Conference hydra::dejavu

    Re .0 (John):
    
    >Next came the tarot cards.  He explained a bit about them and had
    >me shuffle them.  I shuffled them, re- shuffled them, cut them,
    >and placed them in 3 piles.  Then I turned up the three top cards.
    >He told me that the cards would figure strongly in the coming year.
    >Then he asked me to look at the paper he had given me earlier. 
    >The names of the cards showing were written on the paper!  
     
    That all depends upon a lot of factors; I'd have to be there to
    see.  There are a few stage tricks that could have produced that
    result (e.g., odd-sized cards that would naturally "force" a cut
    at the desired card); and it _does_ sound a little "stagey" for
    a reader.
    
    I'm curious: what were the three cards, and what were their positional
    order?  And were any/all inverted?
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr. 

    >  There are a few stage tricks that could have produced that result
    (e.g., odd-sized cards that would naturally "force" a cut at the
    desired card); and it _does_ sound a little "stagey" for a reader.  < 

Yes, doesn't it?  Mind you, I was very careful to look at the cards as I
shuffled them, NOT the reader, so as to avoid any "Clever Hans" type cues he
might give.  

It seems to me that if the cards chosen had been larger than the rest, they
would have appeared on the bottom of each pile after cutting, not the top. 
This really baffles me; I'm sure it must be a trick, but how?  There was
certainly no slight-of-hand on his part that I could detect.
    
   
    > I'm curious: what were the three cards, and what were their
    positional order?  And were any/all inverted?  < 


They were (from my left to right) The Wheel of Fortune, the Seven of Coins
(inverted), and Judgment.

He asked me (after looking at my palm) if I had ever killed anybody.  A rather
odd question, don't you agree?

John M.
                                                     

    John, I haven't the faintest idea how he did it.
    
    I agree with Steve, though, it has the contrived "feel" of a card
    trick -- though it sounds awfully good.
    
    Frequently I am able to explain tricks when I hear a description,
    but sometimes neither I nor anyone more expert than I am can.  The
    reason is that the essence of any magic trick is that what the
    observer thinks happened and what did happen are not the same.
    I can only know what you think happened.
    
    This is why good magicians do not repeat tricks -- the observer
    is likely to notice the differences from what they thought they
    saw the previous time (most likely things that they interpretted
    previously as casual, random, extraneous and therefore ignorable
    and forgettable).  It is also why a magician rarely tells you in
    the slightest detail what they are *going* to do.  If a magician
    is willing to repeat an effect, it is either one of the rare tricks
    where the workings are completely invisible, or (more likely) they
    are actually doing it by a different method.
    
    Some comments on this specific trick --
    
    Note that with this set up the trick doesn't have to work all or
    even most of the time.  If it doesn't "work" (i.e., if the predicted
    cards don't match the actual cards drawn) then he only has to say
    that the three cards on the paper were ones he "saw" in your hand
    and that they somehow supplement the interpretation of the cards
    drawn.  If the trick only works one time in ten then he has managed
    to strongly impress one "client" in ten, and a good percentage of
    those will be likely to pay for a "maxi reading".
    
    For this trick to work, either he must be able to control which
    cards you draw or must be able to modify the piece of paper ("billet")
    on which the prediction is written.
    
    Did he have any contact with the billet after he gave it to you?
    Did he make any suggestions about where or how you should hold on
    to it?  Did he have any contact with the cards -- however casually
    -- once you began to shuffle?  Did he in any way suggest how you
    were to shuffle or cut the deck?  What was the surface on which
    you worked like?  Did you have an opportunity to examine the
    faces of the deck between the last time he handled the deck and
    the time you drew the cards, or between then and the next time
    he touched the deck?  Was there any stickyness or friction or
    difficulty lining up or splitting the cards during shuffling?
    Anything the least bit odd about the cards, the table or the billet,
    however seemingly irrelevant?
    
    Anyway, I'll check my references tonight to see if I can find a
    trick like this.
    
RE: use of outsize cards
    
    If cutting is done in the normal way, these would force two of the
    cards to the bottom of the two decks cut from the top of the third.
    So unless he gave specific directions about how the deck was to
    be cut, the answer is not likely to be this.
    
