This book is dedicated to all amateur card magicians in the

world, considering that all professionals are, of course, very

welcome as well. One of those magicians is Jan Isenbart, to
whom I am especially grateful for having contributed so much
and so kindly to the promotion of this book through his
blog http://www.zzzauber.com, apart from designing such a
beautiful cover. Thank you so much, Jan! (^_^)

I also want to take advantage of this updating of the book

to express my special gratitude to a couple of the Magic Forums
on the Internet:

One of them is The Genii Forum, through which I have been

able to meet so many great and friendly magicians, like Jan
itself (Zig Zagger in the Genii Forum), in addition to being able to
make this book accessible to a large community of magicians. So,
thanks a million to Richard J. Kaufman for allowing me to use The
Genii Forum platform to share this book, as well as to all the
members who have talked so kindly about this book; I cannot
mention all of them, but I would like to mention specially the
experienced magician Alfred Dowaliby (MagicbyAlfred in the
Genii Forum), who not only read the entire book, but
commented it with me by means of personal e-mails, enriching a
lot my personal experiences. Thank you so much, Alfred!

The other forum is The Magician's Forum, created by Rudy

Tinoco, a very nice and friendly magician that loves a lot card
magic. All members of this Forum have talked very nice about
this book, making me the happiest amateur card magician in the
world. Thanks a million to all of them! Some members of this
Forum are member of Genii Forum as well.
 In my last updating of this book I forgot to express a special
gratitude to Tom Gilbert (shame on me!) who was the magician
that brought this book to The Magician’s Forum. Thanks a million
for your consideration, Tom!

I want to express a special gratitude to Denis Behr for

taking this book into account in some of his researches, as for his
awesome accurate research regarding his essay The Tantalizer
Elimination Deal. I knew about it thanks to Jan Isenbart who
kindly informed me about it.

And finally another special gratitude to the Belgian

magician Maigret (Danny Crauwels), who talked very nice about
this book and made a reference of it in his great and
recommendable works, The C-system Maigret and The Maigret
Stack.

http://maigret.org/csystem
http://maigret.org/trailer/start.html

Thank you very much to all!

 THE PASSION OF AN AMATEUR CARD MAGICIAN
In December of 1991, due to my passion for magic, my
elder brother told me: “Did you know that David Copperfield
made the Statue of Liberty disappear?” I replied: "But first he
asked her to pick a card, right?" I was 15 years old, but I had
already 8 years of experience in the world of card magic, as an
amateur... or maybe I should say... as passionate...

SUMMARY
Introduction to the English version 7

Foreword 8

Introduction 8

- From an Amateur to Amateurs 8

- An Approach to the Amateur Card Magician 12

PART ONE

TIPS, THOUGHTS AND EXPERIENCES

Chapter 1: Eight Key Tips 15

- 1- About Starting and Methods 16

- 2- About Techniques and Routines 28
- 3- About Manipulations and Flourish 32
- 4- About Gimmicks and Tricking 35
- 5- About the Use of Gimmicks 37
- 6- On the Wisdom in Magic 40
- 7- About Working Hard on the Theory 42
- 8- About the Nature of Magic 46

Chapter 2: The Professional and the Amateur 50

- Conditions of a Professional 50
- Conditions of an Amateur 55
- The Concept of Real Magician 60
- The Amateur as a Real Magician 64

1
 Chapter 3: Psychology of the Spectator with the Amateur 68

- Four Key Points 68

- Common Circumstances 74
- The Evil Spectator 79
- Subliminal messages 92

Chapter 4: Magic on Demand 93

- Impossible Requests 93
- Excusing the Magic Effects 95

Chapter 5: The Personal Method 104

- The Concept of Independent Ideas 108

- The Theory in the Personal Method 135
- Practise in the Personal Method 143

Chapter 6: Techniques as an Amateur 149

- Naturalness as an Amateur 152

- Misdirection as an Amateur 156
- Flourishes as an Amateur 159
- Manipulation as an Amateur 164

Chapter 7: Gimmicks as an Amateur 167

- Effect and Resolution 170

- Wobbly Tricks 172
- Tricks to Make the Gimmick Disappear 175
- Tricks Impromptus, Setup and with Gimmicks 187

Chapter 8: Thoughts 192

- The Adult and Children's Point of View 195

- Magic and Illusionism 196
- When and Where to Do Magic as an Amateur 203
- How did you do that? 209
- The Syndrome of Monotony 212
- Magic with Stooges and Staging 215
- We as Spectators 223

2
PART TWO

A REPERTOIRE FOR AN AMATEUR CARD MAGICIAN 228

DIVINATIONS 233
1- The Spectator’s Reaction 235
2- Surprise Bet 236
3- The Lying Jack of Spades 237
4- The Changeable Fingerprint 239

AFFINITIES 241
5- Magical Affinity with Two Decks 241
6- Magical Affinity with Transposition 244
7- Role Exchange 246
8- Reciprocal Divination 250

MATHEMATICAL AND AUTOMATIC TRICKS 253

9- A Lost Child 254
10- The Final 3 259
11- Between the Two Red Queens 262
12- Shuffle Bored 265
13- Prior Commitment 267
14- Double Prediction 269
15- Time After Time 276

METAPHORIC STORIES 279

16- Ducks and Swans 280
17- Teleportation 282
18- Metamorphosis 283
19- Ho, Ho, Ho, Knock, Knock, Knock! 289
20- The As-sailants 294
21- The Black Hole 295
22- Policemen and Gangsters 297
23- Cavatina 301
24- Once upon Again 302

ACES ASSEMBLY 304

25- Straight Aces Assembly 304
26- Gradual Aces Assembly 305
27- The Power of Faith 306

DECKLESS 308
28- The Mystic Nine 309
29- Re-Set 310

3
30- All the Non-Conformists 310
31- The Restless Lady 311

CHEAP AND CHEERFUL 313

32- The Damaged Magic Lift 314
33- Magical Trips of a Card 322
34- The Dartboard toward the Dart 326
35- The Sucker Card 328
36- Chance Choice 330
37- The Partagas “Sell” 332
38- As-cend with Three Cards 333
39- The Time Machine 335
40- Out Of Side-Out Of Mind 336

THE HOFZINSER LOST ACE PROBLEM 337

41- Four Grass Cards 340
42- The Dilemma of the Selected Card 343

THE MAGICIAN AND THE GAMBLER 347

43- Magician vs. Gambler 347
44- Matching the Cards 349
45- A Strange Story 350

BIDDLE TRICK 354

46- The Invisible Card 354
47- Thought is Invisible 357

48- THE AMBITIOUS CARD AND “JAZZ MAGIC”360

49- TRIUMPH 369

50- Play it Straight 372
51- The Drunk Shuffle 373

OIL AND WATER 374

52- Good and Evil 375

THREE CARD MONTE 381

53- Dai Vernon’s Three Card Monte 382
54- The Gambler and the Grandfather 383
55- Tamariz’s Three Card Monte 384
56- Three Card Monte from Cadiz 386

TRANSPOSITION 392
57- Transposed Divination 393

4
 58- Be Honest – What is it? 396
59- Thought Transposed 398

BACKS 399
60- The Lady Who Blushes 399
61- The Colour Changing Deck 400
62- The Four Blue Backed Aces 402
63- Twisting the Aces 403
64- The Hour of Your Life 405

SIGNING 411
65- Between Your Palms 411
66- Anniversary Waltz 413
67- Side Swiped 415
68- Homing Card 416
69- Signed Revelation 417

COINCIDENCES 425
70- Out of this Universe 425
71- Total Coincidence 427
72- Triple Coincidence 430

GIMMICK CARDS 430

73- The Invisible Deck 431
74- The Travelling Cards 434
75- Four Blue Cards 436
76- Your Favourite Colour 440

DECK PLUS 443

77- Mercury’s Card 443
78- Card through Handkerchief 446
79- Matrix 446
80- Two Ideas for One Force 447

PART THREE

IF YOU HAVE GOT TIME… 453

THE FARO SHUFFLE 454

COMMENTED SELECTION OF FARO SHUFFLE TRICKS 455

A- The Rite of Initiation, B- Tamariz’s Jumble, C- The Two Detectives, D- The
Gun, E- Gymnastic Aces, F- Vernon’s Aces, G- Fourtitude, H- Brownwaves, I- 76-
76-67-67, J- Unshuffled, K- Affinity from a Distance

5
 THE MEMORISED DECK 462
- Great Show I 467
- Great Show II 482

COMMENTED SELECTION OF TRICKS WITH A MEMORISED DECK 486

A- Mnemonicosis Routine, B- Total Memory Routine, C- Weighing the Cards
Routine, D- The Three Piles Routine, E- All of a Kind, F- Flying Through Thin Air,
G- Control in Chaos, H- Theft of the Century, I- T.N.T., J- Two Beginnings, K- The
Invisible Card, L- Lazy Memory, M- Everybody Is Lazy, N- Histed Heisted, O- Zen
Master, P- Maximum Risk, Q- The Last Laugh, R- Test Your Luck, S- The Five
Senses, T- Monkey in the Middle, U- The Three Card Location, V- Core, W-
Unforgettable, X- Theatre Mnemonics.

COMPILATION OF DIVINATIONS WITH A MEMORISED DECK 504

A- Cutting a Pack from the Top 504
B- Cutting a Pack From The Middle 504
C- By Multiple Selection 505
D- Multiple Divination from a Central Pile 505
E- Divination by Sound 506
F- Divination after Shuffling the Spectator 507

LITTLE IDEAS TO SHARE ABOUT THE MEMORISED DECK 509

A- The Passion of an Amateur 509
B- Two Decks and Two Numbers 514
C- The Card Wand 517
D- The Phoenix Thought 518
E- Yet More Difficult 520
F- The Little T.N.T. 521
G- T.N.T. Routine 524
H- Surrealistic Divination 525
I- Pick 51 Cards… 527
J- A Coffee in Osaka 529

PORTABLE GIMMICKS 532

The “Portable Gimmicks Box” 532
The Artist Jokers 541
The Homing Card and Ink 543
The Intruder Deck 547

THANK YOU! 551

Latest erratum corrections and improvements update: 3/12/2020. Versions that have not
this note are previous versions which have less corrections and improvements.

6
 Introduction to the English version

This book was originally written in Spanish. I finished it on

November 8, 2014. I wrote it basically for myself and my Spanish
friends who love card magic. A year and a half later, in the spring
of 2016, I came up with the idea of translating it into English with
the purpose of making it much more accessible. Having that idea
was easy; the hard part was to believe that I could do it. I was
thinking about it for a long time, until finally I dared to start such
a gargantuan work, in September 2016. I took it easy; not in a
hurry, not only because I had no much time for it, but also
because I am not bilingual neither a professional translator, so it
was a really hard and slow task, though also fun and enriching,
since it made me keep in touch with the English language in an
academic way. I used all kinds of online sources to solve my
doubts about expressions, accurate meaning of certain words,
specific vocabulary about magic, comparisons with the Spanish
language, etc. I finished it in August 2019, so it took me almost
three years! But the most important thing is that I remember it
as a fun work, hard, but fun work. I didn’t want to bother any
native friend of mine to ask for some help for this translation, so
there may be many expressions that don’t sound natural.
However, I believe (hope) that any native will understand it well
enough.

Well, the end result is a “non-native British English

language with some Spanish grammar,” which I hope it is not a
nightmare for the English mother-tongue speaker who has the
infinite kindness of daring to read it. Thank you!

7
 Foreword

“I learned my first trick from my father when I was seven

years old, so I wasted the first six years of my life.”

Dai Vernon.

Dai Vernon said that forewords are seldom read, so that he

thought it would be better being brief about them. Since I
couldn’t agree more with him, I will go on to the introduction.

Introduction

I wrote the first words of this book on the 6th of December

of 1992, although I don’t recall which words they were, since at
that time I didn’t think about writing a book, but just writing
down my ideas so that not to forget them, and that’s how all this
started, unhurriedly and with no obligation, until I wrote the last
words on 8th of November of 2014, bringing an end to this
declaration of love to an art that I discovered in my childhood
and never dropped out as an amateur.

It’s impossible for me to start this adventure without the

most famous quotation about card magic:

“Card tricks are the poetry of magic.”

J. N. Hofzinser.

From an Amateur to Amateurs

If you are reading this is because you like card magic, so we

are friends already. Friends address each other in a familiar way,
so I will write in that way to every new friend that I appreciate so
much for devoting their time to read this words that I want to
share. That way we can also save time, because we can go to the

8
point “arguing” as soon as possible about how to improve any
trick and card magic in general…

My interest in card magic began in 1983, when I was 7

years old, just like Dai Vernon, but in my case, it wasn’t because
of my father taught me a card trick, but rather thanks to the
television. Everything began on December of that year, watching
on TV card magicians that made me feel so impressed that I
couldn’t stop trying to imitate them, experimenting on the decks
of card of my parents, until I discovered by chance an important
technique of card magic, but I will talk about it thoroughly in the
chapter 5, “The Personal Method.” Curiously, it was the same
year that David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear,
although I wouldn’t know it until many years after that. Since
then I couldn’t stop being interested in this art. I’ve never had
any special artistic name as an amateur, but the way I was
named by my relatives and friends: “Paquito,” which derive from
my real name, Francisco. That name was changing by “Paco” as I
grow up, around the year 1997, when I was already 21 years old,
since “Paquito” was just a child version of my name.

I began to think about theoretical card magic as a hobby in

the summer of 1992, but I didn’t organise what I wrote as a book
until 2008, when I thought to devote to it thoroughly, given the
large number of amateur card magicians that appeared
everywhere. So, based on my own experiences, as well as others
card magic amateur friends, I gave shape to these thoughts,
which I was gradually collecting, with no haste, with the only
purpose of transmitting them and sharing them after 25 years of
experience in this hobby. Three years later, on November 29,
2011, I had the greatest experience of my life in card magic: I
personally met Juan Tamariz and his magician wife, Consuelo

9
Lorgia. It was by chance (magical coincidence) at the hotel "Husa
Princesa" in Madrid, where I was working at that time. I could
not talk to them much because my work did not allow me to it,
but I was very satisfied with our conversation. They were quietly
at the cafe, when a co-worker told me about that. Then, I didn’t
hesitate a second to bother them, and they didn’t hesitate for
half a second to devote for me all the time I had, making me the
happiest fan in the world. I would have been hours and hours
talking to them about a million things. Apart from dedicating to
me his funny signature, Tamariz encouraged me not to leave the
passion for magic. When I came back home I told my fiancée
about that experience, and I showed her eagerly the graceful and
artistic signature of Juan Tamariz, which for so long I had seen in
his books, and this time was dedicated to me. I remembered his
words of support about magic, and I thought that I could even
consider seriously this collection of thoughts, experiences and
personal ideas of my life as an amateur. In other words, the
meeting with Juan encouraged me to continue improving this
document with the purpose of helping in some way the
motivation of every passionate and enthusiasts amateur card
magicians. Since my childhood I always wanted to meet Tamariz,
and that precise day, 28 years after seeing him for the first time
on television, I met him. During my childhood I dreamed many
times that I talked to him, and those dreams finally became true.
On July 9 of the following year I married my fiancée, Reiko
Nagata, who became my most loyal spectator. Since then, I
thought about using as artistic name "Paco Nagata" for the
Japanese surname of my wife's family. Later, I discovered with
great curiosity that the surname "Houdin,” of the legendary
magician Jean-Eugène Robert-Houdin, was in reality the surname
of his wife too.

10
 After reading again and again about 50 books of card magic
and magic in general, apart from performing as an amateur, I
thought: what if one passionate amateur card magician, self-
taught and very experienced, write a book about casual, informal
and family card magic? What would that amateur have to tell us,
who has not had any school or any teacher, but only books and
imagination? How does he or she organise him/herself, when
and where to act, to whom, how to practise, how to motivate
him/herself...? What good and bad experiences have he or she
had? How does he or she learn, discover, invent and overcome
obstacles? ... I thought it would be an interesting document for
the increasingly wide-ranging world of amateur card magicians.
Some reflections that will help us to enjoy our hobby like a
professional enjoying his or her profession. In short, it was the
many good and bad experiences lived in this hobby what made
me consider writing a book like this, which could help and
motivate any amateur. Moreover, if a professional would find it
interest or useful, it would be the biggest reward I could receive
after this job.

At first, I thought that the card magic as a hobby did not

have any particular difference with the card magic as a
profession, apart from the commercial purpose and the time
that is dedicated to it. However, experience taught me that there
were many more important differences between both sides,
which should be bear in mind by the amateur to avoid
disappointments. These differences are not usually paid much
attention and end up leading to disappointments and little
depressions for which there is no reason to go. I myself used to
abandon this hobby during certain time precisely as a result of
those depressions produced by the lack of attention and

11
consideration, especially during childhood and adolescence. But
my passion for card magic was so great that I could not stop
investigating with a deck of cards, doing magic to myself and
without worrying much about the lack of attention or
consideration. So then, I thought that my personal story could
motivate any amateur of any age.

Whether you intend to become a professional or remain as

an amateur, these memories and reflections will be interesting
for you to compare and understand both points of view, and will
help you to avoid the disappointments I suffered when I started,
as well as help you to feel satisfied and proud of being an
amateur if you do not achieve your dream of becoming a
professional.

Sometimes I will speak using specific words about the

culture and history of card magic, which may not understand
very well those people who are taking up the hobby, but in any
case they could consult them in other sources about which I will
also give references.

An Approach to the Amateur Card Magician

"I leave a blank line for you, reader (friend for that), so that
from your own handwriting you write your name and thus,
personalised, my total gratitude. To (_________), thank you very
much.”

Juan Tamariz (“Sonata,” Introduction).

Thank you, Juan, for trying to be friends of all the fans that
love magic. Thank you for leaving that blank line in your book
"Sonata,” so that everybody that wants to be friends of you, can
be. I am one of those who have realised that your best magic

12
trick has been to make the size of your heart fit in your chest. If
you are half as good as a magician as you are as a human, there
are plenty of reasons to win prizes. Don’t forget to send me a
cured ham for these words! (Note: Tamariz usually say that he
win prizes because he sends Spanish cured ham to the judges).

There is no doubt that the number of amateurs card

magicians is growing. The extraordinary popularity of this branch
of magic, the amount of didactic books that are published about
it, and therefore, the relative easiness of embarking on this
hobby, in addition to the irreplaceable popularity of card games
and the omnipresence of a playing deck of card in any homes,
make this hobby something for which I consider appropriate to
pay more and more attention. Taking up card magic is easy, but
being a good amateur about it is not so easy. In fact, nothing in
life is easy if we want to be good at something. I had some
amateur friends who left the hobby when it became difficult or
"boring" to practise, which denoted a clear lack of wisdom about
that art. They were not passionate amateurs. These fans believed
that to become a magician they just had to learn the secrets by
reading books and proceed with them. This is one of the main
misunderstandings that amateurs crash. When we open a book
of magic with great expectation and learn great secrets, we are
very excited, but when we have to practise several techniques
and theoretical concepts in front of a mirror, hundreds of times,
we no longer have so much excitement. In fact, there are card
magic tricks “easy” to do and with great effects, but even those
"easy" tricks to do must be practised well, to avoid those
unexpected blunders due to an excess of confidence with
ourselves. Professionals are very careful and pay a lot of
attention to all kinds of details. Why would not we do the same

13
being amateurs? I guess all the amateurs want to be good, so we
should strive to deserve what good we are and understand as
much as possible the art of magic, as well as for the sake of this
art in general. Being a magician is not only knowing tricks and do
them, just like that, but also to transmit to the spectators the
concept that you are a magician and that is the reason they have
seen you doing magic. The one who learns magic and does it
with passion is already a magician, but the one who learns magic
and does it without passion is just someone who has learned
how to do a trick. Learning how to do magic is not the same as
learning how to be a magician. Professionals are good because
they convey the feeling that a magician has done magic. A card
trick is not "same old same old,” it depends a lot on the attitude
of the performer as a magician to bring it to a real success. There
are very magical tricks that are easy to do thanks to ingeniously
trick-or-treating equipment, but if we do not dress them up with
our magician personality, we will only look like someone who has
done something mysterious, like a scientist who does something
surprising, but without showing it as magic fact. We are the ones
who must bring the feeling of magic, not the equipment we are
using. You are the magician, not the tricked-out deck. To be a
good magician, the first thing we have to clarify is that we are
magicians, but not someone who has learned to do magic. I have
known amateurs that left the hobby shortly after learning a few
secrets and carrying them out at some parties and meetings.
These amateurs did not want to be magicians, but only do some
magic tricks. The image you really want to give depends on you.
Keep in mind that to the spectators a professional is a magician,
whereas an amateur may not be. This means that the difference
between learning to do magic and being a magician is precisely
the difference that spectators grasp first between professionals

14
and amateurs. So, if your wish is to be a magician, strive to
convey that idea, since as an amateur it will not be easy. If your
audience see you only as "someone who has learned to do
magic,” it will be hard for them to accept your magic as magic,
since the magic's meaning is that it is made by a magician. I have
also seen other amateurs who left this hobby due the sad reason
of demotivation. Demotivation caused by the lack of interest of a
thoughtless audience with his magician status (for being just an
amateur). I say sad because some of those amateurs were good,
very good magicians, but they ended up not seeing any meaning
in continuing with it if they were going to be just amateurs;
amateurs not taken seriously. I was about to be one of them, but
my passion for this hobby was stronger, and hence the title of
these memories. I found solutions to these adversities through a
constant analysis of the different situations lived during my
experiences, which I want to show you here through a selection
of those experiences and anecdotes.

The main obstacle to enjoy as an amateur card magician is

to get that your viewers consider you as a true card magician,
making them forget the fact that you are an amateur. Experience
has proved me that this is not easy, being the main reason why
many amateurs end up leaving or neglecting this hobby. So, I
thought about turning these memories into a manual on how to
avoid this and being a great and motivated amateur card
magician.

15
 PART ONE: TIPS, THOUGHTS AND EXPERIENCES

CHAPTER 1: Eight Key Tips

“Magic makes you more observant than an ordinary person.”

Dai Vernon.

I am no one to give you any piece of advice, but I can give

some to myself, since I have to be aware of the need to work on
the imagination to improve. If you are a good magician you will
not need to read what is written here, but if you are also looking
for friends you will find one here that wishes to share concerns,
thoughts and anecdotes. Thank you very much for devoting your
time to it!

I will start with eight basic tips that I would have loved to
have got from someone when I took up this hobby, because it
would have saved me a lot of time, mistakes and a few of
disappointments.

Note: I will generally consider that the magician is a man (as

I am) except when I specifically state that the magician is a
woman for a change, with the purpose of not saying every time
“he or she,” “him o her,” etcetera, specially along the Part Two
regarding the repertoire of tricks.

1- About Starting and Methods

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

Albert Einstein.

I have seen and read many interviews with professional

magicians. Everyone agreed that the best way to learn magic was
the one that made us creative, so that we do not seem just a

16
kind of device that plays magic tricks. Teachers of magic base
their teaching on stimulating the creativity of the pupil, with the
intention of making him to understand as better and as soon as
possible what exactly is magic, and thus to become a (good)
magician. In the case of self-taught amateurs, this knowledge can
be obtained independently, discovering, analyzing and deducting
anything on their own through something we can call "magician's
intuition,” regardless of how many and which books we have the
chance to read. If a self-taught amateur bases his learning on
someone explaining some secrets to them (someone who is not
a magic teacher), without reading books (practical and
theoretical), and only imitating the professionals performances,
that amateur would get away from the path of creativity and the
meaning of magic as magician. Also, based on these arguments
from interviews with professional magicians, I came to the
conclusion that nothing could stimulate more creativity than to
start even without books, creating one of your own, both
practical and theoretical, only with the desire to be a magician. It
would be the best way to know if you really want to be a
magician. Anyway, it is not necessary to reach those extremes,
but I started like this because I had no other way to start, and
now I can confirm that it worked very well to stimulate creativity,
in addition to convincing myself that I liked magic. At first I
thought I had bad luck for not having books when I wanted, but
actually it was good luck what I have had, since I discovered
some card techniques on my own because of a strong desire to
become a card magician, which not only made me feel proud,
but also to be full of self-confidence. This does not mean that I
advise you not to read any books until you discover "something"
on your own. I just want to make you aware of how important
creativity is, regardless of what you learn from teachers and

17
books. Try to get ahead of some ideas before seeing them
published in books or taught by someone, just to stimulate your
creativity. You will find very motivating to read a secret in a book
that you have previously thought or discovered, and it will give
you the nice feeling that you are worth to be a magician.

Apart from that, no way to begin to learn has to be better

than another, the important thing is to complete the "puzzle of
general knowledge" no matter is the piece you start with. Many
amateurs do worry about thinking which books to read, which
are the "best,” and then worrying too much thinking if they are
going to begin in card magic in a "better" or "worse" way, based
on the books they use and the method to follow during their
learning, if they have skipped an important step, if they are
progressing too fast ignoring concepts that they should know
before continuing and not knowing which, and so on. My advice
is that you don’t worry too much about this. If the circumstances
of your life have made you start with an advanced book, you can
continue later reading an elementary one, and thus complete
your "puzzle of general knowledge" piece by piece, randomly.
Every amateur follows a different personal method. No method
has to be better than another, since it will depend on how
diligent the beginner is; us. I began in magical literature with a
very basic book of magic for children, in which there were some
card tricks. A year later, I made a big jump with a book about
only card magic, much more advanced, called "Cartopijadas"
(”nonsense card”), by Alberto Reyes, which a kind neighbour lent
me. (I don’t know if there is an English version of it). Shortly after
I was given as a present a book of card magic for beginners, but it
was not exactly a didactic method. So, it cannot be said that I
had a very “tidy” learning, but I tried to establish an order on

18
everything I learned as any book of different levels fell into my
hands, apart from everything I discovered on my own. I also
understood the big error that involved underestimate
elementary or ancient books after having read advanced or
modern books, because that way we would never complete our
"puzzle of general knowledge."

In 1998, I thought about the expression "culture of

techniques" while writing a little book for myself about the
theory of card magic. In that book I postulated the difficulty of
having new ideas if the "old" ideas are not kept in our mind. That
is, the magic tricks are not only to be learned, but also to try to
keep them in the long-term memory, to acquire a "culture of
techniques" or ideas that allow us to merge them with other
ideas and create new and original tricks. What is to say, the more
times we read our books of card magic the bigger will be our
"culture of techniques,” since more things we will recall as
resources for the versatility to our card magic. Obviously it isn’t
necessary to reread a technique that we already know, but it is
necessary to remember that it exists to resort to it at the ideal
moment when we are building new routines. I have heard of
professional magicians that say that they have devised great and
original routines with the help of elementary or ancient books,
from which they revived forgotten techniques and ideas.
Whenever you have time don’t stop reading what falls into your
hands, because you never know what wonders we are ignoring
or forgetting, wonders that can be very useful for our creative
development. Personally speaking, I will tell you that I have
solved great problems or improved advanced tricks by reaching
out to elementary books and recalling "small" useful techniques
that fell irresponsibly into my oblivion. I remember when I

19
learned the "Gilbreath principle,” in summer of 1992, I didn’t
give it much importance at that time, but thanks to that
knowledge, a few months later, I was able to improve an effect
based on alternating the way of the asymmetric backs of a deck
of cards. Thanks to the principle of Gilbreath, the deck of cards
could be given to a spectator to riffle shuffle without being
affected the alternation of the asymmetric backs. It was another
example of the importance of the "culture of techniques,”
although in this case it would be "culture of ideas" or
"mathematical card principles.” Later, in 2002, thanks to the
facilities of the information by Internet, I discovered that the
idea of alternating asymmetric backs had its origin in Charles
Jordan, in a trick called "Premo Detection,” published in the
number 8 of volume 16 in October 1916 of the magazine "The
Sphinx" (page 162). Subsequently, Annemann devised great
tricks by this method, whereas the idea of using the Gilbreath's
principle for alternating backs was presented by Max Maven in a
trick called "The Hawk." However, Max Maven himself found out
that this was the principle that made a trick of Jordan work on
the alternation of asymmetric backs, called "Psychic Prediction,”
although Jordan himself did not publish it as mathematical
principle as Norman Gilbreath did in volume 38, number 5 of
"The Linking Ring" (page 60) in July 1958, in a trick called
"Magnetic Colours,” in which the principle was applied to the
alternation of colours instead of asymmetric backs. Max Maven,
apart from a good card magician, was also characterised by being
a great researcher on the origin of the card tricks.

In summer of 1991 I was developing a routine to show

during the Christmas parties to my family members. In one part
of the routine I needed to pass a card from the top to the bottom

20
of the deck in a fair way. It seemed to me quite suspicious to do
it just like that. I was 15 years old and I was making the mistake
of laziness. The same laziness that sometimes prevents us from
practising well the tricks is what makes us not re-read the books
we have, in order to recall basic techniques or ideas to use them
at the ideal moment. I was thinking about it for quite a lot time
until I said to myself: "The double undercut! What a fool I am!"
The solution was the elementary technique of the double
undercut, a resort that should have gone out from my head
immediately. My problem was not other than that, I was lacking
in "culture of techniques." And because of that I focused from
then on reviewing my own books, in order to use the tools I had,
but did not use just because I did not even remember I had
them! Needless to say that the bigger is your culture of
techniques and ideas, the bigger are your resources to solve
problems, but anyway do not be obsessed with wanting to learn
and use all the techniques that exist in the world of card magic.
The important thing is just to make a proper use of what we
know, but let's not forget!

The "double undercut" appeared for the first time in

"Expert at the Card Table" (page 103/4) by the pseudonym
Erdnase (1902). Dai Vernon used it for his routine "Cutting the
Aces,” published in the series 2, number 2 of "Stars of Magic" in
1946. Since then, the technique became very popular.

I remember one day when I was re-reading the book

"Aprenda usted magia" (“Let’s learn magic”) (1973) by Juan
Tamariz, in December 1992. I was reading it because of nostalgia
rather than looking for something, since I almost knew that book
by heart, until it occurred to me to do something different with
his routine "¡Póker de ases!,” (“Poker of Aces!”). The routine is a

21
very good one in proportion to its easiness. Many amateurs say
to be one of the first card tricks to have learnt. At that time, it
was part of my usual repertoire, but when I had a new look at the
book it occurred to me the idea of making appear four selected
cards instead the four aces. That idea came to me when I
thought about the also Tamariz's routine, "Repoker of the
Chosen" (page 45 of his book "Sonata"). I just needed to add the
wonderful "multiple card control of Dai Vernon" to control the
four chosen cards to the top, to add one random card on top of
them through controlled cuts or shuffles, and everything ready
for the next easy procedure. The "multiple card control of
Vernon" is a wonder technique not difficult at all to perform,
being very useful for amateurs who don’t have much time to
master techniques too complicated. It was published for the first
time in "Arthur Buckley's Card Control" (page 20) in 1946. So,
through my "culture of techniques" I came up with a good
version of Tamariz's “¡Poker de ases!” that had a good impact on
my audience, which started by having a new “little look” at his
book "Aprenda usted magia." Making appear chosen cards is
always more surprising than making appear certain cards such as
aces, in addition to make the spectator feel more involved.
Experiences like this one convinced me of how important the
"culture of techniques" was, and since then I never
underestimated the reading or re-reading of any book, no matter
how elementary it seemed, in order to acquire and / or recall all
kinds of knowledge.

Some years later, doing research online, I found out that

Steve Belchou created a card trick in which an spectator him/
herself cut the deck of cards in four piles, took three cards from
top to the bottom of each pile just before dealing a card on each

22
other three piles, and finally checked that the four Aces turn out
to be on top of each pile. I liked more the Tamariz’s version
because it makes excuses for the cards taking from top to
bottom, being one card for being the first pile, two cards for
being the second, and so on. The curious thing was finding out
that Belchou created it with four selections, being published by
Oscar Weigle in “The Dragon Magazine” in May 1939, with the
title “The Million to one Trick”. Today, this Steve Belchou’s
routine is well known with Aces as “The Poker Player’s Picnic,”
from the time it was published in the famous book "The Royal
Road to Card Magic,” written by Fred Braue and Jean Hugard in
1948.

If you have the chance to start learning card magic from a

methodical book, any didactic method on card magic that you
may be recommended in any magic shop will be great, but the
important thing is not the method, but to learn and recall all you
can to give free rein to your creativity. Do not worry too much
about how to begin as long as you know how to organise
yourself while you learn from all kinds of sources. So that, as you
are completing your puzzle of knowledge you can read the books
of your favourite card magicians whose tricks and routines are
closer to your personal style. I clung to the books of Juan Tamariz
because I always liked his style, but of course I have read books
of many other magicians to expand my knowledge. In the card
magic literature there are so many gems that it is quite difficult
to opt for any. You simply get carried away by the author who
inspires you most and motivates you to develop as an amateur.
Just as no method to learn magic has to be better than another,
we must also keep in mind that no magician is better than
another, but each one has their own ideas and style that will be

23
closer to yours. By the way, following someone's style doesn’t
mean imitating him. We can show magic inspired by the style of
our idol, but without appearing to be imitating him. That would
be something like immortalise a certain style, but with an own
identity.

If I had to recommend a book of magic to begin with, it

would be one that you wrote for yourself, whether it was a book
written mentally or physically that only read you (at that
moment), a book of ideas of your own and / or based on
knowledge that you have acquired from other books. Write
everything you can think of, so that later you will not forget it.
This way you will get away from that dependency complex that
we sometimes may feel, making you a card magician with
personal contributions that could even help and inspire another
amateurs, as well as professionals if you are lucky enough to
perform in front of them. If you want to have in your hands the
most recommended book of card magic, you just write it!

To finish this extensive advice (the rest will be shorter), I

wanted to insist that we should not obsess about "knowing
everything" either. You can be an exceptional card magician
knowing only a few general techniques and your imagination.
Don’t you feel a "worse" magician because you know less than
another, neither feel obligated to get to know everything about
card magic. What will come will come, but you will continue to
do very well what you know how to do. What will make you a
good card magician is not related to the amount of techniques
you know. Thinking like that is a very common mistake among
amateurs. What will make you a good card magician is just a well
use of the techniques you already know, including misdirection.
Of course, knowing more techniques will give you the chance to

24
increase your resources, but it will not necessarily make you
"better." Darwin Ortiz wrote in “Magic magazine” (March 2006)
that the best book will only give you some tools and some
guidelines, meaning that you can always improve with what you
already know.

As for the techniques, what are the "best"? Actually, none,

since the best technique in the world is to achieve a great effect
without having to use any technique, but when there is no other
choice but to use them to produce some great effect, choosing
them is very personal, so much so it can even cause headache.
So here is a summary list of techniques and essential
manoeuvres that will allow you to do virtually any impromptu
miracle. All you have to do is "put them in order,” as Mozart said
about the musical notes. The essential aim of the techniques is
to "control the cards without appearing to be controlling them."
It is also important to learn to use sparingly the techniques in
order not to repeat many times the same in the same trick.
Below the name of the technique I write the earliest credit:

A- The Double Lift

Anonymous
B- The Break
Girolamo Cardano (“De Subtilitate” 1550) – J.N.
Hofzinser
C- The Key Card
Girolamo Cardano (“De Subtilitate” 1550)
D- The Corner Crimp
Anonymous
E- The Glide
Reginald Scot (“Discoverie of Witchcraft” 1584, pag. 333)
F- Braue Addition
Edward Marlo - Frederick Braue
G- Depth Illusion or TILT

25
 J.N. Hofzinser - Dai Vernon – Edward Marlo
H- The Spread Cull
J.N. Hofzinser
I- Multiple Card Control
Dai Vernon
J- Palming
J.E. Robert-Houdin/J.N. Hofzinser
Side Steal
F. W. Conradi (“Der Moderne Kartenkünstler” 1896, pag.13)
K- The Top Change
J.N. Hofzinser
L- The Shift/ The Classic Pass
Anonymous (“Liber Vagatorum,” 1512, pag.47)
The Herrmann Pass
J. N. Hofzinser (he taught it to Herrmann)
M- False Shuffles
There are so many techniques to do a false shuffle that
choosing them is something very personal and
dependent on the routine.
N- False Cuts
Like the false shuffle comment.
O- Forces
Like the false shuffle and cuts comments. I recommend
"Encyclopedia of Impromptu Card Forces" by Lewis Jones,
and "202 Methods of Forcing" by Theodore Annemann.
P- False Counts:
1- Ascanio Spread
Arturo de Ascanio
2- Buckle Count
Abraham J. Cantu - Dai Vernon
3- Flushtration Count
Norman Houghton - Brother J. Hamman
4- Hamman Count
Brother J. Hamman
5- Elmsley Count

26
 Alex Elmsley
6- Jordan Count
Charles T. Jordan
7- Biddle Move
Elmer Biddle
Q- Colour Changes
There is a big variety of it, so that is a personal choice
and dependent on the conditions.

Knowing how to properly apply these techniques and

procedures with a good misdirection, in addition to practising
them often, we will have basically everything we need to be a
good card magician. The close-up magician Tomohiro Maeda, in
an interview that I watched on Japanese TV, considered an
interesting metaphor in which he said that magic tricks were like
kitchen dishes. A good cooking dish should have a good
combination of selected ingredients with their ideal proportions,
as well as a magic trick about the techniques, gimmicks,
misdirection and psychology strictly necessary to produce the
best magical impact (flavour) on the audience (dinner guests).

27
 2- About Techniques and Routines

“Someone creates a trick, many people perfect it, but its

final success in front of an audience depends on the person who
presents it.”

René Lavand.

In my opinion, we should try not to learn the techniques

separately, that is, without associating them with a trick or a
routine. If we do that we will instil the misconception that
learning card magic is basically learning techniques. To learn card
magic is to learn routines. It is better to learn the techniques
through routines, since that is the genuine way to understand
them. Do not think "I know these techniques,” but rather "I know
these routines." After all, the techniques "do not exist" in a way
that they must go unnoticed even for us. The only thing we must
see and understand is the same that the spectators should see
and understand: the routine. As Tonny Slydini said, the secret to
doing good magic is to deceive yourself too, which leads me to
think that it is more effective to learn a technique together with
the routine where to apply it. That would be like studying
expressions of a language always through a context, instead of
studying them separately. When you get to speak a language
without having to analyse mentally what you are saying, it is
when you have learned it. Card magic is like so. If you manage to
surprise with a trick without even knowing or remembering what
techniques you used, you are learning to be a good card
magician. Try not to get excited for having learned something
that "does not exist" (a technique) but for having learned
something that does exist (a magic trick). Magic is nothing more
than the talent to make think you've done magic. Let’s do not

28
feel proud to know good techniques, but to know how to present
them as good tricks. I have had amateur friends who talked to
me a lot about card magic techniques, but not much about
routines in which to apply them. In fact, they looked for tricks in
which there were many techniques to apply, since that seemed
like more fun. I realised that those amateurs didn’t understand
exactly what magic is. Techniques are only tools, and some of
them are very dangerous, so that the less necessary to do the
good job, the lower the risk of injury. In addition, any deception
can be a technique to take advantage of, as the very fact of not
applying a technique when someone can think so. Applying
techniques deceives laymen, but not applying them can deceive
magicians. That is, "a technique not applied" can also deceive,
making believe that the secret is where is not ("The magic way,”
Juan Tamariz), which is precisely what we have to deal with to be
a good illusionist. I once did an experiment with some card magic
amateur mates. I was performing a trick in front of them. I
intentionally made them suspect that I was palming a card, so
that they were sure of it. I continued with the talk while letting
glimpse that there was nothing palmed in my hand. Then I saw
faces of surprise in my fellows. They must have felt that the card
had disappeared from my palm because of how convinced they
were that I palmed it. So, we can say that magic is nothing but
well-presented deceptions. A technique is not what you do, but
what you make believe you do. This concept is usually referred
to as "technique without technique."

Other common mistakes that we amateurs usually make, is

to look for an excuse to use techniques that we have just learned.
Learning a new technique does not mean that we need it or have
to use it to "move forward." If you see that you don’t need it,

29
keep it in your repertoire of resources while you simply practise
it, but don’t obsess about wanting to use it. I remember a card
magic amateur friend of mine who was looking forward to using
the "cover pass" in some card trick. Imagine someone who was
looking forward to getting hurt in order to use their new
wonderful first-aid kit, or wishing their home burned to use their
new modern fire extinguisher. Techniques should not like us,
what we should like are the tricks that require them to produce
magic. If we get used to learning the techniques together with
the routines, we will understand better the card magic language.

As for routines, it is not advisable to memorise too many

with the intention of being able to carry them out at any time. I
once mistook the routine of one trick for another. The result was
awful. It was my very fault because of wanting to memorise my
repertoire I had at that time (about 30 tricks), with the intention
of being able to do any of those tricks at any time. It’s not a good
idea to create an encyclopaedia of tricks in your head. However,
if we memorise the routines of four or five tricks there will be
less chance of confusion. In another time I forgot a simple step I
had to make during a quite simple trick, which I thought had
more than mastered, and finally went wrong. The reason was the
same; I have tried to keep too many tricks in my mind. Even a
simple trick can become a botch for forgetting a simple and tiny
detail that you have not carried out. Since then I organised
myself in the following way:

I memorise permanently only four or five of the best

routines of my impromptu repertoire, in order to give always the
best image as an amateur to anyone who asks me to do some
card trick. At the same time, I practise other tricks of my
repertoire, but not with the intention of memorise them

30
permanently, but just to do it on some arranged occasion, or that
I think that the occasion can happen. The thing is not to risk
doing trick of a certain complexity at any time, without reviewing
them or rehearsing them shortly before presenting them.

I know that many good amateur card magicians as you are

(not sucking up intended), have thought over these tips, but it
never hurts to hammer at these matters. I recommend myself
these things everyday to avoid negligence such as carrying out
routines that I do not master. It is not worth risking anything at
all to spoil a good trick. Regarding the world of improvisation,
that is another thing. Depending on your experience, time of
practise and self-confidence, you can forget the fear of forgetting
and give free reign to your extensive knowledge, enjoying the
pure card magic. Improvisation (known as "Jazz Magic”) is a too
personal thing to advise anything about it, but I'll tell you
something very interesting that I discovered along my personal
experience: you don’t need to improvise voluntarily; you'll end
up doing it without realizing it! Experience will tell you when you
are ready to improvise. You will know it when you discover that
you are improvising without even noticing it. I'm telling you that
because it happened to me and some amateur friends of mine.
The art of improvisation will come to you automatically, and if it
hasn’t arrived it’s because you’re not ready for it yet or you just
do not need it. Improvising does not mean being a "better"
magician, but just a magician who works in a different way.
Improvisation is not a step that must be climbed, but simply
another resource. Don’t be obsessed about it (nor anything). A
brilliant card magician that bases part of his work on
improvisation is Dani DaOrtiz.

31
 3- About Manipulations and Flourish

“A conjurer is not a juggler.”

J. E. Robert-Houdin.

This is a very characteristic aspect of amateurs. If you like

card magic you like playing cards, and if you like playing cards
you like to play with them in a many ways. But actually that’s a
dilemma. It is something that can harm us without even realizing
it. If we toy constantly around with a deck of cards, juggling with
it like the one that play with a yo-yo, and our relatives notice
how skilful we are, given how much we like it, there will come a
time when it will become quite difficult to surprise them as a
card magician, especially as an amateur. We must avoid that our
people consider us an expert “dealer” of cards if we want to
transmit that we are card magicians. With this I don’t intend to
advise you that we condemn forever the flourishes or explicit
manipulations. What I want to advise is that at the beginning of
becoming known as a card magician, is better avoid as much as
possible to show any special skill with a the deck of cards, with
the intention of transmitting an image of a card magician over a
skilled manipulator. It is to say, trying to give a first impression
on our common viewers that we are not a particular specialist in
playing with a deck of cards, but only doing card magic as a card
magician, so that when we have transmitted that image and get
to be considered like so, we could introduce step by step some
flourishes, as if we have learned them just for ornament to be
more elegant, far from making them consider suspicious
manoeuvres (since, remember, at the beginning we did good
magic without them). And that would be the idea.

32
 As I said before, since my childhood I was a staunch fan and
follower of Juan Tamariz. I liked his style, his way of performing
magic, his humour and his passion. Tamariz is from the "school"
of the card magicians who prefer to avoid making excessive
flourishes with the cards, in order that the spectators do not
attribute the magical effects to mere handlings. Ed Marlo also
advised to cut off a little the explicit handlings and flourishes for
the good of the ingenious tricks without techniques, which he
considered indispensable to enrich the image of card magicians.
Throughout my experience as an amateur, I discovered that it
was precisely an amateur who should most avoid excessive
manipulation of a deck of cards if he really wanted to be
considered a card magician. It will be difficult for our people to
assume that we are magicians just because we are not
professionals. If we also do a lot of flourishes, they could easily
be considered as responsible for the "false magic" of an
impersonator magician. Nevertheless, in the case of professional
magicians, they would be established as real magicians by their
public, so that although they used to do flourishes, they would
still be considered as real magicians. So that, I insist that it would
be advisable for an amateur to avoid excessive manipulations
and flourishes until his audience gets used to considering him a
real amateur magician. I have personally verified throughout my
experience that this is essential for an amateur to succeed as a
magician, but not as an impersonator magician.

There are also professional card magicians who despite

being already considered as real magicians, prefer to continue
being reluctant to show explicit skills with a deck of cards, trying
to transmit a constant feeling that what they do is only the result
of magic. Let’s consider as an example for that, apart from Juan

33
Tamariz, Dai Vernon himself, among others such as Michael
Ammar, Paul Harris, Tommy Wonder, Roberto Giobbi, Michael
Close, Pit Hartling or Tomohiro Maeda, on one hand. On the
other hand, some examples of more visual card magicians could
be John Scarne, Harry Lorayne, Jose Carroll, Darwin Ortiz,
Richard Turner or Bill Malone. Personally speaking, irrespective
of being an amateur, I prefer to follow the dynamics of non-
explicit manipulations, even though this topic will be always one
of the most discussed in the world of card magic. Some of my
amateur card magician friends were successful venturing into a
more visual card magic, but it was also true that it was after
having previously gained in reputation of good card magician
among his common spectators.

A very illustrative metaphor of this would be that of a

group of soccer players who juggle with the ball skilfully, but
then lose the matches, since the sport of soccer and juggling are
two very different things.

In short, I would advise that at the beginning of becoming

known as a card magician, trying to make to seem that your skill
with a deck of cards is not particularly better than any of your
spectator’s. So, when you do card magic, it would really look like
a miracle. "How is it possible that this clumsy man with a deck of
cards has done my card disappear and appear here? Don’t you
say he is a magician”!

Of course, flourishes have their place in card magic, but

that place depend a lot on the construction of the routine and
what the magician wants to transmit as a magician.

34
 4- About Gimmicks and Tricking

“Magic doesn’t have tricks because everyone knows it does.”

Juan Tamariz.

Like manipulations, as an amateur I consider that it’s better

to start our work not using gimmicks too much. It is quite
comfortable to do magic with gimmicks, making easier our task
and improving the magic effects, but it’s not recommended for
amateurs that are starting to be known or has been known for a
short time. Keep in mind that an amateur card magician is mainly
a spontaneous magician. That is to say, the magic that an
amateur does is usually at any time to any person and under any
circumstance, not in a place arranged on purpose for a scheduled
show, what is usually the case of professionals. So, if you make
yourself known doing tricks by a trick deck, the day you don’t
carry that deck and your people ask you to do again that
wonderful trick, you won’t be able to, arousing suspicion on the
deck you used at that time. Nonetheless, if you make yourself
known performing impromptu tricks, you will be able to do them
at any time with any deck, so that you would make clear that
your magic is in you (the magician), and not in some suspicious
cards. Our first impression as a magician should be totally
separate from any suspicious gadget. We should focus firstly on
the best impromptu tricks we have to be able to perform them
at any time, getting our people used to that we do magic
because we are magicians, but not because we have some
"magic object." Then we could continue with other more striking
effects, but being able to hand the cards to examine or to get rid
of those cards that we can’t hand to examine, during the routine
itself. Finally, when your viewers are getting used to your talent

35
as a card magician, as well as you usually hand the cards to
examine, we could introduce some sophisticated tricks that we
can’t give to examine, but neither your people will not ask you if
you act naturally and getting them used to that you are just a
good card magician. That way we would always keep the thread
that magic is only in us as the effects become more and more
striking, and also as would be logical in an amateur magician who
is improving in talent. Furthermore, I suggest you try a subtle
idea that consists of the following:

When you do an impromptu trick (in which you can give to

examine the cards), do not hand the cards quickly or easily, but
act a bit innocent so that people just suspect that you hide
something. So, when you hand them reluctantly, or maybe they
take them voluntarily, the surprise will be more magical when
they notice that there is nothing to explain anything. I personally
call this "resolution of a trick" and I have been applying it since I
was 14 years old, causing great surprise reactions. In chapter 7,
"Gimmicks as an Amateur,” in the section "Effect and Resolution,”
I talk in detail about this interesting topic.

There are true masterpieces impromptus. A card trick that

can be done with a borrowed deck and causes a great impact is
the amateur's best friend. Those kinds of tricks will build up your
prestige at the beginning. In addition, if you do impromptu magic
with your own deck, try to give it away (as a present) whenever
you can. I know we are not rich, but you cannot imagine the
prestige that detail provides, as well as leaving relics that would
make your people to remember your wonderful magical shows.
That also helps your audience see the magic in the magician, and
not in the equipment he uses. They should not have more eyes
for you than the ones that look at a magician. Impromptu tricks

36
will also prevent us from becoming lazy when it comes to
practising the techniques that involve the world of card magic.
For example, a card treated with diachylon can help us make a
natural and easy double lift, but we need a card treated with
diachylon for that. In the same way, a short card can help us cut
the deck in a specific point, not needing break techniques. All
this would turn us into a lazy amateur with hardly skilful
resources that would allow us to do magic with natural cards. I
think we should flee from laziness and practise the techniques
that require impromptu tricks. Professional magicians
themselves try to avoid abusing gimmicks just not to tarnish their
magic, so you can imagine if we, as amateurs, should not take
the same precautions. Gimmick cards are tempting, but should
be used sparingly, only as a support, resource, dressing ...or final
blow in a routine, but never daily. Let’s don’t forget that
gimmicks usually leave traces, unlike the techniques. It’s true
that gimmicks help and improve effects, but contaminate them
as well.

5- About the Use of Gimmicks

“In magic, today as always, the effect is what counts. The

method or methods used are always purely secondary.”

Dai Vernon.

Let’s continue the previous tip thinking about when we are

using gimmicks. I think we must take into account a very
important detail from the point of view of an amateur, and that
we generally neglect:

When a professional card magician does an effect using

some gimmicks, he generally trusts that spectators will not try to
pick up the card (s) to examine it without the magician's prior

37
permission, as it would seem disrespectful regarding his devoted
fans. The audience of a professional usually touches things only
when the magician offers them, due to the confidence they show
to a real magician. This does not mean that professionals neglect
this topic, irrespective of us, amateurs, that are the ones that
must be special careful, since we usually do magic to family,
friends, or simply acquaintances who already have a certain
familiarity with us (the magician). Most of our shows will be
informal, in casuals meetings and spontaneous situations where
there are no television cameras that are recording us, or a lot of
people watching us, which brings the particular inconveniences
that the public don’t feel embarrassed to take openly the cards
we have used in an effect, without waiting for our offer. In fact, it
is possible that someone even think that you have done that
magic just to explain next how it is done (!). It is even possible
that someone feel disappointed or unhappy because you do not
want to explain it (!) If you are an amateur you will notice soon, if
not notice yet, the great difference between the attitude of the
public towards an amateur magician and that towards a
professional. Doing magic to people who have a great familiarity
with you implies a special situation to take into account,
something I will discuss in detail in chapter 7, “Gimmicks as an
Amateur.”

I will summarise in three parts a procedure to minimise

these situations:

1- Do your best impromptu tricks to get firstly the

consideration of a good magician, being able to hand to examine
everything.

38
 2- Use gimmicks ONLY with spectators who already respect
you as a magician (not as an impersonator magician).

3- Do not get used to doing tricks with gimmicks in front of

spectators who have too much familiarity with you, or are just
reluctant to consider you a magician.

Anything that denatures a card is a trick, a gimmick,

including a simple marked card. Be very careful with that
because if you get caught, your prestige can also be severely
marked, much more being just an amateur. As I said before,
professionals themselves avoid gimmicks as much as possible,
not only for themselves, but also to protect the Art of Magic in
general. Gimmicks are NOT the magician's best friend. The best
friend of the magicians is the imagination, imagination to create
magic with the least gimmicks possible. Gimmicks are like food
supplements or medicines, which can help you, but can harm
you as well if you don’t use them properly.

In magic stores you do not buy magic, but tricks. Magic can
only be purchased at home through practise, rehearsal, study,
dedication, love and passion.

39
 6- On the Wisdom in Magic

“The amateur shouldn’t show his or her magical skills in

front of an audience unless to be sure of being prepared to cause
interest by his or her tricks.”

Father Wenceslao Ciuró.

A characteristic error of amateur card magicians is just the

lack of patience regarding the chance of showing off. It’s not
uncommon that we sometimes feel envious of professionals
because they can show their magic in a regular and scheduled
way in front of an interested and faithful public. But that envy is
as sound as normal. It demonstrates more than ever the passion
we feel for this art. However, we must be careful not to crash
into the wall of this desperation, but to climb it step by step. We,
amateurs, sometimes get too desperate and end up
overwhelming anyone with our new tricks and ideas, trying to
get forced meetings, subduing the will of those who are
supposed to be your loyal spectators. We should NEVER force
anyone to see our magic. We won’t get not only any attention,
but it’s possible that this desired attention become buried
forever. A magic show should be done, above all, for viewers
eager to see it more than a magician willing to do it. Try just to
drop the rumour that you are an amateur card magician,
bringing people's attention so that someone may ask you for a
trick some other time. Try to adapt yourself to their wishes, and
not that they adapt to yours. The magic show must be done
when they ask for it, not when we ask for it. Try to be a
demanded magician instead of a demanding magician, as if you
were a "duty magician" prepared to entertain your people every

40
time they ask you for. You will be getting popularity and
attention step by step.

Other aspects related to the wisdom in magic would be the

non-repetition of the same effect. There are effects that we may
like so much that we cannot avoid the temptation to repeat
them again and again, but this is a serious mistake. Not only we
would run the risk of letting our people find out magic secrets,
which would be devastating for our consideration as a good
magician, but also cause people to get bored of the same
routines and think that you only know (how) to do that, going
away from the real concept of being a magician. For example,
the impromptu “three card monte” that so popularised Dai
Vernon, could be repeated again and again, but there is a risk of
the spectators will end up finding out the secret of the sleight of
hand, what is what they basically will try. In that case, if they ask
us to repeat it again and again, what we should do is just another
different impromptu trick, since what they really want is just to
catch the secret. Likewise it wouldn’t be recommendable to do
the same trick daily for the same audience, but to complete the
round of your personal impromptu repertoire, avoiding your
people to think too much about the routines you do while
showing others. So, when you go back to the very first routine of
your repertoire after finishing the round of all of them, it would
be almost like the first time. It’s something like seeing a movie
again after a long time.

41
 7- About Working Hard on the Theory

“It is presentation which lifts the card trick from the level of
the commonplace puzzle to the status of an unforgettable and
inexplicable mystery.”

Jean Hugard.

The professional is a worker, while the amateur is a… lazy

person? It does not have to be like this. Let's avoid that.
Whenever something can be improved or perfected, we should
strive for it, as professionals would do. Of course we don’t have
as much time as professionals, but don’t let it be due to lack of
interest or effort, but rather due to lack of time. It’s about not to
feel happy just with the "well enough,” but try to improve our
performances as much as possible. It’s also true that
professionals have the commercial motivation and a general
attention, but if we strive with patience for improving our magic,
we could achieve the greatest of our miracles: to make our
public forgetting that we are amateurs and think that we are just
magicians. Every time we do magic we should put all five senses
in it and never do it carelessly or having practised not enough,
which will sentence you to wearing the label of an impersonator
magician forever. One of the great specialties of professionals
regarding amateurs is the use of misdirection. Professionals
attach great importance to the theory of misdirection as it is
crucial to the quality of magical impacts. The word misdirection
refers to the deviation of attention. It is considered a universal
word in magic, even in any other languages. Amateur card
magicians tend to focus specially on techniques and gimmicks
because it goes straight to the point of magic, and because of
that, funnier. Whereas, the theory of misdirection, the

42
psychology of the spectators, presentation and the theory about
magic in general can be tedious, tough and boring. No much
people usually like to study the theory of something, and
especially when they are just amateurs. Amateurs that avoid the
study of misdirection offer magic shows of low quality in their
effects, since by means of misdirection many suspicious actions
can be hidden, which would result in a more accomplished
effect; more inexplicable. The quality of the magical impact
depends a lot on how you make the viewers to think about what
they are seeing. We can make our magic look professional if we
work hard on the theory of misdirection. It would be a pity if an
amateur card magician did not pay all the attention that the
theoretical books on magic deserve. Let's demonstrate to
ourselves that we are a good amateur card magician, capable of
a magic as convincing as that of a professional. Actually, that’s
what we want.

In the summer of the year 1992 I came up with an idea that

I imagine that many card magicians have already had, since later
I discovered that it was a basic procedure that was used in many
other routines. It was a method for the classic effect of the card
in the wallet. The trick is very impressive and the method is
technically simple. The problem was that the technique seemed
not to be enough to convey a total feeling of magic. I considered
it a perfect trick that only required applying the technique and
nothing else, but my experience when I performed it for the first
time to my relatives, showed me that I was wrong:

It is about keeping a double back card in your wallet.

Having a card selected that can be signed, and we control it to
top. A magical snap of fingers and we take out our wallet, we
open it and show the back of a card. We place this card on the

43
deck. Double flip. The signed card of the spectator was in the
wallet! The only thing the magician does is flip the card over the
deck, so that the spectators can take it directly and examine it.
Among laymen there is no particular reason to think about a
double-back card, but it doesn’t mean that other things are not
suspected. One of my family members immediately suspected
the card, snatching it quickly from my hand. I was surprised (in
fact I got scared) and immediately I kept the deck in my pocket
to get rid of the double-back card as soon as possible. Then,
another spectator looked at me smiling and asked me to see the
deck, so I took it out again, but without the double back card
(relief), and handed it over. Both spectators interrogated each
other with their eyes, denoting that they suspected my
movements. A third spectator examined the wallet ... In short,
fortunately they didn’t discover the secret of the double-back
card, but I had such a bad time. A magician who causes that
effect doesn’t deserve that reaction, not to talk about receiving
applause...

I attributed all that to the typical sceptical attitude of the

spectators with the family affinity with the magician. However,
far from depressing, those experiences were precisely what
taught me very useful things about the theory of magic. I
analysed my performance and discovered something interesting.
I discovered that it was all my faults. I didn’t perform the trick
like a magician, but like a robot. I didn’t stage or dramatise it well.
I didn’t excuse my movements very much, not trying to bring the
attention of the spectators from where it shouldn’t be, nor did I
try to entertain their minds so that they wouldn’t think of
possible solutions. Then I corrected the presentation:

44
 We opened the wallet and said there is a card. Tension! We
leave the wallet open on the table slowly and take the deck
without pause. Then we start to take the card out of the wallet
with one hand while doing the "break" with the other hand
holding the deck. The spectators will look at the hand that draws
the card from the wallet, so the action of getting the "break"
with the other would be covered. Then we bring the card to the
top slowly while we say with mystery: "the back of the card is the
same as the one in the deck." This way we transmit to the
spectators a natural excuse of why we join the card to the deck;
to clarify the situation and convey a bit of mystery. Immediately
after that we do the double turn over while exclaim: "I wonder
why!" And we leave the deck clearly on the table. The spectators
will see the signed card, astonished, trying to assimilate the
effect while the magician encourages them to take the card
themselves. The clarity of the acts prevents suspecting anything.
While the spectators take the card we casually hand the wallet to
someone and take the deck to spread it on the table, as a way of
more clarity. When we retrieve the wallet, we put it on top of
the spreading's top and take the double-back card under it when
we bring our wallet back to the pocket, so that we avoid having
to keep the deck or palm the card. In addition, it would be
convenient the wallet to be your real one, I mean not to seem a
"special" wallet to make that trick, but just yours, so that they
can see your personal photos, driver license, and so on. When I
did this effect with this new approach to other relatives, they
applauded me! Moreover, nobody asked me questions of
scepticism. Although, they were a while examining the card as
well as the entire deck, very surprised. They even asked me again
to take the wallet out from my pocket to examine it again. It was
a success, but not only for the result, but also for what I learned.

45
 8- About the Nature of Magic

“The mere knowledge of secrets will not help the amateur

conjurer very far on the road to success.”

David Devant.

I think we should avoid causing our viewers the feeling that

we can do magic easily. That is, not because we are magician is
easy to do magic. From time to time we should remind our
spectator that it is hard for us to do magic, in the same way that
it is hard to build buildings although we are used to seeing them
“easily” everywhere. In that way we would make the magic
effects seem more of merit, astonishing or just more magical. If
we did a great magic trick quickly and seemingly effortlessly, it
would seem that it is just a trick, far from appearing to be a
worthy miracle or a great magical achievement. Furthermore,
being just an amateur could be even more suspicious that it
seems so easy giving the impression that magic can be done by
anyone. We must protect the idea that magic requires a special
effort that can only be carried out by people called magicians. As
amateurs it would be much more credible to assume that it is
hard for us to produce the magical effect, showing a bit of
clumsiness or mistakes that we then correct. Try to give the
impression that magic does not always have to work, making the
effect from time to time not coming out at first time, or that you
have to pronounce the magic words more than once to make
them work because you don’t pronounce them well, or because
they are not correct, or any other reason. You can also show
yourself somewhat indecisive or nervous, as if you doubted your
magical abilities, in order to convey a bit of thrill and drama just
before the triumphant effect ... All this would produce a greater

46
climax and more merit, besides not looking arrogant. It's like
seeing a movie in which we know that the good guy is going to
win, but we are fascinated to see how he suffers, how he
struggles and how he manages to achieve the miracle of
defeating the powerful bad guy. In this way our viewers would
get on with us to the point of even giving us encouragement
during the show. We can even dramatise saying that we are
thinking about leaving magic because we believe that we are not
very good at it, so your viewers encourage you to not leave it
because they are convinced that you are worth it ... It is not
necessary to exaggerate these behaviours too much, actually it
will depend on the personal relationship you have with your
viewers.

Additionally, we must get into a frame of mind that magic is

not a secret, but a talent. Once I saw an amateur magician
performing a trick called "A Strange Story" by Alex Elmsley
(commented on the repertoire of the second part, with No. 45).
He did it very well. I was fascinated as a spectator and thought
that it was definitely a very complete, funny and magical routine;
ideal for the repertoire. However, I saw it again in the hands of
another amateur, and to my surprise it didn’t seem such a good
trick. Why?! It was exactly the same routine, but it didn’t seem
so good to me. I was a little disconcerted and thought that the
reason was having seen it before. But it wasn’t, that was not the
reason because I always see any routine objectively, no matter
how many times I see the same. Finally I understood the real
reason why it didn’t seem so good. It was about the performance
of the magician. The second time I saw the trick, the magician
had not staged it as well as the first one, that is, he didn’t impart
the same passion or transmit the same mystery. I experienced a

47
clear example that the power of magic is not in its trick or secret,
but in the talent of the magician. Never forget that we are not
magicians to know or discover secrets, but to use those secrets
in the best way to make them look like magic. There will come a
time when your knowledge of card magic will be so extensive
that you won’t need anyone to reveal to you anything when you
see new routines, and the most important thing will be to see
how well the magician has staged the use of that trick or secret.
The meaning of magic is in our behaviour, not in the number of
secrets we know. Giving a metaphor, we could say that the
secret of a trick would be the law, while scepticism would be the
prosecutor and the magician would be the lawyer. Spectators
would have the role of judges, judging the magical effect. All this
mean that magic is nothing more than the reaction of the public.
If the public does not react, there is no magic, no matter what
you do. Sometimes, when I do a great trick like Triumph of Dai
Vernon, my spectators react by only smiling, that is, without
much reaction. However, on other occasions when I do exactly
the same routine in exactly the same way to other spectators,
they go crazy screaming "but how the hell did you do that? Wow!
I cannot believe it ...” So the magic itself is in the reaction of the
spectators more than in the nature of the trick, and even more
than in your own presentation. There will be times when a trick
that you thought was not going to astonish much, it will, and vice
versa. The "degree of magic" that an effect has depends not only
on the trick or your charisma, but also on how the viewer takes it
at that precise moment. Don’t be disappointed when there is not
much reaction, since there are spectators who, although they
feel very astonished, don’t like to express it, due to personality
reasons such as shyness, self restraint, etcetera. It is evident that
the bigger the reaction of the public is, the more magician we

48
feel and the more magical the show turns out to be, but don’t be
in a hurry to find those desired reactions, since amateurs take
longer to get those reactions. Take your hobby easy and be
patience. Everything will come step by step.

49
 CHAPTER 2: The Professional and the Amateur

“The worst reason to do magic is the desired to display your

superiority to your fellow humans.”

Roberto Giobbi.

To be a good amateur, the first thing I think we should do is

to understand that our audience will not see us or treat us like a
professional. The tendency for our viewers towards us will be to
consider us a bit conceited, and it’s not difficult for us to ignore it
while thinking of the excitement to amaze, and then to be
disappointed because of the lack of reaction or recognition. Let's
analyse the conditions of both cases.

Conditions of a Professional

The professional magician is known, respected, admired

and supported by cultural associations, since he is a professional
artist. Professionals don’t need to beg for attention and they
have privileges granted such as those of participating in galas,
stages and popular theatres already organised. Professional
magicians have obviously less economic and time problems than
amateurs, since their life is magic. They have fans and reputation.
All this is very good, but they have their disadvantages too:

Professionals make their living doing magic. If they don’t

succeed they don’t earn money, and if they don’t earn money
they cannot pay their mortgages ... well ... you know. This causes
a professional magician to have a stressful life (as in any
profession) in which they cannot afford to make mistakes. They
must be very zealous at work and be very restrained. For a
professional magician, magic is not a play, but his life. From this
we can argue the important difference that professionals need to

50
do (good) magic, while amateurs don’t need it, and this is an
important determining factor of the attitude of an amateur.
Sometimes we forget the detail that we don’t have such serious
commitments to achieve success and offer the best quality that
professionals have. Professionals have to invent constantly new
routines so as not to fall into the repetitive popular routines, in
addition to trying to convey an own identity. They have to work a
lot on originality. Where we see a professional performance,
behind there is a lot of work, sacrifice, practise, stress and
nervousness. Professionals have many headaches while
amateurs don’t feel compelled to think so much. We don’t sign
contracts nor are we obliged to create anything new; it is enough
to perform popular routines already invented, and if we create
something new we do it without feeling obligated or pressured
by it, that is, when we feel like it, which is a good privilege.
Nevertheless, we have the disadvantage that if we create
something really innovative, we will not have many chances to
show it to the world, as professionals can do. As you can see,
there are advantages and disadvantages. We, amateurs, don’t
have the disadvantages that professionals have, but we don’t
have their advantages either. I don’t have much time to practise
because of my work (which is not magic), but I'm glad that magic
is within my reach thanks to the books written by precisely
professionals, which we have to be very grateful. Neither I have
an audience that tends to consider me a magician seriously, as
they would do with a professional, or pay a similar attention for
me to for them, but it is not a vital thing for me, when it is for
professionals. Nonetheless, never forget that a GOOD amateur is
also a professional, only that works for free.

51
 I also wanted to expound the concept of "semi-professional
amateur" in contrast to the concept of "plain or family amateur."
A semi-professional would be one who collaborates assiduously
with professionals in schools, conferences and circles, showing
their wisdom and offering their ideas. A semi-professional could
also be characterised by participating in competitions, publishing
books and doing magic in important events, thus gaining some
popularity, but not necessarily make a living with it, but by pure
love to the art of his hobby. In contrast, the "plain amateur"
would be a family, neighbourhood, casual magician, with little
contact with associations or professional magicians, not being
popular on a large scale, but within his personal circle of friends.
The plain amateur creates and organises his own shows. He
seldom has the chance to take part in big shows. They offer
magic at family events, on the street, shopping centres, parks,
etcetera, in a personal, altruistic and recreational way. I was, I
am and I will die being one of them.

Among the semi-professional card magicians we can

highlight leading figures that have catapulted the card magic to
the highest in close-up magic. Probably, the most famous and
influential semi-professional amateur of all history in Spain is
Arturo de Ascanio (1929-1997). In fact, he is considered to be the
FATHER of Spanish card magic. Considering an amateur as the
FATHER of Spanish card magic is a reason to be proud of being an
amateur. Ascanio sponsored promises that became great
professionals, gave lectures and won prizes such as the best card
magician in the world at the FISM in 1970, in Amsterdam. There
is a prize in Spain that bears his name. He invented great
techniques that nowadays are used by card magicians from all
over the world, in addition to his works on the psychology of the

52
spectator. He was a great friend of the genius creator of the
"Lentidigitación" (“slow motion magic”), René Lavand, whom he
met personally after three decades of contact by post, as did
Jean Hugard and Fred Braue to write together the famous book
"Expert Card Technique" (although not for so long). His work can
be enjoyed in "The Magic of Ascanio,” compiled and transcribed
by Jesús Etcheverry in four volumes. Another great example of
semi-professional conjurer of a great influence was Dr Jacob
Daley (1897-1954), who was not only an excellent surgeon with
his patients, but also with a deck of cards, gutting it as few
people have done. Dr Daley was a great friend of Dai Vernon and
contributed greatly to the art of card magic. Sid Lorraine (1905-
1989) was a commercial artist who collaborated with great
magicians with great ideas. He invented many tricks and
techniques such as the "Sloppy Shuffle." Alex Elmsley (1929-
2006) was another of the great semi-professionals. Elmsley
develop ingenious techniques and tricks for which nowadays it is
difficult to imagine the card magic without them. He was also
one of the first scholars on the mathematical applications of the
faro shuffle, as did Edward Marlo (1913-1991). Marlo was the
most prolific semi-professional in ideas about card magic. If we
consider that in the world of card magic there are about 35,000
effects, techniques and tricks, judging from the catalogues of
Jack Potter, which is the most extensive to date (about 100,000
effects and routines of general magic until 1964), and Denis
Behr’s, with some 61,000 catalogued effects of general magic to
this day, Marlo would have been responsible for 4% of all the
card magic that existed in the world until the day of his death. It
is amazing that 4% of all the existing card magic in the world
came from the mind of a single thinker, regardless of the fact
that the same idea can be had by many different thinkers, of

53
course. Simon Aronson is another example of wonder in the
world of semi-professionals, a thinker who is revolutionizing the
card magic with his ingenious ideas. Aronson has merged the
mathematical card magic with his memorised deck in a sublime
way, devising tricks that defy any logic. His good friend, John
Bannon, is another of the great semi-professionals who have
contributed so much with their imagination to the development
of card magic. Returning to Spain, Father Wenceslao Ciuró (1895-
1978), who was also a Father for card magic and general magic in
Spain, inspiring the geniuses that would come later. I cannot fail
to mention the adorable and beloved by so many Spanish
amateurs, Vicente Canuto, an Andalucian born in Valencia to
whom Spanish-speaking amateurs owe so much for their
magnificent work “Cartomagia Fundamental” (fundamental card
magic), by means of which he brought back to life the card magic
from a point of view totally didactic in Spanish language. But this
is only the tip of a great iceberg of semi-professional amateurs. I
would like to add as a whim that Juan Tamariz is Andalucian too,
although born in Madrid, just as he told me he liked to say, and I
like to listen to, as Andalucian I am too!

54
 Conditions of an Amateur

“That’s what all we are: amateur. We don’t live long

enough to be anything else.”

Charles Chaplin.

Let’s begin by telling that our advantages are that we don’t

have the disadvantages of professionals, which is not a small
thing. But we also have great disadvantages, and as I stated
earlier, our main disadvantage lies in the reaction of the public.
What I will do next is reflect on it and expose some examples.

The curiosity of people to know the secret of the magic is

very strong, so that, amateur card magicians are on target of
those spectators. We are a great opportunity for the most
curious people to discover the mysteries hidden by magic. We
have to be strong in these circumstances to not reveal anything
at all even if they beg us. We have to make an effort to make our
curious spectators understand that we will not reveal anything,
or just to say that as a magician we have nothing to reveal. There
will be cases in which they will even hate us for not revealing
secrets, or they just will not like us for the same reason, so I
insist on encouraging you to be strong in these specific
circumstances, since as an amateur you will find them quite
often. We must be solid in the face of the fact that we do magic
and nothing more. We will find spectators less sceptical or just
more considerate with the magic of an amateur. It's a matter of
being patient. This kind of spectators are known as "heckler,”
and they are very common among amateur magicians, so it is
essential to get used to dealing with them, without becoming
depressed. Some examples of typical questions or situations that
an amateur would face with hecklers are like the following:

55
 "Can I shuffle? Can you do it again; It’s just I didn’t pay
much attention? Can you do that with my deck? Can you do that
with the cards face up? Can you let me see the deck? Can I count
the cards myself? You must have been changed the card when I
was not attentive” And a long etcetera…

It would be counterproductive for spectators to behave in

front of a professional magician like this in a show, but
fortunately it doesn’t happen often, since spectators understand
that they are magicians, whereas regarding amateurs, what they
see is someone who only tries to appear to be a magician. I
consider important never to forget that at the beginning of
introducing yourself as an amateur magician, your friends and
family are not going to see you as a magician, but as a friend or
relative. This means that when you do a magic trick, they will not
take it as a magic show in advance, but as a challenge to see if
they are able to discover the secret. For that reason, the first
reaction of your friends and family will not be to applaud you,
but to ask you to repeat it (to pay more attention the next time),
or to ask a few questions about it. They will think that the funny
thing is to see if someone has noticed the secret of the trick, so
that in that case to explain it aloud. Moreover, if that doesn’t
happen, the viewers would consider that the magician (imitator)
is going to explain it. In other words, they consider that the
objective is to try to catch the secret, far from considering that
they have seen a magician doing magic. What is more, there will
be someone that may ask you directly to explain how it is done,
so that they can also play being a magician, and explain it as well
to other people… as if it were just a curiosity or a joke that is
going from mouth to mouth. Thus, your magic show as an

56
amateur is taken as a joke, or as a show consisting of imitating a
magician. Very sad, isn’t it?

At first it will take you a lot of work to make understand to

your people that magic secrets are not toys that can be shared. I
used to say for a long time that the secrets of magic were like
underwear: something personal and secret that could not be
shared, until I realised that I should not even hint that there was
a trick, but that my magic was just magic and nothing more, so I
got used to saying something that I found quite useful to get out
of that trouble:

"The magic I do cannot be taught by me because I'm not a

magic teacher."

My hobby friends refer to the "hecklers" as "stalking

spectators,” "impertinent" or "inconsiderate." I think that it’s a
mistake to be so scornful, since the dramatic naming will not
help you to analyse the situation wisely, far from the mere
feeling of hatred towards them. I prefer to call them "naughty
spectators" or "restless,” avoiding hating them, nor being afraid
of them. One of the simplest and most common ways to avoid
this kind of spectators or situations is, when they ask you to do
some magic, you tell them:

"Are you going to ask me then how it's done?"

But say it smiling; friendly, not in an upset tone. You can go

on saying: "To see magic you must understand that there is no
trick to explain." If the people in question are sensible and
understand the position, go ahead with your impromptu magic,
but if they react in a defiant way, it is better to abstain, since it
wouldn’t be worth it. That question is a very effective way to
avoid those kinds of people, more than I thought, but never ask

57
that question to unknown people, since it would be an insolent
or disrespectful act with them, and they wouldn’t like you. Ask
that question only to your family viewers who tend to be
"naughty" or "restless" with you. In the next chapter,
"Psychology of the Spectator with the Amateur,” I’ll give more
detailed solutions to deal with the "naughty" viewers.

I remember a curious experience that was always going

around in my head:

I was at home with some of my cousins watching on

television a performance of card magic by Juan Tamariz. I was
twelve years old. When the show finished, my cousins
immediately asked me how Tamariz had done that, since they
thought I could know that as an amateur card magician. I
answered that I had no idea (which was true) and that what
Tamariz had done was simply magic, and that was what I was
doing too. However, one of them replayed something very
curious: "No, what you do is not magic, but tricks. Tamariz does
magic because he is a magician and that is why you don’t know
how he has done it." The comment speaks for itself. It makes
very clear the difference between the mentality of the spectators
with a professional and with an amateur. On another time, in
that same year, a cousin of mine told me, indignant: "Don’t you
do magic tricks to me anymore, because then you don’t want to
explain them to me." I was very clear that explaining the tricks
was like burying magic; something just absurd. It was something
like enjoying cooking a delicious dish and then not eating it. In
short, I thought it was a matter of patience to find spectators
who would accept me as a magician while I was content to do
what they considered just "tricks."

58
 I remember in my leisure afternoons inside my room after
doing homework, in which I did magic to an imaginary and kind
audience that was surprised for me and applauded, considering
that what I did was magic. I dreamed both asleep and awake that
I did a great magical effect and people just applauded me. For
me it was a fantasy. I remember when my school teacher scolded
me for being distracted in class when I was imagining the happy
ending of one of my card tricks with the applause of an exultant
and grateful imaginary audience. These circumstances may seem
sad, but they were not because I was happy like so. It was
something like an amateur painter who nobody sees his or her
paintings because he or she never has the chance to exhibit
them, but he or she is just happy to paint them. So, I think that
our main disadvantage is the tendency of our public to be
reluctant to consider us as real magicians, looking us more like a
challenge, as well as a chance to discover magic secrets. But
that's not the sad part, since you can get used to it. The real sad
part is that some amateurs are more vulnerable than others in
these aspects. I have seen good amateur magicians leave the
magic, depressed, for not be able to stand these situations. I
personally endured it with a lot of patience, but couldn’t avoid
certain (and logical) periods of depression. During those periods I
continued to practise and develop new things, although without
performing. I also thought about theoretical and psychological
aspects that could help me solve those situations, adjusting the
routines to that kind of spectators. Today I have realised that
these situations, in fact, helped me to stimulate my creativity, so
I encourage you to do the same without suffering from
depressions. Sometimes my relatives asked me for some magic,
but not because they considered me a magician, but for their
entertainment analyzing my tricks to try to discover "things

59
about magic,” and if possible, get from me the words that
confirmed their possible solutions. It was a quite common thing.
I also understood very well that it wouldn’t be easy to be an
amateur magician. During those meditation gaps, I came to think
that it was not worth trying to be a magician if I wasn’t going to
be a professional, since only professionals seemed to be taken
seriously as magicians. I thought that it could be a mistake to try
to be an amateur magician; that magic and hobby were not
compatible being amateurs just temporary eager and nosy
persons. However, my passion for amazing people was always
stronger than my disappointments, so I could not stop practising,
thinking, reading books and, in short, learning. As a matter of
fact, if professionals wrote books it was because they themselves
considered that it was totally viable being amateur. Likewise, I
never lost the wish or the ambition to do card magic in front of
an audience that considered me a magician. Paradoxically, those
experiences turned out to be very positive for me, since they
were real triggers to investigate the concept of theory and
psychology in magic.

The Concept of Real Magician

“Magic happens not in the hands of the performer, but in

the minds of the spectators.”

Brother John Hamman.

After making clear that it’s not easy to make the spectators
of an amateur magician believe that the magician "is real,” I
thought it would be very interesting to analyse what a real
magician is.

During the summer of 1989 (in my 13 years old), on

holydays family visit in Barcelona, a certain day in which I was

60
doing a trick of card magic for three of my cousins, one of them
told me after finishing the effect: "but, are you a real magician?"
I had never asked myself such a question before. Am I a real
magician? I answered yes, but with a lost look, since the question
surprised me. They looked at each other until one said:"Come
on! It can’t be!" Another one said: "a magician like those on TV?"
And the third one asked me to levitate or make disappear
something to show that I was a real magician. Of course I didn’t
levitate or make disappear anything, but I excused myself saying
that my magic was still very clumsy because I was still learning.
However, far from being convinced that I was a real magician,
one of them told me: "Come on! Tell me how you did it." But I
insisted that it was just magic, until they got bored and walked
away seemingly disappointed, far from applauding me. I couldn’t
do anything else, but I learned something very important; I
learned to philosophise about the true concept of magic or its
true meaning for people. I also understood during that
experience how difficult it was for an amateur to be considered a
true magician, although anyway that became clear to me from
my childhood.

Are professional magicians real magicians? It seemed so.

Nobody doubted the magic of professionals. Even those cousins
of mine who were so sceptical of me assumed that the magicians
on TV were real magicians. Why didn’t they think so about me? It
seemed that to be a real magician, either you had to be
professional, or you had to go on TV, or you just had to be a bit
famous. I’ve never been a professional, but on many occasions I
managed to be considered a real magician thanks to some
reputation. Nevertheless, over time I also guessed that it also

61
depended simply on people's reaction; on the public's degree of
scepticism.

I wasn’t accepted as a real magician every time they asked

me to explain the secret, which after not explaining it, they left
disappointed. It was disappointing that people were
disappointed with that I didn’t explain the tricks, assuming that I
was not a real magician, but those situations were the ones that
convinced me that I really was a magician, since I did not reveal
the secrets! In fact, if I had been carried away by the scepticism
of those spectators, thus had ended up "admitting" that I am not
a real magician, explaining the secret of some tricks, it’s when I
would have lost my "title" as a real magician, maybe forever.
Perhaps people would like me more if I had revealed some
secrets, but I would never have become a real magician. In
conclusion, I found out that real magicians are just those who do
not reveal secrets. What a magician does is supposed to be
magic, so there is nothing to reveal, no matter how sceptical the
audience is. To be a truly amateur magician you have to start
being disliked by people because of your refusal to reveal some
secret. Sometimes (many times) you will have to put up with
being considered an "impostor magician" and unfriendly who
doesn’t want to reveal secrets. At first it is hard, but I assure you
that they will get used to it and understanding that you are not
unfriendly for that, but a real magician. With this exemplary
attitude, you can make understand that anyone who wants to
learn magic should make an effort and not just ask for secrets
explanation. Always remember that, when you find yourself in
the circumstance in which your viewers don’t believe that you
are a real magician, insisting on asking you to reveal the tricks,
don’t feel bad or desperate (and never get angry for it!), since

62
you are a magician precisely because you do not reveal secrets.
As amateurs we must have a lot of patience with our usual
audience before getting them to take us seriously as magicians.
Don’t give up. Insist that you are a magician or they will never
stop asking you to reveal something. Some day you will get to be
considered a magician in your family; a true family magician that
entertains and amuses doing just magic. It will be the reward to
the patience of never revealing anything even though
disappointing for it. In addition, although an extensive
experience in card magic as an amateur rewards you with the
wished consideration of a real magician, it will only be in the
surroundings of our relatives and friends, this is, if we make a
trip to some distant place to do magic, we would have to start
from scratch regarding to try to get the label of a real magician
among the new people, since a plain amateur or family magician
usually doesn’t have references. Nonetheless, a great
performance will be enough to be considered a great magician.
Come on!

63
 The Amateur as a Real Magician

“The pain is bad magicians ripping off good ones, doing

magic badly, and making a mockery of the art.”

Ricky Jay.

We have seen that our habitual spectators are decisive

when it comes to making us look like real magicians. If they don’t
consider us a real magician we can feel that we are not ... or
maybe not. What about our own opinion? Can we truly consider
ourselves magicians? Can we have the privilege of self-labelling
us like this? I think that to be considered some day as a real
magician, we have to start by considering ourselves like so. First
we should be good magicians without worrying about that our
public think so. That is, practise as much as we can, not perform
routines that we don’t master to perfection, work to improve
them, and present them in a way that seems more and more
magical, which is what will turn you into a true magician, no
matter what your audience thinks.

As I stated in the tip number seven of the first chapter,

“About Working Hard on the Theory,” we must admit that we
are vulnerable to laziness due to the lack of commitment, of
which professionals overflow, and this is mainly against what we
have to fight inside us to reach to be real magicians. We must
practise the same routine until we find no difficulty in carrying
out their techniques. Practising a routine a hundred times can
make you bored with it, but getting bored of practising a routine
means knowing how to do it perfectly, so that when we do it in
front of the spectators successfully, it will be an enjoyable trick
for us again.

64
 Throughout my experience, some amateur friends told me
that I did little magic, which was true, but the few shows I made
were free of errors. Instead, those amateur friends sometimes
performed tricks that they had practised very little, just because
they were impatient to carry them out. For that reason they also
used to talk a lot about subtleties to hide mistakes. I began to
meet these amateur card magician friends in high school in 1991,
when I was 15 years old. It was also when I began to notice that
amateurs not only practise less than professionals for lack of
time, but also for lack of commitment, in addition to laziness.
These amateurs (fortunately not all) used to perform tricks that
required very refined techniques, such as “top changes” and
“palming” without practising them enough. Instead, I used to do
mathematical card tricks or tricks that needed relatively simple
techniques for my classmates and some teachers, such as the
mathematics teacher himself. My math teacher had a lot of fun
with my mathematical card tricks, since he was trying to figure
out how it worked. At that time I did not worry much about
being considered a really good card magician in the high school,
but I just wanted them to know my fondness for card tricks,
without hurry. If someday I was considered a true card magician,
welcome to that consideration. An amateur friend of mine from
the high school asked me if I knew some subtleties to hide
mistakes. I answered something very simple:

"The best way to disguise an error is not to commit it."

Obviously he was disappointed with my answer, but I also

told him that we should resign ourselves to doing tricks that we
don’t master perfectly, no matter how we like their effects. He
used to answering that he certainly mastered them, which was
not true, since sometimes their viewers caught the secret of the

65
tricks (I was a witness myself), and those situations should be
avoided 100%, since it damaged the image of all the card
magicians and card magic in general.

It isn’t uncommon for amateurs who don’t practise enough,

think a lot about subtleties to get out of common mistakes, since
they are very aware of the possibilities there are of committing
them. Of course, the "B plans" are very important, but obviously,
the less we have to depend on them the better. I have self-
confidence with the “top change” and the classic “palming” of
the top card, because I have practised them thousands of times,
but that doesn’t mean that I don’t have a plan B, since there can
always be some day that we are a bit dizzy. In fact, professionals
have more plans than letters have the alphabet to leave nothing
just to the fate, but they are also aware that having to resort to
these plans implies having made a mistake, or have left the result
too much to its fate, and you must keep that in mind in order to
build a reputation. On one occasion I clumsily applied the
technique of "second deal,” so that the audience noticed that.
Then I used the classic way out "it was to see if you were
attentive” and I improvised something alternative that I had
actually as a plan B, since I was aware that I was not very skilled
with the "second deal." Generally I try to avoid tricks that need
this technique while I continue practising it and daring to use it
once in a while, but with a plan B always up my sleeve.

Throughout time I've been realizing that doing magic is not

the same as being a magician. If we do magic without mastering
the techniques, knowing that there are many chances to make a
mistake, we wouldn’t be magicians since we wouldn’t even mind
making mistakes. Instead of that, if we do magic knowing that
everything will be 100% right because we master the technique,

66
we will be real magicians. There will be tricks that we will never
be able to do just because we are not good at the techniques
that are required for it or they just don’t work out well. But that
doesn’t mean that we are "worse" card magicians or that we will
never be "really good." Magic is magic no matter the trick we do.
The important thing is to do well what we do. If you're not good
at certain trick it's because you're good at another ones. Anyway
don’t give up... I go on with my "second deal” and I won’t stop
until I get it right... I may die earlier...

I know it makes a bit depressed not to be able to do a trick

that we like very much, just for not having its technique perfectly
mastered, but I use a dodge to avoid the temptation to dare to
do something for which I'm not prepared. It is about
hypocritically despising the technique. In my case I say that the
"second deal" is a useless technique. However, I don’t stop
practising it. If someday I can master it, I will say (hypocritically)
that the "second deal" is a great technique, and I will begin to
enjoy doing the tricks that require it. This would make easier for
you to understand that we should only do the tricks that we
master. Never get depressed because you aren’t good at some
technique, "be hypocritical" with it.

67
 CHAPTER 3: Psychology of the Spectator with the Amateur

“For those who believe, no explanation is necessary, for

those who do not, none will suffice.”

Joseph Dunninger.

The main difference between the spectators of a

professional and those of an amateur is that the first ones think
that the magician does magic, while the second ones think that
the magician pretends to do magic.

Four Key Points

I have been analyzing the following four points of the

spectator with the amateur, from the summer of 1992 (when I
was 16). At first I considered it an obsession of mine, but over
time I found that taking them into account was one of the keys
to my success as a family and casual amateur card magician, so I
wrote them down so not to forget them and to keep them in
mind in order to look for always the best solutions during my
experiences. The points are: distrust, indifference,
misunderstanding and reproach. I analyse each one from the
following two perspectives: spectators of the amateur and
spectators of the professional:

Point 1: Distrust

- Spectators of the amateur:

They are in doubt about being seeing a magician. Tendency

to suspect everything and fix their gaze in detail on whatever
thing the magician does. Mistrust obsessive.

68
 - Spectators of the professional:

They get into a frame of mind that they are going to see
magic, since the magician is a magician; tendency to be content
with the magic; general confidence in the magician.

Point 2: Indifference

- Spectators of the amateur:

At the end of the effect they will not go with the

triumphant situation with applause, but will show themselves
thoughtful, prioritising in looking for an explanation. They will
express their doubts with questions or trying to take the cards to
examine them on their own. They will be indifferent to the magic
they are supposed to have seen. Some will even think that the
amateur is just kidding pretending that he is doing magic.

- Spectators of the professional:

At the end of the effect they will applaud smiling, assuming

that the magician has done magic. Of course they may try to
reason how he has done it, or they suspect some action, but they
will not express it out because of respect for the triumphant
situation.

Point 3: Misunderstanding

- Spectators of the amateur:

It is believed that the magician will explain how he has

done it, because if not, the show is not funny. There is no fun if
you don’t explain it because they are left wondering how you
have done it. If that amateur magician has learned how to do
"some magic,” the "logical" thing is to explain it to everyone, so
that everyone can enjoy how that magic is done and how they

69
can do it too. What is to say, a misunderstanding about the
concept of magic.

- Spectators of the professional:

It is understood that the magician has nothing to explain

because what he has done is simply magic. The spectators have
been surprised and amused seeing magic and nothing else.

Point 4: Reproach

- Spectators of the amateur:

The amateur magician has fun at the expense of others,

pretending to be a magician. He challenges the reasoning ability
of those who see him. He seems to boast about the surprised
spectators. It may be that the spectators feel even outraged by it.

- Spectators of the professional:

A magician has done magic for us. That’s nice! Let’s get an
autograph from him! We will remember it as a great moment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of my viewers have been like “spectators of the

amateur” mode during my beginnings, so it is important to adapt
to these points so as not to fall into desperate disappointments,
and move on with what you like to do. Even today, after 25 years
of experience, I have many spectators who feel offended,
considering that I do magic tricks to show off, feeling "superior"
to know secrets that they don’t, even though being themselves
who ask me to do some magic for them. Some of my neighbours
used to react to my tricks by just saying: "I don’t know how you
have done that, but there must be a trick." They said that with
reproach, that is, they didn’t like at all me trying to make them

70
believe that "that" was magic. Of course, I stopped doing magic
to those people. The funny thing is that they wouldn’t have
cared to be surprised by a real magician, but it turns out that I
was a false magician. They are people who cannot get out of
their heads that an amateur magician is only an impersonator
magician who “is too clever by half.” Of course they are right
when it comes to say that there must be a trick, but they don’t
want to understand that the trick of an amateur is also to amuse,
and not to insult anyone's intelligence. We can conclude that our
viewers are so busy thinking about how we have done that, that
they don’t leave room in their minds for accepting us as
magicians. Obviously, the spectators of a professional also think
that there must be a trick, but they don’t think that feeling
outraged at being "fooled,” but they understand it just as an
amusement.

The first step to deal with these circumstances is the tip

number six that I stated in the first chapter, "On the Wisdom in
Magic,” referring to that we should not force or beg anyone to
see our magic, in order never to appear presumptuous or
arrogant. We have to make it clear that we want to do magic to
amuse and entertain, never to boast about it or appear
"superior" to anyone.

A year and a half after analysing these four key points, I was
preparing the magic show for Christmas of 1993, as I used to do
in that season. I was already 17 years old and I was not very
enthusiastic, since I had just gone through one of those
depressive lapses in which I had no desire to continue doing
magic. However, I was cheering up as I develop and practised the
routine. During the show, when I finished the first effect, instead

71
of receiving applause, they stared at me and began to ask me
questions. One of those questions was:

"Can you do it again but with five different cards?"

I felt desperate and sad at the same time. There seemed to

be nothing to do with the "naughty" spectators of an amateur...
it was impossible to be a magician being an amateur. The only
way to be a magician seemed to be becoming a professional. I
started to understand the amateurs that left this hobby for lack
of consideration. Nonetheless, my passion for card magic took
hold of me at that moment, and I answered something that
changed my life as an amateur card magician. I replied with
humour, irony, cynicism, and even challenge, but never with
anger:

"I can also do it on top of an elephant, but where are we

going to find an elephant now?"

They laughed at that nonsense and to my surprise they

stopped asking me things about the first effect while they asked
me to go on with the show (maybe because of the curiosity to
see what else I could offer to them). Hence, I continued with the
routine. Every time they asked me something about the magic I
was doing, I responded with some sarcasm or comic beat,
keeping them away from their curiosity about wanting to know
where the secret was. The show ended up being a success
because they ended up applauding me (as a magician or as a
comedian, but they ended up applauding me). The most
important thing had been achieved: to make them having fun
with me! I discovered that I could dodge the distrust they had in
magic by simply playing magic itself down! That is, not insisting
that it is magic, or presuming that it could be, but allowing

72
people to doubt and ridicule magic with humour and irony. I got
them to forget their own questions by answering little serious
things and without attaching importance to the magic itself. The
important thing was to have fun, as Juan Tamariz used to say
during his performance on Spanish television shows. One of my
best advices based on my experiences, according to my amateur
card magician friends, was not to treat spectators as spectators,
but as friends. That special closeness to the public produced a
better acceptance by them of your intentions to entertain and
amaze, rather than to be boastful as a magician. Don’t focus on
convincing them you are a magician or you are doing magic, but
rather on making them just have fun. Leave the fact of being a
magician to their free judgment.

Once they asked me: "Can you make the back of the cards
turn green instead of red?" I answered: "Of course, but today I
have only brought magic powders to red. If I had to bring the
magic powders for all the colours I would be missing pockets ... I
can’t mix them because I’d get a rainbow back ... wow, what a
good idea, a rainbow back! You’ve just given to me a great idea.
So, someday I’ll mix the magic powders to make a magic trick
with a rainbow backs..."

When they asked me the famous and classic question:

"How did you do it?" I answered: "being right with the magic
words."

In short, I discovered something really great. I discovered

that I should not show concern about whether they considered
me to do magic or not, but that I should just let them have a fun
time, in a mixture of humour and apparent magic. Then, whether

73
it was magic or not, they had to judge it themselves. As a
summary of this experience, I wrote the following conclusion:

Your audience, before appreciating your magic, should

appreciate you. You must escape from the presumption that you
do magic. You must be more fun than a magician. It is the public
that will take care of labelling you as a magician, step by step.

That day I understood for the first time that our relatives
and friends don’t have their doubts about us only with bad
intentions, but also just because we are a brother, a cousin, a
friend, a son... who tests their reasoning ability by means of a
trick that looks like magic. No one usually understands at the first
time that their brother, son, cousin or friend is a true magician
like those on TV. They need time to understand it, and
meanwhile, they consider the magic trick as a riddle to be solved,
or a contest that consist of seeing who is the first one in catching
the secret. So then, to get away from that concept, it is
important that you relinquish importance to your own merit of
having done magic, with irony and humour, leaving them to
appreciate what you do, as magic, unhurried.

