
yourself to help them.

155
The effect is also framed in such a way from their perspective
to make this theatrically sound and make sense as an effect for
them too as well as for the rest of the audience.

As I have already mentioned this technique can be use for any

peeked piece of information I just chose to explain this within
the context of them guessing someone else's star sign as this is
the example I was working through at the time of writing.

You may be wondering what happens if the spectator mentions

anything after the fact that could potentially tip the method
and reveal aspects of what was whispered to them earlier on
such as asking how I was able to know what the spectator had
written.

This is something I don't worry about particularly.

If the spectator does speak after the fact then all it will do is
cause others to see the effect from their perspective which is
still impressive. They will still not know how you knew the
thought in order to help the spectator in any way.

Most of the time they will not have the chance to reflect on
what has just happened or discuss it due to the fact I quickly
move on to the next effect in my set which causes everyone to
focus on something new.

These type of effects are best performed sandwiched between

other effects in your set so they are seen as additional hits that
are bolstered by the other effects you perform that don't rely on
any kind of instant stooge or whisper methods. This way both
methods cancel each other out in the minds of everyone
involved.

156
Having said this there is a chance that during their reaction to
the effect they may tip part of the method or say something
that jars with the audience's perception and experience of the
effect.

This is something you may want to ensure doesn't happen and

is something that can be easily cleaned up with scripting.

My solution is to stop this from being a possibility right from

the beginning by adding on the following line to my whisper
whenever I am giving my instructions to a spectator.

“ … When you speak about this afterwards don't ask me

how I know the things I do and be careful NOT to say
anything that would give away what I have whispered to
you … otherwise this will unravel the illusion for everyone
else”.

This line will cover everything that the spectator could say after
the fact. If you prefer to keep your whisper as short as possible
then I suggest using the first line of this additional scripting,
on its own.

“ … When you speak about this afterwards don't ask me

how I know the things I do”.

This will cover you from the possibility of the participant

accidentally tipping the fact you knew anything and were
perhaps helping them. I have found this to be the main
concern when performing this type of method.

The spectator will be impressed by what you have done and

157
will not realize that it is an issue asking you how you were able
to know certain information and this is a simple and elegant
solution to ensure they never ask these types of questions.

This along with the fact you give little reason for the audience
to question what was whispered due to the apparent fairness
created within the scripting of your routines should be enough
to ensure your method stays hidden.

Drawings
+ Numbers
Binary Intuition
Before moving on I will finish explaining how other items can
be used with the binary questions method taught in this
section.

You should already be familiar with the various options for the
set up by now. The spectator will either already be thinking of
one of two colours: the colour blue or have an unrevealed
playing card in mind that you can secretly employ the details of
to guide the spectator's choices – namely, its colour.

I will assume you have read everything that has been taught so
far and will use the colour blue as my force throughout the
explanation.

158
Imagine we have forced a card from out of the deck on the first
spectator that has a specific object written on it. In this
example we will use a Tree as our force object.

This card and its writing is kept hidden from everyone else
other than the person who selected the card from out of the
deck and is placed writing side down on the table.

I now declare I am going to teach someone else how to use their

intuition to pick up on whatever is written on the card.

Here is when I turn to the spectator who is already thinking of

the colour blue from earlier and whisper my instructions.

“In a moment, I am going to ask you more than one

question. If you were thinking of the colour blue before I
want you to always answer each question with the first
option I give you, otherwise answer however you want …
nod if you understand”.

Now I can lean back out and ask the spectator the following
question whilst at the same time killing the notion that they
already know what is written or that I have just told them what
to go for.

“Right now … is there any way you could know what is

written on the card?”

They will answer with a “no” as there truly isn't any way they
could know what is written at this point in the routine.

“So first of all … Do you feel this is an object … name …

159
 star sign … animal … or number?”

The spectator will say “object” and in doing so will appear to

select the category to work with themselves.

I can now instruct the spectator to answer the rest of my

questions silently in their head and proceed get them to nail
down on the specific object written down.

The various ploys used in this effect are inspired by my good

friend Phedon Bilek's prop-less drawing duplication “Proteus”
and are based on some of my own ideas along these lines.

“So from now on just answer silently in your head … Don't

say anything out loud …”

“Do you feel this is something natural or man-made?”

They will answer in their head with the word “natural”.

“Do you feel this is something you can easily hold in your
hands or something much larger?”

Here I apply the reversal technique and purposefully get them

to first think of something they can easily hold in their hands
so that I can now adjust their answer as a throw off to method.

“Look at me … I feel you just answered incorrectly so just

for this answer go with the opposite choice”.

I can now say the following scripting to ensure they will most of
the time hit my force object.

160
 “Take your time to slowly build an image of whatever you
intuitively feel this is based on your previous answers and
when you've got what you feel this is, say it out loud!”

They will now invariably be thinking of a Tree. The reason for

this is this is the most commonly thought of force item with
these restrictions applied. If you were to apply this method
forcing something large that is man-made then the most likely
psychological choice in this instance would be a House.

This is the bold way to perform this effect.

If you want to be less risky and want to increase your odds of

getting a hit from the spectator I would suggest adding in a
third question and not apply the reversal on the second
question.

“If you were to imagine this object written as a word do you

feel it would contain a small amount of letters such as four
letters… or be a much longer word”.

They will now know the word contains four letters and this will
help them nail down on the force of a Tree. If I am using this
with a man-made polarity then I would change my instruction
and use three letters as my example of a small word instead of
four and force a Car.

If you are using this method with a peek then I suggest giving
the following instructions before having a different spectator
write down their thought.

“I want you to imagine you are back at school … you are

seven to eight years old and you have a blank sheet of

161
paper in front of you … just draw a simple drawing on this
card for me… make this a simple object that others would
instantly recognize if you were to show it to them”.

This scripting forces the spectator to think of a simple object

which will more often than not fall into a restricted field of
possible force items.

The commonly thought of drawings or objects that are

psychologically likely choices within this restricted field are a
house, car, boat, glass, ball, chair, table and aeroplane
(sometimes abbreviated to plane) in the man made category
and tree, flower, sun, butterfly and moon in the natural
category.

You may want to say a few of the common force items as

examples when you instruct the spectator to make a simple
drawing as a way to narrow down their possible choices and to
ensure certain items are not chosen such as a stick-man that
although it is a common drawing doesn't really fall into either
category.

“Make this a simple drawing such as a Mountain, bicycle

or stick-man but please don't go for those as I have already
mentioned these”.

Most of the time framing their drawing as a simple object or

instructing the spectator to think of a simple object as opposed
to a drawing is enough to ensure certain more obscure designs
such as a stick-man are not mentally selected but it is still a
good idea to always give out a few different examples and
killing them as possible choices this way.

162
You may also want to throw out aeroplane as one of your
examples so that you don't have a problem discerning whether
or not they are thinking of it in its full spelling or abbreviated
form.

Most of the time I just rely on the spectator going for the most
commonly thought of objects which will happen the majority of
the time and don't worry about the effect missing when it does.

They imagine they are back at school and this causes them to
typically revert back to drawing similar basic drawings they
would have drawn at school when they were a child or
drawings they imagine other children might draw at that age.
This boxes them into to a very limited field of possible drawings
they can choose from.

When it comes to the spectator building an image of whatever

object they feel the spectator has drawn it will be much easier
for them to land on the correct drawing as this will be
psychologically favourable.

They would have also heard your restrictions when you gave
your instructions to the spectator earlier and will therefore
follow along and apply these restrictions to their own thoughts
when guessing, as it makes sense to do so.

You can now peek their drawing in the course of a shuffle and
then as if changing you mind instruct the spectator to take
their drawing out of the deck directing them to place it face
down on the table.

The excuse here is so that you can freely look through the faces
of the deck again to find another card with blank space in its
middle for the spectator to draw on in a moment.

163
If you are having the spectator draw their thought of drawing
on a card then I suggest taking out a card with this blank
space so that their drawing will be easily visible also. The cards
that are useful for these types of effect are the twos, fours and
any of the red number cards providing you are using a black
marker pen for writing down.

Now you can perform the spectator as mind reader using the
questions I provide below but instead of having the spectator
name their drawing out loud have them also draw what they
think this is and then reveal both drawings match in a similar
way to how you would present a standard “drawing
duplication”.

The questions I would ask to help the spectator nail down on

the drawing would be as follows.

Obviously, you will need to adjust the details of each of these

questions to make them relevant to what ever information you
have peeked previously.

For example, imagine the spectator has drawn the image of a

boat.

