Was doing some magic to entertain my friends's WAGs (wives and girlfriends) at a chalet and got some interesting feedback from them...

1. I did a gambling routine from the RRTCM (forgot the name though). First, I would showing how cardsharks deal cards with bottom deals. Then, I'm supposed to show I can shuffle the deck and still manage to deal the original bottom cards (4 Aces) to myself, but upon revelation, I was found to have dealt myself a Royal Flush instead.

I have done this quite a few times, and even though it is a simple routine, it generally got good responses. But one of them remarked, after I showed the Royal Flush, "I thought you are supposed to find the 4 Aces? How come becomes a Royal Flush? No link leh..."

Even when I tried to explain to her that Royal Flush is a bigger hand than 4 Aces, she still insisted that I should have find the 4 Aces as "promised". Hmm... so what went wrong? Was it me or her?

2. Next, I did Uncle Bob's No Second Chance and I believed thay were very impressed. But after scratching their heads, the same gal commented, "He must have distracted us while he was talking and somehow changed the card." (for those who has Uncle Bob's book, you would know what she was referring to)

Well, technically speaking, I was really guilty of her "accusation" since I needed to talk to pull off the TC. But... have I somehow made my misdirection looked like misdirection? I mean, I had give enough reasons and motivation to do the TC... so again, was it me or her?

So what you think could be wrong and ways to improve on it?

When you mention that you talk to the audience, did the topic you were saying sound logically to the stuff that you are doing? I have not seen Bob Chua's No Second Chance so I am not sure what you are talking about.

Probably if the topic is logical and is a next step to your effect then it should not post any problem. That is what I feel about misdirection also.

Hi Axl,

for 1), it's HER! No offence to your friend's WAG but she is the kind of person who after watching beautiful fireworks happening under an amazing night sky, turn around and tell you, "nice meh?" It's like a SIN for them to admit to seeing something amazing, in your case, an awesome kicker ending!!

2) Same thing! She needed an 'out' to validate her 'cleverness'. She wanted to come out 'the winner over you'. I have a friend exactly like your friend's WAG.

Don't worry bro, if other people were astonished by you but she is not, guess who's the odd one out? Take it easy! :)

It is in the nature of some people to always heckle, even if they are very nice people in life. ;)

I suggest you ask the rest of the audience how they think the effect was. Perhaps that would be a better gauge. ^_^

I would believe there might be some presentational error you might had made.

You actually promised something but didnt not give.

And Tommy Wonders did touch on this on his DVD, somewhere.

He mentions that when you promise something that you will not keep, that thing has to be better. In your case, the royal flush might seem like a better hand in poker, hence it is more powerful than the 4 aces.

However, I think what needs to be defined as better should not be literally better, but what is more amazing, or what is harder to do.

And by this definition, producing the royal flush from a shuffled deck has almost the same effect as producing the 4 aces from a shuffled deck. Hence it may seem to her that this is just an 'excuse' of some sort because you cannot reproduce the 4 aces in that case and technically, you might had emphasized the really losing of the aces in the deck in the second phase (correct me if i am wrong as i do not know which version you do, but from what i do know, most are like that). Therefore it is actually more amazing to produce the aces in the second phase because of how you show the aces, which drills to her that it cannot be found in such circumstances, and she proven you right, you did not.

Therefore, her lack of conviction, hence leading to the disbelieve of magic in your 2nd effect.

Alexander hit the nail on the head.

I believe our very own Shade did talk about this on Uncle Bob's set of notes. You might want to refer to his afterthoughts on the "Royal Twisters"

Oops.. didn't bother to read. :P (Actually I think it's in The Crossing... haha, didn't bother to read too right?)


"you might had emphasized the really losing of the aces in the deck in the second phase (correct me if i am wrong as i do not know which version you do, but from what i do know, most are like that). Therefore it is actually more amazing to produce the aces in the second phase because of how you show the aces, which drills to her that it cannot be found in such circumstances, and she proven you right, you did not."

Hmm.. I think I did emphasized the losing of aces because in the second phase as I'm supposed to able to stack the aces as I shuffled and still dealt them to myself.

At the end, I would ask them, "Do you think I can still deal myself the 4 Aces?"

Them: "Yes (usually) of course, you are the magician ma..."

Me: "Actually, I cannot... (spreading the cards) but I did one better and dealt myself a Royal Flush..."

But if I just reproduce the 4 Aces wouldn't be just another 4 Ace Trick? Which it is not supposed to be.

Why not produce both the 4 Aces and the Royal Flush?

You can deal the cards to yourself and another player. Show that you got the 4 Aces, then show them that you managed to deal out the Royal Flush as well.

Lennart Green has an effect where he can deal 5 killer hands. The effect is nice as the audience thought he is only going to deal out one strong hand. After showing the audience he got a full house, he will reveal the other hands one by one. Each hand is stronger than the other, and the final hand he revealed is the Royal Flush.