Mentalism and Magick By Bob Cassidy

All contents copyright 2002 by Robert E Cassidy

All rights reserved.

Table of Contents

Telepathy in the Third Dimension............................................................................................................1 The Bullwhip Approach..............................................................................................................................5 Under the Table..........................................................................................................................................10 Split..............................................................................................................................................................13 Thought Card in Pocket ............................................................................................................................16

Telepathy in the Third Dimension For nearly twenty-five years, �Fourth Dimensional Telepathy� a/k/a �The Three Envelope Test� has been the cornerstone of my mentalism show. Like most of my other routines, it has evolved over the years. My standard method, as most of you know, involves a Shaxon flap envelope and a specially prepared envelope stack. Recently, I devised a method for performing the routine that eliminated most of the preparation and rendered the effect almost impromptu. It is ideal for situations where you have to perform the effect several times in one evening. I won�t go into the details of my previous handlings or presentations as they have been published many times elsewhere. (My �standard� version appears on the videotape/DVD Mental Miracles.) But I think if you try this out, you may find that I have actually improved, as well as simplified, the effect, the preparation, and the handling. EFFECT: (Here is the original effect and handling. For more details in the original handling and presentation, I suggest you refer to The Art of Mentalism, Part Two, or the Mental Miracles video previously mentioned.)

Three spectators each write thoughts on billets and seal them in envelopes. The mentalist correctly reveals each thought. The bare bones: The envelopes are stacked like this: The Shaxon flap on top, flap side up. This contains a folded dummy billet- index card type. Underneath is another regular envelope, flap side up. Below that is a regular envelope, flap folded down. And below that is a pair of envelopes set for a flapless envelope switch. The regular of these two contains a folded blank billet. The flapless envelope is on the face of the stack. Note that this flapless set is reversed on the bottom of the stack. Pencil dot the Shaxon set so you know which side is up. The key to making the dump work is to belly both of the flapless envelopes out before you prepare the stack. Handling: Two spectators write thoughts on billets. Their billets are sealed in envelopes. The first spectator's billet is switched via the Shaxon envelope, which she seals and holds onto. The second spectator is given the now second envelope down via a crude second deal. She seals up her billet herself, you don't touch it. The performer returns to the front and asks for a third volunteer. At the same time, he puts the stack of envelopes into his right jacket pocket, mouths down. He buckles it open and the first spectator's billet dumps out. He comes right back out with the stack and puts it into his left jacket pocket. This is all done very casually and just looks like you don't know what to do with them. The performer reaches into his right pocket and removes the stolen billet. He opens it while explaining to the third volunteer that she is to draw a picture and then to refold her slip. It looks like the performer is simply showing the volunteer what to do. He is actually reading spectator #1's billet. He retrieves the stack of envelopes, refolds the billet and places it into the regular flapless envelope on the face of the stack. He pulls on the flap and switches for the envelope containing the remaining blank billet. The envelopes are later collected and misnumbered 3, 1, and 2, thus setting up the one-ahead. Again, this is described in great detail in the works cited and this recap is simply to remind you of the important points of the routine, but I do strongly recommend that you read the previous versions in order to understand the virtues of the present approach and to grasp the context of the various moves. MODIFICATIONS, SIMPLIFICATIONS, CLARIFICATIONS, AND IMPROVEMENTS Only one flapless envelope is required. No Shaxon flap is used. I prepare this by simply wetting the flap and folding it down, inside the envelope. It is not necessary to cut the flap off. In fact, if you do cut the flap off it is quite possible to create a slight ridge, which will later impede the �dumping move.� You should, as I have noted, buckle the envelope open a few times to insure that it will buckle open properly later in the routine. From the top of the stack downward, the set up is as follows. All envelopes are flap side up:

This is a side view of the stack from the top down. The flapless envelope is on the top and is inserted below the flap of the second envelope. The flapless envelope contains a prefolded billet. This envelope (the second from the bottom) also contains a prefolded blank billet. (The billets are the ones I always use � blank index cards cut in half to form 2 ½ by 3-inch billets.)