“Do you feel this is something man-made or natural?”

“Do you feel this is something you can easily hold in your
hands or is it something much larger?”

“If you were to imagine this object written as a word do you

feel it would contain say … five letters … four … three …
or a different amount of letters altogether”.

164
Here I count down from what ever amount of letters I secretly
know are in the drawing written as a word.

Alternatively, you could simply tell the spectator in your

previous whisper how many letters you feel are in this word as
a way of helping them guess.

I feel this is a much cleaner way to perform this effect. It is

better theatrically due to the fact you are not having to change
their mode of thought from thinking in terms of visual imagery
to words.

It also avoids the potential tricky language of turning a

seemingly free choice of an amount of letters into a binary
option.

You can also apply the reversal principle to the second

question without worrying the spectator may become confused
and answer any further questions incorrectly.

The whisper scripting would now look like this.

“I feel there drawing is five letters long when written as a

word … so keep this in mind when you guess what it is in a
moment …

“In a moment, I am going to ask you more than one

question. If you were thinking of the colour blue before I
want you to always answer each question with the first
option I give you, otherwise answer however you want …
nod if you understand”.

165
In either case the clues provided by your binary questions
method combined with the thought of drawing being a
psychological choice as well as the fact they know the amount
of letters of the object written as a word means the spectator
will always be able to successfully guess the other person's
thought of drawing when utilizing these methods.

To utilize these methods in order for a spectator to guess

another person's thought of number I suggest limiting this to a
single digit number and handling your questions the same way
you would for the number of a playing card.

Perfect Equivoque
Spectator as Arbiter
What follows is something I consider absolutely stunningly
beautiful in its simplicity.

When this idea first hit me I was so excited I immediately

phoned my friend Peter Turner and couldn't wait to show him
it play out.

It is something I am extremely proud of and is an approach to

magician's choice I feel has never been done before or could
even be considered possible without the various breakthroughs
within the whisper techniques having already been made.

The following method is built upon the work that has come

166
before and is something I feel would have still remained an
impossible notion had I not already worked out these various
approaches to make what follows work.

It is elegant and something that looks and feels so clean to

those who witness what it is you do.

The beautiful thing about this method is it allows you to

perform Equivoque in an entirely fair manner that looks exactly
as it should if you were to genuinely offer your spectator a
series of free choices and to always go along with whatever they
choose.

For those unfamiliar with the technique of Equivoque also

known as magician's choice it is essentially a way of forcing a
spectator to select one out of a set amount of items by offering
them a series of seemingly free choices.

They make a choice between two options and the magician

frames that choice in such a way they will always be left with
the item the spectator wishes for them to select. This is often
done with a series of questions and a narrowing of their
choices between groups of items until only the force item is left.
For example, the performer may lay four items on a table and
split them into two groups containing two items each to begin
and offer them a choice between each group as the first choice.
Then either discard their selected items or keep them within
the game based on which group the spectator chooses.

They will then offer a further choice between the items that are
left and again frame this choice in a way that ensures only the
force item remains.

This is a crude example and usually more than two choices

167
would be offered.

The main problem with Equivoque in terms of how it has

typically been presented in the past is the fact that the
performer would need to change the meaning of the spectator's
choice after they have made their choice known.

For example, if you offered a choice to your spectator as to

which of two piles of cards they want to select you would only
frame their choice after it had been made. The choice would
only be defined by the performer once the spectator had made
their choice. Therefore, the performer would offer a choice that
was non specific to an outcome to begin with and then frame
this selection after the fact.

If the spectator made a selection of the “left” packet and it was

the packet of cards that contained the force card the performer
intended to be selected then they would frame this choice as
the one that is kept in the game. If they made a selection of the
packet of cards not containing the force card and made the
choice of the packet on the “right” then the performer would
frame this as the packet that was always intended to be
discarded from the game.

The real problem came when multiple selections where needed

to be made one after another.

This would create a situation where the way the magician

frames each of the choices would change meaning throughout
these various choices. For example, the performer may present
the spectator's first choice as something that is being selected
to keep and then be forced to change the meaning of a
subsequent selection as something that is being discarded
during the same elimination process, due to the fact the

168
spectator has selected the non force item.

Improvements were made in more modern times to this

technique such as creating scripting that was meant as a
preamble that would suggest the way the selection is framed
after the fact was always the performer's intention. As well as
this adjustment other performers have also found ways to
change the context and meaning behind each of the choices
themselves so that as each choice is made a change in process
is also seemingly implemented to get away with having to
adjust on the fly.

They change the nature of the process with each choice so that
the apparent fairness of the process stays intact and appears
congruent in terms of the spectator always having a seemingly
free choice.

What is great about my method is the fact it allows all of these

problems to be bypassed entirely with the spectator doing all of
the work for you.

They adjust for you whenever you need them to.

The spectator is offered a genuine free choice and even given

the choice to stick with their initial choice or to change their
mind each time and will always be lead down the path of
Equivoque the magician chooses. Hence this being a perfect
method for Equivoque or magician's choice.

Instead of having to change the meaning or context each of the

choices are made in you stay completely congruent to the
premise of handing the spectator a series of completely free
choices and they do all of the work!

169
This really is sneaky and a joy to perform.

It is as close to perfect theatrically as you can get and looks

and feels exactly as it should to everyone watching.

The spectator will also be fooled by what it is you do although

they will have a slightly diminished experience in terms of how
they perceive the effect compared to the rest of the audience.
However, they will still be impressed by what transpires. We
will get to why they are still impressed in a moment but first of
all I will explain how we get the spectator to adjust for us,
whenever we need them to.

This effect utilizes the various whisper techniques and

justifications already discussed. I will not get into these again
for fear of repeating myself too much. If you need to then go
back and re-read these sections of the book before moving
forwards with this work.

In this explanation I will provide an example of narrowing the

spectator's choices down to a specific playing card out of half of
the deck of cards but keep in mind whilst reading through this
method that this form of Equivoque can be used with any
application of magician's choice you may or may not already be
familiar with. It can be used in any effect that requires a force
based on seemingly free choices made by your spectator.

I will assume you are already familiar with the previous

justifications provided for delivering the following instructions
with a whisper.

The spectator has already made a choice of the colour blue

previously in your set using the two colour mental force already
explained in this book. The colour blue is my force colour they

170
should always be focusing on once I have applied the mental
force.

I now whisper the following scripting in the spectator's ear, so

that these instructions stay hidden and out of the perception of
the rest of the audience members.

“In a moment, I am going to ask you more than one

question. If you were thinking of the colour blue before I
want you to always answer each question with the first
option I give you, otherwise answer however you want …
nod if you understand”.

This is the same whispered instructions already utilized in

previous effects.

However, when I first came up with this idea I was using a

slightly different script where they would be instructed to
always answer any question I pose to them with the word “yes”
if they were focusing on the colour blue previously and to
always answer with a “no” if they were focusing on the colour
red.

This allowed for a slightly different approach where I would

only ask a question if I needed the spectator to adjust any of
their choices. It meant that I could stay silent throughout the
rest of the process and only ask a question whenever the
spectator happened to not make the choice I wanted them to.

I realized this approach to giving instructions became

confusing for the spectator to follow. It was harder to deliver a
clear instruction this way and also meant that some of the time
the spectator would forget to follow these rules whenever the
question happened to come up later on in the process of them

171
making a series of choices.

Therefore, I opted to use the instructions as already laid out.

This means that you will always ask a question after the
spectator has made each of their choices but this approach has
the added pay off of making your instructions easier for the
spectator to follow.

You will always be offering a series of questions throughout the

entire process involving multiple choices and will therefore
never be seen to deviate in a way that could confuse the
spectator.

As well as this you will be able to set up in a clear manner

exactly what it is that is going to happen and ensure the
spectator fully understands what to expect in terms of what
will be taking place throughout the routine.

I feel that having to always ask a question after each choice is

made is a non issue in terms of presentation. It is theatrically
sound and is something that appears to make what you do
more impossible as opposed to decreasing the effect in any
way.

The fact you will be adjusting your questions also throws off
anyone trying to work out or back-track the method and will
make what you do appear off the cuff and varied enough not to
seem like a restrictive process in any way.

This will make more sense in a moment.

I have whispered my instructions in the ear of the spectator

and am now ready to perform my effect relying on the perfect
Equivoque principle.

172
Here I would take about half of the cards from a deck of cards
spread through an decide upon a playing card I am going to
predict. This is typically whatever card happens to be at back
of the deck of the stack of cards I am working with.