Common Circumstances

“A conjurer is not to be done in one day.”

Professor Hoffmann.

I thought of devising some specific responses to the

sceptical nature of the viewers with an amateur magician. I will
start by raising the four most common cases that I have
personally experienced.

74
 Case 1

Situation: "Do it again, it’s just that I haven’t pay

attention."

Response: "I will do another trick better than that."

Although there are many routines that can be repeated and

it would be good to repeat it if they really want to, it's better to
get your viewers used to see different tricks if they want to keep
seeing magic, since that will promote you more as a magician,
and you will avoid running the risk of they being too attentive to
something they have seen recently. Notice that professional
magicians seldom repeat a trick at the request of the spectators,
but they do it at their own will, and perhaps because it may be
part of the routine itself. In addition, it is convenient as far as
possible, to bear in mind the spectators who have witnessed
certain tricks, in order to know to whom you should not repeat
those tricks until a reasonable quantity of time elapses. Perform
your complete repertoire, not repeating the first trick until you
reach the last one, as usually did the prestigious card magician
Michael Skinner. However, if you make a trip and bump into
some totally different spectators, you can choose the trick that
you prefer from your repertoire without following the order.
Follow the order whenever you think that certain spectators are
going to be regular (neighbours, co-workers, relatives ...), to
prevent them from investigating your routines through
repetitions. Don’t let your routines to be more popular than you.
They should want to see you, not a particular routine. Besides
that, don’t forget that avoiding repetitions doing different tricks
will make you a more credible magician.

75
 Case 2

Situation: "My brother has just arrived and hasn’t seen it."

Response: “I will do it only for him later, but now I will do a

different trick for everyone.”

This circumstance is more common than you imagine in the

plain amateur world: you are performing a routine at a certain
moment, and suddenly new people appear who have not seen
the beginning of the routine, or arrived when you finished.
Hence they ask you to repeat it for them. If it’s a trick that
cannot be repeated, it is answered in the same way as in case 1,
adding that you will do the trick on another occasion for those
who missed it.

Normally you will not perform behind closed doors, but

your shows will be rather informal or spontaneous. I tried to
solve this problem by trying to make sure everyone was present
at the party before the show started. But almost always
someone else arrived in the middle of the show or at the end of
it. Fortunately, they did not always ask me to repeat something
and I could continued until the end of the show, but sometimes,
certain effects were so good that I risked repeating them so that
the newcomers could also enjoy it. However, there are effects
that just can’t be repeated, before which, if people insist that
you repeat it, we could comically claim that we have spent all the
magic powders we had to produce that magic in particular, and
that we have to continue with the established show.

76
 Case 3

Situation: “Can I shuffle the deck?”

Response: "Yes, of course ..."

Never say no to a request like that. There are few times I

have encountered this situation, product of the general
scepticism that exists with a family amateur magician. Usually
they do it for toying with you, taking advantage of the personal
familiarity they have with you to participate more and test the
skills of an amateur card magician, which they wouldn’t dare to
do with a professional in a formal show, just for restraint and
respect for a real magician. Nevertheless, these demands can be
beneficial to your prestige if you take good advantage of them,
because if you manage to amaze despite them, you will increase
your greatness. Try to be prepared to face various circumstances
using them as a benefit for your magician image. Those small
defiant behaviours like: "I don’t want to put the card in that point
of the deck, but in another..." etc., are innocent and easy to deal
with a bit of improvisation, change of plans, change of trick, etc.
You must always show yourself affable and smiling, allowing
them to demand those details without hesitation. Improvise and
amaze them. Not only will give you the image of a good magician
because of your solvency, but they will like you and will gradually
get used to considering you a real magician. There will come a
time when they get bored of demanding things to you, which is
none other than the miracle and desired moment in which they
consider you as real magician.

I would like to insist that you should never show

expressions of discontent with these sceptical attitudes, since
you only will ruin your image as a magician. Be patient and play

77
with them with imagination and humour, without paying much
attention to doubt that you are a magician. That they consider
you a magician will come bit by bit. We must have patience in
this aspect. Otherwise we would never get it. If you had the deck
of cards prepared in some way and they ask you to shuffle it,
simply change your plan and do a trick that does not require a
stacked deck. That attitude would be very professional on your
part. That way we would also learn to adapt to different
circumstances. Don’t feel upset about not being able to do that
trick that you wanted to do so much, and just now you can’t
because you have been asked to shuffle the deck. Enjoy other
impromptu tricks from your memory, and keep transmitting the
idea that you are a magician.

Case 4

As a police officer is both in uniform and without it, a

magician is considered a magician both inside and outside a
show. We amateurs live with our audience: parents, brothers,
sisters, cousins, friends, school and work colleagues...most of our
faithful viewers share our lives. This means that we can receive
requests for tricks from our repertoire that they know, at any
time. Obviously the professional magicians will also live the same
circumstances with their relatives, but I suppose that their
relatives will understand that they must be exhausted of so
much magic, since that’s their job and they must want to forget
about it a little. We can transmit to our families as well the idea
that we are tired of doing so much magic. We can beg them to
wait for our next performance (as if we were professionals).
Additionally, it’s not the same being asked to do any magic trick
than being asked to do one in particular. That is, if they ask you
just to do magic, there is no problem, do something simple but

78
amazing from your repertoire by heart. But if they ask you for
something you are not prepared for, you have to apologise by
saying that you are exhausted from doing magic and that you will
soon do another show. Be careful, I do not recommend that you
solve that case by doing something different from what they ask
for, as they will think you are not a good magician. I know it from
experience. Just say that you are tired. Say that doing magic
consumes a lot of energy. In the next chapter, "Magic on
Demand,” I will talk more about this topic, but now I would like
to deal with more complex and delicate circumstances than the
four previous cases.

The Evil Spectator

“I feel pity for the sceptical spectators, because they don’t

enjoy.”

Juan Tamariz.

What is an evil spectator?

It is a "spectator" who, without having much interest in

seeing magic, remains close to a performance out of curiosity,
paying close attention to where the secret may be. They usually
have an expression of indifference on their faces, as well as
forced or sarcastic smiles. They don’t usually collaborate with the
magician unless they have something to suspect, and if they
think they discover a solution they may say it out loud, although
there are others who are more cautious, preferring not to speak
until they are sure of what they reckon. One of the typical
attitudes of these "spectators" is to ask tricky questions to the
magician like a detective asking a suspect.

79
 On one occasion, two co-workers asked me to do some
card magic trick. I thought of doing the impromptu “Three Card
Monte” of Dai Vernon, since we didn’t have much time and the
show could be interrupted at any time. However, when I did the
first card toss and asked where the winning card was, one of
them answered: "where you say." I answered: "but where do you
reckon?" The same person told me: "you know... wherever you
put it." Then, the other co-worker took one of the three cards
without enthusiasm, while saying: "I think it’s here." The card he
picked up was not the winning card. I was glad because the “false
toss” worked, but they, far from recognizing the effect, and no
longer say applaud, reacted with a sarcastic smile while the
former said: "You see? It’s where you say, where you put it ..."
Then I picked up the three cards and told them quietly that I had
nothing more to offer them. I understood that it was not worth
trying to do card tricks for those people. That was one more
experience that made it clear to me that it wasn’t easy to be an
amateur. These kinds of people are reluctant to feel amazed,
because they take it as a challenge to their pride, far from
considering magic just as an art, regardless of the fact that it is
not real magic. They are people who limit themselves to saying
that everything is a trick even if they don’t know about this trick,
in order to avoid feeling or being amazed, people who take
magic as something offensive to the proud of their intellectual
capacity. Imagine for a moment someone who after seeing "Las
Meninas" by Velázquez just said that it can be painted by anyone
who studies painting, instead of fascinated admiring the work.
It’s not bad to have no interest in painting, but one of the things
that make us human is to respect the work of others and those
who like to contemplate it, especially in the case we go to the
museum voluntarily, like in my experience in which I was asked

80
to do magic! And this is when we come to the special feature
that makes an evil spectator so evil: the obsession with the
challenge. They are people who seek the magician to challenge
him. Why? After investigating and analysing this attitude, I
deduced that it could be a fusion of scepticism and curiosity.
That is, on the one hand there are sceptical spectators who are
not so curious as to obsessively challenge the magician,
respecting the aim of amaze and the art of magic in general,
which I personally call sensible sceptical spectators. On the other
hand we have the case of the evil spectators, who don’t settle for
scepticism, but also want to prove that there is no magic in what
they have seen, regardless of the damage they cause to the show.
Unfortunately, at least half of the spectators of an amateur
magician tend to fuse scepticism with curiosity, taking advantage
of the familiarity that exists with the magician. Although the
other half can be true admirers of the magic art, amateur
magicians who cannot dodge or "tame" the evil spectators and
run into too many of them, can end up quite depressed to the
point of leaving the card magic hobby. Needless to say that it’s a
mistake to be discouraged by that, since they are just people
who are not interested in magic, nothing more. We just have to
look for people who feel some interest in being amazed, and for
that we also need practise, experience and patience. We cannot
do magic to people who think that a magician is a person who
makes fun of others. On another occasion when I did
"Mnemonicosis" by Juan Tamariz to some friends, one of them
told me with a certain cynicism: "I can also do that with a
buddy." I answered calmly: "I don’t question it, but in this case
there has been no buddy." The spectator who participated
actively in the trick confirmed that he wasn’t a confederate, but
others smiled sarcastically, showing that they didn’t believe it.

81
Then I offered to do it to him personally. I asked him not to
change the card he was thinking, but he said: "If you can read my
thoughts, why don’t you name the card that I am thinking right
now, just like that?" I answered calmly: "Because it would be
boring. Otherwise it would be thrilling.” There was the thing with
his sarcastic smile. I didn’t continue with the routine because
neither of them was interested in. Later I regretted having faced
him offering him the trick personally, even though I didn’t finish
it, since I behaved in an irresponsible way when using the
wonderful routine "Mnemonicosis" to dispute with someone. My
advice is to never argue with anyone about whether what you
have done is magic or not. If someone doesn’t want to
collaborate, don’t go on, but never face them using a wonderful
magic trick as a challenge. It's stupid. If they don’t accept it as
magic, just say that you consider it as you wish, but don’t try to
convince them through new procedures, because you will never
convince them! We will find other spectators. Let’s be patience.
Arguing with a spectator would bring us problems in the future,
since that spectator would hate us and bother us in every show
of us. Some may even investigate magic for the sole purpose of
ridiculing us live. I believe that one of the magician's golden rules
is to avoid enemies or people who hate you, both spectators and
other magicians. If you see the movie "The Prestige" by
Christopher Nolan, you will get a clear idea of what I mean.
Never compete with a magician, no matter how much you dislike
him or how much he provokes you. Only magicians can transmit
a good image of magic, and that image needs friendship and
harmony. Fortunately, the evil spectator is practically non-
existent for professionals, since I don’t think that these
spectators buy tickets to watch a show that don’t interest them.
Even if there were spectators like that in the show of a

82
professional, they wouldn’t dare bother the magician, since the
rest of the audience would react to standing up for the magician,
as good fans and sympathisers of the art of magic. Imagine a
person who buys a ticket for a classic concert by a guitarist, and
in the middle of the play he screams with the intention of
annoying the guitarist. Fortunately, it isn’t something that usually
happens. In our case, the magic of the amateurs is free and
generally open doors, being able to come to watch the show
anyone who fancy. That leads to the amateur magician being
exposed to any evil spectator or curious person who does not
like illusionism, but is curious about seeing what you are going to
do. In addition, these spectators would not feel inhibited by the
reaction of the rest of the spectators, since they would
understand that an amateur magician would not be so defended
or considered. Professionals do free magic too in informal,
homemade, casual situations ... but they, of course, have the
prestige that their profession provides them. Being professional
produces some immunity to the possible evil spectators, but
amateurs can also get enough prestige to gain immunity to these
cases, thanks to a regular, kind and considerate audience.
Although, in front of new viewers who don’t have any references
of your, the reaction would always be uncertain.

Detecting evil spectators in advance became one of my

biggest challenges since I began to analyse the attitude of the
spectators of an amateur magician. When I was a high school
student, my classmates sometimes asked me to do some card
magic. However, I only agreed depending on the way they asked
for it, which I learned very well through my experiences in
elementary school and my relatives. So, if they asked me that
with sarcastic smiles or defiant glances, I refused. Sometimes I

83
even replied that I was not a magician, to make them forget
about that facet of mine, since I was aware that those people
were never going to respect me as such. Instead, other
colleagues asked me the same in a way more..."real,” more
human, as if they were really interested in seeing magic by a
magician. Actually it’s not difficult at all to detect and filter evil
spectators in advance if you look closely at their attitude. A
certain attitude can make it clear who wants to be amazed and
who wants to catch tricks to ridicule the showman.

When you are a child or teenager, people usually take you

less seriously, so that the evil spectators tend to be many, at
least 50%. I know it from a long experience. But when you are an
adult, fortunately, I consider that only 20% of the viewers are evil,
because the integrity of an adult is usually more respected than
that of a child, in addition to the tendency to be more discreet
with adults. So then, within the other 80% of the viewers, if any
inquiring person discovers some secret by deduction or because
he has a smattering of magic, he wouldn’t comment on anything
and he would pretend to be surprised by discretional respect
towards an adult who loves magic. In this instance, at the end of
the show (as happened to me on some occasion), someone may
approach you to say that he thinks he knows the secret of the
trick and that it’s a good trick. For your part, in gratitude for the
discretion and recognition, I advise you to confirm that he is right
about the secret, because if you are reluctant to admit his
discovery and enter into a conflict of opinions, he would stop
showing respect towards you, and he would probably start
spreading his possible solutions to all your viewers. I give you this
advice because it happened to me once with one of my relatives.

84
 Sensible spectators like the ones I’ve just described follow
and agree with the following three basic points:

1- Not to give away the secret when only he has discovered

it and the rest of the audience are still excited.
2- Respect the magician's hope of doing magic and the
spectators' excitement of seeing magic.
3- Humour the magic show instead of showing off to others
their deductive capacity.

So that these observant and sensible spectators continue to

respect you discreetly, I insist on advising you to react admitting
that they have discovered the secret when they tell you about it
alone. That way they will continue to respect you as a magician
on other occasions. Keep in mind that you have not revealed
anything, but that the viewer has just discovered it or because
already was familiar with certain basic procedures about magic.
The only thing you do is admit it alone with that viewer, showing
respect for that discovery so that the viewer respects your secret
and your hope of doing magic. It is about having a good
relationship between the magician and the discoverer of a secret.
Instead, if these observant spectators explained their deductions
out loud to everyone (not to you alone) we would be facing a
proper evil spectator. Fortunately, as I stated earlier, experience
tells me that they tend to be only 20% when you are an adult
and have achieved a certain prestige as a magician.

I am going to show you some answers and solutions in

circumstances in which an evil spectator will take action. These
answers have given me very good results.

85
 On one of the occasions in which an evil spectator revealed
one of my secrets during my performance, I responded with
humour and sarcasm:

"Good idea, next time I will do that as you say to save some
magical powders!"

On other occasions, I replied:

"There are many ways to do a trick, but only one way to do

magic."

These responses or "magic maxims" were quite accepted

by the rest of the spectators, to the point of getting the liking of
them with laughter, leaving the stalking spectator slightly
ignored by them. I always tried to get spectators to my side, and
I achieved it through humour and satire. I remember in another
of my shows with some friends in which I performed the
"Thought Transposed" effect of Dai Vernon (trick No. 59 of the
repertoire of the Part Two), after which one of them told me
scornfully: “that's not magic, you must done something I haven’t
noticed." Imagine the disappointment of an amateur magician
when after doing such an amazing trick, the reaction of one of
them is no more than that. My answer was as simple as: "I’ve
done it. You take it as you want." Fortunately the other
spectators reacted by saying that they were amazed and wanted
me to repeat it.

On another occasion, after another great effect during one

of my performances in my adolescence, I remember that they
told me with disbelief something like:"I don’t know how you did
it, but there must be a trick." Then I answered something very
interesting that I had prepared:

86
 "I'll tell you a secret. Magicians actually make magic tricks
by believing that they are just tricks, so you don’t think that we
are real magicians, because if you consider that we are real
magicians, everybody will really hassle us all over the world. But
don’t tell anyone, it's a secret."

I was 16 years old at the time. The spectator reacted with a

scornful smile, but to my surprise, the rest of the spectators
supported me by being critical of the villain.

Controlling our feelings we can avoid these spectators

without drama, being funny, witty, ironic and sure of what we
say. In short, I think we should not show any concern that some
viewers discredit us. In order to control our emotions it is
necessary to know ourselves. Arturo de Ascanio emphasised in
his theoretical notes the great importance of knowing oneself. As
you see and you will see there will be everything in your
audience as an amateur. You must be relaxed and affable at all
times. Never show dislike, not to feel outraged neither angry. If
you are nice and witty with your answers, the vast majority of
your audience will see in you a true strong and determined
magician. Think that you can be a good magician even though
you can never make someone consider you as such if doesn’t
want to. As I said before, I've met amateurs who left the hobby
of card magic as a result of this kind of experience, which is sad. I
was close to being one of them, but I considered it unfair, so I
insisted on getting by in some way. One of the things that gave
me the strength to do so was just to think about the lovely and
ingenious effects of some of the greatest gems of card magic,
which I couldn’t get out of my head imagining that I was doing
them in front of an enthusiastic public.

87
 Some of these evil spectators may simply be people who
have read books of magic, or have learned in some other way
certain secrets out of curiosity, but who have no particular
interest in devoting to it seriously. These "almost amateur
magicians" I call personally "amateur little passionate." His love
of magic is based mainly on the curiosity of knowing the secrets.
I have had friends who said they liked magic, but actually they
didn’t show any real interest in being considered magicians. This
kind of amateur little passionate usually ask you to explain tricks
for them to do for other people, which denotes that, far from
wishing to be magicians, just want to play with it pretending to
be magicians for a moment. In my opinion, it is not worth
teaching great secrets to people of this kind of self-interest, not
because they have no right to know, but because their way of
understanding magic, that is, once knowing how to do a trick and
do it to someone, revealing it so that this someone can also do it
and reveal to someone else ... and so on. Obviously, doing a
magic trick and revealing it is not being a magician. This attitude
harms the magic art and people who want to be magicians. So, it
is not a matter of having the right to know or not, but a matter of
being or not being a magician. This kind of amateurs cannot be
considered magicians, since their way of understanding magic is
contrary to the principles of that art. We must avoid the “little
passionate amateurs” that try to use us to learn secrets without
the hard work of reading, studying books and understand magic.
Think that the person who bothers to read a magic book is more
serious than the one who asks to explain a secret out of curiosity.
The one who "bothers" to read books is usually a person really
interested in being a magician. Let's not forget that we amateurs
are constantly on target of the lay people as a chance to discover
secrets without the "annoyance" of reading books. Another

88
feature of a little passionate amateur is the perpetration of trivial
mistakes for lack of practise, besides of not worrying much about
it. Obviously, we must spend time on practise if we want to be a
good amateur magician. One of my amateur friends learned how
to do a great trick that he kept repeating over and over again for
days. He stopped doing other tricks because they were less
striking, so he went from being a card magician to being "a
person who knew how to do a trick." Finally, as expected, they
caught the secret due to so many times he repeated it. This
amateur didn’t have in the mind that through a wide variety of
routines, although less striking than the previous ones, a better
image as a magician is achieved, instead of being just a
"connoisseur of a trick." In addition, I have known amateur card
magicians who break into the middle of the show of another
amateur just to say that he knows the trick (although he doesn’t
explain it). This means that he has learned tricks without
understanding what magic is, since a magician would not say
that in the middle of a colleague's show. Amateurs must help
each other to look like real magicians, making the magic flow out.
During one of my performances an amateur who was among the
audience voiced aloud: "you have made a Zarrow shuffle." I
played dumb and went on with the routine. Fortunately he did
not say anything else, but I knew that it was undoubtedly an
amateur card magician not very understanding. Unfortunate
experience like that made me think about the importance of
transmitting to the amateurs that we should be mindful that
secrets do not exist, that Zarrow shuffles do not exist, as there
are no double lift, or false counts, etc... There is only a card
magician doing card magic. We must make ourselves believe that
we do magic so as not to allow viewers to think about techniques,
manipulations or tricks.

89
 Of course, it’s not necessary for an amateur card magician
to be so passionate if he doesn’t want to. I mean that you can be
a good amateur card magician at any level you wants and
without becoming very expert, but never ceasing to support the
art of magic. I will summarise five steps to follow from the point
of view of my experiences, which helped me a lot with the
success of my path as an amateur:

1- Let’s not repeat too much the same trick even if it’s very
good. Let's do all the routines of our repertoire, one by
one. We would reduce the chances of them catching
secrets, causing them to temporarily forget certain tricks.
We would also get to look like a true magician instead of
"a person who knows a trick." Let's avoid a routine being
more famous than us!

2- Let’s practise enough before performing a routine. Don’t

take quickly for granted that you known how to do it.

3- Let’s think well the right time and place for such routine.
The circumstances will not always be appropriate to
perform the routine we want. Let’s be patience.

4- Let's not to show off as magician, let’s just do magic

when they ask for it, and let’s allow people decide
whether or not to consider us a magician.

5- Let’s to get into a frame of mind that we do magic; “the

secrets don’t exist.”

90
 Once I heard the voice of Juan Tamariz on the radio and a
strange feeling of being "listening to magic" invaded my body.
Tamariz transmits a feeling of magic through his own personality.
Imagine the magic power that professionals have. Let’s feel
ourselves that we are also true magicians so that our public can
feel it. Let's try to make our people / public identify our image
with the image of card magic, let’s make them see magic in our
face, in our voice, in our gestures and our personality. As regards
the learning of tricks and techniques, it’s only a procedure.

Type of Spectators:

1- Spectators who let themselves being amazed:

They like to see magic even if they are aware that it does
not exist. They see it as a way of getting away from
reality and living a little fantasy. They respect the
magician.
2- Sceptical spectators, three types:
a- They show their scepticism even if they don’t know the
secret by proposing possible solutions aloud. There is
not much interest in respecting the magician or the
excitement of spectators.
b- They don’t show scepticism nor know the secret, but
they rack their brains over to try to find possible
solutions as mere satisfaction to their personal curiosity.
They respect the magician and the excitement of the
spectators.
c- They discover or already knew the secret, but they
remain discreetly silent. They let the situation pass

91
 without more. They respect the magician and the
excitement of the spectators.
3- Evil spectators:
They discover or already knew the secret and they
announce it aloud. They have read magic books without
interest in becoming magicians. They don’t respect the
magician neither the excitement of the spectators. They
make fun of the Art of Magic.

Subliminal messages

“Honk honk!”

Harpo Marx.

We can make our habitual spectators believe things that

are not true throughout our relationship with them, day after
day, year after year, through psychological messages well traced
and organised throughout your shows. For example, imagine
that you have a “stripper deck” and memorised, such as (for
example) "tuned in Major Mnemonica," that is, the Tamariz stack.
You perform the "Triumph" of Dai Vernon; the original of the
"Professor," that is, with a selected card and lost in the deck (not
named). After the applause (for the "Professor," not for us), we
propose to repeat the effect, but this time we will do it with a
merely named card. They name the card. We do the same
routine, only this time we use the advantage provided by the
“stripper deck,” so we spread the cards showing them clearly
mixed faces up and faces down, in a casual way, without much
emphasis on it. We separate the cards with the help of the
“stripper deck” and we finish with the effect.

What have we achieved? Well, we have launched two very

significant psychological messages. The first one is the certainty

92
that in the first effect the cards were mixed faces up and faces
down (when in fact it was never like that). Let's say that the
impression of the second effect influences the first one, making
believe something important for the magical illusion of the first
effect. Let's say that the second effect helps or supports the
magical illusion of the first one.

The second psychological message is the best of all. Thanks

to this routine, you also get that the next time you do Vernon's
original "Triumph" (impromptu), they do not doubt at all that the
cards are mixed face up and face down even though the deck is
not spread.

As you see, it would be a matter of launching subliminal

messages throughout your performances, so that your habitual
viewers take for granted certain things about your future
performances, thus facilitating their magical illusion and success.

CHAPTER 4: Magic on Demand

“Audiences are far from being as dumb as some performers

seem to think.”

Theodore Annemann.

Impossible Requests

On Christmas Eve 1990, my older brother asked me the

following question: "If magicians were really magicians, they
could do any magic they were asked for, right?"

My brother and I were always very sceptical, in a scientific

sense, but it was precisely scepticism what made me be keen on
the art of magic. Since my brother told me those words so
forceful, full of reason and logic, I was investigating how to solve

93
the problem of magic by petition or on demand. It didn’t seem
easy to escape from that situation without losing the image of a
magician, especially when you are just a young amateur and
most of your shows are addressed to people who do nothing but
doubt that you are a magician. That curious question gave me a
lot of thought about the theoretical concepts of magic from that
very moment, and here I will show you some of my experiences
and reflections on this.

In the summer holidays of 1992, visiting some relatives in

Barcelona and having one of my many experiences doing card
magic, I ended up transforming the blue colour of the back of
some cards to red colour. They applauded me and reacted kindly
with expressions of amazement, but then one of my family
members told me smiling: "Can you change them again to blue?”
Another one was encouraged to say: "Or can you change them to
any other colour?" And another one added: "Change them to
violet, which is my favourite colour.” And another one
commented:"Can you make cartoons appear? ...” At the end, the
effect of the trick stopped being important becoming somehow
discredited by those imaginative request comments. It didn’t
seem so great any more to have transformed those cards from
blue back to red. I remember that summer was when I began to
deduce that my family members didn’t want to put me to the
test because they were bad to me, but just because it was logical
not to trust from the beginning that an amateur magician was a
real magician. They were only curious to know if the magicians
were really magicians, and I was a great chance to check it,
making requests as a way to investigate it. "Magic à la carte" was
becoming a stumbling block for me. I had to find a way to deal
with it. On another occasion of that same summer of '92, I did

94
the trick “As-cend with Three Cards” (trick No. 38 of the
repertoire of the Part Two). As the effect says, when the
spectators believed that the three cards were the same, I
continued with the routine and showed them that two of them
were different (a Five of Spades and a Five of Clubs). The trick
was over, but then one of the spectators told me: "and why a
Five of Spades and a Five of Clubs ... can’t you transform them
into two others ...?" I tried to escape the request by replying that
these cards were originally a Five of Spades and a Five of Clubs,
and they were both previously transformed into Aces of Hearts.
But another one told me: "Then transform them back into Aces
of Hearts." Then I applied the “flushtration count” to show they
had been transformed back into Aces of Hearts, but when it
seemed that I was coming out graceful of the requests, another
of the spectators told me: "if it’s true that you can transform the
faces of the cards, transform them into ... Kings ... " Then I
answered smiling that I had run out of magical powders with so
many transformations. They were obviously incredulous for that
excuse, but they also laughed and didn’t seem at all disappointed
with the magic I did, which was the important thing. Finally, that
same year I came to the conclusion that the only way to escape
requests was...

Excusing the Magic Effects

“Magic is not what I do, but what I am.”

Jeff Mcbride.

The idea of "excuse" the effect is to convey a reason why I

do this magic and not another one. In the case of the first
example we could say that red is one of our favourite colours,
thus giving a reason why transform the cards in that colour and

95
not in another one, and thus making forget the viewers any
other idea that they may have related to the effect.

An ingenious way to excuse the effects is to accompany the

routines of the tricks with stories. That is, we do "this" and not
"this other" just because the story we are telling establishes it
that way. If some spectator ventured to demand something, we
would answer that the story is like that and we cannot change it.

As in philosophy, in magic there are different schools of

thought. There are card magicians that are in favour of the
metaphorical stories and card magicians that are against them.
Card magicians that support the stories think that they bring
beauty, elegance and special values to the art of card magic. To
the contrary, card magicians who don’t support the stories think
that the art of card magic is poetry by itself, without requiring
any metaphorical background.

There is no need to obsess about adapting a story to all the

card tricks, but I am in favour of the stories as long as they are
catchy with the routine. To tell the truth, whenever I have
adapted a trick to present it as a story, it has been more
successful than the presentation without a story. The story
presentations were very useful for me as an excuse to hide
suspicious or not very natural movements, and that is very
helpful when you are an amateur magician aiming to be
considered as a true magician. But not every trick is adaptable to
a story. If you notice that the adaptation attempt is complicated
or modify the effect in some way, it’s better to give up. However,
a simple storyline is enough; for example, in Vernon's "Twisting
the Aces" the second ace turned over because so did the first
one. So, it’s a matter of trying to motivate each effect instead of

96
doing it “just because,” thus avoiding possible requests.
Personally, I recommend the amateurs to focus a lot on tricks
with metaphorical stories at the beginning, with the intention of
getting out of the demands of a public that is generally sceptical
of him. I have verified that a metaphorical story usually transmits
quite well the magic of a card trick to the minds of our spectators.
That is one of the reasons why in the repertoire of the second
part I have selected up to nine routines based on metaphorical
stories. Dai Vernon was a good defender of metaphorical stories.

Certain routine procedures can also be excused by stating

that they are rituals or magical gestures, especially for
mathematical tricks. The routines of mathematical tricks have a
few of unjustified procedures, such as specific calculations with a
certain number of cards (decided by the magician) and particular
ways of mixing the cards, which could be suspicious, especially
for people of certain sceptical nature. Regarding these
procedures it would be worth the effort to create stories or show
them simply as magical rituals to obtain a certain result. We can
see an example of this in the trick No. 9 of the repertoire (Part
Two), "A Lost Child.”

Next I will comment on an experience that serves as a

practical example on how to "save" an effect through simple
excuses. It’s about a trick of prediction or coincidence that
occurred to me in 1988 taking advantage of the discovery of the
“double lift,” which I called "What a coincidence!" Two decks are
used, red and blue back. It requires a little preparation: we take
any card (for example, the Three of Diamonds) from one of the
two decks (for example, the red one) and place it at the bottom
of the blue back deck, as an extra card. We keep both decks in
their respective boxes, and ready. At the beginning of the routine

97
we shuffle both decks so that the position of the extra card is not
altered. The spectator can shuffle the red deck. In fact we will
apply the verbal force so that he or she takes the red deck and
you the blue one. You say you're going to make a prediction
while you look for the blue backed Three of Diamonds with the
cards facing you. You put that Three of Diamonds second from
the bottom, so that both Three of Diamonds are together, the
one of red back in the bottom. You take both cards as if they
were one and hold them face down in Biddle grip saying that it is
your secret prediction. Then you ask the spectator to randomly
pick a card from the red deck without looking at it and leave it on
top. Finally, place your prediction card on top of the red deck
(above the spectator's card). You do a magic snap gesture and it
turns out that your prediction card matches the card that the
spectator chose at random. When I did this trick for the first time
with a great enthusiasm I was quite surprised by the remarkable
sceptical reaction of my family spectators. Two of my uncles
asked me three tricky and compromising questions:

"Why do you put your card on top of the other deck instead
of showing it directly?"

"Why cannot the viewer see the card he chooses?"

“Why does not the viewer choose a card he likes?"

I was 12 years old, and as I said before, when you are a

child or adolescent, you are not easily respected as a magician. It
seemed more complicated than I imagined amazing people even
having great ideas like that. Since it caught me by surprise and I
was too young, I just answered "because the trick is like that,”
while they looked at me with ironical smiles. It didn’t seem a very
appropriate trick for sceptical inquirers, but since it was a

98
personal idea and I thought it was good, I tried to find excuses to
protect that little creation. Firstly, instead of choosing my card in
my view, I came up with the idea of making the spectators
believe that I chose it at random. That is, to force it on myself. So,
in the preparation of the trick, this time I placed both Three of
Diamonds in top, with the extra one in second from the top.
During the routine, I would shuffle the deck without altering its
positions and being careful not to show the back of the extra
card. Then cut and complete the cut keeping a "break.” I would
choose the card "at random" using the riffle force technique to
force the card to myself. Then I would do a double lift and I
would already have an “unknown” card in my hand (actually two
cards) in the Biddle grip. This detail would excuse the reason why
the spectator should not see his or her card, because the
magician does not see his either! The routine would be clearer
like that. The viewer is then told that, whatever the cards, you
are going to do a "magic ritual" to match them, so you ask him or
her to put the card on the deck while you approach yours by
doing magical gestures until you drop it on the top too. All that
would justify the instructions we give the viewer. Then we ask
for checking if the "magic ritual" has worked. When I showed the
routine in this way to other viewers the reaction was wonderful,
even among adult viewers. The applause and faces of surprise
were free from compromising questions. That new performance
made the public think less, doubt less and suspect less about the
procedure. The effect could be attributed to the ritual.
Experiences like this made me already think about some
theoretical concepts. This trick gave rise to a successful routine
that I develop the following year, called “The Sucker Card,” trick
No. 34 of the repertoire of the Part Two. It was so successful that
it never ceased to be part of my general repertoire.

99
 Sometimes it may be quite cumbersome to adapt certain
tricks to very sceptical audiences, a characteristic of amateur
magicians, but I assure you that it’s worthwhile because of the
amount of things you learn by asking to yourself. Anyway, don’t
forget that there will come a time when your reputation is
enough considered so as not to have to excuse so much the
procedure of your routines.

But not all tricks can be adorned with metaphorical stories,

and some magical rituals can be also un-disguisable. Not all
effects are "excusable,” so I set out to develop a standard
solution to the phenomenon of magic on demand, a solution
that would suit any situation, for any trick.

After analyzing the behaviour of my viewers during some

tricks, I discovered that the main mistake was to remain silent for
a long time after the effect of a trick. That increased the
likelihood that viewers would react with ideas and requests. I
thought that if I shortened the silence of the reaction to a few
seconds and occupied their minds talking about something, I
could avoid them having suggestions for the trick. For example,
they could be told about the next trick we were going to do,
making them forget the details of the previous effect, so that
they would only keep the magical impact. In the case we weren’t
to make more tricks, we could simply talk about anything
personal (they are relatives of yours) to make them forget the
procedure of what they have just seen, and thus leave them with
the impression of having seen magic and nothing else. It also
depends on how you see that they will react, since they won’t
always be so curious and you don’t need to apply any special
measures. That will depend on how attentive we are to the
reaction of our audience. In any case we will have to keep in

100
mind that it is usual for our public to make comments related to
doubting our magic. Little by little, as we gain ground to our
magician status, those comments will diminish. Meanwhile, at
the beginning of making yourself known you should have
prepared some artifice to respond or react to those curious
spectators (not necessarily evil ones).

On one occasion when some spectators told me that a true

magician should be able to do anything that is asked for, I
answered as follows:

"When a singer comes on stage he or she usually doesn’t

wait for the audience to make requests, but just sings the songs
that have been settled. The magicians act in the same way with
their settled magic."

Then, one of the spectators commented that singers sing

on request too. I answered something like this:

"But they don’t always remember the lyrics of the requested

songs, nor are they always ready to play any song. We magicians
don’t know all the magic words by heart, let alone their exact
intonation. To do magic you also need rehearsal and practise.
Depending on the request we may or may not respond, as with
any other sort of artist."

Whenever I have responded this way, my viewers have

been quite understandings with me, and my magician image has
not been damaged. These are words that I would recommend
whenever you don’t know how to react to these situations.
These words can also serve a professional magician who is
involved in a similar situation with family spectators.

101
 Normally we are so enthusiastic doing the magic we have
prepared, that we don’t think much about justifying it, until an
outright spectator surprises us: Why is "this" done and not "this
other"? Depending on the spectators, magic will need more or
less transcendence. You can’t usually deal with magic on demand,
but you can avoid it. Giving a magical meaning to magic doesn’t
have to be a difficult task. It only takes a little imagination to
respond to those curious spectators. A funny way that I
popularised among my amateur card magician friends to give a
magical meaning to magic, is to say that each effect requires
certain magical powders, and obviously we can’t carry all the
"millions" of types of magical powders that exist anywhere, so
we carry only those necessary for the magic we have decided to
do at a certain time. Of course, nobody is going to take seriously
the existence of magic powders, just as no one tends to believe
in magic, but with those words you can excuse all magicians
about not being able to do magic on request, and that keep the
illusion of magic alive. It’s about giving a reason why we can do
"that" and not "that other,” giving a reasonable sense to what
we are and do, regardless of whether the spectators believe it or
not. Imagination is magic. Everyone would like to believe in
something they don’t believe, and we contribute precisely to
that. On one occasion, me being an adult, a child with a restless
mind (as I was) asked me: "why do magicians not make appear
mountains of money and thus become rich?" I, following the
same philosophy of magical answers, replied: "because the
power of magic is evaded by greed. If you abuse the power of
magic to enrich yourself, you will lose the power of magic
forever." You can see that children are incredible when they
imagine. Children ask questions that an adult does not come up
with, and that is why you must respond with the imagination of a

102
child. The illusion is in the imagination. Try to develop magical
answers without giving up in front of people who doubt magic.
Justify the meaning of magic with imagination:

"If we could do everything they ask for at any time we could

also do magic alone for our personal benefit, and that would be a
very big irresponsibility that would lead us to lose our ability to
do magic."

"You can only do magic to amuse and entertain. We do not

want to risk losing all our ability to do magic because of
irresponsibility. And we can only carry just the necessary magic to
do our show at that time."

"Needless to say that it is also forbidden to do any kind of

damage through the use of magic. There is a logical and human
code of the magician as an artist that if broken, that magician
would lose all his ability to do magic, by divine will.”

Don’t ever stop imagining no matter "fools" seem your

ideas, that is how the great magicians have develop their great
ideas, such as the great idea that Pit Hartling published in his
"Card Fictions" (2003), which consists precisely in inducing
requests to later solve them triumphantly, an idea that he would
call "Inducing Challenges.”

103
 CHAPTER 5: The Personal Method

“Be yourself. Be Natural.”

Dai Vernon.

In this chapter I will tell you how I got here, a path that led
me to think about the concept of "personal method,” to the
point of considering it as the main reason to be proud of being
an amateur magician, in addition to feeling like a real magician.

I call "personal method" simply the path that we follow as

we become magicians. In this personal method, I mainly
distinguish two lanes: the dependent lane and the independent
lane. Both lanes always go in the same direction (learning) and
never separate, in fact, most of the time they cross or combine,
since the destination is the same: learn how to be a magician.
For example, going to a school and / or reading books in a self-
taught way would be part of the dependent path, since we
would depend on what our teacher teaches us and / or what the
author of the book we are reading teaches us, whereas the path
independent would be represented by how we rack our brains
over inventing and discovering on our own, instead of learning
something by someone, as a result of our love of the Art of
Magic and the desire to grow in it. The personal method consists
of any combination of these two lanes, so it’s a unique path of
each person, which means that each magician has a different
personal method. No personal method has to be better than
another. Being "better" or "worse" would depend just on how
diligent is the person in question that wants to learn, or on the
level of seriousness it is taken. In any case, some methods would
be faster than others, so we could say that the fastest methods
would be "better" than the less rapid ones, depending on the

104
concept of "better.” The concept of "better" or "worse" would
depend on the needs of each one. In the same way, some
methods could be more organised than others without
supposing to be better or worse, since I know good amateur
magicians who feel more comfortable with precisely topsy-turvy
methods. It would depend on the criteria of each one. We can
also understand that some personal methods are just more
difficult than others, but even that would depend on the criteria
of each one. Anyway, all personal methods have the same
purpose of becoming a magician more and more diligent
(assuming that this was the true wish of the person in question).
Summarising, I believe that there are no "better" ways to learn,
but only different ones. Schools are good for learning faster and
easier than being self-taught, but that doesn’t mean you can’t
learn well without them. An example of this is found in the
eminent figure of Arturo de Ascanio. His tremendous passion,
especially for the Art of Card Magic, led him to develop ideas and
concepts in a completely independent way irrespective of having
been also develop by other magicians. But Ascanio also had its
respective dependent lane, like everyone else. That is, he also
learned from other magicians, and combined both lanes in a
masterly manner, which is what I mean with respect to the
personal method. You can become a great magician regardless of
what you have learned dependently or independently. From
there, the important thing is to practise everything necessary.
Amateurs are mainly dependent magicians, since we have less
time than professionals to experiment and imagine, but you
never know what ideas you can have. Don’t underrate yourself.
However, the concept of "independent discoveries" is not free of
controversy or criticism, although I believe that nothing in life is.
For example, Edward Marlo's personal method was basically

105
founded on the independent lane. I don’t know what books
Marlo would read, but I do know that many magicians accused
him of "stealing ideas.” I find the accusation of stealing ideas
inappropriate, unless it is clearly provable, since ideas are totally
free. It could be perfectly that Marlo almost didn’t learn anything
from anyone and everything he published was the product of his
great imagination, regardless of whether those ideas could have
been had and / or published by other magicians before, during or
after him, and without him knowing it. Apparently, Marlo just
had ideas and published them; it was his personal method. But
on this controversy I will expand more in the next section of this
chapter because it has a special influence on the figure of the
plain amateur, due to we generally don’t publish our ideas. The
fact is that we can never know what someone discovers on their
own if it is not through the honesty of that someone who says it.
However, even though we understand that we can’t be aware of
all the ideas about magic published in the world, I think that
those who have an idea of their own should investigate a little
out of curiosity and courtesy (now it's easier thanks to Internet),
in order to discover other authors who have had similar ideas,
and so give humble references of them, avoiding possible
accusations. I think that such an attitude would avoid the sad
situation of turning magic into a competition instead of a cleverly
shared art. Something similar to Ed Marlo happened with Harry
Lorayne, who was also harshly criticised about questions of
authorship and / or lack of references in his works. Nevertheless,
both Marlo and Lorayne may have been as well "mugged" in
ideas. Think that an "invention" sometimes closely resembles a
"discovery,” and the more people publish, the greater the
chances of coinciding ideas. In any case, "wars of authorship" are
difficult to disappear (like conventional wars), but we could make

106
them disappear with magic, with the magic of friendship and
mutual respect. If an amateur card magician friend told you that
he or she has discovered something great that you already know,
inform him or her that you already know it, but respecting and
praising his/ her great work of imagination to have come up with
it independently. That would avoid competition with a view to
the benefit of fellowship in the Art of Magic. Remember that it is
better for two magicians to help themselves to compete.

We can give many curious examples about the concept of

"personal method,” as the way in which Dai Vernon learned the
"Elmsley count": Alex Elmsley sent him a letter in which he
explained the move, for what Vernon couldn’t thank in a better
way than applying it to routines from his imagination which
today are true masterpieces. It is a beautiful example of how two
great friends, "heavyweights of card magic," share ideas for the
development of this art. (I would like to receive letters like that!)
Likewise, the legendary book "Expert at the Card Table,” from
the pseudonym S.W. Erdnase, was part of the personal
dependent lane of Dai Vernon, as he learned from it. There again,
Johann Nepomuk Hofzinser had almost no dependent lane in his
personal method (like Marlo), whilst on the contrary, the
charismatic Fred Kaps had a personal method focused mainly on
the dependent lane, which does not mean that it was less
praiseworthy, since Kaps had a great talent for performance.
Another example like the one of Kaps is found in another great
performer as Michael Vincent, nothing less than one of the
disciples of Tony Slydini. Never forget that using one lane more
than the other does not imply having more or less merit
provided that you are a good magician.

107
 The Concept of Independent Ideas

“Roads were made for journeys, not destinations.”

Confucius.

Nature invented mathematics and hands, whilst humans

invented the deck of cards. This means that everything that
mathematics and hands can do with a deck of cards is limited by
nature, so that the techniques of card magic are not inventions,
but rather discoveries. The inventions would be the "millions" of
combinations of those discoveries to show them as magic
through routines, along with gimmicks and misdirection. Those
thoughts led me to propose the following: "routines are invented,
whereas techniques are discovered."

In December of 1996, an amateur card magician friend told

me: "Did you know that the top change technique was
Hofzinser's idea?" I replied: "Only him?" I told him that the top
change could have been likewise an independent idea of many
other card magicians, even of a simple and unknown amateur
who kept this technique for himself and applied it all his life,
without anyone else being aware of it (as did Hofzinser himself
with his ideas). I summarised the notion of this concept by the
following sentence:

"Some ideas are learned, but others can just be had."

The "top change" technique was published for the first time
just a few years after Hofzinser began to dazzle with his magic, in
"Nouvelle Magie Blanche Dévoilée" by Jean-Nicholas Ponsin, in
1853 (page 37).

Although the same invention can be devised by more than

one person, only one of them can patent it, specifically the first

108
one that does it. That means we can know who has patented
something, but we can’t know who else invented it before or
after it was patented. For example, the idea of the light bulb was
held independently by several inventors in different countries,
but it was Thomas Alva Edison who ended up patenting a very
practical version of it.

In my opinion, having an idea and talking about it doesn’t

mean being disrespectful toward the person who had that idea
before and patented it, provided that we don’t know that and
anyway we give references of that person as soon as we know
that. Think that the merit of the discovery would be identical in
both people, since they are independent of each other. They are
minds that have moved in a similar way from a creative point of
view, and both should be respected.

Keeping a secret is something that is in the common sense

of anyone who likes magic and also has independent ideas, but
the complicated thing is to prove the independence of those
ideas if you are an amateur who doesn’t publish anything.
However, it’s precisely in those personal creative moments when
you feel most worthy to be a magician. But don’t ever think that
you are "better" for having more ideas, or "worse" for having
less. If you love magic, you are already worth to be a magician,
discovering on your own or just being taught or both. A good
magician who discovers or invents something shouldn’t feel
proud of his/her wit, but his/her ability to do magic as a magician.

The concept of independent ideas was precisely

responsible for me taking up the Art of Card Magic in December
1983. It was after watching some magicians on TV doing magic
with cards. I loved an effect in which the magician showed an

109
indifferent card and place it on the table, to do after a while a
magic snap and show that the card was transformed into the
selection. So then, I started to handle roughly a Spanish deck of
card that my father gave me, which was very used and lacked
some cards. I played around with that deck of card insisting on
learning how to do "something" of the magic with cards I saw on
TV. The basic idea that I understood about a card trick was to
divine a card selected and lost in the deck, so I focused on
getting that magic. So then I achieved my first invention-
discovery in the world of card magic: the bent corner. Being
damaged, that deck had cards with bent corners, and that helped
me deduce the idea. Being able to locate a certain card through
the bent corner in a shuffled deck allowed me to achieve the
effect. So, I threw the cards with bent corners away to avoid
confusion, and I did the trick to my older brother (three years
older than me). He was fascinated with the divination. It was the
first magic trick with cards I did to someone (December 1983).
Later I used a different deck of cards, one less damaged that I got
to borrow my father to do the trick to him and my mother. My
father figured out what the secret was, but my brother asked me
to explain how I did it. I told him to try to find out. So then he
was investigating until he told me that he had the possible
solution. He did the same routine and managed to divine the
card. But my surprise was bigger when I saw that the divined
card did not have the corner folded! How on earth did he get it
without the bent corner?! I was absorbed. He may not have used
the same method as me. Then he told me: "you had a good idea
losing the card in the deck the other way round.” My brother had
just discovered the technique of "one-way backs"! Then I replied
with surprise that this was not the method I used. I explained my
method and told him that his idea was fantastic. The back of that

110
deck of cards that we used had the design of the mascot of the
Soccer World Cup of Spain 82, "Naranjito" (“little orange”), so it
was a deck of one-way backs. Of course you have to be a bit
careful with the one-way back, as this may be too eye-catching
to not go unnoticed as in the case of that deck, so my brother
looked for the card without showing me the backs. In the famous
“Encyclopedia of Card Tricks" by Jean Hugard, there is a chapter
dedicated exclusively to tricks that use this technique. Apart
from recommending this monumental book for the lover of card
magic, I also wanted to recommend a great routine that uses this
technique of one-way backs, called "You see?," which can be
found in the brilliant work "Expert Card Technique" by Jean
Hugard and Fred Braue (page 280). The trick consists of a
successful routine of three divinations in impossible conditions,
and it is from the imagination of the charismatic and famous
Hollywood actor, Harold Lloyd, who was very fond of card magic.
I was very motivated by the idea of the one-way backs, and I
could not stop handle the deck of card of my father, trying to get
the most out of the idea and anything else that I could think of.
Then, I develop some interesting tricks with the one-way backs
technique, until something extraordinary happened which made
me to put on hold that technique for a moment. It happened
during the summer of 1984. It was a miracle that made me never
leave my passion for the Art of Card Magic. During my solitary
evenings investigating with a deck of cards and some imaginary
spectators, I imagine someone picking a card and lose it into de
deck. So, on one occasion, to speed up the process of my
rehearsals, I looked directly at the top card to use it as a selected
card, I returned it to top to extend the deck on my bed (where I
rehearsed), and when I picked up the card again to use it as the
selected card, I saw with surprise that it was not the same card ...

111
eh? ... My body shuddered. How? I even thought that I had really
done magic because of my desire to be a magician! I thought I
was becoming a genuine magician "like those on TV," since the
cards began to change by itself without control. However, it was
a very brief feeling, since I immediately found out that there was
no magic. I noticed that at first I had lifted two cards instead of
one, because one of them had something sticky. It looked like a
food stain left by a player's fingers, which is why I heard a small
"click" when I picked up the card for the second time. My child's
mind soon understood that, as expected, magic did not exist, but
were well-kept secrets. But far from being depressed to discover
that magic did not exist, I began to understand that it did not
exist for me, but for others, and that was actually magic and
being a magician. So then, I started practising ways to take two
cards as one in the most concealed way possible. In short, I
discovered the idea of hiding a card by lifting two as one, the
"double lift." That was how that effect that I saw on TV and I
loved so much, worked! By means of the double lift I achieved
nothing less than one card miraculously transformed into
another, just as I surprised myself; one of the “philosopher’s
stone” in card magic. I tried the idea with my brother. The
routine was simple: To show the second top card by double
lifting, making believe that it’s the top one, to return the card (s)
on the deck and place the top one on the table, making believe
that it’s the showed card. A magical snap, as did the "magicians
on TV," and to show that the card has been transformed into
another. I still have my brother's surprised face photographed in
my mind. Since I wanted him to be a magician too, to act
together in front of our relatives, I taught him the secret.
However, my brother never intended to be fond of doing magic,
but he was the most important person in my life as an amateur

112
magician, since he was the one who fervently suggested not
teaching that secret to anyone else, advice that would be the
first and most important of my whole card magic life, since that
was how I became a good amateur. Fortunately for me, my
brother was always a lover of secrets, a shy and discreet person
who liked to keep secrets. I was really lucky for that, because
thanks to him I had got a strong conscience about the
importance of keeping secrets for magic, in a time when my
mind was too immature. My brother wasn’t only my first
spectator, but he also became my confidant "laboratory
spectator.” I showed and explained anything that came to my
mind in order to obtain their valuable opinions and ideas. I
insisted on proposing to organise together a magic show for the
Christmas parties, taking advantage of the large family
gatherings, but he told me he was shy about that. Interestingly,
my brother was not shy about singing or participating in
theatrical performances at school, but to act as a magician,
because he considered that people would make fun of it or just
would not take a child seriously doing magic, not being a real
magician. So, he never had any particular interest in actively
engaging in it. However, he offered to help me prepare the
shows to perform them alone. He liked to be my confident
collaborator watching me put the show into practise and seeing
the reaction of our family spectators. For me it was very
motivating to be able to rehearse with my brother before
showing anything in a party, as well as having his point of view as
a spectator and his valuable suggestions. I always lived in a wide
family environment, since my mother had seven brothers and
five sisters, and my father had three brothers and one sister, so I
had sixteen uncles and aunts and more than thirty cousins. That
is, my audience was always my big family.

113
 My mother gifted me a children deck of cards for my 9th
birthday as she got my passion for it, being my first own deck. I
got some skill shuffling it again and again compulsively.

The trick of the card that is magically transformed by the

"double lift" was evolving. For Christmas of 1984 I thought about
asking to pick a card, losing it back into the deck and control it to
the top by means of the technique of the bent corner and a cut.
Thus, the metamorphosis would be achieved with a selected and
lost in the deck card, which completed a distinguished and
powerful routine. Since I didn’t know anything at that time about
the concept of “keeping a break," neither with the little finger
nor with any other finger, the double lift was done by just
thumbing through the cards until the second one, while saying:
"then you card is anywhere in the deck." That set phrase always
served as an excuse to make such a riffle, while my relatives
understood it as a simple and refined sound ornament. There
again, the bent corner seemed a great idea, but sometimes my
brother noticed that the corner felt bent at the end of the trick,
which could end up being suspicious. Then I began to squeeze
my head to find some alternative to the bent corner, in order to
control a card. Finally, overhand shuffling the deck again and
again, I realised something as simple as the top card could be
single peeled and bottomed throughout the shuffle, plus it could
be returned to top with another equal shuffle. It seemed brazen
to shuffle the deck with the selected card put on top, but my
cousins knew nothing about card manipulations, which
fortunately wasn’t a suspicious manoeuvre for them. For them,
anyway the card seemed lost. But that idea didn’t work with
some of my uncles, since they were aware of the control, so I did
not abandon the technique of the bent corner. Regarding the

114
previous trick, I showed several versions to my brother so he
could tell me which seemed better. He liked the idea of rubbing
the card on the spectator's arm more than simply doing it on the
table, but the idea that he liked the most was the following one:

After the transformation by the double lift technique,

before showing the transformed card, I cut the deck from the
middle, dropped a cascade of cards and threw the selected card
through the cascade, falling on the other side. Then I asked the
spectator to turn it over after announcing what was his or her
card. Surprise! Three years later, when I started to write down
my ideas in a notebook, I called that trick "Transformation
through the Deck." It was the first time I named a trick. I included
it frequently as "opening act" for other later trick with the
intention of motivating the interest of my family spectators.
Michael Skinner has a particular presentation called "Mona Lisa"
on this elementary technique of transformation through the
double lift technique. Harry Lorayne presented it as "Strange
Voyage." Never forget that the presentation is what makes the
tricks different, not the techniques used. On page 297 of "Expert
Card Technique" by Hugard and Braue, there is another
presentation of this same effect called "Boy Meets Girl." Another
of my presentations, which I called "Violent Transformation,"
was about just to shake vigorously the card or give it blows
against the table like when we want to fix something by blows,
so that with that squalid gesture I achieved the transformation,
causing laughs that merged with the surprise.

The idea continued to evolve. For the Christmas of 1985 I

thought that the transformation of the card could be done
dealing two different cards on the table face down, ask for
choosing one of them, so that the one chosen turn into the

115
selected card. If the spectator did not choose the right card, I
would say: "Well, you keep that card and I transform this other,
bang!" When I read my first books of card magic I saw that idea
called "verbal forcing." Next, my brother gave me the great idea
to do the same but with three cards, leaving the chosen one in
between. So, since people used to choose the central card, the
effect would be more successful. The ideas of my brother were a
great motivation to continue thinking. I called these new ideas
"Transformation by Choice from Two or Three Cards." I didn’t
think too much about naming tricks. Years later I found out in “El
brujo en sociedad” (1839) by “Tío Cigüeño” (Juan Mieg), that
there was a trick called “Las tres cartas engañosas” (“the three
deceptive cards”), in page 101, that is identical to this one.

Another example of the little ideas I had about the use of

the double lift technique, was "Divination of the Card that is
going to Be Chosen," in that year 1985, which consisted just in a
prediction. My brother suggested that I call it "Divination of the
Future." It was about writing the name of a card on a piece of
paper. That card would be at the bottom of the deck. The
spectator selects a card from a spread done by the magician. As
the card to predict is in bottom, nobody chooses it from a spread.
Before they look at it, it’s left on the table misteriously. The deck
is then overhand shuffle to get the bottom card to top. Curiously,
this made the trick clearer to the free choice, although at that
time I didn’t think about the psychological aspects. Everything
was ready to put the card on top and apply the double lift. After
showing the card, the double is redone and the content of the
piece of paper is asked to be looked at. Surprise! "Divination of
the Future" gave rise to a funny routine that I develop five years
later, in 1990, called "Chance Choice," which appears as trick No.

116
36 of the repertoire (Part Two). That same year 1990, I came up
with a funny presentation related to predictions, which I called
"Timed Prediction." It consists in leaving the prediction of a card
written on a piece of paper. A force of the predicted card is made,
the forced card is placed on top and a double lift is made.
Spectators see a different card to the prediction, but have not
yet seen the prediction. The double is redone and the correct
card is placed near the prediction paper, making the spectators
believe that it’s the card they saw. The prediction is revealed. It’s
a perfect mistake. Then, the magician, nervous, says that
amateurs need more time than the "magicians on TV" for a
prediction to work. That is, you have to give a little time to the
magic of an amateur. About one minute. You say that you think
that the minute has already passed and you ask them to turn the
card over again ... whenever I have done it, it has impacted a lot.

I realised that the "TV magicians" could use the technique

of double lift very often in their diverse routines. I felt very
privileged to have discovered that technique before reading
books. I had the feeling of being done to do card magic. Likewise,
when I started reading books I thought about how fun it was to
try to discover things on your own before reading them. If
something similar has happened to you, I suppose you've felt the
same. As an amateur it is very motivating to see a personal idea
published by an author, since you notice that it isn’t nonsense,
but that it is considered by professionals. I think we should feel
this way, unlike other amateurs who think that it’s an annoyance
to discover that an idea of their own has already been published.
Think with pride that your mind is like a book of card magic that
you only read, and that is what I mean when I speak of our
"independent lane" or our "personal method.” Enjoy your own

117
ideas, but if you discover that someone has published it, don’t
forget to give references of that someone. The mutual respect of
the same discovery or idea is a benefit for the Art of Card Magic.

During my "pre-books" period (until the summer of '87), my

brother and I discovered several things. One of the most
important was in December of that same year 85. I was doing to
my family spectators a divination trick of a selected card, using
the great idea of my brother of one-way backs. When they
picked the card from a spread, I separated the deck by that point,
and while they were showing the card to the rest of the viewers,
I casually noticed the endpoint cut card. When they went to
return the card I thought that they could do it in the same point
where it was taken, as they used to do, since anyway the deck
was going to be shuffle. I made sure to turn both halves 180
degrees in order to apply the technique of one-way backs. Then,
when fixing the deck I understood something very curious, and
that is the chosen card was next to a card known to me, so I
could locate it that way. However, I continued with the
technique of one-way backs for fear that this recent discovery
would fail, in addition to having already given the deck to shuffle,
but needless to say that I immediately began to investigate the
possibilities of that new idea, consisting in having a selected card
returned next to a card secretly known to me. Immediately I told
my brother and we started to develop divination tricks with that
idea. It was no longer necessary to use the one-way backs or the
bent corner to divine cards. It was a great advance, a great
discovery. One of the most interesting tricks that occurred to me
through the use of a "key card" was "Comic Approach." It
consisted in saying to the spectators that if I did not divine the
card I would try to at least approaching it. The spectators always

118
thought that with "approach" I was referring to a similar card to
the one selected, so that if the card named by the magician did
not look like at all the one selected (the key card), it did not seem
at all an approach, however the magician then spread the deck
and shows that with "approach" he was referring to the card
next to it. It was one of the most successful routines I did with
"key card" during my pre-book era. Additionally, during that pre-
books time I was also lucky to learn from someone. It was one of
my uncles living in Barcelona, one of the many relatives who
came to my homeland, San Fernando (Cadiz), to visit us. It was in
the summer of 1986. He played poker and other card games
frequently with my father and many other relatives and friends.
One day that summer I had the chance to do the trick
"Transformation through the Deck." He was very surprised, but
not because of the effect, but because I knew those techniques.
He told me that he already knew these techniques, since he was
also fond of doing magic with cards. He asked me who had
taught it to me. He had a hard time believing me when I told him
that these techniques had been discovered with my brother, but
fortunately he ended up believing and praising me for it, to the
point of taking me seriously enough to teach me new things. He
taught me the technique of the little finger break! So that it was
more convenient to get a double lift, in addition to controlling
"lost" cards in the deck through cuts and shuffles. Specifically he
taught me a control "terribly" simple, hided and effective that I
have not stopped doing all my life and I still apply today. It
consists simply in controlling the selected card with a "break"
and just after overhand shuffling and taking it to top. Doing it
without pause, the action is totally natural. Twenty years later I
discovered that this control was known as "Mahatma" control,
pass or shuffle, which derived from having been published in the

119
magazine "Mahatma" (Vol. 5, No. 2 of August 1901, page 495) in
an article by Hal Merton. Merton had three passes, two created
by him and another not. Well, the one that not, is the one that
would happen to be known anonymously as "Mahatma Control.”
David Devant explored the technique in 1936, developing a
simpler and more natural method ("Secrets of My Magic,” on
page 29) which was the one taught to me by my uncle. My uncle
also taught me how to do the elegant riffle shuffle, in addition to
show me the detail that the position of the top and bottom cards
were not altered. He also taught me how to do the simple false
cut with "a tap.” He told me about the concept of forcing a card
and taught me the classic and rifle forces, although the classic
force did not convince me at all, since it seemed very cheeky,
impractical or not credible, so I paid no attention. Only when I
started reading books (the beginning of my "dependent path")
did I realise how very wrong I was with respect to the classic
force. During that summer I could only talk to my uncle about
card magic two or three times, since obviously he used to be very
busy chatting and playing with adults. Moreover, a few days
after our magical conversations of incalculable value to me, he
returned to Barcelona. I was left alone with my passion, but "I
had got gold" in those "little" ideas that he taught me. Thanks to
the hided, simple and elegant control with the little finger I could
control cards without the showy bent corner, in addition to
obtaining a double lift much more simple and hided.

So, through the double lift, the little finger break, the
"Mahatma control" and the confidential advice of my brother, I
showed intriguing magic tricks with cards during an interesting
pre-book stage in my personal life as an amateur card magician.
The routines of the repertoire (Part Two) "The Damaged Magic

120
Lift" (No. 32) and "Magical Trips of a Card" (No. 33) are a
selection of the best of that period.

As a custom, I showed card tricks mainly at Christmas

parties, in order to take advantage of family reunions. However,
sometimes I showed some tricks at school, until it ended up
becoming a suffering rather than a fun. At school, some of my
classmates used to pressure me to tell them the secret of the
tricks I did. In spite of the insistence of my classmates, I never
revealed those secrets thinking faithfully in the advice of my
brother and our pact of not talking about secrets. To reveal the
secrets would not only be to betray my brother's confidentiality,
but it would be to betray myself, because they were my own
ideas sweated by my mind! So then I started having certain
personal problems. I started to miss several colleagues precisely
because I refused to "share" my secrets of card magic. They
thought that I, as a friend, should teach them how to do those
funny and surprising "magic,” so they could enjoy doing it too,
like the one who shares a toy. Some even blackmailed me, such
as: "If you don’t teach us how to do the magic trick, we won’t let
you play with us,” and things like that. I was getting tired of being
considered an unfriendly child just for not wanting to reveal my
magic. I started to ask myself frequently, why are "TV magicians"
not considered unfriendly for not revealing their secrets? I
understood that the interest they showed towards me was not
to see magic, but to learn it, since they could talk to me and ask
me with the familiarity of a good friend, which they could not do
with the "TV magicians.” But thanks to my huge family of
numerous cousins, I always had spectators, so I never felt
worried about losing spectators at school, especially when they
just wanted me to reveal the secrets. Some smart school friends

121
of mine told me that they also wanted to be magicians, but I
immediately understood that it was not true, but only wanted to
know the secrets out of curiosity. For me, those ideas were
priceless. It would be a real pity to reveal those wonderful
techniques with which to create magic to anyone who didn’t
really want to be a magician, in addition to be betraying my
uncle as well. A colleague once told me: "real magicians are only
on TV,” words that were as recorded in my mind as I am now
reproducing them almost 30 years later. That made me
understand the total conviction they had that there must be a
way, because they were just convinced that I couldn’t be a
magician. Sometimes, some of my colleagues even asked the
school teachers to convince me to explain a trick to them, as if it
were wrong for me not to do it. But the school teachers
obviously took my side saying that if the secrets were revealed, it
would not be magic anymore, as my brother used to tell me. I
wanted to be considered an entertaining and funny card
magician, like "those on TV.” If I revealed the tricks right after
doing them, as if that were fun stuff (and as unfortunately many
“amateur magicians" do), I would never become a magician
(amateur), but just a disclosing party of magic secrets. The fact
that the school teachers took my side made me very happy, but
the colleagues who did not understand it were still the majority. I
thought I could do some magic at the school's Christmas party to
see if I could get some consideration, but I would have to
prepare something special, something I would not have done yet
and would be really magical.

In San Fernando town, province of Cadiz (Spain), where I

grew up, inhabit an insect called “firebug” (pyrrhocoris apterus),
which frequented around my school. We were used to seeing

122
them. One autumn day of that year 1986, when these insects
were beginning to disappear (hibernate) because they can’t
tolerate the cold, an eccentric idea occurred to me. The firebug is
a flattened, small and strong insect, so I thought of using it to
make a card taking on a life of its own. It was about using a piece
of Sello-tape turned on itself to create a double-sided adhesive
and stick it to the shell of the insect. Then I would stick a card to
it so that when I placed it on the table it would seem that the
card moves by itself. Due to the flatness of the insect, there was
not much noticeable that there was something under the card.
Actually I had that idea previously, but with a dung beetle, which
was too large, being quite noticeable that there was something
under the card, whereas with the firebug you could hardly notice
that. The routine was about to ask for picking a card, turning on
my back with the excuse of not looking as the card is showed to
others. At that time I would take the firebug from inside the
front pocket of my coat, which would be attached to the inner
fabric of the pocket, introducing the index finger into the Sello-
tape ring and taking it off. The firebug would be ringed on my
index finger. The deck would be held in the other hand. When I
turned around, I would spread the deck to ask them to lose the
selected card into the spread. At that moment, hiding the Sello-
tape ring under the spread, I would attach it to the selected card.
When gathering the cards, the little finger break (technique that
my uncle from Barcelona taught me that same year) would keep
the firebug safe. Finally, I would toss cards scattering them on
the table in a little piles until arriving at the "break,” where I
would throw the selected card and continue throwing little piles
until the end. The trick would be pretty much done. I would only
be waiting for a card to move by itself among all the other ones
on the table. When I take "the living card" myself with my both

123
hands, I would say: "so this should be your card, huh?!" I would
put the card facing me with the excuse of verifying that it’s the
one selected, and in that moment I would introduce the ring
finger of the one hand into the ring of the Sello-tape, making
easy not only unsticking the firebug, but also its concealment by
closing the fist just as the other hand hold the card. Then I would
turn the card with that hand and leave it held in the other hand,
visible. The movement is more natural than it seems described.
Then I would change hands the card again to give it to the
spectators and take away the hand which bears the firebug. So,
while the spectators were absent-minded with the card, I would
put that hand into the pocket and get rid of the ring of Sello-tape
with the help of the thumb.

I talked to my brother about this hilarious idea and he was

fascinated, although he was pessimistic telling me that it was a
bit complicated (the "a bit" he said sarcastically). However we
tried it alone and noticed that there was a problem: the adhesive
did not stick well in the insect’s sell, but I didn’t give up. It
occurred to me to add a tad of stick glue, which was much
stickier. The idea worked and the bug moved the card without
detaching from it. So then I dared to try it in mid-December in
the last class on Friday, which was of manual arts. Everyone was
looking forward to finishing the class like every end of the week.
The teacher was absent at that time because we were only
making Christmas decorations. Then, about ten minutes from the
end of the class, I announced that I was going to do a card trick.
Some seven or eight classmates paid attention to me, but things
did not turn out the way I expected. The routine went according
to plan until one of my classmates could not avoid the
temptation to take the card that was moving by itself. I did not

124
have time to prevent it. It was too fast. The faces of surprise
became faces of curiosity. When they saw the bug they got
scared and the card ended up on the floor ... one of the boys
tried to step on the firebug, but I could avoid that in time. I
picked it up from the floor and put it back in the pocket of my
coat. It was a “great scene.” I ended up being a simple
laughingstock, although I admit that some praised me for the
idea. There was a few minutes left for hearing the school bell,
but it was a few minutes very long for me since my colleagues
didn’t stop making jokes about the bug. When the teacher
arrived, she asked why we were so noisy. They explained what
happened and she scolded me for bringing bugs to class ...
anyway. When I went out I said goodbye to my tiny assistant,
leaving it in a garden on the road.

From that moment I focused on doing magic only for my

relatives. As I said before, I grew up in a very, very familiar
environment, due to my more than thirty cousins, so it was not
difficult or traumatic to forget about doing magic at school. I had
plenty of spectators, as well as neighbours and other friends. It
was not until high school that I returned to doing magic to
classmates on a regular basis, especially to my interested and
kind mathematics teacher. Today I proudly can say that I never
broke the oath I made with my brother not to teach anyone the
greatest secret I discovered independently: "the double lift."

At Christmas 1987 I dared to do the routine of the card that

moves by itself with my relatives, but the same thing happened,
that is, after I said the words "selected card, move!,” one of my
cousins couldn’t avoid the temptation to reach out and pick up
the card, revealing the secret. It was very clear that this routine
was impractical for an amateur child. I mean that if I were an

125
adult or a professional magician, or else they were an adult
audience they would not touch the card out of wisdom and
consideration. Those experiences were the beginning of my
frustrations to be considered a real magician, but also the
beginning of my thoughts on this subject. I asked myself again
and again: "why when a magician on TV does magic, people just
applaud him, and when I do it, people touch everything ... or they
ask me to explain it ... and if I don’t explain it they get angry…?" I
still had a lot to learn about the universe of an amateur card
magician, and much to meditate on the psychology of the
spectator with an amateur magician.

More than a quarter of a century later, in 2013, I was very

surprised when I discovered on the Internet a video of a Luis
Arza's card trick, called "Las Cartas Vivientes" (“The Living
Cards”), whose routine was similar, although much better, since
not only did one card move, but many of them, until only one
was left; the selected one. I don’t think that Luis Arza's wittiness
includes taming a troop of firebugs, but that video brought me
some wonderful and nostalgic memories of my childhood.

In the summer of 1987 I was able to read for the first time
an exclusive book of card magic, a book called "Cartopijadas"
(“Nonsense cards”), by Alberto Reyes, which a neighbour kindly
lent me. I don’t know if there is a version in English. Since it was
a borrowed book, I wasn’t able to consult it frequently or
remember a good part of its content, but I learned new things
such as the technique known as “the glide.” That same year was
also the first in which the Three Wise Men brought me as a
present for the Three Kings’ Day, a nice set box of magic tricks,
although it didn’t contain many card tricks.

126
 The concept of independent ideas was what led me to the
conclusion in 1992 that we all have a personal method. Each one
discovers and learns in different ways. As I was reading books I
discovered that the tricks I drew from my imagination were not
more than very, very elementary notions of a whole world to be
discovered in the Art of Card Magic. I was surprised by the wide
variety of false cuts and shuffles, as well as card controls, forces,
palming, etcetera ... ideas like palming cards or a triple lift had
never crossed my mind. A triple lift! I wondered if that sleight
really worked, and thanks to the books I could trust in that for
sure. I was also surprised by the variety of ways to do false count
of cards. In spite of the imagination that I could have in my
beginnings, the only false count that I develop independently
was to leave the last two or three cards of the count square on
the hand, to count them as one with the intention of counting
less cards. When I learned the “buckle count,” the “flushtration
count,” "Biddle count,” etcetera, I was delighted. Let's not say
when I learned Alex Elmsley's “ghost count,” which I thought it
would not have occurred to me in a hundred years. Elmsley must
have been a genius of card magic, like Ascanio and his "culebreo"
(“Ascanio spread”) among so many other surprises that I
discovered during my adventures as a reader of card magic.
When I learned the Elmsley count in 1992, a door opened for me
that I could never open, even though I tried it. It was a routine by
Juan Tamariz called “The Tamariz Rabbits,” which I could see a
Tamariz performance in the Spanish television show "Cajón
desastre,” by Rafael Herrero, presented by Miriam Díaz-Aroca. It
was the year 1989 or 90, I'm not sure, but I fell in love with the
clarity and beauty of the routine, as well as its metaphor with the
most universal icon of magic, such as the hat and the rabbit. For
me it “marked a milestone” with respect to my obsession with

127
card magic, since I understood better than ever that by the cards
you could represent metaphorically any magic trick!, and that
caused in me the most great motivation than ever I had felt as an
amateur card magician. The routine consists of four cards with
top hats drawn on one side and apples drawn on the other.
Suddenly a rabbit appears on one of the hats, then, the rabbit
disappears and reappears. Finally it is showed that a good part of
the apple has been eaten on the other side of the card. How was
that done?! I tried several times through conventional card
experiments, that is, I used the Ace of Spades as the card of the
hat with the rabbit and the other three Aces as the other cards
with hat without rabbit. I tried all kinds of tricks to achieve the
effect. I tried several double and triple lift, but it was awful. I
tried the buckle count, but it was not good either. Finally I gave
up and I forgot it. Until two years later, during my summer
holidays in Barcelona, in 1992, my uncle lent me a book in which
I could learn the Elmsley count, and something suddenly flashed
in my mind: The routine of Tamariz! The Elmsley count! Then I
found out how the routine was made. I was crazy happy, but I
didn’t have the original cards of the routine, nor would I ever
have them, since in my home village there were no magic shops.
Nevertheless, I elaborated them myself. I erased the face and
back of four old cards with alcohol, to then draw on them the top
hats and the apples with a template and a lot of patience. After
practising it many times I show it for the first time informally in
front of my aunt and my mother, and they loved it. I had the
success I expected, so I kept it for the repertoire of the Christmas
show of that year. But, thinking that I could do it to someone
else before the Christmas, as a rehearsal, I had the card in my
pants pocket until one day they ended up in the washing
machine! ... I couldn’t believe it. Despite the hard work, time and

128
passion devoting of making the cards, I could barely do the
routine twice. I was so angry that I didn’t want to make the cards
again, but that precisely impelled my creativity, since it made me
look for alternatives to the routine to be able to do it with
conventional cards, until it occurred to me to use the Jokers. So
then I took two old decks to get three red-backed and one blue-
backed Joker. The blue-backed Joker was coloured in several
colours, except blue, and the routine was ready. It consisted in
showing four Jokers without colouring using the Elmsley count,
thus hiding the coloured Joker card. Then four red-backed cards
were shown, leaving the blue-backed hidden by the Elmsley
count. Then I asked a spectator to magically colour one of the
Jokers with one finger ... yellow, red, green and blue ... so that
after a magical gesture, one of the Jokers appeared coloured
with those colours! ... "But, wait a minute! Where is the blue
colour...? Why is there not the blue colour if we had also named
it?”…, because the blue colour had gone back, on the back! The
routine was great! The cards could be given to examine. I felt a
great relief to be able to do that, since I had wanted to do it for
two years. My madness for card magic caused that version.

Seven years later, when I had the opportunity to read "The

Collected Works of Alex Elmsley," in 1999, which a sergeant of
the Navy very keen on card magic lent me, I discovered as soon
as I opened the book "The Four-Card Trick," and I noticed that
the routine of Tamariz was this same procedure, but with the
amusing metaphor of rabbits, hats and apples. Another clear
example that the presentation of one same routine can leads to
a totally different one.

Despite my inability to discover the Elmsley count to be

able to do that routine of Tamariz that I liked so much, I wasn’t

129
disappointed about it, but rather I thought it was a good
motivation to make an effort when trying to discover miraculous
techniques. I also found out that most of the books of card magic
were not specifically teaching methods, but books of personal
ideas, that is, ways of communicating with the ideas of other
great passionate of card magic, which published those ideas for
the delight and enrichment of other passionate. Learning from
the ideas of professionals and other amateurs makes us save
years of study and experimenting with a deck of card, and that
time saving has its origin in the pioneering students of the card
magic (both amateur and professional) that motivated other
great ideas. For example, Alex Elmsley himself, to develop his
“ghost count,” was inspired by a previous count called "eye
count," also called "Victor count" in honour of its creator Edward
Victor. In Victor's false count three cards are counted hiding one
of them, whilst in Elmsley’s the same is done but with four cards.
So, Elmsley did not deduct his count from scratch, but started
from something, which is how the Art of Card Magic has
developed in general. With these words I intend to pay homage
to the great pioneers of card magic, as well as to show my
gratitude for it. Edward Victor was a magician very admired by
Dai Vernon and well known for his funny and immortal classic
impromptu "The 11 Card Trick," which was cleverly versioned
and popularised in Spain by Pepe Carrol, in addition to the also
hilarious version of Derek Dingle, "The Fabulous Jumping Card
Trick."

There are people who say that "everything is already

invented.” An English friend of mine, fond of card magic, once
told me a very curious thing: "Who tells you that the ancient

130
Romans didn’t use the Elmsley count to hide important
documents right under people's noses?"

Fortunately, apart from books of personal ideas, there are

books that teach the Art of Card Magic from scratch methodically,
like the brilliant work of Vicente Canuto "Cartomagia
fundamental" (for Spanish speakers), which is a real delight to
achieve the main knowledge, conveniently and quickly. However,
I would like to insist on the importance of trying to discover
things on your own, as this encourages the imagination.

In the summer of 1998, fifteen years after my first creative

approach to card magic, I spoke to one of my amateur card
magician friends about the techniques I deduced on my own, in
order to that he would also tell me if he had had similar
experiences concerning independent discoveries, and what they
were. However, his reaction surprised me. He asked me if I was
kidding. He then hinted that I was just trying to show off by
pretending an innate talent. He told me that he started out in
card magic “like everybody,” through books, methodical books.
Then I understood that he didn’t imagine at all the concept of
discovering things independently. For him, the only viable way to
learn card magic was to read books, although, curiously, he
didn’t speak to me about how those who wrote those books
learned it. He said sarcastically to me: "Yes, of course, you
invented the double lift technique, right?" I replied that I didn’t
invent it, but discovered it, and that only a couple of people
learned it from me.

Nevertheless, fortunately, I also met amateurs who took

this topic seriously, although there were very few, specifically
those who had similar experiences too! One of them told me

131
that he had discovered the technique known as "the glide" on his
own. Another one told me he had invented / discovered the
"flushtration count,” and another one even told me to have
invented on his own the force by sliding the top or bottom card,
a technique known as "slip force.” Moreover, a great hobby mate
of me showed me a wonderful "double lift" that he discovered
on his own in the early 90s. We used it for a long time until I
discovered that it was a technique that Michael Close published
in his "Workers 2,” called "MC spread double lift.” I let that
friend know that, and he reacted wisely telling me that he
already imagined it was created and published. I told him that in
my eyes he (my friend) had invented it, for which he thanked me.

There are a few experiences that I have experienced both in

person and by hobby mates about the phenomenon of
independent ideas. Those experiences were what made me think
about the concept of the "personal method.” I also thought that
it would be better not to talk much with other amateurs about
this topic, leaving the satisfaction of the discoveries as a totally
personal matter. Keep in mind that generally they will not take
you very seriously in these aspects. I guess that all amateur (and
professional) card magicians may have had their own
experiences of this type when it comes to build up as a card
magician. At first I felt sad for the injustice of not being able to
prove my personal achievements regarding card magic, but I also
thought that any amateur could have had frustrating experiences
like that, besides it wasn’t important that they believed you or
not. I thought that we had just to enjoy our personal method.

Sometimes, when I see a card magician applying a

supposed double lift, I feel a strange sense of happiness as I
recall the moment of that discovery. Today I think at times that it

132
might have been just a fluke, by mean of which my personal
method began.

As a child, I dreamed of card magic. I dreamed of routines

that occurred to me in the dream itself. Sometimes, when I woke
up on weekend days, when I didn’t have to go to school, I wrote
the ideas I had in my dreams in the final pages of one of my
school notebooks, so that I wouldn’t forget them, and then I
designed little by little the routine for the next Christmas Eve and
New Year's Eve parties. I remember that on December 22, 1989, I
woke up with the sound of the Christmas lottery TV show, along
with an extraordinary idea in my mind. It was about a signature
on the back of a card that would move to the back of another
card by using the double lift. I had the Christmas Eve routine
ready, but I needed a great ending, and that grand finale came in
that dream. Then I thought of having a random card signed on its
back, and that signature would magically move to the back of a
card previously chosen by a spectator. It was a new and great
application of the double lift. The method was to control the
chosen card to the top, to pretend that it rises magically to top,
without success (double lift), to show the indifferent card and to
have its back signed, which is in reality the back of the chosen
card, to ask for losing the signed card into the deck, magical
gesture, spreading, and to turn over the random back signed
card to show that it had turned into the chosen card. The routine
had an extraordinary success. A cousin of mine, who was the one
who signed, never understood how that happened. Later, as
time elapsed, I saw on certain TV shows some card trick effects
about changing signatures, besides reading some other similar
effects in books. As you might imagine, it shouldn’t be strange
that there were a few versions of this type of effect, but I will

133
never forget that it occurred to me in a dream. I have that
routine included in the repertoire with the name "Signed
Revelation" (No. 69) , in which you can see up to 6 "notes" with
six new effects that came to me inspired by that basic idea over
eight years, from 1989 to 1997: Note 1, "The Jumping Signature."
Note 2, "Ambitious Signature." Note 3, "Signed Prediction." Note
4, "Progressive Signed Prediction." Note 5, "Brute Magic." Note 6,
"Signed Prediction in an Envelope."

Henry Hay was probably the first magician to publish

reflections about the concept of independent ideas, in his book
“The Amateur Magician’s Book,” published in 1950. In his book
he pointed to the right to enjoy with pride our own inventions,
but taking into account that they could be published and
credited to other people.

In short, I think we should respect for the personal method

of each magician. Only you can know what you have invented on
your own and what you have learned from other magicians /
books. Each magician has his or her way of using the tools, both
learned and discovered. But the really important thing is to do it
well, practising until exhaustion to make sure that your
spectators are going to see a good magician doing good magic.
Your personal application to your knowledge and your ability to
combine a routine learned by heart with improvisation is what
will make you an original magician.

A single magician cannot invent 2000 tricks (unless you're

Marlo), but 100 magicians can. So the community of conjurers
means that we can all have a myriad of routines to choose from
according to what needs, and thus be very versatile.

134
 The Theory in the Personal Method

“Any effect to be successful must first be founded upon a

simple method and then be performed with a direct to-the-point
presentation.”

Theodore Annemann.

The theory of magic is also a unique feature of each

magician in the development of his own personal method. In this
we can also find the dependent and independent lane. In the
dependent lane you can be self-taught (books), or not (schools).
If you are self-taught, I strongly recommend the following books:
"The Magic of Ascanio" by Jesús Etcheverry in four volumes, the
first being dedicated to the theory (“The Structural Conception of
Magic”), "The Five Points in Magic” and "The Magic Way" by Juan
Tamariz, "Strong Magic" by Darwin Ortiz, and "Secret Agenda" by
Roberto Giobbi. Of course there are many more gems, but I
recommend these ones as indispensable, as well as because they
are books that I have always seen included among the lists of the
best books ever written on theory of magic. I read the Darwin
Ortiz’s “Strong Magic” originally in English, which was lent to me
by a friend in Bournemouth (England) in February 2005, during a
six-month stay studying English language in an academy. He also
lent me "The Best of Slydini... and more,” by Karl Fulves. Reading
a book about the genius of misdirection Tony Slydini was an
unexpected luck that also led me to know the unique routine
"The Helicopter Card.” Finally he lent me "The Books of Wonder,”
by Tommy Wonder and Stephen Minch, but I only had time to
read the first one of the two volumes. What good friends I had in
England! And what a better way to practise read English than by
reading theory of magic! I also recommend a very special book

135
called "Magic in Mind,” which turns out to be free of charge. Yes.
It’s an electronic book (e-book) edited by Joshua Jay in
cooperation with the American Society of Magicians, created to
be distributed freely to all magic lovers who take magic seriously,
whether professional or amateur. It’s a compilation of essays by
magic geniuses. In fact, the book has the subtitle "Essential
Essays for Magicians.” The work has more than 500 pages, and
we can find essays of Ascanio, Tamariz, Lavand, Wonder, Teller,
Ortiz, Maskelyne, Robert-Houdin, among thirty more great
thinkers of magic. The drawback is that it is only in English (as far
as I know). It can be easily found and downloaded on the
Internet in PDF format by reference to its title.

Theoretical books are not to follow them literally, since

many theoretical aspects are not but personal opinions.
Professionals themselves disagree about theories, notions and
fundamentals, but that’s as normal as positive, since that’s how
the Arts evolve. In any case, the theoretical books make you
think, and that’s important. By this I mean that the theory also
assumes an independent path in our personal method to
become a good card magician (magicians in general). The
theoretical concepts of magic arose only from passionate minds
about magic, such as yours, mine, or the one of the great Arturo
de Ascanio through something we could proudly call "magician's
intuition.” Ascanio developed his theoretical personal method
through his magician intuition in the way of an independent lane,
deducting, organising and capturing the theory of magic from his
imagination in an ingenious, eloquent and elegant way. You can
also try. You can try to organise by your own words and naming
both the general theory of magic and more specific concepts, to
then compare your work with that of other theorists, and

136
evaluate your own magician's intuition. There are concepts that
are such indisputable as naturalness and a good misdirection,
but others are debatable, such as dealing with viewers or how to
present an effect. The way to organise the theory is also personal,
since each one may have his way of outline it in order to
understand and apply it better. I wrote my own theoretical
approaches during the time I was in the Navy as a professional
military (1997-2000). I started writing reflections on magic as a
simple hobby shortly after the death of our inspiring father
Arturo de Ascanio, in the spring of 1997, until completing a
theoretical document of 60 pages in December 1998. Then I
bought the books of Juan Tamariz "The Five Points in Magic” and
"The Magic Way," in 1999, and I compared my work with
Tamariz's. Needless to say, I learned much more reading Tamariz
than reading myself, but there were some theoretical ideas of
Tamariz that coincided with mine, which was very rewarding and
motivating for me. Every time I read something in Tamariz's work
that resembled my reflections, I felt more like a magician, more
confident that I could be a good magician. I came up with the
expression "personal theory" to refer to each one's approach to
theoretical concepts. That gives you a lot of confidence because
you become a magician from inside, regardless of what you learn
from outside. After all, the theories of the great masters are also
his personal theories. Ascanio's approach is among the most
followed in the world, due to his subtle angle, but Ascanio
himself was well aware, as modest, that his theory was only his
personal approach, and that every good magician had to develop
his own approach, irrespective of what we learned from other
minds.

137
 In the spring of 2000 I finally bought volume I of "The Magic
of Ascanio: The Structural Conception of Magic,” by Jesús
Etcheverry. My hair stood on end every time I found a concept
similar to mine. For example, in my work I talked about the
concept of "common actions,” which resembled Ascanio's
concept of "conditioned naturalness" (what eloquence!). His
concept of "coverage" was similar to what I called "moment" (in
reference to the moment of applying the trick). The concepts of
"magic gesture" and "suspense" I personally called them
"pantomime" and "clue.” I also thought of a concept that I called
"subliminal reminders" to prevent viewers from forgetting the
situation at the beginning, whereas Ascanio spoke in his work of
avoiding the "anti-contrast parenthesis.” As for the great theory
of Juan Tamariz on the "false solutions,” it seemed close to (at
least that's how I wish to consider it) a concept that I called
"magic effect’s confirmation.” I quote myself from my notes:
"The magic effect’s confirmation is produced by directing
attention to a possible explanation that finally turns out not to be
possible." This concept of "confirmation" should never be
confused with the procedure of the routine, since it is supposed
not to be part of the routine, but rather felt by the spectators as
they see the possible solutions vanish. Thanks to Tamariz I
learned that this concept was neither any nonsense nor any
action that could damage the effect, but would reinforce the
surprise of the effect and serve as well to bore a viewer who
were obsessed with finding solutions.

As you see, you can evaluate your personal notions of

theory with those of the great masters, so that you can gain
confidence in your own ability to look at ideas and concepts.
Think that if in magic there should not be anything impossible, in

138
your imagination either. You never know what’s hidden in your
mind to enrich the magic and what you can contribute with it. In
addition, just as we can approach the theory of magic with our
own words, we can also analyse the "anatomy" of a magic
routine in a personal way, dividing it into the parts that we think
are necessary for our better understanding, and always in order
to improve the quality of our performance.

Through the concept of "personal method" I wanted to

encourage all those amateurs who, for whatever reason,
couldn’t get great theoretical (or practical) books having to base
their wish to be a (good) magician in their imagination. Ascanio,
who was an amateur, became a magician like that, and what a
magician! Notice that in all forms of art, the theory is used more
than anything as a teaching tool. Let's say that when theoretical
concepts are devised, what is actually being done is to teach
oneself. What theory does in magic is to show you why magic
works as you see it and as you do it, which is very useful from a
teaching point of view, as well as helping to improve while
practise by foreseeing situations and correcting possible
mistakes. Think that the most important psychological aspects
are already taken into account instinctively based on how
diligent you are with your wish to be a magician (magician
intuition). Careless amateurs, those who don’t want TO BE a
magician, but just appear to be one temporarily, would perform
the routines in an abrupt, brusque, without psychological
attraction so that the viewer could catch the magic in the most
possible magical way. These amateurs can be very skilled, but
their intention is not to transmit magic, but a trick, a simple
mystery without the determining of magic. For example, a
routine of "Ambitious Card" badly organised, without increasing

139
or very repetitive effects, a "Triumph" too fast, without
excitement or drama, or a "Water and Oil" without emphasizing
its metaphor, and so on. The most common mistake from a
theoretical point of view that I have seen among amateurs is to
do tricks quickly, without transmitting tension, emotion or a
magical atmosphere, as if doing magic were a simple and fast
procedure. It’s a mistake because viewers would consider it too
obvious that it’s a trick and nothing more (although they don’t
know about that trick). An amateur should seem to be doing
magic, not seem to appear to be doing magic. A good amateur is
not an imitator of a magician, but a magician as well. In addition,
an amateur magician should not seem indifferent to the miracle
he does, but excited and surprised with his own achievement,
since he goes on stage to "suffer,” to strive to do something
miraculously difficult; magic. It shouldn’t seem that his magic is
easy to do just because he is a magician, since that would spoil
the charm of achieving impossible things and worthy of applause.
I often end an effect with the sentence:

"I’m so glad that magic works when I do it...!"

The theory of magic, like all theories, is subjective, personal,

debatable... Professionals analyse everything because they don’t
give up when it comes to seeking perfection, but that doesn’t
mean being a better or worse magician. All magic will be magic
as long as it is convincing to the spectator who is witnessing it. I
got dizzy because of the amount of theoretical concepts that
were in my head, until in the summer of 2001 I thought about to
summarise everything into three basic concepts, especially for
amateurs who don’t have time to study or analyse so much
theory in this art:

140
 Secret’s loading-unloading, Naturalness and Misdirection.

The "Secret’s loading-unloading" refers to the trick

procedure that leads to the magic. For example, in a double turn
over "we load the secret" (danger), and when we redo it we
"unload the secret" (the danger is over). In a palming we load the
secret (danger), and when we take the palmed card “out of our
pocket” we unload the secret (the danger is over). In the false
counts, when we carry out them we load the secret (danger),
whilst when we finish them we unload the secret (the danger
passed). As you can imagine, the aim of the magician would be to
cause the magical effect trying to be as little as possible in
"dangerous situations.” We can also find the case of
"simultaneous or instant secret loading-unloading,” such as the
top change technique. In that technique the secret is loaded and
unloaded simultaneously, so that the danger lasts very little but
is very vulnerable or risky as well, so you must practise it a lot.
Another example of this would be the colour changes and the
forces. In the forces we can say that when a spectator takes the
card that you want, you are "loading the secret" (danger), but
when the spectator assumes that it’s a free and random choice,
the secret is "unloaded" (the danger passed), however, as in the
top change and the colour change, if these "simultaneous load –
unload” aren’t well practised they would be quite risky. With
respect to the colour changes I came up with an idea that I called
"the magic sneeze." It consists in faking a sneeze as misdirection
just at the moment you carry out a colour change technique.
Depending on the kind of the colour change in question and the
circumstance, it works very well as a magical gesture in a
humorous way. Everything happens so fast (a blink) that the
spectators perceive it like that, like an unexpected and funny

141
magical gesture. As for the gimmicks, the secret would always be
loaded from the beginning, unless the gimmick is later and
secretly replaced by an ungimmick version during the routine.
For example, in an "invisible deck" the secret is loaded since the
deck is taken out, and if you want to unload it, it would be
necessary to interchange the deck secretly. Taking into account
this summary of concepts, your way of working would become
easier for you to understand in order to look for always the
simplest and safest way to produce the secret action. The
misdirection would be an important tool to achieve the ideal
moment in which to load and unload the secrets, and the
naturalness would be used to avoid suspicion and desire to seek
solutions from the public. This summary of concepts helped me a
lot to have the theory more within of my understanding, without
getting messed up.

Since I started using the Internet, in the year 2001, I have

been reading from time to time forums about amateur magicians
(card magicians in particular), in Spanish, English, and Japanese
languages, which are the languages that I understand. Among
the threads of conversation about theoretical aspects, the
amateurs consulted their own opinions and theoretical ideas in a
rewarding tangle of spontaneous and informal literature. The
miracle of the Internet allows that among amateurs from all over
the world, but don’t forget that non approach is "better" than
another. The thing is that everyone has their way of
understanding it and it will be good as long as it works for you;
your "personal theory."

142
 Practise in the Personal Method

"Practise until your fingers bleed. Then put bandages on

and practise until they fall off. Then practise a little more."

Paul Harris.

It’s not necessary to follow the advice of Paul Harris to the

T, but it’s necessary to take good note of the importance of
practising all you can, which is what Paul obviously meant.

In practise I also assume that there is a dependent lane and

an independent lane. The dependent lane is when we practise
with someone, a confidant or another friendly magician who acts
as a spectator to offer you that point of view. The independent
lane, however, is when we practise alone, when we don’t have
confidants, and that is quite common among amateurs. I
personally was lucky with my older brother, who always acted
for me as a "guinea pig" to practise my tricks from the very
moment I started to devote to card magic. But my brother was
not always available, so there were also times when I had to
practise alone, and those moments were becoming more
frequent. Practising alone doesn’t have to be a problem, but it’s
highly recommended to practise with someone whenever you
can. On another hand, I recommend you not to have many
confidants, especially as an amateur, since you never know
which of them can be not serious enough with your hobby as
magician, and devote to reveal your secrets whenever they want.
Try to make sure that your confidantes or friends of hobby are
not so many, and serious, that is, that they like illusionism, and
as such, not reveal secrets. Another important thing is to always
get along very well with them. If some day you would argue for
some reason and get angry, they could take the worst of the

143
reprisals ... goodbye to your secrets (at least those who know
them). A confidant is a great help, but there is some danger if he
fails to respect you, which doesn’t have to never happen. Your
parents can be the best confidants you can have, brothers,
cousins, your partner ... children ... people who always take your
passion for magic seriously. My most usual confidant was a
cousin of mine who is also fond of card magic.

In the summer of 2001, as I said before, I had read and

analyzed so much about theory of magic that I felt more
confusion than clarity about it. I felt there were too many
theoretical concepts in magic and I didn’t have time to think
about them as much as I wanted. Did that mean that an amateur
couldn’t be as good as a professional for lack of time? Not
necessarily. The theoretical concepts are like the techniques to
be practised. If you learn many in a short time you will end up
overwhelmed. Just as there are techniques for certain tricks, the
theoretical concepts are also for certain tricks, not needing to
have them all in your mind simultaneously. I say this because I've
known amateurs obsessed with the theory of magic to the point
of being true experts, but who did not dare to go on stage
though. It seemed strange to me, so I investigated until I
discovered the reason: they did not practise the theory they
learnt. The problem was that practising misdirection alone was
very boring (for them), while practising techniques, not so much.
It is true that practising in front of confidants or colleagues is
much more enjoyable than practising alone, but that depends a
lot on your passion for magic. I explained to my colleagues how I
personally got the motivation when I practised alone: it consisted
in being carried away by the imagination, living the moment of
practise as a real moment, as if surrounded by spectators,

144
imagining their reactions, their comments gestures, and even
those attitudes that could be negative (in order to be prepared in
any situation). Thus, at the end of this practical performance, I
imagined a great reaction of my imaginary public with which I felt
a great, imaginatively real satisfaction. My friends told me that
this was like fooling yourself. But I replied: "And what do you
think is magic?" Actually I did not fool myself, but I amazed
myself! Do we not delude (amaze) ourselves when we delude
(amaze) the spectators? I remember that sometimes I got so
much into the role of my rehearsals alone in my room, that I
ended up saying some word out loud. My mother said to me:
"Are you already preparing for the party?" I will never be able to
boast of having performed many times in front of a real audience,
but I will always be able to boast that all my few real
performances were very well done thanks to my abundant
fictitious performances. I enjoyed my fictional performances as
much as the real ones and I learned both ways. I calculate that
for each real show I made about nine fictitious ones. Yes. Only
one tenth of my life as an amateur was real, but one hundred
percent of it was fun.