As you probably have already noticed, the preparation time for this variant is far less than required in the original version. This envelope stack can be prepared in less than thirty seconds. The stack is clipped together with a paper clip. (It is clipped along the bottom edge of the stack so as not to �flatten out� the buckle in the flapless envelope.) You may wonder why I have eliminated the Shaxon flap. (The Shaxon allowed the spectator to insert the billet into the apparent uppermost envelope by himself and created the perfect illusion that the billet really was going into that envelope.) My reasoning is simple � the only person the Shaxon is designed to deceive is the first spectator. No one else in the audience ever sees it. A simple bit of handling with the first spectator enables you to create the same effect without the nagging problem that the Shaxon sometimes causes - ie. It doesn�t always seal properly and if the spectator looks at the envelope too closely while it is in her possession � which is for a considerable amount of time � the fact that the flap is really a double flap can sometimes be detected. The primary advantage of the Shaxon flap envelope was that the performer could emphasize that he never touches the spectator�s billet. With a bit of nerve and some very direct handling, though, the same effect can be created with the standard flapless envelope switch. Here is how it is handled. Approach the first spectator with the stack of envelopes in your left hand. Ask the spectator to hold her folded billet up to the light to verify that he cannot see through it. Then, simply take the billet from her, insert it into the envelope and say, �I don�t want to touch it � stick out your tongue.� (!) This is, of course, a rather bizarre request, but it covers the flapless envelope switch perfectly. As you make the request that she stick out her tongue, simply pull the second envelope, containing the blank billet, from the stack and extend it toward her so that she may lick the flap. If she should hesitate, simply hand her the envelope and say, �Or seal it up any way that you like, I don�t want to handle it. Now I have been using the �stick out your tongue� line for years. (Followed by, �Now turn around this way and do it again so that guy can enjoy it!�) Here I am simply delivering the line AS I am inserting the billet into the flapless envelope. Moved slightly ahead in the presentation in this manner, the envelope switch is just as effectively covered as in the Shaxon version and the spectator is left with a completely innocent and unprepared envelope which she can look at to her hearts content � after it is sealed, of course. As in the original handling described earlier, the second is given the next unprepared envelope in the stack via a simple second deal, which is done as you walk toward her. (It can be as crude as you like, since no one is near enough to you to see it anyway!)

The entire stack now goes to the right jacket pocket where the stolen billet is dumped. Both hand go to the pocket at this point, as if you are fumbling around looking for something. The stack is immediately removed from the pocket and replaced in the left hand. You then remove the first spectator�s billet from the right pocket as you explain to the third spectator that she is to open her billet and visualize a simple picture. (This is where you glimpse the first spectator�s thought.) At the same time, the left thumb draws back the uppermost (flapless) envelope on the stack so that it goes under the flap of the envelope beneath it, the one that contains the other blank billet. Thus, unlike the original version, you are using the same flapless envelope twice. (In my original version two flapless envelopes were used. Since both had to be buckled to assure easy �dumping� this only served to create an additional potential problem � in clipping the stack together and putting it into your pocket, the buckling in the lowermost flapless envelope occasionally would get flattened out, resulting in some unnecessary fumbling when dumping the first spectator�s slip back into the pocket. These variants may, at first glance, seem minor to you. I don�t think they are. They greatly simplify the set up and operation of the effect and reduce any possibility of fumbling at a critical moment. Try it with the envelope in hand and you will see what I mean. The elimination of the Shaxon by simply bluffing your way through the switch illustrates what I think is an important principle � �It�s what the audience remembers, not what actually happened, which is important.� In this case, you keep saying you don�t want to touch the billets, even though you are blatantly taking the billet from the first spectator as you as her to stick out her tongue. The fact that you don�t touch the other billets � and you keep emphasizing that throughout � tends to make them forget that you ever touched the first one. (And the first one was covered by a funny line, which is, of course, the best form of misdirection. Remember, if you tell a joke or a one liner at the critical point of any effect, the move will always go unnoticed. �Fourth Dimensional Telepathy,� or its variants is actually an entire act in and of itself. And I have used it that way. The only thing needed if you want to use the routine for a complete short performance, is an opening. Traditionally I have always opened my act with a series of psychological forces. The purpose of this is to involve the entire audience before focusing on the thoughts of just three volunteers. Recently I devised a new approach to the psychological choices opener that accounts for the title I have given to this section � �Telepathy in the Third Dimension.� Here I use the concept of three dimensions to produce a psychological force, which can be done on an entire audience with a success rate of over ninety percent. I draw five large designs on a dry erase board or on a large pad. I show them to the audience and say, �Here I have drawn five simple objects - a ball, a cylinder, a diamond, a box, and a pyramid. I am concentrating on one of them. I am trying to project one of these objects into your minds. Just focus on one of them that you seem drawn to and we will see how many of you can receive the correct image.� �Ready? Do you all have an image in your minds? I was concentrating on the cylinder. How many of you got that right? Just raise your hands.� As I said, this has a success rate of about ninety percent. There are several underlying factors at work here that make the success percentage so high.

First, look at how I draw the objects:

First, note that I do not refer to the selections as �designs� or as �drawings,� but as �objects.� I call them a ball, a cylinder, a diamond, a box and a pyramid. I do not refer to them as �a circle, a cylinder, a diamond, a square and a triangle.�

I call this a �Third Dimension Force� because the cylinder is the only object, which is drawn in three dimensions. You could just as easily draw a cube in this position, but in that case, I would suggest that you replace the square with something else, preferably a rectangle. It is the three dimensional aspect of the cylinder that makes it stand out psychologically. Even though I refer to all of the drawings as �objects,� only the cylinder is drawn in three dimensions, thus enhancing the likelihood of its selection. [When I describe the �objects,� however, I use three dimensional names, as noted above. If I were to say �a circle, a cylinder, a diamond, a square and a triangle,� I would be drawing just a little too much attention to the cylinder, perhaps bringing the difference to a conscious level. You may, however, experiment with this and see if you can get away with the latter description without making the whole thing too obvious.] Also, you will note that the cylinder is in the second position from the left, which has been shown to be the optimal position for a psychological force of this nature. This force, of course, can be used anywhere in a mental act. Due to its high percentage of success, I also use it in one on one situations. It is, however, ideally suited as a lead in for the �Fourth Dimensional Telepathy routine, thus providing an impressive opener for the envelope routine which comprises the rest of the short act. As I have stated elsewhere, and it bears repeating, the three-envelope test is NOT perceived as a single effect or routine by lay audiences. It is seen, and later described, as three entirely different tests. - the revelation of the name of a childhood friend, discovering the name of a pet, and the duplication of a design.