I write this card down as a prediction on a piece of card and

place it sight unseen writing side down on the table.

Then I separate the stack of cards into two halves and hold
them at eye level in each hand with their backs facing towards
the spectator.

“I want you to point to either packet and we will always go

with your first choice unless you want to
change your mind …”

The spectator points to either hand's packet of cards and in

doing so chooses in the cleanest manner possible which packet
to work with.

Now comes the use of our binary question.

We always ask this question after the spectator has made their
choice. It will appear to be the same question posed to the
spectator each time they have made a selection but will
sometimes vary in how we phrase the question.

If the spectator chooses the correct packet that contains the

force card then we ask the following question.

“Okay, think about your answer. Do you want to stick with

this pile or change it?”

173
The spectator will respond by saying that they want to stick
with their first choice due to the previous instruction taking
effect. Of course, they will have to answer with the first option
you give and this will cause them to stick with the packet they
chose originally which contains the force card.

If the spectator chooses the incorrect packet not containing

your force card then it is a simple matter of reversing the
question as follows.

“Do you want to change packets or stick with this one?”

Now they will be forced to change packets due to the fact they
are always going with whatever option you offer first. This will
direct them back to choosing the correct packet. What is great
about this method is the fact the spectator will adjust for you
whenever you need them to and it will look as if they just
decided to change their mind after being given the option to do
so.

It will also appear as if we are congruent with the type of

question that we ask each time and will seem as if we are
always providing the spectator with the free choice to change
their mind to make everything that much fairer. However, what
is really happening is by changing the polarity of the question
and reversing the order in which we ask each part of the
question we are able to subtly lead the spectator into adjusting
for us.

It will look as if it is their idea whether or not to change their

initial choice each time we ask the question.

Theatrically, it appears as if we are almost toying with the

spectator by giving them the option to change each and every

174
time they make a decision.

The fact that the question is asked in the inverse some of the
time will make this appear fairer as opposed to it seeming out
of place or odd. It is more natural to ask the questions in a
different way each time and therefore doing so in a casual
manner won't seem strange to those watching.

I always prefix the first question with the line “Think about
your answer” to ensure they don't just blurt out the wrong
answer by not realizing they are to apply your previous
instructions at this point in the routine. It is a way of getting
the spectator ready for the question and reminding them of the
role they are supposed to be playing. Then I can ask the rest of
my questions without this added scripting as security. They
will know to answer the rest of the questions in a similar
fashion due to the fact they are now following your instructions
and know you will be asking “more than one question”
throughout the routine.

Now it is a simple matter of discarding whichever pile of cards

the spectator seemingly eliminated based on their final choice
and separating the cards that are left over into two piles and
repeating the above process adjusting the polarity of your
question accordingly to ensure they always stay with the
packet containing your force card.

I repeat this process until I am down to just two cards.

You now have the option to continue as already described and

not refer overtly back to the previous colour force or bring
everything full circle.

“I want you to think back to when you chose a colour in

175
 your mind earlier …”

This scripting indirectly suggests to the rest of the audience

that the spectator's previous choice of colour is only now
coming into play. It will seem to everyone else watching as if
the spectator is now considering their choice for the first time.
This also indirectly suggests that their choice of colour couldn't
have been a factor in what has taken place previously which
also disconnects its use from any possible method up until this
point in the routine.

It is only now we create any relevance to their thought of colour

and create the notion that it can be used by the performer to
potentially direct their choices. These still only appear to be
linked in a pseudo presentation way of thinking about the
effect.

“I want you to imagine the card on my right represents the

colour blue and the card on my left represents the colour
red …

“Which colour did you have in your mind previously?”

Of course you simply ensure you label whichever card left over
is the force card as the force colour you know they are thinking
of.

Now it appears you have left this final choice down to the
colour they selected earlier on and wrap everything up in the
process.

It may appear to the spectator that perhaps you were able to

influence their choices based on you being able to read their

176
mind and know the colour they were thinking of and had
nestled away in their subconscious mind. However, from the
audience's perspective it will only be this final choice that has
anything to do with the thought of colour and your ability to
influence the outcome.

The audience will get the cleanest effect possible especially if

you forgo this tie up with the colours on the back end and
leave the use of colours completely hidden within your previous
whisper.

From the participant's perspective this whole process still

seems impossible as you couldn't have know the colour they
mentally selected previously to then be able to get them to
change in the way you needed them to to ensure a successful
conclusion to the effect. It will seem to be based on a series of
fifty fifty choices as opposed to it only being a one in two
chance of the entire effect working. And even if they work out
the true odds you would have still proven you were able to
know their colour in order to influence their choices and this
will still be an impressive feat to them.

They will react in a way that stays congruent to how the

audience perceive the effect.

If you do use this tie up of colours then it also ensures the

spectator can't easily expose what has secretly taken place due
to your whisper as they will likely respond along the lines of
asking the following question: “How did you know what colour I
was thinking of?” and this will still match everyone's reality.

That's it!

Of course, you could use the previous selection of a playing

177
card in place of the mental colour force and base the binary
questions on the colour of their card and use their thought of
card as the prediction. Now there is no need to write down a
prediction as you can simply ask the spectator what card they
had in their mind previously and then turn over the card they
have nailed down on using the previous perfect Equivoque
method all of the way through the selection process.

Rock, Paper, Scissors

+ Prediction
The previous whisper can also be adjusted to accommodate a
vary clean version of rock, paper, scissors where a performer
will always be able to win at this game against their opponent,
in this case the spectator by seemingly using their ability to
read minds to influence the outcome of each game.

In the version that follows the performer will always be in

complete control of the outcome of each round played
throughout the game and can choose to win, loose or draw in
real time. This means that they will also be able to predict the
outcome of each game as well as which hands or moves will be
played throughout.

To my knowledge this is something that has never been

achieved before in terms of this premise within the art without
the use of multiple outs or other such compromises.

Those of you who are not familiar with the game of rock, paper,

178
scissors it is a game where two players on the count of three
decide which shape to make with their hand out of a choice of
either a rock (represented as a fist), a piece of paper
(represented as a flat hand) and a pair of scissors (two fingers
held out like the peace sign). They both throw these signs at
the exact same time and then a winner is decided based on the
rules of the game.

The rules are as follows:

1. Paper will always beat rock (the paper wraps around the
rock)
2. Scissors will always beat paper (they cut the paper)
3. Rock will always beat scissors (It destroys the scissors
with its weight)
4. And finally, if any of the signs match and are thrown in
the same game then that round is declared a draw.
5. Typically three rounds of the game are played and the
winner is decided by best out of three.

I will start by explaining the whisper and explain the effect

within the context of the performer always winning three games
in a row and then explain how a prediction can be
implemented to provide a kicker ending to the effect.

Here are the instructions I whisper to the spectator.

“In a moment we are going to play three rounds of the

game rock, paper, scissors. All I need you to remember is:
If you were thinking of the colour blue before I want you to
always beat your last throw with your next throw,
otherwise feel free to throw whatever shapes you like”.

Here it is important that we declare the amount of games we

179
are going to play in advance and use the word “always” to
ensure they know to always implement this rule in every round
we will play in a moment.

This scripting will ensure the spectator always throws the

different shapes rock, paper and scissors in a predictable order
which in turn, means you will always be able to know what
they are going to throw next.

The reason this works is because of the inherent hierarchy of

each of the moves built into the rules of the game. Each of the
different symbols or possible moves beat each other in a
cyclical way.

For example, paper always beats rock, rock always beats

scissors and scissors always beats paper and it is this cyclical
system that allows us to give a single instruction to the
spectator within the context of our whisper that will ensure
each of their moves will follow one from the other in a
predictable string of moves that can be taken advantage of.

When I am ready to play the game I begin by establishing the

rules of rock, paper and scissors and explain what it is I want
them to do in terms of actually playing out the game. Most will
already be familiar with the game rock, paper, scissors as this
is widely known throughout the world as a game we would play
as children.

The reason we use the words “All I want you to remember is:”
when setting up the whisper is just in case the spectator isn't
already familiar with the game of rock, paper, scissors. This
won't matter at this point in your set as they will still know to
remember the defining rule that they are going to follow later
on. Then when we come to explaining the rules of the game

180
itself, everything will now make sense fully to the spectator.

If you are worried then you could simply ask everyone in the
group who is familiar with the game rock, paper, scissors early
on in your set before going into any of the method that will
make this effect work and remark “Good, I might play this
game with one of you later” and then move on with your
performance.

