Hybrid Mentalism

By
Alexander Marsh

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

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

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

introduce myself.

Hello…my name is not Alexander Marsh, it is Alex McAleer. ‘Marsh’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexander Marsh
2008

7
Swami Thing
A thing with a Swami

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

He offers a taste of things to come by briefly explaining that what he

does is all about reading and anticipating people’s thoughts. He
chooses a volunteer and asks;

“Do me a favour and think of a low number – a single digit number.

Got one? Don’t say it, just think it.”

They do so and the performer looks at them for a moment and

confidently names the number 7. The participant confirms that this
was indeed the number they had been thinking of and is of course
impressed and ready for more miracles of the mind.

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

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

Oh… it’s a psychological force.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For me this effect makes an excellent opener for close-up

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

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

Also massive credit to the inventor of the Swami Gimmick…. Mr.

Swami Boon I believe his name was although he did sometimes write
under the alias of Neil Writer.

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

The king of simple and direct mentalism gave me permission to

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

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

I walk up to a small group of people, usually a couple and

introduce myself along the lines of:

“Hi, my name is Looch, I’m one of the entertainers here today.

Are you both having a good time?”

“A hypothetical question for you, if someone who you had

never met before approaches you with his business card and
tells you that on the reverse side is a 2 digit number printed,
and that between you, you will be able to intuit the number
printed. What would you say?”

I then bring forth my business card from my pocket and hold it

with the reverse side facing me:

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

now”

“Err… a 3” says Sarah.

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

“A 9” replies Paul.

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

Both spectators look at each other and decide. Once an answer

has been given I continue…

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

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

Lovely, thanks Looch.

13
The Ambitious Peek
The Swami Peek Thing

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

I am particularly keen to use a stack of business cards due to the fact

they lend themselves to all those card slights I have learnt but rarely
use (…because I’m a mentalist!).

Despite the fact that I have never performed as a more traditional

conjuring magician, I can pull off a rather lovely Ambitious Card
routine. All those delightful ways to either control a card to the top or
create the illusion of putting the card in the middle of the pack, have
always been thought-of by me as simply screaming out to be used as a
method for setting up a peek.

What follows is a routine that combines some of the moves of an

Ambitious Card routine, a simple peek and, to add another layer of
deception, the trusty swami gimmick. I like to call it “The Swami Peek
Thing”1

Effect & Method:

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

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

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

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

Notice that I have written their name in CAPITALS, this allows me to

encourage the participant to write their first kiss’ name in the same
way by saying something along the lines of:

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

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

If all else fails, I always have the option of taking a surreptitious

glance at the name as I give them the card to keep at the end of the
routine.

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

You have a number of options regarding exactly how to retain the

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

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

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

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

Another option is to palm off an indifferent card under misdirection of

the participant writing the name. I then take back the stack with the
‘name card’ on top but as I do so, load the palmed card on top of the
packet. I then deal off this card and place this in the centre, leaving the
real ‘name card’ on top.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I write, my writing hand hides the exposed portion of the ‘name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

my pocket.

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

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

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

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

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

“[Repeat Age]… OK. Maybe I did better at this than I thought. I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This apparently fair ‘splitting’ of the cards gives you a perceived

physical distance from the ‘name card’ throughout the effect.

How to make sure you get your peek.

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

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

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

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

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

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

24
Rub-A-Dub DD
A Design Duplication

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

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

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

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

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

More precisely we will use a ‘Rub-A-Dub-Dub Change’ but without

anything being seen to have changed, so in that sense it becomes a
‘Rub-A-Dub-Dub Switch’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I knew I was onto something with this ‘Rub-A-Dub-Dub Switch’ when

I was first rehearsing the move. My girlfriend walked into the room
and asked if I was practicing a new trick, to which I replied “Yeah.
Watch” and proceeded to perform the switch for her, without
explaining what I was doing.

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

The sequence should flow something like this:

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

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

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

This hand then comes back down as you say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As in The Ambitious Peek, perform a double turnover and flash the

blank (apparently) top card as you ask the participant to concentrate on
their drawing. Go through some imaginary process of thought reading
and claim that you have ‘got it’.

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

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

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

As you say something along the lines of:

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

Perform a double lift to display the participant’s drawing and make

some sort of comment about what they have drawn. Then ask them to
have a look at what you drew by turning over the card you left on the
table.

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

So there you go, that’s “Rub-A-Dub DD”. It seems rather longwinded

in explanation but in performance it’s very simple and direct. Give it a
go.

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

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

The performer seems to induce the feeling of ‘want’ in the spectator

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

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

As mentalists we often perform effects in which the ‘plot’ is that a

participant (who having become part of the effect is no longer just a
spectator) makes a simple choice of objects and we have predicted
which object it would be.

It’s an excellent introductory effect as it alludes to our ability to

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

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

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

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

I feel this idea of creating a process should be applied to other effects

beyond mind reading. In WANT this idea is applied to the plot of
influencing the participants mind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

However some people may be reluctant to use their personal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Through out this process of anchoring the experience of ‘want’, I will

give them lots of affirmation by telling them “That’s good…
Excellent”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A member of the audience is chosen at random - let’s call him Alan -

and they are asked to come up on stage and are handed an envelope by
the performer.

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

Alan confirms that the envelope is completely opaque.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The performer starts to receive impressions about the number. These

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

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

The performer shows that he (unsurprisingly) guessed the number 37

correctly and asks for those in the room who also got the number 37 to
raise there hands. A large number of people raise their hands.

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

The performer, not wishing to be outdone by his audience, reveals the

name of Alan’s childhood friend in dramatic fashion.

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

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

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

The classic way to present this effect is as if the audience is reading

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

I personally think it works much better if the force is presented as if

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

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

Originally I thought of forcing two cards on the participant (a 3 and a

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

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

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

41
As you show him this card you say;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To do this I use Bob Cassidy’s brilliant “Two Envelope Test” also

known as “The White Dwarf” which sadly I am not at liberty to
describe fully but, as the saying goes, one of your favorite peeks will
suffice.

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

I personally prefer to present the participant with two normal, un-

gimmicked envelopes and switch the smaller one for the window
envelope at an opportune moment.

Using the 37 force:

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

However, we need to word the ‘impressions’ in such a way that the

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

“Alan, I want you to re-imagine your old school friend standing in

front of that blackboard, writing that number you have in mind, over
and over. Can you do that for me?

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

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

The rest is directed to the audience at large unless otherwise stated:

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

Pick up your pad and pen.

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

Keep focusing on the number Alan, seeing it on that blackboard. The

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

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

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

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

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

The following is said to the audience and yet almost to yourself - as if

thinking out loud.

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

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

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

You show the number to Alan and he of course confirms it to be

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

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

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

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

Tell them to give themselves and the participant a nice round of

applause, you could even invite the audience to try and pick up on the
name, see how they do.

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

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

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

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

Every time I perform this effect, I come away thinking of ways to

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

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

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

48
In Dramatic Fashion
The Sixth Sense Ploy

In the previous routine I finished the effect’s description by saying that

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

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

I loosely refer to this as “The Sixth Sense Ploy” not because I weave
some ridicules story of people having a sixth sense in to the
presentation3. No, I call it this because in the film “Sixth Sense”, there
is a scene in which Bruce Willis, who plays a child psychologist,
challenges the young boy (the one who sees dead people) to a ‘game’
of sorts. Bruce is trying to prove that he can help the boy and knows a
lot about him just by observing him and his life. He tells the boy that
he will say a few statements that he believes to be true about the boy,
every time he says something that is correct, the boy is to take one step
forward, for every statement that is wrong, the boy must take a step
back.

3
because as any neurologist or informed mind reader will tell you, we as humans actually
have at least 9 senses and some say many more, none of which allow us to do ‘paranormal’
things. It was actually Aristotle who classified us as having five because he wanted it to fit in
with his notion of there being 5 elements, however he also described redheads as being
emotionally un-housebroken!?
49
In short, for every ‘hit’ take one step forward. For every ‘miss’ take
one step back. The strong image and overall tentative feeling that was
created in this short scene stuck with me. That and the fact that I
guessed he was a ghost in the restaurant scene!

If we apply this to a mind reading performance it allows us to do a lot

of things. We can insist upon absolute silence from the participant,
only allowing them to think intently of the thought we are attempting
to receive and not in any way verbally communicate it, giving an
almost ‘test conditions’ feel to the presentation.