___________________________________________________

The Bullwhip Approach Not may people know it, but my father was also in show business. While he was an exceptional classical violinist, he paid the bills for our family by playing the fiddle in country bands during the fifties and sixties. Here is a photo of �The Rodeo Rangers Roundup Review� circa 1958. My dad, Frank Cassidy, is in the black hat.

Apart from working nightclubs and making records (none of which ever made the top forty, unfortunately) the band frequently performed at festivals, county fairs, and even on the roofs of refreshments stands at drive in theaters prior to the movie! Since they were primarily a �show band�, they often worked with other acts, many of whom I was fortunate enough to meet. One of them was the great Sammy Tenner. Sammy Tenner performed what is best described as a �cowboy act.� He twirled ropes and did trick shots with his six-shooter. He also performed the bullwhip act. If you are old enough to remember The Ed Sullivan Show, you have probably seen the act I am talking about. At one point, the beautiful assistant holds a cigarette between her lips and the blindfolded performer, standing about eight feet away, snaps it in half with a bullwhip. It was the sort of thing that had �Don�t try this at home, kids,� written all over it, but that, of course, didn�t stop me from attempting the feat with a whip I�d purchased as a souvenir from the Madison Square Garden Rodeo. As I suspected, the stunt was nowhere as difficult as it appeared. (Although my mother did make me stop � screaming out the window, �Bobby, stop that! You�re going to put your brother�s eye out! And bring back my cigarettes ya little bastard!�) The trick was simply to have a straight line, real or imaginary, extending from the performer to the assistant. The assistant would stand with her head thrust forward so only the cigarette crossed the line. The performer would take a few preliminary relaxed swings with the whip, keeping it parallel with the line � this was very easy since the hand holding the whip simply moved straight up and down and not to either side. Once the swing is directly over the line, the whip is snapped high and splits the cigarette without fail. Any blindfold that allows down the nose vision can be worn, as long as the performer can see the beginning of the line, thus assuring that the whip is still on target when it leaves his field of vision. Now what, you may well ask at this point, does this have to do with mentalism? (Or even with magic, for that matter.) That�s what I ask my audiences after I tell them about my experience with the bullwhip act.)

�It taught me that just because something looks impossible, or even because someone told you it is impossible, shouldn�t prevent you from trying it anyway. After all, it is my business to attempt the impossible. �For example, let me show you how to do something that simply cannot be done. In fact, you can show this to your friends, and, if you are the type of person who likes to make bets, you can probably win a few with this stunt.� At this point, I hand out pieces of soft rope to everyone in the audience. (These are simply three-foot lengths of soft sash cord, which can be obtained very inexpensively in any hardware store.) �No, I am not going to show you how to whip a cigarette from someone�s mouth, because that actually can be a bit dangerous if you get distracted. Instead, I am going to ask you to do something very simple with your piece of rope. I want you to tie a simple granny knot in the middle of the rope, but without letting go of either end. �Do it like this,� I explain as I tie a knot in the rope without letting go of either end. �See how simple it is?� [Many of you may be familiar with the basic effect here, but it is this presentation that makes it an excellent audience participation number - even in a mental act, which is where I use it all of the time when I am working for a small audience, say between ten and twenty people. Years ago even Kreskin used a similar presentation on the Mike Douglas show.] Since it is, in fact, impossible to tie a granny knot in a piece of rope without letting go of either end, it doesn�t take long before the audience becomes thoroughly frustrated. Their attempts, though, can be very funny visually and allow for some interesting and amusing ad-libs and by-play, as you will discover when you try this out. Finally, I explain to the audience that there is really a very simple way to tie a knot in the rope without letting go of either end. �And there is an easier way you can do it if you make a bet with someone. Just fold your arms before you pick up the rope. Then grab one end in each hand and unfold your arms. Try it.� They try it and it works, usually amid much laughter. �But then again,� you explain, �If you just forget that it is impossible to tie a knot in a rope without folding your arms first and without letting go of either end, you can just go ahead and do it this way.� Once again, I cleanly and fairly tie a knot in the center of my rope without letting go of either end. (And without, of course, folding my arms beforehand.� Apart from the audience participation angle, there is much to recommend this effect. The audience has something they can take home with them and play with. They also have a cute bar bet they can play on their friends. The rope, which they are allowed to keep, serves as a constant reminder that they saw you perform the impossible. There are a few ways you can apparently tie a knot in a rope without letting go of either end. Here is the method I worked out. It appears very fair and it is easy to do. (You actually DO let go of one end of the rope, but the move is indetectable even when done rather slowly due to the motion of the hands and the rope.)

Here is the initial position of the hands holding the rope. This is from the performers view facing the audience. (In this case, the audience is represented by the �Twilight Zone� backdrop!) Note that the end of the rope in my left hand is extending almost two inches beyond my thumb and forefinger.