    						Topher

RE: .3 (Topher)

Thanks for the input.  

I agree that the trick wouldn't have to work all or even most of the time if we
were talking about guessing one card.  But all three?  It seems that
probability would be so stacked against him that the hope of guessing three
cards correctly wouldn't even be worth trying.

Wish you guys could have watched this.

To answer some of your questions:

    > Did he have any contact with the billet after he gave it to you? < 

No.

    > Did he make any suggestions about where or how you should hold on to
    it?  < 

No.

    > Did he have any contact with the cards -- however casually -- once
    you began to shuffle?  < 

Hmmmm... yes and no.  He began by asking me to deal out the cards and stop
dealing whenever I wanted to.   He shuffled one half of the deck, and I
shuffled the other half.  I then took his half and mine and shuffled the whole
thing.  Then I cut the cards, and mixed them up again "just to make sure."

    > Did he in any way suggest how you were to shuffle or cut the deck?  < 

No.  In fact, he pretty much left me free to shuffle them any way I wanted to.


    > What was the surface on which you worked like?  < 

It was a simple cotton table cloth over a small table.

    > Did you have an opportunity to examine the faces of the deck between
    the last time he handled the deck and the time you drew the cards, or
    between then and the next time he touched the deck? < 

I'm not sure I understand the question.  All I can say is that I was watching
like a hawk!

    >  Was there any stickyness or friction or difficulty lining up or
    splitting the cards during shuffling?  < 

None whatsoever.

    >   Anything the least bit odd about the cards, the table or the
    billet, however seemingly irrelevant?  < 
    
No.  Not at all.
 
    >    Anyway, I'll check my references tonight to see if I can find a
    trick like this.  < 

Thanks!  What do you think of this idea?  I go back to the guy tonight and ask
him to do another reading.  If he predicts *different* cards I'll pay for the
whole shebang.  If not, no dice.
    
John M.
                        

Just a question, John. Have you actually seen the other cards' faces? Maybe
there were only these three..

At least, that would be the way I would do it. ;-)

Arie

I got it!  Each card was treated with a different chemical.  The names of
all the cards were written on the piece of paper with different chemicals
each reacting only to the chemical on it's corresponding card.  When you
overturned the three top cards then held the paper the names of the cards
written with chemicals reacted to the chamicals on your hand making only
the ones selected appear!  Well... maybe not ;-)

About the artist and performing arts stuff.  Do you think the oil paint
under your fingernails or the tarzan suit you were wearing gave you 
away???

;-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-)
Terry

PS.
Interesting experience.   Had one like it myself about a month ago.  I
went back and paid the 40 bucks for the maxi-reading.  I too paint and
was told so and that I should be working towards art, would be very
successful at it and would prefer art to what I'm doing now.  I have been
thinking/struggling with these thoughts for sometime now and I didn't
give her any lead-ins.  I said little and mostly listened.  I was very
impressed.  I may go back.  

    Re re outsize cards (Topher):
    
    Well, I was using that as an example.  As you're probably aware,
    he could've also used a "shaved" deck, where the cards are cut
    at a slight angle so that they become slight trapezoids (uneven
    or unparallel sides the longer ones) with the three target cards
    inverted from the others.  Such a shaved deck can indeed be shuffled
    without the cards bunching, but they could aid in forcing a cut.
    Doubtless there are other approaches, but I didn't have time to
    check out any methods last night.
    
    John -- did the reader predict the inversion of the seven of
    coins/pentacles/shields?  Or did he just name the three cards?
    
    It still sounds a bit flashy for a real reader.   
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

 You have really peaked my curiosity.  I have always enjoyed

a good card trick.

 Let me see if I have the correct sequence of events.

1)He writes something on a piece of paper which he hands to you.

2)He shuffles half the deck while you shuffle the other half.

 ( the fact that he shuffles half the deck seems suspicious )

3)You are now given the rest of the deck and you shuffle it to

  your hearts content. 

4) You now cut the cards into three piles.

5) (He)(you?) turn over the top card on each pile.

   If I really new the identity of the cards I would have had you

   turn them over.