They must also not move unless you have made a statement and then
when they do move it is either toward you for a ‘hit’, or away form
you for a ‘miss’. The large amount of silence combined with the
tension the audience will feel as they watch and wait to see which way
the participant is going to move will be deeply affecting.

This tension will be greatly increased if after a couple of steps

forward, one step is taken backwards, which is something that can be
engineered into the performance.

Using the example given in the previous effect of having the on stage
participant think of an old school friend, I shall set out how such a
performance might pan out using the “Sixth Sense Ploy”.

Have the participant stand facing you on the other side of the stage.
Explain the ‘rules’ to him i.e. for every statement that is correct, he is
to take one step towards you. For every statement that is wrong, he is
to take one step back.

Also, here’s a nice touch which I came across in Derren Brown’s

“Pure Effect”, tell him that he is not allowed to speak at any point and
ask “Do you understand?” if he replies, instantly shush him by saying,
“No, no. You spoke. You’re not allowed to talk, just think. Do you
50
understand?”… he should remain silent. Look him in the eyes, as if
reading his mind for the answer, smile and continue.

In this example, we know that the participant is thinking of an old

school friend, we have peeked the name and there for can make a good
assumption as to the gender of said friend. This will be the first
statement. Let’s assume the name peeked was David.

“Just keep focusing on this old school friend, picture them in your
mind. Imagine them back at school sat in class with you. Say their
name to yourself in your mind… ”

“First of all, I’m getting the impression that this friend is male. If
that’s true take one step forward, if not take one step back…”

At this point they should of course take one step towards you. Smile
and say “Good.”

I will always make sure that the first two statements I make about the
participants thought are things that I know to be true, in this example
the sex of the person being thought of and the following:

“This person’s name. It begins with a hard sound, like a D or a B. I’m

going to go for a D. If there name begins with D, take one step
forwards…”

Again, they must take a step towards you. It is now, on my third

statement that I take a gamble. If I was unsure about the sex of the
school friend, it is now that I would make my 50/50 statements, or
perhaps take a wild guess at the age. I have also used Banachek’s
brilliant ‘Letters In A Word ploy’ at this point.

However, in this example I will take an educated guess as to which

class they imagine this friend in:
51
“As you imagine this friend, can you see them in class with you? Just
imagine which lesson you are in… I’m seeing numbers. Are you in
Math’s or something? Take a step towards me if so…”

This is just a minor statistical gambit but at this point in the

presentation it doesn’t matter if you miss and they take one step back,
it will add tension and realism. Also notice the wording used, “I’m
seeing numbers.” This is something of an ambiguous statement and
could refer to other school subjects, such as History or even any of the
Sciences, so if you are wrong, all is not lost in the participants mind as
it could seem as if you were half right… it did involve numbers but
you just made a bad judgment call and thought it was Maths rather
than History (for example). The participant will tend to be more than
willing to spread the word that you did get it right, you just picked the
wrong subject!

No matter how this third, not sure-fire statement went, my next few
statements I make sure are fully accurate.

I tend to make five statements in total before revealing the name.

These final two statements will involve the letters in the name itself,
for example stating:

“Ok. We know it begins with the letter D but… it also ends with D,
doesn’t it!”

And end with, “5 letters long!” as they take this final step forward I
pick up a pad and pen and write the name to reveal in a moment. After
this is done I explain to the participant that they can now speak and I
would like them to say nice and clearly the name of the old school
friend they have in mind. They do so and I reveal what I wrote.

This should give you a good idea of “The Sixth Sense Ploy”, below is
a more general and basic breakdown. Although I’ve used five
52
statements in this write up, I do often ‘Jazz’ it up during performance.
I hope you use and enjoy this presentational ploy.

Breakdown of The Sixth Sense Ploy:

Explain the ‘rules’: No talking (unless told otherwise)
For every hit = one step forward.
For ever miss = one step back.

First statement – Something you know to be true but that

doesn’t give away too much. E.g. Name = gender, Word =
number of letters

Second statement – Again, something you know to be true but

this time more specific. E.g. Name or Word = first letter

Third statement – Take a gamble and say something that if it

hits, you have a minor miracle, if not it simply adds tension and
realism. E.g. Banachek’s ‘Letters in a Word’ ploy, take an
educated guess as to the environment of the memory or what
the person in the memory looks like.

Fourth statement – Something specific that you know to be

true. E.g. repeated letters, last letter, ends in ‘ing’.

Fifth statement – Very specific, giving the impression that you

now know the name/word.

53
Deck Head
The Not Memorised Deck Routine

Effect:
The performer approaches a group of spectators and introduces
himself as a magician - not of the physical world but of the mind. To
demonstrate this concept the performer brings out a deck of playing
cards explaining that he will use it to demonstrate how he uses the
mind to produce magical results.

“The first thing you should do when you sit down to play a game of
cards is make sure the cards are shuffled, so go ahead shuffle them for
me. Any way you want.”

The spectator does so and the performer makes a humorous but in no

way derogatory comment about the participant’s shuffling skills.

“OK, so you are happy they are mixed? Good. The second thing you
should do is make sure the cards are not marked in any way. The best
way to do this is called the ‘flick book test’.”

The performer then demonstrates the ‘flick book test’ by riffling

through the cards and showing that if the backs where marked in any
way the patterns on the back would change.

“A bit like one of those flick book animations that you might have seen
when you where young. You know, there would have been a slightly
different image on each page and as you flicked through the image
would come to life. Well if the cards where marked, the backs would
all be different so you would see a change as you flick through.”

54
Both ends are checked and the cards are seen not to be marked in any
way.

“The last thing you should do is make sure the cards are all different”

The performer begins to spread the cards face up.

“So just take a look and make sure they are all different. For example,
if you see more than 4 Aces you know something funny is going on!
Happy? So you’re happy they are mixed, happy their not marked and
happy they are all different. Good, if you’re happy I’m happy.”

And with those final words the performer has given them a brief
shuffle and cut.

“Now, if we were to play a game of cards everything would be very

fair. The cards have been thoroughly checked and mixed, so no one
would have an advantage over any one else.

Unless someone has the ability to very rapidly, memorise the order of
the cards.”

He then asks for a moment and holds the deck up to his eyes. He
rapidly riffles through the cards seemingly memorising the order of the
cards.

“Done. Simple as that. Well not quite, you see I haven’t really
memorised the deck in the way you might imagine. Actually I have just
opened up my mind and allowed all that information to flood in,
knowing that subconsciously I will take it all in. And that if I test it, my
mind will let me know the information consciously.

55
So let’s see, if you name a number between 1 and 52, I should be able
to fairly accurately tell you which card is at that number. Go ahead,
name a number.”

The participant names a number, let’s say it’s 21.

“OK, 21… That’s a black card. It’s a 3… the 3 of Hearts… I think.

Let’s find out.

Now, I can’t mess up the order of these cards or this will all be a
waste of time. So I’ll count them like this and you make sure I count
fairly, one card at a time… 1, 2, 3… ”

The performer spreads the cards one at a time from the top of the deck,
counting as he goes and being careful not to disturb their order. He
reaches the 21st card and moves it to the top of the ‘counted’ pack and
gives the remainder to the participant.

“The 21st card you said. I said it would be the 3 of Hearts, let’s have a
look…”

He reveals the card and it is indeed the 3 of Hearts and is clearly

relived that his mind has not let him down. He places the card “back
where it should be” on top of the remainder pack in the participant’s
hands and places the rest of the deck he holds, back on top of that.

Excited to test his skills again the performer continues:

“Let’s try it again, but slightly differently this time. Another test that
memory experts and card counters use is to move or completely
remove one card from the deck.

56
You see because I have the sequence in my head, if one of those cards
were to be removed or moved, the sequence would be broken and that
card would in my mind stick out like a sore thumb. Think of it like the
alphabet. The alphabet is a sequence of 26 letters, the order of which
you know off by heart, almost unconsciously, so if the letter ‘C’ were
suddenly removed completely or moved to later in the sequence you’d
notice it wouldn’t you.”

The performer dribbles the cards in his hands and asks the participant
to say ‘Stop’. They do so and the card stopped at is the card taken from
the deck and memorised by the participant. The performer riffles the
cards in front of his eyes. He frowns and looks pensive.