The photograph on the left, below, shows the first part of the motions made by the hands. The left hand side of the rope is now over the right wrist. Next, the left hand moves forward � away from you � down, back to you through the loop, and back up to the left, resulting in the situation shown in the photograph on the right.

Note carefull

y how I have changed the grip with my left hand. Instead of holding the rope between my thumb and forefinger, I am now holding it between my forefinger and middle finger. Keep in mind that the hands are in motion when this occurs. From the audiences� point of view, this change in hand position is not detectable.

Here is the only potentially confusing part of the move. The left hand moves downward, underneath everything and then in towards you. The thumb and forefinger regrasp the rope on the side nearest your body. (Right where you see the end piece sticking out toward me at the bottom of the picture.) The left hand then moves upward and to the left resulting in the position shown in the next picture.

From this position, it is only necessary to tilt the hands forward, letting the loops of rope fall from the wrists. Maintain the grip on the ends at all times during this sequence. The knot is now formed as shown in the next photograph.

Here I have just lifted my hands a bit to display the knot. Note that the position of the left hand is the same as it was at the beginning of the sequence.

As I have said, there are other ways of tying the knot, but this is the simplest and most direct method I have found.

Under the Table While on the subjects of knots and anomalies, here is a fascinating effect based on a Punx idea that appeared in his �Experimente in den Uberraum.� The Punx effect, in turn, was inspired by a supposedly �authentic� paranormal demonstration from over a century ago. THE EFFECT: This effect must be performed while you are seated at a table with your audience on the other side. No one must be able to see beneath the table, for reasons that will be obvious in just a moment. A piece of sash cord about three feet long � the same as used in the previous experiment � is carefully examined by the spectator. One end is taped to the edge of the table on the performer�s left and the other end is taped to the table on the performer�s right. The remainder of the rope hangs off the table into the performer�s lap. The only portions of the rope that remain visible to the audience are the two ends taped to the table. The performer proposes to illustrate an impossibility made possible only by operating outside of the known physical dimensions. He places his hands under the table for a moment and then tosses the center of the rope onto the table. There is a perfect simple knot (granny knot) in the center of the rope. The ends remain attached to the table and have not been disturbed at any time. If you think about it, this is just another way of tying a knot in a rope without letting go of either end, but in this variation the ends don�t even move, and are not touched by the performer at all! Think about this before I go into the method. Even try it. Tape the ends of a rope to the edge of a table as I have described and then try to put a granny knot in the center without touching or detaching the ends from the tabletop. It simply cannot be done. Here are two photos illustrating the effect this has on an audience.

BEFORE AFTER

I have doctored these photos slightly because the tape would not otherwise be visible. I have marked the position of the tape with black dashes. Of course, you may wish to just use black duct tape or electricians tape to begin with, as it is actually more visible that clear tape and is less likely to mar a wooden surface. In the actual performance, the audience is seated on the opposite side of the table and does not have the view shown in the picture on the left. (The left picture depicts what the audience believes to be the situation at the

outset.)

When I tried to come up with my own method for accomplishing this effect I considered a switch of ropes and, alternatively, the use of a gimmicked rope, actually two ropes held together in the center with magnetic (ala �The Linking Ropes�) or Tarbell type rope gimmicks. This is not a bad approach as far as the effect goes - the audience can actually see the rope in the position shown in the left hand picture. Simply by bringing the rope up under the table, detaching the gimmicks, tying the knot and reattaching the gimmicks, the knot, as shown in the second picture, is easily accomplished. The only problem is that the effect is so incredible that the rope MUST be examinable before and after the effect. My final solution requires only one, ungimmicked, piece of rope and some tape. As I have constantly emphasized in all of my works, the best way to accomplish an effect is usually the most obvious way. Most of the work consists of creating a logical disconnect which makes the only conceivable methods seem to be out of the question. In this case, I get the knot into the center of the rope simply by tying it there during the course of the setup! I just make it seem impossible that I could have done so. The basis of the method is the classic �One Handed Knot.� This has been described in many places, but the best description by far can be found in Henry Hay�s classic �Amateur Magician�s Handbook,� where it is described for use with a handkerchief on pages 251 and 252 as �The Appearing Knot.� Here are a couple of pictures of me doing the knot with the sash cord. (My hand is held high for illustrative purposes only. In the actual presentation, the move is done underneath the table, as will be seen shortly.)