Establishing the rules of the game in this way allows you to

play a practice round as a way to seemingly ensure the
spectator knows exactly what it is you want them to do. It will
seem as if the reason you are playing a practice round is to
familiarize your opponent with the timing of each of the
subsequent throws to come in a moment, so that you will both
throw at exactly the same time.

You will explain to them that they are to count to three out
loud along with you and then on three throw their move and
this will ensure no one can cheat by throwing later than the
other person after seeing what move the other person has
thrown.

What is beautiful about doing a practice round is the fact it will

allow you to essentially get one ahead of your participant. This
practice round will give you all of the information you need to
not only beat each of the spectator's subsequent throws but to
also predict any of the outcomes of each game.

You know that they are always going to try to beat whatever
they threw themselves previously and will therefore know what
move they are going to play next. This will work indefinitely. All
you have to do is take note of their previous throw to work out
what their next move will be.

181
For example, if they throw a rock in their practice throw you
will know that they are going to throw paper next time, then
scissors then rock again, so on and so forth. You can then
change your throw to one that will either beat, draw or loose
against their throw.

The outcome of each game is under your complete control and

each outcome in terms of who wins can be predicted from this
point on even before the games have been played out right
down to the moves each of the players would throw in each
round that were responsible for that particular outcome.

It is now that you would write down any predictions you are
going to make about the subsequent games. You now have all
of the information you need to be able to do so based on
whatever move they threw in the practice round. Your written
prediction would go face down on the table sight unseen and
you are now prepared to play the three rounds proper.

I would also suggest instructing the spectator to think about

what move they are going to play before doing the count in to
each of their throws. This fits the premise of you apparently
reading their thoughts or trying to second guess their moves to
be able to control the outcome of each game but also gives the
spectator enough time to work out which move they are
supposed to be playing based on your whispered instructions.

This will stop the spectator throwing the wrong move each time
or changing it last minute as if they made a mistake which of
course would blow the illusion to a certain extent.

You can either decide to win each game and play the effect as
you being able to read their mind or know what moves they are

182
going to play in advance or ask the spectator each time if they
want you to win, loose, or draw.

This creates a wonderful variation on the standard routine and

proves undoubtedly to everyone else watching that you are
truly able to control the outcome of each game and know what
the spectator will do each time.

Thanks to Peter Turner and Atlas Brookings for this beautiful

twist on this classic game. They have a prop-less rock, paper,
scissors method that is definitely worth checking out.

I typically perform this effect as it has been done in the past

and forgo using a prediction. I simply play out three games and
prove that I was somehow able to read the mind of the
spectator or know what they were going to do in advance by
winning each of the games.

However, if you want then you could potentially predict all of

the outcomes of each of the games. I would advise against
doing this as it becomes a little too perfect and nailed on. The
audience may start to assume that their moves were always set
from the start and begin to back-track or at least get a sense of
the method or that something is wrong.

If you do want to add in a prediction element then I would

suggest handling it in the following manner. In order to
perform this you will need to change the amount of games you
are going to play to an undefined number when setting up the
whisper. In this instance, I would say:

“In a moment, we are going to play more than one games of

rock, paper, scissors” using the same language as in
previous effects.

183
I would ask someone else in the group to name a small number
out loud.

Let's say they name the number “three”.

“Okay, I am going to predict what will take place in this

round”.

I would now look at the spectator as if working through what I

feel will be there mental selections (which is in fact what I am
really doing). I go through the subsequent games in my head
based on what I know their starting practice move to be.

Then I write down a prediction which denotes that I will loose

this round and only this round as well as stating what the
throws would be respectively and which throw would beat my
own.

This prediction goes writing side down sight unseen or folded

and given to someone else in the group to hold on to and I then
continue.

I now play all of the games out ensuring I loose on the round
called out by number by someone else in the group in order to
make my prediction hit and winning on all of the other games.
If this is a small enough number then I would also play a
couple more games after this and also win these games so that
I don't loose the last game. You may prefer to only play up until
this point and instead of failing on the last game either draw or
win or just loose. This way everyone watching will be able to
easily recall the last moves played which will ensure your
prediction registers as a hit.

184
It is up to you how you decide to present your prediction. If you
are going to win every game then you could just write down the
moves specific to the round called out by the other spectator or
you could ask the spectator to nominate on which round they
want you to loose and play it this way.

If presenting this in the way first described I would now be in

the position to say the following.

“I had a feeling I would loose one of the rounds which is

why I had someone else say a number at random. They
somehow managed to pick up on when events would take a
turn for the worse. Take a look at what I wrote down”.

They will now cast their minds back to the moves played and
the outcome of the round referred to in your prediction called
out earlier by another member of the group. If you are worried
they will forget then you can mark out this round during the
actual performance and get everyone to take note of what
occurs on that particular round as it happens.

My prediction is now opened and seen to be perfect.

It will seem impossible from the audience perspective. There is

seemingly no way for you to be able to see into the future to
work out the entire outcome of a particular game of rock,
paper, scissors at a specific point in the game nominated by
someone else in the audience.

185
 E.S.P
Clean Match Up
Whilst I was playing around with the previous rock, paper,
scissors application for the whisper I realized that a similar
instruction in terms of setting up a single rule of logic could be
utilized to achieve one of the cleanest looking esp card match
up effects with very little additional work.

I begin by introducing each set of esp symbols to the group,

explaining their meaning and what they are used for (insert
your own generic scripting explaining the work of professor
Rhine here if you like).

This effect utilizes two sets of each of the five symbols. These
cards can be entirely normal and do not require to be marked
in any way for their use in this routine. If you prefer then you
can draw these symbols or substitute them for different
drawings and make these up on the fly with blank business
cards or billets and a marker pen.
I now explain what it is that is going to happen and hand the
spectator their five symbols as a packet whilst I keep hold of
the other five after showing that each set has the same
matching five symbols present.

“In a moment we are both going to look at each other and

take out one of our cards and place it face down on the
table in front of us …

186
“Then we are going to repeat this process until there is only
one card left in each of our hands”.

This combines with the next piece of scripting set up the

premise for what is about to happen whilst also explains to the
spectator as well as the audience at large what is about to take
place. Saying this out loud in front of the group and the
spectator ensures everyone is on the same page as well as also
negating the need to repeat these instructions within the
whisper.

It also means you can keep your whisper short as you will only
be filling in the extra pieces of the jigsaw puzzle you need to
create an alternate reality in the mind of the spectator and
nothing else. They will also already have a reference point for
your whispered instructions so they will make sense and there
won't be a risk of any confusion arising in the spectator.

The next line I say immediately after the previous set up of

what is going to take place. This is directed to the spectator
who will be following your instructions.

“I am going to teach you how to always know what card to

place down. If at any point I tell you to just play along then
tell everyone this is what I've done.”

This scripting appears to the audience as if you mean to teach

the spectator how to use their intuition without having to state
this out right which in turn means there will be no discrepancy
created in the spectator's mind compared to how they perceive
their role in proceedings and how the effect is experienced at
large by the audience members watching your performance.

As you can see in other effects taught in this book this is not
187
always necessary you can simply state that you are going to
teach them how to use their intuition and this premise will be
over ridden in their mind as soon as you deliver your
whispered instructions and create a situation akin to instant
stooging.

I just wanted to present this option for you so that you have all
of the options available to you.

If you want to whisper well in advance to when you will be

introducing the effect for the first time to the audience you can
instead of performing it in its natural running order as just
described, use alternative scripting with the prefix of scripting
taught earlier. This would be as follows.

“In a moment, we are going to try something using cards

that have different symbols on them. All I need you to
remember is …”

Then you give the rest of the instruction pertaining to this

particular effect. If you don't mind the whisper being slightly
longer then you could always add the scripting describing what
is about to occur in terms of the outward appearance of the
effect on the front end of this whisper so that they will
understand the instructions fully, in the moment.

No matter which course you take we would now whisper the

following instructions in the participant's ear.

The scripting I use whilst setting up the effect during the

whisper is as follows.

“If you were focusing on the colour blue before I want you
to take out the cards in ascending order based on how
188
 many lines each of the shapes are made up from …
starting with a circle that has one line … then a cross with
two lines … then the wavy lines which has three lines … so
on and so forth. If you were thinking of red before then
take these out in any random order you like”.

What is great about each of the esp symbols is they are made
up of different amounts of lines that can be taken advantage of
to create an order.

This is already an inherent feature of each of the designs and is

something I first utilized in a mental esp routine found in my
now out of print book “The book of angels”. I had the spectator
imagine drawing one of the symbols line for line and noted how
long it took them to do so in order to work out which symbol
they were focusing on.