He tells the participant to put the card back in the deck but somewhere
different so he dribbles the cards again and asks them to say ‘Stop’.
The card is replaced at his point and once again the cards are riffled in
front of the performer’s eyes.

“OK there was a card missing…and it came from here next to the Jack
of Diamonds.”

The performer explains as he spreads through the now face up deck.

“What was after the Jack… it was the 4… the 4 of Spades, is that
right?”

The participant confirms that he is correct much to the performers

delight.

“Now, this all very well and good me showing off like this but all I’m
doing is trusting my own mind. Trusting that my subconscious mind
has taken in all the information and will consciously let me know the
card. This is what our subconscious does, among other things. But
‘how’ it let’s us know is different for different people; it may come as a
mental flash or as an intuitive gut instinct.
57
So with that in mind I want to try something with you to show that you
can do exactly what I have just done. It sounds impossible, but if you
trust me and do as I ask this will work.”

The performer spreads the cards and asks a spectator to remove a card
but not to let him or the participant see what it is.

While the card is being memorised by the other spectator and shown to
the rest of the group, the performer instructs the ‘would-be card
counter’ to relax and take a few deep breaths. This, he claims, will
help open up her mind and allow all the information in.

He riffled the cards in front of her eyes just like he did in front of his
own eyes.

“You may not think you saw everything but trust me, it’s all in there.”

The card that had been removed is now placed back in the deck at a
random point. He approaches the participant and tells her to relax.

“I’m going to show you the cards again. Just relax and notice how this
time one card just stands out to you. This is different for different
people. Some people think it’s like time has slowed down. You will see
all the cards again but one card will seem to stand out from the others,
it may seem to linger for longer in your mind. Just remember it
consciously.”

The performer riffles the cards in front of the spectator again and asks:

“Did you see the card, one that seemed to stand out form all the
others? Me too, just focus on that card and remember it.”

58
The performer goes through the deck and out jogs a single card. He
asks the participant what colour the card is. She replies and the
spectator who had chosen the card confirms that she is correct. The
same is done with the value and finally she is asked to name the card
completely. She is 100% correct and is congratulated by both the
performer and the spectators alike.

About Deck Head:

So, this is my ‘not memorised deck routine’. So called because you
don’t genuinely memorise the deck (no surprises there) but also
because you actually explain this to the spectators.

Instead I have chosen to spin a tale of ‘subconscious recall’, which, for

those of you that don’t know, is the generally accepted explanation
behind our ‘intuitive’ or ‘gut instinct’ reactions and decisions.

Our subconscious (or, if you prefer, unconscious) mind is constantly

taking in everything around us and can ‘remember’ everything we
have ever seen, heard, felt or thought. It then makes decisions based
on all this input and then sends the relevant information to our
conscious mind in some way, more often than not as a ‘feeling’.
I’m sure you have heard people say something like, “I’ve got a bad
feeling about this” when faced with something that is similar to an
event that happened previously in their life and something went
wrong, whether they remember this event consciously or
subconsciously.

I highly recommend you do a little research on the idea of

‘subconscious recall’. I personally find it fascinating and a far more
interesting plot for a routine than simply having mastered esoteric
memory techniques.

Also, with this routine I feel I have dealt with some of the issues I have
with most memorised deck routines: firstly, it’s completely pointless in
presenting an effect in which you seem to rapidly memorise the order
59
of the cards if the spectators think the deck is either not properly
shuffled and therefore stacked, or is marked in some way.

These suspicions are straight away blown out of the water by asking
the spectator to mix the cards and making an amusing comment about
their shuffling. Nothing harsh or derogatory, but something that can be
used again later and will draw attention to the fact that the cards are
being mixed.

This is reinforced by showing them how to test for marked cards using
the ‘flipbook test’ or ‘riffle test’ which is done exactly as described in
the presentation above. Derren Brown is the first person I saw use this
idea but I have since seen Luke Jermay use it, and use it brilliantly.

The other issue I have with most memorised deck routines is that it’s
all about the performer and his brain. With this routine and its final
phase, I have hopefully created something special for the participant in
showing them that they too can do this. This not only adds some
realism to my pseudo-explanation but puts the spotlight on the
participant, which is where I feel it should be.

Method:
The deck is a perfectly ordinary one, but has one minor change: one
card is a short card.

I personally use the 3 of Clubs as it’s a rather innocuous card. I trim of

a few millimetres from both the short ends of the card in the usual
fashion.

The only other thing I do is remove the jokers as they just get in the
way.

To begin the effect the short card can be anywhere in the deck. Have
the deck shuffled by the participant, as in the presentation. When they
60
give the cards back and you ask if they are happy with the shuffle, give
them a brief mix and a cut yourself, in the process bringing the short
card to the bottom of the deck.

This is done to get the short card out of the way for the first 2 phases
of the routine and so it won’t disturb your riffling of the deck as you
supposedly memorise the order.

Then, as in the presentation, explain and demonstrate how to check for

marked cards. After this you will spread the cards face up:

“The last thing you should do is make sure the cards are all different”

This is purely as motivation to look at the faces of the cards, and in

particular the top card. As you spread through casually catch a glimpse
of what the top card is and remember it. This will be the card you
claim is at the number they call out.

This first phase is straight out of Corinda with minor handling changes
from me. It’s called “Photo-Memory” by Hans Trixer and can be
found on page 308 of “13 Steps to Mentalism”.

So you have got to the point where the cards have been mixed and
examined. The short card is out of the way on the bottom and you have
remembered the top card. You will now seemingly memorise the cards
by riffling the cards in front of your eyes.

I do this quite fast and riffle up whilst counting slowly to 4 in my head.

After the first riffle, I pause for a beat and look up as if thinking and
then riffle the cards again.

Each time I riffle the cards I will slow down towards the top of the
deck and put a slight upward bend in the top card. This will facilitate
the double lift I will perform in a moment.
61
I explain that I haven’t really memorised the cards, but allowed my
subconscious to take in the information et cetera and get the
participant to name any number between 1 and 52, saying that I should
know which card is at that number.

Whatever number they name; name the top card: the card you
remembered earlier and put the bend in.

I tell them that I can’t mess up the order of the cards so have to count
the cards in the following fashion. The truth is that counting them like
this makes the effect possible by keeping the top card on top.

Hold the deck in your left hand and use the left thumb to spread the
cards, one card at a time off to the right, counting as you go. Let’s say
the number called is 21.

When you reach the 21st card, thumb it off on to the top card and break
the deck at this point. Hand the participant the left hand, lower portion
of the deck and retaining the right hand, upper portion.

Reiterate the number they said and the card you said would be at that
position. Perform the double lift and reveal the card. Simple as that.

I like to act relieved and excited at this point, as if I’m pleased my

mind didn’t fail me.

A nice touch here is to take the double as one card and put it “back
where it came from” on top of the participants lower part of the pack,
followed by your upper pack on top. Notice how these actions and
words cement the idea that the card was indeed at that position and
that you really don’t want to mess up the order of the cards. What’s
cool about this is that whatever card you named (the top card) is
actually now in the 21st (or whatever number was called) position.

62
The next phase is nothing more than a cunningly disguised key card
effect. Dribble the cards in your hands and request the participant say
stop. Ask them to take the top card of the lower portion and remember
it.

As they do this, riffle the cards in front of your eyes but seem unsure.
Almost as an afterthought tell them to put the card back but in a
different position, so dribble the cards again and when they tell you to
stop, break the deck at that point.

Tell them to put it face down on top of the lower portion of the deck
and as they do so, catch a glimpse of the bottom card of the upper half
of the deck.

More theatrics now as you riffle the cards in front of your eyes again.
Immediately turn the pack face up and begin to spread through it. As
you do this, look for your key card and remember the card next to it,
this of course will be the card that was removed and then moved in the
deck.

“OK there was a card missing…and it came from here next to the Jack
of Diamonds.

What was after the Jack… it was the 4… the 4 of Spades, is that
right?”

This is sheer bluff but the idea behind saying it is to move away from
finding the participants card (and any thoughts of key cards the
audience may have) and in to the area of the effect you are presenting,
that being a memory or ‘subconscious recall’ of the cards and their
positions.

63
Again, a nice touch here after having your guess confirmed, is to
actually find the card that had been moved and put it ‘back’ next to the
Jack.

Now we get to the final phase: the ‘spectator as mentalist’ moment.