My personal way to practise before performing a routine in

a real show consisted of these three steps:

1- Independent practise to acquire the necessary manual

skill for the trick in question.

2- Dependent practise, to obtain the opinion and the point

of view of a spectator (confidant).

3- Practise in front of a mirror, to see how the spectators

will see me.

145
 Since 1990 I have never performed a routine for Christmas
shows that would not have gone through these three tests. It is a
method that I recommend to amateurs when they have a special
event in front of several people.

The "personal method" is also formed by the experiences

we have, through which we manage to understand what exactly
magic is, as the following enriching personal experience:

In May of the year 2005 I was in England studying English. I

lived in a room rented in a large house with a family of three
children. Their parents noticed that I was reading a book of
magic ("Strong Magic,” by Darwin Ortiz), and they discovered
that I was fond of card magic. Then, the children didn’t take long
to ask me to do "some magic.” But my mind went blank because
for months I had not rehearsed any card magic, since I didn’t go
to England with a strong purpose to do card magic, but to study
English. I didn’t even dare to perform an ambitious card routine,
since the deck they were offering me was so worn and spoiled
that you couldn’t do a proper double turn over. I was in a tight
spot because I didn’t want to disappoint them as well. So I
resorted to something very simple but infallible: "the key card.” I
told one of them to pick a card and show it to others. I didn’t feel
very motivated since it wasn’t precisely one of my favourite
routines, nor did I expect to amaze them very much. I spread the
deck on the table face up and said I would try to discover the
selected card by the reaction of the spectators. So, as long as I
was touching the cards one by one I looked at the children’s eyes
with a serious expression (they laughed). When I reached the
chosen card, I said that one of the children had made a slight
face expression and that it could be a clue. I hesitated a lot,
feigned doubt and difficulty until I decided on that card. The

146
great surprise reaction of the children surprised me too, a lot. I
didn’t imagine that they would be so amazed. They asked me to
repeat it and that's what I did. I started to cheer myself given the
reaction of the children. I presented it in three different ways
and they all had a lot of fun. The ages of the children were 8, 9
and 12 years old. The next day, when I came back from the
English academy, I found the courtyard of the house full of
children that I didn’t know. They were neighbours. My friends
introduced them to me and asked me to repeat the tricks of the
previous day to all of them together. Even the parents wanted to
see it. The children had a lot of fun with that trick because they
were convinced that I was finding out the card by the reaction of
their faces. They tried hard not to react while I reached the
chosen card. In the end they could never avoid making some
revealing gesture every time I came to that card. So, I always
pretended to discover it by those gestures although I actually
discovered it by the key card. It was more fun and successful
than I had ever thought. Just watching the reactions and laughter
of the children amused me and motivated myself. Who was
going to tell me that this effect would be so successful? I
acquired fame in the neighbourhood as a card magician with one
of the most elementary tricks! In addition, the technique of the
key card was one of my independent discoveries, so I couldn’t
feel more magician than I felt at that moment. It’s true that as
amateurs we won’t have many chances to perform, but at least
we should take advantage of the ones we have! I also did for
their parents the Dai Vernon's version of the trick, "Emotional
Reaction." These tricks are the first ones that I selected for the
repertoire of the Part Two, with the title of "The Spectator’s
Reaction.”

147
 This is also a clear example that the magic we cause doesn’t
depend on the techniques we use, but on how we present them.
There is a routine known as "Insurance Policy" that I consider
one of the clearest examples to understand how magical a
presentation can be. The routine is very funny and intriguing
when it only requires a force. The magician shows an "insurance
policy for magicians" and leaves it on the table. Not being able to
divine or make the selected card appear in any way, follows the
instructions of the policy until it led the magician to the
spectator’s selected card (that's why it's a magician insurance
policy). There are many presentations on this funny idea created
by the amateur magician George McAthy, known with the stage
name of "Mandroop.” It was marketed by Tommy Windsor in
1947.
If you have to think what is the best method to learn magic
that is definitely yours. If you follow another method, it will no
longer be the best. While you love what you do, you will be on
track in the best method in the world, the method of what you
like to do.

148
 CHAPTER 6: Techniques as an Amateur

"The good technique is the one that doesn’t seem to exist."

Arturo de Ascanio.

Techniques allow us to cause great effects but we have to

be very careful with them. It's enough that we fail one so that
the magic collapses. Magic is not like some sports in which you
have more than one attempt. The magician doesn’t have more
than one attempt with a top change or a palming. A simple false
count can go wrong due to a bad condition of the cards, or
because we are nervous in that precise moment or just not
concentrated. Sometimes it’s hard, but we must practise a lot
with great patience before performing something that requires
special techniques, and even if it’s a relatively simple trick. I
became so aware of it that I invented a verb: "to palmchange,”
which means to practise palming and the top change. In fact I
was so obsessed or worried about doing well those manoeuvres,
among others, that every time I saw a mirror anywhere it
reminded me of the duty to practise them. The great question
would be: when can we be sure of doing it well if we don’t have
a teacher to evaluate us? I will tell you what I did and it always
went well for me: I practised the techniques until I reached a
point where I felt I was not doing them, and that sensation was
what marked me the moment of being prepared to perform
them.

On another hand, like the gimmicks, the techniques should

be used sparingly, not abusing them. Think that manipulations
can produce as much surprise as suspicion, so it’s advisable to
economise on techniques, looking for the simplest method. It
would also be advisable to skimp on techniques that produce an

149
instantaneous magical effect, since the faster the change from
the initial state, the more the suspicion is aroused about the
manipulations. This curious phenomenon was raised by Rick
Johnsson as "The too perfect theory,” in "Hierophant" (1970),
from Dai Vernon’s ideas, which states that the more perfect or
direct an effect is, the easier to deduce its secret due to the
reduction of possible ways of solution, which is due as well to the
short time elapsed. Some examples of this are "colour changes.”
Colour changes can show obvious things, especially if you abuse
of doing them and doesn’t go perfectly. Some are too risky for
their success, requiring a very precise movement like a golf swing
or a perfect tennis shot. The colour change of Cardini or the snap
change of Marlo, are some examples of this. These colour
changes cannot give you a 100% guarantee that they will work,
since a stroke is involved in their effectiveness, and a stroke
always has a little percentage of chance instead of a total
controlled action. I recommend applying them only when we
really consider them necessary, presenting them as an especially
miraculous moment, and thus preventing the public from
associating it with a mere "manoeuvre" instead of a magic blow.
In addition, it is especially convenient not to abuse these “little
miracles,” since the more times you do it the more they lose
their magical value to the detriment of their skilful value. In my
personal case I guess I have applied the snap change of Marlo in
public ten or twelve times in fifteen years since I learnt it in 1998,
and only during a routine, never by itself. It is an average of less
than once a year. Fortunately, it always worked out well, but of
course, having practised it 800 times has something to do with
that. If we needed to do colour changes more frequently or
regularly for certain routines, it would be advisable to give
priority to the most controllable, such as Erdnase's colour change

150
or the paintbrush colour changes of Frank Ward Cloyes,
popularised by Ascanio in Spain. Remember to also express joy
for having done that magic well, to avoid giving the appearance
that it’s "easy" to do. The idea is to convey that you have done a
true miracle and not a mere manipulation. In short, before
putting into practise certain manoeuvres it is convenient to
evaluate the routine, the type of audience, and consider some
other alternative manoeuvres that don’t cause such a direct
effect and it’s immediately suspected. Another example of this
would be to divine a card immediately after being chosen, which
may seem very surprising, but actually rekindle the tendency to
suspect and run the risk of thinking that the magician already
knew it beforehand. Try to also make them suspect other actions
in order to distance them as much as possible from the correct
solution, confusing their deductive capacity, as proposed by the
witty Tamariz in his work "The Magic Way." We must remember
as amateurs the importance of transmitting the feeling of
impossibility regarding an effect, convincing that whatever we do
it won’t be easy, because it’s magic. In the words of Rick
Johnsson, "some tricks, by virtue of their perfection, become
imperfect. Conversely, some tricks by virtue of their imperfection,
become perfect."

I will summarise a reminder of six important notions for

the amateur:

1- An amateur should strive especially to give the

impression of doing magic, not of pretending to do it,
since it’s more difficult to consider an amateur as a
magician than a professional.
2- It is assumed that techniques "do not exist.” The fewer
techniques you have to use the fewer movements you

151
 will have to bother to hide or disguise. When you apply a
technique you must believe yourself that you have not
done it.
3- Magic must be guaranteed; avoid as much as possible
movements that you don’t master to perfection. Be
patient and wait to master them. It wouldn’t be a good
way to make you know as an amateur magician making
mistakes that reveal important technical secrets.
4- It is assumed that the card magician doesn’t manipulate
the cards, but just handle them. We must avoid fiddle
with the deck, so that it’s understood that we only do
magic.
5- If the audience asks you to repeat something that you
cannot, say that you will do something better, and move
on to another trick.
6- When creating effects let’s give priority to presentation,
misdirection and simple techniques. Advanced
techniques are only tools to use in case of need, not a
way to make you a better magician.

Naturalness as an Amateur

“The only way to improve a trick is to find a simpler and

more direct way of doing it.”

Paul LePaul.

I once read an article written by an amateur, in which he

said that having a card selected by riffling the deck wasn’t
natural, and therefore, it wasn’t appropriate to use this method
as a forcing. According to this amateur, by this method we would
be making it very clear that we were forcing the card, and it
would be better to use always the classic force. This opinion

152
made me think a lot because I saw something that didn’t
convince me. To begin with, no way of having a card selected has
to be natural, except for handing the entire deck to the spectator
for self-service to pick one card. Why is it considered natural to
spread the deck of cards in front of the viewer to make him or
her pick a card? No, it’s not about being natural, but it’s more
elegant and polite for the spectator in order to make it more
comfortable to pick a random card. I don’t know what card
magician designed this elegant way of having a card selected by a
spectator, but I do know that it became something "natural" to
the point of being a monopoly according to the amateur who
wrote that article. What I want to say is that naturalness depends
on habit, so that anything can be natural based on customs. It’s
something like when the magician shuffles (to control the
selection) conveying the idea of doing that to save that work to
the spectator, being indifferent who does it, but not to control
the selection, of course!

Any way of having a random card selected can be natural if

you make it seem like this, by habit. It’s clear that handing the
deck to a spectator to choose any card in a self-service way
would be a little rough and abrupt, so it’s never done and thus is
not considered very natural, so that other ways of doing the
same arose, which became "natural" as the commented spread,
the fan (like the spread, but harder to apply a classic force),
cutting the deck (the card of the cut is the selected), dropping
card to the voice of "stop," by successive cuts to the voice of
"stop," by riffling to the voice of "stop," a given number (the card
in that number is the chosen one), etcetera.

Why wouldn’t those methods be considered natural

methods as well, provided that we apply them frequently?

153
Obviously, if they are never used or almost never, they will not
seem natural when they are used, but there is the question,
naturalness can be created, and culture has a lot to say about it.
Any gesture can become natural with the habit of its use. If you
never do a riffling for having a card selected, when you do it will
be suspicious, but if you use several random methods to get a
card chosen, regardless of whether you force or not, you will
have a wide and natural range of ways to force cards without
causing suspicion. Why would it be considered a riffling
suspicious? The riffling is also elegant, original and makes it
easier for the viewer’s work, since he or she doesn’t have to
bother even to stretch their arm out or think about which card to
pick. It is supposed to be just a quick random choice. Moreover,
for a spectator to think that a card can be forced through a
riffling, the technique of the little finger break should be known!
If we had to do card magic thinking about what techniques our
public could know, this art would not exist as magic, but as a
competitive game about the wisdom of secrets, as when two
magicians try to fool each other. For the time being, the
techniques of card magic seem to continue to have an
undeniable place in the world of magic in general. I don’t know if
one day these secrets will become so widespread that it’s not
worth trying to do magic using them, but the number of amateur
card magicians doesn’t exceed 0.0001% of the world's
inhabitants, so I wouldn’t worry too much. That data gives us
think that it’s very difficult for a regular spectator to consider a
riffle as a way to force a card (if so, he or she would be doing
card magic instead of seeing it). In a selection by riffling, a viewer
sees only a convenient way to choose a random card, but if you
almost never use the riffling for it, it would be obvious that they
suspect that when you carry out it is for something additional. To

154
avoid that suspicion we simply have to get a card selected by
different ways, forcing or not forcing, with the intention of
making all forms seem natural. They could all look as refined as
natural. The public should think that you only want to give a
variety of presentations, which would also be logical for the
entertainment. Instead of keeping away from unnatural
movements, try to “naturalise” them little by little. If you get to
turn into natural what previously didn’t seem so, you will have
more versatility to manoeuvre. I also wonder why an Elmsley
Count or a Rumba Count would be natural. Think that both
counts can also be done without cheating. It’s about to disguise
them by making them seem natural in you. Along my experience
I have realised that making natural what doesn’t seem natural is
a form of long-term misdirection, which helps a lot specially
amateurs.

Another brilliant way to show naturalness, especially for

amateurs, is through "false solutions.” Juan Tamariz develops the
concept of "false solutions" in his work "The Magic Way,” a book
that I consider part of the greatest gems of magical literature.
For example, let’s suppose that during a routine you rest your
convex hand on the table, provoking the suspicion that you have
something hidden in it, however, while speaking with natural
gestures with that hand unconsciously showing that there is
nothing under it, causing even a feeling of guilt on the part of the
public to suspect so cruelly of the magician. Well, this little detail
could cause that when you really hide something they don’t
suspect it so much! Perhaps, for an established professional card
magician, it isn’t necessary to go deeply into these details to
convince your audience, but for an amateur, this detail can help
a lot to obtain the desired "license" of a real magician. I called it

155
"magic effect’s confirmation.” All the false solutions that you can
provoke will help you, but don’t abuse it either; don’t over-react.
Remember that it must be natural. Naturalness is the only thing
that the public never suspects.

Misdirection as an Amateur

“Every movement must be natural, every word must be

coherent… but the most important thing is believe it yourself.”

Tony Slydini.

Any passionate person for the world of magic will deduce

that the more the public is misled, the more chance there will be
to achieve illusions or magical effects. Likewise, I suppose that
each magician will have his own way of applying this theory; his
own way of misleading. If all the magicians used exactly the same
procedures to mislead the spectators, lay people would end up
suspecting certain behaviours in magicians. Each professional
magician uses his personality as a basic tool to provoke the slip
of attention in their spectators. We amateurs shouldn’t imitate
the style of professional to the T no matter how much we like
that style, because we would also imitate their way of misleading.
We must learn to guide the attention of our audience with our
own personality. Remember when we were children how good
we were at taking a candy out of the eyes of our mother when
she had forbidden us to eat more; then take it to the pocket
while we made her draw attention to another point. We apply
misdirection in everyday life even as a child. Each person has
their own way of distracting attention when it comes to hiding
movements that seem to have never happened. The
phenomenon of misdirection is part of each magician's personal
method.

156
 Many devotees of magic point out that a good magician is a
good actor and a good psychologist. That would turn magic into a
much more complex art than we first imagined. But this
complexity does not go beyond being yourself while you love
magic. All people have a psychological and showmanship side,
and the magic lover will know how to use it properly to produce
the illusion of magic. It’s not necessary to study psychology or
dramatic Art to be a good magician, but it is necessary to really
want to be a magician to be a good magician. It’s the wish to be a
magician that ends up making you the psychologist and the actor
you need to be a good magician. I have proof of this from my
personal experience. When I was a kid, I used to be on the
lookout for any chance of distraction to take advantage of it in
the form of magic. For example, I remember in a family meeting I
put a coin in the pocket of a distracted uncle of mine. I didn’t
know what I was going to do with that coin, but it was an
advantage; it was something I knew, and he did not. Shortly after
I brought up the subject of magic as we talked. Then I did the
little trick of making a coin disappear by rubbing it on my
forearm. Obviously it was a coin just like the one in his pocket, so
it appeared amazingly in his pocket. The impact of magic hit a lot
for a few seconds, until someone said that the coin must have
been in that pocket before. Then a little debate opened about
how I could know what was in my uncle's pocket, confederate?
And how I got the coin disappeared. But the most curious thing
was that nobody talked about the simple possibility of having
taken advantage of an instant of distraction, that is, what really
happened. And the most interesting thing is that I was 12 years
old and didn’t know anything about the concept of misdirection.
Experiences of this type showed me that the phenomenon of
misdirection was something innate in people, besides a universal

157
technique of magic studied to the greatest degree. It was clear
that misleading someone to get something was part of life,
whether for despicable reasons such as cheating, stealing,
swindle, etc., or for friendly reasons such as surprise, joke or
magic. I had to read books to realise the tremendous importance
that this phenomenon was given in magic, since these
techniques seemed to me very unsafe and risky during my pre-
books time, not considering it even a technique, but a simple
curiosity from I could take advantage of up to a point. When I
understood that the technique of misdirection consisted rather
in forcing those situations, instead of just waiting for them to
happen, as I used to do, I knew that the misdirection was much
more than I thought. It was a matter of practise and habit. So I
began to pay a special attention to the TV magicians. I felt bad
about taking all magicians’ details into account, but I wasn’t a lay
person, or at least I didn’t want to be one, but an amateur
magician that wished to learn as much as possible. I confess that
I caught secrets to the TV magicians, but obviously I never
revealed them, on the contrary I used them in my shows. What a
rascal!

Unfortunately, misdirection is not very effective when

people pay too much attention to your actions, obsessed with
having doubts about any movement you do, which is a common
thing with amateurs. I advise not to trust too much in the
misdirection techniques when you’re starting to make yourself
known, since the first eyes that will look at you will be very
attentive as a consequence of the natural scepticism of your
people (“I don’t believe that you’re a magician”). On another
hand, as you are gaining reputation and your people appreciate
you as a magician, those eyes will look at you more permissively

158
or more relaxed, so that you could use more the misdirection
techniques. Therefore, I think it would be better to make
yourself known performing impromptu tricks very clear, which
don’t need distracting too much attention, so that they don’t
distrust your movements and likewise assimilate that you are
just a good amateur magician.

Flourishes as an Amateur

“If the actions used in performing sleights are visible or even

suspected by the onlooker, the whole illusion of magic is
destroyed.”

Jean Hugard.

I remember when I was a child and watched the TV card

magicians. I noticed that ones were much more handler with the
deck of cards than others. Some of them did things with the deck
of cards that I even didn’t understand well, although those things
were beautiful, visual and spectacular. The thing is that I couldn’t
follow with my eyes what the magician did, even though I always
pay much attention since I wanted to learn how to do card magic,
in contrast to my siblings, which let themselves to get carry away
by the magic. Then, I came to the conclusion that those
movements could hide the secret of the effect as I lost sight of
some cards due to the speed of those mentioned movements.
Likewise, I began little by little to attribute some effects to
certain handlings: the flourishes.

There are many controversy and different opinions about

the flourishes in the card magic world. In my opinion, the
flourishes don’t have much to do with card magic, but with
something we could call card-juggling. Other card magicians
believe that they are important to enrich the Art of Card Magic

159
by means of certain spectacularity, elegance and beauty, and the
magic seems more magical. Personally speaking, as amateur, the
flourishes have given to me more drawbacks than benefit when
it comes to getting my public consider me as a card magician. At
first I thought that the problem was me, so maybe I didn’t use
certain flourishes in a proper situation or time, but as I consulted
this topic with several amateur card magician friends, I found out
that it was a common problem. One of my friends told me that
people usually said to him that he was a "handyman" with the
deck of cards, and that's why it seemed that he was doing magic.
I suggested that he shouldn’t handle the deck of cards
excessively during a magic trick, but he responded that he did it
instinctively because he liked it. He told me that he didn’t care
much about people doubting his magic, which it seemed very
good to me for his part, but I personally preferred to reduce the
number of flourishes in spite of how temptingly attractive they
seemed. I was more focused on conveying the idea that I was a
card magician and nothing else. Although it is a question of
opinions, if you like both the card magic and the flourishes, I
would recommend not mixing both too much. Flourishes can be
presented as a separate show, without magic, as some artists do,
so that if you separate both aspects, avoiding two much
flourishes during a card magic show, your audience will
understand that they aren’t supposed to be responsible for your
card magic effects. Card magic should be clear to the audience of
an amateur card magician, which tends to be more sceptical. As
soon as it seems that you are hiding something through frills, it
will be difficult for your audience to grant you the degree of card
magician. The flourishes have no limit. You can do all kinds of
juggling with a deck of cards. One could dedicate years to
develop them as a show without necessarily presenting them as

160
magic. An example of this is found in the incredible card handler
Brian Tudor, who was one of the first to publish a DVD explaining
these manoeuvres. A friend of mine told me that he was afraid to
see him because he looked like an extraterrestrial man handling
the cards. Another example is found in the charismatic twin
brothers "Dan and Dave,” who recognised in a chapter of the
documentary series "Time Warp" that they did not consider
themselves magicians, since magic entailed some requirements
that they didn’t attend much, as the misdirection. However, the
varied work of "Dan and Dave" is really good for the
development of card magic, among which are wonderful and
revolutionary effects of card magic. Up to that it’s the decision
and opinion of each one the style to follow.

Unlike the techniques of card magic, flourishes are explicit

manoeuvres, since they are done precisely so that they can be
seen, either by elegance or as a visual spectacle, as jugglers do. A
fan, a wave by flipping a table spread, or spinning a card
between the fingers, are some examples of flourishes, whereas a
double lift, a Braue add-on move, or a palming, are examples of
card trick techniques. However, there are also handlings that
include both purposes, such as the famous Sybil cut, which is
aesthetic but can also be false. Some manipulations may confuse
a little in their interpretation, such as the back palm, which is not
supposed to be an explicit manoeuvre, since the idea is to make
disappear and appear a card without knowing how, but some
viewers of sceptical tendency consider it as a simple skilful
manoeuvre, even though they don’t understand how it’s done.
Another example of this more ambiguous may be the frills
appearances of chosen or named cards (or any other card), such
as making them stick out or jump from among others, which can

161
be interpreted as magic or as a show of ability, depending on
how do the viewers want to interpret it. It would also depend on
what the magician allows or wants to be seen. For example, if the
magician doesn’t intend to imply that this is magic, but a simple
aesthetic detail of elegance, he would not mind letting see that
the card jumps because it was warped previously. All that would
depend on how we would like to present it. Thus we can say that,
when the spectators see what causes the movement, they would
consider it as a flourish, whereas when they don’t see what
causes the movement, they could consider it a supposed magical
effect. What we should avoid as magicians is that the spectators
don’t feel confused or cheated, but amazed. That is, if you want
to let the spectators see what causes the jump of a card, do it,
but making it clear that you let it be seen voluntarily as a flourish.
On the contrary, if you want to present it as a magic effect, try to
cover angles and don’t let them see the method, since if they see
it against your will, viewers will consider it as a failure of the
magician instead of a flourish attempt. “Card productions" may
be very interesting, but it’s convenient to make clear to the
spectator when they are magical and when they are flourishes,
avoiding ambiguity. For example, the famous Piet Forton’s "pop
out" is supposed to be magical, not a flourish. Piet Forton was
three times FISM winner (1961, 1964, 1967), in card magic.
Spectators may be disappointed if they don’t understand very
well when the magician pretends to do magic or flourishes.
However, there are also cases in which ambiguity can be part of
the magical effect itself if it’s well posed, as for example in a trick
called "Finger Flicker,” by Pit Hartling, from his excellent and
recommendable book "Card Fictions" (page 10). In this trick the
magician locates the selected card in a way as disconcerting as
cutting the deck (which is on the table) with the tip of the index

162
finger. This astonishes the spectators while they think about
whether it’s magic or just an amazing special ability. In this case,
the ambiguity is very well utilised.

Personally I would like to insist on the advice that when you

are starting to make yourself known as a magician, it would be
convenient to skimp on the use of flourishes to impart an image
more of a magician than a juggler of cards. For example, if after
doing the Paul LePaul’s trick “Gymnastic Aces” (reference in trick
“E” of Part Three) you shuffle the deck with awkwardness,
dropping some cards, it would seems that the production of the
Aces was really magical, since it wouldn’t seem that you have
any special skill with the cards. This will also give the curious
feeling that when you do an aesthetic flourish that turns out well,
maybe it's because you're a magician, since only magic can help
a guy as clumsy as you to do something so juggling!

I admit that I was tempted several times to focus on a more

visual card magic. During my military period, in 1999, I learned to
do the “Sybil cut” out of curiosity. I introduced those cuts just for
an aesthetic purpose during the performance of some magic
routine. But as expected, my spectator friends said that the
secret of the effect should be in those cuts. It wasn’t true. The
Sybil cuts were only aesthetic. The experiment had shown me
that the flourishes didn’t help to the magical impact of the
viewers of an amateur magician. You may have noticed that your
viewers will try by all means to attribute any magic you do to
"something,” so that the more facilities we give to suspect
"something,” the less they will believe that we are magicians. My
priority interest to be considered a magician in front of a public
so sceptical, made me forget about the flourishes and focus on
analysing the routines. Some relatives told me that I could cheat

163
by playing poker, since my hobby was card magic. It took me a lot
of time to make them see that this wasn’t true, and that my skill
wasn’t far from the skill of any other poker player. So you can
imagine how an appearance can stay in people's minds.

Manipulation as an Amateur

“Magicians are the most honest people in the world; they

tell you they’re gonna fool you, and then they do it.”

James Randi.

All the secret of all the card magic is based on controlling

card and / or a specific order in the deck without the public being
aware of it. The one that controls the order of a deck totally or
partially and / or the location of certain card (s) in it, in an
unnoticed way, will have the card magic done. The rest is just
presentations.

How do you secretly control a deck?

By techniques and misdirection

How many techniques are there?

Too many

Which are the most useful?

The closest to the combination: simplicity / effectiveness.

During my time as a student at the high school I met

amateur card magicians who were hooked on passes, colour
changes, visual appearances and disappearances of cards, false
counts, among other techniques which they didn’t stop toying
with, and just doing them for fun (with no routines) to the
amazed people. I admit that those exhibitionist forms of showing

164
card magic were tempting to me. I thought that I could free
myself from so much theory, routines and presentations, and
enjoy more of the action, focusing simply on direct and visual
effects through "advanced" techniques of card magic. No way. I
decided that I didn’t want to use the deck of cards as if it were a
yoyo or a toy to show off in my spare time, in front of my friends.
When I was talking with these amateur visual card magicians, I
discovered that they barely knew routines. Some told me that
misdirection was for unskilled magicians (actually they used the
word clumsy). Actually I felt myself awkward seeing how skilled
they were handling a deck, until what I feared happened:

There were so many times that they repeated the same

techniques just like that in front of any people, that sometimes
committed mistakes, leaving exposed the secret of certain
advanced techniques to the lay people. Techniques such as the
Tenkai palm or the back palm to get a card disappear in the air,
sophisticated double lifts failed, as well as other palming during
various types of colour changes ended up being discovered by
the profane. The non-explicit manipulations became explicit. The
techniques were becoming mere flourishes for people who were
discovering the mechanics of that card magic. Little by little the
magic was ending for them. They didn’t know how to control
themselves. They didn’t know how to deal with their knowledge
of card magic. They didn’t know what magic is. I have known
amateur card magicians who told me not to feel magicians if
they didn’t use advanced techniques. They rejected tricks that
didn’t require advanced techniques because they were advanced
card magicians (?!). I guess you agree with me about that it’s a
way of thinking that shows a total misunderstanding about the
concept of magic. I believe that a good card magician prioritises

165
in causing the sensation of magic in the most possible convincing
way, instead of prioritising in the techniques used for personal
satisfaction. If an amateur card magician wants to be really
advanced, he will have to understand that a good trick doesn’t
have to be directly proportional to an advanced technique. We
must never bury a trick just because it’s for beginners or just
"easy" to do, but we must play with different presentations. In
addition, as we have seen, by abusing the doubles lifts, passes,
colour changes, false counts ... doing them just like that, without
the background of an organised routine, it would be shown very
obvious clues about how the card magicians do the effects of the
routines, totally ruining the mystery. It would be a great waste to
use these great techniques abruptly and unfounded, bush
telegraphing great secrets of card magic in vain. It is also highly
recommended to make the public participate as much as
possible (although this will depend on the type of routine). A
card trick routine in which only the magician touches the cards
can cause boredom in the spectators, and that’s the first thing
that an amateur should avoid to attract the attention of both his
usual and his potential public. Furthermore, the more the
spectators participate, the less they think about how much the
magician has touched the cards.

166
 CHAPTER 7: Gimmicks as an Amateur

“A magician is not a magician because he knows tricks, but

because he knows magic – the principles, the fundamentals.”

Harlan Tarbell.

In January of 1989, a school mate of mine showed me a lot

of gimmick cards with its instruction book inside, which had been
given to him as a present by the Three Wise Men for the Three
Kings’ Day. What a surprise! That magic set box seemed to come
from Madrid. Actually his family was originally from Madrid while
we were living in San Fernando, province of Cadiz. It was
specifically “Conjunto Mágico de Cartas” de Santiago de la Riva y
Juan Tamariz, which in English means "Magical Set of Cards" by
Santiago de la Riva and Juan Tamariz. We were only thirteen
years old. His father was also fond of card magic, so I imagined
that it wasn’t so extraordinary that they had got such equipment.
The Three Wise Men brought me as well a magic set box as a
present, so we immediately became amateur colleagues.
However, my box wasn’t specifically card magic, but magic in
general, so I was very fascinated by the box of my friend about
blank cards, double-faced, double-back, fake index, etc. Despite
the healthy feeling of envy, I was very happy to have seen
something like that, since it was the first time I saw such cards,
and only to see them I felt privileged. In short, I discovered that
gimmick cards really existed; they were manufactured and sold.
That entailed a great enthusiasm for me. I was already trying to
make my own homemade gimmick cards, erasing and altering
the faces of the cards with alcohol and cotton, but obviously they
did not look good. My friend kindly shared some tricks with me
as we did magic to our relatives and neighbours, but one day he

167
couldn’t avoid the temptation to commit the serious mistake of
taking some of his gimmick cards to the school. At that time it
was already three years ago since I stopped doing magic at
school because of bad experiences, so I warned him to be careful.
He replied that nothing bad would happen. I also advised him
not to use gimmick cards whenever he did magic, but randomly,
doing tricks that didn’t require tricks as well, in order to disguise
more the gimmick cards. He replied that the tricks were easier
and more amazing with gimmick cards, and if he had them why
not using them? He once accused me that I gave him those
advices out of envy. Maybe he was right and it was only envy, but
unfortunately what I feared happened. Just a month after
showing me his box, a rumour circulated around the school
about that he used special cards to do magic. Some classmates
played dirty tricks to discover his special cards. One day, one of
those disrespectful partners rummaged in his suitcase during the
break and found some of his gimmick cards. Finally, my friend
stopped doing card magic at school as a consequence of the
disregard on the part of the classmates, as I decided three years
ago. I insisted that they were never going to take him seriously as
a magician at school. Nowadays I find it curious that with
thirteen years old I already had enough experiences to give
advices like that. Two years later, his family moved to Madrid
and I never met him again. I hope that today, wherever he is, and
if he’s still a passionate about card magic, he has understood
how important is to use sparingly the gimmick equipment.

That frustration that I felt at the beginning about not

having a wide variety of gimmick cards became a stroke of luck,
since I could learn from mistakes made by other amateurs.
Curiously, shortly after this friend moved to Madrid (which I

168
would do ten years later), I got too, this time by my birthday, the
same “Conjunto Mágico de Cartas” de Santiago de la Riva y Juan
Tamariz ("Magical Set of Cards" by Santiago de la Riva and Juan
Tamariz). Nevertheless, I didn’t feel as excited as I did back then
when I saw my friend's box, since my ideology about magic had
matured a lot. I understood something as important as the
gimmick cards were not tools to be used as much as possible, but
to be used randomly in a prudent manner. In short, gimmick
cards are to amaze with some “little miracle” from time to time,
giving the image of an amateur “little magician” that is gradually
improving. It was also one of the moments in which it was very
clear to me that the spectators of a TV magician were very
different from those of a family magician. Spectators of the TV
just applauded smiling, while my spectators asked questions and
took the cards, so I had to think and think about how to deal with
them together with the wonderful world of the gimmick cards...

169
 Effect and Resolution

“Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”

Chico Marx (“Duck soup” film, 1933)

After producing a magical effect, one of the first things in

which the viewers may think is in the possibility that the gadgets
used are prepared in some way. This is obviously solved by giving
them to examine, at the beginning or at the end of the trick, or
simply by showing them clearly. But, sometimes the climax of a
trick doesn’t always end by its effect, but by its resolution, that is,
showing that there is no trickery. For example, in the routine “As-
cend with Three Cards” (No. 38 of the repertoire), if we don’t
give to examine the three cards to the spectators at the end of
the effect, the climax would consist only of the effect. However,
if we hand the cards to the spectators, the climax will not only be
in the effect, but also in the moment they can see that there is
nothing "strange" in the cards. Spectators may be even more
amazed to see that they can feel those (magical) cards in their
hands, proving that they have no particular trickery. I call this
concept resolution. If a trick has resolution, this could mean a
new climax, sometimes even stronger than the proper trick’s
effect. I remember a video of Michael Ammar doing the routine
"All the Non-Conformists" by Martin Gardner (references in trick
No. 29 of the repertoire), I think in the Michael Skinner version.
In this trick only four cards are used. At the end of the effect
Michael Ammar hand the cards to the spectators, which seemed
to surprise them more than the proper routine effects. “No Way!”
Some exclaimed. That is, they didn’t really believe that the cards
could be examined, but that was the way it was. The climax
seemed to be being able to examine the cards! That was what

170
most surprised the spectators! The resolution of a trick can
convey a really strong sense of magic. Of course not all routines
can have a resolution, but for amateurs, the resolution is
something that greatly helps the audience to consider them true
magicians. For that reason I consider that an amateur card
magician who really wishes to be taken seriously as a magician,
shouldn’t make much use of gimmicks at the beginning of
making himself known, but should focus mainly to practise good
impromptu routines. Gimmicks could be introduced little by little
when more convinced were our usual viewers that we don’t use
anything weird (since before we always handed everything to
examine). Many lazy amateurs do just the opposite, making
themselves known by a lot of effects with gimmick cards that
never have resolution, causing the eternal suspicions of their
usual public about the gadgets they use, since they can never be
examined. So, I insist on the advice of making ourselves known
by good tricks that have resolution, making our viewers notice
that we never have anything to hide, until they lose the habit of
wanting to examine everything precisely because they never find
anything weird ... and right from that moment we would start to
introduce little by little some routines with slightly treated cards,
conveying more and better the feeling that we are just true
magicians.

171
 Wobbly Tricks

“The real secret of magic lies in the performance.”

David Copperfield.

I personally call "wobbly tricks" to those card tricks who

cannot have resolution, that is, there is no possible way to give
to examine the remaining equipment without the secret being
discovered, and there is also no possible way to get rid of those
gimmicks, neither during nor at the end of the routine, so the
only solution would be simply to trust in the spectators don’t
demand to examine what they shouldn’t, or just to tell them that
the magicians' things are dangerous and therefore they shouldn’t
be in hands of people who are not magicians. A wobbly trick is
basically characterised by ending with the secret loaded. These
tricks are not only those that are made with gimmick cards, but
they can also be without gimmick card, just with the secret
exposed at risk, such as a "Three Card Monte" in which four
cards are used as three, leaving a double card on the table for
any curious lurking on them. Another of the many examples that
could be given would be the great routine "Jumping Gemini" by
Darwin Ortiz, in which only four cards are used. The routine is
fabulous, but the card that end on the table face down are not
exactly the cards that are supposed to be, so you cannot give
them to examine in spite of there are not gimmick. This leads to
the need to design alternative endings if you know that your
viewers are very "restless.” As an amateur I'm not a friend of
wobbly tricks, no matter how great their effects are, as they give
me more headaches that enjoyment. However, certain wobbly
tricks are so good that I give in to them and do everything
possible to adapt them to the scepticism of my viewers, creating

172
any type of alternative procedure or excuse to get rid of the
problem of wobbling. Think of masterpieces like "Tamed Cards"
by Tommy Wonder, just to give an example, or "Olram Subtlety"
by Edward Marlo, which would later lead to the great "Eight Card
Brainwave" by Nick Trost, in which the cards cannot either be
handed to examine to the spectators at the end. An interesting
way to avoid this problem would be to perform the wobbly tricks
in a row. That is, when you finish the effect, you keep the cards
with the excuse that you are going to do another trick next.
Professionals usually act like this. Anyway, professionals don’t
usually have problems with their sensible and admirers fans-
viewers thanks to the prestige, although it is also true that they
can have problems with wobbly tricks when acting with children,
since children are innocently unpredictable and can touch
anything unexpectedly, as it has happened to some professionals.
I guess that professionals would treat this topic to adapt the
tricks to children, while we amateurs should treat this topic with
viewers of any age, since the curiosity of our viewers is ageless.
Many hobby mates have told me: "I wish they treated me like a
professional!" It can be exasperating to deal habitually with
sceptically demanding spectators, but that is precisely what can
make us strong in the Art of Card Magic as amateurs. The
scepticism of the spectators makes you think about how to
improve the effects, motivates you when it comes to think about
new presentations, and can even inspire great ideas that we
wouldn’t have if not for the demands of our audience. My
searches for solutions to any type of circumstance made me the
diligent card magician that I needed to be to get to feel that I
really do magic.

173
 The reason for the definition of wobbly trick is due to a
metaphor that I immediately glimpsed with a wobbly chair.
Imagine a beautiful, old chair of priceless value ... but wobbly. We
wouldn’t even dare to touch it to fix it because of its value, so we
would have to leave it or consider it like that, wobbly, as
happens with card tricks that use gimmick cards. However, the
problem of the chair could be solved in a way as simple as
placing a piece of paper under one of its legs in the right way,
which would be metaphorically the adjustment needed by some
wonderful card tricks that leave dangerous traces on its secrets.

174
 Tricks to Make the Gimmick Disappear

“Art is a lie and lying is an art.”

René Lavand.

Wobbly tricks whose secrets are quite difficult to disguise

or hide, could be reserved for a stage of our hobby in which we
have acquired enough reputation to be applauded without being
questioned. The reputation or prestige is not only important to
be able to do wobbly tricks without worrying much, but also to
get good references that allow you to perform more, as well as in
different places. On another hand, in the case that we have not
yet achieved that prestige and also we cannot resist the
temptation to do that great trick of which effect motivates us so
much, we could always make a great exception and try to find a
special way to get rid of the damn secret. Keep in mind that an
effect after which your viewers ask you to examine things that
you have to refuse to hand, however good effect may be, it will
only serve to make them suspect and create an image of a simple
magician impersonator. Wobbly tricks are the worst enemy of
the amateur card magician at the beginning of this hobby as a
performer, so it is convenient to make a special effort to look for
solutions to get rid of the secret.

The trick No. 54 of the repertoire of the Part Two, “The

Gambler and the Grandfather” is a good example of a solvable
wobbly trick. I loved this trick. It was very funny and very magical.
However I was afraid to do it, since it was wobbly. At the end of
the effect there are three cards that are supposed to be (for
example) three Queens of Hearts on the table, face down, but in
reality only two of those three cards are Queens of Hearts, so
they couldn’t be handed or even turn over. The effect does not

175
allow resolution and you can only take the cards to your pocket
just like that. But my desire to do this funny and magical routine
was so great that I started to make my head spin to find a
solution to its wobbling. I finally found a solution that I put into
practise successfully. The solution allowed me to hand all the
cards at the end of the routine, making disappear all kinds of
suspicions in case of being interrogated. It consists as follows:

At the end of the routine three Queens are shown (all

winning cards), but among them, as I said, there are actually only
two Queens and one indifferent card, since a Queen is shown
twice and the indifferent one is not shown. Thus, when we show
the first winning card we exchange it for the losing one through a
double lift, and we take it to the pocket saying: "I'll keep the
winning card.” So, after the surprise that the other two are also
winning cards, we put our hand back in our pocket with the
intention of recovering the card we keep, while saying: "Oh, but
they were all winning cards!,” and we took advantage of the get
another winning card that we had in our pocket from the
beginning. That way we could show all the cards at the end of the
routine. Whenever I've done it that way, I haven’t had any
problems.

I remember one occasion when I did for my wife the great

routine "Oil and Queens" by Roy Walton (references in the trick
No. 52 of the repertoire). At the end of the effect she stretched
her arm like a spring towards the Queens and took them to
examine them face and back. It was so fast that I didn’t even
have time to think that she may just do it. Fortunately, in that
trick there is no gimmick; the Queens can be perfectly examined,
but that experience was another proof of the care we must have
with the familiarity of our family members when they are our

176
spectators. My wife didn’t take the Queens with bad intention,
but it was a mechanical reaction of amazement (where the hell
did those Queen come from?!). It was an instinctive reaction
provoked by the astonishment itself, but that in other occasions
it could have been a fiasco. Imagine someone reacting like that
with a trick deck. Well then, those are the disadvantages of the
wobbly tricks, although I would actually say the disadvantages of
the amateur without reputation. Remember the anecdote of the
fire bug that I told you in chapter 5, in "The Concept of
Independent Ideas."

Depending on the wobbly trick in question there will be

many different ways to achieve a solution to get rid of the secret
of a trick. There will be as well wobbly tricks whose only solution
would be not to hand the cards to the spectators, like the
legendary routine "MacDonalds Aces.” "MacDonalds Aces" is a
clear example of a wobbly trick whose only solution would be to
keep the attention of the spectators in the Aces, giving them
conscientiously to be examined while you lose the indifferent
cards into the deck to ward off the danger. The idea would be to
make the spectators forget completely that there may be
something strange among the indifferent cards, and that the
mystery lies only in the reunified Aces. In addition, the deck
couldn’t be handed, since we would have unloaded the secret in
it. Anyway, in this case it’s much better to unload the secret in
the deck than to unload it in your pocket, which would have
been terribly suspicious.

Another of the masterpieces that had always captivated me

despite its wobbly is "Picasso Aces" by Phil Goldstein, which we
can find in page 122 of his book “Focus”. At the end of this
wonderful trick only three of the four Aces can be handed to

177
examine, which is a pity, since it’s somewhat suspicious to
examine three of the Aces, but not all four. The un-examinable
Ace is the one with a different back colour. However, after much
research into possible solutions with the intention of "saving"
the routine to perform it as an "amateur without reputation,” I
came up with a small procedure that I put into practise and that
worked, that is, nobody seemed to suspect anything strange.
What I did was to show first the face of the un-examinable Ace
next to its packet of indifferent cards by means of a double turn
over, showing a different colour on the back (the same colour on
the back as the other examinable Aces), and ask a spectator to
touch its back, after that, redo the double turn over and leave the
pack on the table. Then, to hand straightway the other three
Aces as if you wanted to accelerate the previous process. The
manoeuvre was natural and out of suspicion, the spectators felt
that they had examined the four Aces as such.

With these small experiences and ideas I want to motivate

you so that you never give up when it comes to solving problems
of "wobbly tricks.” I tend to be very optimistic when I try to find
solutions, and when I find them, they never convince me, but I
look for an even better solution! This improves tricks and the
illusionism.

Certain summer day of 2001, an amateur friend told me

very furious: "I'm sick of my relatives asking me to examine the
deck!" He was referring to the "invisible deck.” He complained
about that whenever he performed the routine of "The Invisible
Deck" his relatives asked him to examine the deck coldly and
without applause. I replied: "It's not unusual; you're just an
amateur! For them you are not a magician!" He replied: "Then
why magic products are offered for sale even for amateurs?"

178
Following my own advices I replied: "For amateurs who know
how to be amateurs!" Then I summarised my thoughts on this in
four points:

1- Understand that we are not professionals, always

foreseeing this type of situations.
2- Do not get angry NEVER with the public.
3- Do not simply say "no" to requests for examination, or "I
can’t show it to you" or "magician’s things aren’t do be
touched by others,” as many amateurs usually say abruptly,
damaging their magician reputation and magic in general.
Based on my experiences, it would be more convenient to
look for magical-comic excuses even if they seem childish
or silly, for example, "is that the magician who lent me this
deck told me that if it falls to the ground in the visible state
it would lose its magical property, and that's why I'm afraid
to hand it in the visible state, but if you want I can let you
see it in the invisible state." So then you keep the deck in
your pocket and pretend to take it out in the invisible state
to offer it to examine. People will smile ironically without
believing anything, but you will avoid saying simply that
"you can’t hand it,” besides transmitting an air of mystery
and uncertainty (they never know if what you say is true). It
is about conveying magic, even if it sounds nonsense.
4- Learning from experience. The next time you perform the
"Invisible Deck" routine, be prepared some stratagem to
change the deck after a possible request for examination.
For example, have a deck identical to the invisible but not
trick kept in your pocket beforehand. If they ask you it to
examine, you say: "Of course." You take it to your pocket
and pretend to take it out in the invisible state, and say

179
 jokingly: "Take it, examine it." They will laugh and tell you
that they want to see it in the visible state, not invisible.
Then, you exclaim: "Ah, it's true, sorry, what a fool I am!"
Then you act like you take the invisible deck again in your
pocket and take advantage of it to “switch the goods.”

When I explained these things to my friend, he cheered up

and didn’t complain again about the attitude of his relatives, but
he just tried to look for solutions.

A general way to get rid or unload secrets is to come up

with excuses to put your hand in your pocket. One of the most
common excuses to put your hand in your pocket is to pick up or
put away a marker, handkerchief or ... a "magic item.” Yes,
magical objects not only complement the illusionism, but can
help us get rid of secrets by the excuse of taking them out and
putting them in your pocket, like the famous "magic pendulum"
trickery. Don’t give up. Always look for a way to solve situations.
You never know what you can think of.

Now we are going to narrow down the possibilities and talk

about more difficult situations.

In case you need to hand something to examine that

includes some secret or something that spectators should not
discover, there are also interesting ways to proceed that I have
been investigating along my experience. Many magical schemes
are based on covering the trap movement with a natural
movement. Involuntary natural movements such as scratching
the nose, the head, or stroking the nape of the neck can help
disguise actions. I came up with the idea of disguising the shape
of a hand with a palmed card, scratching my nose. If you notice,
when we scratch our noses with our fingers together, the hand

180
adopts exactly the same shape that it would adopt with a palmed
card. So, while we hand the deck to the spectators, we scratch
our noses with the hand that have just palm a card, and then we
put that hand in our pocket in a casual way to unload the card.
The action is very natural because you have used your hand to
do something (scratch your nose) before putting it in your pocket,
which would deviate the possible suspicion of carrying
something hidden.

Natural movements can be produced, like fixations,

customs, signs of identity ... A very common and instinctive
reaction of people is to keep something that they have just
finished using, like a lighter, a pen or any object that no longer is
needed. It’s a natural reflex action. It would be about taking the
cards to the pocket during the applause, unloading the un-
examinable part, and take them out again as if correcting the
"slip" of taking them too quickly to the pocket, and leaving them
on the table and then handing them out casually. It’s quite
possible that such action is exempt from suspicion, and in fact I
have seen it done by professionals. Let's consider a finished trick
with its climax. People applaud, you look happy (or relieved
because it went well), get up from the chair making comically
exaggerated bows, you take the cards to your pocket, switch the
goods or get rid of the secret part you had separated by a "break,”
and take out again the cards in sight. It has always worked for me,
although I admit that I haven’t done it many times. Once I
noticed that the action of put the cards away while applauding
the audience and bringing them out again immediately while the
applause continue, is very similar to the image of opera singers
or theatre actors who do the same on stage, as they are absent
and reappear to continue the obeisance. As I said, I have seen

181
professional magicians do this with such a sublime naturalness
that I never felt it as suspicious. My experience also taught me
that at this point it would be better not to hand the cards
immediately after taking them out again from the pocket, since it
would appear that we had taken them to get rid of something.
So that, it would be better to hand them seconds after taking
them out again, relaxed, or even after shuffling them or toying
with them a little, so it could be that they even forget that you
took them to your pocket! Each trick can give you different
options, but the fact is that you don’t stop thinking in all possible
ways to get rid of what your viewers shouldn’t see.

Finally I will deal with the dead-end streets, those cases in

which we have done a wobbly effect, not being able to get rid of
the trick part and our demanding public asks us for the cards to
examine. Then we would have to act with imagination and
humour. For example, we could say that magical objects (not
trick) are dangerous if they fall into the hands of people who
don’t know how to handle them. People will not believe any of
that, but they will laugh, and everyone likes to laugh. We could
also say things that scare. For example: "One day I gave a
magical card as a souvenir to a spectator. Three days later he
phoned me telling me that after trying to do magic with that card
in his house, weird things were happening. Doors opened and
closed by themselves and I saw images of people in the corridors.
Then I went to his house and I disenchanted the card. Since then,
those strange things stop happening in his house." Once I
mentioned something similar to some spectators and they took
away the desire to ask for the cards or even touch them (!) On
another hand, when you give away something as a souvenir, like
a card or a deck that has participated in a trick (and have no

182
secrets), you can say that you have "disenchanted" it so that it
doesn’t do any strange things at home, "for safety.” That will
cause laughter and excuse the reason why you don’t hand some
other objects on other occasions (not all objects are
"disenchantable"). You can divert the attention of your usual
viewers during the successive shows with comments like that,
building general excuses for your habitual behaviour. Another
detail that has helped me greatly to strengthen my status as an
amateur magician is as follows:

When you hand something to the public after finishing a

trick, it’s better not to saying anything. That is, don’t say "you
can check the deck" or "You can examine the cards." Just give it
without talking. Think of it as a natural reaction in the form of a
courteous offer so that they can feel it in their hands, and see it
more closely, feeling more in touch with magic. A spectator who
takes something in his or her hands that has been the object of
magic will feel that magic as "more real.” On the contrary, if you
say something like "you can check the deck" or "you can examine
the card,” you yourself would be contributing to the scepticism
or suspicion. Try to erase from the minds of your viewers any
notion that makes them think something other than that they
have seen magic. You must not imply that there may be a secret.
You have to be firm regarding the expression of magic, so that
when you give something should appear a simple courtesy, and
not that you want them to check anything. It seems very affected
but the public of an amateur magician is like that, complex.
Spectators of professionals are usually simpler than those of an
amateur, in the sense that they trust more in the magic of the
magician. In addition, by that detail of not commenting anything
when you give something, you get the following advantage:

183
when you have got something that you can’t give to check, you
can just not give it and without raising suspicions, since you
never say in other routines "you can examine this." The
impression that would be given is that sometimes you offer and
sometimes not, as the one that forgets sometimes that act of
courtesy. If you give something without commenting anything
about it, without hints of any kind, your audience will get used to
seeing it as natural as when you don’t give anything. I sometimes
say funny things like: "Do you know when I give the cards as
souvenir? ... When they are cheap! This one I bought in the
bazaar down here, so take ..." Comments like these help to
confuse a little the reason why other times I don’t hand or gift
the card (because they are secrets). Personally, since I performed
with these premises in mind, I managed to improve my image as
a magician as time went by. I know that all this seems
complicated when you read it, but when you think about it looks
simple and reasonable. Keep in mind that looking like a
professional being an amateur is not easy, but if we try we can
get our audience to think that we do magic instead of thinking
that we only pretend it.

I will end this section with another interesting anecdote. I

was in a bar drinking one (many) beers with some friends. Then
another friend appeared who was a good amateur card magician,
with whom I shared ideas. He took out a "Photographic Mental
Deck” and said outraged that he had been sold a defective deck
in a store. He showed all the blank cards on both sides. Our
friends in the bar were surprised. But not even half surprised
when he told us that the deck should be magical, since
sometimes it appeared printed on both sides, so at the moment
he wasn’t going to claim anything from the store. The reactions

184
were great, they were amazed with laughter of surprise ... but
everything went wrong when one of them, with a sarcastic smile,
asked for the deck. The performer of course didn’t give it, stating
that it was a magic deck, and as such, dangerous, but that only
caused more sarcastic smiles. I did what I could to help him,
saying that it was true that magic objects were very dangerous
and it should be returned to its owner. I even added with an air
of mystery that it was better to return the deck to the store to
locate their true mysterious owner, since it looked like a lost deck
among rare goods. So, understanding my intention to help him,
my magician friend went along with the air of mystery saying:
"Yes, I also thought about returning it, just in case it has a curse
and it affects us all." Later, alone, we had a conversation about it.
He expressed his impotence regarding the obsessive scepticism
of people with amateur magicians. I talked to him as always
about what it meant to be a simple amateur, and that our
audience is usually our friends and family. I told him that many of
our viewers are not usually prepared for "wobbly" effects, since
it’s hard for them accepting us as magicians. We amateur
magicians must analyse our people to know what we can offer
them as a public. My friend replied with resignation that it was a
shame, since that effect / joke of the "Photographic Mental Deck”
was very good and ideal for a friends meeting. I answered that I
always tried first to do something similar but with a completely
normal deck. He looked at me in surprise and said: "Something
similar to that effect with a normal deck? Like what?" I told him
that with imagination you can do similar things with a completely
normal deck, like for example "All Back" by Dai Vernon. Imagine
it: You take out a completely normal deck and stage the same
joke by saying that you have been sold a defective deck in which
everything is back. The technical movements can be performed

185
perfectly standing. Then you say that sometimes the deck
appears with their faces printed ... and continue staging the joke.
In the end, if they ask for the deck, you can hand it! And not only
that, but when they give it back to you, you can make all the
cards look like backs again. The secret is only in your ability! The
effect is similar to that of "Photographic Mental Deck" and is
totally impromptu.

"All Back" routine was added to the third edition of "Expert

Card Technique" (page 459) of Hugard and Braue. About this
routine, Vernon said that it was the magic card trick that
intrigued women most. He said that whenever he heard a
woman talk about card magic she used to refer to that routine
with special interest. Allan Ackerman published an extraordinary
version in which the cards also appeared as "all face,” in addition
to retaining the initial order of all the cards, so the routine could
be done with a stack deck without undoing the order, published
in "Magic Mafia Effects" with the same title as "All Back" (page
11). Arturo de Ascanio also devised a version which is published
in Vol. 3 of its works, by Jesús Etcheverry (page 72).

Summarising, if you do amazing effects with a "Svengali

Deck,” "Knock Out Deck,” "Menetekel Deck,” "Multieffect Deck,”
"Photographic Mental Deck,” "Protean Deck.”.. etc., your viewers
won’t be able to avoid the curious temptation to ask for the deck
to check it, which you just won’t be able to hand, damaging in
some way the charm of that great magic. Effects with gimmicks
don’t support "resolution.” Professionals suffer less from this
type of circumstance because their viewers consider it normal
for a real magician to do real magic. But for amateurs who are
not yet labelled by their people as real magicians, it would be
wise to endeavour to come up with different ways to get rid of

186
gimmick equipment, or to conceive psychological ways of
distracting the spectators’ interest in examining those materials.
This makes the work of Tamariz "The Magic Way" being very
important for the amateur magicians, since it is studied in detail
these notions through the theory of false solutions. In this way it
would be easier and faster to achieve the status of a real
magician granted by your audience. If you don’t work this aspect
of your life as an amateur magician, you will be always
"attacked" and considered an "impostor magician."

Tricks Impromptus, Setup and with Gimmicks

“It is not the trick itself, but what you do with it.”

Eugene Burger.

An amateur friend once told me: "the best tricks are those
that use gimmick cards, right?" It was the year 1994. I was 18
years old and I had not yet read any book that focused on the
theory of magic, but many concepts began to seem very obvious
to me not to slap on the wrist of that friend of mine. I advised
him to think otherwise. I told him literally: "the best tricks are the
ones that are done well.” It doesn’t matter if a trick is impromptu
or requires prior preparation with or without gimmick to make it
a good trick. Whenever a trick is performed well it will be the
"best trick.” Better than what? Better than the one that you
performed "less well.” The magic of a trick is conveyed by the
magician's acting, not by the trick. A trick for beginners
performed with passion can be more striking than a trick with
"very cool gimmicks" performed blandly. A strong hammer will
not be very useful if not well used by the worker.

From the many ways to classify the card magic tricks, the
following is my favourite and what I use to archive the routines

187
of my repertoire. I wanted to show it to you in case you were
interested in its simple and minimalist nature. It is formed by
three simple groups:

1- Tricks that don’t require preparation or gimmicks, well-

known as "impromptus."
2- Tricks that require preparation, but not gimmicks.
3- Tricks with gimmick equipment.

Group 1

The perfect or dreamed trick is the one that you can do

impromptu (with any deck), without difficult techniques and has
an amazing effect. Unfortunately there are not many tricks that
meet these conditions, but there are. The tricks of this group
don’t have traps prepared, but any trap is totally in the skill of
the magician, so they are ideal to learn how not to be a lazy card
magician, so that not needing any "help" prepared in the deck, in
addition to acquiring certain practise with the use of the
misdirection. Being an impromptu magician greatly favours the
image of a real magician. As amateurs, it is very important to get
used to doing impromptu tricks, so that when we organise an
arranged show in which we can have something specially
prepared, spectators don’t necessarily have to think too much
about if we have prepared some secrets, but we are just amateur
magicians (and not amateur tricksters). One of the greatest
geniuses in the history of magic used to work like that, mostly
impromptu. His name: Max Malini. Regarding card magic, Harry
Lorayne devoted his life to working hard on the impromptu tricks,
as a great magician he is. Dai Vernon worked very hard as well on
creating impromptu versions of everything.

188
 Within this group we have the automatic and mathematical
tricks, which don’t require special skills or techniques, but of
course you should not underestimate this type of trick, much less
ignore them, as they can cause great magical impacts by the
grace of your talent for playing as a magician. Mathematical
tricks can be very surprising as well as fun. They depend on the
imagination you put into it. We will see some examples in the
section "Mathematical and Automatic Tricks" of the repertoire of
Part Two. Mathematical tricks are very popular in schools and
colleges since they are curious and don’t require techniques.
There are so many mathematical and automatic tricks that you
could focus all your card magician life just on them. I know great
amateur card magicians that almost only do tricks of this group,
without complex techniques. In my opinion, a well-proportioned
variety would be ideal, as the variety in a balanced diet such the
balanced pyramid of trick that I always followed and that gave
me such a good result to maintain a firm image of card magician.

Gimmicks (10%)

Thorough preparations (15%)

Semi-impromptu (easy preparation) (25%)

Impromptu (40%), mathematical and automatics (10%)

Group 2

Tricks that require preparation have the advantage of

offering a much greater range of magical effects than those of
group 1, since you have an advantageous deck to cause any
effect you propose, but without gimmicks. In group 1 tricks it’s
not necessary to do false shuffles at the beginning of the routine,
but in group 2 tricks, false shuffles and cuts are essential to give

189
credibility to their effect. Obviously we have to erase all suspicion
of stack deck by false shuffles. Tricks with a mixed deck but
learned by heart, like the Juan Tamariz’s Mnemonica Deck,
would be included in this group.

Between group 1 and 2 we can distinguish a sub-group of

semi-prepared tricks. These would be so simple preparations
that could be made secretly in front of the public without
noticing. These preparations can be just placing a certain card in
top of the deck or placing the four Queens together, and so on.
The preparation of some of these tricks may be so simple that
they could be part of group 1.

The tricks in this group don’t allow the spectators to shuffle

the deck, which can reduce the power of magic even if the
magician shuffle, but It doesn’t have to be something very
worrying as long as no allusions are made about it, in addition to
the fact that there are subtle psychological techniques that make
it appear that the public freely shuffled the deck. Another
drawback is that at the end of the effect it would be almost
impossible to repeat it again, since the deck couldn’t be
prepared in front of the spectators. At this point you should be
careful with those spectators who usually ask for a trick to be
repeated. The solution would be to do another different
impromptu trick that follows, if possible, a similar dynamic to the
previous one.

Group 3

Tricks with gimmick cards or trick decks are very varied.

There is an endless list of products of this type in the magic
shops, but they have the great disadvantage that they aren’t
cheap and can’t be hand to the spectators, and besides, some

190
trick decks are only applicable to a few effects. Professional
magicians use these products as a complement to give more
variety to their effects, final hit, surprises, etc., but in a very well
sparing way. No one knows better than professionals that it’s
preferable not to abuse the gimmicks. However, amateur
magicians can easily fall for the temptation to perform striking
effects without difficulty or theoretical headaches. Gimmicks are
like food supplements, they can help us a lot, but we shouldn’t
abuse them because they aren’t natural. Moreover, it’s
important to understand and be aware that gimmicks aren’t toys,
but pieces of art, and as such should be used with art. Imagine
for a moment a person who doesn’t have any theoretical
knowledge about magic, or any particular interest in being a
magician, but someone has taught him how an "invisible deck"
works, so that he dedicates himself to using it abruptly over and
over again any moment, without setting, staging, or even
presenting as a magician, but as "someone who has learned to
do that." To tell the truth it would be very discouraging for the
Art of Magic in general. Remember that the magic is in the
magician, not in the magical object, so that to produce a true
feeling of magic it’s not enough to do it, but you also have to
transmit the message that you are a magician. To be a magician
it’s not enough to "have magic.” You also have to learn how to
be a magician.

191
 CHAPTER 8: Thoughts

“Never apologise; it’s all part of the trick.”

Harry Lorayne.

Have you ever wondered why card magic is the most

popular branch of magic? I do not. I was so excited about this art
that I never set aside some time to ask that question, until I was
asked it once and I didn’t know what to answer. Since I first saw
card magic on TV, I was obsessed with having ideas to do magic
with my parents' deck of cards. As for me, a deck of cards did not
make much sense if I did not magic with it. When I finished
playing card games with my cousins and friends, if I didn’t do
some magic, even if it was a small effect, I didn’t feel satisfied. I
felt that the cards had been created primarily to do magic and
then secondarily they could also be used for gambling. I couldn’t
have much fun with games of chance without thinking about
doing a bit of magic later. But this obsession went further, since I
didn’t assimilate the concept of magic if it wasn’t done with
cards. That is to say, for me a magic trick should always include a
card, if not, I felt that something was missing. I tried to get
interested in magic with coins, ropes, balls, dice ... but I couldn’t
pay much attention to it. However, if I included a card in these
everyday objects, I then felt interest, such as coins and cards,
handkerchiefs and cards, ropes and cards, etc. For me, the deck
of cards had been created to be able to do magic. It may have
been an obsession, but I never managed to get that mentality
out of my head. And I still have it. When you do magic with cards,
many people consider that you are capable of doing magic with
anything else, since you are supposed to be a magician. But I
always tried to make my people not understand it that way.

192
Practising to do magic with anything else took time away to
practise with the cards. In addition, to do varied magic
sometimes special materials are needed, time to make them, to
prepare them and to test them, apart from needing enough
space to store them. I didn’t have the resources or the time to
carry my love for magic up to that point, so I took refuge in
something as simple and effective as playing cards. The image I
wanted to give as a magician was always (and only) that of a card
magician. I was not even interested in coin magic, which is
another subtle way to do magic simple, economical and at any
time. Perhaps the reason was that the variety of routines with
the cards was enormous, whilst the variety of tricks with coins
was much more limited. Nevertheless, I have done with great
interest “coin-card magic,” especially after the opportunity to
witness for the first time a video of the spectacular act “Los
jokers magos y músicos” ("The magician and musician jokers") by
Juan Tamariz, with which he won the first prize at the FISM in
Paris in 1973, which was the year in which my older brother was
born. I’d still have three years left to be born.

I used to tell my people, in a sensationalist way, that my

magic radiated from the cards, so I couldn’t do magic with any
object if at least one card was not involved in the routine. In this
way I got used to being seen as a card magician, instead of as a
magician. As for mentalism, I said that I could only divine what
someone was thinking if they were thinking in a card. Sometimes
I tell the next comical and fictional story with which my viewers
have a good time laughing while they understand what I mean:

"Once I was asked for making a car disappear if it was true

that I was a magician. But I insisted that I only knew how to do
magic with cards. They insisted that they wouldn’t consider me a

193
magician until at least I didn’t make a car disappear; a real car.
So I was in a difficult situation until I had an idea. I asked them to
pick a card, sign it and lose it in the deck. Then I asked them to
cover a car with a sheet; magic words. They released the sheet.
The car disappeared ... but instead there was a card that turned
out to be the signed card! The car became the selected card! But
people applauded me just for having made the car disappear,
since they didn’t understand that it was a card trick."

Jokes aside, in my sincere opinion, the card magic is the

most popular branch of magic because it’s the most economical.
It’s the most economical way to make disappear and appear,
tear and restore, transform, levitate, and so on. Although, magic
with cubes, boxes, balls, handkerchiefs, papers, coins, strings,
small special devices, etc., can also be an inexpensive way to do
close-up magic, but, as I said before, they take up much more
room in your life than a few simple decks of cards. Decks of cards
are everywhere too, since it’s one of the most common games in
the world. Wherever you are, almost always you could show off
your card magic qualities. Cards give you versatility, spontaneity
and a wide metaphorical possibilities, making the card magic the
most picturesque and practical forms of showing magic:
transformations, levitations, teleportation, destruction and
rebuilding, divinations and predictions, coincidences, jokes,
pranks ... besides being able to tell stories and legends through
them. You can virtually do everything. We could also say in a
humorous way that card magic is the magic of poor magicians, or
not millionaires.

194
 The Adult and Children's Point of View

“The magician made a gesture and made the famine

disappear. Made another gesture and made the injustice
disappear. Made another gesture and the wars were over. The
politician made a gesture and the magician disappeared.”

Woody Allen.

The aim of a magician could be considered as doing things

that cannot be done with the intention of entertaining surprising
and amusing. The charm of a magician is to break reality for a
moment so that adult viewers return to the fantasy of childhood,
and children viewers enjoy being children. These are two very
different points of view of magic: the adult and the child.

Adults usually don’t believe in magic, while children usually

do, so that in a magic shows children are deluded while adults
are only surprised. Children say: "Magic!" While adults say: "How
did you do it?” since adults are convinced that the magician has
NOT done magic, but a great trick. However, paradoxically,
surprising a child is more difficult than surprising an adult, since
they have not yet had enough experiences in life to make sure
100% that magic doesn’t exist. We can deduce that for a child it’s
normal for a magician to do magic, since he or she is a magician,
whilst for adults, magicians are just a mystery. Jorge Blas, one of
the professional magicians who trained at the Tamariz’s school,
highlighted this curious detail of the children during an interview.
Of course it doesn’t mean that children don’t wonder as well
how the magician have done if thinking it can’t be magic, even if
they let themselves be carried away by the illusion of magic, and
those children who don’t stop wondering that is because they
may be interested in the Art of Magic, as it was in my case.

195
 From this we can draw a very curious conclusion: not
believe in magic has its importance, since the greater the
contrast between scepticism and surprise, the greater the
illusion of magic.

Magic and Illusionism

“It’s a sad thing to cajole the spectator instead of just to

amaze them.”

Juan Tamariz.

Although I consider it correct on the part of the magician to

say that he has done magic, I think it’s a mistake to try to
convince people of it, or that the magic really exists. That is to
say, in my opinion it’s good to say that we’re magicians and we
do magic, but only as a modest opinion of our own, without
trying to convince of it and letting spectators opine or think
about what they have just seen, but never feeling pressured by
the magician when it comes to believing or not in magic. I think
it’s better to let the spectators deliberate freely about the
conflict that occurs between their eyes and their mind, and draw
their own conclusions. A magician who tries to convince eagerly
about the "reality" of magic, may run the risk of spectators don’t
like him because they feel being suckered, especially if it’s about
an amateur magician. My experience has shown me that it’s
difficult for anyone to believe in magic, including children, so if
we insist too much on convincing them that it’s magic what we
have done, they may feel uncomfortable or take us for a fool. But
that doesn’t mean that magic is a fraud. When a mime artist pulls
an "invisible rope" is not trying to make us believe that there is
an invisible rope, but making a visual attraction to entertain,
amuse or surprise while the viewer enjoys watching it, regardless

196
of what they believe or not. Magic is more or less the same, the
magician just does the magic and the public just sees it. Then,
among the public there will be those that are carried along by
the illusion of magic more than others, but it won’t stop being
just an entertaining show. Magic will never be a fraud as long as
spectators don’t feel pressured to believe in it, especially by the
magician himself. Magic is the art of illusion, and the more
unexpected or amazing the illusion is, the more we will be
applauded. Then, whether it is considered magic or not will be a
question of opinions. A fraud would be to try to convince that it
is magic. The magician doesn’t have to worry about whether the
audience thinks it’s magic or not, but simply to say that in his
opinion it is, and nothing more. I think our relationship with the
audience would be very good if we behaved like that, especially
being amateurs. I have noticed throughout my experience that
the word "illusionism" is used more with amateurs, while the
word "magic" is used more with professionals. In any case magic
is illusion, and the illusion is born in the uncertainty of not
knowing how that has been done, besides making raise the
possibility that it’s real magic. Let the illusionism flow while the
magic remains in a simple opinion.

In one of my Christmas shows, that of 1992, after finishing

the first effect, one of my cousins told me: "Magic doesn’t exist.”
I replied one of my ideas that I then wrote down in my notes so I
wouldn’t forget it, because it looked very good to me:

"Of course, magic doesn’t exist ... if it existed it wouldn’t be

worth doing it!"

All my friends who love magic told me that it was one of

the most ingenious phrases they had heard in order to answer

197
uncomfortable questions from spectators, so I didn’t hesitate to
add it right here to share it to you.

Magic cannot exist just because its meaning lies precisely in

a direct contradiction of reality. It cannot and must not be real! If
magic were real it would be contradicting itself, since to be
magic it must not be real. If magic existed there would be no
reason to be surprised by it. Magic as a spectacle would have no
meaning if it were not considered unreal. What astonish is the
unreal, so the magic must be unreal. In fact, the word illusionism
gives us to understand that magic doesn’t exist, so magicians
shouldn’t use it for themselves. Magicians should always use the
word magic, leaving the word illusionism for the astonished
spectators who don’t know how to understand what they have
seen and don’t want to consider it as magic. In the same way we
should avoid using the word trick, using other expressions such
as magic, experiment, mystery, phenomenon, effect, etcetera
(not etcetera). A magician must show himself as a magician,
although it doesn’t mean trying to convince that magic exists,
but just making the public see it. In my opinion, the magician's
job is just to show fantasies in the form of a spectacle, so that
the spectators take the liberty of considering it magic or
illusionism.

On December 20, 1994, after performing a great card trick

in high school, my math teacher asked me in front of my
classmates: "Do you believe in magic?" I replied: "No, but I like to
do things that I don’t believe in." Laughter later I added
something that I still remember for how much my teacher liked
it:

"Real magicians exist precisely because real magic doesn’t."

198
 I was more cheered by those words than by the card trick I
did for them. My teacher even told me that my attitude was like
that of a professional magician, unlike other amateurs who
overacted or boasted too much of what they did. I still remember
some interesting and curious thoughts of my math teacher
regarding magic, which I will summarise below:

"To do real magic one would have to be absent from science.

If someone could get out of science and really do magic, I don’t
think he would show it on a stage in the form of a spectacle, but
he would keep that ability secret for his personal benefit as well
as to avoid harassment in the whole world of entrepreneurs and
magnates."

Following these thoughts, let’s imagine someone who could

transform water into a good wine through real magic. I don’t
think he boasted of it publicly on a stage, as a magician, but he
would rather be enriching himself in secret by founding a wine
company at the expense of a tap, or simply by drinking his life
away. As you see, magic is a paradox. It’s something that can’t be,
but that the magician makes it able to be. It’s not a matter of
skills like jugglers, contortionists, fakirs, prodigious memories
and various special talents, but magic is just something that
cannot be done, but that the magician does. And that’s only
possible through deception. Magic is just deception, and the
greater the deception the greater the illusion of magic. Any
deception can be exhibit in the form of magic, and anything can
be part of a deception. If you get your mother to believe by
chance that you are in your room and suddenly she sees you
leave the kitchen, her impression will be that you have
teleported yourself. But of course it’s important to take
advantage of the situation as magic. Otherwise it wouldn’t feel

199
that way. If you explain that you were always in the kitchen even
though she thought you were in the room, bye, bye to the magic,
but if you shout saying excitedly that you have tried a
teleportation experiment and that it seems to have been worked,
the illusion of magic would be served.

On one occasion when I was watching a card trick on TV

with some cousins of mine, I got a silent and lonely surprise. It
turns out that the magician seemed to do a manoeuvre that I
took for granted, as a "double turn over,” but when he turned
over again the card he left on the table, I observed that it was
the one that should be ... eh?! It was a surprise that my cousins
didn’t get because they didn’t know at all about the "double turn
over" neither any other card magic technique ... this curious
experience illustrates very well the concept that magic is
basically deception. A magician can be deceived into believing
that a magic technique has been applied which hasn’t actually
been applied, but in addition, making believe that this could be
part of the deception could also be a deception ... and so we
could be gilding de lily without stopping ... so that, magical
illusions are no more than states of awareness, so the more you
go ahead of the state of awareness of the viewers, the more
likely you are to create magical illusions. Once I did an
experiment about it performing the trick “As-cend with Three
Cards” (trick No. 38 of the repertoire of the Part Two) to an
amateur card magician friend. He smiled and told me that this
trick was very well known and that he knew how it was done. I
asked him: "how?" He replied: "It’s not done with three equal
cards as you try to make the viewer believe, but with the
technique of double turn over.” I replied that he was wrong while
showing him that there were actually three equal cards! He put

200
the same face of surprise that if he had seen a great effect. In
other words, he was surprised of the fact that it was NOT magic!
I will quote something that illustrates these concepts very well:

"Gentlemen, he may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot,

but don’t let that fool you. He really is an idiot."

Groucho Marx (“Duck soup” film, 1933).

In this ingenious Groucho’s quotation, nobody expects

what is going to be said in the end.

It may be very clear today that magic is not real, but

illusionism sure it is, as real as optical illusions, tricks, forced
distractions (misdirection), unexpected surprises or the use of
science itself to create magical illusions, such as levitating
something with strong magnets, or using chemical principles
usually unknown by people to create magical effects, such as
flash paper. Needless to say, a good magician doesn’t laugh at
ignorance, but rather take advantage of it to create a magical
illusion. I think that illusionism is to make believe that it’s
possible to do magic with the sole intention of surprising our
realistic minds. There are people who like to be amazed by a
delusion, but there are those who don’t like it because they see
it as a challenge to their intelligence. It's a matter of taste.
Magicians must obviously do magic for those who like to see it,
as in any other field of art and entertainment.

From a passionate point of view we could say that "the

magician opens a tiny door for a small fraction of time between
the border of the real and unreal, thus allowing spectators to see
a bit of something unreal ,” which is how magicians get
something to be without being able to be. On another hand,
from a practical point of view we could say that magic is like the

201
special effects of cinema, which even though we know that it’s
fiction, we like to see it as well. It’s evident that people like
fiction, so that people also may like magic even though it’s
clearly assumed that it’s not real. The more impossible the work
of the magician seems, the more he is applauded, well aware
that it must not be easy to do something that cannot be done.
Movies' special effects technicians work to AMAZE the spectator
who is sitting in the movie theatre’s chair, and the more amazing
the film is, the more people applaud. The show is to relax
imagining, dreaming, astonishing. To a large extent, life is
beautiful precisely because of that, because we believe in what
we don’t believe. I sometimes started a show saying comically:

"Magic exists, but let’s thinks that it doesn’t exist, so that

being able to get surprise, okay?"

It caused laughter and I gained the liking of the spectators.

We can conclude that the Art of Magic is show magic, but

not do magic, since it’s impossible. Do magic is quite different to
show magic. Magicians cannot do magic, but can show it as an
art called Magic. The aim of the magician is not exactly to make
believe in magic, but to make viewers wish to believe in magic,
which is very different. The reason why magic does not exist is
not because I say so or because nobody says so, but because it’s
a paradox, and paradoxes are incompatible with reality, in fact
for that reason we get amazed when we "see" magic.

If you get a spectator to think: “I know that’s impossible,

but I’ve just seen it!” Then you have achieved your magician goal,
nothing less, but do not try to convince that it is magic.

Robert-Houdin, in his book "Secrets of Conjuring and

Magic" (from the English translation by Angelo Lewis), left some

202
evidence that "a magician is an actor playing the role of a
magician,” a statement that raised hackles in the world of magic,
although the real problem was that the statement also reached
the ears of many lay people, which was what really give to be an
harmful sentence to the Art of Magic. The statement is
absolutely right, but it’s for magicians, not for lay people. It's a
secret sentence, like the magic tricks themselves.

As you can go to the Nature to escape from the stress of

the city, you can also experience magic just to escape from the
stress of the reality.

When and Where to Do Magic as an Amateur

“A good general chooses his battlefield.”

Tonny Slydini.

During the first two decades of the new millennium it has

become very fashionable to show magic outdoor. This is because
it was a good resource for amateurs to show magic. It became so
popular that professionals now dedicate themselves to showing
magic in this way, without the need of stages or galas, as one of
the great pioneers of this style, David Blaine, became known.

Another great resource has been the miracle of the

Internet. Internet has changed the world, and as such, the Art of
Magic. Amateurs have been greatly benefited by this, since they
can now film and produce themselves, making their skills and
ideas public to the Internet users, both alone and performing in
front of their personal audience. Likewise, a very quick and
comfortable way to learn magic has been created through
amateur tutorials in blogs and videos. But all those benefits and
amenities for amateurs may become as well the opposite if they

203
don’t act responsibly. Not only professionals, but also amateurs,
we can be very affected by teaching a technique or a trick
abruptly, thus expanding a kind of "magic for around the house"
instead of an elaborate magic full of resources. We must be
sensible and understand that teaching magic is not easy, since
magic is not just secrets. We must also realise that a routine
must be well rehearse before being showed or edited on video
with the intention of publishing it indefinitely, as it may be
watched by many interested people who will be trustingly guided
by it. If you are a good teacher of magic, go ahead, teach it, but
without ceasing to raise awareness about the importance of the
theoretical aspects and regular rehearsal. The fear isn’t so much
the spread of the secrets, but the performing and filming of a
masterpiece little rehearsed. The spread of the secrets isn’t so
serious if we take into account that the percentage of people
who devote their time to look for online card magic is extremely
low in proportion to the number of users of Internet. That is,
those who like the Race cars or Asian cuisine will not spend their
valuable time looking for how the "Ascanio spread" works. In
short, I don’t think that a "doomsday" of magic will ever come.
We should not be alarmed, but we must know how to use this
colossal tool, such as the Internet, with responsibility, for the
sake of all magic lovers. Let’s reckon that learning magic without
reading books can contribute dangerously to the laziness of not
studying theory and not capturing the essence of magic in a wise
way. Books written by masters teach us the culture of magic in
general, special terms, history and philosophical aspects not
usually spoken in a video posted on the Web. It's like watching a
movie about Don Quixote de la Mancha and thinking that it’s no
longer necessary to read any printed version to consider

204
ourselves "knowledgeable" of Cervantes' work, or to consider
ourselves a master of martial arts just based on kicks and slaps.

Leaving the Internet aside, as we know, an amateur doesn’t

have as much influence as a professional to choose or know
when and / or where to do magic with certain certainty and
anticipation, in addition to the circumstances in which it will take
place, such as the number of spectators or the type of
environment. Professionals usually know if they will act on a
table, standing, from far or close-up, so that they can prepare
the most appropriate routine for the circumstance that is going
to occur. This doesn’t mean that professionals are never in
impromptu situations. Professionals also do magic under random
circumstances, so they usually have some routine ready for any
occasion (which is how we amateurs are used to doing
habitually). Despite the frustration that we amateurs can
sometimes feel about not being able to perform in special events
more often than we would like, we must consider that
professional magicians also have their rivalries, and not all get to
perform where they would like. Professionals also have dreams
that never come true. Each one of us, professional or amateur,
must feel fortunate as long as we can devote ourselves to what
we like regardless of our opportunities, as well as helping each
other more than rivalling. I like to see a colleague triumphing on
his or her great show, even if I'm not him/her.

I have experienced several times the depressing of having

designed great shows that I could never carry out for various
reasons. There have been cases in which I waited months for
great events like wedding parties in which in the end I couldn’t
perform for lack of support or seriousness as a magician. Most of
the time was due to my young age, but I have also had

205
frustrating experiences with 16, 17 and 18 years old just due to
the lack of support to organise a magic show in some event.
Some of my shows never came to be performed, and others only
partly. I remember a particular case in the Christmas Eve party of
1991 for which I prepared a 15-minute show with five effects of
which I could only complete three. The bizarre reason was that
some spectators interrupted the session to go to the bathroom,
and since there was only one bathroom, queues were formed.
While others waited, others took the chance to watch TV, play
with the dog or eat a bit of Christmas nougat. When they joined
the show and turned off the TV, I had to remember where we
were going. After finishing the second and third effects it was
already late because it was going to start the TV program that
everyone wanted to watch, so it wasn’t possible to continue with
the fourth and fifth effect. I spent months waiting for that great
day, tweaking the session besides spending the morning of that
day rehearsing assiduously. I should have started a little earlier
than expected just in case. They are the drawbacks of being an
amateur. Sometimes our potential is diminished by the lack of
organization, but also by the lack of patience or seriousness on
the part of our public. Nonetheless, I still had the New Year's
party as an additional option to show the same routine, however,
I caught a terrible flu on the 30th and I was unable to move from
the chair during the whole party. Some of my uncles said that the
magician had got sick, and some cousins joked telling me to heal
myself with magic. I had to wait until the summer to try the
routine again, but they were not as profitable meetings as those
that took place at Christmas. On another hand, dramas aside, it’s
also true that I have been able to complete other great shows
that have given me a lot of satisfaction. There will be times when
you have prepared a great magic routine for performing on the

206
table, and no one will take to sitting at the table, but in the
armchair, next to the fireplace. Bad luck! I have not brought
ready the trick in which I burn a card in the fireplace! ... And so
we go, showing our magic by “fits and starts”... In most of our
chances we will do magic in casual or spontaneous situations, so
it’s of great importance to have good tricks impromptus well
practised for any of those circumstances. Experience has shown
me that this is how an amateur begins to gain a little reputation.
Moreover, if you do an impromptu trick in casual situations, it’s
quite possible that you are encouraged and ask for more magic,
so it would be convenient to have a show well organised in
advance to prevent bad improvisation from setting up a bad
combination of tricks. I will tell you what I do and always went
well with me:

I design small different impromptu sequence of tricks, of

three or four tricks that I link so that they combine well, and I
write them down in some notes. Then I practise them regularly in
my free time, especially the ones I like the most. Then, when
they ask me for magic, I select one of those sequence in my mind
and start it ... so, depending on the time available and / or the
patience of the audience, I may complete only one, two, or all
the tricks of that certain sequence, but important is that each
trick has an independent effect, so that, when you finish, the
result of the show is satisfactory. It's like a television series in
which the chapters are totally independent, but they are related,
so that even if you stop following the series, you will not feel
dissatisfied. The objective would be to always have something to
offer if they asked for more magic, and it didn’t clash with the
previous effect. If I completed a sequence and still I was asked
for more magic, I would start another one. Remember that I use

207
this procedure basically with impromptu tricks for casual
situations. If I were going to perform an arranged show, the
situation would be very different, since I could prepare it
especially. Speaking of arranged shows, I advise you to take
advantage of great festive gatherings such as birthday
celebrations, Christmas, New Year's Eve, weddings, friends'
meetings ... but don’t usually organise a meeting just for the
purpose of doing magic, since we would normally give the image
of an "annoying,” more than an entertainer magician of meetings,
unless people ask you to organise it expressly! If we are in a
casual party we could propose to do a bit of card magic in a
relaxing moment if nobody proposed it voluntarily, but without
insisting on it either, but just propose it. If the attention is
obtained we would start with a fast and impressive effect to
maintain that attention (which is how I start designing my
sequences), and continue with a trick that requires a little more
patience from them. We must never assume that we will do
what we have in mind, so to avoid disappointment and blame
ourselves for that. There will be epic moments of great success
and frustrating moments for lack of attention. Maybe you also
experience moments when you feel sorry for having devoted
yourself to this hobby, precisely because of the lack of
motivation, something like studying a language without having
someone to talk to, or the music lover who composes songs that
he or she only listens to, or just a few people. We shouldn’t be
discouraged by the lack of attention. Your talent will be just as
good regardless of how many admire it. The only motivation you
really need is your liking for it. A great moment can be anyone.
When I was a child I used to ask myself the immature question:
"Will I do magic one day in a big event?" That desired big event
seemed never to come, until my mind matured and I asked

208
myself the following question: "Aren’t my family shows great
events?" A great event is any. Any magic you do will be a great
event! The only thing that we can’t control is how the public
wants to appreciate that event.

These tips, which have helped me so much to enjoy this

hobby, are focused for those unknown and lonely amateurs who
don’t even have time or resources to participate in associations
and circles of magic, through which it would be easier to act as a
magician in front of expectant publics. That is to say, I try to
make my focus on the plain or familiar amateur card magician,
with the intention of encourage in all kinds of situations.

How did you do that?

“There will be no secret that is not revealed.”

Jesus of Nazareth.

It’s indisputable that everything in magic can end knowing,

either because it’s published in books or because it’s simply
discovered, but it will always be magic for the unknowing, which
fortunately comes to be the vast majority of people, and that is
precisely what makes The Art of Magic flourishes without decline.

The most famous question in the world of magic, "how did

you do that?" has a very simple answer: "it is magic,” or
"learning to do magic.” With today's technological and scientific
advances it’s very difficult for anyone to believe in magical
powers, but it’s not about making people believe, but simply
about surprising them, and that surprise will be greater precisely
the greater the scepticism of those who don’t believe in magic is,
which is a great chance to take advantage of this Art. If we
answered that famous question saying that "the magicians don’t

209
reveal their tricks,” it would be a mistake, since we would be
admitting something that, as it is, it’s considered evident: that
magic has a trick. So I think it's a typical response as well as an ill-
advised one. Magic exists because it doesn’t have tricks even
though we know it does, as Juan Tamariz said in a brilliant
attempt to unify reality and the illusion of magic in a single
concept that we could call The Art of Magic. Also, it is better not
to replay things like, "if I tell you, it wouldn’t be magic,” since we
would cause the same rupture of the illusion of magic. Try to
show magic just as magic, but without influencing the opinion of
the spectators. Avoid insinuating that there is a trick, even if it’s
understood like so. Keep that halo of mystery that exists
between a supposed trick and a supposed magic. Thus it will be
easier to gain the consideration of a magician.

If they ask you later: "And how did you become a

magician?" We could answer something as logical and
elementary as: "Anyone can learn magic if they like it, but for
that it is necessary to read magic books or attend a magic school
or develop your own skills by learning alone." Through this
answer, the word trick is not said, but rather the idea that magic
is simply learned, even if it’s not easy to learn it, as in the "Harry
Potter" stories by Joanne Rowling.

Revealing a magic trick is very tempting. We may like to

reveal a magic trick as well as show it. The reason is that we not
only relieve a bit the everlasting secrecy to which we are
constantly subjected to, but also cause surprise and admiration
to show how ingenious the trick is and why we are so "good
magicians." We don’t stop feeling like magicians because nobody
has been able to catch the secret until we reveal it by ourselves,
and when we realise that it’s precisely what makes us stop being

210
a magician, it is too late. A trick is not magic, so it's a mistake to
feel like a magician for teaching a trick, as I've heard some
amateur say (very disoriented). Dodging these temptations that
push us to reveal secrets is an indispensable task to consider
ourselves a good magician. If those temptations were stronger
than us, we would end up degrading ourselves as a simple
magician impersonator. In my opinion, only professionals should
be able to be teachers. Amateurs can do very good magic, but
we must understand and respect the figure of the professional as
a teacher. Teaching an art is not easy. You need a carefully
develop method in addition to choosing the students well, in the
sense that they have to be students who take seriously what you
are teaching, and not just curious people who only want to
discover secrets. I usually say the following things to my beginner
friends:

A magic trick is neither a riddle, nor a refined game of

reasoning and intelligence, nor a hieroglyph, nor a problem of
mathematics, nor to pass on the secret to others so that they can
also do it to other people. A magic trick isn’t done to reward the
one that discovers the secret or to be revealed after no one
discovers it, or they ask you to reveal it. A magic trick "has no
tricks.” That's why it’s supposed to be magic.

Think that most people who want to know the secrets of

magic is out of curiosity, either to know or to feel magician for a
moment. Hence the desire to learning in the easiest and fastest
way, which is to ask an amateur to explain the secrets, without
more. These people are not particularly devoted to magic, but
rather curious that won’t go further than being temporary
magicians. We can imagine that for every magic-loving magician
there will be about 20 or 30 expired magicians. With this I would

211
advise that if you want to reveal a secret, try to do it only to
lovers of magic. Make sure that your magician friend is also a real
magician.

Martin Gardner once said in an interview that life was like a

giant magic trick that scientists try to reveal. This leads me to the
reflection that it’s impossible to know all the tricks no matter
how hard we try, since we ourselves are part of one.

The Syndrome of Monotony

“If you are not willing to make all necessary effort to do

your best, that is enough reason to stay off the questionable
privilege of your audience of watching you.”

Tommy Wonder.

I started doing "aces assemblies” in December 1987. Since

then it was one of the routines that I most performed. The truth
is that I loved them. I considered them very elegant, magical and
iconic of card magic. I never imagined that there would come a
time when I hated them and saw them lacking magical interest.
That moment came in the summer of 1993. The problem was
that I had stopped seeing magic in them. They didn’t seem
magical to me anymore. I didn’t understand why, but I had no
interest in doing it to anyone despite how much I had always
liked them. However, I overlooked that fact considering it as a
capricious streak of my liking. Until the same thing happened to
me with any trick in which a “key card” was used. But I didn’t
attached importance to it as well. I assumed that as my level was
increasing, I was losing interest in those "simple" tricks (I
couldn’t be more wrong!). The last straw was when, at the
beginning of 1994, I began to lose interest in performing routines
about the “ambitious card.” This was when I began to feel that

212
an alarm sounded within my passion for card magic. I had to put
an end to this by talking to myself:

Monotony: I'm bored of doing certain routines.

Passion: Are you bored of doing magic?

Monotony: No. I'm bored of doing the same tricks.

Passion: But you do many different tricks.

Monotony: But some in particular bore me.

Passion: Why? They are magical, like every other.

Monotony: Maybe I don’t see magic in them anymore.

Passion: But the spectators do see magic in them.

Monotony: But I feel that I don’t enjoy doing them.

Passion: If you don’t enjoy seeing the spectators enjoying,

it’s that you don’t understand de Art of Magic. A good trick is
always a good trick! The one who stops being good is the
magician that shows it without enthusiasm!

After this conversation with myself I understood the

problem. When we learn or invent a new trick or routine we get
excited because it’s new and we are looking forward to perform
it for the first time, so that when we show it to an audience, both
the audience and we are excited, the magician for doing it and
the audience for watching it. But when we do that effect many
times, it stops being new for us, and the illusion of magic is felt
only by the public. Then, we can feel that we are a simple "magic
trick player.” This can lead us to certain neglect when we keep
performing the trick, which would lead us as well to an
increasingly decadent performance. Fortunately, I became aware

213
of this syndrome thanks to my passion for card magic. We must
understand that we aren’t always going to feel the same
excitement for the routines we perform as at the beginning of
learning and showing them. Professional magicians deal with
monotony syndrome much more than amateurs! Imagine how
many times professionals perform their shows. How many times
has Juan Tamariz performed an Aces Assembly? And if you ask
him to do it again he will do it with the same passion and
intensity as the first time he did it. Let's be strong in this
syndrome. Never think that a routine has stopped being good.
Never do a trick as if we were tired of doing it or wanting to
finish it as soon as possible. The image we would give to the
spectators as a magician would be awful. The first time I
performed the routine of "the invisible deck" (summer 2000) I
did it with an overflowing excitement. However, as I show it in
successive years, I felt that the excitement of the beginning was
fading as a consequence of the monotony, but I never allowed it
to affect me when performing it with all the passion and energy
that this routine requires and deserves. At times like this we can
remember that magicians are also actors.

In the summer of 2011, the son of a cousin of mine asked

me to do a magic trick while he offered me a deck of cards. We
sat down at a table where there was a playing card mat and I
took advantage of it to do nothing more and nothing less than
“The Professor's Triumph” for him. I did it selflessly, as if it was
just a procedure for me, but for that boy it was an unforgettable
experience. He was so gobsmacked that he didn’t stop talking
about it until he convinced me to repeat it for him and other
people in the house. Up to six times I did the effect! It was a
special situation for me, as I am rarely persuaded to repeat the

214
same trick so many times (I usually do different ones), but the
enthusiasm aroused by The Professor's masterpiece was such
that I was surprised by the reactions. When I began to reflect on
that experience I felt again that the Triumph of Dai Vernon was
one of the best tricks of card magic that had ever been devised.
But why did I stop feeling this way? It was the damned monotony.
Think that even if you have done a certain effect a hundred times,
it will always be the first time for the first one to see it. We
should not forget that to avoid the monotony syndrome
influencing the motivation of our actions. If a magic trick is very
good it doesn’t have to stop being like so never, no matter how
many times you have done it or seen it done.

Magic with Stooges and Staging

“It is better for a man to honour his profession than to be

honoured by it.”

J.E. Robert-Houdin.

This form of creating magical illusions will never cease to be

one of the biggest controversies of the world of magic. Camera
tricks, high-tech stage, special cinematic effects, cronies,
etcetera. They are controversial because they damage magicians
who don’t use those sophisticated tricks to create theirs effects,
and that's why they have to constantly be emphasising their
audience that they don’t use them, in special those regarding
camera tricks and cronies.

Let us imagine that a magician goes to a bar to have a beer

with some friends while he’s shot by a film crew. The magician
pretends to improvise something (which is already prepared),
and asks the barman to pass to him a bottle of whisky which is
half of its content (just the equivalent of the contents of a can of

215
33 cl.). He also asks the barman to pass to him any can of beer
(33 cl.), unopened. Then the magician hits the beer can against
the bottle of whisky until magically the can appears inside the
bottle. He asks the astonished barman to open the bottle and
drink. The barman tells him that he doesn’t like whisky, but the
magician informs him that it’s not whisky, so he doesn’t need to
worry. Thus, the barman drinks distrustfully, but notes with
surprise that the contents of the bottle are now beer. He drinks
the contents until he almost leaves the bottle empty with the
can inside. The magician breaks the bottle to get the can, which
opens and asks someone to drink it. That someone gets the
surprise that the content is now whisky; funny, right? I imagine
that the producers of magic shows would be delighted to do this.
How to do it is the least important thing, the important thing is
to do it if it’s interesting or cool. The show that I have just
described to you doesn’t exist (as far as I know), it's just a
product of my imagination, I've invented it right now, and it's just
an example of the immense amount of magical illusions that can
be devised and represented as a show. One day I asked a hobby
friend: "Do you think the Moon could be made disappear?" He
replies to me: "Surely someone has already thought about it, and
surely there is some method to do it.” Then I continued, joking:
"The problem is that Marlo, may he rest in peace, no longer lives
to ask him for a solution."