This was my solution to mental sound reading done completely

prop-less and in the mind of the spectator and is similar to
Michael Murray's cups principle applied to shapes as opposed
to words and letters.

Not only does each symbol have a defining amount of lines that
it is made up from that can be easily distinguished from the
rest during say a routine reliant on classic sound reading, each
of the symbols can also be arranged into an ascending order
and this was the break-through realization I had recently when
creating this effect.

I realized I could instruct the spectator to place each symbol

down in a known order just by taking advantage of these built
in characteristics contained in each set of symbols.

The beautiful thing about creating an order based on the

189
amount of lines is the fact that to the audience members these
cards will not appear to be placed down in any particular order
due to the fact, they are unaware of the symbols following this
pattern. They will not be registering how many lines each
symbol is made up from and will instead see them as distinct
and separate designs from one another that happen to occur in
the set.

Setting up the whisper in this way as opposed to just telling

the spectator what symbols to place down means that they only
have to remember the rule as opposed to the entire order of the
five symbols you would specify yourself to be able to follow
correctly during the performance.

This means that they will not find themselves in a position

where they could misremember any of the symbols or the order
you want them to place them down in. They also don't need to
already be familiar with each of the symbols or have any
knowledge of esp cards beforehand for this to work.

It is a simple matter for them to look through each of the cards

in their hand and follow your rule based on their thought of
colour dependent on the amount of lines each symbol contains,
in order for them to place the cards down in the correct order.

You are now in the position to perform the effect but before
doing so you can ask the following question to your spectator.

“Right now, is there any way you could know what order I
am going to place my cards down in?”

Of course, they will answer with a “no” because from their

perspective there truly is no way for them to know. They will
reason that you would have to know the colour they are

190
thinking of in order to place them in the particular order set
out by your previous whispered instructions. Because you
couldn't know for certainty what colour they are focusing on
and due to the fact you have given an alternate option for them
to place them down in a random order means a reversal of this
must also be true. There is seemingly no way for you to be able
to match their choices therefore, they will have to agree they
couldn't know the order you will be placing your cards down in
either. It is an odd logic that flies in performance.

The audience follow a similar logic when you ask this question.
Their response kills the notion in everyone else's minds that
you could have told them what cards to place down secretly in
the whisper. If you had told them a specific order and intend
for the cards to match then it stands to reason that they would
now know which cards you will place down and in what order
you will do so. Their “no” response cancels this out as an
option in the minds of those watching.

What is great about this version is there is no need for the use
of a one ahead principle or marked cards and there is also no
need to break up the routine in order to rearrange any of the
cards as they are dealt into a pile as a clean up on the back
end of the effect.

This method literally allows for one of the cleanest esp card
match up routines. They place cards down at the same time as
you and everything matches in the order the cards are dealt.

If you wish you can place your card down first and then get the
spectator to look at you as if they are using their intuition to
then take out what they think the corresponding symbol is you
just placed down.

191
I prefer to present this in the following way where both cards
are taken out of the respective piles and placed face down on
the table at the same time. This feels better theatrically and is
something that wasn't possible with other methods in the past
where the method itself didn't allow for what I feel is way this
would be presented if this was a real case of two people tuning
into each other's thoughts in the moment.

Here I direct the spectator to first mix the cards containing the
five different esp symbols in their hand and to then look into
my eyes. Then after we have both stared into each others eyes
for a couple of seconds I instruct them to take out whichever
card they are going to place down first and time me taking my
card out with their actions so that this occurs simultaneously.

“Okay so look at me for a moment … good, now take out

whatever card you are going to place down first … and
place it face down on the table …”

This will look as if we are picking up on each others thoughts

in real time and then after both making a decision committing
to one of the symbols. It is theatrical by play and the fact I
don't state anything outwardly in terms of the spectator using
their intuition and only refer to the symbol as the first card
they are going to place down means they will follow along with
your instructions without any hiccup.

Those of you wondering why we get the spectators to mix the

cards before each card is dealt onto the table, it is so that when
the spectator goes to work out which of the symbols they need
to take out of the deck based on the amount of lines it is made
up from, it won't look out of place if they look over each of the
cards. It will appear to everyone else that they are simply trying
to find the symbol they just envisioned in their mind in a

192
shuffled packet.

The audience will assume the spectator is already familiar with

each of the different symbols after you have briefly shown each
of the symbols during the introduction to the effect. However,
we don't need to actually rely on this being the case as they will
get the chance to look through their cards and we never ask
them to remember the actual symbols.

This looks great when it plays out. You literally look at each
other and then both take a card out of your respective packet
placing it face down in a pile in front of you and repeat this for
the rest of the cards until you only have one card remaining in
each others hands.

I repeat the previous process each time referring to the card

they are taking out of the deck as the “next card” as follows.

“Okay, look at me again … and now place the next card

face down on top of your last card …”

I instruct them to always place the card they are dealing to the
table face down on top of the ones they have already dealt in
order to create a pile in front of them.

Obviously all we need to do to ensure the cards will match at

the end of the routine is to place our cards face down in a pile
in front of us in the same order we know they will place theirs
down in.

We follow this process four times in a row and then stop.

This will leave us both with one card only left over in our hand
which will be the star symbol, if they have followed your

193
instructions correctly.

Now we can create a reveal out of this single card that makes
sense from the spectator's point of view.

“If this has worked then we should both be left with the
same card …

“... Hold your card up to your face and slowly turn it over
…”

We now slowly turn our card over at the same time as the
spectator to show that both cards do indeed match.

This is a strong moment theatrically as it is just as impressive

a reveal to the spectator as it would be if we were to reveal
what colour they were focusing on before. You will get a
reaction here from the spectator due to the fact they appreciate
the thought of colour must be linked to this symbol being left
over in some way.

At this point they have no clue how you would be able to

influence the outcome of the effect in this way without
somehow knowing what colour they were thinking of which to
them seems impossible.

It also deals with the problem that often occurs in esp match
up routines where the last card becomes redundant in terms of
the order the cards are revealed in. If all of the other cards are
shown to match then it stands to reason that the final cards
must also match and this would typically kill any possibility for
a dramatic reveal of the last card.

Handling it this way makes this the strongest moment in the

194
routine for the spectator as well as an interesting moment for
the audience at large because it now forces the audience to
wonder if all of the cards match.

You will now with two hands turn over each of the cards one at
a time taking them off each of the two piles simultaneously,
after saying the following remark.

“ … And just for everyone else … These match perfectly

also”.

This is done quickly to not only provide a snappy reveal that

adds to its power for the audience but is also done as if to
prove in the most efficient and fairest manner possible that
each of the cards dealt do indeed match one another.

It causes the revelation of the rest of the cards to be treated as

one complete reveal which ensures you never have a weak
moment in the revelation which may happen if dealing with the
reveal of each of the cards separately.

The line “... and just for everyone else” implies you are only
showing the cards match for the benefit of the rest of the
audience and there is no real need to show the spectator they
are correct as they already know this to be true due to the fact
they have been taught the secret to making this work every
time – in a magical way that is congruent to the premise – such
as, utilizing their intuition or psychic abilities.

It is a coy line that allows you to secretly inform the spectator

that they don't need to place any relevance or importance on
this moment themselves.

The reaction from the spectator towards the first reveal of the

195
card left over in their hand will blend over into the rest of the
cards being shown.

Therefore, any lack of reaction that could occur from the

spectator realising this is really just an effect built on a fifty
fifty choice will eliminated and not even come into the
audience's awareness due tot he fact the spectator's reaction
will spill over into this final reveal of all of the cards matching
perfectly.

This is the climax of the effect from the participant's point of

view and is all that seems important to them regarding he pay
off of the effect,

The way the reveal is structured is important as it means each

of the differing realities resolve in their own manner without
the overall appearance of the effect itself being compromised
from the audience's perspective.

It also creates a handling that is unique to what has been done

before.

You may think that they spectator will not be impressed with
an effect that seemingly relies on a two way possibility of it
working by chance. However, to them they must assume you
had to have read their mind on the colour and been certain of
yourself to go to the lengths you have to present an entire
routine entirely off the back of this one decision.

That's even if they think this way about what it is you have
done. They are more likely to feel you have somehow read their
mind in an interesting way and will probably feel as if each of
their choices were influenced individually due to the fact they
are wrapped up in the presentation of the effect itself and will

196
likely not see through the fact this is really just a way of
dressing a simple binary choice.