This is where the short card comes into play. We will be using the
classic ‘Visual Riffle Force’ made popular amongst magicians by
David Blain, and earlier than that, Chan Canasta. Banachek also writes
about this in the first “Psychological Subtleties”.

You explain, as in the presentation, what is going to happen and have a

card removed and remembered by a bystander.

As you are talking to the participant casually shuffle the cards as it

doesn’t matter any more because the participant is going to be doing
all the work. As you shuffle, bring the short card to the top of the deck.

I really like to get the participant to relax, as if I am putting them in a

powerful state of mind.

Riffle the cards in front of the spectator’s eyes in a similar manner to

how you did in front of your own eyes. Assure them that all the
information is in their head.

As you turn back to find the removed card and the person holding it,
swing cut the deck and have the card held by the bystander put on top
of the short card. Put remainder of the deck on top and explain to the
participant:

“I’m going to show you the cards again. Just relax and notice how this
time one card just stands out to you. This is different for different
people. Some people think its like time has slowed down. You will see
all the cards again but one card will seem to stand out from the others,
it may seem to linger for longer in your mind. Just remember it
consciously.”
64
The words here are very important. Essentially you are prepping them
to notice and remember the card that, thanks to the short card, will be
seen for longer than the others. At the same time you are suggesting to
them and the audience at large that this is due to the power of the mind
and its natural functions.

“Did you see the card, one that seemed to stand out from all the
others? Me too, just focus on that card and remember it.”

I then go through the deck and out jog the card above the short card
and encourage the participant to reveal the information bit by bit,
rather than blurt it out, to build the tension.

I can congratulate them on doing a brilliant job, telling them that I

knew they could do it and encourage the others to give them a round of
applause.

Credits:
As stated in the text, the first phase of the routine is “Photo-Memory”
by Hans Trixer and can be found on page 308 of “13 Steps to
Mentalism”. The idea of putting a slight bend or crimp in a card to
facilitate a double lift is, as far as I know, a well-known card handling
tip.

The second phase is a key card effect. I don’t know who ‘invented’ the
idea of ‘key cards’ but the concept is found in most, if not all,
beginners magic books.

The final phase uses the concept of a ‘visual riffle force’, an idea often
used by the late, great Chan Canasta. I first came across the idea when
reading Banachek’s first “Psychological Subtleties”, Chapter 8
“Subtle Cards”.

65
Finally, the presentational idea of showing the participant how to
check for marked cards was brought to my attention by Derren Brown
in an episode of “Trick of the Mind”.

66
Leave An Impression
The Memory Man Ploy

Whilst we are on the subject of being dishonest about your memory,

here’s a little idea that although isn’t strictly speaking an effect, it
should leave a firm impression about you and your mental abilities on
whoever you perform it for.

Before I explain the idea, let me tell you a quick anecdote that I feel
illustrates the point I am about to make.

I was performing at a private party held in a rather nice home in

Cambridge. I introduced myself to the hostess, Lynn I believe her
name was, and she introduced me to the first little group of guests that
had arrived.

I did ‘my thing’ with the four or so guests in the group, asking names
and involving them all in the routines.

After ten minutes or so, more guests arrived and I moved on to the
next group. Over the hour I was booked, I didn’t once bump in to any
of those original ‘early comers’ that I had begun the night with. They
seemed to stay in the kitchen and keep themselves to themselves.

It wasn’t until it came time for me to leave and I was looking for Lynn,
the hostess with the mostess, to say goodbye that I did see one of those
‘early comers’.

I couldn’t find Lynn but I did see a lady I recognized from that first
group and for some reason, despite having heard about 30 different

67
names that evening, I could recall her name, it was Rose (quite a
memorable name really).

I touched her on the shoulder and said something like, “Rose, have you
seen Lynn, I need to say goodbye.”

Rose had a look on her face of utter surprise, with a smidgen of glee.

She apologized for looking a bit dumb struck and revealed she was
shocked and impressed that I had remembered her name, adding
something along the lines of ‘…but of course you would, you’re the
mind magician’ and proceeded to tell me that Lynn was having a wee.

The point of this not-particularly interesting story is: it’s the little
things that make the bigger picture more interesting.

Thinking about it, of course Rose felt special that I had remembered
her name, who wouldn’t, but I think it resonated a little deeper in Rose
due to the fact I was ‘the mind magician’.

Her initial shock that I had remembered her name came from the fact
that when you meet someone at a party, usually their name goes in one
ear and out the other, but because it was me, a man with para-usual
skills of the mind of which she had had first hand experience, it
became easily explained away. She believed in my mental powers. I
was no longer a one or two trick pony, I actually had real abilities.

You may think I’m reading a little to deeply in to this but her shock
and enthusiasm at my recollection of her name got me thinking. It
really is the little things that make the difference.

Using your supposed abilities for something other than the routines
you perform adds depth and realism to your character.

68
This notion has inspired a few ideas within me, one of which is
detailed below.

Imagine:
You are performing at some sort of event and a spectator has
expressed an interest in hiring you for their next ‘do’. You of course
give them one of your business cards but you also ask them to give
you their phone number (it’s just good business practice).

But what do you do if they don’t have a business card, or they start
scrabbling around looking for a pen and paper to jot it down?

Well, you tell them not to worry, they can just tell you the number and
you’ll remember it.

They will give you a bit of an odd look for a moment but encourage
them to tell you their number.

Weeks later, imagine their surprise when you phone them up to talk
about that gig!

Method:
Well, you could just attempt to genuinely memories their phone
number as they give it to you, but unless your last name is Lorayne,
you may find this tricky.

And the image of a mind master, glimpsed from the corner of their eye
as they turn around to continue their evening, pelting frantically from
the room to their car, scrabbling around the glove box for a pen and
paper to quickly write down said number, rather destroys the illusion
you are aiming to create.

69
The less mentally taxing and cardio-vascular inducing method is
pocket writing.

Just very casually put your hands in your pockets as you are speaking
to this potential customer and ask them to tell you their number - one
digit at a time. With each digit simply write it down in your pocket,
it’s as simple as that.

In a more ‘impromptu’ setting I have managed to do the same thing

using my mobile phone. Again, I just casually put my hands in my
pocket, unlock my phone and dial the number by touch alone. I would
then hit ‘dial’ but then immediately hang up. This would store the
number in my ‘recently called’ list, and save me trying to save it into
my address book with the phone still in my pocket.

So next time you have a potential customer in front of you, just ask
them tell you their phone number, act as if you are memorizing it by
mumbling to yourself and looking pensive… then tell them you will be
in touch.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding and the pudding comes when
a few days later, you phone them! The reactions can be priceless.
Enjoy!

70
Thief of Thoughts
A Sneaky Thought Reading Effect

Effect:
The performer hands out four of his business cards along with four
pens, to four people. He then asks them to write the name of an object,
a person or a place that means something to them on their card.

“I would like each of you to write down a name.

This can be a name of a person or a place that has some sort of
meaning to you: someone close to you that you see quite often or a
place you have been to and have fond memories of being there.
Or this could be an object that has some sort of meaning to you.
It’s up to you what you write, just make it personal.”

When they have done that, all the cards are passed face down to one
person and mixed.

These are then given to the performer and he places them on top of the
stack of business cards he holds in his hand.

The performer explains briefly what he is about to do by telling a story

about ‘Clever Hans’. He explains that:

“In the early 1900’s there was something of phenomenon known as

‘Clever Hans’. Clever Hans was a German horse that was claimed to
have been able to perform mathematical tasks and, more interestingly,
read minds!

71
One such task was for someone from a small crowd to write down a
piece of information while the horse and the trainer were out of sight.
The horse would be brought to the group and the card would be shown
to him.

Clever Hans was then led around the group until he stopped in front of
one person and tapped his hoof to indicate that this was the person
Hans ‘thought’ had written the information. He was surprisingly
accurate at it, much to the surprise of anyone who witnessed it,
including his trainer.

No one at the time knew how a horse could do this sort of thing, not
even the owner, but in 1907, psychologist Oskar Pfungst demonstrated
that the horse was not actually performing intellectual tasks and
reading minds, but was watching the reaction of his human observers.
Pfungst discovered that the horse was responding directly to
involuntary clues in the body language of the human trainer and the
gathered crowd.