There are magicians of all kinds for effects of all kinds. Let’s
imagine something simpler to follow, but just as disconcerting.
For example, a magician on the street asks a passerby to think of
a card of the deck. He then asks him or her to follow him to a
game shop and they buy a deck of cards. The magician asks him
or her to open the newly purchased sealed deck. It is found that

216
the card thought is the only one turned over against the other,
leaving the passerby and the owner of the store baffled. The
magic that is tried to be showed in this trick is so impossible that
practically it reveals itself with the only solution of cronies and /
or staging. I think that staging and cronies are basically used to
carry out miracles under "insoluble" conditions, taking magic to
unlimited extremes. It is clear that in magic not all problems are
solvable, unless staging and cronies are used by which we could
solve any problem and demonstrate the famous expression
"nothing is impossible.” On one occasion I myself organised a
staging. I organised the well-known routine of the selected and
signed card that goes through a glass. My buddy was an amateur
card magician friend who put the card for me on the other side
of a coffee shop window, while I distracted the spectators from
the street by giving them the deck to shuffle. Cronies and staging
allow us to get "special" effects, which does no harm to do
occasionally to reinforce ourselves as a magician. And I say and
emphasise occasionally because it’s not convenient to abuse it,
since the magic trick that do not take into account practically any
possible solution other than that of the buddy or staging, would
cause the spectators to become used to resorting to that only
solution with any other of your effects, and much more when
you're just an amateur. There we would run the risk of being
nothing more than actors playing the role of magician. There are
many popular tricks submerged in these controversies, such as
the famous "any card at any number" popularised by David
Berglas to the point of being called "Berglas Effect.” Scientific
experiments have concluded that the magnitudes of energy that
the brain can produce are insufficient to transmit information, so
that "telepathy" does not exist. There is only one way to make
two "unknown" viewers name a certain card and a certain

217
number, and that way is not convincing them telepathically of it,
and assuming that the cards can’t change the order by itself
inside de box. The phenomenon of the buddy to do magic is not
bad, but as long as you don’t abuse it. Any resources are good for
doing magic and thus occasionally adorn your miracles, but I
insist that it’s not convenient to abuse this resource. When
something is too impossible, the solution of the buddy is very
resorted to, and it would be a great shame for the spectators to
become used to resorting to them in with regard to any effect
you do. That's why professional magicians often insist that they
are not confederated with the audience. Anyway, that's where
the illusion of magic is, in the uncertainty. Believing or not
believing is about opinions. That "telepathy" has not been
demonstrated is precisely what makes spectators view it as a
magic show, and not as a show of mental ability. However, some
"magicians" try to convince viewers that it’s not magic, but
something real that they can only do by means of a special ability.
A magician who prefers to make people believe that what he
does is real instead of magic is not exactly a magician, but a
fraudster. To make see magic is to amaze, but to make believe
that what they have seen is real, is swindling. Anthony Blake
made it very clear that what his viewers had seen was a product
of his imagination, asking them not to give it more thought
because it didn’t make sense, so Blake did not pretend to
swindle, but to amaze. On another hand, other “magicians” tried
to make the audience believe that he really had extra-sensory
powers, which is why it was a fraud attempt. As an amateur, I
recommend that you don’t show your effects as something real,
but as magic, transmitting that magic and reality are two
different things. Such different as they are not part of the same
world. When the magician does magic, it stops being real, and

218
precisely for that reason it produces a magical illusion.
Furthermore, magic is closely related to humour, since humour is
a form of expression based on situations that are far from the
usual, logical or even real. When a spectator discovers that this
card is not the one he or she thought (Three Card Monte), it not
only causes surprise, but also laughs. They laugh because they
know that it can’t be; it’s not real, even though they’re seeing it.
It’s not a mocking laugh towards magic, but a surprise laugh.
When a clown cries throwing exaggerated streams of tears from
the eyes, like a cartoon, children laugh at exaggeration without
wondering if that is magic or not. It's just fun. The Marx Brothers
learned card magic techniques for some of their vaudeville
shows, especially those set in the "Far West,” but not to pretend
to be magicians, but simply to make people laugh with comical
surprise. There again, famous stars of silent films such as Buster
Keaton, Charles Chaplin and Harold Lloyd used techniques or
ideas of magicians to be able to stage some of their picturesque
sketches, but not to pretend to be magicians, but to provoke
laughter through comical fantasies and exaggerations, such as
Charles Chaplin eating a boot or Harpo Marx a candle, as well as
Buster Keaton entering a movie screen.

Coming back to the subject of the cronies, if you are going

to use them, to escape a little from the risk that would give the
appearance of a simple actor, it would be convenient to let
glimpse other possible solutions. That is to say, not to seem that
the only explanation is a crony, but other possible solutions to
the mystery are glimpsed. In my staging of the signed card that
goes through the glass, it occurred to me to touch the part of the
glass where the card appeared, as if trying to hide something.
The spectators began to investigate the crystal while I pretended

219
to be nervous, so I distracted a little their minds so that they
didn’t think about the only way out of a buddy. Of course the
trick cost me a dinner, which I had to invite later to my buddy.
Here we deal with the important concept of helping each other,
not only for our own good, but also for the good of the Art of
Magic in general. One afternoon, in a meeting of friends, a friend
fond of card magic and I organised a small show almost
improvised. He was performing an ambitious card routine until I
broke in saying, "I know how to do that too." At that time people
knew that I was also fond of card magic, but that magician friend
of mine had more experience than me. So, my idea was to play
the role of a meddling beginner magician. Then I asked for the
deck. I did a double turn over and said: "for example this card." I
lost the top card in the middle of the deck and said: "And now,
with my magic snap ..." I did a double turn over again. It was a
failure; silence. I snap again. Double. Again it was a failure.
Nobody speak. I tried once again. Nothing happen. I re-did the
double turn over and left the deck on the table showing
disappointment. Then, my hobby friend said that magic was not
so easy to do, and as such I did not snap well; I had to do it more
forcefully. So he did so and asked a spectator to turn over the
top card. I played the role of being very surprised following the
viewers. Then I said I had to practice my magician skills more.

Not only my friend looked like a true magician, but we

reinforced the idea that magic is magic, and not manipulative
techniques.

Helping each other not only help our personal magic, but
also our magician identity and the art of magic in general.

220
 Professionals have "license" to use cronies due to their
"official status" of representatives of magic, but fortunately the
vast majority doesn’t get much help of cronies, precisely to avoid
this insidious and simple way of "solving" the magic. It’s clear
that those methods are options, but sometimes they are so
obvious that it’s difficult not to attribute them to the most
obvious. It occurred to me once to do a bragging effect which I
always dreamed: "a thought signature.” It’s one of those effects
too impossible that invites you to assume that the only solution
is the buddy. It consisted of asking a spectator to think of a card
(a cousin of mine; an amateur of card magic), and after thinking
about it, sign it! Sign it mentally! I even brought a marker to him
so he can mime in the air. The deck is extended face up and you
see a single back card. The card is flipped and, not only is the
card thought, but it also contains the signature with the marker
used in mime. Spectators immediately assumed that he was a
buddy, although we (my cousin and I) played the fool all the time.
On another occasion I played for him as a buddy for an
inexplicable "Berglas Effect" (in front of spectators totally
different). The question is to do an occasional miracle from time
to time to reinforce that image of "true" magician that we try to
transmit. Apparently I didn’t have so much prestige yet so that
viewers would not instantly think of the buddy's solution after
such a brutal and magical effect. On another hand I admit that I
went “a little” out of line, since with that effect perhaps neither
the professionals would dare because of fear of appearing too
conceited. I suppose that magic as a show must also be given a
reasonable limit. I consider that a magician who makes use of the
help of other people to accomplish certain effects, act as a
“figurative magician,” whereas when not making use of the help
of other people, act just as a “magician.” How many times do you

221
want to act as a “magician,” and how many as a “figurative
magician,” is up to you; your personal decision.

To finish I would like to highlight the cunning idea of the

"instant stooge,” which is more of a joke than a way of doing
magic. Many professionals have had it in good consideration,
such as the charismatic Whit "Pop" Haydn, with his "Impromptu
Card Code" in his conference notes "Fast and Loose" of 1982, in
which the magician proposes to some spectator to try to divine a
card selected by another viewer. The spectator thinks that he or
she can’t do it because is not a magician, but the magician says
that the "trick" is that he will send him or her a telepathic signal
to know which card it is, so that the Star of the show will be the
spectator. The spectator may even be blind, which would make
the feat clearer in that case. So that, a card is chosen and lost in
the deck, the magician asks the spectator to deal cards on the
table and stop as soon as he or she feels the telepathic signal.
Just after telling that the magician steps on his or her foot under
the table so that the viewer understands what the signal will be!
He already has his "instant stooge.” So, when the magician sees
the guide card, he steps on the spectator's foot again. The
spectator inevitably smiles while the magician exclaims: "You
have seen it! You have seen my signal!" The spectator continues
smiling while the other spectators are astonished to see that the
telepathic signal has really arrived. If the instant stooge prefers to
keep the secret it would give us a reputation as a magician, but if
he or she prefers to tell it, we would offer it as a simple joke.
Obviously it would not be convenient to use an improvised
buddy with a routine that hides important secrets.

By the way, in "Engaños a Ojos Vista" (delusions with open

eyes) by Pablo Minguet é Yrol, from the year 1733, there is a

222
trick on page 149 that consists precisely in that a buddy kicks the
magician under the table to inform him. In this case it’s for the
magician to divine which cards are picture cards while passing
them on his forehead. However, the book doesn’t specify if the
buddy is an "instant stooge" though. One of the first references
in print about the concept of "instant stooge" dates from 1942,
in a trick called "Douglas Kelley's Telephone Trick" in "Ireland's
Yearbooks,” written by Laurie Ireland. In the routine, the
spectator reveals a selected card by making a call with a toy
telephone.

The "instant stooge" can also be the whole audience except

a single victim spectator, as it happens with the famous Slydini’s
paper balls that disappear in front of the eyes of the victim, or
the transmission of a selected card by a victim spectator to all
other spectators so that they can divine it aloud in unison, as
popular was made by Juan Tamariz in his comic performances.

We as Spectators

“Magic is not tricks; it is a way.”

Teijiro Ishida (Tenkai).

I don’t know the original sentence in Japanese that Tenkai

would use for this statement, but the word "way" in Japanese
sometimes has the meaning of "way of life,” as I think it is in this
case, and how great magicians have interpreted it, such as
Eugene Burger. So, I guess Tenkai meant that magic tricks are not
really tricks, but a way to live life, that is, there are an infinity of
different types of tricks: tricks to improve the taste of a dish,
tricks to whiten the teeth, tricks to get your dog pays attention
to what you tell, tricks to remove a difficult spot ... etc., and they
are improving more and more over time. And, as time goes by,

223
some tricks even stop being considered as tricks, becoming just
ways of acting in life. It would also happen with magic tricks,
which is nothing but seeing magic as the result of a way of living
life with hope. This comes to mean that on one hand, if you use
magic tricks to commit a crime, to make fun of people, to show
off, and other amoral motives, people will consider them simply
tricks, but not magic. On the other hand, if you do it to amuse, to
make people laugh, to delude, to make people happy, the trick
would become magic. Magic, to be magic, must have a beautiful,
moral and pleasant image. Walt Disney used the word "magic" as
an insignia word to describe his works.

I think that "if we want to be magicians, we should not do

tricks."

From October 5, 2009 to December 27, 2010 (15 months), I

resided in the city of Osaka, Japan, while I studied Japanese
language in an academy and I worked teaching Spanish in
another. I didn’t have much interest in developing my card magic
skills at that time, since I was immersed in work, study and my
desired experience of living in Japan. One day in December 2009,
I was in a breathtakingly illuminated and Christmas decorated
shopping centre. I was with a friend from Osaka drinking coffee
at one of the tables of the wide corridors, until suddenly a
smiling man approached us showing a fan of cards in his hands.
My friend took one of those cards. The man handed him a
marker. My friend signed it and returned it to the deck. The man
shuffled and took the deck to his trousers pocket. Then he took
three other cards from his jacket pocket and started to do the
effect “As-cend with Three Cards” (trick No. 38 of the repertoire
of the Part Two), so that it seemed that the three cards were the
same (an Ace of Heart) as it came to the top once and again no

224
matter in which position he placed it. Then he asked me to
choose one of them (being face down). I did it. He gave the card
to my friend (face down) and showed that the other two cards
turned out to be different! (Not Aces of Heart), which meant that
the lift card was in the hands of my friend, face down! The
magician took the card from my friend’s hand, signed it on the
back as a gift and said goodbye wishing us a good evening.
Obviously I knew how that trick was done, but I let myself go by
the magical illusion. However, something happened that neither
I nor my friend expected. For a moment we had completely
forgotten about the card that signed my friend. We assumed
that the card that the magician had given to my friend as a
memento was the lift card Ace of Heart, but when he turned it
over, we discovered that it wasn’t the Ace of Heart, but the card
signed by my friend! Then we looked at each other and
exclaimed: "Wow!" And we looked back to see how the magician
greeted us from afar. I was amazed by the experience. I didn’t
want to think about how he had done it. I wanted to be carried
away by the magical illusion. I felt like a chef sitting at the table
of a restaurant as a customer. I had not thought for a long time
about how wonderful it was to be a spectator of a magician, and
how interesting and unforgettable the experience could be. As a
spectator, I was invaded by a great desire to see more magic, and
as a hobbyist I felt a great nostalgia, besides that it was the time
of the year when I normally did my shows to my relatives. Since
that experience I have not been able to stop remembering that
Japanese magician, amateur or professional, in that shopping
centre. The day I retire I would like to dedicate a good part of my
time to share magical illusions like him, in a casual and
spontaneous way.

225
 During that stay in Japan I did not do any magic, but I
enjoyed it as never before with experiences like that and
watching magicians on TV, remembering the time when I knew
almost nothing about magic and I was so surprised by everything.
I remembered how important it was to feel like a spectator in
order to understand as best as possible how our viewers
experience it, and use it to our benefit to improve. On one
occasion I saw on TV a program in which a child did magic for a
professional magician. The magician was amazed saying that it
was incredible and that he didn’t know how he had done it.
Imagine how much that child enjoyed when he was said that. Of
course the magician knew how he had done it, but he behaved
as a professional. He not only benefited the image of that child,
but the general image of magic and of all magicians. I have
listened to many amateur magicians being spectators saying
things like: "I know that trick ...!" A true magician would not say
that. Such reckless can be an amateur? Let's not be like that. The
correct thing would be to be surprised and manifest that we
don’t know how he has done it, because that is how the
magicians do magic, letting it flow, expressing it as such, helping
each other. Another thing very different would be to be in a
conference of magicians so that they correct us in a performance
or advise us. Obviously it is not unusual to discover the secret of
a trick when we are also magicians, but let's not forget that it’s a
secret, and that it’s not only a secret that makes the performer a
magician, but also you when you perform. The magician does
magic, but not tricks, that's why he or she is called a magician,
and not a trickster. Although we shouldn’t try to convince of it,
as I said before, so as not to pressure the will of judgment of the
spectators. We should strive to transmit simply the idea that we
are magicians, amateurs, but magicians, and not someone who

226
has simply learned tricks. Transmitting that idea being an
amateur is not easy, but nowadays it’s not easy either for
professionals, since little by little the magic is discredited as
science and technology advance. However, this doesn’t mean
that the real magician is destined to disappear, but rather to
evolve. Today, a real magician can be defined as an architect or
sculptor of mysteries, which is that amazes the spectators to the
point of retaining the hope of wanting to see magic. If
professionals can evolve like this, we can also, by carving
beautiful mysteries as real amateurs.

227
 PART TWO: A REPERTOIRE FOR AN AMATEUR CARD
MAGICIAN

No card magician does all the card magic tricks of the world,
like no musician sings or plays all the songs of the world. Each
artist has his or her chosen repertoire according to his/her
creations, versions, liking and personality. There are thousands
and thousands of card magic tricks and routines. We would like
to do them all and look like a card magician of unlimited talent.
But, just as you cannot read all the books in the world, you
cannot do all card magic of the world. If we want to make the
best use of our opportunities as amateurs, we must learn to
select very well the tricks that we consider most appropriate and
effective, as well as those that best suit our personality.

In "Lessons in Conjuring" by David Devant, from 1922,

Devant tells a simple but interesting anecdote that became
popular over the years in the magical community. In the old
Egyptian Hall in Piccadilly (London), where he performed with his
colleague John Nevil Maskelyne, a young magician told him that
he knew about three hundred magic tricks. Devant replied that
he knew eight. The young man was puzzled; he didn’t understand
how a magician as the recognised Devant could know only eight
magic tricks. But that confusion was clarified by Devant itself, to
make him understand the difference between knowing a trick
and know how to do it so well to be a great successful magician.
Years later it became known that this young man was Frederick
Culpitt, a magician who became popular doing comic magic, as
well as being one of the first to perform regularly on television
(since 1936). In the famous book "Expert Card Technique" by
Jean Hugard and Frederick Braue, there are similar tips in this
regard, such as that instead of learning a large number of tricks

228
it’s better to focus on a few good ones and know how to do
them perfectly well. Dai Vernon said that "Expert Card
Technique" was the "New Testament" of card magic (The old one
was "The Expert at the Card Table").

The compilation that I will introduce to you next is my

personal proposal for a repertoire. It is ten times larger than
David Devant's, but not as big as Fred Culpitt's. It is formed by 80
tricks distributed in 20 small thematic groups to facilitate its
organization. It is a repertoire that I have selected for guidance
for those amateur card magicians who suffer indecisions about
what tricks to perform and what tricks to devote our limited and
valuable time. It is a selection taken from an analysis of more
than a thousand tricks and routines among which I have read,
visualised, practised, discussed or performed throughout my
experience. Among what I have been able to read are books,
magazines and articles that I bought as much as I was given or
borrowed, in addition to what I could borrow from the libraries.
Thus I had the opportunity to read great classics of the world of
card magic besides modern or less classical works. I also have to
thank myself for learning English, which gave me the key to be
able to read more books than I thought; much more. So I
consider myself a lucky amateur although it was not easy to read
and analyze so many things, but fun. That way, little by little, I
made several lists of compilations of different types of tricks with
their variants or versions. Also, in order to try to give variety to
the repertoire, I was helped by the two well-known
classifications of card tricks that Roberto Giobbi published in the
famous Genii Magazine, in July and November 2006: "Giobbi's
Basic Effects of Card Magic" and "Great Themes, Effects and
Tricks in Card Magic," respectively. This second list is based on a

229
previous one made by Juan Tamariz. The lists cover, of course, all
kinds of magic tricks with cards, but I have focused the selection
of this repertoire on the day-to-day of an amateur card magician,
trying that the tricks combine as best as possible the impromptu
character, the relative simplicity of performing, clarity for the
spectators, the quality of the effect and the magical impact.

Personally, of all tricks that went through my knowledge, I

only performed in public about 200 different ones from 1983 to
2008. It seems that having performed 200 different tricks in 25
years is not much, but being a plain and occasional amateur card
magician didn’t give me more chances. However, they were very
carefully selected and practised tricks, in order to make the most
of my scarce chances for big audiences. The dedication I put into
each trick made my performances generally satisfactory. Nothing
would have saddened me more than a failure, and now I think
that maybe that's why I was so zealous. I have also had the great
opportunity to travel quite a lot inside and outside Spain, being
able to do casual card tricks to many different people. I
understood the importance of choosing well what routines to do
and for what moment and people. In the opinion of my amateur
friends I ended up becoming a good critic of tricks for spectators
of amateur card magicians, which gave me the courage and
confidence to continue with this selection project. Thanks to my
friends.

I also want to thank all the spectators who had the patience
to see me performing as a child, appreciating and praising the
effects, even though sometimes they "attacked" me trying to
convince me to explain the secrets, which provoked me stress
and some depressions within the hobby. In any case, the tricks in
this repertoire are the ones that gave me the most success,

230
performed both in informal and spontaneous circumstances and
in special moments of parties and great gatherings. I have paid
special attention to the participation of the public, which is of
vital importance for the amateur magician to gain real interest.
Something more than half of the tricks in the repertoire (49 of
them) will NOT be explained, since they are masterpieces that
lack my relevant contributions, but will be commented with
references to know where to learn them, as well as providing
some ideas of mine of presentation. The other 31 tricks will be
explained, since between them there will be tricks designed
independently by me, and others that have interesting personal
contributions that require the explanation of the original trick.
Anyway, any amateur experienced in the Art of Card Magic could
deduce what is the secret of practically any effect, focusing the
importance of it on how to present those secrets as magic. As
David Devant said, a magician is not one who knows secrets, but
one who presents or shows them in a way that seems to be
magic. The secret is only a procedure, while magic is the talent to
make believe that you have done magic.

There will be references to legendary card magicians and

legendary publications, including recommendations of didactic
methods like, for example, a particular book that aroused a great
admiration for me: “Cartomagia Fundamental” (fundamental
card magic), by Vicente Canuto. When it fell into my hands and I
read it in three days (300 pages), I said to myself: "this is the best
condensation of good card magic in a single book I've ever read."
It’s perfect for amateurs. The didactic method, the techniques
selected, and the selection of tricks that are in the work of
Vicente are sublime. It was written specially for Spanish speakers,
since there are tons of great works by many great authors about

231
it in English language. Several of the tricks that I selected for my
personal first repertoires coincided with those selected by
Vicente for his book, which filled me with optimism as a critic. An
amateur friend once told me: "Your repertoire is ideal to know
what to do when we do not know what to do."

An extremely important thing about a repertoire is that you

like it. What I show you here is not only a selection of great
classic and modern routines, but also I like them, and as such, I
do them with pleasure. There will be tricks that don’t match your
preferences, and that's where your personal touch comes in.

For the historical data I have used as main source the

Encyclopaedia on-line "MagicPedia" of the famous and legendary
"Genii, The Conjurors' Magazine," which, although it’s a free
Encyclopaedia as it happens with "Wikipedia," I consider it quite
reliable because the people who write in it do so out of love for
the world of magic and the good of it. I have also used the
impressive archive of the extraordinary magic lover and magician
Denis Behr, "Conjuring Credits" and "Conjuring Archive," which
can be consulted on the Internet to find information about the
origin of ideas and their publications. Endless thanks to the work
of Denis Behr! But they are not the only sources of information
that I have used, but I have researched and searched in any other
source with the intention of matching as much as possible any
information. I want to clarify that obviously there aren’t tricks
selected from publications after the 8th of November of 2014
(when I finished this book).

Finally I’ll shut up, and go ahead…

232
 DIVINATIONS

The divination of a chosen card is the basic pillar on which

card magic has been built. The effect appeared for the first time
described in "De Viribus Quantitatis" by Luca Pacioli, around the
year 1493, proving to be probably the oldest card trick that has
been described. Although the method is not very clear.
Throughout history the most effective methods to divine a card
(apart from the buddy) have been "the forced card" and "the key
card." Imagine the number of different ways you can devise to
present a divination trick through a simple "forced card,” some
as fun as “La tengo en la punta de la lengua” (“I have it on the tip
of my tongue”), which consists in the magician having problems
in divining the card, but saying once and again that he has it on
the tip of his tongue. Finally, the magician sticks out his tongue
and shows a very little version of the selected card just on the tip
of his tongue. Published in 1962 by Father Wenceslao Ciuró in
“Juegos de mano de bolsillo” Vol. 3 (“Pocket-size sleight of hand”
Vol. 3), credited to his magician friend J. Morella. Another
example of ideas about forces is "Insurance Policy,” by the
amateur magician George McAthy ("Mandroop") that I
mentioned earlier just at the end of the chapter 5. The key card is
not only an impromptu and safe method, but also simpler and
more convincing than the force. The key card is one of the oldest
secrets of card magic. The idea was first described in the work
"De Subtilitate" by Girolamo Cardano, in the year 1550. Although,
it must be made clear that the oldest sources are always
temporary, as you never know if older sources will be found yet
as investigations goes on.

There are many ways to ensure that a selected card stays

with the key card. The most common may be to put the selection

233
on top, cut, and complete, but obviously you should not always
do the same. The method that I use most often is the "reverse
spread," which consists in cutting the deck at the point of the
spread where the card was chosen, so that while they see and
memorise it, reverse the spread of both pile and ask for
returning it to the "same" point, getting the feeling that it’s
returned in the same place, when in fact it’s between the
previous top and bottom. This is the method that has least made
my viewers suspect. This movement has its origin in
"Westminster Wizardry" by Frederick Montague (page 74), year
1928, although only applied to one half of the deck. The
movement applied to the two halves with the intention
described above seems to be an original idea of Barcelona
magician Joan Baptista Bernat. Bernat published the movement
as “engaño óptico” ("optical deception") in “Cartomagia: 30 Años
Después” ("Card Magic: 30 Years Later"), in 1981 (page 69),
saying that he had devised it in the late 40s. Bernat also wrote
his name in the history of magic by winning two FISM awards in
the same year: the "manipulation" and the "close-up" in Geneva
(Switzerland) in 1952. That same year, Bill Simon published a
curious and sneaky procedure to achieve the same in a trick
called "Business Card Prophecy" in" Effective Card Magic"(1952),
only the said procedure revealed the identity of the card, so it’s
only for routines in which the card can be known by the magician.
Its movement is popularly known as "Business Card Prophecy
Move." It’s also true that the movement was already published
two years earlier in the marvellous book "Scarne on Card Trick"
(1950), by John Scarne, being attributed to Bill Simon as well.

The impact of the key card would be even greater if we

managed to glance at the bottom card without even touching

234
the deck, leaving it in the hands of the spectator at the end of
the shuffling and saving us using the technique of the glance. The
following four routines that I propose are the ones that produced
the most enthusiasm among my spectators.

1- The spectator’s Reaction

As I explained in chapter 5 through a fun experience in

England, this presentation is very funny and is embellished with
the subtle "false solution" of people's reaction. You spread the
deck face up and pass your finger or the finger of the spectator
along the spread while you notice the nervous reaction of the
spectator, making him or her believe that you divine it like that.
Spectators won’t be able to avoid laughing or making a gesture.
If a spectator could be impassive facing that circumstance, you
would also divine the card claiming that you noticed that his or
her pupils dilated slightly, the face reddened, and so on. You can
also use the great idea of "think stop." That is, ask the spectator
to shout mentally "stop," so that our terrible telepathic capacity
can hear him or her well. This causes a funny great feeling of
thinking reading. The pioneers of this charismatic idea may be
Charles Jordan and Theodore Annemann. Furthermore, if after
returning the selected card we do a quick spread face up while
saying: "your card is lost," and we quickly see which the chosen
one is, we can even hand the deck to shuffle, making the routine
much more clear.

In the work "Dai Vernon's Inner Secrets of Card Magic,"

written by Lewis Ganson, in the first chapter of the first part we
will find a routine called "Emotional Reaction," which in my
opinion is the most beautiful and talented presentation applying
the use of a key card. I recommend it effusively for the repertoire.

235
The routine is popularly known in Spain as "The Card of the
Heart" or "Your Card to Your Heart." I can’t help but recommend
also about the use of a key card, a great trick called "Mind
Mirror.” It’s a trick that can mislead the most refined minds. The
trick, designed by Jack McMillen, was published in the
charismatic book "Expert Card Technique" by Jean Hugard and
Fred Braue, in 1940 (page 223). It’s about the location of a card
in conditions that almost cannot be more impossible.

2- Surprise Bet

This fun trick, popularly called "Circus Card Trick," was

published in "Expert Card Technique" in 1940 by Fred Braue and
Jean Hugard, in a routine called "The Twenty-Sixth Location." The
same authors published it again in 1948, in "The Royal Road to
Card Magic." The name is due to the fact that it was performed
often in circuses at that time, being considered from anonymous
creator. The brilliant Roberto Giobbi (twice world runner-up of
card magic in the FISM of 1988 and 1991) published it in his
"Roberto Light" with the same title. A friend of mine and I
popularise it in our neighbourhood with the title that appears
published in the great collection "El mundo mágico de Tamariz,"
(“The magic world of Tamariz), "Apuesta sorpresa" (“Surprise
bet”). It’s a highly recommended trick with the key card, ideal for
amateurs due to its simplicity, its surprise, and the good image of
a magician that allow you to transmit if you stage it with passion.
I present it generally like this: I say that I am able to detect a
selected card in the deck as I approach it. So, I start dealing cards
on the table one by one, but I put them face down after having
showed them, unlike the original version, which are put face up.
When the spectator's card appears I continue to show and
putting face-down cards until I stop and say I have detected his

236
or her card. I continue saying that the next card that will turn
over will be that of the spectator. The viewer knows that I am
wrong because his/her card has been already put on the table. I
take the next card without turning it over and pass it through the
cards on the table until I reach the spectator's. Spectators
continue believing that I will turn over the card I have in my hand,
but what I do is use it as a shovel to turn over the selection.

3- The Lying Jack of Spades

There are many card tricks that make reference to a lie

detector. The idea first appeared in the magazine "Sphinx"
(vol.26, No. 7, page 233) in 1927, in a trick by Ulysses Frederick
Simpson Grant (U. F. Grant) called "Tell the Truth Telephone."
The same article can be read reprinted in "The Fine Print" (No. 4,
February 1997, page 92). The routine basically consists of six
spectators choosing a card from a small group of cards. The
magician detects when each spectator lies about his or her
chosen card, until he comes across it. I propose the following
routine for the repertoire, which is one of the most liked by my
spectators. The initial idea of the routine is Vicent Dalban, who
proposed it to Ted Annemann in 1935 so that he could propose
solutions. It consists of the spectator dealing cards on the table
and naming them while the magician is on his back. The
spectator can lie when he wants, but the magician detects the
lies. That same year, in the extra summer issue of "Sphinx" (page
39), Henry Christ published the idea that the spectator should lie
only in the chosen card. This made the trick not so suspicious
about the magician knowing the order of the cards by heart, and
that the solution to it would be as simple as a key card.

237
 The presentation that I show you below came to my mind
in December of 1991, which has given me many funny successes
among my spectators.

You say that you are going to use a card as a lie detector.
The Jack of Spades (you remove that card). Then you ask for
example a lady to pick a card and keep it in her pocket, since we
are going to replace it with the Jack of Spades. So we placed the
Jack of Spades in the point of the deck where the card was taken,
but in fact we will apply the technique of "reverse spread" to
place the key card on the Jack of Spades. Then we turn our backs
and ask the lady to name cards one by one, and when she
reaches the Jack of Spades she says the name of the selected
card instead. You tell her that you will try to detect the lie
through the tone of her voice, so you urge her to avoid any kind
of hesitation, trembling voice, stoppages or stuttering, otherwise
you would discover where the lie is. In short, this is another fun
and intriguing way to divine cards.

Four and a half years after designing this routine, a friend

showed me the DVD series “Impromptu Card Magic” by Aldo
Colombini, which First Volume I discovered with surprise a trick
that was practically the same as this one. It was a routine by Tom
Daughherty called "The Nervous Ace.”

The reason for the Jack of Spades is a bit far-fetched, but I'll
explain it to you if you're curious. A cousin of mine (amateur card
magician) once told me that Spade cards are the "spec-ial" cards
in the deck, so that each time we have to choose a "naughty"
card, it should be a Spade card. I recalled that and decided for
this trick to select a picture card. The King and Queen sounded
too noble for that role, so finally it was decided the Jack.

238
 4- The Changeable Fingerprint

The origin of the idea of detecting a card by the fingerprints

of the viewer may be given by UF Grant, when he published his
routine "The Fingerprint Discovery" in his "Tricks with a One Way
Deck,” in 1935. Jean Hugard published it in his "Encyclopedia of
Card Tricks" with the title "Detected by Fingerprints," in 1937,
but without references. In 1945, J. G. Thompson published in
"My Best" a version called "Dick Tracy Card Trick," which he
attributed to Clyde Cairy. Since then, the magicians who most
spread the idea were Dai Vernon, Fred Kaps, Arturo de Ascanio
and Tony Giorgio. I want to share a fun and unexpected
presentation that came to me in a dream in December of 1991.
Whenever I have done it I have received applause, faces of
surprise and laughter. I didn’t hesitate to add it to the repertoire.

You ask a spectator to cut a small pile of card. The rest of

the deck will not intervene in the trick. This is done to prevent
the trick from lengthening with the risk of boredom. Then clean
the back of each card of the little pile rubbing it with your sleeve
or with the playing card mat, while you explain that you are
going to try to discover a card by the fingerprints of the spectator.
You can ask the spectators to help you by dramatising a little
more and making them participate more. Then shuffle these
cards with care not to touch the backs, holding them only by the
edges, causing some laughter. You can nonetheless touch them
on the face side. We ask for example a gentleman to select a
card and to impregnate his prints on the back. Meanwhile, we
will look at the second card from the bottom with a casual glance,
or just look at the bottom card and pass the one up to down with
a “double undercut.” The key card is the second bottom. We
return the card to the pile by placing it on the bottom and asking

239
him to cut several times. Then we hold the pile by the edges with
one hand while play as we look closely at the back of the top card,
and say: "This is not your card because it has no trace." Turn over
the card and ask that nobody tell you anything even if you make
a mistake. We place it on the table face down. We look at the
next one and do the same ... when the key card appears we put
it next to the others, face down. Now we know that the second
card below is the viewer's card. We say once again that we don’t
see any trace, so it is not the chosen card either. We do a double
turn over and show the spectator's card. We redo the double
turn over and put the top card on the table making the audience
believe that it is the chosen card. Finally we say that we already
have it, the fingerprint of the spectator, and that is why we
deduce that the next card to flip is yours. Then we ask the public
for the first time if you are right. When they say no, we play
being disappointed. We look at the back again and admit the
mistake saying: "that happens to me because I did not clean
them well at the beginning ... but, wait a minute, a magician
should have resources ..." Then, we play as if taking off the
fingerprint of the viewer, as if it were just a sticker. We play as
taking it with our fingers and carefully paste it on the other card.
Try to do the mime well to make it look really magical. Believe
yourself what you are doing in order to make feel the same to
the public. That is magic! By changing place the fingerprint, the
spectator's card now becomes the one the magician said. The
surprise is very well merged with the laughs.

240
 AFFINITIES

Routines related to the affinity of cards chosen by different

people, including the magician, are quite varied. The affinity
between spectators and magician causes a special feeling of
magic in the spectators, since they are directly involved. So I
thought about dedicate a section of the repertoire to it. This type
of tricks have their origin in "Nouvelles Récréations
Mathématiques et Physique" by Gilles-Edme Guyot (1769) where
there is an effect in which one spectator chooses the same card
as another from another deck. Subsequently, Robert-Houdin
published in "Les Secrets de la Prestidigitation et de la Magie"
(1868) a routine in which two spectators choose the same card
(page 227). In 2004, Magic Christian published in "Non Plus
Ultra" that Hofzinser performed an effect in which magician and
spectator chose the same card, even giving the exact date in
which he had showed this effect: January 3, 1857.

5- Magical Affinity with Two Decks

I learned this routine by Samuel Henry Sharpe from an

uncle of mine who taught it to me in the summer of 1990. It
wouldn’t be until 1998, with the reading of Jean Hugard's
"Encyclopedia of Card Trick,” that I would discover the name of
his creator and its title "Domination of Thought." In December of
that same year I came up with a special outcome for the classic
Sharpe effect, which I will show you next. I always start it with
the following comic beat; humour is a good way to draw
attention:

We say to a spectator: "If you were given a choice between

a 5 Euros bill, another 10 Euros, another 20, another 50, another
100, another 200 and another 500, which bill would you choose?"

241
After telling you that he would chose the 500 Euros bill, you
answer surprised that you would choose the same, that is, you
both have a great affinity. Then you continue saying that we are
going to check if it’s true that we have so much affinity with the
cards of the deck...

Using two decks (red and blue back), a spectator is asked to

choose one of them (for example, the blue one) and shuffle it
while the magician shuffle the other (the red one). Next the
cards are exchanged so that it is clear that both shuffle both
(now you have the blue one). You look at the bottom card of the
deck (blue) and hand it back to the viewer so that he or she
returns the red one to you. Now you know the card of the
bottom of the blue deck (suppose it is the 4 of Spades). You ask
the spectator to choose any card from the centre of his or her
deck, memorise it and place it on top while you supposedly do
the same with your deck, but in fact what we will do is look for
the 4 of Spades and take the card next to it as our chosen card.
We cut the deck at that same point, thus getting the 4 of Spades
in top of one of the cut packages. Next, we place our chosen card
(indifferent) on the pile that does NOT have the 4 of Spades in
top, and complete the cut thus leaving the 4 of Spades in top of
our deck. You ask the spectator to cut and complete the deck to
lose the card. Despite the mess that I have explained to you, the
sensation that is produced is that both of you have done the
same. You both exchange the decks again and ask the spectator
to look for and take out his or her chosen card from the red deck,
while you play to do the same with the blue one. What we do is
look for the 4 of Spades and take it with the spectator's card as a
single card to place it on top, so that the spectator's card is on
top second and 4 of Spades on top first. The original routine

242
would end with the coincidence of the card freely chosen by the
viewer, but in this version we will consider a different outcome.
We ask the viewer to turn over his o her card while we do the
same. The cards DO NOT coincide. We say that it’s very difficult
for these coincidences to happen, but that we can do "the ritual
of affinity.” So, you ask him or her to put a hand on the deck
while you do the same with yours. We join the palms of the
other hands and pronounce the words "magic affinity.” Next, we
flip the cards again and now! (Through a double lift) the cards
match. But the trick is not over yet. You say that now we have to
match our card, the 4 of Spades. As you say that, you re-do the
double lift and put the 4 of Spades on the table making believe
that it’s the coinciding card of the spectator, and make a casual
cut (to lose the true card of the spectator). You return your card
on your deck clearly while saying: "Let's try again by exchanging
the decks.” We do the ritual again after exchanging the decks,
but at the end of it we look at our card quickly and say that it has
not worked. Then, we say: "Ah! We also have to change hands!"
So, we joined hands that previously covered the decks and vice
versa. All this would suggest very well that nothing has happened
yet (when everything is done). Finally, we flip our corresponding
cards and it turns out that this time the magic affinity happens
with the magician's card, the 4 of Spades. Through a quick and
casual cut of our deck, if desired, you can check that the other
cards are lost in their respective decks.

Practically all the impromptu versions of tricks of this kind

can be learned in "Encyclopedia of Card Trick,” by Jean Hugard,
in the section "You Do as I Do Card Mysteries." I strongly
recommend the reading of this book, since through its more than
600 tricks a priceless general culture is acquired on the card

243
magic, as well as an endless source of inspiration. For the curious,
I wanted to inform that S.H. Sharpe was the one who took
charge of the translation of the legendary book "Nouvelle Magie
Blanche Devoilee" by Jean-Nicholas Ponsin in 1937, as well as the
works of Hofzinser (written by Ottokar Fischer in 1910) in 1931.
Sharpe was a magician who also wrote a lot about the theory of
magic.

6- Magical Affinity with Transposition

This version needs a previous preparation. It occurred to

me the night of January 5, 1991 while waiting for the Three Wise
Men to arrive (as Santa Claus in Christmas). The idea was the
result of the obsession I had at that time for effects regarding
card affinities. The final strike is a "killer.” I premiered it just the
next day, January 6, at a family reunion to mark the day of the
Three Wise Men.

We will use two decks as well of different colours on the

back. We look for any card in both decks, for example the 7 of
Clubs, and we exchange them of deck placing them in second
from bottom and face up. We keep the two decks in their cases
and it's ready.

We remove the decks from the cases and do a riffling

shuffle without altering the position of the intrusive cards. We
spread both decks carefully not to slide the face cards. We ask
for choosing one of the two decks. We ask for taking that deck
under the table or behind the back. For amateurs I recommend
in routines in which it’s necessary to hide a deck of cards, it is
done under the table, and not behind the back, since spectators
of amateur magicians usually peek behind their backs just to
nose about, something that does not usually happen under the

244
table . We ask the viewer to do the same as us: take a card from
the centre of the deck, put it on top of it, turn it over, cut and
complete. We just have to cut, but we should try to pretend that
we are doing exactly the same thing. At the end of these
operations we take the cards back to view and we exchange
them. We ask the spectator to look in our deck (face down) for
the card that we turned over, while we do the same with his/her.
The spectator will find the 7 of Clubs. We pass the card one by
one quickly, with the excuse of showing very clearly that there is
only one card back. When we get to 7 of Clubs we must be
careful not to show the true card that the spectator turned over,
which will be the second from that point. Another way of doing
this would be to simply extend the cards carefully until you see
the 7 of Clubs, but that depends on your ability and personal
confidence. Next we would pass the next two cards as one, and
show the rest of the deck. We cut and completed at the point
where the 7 of Clubs was, in order to have controlled the other
card in second from top. Thus, in a moment of distraction we
could put that card right again to clean the weakness of the trick.
When the spectators put an end to the affinity effect, comes the
great and unexpected surprise. You ask them to flip the cards.
They are on the opposite side!! Then you say that you both have
not only taken the same card from each other’s deck, but you
both have taken exactly the same card from each other's deck!

Later I found out a card trick by Martin Gardner called

“Power!” published in 1938 in “The Jinx” (No 41, p. 280), very
similar to this effect.

Note: "Unique Affinity.” Inspired by this same procedure I

came up with an idea as naive as striking in December of that
same year 1991. I premiered it on Christmas Eve with great

245
success. I called it "Unique Affinity." The preparation is the same,
only that the cards of different back are placed in top second and
face down. In addition we will apply a bit of double-sided stick
tape to the bottom card. The rest of the cards in both decks will
be blank! In the routine we spread both decks face down taking
care not to slide the second top. We ask for choosing a card
either of both decks to two spectators. These cards are placed on
top of the opposite decks, cut and completed. When you extend
the decks again you see a single card of different back, as is
logical, which turn out to be the same, becoming an Affinity
between two spectators. Then we said that there was no other
choice, since all the others are blank!!

7- Role Exchange

It’s very easy to make sure that a gambler will not cheat in
a card game; as easy as not allowing him to shuffle or deal, but
just doing it someone who doesn’t play. In the same way, in card
magic there are tricks in which the magician does NOT touch the
cards. There are not many tricks of this kind, but this is one of
those that can enter that small list. This is a classic among the
automatic tricks on which I came up with an idea that I didn’t pay
much attention to at the beginning, until I put it into practise
with great success. It’s about a final surprise that requires
altering the original routine procedure using certain techniques,
so it would stop being an automatic trick, but it’s still simple and
surprising. I've always liked it a lot because it's something that
they don’t really expect, especially the viewers who have
witnessed the original version before. Before explaining that
version, which I call "Role Exchange," I will talk about the original
trick. I learned it from an amateur friend in 1994, which learned
it from another friend ... Later, as good colleagues who share

246
knowledge I taught my version to this friend. Eleven years later,
in 2005, I finally found a reference on the origin of that trick, in
the book "Card College Lighter" by Roberto Giobbi, specifically in
chapter 2, with the title "The Spectator Does a Trick.” So I finally
found out that the trick was original to Al Leech, published in
"Cardmanship" in 1959, with the same title "The Spectator Does
a Trick.” The prolific and creative Nick Trost said to have come
independently with the same idea, which is in the compilation
"The Card Magic of Nick Trost" with the title of "Spectator's Card
Trick.” According to Trost, the similarity of both tricks was purely
coincidental. Tony Faro also published it in the magazine
"Pabular" (Vol.1, No. 1) with the title "Spectator Magician,” in
1976, reference given by Daryl Martínez when presenting his
personal and popular version, "Untouched.” In short, it is a very
interesting trick that depends mainly on how you present it, as
stated by Daryl Martínez. Finally I will explain this personal
contribution.

You tell for example a lady that this time it will be she who
plays the role of magician. So you both touch your hands and you
pass the magic to her. Then, after she shuffles the deck a bit, you
go to shuffle it and say you are going to choose any card whilst
the magician (the spectator in this case) look away. What you do
is look at the top two cards. If they were of the same suit we
would have to put another card up so that the suits are different.
Nobody will suspect anything of what you do since you are
supposed to be looking for the card that you want. Let's suppose
that in top are the King of Diamonds and the 2 of Clubs. Then you
will have to look for the King of Clubs and the 2 of Diamonds.
Once found, put them on the bottom and take them as if they
were one. Suppose you see the 2 of Diamonds (the King of Clubs

247
would be hidden below in the form of a double card). You say
that you already have the chosen card and that you are going to
bow it so that it differs well from the others. You leave the
double card arched on the table near to you, and draw attention
to the deck. You tell the spectator-magician that she has to find
out what your card is, for which you ask her to deal cards on the
table until she feels she must stop, letting herself be carried
away by the magic you have passed on to her. When she stops,
you tell her that the cards she has left in her hands are no longer
useful. While you say that you take those cards from her hands,
leave them on the table and place your chosen card (double) on
top of the pile. You emphasise that thanks to the curvature it is
clearly differentiated from the others. Then you tell the
magician-spectator to form two piles with the other cards,
dealing them one by one on the table and stopping as before
where she wishes. At the top of each pack will be the cards that
were originally in the top of the deck, the King of Diamonds and
the 2 of Clubs. You take your double curved card and place it
clearly in the middle of those two packages formed by the
magician-spectator. The curvature will help the two cards to not
slide each other. Finally you ask her to flip both top cards. Since
your card is 2 of Diamonds, you say that the 2 of Clubs will
indicate the value and the King of Diamonds will indicate the suit
of your card. You turn over your card and that's the way it is. The
spectator has fulfilled as a magician. Then you put the double
chosen card on top of the pile that was previously discarded. You
insist that it’s the only curved card and that is why there is no
doubt that it’s yours. While you say that, flatten the double card
against the back, you leave the 2 of Diamonds in top and let the
King of Clubs fall on the table making believe that it is the curved
2 of Diamonds. Cut and complete the pile and leave it on the

248
table. You place that curved King of Clubs face down in the
middle of the two piles, as before. The public won’t doubt that it
is 2 of Diamonds due to the curvature. The first effect
corresponds to the original trick, while my idea of the double
card is to produce a second effect. It consists of the spectators
wondering why is it "read" the card (for example) from right to
left and not vice versa. I mean, why is the 2 of Diamond and not
the King of Clubs? If nobody asks you that, you can draw
attention to that aspect. Then you say in a humorous way that
"the current legislation of card magic" establishes that the
readings must be from right to left. As now the magician is the
spectator, the reading was done like this, from her right to her
left. Then you say: "Now I ask you to give me back the magic."
You put your hands together again so that she transmits the
magic back to you. Then you notice that since you have the
magic back now, the reading should be done to the contrary
(from your right to your left), resulting in this time the King of
Clubs. Then, you ask the spectator to turn over the chosen card
(which will remain curved) and they will be surprised that it is
actually the King of Clubs!

Note: It’s interesting and it’s important to know that this

trick can be done with more than two predictions. In fact, as
many as you want, because if you form three or four or five or all
the piles you want, the cards that will appear on top of each pile
will always be the ones that were at the bottom of the deck,
according to their order.

249
 8- Reciprocal Divination

Obsessing with this type of routine, and for the usual

Christmas shows, I came up with this idea in December 1990. Its
solution was so naive that I didn’t imagine that it would surprise
so much or that it was an idea so old, as I discovered later. I also
understood that we shouldn’t evaluate a trick just for our
opinion, but also for the point of view of the spectators, because
when we believe that a trick isn’t very good we may be very
wrong!

The trick is totally impromptu. A deck is shuffled for

example by a lady. You ask her to look for any card or the one
she likes the most. She shows it to the rest of the viewers (we do
not see it). We spread the deck face down and ask her to return
the card at the point she wants. During this process we will
slightly bend the corner of the chosen card. The spectator
shuffles. Next, we look for another card without being seen by
the spectators, we lose it and shuffle. We don’t need to
memorise it. During this process we will secretly find out what
the spectator's card is with the help of the bent corner, as well as
repairing that bent secretly. The spectator shuffles the deck
again. Next we will say that we will try to transmit our magic
power to the spectator so that she is carried away by that power
and try to divine our card (that of the magician). Pantomimes
later, we ask her to trust the magic and look for the card that she
thinks is ours and put it face down on the table. We try to do the
same with the spectator's card, but what we will actually do is
find out what is the card left by the spectator on the table, that is,
the missing card in the deck. While pretending we are looking,
we will quickly count the cards of the same colour. If there were
26 reds it would mean that there are 25 blacks and that "ours" is

250
black. We pretend a lot of difficulty to decide and we "search"
again. This time we count the clubs cards (for example). If there
were 12 clubs cards it would mean that the aforementioned is
that suit. It would only be to find out which card of clubs is
missing ("our") through a third and last search. In this last search
we would add the values and subtract it to 91. The result would
be the value of the missing clubs card. Suppose it was the 7 of
Clubs. We took the spectator's card (the one that had the bent
corner) and put it face down on the table. We say out loud that
we have finally decided, and announce what it is. We hit! We
turn it over to check it. The spectators will consider it quite
meritorious to have it right after so many "indecisions.” The
scheme of this trick is precisely to make believe that it has taken
us a lot of work to divine the spectator's card, when in fact what
we have worked hard is to divine our own! Then we say that we
are going to name out loud and for the first time "our favourite
card,” the Seven of Clubs. Nobody will explain how on earth it is
possible that the spectator has divined the magician's favourite
card!! You will say that it was thanks to the transmission of your
magical power!

Fourteen years later, expanding my cultural horizons in the

world of card magic, thanks to the miracle of the Internet, I
discovered that this way of divining a card was an Art itself. In
fact there are even competitions about finding a missing card in
a deck as quickly as possible. Today it is known as "clocking a
deck." This procedure as a resource to do magic with cards is one
of the oldest in the world, probably the most. The first written
record dates from 1478, in the manuscript "Perugia," by Luca
Pacioli. Since then various ways of achieving this as quickly as
possible have been published, such as Thomas Johnson's "Dainty

251
Conceits" (1630), "Natürliches Zauberbuch" by anonymous
author (1745, page 230), in "Rational Recreations" by William
Hooper (1782), in "Book of Card Tricks" by Professor Kunard
(1888), in "Der Moderne Kartenkünstle" by Friedrich Wilhelm
Conradi (1896, page 100), "Magisches Allerlei" also by FW
Conradi (1903, page 102), in the Magazine "Stanyon's Magic" by
Satya Ranjan Roy (publication of March 1905), in "Here is New
Magic" by Joe Berg (1937, a trick called "Coincidental Location"),
in "Greater Magic "by the amateur John Northern Hilliard (1938),
in "Scarne On Card Tricks" by John Scarne, a trick by Charles T.
Jordan called "The Memory Test" (1950), in the second
publication of "Ibidem," a great trick called "Half a Headache" by
the amateur Kenneth Beale (August 1955), in "Mathematics
Magic and Mystery" by the amateur Martin Gardner (1956), in
"The Epitome Location" by Harry Lorayne (1976), as well as in
"Card Counting" by Karl Fulves (1982). When I came up with
"Reciprocal Divination" independently I thought it might be a
well-known concept, but I did not imagine it would be so old. On
another hand, my method is elementary, while there are
ingenious methods to achieve it much faster among the
references I have given, although they require a lot of practise
and great mental ability. In 2008, while I was doing researches to
write this book, I discovered a trick by Paul Cummins called "Tap
a Lack" which routine was identical to "Reciprocal Divination."
Shortly after, I discovered another trick called "Diplopia" by Paul
Vigil also with an equal routine. I don’t know the methods used
by Cummins and Vigil, but they must be great in view of how
tremendously fast they located the card. I want to finish with
another genius: Pit Hartling, to whom we owe a wonderful
routine called "Triathlon" in his "Little Green Lecture Notes,” in
which he uses this principle very cleverly.

252
 MATHEMATICAL AND AUTOMATIC TRICKS

There is a myriad of mathematical and automatic tricks.

There are books dedicated especially to them. However, it’s not
advisable to expand exclusively on this type of tricks if your wish
is to firmly express the idea that you are a magician. The public
that only witnesses this type of tricks could end up getting the
self-functioning nature that exists in them. Variety would be
recommendable, do tricks of all kinds in a random way so that
the public doesn’t justify your magic based only on possible
mathematical combinations. Many of these tricks are based on
picturesque special shuffles to combine the cards in a certain
way. For example, the so-called "Australian shuffle," also known
as "down under deal," by which you can deduce that you are
trying to combine the cards in some way. The name of
"Australian shuffle" is because John P. Hamilton called it in the
late 40s without specifying a reason, according to Karl Fulves.
Other shuffles of this type are the “anti-faro shuffle,” “milk
shuffle” or “Klondike shuffle,” “Monge shuffle,” “CATO shuffle,”
and so on. If we did too many mathematical tricks, these shuffles
and other procedures not very justified could make it difficult to
transmit the idea of magic, so I consider it important to alternate
the mathematical tricks with those that are not.

Of course you do not have to stress to be especially

considered a magician if it’s not your will, but rather a good
connoisseur of mathematical curiosities that hide a deck of cards,
and without having to justify any procedure. But if that isn’t your
case and you want to show a pronounced image of a magician,
it’s better to select the mathematical tricks that are less
mathematical or that more disguise their automatic nature, in
addition to alternate them with tricks that require techniques in

253
order to "confuse" them, such as John Scarne used to do, so that
all effects had the same mystery, regardless of whether they
were automatic or technical.

In the summer of 1992 I came up in a dream with an idea to

understand the mathematical principles applied to a deck of
cards in a totally visual way, without the need to apply formulas.
It’s about imagining that a deck of cards is like a necklace of 52
beads joined together magnetically. Each bead would represent
a card with its suit and number. If we had such an device, when
we applied mathematical principles to a deck, we could do it
parallel to the necklace and see how the positions of the cards
(beads) change in a visual way, understanding more clearly why
these principles work. It would be something like analysing a
deck analogically, like when you use an abacus to do calculations
instead of an electronic calculator.

9- A Lost Child

The prolific writer and translator Richard Vollmer

specialised in creating and divulging automatic tricks, so he
studied with great interest a classic and anonymous
mathematical principle whose versatility gave rise to a wide
variety of card tricks. It is generally known as “the 11 card
principle.” Once this principle is understood you get surprised at
the amount of possibilities it offers to develop very diverse
routines. The idea of the principle was discovered in a book
published in 1593 called "Giochi Di Carte Bellissimi," by Horacio
Galasso, something that was learned thanks to the magical
research magazine, "Gibecière," edited by Stephen Minch,
specifically in the vol. 2, no. 2, p. 164. From this book also dates
the first reference about the "tune-up" of cards, that is, to alter

254
the original appearance of the cards in a homemade way to use
them in card magic. The next reference to this principle dates
from 1857, in the anonymous book "The Magician's Own Book"
with the title "To Ascertain the Number of Points on the Three
Unseen Cards" (page 64). Subsequently, the authorship of this
book was attributed to George Arnold, although other sources
indicate that they may have been H. L. Williams with John
Wyman. Professor Hoffmann published an application of the
principle in his work "Modern Magic" in 1876 (page 49). Also in
the famous “Encyclopedia of Card Trick” by Jean Hugard there is
an application called "Coincidence Extraordinary" (1937). In
"Scarne on Card Tricks" by John Scarne (1950) we find
"Mathematical Finder" by Henry Christ, and "Allerchrist Card
Trick" by Bert Allerton. The well-known mathematician and
magic enthusiast, Martin Gardner, was not going to be less when
adding his ideas on the principle in his book "Mathematics Magic
and Mystery" (page 7), as "A Baffling Prediction" (1954). In
volume 2 of "Vernon Chronicles,” written by Stephen Minch, we
find "Affinities" (1988). We can find one of the various ideas of
Vollmer in his "Stunning Card Magic," written together with Aldo
Colombini, called "Pretty Close to a Miracle." Also in the fourth
volume of the DVD series "Impromptu Card Magic" by Aldo
Colombini we can see another idea of Vollmer on the principle,
called "Strike a Match." Roberto Giobbi published "Numerology"
in volume 3 of his "Card College” based precisely on ideas of
Vollmer, Henry Christ and Martin Gardner. Vicente Canuto in his
"Cartomagia Fundamental" (fundamental card magic) shows us
his personal presentation with the title “La Cuenta Atrás” (the
countdown). As for me, and based on the reflections of Martin
Gardner on this principle, I develop the following story called "A
Lost Child,” in December 1999. This routine could be located in

255
the group of metaphorical stories, but being this singular
mathematical principle I preferred to leave it in this group.

You hand the deck to be shuffled while you show a

Christmas postcard inside an envelope. You tell the story that
when there is a big problem God sends an angel to help people
solve it. While you talk, have a look at the bottom card; Three of
Spades. You say that you, as a magician, will play the role of God
(Wow!), so you assign any card from the deck to an angel.
Secretly you write on the Christmas postcard "the chosen angel
will be the Three of Spades." Then you tell that in a town a child
was lost on the Christmas Eves, so the festivities were
interrupted and everyone began to look for him desperately. You
ask for picking a card (the child); Seven of Diamonds. It’s lost and
controlled at the second bottom by the Hofzinser spread cull
technique, for example. We say that the town was somewhat
peculiar, since it had thirteen neighbourhoods of thirteen streets
each. So, there were thirteen detectives, one for each
neighbourhood, who began an indefatigable search. As you say
that, you ask for choosing thirteen cards from the deck, taking
care not to let picking the first and second bottoms. We turn
over these thirteen cards and ask if any of them is the chosen
one (the lost child). When they say no, we tell that the arduous
search of the detectives did not pay off. Next we say that one of
those detectives believed to have important clues to locate the
child. Spectators freely choose that detective, that is, one of
those thirteen cards; Ten of Clubs. We say that the other
detectives continued with the search throughout the town.
While you say that we lose two of the twelve remaining cards in
the middle of the deck, and the other ten we put them on
bottom as if we just wanted to accelerate the process of

256
collecting them. Thus, the Three of Spades is in eleventh position
from bottom, and the selected card in twelfth. The chosen
detective, Ten of Clubs, begins his investigation. We say that
since it’s a 10, his investigations lead him to the neighbourhood
10, street 3, since 3 is what is needed to get to 13. Then we deal
three cards face down over the Ten of Clubs face up, but letting
see its index. There he found someone (the next card in the
deck); Two of Spades, whom the detective asked about the boy.
Then he answers that he saw what it looked like a lonely child in
the district 2 (because it's a 2), street 11 (what is needed to get
to 13); same operation as before. There, the detective thought
he would find the boy, but only found another person (the next
card in the deck); Eight of Diamonds, who told him that he had
seen a child in the district 8, street 5. Same operation, but it
wasn’t there either (the next card in the deck is not the chosen
card). Then you say that the detective needed to find out the
exact number on the street, and deducted it from the previous
clues, adding the values of the people he found, 10 (of Clubs), 2
(of Spades) and 8 (of Diamonds), total 20. Definitely, the lost
child should be at number 20 on 5th street of neighbourhood 8.
We count dealing cards from that point in the deck, look at the
card number 20 and discover the 3 of Spades (the 7 of Diamonds
will be on top of the 20 cards dealt). You tell that the detective,
feeling desperate, only found a homeless person. You take the 3
of Spades and show it both sides. You say that the detective
didn’t know what to do, but the tramp suddenly said to him:
"You are not doing things right ... at Christmas things are done
differently, letting yourself be guided more by intuition than by
the tracks." Having said that, we apply the anonymous technique
known as "rub-a-dub vanished" which can be found on page 301
of "Expert Card Technique" by Hugard and Braue. Thus, we make

257
believe that we have the Three of Spades hidden between the
table and our palm, when in fact we left it in top of the pack of
ten cards that remain in our hands. So we say that the tramp got
between some cardboard boxes, and as the detective went to
look inside, he saw that he had disappeared mysteriously (we
raise our hands and show that there is nothing). Then we reveal
the prediction of the Christmas postcard, "the chosen angel will
be the Three of Spades." That vagabond was the chosen angel!
We shuffle the 20 cards by peeling the 7 of Diamonds from top
to bottom, and put them on the remaining ten. This will cause
the 7 of Diamonds to be in eleventh position from the bottom
(above the "angel") and will give a total feeling of mixing. Collect
all the other cards from the table except the detective, Ten of
Clubs, and place them on the deck or do a riffle shuffle to
emphasise the feeling of mixing. You say that finally the
detective, desperate, decides to pay attention to the vagabond
and is carried away by intuition. So, put the Ten of Clubs face
down and ask a spectator to choose a number between one and
thirteen with passion; the seven. Then we deal seven cards doing
the same operation as before (only with the chosen number at
will). We do it twice more without showing the face of any card
during the whole process, only with the numbers chosen by the
spectators! That is, with everyone's intuition. Suppose that the
other numbers chosen are three and eight, so that the three will
have ten cards on top and the eight will have five. We ended by
adding 7 + 3 + 8. So, eighteen cards are dealt. The next card is
the Seven of Diamonds! The child was found!

The tremendous power of this effect lies in the free choice

of numbers by the spectators at the end, that is, when it seemed
something necessarily calculated by the cards before, the

258
spectators discover that the value of the cards are irrelevant, but
their intuition! The outcome of the routine "kills them," looking
like something really miraculous. Thanks to Gardner's reflections
on the principle, I discovered that the trick worked the same
even by randomly choosing the values from 1 to 13.

As a finishing touch, while the viewers believe that

everything is over, you could palm the 3 of Spades which will be
right after of the 7 of Diamonds (and of which they may have
forgotten), and you make it appear from the air like a true angel.

10- The Final 3

In December of 1989, experimenting with a deck of cards, I

dealt the cards of the deck one by one forming two piles. I
ignored the card in the first pile (the one that started with the
first card), and repeated the same operation with the cards in
the other pile. Continue like this until I have only one card. I did it
with the deck in a new deck order and I found out that the final
card was always the one that was initially positioned 22nd from
the top. Then I took advantage of it to create a trick that
consisted of forcing the 22nd card by a rifle force and leaving it
there. Then proceed as I explained before, only this time the first
pile would be formed with the face cards and the second one on
the back. Thus, while operating, the viewer is asked to say "stop"
when he or she sees the card, which will never be seen until
there is only one card left, making the routine exciting, magical
and funny at the same time. I premiered it successfully in those
Christmas of 1989.

Nothing less than twenty years later, I discovered on the

Internet through videos of amateur card magicians, a trick
known as "The Final 3.” The procedure was the same, only the

259
cards revealed at the end were three, the last three. I
understood that this detail greatly improved the effect, so I
carried it out. The reactions of surprise on the part of my
spectators convinced me to select it for my general repertoire, in
addition to the memories that it brought to me from childhood. I
don’t know if this trick is published somewhere, since nobody
gave references to it, so it seems to be an amateur idea for
amateurs. So I'll explain what it is, since after all it’s an
improvement on a personal idea I had twenty years ago.

A deck is shuffled and three spectators are asked to select a

card each. While they show the cards to the rest of the audience,
you take the chance to make four piles of cards on the table in a
specific way: one of 10 cards, another of 15, another of 15 and
the last one made up of the remaining 9 cards. As you do it
quickly you say that you are going to make four more or less
equal piles, which can help to excuse why it seems that you are
counting cards (to make sure they are more or less equal). You
ask each spectator to memorise his or her card and put one of
them on the first pile you made. Then, that same viewer cut a
small pile of the second pile (of 15 cards) and put it on top of the
first to lose the card freely. Then you ask the second spectator to
put his or her card on the second pile, cut a small pile of the third
one (of 15 cards) and put it on the second to lose the card freely.
Finally, you tell the third spectator to put his or her card on the
third pile while you take the fourth (of 9 cards) and put it on top
of the third to lose the third card. Then you collect everything in
the opposite direction, that is, the pile where the third
spectator's card is on that of the second and everything on the
first. For the trick to go well we need to pass the first four cards
from top to bottom. Whenever I have seen this trick done, the

260
magician just take four cards from top to bottom, which seemed
a bit suspicious to me, since the audience would understand that
the magician needs to do that. So I thought to solve it by double
undercuts, so that the spectators believe that you are doing
random cuts instead of something specific. We can do four
double undercuts or only three or only two, depending on how
many cards you take in each cut, as you prefer. Four double
undercuts maybe a little boring. Two would be enough.
Spectators’ cards will be positioned in 6th, 22nd and 38th place
from the top of the deck. So, you say that you are going to deal
cards on the table, one face up and another face down until you
finish the deck, forming two piles. You ask the three spectators
to pay attention to their respective card, and that the first one to
see it says "stop.” This is what you do with the first round, but
you will notice that none of the three cards appears. You ask
them to be attentive since it’s possible that they miss it. You
could re-check the face-up card pile to see if their card has been
showed. You must dress the trick with comedy insisting that they
stare at it. While you are dealing you can exclaim: "Say stop!" So
they reply: "But we don’t see them!" You make the second round.
You exclaim: "Are you sure?! That’s weird!" When you have three
left they will be those of the three spectators. As you can see it’s
the same but with three cards at the end.

Note: The creative and prestigious Woody Aragon uses an

ingenious method to get a thought-out card to the 22nd position
in the deck, in his "Omega = Alpha" from his book "A la Carta,"
based on a mathematical principle called "two piles principle."
This principle was already published in "Expert Card Technique"
by Hugard and Braue (1940), in a trick called "It Must Be Magic"
(page 382). Ed Marlo published in "Faro Notes" (1958) an idea he

261
called "Automatic Placement," using a similar procedure. Ramón
Riobóo, in his work "Thinking the Impossible," explores this
principle very well. Later I discovered the existence of a book
called "50 Tricks You Can Do, You Will Do, Easy To Do," written
by Rufus Steele in 1946, in which he already worked with this
idea in a trick called "Number Trick," attributed to Van Osdol.

In addition, in 2012 I found out that the only one card

version I described at the beginning was published in “The Royal
Road to Card Magic” by Hugard and Braue, titled “The Tantalizer.”

11- Between the Two Red Queens

This is a funny and ingenious spelling trick I learned in

October 2014, just one month before ending this book. It struck
me so much that I decided at the last minute to choose it instead
of other candidate tricks that I had in mind for this section of the
repertoire. It was shown to me by a great amateur friend, who
told me that he had learned it on the Internet through videos of
amateurs from different countries, who presented and explained
it. In those videos nobody gave references in particular about an
original creator. I searched the Internet for any reference to its
origin or publication, if any, as I did with all the tricks in this
repertoire, but this time I could not find anything else that those
amateurs performing and explaining it. Maybe it's just another
great trick by amateurs to amateurs. I found it quite interesting
because the mathematics of the trick was very well camouflaged
by the great metaphorical excuse of spelling. Personally I am not
very fond of spelling tricks because they are limited by languages,
but this interested me when I found out their English version,
since my friend showed it to me in the Spanish version: “atrapar
una con dos reinas” (“to catch one with two queens”). Also I

262
found out that the English version was actually the original one.
It’s a simple, funny and magical trick. It is worth having it in the
repertoire of a good amateur. However, it’s too brief, so it’s not
uncommon to be asked to repeat it again and again, so I thought
about designing a routine of three repetitions with small touches
that would increase the bewilderment of the spectators. So, I will
show you this routine as a personal contribution to this splendid
spelling trick:

We take two Queens out from the deck and ask for
choosing thirteen cards saying that we will reduce the deck to a
quarter, since this trick would be very long if we let's use the full
deck. Then we ask for selecting a card from the thirteenth
through a spread. We control it to bottom by the “Hofzinser
spread cull card control.” Then shuffle a little bit without altering
the bottom card. We put the Queens face up at each end of the
packet; one at the bottom and one at the top. Next we spell the
title of the trick per word. This is, first the word "between" by
dealing on the table a card for each letter, forming a pile of
seven cards. The rest of the cards are placed on top of the pile of
seven cards. Then we do exactly the same spelling "the,” and so
on with the rest of the words. Finally we spread the cards on the
table and we will see that there is only one card between the
two Queens, as the spelling says! The selected card! Spectators
may be remained unsatisfied due to the brevity, but we say
immediately: "but we are going to do it more clearly; let's put the
Queens to the test." We shuffle the cards, do a double turn over
and say: "for example this card." We redo the double turn over
and put the card on the table (a different one). A quick overhand
shuffle to take the card we showed from top to bottom. Do a
spread on the table. We ask for introducing the card on the table

263
to the point where they want in the spread, freely. We perform
the same effect, giving the feeling that the Queens can locate the
card no matter where the spectators place it. This increases the
climax and the bewilderment of the spectators. Finally, as the
third and final effect, we say that this time will be even more
difficult for the Queens. In fact, we're going to make it impossible
for them! We spread the cards and ask for selecting one. We cut
and complete at the point where they choose the card and do a
double turn over at that point. We show the card, redo the
double and say that we are going to put it here ... we lose it in
the middle of the deck! That is, the rest of the deck that we were
not using. The spectators will be very intrigued. We say that now
we will have twelve cards. We counted them face down while
placing the card that was shown in position 4 from bottom. We
pretend that we make fun of the Queens, implying that now it’s
impossible for them to catch the card even if we apply the
"magic spelling," since it’s not even among the cards... Well, it
turns out that if we do the same procedure in those conditions,
the trick works! Try it. This third climax totally perplexed the
spectators, not only because of the magical reappearance of the
card, but because it is done with twelve cards instead of thirteen,
so that the most observers would lose even the mathematical
logic of it!

As I said before, I’m not very fond of spelling tricks because

they are limited by the languages, but I liked this trick so much
that I devised a version even in Japanese language for the
relatives of my wife. Here I show it for those interested:

じょうおうさま (7) にまい (3) はさむ (3) カード (3) でき

ましたよ (6)

264
 It means "two queens achieved to catch the card."

So far, that’s my humble contribution to this subtle trick.

The first printed reference on the idea of finding cards by

the metaphorical spelling card-letter dates from 1886, on page
46 of Henri Garenne's "The Art of Modern Conjuring." This book
describes a famous trick that is not uncommon to see still today:
"Spelling Bee."

12- Shuffle Bored

Bob Hummer, a peculiar semi-professional magician, came

up with a principle that entailed a great tool for the Art of Card
Magic. He described it in a document called “Face up Face down
Mysteries”, around 1940, although it seems that it wasn’t
published until 1946 by Frank Werner. A few years after that, in
December of 1967, in the Linking Ring magazine, Charles Hudson
published “Baby Hummer”, which is the trick that use the fewest
number of cards making use of this principle (4 cards). Hudson
called the principle CATO (Cut And Turn Over).

The principle consists in turning over two cards from the

top, cut and complete the pile, and repeat it as much as the
spectator fancy. Finally, the magician can predict how many
cards there will be face up or down, among others predictions.

Many card magicians have made use of this principle to

create great card tricks. Steve Freeman, one of the disciples of
Dai Vernon, conceived a great trick known as “Royal Hummer”
around 1976, according to the magician Hideo Kato, which got
the Freeman’s permission to publish it in Japan at that time. The
first publication of that Freeman’s trick in English language, as far

265
as I know, is from the year 2012, in “Magical Mathematics” by
Persi Diaconis and Ron Graham (p. 8).

The effect or routine most famous in relation to this

principle is maybe the well known “Shuffle Bored” by Simon
Aronson, published in his “Bound to Please,” and inspired by Bob
Hammer’s “Face up Prediction” (“Half-a-dozen Hummers,” 1940).
The effect of “Shuffle Bored” consists in the following:

Two spectators riffle shuffle each half of a deck of cards,

again and again, cutting and turning over the cut piles in a really
messy way. After that, the two half are riffle shuffle again,
recomposing the entire deck. Finally, the magician predicts how
many cards are faced up or down, which ones are red and black,
among other predictions.

Vicente Canuto shows in his book “Cartomagia

Fundamental” (“fundamental card magic”), an impromptu
version of Harry Lorayne with the title “Inexplicable,” a title that
actually displays a good proper way to show the impact of the
effect. That Harry Lorayne version is originally called “The
Equalizer,” which can be found in his book “Trend Setters.”

When you get well this trick you’ll be able to create your
own versions with predictions more detailed and accurate, which
makes this trick something almost interactive for the magician
that work on it. Simply great! Simply Simon!

Apart from the Lorayne’s version there are others great

versions like “Jeopardy” by Paul Green, “Pre-deck Ability” by
Aldo Colombini, “Wait until Dark” by John Bannon, “Rain Man”
by Lennart Green, or “Bored of Shuffling” by Woody Aragón.

A great effect that can’t lack in a good repertoire!

266
 13- Prior Commitment

This is another card-mathematical curiosity with wide

possibilities to which Simon Aronson took more advantage than
anyone else. It is based on the idea of a distance key card.
Aronson called the principle "Undo Influence." Michael Powers
previously called it "PM Principle," although Powers didn’t go in
depth as much as Aronson about his possibilities, reason why it’s
known more specifically by the denomination of Aronson.
Powers published the principle in a small 10 pages pamphlet
called "The PM Principle" in 1990, while Aronson did a real
mental exercise in his monumental work "Try the Impossible" in
2001. It is appreciated the intense effort of inquiry of Aronson
and the years dedicated to it, because thanks to that effort we
can enjoy this sublime principle to the fullest. Dave Solomon and
Steve Draun created some great tricks based on mathematical
principles of a similar nature.

The effect of "Prior Commitment" by Aronson consists in

that two spectators freely cut a deck and memorise the cut card.
The cut piles are returned to the deck inverted. Then the
magician takes the two Jokers from the inside of the spread deck
and places them on the table. Next he takes them again to his
ears to let them wise him up to the position of the spectator
cards. Likewise, the magician names the position of both and the
success is verified. To conclude, it is discovered that each joker
has engraved on its back the number of said positions!

Obviously there are algebraic formulas to understand this

principle, but if you prefer to understand it in a more visual way,
I suggest you make a results table. The initial positions of the
Jokers in the Aronson book’s example are 10th and 29th,

267
resulting in positions 18th and 43rd. Here are some examples of
other results:

Position of the Jokers 12 - 31. Result 18 – 41

Position of the Jokers 8 - 27. Result 18 – 45

Position of the Jokers 10 - 20. Result 20 – 43

As we develop the results table we can adapt several

different spellings to decorate the effect, as dictated by the idea
of Aronson himself with his trick "Queenspell" in "Try the
Impossible.” I came up with a special spelling for Christmas Eve
of 2002. The trick consisted of using two blank cards on both
sides instead of two Jokers. On one side I drew a Christmas tree,
and on the other I wrote “Felices Navidades” ("Merry
Christmas.") In the other card, on one side I drew fireworks and
on the other I wrote "Prospero Año Nuevo 2003" (Happy New
Year 2003.”) When I reached the related part of the trick I
showed the drawings of the cards, then I turned over the first
one (the Christmas tree) to show “Felices Navidades” ("Merry
Christmas.") Then, the spelling is done to get to the spectator's
card, which will represent the letter "y" (“and”) to continue with
the other prediction card of "Prospero Año Nuevo 2003" (Happy
New Year 2003,”) which will lead to position 43 whenever we
spell the number 2003 in letters (“dos mil tres”; in Spanish). So, I
wanted to show you that just as an example of the use we can do
of this splendid card trick. Of course you can experiment in
English and any other languages. The formula for this specific
spelling would be:

Position of Jokers 10 - 28. Result 16 - 43.

268
 Three years later I found out with surprise a video on the
Internet in which an amateur did a presentation about this trick
also with Christmas themes.

Once you do "Prior Commitment" it would be convenient to

change values, since it would be suspect that the result was
always the same, especially if you do it to the same people,
which is the great weakness of tricks like this, such as for
example "Number One" by Harry Lorayne. They both are very
amazing tricks, but with an identical result as for the position of
the chosen cards or numbers. I personally tried not to promote
too much "Prior Commitment" so they wouldn’t ask me to do it
much, and leave it as an occasional trick.

The idea of a distance key card appeared first in "Modern

Magic" (page 44), written by Professor Hoffmann in 1876. In
"Expert Card Technique" by Hugard and Braue (1940) there is a
trick called "The Twenty-Sixth Location" (page 398), which uses
the idea in a generalised way, and five pages later, in 403, we find
"A Certain Card Trick,” a true gem of Percy Abbott based on the
principle of location by estimation of the cut of the spectator,
trick that we can learn as well in the "Encyclopedia of Card Trick”
of Hugard and Braue with the title "The Card Miracle-Certain”
(Abbott’s version; the second one, page 37).

14- Double Prediction

This idea has given rise to several presentations of great

value in card magic. In Spain it’s known as “Double Prediction”
since Vicente Canuto published it as so in his book “Cartomagia
fundamental” (fundamental card magic). The idea was published
for the first time in the number 83 of the weekly magic magazine
"The Jinx,” on March 9, 1940, with the title of "Hidden Mystery,”

269
whose idea was credited to Herb Rungie. The Magazine "The
Jinx" was edited by the prestigious and imaginative Ted
Annemann, and had a total of 151 editions. Precisely, Annemann
published a trick called "LocatriK" in number 39 (December 1937),
similar to Rungie’s, which could have been the origin of this
versatile idea. Subsequently, Karl Fulves realised the potential of
it and popularised the effect in "Impromptu Opener,” in 1979,
with the title "Stopped Twice.” Finally the effect was
immortalised as "Gemini Twins" in "More Self-Working Card
Trick" by Karl Fulves himself, in 1984. Just from this original book
I learned it when I borrowed it in 1999. Back then I was in the
Navy as a professional military, something that I feel especially
fortunate now, since that book was lent to me by a sergeant very
fond of card magic that told me about having acquired it during
navigation to England. But that's not all, because this "crazy"
passionate sergeant card magician, during my three years of
military life (May 1997 / May 2000), lent me a lot of teaching
material on card magic ... for instance ... thanks to him I learned
about the magic of Dai Vernon (written by Lewis Ganson), Alex
Elmsley (written by Stephen Minch), Ed Marlo, Kaplan, Derek
Dingle (written by Richard Kaufman), Harry Lorayne, Karl Fulves,
Arturo de Ascanio, Juan Tamariz and José Carroll. As you see, he
had a real library of card magic. I spent three years in the Army
soaking up all the best that existed and exist in the world of card
magic. Most of them were originals in English, which also proved
to be a powerful incentive to improve my modest level of English
at that time. I would buy later the books of Ascanio and Tamariz
to study them carefully. In short, my three years as a naval
soldier were adorned with this cultural enrichment about card
magic, but also with bad experiences, since my Ascanio and
Tamariz’s books were stolen while I was living in a shared flat.

270
 I was obsessed with this effect because of how simple and
effective it was, so that I came up with several ideas
independently in that same year 1999. So then I will explain what
the trick is about in order to explain as well the ideas and
reflections I got from it.

The original trick consists of a prediction of two cards that

the magician gets to locate through its “soul mate” by a
manoeuvre made by one or two spectators. My thought is to
dispense with the prediction effect and transform it into an
impossible location effect of two chosen cards. That is, I hand the
deck to be shuffled. Previously I would put the two Jokers on the
table. I control to the bottom a selected card and I take it to the
top by an overhand shuffle. Then I do exactly the same with
another selected card. This will cause the card on the top of the
first spectator to go back to bottom. That is, the selected cards
would be in bottom and top. I say that I will turn both spectators
into temporary magicians to mysteriously locate each other's
card. Once the pantomime is done, I ask the second chooser, for
example a lady, to concentrate and use the magic I have
transmitted to her to stop where she "feels something.” So, you
ask her to deal cards on the table in a pile and stop when she
wants. Once stopped, you place one of the Jokers face up on the
pile and ask her to put the rest of the deck on top. I ask the same
to the first elector, a gentleman, with the same intention. It
would be convenient that the Jokers were different, that is to say,
one of them being the "extra Joker" of the deck in order to know
who of them stopped where after spreading the deck. So that,
spreading the deck we reveal that they stopped right where their
chosen cards were. You could use two Jokers with blank backs on
which to write the identity of the cards, and give a big surprise at

271
the end, however, for that effect they would have to be forced
cards.

In the original trick, instead of Jokers, the “soul mate” cards

of the located ones are used. The magician only has to know
which are the top and bottom cards after a shuffling, using as an
excuse the search for the prediction cards. Then, more ideas:

Idea 1: "Double Prediction with Business Cards."

It’s a different way of presenting the same effect. Instead of

making the prediction by taking two cards from the deck, we do
it by writing the name of the two cards to be predicted on two
business cards. These two cards would act exactly as the “soul
mate” cards do. The impact is equivalent. If you have business
cards as an amateur magician, you can use them and give them
as souvenirs to promote yourself.

Idea 2: "Double Prediction on the Back.”

It is an idea that enhances the effect, since the two cards

that act as prediction are chosen by the spectator at random and
don’t get to know even by the magician or by the spectator itself
until the end, which was an idea that I came up with as a result
of the chosen card version. However, it has the disadvantage that
a previous preparation is needed, so that it can’t be included in
the group of impromptu tricks (although the preparation is very
simple). You have to place two “soul mates” cards on top,
ordered in the following way, for example: a red seven, a black
ten, a red seven, a black ten. Ready. You take out the deck and
false shuffle it to not alter the preparation. Forces the top 1 and
2 cards by the “Hindu force” with the deck face up. We don’t
show the “randomly" selected cards. Then we do a double
undercut to bring the top card to the bottom position, so that

272
the situation is ready to make the double prediction trick. You
also make a false shuffle that does not alter this situation. We
continue according to the double prediction procedure, but with
the deck face up. In this case, the matching cards will be back to
back. You spread the deck face down and we will see for the first
time what are the two cards chosen "at random" by the
spectator. These will be next to their “soul mates” back against
back. Do not forget that in this case they will be back against
back, not face to face, I forgot it once...

Idea 3: "Double Prediction with Surprise."

Another thing that you may came up with analysing an

effect. Obsessed with analysing this effect, I realised that it was
not necessary to show the faces of the cards in the deck at any
time. The spectators assume that it is a normal deck like all
others, even more so when you spread the deck face down to
check the prediction. You can say that the affinity in this
prediction is so great that the rest of the cards in the deck do not
exist. All the cards are blank! The impact is astonishing,
especially if you almost never use this type of special cards in
your routines (that is how it should be).

Doing research, I discovered that David Regal and Nick

Trost already thought and applied the idea of a blank deck to
enhance the effect of the "double prediction.” On another hand,
the idea was marketed by Harry Baron with the name of "The
Kick." The truth is that the effect is like a great kick to the logic of
the spectators. But Lennart Green went further ... he
commercialised an interesting version with the name of "Stolen
Cards,” in which all the cards have backs of different pattern,
hence the title of the trick says that they are stolen cards. Then

273
two more cards are used from another deck to make them
match their peers by the method we know, with the addition that
their backs also coincide. Finally it is discovered that all the other
cards are the Ace of Spade. Awesome!

Idea 4: "Double Prediction on Back with Surprise.”

This other idea arises out of habit, since it goes along the
same thread as the previous one, but even more shocking. It is
the same principle of "Double Prediction with Surprise,” only
that in this case the final surprise falls on the backs.

You have to do a previous preparation. Remove four cards

from a blue back deck, for example, the red Six and the black
Queens. You get a red back deck. Remove the red Six and the
black Queens from that deck. Place the four blue cards in the top
of the red deck in the following order: red six, black Queen, red
six, black Queen. Keep the deck in the blue deck box. The trick is
ready. It’s the same preparation as the routine "Double
Prediction on the Back.” Also the procedure is the same as well.
At the beginning you take the deck out from the blue box. The
public will be convinced that it is a blue back deck. You do a
partial false shuffle so as not to disturb the top four cards and
not showing the red backs. It can be accomplished by shuffling
the cards face up. You can let see the back of the first card in a
casual way. Then we will force the two top cards by a Hindu
force. Starting from the position of the Hindu shuffle, face up, we
place half of the pack containing the blue back cards on the
other pack, keeping a break. Next we do successive cuts until we
get the blue cards to the top position with the help of the break,
while you say: "You could have chosen this one, or this one or
this ..." Just when the two blue cards are in top (the deck is still

274
face up in your hands), you cut only for the top card playing as if
you cut another little packet, and take it quickly to the bottom,
saying: "or this one.” Then, you turn over the deck quickly (it will
be seen the other blue back card on top). Everything will be
ready to follow the procedure of “Double Prediction on the Back.”
You end up with the surprise of the backs turning red.

I will end this series of personal ideas about this "double

prediction" phenomenon of Herb Rungie, but I will not finish
with this great Herb idea yet, because I wanted to recommend as
well another fun application with which to amaze and make
people laugh at the same time: "Prediction in Chinese."

This fun presentation about the same idea is published in

Vicente Canuto's book, “Cartomagia Fundamental” (fundamental
card magic). Vicente says he learned it from Jack Jansen. I have
not been able to find any other written reference about this
presentation ... and you can trust me that I investigate a lot ... so
it must be Jansen's original. In addition, the comic idea of a
prediction in Chinese is older than I imagined. Jean Hugard had
already selected such an idea for his “Encyclopedia of Card Tricks”
in 1937 with the title of "Comedy Twin Card Prediction,” without
references of its origin, however the procedure of that routine is
very different from that of the Herb Rungie’s. Maybe Jansen was
inspired by that routine using the Herb’s idea. The presentation
consists of using two Jokers to get next to two cards, back
against back. These cards are predicted inside an envelope, but
the prediction is written in Chinese, so viewers (who don’t know
Chinese) cannot read it. However, the magician shows that they
are the only cards in the deck with different backs! I personally
present it as "Japanese Prediction,” since my wife is Japanese
and the viewers consider that she teaches me to write the

275
predictions in Japanese ... however, my wife can participate by
saying that I have written it wrong ... what would be a great
mistake for me ... but I could solve it with a little more magic, by
applying the surprise of the different backs! In fact, the backs
could have some traditional Japanese (or Chinese) drawings, or
the same Japanese writing of the same prediction, which would
also have a quite unexpected and fun impact. You can present
this routine with the collaboration of some Asian person who is
among the public, which frankly states that the prediction does
not make sense. The situation would be even more comical,
since you would be betrayed by someone from the public who
knew Chinese ... but you would end up solving it with the
surprise of the backs.

To finish with this great idea of Herb Rungie, which for so

long I investigated, I wanted to add that we could also do
"quadruple predictions" by dividing the deck into two parts and
proceeding with the same method with each half. In fact, Peter
Duffie and Jack Carpenter devised methods to do the same
without having to split the deck in two. In addition, you could
even add other additional predictions through previous
preparations, as showed by the tireless thinker John Bannon with
his curious trick "Trait Secrets" from his "Dear Mr. Fantasy,” a
routine inspired by "The Potent Presage" from "The Expert's
Portfolio No. 1" by Jack Carpenter. The possibilities are endless...

15- Time After Time

This great mathematical trick is another of the ones that

surprise us by how it deviates from its possible mathematical
solution, looking really magical. We owe it to Tomas Blomberg,
who designed it inspired by "The Third Time's The Charm" of the

276
sadly deceased Jack Parker (for cancer). Parker's trick can be
found published in the Magazine Genii, in the June 2007 issue
that dedicated the cover to Parker. The routine of Parker
required a previous preparation, but Blomberg devised an
impromptu version which he called "Time After Time,” which we
can find published in "21-Magic by Sweden" (two DVDs), in which
ten Scandinavian professional magicians delight with almost
eleven hours of varied magic in a bar called "Magic Bar" in
Stockholm. Some magicians say that when they perform "Time
After Time" they surprise themselves. The effect is as follows:

A deck shuffled by the spectators. Three cards are selected

and lost in the deck. The magician cuts three more or less equal
piles and hands them to each spectator. Each viewer is asked to
think of a number from 10 to 20. They then deal cards on the
table in silence until they reach the number thought. They place
the rest of the pile on top. The magician exchanges the piles
between them and asks them to repeat the same operation with
their corresponding number thought. The magician exchanges
the piles again and asks for the last time to repeat the above. At
this point, after a magical gesture, the magician asks them to flip
the top card of each pile. It is the card of each spectator!

The mathematical principle that makes it possible is classic

and has been used in other magic tricks with cards. In the
Blomberg publication the magician has to handle the cards a bit,
but I came up with some ideas to make the trick almost
automatic. It consists in that the card of each spectator must be
at the bottom of each pile. The manoeuvre of the magician
consists of controlling the three cards in the deck, pretending to
lose them and then cutting three equal piles, making sure each
pile has a chosen card in the bottom (without the spectators

277
know it). One of the techniques that could be used to achieve
this is Derek Dingle’s "bottom slip cut” that Lorayne called “HaLo
cut.” Everything else is automatic, except for the exchange of
piles that the magician must do, although it’s not suspicious that
the magician does it since there are only three piles, so there is
not much to decide when exchanging them. The detail of what
the magician does goes unnoticed by the spectators, just as I
experienced personally. Considering that the piles are A, B, and C,
in the first change, you must exchange A for C and C for B, and in
the second change C for B and C for A. For the trick to be fully
automatic I thought that the spectators themselves could cut a
third of the shuffled deck, shuffle their piles and memorise the
card that randomly remained on the bottom. Although the
Blomberg version is stronger because the cards are more lost, I
don’t think that this automatic version is much less impressive. In
fact, the automatic version has its particular power in that the
magician only do a magical gesture without practically touching
the cards during the entire performance. In addition, the
automatic version may encourage viewers to try to do it on their
own during the evening to prove they cannot do it, as they will
not know the proper way to exchange the piles. It has always
been a very magical thing that the magician does something and
works while the viewer tries the same thing and doesn’t work. I
thought about as well to present this trick as an intriguing
prediction. That is, prepare for example the four "seven" in the
bottom and start the trick. We force one of the "seven" by riffle
shuffle and put it in the middle of the table face down as a
mysterious card, always in sight. After false shuffles we cut the
three piles using the "bottom slip cut” technique to keep a
"seven" at the bottom of each pile. Next, we proceed as set by
the trick, resulting in an amazing prediction.

278
 To finish with this section of mathematical and automatic
tricks, I cannot stop talking about another kind of card trick that
is closely related to this group: "interactive tricks." Interactive
tricks are a mixture of magic, humour and curiosity. It’s a magic
that also do the spectators themselves following the instructions
of the magician. There are many tricks of this type. In most of
them the whole deck is not used, but a certain group of cards.
Professional magicians usually do them through the TV or radio,
so that the spectators follow their instructions and surprise
themselves in their homes. One of the most famous tricks of this
type is one that David Copperfield presented on TV, known as
"The Nine Card Problem,” devised by Jim Steinmeyer in 1993.
The trick can be learnt in the booklet "Impuzzibilities,” a booklet
dedicated to interactive tricks.

METAPHORIC STORIES

“Any trick can be a masterpiece, but it must have a

presentation capable of keeping spectators captivated and
fascinated.”

Dai Vernon.

I love stories in card magic. I also consider them very useful

to avoid the lack of patience that spectators of an amateur tend
to have. That is, stories can hook the spectators, getting them to
pay attention until the end of the effect. Stories are also useful
to justify certain procedures, which helps the misdirection.

I'm going to present to you a series of nine routines whose

stories captivated my viewers every time I performed them.

279
 16- Ducks and Swans

This is my personal presentation of the masterpiece "Aces

over Kings" by Edward Marlo, which he published in his 53-page
booklet "Marlo in Spades" in 1947. We can find it explained as
well in Vicente Canuto's book, "Cartomagia Fundamental"
(fundamental card magic), with the title of "Triple cambio” (triple
change). As Vicente says, the trick would deserve a prize. The
trick is not difficult to perform but it is difficult not to succeed
with it. The magician that most popularised it, as Vicente says,
was Fred Kaps. I wanted to add that Arturo de Ascanio conceived
a version published in “The Magic of Ascanio” part two, written
by Jesús Etcheverry. It appears with the tittle “A Marlo Effect” (p.
144).

I will not reveal the method because I only contribute the

story, so I will explain only the effect along the story.

We look for the four deuces of the deck saying they are
ducklings and we put them on the table. Then we look for the
four nine saying they are swan chicks. We show the "ducks" and
the "swans" one by one saying that the suit of hearts will
represent the mothers of the chicks. That is, the Two of Hearts
will be the mother duck and the rest of the deuces will be the
ducklings. The Nine of Hearts will be the swan mother and the
rest of the nine will be the swan chicks. The rest of the deck
represents other animals of the lagoon, such as geese, cranes ...
We place the Two of Hearts (the mother duck) face up on the
table next to their ducklings, faces down, representing that they
are sleeping in the nest. We do the same with the Nine of Hearts
(the swan mother) and her chicks. Then we say that both
mothers are going to play a joke on the chicks while they sleep.

280
They will exchange nest to see the reaction of the chicks the next
day to see that their mother is not the same. So, we exchange
pile the Two and the Nine of Hearts. Then we turn them upside
down as if representing that they are asleep. We continue to say
that the chicks are too smart when it comes to following their
mother. Then, we say that the next day the mothers wake up
(we flip the Two and the Nine of Hearts), and using the Nine of
Hearts as shovel we turn over the cards that are next to her (in
her nest), which should be ducklings. But, surprise! They are
their corresponding swan chicks. The surprise has been taken by
the mother! Then we explained that during the night, through
instinctive sleepwalking, the chicks returned to their nests.

We use the Two of Hearts as shovel to intend to turn

(awaken) over their ducklings, but in that moment we say that a
sound is heard in the distance. It is the croak of a goose that says
she would also like to participate in this joke. Thus, we place
three more cards face down in another place on the table as a
goose nest with three chicks. We take another card (indifferent)
as a mother goose (suppose it turns out to be a five of Spades),
so we place her face up (awake) on her chicks. Next we do the
exchange between five and nine (mother goose and mother
swan). To the great surprise of the mothers (and the spectators),
when they turn over the chicks that are with the mother swan,
and that they should be the supposed chicks of the goose, these
are the corresponding swan chicks! (The nine value cards). Once
again the chicks couldn’t be mocked. Normally the audience
applauds at this point until someone says: "And the chicks of the
goose?" Thus, we become surprised at that question, as if it took
us by surprise, since those cards are supposed to be indifferent
and not necessarily the other five. Finally you say: "Do you

281
remember that I told you that the rest of the deck represented
the other animals in the lagoon?" Then we flip the chicks from
the goose's nest and say, "the chicks always know where their
mother is!" And it turns out that they are indeed the other three
value-five cards!

17- Teleportation

The great trick "Jazz Aces" by Peter Kane is highly

recommended for our repertoire, as it is simple, clear and can be
performed at any time. We can find it in the booklet "Another
Card Session with Peter Kane." We can also find it explained
through another entertaining presentation by Vicente Canuto in
his book "Cartomagia Fundamental” with the title “Viajes de
damas a una” (travels of Queens to one), modifying the original
procedure a bit to make it less repetitive, which is a good idea.

As in the previous trick, I will only show you the effect next
to a presentation that occurred to me in a dream, in 1996, which
enchanted my viewers.

Eight cards are used. Four of them, the Aces, will represent
astronauts who fly into space on an important mission to the
Moon. The other four cards will be indifferent, but preferably
high points and black to give a touch of mystery; they will
represent the spaceship and the teleportation machine.

One Ace is put face up on the table, for example, the one of
Spades. It would be more magical to put it in another part of the
room if possible, in order to create a greater sense of
remoteness with regard to the teleportation.

Said Ace of Spades will represent one of the astronauts that

remains orbiting Earth as a contact. The other three Aces remain

282
on the table face down as if it were the surface of the Moon. The
indifferent cards (spaceship) are in our hands. We say that the
mission has ended successfully, but there is a problem. The ship
has broken down or lost fuel to return. Then there is no other
way to prove the great experiment that was still in the process of
being studied: "teleportation.” There would be no other way to
save the lives of the astronauts. This brings drama and
excitement to the routine. But the teleportation machine is
nothing more than a prototype and we don’t know if it will work.
Then they get down to work. We show one of the indifferent
cards and put it face down next to the Ace of Spades with the
excuse that the molecular data of the first astronaut to Earth are
sent by radio waves. Then take one of the Aces that are on the
table and join the three indifferent cards that remain in our
hands while we say: "first rescue." The indifferent cards
represent the teleportation machine that is in the spacecraft.
Then, we show that in our hands there are four indifferent cards.
The Ace is not there. We turn over the "molecular data" that we
put "on Earth" next to the Ace of Spades and it is verified that
teleportation has worked, since it is the Ace that has disappeared.
But it still has to work twice more, which we achieved in the
same way with thrill and drama until the three are saved.