They have also been given the potential option of placing the
symbols down in any order they wish which will help create the
illusion in their mind that this effect could have played out
completely differently. It will appear that you were just
somehow able to control the outcome by secretly knowing what
colour they were focusing on. This is how they will tend to
process what has taken place in their mind without feeling the
need to analyse the effect any further.

To the rest of the audience they get the perfect esp match up
routine that looks exactly as it should if you were doing this for
real.

I would now say the following.

“Now that we are in sync with one another let's move on to

something else …”

This line will make sense from both the audience and the
spectator's relative realities.

Then I quickly move into another routine with the same

spectator seemingly building on what has just taken place.
This stops there being an opportunity for either side to talk
about what has just taken place and potentially expose the
trick from the spectator's point of view.

You may want to add Kenton's line here and just coyly say to
the spectator on the back end of the effect “Don't tell them how
you do it?”

197
This should keep your secret safe between you and the
participant whilst at the same time seeming like you are simply
teasing the audience by not allowing the spectator to tell them
the nature of their newly found magical powers.

They will likely not want to take away from their apparent new
abilities and will want to continue to appear to have something
over the rest of the audience in terms of their secret knowledge.

This is a good line to apply to any of the effects in this book

that rely on these types of instant stooge whisper techniques.

Which Hand?
Playing Card Force
I will now finish this section of the book by explaining one last
use for the whisper.

This method allows for the cleanest “which hand” routine.

You will simply hand a coin to the spectator instruct them to

place it behind their back and to mix it between each hand
before settling on a hand. They are then told to take both fists
out from behind their back and you will instantly know which
hand holds the coin. This can then be repeated another two
times.

There is no need for a truth or liar premise or any additional

198
language to make it work.

Everything is covered in a previous whisper which leaves you in

the perfect position to create a pure effect.

This uses the ploy of leveraging details of a playing card that

has previously been left unrevealed in its entirety, combined
with a whispered instruction that appears to be unrelated to
the effect in question.

The whisper is as follows.

“In a moment, we are going to play a game where I guess

which hand you have placed a coin three times in a row. If
you are thinking of a Spade I want you to play the moves
right, left, right. If you are thinking of a Club I want you to
play the moves left, right, left. If this is a Diamond then
play the moves right, right, left …

“… If you are thinking of a Heart then play the moves left,

left, right …”

I always say whatever instruction relates to the suit they are

thinking of last so that it will be easily remembered by the
spectator due to it being on the tail end of the instruction and
the last thing they will remember hearing. They will begin to
take note of this last part of your instructions as soon as they
hear their suit mentioned and ignore the previous instructions.
In this example the suit of the card they are thinking of is a
Heart.

They now know to play the moves: left, left, right when it comes
to playing the game of guessing which had the coin is in, later

199
on. The fact, this game uses a prop such as a coin and is
clearly different to anything else you perform means that the
spectator will have no problem understanding that this is when
you intend for your previous instructions to come into play.
Telling the spectator the game you are going to play during the
whisper will be enough to get them to play along when the time
is right without the need for any additional anchoring gestures
to get them ready to being following these instructions.

Also, referring to what is going to take place as a “game” allows

you a short cut when giving your instructions meaning they
can be less specific. You can simply refer to what it is you want
them to do as a series of moves that they will understand how
to play within the context of the game itself. This means you
can get them to remember something as simple as the three
words “left, left, right” and they will fill in the gaps as soon as
you provide context for these instructions by beginning to
present the effect.

The beauty of using a playing card force and relating each of

the possible choices to the four suits is the fact it will make the
odds of what it is you are about to perform seem much larger
than a simple choice between two options.

If you want to streamline the instructions then you can opt for
the following script instead.

“… If you are thinking of a Heart then play the moves left,

left, right … otherwise play whatever moves you want to”.

You may prefer the previous script to this however due to the
fact the spectator will hear many more options that they
seemingly could have chosen as well as it not appearing as if
you have singled out the only suit that would be relevant at the

200
risk of tipping to the spectator you perhaps know their choice
of suit up front.

This may or may not be a concern of yours. You may not mind
the spectator suspecting you know their thought of suit and
are somehow using it for leverage to control the outcome of the
game.

I will leave the choice up to you how you wish to present this
particular effect.

In fact, if you use a playing card instead as the leverage for any
of the effects utilizing a binary choice that can be adapted to a
four way choice, it will allow you to create the illusion of an
apparent larger choice available to the spectator. You can then
either spell out each of these choices within the whisper ending
with the choice relating to their thought of suit or give your
instructions in the above streamline manner and suggest this
larger choice is available this way.

Now everything is set to perform the effect.

If you have just appeared to struggle to read the spectator's

mind to guess the card they are thinking of and this is how you
have covered your whispering of instructions then you can now
change premise and perform something less challenging as a
way to get in sync with the spectator's way of thinking.

You propose playing a game for fun instead as a way to help

you recalibrate your thoughts – something that doesn't appear
as difficult for you to guess as a one in fifty choice of a card
chosen out of a deck of cards but something much easier such
a series of choices always dealing with just two options.

201
 “Okay, let's just play a game for fun instead …”

After briefly changing premise you now introduce the effect as

follows.

“In a moment, I want you to place the coin behind your

back … mix it back and forth between your hands then
place it in one of your hands …

And bring both hands out in a fist like this … we are going
to play three games … so get the first move you are going
to play in your head for me now …”

The spectator will now follow your instructions and thanks to

the specific scripting in bold they will understand that they are
to now think of the first move out of the series of moves you
whispered to them and that is the hand you mean for them to
place it in before bringing their hands out as fists from behind
their back.

I match my words with actions and demonstrate visually what

it is I want them to do by putting both hands behind my back
with the coin and miming the actions I want them to make in a
moment.

Then I had them the coin and allow them to make their
decision.

The fact that they mix the coin behind their back before placing
it in the prearranged thought of hand creates the illusion for
everyone else watching that the spectator is making a free
choice in the moment, as to which hand to place the coin in.

202
Of course, they will actually be thinking in terms of playing
whatever their first move would be they have remembered
which in this case, would be the left hand.

You can now play this out and handle the revelation of the
correct hand containing the coin however you want. I typically,
hover one of my hands over each hand in turn for a few
seconds and then tap on the hand I feel holds the coin.

I now repeat the process using the following scripting to ensure

the spectator knows to apply the second move that has already
been decided upon on and doesn't just drift off track.

“Okay, do the same thing again but this time focus on what
your second move would be …”

I hand them the coin and wait for them to bring out both fists
again after they have finished repeating the mixing procedure
having placed a coin in one of their hands. Then I guess the
hand containing the coin correctly again.

This is repeated for a third and final time and then on the back
end of the effect say the following scripting.

“So now that I feel like I have got to know how you think
better … focus on your card again for me …”

I can now reveal the spectator's exact thought of card and this
will appear to bring everything full circle for everyone
concerned.

To the audience it will seem that the reason I performed the

guessing game with the coin was to better understand how the
spectator thinks to enable me to attempt to guess their card

203
correctly.

The spectator will also understand the combination of effects in

this way whilst also be impressed that not only were you able
to know the suit of their card, evident from you successfully
guessing which hand they hid the coin in three times in a row
but that you were also able to nail their exact card.

You may prefer not to reveal this card until later on or forgo
revealing it at all but I feel this is a nice way to tie everything
up.

Section Three
Halving the Signs
The following is a miscellaneous idea I thought would be worth
a mention in this book and is part of a larger unfinished star
sign reveal I am working on. I wanted to share it here as it is
something you may get use out of when working with your
favourite star sign divination methods where it would be
required or helpful to narrow down on the amount of possible
star sign outs you are dealing with in performance.

This was inspired by my good friend Peter Turner. He

mentioned to me he had a nice way to know which half of the
year he would be working in when performing a star sign
divination.

204
His method consisted of a clever way to get the spectator to tell
you if they had already celebrated their birthday at the time of
performing. There was something really elegant about his
approach.

By asking one simple and seemingly innocent question you

would automatically be down to half the star signs of the year.

The way he would go about asking this question was in itself

hidden partly due to the fact he would ask it up front in his
performance at a moment where it didn't feel like it was related
in any way to what follows.

What was the problem with this ruse was that it only really
helped you narrow down from a possible twelve signs to six if
performed at the mid way point in the year.

I decided to try to take this basic idea and shift it slightly so

that I could calibrate it to be used at any time throughout the
year. This meant somehow creating a reference point for the
spectator that would divide the year into half of the signs
naturally no matter what Month you were performing this
method. My solution is as follows.