You see the closer and closer the horse got to the correct person the
more tense the crowd would get, until Hans found the correct person,
then they would all relax and Hans would notice this and respond
accordingly.

Now, I’m no German horse but I would like to try something similar
with the information you have written down.”

The performer explains that he will turn over the first card and show it
to the group but cautions them not to react or give away if it’s their
thought being shown.

The performer turns over and displays the first card to everyone. He
gives the rest of the stack to a near by spectator but retains the first
card in his hands.

72
The performer seems to study the card and the gathered participants,
repeating out loud the information written on the card, even adding
details that he ‘senses’.

“Luke! This is clearly a name… someone close to you. Someone you

have a connection with. I’d say this Luke is a young man, I also think
he has been troubled by something recently… maybe this is something
you have spoken about with him…”

The performer is speaking to no one in particular but at the same time

speaking to the person who wrote on that card. He wanders from
person to person, mimicking Clever Hans being led around the group,
as if by some unseen force. Finally he stops in front of one person:

“Say hello from me next time you see Luke! Am I right?!”

The participant confirms he is correct, much to the delight of everyone

watching.

The performer does the same with the next participant but a little
quicker this time. Now only two cards remain. He picks up the second
to last card but does not show this to anyone else.

“Please both of you think about what you wrote down. It’s either a
name of a place or a person or an object. Whatever it is just focus on
your own thought for a moment.”

The performer starts to reveal pieces of information about what each

person is thinking. He describes the general image they each have in
their mind, whether it is a person, place or object and finally gives the
card he holds to the correct person.

73
He immediately ‘pounces’ on the last participant, revealing what this
person is merely thinking of almost exactly, despite the fact that the
card with his thought on is still being held by an indifferent spectator.

Method;
Larry Becker’s Sneak Thief has become a modern day classic. Many
different variations have been published and released to the
community including several that have that all important kicker ending
of duplicating the final drawing. What follows is my own personal
presentation, handling and marking system for the routine.

Although I still often perform this effect using drawings, this

presentation is based around giving the participants a choice of what to
write: a name, an object or a place. Performing it this way gives the
routine a kind of ‘jazzy’ feel that makes it much more fun to perform:
as anyone who performs in a close-up environment regularly will tell
you, it’s the repetition that gets to you. This presentation also allows
for a more progressive and intimate feel to the effect.

In terms of patter and presentation, I just really like the story about
Clever Hans. A quick Google search will tell you plenty about Hans, it
will also tell you that some of the stuff I say about him in performance
is completely made up.

In particular, he was better known for doing mathematical and

intellectual tasks rather than mind reading4 and the test I describe was
probably never done to Hans, but it sits in nicely with this effect.

However, the part about Hans reading the unconscious clues and body
language of the crowd and his trainer are true. So true, in fact, that this
phenomenon became known as “The Clever Hans Effect”.

4
Although, there was once a famous horse with alleged psychic abilities called Lady Wonder.
Her ‘abilities’ however are often considered to be down to a mixture of luck and the ‘Clever
Hans Effect’.
74
Now, let’s break down the effect in to its component parts. In a
moment I will detail the marking system I use and then move on to
how I like to get my peek.

I’m going to resist the temptation and turmoil of writing up exactly

how I like to perform the revelations but essentially I do it as written
under the effect’s description. I use cold reading, logic and barefaced
bluff to give a kind of ‘reading’, but a reading that is based on the
information on the card and not the participant’s personality, as is
usually the case.

I like to wander from participant to participant, as if reading reactions

like Clever Hans did. I hold the card flat on my palm, moving from
person to person as if the card is somehow guiding me. I like to think
of it as a mental game of ‘hot or cold’.

The brief readings I do give are spoken as if to myself: maybe I am

receiving impressions or perhaps I’m really just trying to coax a
reaction out of the participants in order to work out who the card
belongs to.

I handle the first two readings in much the same way by making
educated guesses about the relationship between the participant and
the information written on the card.

The third card and the third ‘reading’ are handled slightly differently: I
take the third card from the pile without showing it to anybody. I just
read it to myself and ask the last two remaining participants to focus
on their own thoughts.

I note the markings on this card and thus know who wrote it. Doing
this also tells me that the name I will have peeked earlier is being
thought of by the other person.

75
I look at the participant whose card I peeked earlier and reveal that
they are thinking of the name of a person (or whatever it is) and that
the other person is thinking of a place (or whatever).

“Which tells me that this is yours!”

I say as I give the card in my hand to the correct participant.

In the event that they are both thinking of the same type of
information, i.e. both thinking of a name, I handle the reveal by
announcing that they are both thinking of the same thing but point out
the differences.

By that, I mean I explain they are both thinking of a name (for

example) but “You’re thinking of a female name and you’re thinking
of a man, yes!? Which tells me this is yours, correct!?”

Or in the case of an object it might be: “Yours is large but yours is

very small, yes!? Which tells me this is yours, correct!?”

Or for a place: “Yours is in this country but yours is abroad,

somewhere hot, yes!? Which tells me this is yours, correct!?”
.
I will then launch straight into reading the mind of the final
participant, naming specific details about the person, place or object
until I eventually nail it.

I don’t see the cold reading used in this effect as any kind of problem
because I will always have the surefire revelation of knowing who
wrote what to fall back on, and due to the peek I can end on a high.

Also, keep in mind that when you asked the participants to write
something down, you added:

76
“This can be a name of a person or a place that has some sort of
meaning to you: someone close to you that you see quite often or a
place you have been to and have fond memories of being there.

Or this could be an object that has some sort of significance to you.

It’s up to you what you write, just make it personal.”

This will give you something of a head start when it comes to thinking
about the relationships and connections your participants have with the
information they have chosen to write down.

The Marks
As I’m sure you are aware, a covert and impromptu method to mark
the cards is to simply nail nick each card in a different way as you
hand them out. But if you are anything like me, and I know I am, then
you love to chew your nails. Thus rendering the nail nick method,
which I believe goes back to Annemann, not only tricky but also
painful for our sore and bloody fingers.

In Larry Becker’s original handling the method of marking was to

omit numbers and letters from your telephone number and address on
the business cards, however I have a problem with this as I like to
leave my cards with the participants (why else would you be using
them!?) and if I omit parts of my address and phone number then my
potential clients are not going to be able to contact me and therefore
not be able to hire me!

My solution to this is illustrated in the diagram on the next page. Pay

particular attention to the telephone numbers on the mock business
cards in the diagram. Notice the spaces or gaps between the area codes
and the rest of the number. This is how we will mark each of the cards.

77
 Alexander Marsh [Card 1]

Purveyor of Magicalness
Available for weddings, parties and bar
mitzvahs.
01234567899
07098765432
Alexander Marsh [Card 2]

Purveyor of Magicalness
Available for weddings, parties and bar
mitzvahs.
01234 567899
07098765432
Alexander Marsh [Card 3]

Purveyor of Magicalness
Available for weddings, parties and bar
mitzvahs.
01234567899
07098 765432
Alexander Marsh [Card 4]

Purveyor of Magicalness
Available for weddings, parties and bar
mitzvahs.
01234 567899
07098 765432

78
Please note that the gaps (or spaces) between the numbers in the
diagram have been slightly exaggerated and that the labels at the top
right of each card, e.g. [Card 1] are there for your convenience and
illustration only.

Most telephone numbers (in the UK at least) have 11 digits in them; a

5 digit area code followed by a 6 digit number.

Anyone in the same area code as you can dial the 6 digit number
without the need for the area code prefixing it. If, on the other hand,
they are outside your area code, then they will need to dial your area
code before the 6 digit number5.

Also, here in the UK, mobile (or ‘cellular’) ‘phone numbers also have
11 digits and always begin 07.

Some people write the number as one string of 11 digits. However,

some write the area code (5 digits) then have a space followed by the
rest of the number (6 digits). This is most often done with landline
numbers only and the mobile number is written as one long string.

However, I have often seen mobile numbers split up in to 5 and then 6

digits, probably for sake of symmetry with the landline number and to
make it a little easer to read and digest.

So using this notion we can mark 4 cards separately and due to the fact
that it’s such a natural thing to see it becomes ‘under the radar’. No
one will notice the slight difference on each card unless you lay them
out as in the diagram and challenge them to a game of ‘spot the
difference’.