The photographs are self-explanatory. Follow them closely with rope in hand and you will have no difficulty making the knot. This move was originally intended to be used with a silk handkerchief and was done during an upward throwing motion. The effect was that a knot suddenly appeared in the center of the rolled silk. That, of course, is not what we are doing in this effect. In the �Knot Under the Table,� the move takes place (surprise!) under the table. The rope is inspected by your participant and is given back to you. You hold it outstretched between both hands. It is important that you do not mention that you are about to cause a knot to appear in the center of the rope. Instead, simply explain that you are about to exhibit a scientific anomaly. Place the left end of the cord on the edge of the table to your left and ask the spectator to tape it to the table. AS HE DOES SO, casually drop your right hand down below the edge of the table and perform the one hand knot as described. Your left hand, in the meantime, is holding the left end of the rope against the tabletop so that the spectator may tape it in place. By the time the left end is taped down, the right hand has brought the right end of the rope back above the table�s edge and it, too, is taped in place by the volunteer. At this point, the knot, out of sight over the edge of the table towards you, will likely be nowhere near the center of the cord. This is not a problem. Since the knot isn�t pulled tightly, it is an easy matter to work it to the center of the rope. After all, you have already said you will be doing something under the table. Once the loose knot is at the center of the cord, simply flip it up onto the table and sit back for the amazing effect this will have on your spectator. Done properly, there is absolutely no explanation for what the spectator has just seen. The effect should not be repeated. If a spectator is insistent, I simply go into the previous effect (tying a knot without letting go of the ends) and then let them keep the cord as a souvenir.

Warning for those who own cats!! There are very few effects in either magic or mentalism that are equally appropriate for cats and humans. These two effects with rope are perfect examples. If you own cats, you are warned NOT to practice these effects in their presence, as they will insist on acting as your unpaid assistant. If you should choose to go into the somewhat virgin field of

entertaining at cat birthday parties, you will find that these two effects are all you will ever need to keep the kitties entertained for hours on end. [Pictured: Salem T. Cat, my creative assistant, watching me practice the rope effects.] �Salem the Magic Cat� performing the �Find the Parakeet� Trick at a recent kiddy show:

Split The game shown to the left is called �Split� and is manufactured by Parker Brothers. (Hasbro, Inc.) It is available in most toy and department stores. The game comes with two decks of well-made cards. Each deck, however, consists of half cards as shown at the bottom of the picture. �Split� sells for about eight dollars and is an excellent investment for any mentalist. Many mentalists, myself NOT included, object to using playing cards in their acts as they feel that there is too much of an association between playing cards and �magic tricks.� Actually, given the number of Indian casinos in the United States today, I think that it is far more likely that people associate playing cards with gambling and card games.

But in any case, use of cards such as the �Split� decks, introducing them in the game box, the same way that they are purchased at the store, certainly serves to eliminate the �magic trick� association. I have found that these two packs are perfect for any of the numerous versions of the classic effect, �You Do as I Do.� Those of you who have read my Principia Mentalia are already familiar with my favorite version and handling of the effect. But, for the sake of completeness, I have included an abbreviated version here, as performed with the �Split� decks. HANDLING AND PRESENTATION The performer shows the boxed �Split� game and comments that he recently purchased it at a local department store. (Which is in fact TRUE � for once) �It�s really a fascinating game, a bit like gin rummy. The idea is to either match values, suits, or to make exact matches by pairing up halves of the same cards. I bought the game because it is suitable for just two people, although up to seven may play the game. �The other day I was playing the game with a very close friend of mine and an interesting thing happened. It seemed that we were so in tune with each other that we were able to make matches merely by handling the cards in the same manner. Let me see if I can tune in with one of you well enough to make it happen again.� The performer selects a participant and gives her one of the decks. The mentalist spreads his own pack out for all to see and the volunteer does the same with her pack. The audience, thus, sees that both decks do indeed consist of �half cards.� �Now, I want you to try to do exactly as I do. First give your cards a mix, just like I am doing.� At this point, the mentalist gives his deck an overhand shuffle and the volunteer attempts to do the same. �Can you shuffle them up like this?� asks the performer, as he gives the pack a riffle shuffle with a waterfall finish. If the spectator succeeds in imitating the performer (and most card players will have no difficulty doing so), the performer comments �I see you have been spending some time in the casinos lately,� or words to that effect. There is an ulterior motive, of course, in the performer�s actions and instructions. He is simply trying to get a surreptitious glimpse of the card on the bottom of the volunteer�s pack. If he is successful in doing so, he simply continues without exchanging decks with the volunteer. If he fails to get a glimpse of the spectator�s bottom card (what the late Al Mann once colorfully referred to as �The Nether Card�), he simply notes the card on the bottom of his own pack as he gives it one more riffle shuffle. (Asking the spectator to shuffle one more time, as well.) In this case, he exchanges packs with the spectator before proceeding. If he has successfully glimpsed the bottom card of the spectator�s deck, the performer says, �Now, I don�t want to touch your cards at any time. Square them up carefully on the table in front of you just as I am doing with my pack.� Both the performer and the spectator square their packs, face down, on the table. If it is necessary to exchange packs, the performer says, �Now put your pack face down on the table in front of you, just as I am doing, and push it over to me, as I push my pack over to you. Thus, I have shuffled the cards