Typically, I perform a star sign divination within the course of a

reading. Those who own my previous work will already have
methods that work alongside giving a reading. This in my
opinion is the more natural way to perform realistic mind
reading and divine personal information. It also allows for a
more conversational method where all you appear to do is read
the spectator on a personal level to then also nail specific
details about their life there is no way you could know.

The following method happens during the course of a reading. I

205
would say the following line to the spectator.

“I feel you had a moment of change occur in your life

around the Month of July …”

I insert whatever Month is six Months away from the Month in

the year including the Month I happen to currently be
performing in. For example, at the time of writing it is
February, so if I add five Months onto the current Month I
arrive at July. This effectively splits the year into two halves.

This allows me to now ask the following question.

“Just answer with a yes or no … Are you the same age now
you were back then?”

The spectator will now be forced to cast their mind back to July
of last year and to work forwards from that Month to the
current year and present Month.

They will now respond with either a “yes” or “no” and their
answer will tell you which six Months you are working with
and therefore, which possible star signs they could be relating
to this group of Months.

If they answer with a “yes” you know that they have not had
their birthday since last July up to the present Month. This will
allow you to estimate that their birthday doesn't fall within
these six Months.

If they answer with a “no” then you can assume that their age
has changed since July and they likely have a birthday within
this range of Months.

206
This would seems like a direct question if it were not presented
as part of a reading this way. I then bring everything full circle
and cement the illusion with the following re-frame.

“The reason I ask is because I wasn't sure if this was a

more recent memory or something that happened a few
years back …”

I can now continue with my reading having secretly obtained

which six Months of the
year their birthday falls.

This language helps re-frame my initial question. The spectator

will first of all compare their current age to their age back in
July and will understand that you are being specific in terms of
referring to the most recent instance of the Month of July to
have already passed. Then after the re-frame they will assume
you meant a specific memory that occurred in the Month of
July and were not being as specific as to the actual year. This
helps obscure the directness of your question.

I don't feel the spectator would back-track your question or

even realize its relevance to your subsequent star sign guess
due to the fact this already seems disconnected from working
out their birthday and sign. This is even more deceptive with
the re-frame added to it.

The re-frame will also work from the audience's perspective

and everyone will be fooled along similar lines. It also paints
my question in a new light, after the fact. To everyone
concerned it seems like I was asking a question pertaining to
this specific Month at an undefined moment in time in terms of
the year this happened.

207
However, to the spectator at the time I ask the question I will
seem to be directly referring to last year specifically. This
means they will have no trouble answering your questions. It is
only after the re-frame that it will seem like their answer is
based on a more obscure question.

The rest of the audience will assume they were answering

based on you being correct about a specific memory or time in
their life where change occurred. You will therefore, create the
illusion of being correct with your reading whilst in actual fact,
all you are doing is asking if the spectator was the same age six
Months ago.

You may want to also take into account which half of the
Month you are performing to help you refine your guess of star
sign even further. Each Month has two signs associated with it
based roughly on which half of the Month they are born.

Therefore, I suggest thinking in terms of which half of the

Month you are currently performing and ignoring the sign
relating to the first half of the Month of July if you find yourself
performing towards the back end of the present Month, for
example.

This would also work in the inverse if you find yourself

performing in the first half of the current Month then you
would ignore the sign that crosses the end of the Month and
the beginning of the next and include the sign that relates to
the first half of July. Obviously these relative signs shift as the
relevant Months also change throughout the year.

I prefer to use a hanging statement instead to narrow down the

signs between each half of the year when performing star sign
divinations due to the fact it will always provide me with set

208
information to work with that doesn't change throughout the
year.

However, as it is such an elegant solution to nailing down on

six signs that is simplistic and flies right past everyone in a
readings context I thought it was worth mentioning this
unfinished idea. Maybe you will run with this and find a good
use for it.

If I don't want to continue my reading in a way that refers

specifically to this memory then I can say the following.

“I might come back to this but for now I am also picking up

on …”

I continue right along with my reading and never have to

address this memory again allowing me to use it as a ploy to
secretly narrow down to six signs during the course of a
reading.

It will appear as if I know a lot more than what I am stating out

loud and just want to move on with the reading, that's all.

Animals
Prop-less
Another effect I wasn't sure to include in the book is my
original method for having a spectator utilize their intuition to

209
be able to guess what animal was written down on a billet or
double blank business card.

My original idea was to ask a series of questions that can be

answered mentally with a yes or no. I constructed a series of
questions that allowed for the spectator to always arrive at one
of two outs. I would then use a two way out such as a two way
envelope.

All I needed to do was ensure the spectator answered each of

the questions in an alternating manner. It didn't matter
whether they began answering with a “yes” or a “no” to the
first question as long as they made their next answer different
to their first and the final answer different to the second. They
could answer either with a “yes, no, yes” or alternatively “no,
yes, no” to three distinct questions and this would always lead
them to one of two outs.

I played with various ways to get them to alternate their

answers using language up front that played to two realities.
After sharing this method with Peter Turner we both decided it
was easier to simply direct the spectator all the way through
the process of answering questions with a frame that made
sense from a theatrical point of view as opposed to trying to set
this process up with language at the start of the effect.

The routine is as follows.

I begin by handing the spectator an envelope and asking them

to hold onto it or to cover it with one of their hands.

“In a moment, you are going to use your intuition to try to

guess what is written on a card inside this envelope”.

210
This sounds unspecific at this point as to what is written but
by the nature of the questions it will become obvious you want
the spectator to think of a particular animal.

“I am going to ask you a series of questions and all I want

you to do is answer each of these questions silently in your
head … do you understand?”

If they verbalise their response here then we take this

opportunity to remind them to stay completely silent and to say
nothing out loud.

“... Don't say anything out loud. Stay completely silent”.

We now continue our instructions.

“As you answer each of these questions I want you to

slowly allows an image of whatever you think this is to
slowly form in your mind … don't already have something
in mind but instead base this on your answers”.

I now ask my first question after reminding the spectators to

only answer in their mind.

“Do you feel this is something that resides in water?”

Of course, they have a free choice as to how they answer this

first question. They can either answer with a “yes” and begin to
get a sense that this is an animal that lives in water or answer
with a “no” which will start to lead them down the path of an
animal that lives on land.

Now I create a moment which will force the spectator to

211
alternate their next answer and answer with the opposite to
what they have mentally answered for the previous question.

“It is usually at this point you would start to doubt

yourself, so if you answered with a yes before answer the
next question with a no. If you answered with a no then
answer the next question with a yes”.

I now ask my second question.

“... just answer in your head. Do you feel this is something

that is considered dangerous or is likely to attack other
animals?”

They will now answer with the opposite to whatever they

answered with before.

Now comes the final question.

“Make this answer different to your last just so that all of

your answers stay varied … Do you feel this is something
large compared to say an Elephant?”

They will again respond with a different answer to before due to

your stipulation for them to make each of their answers varied
and different.

I now instruct them to build an image of whatever they think is

written down based on all of their answers. This should be easy
for them to do as they would have already begun to discern
what animal this could be based on how they answer each
question.

212
Here I use my scripting to create the illusion they are using
their intuition to build this image at the end of the routine
when in actual fact they are simply working out the only
animal this could be based on their answers. They will feel that
perhaps their first answer was based on intuition and therefore
there choices were free to an extent. If they had thought of a
different answer to begin with then the outcome would be
different. This is where your two way out comes into play. You
need to use an out that is a clean as possible to ensure the
spectator is fooled off the back of the fifty fifty choice.

“Take your time to slowly build an image of whatever you

feel this is based on all of your answers and when you've
got this clearly in mind... say out loud what you thing this
is …”

If you follow the logic then they can only either be thinking of a
Whale or a Lion with a chance they may have gone for a Tiger
instead of a Lion.

Each of the answers to the questions cancel out alternative

possible animals meaning they will go for the most likely
choice. For instance, a whale may be considered dangerous but
due to the answer of the third question always being counter to
their previous answer it means they can't think of a shark.

This is covered by writing one of the outs as “Tiger Lion”. If you

prefer then you can just get close by writing one of these
instead of two on the same billet. Or if you prefer then use a
three way out of some kind.

Again, you may wish to write “Killer Whale” as one of your outs
instead of just “Whale” on its own to misdirect away from one
of the answers corresponding to something that is not likely to

213
attack other animals.

If you prefer to nail down on the “Lion” then you can look at
the spectator whilst they are building their image and say the
following as if reading their mind in real time.