5
I’m sure I’ve made that sound more complicated than it is! Oh and by the way, I’m
going for the world record of saying ‘area code’ as much as possible in one book. So,
area code, area code, area code, area code, area code… just to make sure.
79
If one person does notice that there seems to be a gap in the mobile
number but not the landline number, they will probably assume it is a
printing error and nothing to worry about.

So next time you get your business cards printed, make a special
request to have:

X amount made up like [Card 1] with no spaces.

X amount made up like [Card 2] with a space in the top/landline
number only.
X amount made up like [Card 3] with a space in the bottom/mobile
number only and…
X amount made up like [Card 4] with a space in both numbers.

This will work equally well with spaces in other information or

perhaps even having one card with your website and/or email as .com
and another with .co.uk (or .org, or .net) as long as each person can
still access your website or email you with either address.

The business cards I bring out at the beginning of the routine are
stacked in the following manner; Card 1, Card 2, Card 3, Card 4, Card
1, Card 2, Card 3, Card 4, and so on until the whole stack is in this
order repeated ad nausiem.

I always make sure that when I use a business card from the stack for
another effect or hand one out to a potential customer, it comes from
the bottom of the stack. But whenever I perform this effect I hand out
the 4 business cards needed from the top (printed side facing up) so
the stacked order is retained. So all I need to remember in performance
is in what order the participants got their card, e.g. from left to right.

It should go without saying (but I’ll say it anyway) that you shouldn’t
stare at the back of the cards during performance whilst attempting to
read the marks. The markings are very easy to spot and you have
plenty of opportunities to do so.
80
For example: as you take the first card from the top of the stack to
perform your first reading, this is your first opportunity to spot the
mark and I often find it enough. You also have ample time when
showing the card around to the crowd by holding it up at head height
with the back facing you and catching a glimpse of the mark whilst
everyone is looking at the word written on the other side.

If you see no spaces, for example, you know this card is participant
number one’s. If you glimpse at next the card and see a space in the
top number only, you know it is participant number two’s card, and so
on.

The Peek & Handling

Let’s say that you’ve handed out the four cards from the top of the
stack to four people. These cards have been written on, collected and
mixed.

In your left hand you still hold the original stack of business cards in a
dealers grip. Ask for the stack of four ‘hot’ cards to be handed to you,
being overt about the fact you are not trying to look at what is written
on them.

Take these hot cards in your right hand and then place them directly on
top of the stack in your left hand. No breaks, no nothing… not yet. Just
put them on top. As motivation for doing this, ask the four participants
to give you your pens back and feel free to crack a little joke here such
as, “It’s not that I don’t trust you but you seem like the kind of
common folk that would be petty enough to steal my pens.”

Pay as little attention to the cards as you can for now, but during your
speech about Clever Hans (or whatever you choose to say) obtain a
break under the top two cards. This can easily be done under the
distraction of collecting the pens and putting them in your pocket.

81
You may wish to bring your right hand up as cover to prevent anyone
who may be on your right side from seeing the peek. Fig. 2.1 below
shows an alternative peek position which is achieved by rotating the
hand 180 degrees (palm up to palm down).

Fig. 2

Fig. 2.1

83
 Fig. 3
Fig. 3 above shows the audiences perspective of the peek shown in
Fig. 2

As soon as I have my peek I bring my hand back down again and in

the same motion, lower the top two cards as one, leaving them squared
on top of the stack. Essentially, this is the reverse of the moves you
have just done to get in to the peek position described previously.

I then immediately take the top (still face up) card from the stack and
hand the rest of the stack to someone close by, or if working at a table
place them down on that.

I will then of course go through my presentation and return the card to

whom ever wrote on it having noted my mark.

The situation should now be as follows: you have just returned the first
card to the correct person and somewhere close by is the stack of
business cards, the top 3 of which have something written on them.
84
The very top card of this three you have just peeked. So we now need
to make sure this top card is the one left at the end for your big finish.

The way I achieve this is so simple it’s ridiculous.

I look at the stack, wherever it may be, frown, and say:

“How many of you are there left?”

I look blankly at the four participants and say, as if unsure:

“There were four of you weren’t there… ”

I then deal off the top three cards, one at a time and on top of each
other, face down into the hands of the spectator who was holding the
stack. I do this in a very specific way that adds a little confusion and
muddies the waters a little.

I point to the person who has just been handed the first card, the card
they wrote on, and say:

“You’re 1, so it goes 1 [point again at first participant, without dealing

a card] 2, 3 and 4.”

With the numbers 2, 3, and 4, I deal one card at a time from the stack
on top of the other. This puts the peeked card on the bottom of the
three card pile, which means it will be the last card left for the final
phase.

I put away the rest of the stack under the pretext that I don’t wish to
get confused again.

85
I can now ask the spectator who holds the three cards (my helper) to
hand me the “Next card… from the top” and proceed to do my second
reading.

After this the third card is requested in the same manner and handled
in the way described earlier. For the final phase (where I seem to read
the mind of the last participant) the card is still in the hands of the
helper, so I ask them to sandwich this card between their palms.
Leaving the final card in the hands of the helper puts a nice amount of
distance between me and the card making everything seem much
cleaner and more impossible.

Credits:
Larry Becker of course started the ball rolling with his original Sneak
Thief which can be found in “Stunners Plus”. Since then, many
performers have created their own variations of the routine.

Some of the published ones I am aware of include: Marc Spelmann,

Andy Nyman, Sean Waters and Max Maven, all of which are well
worth a look as they have their own unique handlings, peeks and
presentational hooks.

The idea of simply dealing the cards, one on top of the other, to get the
top and in this case, peeked card to the bottom is nothing new and
probably the most basic way to do this. It is however the first time I
have seen the idea applied to this effect.

The way of counting the cards down, i.e. counting ‘1’ without actually
dealing a card, is based on an old con-trick to short change a customer.

86
Love Hate
Almost Real Mind Reading

Effect:
The performer explains that he is fascinated by people, and the
relationships that people have with other people.

“I’ve noticed that people’s relationships at a very base level boil down
to either a love relationship, or a hate relationship.

There are countless degrees of love and hate but we all have people
we love (or really, really like) and we all have people we hate (or at
least really dislike). And we think about and treat these people
differently depending upon whether we love them or hate them.

For example, who here carries around a picture in your wallet of

someone you love? Yeah? It’s quite a common thing to do but no one
carries around a picture of someone they hate! That would just be
odd!”

Catching the eye of a spectator, he continues:

“Sir, now I don’t know if you have a picture of someone in your wallet
that you love or if you’re strange enough to have a picture of someone
you hate… but I can be certain that you can get an image in your mind
of someone that you really like or possibly love and someone that you
really hate. Can you do that for me?”

The performer pauses for a moment.

87
“You’ve got a few names going through your mind. Here, just commit
yourself to one name for each heading by writing them down. Someone
you love. Someone you hate. I won’t look so let me know when you’re
finished.”

The participant is given a business card from the performer’s wallet.

The performer writes the headings ‘love’ and ‘hate’ with a line next to
each word, indicating where the participant is to write the names.

“Please make sure that I can’t see the names. So keep the card writing
side away from me and just pop it out of sight back in my wallet… As
I’m going to try and get a sense of whom these people are from you…
almost as if I know them.”

The performer asks the participant to concentrate and vividly picture

each person. First the person they hate and then the person they love.
The participant is asked to think of either one and the performer
receives a few impressions about what the participant is seeing in his
mind’s eye. Several times in a row the performer correctly identifies
which person is being thought of, either love or hate.

Finally the participant is asked to focus on just one of the two people
he has in mind.

The performer then proceeds to not only divine if this person is loved
or hated by the participant but also their sex, age, hair colour, the
participant’s relationship with this thought-of person and perhaps some
elements of their personality that makes them loved or hated.

He even goes as far as revealing what the image in the participant’s

mind looks like and finishes with revealing the name of this person.

88
Method:
I can sum up the method(s) for this in one sentence: A hybrid of classic
mentalism techniques and modern psychological observations to
create the illusion of mind reading.

It’s a bit of a mouthful I know but it is succinct and true. The classical
method used here is a peek. In the effect’s description above I have
used a peek wallet to obtain the names, as this is, more often than not,
how I will perform the effect. So I will continue to use the example of
a peek wallet in this description, however alternative methods will be
discussed later6.