   HOW LARGE WERE THE CARDS?

   If they were small it would make it easier to palm them?



         George D.

    Ok mathematicians what are the odds of the reader picking
    the correct three cards from the tarot deck?
    I agree, too flashy for a reader. Who was the -last- person
    to shuffle the cards? My moneys on a trick.
    
    Russ
    EW

    First off, I checked my library and couldn't find anything.  This
    doesn't mean a whole lot since my library is hardly extensive nor
    particularly deep, just a few standard books.  Secondly, its awfully
    hard to find things, effects are hard to index, all I could do was
    skim through all the card and all the billet tricks.  I could have
    read it and not recognized it doing such a quick scan, it could
    have been a variant (e.g., I skipped all tricks which involved two
    dupes, er..., I mean spectators;-) but some could be reworked fairly
    easily for one), or I may just not have spotted it.
    
RE: .3 (John)
    
    I didn't mean to imply that he just hoped that the three cards would
    match and then took advantage of it (this would occur only once
    every 46,816 times, assuming a standard 78 card Tarot deck) if it did.
    I meant that if he used some kind of force, like slightly tacky cards,
    which only works occasionally he would still be ahead of the game.
    
    > I'm not sure I understand the question...
    
    I wanted to know if you had seen the faces of the other cards in
    the deck you shuffled and cut.  Any time he came in contact with
    the cards he could have switched decks (no offense, John, but no
    matter how carefully you watched him there are magicians who could
    have switched decks without you being the wiser), so any such
    examination would have to be between his contacts with the deck
    for us to be sure of its relevance.
    
    > What do you think of this idea?  I go back to the guy tonight...
    
    Bad idea, John.  Wait as long as possible to go back so he is as
    likely to have forgotten you as possible.  Dress as differently
    as you can.  If you can change your hair or facial hair in even
    minor ways do so.  Don't overdo it so you look suspicious but
    make yourself as unrecognizable as possible.  And of course, don't
    identify yourself as anything but what you were the first time.
    
    Don't expect to get the same three cards predicted.  If he has any
    sense at all he will change the prediction as often as his method
    allows -- at a minimum every day.  Simply look for casual seeming
    things which might have occured both times, e.g., him scratching
    his nose or whatever.  There is no guarentee that you'll find out
    anything -- it takes practice and even an experienced magician is
    fooled sometimes by other magicians -- but it is worth a shot.
    
    Offhand I can't think how to eradicate the smudges and callouses
    by which a good reader can spot someone engaged in art and can
    estimate how often the indulge in the activity, so that's a wash.
    
    I bet, however, that you have gotten formal voice training at sometime
    -- either for the stage or singing or both.  Do your best to tone
    it down, speak softly from the throat and breath as high in your
    chest as you can without looking like your doing it consciously.
    See if he still picks up your involvement with the performing arts.
    (Of course he might have misread your martial-arts trained movments
    as due to dance training and simply gotten lucky).
    
    Good luck.
    
RE .5 (Arie)
    
    > ... Maybe there were only these three..
    >
    > At least, that would be the way I would do it.  ;-)
    
    I'm not sure how much your smiley face covers Arie, so just in case
    I'll remind you that this wouldn't work very well.  The customer
    would be just a wee bit suspicious the 7 times out of 9 that
    at least two cards were the same.
    
RE .7 (Steve)
    
    Steve, a shaved deck just won't work.  In the hands of a magician
    it can be used to cut directly to any desired card in a seemingly
    natural way.  In the hands of Joe Random, if it works at all it
    will most likely put the card on the bottom of the cut deck.  And
    of course you can't rely on Joe Random not to turn the cards around
    while shuffling (many customers with Tarot card experience will
    do this deliberately during the shuffling, since that "randomizes"
    the card inversions).  If these were standard sized Tarot cards
    (i.e., oversized for playing cards; John?) then most of the customers
    would be unable to riffle shuffle them without practice (the riffle
    shuffle generally maintains the orientation of the cards).
    
    						Topher

    John,
       
       Where was this mall ? I would be willing to go as a second subject.