“... I feel you are close … If you are thinking this made up
of multiple colours then change your mind to something
similar …”

This will rule out a Tiger being thought of and the fact they are
directed into thinking of something similar will mean they will
indefinitely think of a Lion.

The spectator will be fooled by the fact you seem to have been
able to predict with certainty which one out of two options they
would choose based on their initial answer which was also
seemingly based on their actual intuition.

This is the worse case. Most of the time the spectator and
audience alike will not back-track what has actually taken
place and will get lost within the performance itself, meaning
they will be fooled by the appearance of the effect and tricked
into seeing only illusion.

Because the method exists in words these will disappear off

once they have been spoken which will make the effect harder
to back-track, after the fact.

If you want then you could use the following ploy I came up
with to further obscure what is taking place.

This is beautiful and something definitely worth your

consideration as an alternative way to utilize this principle.

214
Instead of guiding the spectator how to answer each question
in real time during the process itself, you can set this all up at
the beginning of the effect before any of the questions
pertaining to the type of animal are asked of your spectator, in
such a way they will feel it is there own idea to alternate some
of their answers.

It will seem like they are further using their intuition and
deciding for themselves when they will want to modify their
answers.

Before asking any questions regarding the animal I state the

following.

“In a moment, you are going to use your intuition to try to

guess what is written on a card inside this envelope.

“I am going to ask you three distinct questions and all I

want you to do is answer each of these questions silently in
your head … do you understand?”

Here I state how many questions will be asked of them up

front. This allows me to apply the following subterfuge.

“ … intuitively, which question do you feel you are going to

begin to doubt yourself on? … the first, second or third
question?”

They will now answer with one of these options as you only
provide these options.

Let's say they say that they will begin to doubt themselves on

215
the second question.

I now continue with my adjustment.

“Okay, all you have to do is make your answer to that

question different to the rest of your answers and you will
find you are correct? … so remember make your second
answer different to your first and last answer”.

Now the spectator will be forced into alternating their answers

and it will seem to be their idea to do so. They will make
whichever answer they doubt themselves on different and by
proxy also have to make the other two answers the same as
one another in order that they are both different to their
uncertain answer.

Of course, if they answer with any other option then this

wouldn't work. Therefore, all you have to do is ask your
questions out of order so that they will always create the
desired outcome you want based on where they feel they are
going to doubt themselves.

For example, if they answer they will be wrong on the last

question then all you have to do is move the question you
would usually ask in the second position to the end of your
series of questions. If they respond that they will be wrong on
the first question then move the second question to the front in
terms of the order you ask your questions.

What is beautiful about this is it will appear your questions

were always set in stone as to the order you ask them in. This
is very fooling. No one will ever suspect you are simply
changing the order in which you ask your questions to
accommodate the spectator to ensure an outcome that relies

216
on a two way out.

This is crazily good and something I thought I best put into the
book last minute.

Two Way Out

Single Card on Table
All that is left to teach is my two way out.

If you prefer not to have to use a two way envelope then the
following solution might be something you opt for.

This is a nice little ploy that works based on equivocal

choreography. You will be revealing your out differently each
time but because of the psychology involved and how you set
up each of these reveals in the minds of everyone watching,
each of the outs will appear to be the only way you ever
intended to prove the spectator correct with their intuition.

This utilizes one blank billet or blank on both sides business

card.

You write something down on one side of the billet and what
you write is always seen as the relevant piece of information.

It appears only one out is ever in play.

217
This is as close you can get to the perfect out of using a single
piece of card to write one piece of information down and always
appear to be correct, whilst always being covered both ways.

I begin by creating a memory peg in the minds of everyone

concerned that allows me to get away with one of my possible
ways of revealing an out.

I say the following to my spectator.

“I want you to write something down on this card whilst I

look away and then place your hand on top of it …
Like this …”

Here I point to the blank side of the card facing upwards whilst
the card is placed on the table referring to where I want the
spectator to write their information. I then cover it with my
hand as if concealing from view what would have just been
written on the card. This is a visual cue for everyone present
that will be remembered later on when it becomes relevant to
the reveal.

Now I seemingly change my mind along with the premise of the

effect.

“In fact, I think it would be more interesting if I write

something down and you guess what I have written …”

I now pick up the card so that the side that was previously
placed face towards the table is now facing myself, as if I am
about to write something. I hold this towards my body so that
no one else can see what is pre-written.

I already have one of my outs written on this side of the card.

218
This allows me to now state that there is something already
written on the card and to miscall what this information is.

“There's already a name written on here …”

I now take the cap off my marker pen and pretend to scribble
out the supposed name written on the front of the card. Here I
actually just run the tip of my nail back and forth against the
card whilst making sure not to touch the card with the tip of
the pen.

This will appear as if I am crossing out whatever information

was already written on the card. I now turn over the card
making sure I hide the writing as I do so. This shouldn't be a
move and should be handled in a relaxed and casual manner.

I don't worry about flashing anything here as everyone will be

expecting their to be writing on the card anyway. I just ensure
the natural motion blurs exactly what is written as well as
ensure my no writing hand blocks the writing from view as I
turn it over and that I hold the card in such a way so that the
back of this hand will continue to block the writing from
everyone's view.

It is important you act naturally and don't appear to be hiding

anything.

The reason for turning over the card appears to be so that you
can use the other blank side of the card to write your
prediction.

Here I am careful not to let anyone see what I write. This

makes sense from a theatrical point of view as you wouldn't
want to spoil the reaction by others seeing what is written. It

219
also means that the method will be hidden when it comes to
having to resort to the other out written on the other side of the
card.

Now I place the card writing side up so that what I have just
written is facing upwards and immediately cover this writing
with my hand. I ensure I cover this writing as I place it down
on the table so that at no point can anyone see what I have
written.

I also flip the card over completely as it goes down. This is a

complete flip of the card so that what I have just written ends
up face upwards on the table.

The motion of this flip helps cover the writing due to motion
blur as well as it being hidden in the larger action of placing
the card on the table as well as leaves the possibility in
everyone's mind that I did indeed place my prediction face
down when it comes to needing to reveal that side of the card,
later on.

This move is a kind of reverse paddle move. It is something I

throw in to make it hard for the spectator to accurately
remember exactly what you have done in terms of writing your
prediction.

It allows for both outcomes of your reveal to seem to be the

correct and intended outcome. Again, each outcome is based
on a series of moves. This will make more sense in a moment.

You will now be in a position where you have a single card with
two of the outs written on each side covered by your hand.

What is great about your shifting of premise at the beginning of

220
the routine is that it allows for each possible revelation to
appear to be the intended revelation and series of moves you
were always going to make.

If the spectator names the out written on the top of the card
facing upwards then all you need to do is slowly remove your
hand from the card to reveal the correct out.

This will appear to be the intended outcome due to the fact this
is how you were going to have the spectator write and cover
their information to begin with. It appears you have simply
followed the same procedure you first instructed them to do.
The only seeming difference is that you have written the
information for the spectator to guess as opposed to them
doing the writing.

This outcome appears congruent from a theatrical stand point

and seems to be the only way this could have gone. The paddle
move will be erased in the minds of everyone watching as it
doesn't fit into or make sense within the context of this
outcome that was seemingly the only way this could have gone.
They will have to assume the card wasn't flipped over which
will be an easy move to dismiss due to the fact this happened
under the larger action of you placing the card down
previously.

Not only does it make more sense that this was the intended
outcome they have also been led psychologically to believe on
the other side of the card is a name that has been crossed out.
This further cements the notion in everyone's minds that the
only piece of information relevant to the effect is the
information you have just uncovered with your hand. The
indirection of you apparently crossing out what is written on
the other side of the card makes that side of the card

221
redundant.

If the spectator says out loud the other out that is actually
written on the back of the card facing towards the table then it
is a simple matter of turning over the card and throwing it
back onto the table with the correct out showing. This is done
in one motion with the hand that was previously covering the
card to ensure the other out is kept hidden throughout this
turning over process.

Now the spectator and everyone watching will have to assume

you always intended on turning over the card as you flipped
the card before placing it writing side down on the table. Here
the paddle move will now register as significant and make
sense within the context of the reveal.

They will also have to assume that on the other side of the card
is the crossed out name.

You can see that both outcomes now make complete sense and
will not be questioned allowing you to appear to have one
written piece of information that is relevant on one piece of
card and still be covered with two completely different outs.

This is close to perfect and something I wanted to share as an

additional idea in this book.

222