The Aces could be replaced by Jacks to stage the astronauts

with human figures. Still the Aces are very peculiar even to play
the role of astronauts.

18- Metamorphosis

The routine of this impromptu marvel was showed to me

by an amateur friend who was showed by another amateur ... so
I enjoyed it since 1991 without knowing its origin, until finally I

283
found out it in 2002 thanks to the Internet. The routine is original
of Al Leech, published in 1953 in "Card Man Stuff" with the title
"Ace Sandwich." Harry Lorayne popularised a version in 1965 in
"My Favourite Card Tricks" with the title "One-Eyed Jack
Sandwich." The title “Metamorphosis” is the one I put to my
personal presentation. My friend showed it to me with Aces,
which is how it is presented in the original version of Al Leech. I
thought of looking for a metaphor, so I came up with an
inspiration for the popular stage effect "Metamorphosis" by John
Nevil Maskelyne, which I met on television through a
performance of the couple of magicians "The Pendragons.” The
metaphor helped the trick to fascinate more my viewers. At the
end of the trick I will explain an idea to produce a card in a
magical way, which I came up with especially for the end of this
metaphor in the summer of 1992, and may be interest you.

A deck of card is shuffled, and two black tens (10), the Jack
of Clubs and the Queen of Hearts are found and removed. The
black tens represent a magic trunk located on the stage. The Jack
of Clubs and the Queen of Hearts will be the magician and lady
magician who will enter the scene.

A “sandwich” is made with the tens face up and the Jack in

the middle face down, representing that the magician enters the
trunk. The sandwich is placed with the tens face up on top of the
deck. The deck represents the stage. A double undercut is done
to bring the top black ten to the bottom. The public will think
that you have lost the entire sandwich in the middle of the deck,
but in fact you have from the top the first Jack face down and the
other ten face up. Then turn face down the Queen of Hearts and
place the deck on her. You pick up the deck and flip it over so the
Queen is visible. In that same position you make a break with the

284
little finger in the Jack to separate it from the rest of the deck
and cut a good portion of cards underside without taking the jack
(thanks to the break). You place that portion on the Queen
through a firm and elegant thud. It will give the impression that
you lose the Queen in the middle of the deck. Finally, after a
magical gesture, you spread the deck face down so you can see
the black tens face up with a card face down in the middle of
them, as expected. But when that card is turned over it is
discovered that it’s not the Jack but the Queen. Now it is the lady
magician who is in the trunk. The Jack (the magician) is in top
first, but the spectators don’t know it, they will believe that it
must be in any point inside the deck. Take this to make any
surprise appearance of said Jack to end the trick. You can do for
example the “swivel cut” of Nate Leipzig. It’s explained in “Card
College” by Roberto Giobbi, in volume 1 (on page 173). My idea
to raise the Jack consists in the following:

The card to appear (the Jack) must be on the bottom and

face up (contrary to the others), so that an overhand shuffle is
made to take it to the bottom and turn it over quickly through a
"half pass,” which can be done during the applause of the
spectators, who believe that the trick is over. Then we are ready
to perform the Charlier cut by dropping the lower half of the
deck on the palm, cutting with the thumb. Continuing with the
Charlier cut we use the index finger to raise the bottom part, and
during that action the index finger tip drag the bottom card
slightly (the Jack) so that it will stick out from the others as you
complete the Charlier cut manoeuvre . When completing the cut
the index finger will be caught between the two parts of the deck
in the form of a sandwich and the Jack stuck out face up. The
Jack would seem to appear magically face up from the deck. The

285
effect is quite visual and elegant according to what people told
me, so I started to take it seriously. I have never seen this
manoeuvre explained in any book or seen anyone performing it,
so it’s seem to be an independent idea. I thought of calling it
"Charlier pop-out" because it’s carried out by the Charlier cut.

I came up with a fun little trick with this technique, which I

called "The Tongue of the Deck." We say that decks of cards can
talk to magicians because they have a magical tongue. Then we
apply the explained technique sticking out a face down card to
illustrate "the tongue of the deck." We say that this is the magic
tongue, but now it doesn’t say anything because it has nothing to
say to me. Then you have a card selected, lose it and control it
face down to bottom. Then you say that now you do need the
help of the deck to divine the spectator's card. You do the
"Charlier pop-out" manoeuvre again and it will give the feeling
that the deck uses its tongue to speak and tell me which the
spectator's card is. I present it as a fun trick for children.

Going back to the "Ace Sandwich" effect of Al Leech, I

wanted to propose another fun and different metaphor called
"The Escapist Thief." It is about a new presentation of the
previous effect, but with a special ending. Actually I thought
about this metaphor before the previous trick, but the previous
trick seemed more illustrative and traditional for a show of magic,
so I gave priority to it in my performances. For "The Escapist
Thief" I use Aces, like the original of Leech and I add a special
final strike.

The deck is shuffle and the four Aces are removed. You say
that the Ace of Spades represents a police detective, the red
Aces represent the police officers and the Ace of Clubs

286
represents a thief. The story begins with the thief caught by the
police officers thanks to the work of the detective. We make the
sandwich as in the previous trick, so that the trunk of tens is now
represented by the police officers (red Aces), and the previous
Jack of Spades is represented by the thief (Ace of Clubs). You do
exactly the same as in the previous trick, saying that police
officers take the thief to jail while the detective goes home
quietly. I present it saying that they put a sack on the thief's head
and put him in a prison van. When you get to the police station
(you extend the deck face down) they take the sack from his
head (you flip the card that is between the red Aces), and that's
when they discover that it's not the thief, but the very anger
detective! It turns out that the thief is an excellent escapist
magician which will complicate his arrest. After much thinking,
the detective comes up with the great idea of hiring the services
of another magician to catch him, and better yet, two magicians.
Then he hires two magicians to collaborate with the police.
These two magicians will be represented by two cards chosen by
the spectators themselves from among the cards in the deck. The
Ace of Clubs will be on top. You place the two magician cards
face up in top at the same time you do a break in the Ace of
Clubs. With the help of the break you keep the Ace of Clubs
(which is face down) jointed under the two magician cards
(which are face up). You slide the top card-magician with the
thumb of the hand holding the deck, separating it from the other
two cards, with the intention of placing these two cards on top of
the other without covering it completely. You do this as if you
reconfirmed that you have the two magician cards face up. Then
we have a magician card face up with the Ace face-down hidden
underneath, and all that about the other card magician half-
covered. This subtle manoeuvre to "load a sandwich" in card

287
magic was first published by Edward Marlo in an article called
"More Deuce Sandwiches" in "The New Tops" (Vol. 8, No. 5, page
32, first method) , in May of 1968. It is so popular that it’s known
in card magic as "standard sandwich loading move." Then you
put the deck on the table, you pass the three cards to the other
hand using the thumb and the middle finger as a pliers. Then you
pass the three cards again to the other hand palm up using the
thumb and the middle finger as a clamp (the rest of the fingers
are free). You go back to take the deck from the table with your
free hand. At this moment we have to perform an action out of
the ordinary: we have to throw all the cards of the deck against
the card-magicians chaotically by means of a riffling that we will
perform with the thumb, so that the cards must end up scattered
all over the table. While this is happening, you will shake the
hand that holds the three cards in a shaky swing, so that when
it's all over it looks like you've caught a card with those two
magician cards. The index finger of the hand holding the three
cards can help create the effect that you catch a card with the
two magician cards, since you can place it just below where the
Ace of Club is located (thanks to the magician cards they are only
overlapping, and not even). This would allow you to push the Ace
of Clubs outward while doing the chaotic action. The more
outgoing the Ace ends after the action, the more it will give the
feeling that it has been caught by the magician cards. Needless
to say, you should practise this movement a lot before putting
the trick into practise.

Later I discovered "Mouse Trap," a funny version of this

trick by Terry Lageround that we can see published in "Mamma
Mia!" by Aldo Colombini.

288
 19- Ho, Ho, Ho, Knock, Knock, Knock!

This routine was designed in December 1997. It’s about a

story in which Santa Claus and the Three Wise Men take part.
The truth is that I was a long time obsessed in relating these
characters in a routine of card magic. The result was as follow:

We prepared a deck with three Kings on the bottom face up.

Among them shouldn’t be the Hearts one. The deck will contain
the Jokers. Ready. We take the deck to the stage and perform a
riffle shuffle being carefully not to expose the Kings and not
interlace them. We tell the story that a certain year Santa Claus
was the victim of a practical joke perpetrated by two of his most
rebellious elves. As we tell that, we put the cards facing us (we
will see the back of the three kings) and look for the King and the
Queen of Hearts. Always be careful not to expose the Kings backs.
If the cards we are looking for are previously located in the first
half of the deck from top, it would not be necessary to spread
the first bottom cards, thus avoiding the risk of exposing the
Kings. We put the Queen and the King on the table. Then we take
out the Jokers and use them to hide the deck while we say that
these are the two naughty elves. At that moment we rotate the
wrist that holds the deck (hidden by the jokers) and put it on the
table. Without pause we continued telling that one day, while Mr.
and Mrs. Claus were preparing everything at home with the
other elves, the two naughty elves went ahead and began to
wake up all the children of the town making noise from the
chimneys. A cruel shame! We place the Jokers on the deck and
say that the cards face down symbolises being asleep (we spread
the deck a bit to show the backs of the kings); whereas the cards
face up symbolises being awake (we point to the Queen and the
King of Hearts that are on the table). Next we place one of the

289
Jokers in the bottom. We do a magical gesture and say that the
naughty elves ended up waking up all the children of the town.
So then we spread the cards except for the Kings and it will be
appreciated that the entire deck has turned magically face up.
With the deck spread like that we take the bottom Joker and
place it back to the top, next to the other, while parodying a
perverse laugh. Then we take the King of Hearts and insert it in
the middle of the extension while we say: "Then, when Santa
Claus set out to distribute the gifts he observed that all the
children were awake, and since it was very strange at that time,
he imagined that it was something of the naughty elves." We
take the King of Hearts out of the spread and put it back on the
table next to the Queen. We pick up the spread and make a
thumb break to keep the Jokers slightly separated from the deck.
Then, while doing a double undercut, we told that the naughty
elves went to another town where the children slept peacefully ...
In the second cut we rotated the wrists of both hands and
showed the back cards again, illustrating what was said. Then we
place the pile containing the Jokers on the Kings (which are in
the bottom, face up). The spectators will believe that the Jokers
are lost in the deck, but both are in top. While we do a double
undercut to take one of the Jokers to bottom, we say that Santa
Claus asked his wife's help to catch the naughty elves as soon as
possible. We place the Queen of Hearts in the top and the King in
bottom faces up. The deck is clamped with the thumb and index
and middle fingers. The King will be a little stuck out on the long
side contrary to the hand that clamps the deck, so that it pinches
as well the Joker next to the King (in second bottom). Then we
throw the deck with energy towards the other hand that will pick
it up on the fly. In this way an effect is achieved in which the
Queen and the King magically capture the Joker that is supposed

290
to have been lost in the deck (the bottom one). This technique
that I have described appeared in "Kartenkünste" by Ottokar
Fischer, thus being credited to Hofzinser. The technique didn’t
have a specific name, being translated by S. H. Sharpe as "Two
card-catch from hand to hand,” so Peter Duffie baptised it as
"the Hofzinser toss.” I learned it from my uncle in Barcelona who
showed it to me in the summer of 1992. Let’s continue: next we
say that Mr. and Mrs. Claus gave the naughty elf a good
reprimand, who begged for forgiveness. But there was another
one to catch. We do the same manoeuvre, but without having
the King stuck out, so that it fails (in fact the other Joker is in top).
We say that they couldn’t find the other elf. We try a second
time. No. We put the Queen and the King in top and say that
they were thinking, until Santa Claus came up with an idea. As we
say that we apply a "standard sandwich load" (as in the previous
trick). Then we put the "sandwich" on the table and spread the
deck with care not to expose the Kings. While we do that we say
that the idea was to wait hidden behind one of the chimneys of
the houses where there were still children sleeping, to catch him
in the act. Then we place the "sandwich" at any point of the
spread, illustrating the chimney of one of the houses. Next we
take the card from the top (an indifferent card); we show it and
take it to bottom face down while saying: "the children were
waking up by the fuss of the elf, but when this one arrived at that
chimney where Mr. and Mrs. Claus waited for him, they caught
him!" While we say that we perform a quick "wave" with the
spread using the indifferent card as a shovel. The "sandwich" will
jump like a spring as a result of the "wave" of the spread, and we
will catch it with the other hand. This metaphorical visual effect
caused a striking impact among my viewers when I premiered
the routine. We show the Joker trapped between the Queen and

291
the King and let it fall on the table. The indifferent card will
prevent the backs of the Kings from being seen. Then we say:
"But it was too late ..." We focused on the spread while we
collected it face up and we continued saying: “... since everyone
had kept awake and didn’t seem like they wanted to go back to
sleep.” We spread once again the cards face up in the hands
being careful not to show the Kings. We pick up the spread and
turn the deck face down while saying: "then there were children
awake ..., (we take the indifferent bottom card and show its face)
and children asleep, (we put the indifferent card back on top) so
that, a mess of awaken and sleeping children." Right at this
moment we will continue doing the effect known as “Topsy-
Turvy Aces,” published by Edward Marlo in “The Patented Shuffle”
in 1964. Over time there have been several versions of this effect,
and Vicente Canuto published one in his “Cartomagia
Fundamental” (fundamental card magic) called “Ases y triunfo”
(aces and triumph), perfect for amateurs, since it’s quite easy to
perform. We cut the deck in the middle and rotate both wrists
focusing attention on the face up pile while we say: "Awake
children ..." Immediately we focused our attention on the other
pile (the Kings’ back) and we say: “... and sleeping children." We
riffle shuffle both piles while saying: "a mess!" After shuffling we
show top and bottom and say: "sleeping children..." Then we
show some face up card by some false cut that don’t alter the
deck while we say: “... and awaken children." It will give the
feeling of sloppy shuffle that is supposed to give. Then we said
that Mr. Claus didn’t know what to do, since there were many
children who didn’t fall asleep, and so he couldn’t deliver the
gifts to everyone, and also Mrs. Claus could not help this time,
since she had to stay watching to the naughty elves. So! The
Three Wise Men appeared and offered to help him. They said

292
they didn’t work until January 6, so they could help him out. But
Santa Claus informed them that the problem was not the lack of
time, but that the children didn’t fall asleep because they were
totally awake. However, the Wise Men replied that they knew
what the problem was, and that they still had the solution. They
said they were going to knock the children awake to put them to
sleep. That is, “easy anaesthetic." Then, Santa Claus, shocked,
exclaimed: "No! What are you saying, beasts?!" And he went to
the town to avoid it. At this moment we lose the King of Hearts
just under the Kings through the TILT technique of Marlo /
Vernon. We say that the Wise Men got down to work. We do a
double undercut, in whose first cut we say: "When they saw a
child awake ..." We do the second cut and say: “...they knock him
or her and put them to sleep." Then turn over the deck and show
the first King. We say: "And there is the Wise Man ..." We put the
King on the table. We do the same thing twice more saying the
same thing. Finally we flip the deck so all the face cards are down
except for the King of Hearts, which will be face up on the
bottom. We cut in the middle and flip the pile down to show all
backs, while saying: "The Wise Men put everyone to sleep ... even
the parents of the children..." Then we flip the pile again and
placed it on the other to complete de cut, and everything ready.
We say: "To everyone? No. They left someone awake ..." We
spread the deck on the table and said: "Obviously they left Santa
Claus awake so he could deliver the gifts with no problems." The
King of Hearts will be seen as the only card face up, in a kind of
Vernon's "Triumph.” We ended by saying: "Then, you know, sleep
before Santa comes if you don’t want to wake up with a bump on
the head, courtesy of the Wise Men!"

293
 This routine was a great success when I performed it for the
first time. Due to its complexity and its thematic character with
Christmas I only did it once a year or every two years.

Fourteen years later, in 2011, I found out with surprise

several videos on the Internet of Spanish speaker amateur card
magicians performing an effect called “Un ladrón en mi tejado”
(a thief on my roof), which turned out to be identical to the third
effect of this routine. In addition, the effect in which the deck is
completely turned over magically dates from 1949, in a trick
called "A Set of Surprises,” page 21 of "52 Amazing Card Tricks,”
published by Rufus Steele and attributed to Bill Simon.

20- The As-sailants

More than recommending this trick, I force you to include it

in your repertoire. It is a perfect routine for the good image of an
amateur in a fun family reunion. The routine has everything:
stories, humour, excitement, intrigue, magic and a final surprise
effect. Juan Tamariz showed it masterfully with the title "Los As-
altantes" (The As-sailants) in the successful Spanish TV program
of 1992 called "Chan-Ta-Ta-Chan," hosted by the charismatic
artist Alaska. That performance was David Bamberg’s
presentation of the famous "Henry Christ's Fabulous Aces
Routine" that appeared first in "Green's Professional Card Magic"
in 1961 (pages 48-54). We can also find it in volume 5 of "Card
College” by Roberto Giobbi with the title of "The Four Aces of
Henry Christ." The presentation consists in locating the four aces
lost in the deck while telling an intriguing story about gangsters.
It’s about considering the Aces as dangerous gangsters to be
caught by the police using the "The Four Aces of Henry Christ."

294
 Once I performed this routine at high school to some
friends at Christmas 1994. The experience was good thanks to
the kind applause. I could say that as I got older, people used to
take me more seriously as a card magician.

There is an interesting version published by Alfredo

Florensa in the 2º volume of his great method "Cartomagia Fácil"
(easy card magic) called "La banda de los ases" (the Aces gang).

21- The Black Hole

When I first saw a routine in which four cards "ate" each

other as if they were cannibals, I never imagined that the effect
were so popular and covered by so many card magicians since
1959, the year in which Lin Searles created it, although with
gimmick cards. Ed Marlo came up with an impromptu way in
1953, which would not publish until February 1964 in Volume 4
number 2 of "New Tops" (page 16). Pete Biro came up with the
great idea of using the "Ascanio Spread" to develop the effect. In
the series of DVDs "World's Greatest Magic by the World's
Greatest Magicians,” there is a publication of the year 2008
called "The Secrets of Cannibal Cards,” dedicated exclusively to
card magicians performing their particular presentations of this
effect, such as Michael Ammar, Larry Jennings, Bill Malone, Juan
Tamariz ... You can imagine how popular Searles' idea was.
Personally I was never attracted to the metaphor of cannibals, so
I came up with my own metaphor about a black hole using the
routine that Michael Ammar published in Vol. 1 of “Easy to
Master Card Miracles,” in which the cannibals effect continue to
make the "devoured" cards appear in the middle of the deck
faces up, between the cannibal cards. For this ending Ammar
used the "Ose's Addition,” movement designed by Jay Ose

295
inspired by the trick "Apex Aces" by Frank García, published in
"Close-Up Card Magic" by Harry Lorayne. Juan Tamariz staged
the same routine in a thrilling and funny way in “Lessons in
Magic,” Vol. 1. I will describe the effect of this routine along with
my personal presentation:

We are in front of the public with the deck. We take out the
black Tens and Nines and say that they will represent a black
hole in a distant point of the universe. Then we get two Jacks and
a Queen while we say that there are three astronauts on a
special mission to investigate the black hole. The deck represents
the mother ship from which the astronauts leave. One of the
astronauts leaves to get close to the hole, but he gets too close
and is swallowed. The astronaut card (face up) is lost between
the four black hole cards (which are face down) and it is shown
that nothing is left of it. He has just disappeared. The same thing
happens with the next astronaut, who decides to go to see if
there is a trace of his partner and if he can rescue him, but also
ends up being swallowed by the hole in the same way. Then, we
tell that the third astronaut decides to take the risk to look for
the other two, but with the proviso that she will carry a special
device that will emit an electromagnetic code detectable by the
mother ship. That code will be represented by the back of the
card, so the third astronaut, unlike the other two, will get in the
black hole, face down. Then, we tell that the physicist Stephen
Hawking showed that the black holes emitted a radiation (that is
called Hawking radiation) which could give information and even
the whereabouts of a possible "white hole" where the matter
that entered would be expelled. We turn over the cards that
represent the black hole so they can be seen face to face. We say
that the mother ship began to measure the Hawking radiation.

296
Thus, one of the black cards (which is facing) is peeled on the
deck. The other three "hole cards" are then placed on top of the
deck. The others three “black hole cards” are placed on the top
of the deck. The three cards are spread and it’s shown that one
of them has disappeared (starting with "Apex Aces" by Frank
García). The black hole loses size as it emits radiation. The same
is done with the second, third and fourth black cards, until the
black hole disappears completely. Finally we say that the mother
ship followed the electromagnetic signal of the third astronaut
until finding a white hole where they could rescue the astronauts.
Thus, the deck is spread face down and the black face cards
representing the remnants of Hawking radiation are shown,
proving that Hawking's theory was correct. Among those cards
(remnants of radiation) are astronauts healthy and safe.

My viewers were amazed with this presentation, to the

point that it became one of the routines that most requested me.
I remember I had to find excuses not to repeat it so many times,
trying to call attention to other trick of my repertoire.

22- Policemen and Gangsters

Aaron Fisher created a great trick called "Search and

Destroy,” which we can find in "The Paper Engine" (2002),
written with John Lovick. A book that I recommend a lot to the
amateurs, because it focuses on the psychology of the spectators,
analysing the magician's attitude to focus more on the spectators
than on their own hands, which thus helps the misdirection and
learn to manoeuvre instinctively; a very theoretical and ideal
book for amateurs, even if not for beginners.

There is a wide variety of tricks related to catching a card

between two, known as "sandwich" tricks. The first written

297
reference on this type of tricks dates from January 1917, in the
magazine "The Magic Wand" (Vol. 7, No. 77, p. 78), in a trick
called "The Obedient Card" by Louis Christianer. However,
"Search and Destroy" is a special "sandwich" trick because it
occurs progressively, which causes a great thrill. It is intriguing,
surprising and not difficult to perform, ideal for our repertoire. It
always had a great reception among my sceptical viewers, also
because they liked the exciting story I came up with for this
routine. I will show you just the effect along my presentation,
which I call "Policemen and Gangsters.” Those who know this
trick will understand what my contribution is to the final effect
and how to prepare it at the beginning.

We started by saying that we are going to tell the story of a

businessman who got into a troubles with some gangster. The
gangsters cheated him into a black money business. Then the
man decided to leave the business, but as he already knew too
much about the subject, the gangsters decided to look for him to
kill him. Then, the businessman, terrified by the threats went to
the police, specifically went to "The Untouchables." They
promised the man that they would protect him, but that they
would have to use him as a bait to attract those gangsters and be
able to trap them. So, terrified, the man had to resign himself to
the idea of being the bait of the gangsters.

While all that is being told, the deck is shuffled. The two
Jokers cards are then searched and taken out saying that they
will represent the gangsters. Next the deck is spread face down
so that the spectators pick a card that will represent the poor
bait man. The magician could see the card but the effect is
greater if he or she doesn’t see it. The spectators show the card
to the rest of the viewer. It is then lost in the deck, shuffled well

298
and spread face down on the table. The Jokers are inserted
between the three or four first cards of each end of the spread,
while we say that the gangsters are in search and capture of the
businessman. The extension is collected. A viewer is asked to cut
and complete. The deck is spread again and it is seen that the
jokers are approaching each other, that is, the gangsters are
narrowing the pool to any particular card in the middle of the
deck. Cards that are not among the Jokers are discarded. We say
that the gangsters are getting closer to their goal. Another
viewer is asked to cut and complete again. By spreading the
remaining cards we will see that the Jokers have caught a single
card in the form of a sandwich. Next to the Jokers will be some
cards, but instead of getting rid of all, we keep the first two of
each side (four cards). The card that the jokers have trapped is
turned over dramatically, and it is seen with horror that indeed
it’s just the bait, the businessman they wanted to kill; the
viewer's card; thrilling. The businessman is going to be killed by
the gangsters ... but at that moment the magician flips the two
cards that were on either side of the Jokers and it’s found out
that they are the four Aces, that is, "The Untouchables" that they
have followed the bait to catch the gangsters just in time.

One of the first ideas about a "progressive sandwich" was

published by Philip T. Goldstein (Max Maven), called "Search
Party," in "Scarttershot" (Pag. 12), in 1977. However, the idea of
the effect was popularised by Larry Jennings in 1984 with his
"Searchers," to the point that nowadays this type of tricks is
known as "Searchers." It was published in "The Collected
Almanac" (Vol. 2, No. 17 and 18, year 1984). Both methods are
clearer and more direct than Fisher's, but it also requires much
more skill, so Fisher's is more recommendable for amateurs who

299
don’t have so much time to master techniques and want to do
good card magic.

At this point I wanted to do a special stop to expressly

recommend a really masterpiece called "Empanada" by the
intriguing and endearing Armando Lucero. The intriguing thing is
because Armando does not usually publish anything, but only
give lectures, and about endearing is because he has always said
that magic must be done above all with feeling and passion.
"Empanada" is a highly recommended trick that requires a lot of
practise to stage it with the perfection it deserves, so I preferred
not to add it to a usual repertoire, but to talk about it for some
special occasion. It is also a "progressive sandwich" of two Jokers,
only that in this case the card they attack is only thought by a
spectator, which will not name but after being caught by the
jokers, which leaves the most baffled to any viewer. In short, a
routine that cannot go unnoticed for the lover of card magic.

Armando only teaches its magic through its conferences

called "Workshop,” and usually take place in Las Vegas. However,
if you are not one of the lucky ones who can attend such
conferences, as is my case, think that an advanced connoisseur
of card magic can imagine the solution of any effect, so that we
could dare with any routine that we have seen, whenever it is
non-profit and we have practised enough to perform it with the
perfection it deserves, in addition to giving references to the
author with his deserved honours. As I have already transmitted
several times in this book, what makes you a magician is not to
know secrets, but to know how to act like a magician, and that is
only achieved by practising, practising and practising ... in front
of a mirror or in front of other magician colleagues who give
their opinion about your performance, as long as you are not one

300
of those lucky ones who have the opportunity to attend
professional conferences. Conclusion: if you have been able to
figure out how to do "Empanada,” don’t do it without having
practised it a lot, since it is very sad that this marvel is done badly.
I still have not dared to do it, but I am practising it ... I may never
declare myself ready for it ... and I will understand it out of
respect for the Art of Card Magic.

23- Cavatina

This great idea by Aldo Colombini invites the possibility of

creating different metaphorical stories with an easy to follow
story. It is totally impromptu and not very difficult to perform, so
it is ideal to entertain at any time. The Italian word cavatina
means little song or short song. We can find it on his DVD "Crazy
for Card.” I will show you the effect with my personal
presentation:

All the picture cards plus the two Jokers are used. The Kings
are presented on the table face up. The Jokers are hidden under
the king of Hearts in public view, as it is only a staging. We
present the other cards paired by their suit (Queens with Jacks).
We tell the story that the kings of each kingdom were insensitive
to love and forced their princesses to marry those who said them.
Then, couples are collected forming a single pile. They are
shuffled and the pile is cut several times. Then we deal the cards
two at a time on the table, showing that there is no matching
pair. The cards are collected as they have been. Next we relate
that one of the kings (the one of Hearts) regretted his
insensibility, so he secretly sent a pair of magical angels to solve
that injustice. Thus, the Jokers are removed as angels from under
said King. It is related that the little angels disguised themselves

301
as a priest to be the ones in charge of marrying the unhappy
couples. Thus, the couple (unpaired) is introduced in the middle
of the two Jokers (all faces down) and it is said, married! The four
cards are fan opened and the pair is taken out (still face down),
and put on the table. The same is done with the other three
couples. The spectators will think that the little angels have
married the couples unhappily, but they get a big surprise when
turning them face up, since they are all paired by their respective
suit.

Aldo Colombini won the second prize in "Close-up" at the

FISM in 1976, in Vienna (Austria). The fate wanted to take his life
in February 2014, barely 6 months before I finish these memoirs.

24- Once upon Again

I thought with this title to present a trick that can be found

in volume 3 of the "Card College" by Roberto Giobbi, called "Four
Seasons.” It’s a trick as simple as intriguing, fruit of the ideas of
Roberto Giobbi and Lin Searles, which supposes surplus
guarantees to be interested in it. The original presentation
speaks of the close relationship between a deck of cards and the
calendar, such as the 52 weeks (cards) of the year, the 4 seasons
(suits) of the year, and so on. The Aces represent the four
seasons, which are placed on the table face up. Three indifferent
cards are placed on top of an Ace while saying "March, April and
May form the spring.” We turn over the Ace with the three
indifferent cards as a shovel and take the four cards to the top of
the deck where they are lost through successive cuts. The same
is done with the following Ace, saying "June, July and August
form the summer,” the same with the third Ace, saying
"September, October and November form the autumn,” and

302
finally, when the indifferent cards are placed on the fourth Ace
saying "December, January and February form the winter" is the
Ace that is used as a shovel to flip the indifferent cards and
reveal that the supposed indifferent cards, turn out to be the
other three Aces. So it is said that a new year begins.

I came up with a story very different from the original one,

which my audience liked very much when I premiered it at
Christmas 2001. I called it "Once upon Again":

Four Aces face up on the table. We say: "Once upon a

time ... Humanity. In Humanity there was WEALTH (we presented
the Ace of Diamonds), there was PEACE (we presented the Ace of
Clubs), there was LOVE (we presented the Ace of Hearts), and
there was HOPE (we present the Ace of Spades). Over time,
appeared the GREED, the WAR and the HATE (we took the three
indifferent cards), which took the WEALTH through GREED (we
lose the four cards in the deck). Then PEACE was taken through
the WAR (with three others we took the Ace of Clubs). Finally
they ended up taking LOVE through HATE (with three other cards
we took the Ace of Hearts). There remained the last thing that is
lost, HOPE. But Humanity managed to understand that hope is
not the last thing that is lost, (we flip the next three indifferent
cards that turn out to be the other Aces) but it is never lost, to
return LOVE, PEACE and WEALTH. I placed these three cards on
the table forming a face, so that two are the eyes and one nose,
then take the rest of the deck and form a smiling mouth by
spreading it while saying "once upon again ... to our history" ,
and we hold the card of HOPE in our hands.

The trick invites many metaphors, be they comic, romantic,

dramatic ... I'm sure you can think of some great ones.

303
 ACES ASSEMBLY

Amongst the routines of card trick that exist, this is one of

the most versioned. The original creator is unknown, although
the first appearance in print was in "Nouvelle Magie Blanche
Dévoilée" by Jean-Nicolas Ponsin, in 1853. It is so popular that it
has become a true icon of card magic, but that has also harmed
them. It turns out that some amateur card magic friends told me
that they were bored of doing aces assemblies. I myself fell into
the same disinterest, but I thought that if a trick has many
versions it’s because it’s good. It’s not necessary to learn all
versions to enjoy this effect, but it’s convenient to consider some
of them for a good repertoire. Aces Assemblies are a true
iconography in the world of card magic, like the stage magician
who pulls a rabbit out of a hat.

25- Straight Aces Assembly

In this type of Aces Assembly, the Aces assemble magically

in a single step. Perhaps, the procedure most used by amateurs
for this Aces Assembly is the "Braue add-on move.” In "Nouvelle
Magie Blanche Dévoilée" by Jean-Nicolas Ponsin, a method as
sophisticated as palming the three top cards and then adding
them to the four Aces is used. Perhaps that is why the method of
"Braue add-on move” was much more interesting, being a
clearer and less risky way to achieve the same. Concerning
"Braue add-on move” it should be pointed out that Ed Marlo said
in 1980 that he had develop the same movement in 1944 (a year
before Fred Braue published it), although he also admitted that it
was too late to discuss it, turning out to be another clear
example on the concept of "independent ideas" and "personal
method."

304
 For this version it is necessary to force the spectator to
choose a specific pile where the Aces will assemble, but the
charismatic amateur magician Alex Elmsley solved this problem.
In Volume 1 of "The Collected Works of Alex Elmsley," written by
Stephen Minch, Elmsley delights us with a great Aces Assembly in
which it’s not necessary to force the pile where the Aces will
assemble, which greatly reinforces the effect. The trick is called
"1002nd Aces" (page 213). We can also find this method
explained in volume 3 of the Juan Tamariz DVD series, "Lessons
in Magic" with the title "Four Aces." This is the Aces Assembly
that I have performed most since I discovered it. In addition,
there is a very interesting version of this Aces Assembly called
"Elmsley Aces" by Derek Dingle, which can be found in "The
Complete Works of Derek Dingle," written by the indefatigable
promoter of magic and current editor of the famous "Genii
Magazine," Richard Kaufman.

26- Gradual Aces Assembly

It’s about an assembly in which the Aces don’t assemble in

a single step, but the magician shows them as they go one by
one from one pile to the other. These assemblies are more
amazing, since they are clearer. One of the pioneers of this
version was Stanley Collins, in "The Magazine of Magic," Vol. 1,
No. 1, October 1914. Although it’s not known for sure who was
the original creator. Some of the most outstanding gradual Aces
Assemblies are "Slow-Motion Aces" by Dai Vernon, "Bluff Ace
Assembly" by Edward Marlo or "Flight to Witch Mountain" by
Alex Elmsley. The one I use frequently for my usual repertoire,
for its relative simplicity and effectiveness, is the one we can find
in volume 1 of the DVD series "Harry Lorayne's Best Ever
Collection" with the name of "Fantastic Aces Assembly." It’s a

305
gem not very difficult to perform, ideal for an amateur who
wants to delight in casual situations.

There is another type of Ace Assembly known as

"progressive," in which first joint the Ace of the first pile to the
second, then the two to the third and finally the three to the
fourth pile while they are shown. The creator of this unique
version was Ken Krenzel, who presented some solutions in the
early sixties, but didn’t publish anything about it until November
1972 in the number 16 of "Epilogue." I thought it wasn’t
necessary to include it in the general repertoire, but it is worth
investigating these assemblies as a curiosity to give variety to our
shows. I was especially struck by the version of Dr Hiroshi Sawa,
called "Strolling Cow Aces," on page 63 of volume 1 of "Sawa's
Library of Magic," written by Richard Kaufman (1988). Judging by
the requirement that this effect entails, it’s a very clear method
in proportion to its difficulty. Dr Hiroshi Sawa was highly praised
by Dai Vernon in a meeting they had in Osaka in 1969, saying
that Hiroshi's magic was pure poetry.

27- The Power of Faith

The most popular version of Aces Assemblies that use

gimmick cards is known as "McDonald's Aces" since the thirties
of the 20th century. However, that idea was already used by
Hofzinser in the second half of the 19th century with the title
translated "The Power of Faith," as Ottokar Fischer told us in "J.
N. Hofzinser Kartenkünste "(1910). The trick can be found in
several publications with different ways of carrying it out. In
"Expert Card Technique" by Hugard and Braue there are two
versions: "The Mechanical Four Aces" and "The Radioactive
Aces." Ed Marlo has its version (Marlo has versions for

306
everything) called "The Olram Aces," using its singular "Olram
Subtlety Move," although the suggestion to take advantage of
that movement to the Aces Assembly was by Ron Racherbaumer,
published in Marlo's Magazine, Vol. 3, p. 24. In short, it’s a
healthy dizziness of versions and procedures. Sometimes the Art
of Card Magic causes vertigo, but the best known version can be
found in the trilogy of Dai Vernon ("Inner Card Trilogy") written
by Lewis Ganson, specifically in the second book, "More Inner
Secrets of Card Magic" with the title "McDonald's $ 100
Routine." The title is due to John W. "Mac" McDonald, who was
a commercial promoter who became a magician after the crack
of 29 and commercialised this routine. Mac McDonald was one-
handed from 10 years of age by accident, but he was still an
excellent card magician.

I learnt it in 1991, thanks to the “magic set” I referenced

before in de chapter 7 (“Gimmicks as an Amateur”) called
“Conjunto mágico de cartas” de Santiago de la Riva y Juan
Tamariz, which in English mean "Magical set of cards" by
Santiago de la Riva and Juan Tamariz, being as well the first trick I
learned using professional gimmick cards. By the way, a little
idea that came to me three years later, in the summer of 1994,
was to take advantage of the double face of the Aces to start a
routine in which first a version of Vernon's "Triumph" was
performed, in which you lose clearly the Aces (no gimmick) in the
deck to make them appear face up (the gimmick ones), continue
with "McDonald's Aces,” and end with “Twisting the Aces,”
resulting in a great three effects routine.

I would like to highlight the particular variant in which the

Ace just disappears instead of being transformed, as for example
in "Grandpa's Aces" by Chris Kenner, well popularised by David

307
Coppefield and based in Ed Marlo’s “Real Gone Aces” plot.
Regarding the version in which the Aces are different back to the
indifferent cards, I will talk and provide references in the trick No.
62 of the repertoire, "The Four Blue Backed Aces."

DECKLESS

The so called "deckless" tricks represent a whole genre in

the world of card magic. They are tricks in which it doesn’t
intervene or it’s not necessary a complete deck of cards. In this
repertoire there are several tricks of this type, but they are
included in other groups such as the trick “Between the Two Red
Queens,” "Cavatina" or "Teleportation." Although, with the
excuse of talking a little about this type of tricks, I decided to
create this group with three great proposals that I recommend to
the amateur card magician.

"Deckless" tricks are more demanding, since spectators

only have to look at a few cards, which make the technical
movements for the magician more "watched" or taken into
account. The misdirection is also more difficult to apply in this
type of tricks since there is little to distract attention from,
making it vulnerable to attentive looks if the magician does not
act with the necessary skill. In addition, it is important to take
into account the conditions of the cards that we are going to use,
such as how much slippery they are and its natural adherence to
each other and to our hands. We must remember that a trick of
this type is very vulnerable to avid observers. On another hand, it
is highly recommended this type of trick being impromptus or
examinable cards at the end of the routine, to clear any doubt of
our veracity as a magician. It wouldn’t be convenient to begin
doing tricks of this type having to keep the cards at the end of

308
the effect without being able to give them to examine. It
wouldn’t be a good way to start doing magic of this kind if you
aren’t much respected as a magician yet.

28- The Mystic Nine

This little masterpiece of Brother John Hamman gave rise to

what is known as the Hamman Count, a subtle false count very
useful for card magic. It was published in "The Card Magic of Bro.
John Hamman S.M.," written by Paul Le Paul in 1958 (page 41).
There is a more recent publication in "The Secrets of Brother
John Hamman," written by Richard Kaufman in 1989 (Pag. 213).
The routine of "The Mystic Nine" consists in the following:

A red card is put on the table and nine black cards are
shown. One of the nine black cards is drawn, rubbed with the red
one and transformed into red. The same is done with another.
You try to do the same with a third, but not being rubbed does
not transform, and is placed on the table. Next, the three red
cards now join the rest of the cards and all become red. Then a
red card is drawn, rubbed with the black that was placed on the
table and turns black. The same is done with another red one.
Then the magician shows (confirming) that the cards in their
hands are red. Then he or she takes again a red one, rubs it with
the black ones of the table and turns into black. He or she
finished like that, with five reds and five blacks. The cards can be
handed to examine, as well as a gift, as is the case with another
great and recommendable John Bannon’s trick, marketed as "The
Royal Scam,” in which the Hamman count is used too.

I cannot overlook to recommend as well “The Unwary

Cheater” by José Carroll, in “52 Lovers” (p. 47), an extraordinary
and funny routine using the Hamman count.

309
 29- Re-Set

In 1972 was published in the magazine "Kabbala" by Jon

Racherbaumer (Vol.1, núm.7) a great trick called "Underground
Transposition,” also by the aforementioned Brother John
Hamman. The effect, totally impromptu, was as clear as
impressive:

The magician shows eight cards, for example four Queens

and four Jacks. He or she separates clearly the Queens from the
Jacks. Then two of them are exchanged with the Jacks, then
another and then the last. All are exchanged place with the Jacks.
It ends with a small "following the leader" effect. Five years later,
Paul Harris published "Re-set,” a version totally impromptu too,
in which the four cards are exchanged one by one (not two at the
beginning), and they are exchanged back again as they started,
instead of the small one effect of "following the leader" of the
Hamman’s routine. The version of Harris was very successful and
was accumulating several variants since it was published in
"Super Magic" in 1977. That caused it to be published again in
volume 1 of his "Art of Astonishment" in 1996, along with a
series of variants under the name "Re-set options." The effect of
Hamman was published again in "The Secrets of Brother John
Hamman" in 1989. I would also recommend a version of Michiaki
Kishimoto called "Marvelous," in his DVD "Impossible Dream"
(1994). The clarity of his version is fascinating.

30- All the Non-Conformists

This is another great deckless impromptu trick. Only four

cards are used, four Aces. We owe it to the mathematician and
amateur magician Martin Gardner. It was published in 1968 in
the great booklet "Tricks You Can Count On," written by Larry

310
West with the same title I show it here. Michael Skinner has a
great version in volume 3 of his series "Michael Skinner's
Professional Close-Up Magic." The effect is really intriguing. The
magician shows the four Aces face up and asks them to choose
one of them. Then he or she shows that the chosen Ace is blue
back, when the others are red back. Next, the magician causes
another of the Aces to acquire the blue back, while all the others
have a red back. Then, make all the Aces turn blue except one
(an Ace not yet mentioned). Finally, the Ace that remains to be
mentioned also appears as the only Ace of a different colour
(red). As a final touch, the magician shows that all the cards are
blue back, but then shows that all are red back. Finish the task by
making two of them red back and the other two blue back, which
hand to the audience. Awesome!

Martin Gardner was the card magician that had the idea of
counting cards by flipping and placing them under the pile, so
that if the first one was already flipped beforehand, it would not
be counted (unknowingly by the spectators), which was a tool
very subtle and simple to count less cards. It is known as
"Gardner's Hideout Principle," and it was published in "Cut the
Cards" (1942) through a trick called "Vanish and Spell" (page 14).

31- The Restless Lady

This masterpiece may not need introduction for most of

lovers of card magic. This is the personal version of Arturo de
Ascanio about a famous trick called "Homing Card," which is
about a card that always stays in a certain place doesn’t matter
how many times it’s withdrawn. There are two main versions.
One in which the card always remains in the pocket of the
magician and another in which the card always remains in a

311
certain pile of cards, originating a funny act very popularised by
the brilliant Fred Kaps. "The Restless Lady” is inspired by an
effect of the charismatic Tenkai Ishida, called "Tenkai Card
Flight," published in "Six Tricks by Tenkai," written by Robert
Parrish in 1953. Almost half a century later, in 2001, Masao
Atsukawa published a booklet of 49 pages called "Kaado no
shima" ("Island of Cards" in Japanese), in which he presented a
version of Tenkai's trick called "Tenkai no Furaingu Kuiin" ("The
Flying Queen of Tenkai" in Japanese). This little book was only
published in Japanese language.

"The Restless Lady” is one of those tricks that made me a

crazy lover of the Art of Card Magic. It is described in detail in
four versions in the third volume of "The Magic of Ascanio,"
written by Jesús Etcheverry (in the original Spanish). "Homing
Card" was devised by Fred Braue who published it in 1948 in a
16-page little book called "Show Stoppers with Cards," written
with his great friend Jean Hugard. As for the version of the card
that remains in the pocket, it is credited to Francis Carlyle, being
published a year earlier, in 1947, in series 4, No. 2 of "Star of
Magic," appearing on page 61 of the compilation of "Star of
Magic" of 1961. Dai Vernon said that the trick was devised by
Jimmy Grippo, who had taught it to Carlyle. In addition, the basic
method used for the routine dates from 1932, in a trick called "A
Trick Exposed, but how?" in "Eye-Openers" (page 16) by Ralph W.
Hull. It’s just a great trick that I will talk about in the "Signing"
section, since I got it as well selected for this repertoire.

So, with these four tricks I finish this group. One of the
characteristics that make these four tricks selected for this group
so recommendable for amateurs, is the fact that the spectators
can take the cards at the end of each effect, since there are no

312
secrets or mysteries to hide. They aren’t "wobbly tricks."
Likewise, the cards can be given as a souvenir.

Some other "deckless" tricks that aren’t "wobbly" which I

would recommend are "Troublebacker" and "Masque" by Max
Maven, which can be found in a book where he collects his best
effects, called "Focus." I would also recommend "Bullet Party"
and "Mega Wave" by John Bannon, although they are effects
that can’t be done with borrowed cards, but prepared in advance.

CHEAP AND CHEERFUL

“If you can perform a good force, control, and double lift,
you can work limitless miracles with a deck of cards.”

Harry Lorayne.

The following five routines are based on the same

procedure: to control a selected card and to apply the double lift
technique. This procedure allows you to achieve great miracles
of which power depends on how you present them. These five
routines were the most successful among my personal ideas with
the double lift technique, to the point of never ceasing to be part
of my general repertoire, in addition to the great affection I have
to them.

After these five routines there will be other three within

this same group that are simple and essential little gems well
known among amateurs of impromptu card magic. Altogether
we will see in this group, eight proposals.

313
 32- The Damaged Magic Lift

This five-stage routine was performed for the first time at

Christmas 1987, with great success. It’s a compilation of the best
ideas I had until that moment about the double lift technique.

Searching and looking for ideas with the double turn over, I
came up with the well-known effect of a “lift card” that goes up
to the top of the deck. But it was a too short effect and it never
occurred to me to make the card go up to the top again and
again, just like the popular “ambitious card” routine, besides that
at that time I only knew how to make the card go magically up
once. So, thinking and thinking about how to get more out of
that great but brief effect, I thought of a routine called “The
Damaged Magic Lift,” in which I didn’t get the card to rise to the
top, so I had to make it appear in another way with the ironic
and comical excuse that the magic lift was broken. Finally, after
three failed attempts along with three alternative effects, and
when the spectators totally assumed that I was not going to
achieve the effect of the magic lift, the miracle happened,
making that way much more powerful that effect.

The routine ended with the magician saying:

“It was not really the magic lift that was broken, but the
magician!”

Well, I’ll stop running my mouth and go on to the first

of the five effects of the routine.

314
 A- "Transformation through the Deck."

Have a selected card and control it to the top. Then you say
that you are going to make the card magically rise to the top of
the deck. Magic gesture, double turn over and say convinced:
"your card is this, right?" When they say “no,” you show
disappointment and say in a desperate tone: "Are you sure?
Didn’t you forget it?" People will laugh insisting that it’s not the
selected card. You redo the double turn over, take the top card,
cut the deck, and while dropping a cascade of cards (as explained
in chapter 5 about this effect), you try to hypnotise the viewer
saying that this is his or her card, but of course you cannot
hypnotise the spectator to make him/her consider that this is the
selection, provoking more laughs. Finally you say that if you can’t
hypnotise the spectator, we will try to hypnotise the card so that
the card believes it’s the selected one. You throw it through the
card cascade. You ask them to turn it over. Surprise!

B- "Transformation through a Small Pile."

We have again a card selected and we control it to the top.

We try again to magically make the selection to rise to the top.
We do a magic gesture, perform a double turn over, but it
doesn’t go up. You say: "let's try something, let’s put it here." We
put the double card on the table face up and try again to make
the selection magically to rise to top. It doesn’t go up. We put
the wrong card face up on the previous one. We try two or three
more times, but it doesn’t go up. Then you say: "if all of you
aren’t in a hurry you will see how it finally goes up." This will
cause great laughter since it’s a no-brainer. As you continue with
more attempts you say: "The last time I did this magic, it went to
the twenty-second." More laughs. When you go by the ninth or

315
tenth card, you say: "we better do the same as before to not take
so long." Then you take the little packet of cards from the table,
turn it face down, double turn over, and say: "Then you're sure it
wasn’t your card, right?" You redo the double and do the same
effect as before, hypnotising the card so that the card believes to
be the selection one; only this time you do it through the small
group of cards. This effect is more striking than the previous one
since the spectators are totally convinced that the card is not
even among those of that pile. It not only produces a feeling of
transformation, but also of teleportation.

C- "A Turn from a Distance."

This is another of the effects that I came up with in a dream,

in December of 1986.

You insist we really want to get a selected card to go top

magically. Again, we have a card selected. We control it to the
top. We try again the same magic. Magic gesture; double turn
over; but the card doesn’t go to the top. You say: "It seems the
magic lift is damaged ..., but hey, it doesn’t matter, I'll try to keep
hypnotising the cards." Let’s consider that the card that appears
after the “double turn over” is the Queen of Hearts. You turn the
wrist to flip the deck. You are in position of doing the "glide
technique" with the deck face up, but we are not going to apply
that technique (at that time I even didn’t know it), we will only
remove the Queen of Hearts and place it on the table, face up.
This is done so that the chosen card by the viewer is not visible.
The movement is far from being suspicious since you
immediately throw the Queen of Hearts on the table, face up, to
show it well. Then you spread the deck face up on the table with
care not to let see the chosen card, and say: "well then, your card

316
is one of these, right?" It's about making the audience to see
clearly that all the cards are face up. Pick up the spread, make a
quick cut and put the deck on the table face down (if instead of
the cut we do the “invisible pass,” the trick would be clearer).
You say that we are going to use the Queen of Hearts as if it
were the "magic flute" of a fakir that makes a cobra dance, and
you hand it to a spectator. You tell him or her that you are going
to spread the deck on the table face up, and in the meantime he
or she is going to turn the Queen slowly in his/her hands. The
effect is visual. As you spread the deck the spectator turn slowly
the Queen and it’s shown a card turned over in the middle of the
deck. It will cause the feeling that the chosen card is hypnotised,
imitating the movements of the Queen.

Doing researches, I discovered that the first reference in

print of this effect dated from 1885, in Edwin Sachs's "Sleight of
Hand,” in a trick called "The Reversed Card" (page 104).

D- "The Lift Card."

This simple but striking idea was performed for the first
time at Christmas of 1985 with the corresponding and usual
insinuation of using duplicate cards.

You say we want to insist on getting a chosen card to rise to

the top. Again, we have a card selected and controlled to the top.
We try again to achieve the same miracle. Magic gesture; double
turn over; the selection doesn’t go up. We say: "It's your fault.
Yes. It's your fault because you don’t say that your card is this ..."
Laughter. You continue: “... If you said that your card is this ...
then it would have risen to the top magically!" This comic
attitude showed or made clear the idea that what I was trying to
do was definitely impossible. My family members were

317
convinced that I couldn’t do that, since that magic could only be
done by “TV magicians" (as my cousins used to tell me), and
that's why I only joke with it, resorting to a remote luck. The idea
was not to make them think at any time that it was an easy
magic to get (so it is), so that, if I get it, they would be totally
gobsmacked. Then you redo the double very clearly, put the deck
on the table and say that you will try again for the last time. Your
audience will be very sceptical because they have just seen with
their own eyes that the top card wasn’t the selected, plus you
never get it. Suddenly you exclaim that you already understand
why you don’t get it. You say that something fails in the magic
snap, and maybe it must be done with the thumb and index
finger, not with the thumb and the middle finger, since the
forefinger represents the first place while the middle finger
represents the second place. Then you snap using the index
finger and ... surprise!! You go crazy with joy for having achieved
it, in a behaviour that help to give the feeling that the magic
really happened, which I learned by watching the performances
of Juan Tamariz on TV. I confess that I also imitated him by
playing the “Air Violin.” We finish saying that “it was not really
that the magic lift was broken, but the magician!”

It was as a result of that show when I began to realise the

great importance of the gestures to convey the feeling of magic,
aspects that I would call later "pantomimes" for my personal
theoretical deductions.

318
 E- "The Lift Card with a Cut Deck."

This final surprise came to me thinking about the previous

effect “Transformation through a Small Pile." We say that now
that we know how to do the magic of the card that goes up, we
have to take advantage to do it again. Then, we lose the same
card in the deck and control it to the top. Next we do a riffle
shuffle to control it to second top, and a false cut. We do the
magic snap with the thumb and the middle finger and say: "What
a fool, I have done it again with my middle finger out of habit!"
But you show with curiosity that the card has gone up to the
second place, just because you snapped with the middle finger,
which is the second finger! This effect can be done much easier
and clearer with the TILT technique (unknown at that time by
me).

You then offer a spectator to try it while you lose the same
card in the deck and control it to the top. You ask the viewer to
snap his or her index and thumb fingers. Double turned over. It
doesn’t go up. That is weird! Something is wrong. You put the
(double) failed card on the table face up (as in the effect of
“Transformation through a Small Pile.") You ask him or her to
snap again the same fingers. Turn over the top card. Nothing
happen. You put it on the previous one (s) face up. You do the
same thing two or three times more. Nothing happen. Then you
ask the viewer if he or she ever did a magic course or went to a
magic school. He or she will tell you “no.” Then you say that
that's why the trick doesn’t work. If they said “yes,” we would
joke that that school wasn’t very good. Then you try it saying that
you did go to a magic school. Snap. Nothing happen. Hey?! Two
or three more attempts. Nothing happen. So, you say that your
school seems not to be very good either. Maybe we have to snap

319
harder. Two or three more attempts. Nothing happen. People
will begin to suspect that you are waiting for one of the cards to
end up being the chosen one as a gag. You go on: "Ah! It's just
that I'm doing it with my right hand, and I'm a left-handed
magician." So, you try with the left. Nothing happen. Finally you
say: "Do you know? The secret of this trick is to try it several
times ... you will see how it ends up going up?" Here people will
laugh assuming that it is a gag. Then you say in a low and
disappointed voice: "I wanted to finish triumphantly, but because
I wanted to repeat it, I’m ruining it." Finally you look at the pile of
cards formed on the table and exclaim: "Ah, I see! What happens
is that this isn’t the top of the deck. The deck is cut. So, the real
top part of the deck is here ..." You take the pile, turn it over and
ask the spectator to pick up the top card of the pile. The surprise
is special, since what seemed like a simple joke becomes an
inexplicable magical effect.

Around twenty years later I found out that Daryl Martínez

had a similar idea for his ambitious card routine.

Despite the acknowledgement of my cousins, some uncles

of mine told me that I should use a duplicate card that I placed
on top of the deck in a distraction moment. Actually, it was well
known that at home there was more than one deck of the same
back that made easy those suspicions. I tried to prove otherwise
by offering the deck for checking, but they also didn’t want to
bother doing that check. At that time I didn’t imagine the idea of
having a card signed as proof of a unique card, in addition to my
parents wouldn’t allow me to spoil a deck as well. Moreover, my
uncles reacted by asking me to repeat the trick, far from just
applauding me, which caused me an uncomfortable sorrow.
Fortunately my older brother warned me that they only wanted

320
to catch the secret, advising me not to repeat it. Certainly the sly
smiles seemed more challenging than interested to see the trick
again, plus I understood that I was never going to get applause
from them, so I ended up taking the right decision not to repeat
it or just do it alone to my cousins. My uncles made me angry.

Alternative effect: "Magicidence."

A year after the premiere of this show, I decided to add a

sixth effect to what would be the Christmas show of 1988, which
came to me thinking as always in the fantastic technique of
double lift. I called it "Magicidence" mixing the words "magic"
and “coincidence." Let’s consider a lady magician.

The magician asks a spectator to cut the deck in half and

choose one of the two piles. She says that she will pass a little bit
of her magical power to him so that he also does a little magic.
She then asks him to spread his cards so that the magician
selects one. We look at the card secretly and pretend that we
memorise it, but we do not. She returns it and asks him to
shuffle. The spectator does the same with the half of the
magician. Then we control the card to top 2º. She asks him to
exchange the piles, so that he has the one of her selection and
vice versa. The magician says that it would be very coincidental
that our cards have been topped after the shuffles, but that
could be. You look (only you) the top card of your pile
mysteriously, and return it to top. Suppose it is the Five of
Spades. You ask the viewer to show his own first while telling
him that your card was the Five of Spades. So, there has not
been so much coincidence. Then you do a double turn over and
show another card, for example, a Seven of Hearts. Nor has
there been so much coincidence, as to be expected. Then you

321
say that if there is no coincidence, we can do "magicidence." You
ask to exchange the piles again. You do a magical snap; you do it
with the thumb and the middle finger, but you say that you have
been wrong again by habit, and you ask the spectator to do it
well; with the thumb and the index, so that the card rises to top.
Bingo! So, the magician’s card appears in top 2º due to the snap
made with her thumb and middle finger!

33- Magical Trips of a Card

I consider this routine of three little effects as my personal

best idea to the application of the double turn over technique. It
was develop and performed for the first time in December of
1988, having a great success.

A deck is handed to be shuffled while we explain that we

are going to illustrate a magical trip of a card. You say that
people have the habit of travelling in a non-magical way ..." for
not making a scene, you know ..." Laughter. You take the deck
and do a double turn over. 5 of Diamonds; you say: "we are
going to make this 5 of Diamonds travel to the pocket in a non-
magical way." You put both cards in your pocket as if they were
one. You introduce them little by little in the pocket so that the
spectators only see the back, but you don’t get to introduce it
completely, but you leave it in view and without releasing it. You
say looking into the eyes of the spectators: "The 5 of diamonds
has completed its journey." And while you say it, let the 5 of
Diamonds slide into the pocket, being the action covered by the
indifferent card on the back. Then you say: "Now we are going to
try to make the same trip, but magically." You take the card out
of your pocket and put it very clearly on the deck. You can say
that the card has returned to the airport. It’s important to arouse

322
the imagination in the spectators. You make gestures and
pantomimes to illustrate a magical journey from the "Deck"
airport to the "Pocket" airport. You say that the magical journey
has been completed. Maybe, ironic smiles appear. You insist;
more ironic laughter. You say that if they don’t believe you, just
pay attention to the return trip. This will cause more laughter as
they think you're just kidding and you're not going to achieve
such magic. However you say: "Don’t you believe in the magical
return trip? So check it out!" You offer to look at the top card.
More laughs. If someone tried to pick up the top card (I don’t
think so because they know what card it's supposed to be), stop
it by saying that all this was a joke and now let's try it seriously.
So, you proceed again with the pantomimes of the magical trip
to the "Pocket" airport. After a little of silence, you say that to
prove it we can check if the 5 of Diamond traveller is in “Deck”
airport (top). There is not! The second one either ... You can
check the whole "airport" if you want. You keep your hands open
and up to see that you don’t do anything weird. The card is in the
magician's pocket!

Perhaps it is convenient to let check at the beginning of the

routine your empty pocket. The card could also be signed to
dispel any suspicion of a duplicate card. The hint of the use of
duplicate card is quite common with amateurs. However, today I
realise a very curious thing: the famous suspicions of duplicate
cards may have saved my magic life so that no one would have
suspected of the double lift technique. Yes. Today I can say that
the blessed suspicion of a duplicate card was the perfect "false
solution" to hide the double lift secret. Anyway, I had another
small problem to look for a solution, and was precisely this
solution that made me extend this trick to two more effects. Said

323
problem was that my viewers felt dissatisfied if I didn’t repeat a
good effect (like that one), which was a dilemma, because if that
effect was repeated to the T, it would be suspicious why it’s
necessary to do again the example of the non-magical journey.
Then I came up with the idea of extending the routine to make
forget the previous effect by means of a second different effect.
This was also how I began to be aware of the importance that
sometimes had the organization of a sequence of effects. The
routine would continue as follows:

You say: "But, what really magical travels are for ... apart
from to boast of it? For example, when we lose a flight ... let's
imagine that the box is now an airplane." You hand the deck to a
spectator and ask him or her to shuffle it while you show the box
open and empty. You ask for the deck. Double turn over; you
say: "8 of Spades, this will be the unfortunate traveller who will
lose his flight." You redo the double and stick the top card in the
middle of the deck, making spectators believe that it is the
traveller 8 of spades. You say: "Let’s suppose the 8 of Spades
traveller is still lost at the airport." Then you say that a few
travellers are going to board the plane. Double turn over, we
show an indifferent card and put them face up on the table
making believe that they are just one card (the bottom will be
the 8 of Spades hidden). We do the same but without double lifts
with nine more cards, and say: "Ten passengers get on the
plane." We put the ten (eleven) cards inside the box and close it.
We parody the flight of the plane leaving the “Deck Airport." You
say the 8 of Spades traveller has lost its plane. You put the card
that everyone thinks is the 8 of Spades in top and you continue
saying: "Are you just resigned and go home? Not! There is still the
option of the magical trip." Do magical pantomimes. The 8 of

324
Spades is no longer on the top. You open the box, count the
cards, eleven! The 8 of Spades is among the travellers! You say:
"Do you see why magical trips are very useful?"

There is a trick called "Box Jumper" by John Bannon,

published in volume 2 of his "Bullet Party,” which is similar to
this little effect. In addition, the first reference in print to a card
trick in which a card appears inside the box, dates from 1928, on
page 28 of "Popular Card Tricks" by Walter Gibson.

For the third effect, while we shuffle the deck again, we

say: "Let's put another example ... what would happen if two
travellers wanted to exchange ... for any reason such a changes
of plans or something else? Well, magical trips would also be very
useful there ..." They give you back the deck. Double turn over;
you say: "let’s imagine that this traveller, the 4 of Diamonds,
stays at ‘Deck’ airport." You redo the double and lose the top
card in the middle of the deck, making them believe that it’s the
one you have shown. You do another double turn over and
continue saying: "Whereas this other, the 3 of Clubs, gets on the
plane." Redo the double and keep the top card (the 4 of
Diamonds) inside the box, making believe that it’s the 3 of Clubs.
Then shuffle the deck without altering the top card. You
emphasise that the 4 of Diamonds is anywhere in “Deck Airport.”
Suddenly, and too late, they decide that one wants to travel and
the other does not ... "What a problem! But they resort to the
magical journey!" You ask a spectator to choose a point at the
airport where the magical exchange takes place. That is, you ask
for cutting the deck any point they want. After the cut, you apply
the technique of "cross cut card force,” leaving the two halves of
the deck cross cut as you focus attention on the box and make
magic gestures. You open the box and show the card. Applause!

325
(I suppose). Then you can see that the exchange was made right
where the spectator cut off, since the cut card is precisely the 3
of Clubs, which was inside the box (plane). For this effect you
could throw the box through the deck cut by the spectator,
which is a magical gesture that I did a lot as if it were a personal
signature.

I was interested in airplanes from an early age, since my

father worked in an aeronautical company. This metaphor was
inspired by my first plane ride with my family, in a short trip from
Malaga to Melilla. The metaphor was also inspired by my passion
for travelling.

A few years later I found out a card trick in “Expert Card

Technique”, by Hugard and Braue, called “A Stranger in the
House”, which is quite similar to this one, only the metaphor is
very different. I, always with the frank intention of giving any
published references about my independent ideas, inform of
anything that fall in my knowledge about it. I hope to know more
in the future.

34- The Dartboard toward the Dart

This is a comical occurrence inspired by the dartboard that

my father had and with which he barely let us play for being
dangerous, so it occurred to me to illustrate a funny card trick
with the metaphor of a dartboard, for Christmas 1987.

Have a card selected and control it to the second top. You

say you're going to get the card magically on top. You make
magical gesture and flip the top card. When they say it is not the
card, you answer: "but do you imagine if this would have been
your card…? It would have been incredible, wouldn’t it?" People
will laugh while you keep saying "you have to try." I use a lot this

326
role of poor and opportunistic magician. Apart from making the
audience laugh, the magical effects become more powerful,
given the magician's low expectations.

Remember that the chosen card is in the second top. Hand

the top card to a spectator (let’s suppose it is the 4 of Spades)
and tell him or her that we are going to play an aiming game. You
ask him or her to insert the 4 of Spades (which must be face
down) at any point in the deck to see if he or she hits right where
the chosen card is, as if the 4 of Spades was a dart and the deck
was a dartboard. Then, you cut the deck at the point where the
spectator inserted the card, show the cut card and ask if it’s the
selection. When they say “no,” turn over the other card of the
cut as a second chance, but it’s not either. You say that the 4 of
Spades doesn’t look like a good dart, which should be blunt. You
say we're going to try again. You do a double turn over and show,
for example, the Ace of Hearts while you say: "this is the good
dart." You redo the double and hand it to another spectator the
selected card (let’s suppose it’s the 7 of Spades) making them
believe that you handed the Ace of Hearts. You say that there is
a unique method to hit, which is to throw the dartboard against
the dart. You explain that someone can hold the dart firmly while
another one aims to throw the dartboard against the dart. You
can tell it with a lot of comedy by stating that one day you tried it
with a real dartboard and a real dart ... Then you riffle the deck
at the same time you bring it to the "dart card,” firmly held by
the spectator, to make it get caught at any point inside the deck.
When you see that you have not been successful, the audience
will begin to get impatient, but then you emphasise that in this
case the target is no longer the dartboard, but the dart. You ask
the spectator to turn the "dart card" and check the success.

327
 When the "Encyclopedia of Card Tricks” by Hugard and
Braue fell into my hands, I observed a trick with an effect similar
to this one. A routine called "The Magic Thrust,” created by Ted
Annemann.

35- The Sucker Card

“The Sucker Card” was premiered at Christmas 1989 with a

great success. It requires two decks (red and blue back) and a
little preparation. We take four cards, for example the Ten of
Clubs and the Six of Hearts of both decks. We stack them from
top, 10 C (blue back), 10 C (red back), 6 H (blue back) and 6 H
(red back). We put them on the blue back deck. Ready.

We say we're going to give a funny magical property to the

cards, the property of absorbing other cards. We take out both
decks and ask them to choose one. If they say the red one, we
ask them to take it and shuffle it. If they say the blue we say that
then we will give the magical properties to the cards in the blue
deck. We take the blue deck and riffle shuffle it without altering
the top and being careful not to show the red back cards. As they
finish shuffling the red deck we get a “break” at the top two
cards. We ask for placing the red deck on the table. We do a
double turn over and say: “for example, the Ten of Clubs will be
the first sucker card.” You do a pantomime that you give it the
magical property of absorbing its twin card. You place it on the
red deck. After a magical gesture show the first two cards and it’s
proven that it has certainly absorbed its twin card!

Then you comment that in this case it may have been just a
fluke. That is, after shuffling the spectator, the top card may
have turned out to be just Ten of Clubs. You say: "It would be too
much of a coincidence but it can happen, right? Then, to avoid

328
such a great coincidence, we are going to look at the top card in
advance to make sure." Thus, after shuffling and cutting the
spectator the red deck, the top card is shown; Two of Clubs.
Then, after you shuffle and a false cut, do a double turn over and
say: "Six of Hearts, they don’t coincide, then it’s valid." Redo the
double and place the card (s) on the red deck. At this point we
say: “Oops! I forgot a very important thing; to give it the magical
property.” We take the top card and do the pantomime that you
give it the magical property of absorbing its twin card.
Straightaway, we hand the card to a spectator and say: “Notice
that the card doesn’t absorb if the magician doesn’t give it the
magic property." You take the deck and ask someone what was
the card on top. When they say the Two of Clubs, do a double
turn over and say: "Good memory ... I had forgotten ..." Then you
redo the double and ask the viewer for placing the card back on
top. You do a magical gesture. Everything is done for the second
effect...!

At this point people may begin to suspect why the blue

deck in only touched by the magician. However, the deck is now
“off the hook.” So we offer: “Do you want to do it yourself?” We
hand de blue back deck and ask to shuffle or cut and complete
the cut. Next, you take the deck, do a double turn over and say:
"Let's consider any card, for example this King of Diamonds."
Redo the double and "lose" said card anywhere in the middle of
the deck (we keep it on top). Then you take the red deck and say
you are going to look for its twin card. You look for the same card,
King of Diamond, you give it the magical property and hand it to
be put on top of the blue deck by the spectator him/herself…

329
 36- Chance Choice

This curious trick occurred to me in December 1990. I

usually introduce it with another fun trick called "Timed
Prediction" which I talk about in chapter 5, in the section "The
Concept of Independent Ideas.” "Timed Prediction" is one of
those ideal mini-tricks to start a sequential card tricks show
motivating the interest of the public to see more magic.

For "Chance Choice" we will use fourteen cards. They will

be for example those of the Spades suit plus the Ace of Hearts.
The spectators will not see them, that is, you take the fourteen
cards face down with the Ace of Hearts on top. You shuffle them
keeping the Ace of Hearts on top. You spread the cards while
asking a viewer to select one. You offer to change it if they want.
You put it on top. Double turn over and say they have chosen the
Ace of Hearts. You redo the double and say we will lose the card.
We shuffle keeping the Ace of Hearts on top and do the same
thing with a second spectator. Same operation and the chance
happen that they have chosen the same card. "We lose" again
the Ace of Hearts and shuffle controlling it this time to the
bottom. We ask a third spectator to say a number from one to
fourteen, since there are fourteen cards; seven. We apply the so
called technique “the glide” to pass six cards and keeping the
bottom card on the bottom, so that we show the bottom one as
seventh, surprise! It is also the Ace of Hearts. We apply again the
technique of “the glide” to make believe that we put the Ace of
Hearts on the table, but in fact we put another card. We say that
we are going to make it very difficult for the Ace of Hearts,
putting it aside. Then, for a fourth spectator we perform a “riffle
force” to force the Ace of Hearts when the spectator says
“stop”... again the Ace of Hearts? How is it possible if we just put

330
it aside on the table? People may feel a mixture of surprise and
suspicion. You clarify that it is a great coincidence. Some
spectators will say that all the cards are the same. You deny that
saying that it’s a really great chance choice, since all the other
cards are different ... you flip the alleged Ace of Hearts which
happens to be a card of Spades, and then you turn over all the
other Spade cards.

The following year, taking advantage of the repeated cards

from the “Conjunto mágico de cartas” ("Magical set of cards") by
Santiago de la Riva and Juan Tamariz, I came up with the comical
and hilarious idea that the other cards were indeed the same,
only not the Ace of Hearts but another!, as for example the Nine
of Spades. That is, at the end of the trick we would ask if they
believe that all the cards are the same. They would say “yes” and
we answer that they are right; that they are all the same; they
are all Nine of Spades! The impact is really disconcerting and
funny. Also, I think of the idea that they were just blank. So, at
the end we would say that they always choose the Ace of Hearts
because it’s the only card to choose ... the others are blank!

This concludes the five most successful card routines that I

personally came up with applying the double turn over technique.
Next, I will propose three well-known and wonderful tricks ideal
for a good impromptu repertoire.

331
 37- The Partagas “Sell”

Vicente Canuto, in his "Cartomagia Fundamental"

(fundamental card magic), shows a very funny trick with the title
“Dos transformaciones” (two transformations), a trick he learned
in the Volume I of the work of Father Wenceslao Ciuró,
"Cartomagia" (card magic) from 1970. Ciuró was a true icon
pioneering of the spreading of the Art of Card Magic in Spain.
The idea of the trick dates from one of the great friends and
teachers of Ciuró, Joaquín Partagás Jaquet. Partagás was the
founder of the first magic shop in Spain, "El rei de la màgia," (the
king of magic) in Barcelona, in 1881 (which is still open). Partagás
spent a good part of his professional life as a magician in
Argentina. Ciuró learned a lot with the books of Maestro
Partagás. Two years after the death of Partagás, Victor Farelli, an
Irish magician who spent a lot of time in Spain, published this
idea of Partagás in the part two of his "Farelli's Card Magic" in
1933, with the title "The Partagas Sell." However, in the United
States the idea is hastily attributed to Charlie Miller since his
routine called "The Dunbury Delusion" was published in "Expert
Card Technique" by Hugard and Braue in 1940, which is identical
to Partagas’ but for the technique used; Miller used the “second
deal” and Partagás used “the glide.” Subsequently, other funny
versions appeared such as the one of Eddie Fechter, which I
recommend, called "That's It," that we can find in "The Magic of
Eddie Fechter," written by Jerry Mentzer. It was one of the first
tricks I learned reading books, since it was through the first
exclusive book of card magic that I could read: "Cartopijadas"
(”nonsense card”) by Alberto Reyes, although I don’t remember
which of the two volumes (1986 or 1988 one).

332
 In Charlie Miller's version the first card will indicate the suit
of the selection, the second card, the value, and the third card,
the position in the deck. It occurred to me to present it in
another way, saying that the total sum of the three cards would
take us to the position of the chosen card, as if the deck were an
infallible calculator. The reason why three cards and no more
would be as simple as if there were four cards, the total sum
could be 52 when there would only be 49 cards to count, so you
should use only three cards for the sum, and to that sum I added
a number selected by a spectator from one to ten. When I
thought about this presentation, in December of 1988, I called it
"The Calculating Deck," but later I never stopped talking about its
origin and Partagás since I found out that origin.

38- As-cend with Three Cards

I could not miss in the repertoire this classic, simple and

omnipresent effect that is so useful when we need to do a short,
curious and elegant trick. It consists in showing three cards face
down, turn over the top one to show its face, turn it face down
again and place it under the other two, make a magic gesture
and it appears on top again. You do the same thing twice more.
When the audience claims that all three are the same, the
magician asks them to choose one of them that turns out to be
the same as always, but the other two are different! As Vicente
Canuto says in his book, this final surprise is Juan Tamariz's idea,
since the classic version consists only in what the title of the trick
says. I present it sometimes in a peculiar way in which I use an
Ace, a Queen and a King of Hearts. I do the as-cend effect and let
the spectators claim that there are three equal cards, then I say:
"I'm a bit of a poor magician and sometimes I need the help of
this magician (the king) and this lady magician (the queen ), if it

333
wasn’t for them ..." It produces a mixture of surprise and
laughter ... a funny final. I also do a version in which I use an Ace,
a Two and a Three. I do the lift effect with the Ace by tapping
each time. Then I show that there are three equal Aces. Then I
give two taps and the card that goes up is a two! Something that
is repeated twice more. Then I say that it's very easy because
they are all two (!). And so I repeat the operation with three taps
and the Three. Finally I ask that they choose one of the three
Three (I force the one in the centre), I turn it over and say that
obviously it is a Three. Then I say: "but remember that if I tap
once it becomes a One (I tap once and turn the Ace over), and if I
tap twice it becomes a Two." This way I can hand the three cards
after a few quick and striking effects!

Within this effect I wanted to take advantage of to

recommend another fantastic trick of similar dynamics but with
five cards. This is "Too Many Cards" by Derek Dingle, which can
be found in "The Complete Works of Derek Dingle," written by
Richard Kaufman. The trick consists in showing five different
cards; an Ace, a 2, a 3, a 4 and a 5 (to remember and follow them
easily). Each of them, starting with the Ace and following its
value order, performs a magical goes on top effect (as I
described in the previous effect), until there is only one card left,
supposedly the Five one, but when turning it over it is shown
that is a totally different card, such as a Queen of Hearts. The
routine has also become a classic, so Larry Jennings published a
presentation on this effect called precisely "Ambitious Classic," in
"The Classic Magic of Larry Jennings," written by Mike Maxell.
Also, James Swain published a version called "Circus Family" in
his book "Do Not Blink." I saw a version of Juan Tamariz on a
Spanish TV Show around 1990, in which he inserted this trick in a

334
curious routine called “La memoria” ("memory"). It consisted in
having a card selected by the spectators, losing it in the deck and
trying to make them forget it while the magician perform a trick
with four different cards (without using the rest of the deck),
specifically the popular trick "Twisting The Aces " (No. 63 of the
repertoire). At the end of that trick he asked if they have
forgotten the card. The answer is “no.” Then he does another
trick, but adding a fifth card. A trick in which the five cards
magically change order, original by Noel Stanton ("The Gen"
1965), for which Roberto Giobbi published a version called "The
Palindrome Cards" in volume 3 of his "Card College.” At the end
of the trick, he asked again if he has got them to forget the card
they chose. The answer is “no.” Finally he asks for a third chance
and performs the commented effect of "Too Many Cards" by
Derek Dingle, with its final surprise that the five-value card
becomes the selected one that Tamariz wanted them to forget.
On one occasion I performed this same Tamariz routine but with
its “Mnemonica Deck,” that is, the chosen card was a named
card that I later tried to make them forget, without getting it.
Anyway ... how I run my mouth! ... I just like so much to go on
and on with these issues ... I move on to the next trick...

39- The Time Machine

As well as the previous effect, this is another delight when

we need to do something brief, curious and elegant. Only our
good talent would be missing, that is, it needs to be practise with
a personal touch. We owe the trick to the imagination of Steve
Freeman, a brilliant and timid disciple of Dai Vernon who
preferred not to get much known. The trick was widely
popularised by Roberto Giobbi, when he published it in the third
volume of his great "Card College.”

335
 It consists of showing the top card of a deck and losing it in
the middle (for example, Ace of Spades). Then show the next one
in top (for example, Queen of Hearts) and introduce it in the
middle of the deck too, but a little bit outgoing. Then, the
magician says that he’s going to take a small step back in time.
Thus, the Queen of Hearts becomes the Ace of Spades, and the
card that is on top of the deck becomes the Queen of Hearts, as
in the recent past. I have always presented it like this:

"To travel in time it takes a very powerful magic, but that

depends on how much you want to travel. The longer you want
to travel the more powerful the magic you need. Generally
magicians cannot carry such a powerful magic always, but we
can carry the magic necessary to travel back in time a single
minute. And so that, if we turn the Queen of Hearts like that,
anti-clockwise, to return a minute back in time we can verify that
effectively now this card is what it was one minute ago, the Ace
of Spades, while the Queen is now where it was a minute ago.
But the most important thing of all is not the cards, but now we
are all a minute younger!"

This last detail of presentation about "now we are all

younger," I think it’s original by Roberto Giobbi.

40- Out Of Side-Out Of Mind

You cannot miss in a good repertoire an effect in which you

divine a card merely thought by a viewer, and this is the trick
that I would recommend the most from an impromptu point of
view. A trick that will give you a good reputation as a card
magician and doesn’t require complicated techniques. It’s a great
idea of Dai Vernon inspired by "A Mind-Reading Trick" from the
famous anonymous book "Expert at the Card Table." The trick

336
can begin with a deck completely shuffled by the spectator. The
magician shows cards, one by one, for a spectator to think of one
of them. The magician does not look at them. When the
spectator says that has thought of one, the magician shuffles the
deck and spread the cards face up, asks the spectator to hold his
arm and look at the cards as he passes them. The magician asks
him or her just notice the card thought. I consider that Vernon
tried to transmit the idea that the viewer's thought passed
through his arm, but that it would not happen until the spectator
did not visualise the card during that contact. In this way, the
reason for showing the cards to the spectator once he or she had
thought of one would be justified. To finish, the magician starts
taking card without looking at them until stopping in the exact
place where the card thought is; a very intriguing effect that
causes a great sense of magic in the spectators as a leading role.

We can find it on page 14 of "More Inner Secrets of Card

Magic." It is also published in volume 5 of "Card College" by
Roberto Giobbi (page 1318).

THE HOFZINSER LOST ACE PROBLEM

"The Hofzinser’s Lost Ace” is a classic among the classics. A

masterpiece highly regarded by card magicians from around the
world since Jack Avis created it in 1958. The routine is about
putting the four Aces aside on the table and having a card
selected and lost in the deck. The Aces are squared; magic words.
The Aces are spread and it’s shown that one of them has turned
over among the others, specifically the one of the same suit to
that of the selected one. The deck is spread and it’s verified that
there is also a turned over card among the others. When the
spectators believe that it’s the selected card, it’s shown that it’s

337
in reality the face down Ace! So, the turned over card among the
Aces is flipped and it’s found out to be the selected card!

There is some controversy about the original creator of this

marvellous effect. Although the trick was developed
independently by Jack Avis in 1958, Dai Vernon said that it was
"The Hofzinser’s lost Ace Problem,” as he had read in a letter.
That letter has not been found yet, but the trick was called that
way since then. It never crossed my mind to think that someone
like Vernon was lying about something like that. Avis said to have
been inspired by "The Deo-Ace Trick" by Edward Victor,
published in "Magic of the Hands," in 1937, but that doesn’t have
to imply that Vernon's testimony was false. Just as Avis was
inspired by Victor, Victor could have been as well inspired by
tricks popularised from Hofzinser's ideas, about which Vernon
may have seen something written in one of his missives loaned
by their owners. Nor was it the only time that Vernon said he had
read about Hofzinser's techniques and ideas, such as the "pinky
count," which was credited to Vernon when he himself admitted
to having read it as Hofzinser's idea "somewhere". We must bear
in mind that there are many missing letters from Hofzinser,
probably owned by people who don’t want to publish them,
although they do let them read. According to Ottokar Fischer,
who was the first assiduous researcher on the life and work of
Hofzinser, Hofzinser asked his wife, Wihelmine Bergmann, to
destroy his notes after his death. If true, few written things that
came directly from his belongings could have been known.
However, there were always the oral testimonies, the letters and
the notes of his disciples and friends. There are people who don’t
believe that his wife destroyed his notes, but the famous 18
unresolved problems of Hofzinser support very much the

338
testimony of Fischer. Fischer published in 1910, 35 years after
the death of Hofzinser, a book that described and revealed his
card magic, called "J. N. Hofzinser Kartenkünsten." It was the first
publication of his works revealed by someone. For that, Fischer
investigated for years those traces that Hofzinser left behind.
Hofzinser's pupil who most collaborated with Fischer was Georg
Heubeck. The book was translated into English by Samuel H.
Sharpe in 1931. Since the publication of Ottokar Fischer, a
mountain of mysteries has been veiling the life and work of
Hofzinser. Hofzinser was one of the few magicians who never
revealed anything for commercial purposes. The book includes
the approach of the 18 problems. In the second of these
problems, Fischer talks about a trick similar to Avis’, done with
two Aces instead of four and without specifying where the lost
Ace reappears. In my humble opinion, a mind like that of
Hofzinser could have had several ideas derived from this
problem, some similar to the Jack Avis trick, which he raised to
his disciples and friends through letters. It is also remarkable that
Dai Vernon never retracted his argument before passing away.
Since Avis showed its magnificent effect, some 50 ideas have
been published that solve the problem. The idea of Jack Avis
himself wouldn’t be published until 1971 with the title "The Lost
Ace Trick," in the eleventh edition of the magic magazine
"Epilogue," published by the incombustible and indefatigable
close-up magic writer, Karl Fulves. For his method, Avis used a
"false count" created by himself, which he called "siva" (his
surname read backwards). The "Siva Count" was later eclipsed by
the elegant movement created by Arturo de Ascanio called
"Culebreo" ("Ascanio Spread.") Avis showed the trick to several
renowned magicians in 1958, who published their particular
solutions before himself. Ed Marlo was the first, in 1965, with

339
"Choice Transposition." Next, Larry Jennings in 1967 with "Tell-
Tale Aces," and Karl Fulves in 1969 with "Two Unsolved
Problems." Curiously, Vernon didn’t propose any solution, as far
as I know. Maybe because he knew Hofzinser's original solution
and was afraid he would be accused of stealing the idea? How
much mysteries may have the magic art...

41- Four Grass Cards

The Verne Chesbro’s solution that West Larry published in a

36-page book called "Tricks You Can Count On" (1968) with the
title of "Flipper," is one of the easiest and effective methods for
amateurs to perform at anytime with any deck of cards. So, it’s
not rare that Vicente Canuto included it in his book "Cartomagia
Fundamental" (fundamental card magic) showing his personal
presentation with the title “Viaje insospechado” (unsuspected
trip). In that same little book of West Larry is the trick "All the
Non-Conformists" by Martin Gardner (trick No. 29 of this
repertoire). I will show you below my personal presentation
designed to avoid the questions of my cruel and demanding
viewers. It is one of my favourite tricks impromptu due to the
unexpected surprise of the end and the wonderful reactions of
the spectators.

Shuffle a deck, have a card selected and control in to the

top (let’s suppose it’s the 4 of Hearts). You ask them to tell you a
number from one to thirteen that doesn’t match the value of the
selected card. Let’s suppose they say the six. Then you say that
the four sixes will be the four grass cards that will tell you which
card is the selected. While you search for these cards, you look at
the selected card (top) to know its suit. Once the four sixes are
found, you place them face up on top while you get a break

340
under the 4 of Hearts. The suit of the six that is above (in sight)
has to match the suit of the selected card. In addition, it is
convenient that it’s “soul mate card”, the Six of Diamonds, is in
fourth place, for a reason that I will explain later. Add
underneath the Four of Hearts to the four sixes with the help of
the break, present the sixes one by one peeling them with the
thumb of the hand that holds the deck and letting them fall on
top of it. You keep a break between the first six presented (the
one with Hearts) and the rest of the pile. Then turn the wrist of
the hand that holds everything while separate the pile by the
break with the other hand. You don’t have to do it fast while
hiding well the Six of Hearts, it's not difficult. If you did it quickly
you would provoke suspicions, as it happened to me; my
spectators gave me glances after doing that movement with an
unjustified speed. Since I started doing it at a natural speed,
those glances stopped happening. As you turn the wrist you can
say: "Let’s separate them while leaving the deck face up on the
table." This comment would help to justify the movement.

By means of this procedure the four cards are separated

from the deck only once, without the need to bring them back to
the deck as it happens with other versions. Then you put the four
sixes on the table and spread the deck face up taking care not to
spread the Six of Hearts. You say that you don’t know which is
the selected card, but you do know which ones aren’t; the four
sixes. You pick up the spread. This would make clear the mark
that there is no card turned over previously, which would
reinforce the effect. You ask a spectator to cut the deck and you
complete the cut to avoid letting show the Six of Hearts
accidentally. You apply the Elmsley count with the pile of the
four cards face down, leaving the last card underneath. You pass

341
another card from top to bottom, turn over the little pile and ask
someone to show the palm of the hand. You turn over the cards,
and while you perform again an Emsley count say that you will
place them on the palm, face up. The reason why I proposed that
particular order of the four fours at the time of showing them, is
due to the fact that, when performing the Elmsley count with the
cards face up, the card that is shown twice must be that of
different colour, to give the feeling that you show two red and
two black cards, otherwise it would look suspiciously three black
and one red. This is achieved if the four cards are shown
following the pattern red, black, black, red. To understand it
easily, the suit of the selected card must be the first and its “soul
mate” the fourth; that’s all. You can do the trick without the
Elmsley count with the cards face up, because when doing it on
the back it is clear that there is no turned over card, however,
when doing it in face up the trick would gain clarity. An
important detail to keep in mind if you want to apply the Elmsley
count with the cards faced up is to avoid a hypothetical Ace of
Spades as a card that is shown twice. Showing twice an Ace of
Spades in an Elmsley count would be very risky since that card
stands out too much. Generally the “soul mate” cards are
confused, but forget about it when it comes to confusing the Ace
of Clubs with the one of Spades.

You ask the spectator to cover the cards with the other
hand. You continue the routine with the corresponding
pantomimes saying that those cards are telling you that the
selected card is of Hearts, since among them has been turned
over magically the corresponding one to that suit. Next you say
that the cards are imitating the deck, so you check it by
spreading the deck face up and showing that there is indeed a

342
card that has come back among the others. Then you out-jog
from the spread all the cards of the suit of Hearts, so that they
see clearly that the turned over card must be that of the
spectator. You name the card proudly while you ask them to turn
it over ... a deathly silence, you surprise yourself by exclaiming:
"But, what is this card doing here?!" Then you ask with an air of
mystery to flip the card that is between the sixes...

Note 1: When you remove the four sixes don’t separate

them from the deck. That is, place them immediately at the top.
Thus, these cards would be separated from the deck only once in
the whole routine, which would reinforce the inexplicable feeling
of the effect, especially for audiences with strong sceptical
tendencies.

Note 2: One day I decided to do this routine with the

Mnemonica Deck of Tamariz (see Part Three). The selected card
would be a named card. This little idea was the inspiration for
the routine “The Passion of an Amateur,” which you can see later
in the Part Three.

42- The Dilemma of the Selected Card

This trick is a quick or shortened version of the previous

one. If in the version published by Ottokar Fischer two cards (two
Aces) were used, and in the Avis version, four cards (four Aces),
in this version only one card is used. It occurred to me in a dream
in December 1992 obsessed with the beauty of the original plot. I
thought it was not going to interest much, but I was wrong; it
always got a great admiration, and that's why I selected it for the
repertoire.

Have a card selected and control it to the top (let’s suppose

it’s the King of Clubs). You try that the selected card rises

343
magically to top of the deck. You do a double lift and ask if that's
the card. When they say no, you answer: "But if it had been you
would have been gobsmacked, huh? The crafty magicians like me
have to take advantage of all kinds of lucky strikes ..." These
attitudes give you a very special humility and modesty to
sympathise with your audience, which is a very important thing
when you are an amateur.

Let’s suppose you see the 3 of Spades. You turn the deck
face up and spread it little by little in your hands while you say
that all the cards are face up except for the 3 of Spades (you only
have to hide one of the two back cards at the end). Show once
again the 3 of Spades by turning the deck over, turn the deck
face up again and say that we are going to use the 3 of Spades as
a magic wand while you apply the technique of “the glide” to
take the selected one and put it on the table (face down). You
ask a spectator to cut the deck and you complete the cut. Ask
another spectator to hold the magic wand (the card) and say in a
solemn voice: "selected card, turn over yourself like the wand".
Then you spread the deck and it’s seen that indeed a card has
been flipped. Ask for the first time which is the selected card.
You prepare to show all the cards of the deck face up one by one
quickly while saying: "the first one to see the King of Clubs, please,
scream." When passing all the cards it is clear that the only card
turned over must be the King of Clubs, so the audience is
convinced of the effect and may begin to applaud while another
one flips it. But then, the spectators (and the magician
him/herself) will be surprised because that’s not the selected
card either, but the 3 of Spades! The magician says: "But, what is
the magic wand doing here?!" You ask them to turn the magic
wand and there is finally the selected card.

344
 The procedure of this trick is identical to “A Turn from a
Distance" (stage "C" of the routine Nº32 "The Damaged Magic
Lift"), only that this time the technique of “the glide” is applied,
to get the change.

In the summer of 1992, in Barcelona, my uncle showed me

a great and simple trick very similar to the lost Ace. I did it often,
becoming one of my favourite effects for a long time thanks to
the very satisfactory reaction of my viewers. Nine years later,
looking up and verifying information through Internet, I found
out that the trick that my uncle taught me was "The Deo-Ace
Trick", by Edward Victor. And years later, making research to
write this book, I found out that this was just the trick that
inspired Jack Avis to devise the well-known "lost Ace" routine.

The routine consists in placing the four Aces and the four
deuces lined up on the table facing up. You have a card selected
and lost in the deck. Next, you place each face down on each ace
face up, matching the suits. The viewer is asked what his or her
card is. If the card is a Clubs one the magician flips all the deuces
minus the Clubs. Finally, the supposed two of Clubs turns out to
be the viewer's selected card.

The name "deo-ace" derives from the word "deuces" (two

in plural). My uncle used the technique of “the glide,” but you
can use several methods such as double lift. I used different
methods randomly in order to confuse anyone who tried to
discover the secret. I also came up with a presentation idea that
my viewers liked a lot, which is to use Queens and Jacks instead
of Aces and Deuces. We tell the story that beautiful girls usually
choose handsome boys, and vice versa. We have a card selected
and say that it’s a “run-of-the-mill” boy (not handsome) while we

345
lose it in the deck. We continue with the routine saying that the
handsome Clubs boy chooses the pretty Clubs girl while we put
the card on top. So we do with all. Next we say that the pretty
Clubs girl chooses the handsome Clubs boy and we flip the Jack
of Clubs showing that it’s (obviously) a Jack of Clubs. We do the
same with the other Jacks until we reach the last one, the one of
the spectator's suit, and we say: "but sometimes the beautiful
girl chooses the best person ..." We turn the supposed Jack over
and show that it’s the selected card. Once I did this presentation
to a friend who was depressed because he thought that the girl
of his dreams was too pretty for him and that he would never get
her. Well, just after doing this routine, he finally dared to ask her
out, and she accepted! That was magic! I called this presentation
"The Ideal Couple," and I noticed that not only could be done
with "The Deo-Aces Trick," but also with any routine that consists
in matching four cards of the same value, as for example in "City
Slickers" By Peter Duffie, in his "Duffie's Card Compulsions,"
based on the idea of the "Gemini Twins" of Herb Rungie.

Before moving on to the next group of tricks I wanted to

recommend a distinguished and attractive version of the Lost
Ace of Hofzinser by Benjamin Earl called "Shades of Hofzinser,"
which would give a touch of elegance to our amateur card magic.
It wouldn’t hurt to get away a tad of our "awkwardness"
characteristic with the cards, letting our audience see that from
time to time we can get some flourish. We can find it in the first
DVD ("Commercial") of a 3 DVD series called "Past Midnight"
created by Benjamin Earl himself along with the company
"Alakazam Magic." It is not very difficult to perform, and it gives
a very good impression as a card magician. But you should never
forget to practise it well. As many lovers of card magic know,

346
Hofzinser said that card magic was the poetry of magic. I would
like to add that a good poetry requires a good handwriting to be
written and a good voice to be recited.

THE MAGICIAN AND THE GAMBLER

There are many effects of card magic that refer to a

meeting between a magician and a gambler. Because the trick is
related to magic, the magician always wins. These tricks can be
fun and entertaining, but I recommend that you don’t abuse too
much of them to avoid falling into the magician's arrogance,
creating a negative impression. I selected for the repertoire the
three that most liked my viewers since the first time I performed
them.

43- Magician vs. Gambler

The origin of this wonderful effect dates from 1876, in the

monumental work "Modern Magic" written by Professor
Hoffmann (page 102), and considered as anonymous. Later, in
1910, a similar trick called "Correcting a Mistake" was published
in "Magicians' Tricks: How They Are Done" by Hatton and Plate
(page 93). In January 1926, in the prolific magazine "The Sphinx"
(Vol. 24, No. 11, page 425) an idea of Dai Vernon about the effect
appeared which I will comment in the next trick. That same idea
would be published later, in "Dai Vernon's Inner Secrets of Card
Magic" in 1959, with the title of "Matching the Cards" (page 22).
The idea of presenting it as a competition between a magician
and a gambler is Fred Braue’s, who published it in "Hugard's
Annual of Magic" in 1937 (page 43). And that same year, Joe
Berg would publish another of the titles with which this trick
became known, "The Magician Makes Good," in "Here New
Magic" (page 8). I consider it one of those masterpieces of card

347
magic that one fall in love for its originality and elegance. In short,
it’s an ideal trick for the repertoire of a good card magician. The
title to which I allude is the same as that shown by Harry Lorayne
from “Harry Lorayne Best Ever Collection” (DVD 1). Vicente
Canuto selected it wisely for his great "Cartomagia Fundamental"
(fundamental card magic) as "El mago contra el tahúr," where he
explains that that version is an original idea from Dr Jacob Daley.
That idea was published by Frank Garcia in "Exclusive Card
Secrets" in 1980, with the title "Doc Daley's Masterpiece: The
Gambler and the Magician" (page 50). I will show you how I stage
the wonderful first effect. Let’s consider a girl magician:

A gambler tells a magician that he is able to find four cards

of the same value through successive random cuts thanks to his
experience handling the cards. The magician tells him that she
would like to see it. We do a few cuts and we get in on top of the
deck, for example, a King. We place it on the table face down.
We repeat the same thing until we draw the four Kings. We flip
the four cards that are on the table so there is no doubt that
they are the four Kings. The gambler challenges the magician to
do the same. So then, she shuffles the deck a little and does the
same as the gambler did, but taking out, for example, Aces.
However, when she gets to the fourth last card she gets the
surprise that it’s not the fourth Ace, but (for example) an Eight.
The magician put said eight on the table face down next to the
other three cards, with a gesture of sadness and resignation. She
turns over the card that is on top and she sees that it’s the fourth
Ace. Then, the magician exclaims: "Ah! Look where the other Ace
was! I almost hit in the last cut, damn it!" And the gambler says:
"Almost, my friend, almost, but you didn’t get it right! You have
lost!" Then, the magician continues: "Wait a minute; we said to

348
find four cards of the same value, right?" Then she turns over the
Eight before followed by the other three cards, which will also be
Eights!

In the version of Dr Jacob Daley the magician takes the Aces

out of his pockets. I'm not excited about this version due to the
tendency of my viewers to suspect duplicate cards, plus the first
effect is already good enough to not need an extra effect.