you will be using and you have shuffled the cards I will use. That way it is impossible for either one of us to know where any of the cards are and neither of us will be able to cheat.� (!) �Now,� continues the performer after either switching or not switching the packs as the situation demands, �Do exactly as I do. Lift off about half of the cards from the pack with your left hand. Only lift them about an inch off the pack � just far enough so that you can draw a card from the top of the bottom half with your right hand. Just as I am doing. �Don�t peek at the card just yet. Just put the cards in your left hand back down onto the pack and put the card in your right hand face down on top. Just as I am doing. �Now, peek at the card you just placed on top of the pack and be sure to remember what it is. Actually, form a picture of the card, or, actually, the half card, in your mind. Just as I am doing.� The performer, of course, only pretends to note the card on the top of his pack. He could really care less what it is. �Now, cut your pack once. Just as I am doing. And cut them one more time. Now turn your pack face up and cut them once again.� The performer illustrates each single straight cut with his pack and emphasizes constantly that the spectator is to follow his motions exactly. (He also assures that the spectator gives the deck straight cuts only, thus assuring that the peeked �key card� stays on top of the spectator�s selection in the deck she is presently handling.) �Now, exchange packs with me.� The spectator and the performer trade packs. �And shuffle them one more time. Just as I am doing.� This time the performer does a false overhand shuffle with his pack. (If a false overhand shuffle which maintains the order of the pack is beyond your technical capabilities, I strongly recommend a primer on basic card magic � the aforementioned Amateur Magician�s Handbook will serve the purpose admirably. Otherwise, just give the pack a few more straight cuts, asking the spectator to do the same with the pack she now holds.) The performer runs through the pack he holds and removes the card beneath the glimpsed �key card.� As he does so, he says to the volunteer, I want you to run through the cards you hold and find the other half of the card you are thinking of. When you find it, place it face down on the table in front of you. Just as I have done with the half card that I selected.� Two cards now lay face down next to each other on the table. The performer reiterates that both he and the spectator freely selected half cards from packs that they both shuffled, and that they have attempted to duplicate each other�s physical actions in shuffling and cutting the cards. �The idea is that if our physical actions are the same, they may have a direct effect on our mental actions and thoughts. Turn your card face up on the table. Ah, the two of spades. Wouldn�t it be something if I thought of the other half of the same card that you were thinking of?� The performer turns his card face up. It is the other half to the two of spades. Note two very important presentational points � the first is my constant repetition of the phrase, �Just as I am doing,� or its variants. The other is something that is not possible in the usual versions of the effect. I refer to

when the performer asks the spectator to run through the pack to find her card. In the usual version of the effect, if you have just switched pack with the spectator, she is apt to say, �But my card is in the pack you are holding.� This, of course, requires the performer to point out that she is to find the duplicate of the card she is thinking of. It is a minor point, true, but it does slightly dilute the effect and tends to bring to much attention to the exchange itself. Using the split decks, however, the performer simply has to tell her to find �the other half of her card.� If you think about this for a minute, it will soon dawn on you that this is a very significant improvement. Of course, this same presentation can be used with any of the many �You Do as I Do� methods, but I honestly believe that this is the most direct and believable approach. When performed with the �Split� cards, the result is nothing short of miraculous. I have always considered �You Do as I Do� to be one of four strongest mental effects possible with a pack of playing cards. Just try this once and I am sure you will agree. If you are the type of performer who abhors the use of playing cards, I think the game approach is perfect for you � no one will ever dream that you are doing �just a card trick.�

Thought Card in Pocket Let me read your mind for a moment. You are wondering what I think the other three most effective mental card effects are, aren�t you? (If you are not thinking that, just remember that I read minds, I don�t improve them!) My other three mental effects with playing cards are my version of Curry�s classic �Out of this World,� the �Any Card at Any Number Effect� (several versions have been described in my other works) and this effect, the �Thought Card in the Pocket.� EFFECT AND PRESENTATION The performer shuffles a pack of playing cards and asks a spectator seated near the front of the room to stand. �Sir, I would like you to think of a number between, say, five and twenty. Just fix the number in your mind and don�t tell it to anyone just yet. It is very important, however, that you remember the number, so perhaps you might want to think of a number between five and twenty that has some particular personal significance to you.� (Theoretically, the spectator can think of any number up to forty-eight or so, but I like to keep the selection a little more limited in the interest of speeding up the routine. Use your own judgment here.) �I am now going to show you the first twenty cards of the pack. When I show you the card at the number you are thinking of, I want you to burn that card into your mind, just as you have remembered the number. Do not, under any circumstances, look away or give any indication whatsoever when I show you the card located at the number you are thinking of. Just keep a straight face, and keep looking at the cards until I have show you all twenty. If you were just to yell out �That one!� when I got to your number, this would be an incredibly easy test and you�d make both of us look pretty stupid.�

[The last line suits my presentational style just perfectly. It may not suit yours, however, so change it accordingly if necessary. The main thing you want to get across is that the person is to give no physical indication whatsoever when he or she sees the card at the selected number.] The performer now removes the top card from the pack and holds it facing the spectator as he says, �Number One!� He deals the next card in front of the card just shown and says �Number Two!� And so on through the top twenty cards. Note that the cards are dealt in front of each other so that their order is not changed as the cards are shown. The performer even points this out to the audience during the deal by saying,� Note that I do not change the positions of cards, when I am finished the card you have remembered will still be at the number you are merely thinking of.� The mentalist makes this latter statement before he reaches card number six. (Obviously, this is the first card that is a possible selection, since you requested that the spectator think of a number between five and twenty. While the effect will work with any number at all, it is weakened considerably if the card is only one or two down from the top, or, even worse, the first card in the pack. (The latter would actually be disastrous!) After the cards have been shown to the spectator, they are returned to the top of the pack and the performer spreads the cards out facing himself. �Sir, I would like you now to concentrate on TWO things. First, the position at which your card is located and second, the identity of your card.� The performer cleanly removes just one card from somewhere in the pack and, without showing its face to the audience, puts it into his right front trouser pocket. (This is a heck of a lot easier if you are wearing dockers, cargo slacks, or suit pants � it is rather awkward in jeans or snug fitting slacks. Of course you could wear the �crotch at knee level� baggies that are currently popular among gang bangers, wannabees and the like, but if you are over thirty or so these will only serve to make you look like a complete asshole, thus drawing attention away from your alleged mental abilities, probably suggesting that you actually lack any mental ability whatsoever.) Having placed the card in his pocket, the mentalist continues, �I don�t want you to tell us what your card is just yet, as I am not quite sure if I got it right. But if you would, nice and loud, tell us the number between five and twenty that you were thinking of.� (Pay close attention to the last line. If you just say, �Tell us the number you were thinking of,� I guarantee you that sooner or later someone is going to tell you the name of their card instead, thus screwing up your big climax. To avoid this, be sure to say, �Tell us the number between five and twenty that you were thinking of. This will save you a lot of grief. I tell you this from experience, so trust me!) Suppose the spectator says �Fourteen.� The performer continues as follows- �Number fourteen. Let us count down to number fourteen.� One at a time the performer now deals cards from the top of the deck, dropping them to the stage as he does so, thus making it absolutely clear that he is fairly counting down to the fourteenth card. Again, since this is NOT being presented as a �card trick,� the performer can well afford to point out the fairness of the procedure. (And this handling, by the way, is what distinguishes the stage version from the close up presentation. Dropping the cards on the floor, as in my card memory effect, looks big, is unusual, is dramatic and is absolutely disarming.)

When the performer gets to the fourteenth card, he stops. Before showing it to the audience, he says, �And your card should be at this number. Tell me sir, is this your card?� The performer shows the fourteenth card to the spectator, at the same time throwing the remainder of the pack to the floor. The spectator denies that the fourteenth card is his. The performer tosses that card to the stage as he says; �You will recall that a moment ago I placed just one card into my pocket.� As he says this, the mentalist removes the card from his pocket and stands holding the card at chest level with its back to the audience. �For the first time, sir, will you tell us the name of the card you were merely thinking of?" The spectator responds, for example, with, �It was the Queen of Spades.� �The Queen of Spades,� repeats the performer as he turns the card he is holding so that it faces the audience. It is the Queen of Spades. METHOD: Unlike most mental card effects, this one is strictly designed for the stage. It is based on a close-up method originally devised by the British magician C.O. Williams almost one hundred years ago. (It is excellently described on page 123 of Henry Hay�s book, previously cited.) It also is inspired by Francis Carlyle�s effect, �The Homing Card,� described in the original �Stars of Magic� series published by Louis Tannen and available in hard bound form at most magic dealers. (It is now published by Robbins.) I liked the impact the original effect had on my close-up audiences and wanted to find a version that played just as effectively on stage. This is it. There are no difficult moves. Unless, of course, you feel that a one handed top palm is difficult. It is actually a rather basic move and is adequately described in Hugard�s Card Manipulations. You may also want to look at the Carlyle routine for some niceties of handling. A two-handed palm, however, is easily substituted without weakening the effect. The move is, in any case, perfectly covered by misdirection, so it will go undetected even if your technique should be somewhat less than flawless. As I said, it is the tossing of the cards to the floor that makes everything seem so innocent. It is also the basis of the simple misdirection that makes the effect work. The presentation I just gave you pretty much shows you the exact procedure followed on the stage. The first thing, though, that the audience is not aware of is that the first card you show to them as you say �Number One!� is really two cards. The cards are held initially in the left hand and dealt into the right. (If you are left handed, you may which to reverse the hands as we go along.) After the performer has mixed the cards � or even let a member of the audience shuffle them, for that matter � he selects his participant, asks him to stand and requests that he think of a number between five and twenty. (It is very important that the volunteer not forget the number, hence the line in the script that says, ��a number between five and twenty that has personal significance to you.� As you have probably noticed by now, all of the lines in the script have been carefully worked out to eliminate the possibility of spectator error and to make the effect and procedure perfectly clear to the rest of the audience as well.) While he is asking the spectator to think of a number, the mentalist obtains a left little finger break under the second card down. Thus, when he later deals off the �top� card, he really just pinches the top two cards, which remain perfectly squared, between his right thumb on the back and fore and middle fingers on the face. He is careful to keep the cards neatly squared for at least the first three or four cards of the deal. After that, it doesn�t matter if they spread out a bit as they are shown to the spectator.