The other part of this hybrid effect is something I’m sure you will be
familiar with. We will be using Eye Accessing Cues commonly
associated with that loved and hated acronym, NLP. They are used to
create a kind of ‘mental living and dead test’ or in this case, a love and
hate test.

A quick Google search for ‘NLP Eye Cues’ will tell you more than
need to know about such things but we will be using them in a slightly
different way than some of you may be used to.

As I’m sure most of you are aware, Eye Cues are not always 100%
reliable 100% of the time, but within this routine they will be used in a
safe way, with lots of room for maneuver.

Finally, we will use some cold reading techniques to create the illusion
that we are seeing what the participant is seeing in their mind.

I will break up this effect’s description first by explaining the Eye

Cues, how and why they are used, plus your options when it comes to
‘outs’. I will then detail the scripting and handling of the effect using a

6
See “Miser’s Peek Wallet” on page 101
89
peek wallet and finally I will briefly explain how I handle the cold
reading and eventual revelation of the thought-of name.

The Eye Cues:

If you ask someone to picture a person they hate or really dislike, their
eyes will tend to go up and to the right – their top left. This is not
always the case, but most people will certainly look up. It won’t
normally be a massive jump in ‘where’ they are looking but a subtle
and often brief change in the direction that they appear to be looking.

When picturing a person they love they will tend to look straight ahead
and their eyes will seem defocused.

Other non-verbal signals include a slight movement or flinch (often

around the eyes, or a pursing of the lips) when thinking about the hated
person and pupil dilation and slight widening and defocusing of the
eyes for the loved person.

Please understand that this is a generalization and is only true of most

people, so I have worked a test into the routineing of the effect. This
test allows you to check your participant follows the pattern mentioned
above and if not, it allows you notice which pattern they do follow i.e.
where their eyes look when imagining either the love or hate picture.

The Test:
After I have asked the participant to think of and write down two
names, someone they love and someone they hate (this will be
discussed later in The Script), I put the card back in my wallet.

I don’t get my peek just yet but I will describe how and when I do
later.

After the card is put in my wallet I explain to the participant:

90
“Now, I need to do a little warm up with you so please in your mind
think of the person that comes under the heading of hate. Really
picture this person in your mind… really begin to see this person…
and notice what they look like… what they are wearing… try to feel
all the emotions you associate with this person as you picture them…
Good.

Now! [With a snap of the fingers] Clear you mind!

And now imagine the person you love. Really see this person, notice
what they look like, what they are wearing… make the image nice and
clear in your mind. Good.”

During these instructions you are asking the participant to vividly

imagine each person. Notice how the words in bold encourage them to
have a mental image of the person clearly in mind.

It is during these instructions that you will observe the participant’s

eye movements. Notice if and where their eyes move (and any other
signals that appear) when they think about the hated person. And then
do the same again when they think of the loved person.

As mentioned before, most people will tend to follow the pattern of

looking up and to the side for hate, and continue to stare forward when
picturing the loved person.

If they don’t then you may notice they do something else, something
different for each person they imagine that you can use. Also be aware
that not everyone is very visual and may struggle to create the mental
images so if you don’t get any kind of reading, try also saying
something like:

“Start to hear this person’s voice… hear them saying their own
name… hear them say the word love/hate… try to feel all the emotions
91
you associate with this person, try to feel how this person makes you
feel.”

This should push most people in to giving a response you can observe,
and it should be different for each thought-of person.

If you’re feeling confident after this little test go for the game of
guessing which person is being thought of.

“Now, as you really clear your mind again, I want you to just imagine
either person. Either the one you love or the one you hate… and really
picture them, really see what they are wearing...”

Again using your words to push them into imagining this person as a
vivid mental picture. Watch their eyes and observe their reaction,
checking it with what you noticed during the test.

Rather than just blurting out which one you think it is (either love or
hate), build it up.

“I’m seeing quite a dark image of a figure, kind of big, quite

dominating… I’ll go with hate, yes? Excellent, and again, think of
either person… picture them in you mind.

That’s the same thing again, hate yeah?! Funny thing but I’m seeing
the image about here... up and to the side. Is that right? Good.

Ok one more time, think of either person. It’s different this time. The
image is brighter… kind of comforting… maybe a little hazy around
the edges, the picture is much bigger this time, more colour... I’m
seeing it here, just in front of you, yeah? This is the person you love,
isn’t it?”

92
You see, when people think about and imagine a hated or disliked
person; the image will tend to be (as mentioned before) up and to the
side. So as I mention in the last line, “I’m seeing the image about
here”, I like to wave my hand up and to the side where I observed
their eyes looking.

The image will also tend to be quite dark and ‘close’ to them. So you
can capitalize on this knowledge by alluding to a “dark figure” (it has
to be a figure as it is a person being thought of) that’s “kind of big”
this perhaps meaning close to their field of vision or a person who is
big in size. Hated or disliked people also tend to be “quite
dominating”.

A loved person on the other hand will be imagined and ‘seen’ in front
of them, about 5 inches away from their face. The image will tend to
be bright and colourful and it will also be a big picture but in a more
comforting way. The edges may even be a little hazy, kind of like
those old movies that used a ‘soft focus’.

Although this is educated guesswork, revealing what you are ‘seeing’

and then ending it with a statement like “This is the person you love,
isn’t it?” will force them to agree, which to other people watching will
seem as if they are agreeing to everything you said.

I will only play this little guessing game 3 or 4 times. Any more than
that and I think it starts to get silly. By the way, people will tend to
stick with the first person they thought-of (when you first asked them
to think of either one) 2 or 3 times in a row.

So what do you do if after your initial test, you are in no way confident
to play this little guessing game? Well you have several options.

One option I have experimented with is to use an ingenious little

device sold by Aalakazam called “Decisions”. When originally
released, the gimmick used the words Yes and No, but it is now also

93
available in a blank format, meaning that you can write the words
Love and Hate and use them as an out for this effect.

A similar but homemade option using Post-It Notes can be found in

Ken Dyne’s book “Impromptu Mystifier”. I highly recommend you
pick up a copy by taking your interweb browser to:
http://stores.lulu.com/kendyne

Using either of these methods will allow you to practice and get used
to using the Eye Cues used in this routine.

My preferred method, however, is to simply forgo the guessing game.

The spectators and participant have no idea that you were ever going
to attempt it, so I simply make the test seem like an exercise for me to
‘tune in’ to the participant’s thoughts.

I will still use the information above about what the images look like
to the participant (i.e. bright and colourful for the love image), but
deliver them after I have done the test. So, during the test I begin with
hate and finish on love and find that I am not getting much of a
reading from the participant.

“Good. Well done. I noticed this time the image of the person you like
or love was much brighter… kind of comforting… maybe a little hazy
around the edges, the picture was much closer, with more colour.

Whereas before, with the hate person, I saw a dark image of a figure,
kind of big and quite dominating. Does this make sense to you?”

Again, ending with the line “Does this make sense to you?” will push
them towards a yes, and therefore seemingly confirming everything
you’ve said.

94
It is only now that I get my peek. This is either after the test has shown
I shouldn’t attempt the Love Hate ‘guessing game’ and I have done the
above instead or I have gone ahead with the guessing game.

The exact moment I get my peek will now be detailed in The Script.

The Script:
A lot of the motivation behind my opening remarks for this effect are
based on the idea of introducing the theory that we all have people we
love (or really, really like) and people we hate (or have an extreme
dislike for). I also use this plotline to introduce the idea of keeping a
photo or reminder of someone in your wallet.

“I’ve noticed that people’s relationships at a very base level boil down
to either a love relationship, or hate relationship.

True, there are countless degrees of love and hate but we all have
people we love (or really, really like) and we all have people we hate
(or at least really dislike). And we think about and treat these people
differently depending upon whether we love them or hate them.

For example, do you carry around a picture in your wallet of someone

you love? Yeah? It’s quite a common thing to do but no one carries
around a picture of someone they hate! That would just be odd!”

Notice that in the above scripting, I have introduced the idea that we
can all boil down our relationships with people to either love or hate,
which will get the listeners thinking along these lines.

I have also brought to mind the concept of keeping a reminder of a

loved one (and bizarrely, a hated one) in your wallet. This is done with
a mild joke but I feel it is important, as introducing the idea now
means that it won’t be seen as too odd when you bring out your own
wallet.
95
I always try to use a similar scripting when using my peek wallet so it
seems more of a presentational ploy then a method driven necessity.