44- Matching the Cards

This version can be found in “Dai Vernon's Inner Secrets of

Card Magic" written by Lewis Ganson (page 22). In the book it’s
not presented as a competition between a magician and a
gambler, but if we did, it would look something like this:

A gambler does an exhibition about the location of four

cards of the same value by means of cuts, like the presentation
of the beginning of the previous trick. Next, invites a magician to
achieve the same, only this time the gambler shows a card to the
magician, for example an Ace of Spades, and put it face down on
the table asking him to find the other Aces. So, the magician
proceeds and finds, for example, an Ace of Diamonds that she
places face down on the table. Do several cuts again and find the
Ace of Hearts, also showing her skill in handling the deck. She put
it face down on the table. Finally find the Ace of Clubs in the
same way. She places said three cards face down next to the
chosen one, with a smiling face, but the gambler tells her that
she has failed! Since when flipping the supposed Ace of Spades,
it turns out that now it is an Eight of Hearts. It seemed to be a
trap of the gambler for the magician to fail. Thus, the magician
says: "That's cheating!" And the gambler replies: "Of course it’s
cheating! What do you think we do?!" However, the magician

349
responds: "Then I will cheat too ..." So, she turns over the other
three cards that were supposed to be Aces, and they turn out to
be the other three Eights! It’s a surprise as magical as funny.

As Lewis Ganson says in the book at the beginning of the

trick explanation, the charismatic magician Nate Leipzig was very
impressed with the trick and asked Vernon to let him include it
frequently in his successful shows.

45- A Strange Story

I will finish this group of tricks with this wonderful routine

of the legendary Alex Elmsley, which we can find in the first
volume of "Complete Works of Alex Elmsley" by Stephen Minch.
It’s the last trick of the last chapter of that volume. I came up
with this exciting presentation that charmed my viewers:

A magician and a gambler compete to see who is better at

poker cheating. The gambler shuffles the cards face up while
saying: "I'm going to shuffle in such a way that later, no matter
how much you shuffle, I will always be the winner, which will
show that I am the best cheater in the world." Such a statement
intrigues the magician. Then, the gambler hands the cards to the
magician and she also shuffles the cards face up while saying:
"You will see that the best cheater is me." Then the gambler says:
"I am so sure that I will win that you can deal the cards if you
want to." Thus, the magician prepares to deal the cards. Then,
the gambler adds: "You can deal mine faces up so that you can
see how my victory is inevitable." So does the magician as they
appear one by one to complete the gambler’s hand, which
corresponding to a royal flush of Spades. The gambler comments
that there is no higher hand than that, so the winner is him. Then,
the magician turns over her cards and they observed that she

350
also has a royal flush of Spades! She says: "You see? I'm a better
cheater! I have “dropped” these five duplicate cards without you
noticing it." But, the gambler, without batting an eye, tells her
that she is wrong, since the one who has "dropped" the five
cards without anyone noticing it has been himself, and to prove
it he turns his cards over. The backs are different. Let's suppose
that the deck was blue back and the cards of his hand are red-
backed. Then, the magician is stupefied with surprise, since that
proof is irrefutable to show that these are the cheating cards.
However, the magician responds: "You're wrong, since I've
“dropped” a whole deck without you realizing it..." She flips the
entire deck and shows that all the cards are now red back minus
the royal flush of the magician, which is blue back. The magician
ends by saying: "... actually my play is the cheating move."

In the original presentation, Elmsley tells: "I am a ghost. I

will explain what I mean. In a poker play, my opponent told me
that he was so sure he was going to win that he allowed me to
shuffle and deal the cards. In addition, he also told me that he
was so sure he was going to win that he asked me to deal his
cards face-up. That's what I did, and as a result my opponent got
a royal flush of Spades. But I flipped my cards and revealed also a
royal flush of Spades. Then I looked at the back of my rival's cards
and discovered that they were a different colour; they were cards
from another deck. As he had cheated, I pulled out my gun and
pointed at him. But he told me it was me who had cheated ... he
spread the deck and it turned out that all the cards had the same
back as the cards of his hand. Mine were the cheating cards.
Then, he pulled out his gun and shot me. So I am a ghost."

In my presentation we can also borrow Elmsley's idea by

saying at the beginning that we are a ghost, so that at the end of

351
the story it’s said that the gambler got so angry that he shot us,
so that we could keep a tone of black humour.

For this trick the technique of second deal is indispensable

and very used, so, it’s not easy. I am rubbish for this technique.
So how and why do I have this trick in my repertoire? Oh! Good
question. A good question deserves a good answer, and that
answer is: the technique of "necktying the deck.” Have you ever
heard about the technique of "necktying a deck"? It is easy to
explain. It is about holding the deck vertically (with the back
facing you) at the same time you perform the second deal. It is a
punctual movement with timing, that is, you raise, you apply the
second deal, and you return to the horizontal position. It's a
more natural movement than you imagine. Many card magicians
do it, especially those who have problems in performing the
technique of second deal with enough conviction.

The second deal technique is one of the oldest in the world.

Bill Kalush, executive director of "The Conjuring Arts Research
Centre," discovered a four-page pamphlet where already is
talked about the second deal, which dates back to around 1520.
The pamphlet bears the extensive title of "Opera nuova doue
easily potrai imparare piu giuochi di mano et altn giuochi
piaceuolissimi & gentili eat if fillet leggefnjdo uedere et easily
imparare," by Gian Stefano di Carlo da Pavia. In this same
pamphlet it’s also talked about the idea of using “slick cards”
applying a little soap on them, being the oldest reference that
exists on this idea used by magicians like Robert-Houdin. Bill
Kalush received a special prize at FISM in Beijing in 2009 for his
research on the origin of magic tricks, and in that same event,
Juan Tamariz would receive another special prize for his work on
theory of magic.

352
 Before leaving this group of tricks I would like to
recommend "Cutting the Aces" by Dai Vernon, from Volume 2
Number 2 of "Stars of Magic." A trick popularly known in Spanish
as "Los ases del manco" (one-armed man’s Aces), since it’s done
with just one hand. It's fun and intriguing as well as not very
difficult to perform, although you don’t believe it. I always say
that if I can do it, it’s not difficult. It consists in locating the Aces
one by one by cutting the deck, something like "Scarne Aces,"
but with one hand and a peculiar ending in which the magician
seems to fail in the last Ace, when the wrong card turns out to be
an indicator card. The great and unique René Lavand popularised
all over the world this effect with a famous presentation called
"El Cumanés" (the one from Cumaná; Venezuela).

I'll finish with the stage gambling with another couple of

recommendations like “Automatic Poker” by Dai Vernon and
Stewart Judah, originally from the Daley Notebooks and
published as well in The Pallbearers Review Vol. 5-8 (Vol. 7, No.
2), in 1971. The routine is well known in Spanish as “El Ritual del
Full” (the ritual of full house) in the funny version by Juan
Tamariz (on page 78 of "Cartomagia Fundamental" by Vicente
Canuto), and "Drunken Poker Deal" by John Scarne, a very witty
and funny routine that we can find as trick number 68 of "Scarne
on Card Trick."

353
 BIDDLE TRICK

Elmer Biddle devised a great "false count" known as "Biddle

move" or "Biddle count." It was published in Genii Magazine with
the title "Transcendent" in 1947, although a very similar
movement appeared in "Strictly Magic" by Eddie Joseph, in 1939,
in a trick called "Repeat Six Card Trick." The effect of
"Transcendent" consists in losing a selected card in the deck,
show piles of five cards until the spectator says in which one is
the selected. The magician hand that pile to the viewer and he or
she verifies that the selection card has disappeared, appearing
inside the deck turned over. It always seemed to me an effect as
bright and affordable as impossible not to be part of a repertoire.
The trick became an evolved classic named "The Biddle Trick."

46- The Invisible Card

In the third volume of Roberto Giobbi's "Card College,” we

can find an excellent proposal about the Biddle trick called "The
Invisible Card." In it, Roberto proposes that the card to make
disappeared is taken invisibly and inserted in the deck turned
over. In card magic there are many effects about "invisible
cards," but this is one that I would most recommend.

I have seen some friends doing this trick by making the

selected card appear "by chance" in the first pile of five cards
that the magician takes out of the deck, with the purpose of
shortening the duration of the trick. This is not advisable since
the public could easily think that you have controlled the card
just to be in that first pile, and therefore you may be already
know in advance what the card is. The public doesn’t usually
believe much in the coincidences of that type, much less with an
amateur magician. It would be more credible to take several

354
piles of five cards until the spectator told you in which one the
selected card is. In addition, it would be a big problem for us if
our audience get used to considering that we know how to
control cards easily, since they would use it to justify our card
magic on many occasions. For the Biddle Trick you can either
force the card, or control an unforced one, the fact is that it is
necessary to know which card is chosen to be able to make it
disappear during the application of the Biddle count. The fact
that spectators consider that the magician has no idea what the
selected card is, is what makes this effect so special. If you prefer
not to force the card you can control it to bottom and then get
the piles of five cards using the technique of “the glide”, getting
the selected card at will.

In the summer of 2000 I came up with the idea of mixing

the Biddle trick with one of Karl Fulves' picturesque card
appearances in which elastic bands are used. Karl Fulves and his
friend illustrator Joseph K. Schmidt were great creators and
promoters of card tricks using elastic bands. In 2004 they
published a compilation of these tricks to commemorate the
30th anniversary of their first publication. Its title is: "Under
Tension. Tricks with Rubber-Banded Decks." In my admired book
by Vicente Canuto, "Cartomagia Fundamental", we can see
explained one of the effects of this type under the title
"Aparición fantasma," (ghost apparition). So, to honour that title
I decided to call the idea of mixing the Biddle Trick with a rubber-
band card production, "The Ghost Card." By the way, Vicente
shows us in his book a curious and funny idea of him where he
applies the technique of the Biddle count, called “Concurso de
belleza" (beauty contest). Now I will tell you about the scenic
presentation of "The Ghost Card":

355
 Ask the viewers: "Who believes in ghosts and who doesn’t?"
When someone says to believe in ghosts, you ask him or her to
come closer. You also ask for three spectators to approach who
don’t believe in ghosts. Once you have got your four assistants,
you have a card selected to each one at random by means of
riffling. The card of the believer in ghosts will be forced, the
others will not. You ask them to shuffle those four cards and give
them back to you. You put them on top of the deck face up and
say that one of them is the ghost card, the one of the viewer who
believes in them. You emphasise that nobody but him or her
knows what card it is. While you say that you apply the Biddle
count, so that the “ghost card” is face up under the deck. You
place the deck on the table and turn the supposed four cards
face down. Perform an Elmsley Count and hand them to the
spectator who believes in ghosts. You ask him or her to hide the
cards well between his or her two hands. You tell the story that
one night, working in a warehouse, you saw a ghost, but since
you don’t believe in them, you said aloud: "I do not believe in
you!" And the ghost disappeared ... You ask the spectator to
open their hands and name his or her card for the first time.
People will find out that it’s precisely the card that has
disappeared ... Then you take out an elastic band and use it to
prepare an effect regarding a card production from the deck
through an elastic band. So, ask one of the spectators to press
the deck with his or her hand to make sure that nobody else
touches it. You illustrate all this by saying that you locked all the
entrances of the store in case there was a joker trying to scare
you. You keep telling that while you were working you could not
stop thinking about the poor ghost who disappeared for saying
you didn’t believe in it. You felt bad and ended up saying aloud:
"well, actually I believe in ghosts a little bit." Then you say that

356
immediately you heard a noise behind you, you approached the
place where the noise came from and you opened a door ... you
ask the spectator to remove the elastic band from the deck as a
metaphor that you opened a door, but as soon as he or she
moves the hand away from the deck, suddenly appears the card
that disappeared before! You scream comically for the public to
freak out. Then you say that the ghost got close to you while you
were scared to death and told you: "It depends on you to see me
or not." Finally, you tell the moral: "I came to the conclusion that
if you don’t want to see ghosts, the best solution is not to believe
in them."

47- Thought is Invisible

One early summer morning in 2002, on the beach, while we

waited for the fish to bite, some friends and I played poker. I got
tired of playing and I retired sitting next to my fishing rod with
another deck of cards in my hands. Then, thinking about the idea
of "The Invisible Card" by Roberto Giobbi, I came up with a
"deckless" version, that is, with a few cards. The first idea was
with two piles of five cards, so that the selected card travelled
from one pile to another. However, it also occurred to me to do
it with two little piles of four cards to apply the “Ascanio Spread”
and give it a more refined touch. The routine and presentation
would be as follow:

Have eight cards of the deck selected. Hand them to be

shuffled. Next you ask them to choose one of those cards while
you spread them on the table or on your hands. Once the card is
chosen, while they are seeing it you pick up the spread keeping a
break between top 3 and top 4. It is difficult to hide a break with
seven cards, but you can get it if you archer the cards on the long

357
sides as if you were playing with them casually. You ask them to
return the card to the pile while you cut at the break as if you
were cutting at any point. The card will be in top 4º. Then,
without much pause, shuffle firmly and quickly by peeling the
first four cards and bringing them to the bottom, followed
immediately and without pausing three more, also taking them
to the bottom. It will seem that you have just shuffled them. The
public will not give much importance to the fact that they don’t
shuffle because they will be impatient for what you are going to
do. (I know it because I have also been a spectator, hence the
importance of the experience of being a spectator as well!) The
chosen card will be in the top 2º. Then you clearly turn the first
four top cards over the other four as you report it. The chosen
card will then remain in third position. You apply the Biddle
move technique to the four face-up cards while you ask them to
look if they see the chosen card. They will tell you that the
chosen one is in the face-up cards pile. You will have placed the
chosen card under the pile of the face-down cards, as
established by the technique. Then you turn face down the pile
that is face up, place the other one on the table and make an
Elmsley Count of three like four, while you say: "so, one of these
is the chosen one." You put the pile on the hands of a spectator,
take the pile you placed on the table (which will have the chosen
card in bottom and face up) and peel two cards from top to
bottom as if you shuffle them a little. Then we apply the Ascanio
Spread. You put the little pile aside on the table again and you
tell the spectator that is holding the other little pile: "Think of
your card. The thought cannot be seen, but it can be felt, so I'm
going to take the card you're thinking (you play as if you take a
card from the pile), but the card can’t be seen because the
thoughts can’t be seen." Then you make the funny mimic of

358
handing it over to another viewer, saying: "Take the chosen card
for a moment, please." Then you take the small pile from the
table, perform an Ascanio Spread and ask him or her to place the
chosen (invisible) card in the middle of the four cards, but turned
over, to make it stand out more (well, right now it doesn’t
highlight at all, but let's be patience ...) Ask for the first time the
name of the card as handing the pile. Listening to the name out
loud you say that it’s no longer a thought, but a disclosure, so it
has become visible. First you ask him or her to look at the card
from his or her hands, letting check that only the chosen card is
missing! You ask the other spectator to spread the other cards...

Ten years later, in 2012, I found out a video on Internet of

an amateur showing a trick almost identical to this one.

I wanted to recommend an easy and excellent effect that

uses the “Biddle Move,” published in the Vol. 17 of Magic Lesson,
by Tomo Yuki, called “Sand-Which?”: he takes two red cards and
two black cards from the deck. He has a card selected and loses
it in the deck. Next, he asks for choosing “red or black”. The two
cards of the chosen colour remain in the magician’s hands, while
the other two disappear and appear inside the deck, sandwiching
the selected card. It’s a totally awesome impromptu card trick.

Edward Marlo and Carmen D'Amico devised a great routine

using the "Biddle Move,” which they published in a pamphlet of
8 pages called "A Devilish Miracle," in 1948, a trick that I highly
recommend for your repertoire. We can find it more recently in
"The Complete Devilish Miracle" by Jon Racherbaumer, or in Vol.
1 of the collection "Malone Meets Marlo." Its "killer" effect is as
follows (let’s consider for example the magician as a lady):

359
 Two cards are chosen and lost in the deck. The magician
draws five cards out of it and asks if any of them is the selection.
One of the spectators affirms. The magician takes it invisibly and
put it on the table. Then she shows that it has disappeared
among the others. Then she takes the invisible card, "flips it over
and inserts it between the other four," and then she
demonstrates what has done letting spectators see that there is
certainly a turned over card. Again she hands the invisible card to
another spectator asking for "introducing it face up among the
cards of the deck." Thus, the magician demonstrates that said
card is no longer among the other four. Next, the deck is spread
and the turned over card is observed among the others. Finally,
the magician asks the name of the second card chosen, after
which she takes it invisibly from the deck and "introduces it
turned over among the four she has in her hand." After some
magical gesture, she spreads and shows that there is a card
turned over, now visible; the other card chosen!

I also recommend a good version called "Devilishly Direct"

by Shigeo Takagi, published in "Amazing Miracles of Shigeo
Takagi," written by Richard Kaufman.

48- THE AMBITIOUS CARD AND “JAZZ MAGIC”

Another of the great icons of card magic is that a certain

card always appears in the top of the deck, no matter how many
times it is lost in the middle. You could write an entire book
dedicated to this popular and universal trick of so many routines,
versions, methods and presentations. In fact it is the card magic
trick most linked to the concept of "Jazz Magic."

Some attribute the routine to a magician known as Gustav

Alberti. Unfortunately almost nothing is known about this

360
magician, but Robert-Houdin mentioned that he knew him and
praised him as a great skilled magician with playing cards as he
published in his "Tablettes Journalieres," in the November 25
issue of 1865. The routine of Alberti (in which the card rises
three times to the top) was published in 1886 in "Recueil de
Tours de Physique Amusante," signed by a certain "LP." That is,
very little is known about the origin of this trick. The work was
translated into English by Professor Hoffmann as "Drawing Room
Conjuring" in 1887. The method that Alberti used for the effect
was not the "double lift," but "the pass," and required great skill.
On another side, the effect itself was already published in
"Nouvelle Magie Blanche Devoilee" by Jean-Nicholas Ponsin, in
1853, in which the "double lift" is used as a method, although in
Ponsin's work there is no emphasis in a repetition routine. And
on another more side, the "double lift" for a similar effect was
already published in 1716, in "The Merry Companion; or Delights
for the Ingenious," by Richard Neve. On page 141 of this fabulous
card magic book at that time, we can see a section called "To
Seem to Change the Top Card of the Pack Into Another," but as
we can see, the effect that is intended to cause is not to get a
lost card in the deck rise to top, but just that the top card change
magically into another, besides that, as in the Ponsin book, the
effect is shown as one-time effect. Alberti's idea of repeating the
effect several times, published in 1886, would not go around the
world until 36 years later, when a young Dai Vernon showed his
version to a surprised Harry Houdini at the Great Northern Hotel
in Chicago in 1922, according to the great research made by
David Ben for “Dai Vernon: A Biography” (Vol. 1). Vernon devised
a routine through several methods, which included "the pass"
and the "double lift." Houdini never admitted not knowing the
secret, but Vernon happened to be known as "the man who

361
fooled Houdini" as there were eyewitnesses, including the
Houdini's wife, who tried to make her husband admit not
knowing the secret, without success.

As a curiosity I wanted to add something that isn’t usually

mentioned about the history of the technique of the "double
lift." In 1843, ten years before the publication of Ponsin's book,
"An Exposure of the Art and Miseries of Gambling" was
published by Jonathan Harrington Green, an inventor and expert
card player affiliated with the “New York Association for the
Suppression of Gambling.” Well, on page 27 of this work, it’s
talked about the concept of "double deal" to cheat at poker and
so on, which makes it clear that the gamblers were already true
artists handling two cards as one, although the only magic they
intended to do with it was to fill their pockets with little green
documents with pictures of presidents. In this work it’s also
talked about the "second deal" and the use of the “faro shuffle”
among many other techniques to cheat at card games. In fact, it
may be the first written reference to the use of the “faro shuffle”
as a tool to control a deck of cards.

The following three references are the "ambitious card"

versions that I showed to my demanding viewers and that I
consider recommendable for any time:

One; in the brilliant book "Stars of Magic," in which we can

find the routine of Dai Vernon, in series 5, number 2. "Stars of
Magic" is a spectacular and hectic book. In just 160 pages, we
find more than 70 impressive magic tricks from the most
acclaimed magicians at that time. It’s a compilation by Louis
Tannen in 1961 of various manuscripts published by Stars of
Magic Inc. during the 40s and 50s in New York ("The Ambitious

362
Card" by Dai Vernon was published 27 years after the meeting
with Houdini , in 1949). The rights of the work "Stars of Magic"
and current editions are in charge of Meir Yedid since 2003.

Two; in "The Magic Way" by Juan Tamariz, where Juan

analyses the routine down to the last detail in seven phases, as
well as a great compilation of procedures.

Three; in Vol. 2 of "Card College” by Roberto Giobbi. In the

chapter on double lift we will find another great didactic method
to get started in this universal routine.

I also want to recomend specially the routine of the DVD 3

of “Harry Lorayne’s Best Ever Collection”, the DVD “Daryl’s
Ambitious Card” by Daryl Martínez, and the DVD “Wonderized”
by Tommy Wonder. Daryl won the 1982 FISM Lausanne,
Switzerland, with his extraordinary “ambitious card routine.”

"The Ambitious Card" is a clear resource to do quick and

effective card magic, but remember that it’s not convenient to
repeat too much the same effect or apply the same technique
many times in a row, since we would run the risk that our public
would deduce or perceive possible techniques that are true
philosopher’s stones for the card magic in general. We must try
to diversify our tricks, going easy on the techniques used. This is
achieved by having a varied repertoire. The variety of an
"ambitious routine" is dizzyingly abundant. The different
presentations, developments and dissimilar outcomes make it a
trick that often invites improvisation. This type of routines are
usually encompassed in a field called "Jazz Magic," that is, magic
based on improvisation as Jazz musicians do. Any experienced
card magician, professional or amateur could be a "jazz card
magician," but it is advisable to let time take its course, always

363
starting with settled routines. So, don’t be in a hurry to want to
improvise with this routine. Improvised magic will automatically
come to you as you manage resources skilfully as a result of the
experience. Improvised magic should not be sought, but wait for
it to seek you. If one day you feel you can improvise fluently, it’s
because improvised magic has found you.

On one occasion, doing "Jazz Magic" with a memorised

deck, I asked them to name a card (they named the 4 of Hearts),
I told: "I do not like that card ... say the 2 of Clubs, please." Thus
the spectator said: "the 2 of Clubs." If the situation was cheeky, it
was even more so when I said that the 2 of Clubs "freely chosen"
would magically rise to the top. There was a lot of laughter while
I secretly controlled 4 Hearts to the top. After the pantomime of
asking the 2 of Clubs to go up, I flipped the top card (the 4 of
Hearts) and exclaimed: "What bad luck, I never get this trick
right!" But the viewers noticed that the top card was the real
freely named one, the 4 of Hearts! To which I ended exclaiming:
"Thank you, thank you! You saved my life by choosing that card!"
And continued with the 4 of Hearts the routine of the Ambitious
Card... It’s an improvised magical-comic presentation that helped
me to attract even more my viewers’ attention.

I will finish with this chapter devoted to the "ambitious

card" writing for you a description of the impromptu routine that
I have personally performed the most. I developed it in
December of 1992. A borrowed deck has the advantage of not
being necessary to have the card signed. Nonetheless, the Dai
Vernon’s idea of using a named card for the same purpose is
great.

364
 We have the deck shuffled and we say: "the card on the top
of the deck after your shuffling will be the ambitious card."
Double turn over: "this one; the Five of Clubs" (for example). We
take the top card to the centre as if we applied the TILT
technique, but without applying this technique. We do it clearly.
We do a magic snap and wait. We turn the card over. 1st effect!

We hand the card to be touched if they wish. (To turn over

the top card, we will obviously use the same style that we use to
do the double turn over). For the 2nd effect we apply the TILT
technique. Spectators will suspect less of that manoeuvre due to
the previous clarity! Double turn over for the 2nd effect! A good
excuse to replace the double card over the deck is to illustrate it
with sentences like: "Then, it is clear that the card only wants to
be above all."

We perform another "false" TILT, that is, the same as in the

first effect, and we say that we will place the card a little lower to
make it more difficult to get on top. Next, we do a magic snap.
3rd effect!

We hand the card and spread the deck while we ask that
they lose it themselves. We say: "no matter where we place it,
the ambitious card always wants to be the first." We apply the
technique "spread pass." We say that if we don’t do the magic
snap, the card cannot rise to the top, and we show the 2nd card
as 1st through a double turn over. We do magic snap. We ask
one spectator to turn over the top card. 4th effect!

TILT. We say: "What if we do two magic snaps?" We turn

the top card, and say: "Well, it does not work because it has to be
a single snap." You keep looking at the deck and say: "if we do
two snaps the card goes up to the 2nd! It's an ambitious card, but

365
pay attention to the magician!" 5th effect! (Optionally viewers
can flip this card).

TILT. We do a single snap. We do a double lift (not a double

turn over). We flip the 2nd card (actually 3rd) using the double
card as shovel, and say that the card is not in the second place
(obviously). You see, for example, a Seven of Spades. We turn
the wrist that holds the double card and say: "the ambitious card
this time has risen to the first." 6th effect!

We say: "this time we are going to do it in slow motion."

We leave the double card on the deck, we take the top card and
we put it out in the middle of the deck very slowly, while, we can
imitate the voice of a slow motion as a joke. The top card is
taken out a little while we say: "the Seven of Spades" and the
ambitious one gets a little inside while we say: "the Five of
Clubs." We do the same thing several times: "seven, five, seven,
five ..." to put in and out completely each respective card. We do
the magic snap and say that the ambitious card wants to go on
top. We flip the top card of the deck and you see the Seven of
Spades, since the true top is the card that is out; the ambitious
card! It’s the 7th effect.

We say: "Then, the card can go up from the centre," and we

do the effect again with TILT, snap and double turn over, to
immediately say: "but I wonder if it can rise from the place that
most hates; from the bottom?" Then we place the top card (the
one that is not the ambitious one) on the palm of a spectator and
the rest of the deck on it. We say that since its way is now very
long, we are going to shorten it; we cut the deck and keep the
upper half. We perform a double turn over in our pile. There is
no snap; there is no magic. We add that the card is in the

366
spectator's pile, anyway. We give our pile to another viewer to
hold it. Snap. We ask the spectator to look at the bottom card,
which is supposed to be the ambitious one. The card is gone! It’s
not on top either! What a disappointment. Then we say that this
card is too ambitious to ignore the entire deck. It is in the true
and only top of the deck! It’s the 8th effect.

To finish we place the ambitious card face down on the

table, and the rest of the deck on top, as we say: "Then, no
matter if we put it in the middle of the deck or below, the
ambitious card always comes to top." We turn the deck and
show the card. Then we bend the first two cards as if they were
one to prepare the effect "pop-up card” to finish with this
marvellous 9th effect, ("Expert Card Technique", p. 285).

For this effect I sometimes ask for a rubber band, so that

that effect can be done in the hands of the spectator, that is,
when they removes the rubber band, which causes a great
surprise.

This routine is quite long, but I usually do shorter versions

by removing some phases, depending on the circumstances. I
showed here this long version if you are interested in it, and then
you can adapt it as you like. I also want to suggest the following
idea as an alternative for an ending:

Some magicians end the ambitious card routine by making

the card appear in some impossible place, like the version of
Tommy Wonder, which ends with the card folded inside a box. I
had thought of doing the same, but the other way around. That
is, make the card rise to the top of the deck, but from an
impossible place. Can you imagine keeping the ambitious card
inside a safe (for example) and appearing in the top of the deck

367
after the magic snap? Well, this would be a bit extreme, but I just
thought about using the "rub-a-dub vanish" technique, which we
can find on page 301 of "Expert Card Technique" by Hugard and
Braue. So, we show the ambitious card in top and we make it
disappear under the hand by means of this technique, so that
later it appears again on top. However, we must be careful with
this procedure, because people are not stupid, and seen it is very
easy to deduce that the card did not really get under the hand. I
thought about forgetting this idea for this reason, but I also
thought that it was feasible if it was presented properly, as I
describe to you next:

You say: "What would happen if we put the card out of the
deck?" You take the card under your hand (really) by the same
gesture that is applied in the "rub-a-dub vanish" technique. You
say: "If there is no magic snap, the card does not come to the
top." Turn the top card with your free hand and say: "Three of
Hearts" (for example). You raise the other hand and say: "the
ambitious one is still here." Show the face of the ambitious card
and place it on top of the deck. Thus, viewers see at least once
the card actually under the hand, which helps them to trust more
in what the magician says. The success of magic is to make the
spectators trust what you say you do. Then you apply the
technique "rub-a-dub vanish" and put something on top of the
card (which is not there), such as a wallet, the mat or a hat, and
ask a spectator to put his/her hand on it. With both of your
hands free, you take the deck, do a double turn over and say:
"Remember, the Three of Hearts," which will reinforce the idea
that the ambitious card is where the magician said. All this you
do with some speed, not to give much time to the spectators to
rack their brains over. You redo the double turn over and leave

368
the deck on the table. We do a magic snap. First you show that
the ambitious card has disappeared, and then the great surprise.

Harry Lorayne prevents viewers from thinking a lot about

what he does by acting without pauses, but also taking into
account leaving a pause after each effect to make the spectators
enjoy the illusion of the magical effect, otherwise the effects
would lose power, as when a comedian tells many jokes one
after another without giving time to the spectators to enjoy
laughing of the previous one.

The effect would be achievable without releasing your two

hands, by a one hand double turn over technique, as for example
that by Carmen D'Amico, but that is up to you. In addition, using
a one hand top palm technique, it would be a really astonish
visual ending using TILT with the card face up. But, please, don’t
use difficult techniques unless you master them perfectly.

49- TRIUMPH

Here it is. We arrived at what I consider personally as the

most beautiful, elegant and magical card trick that has ever been
created. This effect should be declared and protected as a
Heritage of Humanity. Clarity, simplicity, beauty and ingenuity
come together in this card magic effect that can only inspire the
rating of a perfect trick.

A card is selected and lost in the deck. The magician shuffle

the cards face up and faces down. After a magical gesture, the
magician spread the cards and shows that all the cards are face
down except for one, which is the spectator’s.

We can find it in the compilation book "Stars of Magic"

(1961), in series 2, number 1 with the title of "Triumph," which is

369
the name that Dai Vernon gave to it when he created his method.
The name is catchy insofar as I consider it to be the definitive
triumph of card magic. The "Triumph" of Dai Vernon was
originally published in 1946, by the corporation Stars of Magic
Inc. in New York. The first time I saw this trick was in 1992 (with
16 years old), in a performance of Juan Tamariz on TV. I was so
amazed by the beauty and elegance of the trick that I decided to
do it no matter what, at Christmas parties that same year. I only
had one small problem: how was it done? With my impotence of
not being able to devise an impromptu solution (at that time), I
decided to resort to the 26 double-back cards, which I roughly
fabricated by gluing two face cards and using another 26 cards
from another deck of the same size. Yes, I cheated, but it was
because of the passion I felt for the card magic. The important
thing is that the trick went well since I linked it with the next trick,
thus changing the gimmick deck by another equal deck by a
movement made to take out a handkerchief...

The first reference on this effect dates from 1914, in a trick

marketed by Theodore DeLand called "Inverto", in which a
gimmick deck of double-baked cards was used as the "smartass"
who is writing this now. Only five years later, in 1919, Charles
Jordan published "Thirty Card Mysteries," where we can find a
trick called "The Alternate Reverse" on page 54, which was the
first version without gimmick, but whose method was to flip the
cards one by one in a tedious and complex way, aspect that
would dispense Dai Vernon in its version, in 1946. But before, in
1937, in "Subtle Problems You Will Do," written by Stewart Judah
and John Braun, would appear published for the first time the
"Sloppy Shuffle," originally named as "The SL Reversed Card" of
which I will speak in trick No. 51. It was devised by an English

370
commercial artist and amateur magician who moved to Canada,
called Sid Lorraine (hence the name "The S. L. Reversed Card").
By means of this shuffle, a totally impromptu version of the
effect could be made. However, it seems that no much
importance was given to that special way of shuffling a deck. Dai
Vernon devised a method for the effect by means of a shuffle
called "push-through." When Vernon called the trick "Triumph"
through this version, it was called like so for all kinds of later
versions. Making research Online I discovered a list of about 200
versions on card tricks based on the idea of Triumph, published
by card magicians all over the world. Versions such as "double
triumphs" (two chosen instead of one), "triumph sandwich" (the
chosen one appears between two reversed cards), progressive
"triumphs," "colour triumphs," “open triumphs" ... in an endless
list of procedures and routines based on that idea. For our great
repertoire of the amateur card magician, The Professor's version
is perfect, since it’s not especially difficult to perform, as it
happens with other innovative variations. A memorised deck
would greatly enhance this effect as the chosen card is simply
named by the spectator, a version popularised by Juan Tamariz
and his Mnemonica Deck. In fact, it was precisely that first
version that I saw of Triumph, that of Tamariz with a named card.
You can imagine how much I wondered how the hell he had
done that if the viewer was not a buddy. Speaking of Tamariz, he
has his own version of the "Triumph" called "A Clear Triumph" in
his book "Sonata." In addition, the great magician Guy
Hollingworth has a great version to perform standing, called "A
Triumph Routine" in his book "Drawing Room Deceptions." Also I
recommend the version of John Bannon called "Last Man
Standing," ("Dear Mr. Fantasy.") And from this same author I am
going to add to the repertoire the wonder that comes next.

371
 50- Play it Straight

After checking with patience the plot of those 200 effects

based on the Triumph, I was especially struck by one of them for
the repertoire. It was a quite shocking and intriguing effect as
well as not very difficult to perform; ideal for the repertoire of a
good amateur card magician. It was "Play it Straight" by John
Bannon. We can find it in his "Impossibilia." It consists in having a
card selected that nobody sees, not even the spectators, being
this one on the table face down. The deck of cards is shuffled
with the cards face up and face down. After a pertinent magical
gesture, the deck is spread, showing that the only cards that are
against the others are those of the same suit, with the exception
of one, which is the one selected.

This extraordinary effect is original of Meir Yedid, which

was published in the monumental book "Best of Friends" by
Harry Lorayne in 1982 (page 247), with the title of "Thirteen Less
One," probably inspired by "Triumph im Triumph" by Ernst
Schösser, published in No. 2 of the German magazine "ZauBerlin"
(page 26) in 1979. The contribution of John Bannon consists of
his method; a simpler and more affordable method for amateurs
with an equally shocking result, so the trick became especially
popular and known by the Bannon appellation, "Play it Straight."

I have sometimes showed this effect right after doing the

Triumph of Dai Vernon in a routine way that increases the climax.
The result was a routine "Triumph Vernon-Bannon" that was
always very successful among my viewers. The only drawback is
that the trick requires a preparation and a force, so that the first
effect (the Vernon) cannot be done with a card named
(memorised deck).

372
 51- The Drunk Shuffle

This version is highly recommended for a repertoire, as it is

very simple, surprising and especially fun if presented in a
humorous way, as I propose here. We can find it in many
publications. I will give you the reference of one of the most
recent. “Semi-Automatic Card Trick” Vol. 8, by Jerry Andrus and
Steve Beam, with the title “Drunken Shuffle” (page 256). The
shuffle that is used in this version of the Triumph is the "Sloppy
Shuffle," of which I talked before. I present the funny routine like
this:

I was in England, in a student exchange program. I was in a

pub with some friends drinking beer until one of them asked me
to do a card magic trick. I picked up the deck, and as card tricks
usually start, I ask them to pick a card, I lost it in the deck and I
started to shuffle. Then, one of them said: "In the United States
we shuffle differently." I handed him the deck and he riffle-
shuffled the deck (I shuffle like that while I'm telling the story
while keeping control of the top card). Then, another friend said:
"In France we shuffle differently.” Again, I handed the deck and
the French friend overhand-shuffled the deck." I illustrate it and
keep control of the top card. Finally, a Japanese friend said that
in Asia it was more common to do the Hindu shuffle. I illustrate
that as before shuffling like that. Then, I take the selected card to
the bottom through a double undercut and I tell that after so
many shuffles there wasn’t doubt that the selected card was lost.
But a tipsy English friend asked: "Do you know the drunken
shuffle?" I tell that they all said no, and then I gave him the deck.
I apply the sloppy shuffle and end the effect saying that I could
still locate the card, making it stand out from the rest.

373
 Another interesting and recommendable application of this
singular false shuffle would be the curious "Back in Time" trick,
by Jay Sankey, which we can find in "The Definitive Sankey" Vol.
1 (page 387), written by Andi Gladwin and Joshua Jay.

OIL AND WATER

The fact that half of the cards in the French or English deck
are red and the other half black are the characteristic responsible
for this classic of card magic, since it consists in making these
two colours separate, magically. There is a great variety of
versions and methods. The first to use the metaphor of oil and
water was Edward Marlo in his "The Cardician" of 1953. Marlo
said that the idea of the effect wasn’t his, although he would
develop several methods to get that magic. The basic effect of
the magic separation of colours was published for the first time
in 1940 by Walter Brown Gibson, at number 91 of the magazine
"The Jinx," with the title "Like Seeks Like." Nevertheless, the
pioneering researcher on the magic of Hofzinser, Ottokar Fischer,
stated in his "J. N. Hofzinser Kartenküsten" (Hofzinser's card
magic) of 1910, that Hofzinser already had performed the effect,
although the exact method he used was unknown, since he
never found a solution described by him. It is one of the 18
famous "problems of Hofzinser" that Fischer compiled in the last
pages of his book, after revealing everything that was known
about his secrets until then. The effect is originally called "Die
Magische Separation" (the magical separation). Anyway, through
the revolutionary idea of the “stripper deck,” the effect of the
magic separation of colours was already raised and published for
the first time in the year 1782, in the second edition of the fourth
volume of "Rational Recreations," by Williams Hooper (page 264).
The stripper deck is the oldest of the trick decks, and its first

374
effect had to do precisely with "the magical separation,"
although Hofzinser's problem starts from the idea of doing it
without that trick.

I wanted to propose a routine of several effects on this

classic, which I develop for my shows and of which always had a
good reception among my cruel spectators. It's about beginning
with just two cards and finishing with eight. There are card
magicians that continue to complete a routine with all the cards
in the deck, but I'll leave that for the staunchest scholars of this
classic. I also thought about changing the metaphor to make it
more emotional and less scientific, so that instead of calling it
"Oil and Water" it occurred to me to call it "Good and Evil." The
routine has five effects plus an optional sixth commented on the
"note." The routine was designed for the Christmas party of 1994.

52- Good and Evil

Effect One

This micro-trick came to me originally in 1986, taking

advantage of the idea of "double lift." I premiered it at Christmas
parties that same year. Eight years later, when I came up with
this routine, I thought about using it as a start.

You must have two black cards on top 1 and 2, and a red
card on top 3. You say that one of the most important things in
life is to know how to distinguish between Good and Evil. The
problem comes when sometimes the "Evil" disguises itself as
"Good" and vice versa. You say: "For example (you take the first
two cards as one in Biddle position, and turn the wrist to show its
face), we have a black card; evil." Next, keeping the Biddle
position, you put the double card down on the next card (red)
half overlapped, and then raise the three making believe that

375
there are only two. Turn the wrist again and say: "and here a red
card; the Good. Good (red) is on top of Evil (black)." You turn
your wrist and say: "Now Evil is over Good." Then you square
them, so that they are no longer overlapping, and slide the top
card with the thumb of the hand that holds the deck taking it to
the top of the deck, while you say: "if I put the Evil here, what do
I have in the other hand?" The spectators will tell you that Good.
Then you turn the wrist that holds the card and show that it is
indeed the red card (although it’s a double card that hides the
black card that you showed before). You say: "very GOOD, but
remember that sometimes it’s difficult to distinguish Good from
Evil." You put the red card (double) on the deck while saying:
"Good." You ask the spectators again: "Where is the Good?" They
will tell you up. So you take the card from above (the black one)
and put it aside on the table. You ask: "Where is the Evil?" They
will point out the following card. So you take it and place it on
the table, well separated from the other. Only the final strike is
left asking them to raise the cards and check that, as you said
before, sometimes it’s difficult to distinguish Good from Evil, and
that's why you have to look carefully.

When I performed for the first time this little trick in 1986,
my cousins asked me to repeat it, as expected. I repeated it, and
fortunately they still did not understand the secret. Then they
called their parents to see the trick. So then I did it again for
them and they were very surprised, so they asked me to repeat it.
I repeated it for those adults, and apparently they did not catch
the secret either, but they asked me to repeat it once again while
they said that they had a slight idea of how it was done, so, at
that point I refused to repeat it again. They insisted on asking me
to repeat it while they were grinning. I wanted to repeat it

376
because I liked to do it, but I remembered the advice of my
brother (who was not present at that precise moment), and I
ended up refusing to repeat it for fear of betraying my brother if
they discovered the technique of the "double lift." After that
experience I thought for the first time about the concept of the
spectator who does not want to enjoy seeing magic, but rather
to try to catch the secret. I also understood the importance of
not repeating a trick with spectators of that nature. Experiences
like that already made me very clear at such an early age the
difference between a "TV magician" and me (an amateur
magician). In successive days I concluded that this trick should
not be repeated more than twice per performance, because the
slowness of its movements gave the spectators a lot of time to
think. In fact, if you notice that the spectators are very sharp, it
would be better not to repeat it even for second time, moving on
to another trick.

Effect Two

The next effect will be the famous "Dr. Daley's Last Trick,"
named like that by Dai Vernon in tribute to Dr Daley and that is
included in "The Dai Vernon Book of Magic" (1957), written by
Lewis Ganson. Dr Daley was an amateur card magician whom
Vernon greatly appreciated. Despite the reference to Dr Daley
given by Vernon, the routine of the trick is earlier, since it was
first published in 1933 by Ottokar Fischer in "Illustrated Magic"
(page 119). Ottokar Fischer was especially known for being the
first populariser of Hofzinser's magic, but apparently he was also
the forerunner of the famous trick known as "Dr. Daley's Last
Trick." I will reveal the trick to explain my presentation, as well as
because it is an elementary classic of card magic, practically in
the public domain for any card magician.

377
 Following the pattern of the first effect, you say that now
we are going to try to differentiate between truth and lies. Then
you remove from the deck, for example, the four Fives, at the
same time you arrange them by black, red, black, red, from the
top (making sure that the one of Hearts is in bottom). You put
the pile face up, showing the Five of Hearts, and you say: "There
are Good Truths and Bad Truths, in the same way that there are
Bad Lies and White Lies. This one of Hearts will represent the
Good Truth." Apply the technique of “the glide” and put a black
card on the table making believe it is the Hearts. You say: "The
Good Truth." You do a double turn over and show the other red
card. You say: "This is the Evil Truth." You redo the double and
put the other black card on the table. Then you ask: "Which is
the Good Truth and which the Bad Truth?" After the response of
the audience, you say: "I'm going to put the Bad Truth on top of
the Good one" (you do it). Then you say: "Now I'm going to pass
magically, without touching the cards, the Bad Truth under the
Good Truth ... Bang! Ready!" Spectators will look at you intrigued,
thinking that you are going to flip the cards to show that you
have achieved what you have said, however you say again: "but
now I am going to put the Bad Truth back under the Good one ...
Bang! Ready! Did you like it?" Spectators will laugh at the joke
while you tell one of them: "Flip the cards to show that what I
said is true" ... while the spectator flips the cards, you say:
"Remember that we must be careful not to confuse the Good
with the Evil, nor the Truth with the Lie (you show the two red
ones that you have in the hands)" I love the look of surprise that
my viewers always have with this effect.

There is a fantastic version of this trick designed by Arturo

de Ascanio called "The Trick That I Would Do To Dai Vernon,"

378
which can be found in the Volume II of "The Magic of Ascanio,"
written by Jesús Etcheverry.

Effect Three

Here we are going to do a trick known as "Japanese Aces

Trick," from the winner of the Tenkai Prize of 1983 and the first
Grand Prix of Close-up Magic of Japan in 1984, Shigeo Futagawa.
The trick was published in 1976 by Nick Trost in "Subtle Card
Magic: Part One" (page 22). Vicente Canuto selected it for his
"Cartomagia fundamental" with the title of “Mini agua y aceite”
(mini-oil and water), and actually it is a subtle and curious "oil
and water" with four cards, ideal to surprise at any time.

We hand the black cards to a spectator and we tell him or

her that we are going to clearly mix the Evil with the Good, to
see if we can distinguish them. So, as the routine dictates, we ask
him or her to place one of the black cards on the table. You place
one red, he or she the other black and you the other red. Pick up
the pile and wave it while you ask the audience to say: "Good
and Evil, separate!" Then you show that they have indeed
separated, leaving the red cards on the table and holding the
black in your hands. Then, you tell the spectator that we will
repeat it, but this time he or she will be the Good one; you give
him or her the red cards. The same thing is repeated with the
corresponding final effect.

Effect Four

This time we will use eight cards. It is about using an

impromptu method of "oil and water" of which we can find a
great version in "The Magic Way" by Juan Tamariz, in the "F"
section of chapter four of the second part, which is the one I
have most used for this routine. I have also used Arturo de

379
Ascanio's method called "No parpadee," (don’t blink) which can
be found in Volume II of "The Magic of Ascanio," compiled by
Jesús Etcheverry. It is about applying one of these great routines
to the metaphor of the Evil and Good, to continue with this
routine.

Effect Five

For the great final it occurred to me to resort to the

sublime and famous trick "Oil and Queens" by Roy Walton, which
consists in that four of the eight cards are transformed into the
four Queens when the spectators think that they would be the
four cards of the other colour. I thought of performing Walton's
routine to the T, with the exception that instead of four Queens
at the end, four cards of the same colour appeared as the others.
In this case all the cards would be red, since they were the ones
that represented the Good, thus obtaining a nice metaphor in
which the Evil disappears. My spectators got a big surprise when
I showed this ending, and they gave me a great applause.

Walton originally published it in his "Devil's Playthings"

(page 15) in 1969. There is a recent publication called “Subtle
Card Creations – Volume 1” by Nick Trost (2008) in which page
10 there is a trick called “Another Oil and Queens.”

Note: Between the third and fourth effects, a version with

six cards (three reds and three blacks) could be included, like
René Lavand's brilliant routine “I Can’t Do It Any Slower.” So we
would go from four to six cards instead from four to eight. Each
effect would have an addition of two cards. “I Can’t Do It Any
Slower,” by the genius and greatest poet of card magic, René
Lavand, can be found in the number one of the DVD series "René

380
Lavand's Close-Up Artistry," as well as in his work "Slow Motion
Magic 2."

THREE CARD MONTE

“Three Card Monte” is one of the popular tricks of card

magic. Probably it is the oldest trick of deception with cards that
is known. The magician and researcher on the history of magic,
Bill Kalush, published an essay in 2002 called "Sleight of Hands
with Playing Cards Prior to Scot's Discoverie," which highlights a
record of a Parisian letter of the year 1408 preserved in the
Nationals Archives of France, in which a game with four cards is
represented in a theme similar to the Three Card Monte. The
record dates from just a few decades after the deck of cards was
introduced in Europe whose first written reference to its
existence dates from 1371, in the “Diccionario de la rima”
(dictionary of the rhyme) by Barcelonian poet Jaume March. The
word "naip" (playing card) appears as a common word within a
group of words that rhyme with each other, which suggests that
the playing cards had been in use those parts for quite a while. It
is very likely that by that time the Spanish Minstrels such a
Jugglers and Conjurers already performed the "Three Card
Monte" as a variation of the “Cups and Balls” trick, at the end of
the fourteenth century, although I know no written reference to
the time that confirms it. It was introduced in the United States
from Mexico. It was also the oldest card trick in the New World
since the Spanish brought the playing cards to Mexico in the
sixteenth century. The word "monte" referred to a group of
cards, generally those that had not been dealt in a game, so
"monte de tres cartas” (three cards monte) could have been the
original expression to refer to it. Apparently, it was introduced in
the United States at the beginning of the 19th century. There are

381
American documents that mention that this game of deception
was already often performed in the 20s of the 19th century in
New Orleans, even before the French introduced Poker and the
first gamblers appeared, thus “Mexican Turnover" is one of the
Mexican inheritances left by the Three Card Monte in the United
States. In "New Era Card Trick," written by August Rotenberg in
1897, we can meet "the Mexican turn over” on page 22, which
Rotenberg says it’s widely used in Mexico by gamblers, especially
to perform the "three card monte." In addition, in "Modern
Magic,” by Professor Hoffmann, the charismatic effect of the
bent corner is already described, which is very interesting if we
think that that book was published in 1876. That effect is
considered anonymous. The "three card monte" spreads
throughout Europe during the 15th century as a version of the
“cups and balls” trick, which is considered the oldest close-up
magic trick. The "three card monte" was also a forbidden game,
since it was based on cheating by bets with cronies. Cheating to
get money is despicable, but if we use this classic game to create
magical illusions and laughs with imaginary bets, don’t doubt
that it’s worth adding it to the repertoire. There are many
versions and presentations. There are both impromptus and with
gimmick cards of countless different ways, in addition to versions
with Jumbo cards. My four recommendations for this repertoire
are also varied, so that we can enjoy doing it and spectators
enjoy seeing this classic effect.

53- Dai Vernon’s Three Card Monte

The popular version of Dai Vernon is wonderful. It is

published in the trilogy "Inner Card Trilogy" written by Lewis
Ganson, in the third volume ("Further Inner Secrets of Card
Magic") with the title "Three Card Monte."

382
 In regard to the impromptu version, I recommend a
magnificent little book called "A Treatise on the Sucker Effects of
Three Card Monte" by John Scarne, although written by Audley V.
Walsh in 1933. In its 44 pages it’s detailed various impromptu
procedures, apart from the delirious and singular effect in which
a piece of corner of the winning card is torn, which in spite of
that special action, it’s almost impromptu. When reading this
little book I was quite surprised to discover that the effect of the
torn corner was already performed at that time.

Related to the torn corner I’d recommend “Final Monte” by

Harry Anderson, in “Harry Anderson, Wise Guy” written by Mike
Caveney, although it’s not Impromptu at all. And for more
information, "Don’t Bet On It," written by Frank García in 1978. A
119-page book devoted entirely to this universal effect of card
magic. It is also interesting "The Three Card Monte As
Entertainment" (39 pages), written by Lewis Ganson in 1980,
which describes a comical and hilarious effect of Ian Adair called
"Striptease Lady," in which, at the end, the Lady appear naked.

54- The Gambler and the Grandfather

It took me a lot of work to find out who was the creator of

this great version of Three Card Monte, but I got it ... Richard
Vollmer. It’s a pity that one does not have the habit of passing on
the information of the original creator or promoter of a trick, just
saying that it is "a classic trick," as often expressed by amateur
card magicians. This great trick was shown to me by an amateur
friend who was shown by another ... well, you know ... after a lot
of research, I found out that it was originally called "Poor Man's
Monte" and we can find it published in the fourth volume of
"Apocalypse," the famous journal edited by Richard Kaufman and

383
Harry Lorayne between 1978 and 1997, composed of a total of
20 volumes, which were reissued between 2000 and 2002 in four
large volumes by L & L Publishing.

The trick became known and popular in Spain as "El trilero

y el abuelo" (The gambler and the grandfather). I will show you
this fun routine in case you don’t know it. If you don’t know it,
I'm pretty sure you will like it. Anyway, if you are already a great
connoisseur of the essential techniques of card magic, just
reading the effect will be enough to find methods:

It is said that my grandfather met a gambler. The gambler

did the usual trick Three Card Monte, but with four cards: three
losing cards (equal) and one winner (different). He placed a
losing card on the table (face down) and asked my grandfather to
find the winning card among the other three. My grandfather
didn’t succeed, since the three cards turned out to be losing
cards and the winner became the one that was placed on the
table. The gambler did it once more and the same thing
happened. Then, my grandfather borrowed the cards from the
gambler. My grandfather placed the winning card on the table
and asked the gambler which of the other three was the winning
card. The gambler, surprised by the question, answered that of
course none of the three, since the winning card was on the
table. Then, the grandfather showed him one by one the three
cards he had in his hands and they turned out to be all winners!
The only losing card was precisely the one that was set aside!

I recommend this trick because it is very funny, original and

with an unexpected ending that has always amazed my
spectators. The only drawback is that it’s a "wobbly trick," that is,
a trick in which you cannot give to examine the cards at the end.

384
In this trick you end up supposing that there are three identical
cards and a different one on the table (faces down), but in fact
there are two equal and two equal, so you cannot give them to
examine, however I remind you that I presented an idea to solve
this problem, which I used as an example for the section “Tricks
to Make the Gimmick Disappear” from chapter 7 of the Part One.

I would also like to inform you that there is an ingenious

trick called "Virginia City Shuffle" by Martin Lewis, Louis Falanga
and John Luka, with a routine very similar to this one, which
doesn’t require extra cards or duplicates, so they can be given
away at the end of the trick! We can find it in volume 5 of the
collection "Easy to Master Card Miracles," by Michael Ammar.

I would also like to inform you out of curiosity that Richard

Vollmer was in charge of the French translation of Roberto
Giobbi's great work "Card College.”

55- Tamariz’s Three Card Monte

This routine and presentation by Juan Tamariz is also great

for amateur card magicians, as it is very clear, funny and
surprising. We can find it in "Pabular," four books that compile all
the volumes of the British magic magazine of the same name,
which was published until 1985. Each book contains two volumes.
The books are published by Nick Bolton. This “Three Card Monte”
is in volume 6, trick number 6, with the title "It's a Pity: The Juan
Tamariz Routine and Presentation for Finding the Lady." We can
also find it on DVD in the immense collection "Greater Magic
Video Library," volume 41 (volume dedicated entirely to Juan
Tamariz).

385
 56- Three Card Monte from Cadiz

I'll finish with this kind of tricks showing mine. A “Three

Card Monte” that I develop in 1998 while doing military service. I
called it "Cadiz" in honour of the land where I was born, as well
as representing a very mocking guy like we are from Cadiz.

The trick uses no less than two extra cards, but I devised a
funny way to get rid of them at the end, being able to examine
the three cards, as well as a little version much easier that no
extra cards are needed, which I'll show you at the end.

Effect

The magician shows a Queen of Hearts and two Jokers.

Place the Queen in the middle of the Jokers, square them and
turn them over. Next, separates the three cards on the table and
asks where the different card is. The spectators say that in
between. The card in the middle is flipped and it is indeed the
Queen of Hearts. The spectators believe that they have won, but
the magician says that this is not the different card. Then flips
the other two and it is discovered that there is another Queen of
Hearts, so the different card is the Joker. The spectator loses.
Next, the magician says that he or she will let two spectators
participate at the same time, so that each one has a chance. In
spite of that, they both lose again, since both choose the two
cards that are the same, two Jokers! Finally, the magician lets
three spectators participate so that there is a sure winner (the
one who hits will take the money). But when the three cards are
turned over, it is discovered that no one wins because there are
no different cards, but they are all Queen of Hearts. The Queens
are given to be examined! They can be given away.

386
 Solution

We will need seven cards. Yes, seven. Two of them will be

kept in your pocket (you also need a pocket and a 50 euro note
inside it, if you do not have a 50 euro note, nothing happens ... it
can also be worth 100 or 500). The two cards in the pocket will
be Queen of Hearts. Out of pocket we will need five cards: three
Queen of Hearts and two Jokers. The Jokers and one of the
Queens must have been treated with magician's wax to their
backs. You paste the face of each Queen who does not have wax
on the back of each Joker. Ready.

Begin by placing the apparent three cards face up on the

table, the Queen in the middle (the only card that is not double).
You explain that the winner will be the one who finds the
different card (you point out the Queen). You can say that you
are going to do an example without betting money yet. So, you
flip the cards and alter the order of them very slowly. The
spectators will easily guess where the Queen is. Depending on
the amount of wax it would be even possible to do the
impromptu version manoeuvre by the “hype toss”; try it alone
before. If the spectators lost during one of these attempts, the
game would draw more attention to them since they would see
that it’s not as easy as it looks.

After the trial without bets, you place the cards face up as
they were at the beginning and you say that the winner will take
50 euros (you take the note out of your pocket, show it and put
it back). Then you say: "If I win, that is, if you do not succeed, you
will only pay me with applause ... it's not bad! Hey? Good
business for you, right?"

387
 Then you begin saying that you are going to do it very
clearly. You take any Joker (they can choose it), turn it face down,
place the Queen on top (face down) and on top of the Queen the
other Joker (face down). You squeeze the cards a little, you slide
the Queen in the top separating her from the Joker and let the
other cards come apart gently leaving them on the table. On one
side we will have a new Queen, in the middle the original one
and on the other side a Joker. Ask where the different card is to a
viewer. When they tell you that in the middle, you flip it and let
them react. It seems they have won. You play to be surprised,
take the note out of your pocket and put it back in saying: "Wait!
I said you had to find the different card." You flip the others and,
surprise! The different card is the Joker. You wait for the
applause they owe you (although you may be punched).

You say that you are going to allow a second spectator to

play at the same time, to increase the chances of a winner. You
remind them that the winner will take 50 euros (show and keep
the note again). Then you take the Queen from the middle
(double card), turn it over and place the other Queen on top
(face down) while you say: "these are the same cards." Then do
the same with the Joker (double card) and say: "and this is the
different card." Now you don’t even have to press the little pile,
you just let the card from above slide and drop it on the table.
Then you separate the bottom card and place it next to the one
on the table, saying: "this is a Queen." Finally you put the
(double) card that remains in your hand on the other side of the
first card that was put on the table (which is supposed to be the
Joker), and you say: "and this is the other Queen." Ask the first
spectator: "What do you reckon is the different card?" The
viewer will say that the one in the middle. Then you say to the

388
other spectator: "now we have to get rid of one, because you can
choose two ... which one?" The spectator will point out one of
the other two. If the Joker is the one pointed out, perfect. But if
the Queen is the one pointed out, you say: "we get rid of this
one." It is a pun that occurred to me to get the force: when you
say that we have to get rid of one, and immediately you ask
"which," it is not clear what you mean by "which," if the card to
choose or the card to be discarded. Then you take advantage of
this ambiguity to remove the one you don’t need after the
viewer points out one. Next, you flip the middle one first, to thrill
them, showing that it’s the apparent different card.

You say: "The Joker! You've won!" But you pick up the other
chosen card, saying: "And what did you choose?" When seeing
another Joker, you exclaim: "You have also won! ... no ... wait ...
you have not won either of you because there are not different
cards. You don’t got game, men!" There will be laughter while
you flip the Queen (solitary card).

Finally you say that we are going to play with three

spectators to make sure there is a winner. Each one will choose a
card. You remind them that the winner will take 50 euros. This
time you take the note out of the pocket along with the other
two Queen hidden underneath, and put it on the table with
something on it so it does not fly. You say that you are going to
put the grand prize in sight, since this time there will be a sure
winner! Then you take one of the Jokers (double card) and place
the Queen in the middle (single card) while you say: "if I put the
Queen on top, what will I have under?" Everyone will say a Joker
(you take the Joker alone and you show it). Then, you say
pointing to the other card on the other hand: "And what will I
have here?" Everyone will say that a Queen. You turn the wrist

389
and show the Queen (it will not be the same Queen as before,
but one of the Queen that does not have wax). You say in a
comical tone: "The important thing is to understand it." Turn the
wrist again to hide the Queen (double) and take the other Joker
(double) that is on the table. Turn over that Joker and put it on
the Queen. You will have two double cards (Queen, joker, Queen,
Queen). Next, take the other Joker (single card) and put it on top
of everything, you say: "Look carefully, the two Jokers and the
Queen." At the same time you say that, you spread the first two
cards and hold them with one hand without flipping them, the
rest of the packet (three cards) you turn it as if it were a single
card, showing a Queen. Next, you recompose everything as it
was before, but keeping a break between the first two cards and
the rest, you hold these two cards as one and place it carefully
on the table while saying: "A Joker." These two cards are not
stuck since the Joker is next to a Queen without wax. It will be
the only case like this during the routine. Then you squeeze a
little the three cards that you have in your hands and let them
slide and fall on the table. We will have two Queens hiding two
Jokers (one with wax and one without wax) and a Queen alone
(no wax). You ask for each viewer choosing a card. You remind
them that there will be a sure winner while you point out the 50
euro note (that will motivate them to play). After each one
chooses a card, the drama begins. Flip one of the double cards: a
Queen (hold her in your hand, face up). Flip another of the
double cards: another Queen (you put her on top of the other,
face up, in your hand). You exclaim: "We have a winner!" You
square the two double cards in your hands, take the note with
the other hand grabbing the two hidden Queen underneath, and
put it on top of the hand holding the two double cards. At that
moment, you take advantage of the winner's climax to drop on

390
the table from under the note, one by one, the two new Queens
face up, making them believe they are the same as always, while
you tell the winning spectator: "If these are the same cards, the
other is the different ... Congratulations!" You extend the arm
that holds the note to hand it to the viewer, but you stop and
say: "Wait a minute; we have to check the card that you chose ...
you never know." You ask him or her to turn the card him/herself
(it’s not double nor has wax), and ... surprise! Everyone loses
because no card is different. Take advantage of that climax to
keep your note in your pocket (along with the double cards). You
claim the applause that they owe to you while you give each
Queen to each spectator as a souvenir. If the three collaborators
were boys you can joke that they have not taken the 50 euros
note, but they have got a girl each, which is not bad...

One of my popular sentences during my performances was:

"The important thing is to understand it ..."

Little easier version:

We will need only two equal Queens and one Joker. Show
the Jokers three times applying the “Flustration Count.” Then
you do the same but applying the "hype toss," leaving the three
cards on the table. Then you ask them to choose the winning
card. Obviously they will not understand it because all the cards
are the same, but you insist that they trust in themselves and
choose one. They are more likely to choose a Queen, but if they
chose the Joker, you say "I’ll give you another chance." The fact is
that they must choose a Queen. So then, you turn over the
Queen to the surprise of the spectators. You add: "I told you to
trust yourself." Then you leave the chosen Queen on the table
face down and take the other Queen (that they think it’s a Joker)

391
next to the Joker to show them as two Jokers by the "hype toss,"
one on each side of the well-known Queen. Ask again for the
different card. They choose the centre one, obviously. Then you
turn it over and say you have hit again. But then you say: "Just a
minute, let's see the others ... you never know ..." You ask them
to flip the others ... surprise! The different card is the Joker. The
cards can be given as a souvenir.

TRANSPOSITION

Sometimes called "Two Card Monte," the "card

transposition" is another of the great classics that shouldn’t be
missing in a good repertoire.

The first written reference to this classic effect dates from

the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, from an
unpublished manuscript known as "Sloane 424" belonging to the
British Library. The manuscript, written in Italian, is anonymous.
The name by which it is known derives from the name of the
owner of the bookshop (Sir Hans Sloane) when a collection of
manuscripts was acquired, including the one referred to (424). It
was translated into English by Dr Lori Pieper, who contributed so
much with her translations to the magic research journal
"Gibecière", where the translation was first published in volume
5 number 2 (page 141-172), in the year 2010. The effect of the
transposition appears on page 158. In this manuscript, several
card magic tricks are explained, including a method for "Card To
Any Number" and several locations of chosen and lost in the
deck cards, with methods such as preparing the deck by
separating odd and even cards. There is also some sign of an idea
that Dai Vernon would use for his routine "Out Of Side-Out of
Mind," in addition to the occurrence of forcing the same card to

392
several viewers without they knowing it, known today as
"Rashômon's Principle." A principle that the legendary magician
José Frakson used quite a lot in the 20s and 30s in many different
ways ... well, I’ll stop running my mouth...

Coming back to the "transposition," John Scarne gave an

elegant and distinguished touch when he showed a curious
version during a commercial of Schaefer beer in the early 70s. In
that version Scarne placed one of the cards above and the other
below a tankard.

57- Transposed Divination

With regard to the “transposition effect,” in the summer of

1992 I came up with a little idea that I called "Transposed
Divination." The idea is quite simple, so I already thought that
many other passionate thinkers may have thought about it. It
consists in the following; let’s consider a lady magician:

Before showing that the cards have been exchanged (which

are face-down on the table), the magician says that she will try to
guess in which of the two cards a spectator is thinking. So she
asks a viewer to think of one of the two cards. Then the magician
points to one of the two cards while saying: "you are thinking in
this one." If she gets right, the audience would think that there is
a 50% chance, which is not very surprising, but if she does it
again and hits again it would be a little more surprising ... and if
she hits three or four times in a row it would begin to look like
magic. The cards are not checked at any time since it is known
which is which. But, what happens when or if she doesn’t
succeed? Well, the spectators will be surprised as well when they
turn over the cards, since they will see that the magician will

393
have been again successful because the cards will have been
exchanged for that! For the magician to succeed!

Eleven years later, making research, I discovered an effect

of Dai Vernon called "The Challenge," published in "The Dai
Vernon Book of Magic" (page 114), written by Lewis Ganson. This
effect was identical to this one! The feeling of having coincided in
an idea with "The Professor" was electrifying. It’s curious that I
didn’t give much importance to this trick before, and just after
discovering that it was a Vernon’s idea too, it became part of my
elite repertoire, which taught me that we should trust more in
ourselves to give importance to an idea, since you never know
who else valued in some day. Any trick has its importance as long
as you know how to give it to by yourself.

By the way, the only drawback of this trick is the need for a
duplicate card, but it's worth it if we can later get rid of it. A
wicked way to avoid the duplicate card would be to do it with a
Joker and an Ace of Spades. Having two equal Jokers in any deck
would not require any duplicate card, but it could also be
harmful, since it’s too well-known that there are two equal
Jokers in a deck of cards. That would depend on how fussy your
audience was. Another idea would be to show one of the two
cards placing it first on the deck and then applying a double turn
over, as proposed by Jean Hugard in "Card Manipulations," in a
trick called "Invisible Transit." In short, let it not be because of
lacking of ideas. Another little idea that I called "Named
Transposition," was as result of looking for some way to avoid
having to use duplicate cards or Jokers, which consists in
changing a bit the dynamics of the trick, producing the
transposition only in one of the two cards, and that the other
one is transformed into a previously chosen card, or just named

394
(with a memorised deck, see Part Three). The effect would be
quite surprising. Think about it:

Have a card named. Let's say they name the 3 of Clubs. We

control it to top. Double lift and we show, for example, the 8 of
Hearts. We say that if it had been the 3 of Clubs we would have
said that the card has risen magically and the trick would have
ended so cool: "I am so opportunistic and smarty", but of course,
we continue. After some laughter we apply the double turn over
and put the 8 of Hearts aside on the table. Then we force the 3
of the Clubs to the person who named the card and place it
without showing it on the other side of the table. We say that it’s
a mysterious card because we don’t know it. We do a magical
transposition, so that the 8 of Hearts becomes the mysterious
card. Surprise! But what was the mysterious card before? Can we
know it? Yes, of course, because now it occupies the place of 8 of
Hearts, due to the transposition, and it turns out to be ... the
named card, the 3 of Clubs!

In relation to "transpositions," I can’t overlook

recommending "Whack Your Pack!" by Paul Harris. This fun trick
is ideal for the impromptu repertoire of an amateur. Also known
as "Reflex," we can find it in the third book of "The Art of
Astonishment" (page 207). The idea is original of Paul Curry,
appearing in number 135 of the magazine "The Phoenix" in 1947,
called "Miscalled." Effect: a selected card is lost in the deck. The
magician shows cards by dealing them face down on the table.
Meanwhile, the magician tells the viewer that as soon as seeing
his o her card quickly puts a hand on it before the magician does.
So that, the spectator sees his/her card and puts a hand on it
quickly, before the magician. The magician seems to have lost,

395
but the card that at first seemed to be that of the spectator turns
out that it’s not. The magician takes it out from his or her pocket!

To finish I would also recommend another great little trick

of this type called "Rise and Swap," by Sven Maro, published by
Roberto Giobbi in volume 1 from his monumental "Card
College."

58- Be Honest – What is it?

I consider this double transposition as a masterpiece of the

transpositions, especially because of the participation of the
spectator and how it combines surprise with comedy. It can be
performed at any time if you have practised it, of course, since it
requires a “top change”, and that must be perfectly mastered.
That way you can amaze with a funny trick at any situation and
increase your reputation as a magician. The trick is Eddie
Fechter’s original and we can find it in the book "Magician Nitely:
The Magic of Eddie Fechter," written by Jerry Mentzer, and the
DVD "Magic Farm" by David Williamson. One of the great
pioneers of street magic TV Show, David Blaine, greatly
popularised a version of Paul Gertner on that effect. The effect in
general is as follows: Blaine shows and hands face down an Ace
of Spades to a spectator. Then he shows another card; an Ace of
Clubs. He slowly exchanges one Ace for another from the
spectator's hand. Then he tells him or her that this time he will
try to change them so quickly that he or she will not notice it. So
he seems to do it. Then, before the viewer turns his/her wrist to
see if the change has taken place, the magician hands the viewer
the other card to look at both ... they turn out to be the red
Aces!

396
 The famous "Dr. Daley's last trick," of which I talked earlier
in the second phase of the routine "Good and Evil" (trick No. 52),
is another great example of transposition of two cards.

Shortly after learning the technique called "turn over pass"

in the summer of 1992, I had a little idea about a double
transposition that also uses Aces. It's a quick effect which I never
named and used as an opener to encourage my people to ask for
more magic. It consists in joking with a spectator asking him or
her if can distinguish well between the red and black colour. We
place two Aces of the same colour together in the middle of the
deck, and the other two separated in top and bottom. We spread
the deck to clearly see the Aces together, and at the time of
closing the spread we apply the "turn over pass" technique by
cutting the deck where the Aces are joined, leaving everything
ready for the effect. The Aces of both ends will have exchanged
position with the Aces lost in the middle! Everyone who sees it
becomes quite surprised. Then I joke with the viewer telling him
or her: "It's not really magic ... maybe you confuse red and black
colours."

Ten years later, in 2002, I found out with surprise that this
manoeuvre was quite old; it was published in “Modern Magic”
by Professor Hoffmann in 1876. According to “Die Zauberwelt”
(Vol. 7 No. 3) the trick was already performed by Hofzinser. It is
also published in the famous book "The Expert at the Card Table"
within a routine called "Acrobatic Jacks." The trick is popularly
known as “Cavorting Aces.”

397
 59- Thought Transposed

Warning! This trick can kill someone (of surprise). Just

listening to the effect you want to learn it at all costs, but the
best of all is that it’s impromptu and not very difficult to perform,
although it does require patience and rehearsal to present it well.

The magician shows eight cards, four red back Aces and
four blue back Aces. He or she places the red back Aces and the
blue back Aces separately on the table, face down, and asks a
spectator to think of one of the four Aces. Next, the magician
does a magical gesture and shows that the Ace thought by the
spectator has been exchanged magically. Yes, yes, it is like that,
just as you are reading it. Although it seems impossible, the
problem is solvable and we owe it to Dai Vernon. We can learn it
in "Dai Vernon: More Inner Secrets of Card Magic" by Lewis
Ganson, in chapter two. Depending on the Ace in which the
viewer thinks, different solutions are applied to the trick, which
makes their learning a little complex, but not difficult to perform
once you have learned it.

I also recommend a fantastic trick of mental transposition.

It’s easier to do than this from Vernon, although less striking. It is
"Thought of Card in Pocket" by Benjamin Earl that we can find in
the third DVD ("Psychological") of his 3 DVD series called "Past
Midnight." It consists in the viewer thinking of a card from a
group of ten. The magician takes another card and puts it in his
or her pocket. After a magical gesture, where the spectator's
card is supposed to be among those ten, there is the card of the
magician, while the card thought by the spectator is now in the
magician's pocket!

398
 BACKS

I will talk about four special tricks in which the backs are
the focus. Spectators usually don’t pay much attention to the
backs of the cards, a detail that has been used by the card
magicians to give unexpected surprises. We aren’t going to be
less. So, I add these four gems to this repertoire.

60- The Lady Who Blushes

It’s not surprising that this masterpiece known popularly as

“Chicago Opener” is among the tricks included in many card
magicians repertoire. It's simple, easy and have a great surprise
ending; a marvel.

The effect consists in having a card selected and lost in a,

for example, blue back deck. The magician spreads the deck and
a red back card appears among the others, which turn out to be
the selected one. Next, the magician puts that card aside on the
table, face down, and the same operation is repeated; the
spectator selects another card. This time no red card appears in
the deck, but the one red-backed that was put aside is flipped
and turns out to have become the second card selected.

The creator of the effect was Al Leech, being marketed in

1950 with the title "A Red Hot Trick" by "The Ireland Magic
Company" founded by Laurie Ireland, who was one of the
pioneering scholars of the "memorised deck." The track of Al
Leech was lost when Max Katz published it as "Double Surprise"
in 1955 without giving references to Leech. Frank Everhart
resurrected it with the title of "Chicago Opener" when it was
published by Frank García in his "Million Dollars Card Secrets" in
1972. The trick was also known as "Red Hot Mama" since 1980,
when Jim Ryan published it. Fortunately, the track of Al Leech

399
recovered in 2004 thanks to Anthony Brahams who published a
collection of original tricks by Leech, among which was this "A
Red Hot Trick."

The title I show here for this trick is from the Tamariz’s
funny presentation “La dama que se ruboriza” (the lady who
blushes), published in Vicente Canuto’s book “Cartomagia
Fundamental” (fundamental card magic); a very funny
presentation by Juan Tamariz consisting in forcing a Queen, since
the shyness of a lady is much more theatrical ... but, beware, if
you do the lady's version, never say that the trick is called "the
lady who blushes" since we would make it clear that the card
was forced! It seems silly to warn of this, but we can "go head"
and commit such a blunder without even realising it. I admit that
it happened to me once, so that instead of forcing the lady for
the second effect, I had to pretend that I was looking for her
directly, with the cards facing me, in a complicated and tedious
manoeuvre. In the end I got out of that trouble, but I got angry
with myself for the gaffe.

61- The Colour Changing Deck

This striking effect, which also has no special difficulty of

performing, has been one of those that made me believe that I
really do card magic. I have always adored this wonderful trick,
and precisely for that reason I was afraid to repeat it many times,
since its logic is not very difficult to reason if it’s shown several
times in a row. To get the most out of this magical impact, it’s
better to do it occasionally, trying not to be seen by many
spectators in a short period of time. To preserve the illusion of "a
magic" it’s important that your spectators remember only the

400
magical impact, not the details of the procedure, which is what
will make them inquire.

This sublime effect dates from October of 1916, when

Charles Jordan published in the magazine "Sphinx" a trick called
"No. 32 Speaking of Pink Elephants." In this trick a selected card
from a blue back deck changes to red, to then change the entire
deck to red. The trick can be found in "Charles Jordan's Best Card
Tricks" by Karl Fulves (1992), page 243. There are many versions
or routines about the subtle method on which the effect is based.
The versions that I would recommend are the following:

Paul Curry's in "Close-Up Card Magic," written by Harry

Lorayne; (Paul Curry was the first one to market the effect as
"Colour Changing Deck," in 1944).

Ed Marlo's in "Marlo's Magazine" vol. 2, p.133; also in Vol. 5

of "Malone Meets Marlo."

Dai Vernon's in chapter 2 of “Inner Secrets of Card Magic”

(“Dai Vernon Colour Changing Pack”), written by Lewis Ganson.

Roberto Giobbi's from Vol. 5 of its "Card College,” in a

version proposed by Giobbi and Tamariz.

And finally, a hilarious version by Derek Dingle, called

"Colour Triumphant," in which he mixes the effect of Vernon's
"Triumph" with the colour change of the backs of the deck,
published in "The Complete Works of Derek Dingle," written by
Richard Kaufman.

One of the biggest advantages of this idea is that you can

give or gift the deck to the spectators without problems,
according to versions and procedures. Not bad!

401
 62- The Four Blue Backed Aces

The next wonder that I will add to the repertoire is another

idea of "The Professor." Actually the idea of the routine was Lin
Searles’, but using gimmick cards, published in a little book called
"Lucky Aces." What Vernon did was to find an ingenious solution
to carry it out without gimmick cards, which we can find in
chapter one of the third volume “Further Inner Secrets of Card
Magic," with the title "The Four Blue Backed Aces.” It is a visual
Aces Assembly in which the Aces are marked as the only blue
back cards between the indifferent red backs.

There is an ingenious version by Philip T. Goldstein (Max

Maven) called "Picasso Aces," which allows to do the assembly
by showing the Aces one by one, as is done in the Gradual Aces
Assembly, which reinforces the effect. "Picasso Aces" was
published in a 16-page book called "Goldstein's Gallery," with the
subtitle "A Collection of Polychromatic Card Magic," in 1979. The
trick is "wobbly," since only three of the four Aces can be
examined at the end. However, it seems to me an effect too
good and not so difficult to perform to get by without it in a good
repertoire. In the section "Tricks to Make the Gimmick
Disappear”; chapter 7 of the Part One, I showed an idea to solve
the "wobbly” problem of this amazing trick. Furthermore, Derek
Dingle devised a very interesting procedure for the effect of Dai
Vernon that he called "Optical Aces Assembly," which we can
find in "The Complete Works of Derek Dingle," written by Richard
Kaufman in 1983.

On one occasion I did a routine of three assemblies in

which I began with "1002nd Aces" of Elmsley (No. 25), then
continued with this "The Four Blue Backed Aces” by Vernon, and

402
ended with the hit of "Picasso Aces" by Golstein, "confirming"
that the Aces really went from one side to the other. It is a good
example of effects in progression.

63- Twisting the Aces

This classic of Dai Vernon is ideal to have it in our repertoire.

It is not very difficult to perform, you can perform it at any time
and it will give you a good impression as a card magician. We can
find it in “More Inner Secrets of Card Magic,” specifically in
chapter one with the title “Twisting the Aces.” It is one of those
masterpieces that The Professor created through the brilliant
technique of Alex Elmsley, "the ghost count." The effect consists
in that the Aces are magically turning over one by one among the
others. The last Ace can be turned over while the spectator holds
the cards, as I saw Tamariz doing in a TV performance, which
gives the routine a distinguished climax. I sometimes present it
with a little story in which a gambler tells a magician that he is
capable of flipping cards in front of people without being noticed.
He does this with the first three Aces. Then he invites the
magician to try it with the fourth Ace, but the magician tells him
that she will try to do it without even touching the cards. The
cards are handed to a spectator, and after some magic words it is
verified that the last Ace has been indeed turned over. In "Strong
Magic," Darwin Ortiz proposes the idea that the last Ace turns
over inside the case.

There is a great and elegant version of Fred Kaps in which

applies “Ascanio Spread” to the routine, creating the
extraordinary final surprise of the colour change of the backs.
The idea was published in 1972 in "Fred Kaps Lecture" with the
title "Fred Kaps Version of Twisting the Aces Using the Ascanio

403
Spread," written by Pete Biro. This version can be found very well
explained in Vicente Canuto's book "Cartomagia Fundamental"
(fundamental card magic), with the title “Girando 1-2-3-4, con
sorpresa” (turning 1-2-3-4, with surprise). Vicente speaks of a
competitive encounter between two magicians, which seems
great to me to avoid always the clashes between magicians and
gamblers. The effect is the same, only that in this case, as the
title says, there is a big surprise in which the backs change colour.
I set it as follows:

One magician tells another that he can turn over four Aces
magically (or any four cards) one by one among the others. He
does so, applying the elegant “Ascanio spread.” At the end, the
second magician tells him that she prefers not to show or touch
so much the card because they become shy. However, the first
magician criticises her saying that the thing is that she doesn’t
dare to try. But the second magician insists that the cards
become shy as she takes them and turns them over to show
what she says.

Note 1: The magic show could continue performing the

same impromptu effect of Dai Vernon with those four red cards,
as if the second magician finally dared to perform the effect. The
result would be a nice and interesting routine.

Note 2: You can do a version in which the entire deck also

becomes red of shyness (as a result of having been exposed face-
up spread throughout the trick). Keep in mind that there is no
need to show the back of the cards of the deck at any time, since
you can pick four cards with the deck face up. If we take a red-
back deck from a blue case, with a blue-back card on top,
spectators will assume that it’s a blue deck (especially after

404
seeing the effect of the cards that turn over with their blue
backs). But remember that this secret or psychological trick must
be protected very well, since it’s the same principle used for the
trick No. 61, "The Colour Changing Deck," as well as for many
other great tricks of the same nature.

Note 3: Doc Eason devised an interesting routine by linking

this effect with the effect of "Chicago Opener." That is, after
producing this effect showing that all the cards have changed
from blue back to red back, we have a blue back card with which
we can perform the effect of "Chicago Opener" right then,
having a Queen controlled in the deck from the beginning, in
addition to the red back card that corresponds to the blue back.
The result is great for a sequence show. You can find it in his
great collection of 3 DVD volumes “Bar Magic.”

To finish I would like to drop a really good recommendation,

such as "Think-Touch-Turn" by Ed Marlo, which can be found in
volume 3 of "Malone meets Marlo." Don’t overlook this trick.

64- The Hour of Your Life

The so-called "clock trick” is one of the oldest mathematical

principles with cards that are known in writing. This classic has so
many great versions and variants that it’s difficult not to include
one of them in a good repertoire. Probably it’s also the card trick
that has most travelled through the schools in the hands of
amateur children as I was. It is remarkable that professionals
have not stopped developing versions, which shows the great
power of this mathematical principle, perhaps due to how well
camouflaged it is.

The original creator of this idea is unknown. The magician

and researcher on the origins of magic tricks, Bill Kalush,

405
discovered an unpublished manuscript book dating from 1484
titled “Triparty en la Science des Nombres,” by the
mathematician Nicolas Chuquet, in which the effect is already
described with the metaphor of the clock, although using coins
instead of cards. The principle was also published in 1612, in
"Problèmes Plaisants et Délectables Qui se Font par les
Nombres," by the mathematician and poet Claude Gaspard
Bachet de Méziriac. In "Engaños a Ojos Vista" (delusions with
open eyes) by Pablo Minguet é Yrol, from the year 1733, on page
156 there is a trick in which a clock formed with 12 cards is used
as a metaphor, although the method used to divine the thought
hour is an arithmetic more elaborate than that of the well-known
traditional method. The first publication of the twentieth century
is from 1912, in "More Conjuring" by R. D. Chater (stage name as
Hercat) in a trick called "The Clock" (page 21). The effect was also
published on page 340 of Jean Hugard's "Encyclopedia of Card
Tricks" in 1937. The principle is not always used with the
metaphor of a clock since its possibilities invite other ideas, just
as any other generalised mathematical principle. I decided to
choose for the repertoire a version that I saw Tamariz doing on
TV in 1987, which had a great impact on my eleven-years-old
mind.

It all started as I said in 1987, when I saw the performance

of Juan Tamariz in a TV show. I was very fascinated because I
knew perfectly how the basic trick of the clock worked, but I did
not imagine that such a version could be done like that in which
all the backs of the deck changed their image, except for the
predicted card in the hour announced by the viewer. After seeing
this effect in the hands of Tamariz I spent weeks studying the
basic method of the "clock," trying to find out how the hell he

406
had done that. It was clear that it was about making the most of
the basic procedure. Finally, after many headaches, I got it. I
found out how to do that version. I was crazy with happiness. I
called the trick "the hour of your life." However, Tamariz used a
deck in which all the cards had different backs pattern, and I did
not have a deck like that. Then, to be able to do it in the
Christmas holidays of 1988 to my relatives, as I planned, I had to
present it simply as a magical change of back colour. That is to
say, for example, the blue backs were transformed into red.
Fortunately, I did have the necessary equipment for that, that is,
two decks of the same pattern with blue and red backs. So, from
the blue deck we get a prediction card that we keep in our
pocket (for example, the 4 of Hearts). We also take from the red
deck the 4 of Hearts and place it on top of the blue one. This will
look like a deck with a red back. Then we put it in the case of the
red deck, and that's it. I almost found it a joke to realise that
Tamariz showed the cards only on its face, making the spectators
take for granted that it was a deck like the back of the top card.
An ingenuity that I glimpsed for the first time at that time thanks
to that trick, and that would turn out to be the idea used for the
“Colour Changing Deck." Regarding this version of “the clock," I
still have not seen it published in any book, so I can only give
references to Juan Tamariz since I saw that performance on TV.

The routine begins. We take the cards out of the red case
showing only the top card (red). Thanks to a VHS video recording
made by my uncle, I was able to see how Tamariz shuffled. It was
a Hindu shuffle. I didn't know the name of that shuffle at that
time, but I learned one of its extraordinary qualities for the card
magic. Shuffling with the cards face up and showing from time to
time the back of the top card by turning the wrist affects the

407
subconscious of the spectators to make them consider the deck
as a red back one. I confess that I learned several techniques of
card magic just by watching the magicians on TV, as crazy as I
was about the card magic. Then you take the prediction card
from the pocket placing it on the table. You say that the card is
blue on the back in order to differentiate it from the others. You
ask a spectator to choose his or her favourite hour, an hour when
the greatest thing in his or her life would happen, when his/her
life would change, etc. Then you say that you will form a clock on
the table while you count twelve cards in your hands. When you
arrive at twelve you say as Tamariz did: "Ah! I forgot the ritual!"
And, at that moment, taking advantage of the separation you
have between cards 12 and 13, you take the extra card (the Four
of Hearts with red backs) to position 13 in a manoeuvre similar
to the Cull of Hofzinser. I deduced it by logic, because it was the
only way to achieve what needed to be achieved. Then you ask
the spectator to do the following ritual, as Tamariz said in his
performance: remove the same number of cards from the deck
as the number of the chosen hour, and keep them in your pocket
(you will be on your back). Then you take the deck and do the
clock from 12 in the opposite direction (12, 11, 10 ...). The
prediction card will be in the centre of the clock. You ask him or
her for the first time what is the hour of his/her life. You can ask
what happened at that time to joke a little ... In my case they
said five o’clock. I exclaimed: "Sure?! Not seven? I would swear
you thought seven!" I played being worried, as if the trick was
going to go wrong. I verified that the card of the position five was
the 4 of Hearts; I took it with resignation and I said: "If it’s true
that that is the most important hour of your life, the trick cannot
fail." That gave a bit more excitement. I flipped the prediction
and ... surprise, 4 of Hearts! After the applause I said that we

408
cannot forget that this hour is special, and as such, different
from the others. I flipped the other cards of the clock and
showed that they were all blue back, different from the special
hour! The spectator is asked to take the cards out of his or her
pocket and it’s verified that they are also blue back, because
there is only one special hour. To finish you ask another
spectators to look at the back of all cards in the deck. All the
cards are blue backs because the only red back card is the special
hour!

The following year (1989), obsessed with analysing this trick,

it occurred to me that I could do it with the "clock" cards face
down instead of faces up, resulting in a magical as well as
comical impact. I called it "The Crazy Clock," inspired by the
rabbit from the Disney movie "Alice in Wonderland" that I used
to watch on VHS video with my cousins at that time.

We would need a deck of 51 blank cards and one printed.

At that time I did not have such material, but I solved it by
erasing the faces of 51 cards of a deck with a cotton ball dipped
in alcohol. The task was endless, it took hours and ended up
hurting my fingers, but I was very excited thinking about the
result. I remember my mother's scolding words as if it were
yesterday: "Are you doing experiments again? Be careful with the
alcohol!" The cards didn’t turn out very good but it wasn’t
important either, since the blank faces were only to be shown at
the end, as a surprise. The only printed card would be in 13th
place from top. I performed that trick for the first time at
Christmas 1989. A good performance required a false shuffle to
not altering the thirteenth position of the printed card, but I
didn’t dare to do any shuffle for fear of ruining everything.
Fortunately, my audience did not give importance to not

409
shuffling the deck. The idea was to ask a spectator to think an
hour of the clock. Then ask him or her to do the ritual (as in the
previous trick). We form the clock. By the way, investigating, I
discovered that the clock could be formed in two ways:
backwards or forwards. Then I came up with the idea of asking
viewers to choose one of the two ways, which would make the
trick clearer. If they choose "backward" you only have to form
the clock from 12 (11, 10, 9 ...) to 1. But if they say, "forward,"
we would first have to reverse the order of the first twelve cards
of the deck, which can be perfectly justified just counting them
first on the table, to make sure they are twelve. You take the
twelve counted cards (they are already inverted) and you form
the clock forward as the spectator chose, starting with the 1 (not
12), the 2, 3, 4 ... until 12. The printed card will be located just at
the hour said by the spectator. Then you open a prediction paper
(which we will have throughout the trick on the table for all to
see) in which it can be read: "YOUR CARD IS NOT BLANK." The
spectators will not understand the prediction, since nobody
expects a card to be blank, until you turn over the rest of the
cards showing that they are all blank minus the card placed in
the spectator's hour. The cards that are in the spectator’s pocket
and all of the deck are blank too. I also thought that the trick
would be even more fun if, instead of blank, all the cards were,
for example, Ace of Spades. Thus, the prediction would say:
"YOUR CARD IS NOT THE ACE OF SPADES," which would produce
more disappointed in the audience, and continuing with the
surprise that all the cards would be the Ace of Spades except the
one that was in the hour chosen by the spectator. I was
frustrated fourteen years for not being able to carry out this
version of the trick, since I didn’t have a one way deck of cards
until 2003, when I acquired it in a magic shop. Much later, in

410
2013, I also discovered that the trick was marketed in Spanish as
"El reloj de Moliné" (the Moliné’s clock) by Gabi Pareras.

SIGNING

Another type of card trick with great impact on the

spectators is the signed cards. I have selected four gems specially
designed for signed card, plus a personal contribution that
evolved over eight years through six variants, which enhance the
effect, and which I will explain in chronological order.

You can almost always have a selected card signed, but it’s
not advisable to abuse this procedure since you would fall into
the constant suggestion that card magicians can use duplicate
cards easily, which would be counter-productive. In addition,
signing cards constantly could make you seem somewhat
arrogant or presumptuous.

65- Between Your Palms

This is a sublime idea of Alex Elmsley whose effect can only

increase depending on how we present it. We can find it in the
second volume of "Complete Works of Alex Elmsley" by Stephen
Minch. The title which I present it is the same as used by Juan
Tamariz in one of his performances of it that I saw on TV, known
as “The Treasure Card” in Spanish. The effect with this
presentation consists in the following:

The magician has a card selected, which will not be known

by anybody, remaining face down and kept in the hands of said
spectator. The magician says that it is a "treasure card." Next, he
or she has another three cards selected, one of which is signed.
The magician loses the three cards in the deck and says that will
locate them magically. They are made to rise one at a time to the

411
top of the deck, as the effect of the ambitious card. As the first
two selections appear, the magician places them inside the
hands of the spectator who keeps the treasure card between
them. The third card, the signed one, does not appear. The
magician keeps trying to make it appear, but doesn’t succeed.
Finally it is discovered that the signed card is the treasure card!

Once I did this trick to a married woman who had two

children, so it occurred to me to improvise the following
emotional idea: I asked her which the most important people
were in her life. She replied that her children and her husband. I
told her that the signed card would represent her husband, and
the other two, her children. As the effect says, her children are
magically located in the deck and I keep them in her hands, but
her husband (the signed card) does not appear in the deck.
Finally it is discovered that it was the treasure card that is next to
his children.

Peter Duffie has an ingenious version using the principle of

"misrepresentation" or "pseudo-duplicate," which consists of
using two similar cards as the same, such as two Sixes blacks,
two red Eights, and so on. We can find it in his "Duffie's Card
Compulsion" with the title "Mis-Read Palmistry." It’s a version
that makes the trick being totally impromptu.

This type of tricks are also popularly known as "the mystery

card," in which a secret card is temporarily set aside to reveal
itself at the end as the card selected by a spectator. Ed Marlo
popularised an effect in which a card lost face down in the deck
by the magician later turned out to be the card that would later
be selected by a spectator. He called it "Future Reverse" and
published several methods in a booklet called in the same way,

412
in 1945. However, the same routine along with the main method
presented by Marlo, was already published in "Greater Magic"
(page 339), written by John Northern Hilliard in 1938. Marlo
might read it and be seduced by the effect to create various
methods and publish them, or he would develop everything
independently. In any case, the effects of this type cause a great
sensation of magic among the spectators. Another highly
recommended trick of this kind would be "The Psychotronic
Card" by Darwin Ortiz ("Cardshack," page 14) and Paul Gordon's
version "Psychotronic Rides Again" ("The Card Magic of Paul
Gordon," page 22). I also highly recommend "Mr. E takes a Stroll"
by John Guastaferro ("One Degree," page 25) inspired by Jack
Carpenter's "Mysterious" ("Modus Operandis," page 13), which
is a very interesting trick to do just after "Dr Daley's Last Trick,"
by a sequence tricks show.

66- Anniversary Waltz

This unique effect is about two cards signed and lost in the
deck separately that are magically gathered to then merge,
becoming a single double-sided card with their respective
signatures on each side. The card can be given as a souvenir,
that’s nothing!

The first written reference to the effect of fusing card dates

from 1956, in "Ibidem" (No. 5 of April, page 19), in a trick called
"Stranger of another Colour," by Norm Houghton. Although in
that effect the two cards weren’t signed.

Wesley James said that he had independently devised the

effect of merging two cards, in 1965, in addition to having them
signed by the spectators, but he would not represent it publicly
until the seventies. Perhaps he was hesitant about openly

413
showing a double-sided or double-back card to the lay people.
However, just after 1970 began to appear published several
versions of this effect, depending on the type of fusion: "face to
face," "face with back" or "back to back." Some effects were
shown as signatures that jumped from one card to another,
while others were shown properly as card mergers. The first
versions published in the seventies were "face to face," then the
"back to back" versions appeared, such as that of Wesley James
itself, in 1989 (24 years after creating it) in his "Stop Fooling Us!"
with the name of "Forgery." Finally appeared the versions "back
to back," which were those that would become more popular,
such as Christopher Carter’s, in his "Linking Ring" in 1990, with
the name of "Cold Fusion." Four years later, in 1994, Doc Eason
used the routine procedure of Christopher Carter to devise a
wonderful romantic presentation that became very famous,
which he called "Anniversary Waltz." In this presentation two
cards are signed, one to each member of a couple, so that they
first magically meet after being separated and lost in the deck,
and then merge to be always together. The card is gifted to the
couple. The great effect of Carter became very popular as a
result of the great presentation of Eason; a true example of how
magic evolves. It is also a great example of how important the
presentation is when showing an effect. The presentation of
Eason is ideal to surprise at a wedding, remaining as an excellent
and wonderful magician. We can find it in volume 3 of the DVD
series "Bar Magic" by Doc Eason. I inform you by the way, that in
volume 1 of this series there is a wonderful explanation about
The Professor’s “Triumph” and “Three Card Monte.” In addition
Michael Amman appears as a commentator on these DVDs with
Eason, contributing his wisdom.

414
 Aldo Colombini, in his "Mamma Mia!" shows a funny fusion
effect in which he tries to do a transposition of two signed cards
by both sides, but only transposes one face, resulting in a
double-back and a double-sided card.

67- Side Swiped

This great effect is perfect to do with a signed card. It’s not

difficult to carry out and neither very complex, ideal for our
repertoire. Although it looks a bit like a fusion effect like the
previous trick, it’s quite different and has a really ingenious
presentation. We owe it to the imaginative mind of Simon
Aronson, one of the devout scholars of the phenomenon of
memorised decks. The trick can be found in his book "Simply
Simon" with the title "This Side Up," while the title "Side Swiped"
is the corresponding to the version marketed with special cards
that requires the effect:

The magician shows a card the size of a playing card with

numbered written instructions that explain how to perform the
best magic trick in the world. As you read, proceed with the
instructions: 1st the spectator selects a card. 2nd Sign the card. 3rd
Lose the card in the deck. 4th Wrap the deck with an elastic band.
5th The magician keeps the deck in his or her pocket. 6th The
magician shows the card. At this point, the spectators don’t
understand well what does means that the magician shows the
card, but the magician turns over the card in which the written
instructions were found and it turns out that these instructions
card have been transformed into the signed card!