The result of all of this is that the card the spectator remembers is actually not at the number he is thinking of. It is one number further down. In the above presentation, the spectator thought of the card that was shown when the performer said, �Number Fourteen!� In fact, he was looking at the fifteenth card. I think you will agree that, so far, the method is pretty simple and direct. Now comes the only part that may appear difficult at first glance. But pay close attention to the misdirection and I think you will end up loving its simplicity and invisibility. Again, hold the cards in your left hand when you get to the point in the presentation where you are counting down to the selected numbers. Deal them one at a time into the right hand and scale them to the floor. Go rather quickly in the count. This way if the first card lands on the stage face up, no one will have time to notice that it is not the same card that was originally shown to be on top. (This is really nothing to worry about, but I mention it only because every mentalist to whom I have ever explained the effect has asked, �What if the first card lands face up and someone notices that it isn�t the same top card that they saw before?� Interestingly enough, everyone who asks me this question was completely fooled when they first saw me perform the effect. I answer them by saying, �You didn�t notice it, did you?� Generally, they don�t even remember what the first card was or if it landed face up or face down. They were too busy watching me scale more cards from my right hand!) Finally, you will arrive at the chosen number. Do not deal that card. Instead, stop with the selected number on top of the pack and say to the audience, �And we have arrived at the fourteenth [in this example] card.� As you are saying this, casually transfer the pack from your left hand to your right � do this very slowly, you are not trying to hide anything � and grasp the pack with your right hand from above, your thumb at the near narrow end of the pack, and your four fingers at the outer end. Peel off the top card with your left hand and turn it to the audience, asking, �Is this your card?� At the same time as the left hand turns the face of its card to the audience, and the spectator says, �No,� the right hand does a one hand top palm off the remainder of the pack. This is perfectly covered because everyone is looking at the card in the left hand. As the spectator says �No,� toss the card in the left hand to the floor and throw the cards in the right to the floor as well, retaining the selected card in palm position as you go to the pocket, stating, �You will recall that, earlier, I put a card in my pocket. Apparently, remove the card palmed in the right hand from the right pocket and hold it in front of you, its back to the audience as you ask the volunteer to name his card for the first time. Finish as described above. I realize that this has taken a bit of time to explain, but I think you will find the effect well worth the effort. The �Thought Card in Pocket,� can, of course, be performed with any borrowed pack or you can ask the person who booked the show to buy a pack (or two, if you need them) and to give them to you during the show, still sealed. Whenever I perform an effect of this nature (where I throw the cards around, etc, and where no gimmicks are involved) I let the audience keep the cards. It is the next best thing to using a borrowed deck and seemingly �proves� that no trickery could have been involved. Invariably, lay people think that card tricks are done with marked cards or special magic cards. While they realize that there is such a thing as sleight of hand, they generally believe that that is only possible if you �move fast.� Aren�t misconceptions wonderful?

[Query- Is a magician who tells his audience that the �hand is quicker than the eye� fostering a false reality view, just like the mentalist who claims psychic powers? I don�t know, but it does make for a good argument. I think I�ll ask my friend Jamy the next time I see him.] POSTSCRIPT For information about this e-book, or to contact me, click on the �about this e-book� button on the tool bar above. As always, I ask that you help to keep this material exclusive. Recently, I had the somewhat upsetting experience of seeing my e-book series �Theories and Methods for the Practical Psychic,� being offered for sale or trade (�all three volumes!�) on a magic web page. I am not particularly angry at the person who offered the item, for I believe that most people do not perceive any difference between a written book and an e-book. There is no reason (except perhaps some ethical ones if we are talking about a relatively new collection of secrets written by an author who is still among the living and trying to stay there by writing �exclusive material�) why a person should not be able to sell his legally purchased copy of a physical book. An e-book, though, is not the same kind of animal. I have not, although it would be extremely easy, disabled the �print� function of this e-book. This is because I realize that some performers still like to have hard copies of material to refer to when constructing a routine or creating a show. The negative side of this, however, is that anyone who purchases the e-book can print it out, duplicate the e-book on their computer, and then �trade� or sell the e-book program to someone else, thus rendering my idea of �limited editions� obsolete. Each copy made of an e-book program is identical, in all respects, to the original and, in fact, cannot be distinguised from the original. This is not a problem encountered in traditional publishing formats. It is, however, something that most be considered when one decides to publish exclusive material in electronic formats. The average number of each of the e-books I have sold has been limited to about seventy-five. This is entirely intentional, and it is also why the e-books are priced much higher than they would be if I were to print thousands, or even only hundreds of each work, as is the case with most magical publications. Secrets decrease in value the more widespread they become. For the above reasons, as I noted at the beginning of this e-book, this program, although you may still print it out FOR YOUR OWN USE, has the name of the original purchaser encrypted within it. While this creates no problems on either end, it serves to help keep the material exclusive to the limited number of mentalists to whom I made it available. The next step, I suppose, will be password protection, disabling the �print� function, and activating the timer which would render the e-books inoperable after a specific length of time. I hope it does not come to that because that would effect me adversely as much as it would many of my readers. Believe it or not, I really do intend most of my material to remain relatively obscure and available only to those who have found their way onto my mailing list. If you should see any printed copies of my e-books, or copies of the programs themselves being offered for sale or trade, the odds are that these are pirated copies not authorized by me. I would greatly appreciate if you would let me know of any such instancea you may

come across, so that I may take appropriate action without having to incorporate inconvenient security features in future e-books. Good thoughts to all of you. And Best Wishes for the year 2003! Bob Cassidy December 11, 2002 Federal Way, Washington