I bring out my own (peek) wallet as I catch the eye of a spectator and
say the following lines:

“Sir, now I don’t know if you have a picture of someone in your wallet
that you love or if you’re strange enough to have a picture of someone
you hate… but I can be certain that you can get an image in your mind
of someone that you really like or possibly love and someone that you
really hate. Can you do that for me?”

You will see them search around a bit inside their mind at this point. If
they seem to struggle I add the following:

“Now, for Love this could just be someone you really, really like and
have a connection with, and for Hate this can be someone who you just
dislike for some reason, maybe from your past, or some TV personality
or Celeb that just really gets to you.”

People will tend to struggle more when trying to think of someone

they hate but have several people come to mind whom they love, so
adding the line about someone from their past may conjure up images
of a school bully. Failing that, people will always have a celebrity that
they hate and will probably feel more comfortable in admitting it.

I will give them a few seconds to think, allowing enough time for
several names and faces to flash through their mind. I then capitalize
on this by saying:

“You’ve got a few names going through your mind. Here, just commit
yourself to one name for each heading by writing them down. Someone
you love and someone you hate. I won’t look so let me know when
you’re finished.”

96
Again the above helps sneakily justify why they have to write down
the names: it helps them settle on and commit to just two people, as
they will have had several people flash up in their mind.

As I say “You’ve got a few names going through your mind. Here…” I
have taken one of my business cards out of the wallet and written the
headings ‘love’ and ‘hate’ with a line next to each word, indicating
where the participant is to write the names. See the diagram below.

I simply cover my eyes and turn my head away slightly as the

participant writes. Once they tell me they have finished I tell them to:

“Please make sure that I can’t see the names. So keep the card writing
side away from me and just pop it out of sight back in my wallet… As
I’m going to try and get a sense of whom these people are from you…
almost as if I know them.”

Please, once again notice how the words used subtly justify the
actions.

I will help them put the card back in my wallet, close it and place it
‘hot side’ down on the palm of my hand. I don’t even attempt to a get
my peek yet. I leave it until all the heat is off the wallet and I have

97
already begun to read their mind with what I tell the participant is a
“warm up”.

It is now that I will go through The Test outlined above, and depending
on how that goes either forgo the ‘guessing game’ or use one of the
outs discussed.

After the test and guessing game I explain that I would like the
participant to again think of either person. As they do this I put the
wallet away and obtain my peek. I act as if this next thing will be quite
difficult for me and place my hands on the participants shoulders, so
putting the wallet away is motivated by the idea that I will need to do
this and free up my hands for the whole process to work.

Before I used a peek wallet I still used a normal, un-gimmicked wallet,

so most of the language used above still applies. See ‘The Misers Peek
Wallet’ contained in this book for details.

“Ok, this time I want you to think of either person again, and really
focus on this one person. Forget the other one and just focus on either
the person you love or the person you hate…”

If I’m confident enough to read this person’s eye cues, I will tell them
not to tell me which they have chosen but to just think it. If not, I ask
them to verbally state which they have chosen, either love or hate, and
encourage them to go back to the image they had in mind before.

Due to the peek, I now know the name of the person being thought of.
I could just begin to call out the letters of this person’s name, but I
prefer to start to build a picture of this person which can do be done
using logic and some classic cold reading techniques.

From knowing the name and knowing if this person is loved or hated
by the participant, and the age, sex and class of the participant, I can

98
make certain assumptions. These assumptions can be fed back to the
participant whilst simultaneously trying to subtly confirm them.

It would be impossible for me to detail exactly how to do this. This is

where your own cold reading skills and techniques come into play. But
for the sake of completeness here is an example.

From knowing the name of the person being thought of, you can far
more often than not know the sex of the person and also potentially get
a rough idea of the person’s age. As an extreme example, let’s assume
the participant is in their late 50’s, male and has written a ‘modern
sounding name’ such as Peaches or Apple under the heading ‘Love’.

I’m safe in assuming that they are female and probably quite young
and perhaps even a child or young adult due to the fact that it sounds
like an ‘in vogue’, modern name. I would also take a guess that this
poor fruit based child, is the participant’s grand-child.

So I would begin the reading by saying something like:

“I feel this person is very close to you… you have a very strong
connection with them don’t you, almost like they are a family
member.”

Basically I would just fish for affirmations to my assumptions. If the

reaction is positive I know to continue ‘down that road’ but if not, I
can fall back on the wording. “…almost like they are a family
member.” This can be interpreted / re-labeled as meaning a very close
friend or extended family member e.g. “You’re like a brother to me”

There are many books out there which detail the ins and outs of cold
reading, I personally recommend Ian Rowland’s “The Full Facts Book
of Cold Reading”. However a great place to learn and watch this kind
of fishing in action is by watching performers like John Edwards or

99
Colin Fry who work with a little bit of information but can seem build
a large reading from it.

Credits:
It was brought to my attention that Chan Canasta also came up with
the idea to use Love and Hate instead of Living and Dead. To me, it
was one of the first alternatives that came to my mind when thinking
about how to perform Living and Dead tests without having to drag up
memories of loved ones that have snuffed it.

Luke Jermay also deserves a nod due to his work with the love/hate
premise in various effects and routines.

The notion of Eye Cues and in particular how they are used within this
routine is something I admit to not discovering myself. I was
researching as much as I could about Eye Cues on the internet many
years ago and stumbled across a post made by someone whose name I
never knew on an Internet Forum I can’t remember the name of.

John Grinder and Richard Bandler, the co-founders of NLP, are the
ones who introduced most people to the notion of Eye Cues. Again, if
you don’t know much about this sort of thing then an internet search or
Wikipedia will tell you more than I can.

100
Miser’s Peek Wallet
For those with no money to put in it

Before I had enough money to buy a peek wallet, I would use the
following.

I had a normal, everyday ‘bill-fold wallet’. This wallet (like most

wallets) had two main compartments for keeping paper money and
receipts much like the one in the image below.

In the image above you can see the two main compartments I am
referring too at the top of the wallet. They each have a pay envelope
protruding out of them.

In one of the compartments I kept a normal pay envelope with one of

my business cards inside it, and in the other compartment was a
duplicate pay envelope.

101
This second envelope, however, had a window cut out of it in such a
way that anything written on the business card described earlier can be
peeked at through what is technically known as ‘a huge hole in the
envelope’.

This is similar to the peek used in “37th Deception”, as described

earlier.

The handling is very simple: I bring out my wallet and take out the un-
gimmicked envelope from the first compartment. I then take out the
business card from inside that and have the participant write the names
as I turn away.

Whilst I am turned away I casually place the un-gimmicked envelope

back into the first compartment and take out the gimmicked window
envelope. This isn’t really a move and shouldn’t be treated as such.

When the participant has finished writing I turn back around and put
the card ‘back’ in to the envelope, being careful not flash the hole.

As before, I don’t try and get the peek yet, I will however leave the
wallet and envelope in sight and when the time is right (after the Love
Hate guessing game), I will put the envelope back into the wallet and
get my peek. My wallet is then put back in my pocket: out of sight and
out of mind.

102
Outro.
… and Thank You’s

So here we are dear reader, the end of my book, my first book in fact
but hopefully not my last. I would like to take this opportunity to
personally thank you for spending your hard earned cash on this…
Thanks!

It’s an interesting process to write up your own routines and you learn
quite a lot about yourself doing so. For example, I’m still no good at
spelling, I say the phrase “…do the following” far too much and
explaining things that are quite simple in practice is extremely difficult
in text. I sincerely hope you have found something of interest and at
the very least, I hope my brain children have given you some new
ideas to play with.

I would also like to extend my sincere thanks and gratitude to the

following people:

Looch – Massive thanks and big love to you my friend and fellow
Spider Monkey trainer. Thanks mate for all your help. Now everyone,
go buy his book and DVD. Go on! Do it, do it now!

Ken Dyne – Thanks for your advice and help with crediting, without it
I would literally be covered in bees!

Jerome Finley – My friend, thank you for encouraging me to actually

start writing this book. Most of all, thank you for your friendship… I
value that the most.

103
Pazzo Daisy – For her proof reading, help with illustrations and
putting up with the manor in which I write – a large Edwardian affair
with gorgeous sash windows.

Dad – Look Dad, your Sunshine wrote a book!

104
 Coming Soon…

Head Wired

105