    Re .10 (Topher):
    
    >Steve, a shaved deck just won't work.  In the hands of a magician
    >it can be used to cut directly to any desired card in a seemingly
    >natural way.  
      
    You may be right on that; I once was on the receiving end of a shaved
    deck which is why I thought of it at all.
    
    >.......................... If these were standard sized Tarot cards
    >(i.e., oversized for playing cards; John?) then most of the customers
    >would be unable to riffle shuffle them without practice (the riffle
    >shuffle generally maintains the orientation of the cards).
     
    However, a side-shuffle, or whatever you call it, tends to keep
    the orientation.  My sister-in-law asks for Tarot readings once
    in a while and I generally oblige her.  She _cannot_ riffle-shuffle
    the cards (which I find easy), so she uses the side-shuffle, and
    the orientation seems to be maintained.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.                      
    

RE: .12
    
    Yup, most of the formal shuffles do maintain the orientation.  I
    would say that at least half the people I do readings for spend
    at least part of the time just mixing the cards up somehow (for
    example by dropping them).
    
    But your point is well taken -- there is probably a 50% chance or
    better that the client will only reorient the cards deliberately.
    And as I said, no where near 100% is needed.
    
    					Topher

    RE: Last dozen or so
    
    Topher, thanks for checking your sources.  Thanks to everybody for
    responding.
    
    I did not go back.  Even if I did believe the man had some incredible
    psychic ability (and I do not believe he does) the sensationalist
    aspect of his demonstration really put me off.  Seriously, a "straight"
    reading of the deck would have piqued my interest more.
    
    The one thing that Topher and somebody else mentioned that I had
    not considered (*blush*) is that ALL of the cards in the piles might
    have been the same!  Although I did the shuffling and turned the
    cards over, the deck may well have been switched at some point.
    A simple check of the other cards would have revealed that at the
    time, but one is so taken with the unexpected outcome of the trick
    that one doesn't think of checking for such things.
    
    It would be nice to find a tarot reader who knows what he/she is
    doing and does NOT charge for the service.....just for kicks.  Really,
    the only time I consulted the I Ching, the prediction came true.
    Wonder if Tarot would work similarly?
    
    If nothing else, the cards are pretty!
    
    As for my looking like an artist, I assure you this is not the case.
    I was dressed most conservatively that day and had no paint, etc.
    on my hands.  As for the acting, maybe I just *looked* like a star
    to him. ;-)   (this is remotely possible, as my younger brother,
    whom I somewhat resemble, co-starred on a major TV series for 6
    years.  That's all I'm going to say on that subject.  Hey... then
    again, my other brother is a costume designer for ABC.  My mother
    established a theater company.  Maybe this guy is right!  I'm just
    a Broadway Babyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy....    :-)   ).
    
    Happy card reading, y'all.
    
    John M.                               

    It could be the simplest trick of all- pure misdirection.
         
    Did anything cause you to look up from the cards, even momentarily?
    If so, that's how _I_ would work the trick.  Even if you don't
    remember looking up, you may have subconciously done so for a fraction
    of a second.  That's all it takes.
                                                            
    I'd much rather trust a video tape of this guy...
    
    	-Bill
    

John; Blackie on Genral Hospital, right?  ;-)  Well you do sorta look alike.

Now tell the truth; did this really happen or are you just pulling a 
role-switch?

    Probably too late now, but it seems you had some volunteers to
    check this guy out.  Too bad.  This guy is *real* good no matter
    what his methodology.
    
    I was curious about the "standard" shuffle.   I split the deck by
    picking up each half with my thumbs on the same end of the deck.
    Shuffling with thumbs pointing inward inverts half the deck.  I
    assume the std. shuffle is cut the cards by moving � a "horizontally"
    positioned deck to the left or right and shuffling them as they
    lie.  My method saves time & effort and would probqbly looked down
    on in a moneyed card game.
    
    The orientation bit also hit a nerve.  Like a std. playing card
    deck, I assume a Tarot deck contains no duplications.  If so, 
    card inversion would depend on how you hold the deck while "dealing".
    This means the Tarot deck has to align itself in 2 modes to the
    shuffler.  Amazing.
    
    						Don