Years back, the great José Carroll already delighted us with

an extraordinary routine in which the magician, after having a
card selected, signed and losing in the deck, hands a notepad

415
with instructions to another spectator to be read while the first
one follows them. Finally, the signed card appears on the last
page of the pad, bounded in the spiralbound pad! This amazing
effect can be found in the immortal works of José Carroll "52
lovers." There are two volumes. The routine I’ve described is in
Vol. 1, page 157 (the last trick of them) with the title
“Instructions.” The only drawback is that it’s a very complex trick
to be carried out at any time. It requires a great preparation,
practise and rehearsal, so I decided not to add it to the general
repertoire. It’s a trick to show in a special moment, not to show
at any time.

José Carroll won the first world magic prize (FISM) in 1988
in The Hague (Holland), by a routine that included this
masterpiece.

68- Homing Card

The first time I perform the "Homing Card" version of

Francis Carlyle, in which the card remains in my pocket,
spectators told me that I might be confederated with the person
who signed the card, and therefore there might be two equal
signed cards. With this, you can get an idea of how astonishing is
this ingenious trick which became one of my favourites. It was
published in 1947 and compiled in the No. 2 of the series 4 of the
immortal work "Stars of Magic" in 1961. I will talk in detail about
this routine in the section "Portable Gimmicks" of the Part Three
(“If you have Got Time…”), in a routine called "The Homing Card
and Ink.”

416
 69- Signed Revelation

As I commented in chapter 5, I performed this trick for the

first time at Christmas 1989. Although I explained it in that
chapter, I will remind it briefly in order to link it well with the six
notes that I will add next.

We have a card selected and controlled to the top. We say

that we will try to make the card magically rise to the top. We do
a double turn over; "bad luck." We redo the double and have the
back of the card signed by a spectator. Spectators believe that
the back of the card signed is the card they have just seen, but in
fact is the back of the selected. They are asked to lose that card
through the middle of the deck; magic words; the deck is spread;
the signed card is removed and turned over. It has become the
selected one! Or the signature has been transferred to it
(ambiguous effect).

Shortly after, on January 4, 1990, it occurred to me that the

selected card could also be signed in the face, caused a merger
of signatures and preventing the public from thinking about
duplicate cards. That’s those "silly" ideas that make us exclaim:
"Why didn’t I think about it before?!" I premiered that version on
the day of the Three Wise Men (January 6).

In 2008, making research, I discovered an effect very

similar to this one published by Meir Yedid in 1982 in "Incredible
Close-Up Magic," called "Signa-Fusion." And shortly after I found
out that the oldest written reference to the same effect dated
back to 1970, in a trick called "Joint Signature" by James Green
Thompson Jr., published in "The Pallbearers Review" (Vol. 5, No.
12 of October, page 365).

417
 Note 1: "The Jumping Signature." It is an idea derived from
the previous one that premiered at Christmas 1990. It’s about
that once the card is signed on the back and lost, we say that we
will make the signature jump to the selected card, so we take the
deck, we shuffle it or give it to shuffle and then we shake it or
tap it against the table. Then we spread the deck face down to
locate the card signed on the back and cut at that point; double
turn over; the signature has jumped to another card. But the
viewer says that it’s not his or her card. Same procedure; double
turn over; the signature has jumped again to another card, but
again it’s not the selected one; the third time lucky. You ask the
spectator to shake the deck him/herself. Finally, the signature
jumps to the selected card. The best part is that the spectator
him/herself can take the card because the signature was always
there! There is nothing to hide; magic without a trace!

Note 2: "Ambitious Signature." When I learned to do "the

classic pass," two years later (in the summer of 1992), I came up
with the following effect:

At the moment of losing the back-signed card in the deck,

we make a break to control its position and we say that we will
try to magically rise to top, which will be especially intriguing
because being signed in the back it would appear instantly. At
the same moment that you say what you are going to do,
perform “the classic pass” while covering the top of the deck
with the palm of your hand, and while we put the deck on the
table, we say: "go up, go up ..." moving the hand that cover the
deck away little by little and showing the back through the open
fingers, allowing the signature to be distinguished. It will cause
the feeling that the card has come into view. You exclaim very
happy: "I knew I could get it!" And then, without giving viewers

418
the option to think a lot about what they have seen, you say that
this time you will try to raise the selected card. But after a couple
of attempts it seems that you don’t get it since the top card is
always the signed one (the signature should disappear if another
card goes up), in fact you show that by a double lift. However
you ask them to name the card for the first time and to turn over
the signed one that is top. It’s that! The card signed on the back
has been transformed into the selected!

On one of the occasions when I did this trick, one of the

spectators surprised me with the following question:

"Has the card gone up or has it been transformed?"

That question denoted a total certainty that they have seen

magic! They wanted to know which of the two "magic" they had
seen! I answered subtly that I even didn’t know. I added that I’m
still a very clumsy magician to even know what I myself do. There
were laughs. I personally call these types of effects "ambiguous
effects."

Note 3: "Signed Prediction." In the summer of 1993 I came

up with this trick inspired by the previous ones. It’s about
showing a card face down on the table as a prediction. Let's
suppose it is a Queen of Hearts (the public doesn’t know it). In
top of the deck we will have another Queen of Hearts
(duplicated). We have a card selected. It’s signed and lost
controlling it on to top through the Hindu shuffle. Then, in top 1
we have the viewer's card and in top 2 the duplicated Queen of
Hearts. We try to make the spectator's card magically rise to top.
We do a double lift and show the Queen. We say that this time
we will never manage to make the card rise to the top, no matter
how hard we try, since we have left a prediction on the table. We

419
re-do the double lift, take the signed card making believe that it’s
the Queen and we apply the “Hofzinser's turn over.” The card
predicting on the table was the card selected and signed by the
spectator!

Soon after, at the end of the summer of 1993, I thought

about that it was possible to do this trick totally impromptu
(without needing a duplicate card), by the following way:

The “Hofzinser’s turn over” would be completed without

showing the face of the prediction card which we stole from the
table, always face down and making believe that it’s the card
that acts as shovel. We place it directly on the top of the deck
taking advantage of the public's excitement just after the effect,
and then we do a disinterested double turn over, showing the
top 2 card and thus dispelling any doubt that it’s not the original
shovel card.

The “Hofzinser Turnover” is known as “Scoop Switch” or

“Allerton Switch” or “Wild Card Turnover Switch.”

Note 3: "Progressive Signed Prediction." Two years later, in

December 1995, inspired again by these ideas and making use of
the new techniques I had learned, I came up with the following:

The prediction card is supposed to be in our pocket, but we

don’t say it (in our pocket there is nothing). In the blue back deck
we will have an extra card with red back on bottom (let’s
suppose it’s a Seven of Clubs). The original Seven of Clubs of the
deck will be on top. We force the extra card without showing its
back with the deck face up by means of the Hindu force, or with
the deck face down by the Sid Lorraine’s "bottom-slip force,” as
well. We have the card signed. Next we apply the technique of
“Side Steal” to palm it. We place the deck on the table with the

420
card palmed and say that we have a prediction in our pocket as
we bring our hand to it. We took out the prediction card (the
palmed and forced extra card) showing only its red back and
placed it on the top of the deck (blue back), clearly contrasting
the colours. We do a double turn over and show the original
Seven of Clubs (the one that is not signed). We say we are happy
with the prediction. The audience will smile, but they will be
intrigued because they will not understand why did you get the
card signed. Next, we re-do the double, take the prediction card
and hand it face down to the spectator who signed it. While we
cut the deck to lose the other Seven of Clubs, we ask the
spectator to turn over the prediction card and they will see that
the signature has materialised in the Seven of Clubs of the red
prediction card that was in the pocket!

Later I came up with the option to save a red back card in

the pocket, in order to start the trick by poking it a little to show
its red back from the beginning. This would help to clarify the
trick, since the public would have a visual proof that inside the
pocket there was a red back prediction card from the beginning,
thus avoiding the hypothetical ideas that the prediction card had
been deposited there in another moment of the trick through
some deception manoeuvres.

Years later I discovered that Aldo Colombini marketed an

effect called "Paramount," in which the signature of the
spectator also appears progressively in the card.

Note 5: "Brute Magic." This is one of the few independent

ideas that I have not seen subsequently published anywhere. It's
from the summer of 1996.

421
 We take a box with its deck inside and hand it to a
spectator to keep it. Then we take another deck, shuffle it and
riffle force a card that at first will not be shown to anyone, but
will be placed on top of the deck and have it signed on its back.
Let's suppose that the forced card is the Seven of Clubs. Then we
do a double lift and show the face to the spectator without you
seeing it. Ask to memorise it, making believe that it’s the
selected and signed on its back card. Let’s suppose it’s a Four of
Hearts (which we had prepared). It is put again on top and we
ask if everyone has seen it, thus excusing why we put it again
temporarily on the deck. Then we take the card again making
believe that it’s the one they’ve just seen. We put it apart on the
table while saying that it’s a prediction card. Next, we ask them
to take out the deck from the box that we handed earlier. We
take it and spread it face up until we all see that there is a turned
back card. We take that card with an air of mystery and put it on
top as we did with the other deck. That card will be a Four of
Hearts while on top we will have a Seven of Clubs (all prepared in
advance). Ask with an air of mystery which was the selected card,
insinuating that they must coincide. Thrill. We do a double turn
over and show the Seven of Clubs. A mistake! The prediction
seems to have failed. You show yourself surprised and nervous.
We redo the double turn and take the Four of Hearts making
believe that it’s the Seven of Clubs. You ask nervous: "Are you
sure your card was a Four of Hearts?" Then you apply the
“Hofzinser’s turn over” next to the card on the table and show a
Four of Hearts and a Seven of Clubs. You say in a tone of
resignation: "Ah, that's true!" And continue: "Have you ever
heard about the brute magic?" People will shake their heads
while they listen to you. You continue: "You know that when
something doesn’t work and you resort to force, it's called brute

422
force, right? Well, clumsy amateur magicians like me do the
same, only in this case it’s called brute magic. That is, when a
magic trick doesn’t come out as we want, I resort to brute magic.
And so, with all that brazenness of brute magic, I will transform
your selected card into the prediction card ... " Place the Four of
Hearts face up on top of the "prediction deck," take two cards as
one stealing the Seven of Clubs and apply the technique of
"double lift change under the arm” (quickly turn over the double
card under you arm), so that we instantly transform the Four of
Hearts into the Seven of Clubs, placing them again in top of the
deck to hide the other one. We say that now we have the card
prediction in our hand as you take it, and that the selected card
is on the table. You say with an air of impudence: "Now they do
coincide!" Then you wait to see if someone remembers the
signature. If not, you remind it, although it would be perfect for
them to remember on their own. You say: "Wait! But I didn’t
think about that if the card on the table is the selected one, it
should be signed, right?" Then the spectators will remember the
signature and they will be intrigued. So, you, using the other
Seven of Clubs as shovel, begin to turn the table's card over
slowly and mysteriously, or you ask someone to do it. No one can
believe that this card has the signature on the back! But that's
right!

Note 6: "Signed Prediction in an Envelope." In December of

1997 I had this idea inspired by the same thing. If it had not been
for the so great reaction that my viewers had when I premiered
it, I would not even have realised the enormous power that this
effect had.

It is about introducing a blue and red double-sided card

into an envelope as a prediction. The deck to be used will be a

423
red back one and the card of the envelope must appear to have a
blue back. At the bottom of the deck there will be a blue back
card to be forced, for example, a Nine of Hearts, and on the
bottom 2 a red double back card. Ready. The envelope is shown
and put aside on the table. The deck is removed from the box
and riffle shuffled without altering the bottom order. The Nine of
Hearts is forced. It can be done by the "bottom-slip force"
method by Sid Lorraine, discussed in Note 4, or by the Hindu
shuffle force. In the case of using the Lorraine force, it would be
necessary to move TWO cards from bottom, NOT ONE (the card
to force plus the double-backed one). When we flip the pile
where we stopped the riffling, we will show the face of the Nine
of Hearts (underneath it would be the double back card), and we
have it signed by a spectator (without taking it from the deck).
Then, by means of pretending to dry the ink shaking the card or
blowing on it, we prepare a double lift. We do the double lift and
turn the rest of the deck over. We turn the two cards as one on
the back of the deck, making them believe that we put the Nine
of Hearts on top, but actually it’s the double-back card. Then we
remove the card from the envelope and emphasise that it’s blue
back, while we approach it to the top of the deck. All there is left
to do is doing a triple turn over and the miracle will work
automatically. It seems that the prediction card was the Nine of
Hearts signed. After the triple turn over, the second and third
cards will show themselves as red back (as it should be): the first
would be the double red back and the second the one that was
originally in the envelope. The impact is fantastic and really
inexplicable. The prediction card can be gifted!

Here we have an example of how you can evolve a simple

idea throughout your years of experience.

424
 To finish this group of tricks I would like to recommend a
great one by Brother John Hamman, called exactly "The Signed
Card." A great idea of Hamman that we can find published in
"The Secrets of Brother John Hamman," written by Richard
Kaufman.

COINCIDENCES

Tricks about coincidences have something special. They are

supposed to be an "ironic magic," since generally they offer the
effect as an incredible coincidence more than as magic, leaving
to the spectator who judges by itself if considering it magic or a
"simple" coincidence. The coincidences in card magic tricks seem
so unlikely that the viewer could think that it would be more
credible that it was magic (!) Sometimes, when I do a trick about
coincidences I end up saying things like: "there are lucky
magicians! Eh?," In a mixture of humour, modesty and mystery,
which is good to get the public's friendliness.

70- Out of this Universe

In 1942, the great amateur magician Paul Curry created an

effect called "Out of this World," which has become a classic. It
consists in the tremendous "coincidence" that the spectator
him/herself separates the cards from a deck between red and
black without looking at their faces, randomly. Twenty years
later, Harry Lorayne published a great version that he called "Out
of this Universe" in "Close-Up Card Magic" (page 80). The secret
is so simple in proportion to the effect, that it’s absolutely
essential to create a good presentation and convey a strong
feeling of impossibility. This is a clear example that the power of
an effect doesn’t have to have any relationship with its degree of
difficulty. The magical impacts depend on how we present them,

425
regardless of how hard they are to carry them out. I cannot get
away from being shocked every time I hear some amateurs
saying that to do good magic you have to learn to do difficult
tricks.

I cannot fail to mention "Escorial-76," which apart from

being the year in which I was born (Tamariz was born the year
that Curry created Out of this World), it was also the year in
which this wonderful version was born, fruit of the minds of
several magicians, and that Juan Tamariz published his method in
"Sonata" along with a dedication for Paul Curry (page 169).

Note 1: Imagine the amount of great tricks that could be

done from a deck of cards separated by colours, without the
spectators knowing it, especially tricks about impossible
locations. It’s a very subtle tool for card magic, like any other
previous preparation, only that with this preparation it’s very
easy to do false shuffles quite convincing, since it doesn’t matter
the order of the cards while keeping the colours separated. In
addition, the secret is also easily hidden at the end of the trick by
a simple riffle shuffle. It is worthwhile to scrutinise its
possibilities. The only drawback is that it doesn’t enter in the
universe of impromptu tricks. By the way, there is a way to get
these same advantages and also being able to spread the deck
face up. How?! Well, separating the two halves, not by colours,
but by even-odd numbers!

Note 2: "Out of the Universe" can be done right after

"Neither Blind nor Silly" by Juan Tamariz, as a sequence show.
"Neither Blind nor Silly" can be found in "Sonata," (page 211) as
well as the wonder that comes next...

426
 71- Total Coincidence

I don’t know whether to thank Juan Tamariz for publishing

this trick, or to thank God for publishing Juan Tamariz. From all
card tricks that I have performed in my life, this is the only one
that made me cry with emotion for the success obtained. It was
at the New Year’s Eve party in 1992. At the end of this effect
between friends and family, a cousin of mine went crazy taking
me on his shoulders all over the street (we did the party in a
garage). Obviously he was exaggerating the excitement because
we were partying and everyone wanted to joke, but that reaction
was the largest I had ever witnessed in a trick done by me.
Needless to say, I showed it with the same power and
enthusiasm with which Juan always shows it. We can find it on
page 224 of his book "Sonata." Curiously, Tamariz seems to have
premiered it in Cadiz, which is the city where I was born, and also
in September 1983, just the year I started to love the card magic!
What a beautiful coincidences!! ... The effect is as follows:

The magician presents two decks, one red and the other
blue. Viewers riffle shuffles them clearly. The magician shuffles a
little more. He or she then separates the red cards from the
blacks of both decks and asks one of the spectators to choose a
colour. The magician keeps the cards of the colour not chosen in
their corresponding boxes and gives them to two other
spectators to keep them. Then he shuffles the two halves of each
deck, asks a viewer to cut one of them. The card at the cut is put
crossed so as not to lose sight of it. The magician begins to flip
cards from both piles at the same time. When he or she reaches
the cut card, it’s shown that it matches the card positioned in the
same place. Great coincidence! Next, the spectator shuffles both
piles (red and blue back) obtaining a pack of 52 shuffled cards,

427
half red back and half blue back. The magician has a card chosen
from any of the piles by a spectator and puts that card on the
table. Next another random card is chosen whose back is of the
other colour. It is revealed that both cards coincide. Another
great coincidence! Finally, the magician separates the cards
between red and blue backs and shows that the bottom card of
one pile matches the bottom of the other. But he notices that
they are the same as the previous coincidence. However, the
magician shows that the second card of the bottom also
coincides ... and the next, and the next, and the next ... all
match! When it seems that the trick is over, the magician asks
the spectators to take out the boxes where the other halves
were kept, to open them themselves and place them on the
table, face up. The bottom cards of both decks match, but ... the
next one too! And the next, and the next, and the next...!

Note: For the third coincidence I came up with the idea of

asking for a number from 1 to 52, so that the cards located right
in those positions match. Of course, the others should be shown
on the back, so that they don’t show that they all match each
other already. However, there is a way to make it appear that
others don’t match. For example, if they say the number 15,
when we reach that number and put the two cards on the table
without flipping them yet. Then we say: "not the 14." We flip the
card # 14 of one of the pile and do a double lift with the other
(don’t match). Then we say: "and not the 16." We do the same.
That is to say, the double lift clarifies the fact that no other
matches nor do they have to match. Later we would end with
the final effect of the delirious total coincidence. This may not
bring anything special to the trick. It’s a question of opinions, so I
just tell you the idea, just in case.

428
 Although the original title of the trick is "Total
Coincidence," I realised that Tamariz doesn’t usually present it
that way when he performs it in front of spectators. I have heard
him call it "The Triple Coincidence" or "The Great Coincidence,"
but never "Total Coincidence." I imagine that the reason is due to
something very logical. When you say "total coincidence" you are
giving hints about the final effect, which could weaken the
surprise, so it’s better to avoid the title of the publication when
you do it in front of real spectators. The ideal title would be "The
Great Coincidence." There is a very good trick that I add to the
repertoire below, which is called "Triple Coincidence" by John
Scarne, but first I wanted to talk a little about the principle that
makes possible the first effect of "Total Coincidence."

The mathematical principle that works in the first effect has

a lot to do with the one known as "Smith Myth" by Fred Smith,
since Hen Fetsch published it in "The Five-o-Fetsch" (page 7), in
1956. However, this intriguing principle based on reversing the
order of the cards is much, much older, although if you are
Spanish you will not have to go far. The first written reference
dates from "Engaños a ojos vista" (delusions with open eyes) by
Pablo Minguet é Yrol, published in 1733. On page 160 we find a
trick that uses this principle called “Juego de adivinar un Naype
de la Baraja, que otro se havrá pensado” (“trick of divining a card
of the deck, which another will have thought"), from Old Castilian
language. The book was translated into English by the famous Dr
Lori Pieper for the famous Gibecière magazine (Vol. 4, No. 2,
summer 2009, pages 61 to 225). This trick appears on page 174
of that translation. In "Modern Magic" (1876) by Professor
Hoffmann, a great effect appears on page 52 in which he gets
more out of the principle.

429
 72- Triple Coincidence

This great trick is the result of John Scarne's talent. "Triple

Coincidence" can be found in a book that almost needs no
introduction: "Stars of Magic," in series 1, No. 2.

The magician takes two decks of different backs. After

being shuffled, he or she asks the spectator to keep one and cut
as many times as he or she wants, to take the top card of the cut
and to place it on top of the other deck (the magician's). The
magician does the same with his/her deck. They cut again to lose
their extra card in their decks. Then, they repeat the same thing
three times. Finally, both decks of cards are spread on the table
and it is observed that, logically, both have three extra cards
amongst their cards. They turn over them and it is verified that
they all three coincide!

Although it requires a little previous preparation, the trick is

highly recommended because of the participation of the
spectator. Moreover, this card trick can be done with all the rest
of the card blank! Don’t let it go this!

GIMMICK CARDS

Because I have focused on selecting impromptu tricks

throughout this repertoire, hardly appear tricks that require
gimmick cards, only "The Power of Faith" (No. 27), some version
of "Three Card Monte" (No. 55 and 56) and "Anniversary Waltz"
(No. 66), so I open this penultimate group to focus on them.

430
 73- The Invisible Deck

This deck, as well as its characteristic routine, may not need

any introduction for the amateur card magicians of certain
experience. From the large number of trick decks that exist in the
magic market, the Invisible Deck, the Stripper Deck and the
Svengali Deck are those that I would recommend primarily to an
amateur, due their versatility and because they contain the most
basic and useful gimmick cards, being convenient to become
familiar with them. Learning how to handle these types of
resources will motivate your imagination to create new tricks
and routines.

The routine of the invisible deck is ideal to give a good

quality punch to our card magic as amateurs, provided that we
don’t abused by repeating it too many times in a short time, as
with any other great trick. It is a fun, mysterious and very magical
routine. It is not difficult to perform and will give you a lot of
prestige. In addition, this routine will make you train your
showmanship skills and drama for a good presentation:

The magician pretends to take an invisible deck out of his or

her pocket, hands it to a spectator and asks him or her to take a
card, "memorise" it (think of any card), lose it imaginatively in
the deck with the face opposite to the rest of the others and
keep it in the imaginary box. The magician keeps the imaginary
box in his/her pocket, say some magical words and pulls out a
real box. Then, he removes the deck from the box, asks the
spectator which card was memorised (thought), and spreads the
deck face up showing that there is a face down card amongst
them, as expected. The card is just the spectator's!

431
 The invisible deck can be used as an auxiliary tool during
the design of other tricks. I insist that it’s not convenient to
repeat the classic routine many times even if our people ask us
for it assiduously. Remember to try to be known as a versatile
magician, with a variety of tricks, not as "the magician of the
invisible deck."

The attribution of the creation of this deck is very

controversial. Several magicians claimed to have created it since
Sam Drielinger commercialised a deck called "Auto-Mazo Pack"
in “Sphinx” (1934), which used the same trick that currently are
marketed. Joe Berg made some improvements in 1936 and called
it "Ultra Mental Deck." As for the popular routine, there are also
certain controversies. It is attributed to Eddie Fields, who used
the "Ultra Mental Deck" to devise the witty routine shortly after
its creation. Due to this famous routine that Don Alan would
popularise and commercialise, the deck was named "Invisible
Deck." However, the widespread idea of a comically stage of the
use of an invisible deck dates back to the 1920s, although it has
nothing to do with the gimmick used in the currently deck called
"Invisible Deck."

Nevertheless, the first written reference on the use of a

roughing fluid to hide cards amongst cards for card magic,
(known as Rough and Smooth principle), date from 1915, in
Magazine of Magic, volume 1, number 6 of March, page 174,
with the title “A Novel Expedient in Card Conjuring,” by Professor
Hoffmann. Hoffmann published it as well in 1918, in "Latest
Magic." However, according to Ottokar Fischer, Hofzinser already
used roughing fluid, as diachylon, to make two cards stick easily.
In my humble opinion, it would be rare for such a lucid mind not

432
to think about using this idea as well to hide cards amongst cards
in a spread.

There is a great deck devised by Dai Vernon called

"Brainwave," whose idea was published in "The Jinx" in the No.
49 of October 1938 (page 341), with the title "Brain Wave Deck."
It is a highly recommended deck of the same mechanics as the
"invisible" one, only that it is shown face down instead of face up,
and it has the added point that the card named by the spectator
is not only the one that appears face up, but also its back is
different from the others, reinforcing the idea that the magician
already knew which card the spectator would name. The touch
of this detail was credited to Paul Fox by the always modest Dai
Vernon himself. It’s a gem that well presented can take you to
the Olympus of the best card magicians. I'm going to show you a
personal idea that I call "Brainwave Transposition." I hope you
like it:

You take out a blue box, show it and take the cards from
inside. Show only the top card (blue), since the rest of the cards
are red back (the spectators don’t know it). You spread the cards
face up and ask them to choose one card. Let’s suppose the
Queen of Hearts. You place it face up on the table and keep the
rest of the deck inside the blue box. You keep the blue box on
the table to maintain the suggestion that the backs “were” blue.
You take a "Brainwave" deck out of your pocket, draw the cards
from the red side and reveal the first effect: the only face up card
is just the Queen of Hearts; applause. But! You say that not only
the cards match, but they don’t really belong to their packs ...
you turn the Queen over in the Brainwave deck and show its blue
back. You say that this card actually belongs to the blue deck.

433
Then you flip the other Queen showing its red back. You can be
sure that it hits enough!

To finish I wanted to talk to you about another idea with

the invisible deck. In 2001, a friend asked me the question "what
else can be done with the invisible deck apart from the classic
routine?" I was thinking about it because it was a good question,
until I came up with an idea that I called "Triumph Thought."
However, looking for information about this idea, I discovered
that there was a publication of the year 1986 about it, called
"Invisible Triumph," in No. 5 of volume 9 of the magazine
"Apocalypse." The idea was credited to Michael Close, Michael
Weber, Robert Farmer, David Ben and Robert D. Michaels. Later,
David Ben reissued the idea in his book "Tricks," in 2003, with
the same title of "Invisible Triumph." I explained the idea to my
friend because it was a personal idea, but I will not talk about it
here out of respect for David Ben's publication. I will tell you that
it’s very worthwhile if you want to take some more advantage
from this deck. In addition, Henry Evans devised a trick called
"Perfect Control," which requires an "invisible deck" but set up in
another way. I want to recommend as well “Mini Invisible Deck
Routine” by Akira Fujii. It’s a very nice and funny version.

74- The Travelling Cards

I have performed this trick by Juan Tamariz four times in my

life. On three of those four occasions they told me that it was the
most inexplicable card trick that they had seen me do, and as
you could see in this repertoire, the tricks I’ve performed were
quite inexplicable. We can learn it in "Sonata" ("The Travelling
Cards," page 237).

434
 The routine of the trick is classic. It consists of a magical trip
(teleportation) of some cards from one pile to another, which is
in the hands of a spectator. The classic routine is known as
"Cards Across." There are many versions, but this is a bit special,
since it is not the cards that travel, but the viewer's thought! I
would call this trick "Journey of Two Thought Cards" or "Journey
of Thought"; something that attracted more attention to this
suggestive effect:

The magician takes twenty cards from a shuffled deck. He

or she separates them into two piles of ten and asks the
spectators to count the ten cards of each pile themselves. Then
he wraps both piles with elastic bands, asks a viewer to keep one
of the piles. With the other pile, the magician does a riffling in
front of one of the spectators to let him or her to watch and
THINK one of the black cards of that pile. Next, he asks the same
to another viewer, but with a red card. The magician does a
gesture so that these cards magically pass to the other pile. That
happens. In one pile there are twelve cards and in the other,
eight. The cards that have passed are the THOUGHT ones!

This trick requires some special cards, but of course you can
also enjoy this classic totally impromptu (although without the
detail of the merely thought cards). The routine was already
published in "Nouvelle Magie Blanche Devoilee" by Jean-Nicholas
Ponsin in 1853 (page 106), however it was also published in that
same year 1853 in "Ein Spiel Karten" (page 55 of Dr Pieper's
translation), signed by someone called "RP." From that RP’s book
is the first written reference about the effect of the card inside a
cigarette, and the idea of arrange a deck to make it look like it’s
sealed in the box (page 22 of Dr Pieper's translation). The effect
of "Card Across" was also discovered in the anonymous "Asti

435
Manuscript," found in the library of Asti (Italy) and dated
between 1670 and 1730. The book is catalogued as "MSS III, 18"
and it was never published. The English translation of the Asti
manuscript is also thanks to Dr Lori Pieper for the research
magazine on the origin of the magic tricks "Gibecière," edited by
Stephen Minch, specifically in volume 8, number 1 (page 29-234).
In this extraordinary book, techniques such as the force by the
“Hofzinser’s Cull” appears, a technique that apparently would
independently discovered by Hofzinser more of a century later,
being a very illustrative example of the "concept of independent
ideas" or "personal method" of each magician. This book also
talks about the "injog / outjog" concept to control cards,
although this was already discovered in "The Discoverie of
Witchcraft" by Reginald Scot, from the year 1584. In the Asti
manuscript we also find the "break" with the thumb and “riffle
force” concept, in addition to the techniques known as "slip cut"
and "bottom slip cut" (the latter named by Harry Lorayne as
"Halo Cut"). There is also hint about the idea of changing decks,
concept known today as "cold deck," and the concept of “short
cards” to control them in the deck while riffling; an idea inspired
by cutting the edge of the page of a book to locate it easily.

To finish with the "Card Across," I also wanted to

recommend a great version called "Las Vegas Leaper," by Paul
Harris which can be found in his "Art of Astonishment" Vol. 1. It’s
an exquisite and funny version totally impromptu.

75- Four Blue Cards

This emblematic trick by Juan Tamariz has always filled me

with honours and successes at the beginning or end of a magic
show. It's one of those tricks that I call "express," such as “As-

436
cend with Three Cards” (No. 38), "The Time Machine" (No. 39),
"Dr. Daley's Last Trick," or "Japanese Aces Trick.” That is to say,
they are tricks that barely last a minute and that you can have
prepared to do at any time, as if they were traces or stamps that
you are leaving here and there ... although I will never tire of
saying that we must be sensible and not repeat too many times
the same trick, especially to the same people.

This trick can be found in the chapter four of "Magicolor,"

by the always great and modest Juan Tamariz (I don’t know if
there’s an English translation of this book). Tamariz himself
defines this book as a simple collection of ideas in which we can
all participate. The trick appears with the name of “Las nueve
cartas” (the nine cards), on page 79, although, as you will
understand, it’s not advisable to call it that way when you go to
show it. “Four Blue Cards,” known in Spanish as "El juego de las
cuatro cartas azules” (the trick of the four blue cards), not only
requires specially designed cards, but also should be thinner than
normal for the quality of the result. So, after turning my mind
around, in December of 1991, I got the idea of ironing the cards!
The hardest thing was to convince my mother to lend me the
iron for that. Several years later I discovered the existence of a
type of deck called "Phoenix," whose cards were half as thin as
the cards in a conventional deck. After ironing the cards it was
only necessary to erase the backs with alcohol to draw what I
wanted. As I used to do my shows at Christmas, I drew a Santa
Claus, the Three Wise Men, a Christmas Star and a Birth Place (of
Bethlehem). I kept a blank card to do a small comic gag during
the effect that I will comment on below in the effect. I counted
the cards as four in front of my brother and asked him: "How
many cards do you think I have?" He replied: "Four?" Then I felt

437
great joy; the cards seemed to work. I premiered it at Christmas
1991. I was 15 years old. Following the routine of the great
Tamariz, the result was as follow:

I have four blue cards: 1, 2, 3 and 4.

If I tap, an eight appears.

If I tap again, another eight appears.

If I tap again, it appears another eight.

And if I give another tap, the other eight appears!

If I give another tap, a four appears.

I give another tap, another four appears.

I give another tap, another four appears.

And if I give another tap, the other four appears!

Ah! Any card you want may appear ... What card do you
want to appear, the Three of Spades? Then, the Wild Card comes
out, which is worth all!

Ah! On the blue backs we also see: 1, 2, 3 and 4.

If I give a tap ... What do you want to see? ... Come on! Say
something quick that if not, it does NOT appear ANYTHING! (You
show the blank card) Laughter!

As it is Christmas, if I tap, you see Santa Claus.

If I give another tap, you see the Three Wise Men.

And if I give another tap, you see the Christmas Star.

Hey! What else? Do we change the blank card into the

Birth Place?! Gee Whiz! The Bethlehem Birth Place too!

438
 In chapter 7, "Gimmicks as an Amateur,” in the section
"Tricks to Make the Gimmick Disappear," I showed some ideas to
get rid of the non-examinable part of a trick through justified
procedures. In this particular trick we could keep the cards in our
pocket casually, in a natural reflex reaction while the people
applaud during the grand finale of the end, unload the un-
examinable part and take out the examinable cards to hand
them (always in a natural and casual way), which I learned
precisely by observing Juan Tamariz. Anyway, if you think that
your audience is generally very detailed, so that this is not
enough, you could find an excuse to put your hand in your
pocket. For example, we can take out a triumphal medal to hang
as a joke, as does the charismatic Magic Andreu, although it’s not
necessary that the medal is so big! So, we would put the hand
that holds the cards in our pocket to unload the un-examinable
part and grab the medal along with the other cards (examinable).
When we bring our hand out we would put the examinable cards
on the table and hang the medal on our chest.

I have performed this Christmas version of the “Four Blue

Cards” of Tamariz every Christmas party since 1991, and I have
always had great success. I still keep those original cards as one
of my most loved treasures of card magic. Since I only used them
once a year they are still in good condition. I never forgot these
cards in my pocket, so they never went to the washing machine
as had happened a year later with the trick of "Tamariz Rabbits,”
from whose experience I talked in chapter 5. My cousin amateur
card magician once told me: "If you were a famous magician,
these cards would be worth millions." Those words made me
understand that we are all famous as long as we have family and
friends.

439
 Although the book "Magicolor" was published in 1977, the
"Four Blue Cards" was not internationally known until 1996.

On May 6, 2002 was included in the list of "The Fifty

Greatest Magic Tricks" by "Objective Productions" for channel 4
of British TV, being the only card trick on the list!

76- Your Favourite Colour

This trick is one of my few ideas about specially prepared

cards. I considered appropriate to include it in the repertoire due
to the success I always had with it and its interesting effect. I
devised it in the summer of the year 2000.

Effect

The magician shows a spread deck of black back. He or she

asks a viewer what his or her favourite colour of the rainbow is.
Let’s suppose it is said red. Then the magician has a card selected
and signed (on its face). Said card is lost in the deck after
showing that its back is black like that of the other cards. Do a
magic snap. The magician spreads the deck face down and shows
a single card whose back is the favourite colour of the spectator,
red! The spectator him/herself takes the card, flips it and
discovers that it turns out to be the selected and signed card!
The card can be given as a souvenir!

Preparation

When asking the question, we must not forget to mention

the rainbow, since that way we would define the colours to
seven. There are a myriad of colours, so if we asked for a
favourite colour just like that, they could answer things like,
magenta, fuchsia, garnet, mauve, turquoise, indigo, lime, beige,
silver, gold ... which would complicate the trick. Then, the

440
colours to use would be red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo
and violet. I would also add brown and pink, because for a
reason that I don’t know many people often confuse these
colours as a general part of the rainbow. Nine colours would not
be a problem to prepare the deck. Incidentally, it is possible that
someone jokes that in the rainbow are all the colours of the
world, which is totally true, but we would ask for his or her
favourite colour from the seven general colours from it.

In our example we will do it with the nine colours

commented. We will then use nine cards whose backs are those
colours. These cards would be affixed one by one to any card of
the black back deck, so that the back of the colour card is stuck
to the face of a black back card, forming a single card. The way to
paste them would be through a pair of double-sided Sello-tape,
located a little lower and a little above the centre of the face of
the black back card. That layout would give stability to the
adhesion. We must remove a little the stickiness of the tape by
sticking and taking off our finger several times, so that the pair of
cards is not so strongly adhered. You could also use "magician's
wax." These nine double cards are placed in the top of the deck
in an order that we know, for example, the order of the rainbow
itself: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet. There is
a mnemonic way to remember that order:

Richard of York Gave Battle In Vain

The brown can be put at the beginning (1st) and the pink at
the end (9th). We remove the nine duplicate black backs; keep
the deck in its box; and go.

441
 Routine

We take the deck out of the box, do a false shuffle and

spread it so that they see the black backs. We ask a spectator
what his or her favourite colour of the rainbow is. Let's consider
they say green. Then we keep a break between the fourth and
fifth card when gather up the spread. We say: "I'm sorry that the
deck is black back." People will smile while thinking about what
you are going to do. Cut at the break to keep the double card
(green) on top. Cut again to force it by riffle force to the same
person who named the colour. You put the forced card on the
table, face up, and cut the deck at the point where the card was,
in order to keep the gimmick cards placed between top and
bottom of the deck (not in the middle). Have the card signed and
take it to the middle of the deck with the intention of losing it,
but in doing so, you insert any card between the double card, so
that when you push it, they separate while you show clearly how
you are losing it in the middle. You can turn the deck over and
over again each time you push it a little, so that the black back of
the card is seen several times and with the excuse of doing so
very clearly. This would also help to disguise the "detachment of
the card" that is happening little by little. Finally, we do a magic
snap and spread the deck so that the green back of a single card
can be seen. The reaction of the spectators is usually fascinating,
since they see just their favourite colour and none other. But
what is really surprising is when the spectator him/herself takes
the card, turns it over and verifies that it’s his or her signed card.
The card can be given as a souvenir.

One day I came up with an idea for a couple, consisting in

the following: We asked HER for the colour and for selecting a
card. Once the card is selected, we ask HIM to sign it. Thus, when

442
the back of the favourite colour of HER appears, it turns out to
be the card signed by HIM. The card is given as a souvenir.

DECK PLUSS

In this last group I will refer to the card trick in which the
cards interact with other objects.

77- Mercury’s Card

To be a good magician it’s not strictly necessary to take a

rabbit out of a hat, but in my humble opinion, you cannot be part
of the Olympus of good card magicians without surprising some
time with a selected card that appears inside "something." So, in
my elementary repertoire there are no missing effects of this
type.

Perhaps, the most popular trick of this type is the one

known as "Card to Wallet," whose first written reference dates
from 1782, in the second edition of "Rational Recreations vol. 4"
(page 251), written by William Hooper, although the method
described is as rudimentary as using a buddy, like that of the
publication of John Gale's "Cabinet of Knowledge" (1796), called
"The Card in the Pocketbook." Apparently, it was not until the
appearance of one of the greatest magicians in history, Jean
Eugène Robert-Houdin, when the "palming" method for this
effect arose (without a buddy), and also with a signed card,
described by first time in "Les Secrets de la Prestidigitation et de
la Magie," in 1868. This is one of the tricks that make Robert-
Houdin considered as the precursor of the "palm" technique.

Making a signed card appear in anything has always been

one of the most electrifying effects of card magic. It’s good for us
to show some of them once in a while. These effects are known

443
as "card in anything." There are countless ideas that go from
inside a pocket, the shoe, a box, the mouth of the magician (John
Scarne) ... even inside a lemon, an inflated balloon, a closed
bottle of beer, a cigarette, or inside a roasted chicken ... The card
pasted on the wall, on the ceiling, or through a glass are also
classic versions of this type of peculiar effects. If you think about
it from time to time you might surprise yourself with some of
your own ideas. In some versions it’s quite difficult for the card
to be signed, but ... surely there are solutions for everything. I
was serious about the roast chicken. I had a signed card appear
inside a roast chicken at a Christmas party. I applied the
technique "Mercury Card Fold" to hide the card folded in my fist.
Then I did some magical gestures to the chicken while holding
the folded card with the corner of my thumb. I asked them to
take the knife while I was bringing the chicken to a tray and
taking advantage to put the card through a hole I had previously
done at the base of the chicken. In "Engaños a Ojos Vista"
(delusions with open eyes) by Pablo Minguet é Yrol, published in
1733, the idea of making a card appear inside an egg, with a
method included, is already mentioned and explained (page 141).
In this same book we can also see the idea of using saliva to
attach two cards (page 139). How old is the card magic! On page
145 there is a trick called “Juego de poner los quatro Reyes
divididos, cada una con un cavallo, una Sota, y un As, y despues
hacerlos encontrar juntos” (trick of putting the four Kings divided,
each with a Horse; Queen, a Sota; Jack, and an Ace, and then
making them to get together), in Old Castilian language, which
turns out to be nothing less than the first written reference to
the popular trick known as "Hotel Trick" or "Hotel Mystery.” In
the English translation of Dr Pieper it appears on page 165. In
that same trick it’s already described the idea of pretending that

444
the deck is well shuffled when in fact only many successive cuts
are made. Stop me when you notice that I run my mouth too
much...

The trick I wanted to recommend especially is a

masterpiece published in "Expert Card Technique," called
"Mercury's Card" (page 269), which uses the so-called "Mercury
Card Fold" technique. Hugard and Braue don’t attribute it to
anyone in the book, but later, Fred Braue attributed it to John
Scarne in volume 3 of his "Braue Notebooks" (page 3), in 1985. In
fact, this was how John Scarne got his popular trick of the
selected card inside the magician's mouth. "Mercury's Card" is a
hilarious and shocking trick. It consists in the following:

The magician has a card selected and signed. The card is

lost in the deck. He or she asks a second spectator to say a
number from 1 to 52, so that the number said will match to the
position of the card in the deck. In addition, the magician dares
to bet. If not, he or she will give a good sum of money. So, the
magician put a purse on the table. When it’s checked that the
card is not in the named number, and the spectators are
prepared to take the reward, they see that inside the purse,
instead of money, is the signed card, folded!

The book talks about the magician inserting coins in the

purse in front of the spectators, but I came up with the idea to
introduce folded notes instead of coins, so that when the
spectators take the purse (already with the card inside), the
touch of the card through the purse is confused with the one of
the notes, causing a more shocking contrast when opening it.

445
 78- Card through Handkerchief

This is another essential classic for the repertoire of a good

card magician, which is also totally impromptu. We can find it
covered in many books. The original creator of the idea of this
trick is unknown. The first written reference to this classic dates
from 1897, in "New Era card Tricks," written by August Roterberg.
The trick appears on page 57 with the title "Penetration of
Matter." The original idea was not attributed to him, nor did he
give other references in his book. A year later, the second
reference appeared in "Conjuring with Cards," written by Ellis
Stanyon, who wrote: "I am indebted to the ingenious amateur
magician Mr. Geo. Weston, for this excellent little trick." Perhaps
it was the idea of an amateur?!

In addition, it’s intriguing that only four years later, the

effect was also published in the famous and mysterious "Expert
at the Card Table" (1902) by the pseudonym S. W. Erdnase. I say
intriguing because maybe Erdnase had something to do with Mr.
Geo. Weston or any of the magicians related to the effect of the
card through the handkerchief, which would be an interesting
way to investigate the identity of S.W. Erdnase.

79- Matrix

It is not uncommon to see card magic and coin magic work

together. "Matrix" is the most popular and universal trick of this
type, with endless routines and presentations. Practising some
versions will provide you with an additional skill and spontaneity
in your hands that will be very useful for card magic in general.
I'm not very enthusiastic about this effect, but I've always had
some simple version in my impromptu repertoire, since it's a
classic effect that represents much of the magic itself, and when

446
you do classic effects you get a more marked image of a
magician. Furthermore, people like it, especially children. I'm not
sure why, but kids have always liked the "matrix" routine a lot. I
guess they find it very direct and visual, as if they were seeing
pure magic in front of their eyes. There are so many versions of
this effect that it is difficult to recommend one in particular,
since it’s also about improvisation when you know the basic
techniques. What I would like to do is to stress the importance of
not using gimmick coins and cards too much. Try to avoid them.
Master the impromptu methods and use the gimmicks only at
specific moments or as a special strike of extreme clarity for a
great ending.

The idea was develop by Al Schneider in 1960, inspired by

an effect published in "The Art of Magic" (1909) by J.N. Hilliard
and T.N. Down called "Sympathetic Coins," credited to Yank Hoe.

I would like to underline a great version of Dani DaOrtiz

without coins and without cards (?). Well, almost no cards, since
what he uses is only his hands and 4 pieces of a card previously
signed by a spectator. At the end of the routine the signed card is
recomposed! It is marketed as "Matrix Restored."

Armando Lucero has one of the greatest "matrix" routine

with cards and coins.

80- Two Ideas for One Force

Just at the beginning of this repertoire I talked about the

number of different ways you could imagine to present a trick
with a forced card. Here I propose a couple of personal
contributions. I decided to include them right at the end of this
section and the whole repertoire, with the intention of not
forgetting that, after all, magic is fundamentally presentation

447
and imagination. The first of these two ideas came to me in 1992,
when I was 16 years old, inspired by how hard it was for me to
be a familiar and informal amateur card magician. So I thought
about developing a contract in terms of humour between the
magician and the spectator. I’m going to show you an example of
a contract, but you can design your own.

The Contract
Functional contract between magician and spectator.

1st Clause

The spectator is committed to pay attention to the magician,

trusting him/her as a magician.

2nd Clause

The magician undertakes to surprise, amaze and make the spectator

have fun.

3th Clause

The spectator is committed to follow the instructions of the

magician, provided they are logical, not suspicious and easy to follow.

4th Clause

The spectator will have the right to ask questions, but will also have
the duty to accept the magician's answers.

5th Clause

The spectator will not be forced to believe in magic, but if the effect
really surprises and amazes, he/she has the duty to applaud and respect
the work of the magician.

6th Clause

In case of reversible failure by the magician, he/she will be entitled

to another chance while the viewer continues to trust him/her.

448
 7ª Clause

In case of another reversible failure the magician will have the same
right of the 6th clause, but the spectator this time will have the right to
complain, although keeping the duty to continue relying on the magician.

8th Clause

In case of a third reversible failure, the magician will continue to

have the same right as the 6th clause, but the spectator will have the right
to leave if he/she wishes and boo the magician.

9th Clause

In the case that the fail is irreversible, the spectator will have the
right to directly boo and leave, but refraining from physical attacks, insults
and media coverage of said failure.

10th Clause

In case of success, the public agrees to applaud the magician

effusively. The magician will have the right to be respected in a future
show.

Print this contract and on the back you write in very large
letters: "The spectators will choose the 6 and the 3 of Hearts."
Then you stick it to a folder so that nobody can see the back. You
can decorate it as if it were a sacred document, since it’s a magic
contract. During the routine you propose to sign a magic contract
with a spectator. You say that in case of default, the full force of
the "magic law" will fall on us, but don’t panic because it’s an
elementary model that only have ten clauses. Then you give
him/her the folder and ask him/her to read the clauses. You sign
it and ask for it to be signed with an invented signature (in case
they don’t want to use their own signature). You take out a deck
with the 3 and 6 of Hearts in top and false shuffle it. Do a double
undercut and take the 3 of Hearts to the bottom. You use a Wild

449
Card to apply the "Business Card Prophecy Move," in order to
force the top and bottom cards. You ask two spectators for
keeping them in each pocket and you begin to do pantomimes to
divine them. For example, you put your fingers on their
foreheads while you strive to read their minds. You say that one
of the cards is 9 of Clubs. When they respond negatively you
show concern and say that you appeal to the 6th clause of the
contract. Then you try it with the other spectator and you dare to
say that the 9 of Clubs is his/her. But logically he or she denies it
in the light of a growing worry of the magician. Then you say
shakily that you have failed again, but that you appeal to the 7th
clause. Tension is increasing. You dramatise by saying that you
have one last chance before viewers can "legally" consider the
show a failure. While you keep trying, you exclaim that you
already know what happens. You say: "the value of both cards
had mixed and that's why I saw a nine." Then you look at one of
the viewers and tell him/her that maybe you saw the card upside
down, so instead of a nine it must be, a Six! The spectator
affirms! Then you risk your theory of mixed values, and you dare
to predict that the other card should be a Three (9 minus 6). The
other spectator also exclaims correct! And you say: "Good! Then
your cards are the 6 and the 9 of Clubs!" But the spectators say
NO! The magician seems to have failed miserably. The suit is not
right. The magician asks for the suit to be named; Hearts. You ask
them to take out the cards. The public can and must legally boo
you! ... But! You say: "In all contracts there is usually a small print,
right?" The spectators will look at you intrigued. Then you keep
saying: "Look for the fine print." But they don’t find anything.
However, you add: "Ah, the thing is that in the contracts of magic,
instead of small print, there is large print ... look for the big
print!" They don’t find anything until they unstick and turn the

450
paper … "THE SPECTATORS WILL CHOOSE THE 6 AND 9 OF
HEARTS!" You give away the contract and thus expand the values
between the amateur magician and the spectator.

Believing is power

This idea occurred to me in the summer of 1994. We will

need 50 blank cards and one (for example) 8 of Diamonds. Each
card will have a large letter drawn so that together they form the
following sentence: Thank you very much for believing in the
magician! The exclamation marks will take a card. The separation
between words will be taken by a blank card (7 blank cards). The
"t" of "thank" will be on top, so the exclamation mark will be at
the bottom. Let’s suppose a lady magician:

The routine consists in controlling the 8 of Diamonds

through false shuffles and some cuts, then force it and ask to
keep it. The magician says she knew which card the spectator
would select, hinting that she’s going to divine it. However she
says she doesn’t remember it; laughter. The magician insists that
sometimes she forgets the card she knew they were going to
select. More laughs. Then she begs the spectators to trust her; to
trust she knows it, until the gentle spectators say yes; they trust
in the magician. So, the magician says: "If you trust me, I don’t
need to say it ..." The magician asks for the card and looks at it.
She exclaims: "The 8 of diamonds! I knew it; I had it on the tip of
my tongue, what a bad memory I have ...!" Spectators laugh
ironically. The trick seems to be a full-fledged scam. However,
the magician says that they trusted her gently, and fidelity
always deserves a reward. She asks the spectator to take the
deck and turn it over. They will see an exclamation mark. The
magician says that "believing is power." She asks the spectator to

451
turn over the deck again and deal each card from the top, face
up, one next to the other, on the table. The sentence “Thank you
very much for believing in the magician!” will be progressively
read. The effect has a double surprise, since the spectators think
that once the magician has seen the selected card, there’s no
way to prove that she knew it, but they run into a surprise proof
that indeed she did know it, besides feeling no regret to have
trusted the magician.

I hope that these little ideas help us to never forget that

the presentation is practically all in magic.

452
 PART THREE: IF YOU HAVE GOT TIME…

The content of this third part is not essential to be a good

card magician, but it’s very enriching when it comes to giving
variety to our tricks and effects, besides getting closer to the
image of a professional. The thing is that the requirements that
we will see here needs a lot of time and dedication, something
that not all amateurs can afford to. However, if we can get some
free time to it with patience and self-love, sooner or later we will
finish mastering these requirements and we will be happy about
it, especially every time we see the faces of our astonished
spectators.

Apart from the repertoire that we have just seen, which

requires techniques such as false shuffles and cuts, forces,
controls, passes, palmings, top changes, and many others sleight
of hand, if you still have time ... we could practise and study the
possibilities of the “faro shuffle,” learn and study the possibilities
of a “memorised deck” and we could consider a "box of portable
tricks," which are the three large sections of which this third part
is composed, in that same order.

A hobby friend of mine told me that the faro shuffle, the

memorised deck and the improvisation, are the frontier between
the professional and amateur card magician. I always thought
that such a border does not exist, and that if there were any,
only it would be represented by the lack of time and the degree
of ambition that the amateur had. I personally had always more
than enough ambition, but not time. Even so, I began to practise
and study the faro shuffle with 17 years old, in 1993, at the same
time that I studied and did my high school homework.

453
 THE FARO SHUFFLE

“A friend of mine picked up a deck of cards and said he was

going to show me a faro trick. I took out a gun and shot him.”

Charles Miller.

In 1843 a book titled "An Exposure of the Art and Miseries

of Gambling," was published, in which there was presented
already the faro shuffle as a tool to set the cards favourably in
games. The book was written by Jonathan Harrington Green, an
inventor and expert player affiliated with the “New York
Association for the Suppression of Gambling.” It was written a
couple of decades after poker began to be popular in the United
States, specifically in New Orleans. As for the first written
reference on the application of the faro shuffle to the card magic,
it dates from 1919, in "Thirty Card Mysteries" by Charles Jordan,
in a trick called "The Full Hand." Subsequently, two of the ones
that most analyzed and wrote about the faro shuffle were
Edward Marlo and Alex Elmsley. You can learn practically all the
fundamental notions or applications about the faro shuffle
through the works of these two authors. The card magic of the
faro shuffle is mathematical, but very subtle to create magical
illusions. There are amateurs who are very devoted to it, but
remember that you should not abuse anything since the
spectators may end up suspecting everything. The faro shuffle "is
not totally impromptu," that is, it cannot be done fluently with
any deck; it requires a deck that is not well-used and that is
made of a firm and consistent material. It would be very difficult
to get a faro shuffle with a deck whose edges are easily crumbled
by its dull manufacturing material, as well as a well-used deck in
which some cards are more wrinkled or handled than others.

454
This means that you cannot expect to make characteristic tricks
that include faro shuffles with any deck. So we could say that
tricks that use faro shuffles are not totally impromptus, since
they require decks as specific as those that are in good condition.
In addition, “anti-faro shuffles” are feasible with any deck, so
that mathematical card tricks that include “anti-faro shuffles”
can be considered as totally impromptus. These characteristics
made me not to be very enthusiastic about the faro shuffles,
although as a passionate about the card magic, I was always
aware of the potential it had. In the repertoire that we have just
seen through Part Two there is no trick that requires the faro
shuffle, since I decided to make a specific small selection of this
type of tricks, which I will show you below. They are the eleven
tricks using faro shuffle with which I've had more success. The
last one of these tricks, "Affinity from a Distance," is the only one
that I explain, since it’s a personal idea.

COMMENTED SELECTION OF FARO SHUFFLE TRICKS

A- The Rite of Initiation

A deck in new deck order is shuffles constantly as different

effects are performed. The magician ends with the last effect in
which the deck is again in new deck order.

In Luis García Soutullo’s book “El arte de las cartas” (the art
of cards), we can learn this masterpiece that many card magician
in Spain talk about. In fact, “El rito de iniciación” ("The Rite of
Initiation") is more an idea than a trick; is "Jazz Magic," since you
can create your own routines as you do the successive faro
shuffles. Michael Skinner published in his "Classic Sampler" a
routine with respect to this procedure, which he called "The
Monkey's Paw."

455
 B- Tamariz’s Jumble

This humble and intriguing trick with faro shuffle can be

found in "Sonata" by Juan Tamariz. The magician shuffles the
cards face up and faces down; asks three spectators to cut each
one at a point, memorise the cut card, turn it over and redo the
cut, all this with the magician on his/her back. When the
magician turns, he/she takes the deck and carries it under the
table with the intention of finding the cards by touch. Finally,
he/she spreads the deck on the table, showing that all the cards
are face up except for the three spectators’ cards.

C- The Two Detectives

It’s a wonderful trick characteristic of "sandwich" tricks, in

which one card is inexplicably found by two others. We will find
it in volume 3 of "Card College" by Roberto Giobbi. I also
recommend "Dawn Patrol" by John Bannon, which is a similar
and very surprising trick that can be found in his "Dear Mr.
Fantasy." I recommend too from volume 3 of the "Card College"
by Roberto Giobbi, "Numerology," a great trick which it’s not
necessary the faro shuffle to be perfect.

D- The Gun

This routine by Ken Krenzel, also known as "Magic Bullet,"

is becoming a classic. It is a mixture of card magic, humour and
stage. It consists in forming a gun with the deck by means of a
faro shuffle in which the cards are kept half-overlapping. Then,
when putting a card as a bullet into the deck, another card jumps
triggered, which turns out to be the one selected. We can find it
in "The Card Classics of Ken Krenzel," written by Harry Lorayne.

456
 E- Gymnastic Aces

Published in "The Card Magic of Paul LePaul" (page 207), it

is an ingenious idea with the faro shuffle to make four cards
appear (four Aces in the original trick) in an elegantly magical
way. The most important thing is that it’s not difficult to perform
in proportion to the wonderful effect that it results. It is ideal to
introduce a routine in which you need to find four specific cards.
Imagine that you have four cards selected and control them by
Vernon's multiple control and make them appear like this. The
effect would be really delirious. By the way, Dai Vernon said that
Nate Leipzig had devised and staged the same manoeuvre before
the publication of LePaul. Although it was only a verbal reference,
it gradually received support to the point that Roberto Giobbi
attributed the invention to Leipzig in his "Card College" Vol. 3
(page 695). We must bear in mind that the great Leipzig was not
characterised precisely by being a magic publisher, since he
never published anything personally, so that everything that is
known about him is due to what other magicians wrote or
expressed in words.

F- Vernon’s Aces

Very useful application of the faro shuffle to control to the

top four cards lost in the deck. We can learn it in "Close-Up Card
Magic," written by the prolific Harry Lorayne. We will also find a
version of Lorayne himself in his great book "Afterthoughts,"
called "Combination Aces." There is also a recommended version
by Darwin Ortiz in his book "Scam and Fantasies with Cards,"
called "Combination Cull."

457
 G- Fourtitude

It’s a little masterpiece with the faro shuffle by Harry

Lorayne. Two spectators select a card each, which are lost in the
deck. The magician has another card selected. Let’s suppose it’s
a Four of any suit. Said Four is lost face up into the face down
deck. The deck is shuffled and spread on the table face down,
and the Four can be seen, obviously ... The spectators' cards are
just four places on each side of the four valued card! It was
published in "Close-Up Card Magic" in 1962 by Harry Lorayne,
specifically on page 112.

H- Brownwaves

This trick by Alex Elmsley, originally called "No Looking" in

the book "Close-Up Card Magic" I’ve just referred (page 72), uses
the principle that he himself discovered, called "Penelope
Principle." We can find it in detail with its variants in "Complete
Works of Alex Elmsley" by Stephen Minch with its new name,
"Brownwaves." It consists in locating two cards selected and lost
in the deck in impossible conditions. One of its variants is called
"Tuppence." Ed Marlo has a great routine based on this principle,
called "The Original R or B Phantom," in "Hierophant," a
publication written by Jon Racherbaumer that collects numbers
from the magazine of the same name in which several authors
wrote.

I- 76-76-67-67

This is a fantastic idea by Ed Marlo. Consist in performing

the effect "Triumph" by shuffling the cards face up and faces
down by means of a shuffle similar to the "Sloppy Shuffle," only
that the cards can be shown spread clearly mixed. Then secretly
separate the face and the back by faro shuffles, to end with a

458
"half pass" and get all the cards in one way magically. In addition,
you can continue doing faro shuffles to separate the red and
black colours, so that you can continue doing for example the
routine "Out of this Universe" by Lorayne. The way to achieve
this miracle is explained in his 71-page book "Faro Notes" (1958),
along with other subtle ideas; a gem.

In the "Dr. Jacob Daley's notebooks," written during the

decades of the 30s and 40s, and transcribed by Frank Csuri, there
was already talked about this idea attributed to Dai Vernon with
the title "Vernon's Mix up Weave Shuffle." These manuscripts
were published for the first time in 1974 by Karl Fulves. However,
I think Marlo came up with the idea independently since Dr
Daley's manuscripts were not published until 16 years after "Faro
Note."

I also recommend a great trick by Pit Hartling and Denis

Behr, "Messy-The director's Shuffle," based on this principle and
published in "Handcrafted Card Magic 2," by Denis Behr. Denis
Behr is the creator of "Conjuring Archive," an impressive and
detailed database of publications of magic trick that can be
consulted on the Internet and that I have used regularly to get
information.

J- Unshuffled

The basic idea of this effect is to write a message on the

edge of the deck to undo it and redo it as much as you want
through faro shuffles. Earl Keyser published "Mirage Deck" in
number 16 of "Epilogue" (page 152) in 1972, a trick in which a
writing on the edge of the deck changes through faro shuffles.
Steve Spillman introduced the idea that the selected card should
appear written on the edge of the deck, in "My Hands Can Be

459
Yours" (page 38), in 1973. Dr Michael S. Ewer published in the
magazine "Genii" in November 1973 (Vol. 37, No. 11) "A Name
Revelation with Faro Shuffles," and Bob Wicks suggested the idea
of the word "Unshuffled" being written in "The Handwriting on
the Deck," published in "Genii "(Vol. 38, No. 8 of August of 1974,
page 330). However, Theodore Annemann had also published
"Edge Code" in his "The Jinx" (number 19, page 103) in 1936, so
you can imagine how difficult is to attribute a first creator to this
sublime idea applicable to the faro shuffle. As if that weren’t
enough, the idea was already described in 1563, in a manuscript
by Giovan Battista Della Porta, titled "De Furtivis Literarum
Notis," referring to hiding messages on the edge of a deck to
make them visible by appropriate shuffles. In any case, the trick
was popularised by Paul Gertner in "Steel and Silver," with the
title of "Unshuffled," in 1994. In short, a true masterpiece of the
Art of Card Magic applying the faro shuffle, highly recommended.
Go ahead and create your own version.

K- Affinity from a Distance

Here it is my humble contribution. It’s a trick that occurred

to me in the summer of 1994, a year after I began to browse in
the faro shuffle. It does not require preparation.

A lady spectator, for example, shuffles a deck and is asked

to cut more or less in half. She chooses one of the two piles. You
take the other. You ask her to select a card from her pile. She can
choose the one she wants, but without showing it to the
magician. She puts it face down on the table. The magician is
supposed to do the same with his pile, but what you will do is
pretend that you are looking for a specific card while doing the
following: you will place a card of any even value in the position

460
from bottom corresponding to half of its value, that is, in bottom
2 there must be a 4, or, in bottom 3 there must be a 6, or, in
bottom 4 there must be an 8 ... no matter what, but there must
be at least one card whose half of its value matches with its
position from bottom. Memorise that card since it will be the
card that you are supposed to have chosen, although you will
take another one and put it face down on the table making
believe that’s the one you choose. Suppose you have memorised
the 6 of Diamonds (which will be in position 3 from bottom of
your pile). You both exchange the piles and ask her to put her
card on top. Thus, the viewer's card would be on top of the pile
containing the 6 of Diamonds. You do the same with your card
and your pile. You ask her to cut to lose the card. You do the
same. You ask her to cut a couple of times so there is no clue of
its situation. You do the same. You both exchange the piles again
and ask her to shuffle it. You shuffle the pile where the viewer's
card is, using a Charlier shuffle or a shuffle based on successive
cuts. It will give the feeling that the cards are totally lost (and
that the viewer has shuffled as well). Spread your half on the
table face up to show that the cards are completely mixed. You
quickly see where the 6 of Diamonds is. If it is too close to the
ends of the spread, cut to take it a little more to the centre, if not,
pick it up and do nothing else. To top off so many shuffles you do
a faro shuffle with both piles while you say that we are going to
finish shuffling the whole deck. It does not matter if it is an out
or in faro shuffle, it does not matter if the pile have a different
number of cards (although there should not be much difference),
and it does not matter if the shuffle is not perfect at the
beginning and end of it. The only indispensable thing is the
shuffle to be perfect in the middle. The feeling that the deck is
shuffled is total.

461
 Finally you name the card you “chose,” the 6 of Diamonds,
and you ask to name her, for example the Queen of Hearts. You
announce that both cards will be together, which will attract the
attention of the spectator after so many shuffles. You start
dealing cards from the top, putting them on the table face up, so
they can be seen. Yours will appear first; the 6 of Diamonds. You
say: "My card! The next one will be yours!" But it's not; the next
one is not the Queen of Hearts. When the viewer believes that
you have failed, considering that it was extremely difficult to get
such a coincidence, you call attention to the value of your card:
Six. You say you did not choose that card by accident. You have
six cards from yours, and the one that makes six will be the
spectator's card. Surprise!

With this I will finish the little selection of tricks with the
faro shuffle that I performed more frequently. As you can see it
is only a tiny sample, but I think it is a good selection for the
enjoyment of this unique way of shuffling.

THE MEMORISED DECK

“You can take a stacked deck and follow any great artist
with cards and your spectators will think you are the better
magician.”

Bert Allerton (“The Close-Up Magician”)

Reflecting on the idea of a memorised deck is something

exciting. You don't realise how powerful this idea is until you
memorise one and get involved in it. The idea of a memorised
deck took on a special focus when the order to be memorised
was a "shuffled order," without any type of pattern that would
make it suspicious, and at the same time with intrinsic
characteristics, which was a masterful tool that provided some

462
singular effects for card magic. But to use a deck like that
successfully is vital to practise a lot with it, since it's not an easy
tool to handle if we want to take advantage and avoid being
suspected about it. The memorised deck is not only un-
gimmicked, but it doesn’t have any order (it does, but shuffled),
so there is nothing to hide in it, except the fact that we know it
by heart. If it were discovered that we know it by heart it would
be the end of this invention, so we must handle it with
moderation, especially and obviously with the tricks that most
induce such suspicion. Because you cannot alter its order, this
deck is a source of motivation to practise a lot the false shuffles,
which is essential to give credibility to a deck that is always
supposed to be shuffled. Its effects are astonishing and its secret
difficult to detect, since it is difficult to think that the magician
knows by heart the order of a shuffled deck. Despite all these
advantages, most of my hobby friends were reluctant to
memorise a deck, stating that such an effort was not strictly
necessary to make good card magic, which is true, as we have
seen in the tricks of the repertoire of the Part Two. Dai Vernon
himself did not use this tool very frequently, although I suppose
it was in order to go easy on all kind of techniques and secrets. If
there were any effect that could "deceive" The Professor, this
would have to be an effect done with a memorised deck, and
that was how Juan Tamariz did it in the Magic Castle with his
masterpiece, the “Mnemonica.” If we make an effort to
memorise a deck we will have something special that will make
us a special card magician. Doing magic with a merely named
card is something that stays in the mind of the spectators as
something truly magical, among so many other wonders that this
tool offers.

463
 The origins of the idea of doing card magic by memorising a
deck date from the beginning of the 17th century. No, it's not
exactly a modern idea. Probably the oldest document that talks
about it is "Thesouro de Prudent," an extensive work composed
of four books by the mathematician Gaspar Cardozo de Sequeira,
dated in the first edition in 1612. It already talks about the
mathematical order that would popularise Si Stebbins and
Howard Thurston in the United States. Hofzinser and Robert-
Houdin had some effects of card magic that made us suppose
that they took the "hassle" of memorising a deck (as great
magicians they were). Louis Nikola published in 1927 what is
known as the first deck with a "shuffled order" with intrinsic
characteristics to memorise. It was on "The Nikola Card System."
Since then, many have been the card magicians that have
published their particular "shuffled order," starting with Laurie
Ireland in "Ireland Writes a Book" (1931). The brilliant Edward
Marlo added the detail of getting a "shuffled order" from a
sealed deck, in "Faro Notes" (1958), detail that Juan Tamariz took
into account to start working on his stack since the end of the
70s, and that would lead to his "Mnemonica." Tamariz would not
publish his order until the year 2000, in his "Mnemonica,
Bewitched Music II" (what better way to start the new
millennium! However it wasn't published in English until 2004).
Simon Aronson is another prominent figure of the memorised
deck. His order was published in "A Stack to Remember" in 1979.
Aronson published it immediately, while Tamariz restricted
himself to putting his own in action for two decades before
publishing anything about it, which was obvious since as a
professional magician Tamariz had to take advantage of it before
expanding its secret, besides the importance to have practical
experiences in order to design a good book on his deck order.

464
Aronson wasn't professional, like Ascanio (curiously both
lawyers), so he had no problem publishing immediately any of
his great ideas. The deck order of Aronson and Tamariz have
been and are very popular, but there are many stacks by many
great magicians and thinkers of the card magic that can cause us
a (wonderful) complication when it comes to deciding which
deck order to memorise. I opted for the Tamariz’s Mnemonica,
not only because I am a fan of him, but also because the book
was written in Spanish, as well as the characteristic of being able
to get it in a new perfect order. On another hand, I was well
aware that the fame of a memorised deck could be harmful if it
wasn't given all the discretion and good use it requires and
deserves. I personally trust the wisdom and maturity of all the
amateurs who study and use these great tools.

I consider important to clarify that no deck order is better

than another, just as no trick has to be better than another. It
simply depends on tastes, preferences and even culture. I refer
to the Tamariz deck order because it's the one I use; and
Aronson's because of its popularity and because I also tried to
memorise, as well as a deck order created by me. However,
when I saw that I couldn't help confusing each other frequently, I
decided to use only Tamariz's. If you don't have problems in
memorising more than one order without confusing them and
you fancy, go ahead! I don't have that talent; I am "mono-deck."
There are memorised deck user card magicians that are "poly-
deck," being able to memorise more than one without confusing
them. If you have the same limitation as me, being "mono-deck,"
don't worry at all, since according to the experience of the
professionals themselves, it's not necessary to memorise more
than one deck to enjoy this subtle tool regularly, since it is

465
practically impossible for spectators to remember hypothetical
ordered positions of cards as you do card tricks with and without
a memorised deck, randomly, day by day. In any case, we should
avoid abusing tricks such as "total memory" and those that
usually relate a card to its original sequential position. In addition,
as Tamariz explains in his "Mnemonica, Bewitched Music II," up
to seven additional orders can be formed through the principle
of the “eight out faro shuffle” (see page 151 of his book). In
other words, we just need to memorise a single deck to have the
tool we need for this type of card magic for the rest of our lives,
if we get the most out of it. Everything else would be a matter of
knowing how to use it perfectly. In his book, Tamariz not only
teaches us how to handle his Mnemonica deck, but also teaches
us how to get the most out of this tool in general, as well as a
whole range of applications with the idea of the "half stack,"
among many other small and big ideas ... a real box of surprises.
He also shows us a bit of history about the evolution of this type
of card magic. His book is known by many amateurs as "the
encyclopaedia of the memorised deck," judging by the Internet
forums on card magic most international that I have read.

I am going to show you the two Great Shows that I

designed for a memorised deck using the monumental work of
Tamariz. The effects in both shows are independent of any stack,
that is, they could be carried out with any memorised order,
except for the "Everything in Order" effect, which is specific to
the Mnemonica and which I include as final in the "Great Show
I," and the effect "Mental Total Coincidence" for the "Great
Show II." As for the specific tricks of each stack, obviously we
would have to read the books of each creator of said specific

466
stacks. Of course I will not reveal the order of any card in any
stack, so to avoid that I will identify the cards with just a number.

To finish I would like to raise awareness of something as

obvious and important, as it's not advisable to use a memorised
deck without knowing it PERFECTLY by heart. An amateur friend
of mine once told me: "an amateur with a newly learned
memorised deck in his hands, is like a rookie soldier with a hand
grenade in his." Well, we don't need to exaggerate so much, but
needless to say you have to practise before venturing to perform
this type of tricks to make them seem as convincing as magical. I
finally shut up and start...

Great Show I (60 minutes approx.)

First time performed at Christmas 2004 successfully.

Effect one (15 minutes approx.)

Dis-divination

This is a funny presentation to get the order of your

memorised deck. It occurred to me combining the ideas of
Gaspar Cardozo and Louis Nikola for the same purpose (see
chapter one of Tamariz's book).

After giving a deck to shuffle, you get it back and look at the
bottom card, cut and force it by riffle shuffle for example to a
lady spectator. You ask her to memorise it, show it to others and
keep it in her pocket. Then you say that instead of divine the card,
you're going to "dis-divine it." You say that magicians always do
the same; divining. Well, this time we are going to do the
opposite. Distribute piles of ten cards to different spectators so
that four of them have ten cards and a fifth one has eleven. You
start to "dis-divine" by naming the card that follows the one in

467
her pocket. You say for example: "Your card is not ... the King of
Diamonds, right?" The audience will tell you that it's true (it's
true that it's not) and you reply: "Well, I dis-divined it!" Ask them
to look for the King of Diamonds and place it face up on the table.
Obviously the public will think that it has no merit, but as you
name ("dis-divining") the cards rapidly and the spectators are
piling them up on the table face up, they will realise where the
merit is. The merit is "dis-divine" the selected card 51 times
(without repeating any, although you should not mention that
detail). After achieving the last "dis-divination" (the 51), you
should not name the card that the viewer has in her pocket
because it is the trick of "dis-divine," not divine. You just ask for it,
look at it and name it very happy saying that you have achieved
NOT to divine it. Place it on top of the deck and you have the
order.

Effect two (12 minutes approx.)

Divinations

(See "Divination," page 79 in Tamariz's book)

You do some false shuffle. You say that now you are going
to divine cards. You say that magicians need to warm up first
before divining cards, like athletes before running. Then, you
have a card selected. You turn around with the deck in your
hands. You look at the adjoining card of the selected one to know
which the spectator's card is. Suppose that the spectator's card is
the 2 of Clubs. You explain that, as you are warming up, you still
see it blurry, but you can imagine which card it is, since you see a
white background with two or three black dots ... it seems like
two. Then it's a 2 of something black. I don't distinguish well
between the Spades and the Clubs, I see it blurry, but I think I

468
notice circles in the drawing more than a few points ... I think it's
the 2 of Clubs ...

The next one you divine faster because you've warmed up.

For the third divination, while you false shuffle ask the
spectator to say a number from 1 to 52. You place the deck on
the table and turn on your back. You ask her to look for the card
in that number, but not before offering to change the number or
choose another viewer to say another number. You tell her that
you have no idea which card will be in the said number, but that
you will not be able to divine it until she does not look at it, since
the eyes of the spectators are like cameras that project the
image in the mind of the magician. This creates a feeling of total
magic. When you ask her to pick up and look at the card, you
wait 2 or 3 seconds (the time it takes to pick it up and look at it)
and name it. The sensation of the spectator that the magician
reads what she sees is amazing. I know that because my
spectators let me know that.

To finish this stage of divinations, you pose the following

challenge: what if the spectator did not look or know the chosen
card? Could the magician divine it? It's a challenging enough, but
you say that even for that the magicians have resources. You say
all that while doing false shuffles. Then you hand the deck, turn
your back for clarity and ask that each spectator cut and
complete. If there are too many spectators, say to do so as many
times as they want. Ask for someone to take the card that
happen to be on top and keep it in his or her pocket, without
looking at it. You emphasise that you have no image in your mind
because nobody projects it with the eyes, but you add that there
is a way to divine it. Ask them to look for the Queen of Hearts

469
and give it to you. This will turn the deck over. There you take
advantage to know the identity of the pocket card by looking at
the bottom card. In case the pocket card was accurate and
casually the Queen of Hearts, you say with a bit of cynical
humour: "What's wrong, can't you find it? Because that is
precisely the secret; to find out what the missing card is!" If the
effect ends like that, congratulations, enjoy being for a moment
the best magician in the world. But if not, which is the most
obvious, you receive the Queen of Hearts and put it close to your
ear and say: "this card is my favourite because it is a charm; she
never minds to inform me of everything that happens in the
deck ..." So that you divine it.

This last idea is probably original to Billy O'Connor,

assuming there is no previous reference. It dates from 1938 as
described by Harry Carnegie in the magazine "The Magigram" in
1976, where he says that Billy showed it to him. He also
describes it as a personal presentation by O'Connor on a famous
effect that Ted Annemann published in his "Sh-h-h-It's a Secret"
in 1934, with the title of "$ 1000 Test Card Location," in which he
did not use a memorised deck although a stacked one.
O'Connor's presentation on this was called "The Whisppering
Queen," and was very popularised by Ron Wilson from the 40s.
The effect itself was further, since Annemann proposed that the
deck could be overhand shuffled by the spectator even if it was a
previously ordered deck, and even then the trick would work. I
did not propose it in the routine because the memorised order
would be broken and the show could not be continued. However,
on this detail I will talk in the section “Compilation of Divinations
with a Memorised Deck," specifically in the letter F, “Divination

470
after Shuffling the Spectator.” It is an extraordinary concept of
card magic not to be missed.

Effect three (10 minutes approx.)

The Fastest Divination in the Old West

Do false shuffles.

A joke: you have a card selected with the intention of

divining it. You tell the viewer: "Do you think I know what your
card is?" Surely, seen the previous experience, the viewer will
tell you convinced that you know it. Then you tell him or her in a
comical tone: "Well, this time I don't know it, surprise!"

Now that we are talking about speed and that we have

already warmed up a lot, we are going to perform the fastest
divination of the West. This trick is based on a trick called "The
Fastest Card Trick in the Old West" that can be found in the
booklet "Amazing Card Tricks" from the series "Umbrella Books,"
written by Kirk Charles and illustrated by Viki Woodworth.

Have a card selected and control it to the top by “the pass.”

You keep the deck in the box, but when you close the flap you
introduce it between the top card and the rest of the deck. The
appearance of the box after closing will not raise any suspicion.
You ask someone for checking your empty pocket and putting
him or herself the box into it. Then you say that you are going to
put your hand in your pocket, open the box, look for the card
and take it out from your pocket before the spectator even
pronounces the name of the card, on the count of three. You can
quickly and easily remove the card by pulling with your thumb
the edge of it that will be separated from the deck by means of
the flap. You ask a spectator to say aloud "one, two, three!" while

471
you pose like the gunmen of the Far West as if you were to take
the gun out of its holster.

This card magic technique was first published, as far as I

know, in the well known Tarbell Course in Magic in 1926, and
compiled by Louis Tannen in 1946 in 7 volumes. This technique
appears in Vol. 1 as “The Rising Card Escape” (p. 194).

Effect four (Optional - 5 minutes approx.)

Prediction

(See “Prediction,” page 91 in Tamariz's book)

We can then do this fabulous effect after some false

shuffles, in order to relax the atmosphere a bit by sitting at the
table.

Robert-Houdin was one of the first magicians to dare in

public with this effect so enigmatic, although his method was not
as clear as that which can be done with the help of a memorised
deck. The effect proposed by Tamariz is to place a card on the
table and ask them to name any card in the deck. The named
card is that on the table. That’s nothing! Let's say it is a very
demanding prediction. Robert-Houdin's method was not very
convincing to a very observant person, but quite ingenious as
well as impromptu. It consisted in leaving the card outgoing in
the pocket (instead of being on the table), so spectators don’t
lose sight of it. Once the card is named, the magician looks for it
in the deck facing him. He says he cannot find it. The public is
intrigued by looking at the card in the pocket. The magician,
during the search located the named card and placed it on top.
He then shows that it’s not in the deck by hiding it with a double
lift and showing all the other cards. Finally, he palms the top card

472
and, by a quick sleight of hand, pretends to take the pocket card,
but actually he hides it inside the pocket with his thumb while
making believe that the palmed card is the predicted one. This
same procedure could be done by placing the card on the table
and applying the Mexican turn over, to which, taking advantage
of the Wild cards, it would be very subtle to do the following: the
prediction card of the table is a Wild card while in the top of the
deck will be the other one. When you look for the named card,
you say that you are going to place the Wild card on top, but
what you place is the named card, which misleads the tricky
manoeuvre a bit. You confirm that by doing a double turn over
showing that you actually placed a Wild card top, which will keep
the audience away from possible suspicions. Finally, redo the
double and take the named card making believe it’s the Wild
card. Everything is ready for the Mexican turn over and the
surprise. Robert-Houdin could not use Wild cards. It was
impossible. The Wild cards or Jokers had not yet been invented;
in fact they were not introduced until shortly after his death. So
he could not do it with a borrowed deck, unless he introduced a
duplicate card. On the part of Hofzinser, he had the great idea of
doing so using a double-back card. August Roterberg published
up to four methods in his "New Era Card Tricks" in 1897 (pages
158 and 167). By the way, can you imagine doing this effect
being the Wild card named? It would be quite cool if it’s not
necessary to do the Mexican turn over!

Needless to say, with a memorised deck, this effect takes

on much more clarity, as Tamariz proposes. One day, thinking
about this effect, I came up with using a memorised deck for the
singular effect of the card found under the magician's drink. An
anonymous effect originated in Chicago that popularised Heba

473
Haba Al (Al Andrucci), considered as the father of the magic
performed in bars. Doc Eason dedicated his life to this effect,
making it a true masterpiece in his performances in bars, whose
work he published in a DVD series called "Bar Magic." It consists
in that the spectator's card appears under the magician's drink
when spectators least expect it, again and again. I did it once with
a named card, as if it were a prediction of a card that was always
there, which causes a special impression, especially when it is
verified that the card is not in the deck (it’s not duplicated!)

Ghost Apparition

(Optional - 3 minutes approx.)

As an alternative to "Prediction," I thought of doing an

effect in which a merely named card magically arises from the
deck using the Karl Fulves’ procedure by elastic bands. Other
"Ghost Apparitions" could also be done, such as a "Named Card
Rise" with the impromptu technique of Paul LePaul's little finger,
which is an idea proposed by Ed Marlo in "Marlo's Unforgettable
Wild Card" (1982), with the title "The Name Card Rise." If you get
a "Rising Card" using the little finger method, don’t forget to nail
the card in the middle of the deck just after taking it out, to help
the suggestion that it came from among the others (not from
behind, of course ), which is a great ruse that I learned by
watching Juan Tamariz’s performances.

Imagine as well the effect of a deck that cut by itself at a

named card. It would be difficult to do so with the original
version of Al Baker in which invisible thread is used, since the
card must be removed previously, and a named card shouldn’t
need that. But there are other methods for a "Haunted Deck." I
came up with the idea of using a “slick card” (treated with wax). I

474
applied wax to a Joker and placed it at the bottom of the
memorised deck. Then, when the card is named and you locate it
in the deck, you cut using the "Halo Cut" technique, in order to
get the named card on the top and keep the Joker at the bottom.
It only remains to ask someone for cutting the deck at any point
and complete the cut. Next we place the deck on top of our hand
very clearly and do magic gestures with the other hand. You take
your time while people watch carefully. When they least expect
it, you lean your hand millimetre by millimetre, very slowly, until
the deck begins to cut at the point of the “slick Joker.” It’s not
necessary to slide it much, in fact when that moment happens
you say that you are exhausted from so much mental effort, and
you end up taking the cut part. It is convenient to practise it well
before proceeding.

Another easier but equally intriguing effect to do would be

to palm a named card, to ask a spectator to do a card cascade by
dropping the cards on the table, and we "catch" the one named
flying (the card palmed). It’s an effect as direct as shocking. The
only drawback is that there is a risk of messing up the deck a bit.
Lennart Green popularised this effect in one of his picturesque
routines.

Effect five (3 minutes approx.)

Any Card at Any Number

(See “Any Card at Any Number,” page 82 in Tamariz’s book)

The first written reference of this classic often known by its

acronym A.C.A.A.N. dates of the late sixteenth and early
seventeenth centuries, from the unpublished manuscript known
as "Sloane 424" of which I spoke earlier in the classic trick
"Transposition," since it was also in this manuscript the first

475
written reference found on a transposition of cards. However,
the effect ACAAN that is described in this manuscript is not
exactly so, "any card at any number," but rather C.A.A.N. (card at
any number), which is not exactly the same. As for the actual
effect of ACAAN, considered as an improvement or effect-
enhancer of CAAN, the first written reference dates from
"Nouvelles Récréations Mathématiques et Physiques," written by
Edme-Gilles Guyot in 1769 (page 46 of the unpublished
translation by Jean Hugard). The method uses the well-known
trick of "21 Cards Trick" to situate the chosen one in the
appropriate place. The method uses an incomplete deck. Out of
curiosity I'll tell you that in this same book, four pages back (in
the 42), we can see a well-known and popular effect in which the
magician taps a group of cards pinched by a spectator, so that all
the cards fall to the table minus one, which remains pinched by
the viewer and turns out to be the selection. I was greatly
surprised that this popular effect, which I considered quite
modern, was in fact already published in this book of the year
1769. Card magic as a Show is much older than I imagined!

Without a doubt, one of the most clear and magical way to

carry out the effect of "any card at any number," is skilfully using
a “shuffled order” memorised deck.

Last effect (20 minutes approx.)

Everything in Order

(See “Everything in Order,” page 35 in Tamariz’s book)

I will show you a personal idea to decorate this effect,

which fascinated my viewers a lot.

Do false shuffles.

476
 You say that to finish you're going to try to guess three
cards that will be chosen in three different ways. One, freely with
the cards face down, another, freely with the cards face up, and
the third randomly. The first one is to be selected by a face down
spread. When they pick it up to show it to the rest of the
spectators, cut and complete the cut at that point and glance at
the bottom card. This way you find out what the spectator's card
is. Suppose it is No. 18. You ask them to cut the deck on the table
(without completing the cut), and when they give you back the
selection you put it on the top pile and complete the cut while
keeping a break. The card would be returned to the same place,
although it would seem that it is returned to a different point
after the "random" cut. The break is to control that card No. 18
by cuts taking it to the top and then to bottom (double undercut),
plus a last cut at the middle with "break." Those manoeuvres are
done as we say that they are going to choose the next card at
random. So, we riffle force the card No. 19. Be careful not let see
the card No. 18 during the force. When we hand the card No. 19
to the spectator to memorise it and show it to the rest of the
audience, we will drop the No. 18 on the pile below the cut and
complete that cut. Thus, No. 18 would be on top. Then we lose
the No. 19 in the middle of the deck in the same way as before,
cutting at the middle and leaving the card on the position No. 18.
Remember that in this way the spectators can cut themselves.

The purpose is that these two first selections are lost in the
deck together, but in an exchanged memorised order. That is, No.
18 will become card No. 19 and vice versa. It seems complicated,
but if you practise it a little and take it easy, you’ll see it is not so
complicated. It's worth it for the final effect. In Part Two of
Tamariz’s book, in point 3 ("Shifting the Position of a Card") from

477
Appendix VI ("Useful Sleights"), Tamariz describes several
techniques of great value to achieve similar purposes.

Then we remind that the third card will be selected freely,

only with the cards face up. We hand the deck to a third
spectator, we ask for putting the cards facing him or her and look
for the card that he or she likes or just prefers. When he/she
takes the card we say: "Show it to others," and just at the same
time we take the deck with both hands separating the point
where the card was taken, with the excuse of making him/her
easier to show the card. That way we can see the previous card
and learn about the chosen one. Suppose the viewer chose No.
11 (as happened to me the day I premiered this routine).
Memorising three “mem deck” cards is very easy, since you only
have to remember their numbers (18, 19 and 11). The No. 11 is
lost in the same way as before, having a spectator to cut the
deck, and thus keeping its original 11th position. We tell viewers
that it's not necessary for everyone to make an effort to
memorise the three cards, but that it's enough for each
spectator to remember their own as they will name them at the
end of the routine. That's important to say so as not to weigh the
spectators down with the three cards.

We state that we will try to guess the first card while we

spread the deck on the table, look for the Ace of Clubs and cut at
that point. We ask the first card selector to see if he or she sees
his/her card while we undo the partial faro shuffle (see chapter 2
of Part One of Tamariz's book). But we will do it in a particular
way since the spectators should not notice that the two selected
cards are consecutive (it would be very suspicious). The way to
avoid that would be as follow:

478
 The cards of the first pile are dealt face down, and those of
the second one face up. So, one of the first two selected cards
does not get to be seen. When we reach No. 26, which will
appear in the first pile, we stop, look and riffle the rest of the
cards while saying: "I need three more or less equal piles." Then
we invert the order of the second pile with the excuse of
counting the cards to see if we have formed three more or less
equal piles. Finally you turn over the second pile, already
inverted, and ask if they have seen their card in the first pile. In
this case they will say no, but in the second. If it were not in
either of the two, we would simply say that it is in the third pile
(without needing to check it). The spectators will believe that you
are accumulating clues to guess the card. Then we collect the
three piles and say: "Do you think I could guess the card with this
one clue?" If they say no (logical), you reply: "Well, I don't
either"; laughter. If they answer yes, you say: "How demanding,
you! I need at least two clues ..." Then we say that this time we
will form two equal piles instead of three. We quickly invert the
26 top cards (as Tamariz explains in his book) with the excuse of
forming the two commented equal piles. Then we will show
them through a spread so that they can see if their card is in
there. They will tell us that it's not (in this case). Then, after a bit
of pantomime, we simply guess the card! The spectators will not
understand how to guess a card with only those two clues. They
will feel really intrigued.

Next we say that we are going to guess the second card (No.
19). We do a double anti-faro shuffle (see "Sonata" by Tamariz,
page 90), only instead of doing it with the cards face down, we
will do it with the cards face up, so that the viewer can see in
which of the four piles his or her card is. This detail not only

479
shows clearly that the cards are mixed, but makes the routine
entertaining by having the viewers attentive to the card. The first
anti-faro will not show any suspicion of any order, since the cards
are still quite mixed, plus spectators will be very entertaining
trying to see where the second selection falls. Once we have the
four piles stacked on the table, we ask the second selector what
pile his or her card is in. In this case, card No. 19 will appear in
the first pile. We collect the piles in the order required by the
double anti-faro (4º pile on the 3rd, all on the 2nd and all on the
1st). We do another double anti-faro, reminding viewers that we
need at least two clues. In this case we will do the double anti-
faro with the cards face down (otherwise the order would be
noticed). Again, with the four piles on the table, we look at them
one by one facing us with the pretext of finally guessing the card.
We also take this to see if all the cards are in order. In case of not
being so because we have done something wrong, we would
guess the card and improvise something for the end with the
third card we already know (No. 11). If everything is in order, as
would be normal, we continue ... You look closely at which pile
and position is No. 11 (the third selection). We simply guess the
second card (the No. 19) Surprised faces! Spectators won't
understand how those simple clues lead to guess the card.

The last one remains. You say that you are going to guess
the last one in a different way, very special. When you pick up
the four piles, you make sure by cuts that No. 11 goes on top of
the deck. Everything ready to perform Triumph of Dai Vernon!
Tamariz, in chapter 7 of his book, about "The Rite of Initiation"
by Luis García Soutullo, already proposes this great idea as the
end for a magical new deck order. My personal contribution to
this great idea is the detail that we will see when spreading the

480
cards face up ... when the spectators have already forgotten the
first two selected and guessed by the magician cards, these will
appear in the magical new deck order as the only cards that
don't pay attention to the magician, or so, as the only ones that
exchange their positions: No. 18 will be in the place of No. 19
and vice versa. I came up with this idea thinking about how I
sometimes present the Triumph of Dai Vernon saying:
"Sometimes we magicians reveal the cards of the spectators
precisely because they do not pay attention to us. That is to say,
being the only cards in the deck that ignore the magician, we
reveal them like that."

So, we spread the deck face down and show the Queen of
Hearts. Ta-dah! All get face down on the command of the
magician, except for the selected rebel card which ignores the
magician, so we get to know which card it was. Then, amid the
applause, we command all the cards to be put in perfect order.
The applause is silenced. People do not believe that. We turn
over the deck and spread it face up, or we wave them slowly so
they can be shown clearly. Surprise!! Ovation (I suppose). In the
middle of the applause we underline that the ordering has not
gone perfect, since there are a couple of cards that are not well
placed. "I am sorry for that." We let the spectators themselves
realise which cards they are until they let us know. We say: "Oh,
yes! As I said, cards chosen by spectators are rebellious and do
not pay attention to me." The impression of seeing the chosen
cards again, highlighted in that way, when it seemed that they
would not return to come into play, is as unexpected as
conclusive.

481
 Great Show II (80 minutes approx.)

First time performed at Christmas 2005 successfully.

Effect one (15 minutes approx.)

Getting the memorised order by the “T.N.T.” routine

This way of ordering the deck occurred to me inspired by

the effect "T.N.T," from chapter 9 of Tamariz’s book, trick that of
course I have selected as one of those that are part of the usual
repertoire of “mem decks.”

The idea is to ask three (or four) viewers to think each one
a card. Then, you are ready to do the distribution of cards that is
established in the effect "T.N.T." saying that you will form a wind
rose with cards to the north, south, east, west, and in the centre.
Then, you ask them to look at which cardinal point their card is in,
and what position it takes up in it. As they will have to be vigilant
they will not get bored during the procedure. You say that you
will be carried away by the "wind thought." When you finish, ask
each one to tell you, either the name of the card or its
coordinates (position). If they tell you the name of the card, you
guess its coordinates and vice versa. This is achieved by taking
into account the order of the cardinal points and that each one
has ten cards, except for the centre that will have twelve. For
example, from 1 to 10 is the south, from 11 to 20 is the north,
from 21 to 30 is the east, from 31 to 40 is the west and from 41
to 52 is from the centre. If the coordinates is "north 4" the card is
14. If they name the card of the “mem order” 31, its coordinates
is "west 1," and so we get to “tune” the deck in our memorised
order, as Tamariz usually say in a beautiful musical metaphor.

482
 Effect two (10 minutes approx.)

A Grand Triumph

Excellent effect by Camilo Vázquez, which along with "A

Predicted Triumph" by Juan Tamariz, we will have a couple of
options to continue the show after the "Face to face" divination
effect, as Juan Tamariz tells us in his book (see page 138).
Likewise, as the book says, if the trick is done with faro shuffles
the deck will be stacked in mem order, but if it’s done with anti-
faro, it will be in reverse order. Additionally, we could also
perform the Professor’s Triumph (with a named card), since the
deck would also be kept unaltered, which would give us three
options to choose.

Effect three (Optional - 8 minutes approx.)

Exact Location

This is the ideal effect to continue the show in the case that
the anti-faro shuffle was used in the previous trick, since for this
trick you need to start precisely with the deck inverted. The trick
is on page 145 of Tamariz’s book. As Juan explains, the effect has
its origin in one of Jordan’s (I guess "The Bare-Faced Detection"
in "Thirty Card Mysteries"), and later by Paul Clive. There is also a
great version of Simon Aronson in his book "Simply Simon" called
"Everybody is Lazy," which I will discuss later as one of the tricks
selected for our repertoire with a memorised deck.

Effect four (5 minutes approx.)

Sympathy

This effect can be used to restore the reverse order of the

cards as they are counted to prove the "Sympathy" effect. It is on

483
the page 133 of Tamariz’s book. It is one of the classic or
elementary effects with a memorised deck described in Hugard's
"Encyclopedia of Card Tricks" regarding the Nikola's stack, as the
classical divinations by means of a glance at the following card.

Effect five (12 minutes approx.)

A Card Vanishes Instantly

After the "sympathy" effect in which a named card appears

in the number said by the magician, this time a surprise can be
given in which a named card literally disappears from the deck.
The magician says that he/she cannot guess this time the
number corresponding to its position, and does not understand
why cannot achieve it. Then, when that card is sought, it is
discovered that he/she couldn’t achieved it, simply because the
card was not there! Then being able to make it appear again, in
any magical way ... remember ... Jazz Magic! The trick is on page
132 of Tamariz’s book.

Effect six (Optional - 5 minutes approx.)

Spectator Misses Magician Hits

It is a Simple, fast and funny trick to get into the next one. It
is in Page 243 of Tamariz’s book.

Effect seven (10 minutes approx.)

A Card and a Number

We can find this wonderful effect on page 207 of Tamariz’s

book, original by Louis Gombert and Al Baker, versioned by
Tamariz with the Half Stack.

484
 Last effect (15 minutes approx.)

Mental Total Coincidence

We undo the partial faro shuffle with the excuse that a

spectator thinks a card and tells you in which of the three piles it
is. This piece of information is requested only to mislead. Then
you will divide the deck into two exactly equal piles, for which
you quickly count 26 cards (thus reversing the order), and, taking
into account the pile where the viewer said the card was thought,
ask them to look for it in its respective half. Once found, ask to
be held while you keep the separation at the point where the
card was taken. Thus, the top pile of the separation is placed on
the table and we ask to put the chosen card on top of it, but at
right angles to it. Then we will place the rest of the half pack on
top of it. It will seem that we have place the card at the same
point where it was taken. We bring the other half next to it and
do as in the trick of "Total Coincidence" from the book "Sonata"
by Tamariz, showing that it is the only one that matches its “soul-
mate.” It is an effect of coincidence with a merely thought card.
We continue saying that they have coincided because it was the
card that the spectator thought. While we say that we
recompose the whole deck and say that we will try it again. We
ask that every one of the spectators think of a card. You say: "I
will give time to all of you for that while I separate the two
halves." So, you count 26 cards reversing the order while you
add: "you can all think of more than one if you want, to see what
happens ... we are going to do a magic experiment ..." Finally you
say: "let see how many match this time ..." They all match!, since
among all the spectators all the cards have been thought. You
say: "I told you that you could think of more than one each, but
not all of them!" The effect would be more astonishing and clear

485
if there were some cards that did not coincide while we say: "No
one has thought about this one, poor card!" That way the feeling
that only those that were thought matched would be even
stronger.

COMMENTED SELECTION OF TRICKS WITH A MEMORISED

DECK

A card magician friend of mine asked me once what would

be the best tricks with a memorised deck to enjoy to the utmost
the card magic, considering the limited chances that we
amateurs have to perform in some great events. So that, I did a
selection of the best I would recommend to taking always into
account for your most important events.

A- Mnemonicosis Routine

Mnemonicosis is probably the greatest gem in Tamariz's

book (page 98 and 242). It is an effect related to "The Trick That
Cannot Be Explained" by Dai Vernon ("Dai Vernon's More Inner
Secrets Of Card Magic" by Lewis Ganson, chapter eleven) using a
memorised deck, which increases the possibilities and enhances
the effect. In Laurie Ireland's book, "Ireland Writes a Book"
(1931) there are two tricks called "A Card is Called For" and
"Thought Reading Extraordinary," which are two excellent tricks
sadly forgotten, but fortunately reincarnated in the no less
excellent ideas of Juan Tamariz with "Mnemonicosis" and
"Mnemonicosis Over the Phone." This effect can result in one of
the most inexplicable effects of mentalism with a deck of cards,
especially if we have a bit of luck with its outcome.

The basic effect states that a spectator thinks a card. The

magician believes that he or she is reading it in the mind of the
spectator and places it at a certain point in the deck. Leave the

486
deck on the table and do not touch it again. The viewer is asked
to cut through a certain point. The card is revealed by that
intriguing way. The routine would consist in starting with a single
thought card, then doing it with three cards, as Tamariz explains
in his book, and finally ending with "Mnemonicosis Over the
Phone." It is important to keep in mind that it is not
recommendable to repeat Mnemonicosis unless the conditions
of the trick are altered, as in the case of doing it over the phone,
since this would justify the reason for its possible different
outcomes, that is, to different conditions, different outcomes.

B- Total Memory Routine

This is an indispensable utility for a memorised deck (page

89 and 201 of Tamariz’s book). It is a quite strong effect, but as
you will understand it is advisable to be careful not to repeat it
many times, since it is explicitly shown the secret memorised
order from your deck. A way to avoid this problem is to do this
effect always by means of an alternative order, that is, after
applying some faro shuffles, as proposed by Tamariz with the
idea of "The Eight Mnemonicas" (page 151 of his book).

C- Weighing the Cards Routine

It is a classic idea published in "Encyclopedia of Card Tricks"

by Jean Hugard, with reference to the Nikola’s stack. The
presentation offered by Tamariz in his book is very funny
("Weighing the Cards," page 197). Woddy Aragón presents his
funny version in "A Book in English" as "The Human Scale" (page
139).

The idea of guessing correctly the number of cards by

weight them already appeared in print in "Nouvelle Recreations
Physiques et Mathematiques," by Edmé-Gilles Guyot, in 1769,

487
although without using the method of a memorised deck, but
other methods.

D- The Three Piles Routine

When I was a child I saw Juan Tamariz performing this

divination routine on television. When his book came to my
hands, many years later, I could finally understand how he had
done those divinations and how impeccably well he had
dramatised it (as well as when I saw his performances of
Mnemonicosis). It is on page 85 with the title of "The Three
Piles."

E- All of a Kind

Another great effect from Tamariz's book, which is based

on the Dai Vernon effect "Matching the Cards" of which I gave
references as trick No. 44 of the repertoire. Let's say that here
we have its version tuned in Mnemonica Major, as it happens
with other classic tricks. We have got it on page 94.

F- Flying Through Thin Air

It’s another gem by Tamariz; a very impressive effect that I

have performed with great reactions from my usual spectators. It
is on page 102.

G- Control in Chaos

It’s time to talk about Ramón Riobóo, the great thinker who
hit with the subtle idea of applying the Simon Aronson brilliant
trick "Shuffle Bored" to a memorised deck. As a result, this gem
of a must-choose for a repertoire with a memorised deck. We
can learn it on page 116 of the book of Tamariz, as well as in the

488
highly recommended book by Ramón Riobóo itself, "Thinking the
Impossible.”

H- Theft of the Century

A cousin of mine once told me: "this trick is exaggeratedly

inexplicable." This is one of the card tricks for which I would
bother to fabricate a rudimentary classifier of cards in my pocket,
like the one designed by the great card magician Adrián Guerra,
"Ramblar," explained on page 141 of the Tamariz's book, where
we can find as well other great ideas of Ramblar. Ramblar won
the first prize at the FISM held in Yokohama in 1994, in close card
magic.

I will show you how I presented the "Theft of the Century”

in one of my Christmas performances:

The deck is (false) shuffled while you tell that the degree of
success of a robbery depends not only on nobody know the
robbery, but also on how long it can be kept unknown, so thieves
can escape and disappear more successfully. Some thieves have
made history with their methods and escapes, but what if a
magician used magic to commit robberies? Well, the police
would have to hire a magician to stop the thief... Let's illustrate
such a robbery... You leave the deck on the table and put your
hands in your pockets with the excuse that you will not touch the
deck anymore. You ask that someone name any card, and that
card will be the thief and his booty. While saying that, you locate
the card in your pocket with the help of the classifier, and palm it
as you ask them to spread the deck on the table. You take your
hands out of your pocket and bring them to the spread as if you
were going to play the piano. Then you say: "I've already stolen
it! Have you seen it?" Then, along with the bewilderment of the

489
spectators, you make the card appear in the air. You say: "And I
have had time to escape!" You place the card on the table and
take the deck to show that the card is not in it. What we will do is
the method of showing them and leaving them one by one on
the table (in five rows of 10 cards, for example), until doing a
"double lift" with the chosen one to hide it. Demonstrated that
fact, we collect the cards so that the chosen (original) get on top
to be immediately palmed while we say: "Take the thief card and
lose it in the deck..." You leave the deck on the table and put your
hands back in the pockets while we continue saying: "...lose it
where you want, but face up." Then we unload the duplicate in
the pocket. Finally we have someone to name any card which will
be the police magician. Let’s suppose they say the Jack of Spades.
We take our hands out of our pockets, take the deck and locate
the Jack of Spades with the hidden glance of: "You could have
named this ..., or this ..." Then we apply the Hofzinser Cull so that
when spreading the cards it is appreciated that the Jack of
Spades appears face to face with the thief card! If you practise it
you will notice that it is not so difficult, and the effect is hilarious.

Do you know the trick "Blizzard" by Dean Dill? It is a great

trick that requires a change of deck. I realised that the change of
deck would be not necessary with a classifier in your pocket ...
Do not stop thinking about it; the idea of the classifier is very
versatile depending on the cases...

I- T.N.T.

With ideas from Arthur Finley and Charles T. Jordan,

Tamariz drew up this trick that ended up being the trick that
fooled the magician who fooled Harry Houdini, and is that as
many lovers of magic know, one of the nicknames of Dai Vernon

490
was "the magician who fooled Houdini." When Tamariz showed
this trick at Magic Castle to Vernon, he reacted by saying that in
80 years of magic life no one had fooled him so much. So we
could say that Tamariz is the magician who fooled the magician
who fooled Houdini (at least with cards, since Vernon was also
fooled by other genius like Slydini with his routine of the six
coins). We have got this effect on page 223. It is one of the most
inexplicable locations of a lost card in a deck. The idea of Charles
Jordan that Tamariz refers to may be that of his extraordinary
trick "Long Distance Mind-Reading," published in his "Thirty Card
Mysteries" in 1919. The trick also appears in the famous
"Encyclopedia of Card Tricks" by Jean Hugard. However, Jordan
himself admitted that the idea of forming two successions of
cards together in a deck using a real faro shuffle was not his
original, but Charles Oswals Williams, who published the idea in
the magazine "Magic of Stanyon” (Vol 13, No. 2, page 100) of
September 1913. As I said before, how old is the art of card
magic!

I have presented the trick with different names, since

"T.N.T." is a bit difficult for spectators to understand. I use the
name "T.N.T." when I talk with other card magicians. When I
perform it I call it "The Weathervane of Thought" or "The Wind
of Thought." The trick has some drawbacks that Tamariz leaves
to the free will of the reader when looking for a solution, since it
is one of those "Jazz Magic" tricks that cannot easily be explained
due to the great variety of resolutions that it has. You could write
a whole essay with reflections on this trick. I will give you a
summary of the five cases that can occur with my personal
solutions. I imagine (and hope) that there will be other and
better solutions:

491
 The chosen card appears after having started the all four
"cardinal piles," although we obviously don’t know it. There are
three cases.

Case One

If we come to a card that cannot be placed in decreasing

memorised order, in any of the four piles, it is precisely the
chosen card.

Case Two

If the card that cannot be placed in decreasing order is only

for one card of difference, that missing card is the one chosen.

Case Three

If one of the cards that start a pile differs from another of

the cards that start a pile by a single order number, that missing
card is precisely the one chosen. This case will cause a fifth pile
that we could call "magnetic north pole."

The chosen card appears before you have started the all
four "cardinal piles." There are two cases.

Case One

In this case, we will always notice that a fifth pile (called the
"magnetic north pole") can be formed as a consequence of the
out-of-step selected card. Said card can initiate any of the five
piles. The pile initiated by the chosen card always ends up being
the one with fewer cards, so that we can find out which is the
card at the end of the deals.

492
 Case Two

The card of the spectator appears in its corresponding

memorised order number. This is the biggest problem of all. I will
show a way to solve this problem and another to avoid it, for you
to choose what you prefer.

A way to solve this problem is to collect the corresponding

26 cards in memorised order, tell viewers that we have not
managed to feel the "wind of thought" and that we need to
concentrate more. Join the two piles of the deck with a Zarrow
shuffle. Hand the deck to the spectator while you ask for looking
for his or her card. Once he or she has got it, keep it in the pocket
so you don’t see it. You take the deck, cut exactly half (looking
for the card number 26) and start all over again.

A way to avoid this problem is to ask the viewer to lose the

card in the same half of the deck it comes from (not lose it in a
chosen pile as stated in the original trick). In that way, after faro
shuffling the two piles, it will be guaranteed that the chosen card
will not be in its original place. Obviously this can weaken the
effect because the viewer does not lose the card in a chosen pile.
Nevertheless, this fact does not have to be considered a greater
evil judging by the clarity of the procedure.

J- Two Beginnings

We can find this curious idea in "Try the Impossible," by

Simon Aronson. A spectator names a card. The magician has
another spectator to choose another card. The chosen card turns
out to be the same one that named the first spectator.

The idea was published for the first time by Laurie Ireland,
in its 36 pages book "Ireland Writes a Book" in 1931, with the

493
name "The Two Card Tricks." But the version of Aronson is much
more detailed in contrast to the simple and rudimentary version
of Ireland.

Due to the brevity of the trick I present it as a comic

introduction to other tricks. I use a deck with the two Wild cards
on top. I say that I am going to try to do a trick that I have never
been able to do: "The Trick of the Two Cards and the Joker." I say
that I need two cards, one named and another picked at random.
I have one card named and riffle force it. When it is noticed that
they are the same, I say: "No, no, I need two cards, two". Then I
return the card to the deck and do the same but forcing the card
by the Hofzinser Cull. So, by showing the bottom card people
start laughing while the magician is surprised, flips the deck and
discovers upset the new coincidence. You say: "No, no! I need
two, two!" Then you say that this time first you are going to have
to the card chosen at random. You riffle force one of the Jokers
and place it face down on the table. You say: "this is one". You
ask for naming one card. Then you say that you are going to look
for the Joker because you remind that the trick is called "The
Two Cards and the Joker." What you actually do is find the card
named and put it on top. “Double lift” and you say that you
already have the Wild card and that we can finally continue with
the trick. You ask them to name the card again. Let's say it's the 7
of Diamonds. Then you say: "Seven of Diamonds and ..."
(Mexican Turn Over) “...well, let's give up because this trick is
impossible to do!"

K- The Invisible Card

It’s another great proposal of Simon Aronson that we can

find in his "Try the Impossible." The magician takes an "invisible"

494
card from the deck that turns out to be one that named a
spectator. Next, the magician acts as if he or she returns the card
to the deck but turned over. Having said what has be done, the
magician spreads the deck and shows a card turned over that
turns out to be the one. This effect is similar to “A Card Vanishes
Instantly” from the Tamariz’s book, but with the witty
presentation of the invisibility of a card.

I came up with the idea of also asking them to say a

number from 1 to 52, so that, after showing that the card is not
in the deck, we would ask them to look at the card located in the
that number (from bottom), and “to take” the invisible card and
place it on that card. Next, through the Hofzinser Cull, we would
place the invisible card in that position when closing the spread.
Thus, after returning the visibility of the card, it would appear
right at that position, "as logical.”

L- Lazy Memory

"Lazy Memory" is an improvement of Simon Aronson using

his memorised deck of Jack McMiller's well-known trick "That
Number Down," published in "50 Tricks You Can Do , You Will Do,
Easy To Do," written by Rufus Steele in 1946. The trick became
better known as a result of the version that Al Koran published in
the magazine "Abracadabra" in 1954 (No. 450) with the title of
"The Lazy Magician Does A Card Trick." Finally the trick was
immortalised as "Lazy Man Card Trick" in Harry Lorayne's "Close-
Up Card Magic" in 1962. Al Koran proposed his "miracle pack,"
also known as "Koran deck," to more clarity to the effect, but the
drawback of the "Koran deck" is that you cannot hand it to be
examined. Simon Aronson solved that problem with his
memorised deck as well as further improving the clarity of the

495
effect. The effect of Al Koran is that a card chosen and lost in the
deck by a spectator through successive cuts, is located by the
magician without touching the deck, guessing the position where
it is. So it’s the title "The Lazy Man." In the Aronson version the
card is simply named and the deck can be examined. Juan
Tamariz also offers his personal presentations on this effect with
the title of "Sympathy" in his book. To finish I wanted to point
out that the idea of the deck known as "Koran deck" was first
published by Harry Lorayne in "Best of Billfooled," in 1958, as
"Five Star Miracle." Al Koran contributed a lot to this deck, so
little by little it was attributed to him, although in fact the deck
was created by Lorayne. In addition, the generalised idea of
forming a deck with groups of repeated cards ("banked deck")
dates from 1769, in volume 3 of "Nouvelles récréations
mathématiques et physique" (page 221) by Edmé-Gilles Guyot.

We can find "Lazy Memory" in “Simply Simon" by Simon

Aronson, along with other wonders like the one that follows.

M- Everybody Is Lazy

This effect, considered by many hobbyists in the United

States as one of the biggest with memorised deck, can be found
also in Simon Aronson's "Simply Simon." Aronson himself
considers it as his best and most favourite personal effect. It is an
ingenious evolution of the previous trick. The book "Simply
Simon" is very, very recommendable for the lover of the
memorised deck card magic.

A spectator cuts the deck at certain point, looks at the face

of the cut, shuffles the cut portion, returns the card to the deck
and completes the cut. Another spectator does the same
procedure. A third spectator cuts again and the magician looks

496
and memorises the cut card. The cut portion is returned to the
deck losing the card seen by the magician. The magician guesses
the numerical position of the cards of the first two spectators.
Finally, the third spectator guesses the numerical position of the
magician's card! It is great and ideal for the repertoire of an
amateur since spectators participate a lot. However, this trick
messes up the memorised order of the deck, so that you could
not continue to work with the memorised deck.

N- Histed Heisted

This is another gem of the eminent thinker of the

memorised deck, Simon Aronson. It is highly recommended for a
broad audience. We can find it in "The Card Ideas of Simon
Aronson." The title refers to the magician Louis Shelvy Histed.
Aronson had the brilliant idea to improve "The Miracle
Divination" by Histed ("The Magic of Louis Histed," 1947),
through his memorised deck. The result can fool the most lucid
minds.

The magician gives small piles of cards to several spectators

and asks them to mentally choose a card from their respective
piles. Next, each spectator shuffles his/her packet and hands it to
another spectator who shuffles everything together. Finally, the
magician picks up the complete deck and begins to name the
cards as they are after the shuffles. He or she stops once in a
while to guess the spectators' cards! The last viewer's card
appears inside an envelope saved from the beginning of the
routine.

O- Zen Master

Darwin Ortiz is one of those card magicians that worked

hard on the idea of the memorised deck. He devised a wonderful

497
three-effect routine called "Zen Master," which he himself
considered to be the best memorised deck trick he had ever
devised. We can find it in his book "Scams and Fantasies with
Cards." It’s a highly recommended routine.

The spectator selects a card and returns it to the deck. Cut

as many times as he or she wants. The deck is kept in the box.
The magician guesses the position occupied by the card.

The spectator takes the deck out of the box and cuts again
as many times as he or she wants and keeps the deck again in
the box. Name a card. The magician guesses the position of said
card.

The spectator takes again the deck out of the box and takes
it under the table, cuts as many times as he or she wants, takes
the top or bottom card to flip it over and to insert it in the
middle of the deck. The magician guesses what card it is.

P- Maximum Risk

Another idea of Darwin Ortiz published in his "Scams and

Fantasies with Cards." A spectator names a card. The magician
gets rid of successive halves as he or she cuts and shuffles those
that remain, until he/she has only one card that turns out to be
that of the spectator. The deck can be cut as well by the
spectator.

Q- The Last Laugh

Other great trick by Darwin Ortiz in his book "Scams and

Fantasies with Cards." A named card appears magically and
instantaneously in the middle of two Aces previously shown. The
trick is as simple for the viewer as inexplicable ... It is a direct and

498
totally inexplicable impact in which apparition, mentalism and
divination/coincidence are mixed at once. Just magic!

What! Is not worthwhile to memorise a deck?!

It could be said that it’s a memorised deck version of Roy

Walton's "The Smiling Mule," published in a great 23-page book
called "That Certain Something ..." (1979).

R- Test Your Luck

Other application of Darwin Ortiz to the memorised deck

that we will find in another of his great books, called "Lessons in
Card Mastery," specifically on page 255. This effect is similar to
"The Dartboard toward the Dart” (trick No. 34). In this case, the
spectator names a card and inserts another card in the deck. He
or she hits to insert it right where the named card is. Trick also
highly recommended for a repertoire. It amazes a lot.

S- The Five Senses

Ramón Riobóo, creator of "Control in Chaos," devised this

effect of multiple divinations very good and recommendable. We
can find it in his also recommendable book "Thinking the
Impossible."

A spectator cuts a small portion of cards, observes and

memorises the card in sight of the cut, shuffles the pile and
keeps it. Three more spectators do the same, until there is a fifth
and last packet on the table. I thought about that the fifth
spectator does not choose a card, but rather keeps all the ones
that remain and shuffles them (there would be about ten, more
or less). The magician guesses the four cards of the spectators.
When he or she focuses on the fifth viewer, tells him or her that

499
the fifth sense is the best, and so the magician guesses every
card the spectator has.

I also thought about creating a new trick called "The Sixth

Sense," which consists in making five direct guesses and a sixth
multiple divination like the one described, saying that the sixth
sense is always special. In that case, each spectator would not
have more than 7 or 8 cards. These types of tricks are perfect for
the hobbyists, since many spectators participate. The amateur
magician first of all must try to make his or her audience feel
participatory (useful), in order to gain their attention.

T- Monkey in the Middle

This original effect of Bill Goldman was adapted to a

memorised deck by Michael Close in his "Workers 5." The
magician shows two Queens from a deck that he or she put aside
on the table. A spectator names a card. The magician intends to
make this card rise to the top, but fails. Finally, place the Queens
on the top of the deck and the card appears between these
ladies forming a sandwich. I present it comically saying that the
card does not come up until we put two beautiful ladies at the
lobby...

In this recommendable book by Michael Close, "Workers

5," there are several great ideas with the memorised deck. I want
to inform in the way that in this book there is also a version of
the popular trick by Juan Tamariz "The Tamariz Rabbits."

U- The Three Card Location

This Steve Ehlers routine is also considered by many

amateurs as the best ever designed for memorised deck. We can

500
find it in "Las Vegas Kardma" by Allan Ackerman, specifically on
page 173.

Three spectators cut a pile of cards each, look and

memorise the cut card. Each one keeps his/her pile and shuffles
them. The magician takes the pile from the first spectator and
shows it to the viewer (without being seen by the magician). The
magician guesses the card looking at the backs. Next, the
magician guesses the second spectator's card without touching
his/her cards; just naming it. Finally the magician asks the third
spectator to show his/her cards very quickly. After this, the
magician seems to learn them by heart in a second, and that is
how he or she names them one by one as the spectator deals
them on the table until the last one is the chosen one. It’s an
extraordinary routine.

Later I discovered that Simon Aronson already created a

routine by means of a similar procedure in “Kabbala” (Vol. 2, No.
8, in 1973). The energetic Bill Malone also developed a great
routine called "Hands off Memory Test." Anyway, the basic idea
of this routine with memorised deck date back to Ed Marlo, in a
routine called “A Miracle with Cards,” in Ibidem Magazine, vol. 8,
p. 11, published in December of 1956.

V- Core

Pit Hartling, a true architect of illusions, is responsible for

this great idea to amaze with a quick and disconcerting effect
using a memorised deck. It is inspired by a Martin Gardner trick
called "Paradox Papers." We can find it in "Semi-Automatic Card
Tricks Vol. VII" by Steve Beam (p. 166) with the title "Core."

The magician shuffles the deck and places it on the table.

The spectator names a card. The named card turns out to be the

501
left card after a progressive discard using anti-faro shuffles. I
came up with the idea of presenting it as a romantic trick in
which the member of a couple is asked to name a card, so that
the other member then discards it as if he or she were peeling a
flower... "...loves me, doesn’t loves me..." The secret would be to
make sure that the pile to discard to be always the "doesn’t love
me" pile.

Pit Hartling won the second prize in the FISM of Yokohama

in card magic, in 1994, when he was only 17 years old.

W- Unforgettable

Pit Hartling conceived this routine in three phases with a

"Mnemonica half stack," “faro shuffles” and a funny staging. It’s
very interesting and appealing to show to family and friends. We
can find it in his work "Card Fictions." It’s a great example of the
versatility that can also have a “half-stacked” deck of cards.

The magician has four portions of the deck shuffled by

different spectators. Then shuffle these four piles recomposing
the deck. He or she spreads the deck on the table and tries to
memorise the order of the cards. Then a spectator is asked to
change the position of a card behind the magician's back. When
the magician turns around again he or she can’t remember the
order of the cards, but takes a magic potion and immediately
recognises which card is changed and where it was before. That’s
the first effect. Shuffles again and tries to memorise the order
again. Then, he or she guesses the position of a card in a named
number, also just after taking another sip of the magic potion.
That’s the second effect. Shuffles again and tries to memorise it
again. A spectator makes a Bridge deal for four people, including
the magician. The magician tries to guess the hand of the

502
thirteen cards of the spectator who dealt, based on the original
layout of all the cards (memorised) and the dealing for four
players, but seems not to achieve it, until he or she takes again a
good dose of the magic potion and gets it, being the third effect.

X- Theatre Mnemonics

This is the translation from the Spanish title of one of the

books of Father Wenceslao Ciuró, published in 1959;
“Mnemotecnia teatral.” It’s a book about ingenious techniques
for memorising things, including a deck of cards. Particularly
noteworthy is the method on page 130, along with a very curious
effect that is worth resurrecting for lovers of the memorised
deck card magic, which consists in the following:

After several false shuffles, the magician hands the deck to

a spectator and asks him or her to deal cards (face down) on a
large table. The magician tells him or her where to put them
exactly. At the end, the cards are flipped and they turned out to
be perfectly arranged by suits and numbers. The spectators will
surely think that the cards are marked, but the surprise will be
sovereign when they verify that this is not the case. It occurred
to me to ask first to name a black and a red card and proceed
with the idea of Father Ciuró, so that in the end all the cards are
ordered from Ace to King, as well as separated by colours, except
for the ones named, which will appear between the cards of the
opposite colour clearly highlighted, as the magician spread the
deck.

503
 COMPILATION OF DIVINATIONS WITH A MEMORISED
DECK

Apart from guessing a card by a glimpse of the adjoining

one, there are several ways all equally impossible to guess cards,
thanks to a memorised deck. Here is a list of the most useful as a
tool for your routines.

A- Cutting a Pack from the Top

The spectator cuts as many times as he or she wishes. Cut a

small pile again and memorise the card under that pile. Shuffle
the cards of that pile and flip them face up on the table.

The viewer's card is the highest number of the memorised

order. To guess it, the method of any reaction of the spectator,
dilation of the pupils, etc. could be used. Also, during the
divination process, the cards can be stacked slyly while we act
like it is difficult for us to guess the selection. That way we would
keep the memorised order after the effect.

B- Cutting a Pack from the Middle

The spectator cuts as many times as he or she wishes. We

ask him/her to cut a large pile and memorise the card under that
pile. Next, cut again that pile and keep the pile that contains the
memorised card, that is, a central pile of the entire deck. We ask
to shuffle the cards of that pile and turn them face up on the
table. The viewer's card is the largest number of the memorised
order. We can, as explained before, stack the cards during the
divination process and return them to the deck.

Note: Although I don’t need to explain the following, since

anyone can deduce it, I will comment it so that there is no slip,
and taking into account that I am the first absent-minded.

504
 If the pile getting by the spectator contained the cards No.
1 and No. 52, the chosen one would no longer be the highest
number in the memorised order, since we would be at the point
where the sequential wheel merges. This means that card No. 1
would act as No. 53, No. 2 as No. 54 ... so that the spectator's
card would be "a low number playing the role of a high number."
If we consider that the cards cut by the spectator are 47, 48, 49,
50, 51, 52, 1, 2, 3 and 4, obviously the spectator's card would be
4, which plays the role of the highest card.

C- By Multiple Selection

Spread the cards face down on the table and ask a

spectator to out jog five or six, or seven ... those he/she wished.
Next, let another viewer select one of them, look at it and
memorise it. We look at the position of the selected card among
the out jogged cards. Let’s suppose it’s the third one from the
closest card to top. We ask for taking all the out jogged cards and
shuffle them, and place them face up on the table. We will look
at the third card with the highest number in memorised order,
and that will be the spectator's.

Note: After this trick, the possibilities of reordering the

deck without raising suspicions are scarce, so it is advisable to
stop doing tricks regarding memorised deck at this point, not
trying to reorder the deck to avoid the dreaded risk of suspecting
you have the cards "randomly ordered,” which would be the end
of our great secret.

D- Multiple Divination from a Central Pile

The spectator cuts as many times as he or she wishes. We

ask him/her to cut a central pile. We hold the two remaining
piles of the deck. Using the top pile as a shovel, we flip the top

505
card of the pile below while saying insistently: "You could have
cut anywhere." So, we look at the bottom card of the pile above
and the top of the bottom one. Let's suppose that they are No.
23 and No. 34 respectively, which means that the cards that the
spectator has are those included between those two, besides
that the chosen one is No. 33. You name them all with a
tremendous drama while you are with you back to them, leaving
the one selected as the last one. We arrange the cards and take
them back to the deck.

E- Divination by Sound

The spectator cuts as many times as he or she wishes. We

catch a glimpse of the bottom card in some hidden way (you can
look at the card of the last cut that will be destined to be
bottom). Knowing the bottom card we will know the top card
(let’s suppose that the top card is No. 33). We ask for cutting a
small pile from top and memorise the bottom card of that pile.
We have the spectators to shuffle the cards of that pile. We turn
our back and ask them to deal the cards of the pile one by one
on the table, face down. Meanwhile, you secretly count the
cards by the sound they make when they are placed on the table.
It does not matter that the audience is aware that you hear the
sound, because nobody will reckon that it’s relevant. The
spectators think that there will come a time when you will turn
your face to look at the cards in order to try to guess the
selection, but in that moment you simply name the card (!!) as if
it had come to your mind suddenly. The spectators will be frozen
for a long time, agape, not crediting to your divination. I know it
from my experience. Since the top card was No. 33, as we hear
the cards being placed on the table, we count 33, 34, 35, 36, 37,
38, 39, 40, 41 and 42. There are no more sounds. There are no

506
more cards. The spectator's card is No. 42. If we cannot listen
well, or the spectator does not deal the cards one by one, or we
have some doubts, etc., we can use others subtle endings like
the following:

1. - Ask them to name the cards in the order they want, but
when they reach the selected card they lie and say a different
one. We only have to count the number of cards named to know
which the selection is. You say that his or her voice seemed
shaky when lying.

2. - You can also ask them to lie in all! You say that when
lying on the selected card his/her voice seemed a little different.

3. - Let the cards rub one by one on your back. So you can
count them!

4. - Instead of naming the cards, have the viewer to say the

name of an animal for each card. After reaching the selection the
viewer names his/her favourite animal. If it’s said twelve animals
in total we already know which card it is because we know how
many cards there are. So, you just name the card. If someone
names the animal with which it corresponded, you add that upon
hearing that animal, the voice seemed more cheerful since it was
his/her favourite animal, and that made you reveal the card.

F- Divination after Shuffling the Spectator

After several experiments and tests I have verified that it is

quite true that if we do a simple overhand shuffle by grabbing
and dropping three bunches of cards until the deck is exhausted,
up to three times in a row, the probabilities of success to guess a
card by the reference of the adjoining one, usually doesn’t go
down of 75%. I tried it out 100 times (with three shuffles in a

507
row) and the result was 81 hits and 19 failures. Juan Tamariz
talks about this curiosity on page 159 of his book “Mnemonica,”
in point 4 of the section “Miscellaneous Ideas." Of course, the
probability of success would be even higher if we shuffle less
than three times. Experience has shown me that spectators do
not usually do a complete overhand shuffle more than three
times until they decide to stop.

This phenomenon can be analysed by observing the

situation of the deck after shuffling. We will notice that there are
usually between 8 and 14 groups of cards that keep the
memorised order, also considering as a group a single card out of
the memorised order. This means that in the whole deck there
would only be between 8 and 13 points in which a card would
not keep the memorised order. If we consider that in the deck
there are 51 joining points, it assumes that there is only a 25%
chance that the spectator takes a card that is not in the
memorised order. If after the shuffle we ask them to cut and
complete, due to the fact that the probabilities that they do it at
a memorised sequence point are very high, the top and bottom
cards would be related in 75% of the cases.

It was thought that this notion was Annemann's original,

due to his popular trick "$ 1000 Test Card Location" from his "Sh-
h-h-It's a Secret" (1934), but there is a previous reference of July
1913, published in the magazine of William Ellis Stanyon,
"Stanyon's Magic," in which Stanyon already talked about this
idea regarding the use of stacked decks. In that work, Stanyon
calculated an error of 1 to 6, while my personal calculation was 1
to 4, perhaps because I shuffled more. Annemann may came up
with this idea independently, since he did not give references for
Stanyon, but he did give references for another great forefather

508
of this idea, as was Frank Lane in "A Real Magic Show," in a trick
called "Three Pellet Card Trick," in 1935 (one year after the
publication of Annemann). Apparently, Stanyon did not establish
a concrete routine in which to use this idea, leaving it as a simple
curiosity, perhaps because he was not convinced by tricks that
were not 100% effective. On another hand, Annemann and Lane
would take it in good consideration as a great resource to
achieve great miracles in card magic, publishing useful
applications.

LITTLE IDEAS TO SHARE ABOUT THE MEMORISED DECK

“If I give you a dollar and you give me a dollar, we each still
have a dollar; but let me give you an idea and you give me an
idea, then we each have two ideas.”

Harlan Tarbell.

A- The Passion of an Amateur

This routine, which gave rise to the title of this book, is

dedicated to all amateur card magicians. I thought about it in
December 2002, inspired by the life of an amateur. In the climax,
three effects happened on one card.

Take out your memorised deck and false shuffle it while

you explain that amateur magicians are sometimes a little crappy,
since sometimes we try to take advantage of a lucky stroke to
convince the spectators that we are great magicians. You explain
that professional magicians never take advantage of a stroke of
luck to pretend that they are doing magic, that is, they don’t
make a fact into magic, but make a magic into a fact. "Instead,
I'm going to give an example of how an opportunistic amateur
magician like me works." You tell a spectator: "For example, you,

509
name a card, whatever you want ..." Let’s suppose the spectator
names the Ace of Hearts. You control that card to top and you
spread the deck on the table face down. Then you take any card
(but not the top one) and show it saying: "Is this?" They say no.
You respond comically: "But if it had been the card what would
you have thought?" After some laughter, you say: "See what I
mean?" Then we take the card back to the same place in the
deck and have four spectators to choose a card each, out-jogging
them a bit. Then you ask the first spectator (the one who named
the Ace of Hearts) to choose one of those four cards. Let’s
suppose that choose the third to the right from top, so we will
know that it is the second highest memorised numerical value
card of the four (see the section “C” from “Compilation of
divinations with a memorised deck”). Then you turn your back
and ask him or her to take it, to look at it, memorise it and show
it to the other spectators. Then you ask him or her to take the
other three cards and shuffle them to confuse the selected one.
You turn on your face and say: "I don’t see faces of surprise. That
means that the new card selected is not the Ace of Hearts either,
right?" Spectators will shake their heads. Then you exclaim again:
"But if it had been the selection what would you have thought?!"
There will be laughter as you quickly ask not to be told which
card it is, just in case someone made a slip of the tongue. You
continue saying: "This is what I mean by my opportunistic magic...
as you can see, it is worth trying, and if it does not come out, I
simply continue the trick in another way ... a crappy magician,
but a magician." Then you ask for the four cards. You turn them
face up and say that the selected card is one of them... but you
have no idea which one. Let's suppose that they are 11º, 22º, 31º
and 3º. Thus, we will know that the selection is 22º, since it is the
second of highest value in memorised order. Make sure this card

510
is located in third position from the first faced one. You take the
deck and put the four cards on top of it (face up) with the excuse
of saying that those cards were freely chosen from among all the
cards in the deck. You say that as you spread the deck a little in
your hands and take the chance to make a break at the top card
(the Ace of Hearts) while squaring everything again. You leave
the deck on the table stealing the top card under the four chosen
cards. You spread the four cards (face up) with care not to let see
the stolen card, while you name them aloud one by one. The
selected card would be named in third place. You take the first
two top cards to the bottom, exposing the selected card. You
turn immediately the whole pile and perform an Ascanio Spread.
When you rearrange the cards from the spread, you catch a
break at the bottom card (the 22º) with your thumb. Then, while
you ask the spectator to lend you their hand, you unload the 22º
card on the top of the deck. Another way to accomplish this is to
have previously left the deck spread on the table, so that, when
asking for the palm of the hand, unload the card at the top end
of the spread while pretending relax your arm on the table. Just
after that, as you bring the cards to the spectator's hand, you
perform a quick Elmsley count by saying that you are going to
place the four cards face down on the palm. You ask to cover the
cards with the other hand. You say that you are going to try to do
"double magic," that is, try to guess the card and make it turns
over among the other cards, to see if this time we are lucky
enough and we hit with the selected card. You do magical
gestures while saying: "No, not that one! I’ll turn it back... I think
the right one is the one next to it ... yes ... I have a 25% chance of
hitting; better ... no, that either ... well yes, I'm going to take the
risk, that one ... I'll turn it over" Spectators will feel intrigued. You
ask the spectator to turn over their hands and to separate the

511
upper hand to show the cards (faces up). Then, you ask for
leaving them on the table. Ask for the name of the selection with
an air of mystery, and you get mad with joy: "Yes, I guessed
right!" The audience will look at you smiling but with suspicion,
since there is nothing to prove that you have hit. However you
have left the chance (hope) of if this card has really turned over
among the other three. At the beginning you will see that the
first card is for example No. 3, so you exclaim: "the first is not
your card, which means that we are doing well!" You ask the
spectator to spread the cards a little to show the second one. Let
it be, for example, as No. 31. You exclaim again: "It's not your
card either, we're still going well!" This causes excitement. Then
you see the card back. You exclaim: "A card has been turned over,
I've done magic!" Finally you see the No. 11 and explode: "Yes,
yes! The turned over card is yours! Finally I got a bit of luck!"
While the audience reacts to the climax, you emphasise that you
did not even know which card was the chosen one (double
effect). Then you point to the first spectator and say: "Ah! Just a
moment! Since I'm on a roll, if I trust a little more in my luck,
maybe I can get your Ace of Hearts turned over in the deck as
well." So, you say with an imposing voice: "Ace of Hearts, turn
over yourself." You spread the deck face up... but you cannot see
any card turned over, (no one will see No. 22 because it’s on top).
Then you say you need the help of the public. You say that if
everybody wish it, it is possible to achieve it. You cut the deck to
take the No. 22 to the middle. Thus, you have everyone
pronounce the same magic words. But after spreading the deck,
you cannot see any card turned over. You show a face of
disappointment. Now it doesn’t matter if someone realises that
No. 22 is among the cards. Next, you tell the viewer that chose
the card: "Do you remember that I tried to match the chosen card

512
to the card you named? I think I still have a chance to get it, and
sometimes a wish can be so great that it can become magic,
especially with the help of everyone..." You turn over slowly the
back card that everyone thinks is No. 22, so that you show that it
is precisely the Ace of Hearts! "It certainly turned over as we all
asked for it, but it was not in the deck, but in your hands!" During
the applause you can take the No. 22 from the spread deck if
nobody has noticed and clearly show it.

The effect could gain power if the first card, instead of

being named, is thought by a "mental forcing by riffling," while
the memorised deck would allow us to find out the second card
in impossible conditions. The "mental forcing by riffling" can be
found explained in "Dai Vernon: More Inner Secrets of Card
Magic," written by Lewis Ganson, specifically in chapter two
("Think of a Card") with the title "Riffled Thought."

This way of forcing a card deserves a special attention

because of its subtlety to achieve something as impossible as
"forcing a thought." The idea appears in "Expert at the Card
Table" (1902), by S. W. Erdnase, although explained in a
rudimentary way, while in Ganson's work on Vernon's methods it
is much more detailed. Also it appears in "202 Methods of
Forcing," by Theo Annemann (1933), concretely the nº 13, but
Annemann speaks only of the use of a short card, whereas
Erdnase proposes it by means of a "break." Dai Vernon was
always characterised by using impromptu methods to everything,
which is one of the things that made him so great. Leipzig also
used this forcing a lot. The fact is that the idea is anonymous,
appearing already in "Tricks with Cards" by Professor Hoffmann,
of 1889 (page 12). Also appears in "Les Trickeries des Grecs
Dévoilées" by Robert-Houdin, in 1861. And much farther, it

513
appears in the anonymous manuscript of Asti, the seventeenth
century (page 106 of the translation of Dr Pieper). In addition, a
funny version appeared in 1782, in "Rational Recreations" Vol. 4,
by Williams Hooper (page 243), in which method the card to be
forced is shown better than the others in a fan "randomly"
spread. I don’t want to ignore an extraordinary version of this
subtle idea called "The Kinetoscopic Force," published in "The Art
of Magic" (1909), written by T. Nelson Down and John Northern
Hilliard (page 77). The idea is to force a card mentally that is not
even in the deck! During the riffling of the deck you can see a
King of Spades among a few cards of Clubs, making the "victim"
believe he/she has seen a King of Clubs when it is not even in the
deck (but for example in the magician’s pocket). The idea was
published through a trick called "The Flying Card" credited to
L'Homme Masqué, the great and mysterious Peruvian magician
who triumphed throughout Europe. He was also known as
Marquis D'Orighuala de Gago. He married the German magician
"Zirka." Unfortunately, very little is known about him. He was not
very high-profile, but Dai Vernon considered him one of the
three best magicians in history. He was an expert card
manipulator to the point of being part of the range of possible
authors of the famous and anonymous book "Expert at the Card
Table," pseudonym S. W. Erdnase, as proposed by Juan Tamariz
and Gaetan Bloom.

How I run my mouth...!

B- Two Decks and Two Numbers

In chapter 6 of Juan Tamariz's book, "Mnemonica," there is

a section called “Miscellaneous Ideas." Point 4 of that section is
called "An Assortment of Very Beautiful, Loose and Simple Ideas,"

514
page 157, and in the third-to-last of these ideas, Tamariz
proposes the use of two Mnemonicas; one of them inverted. He
ends by saying "your turn, readers." Well, this is my turn, Juan...

We took out two memorised decks. One of them inverted.

We false shuffle the inverted one, put it in front of us and
pretend that we place two certain cards in two determined
positions as a prediction; you announce it like that. We ask for
keeping and guarding said prediction deck. We false shuffle the
other deck and put it on the table back up. Next, we perform
with that deck exactly the same routine "Exact Location" from
Tamariz’s book (page 145), so that we will have two cards chosen
by random cuts and lost in that same way. Then you ask for
taking out the prediction deck and putting it on the table face up.
At the same time that this happen, you do the same with the
other deck; you turn it face up, which will allow you to see the
bottom card as well as take a look at the top card. Let's suppose
that the bottom card (which is in everyone's view) is No. 26, and
the top card you looked at is No. 43. So the spectators' cards are
No. 27 and No. 42. Thus, with both decks on the table face up,
you remind the spectators that you placed two certain cards in
two determined positions in the prediction deck. You add that
the cards are not going to be named yet to make it exciting, but
that you are going to say their positions: the 27 and 42. You can
pretend that you don’t remember the positions very well
because you counted very fast, and that you don’t remember
well if they were 26 or 27, 40 or 42. You emphasise that they cut
freely. The prediction deck will show the No. 1 and the other one
the No. 26. Then, we deal the cards one by one from both piles
at the same time with the aim of reaching 27. Do not name the
cards, just count them, since there will be a point in the

515
sequence in which two equal cards are very close although they
don’t coincide, and it is not convenient that spectators notice
that detail (although it is not very important either). Count them
in a fast pace but clear, focusing on reaching number 27. When
you reach 26 you stop and announce that you are going to finally
name the card you put in position 27, “if you remember
correctly...” you name the No. 27. The spectators will affirm
surprised, but the surprise will be even greater when you lift the
next card of both piles and your prediction is shown. You
continue until reaching No. 41. You name the card that you say
you put in position 42 (No. 42 of your memorised order). The
spectators will affirm again with surprise. Confirm what has been
said by taking the card 41 from the prediction deck, showing the
42. Then you emphasise that you did not put the card in that
position by chance, but because you knew that it would be
exactly the point where the spectator would cut. Then you lift
the card 41 from the other pack, showing the 42. The impact and
inexplicable feeling of the trick are total.

As you can see, it is Tamariz’s Exact Location, but with the

adornment of another deck as a prediction. As Tamariz advises, it
is better to do this type of tricks by previously passing a few
cards from top to bottom, in order that the spectators do not
associate the cards with their memorised order number. The only
downside is that we have to do some calculations, let's not be so
lazy!

Note: If the memorised order of the first card chosen is odd,

as in the example shown (27), there will never be extra matches.
But if it were even, there would always be an extra match. For
example, if the first card chosen was No. 18 there would be an
extra match in the ninth position. In that case we should react

516
with dissimulation, like saying: "Look, what a coincidence, but the
funny thing is that your cards coincide exactly in the predicted
positions ..." As for the second election, so that no extra
coincidence occurs, this must be even, as in the case of the
example shown (No. 42).

C- The Card Wand

This idea is inspired by "The Dilemma of the Selected Card"

(trick No. 42 of the repertoire of the Second Part). I decided to
talk about it because of the great surprise reactions it caused.

We take out a memorised deck and false shuffle it as we

ask them to name a card. Let’s suppose they name the card
number 7. So, while you control it to the top we say that
magicians usually use a magic rod; a wand, but card magicians
normally use a "card wand." Perform a double lift. Show the card
No. 8. You say: "for example, this will be the card wand, if it had
been the one named it would have been wonderful ... but well ..."
Laughter. We redo the double lift and place the No. 7 face down
on a side of the table making believe that it is the one we just
showed: "this will be our card wand." You overhand shuffle to
bring the No. 8 to bottom, spread the deck and have any two
cards selected (that way it is impossible to take the bottom one).
We place both cards face up on top, very clearly. We ask for
cutting and complete the cut to lose the two selected card in the
middle together. Next, we say that with the help of the card
wand we will make the named card, wherever is in the deck,
slide to the middle of the two selected cards that are facing up.
We asked the spectator (the one who named the card) to do the
honours and to feel like a magician taking the card wand and
saying with elegance "pow!" We illustrate him or her how to do it

517
(with the card wand always on its back). After the "pow!" we
spread the cards in our hands and show that in the middle of the
two selected cards there is nothing. We are surprised and we ask
the viewer: "Did you think in your card?" I'm sure they would say
no (since we did not ask for it). Then, we exclaimed: "Sure, that's
why it didn’t work! You have to think in your card!" Just at that
moment, applying the technique Cull of Hofzinser, we fit the No.
8 in the middle of the selected cards and close the spread. We
ask him or her to do the same gestures, but this time thinking in
the named card. We spread the deck and finally we see a card in
the middle of the face down selected cards. Surprise and
intrigue! The viewer flips it and everyone gets a bigger surprise,
including the magician. We exclaimed: "What’s the card wand
doing here?!" Then, the spectator flips the card wand and it is
discovered that it is the named card!

Note: A very illustrative idea of this trick would be to form a

small tube with the card wand, being careful not to show the
face of the card during this process. We would thus have an
authentic wand formed with a card. This would eliminate as well
any risk of exposing the real identity of the card before the end
of the trick, in addition to which a special excitement would be
obtained with the action of unrolling it at the climax. The only
drawback would be the well-known deterioration of the card,
but maybe it's worth it.

D- The Phoenix Thought

This effect caused a great impact among my viewers. It is

inspired by “A Card Vanishes Instantly” from Tamariz's book
“Mnemonica,” page 132, and it occurred to me in a dream in
December 2002. We will use the memorised deck with a Joker.

518
 You say: "Have you ever wondered why we suddenly recall
something we had totally forgotten? It is because some thoughts
are so important that they end up resurrecting in our mind. Let
me illustrate it through a magic card show.”

We ask a spectator to think a card. Then we ask him or her

to transmit that thought to us and do not change the card,
because we are going to look for it in the deck. What we do is
look for the Joker with the cards facing us. We take it out
without showing it and say: "suppose you forget the card after a
year ... but we will not wait for so long now! So we're going to
represent that oblivion by destroying the card ..." You take out a
lighter and an ashtray and set fire to the Joker on the ashtray.
We say that we have burned the thought card. The spectators
will obviously doubt that it was the thought card, but we say that
there is a way to prove it by checking that the thought card is not
in the deck. You ask the card to be named and you show that it is
not in the deck, using the methods of "A Card Vanishes Instantly"
from Tamariz's book. Spectators begin to be intrigued ... Pick up
the spread cards from the table and look at the ashtray. This
gesture will make people also look at the ashtray with mystery,
and in that moment you palm the thought card. You leave the
deck on the table with the hand that have the card palmed. Right
after that you take the ashtray with the same hand. Then you
pour the ash on the other palm, which will clearly show it is
empty. The palmed card will be totally covered, since when you
take the ashtray and pour the ash you do it with the convex palm.
Then we gather and rub our palms little by little while we
distinguish a card that is recomposed from its ashes. The thought
has resurrected!

519
 In this effect not only a regeneration of a destroyed card
occurs, but it causes the feeling that the magician really read the
thought of the spectator.

E- Yet More Difficult

This routine came to my mind before reached my ears "The

Three Card Location" by Steve Ehlers. Both are very similar, but
the approach of the divinations is different.

After false shuffles and cutting several times we ask a

spectator to cut a little pile from the top of the deck, look at the
bottom card of the cut pile and memorise it. Have him or her
kept the pile and to shuffle it. Have two other spectators do the
same. We spread face up the remaining cards and have a sneaky
and quick glance while saying: "let’s get rid of these." So we will
look at the top and bottom cards. Let’s suppose the bottom one
is No. 35 and the top one is No. 18, so we will know that the third
viewer's card is No. 17, which we have to memorise (it is easier
to memorise its number, 17). Those remaining cards are kept in
the box and we hand it to a fourth spectator to hold it.

We ask the first spectator to spread the cards face up. We pay
attention to how many cards there are. Let's suppose that there
are 12 cards, so that the spectator's card is the card 35 plus 12;
47. You guess it with the proper theatricality, humour, drama...

Then you say that you will make it more difficult ... without
looking at the faces of the cards! You ask the second spectator to
spread his or her cards, but this time face down. You count the
cards secretly while you pretend that you concentrate. Let's
suppose that there are 11 cards, so that your card is 47 plus 11,
58. Card 58 is 6. You emphasise that this time you will guess it
without looking at the faces of the cards...

520
 Finally you say that you are going to make it even more
difficult ... without looking at anything! Neither the faces nor the
backs! So you ask the third spectator to keep his or her cards in
his/her pocket. You guess No. 17 with a lot of showmanship and
drama. Nobody will understand how you can do it ... every time
it is more impossible.

But you say that you are going to make it even more difficult!!

Can it be made more difficult? Yes. You ask the fourth

spectator (the one who kept the fourth little pile) to take out
that little pile, to spread it on the table face down and take a
card, but not even to look at it! And keep it in his or her pocket.
You ask another spectator to pick up the rest of the cards, to
check if they are all different and to show them to the rest of the
spectators while you turn your back. You concentrate... you
name a card ... the spectator takes the card out of the pocket
and ... the hit is checked!!

How can we guess the card in those conditions if they are not
marked? Well, it turns out that, since there are only a few cards
left, we will have time to count the position in which the selected
one is, in reference to the one of top or bottom, while the
spectator takes it.

F- The Little T.N.T.

The 18 of July of 2003, right in my 27 birthday, I premiered a

brief version of Tamariz’s “T.N.T.” from his book “Mnemonica”
that I called, "The little T.N.T.” The routine follows the type of
trick about location or divination of a selected card in impossible
conditions. The truth is that I was long obsessed with Juan’s
"T.N.T.” trying to get the most out of it.

521
 We false shuffle a memorised deck and place it on the table.
We turn our back. We ask for some spectator cutting and
completing as many times as he or she wants. Next, we ask for
another spectator to cut again and look at the bottom card of
the top cut pile. We ask if he or she likes that card, if not, would
remove it and put it face down on the other pile and look at the
next one. If he/she either doesn’t like it, would do the same...
until sees one that he/she likes. This would cause a total feeling
of free choice. We ask for memorising the card. Then, the viewer
cuts and completes that little pile to lose the card. We say that
the selection must be located by the centre of that pile. So, to
not have the slightest hint of its location we ask to shuffle it
thoroughly. Surely it will be an overhand shuffle, which is the
most usual way to shuffle, so we also ask for riffle shuffling at
least twice. It is quite important that the cards are well mixed up
to differentiate well that disorder from the memorised order of
the other half. Then we ask for riffle shuffling both piles. The pile
of the table cannot be overhand shuffled. A way to disguise our
special interest to have it shuffled by riffle shuffle would be to
ask for cutting the deck, and just before he or she thinks of
completing that cut, you say: "Well, it would be much better to
shuffle; do a real shuffle, please." We would finish by asking for
shuffling both piles to complete the deck. So that he or she will
do a riffle shuffle too, since having just two separated piles it will
be understood it that way. Finally, you ask for cutting and
complete the deck again. What conditions, right? We face the
public again. We emphasise that we have not seen ANYTHING.
We will continue without touching the deck asking that they
spread the cards face up on the table. There will be two
memorised sequences interspersed with disordered cards. We
will try to identify one of the sequences and follow it to the end.

522
The process is accelerated if we think of the cards as numbers,
and not as cards. If the first sequence begins with card No. 5 and
ends with No. 20 (16 cards), our key card would be No. 5 for the
moment, since it is the lowest value (the initial top card of the
pile that was on the table). But we have to analyse the other
sequence. You can look in the eyes of the spectators from time
to time. There will be some intrigue, since the spectators will
doubt very much that in those incredible conditions one can
guess a card. Once the second sequence has been identified, for
example from No. 48 to No. 4 (9 cards) we will have the
sequential wheel of the pile that was originally on the table. It
would only be necessary to deduce what was the original top
card. The 48! Since in the sequence are the 52 and the 1, so the
original card of top becomes the lowest value from the 52. If the
key card is 48, the card of the viewer is the 47!

Remember that it is important that the first pile is very well

mixed up, so that the two memorised sequences are clearly
differentiated from the other disordered cards. Insist on shuffling
it well and doing two riffle shuffles along the routine.

As you can see, it is Tamariz’s “T.N.T.” abbreviated, which

could be useful for some routines. Using this method one could
also show Juan’s “T.N.T.” routine being the viewer him/herself
who decides where to place the cards, instead of the magician.
This could be achieved if, in the procedure mentioned above, the
pile of the table is not shuffled, but only riffle shuffled with the
pile that contains the viewer's card. In these conditions it would
be especially easy to find the key card, since there is only one
memorised sequence, although it would be split. Thus we can
ask the spectator to let him/herself being carried away by the
"wind of thought" and decide him/herself in which cardinal point

523
(North, South, East or West) to put each card. The magician
would still not touch the deck. As the spectator leaves the cards
in the cardinal points that he/she wants, you notice the first
memorised sequence, which will be abruptly split to reappear
from another card; then THAT card with which the sequence
reappears will be the key card, being the previous one, the
selection.

G- T.N.T. Routine

Performing Tamariz’s “T.N.T.” with a complete memorised

deck allows you to recover the complete memorised order at the
end of the trick, in which case no card would be placed in the
centre of the four cardinal points. My desire to do "T.N.T."
recovering the complete memorised order at the end made me
think about conceiving a "T.N.T. Routine,” which caused a good
impression among my spectators.

The first effect is to hand a memorised deck (false shuffled)

to a spectator to find the card that he or she likes, to lose it in
another place in the deck and to riffle shuffle once. This can be
done with the magician on his/her back. The spectator, when
looking for the card, may notice as well that the cards are totally
disordered (mixed up), which gives a special power to the effect.
The conditions seem equally impossible. We ask him or her to
spread the cards face up on the table and to blow lightly while
thinking about the selected card. We locate the card following
the "breeze of his thought."

Next, for the second effect, we place the guessed card of

the spectator in its corresponding memorised order, as if we
placed it in any other point to lose it among the others (the deck
is still spread on the table). Then we pick up the deck and ask

524
another spectator to do the same as the first spectator, but with
another card. A second riffle shuffle will be done, which would
leave the deck ready to do the original procedure of Tamariz’s
“T.N.T.” since there will be four different memorised sequences.
In that case we will ask the spectator also to blow slightly, but
NOT to think about his or her card, but to think about all the
cards in the deck except for the selection. Then we form the four
cardinal points, staging that they are the cards that the spectator
is thinking of and we place them randomly as they are blown by
the "wind of thought." Finally we place the selection in the
centre of the four piles, suggesting that it is the one that remains
to be blown, since it was never thought of during the process.
Thus, we can pick up the deck in memorised order in a casual
and indifferent way while listening to the pleasant sound of the
applause.

As a third effect we could perform "The Little T.N.T.” with a

single riffle shuffle, explained above, so that this time it is the
spectator him/herself the one that is placing the cards in the
different cardinal points, and this time without needing to blow
(so they will not have to get dizzy). Still the magician guesses the
card. This will misdirect even more about where the secret of the
divinations is. The routine would be full of false solutions. It
would seem that the "wind of thought" is something real.

H- Surrealistic Divination

We talk a little about the “realist art” and the “surrealistic

art.” We say that we will do a realistic and a surrealistic
divination. Spectators will be quite intrigued. We start with the
same procedure as before: memorised deck false shuffled. It is
placed on the table. They are asked to cut and complete as many

525
times as they want with the magician on his or her back. After
that, they cut one more time without completing the cut,
forming two piles. Ask them to look at the bottom card of both
piles, memorise them and shuffle well each pile. We turn around
and ask for one of the two piles. We guess the card by looking at
the card of highest memorised order. We will also pay attention
to the card of lower memorised order and memorise it, since it
will be essential to guess the other one. We say that it was a
realistic divination, since it is done looking at the cards and there
is always the possibility that luck will help. Next we say that we
are going to do a surrealistic divination with the other pile. That
is, we ask to a spectator to take the pile, spread it face to face
and try to guess the card for us... but without naming it aloud!
That is, only finding it. The magician will be on his or her back.
We ask for letting us know when the card has been located, and
right at that moment we named it! That is, we will name the
following card to which we memorised in the previous pile. The
impact is hilarious. Spectators will not know whether to get
surprised or laugh. They will feel it as something really surreal.

For the surrealistic divination we can do a version in which

the second pile is not shuffled, but cut it again, so that they look
at the cut card, shuffle that little pile and keep it in the pocket.
Next, we ask them to shuffle the little pile that was left on the
table. We turn to face and say that we will try to guess the card
by looking at the pile where the card is not! The public will have
no choice even to think about the possibility of a key card, since
the pile is shuffled before being handed to the magician. The
public will not understand how it is possible to guess the card no
matter how much they think about it. That’s the power of a
memorised deck!

526
 Pick 51 Cards…

I came up with this silliness thinking of possible additional

ways to get a deck in memorised order in front of my family and
friends. At first I thought it was silly, but the reactions were very
good as long as I carried it out.

Never think that an idea is stupid, since the stupider seems

to be an idea, the more attention tend to pay the spectators.

It is about showing a fun and asking for picking 51 cards.

Let’s consider a lady spectator. The lady will tell you surprised:
"51?" And you answer: "Yes, 51. Normally magicians ask for
picking one or two cards, but this time I'm going to ask you to
pick 51." Your spectator will smile and take the entire deck
except for one card that will keep you. Then you tell her that you
will guess all her cards while she will have to guess only yours.
You emphasise in a humorous tone that the spectator has an
easier task then. Then, you quickly name the first fifteen cards in
the memorised order while the spectator put them on the table
one by one. Then you ask her to try to guess yours. The odds of
her guessing right are very slim, but if she guessed right, we lied
to her saying no. You do the same with another round of fifteen,
and give her a second chance to try to get your card right. You
emphasise to her humorously that she has all the hints that she
needs, since "only" she has to pay attention to the cards she has
to deduce which one is ours. She will tell you that it is difficult
because they are all mixed up, to which you respond: "Sure! I'm
naming them mixed up not to make it so easy to you!" This will
excuse in a reasonable and comical way why you name the cards
mixed up! She will try not to name any of the cards she
remembers you have said, but she will not be right (because we

527
will not let her). You end up "guessing" the rest of the cards you
have left (21). As you name the cards, she will find them faster,
since she will have fewer and fewer cards in her hands. You
emphasise proudly that you have guessed all her cards, but
omitting the surprising fact that you have not repeated any; let
her realise that fact. Then you tell her that you’ll give her a third
and last chance to guess your card. At that moment you take the
deck (already stacked except for the card you have in your hand),
and you start to "play" with it. Let’s suppose the spectator names
the 3 of Spades. You control that card to the top of the deck
while you say: "Sure? You will not have more opportunities. Don’t
you want to change your mind?" Finally you put your card in top
while saying: "Well, you do well not to change..." (Double turn
over). "...because you have hit finally! It was about time!"

Note 1: At the end of the trick, instead of a double turn

over, you could do a top change by misdirection during your talk.

Note 2: Do not forget to place the card that remains in its

corresponding memorised order.

Note 3: If the spectator hit by chance on the third and last

chance...! How would we react?!

Note 4: We could continue performing the "T.N.T.

Routine," explained previously, and to complete a great show
with "Everything in Order," which would end up "killing" your
audience on a simple afternoon like any other with a borrowed
deck! I did it once an epic December 6, 2004 in Madrid, at
friends' house on a daily afternoon that almost ended in tragedy,
since I had to call an ambulance when seeing my three friends
passed out on the ground ... (How exaggerated are we the
Andalusians!)

528
 I- A Coffee in Osaka

A friend fond of card magic once told me that it was

impossible for him to create a trick without appearing to be
copying someone. I told him that nowadays it is practically
impossible to devise a new trick without using someone's idea,
so he should not feel bad as long as he gave references to that
someone. Many card magic hobbyists claim that all the technical
possibilities with a deck of cards in the Art of Card Magic have
already been explored and published, but there is something
that makes the card tricks infinitely explore-able: presentations.
It’s not the same "to guess a card because you have read the
mind of the spectator" than "to guess a card because in your
brain is projected what the eyes of the spectators see." Two
tricks can use an identical technique and yet be different. I
wanted to give an example on this with this small routine of
three effects with a memorised deck, which surprised and liked a
lot whenever I carried it out. The title of the routine pays
homage to my wife's hometown and is designed for partners.

We take out a memorised deck doing false shuffles. We can

take out the deck previously anti-faro shuffled to do a faro
shuffle during the start of the trick, and then the spectators will
square it, as many card magicians sometimes do. First we will
perform the effect "Test Your Luck," by Darwin Ortiz, presenting
it as follow:

You say that we are going to tell the story of a boy (you look at
him) and a girl (you look at her). You say that the deck will
represent a city. You ask her to name a Queen in the deck to
represent herself in the city. Let’s suppose that she chooses the
Queen of Hearts. You take the Queen to the bottom secretly by a

529
cut and you say that a boy was walking around the city. You are
dealing cards from the bottom on the table face down so as not
to alter the order, but applying the technique of the "glide" to
keep the Queen in the same position. Meanwhile, you ask him to
stop at any "street" where he "feels something." You tell him
that if he likes to walk he can travel the whole city if he wants,
which reinforces the idea of freedom of choice. When he says
"stop" you exclaim: "That's where you've felt you want to stop! I
wonder why?! What have you seen on that street?!" There may
be some laughter. You turn your wrist and surprise! You hand
the Queen to her and ask him to represent himself with any
card ... surely he will choose a King or a Jack, for the human
figure, but it doesn’t matter which card he chooses. Let’s
suppose he chooses the Jack of Clubs. You control it to the
bottom and that's when we do "Test Your Luck" by Darwin Ortiz.
That is, we ask her to introduce the Queen wherever she wishes,
freely. Thus, by means of the technique Cull of Hofzinser we
make it coincide with the Jack of Clubs. If the previous effect was
surprising, this one would be much more, since it is the spectator
himself who places the card. Now both have found each other
directly by destiny. Whenever I have done this effect, it has
caused a great surprised. Finally, a third great effect:

It's about performing "Search and Destroy" by Aaron Fisher,

which can be found in "The Paper Engine," which I gave
references in the trick of the repertoire called "Policemen and
Gangsters” (No. 22), and in which I describe in detail what the
effect is about. Well, my purpose is to do a version with a
memorised deck. So, we ask the couple to name a card. For
example, he chooses a number from 1 to 13, but he shouldn’t
choose it on the fly, but thinking about a significant number,

530
important for them. And she chooses a suit of the deck. Let’s
suppose the result is the 9 of Hearts. Then it would be that the
representative cards of them are approaching within the city
little by little (progressive sandwich), cutting and completing first
one of them and then the other one, until they get the great
surprised that they coincide in the same place ... certain cafeteria
called "9 of Hearts!" The deck can be given away, since it does
not hide anything strange. The magical coincidences are
engraved forever in their minds.

531
 PORTABLE GIMMICKS

“Palming separates the men from the boys!”

Edward Marlo.

The “Portable Gimmicks Box”

What I call "portable gimmicks" is a universal idea of the

card magic with which you can "kill" your viewers in any informal
or casual situation, showing yourself as a real magician. I
suppose professional card magicians are quite aware of this type
of ideas and they apply them constantly when they think it
necessary. The basic idea of "portable gimmicks" is to add
stranger cards, gimmick or not, in addition to any little device to
a borrowed deck without anyone noticing, so we should be a
good "palmer," although it is not always necessary do it in front
of the spectators, but you could add such portable gimmicks at
any time during an evening.

Imagine that you are visiting a friend's house and suddenly

they ask you to do some magic with a borrowed deck. What do
you do? You can do mathematical tricks, "Three Card Montes,"
"Triumphs," "Biddles," "Oil and Waters," Transpositions, Aces
Assemblies ... but ... can you imagine that the back of one of the
cards changed colour from blue to red? Or you throw to the
chimney one of the cards in view of all (and the annoyance of the
owner of the deck) and later you resurrect it from its ashes? Or
that the face of one of the cards is erased being blank (like the
face of your spectators)? ... Can you imagine their gobsmacked
faces after effects like that with a borrowed deck? Wouldn’t you
look like a real magician!?

532
 Considering that a playing card box has capacity for 52
cards, we could form a deck of 52 special cards to keep them
together and take them everywhere, like the one who never
forgets his or her wallet or mobile phone when goes out. But, by
what kind of cards would that "portable box of gimmicks" be
composed? There would be so much to choose from just thinking
about it you get dizzy, but obviously it would depend on what
tricks you usually practise. In any case you could make a good
"portable gimmicks box" using varied cards belonging to
different pattern of cards, specifically the most used patterns or
sold in stores in your neighbourhood or city, which would
increase the chances that, visit who you visit, there is a deck
whose back coincides with that of any of the cards in your
"portable gimmicks box," and thus be able to "corrupt" any
borrowed deck. It is about to look into the stores of your
environment where they sell playing cards, which will be bought
by people living in that environment. If in the bazaar in the
corner of your house they sell a certain pattern of deck in red
and blue versions, we would buy one of each and we would have
our first two cards for our "portable gimmicks box" (PGB), which
would be one card from each both decks. If there were other
patterns in that bazaar we would also buy them (after having
collected the payroll). Then we would visit each of the stores that
could sell other decks. We would buy the cheapest deck of cards
in the neighbourhood, not for economising, but because
obviously they must be the ones that people buy the most. They
should also be about the same size so they fit together in the
same box, which is not usually a problem. It would be useful to
include as well, little by little, cards from the most universal
decks such as Bicycle, Heraclio Fournier, Tally-Ho, etc. although
they are more expensive, since they are well known, and in red

533
and blue versions, which are the best selling back colours. We
would do all this with patience, for weeks or months. I got to
gather in 2002 a total of sixteen cards from different patterns,
nine of which had their versions on blue and red backs. So I
formed a PGB with nine of those blue and red back cards (18
cards), plus seven cards from other patterns. It was a total of 25
cards. I had room for 27 more cards ... I included varieties of
double-back cards blue-blue, blue-red and red-red from the four
patterns that I considered more common, in addition to some
blank cards, double-sided and other special gimmicks such as
short cards to control them easily in the deck. The double-sided
ones were of standard index and design, that is to say, there
weren’t "jumbo index" or special designs, since they were (are)
less frequent. But all this is just an example of the so many ways
to raise your PGB.

With such a deck, the chances of one of your secret cards

matching the pattern used somewhere you visit, are high. An
example of how to proceed with this would be what happened
to me in August 2002:

I was at a friends' party. During the evening I noticed the

blue back design of a deck that could be seen through some glass
cabinet. I noticed that it matched with the design of one of the
cards of my PGB. So then, I went to the restroom “to do a wee,”
but instead of "taking a piss" I took out the PGB and looked for
the card of the same design, but with a red back, and I put it
aside in my pocket. I kept the PGB in the other pocket. During
the evening, the best things happened: a cousin of mine fond of
card magic did a card trick with a deck of his, in which a card
selected by a spectator was found folded inside the magician's
mouth. He then announced that I was also a card magician, so

534
they asked me to do some magic. I said in a humorous tone that I
did not bring any deck and that my cousin's had a folded and
drooling card, but anyway would try. Then, the owner of the
house (next to my silent joy) went just to that glass cabinet, and
as he opened it, I palmed the card from my pocket. Upon
receiving the deck from that glass cabinet I added the stranger
card to top, turned the deck face up and began to spread the
cards while saying: "are they all?" I looked for the card equal to
the stranger one (the 8 of Clubs) and passed it to top by the
Hofzinser Cull technique. I turned the deck again and did a
double undercut to take the two cards from top to bottom ... The
deck was ready for the routine “The Lady Who Blushes”!! (Trick
No. 60) ... at the end of this routine, the astonished faces of the
people were the most gratifying for me. It was like living a fairy
tale. It was "real" magic! I wish I could have photographed the
face of the owner of the deck to see that one of his lifelong
playing cards had changed the colour back. Performing the trick
was easy. The difficult thing was to get rid of the stranger card,
which I tried in the following way: the second card selected (the
forced one) was controlled to top during the routine, which is
very easy with the Hindu shuffle. That way, at the end of the trick
I placed the stranger card in top. I did a double turn over,
showing the face of the selected card, and I took both cards to
my pocket as if they were only one while saying: "for shyness to
go away we will have to hide it a little bit". I put it partially in the
pocket, so nobody lost it of sight. I dropped the stranger card in
the pocket and, after a few seconds, I took it back saying: "I
believe that it has already recovered a little the colour." I took it
back to the owner so that he could verify it by turning it over, to
the magic illusion of everyone. During that evening, my cousin
chased me everywhere to ask me how the hell I did that trick.

535
 That's just an example of the many things that can be
achieved by adding stranger cards to a borrowed deck. In Hugard
and Braue's famous book "Expert Card Technique," there is a
chapter devoted exclusively to this topic, called "The Stranger
Card" (page 362). The first idea proposed in this chapter is "The
Torn and Restored Card." Imagine doing that with a borrowed
deck! I once did a "burned and restored card" taking advantage
of a fireplace that was in the room, but of course, not forgetting
to do it with a lot of showmanship and drama to make it look
really magic, because if it were done very quickly and
"simplicity," without recreating much in the mystery of that
great miracle, the spectators could perceive the scene as a
simple joke that would facilitate the consequent deduction of an
extra card. Never forget that the magic is indeed in the attitude
of the magician; in how the magician transmits the feeling of
impossibility. On another occasion I did the trick "Between Your
Palms" by Elmsley, by adding an extra card to a borrowed deck.
Curiously, in that case it was not necessary to sign the card, since
being a borrowed deck no one imagined that there was a
duplicate, in addition to not ruin the owner's deck. It has always
been considered that impromptu card magic is made without
gimmicks or extra cards, but with the PGB, impromptu card
magic can be done with gimmicks and extra cards, resulting in a
magic especially magical, and "without asking for autographs to
viewers." On another occasion I surprised a lot with the trick
"Transposed Divination" (No. 57 of the repertoire), which
requires a duplicate card. I remember one day when I was
playing poker with friends and cousins, when I hid a duplicate
card in the left pocket of one of them without realising it. When
they asked me to do some magic in a relaxing moment (with the
deck that we were using), I casually addressed the "victim" and

536
forced the duplicate card. I controlled it to the top. Then I asked
him to keep the deck in his pocket. I made sure that he took the
deck with his right hand so he keeps it in his right pocket, by
handing it to his right hand. Then I asked him to concentrate and
give a hip shake from right to left. Having done that, I asked him
to take out the deck (I took it) and told him to look in his left
pocket. He took out the card from his left pocket and showed it
to the astonished eyes of the audience! Meanwhile I palmed the
top card, took it to my pocket and left the deck on the table. As
you can see, the main problem with this idea is always to get rid
of the extra card (s) at the end of the effect, for which we would
have to design special procedures, such as the one that occurred
to me once when I added a duplicate Queen to a borrow deck to
do the effect "Elongated Lady," by Peter Kane. I took out a tiny
plastic toy in rolling pin form, as a "magic item," and I rolled it
over the Queen to give her the magical ability to stretch. Then,
after the effect, while the spectators examined the Queen
without understanding how she could have stretched, I palmed
the duplicate, and with the excuse of taking the "magic item"
back to my pocket, I got rid of the duplicate Queen. This effect is
original of S. H. Sharpe, being published in the September issue
of "Magical Monthly" by Edward Bagshawe in 1925. Peter Kane
sold it in 1976 with a slight variant. Ideas with stranger cards
could cover entire books. In "Expert Card Technique" we find
ideas like "Through the Tabletop" (page 365), which consists in
pasting beforehand the stranger card under a table (with double-
sided stick tape or magician's wax), forcing it from the borrowed
deck and ... to be a magician. We also find the complex routine of
"Everywhere and Nowhere" (an original Hofzinser effect) on
page 367, by two duplicates. And three pages later, on 370, a
trick I wanted to recommend especially, called "A Stranger in the

537
House." It is a disconcerting ideal effect to do with a duplicate
card. But these ideas and the experiences that I told you before
are just the tip of the tip of the iceberg. If you have noticed, the
PGB would have a lot to do with the concept of "Jazz Magic";
improvised magic. Likewise, with a double-back card secretly
introduced into a friend's deck, many wonders can be done. On
one occasion when I did that, I asked someone to name a card.
They said 3 of Spades. Then I took the deck of my friend that was
in his own hands and spread it face up on a table. While they
were intrigued by the back card, I focused on quickly finding the
3 of Spades and hid it with the index of the adjoining card. Then I
said: "Can you imagine that this card was the 3 of Spades?"
While they looked at me very intrigued I separated the card
(double back) and picked up the spread by cutting at the 3 of
Spades and took it to top. It only left the corresponding double
turn over and, "amaze!" I handed the card to be examined while
palming the double back card and put my hands in my pocket as
a sign of "accomplished mission." The effect can be repeated if
we leave the double-back card in the deck! But it would not be
advisable to repeat it more than once.

Once I read a hilarious idea of Ed Marlo, but unfortunately I

don’t remember where. The idea was a double-sided card that
also had two cards printed on each side. That is to say, in the
middle of a face, one card would be printed and in the other half,
another card, so that in a single card four halves of cards would
have been printed. In addition, the card would be a little
shortened to be easily located in the deck. The magician secretly
seizes a deck of others and removes the four cards that
correspond to the gimmick one. Those cards are introduced into
the pockets of their friends during the evening. At the time of

538
doing some magic, the magician riffle forces the four cards
showing only the index of each card to the voice of "stop" of
each spectator. Then, the magician palms the gimmick card from
the bottom saying that he or she will make the cards seen by the
spectators appear in his or her own pocket. With this excuse we
unload the gimmick card in our pocket, but we don’t find the
selected cards inside our pocket. The magician is surprised.
Spectators believe the magician has failed. The magician looks in
all his or her pockets, but nothing. People get impatient. Finally,
the magician shows that the cards aren’t in the deck. Hey?! And
asks the spectators to look in THEIR pockets! ... I’ve done this
trick only once in my life, in a party, and I can’t describe in words
the madness that was formed by the reaction of the people.

The phenomenon of "portable gimmicks" covers everything

your imagination gives to you. I don’t want to seem or be an
impertinent, but it would be possible that the famous mystery of
"Scarne's Aces" had something to do with a PGB. In the glorious
era of John Scarne there were not as many different pattern of
decks commercialised as today, so it was much more likely that a
borrowed deck was the same model as some cards kept in your
pocket. Maybe Scarne took four Aces in his pocket anywhere to
palm them and add them to any borrowed deck. That way it
would be possible to always find the all four Aces to later lose
them, controlling them again to top, palm them and give the
deck back to its owner. I want to make it clear that I am not
affirming anything about it, but it is only an opinion. In any case,
the PGB also motivates you to become more creative. You
cannot imagine the things that you can came up with just
thinking about taking advantage of it. I will show you as an

539
example a routine that occurred to me simply thinking of a PGB,
in December of 2007.

The Artist Jokers

Effect

The magician shows a box, inside which there is a blank

card and says it is a canvas; places the box closed on the table;
finds the two Jokers in the deck, says they are "artist Jokers" and
places them on the table; then, has a card selected from the
deck; has the card signed on both sides saying that it is a Work of
Art. Then he or she tells the drama that the Work was burned in
a fire, and the widow of the artist greatly regretted the loss, as it
was a gift expressly for her. Thus, the magician burns the card
while relating that story. Then he or she tells that two great
friends and no less great artists (both Jokers), offered to
reproduce the same Work as best as possible. The magician puts
the Jokers in the box and says: "Let's test the talent of these
artists ... let's give them time to paint the blank canvas." After
some magical gestures, the magician opens the box and takes
out the three cards, shows the two "artist Jokers" and asks a
spectator to turn over the "canvas" ... the blank card turns out to
be the signed card now!

Solution

You will have prepared in your PGB a card signed by you

with the same marker that will use the spectator. The card must
be either a court card or black high pips, so that the signature is
not too distinguished. The selection will be signed on the face by
a spectator to illustrate that it is a unique Work of Art, and also
signed on the back by another spectator to illustrate that it is the
signature of the artist. The one signed by us (only on the face)

540
will be a stranger card in bottom second, while the original
duplicate without signing will be in bottom first. The Jokers will
be lost in the deck. All ready. As for the blank card inside the box,
you can use the original Ace of Hearts from the deck of the
spectator as a representation of the "canvas," but if you can
perform this trick in one of your settled shows with a blank card
as "canvas," the metaphor would be more visual.

You show the blank card of the box and say it's a canvas.
You place the box closed on the table or in the hands of a
spectator. We look for the Jokers with the deck facing us (being
careful not to let see the bottom card) and we place them on the
table. We force the bottom card and have it signed on the face
saying that it is a work of art. We put it on the bottom with the
excuse of drying the ink (being careful not to show the duplicate).
So, you blow slightly to dry the ink. Do a double turn over. You
ask another spectator to sign it on the back illustrating the
signature of the author. You take the top one (signed by you) and
set fire to it with a lighter. At this moment we will use the ruse to
make believe that our signature is that of the spectator. That is,
as you see how it burns on the back signed, we turn the card
little by little with the intention of letting see a bit at the very last
moment of our signature to burn, suggesting that it is
"obviously" the signature of the spectator. You show again the
"artist Jokers" and put them on top face down. You draw the top
card under the Jokers and introduce again the first Joker by
turning it face up on the deck. You can say that this Joker studied
with Picasso. You turn it over on the deck again and place the
other Joker (double) face down on top, then do the same as the
first while you say that this other studied with Dalí. So we will
have from top a Joker, the signed card and the other Joker. You

541
take the top two cards (reversing their order) making them
believes they are the Jokers and apply the "Flushtration Count"
sleight to confirm it. During that sleight you repeat that one
Joker studied with Picasso and the other with Dalí, which would
help to convey that there are two different Jokers. We show
once more "the canvas" and we place it face down on the table,
on top of it we put “the Jokers” face down. We take the three
cards, square them and apply the "glide" technique while saying
that we put the canvas between the artists. Actually what we put
is the signed card. We put everything inside the box and close it.
After some magical gestures, we open the box, take the cards
out and drop the card in the middle clearly on the table. We
apply again the "Flushtration Count" showing the "artist Jokers."
You say: “Have they done their job well?" You place them on top
of the deck (the blank card is in top second). You ask them to
turn the "canvas." Speechless! During the climax you take the
deck, show the first Joker and put it face up on the table. Then
apply a "second deal" for doing the same with the other Joker
while you say: "Yes, they did their job well."

As you can imagine, producing only one of the two

signatures provides a special realism to the effect.

On a later occasion I did a version of this trick by two

attempts. That is, I first produced the card without the signature,
which caused some disappointment among the viewers, in
addition to capture the impossible idea of reproducing a
signature, which caused a much greater impact at the end.

Next I want to show you another idea that came to me

thinking about a PGB. It occurred to me in December 2007, so
instead of organising a show, as I usually did, I thought about

542
taking the PGB on my back and trying to improvise something
during the New Year party, waiting to see if I would dare with
that idea or not. Sometimes we don’t know if we are ready for
something until we find ourselves in the situation, since it
depends not only on our spirits, but also on the attitude of the
spectators. Fortunately, and that's why I tell you it, that night
was perfect.

The Homing Card and Ink

It was in December 31 of 2007 in San Fernando; Cadiz

prefecture (Spain). As I said, on that occasion I felt lazy, so I
didn’t prepare anything. But I took my PGB...

During the party I did not show any intention to do magic,

until they proposed it to me and offered me a deck. Before
taking the deck I see the pattern on its back and said I wanted to
go to the bathroom. In the bathroom I looked for a card in my
PGB whose back was equal to the pattern and colour of the deck
they offered me. It was a deck pattern that I had ever bought, so
I might have at least a card from that pattern back. I remember it
was a 7 of Diamond. I put the card in my pocket and went on the
scene.

I thought about doing the classic trick "homing card," in the

version by Francis Carlyle. So, I took the deck they offered me
and spread it face up while asking if there were all the cards in
that deck. I look for the 7 of Diamond and cut at it to take it to
top. I did false shuffles and riffle forced the 7 of Diamond. I asked
for a marker to have the card signed. The owner of the deck
attacked me with his eyes, but I asked him smiling to trust the
magician, and if he did not trust the magician he could trust that
he would pay him the value of the deck. As the owner of the

543
deck was a friend of mine, there were more laughs than
problems. They looked for a marker and the card was signed.
People were very curious, since they don’t usually sign cards in
amateur performances besides using other people's cards. The
signed card, without being seen by the magician, was returned to
the deck. I controlled it to the top and said daringly that it would
travel to my pocket. So, after some magical gestures, I stuck out
the back of the card from the pocket to show it, and I put it back
inside it. I exclaimed: "Ta-daah! Thank you very much!" While the
people looked at me with ironic smiles I palmed the top card.
Then I said: "What's wrong? Don’t you trust me?" I put my hand
back in my pocket with the card palmed, took this time the
palmed card and, showing only the back (as before) I looked at
the face of it without showing it to them. I said: "The 7 of
Diamond, right?" People claimed surprised but with suspicion as
I was reluctant to turn it to prove it. After some more ironic
laughter, when people seemed to be convinced that it was not
possible for that card to be the one signed, and that I was not
going to show it in any way, I turned it over calmly. The reaction
was such that they took the card from my hands abruptly to
examine it. But the trick continued. I put the card back in my
pocket while saying in a humorous tone that they should trust
the magician a little bit more. Then, while I took the card again
from the pocket, face down (the duplicate one), and lost it in the
deck (controlling it to the top), I said that the next time they
should look carefully the deck during the magical trip of the card
to the pocket, since perhaps they could notice some magical
aura during that trip. So, I repeated the effect. The bewilderment
was total. They took the card again to examine it. I shuffled the
deck as an act of habit and took the chance to take the top card
to bottom while the audience reacted. I dropped the deck on the

544
signed card, which had been placed face down on the table,
while saying: "I'm sorry to have ruined the deck by having a card
signed, but it was no bad magic, right?" I picked up the deck and
flipped it to show the signed card (behind it was the duplicate). I
said: "Since I feel bad about that and it seems like I'm on a roll,
I'm going to try to do something special." I took two cards as one,
turned the deck and placed them very clearly on top, face down.
Then I said that "I would try to return the signature to the
marker." People looked at me intrigued. While they were looking
for the marker I palmed the top card and put my hand in my
pocket with the excuse of checking if I had saved the marker
without thinking. That way I got rid of the signed card. Once they
found the marker I made people doing a ritual in which the
marker absorbed the ink. At the end of the ritual I peeked into
the face of the card, bending my head. Then I said resigned:
"How much did the deck cost?" After some laughter I said: "Ah! It
is necessary to remove the marker cap! If not, the ink cannot be
reabsorbed!" The ritual was repeated without the cap. Then, I
asked them to flip the card while I covered my face saying I
didn’t want to look. So, blindly, I heard cries of surprise as I
pulled my hands away from my face and shouted too of
excitement for having achieved it.

Note 1: Magic markers, whose ink disappears, can hinder

this effect, but the ink of those markers takes between 24 and 72
hours to disappear, which is a "STOP" (in the jargon of Tamariz;
see his book "The Magic Way") to the possible solution. In
addition, there is another "STOP" that consists in the marker
being borrowed by a spectator.

Note 2: This trick requires having a card previously in the

pocket, so it would fit perfectly after "Thought of Card in

545
Pocket," by Benjamin Earl, of which I gave references in the
repertoire of the second part in "Thought Transposed" (No. 59).
In the trick of Earl, which is totally impromptu, we finish with just
one card in our pocket without the public knowing it, which
would be a problem when it comes to having to return that card
to the deck if we were doing it with a borrowed deck. However,
that problem would be solved if we continued with this "Homing
Card," which requires precisely of a card previously in your
pocket! At the end of the "Homing Card" effect there would be
nothing left to hide! So, we would end with a wonderful routine
that would combine mentalism and a travelling card. A good
example of how well they can combine two tricks that
apparently have nothing to do with each other.

Note 3: In 1903, Ellis Stanyon described in his "Stanyon's

Magic" (Vol. 4 No. 1) the idea that a pocket could be shown
emptying out with a palmed card. Although Stanyon did not
credit the idea to anyone, later it was discovered that this idea
was previously thought by the amateur magician Henry Hardin
(musician by profession), which appeared in an undated
manuscript of his, called precisely "The Appearing Card in the
Pocket," whose method used just the idea described above.
Hardin published many ideas in the magic magazine "Mahatma,"
although many others were not published. Hardin was also the
creator of the famous and intriguing trick "Princess Card Trick,"
in "Mahatma" (December 1903, page 68).

On the classic "Card to Pocket" I also recommend the

version of Dai Vernon called "Aeroplane Card," based on the
interesting method of "Aeroplane Card to Pocket" by Laurie
Ireland, published in "Ireland Writes a Book" (1931).

546
 Roberto Giobbi published an extraordinary version of the
routine of Francis Carlyle in the second volume of his
monumental "Card College," with the title of "Homing Card
Plus." In that version the routine ends with the entire deck in the
pocket, except for the selected card. This effect has its origin in a
trick called "The Repeat Card in Hat," published in "Come a Little
Closer" by Tommy Vanderschmidt, in 1953 (page 9), which is a
routine identical to "Homing Card Plus," but just using a hat
instead of a pocket.

The Intruder Deck

At home I have all my deck of cards "tuned in Mnemonica

Major" in case someone asks me for some casual card magic, but
this does not mean that I always resort to characteristic effects
of memorised decks, since it’s not convenient to abuse it, and
nothing in general, but I try to always keep it as a resource in
case I think it is convenient to use it. Now, what do you reckon
about a memorised "portable” deck? Carrying a memorised deck
anywhere could also be called a "portable secret," but it turns
out that there is a big difference between doing magic with your
own deck and doing it with a borrowed deck, so using your own
deck outside your home is not exactly a "portable gimmick,"
unless it were introduced as a deck that is not yours, that is, get
it in secretly. An intruder deck! In other words, replace a
borrowed deck with your identical one without nobody notices it.
A change of that kind in informal situations would be something
that is worthwhile to think carefully about, since you would save
yourself the trouble of having to stack a borrowed deck secretly.
Having a memorised deck in your hands when everyone thinks it
is just a borrowed deck, is cool, very cool. It would be like a gift
from God for a passionate card magician. We all agree that a

547
good way to stack a borrowed deck at convenience would be to
take it secretly, and for example going to the bathroom, stack it
in a couple of minutes and return it to the place it was secretly.
But, of course, this leads to the uncertainty that someone then
takes it, shuffles it and / or plays with it before handing it to you
to ask you to do a bit of magic, not being useful at all your
clandestine manoeuvre. Impromptu magic usually happens after
friends, bored of playing poker, hand the deck to the "friend
magician" to ask him or her to do "something cool." Taking a
future borrowed deck secretly to the bathroom could work
according to certain circumstances, since although it is
cumbersome, nothing has to be lost. Do it whenever you can just
in case ... you never know what in the party is going to happen.
Great magical effects have taken place at parties and friends'
meetings through tricks of this type. But the big question would
be: could a deck be borrowed and stacked at our will without
having done anything previously? It seems an impossible task,
but the solution would be as simple as a deck change. There are
several techniques to secretly change a deck. It is popularly
known as "cold deck," and very taken into account by the
gamblers of yesteryear. Of course, to carry out this crafty action,
it goes without saying that the deck must be identical in design
and even in wear, so it is not so simple to consider. We must be
sensible not to proceed in case the decks do not have an
identical appearance, which is the main obstacle of the
phenomenon of "portable gimmicks." If you see that your
friend's deck is the same pattern as yours, but has stained,
painted or very greasy cards, forget it, unless your deck is just as
disgusting ... It is not worth risking at all that they discover that
the deck is cheatingly replaced, which would cause a great loss of
prestige as a magician. You have to be completely sure before

548
proceeding with any trap. The thing is that doing good magic,
and looking like a good magician is not (and should not be) easy,
as well as it shouldn’t be easy for the pattern of your deck to
match that of the deck of others. This could be solved by taking a
few different decks in your pockets or bag. Of course, if you
know more or less what kind of cards your friends usually use, so
much the better. Now, let’s consider that our deck could be
perfectly confused with the borrowed one. What do we do? How
to proceed with the change? What kind of change? There are
several appropriate ways and moments to achieve it, but never
do it in a hurry, since it is a very delicate manoeuvre. I'm not
going to talk to you about all the ways to give an effective
change to a deck, because that's what the great Roberto Giobbi
is in "The Art of Switching Decks," a great book that details up to
30 ways to give a change to a deck in a subtle way, plus many
effects in this regard. The book is suitable for both beginners and
experts. Roberto Giobbi is nowadays one of the greatest writers
of card magic. But I don’t intend to remain with crossed arms
without offering anything. I am here writing to contribute things,
and as such, I wanted to share with you an independent idea
that I had to achieve the desired change through a surprising
effect. I want to show it to you because in practice it has always
given me a good result, and I have enjoyed great success with it.
It consists in the following:

Once you have noticed that the deck you have been offered
to do magic is the same pattern as yours (prepared in your
pocket and with no box), we start by saying that we are going to
do a small experiment that consists of the ability to identify any
card just by touch. Then, you ask them to shuffle the deck well.
Next, you take it to the pocket where yours is. You place them so

549
that one is horizontal and the other vertical, so that they are
differentiated. You ask them to name any card, which you will try
to get out the pocket. Let’s suppose they name the 7 of Hearts.
You put your hand in your pocket and count the necessary cards
in your memorised deck until you reach the one named. Take
your time; the requirement of the experiment justifies it. You
take out the card and put it face down on the table to make it
exiting. Then, you take out YOUR deck as if it were the one you
borrowed. You spread it face up emphasising that they shuffled it
themselves while they see your “shuffled order.” You ask them
to flip the single card of the table and ... no one will understand
how you could have done that! Not only have you performed a
surprising, inexplicable magic trick, but you have been able to
change the deck to continue surprising all you want with it. Then,
during the comments of amazement you take the 7 of Hearts
and insert it casually in its corresponding position, taking
advantage of the face up spread, as if you were just losing the
card at any point of the deck.

The first time I put this idea into practice caused a great
feeling. They are still wondering how a named card can be taking
out from the pocket of a shuffled deck.

The good and curious thing about the "intruder deck" idea
is that when you finish doing your magic show, it is not necessary
to change the decks again, but they can be replaced indefinitely.

550
 THANK YOU!

“Be happy!”

Someone.

Thank you so much for taking your time to read everything

you've read about these memories! Memories that I conclude
after 22 years of reflections on the card magic as a hobby, and
that now I cannot believe that it began with a few words that I
pointed out in the summer of 1992 (when I was 16 years old), so
that today, November 8, 2014, I write the last few words, also
being the first anniversary of my son Felix Hiro. Happy birthday!

I don’t know if these memories will be read by many card

magicians, but I do know that it will help the amateur lover of
Card Magic that runs into them. I hope I have made an
appropriate selection of the comments, reflections and most
relevant experiences of my personal adventure in this hobby,
mainly for the sake of an amateur card magician. My intention
has been to encourage and motivate especially hobbyists, since
professionals are more than motivated. And speaking of
professionals, I also want to take advantage of this moment,
unique to me, in which I address any professional who has the
kindness to dedicate his or her time to read this, that I want to
thank you and all the world's card magicians for the great effort
of creativity to distribute all kinds of magical illusions in a way as
close and familiar as through a simple deck of cards. The depth
of a heart will never be enough to convey this gratitude.

551
 On New Year's Eve 2010, in San Fernando, in Cadiz
prefecture (Spain), just four days after returning to Spain after a
fifteen-months stay in Japan, I found myself improvising
something during the family party, in whose show I included the
same trick I experienced in that shopping centre in Osaka that I
told about in chapter 8, in the section "We as Spectators." I did it
while relating that experience. Too bad that the magician did not
say his name and I did not think about asking him for it, so that
being able to talk about him. It seems that sometimes the
timidity of Japanese people is infectious. Nevertheless, as for me,
that Christmas time was the first one in which I showed myself
with the stage name "Paco Nagata," the surname of my wife.
After the brief show, a cousin of mine fond of card magic told
me:

"I’m surprised that despite your precocity you never stopped

being just an amateur."

I responded with humour:

"I was always a professional ... but I just never found a

position."

I believe that our highest ambition as amateurs should be

to make sure there is no difference between the performance of
a professional and ours. I wish you luck and all the best in this
exciting universe of the Art of Card Magic.

A faithful friend and collaborator,

Paco Nagata

11-08-2014

552
 Classified List of the Repertoire of Tricks:
(In Red: “Wobbly Tricks”; 13 in total. In blue: explained tricks; 31 in total)

Tricks of the repertoire impromptu (46 in total):

1- The Spectator’s Reaction (1)

2- Surprise Bet (2)
3- The Lying Jack of Spades (3)
4- The Changeable Fingerprint (4)
5- Magical Affinity with Two Decks (5)
6- Role Exchange (7)
7- Reciprocal Divination (8)
8- A Lost Child (9)
9- The Final 3 (10)
10- Between the Two Red Queens (11)
11- Teleportation (17)
12- Metamorphosis (18)
13- The Black Hole (21)
14- Cavatina (23)
15- Straight Aces Assembly (25)
16- Gradual Aces Assembly (26)
17- Once upon Again (24)
18- Double Prediction (13)
19- The Mystic Nine (28)
20- Re-Set (29)
21- All the Non-Conformists (30)
22- The Restless Lady (31)
23- The Damaged Magic Lift (32)
24- Magical Trips of a Card (33)
25- The Dartboard toward the Dart (34)
26- Chance Choice (36)
27- The Partagas “Sell” (37)
28- As-cend with Three Cards (38)
29- The Time Machine (39)
30- Out Of Side-Out Of Mind (40)
31- Four Grass Cards (41)
32- The Dilemma of the Selected Card (42)
33- The Invisible Card (46)
34- Thought is Invisible (47)
35- The Ambitious Card (48)
36- Triumph (49)
37- The Drunk Shuffle (51)
38- Good and Evil (52)
39- Dai Vernon’s Three Card Monte (53)
40- Be Honest – What is it? (58)
41- Thought Transposed (59)
42- Twisting the Aces (63)
43- Homing Card (68)
44- Signed Revelation (69)
45- Card through Handkerchief (78)

553
46- Matrix (79)

Tricks of the repertoire non impromptu (18 in total):

1- Magical Affinity with Transposition (6)

2- Prior Commitment (13)
3- The As-sailants (20)
4- Policemen and Gangsters (22)
5- Time After Time (15)
6- The Sucker Card (34)
7- A Strange Story (45)
8- Play it Straight (50)
9- The Gambler and the Grandfather (54)
10- Transposed Divination (57)
11- The Lady Who Blushes (60)
12- The Four Blue Backed Aces (62)
13- The Hour of Your Life (64)
14- Between Your Palms (65)
15- Out of this Universe (70)
16- Total Coincidence (71)
17- Triple Coincidence (72)
18- Two Ideas for One Force (80)

Tricks of the repertoire semi-impromptu (5 in total):

1- Shuffle Bored (12)

2- Ducks and Swans (16)
3- Ho, Ho, Ho, Knock, Knock, Knock! (19)
4- Magician vs. Gambler (43)
5- Matching the Cards (44)

Tricks of the repertoire with gimmicks (11 in total):

1- The Power of Faith (27)

2- Tamariz’s Three Card Monte (55)
3- Three Card Monte from Cadiz (56)
4- The Colour Changing Deck (61)
5- Anniversary Waltz (66)
6- Side Swiped (67)
7- The Invisible Deck (73)
8- The Travelling Cards (74)
9- Mercury’s Card (77)
10- Four Blue Cards (75)
11- Your Favourite Colour (76)

This work was written by an amateur for amateurs; if

someone is charging you for this, they are swindling you.

554