Peeking Behind The Curtain: How You Think The Tricks Were Done

[The Crazed Spruce]

They may (or may not) have fooled Penn & Teller, but did they fool you?  Think you spotted how the trick was pulled off?  Post your rampant speculation here.

[A Boston Gal]

Thank you for creating this thread: I'm always curious to know how magic tricks are done.  I assume anyone who posts here won't have to use the spoiler button?

[The Crazed Spruce]

Right.  That's what the spoiler tag in the title is for. :)

[A Boston Gal]

Of course it is. I was just...uh...testing. Yes, that's it.  ;)

[MsTree]

Come on spoilers...tell us how it's done!

[marketdoctor]

I'll share what I'm almost sure of, and what I suspect-feel free to imagine this in a Morgan Freeman voice:

 

If you really want to know how a trick is done, get a book of magic tricks, and practice until other people don't see how it's done.  Never give away a trick from incompenence.  Also, realize that knowing how a trick is done takes away some of the "magic"; but sometimes you feel better knowing it's posisble--so in that spirit, I'll share what I know:

 

For the Squished Man trick, they revealed in the previous episode that the table is deeper than it looks in the middle, and the molding helps hide that.  He was under the part of the table that squished up.  The feet you see are fake.  This is harder than it seems, especially if it's done quickly.

 

The only part of the nails-in-bags trick they didn't reveal was that the one block of wood that looked solid had just enough coverage over the nail hole to look solid.  And they

 

For sawing a woman in half, she was folded up in the front part of the box.  As said elsewhere, this has been revealed on "The Masked Magician" (I think his second one.)  This is also harder than it seems; the "assistant" does the hard part.

 

Now for speculation:

 

For the "Jokers reveal the cards", As someone noted in another thread, the "sloppy" technique was part of moving cards into positiion.  I think the jokers were put into place as markers two cards above the cuts (not one, or the back of the card would be a dead giveaway), so he knew where the cards were--and then he could have cut/counted the cards into the right place.  I'm pretty sure he held the part of the deck that was cut to long enough to bring that in.  He might have marked (for example) one card in 10 (put into place with the riffle shuffle) so that he could quickly spot how many more cards to add/subtract.  Or maybe he just counted that fast.

 

For High Jinx, I *think* she was under the table, and there's more space than it looks because of mirrors and optical illusions. 

 

For the envelope trick, I would have used a false envelope back (with glue on it so I could attach it to the envelope not selected.)  You could also have done it with a small hole in each envelope (as Penn & Teller thought), though he didn't do it that way.  An expensive way to do the trick is that you had 100 pounds in EACH envelope, and have a hidden pocket; that depends on either getting each enveloope back or beting 100 pounds would buy some silence.  That's very unlikely, though, I'm pretty sure he had a false back he added to one envelope.

 

And as was already said, the duck and chicken switch was done with puppet/false heads for the duck and the chicken.  It looked cool, and those animals are smarter than they get credit for.

 

The other card tricks were slight of hand, but more specifically, I don't know (other than dropping in a cooler, which means swapping with a prepared deck.)  He did it so well I didn't notice.  (This is also a technique used for hiding marked cards.)  The advice about "never do card tricks for your poker buddies" applies.

 

As for swallowing and threading the needles--I have my suspicions, but this is so far along the "never ever try this" trick spectrum that I don't want to suggest--if I give it away "wrong" that'd be super-dangerous.  (I think Teller's only danger was from incompetence, so in his case, none...but unless someone can show you in person (so they can call 911 if you screw up), don't worry about how it was done.) 

[MsTree]

The only part of the nails-in-bags trick they didn't reveal was that the one block of wood that looked solid had just enough coverage over the nail hole to look solid.  And they

 

Thanks marketdoctor for getting the ball rolling in this topic. Is there supposed to be more to the quote above, or are you just teasing us? ;-)

 

I promise not to put needles in my mouth if you share how YOU think it's done :)

[marketdoctor]

 

And they

Sorry, meant to say "And they revealed the rest of the trick on the show" (nail was either up his sleeve and/or palmed.)  Smart strategy.

 

I don't know how he swallowed the needles; my best guess is that for a while he held them under his tounge (which can be painful and super-dangerous if you're clumsy).  For at least one point, he held a fist to his mouth; that's when he put the threaded needles in his mouth.  I know he got them out before he showed his mouth to be empty.  I think only one of the needles is sharp (the one he used to demonstrate that they were all sharp).

 

I realize that's only about half the trick--so he definitely "fooled me", but that's what I suspect.  And again, this is a really easy trick to screw up or do badly, so never ever trying it at home is a great idea (and the more dangerous the trick, the more people will try to get the secret out). 

 

More generally, someone will ALWAYS try to guess how a trick is done.  Sometimes they'll even be right, but the better they do the trick, the harder it is to see, even if you know "some of" it.  That's the mark of a great magician--everyone in the audience can know how it's done, but you still enjoy the trick, because of showmanship.  It's what make Penn and Teller great.

[MsTree]

More generally, someone will ALWAYS try to guess how a trick is done.  Sometimes they'll even be right, but the better they do the trick, the harder it is to see, even if you know "some of" it.  That's the mark of a great magician--everyone in the audience can know how it's done, but you still enjoy the trick, because of showmanship.  It's what make Penn and Teller great

 

I couldn't agree more with your post. And thanks again for elaborating. Like you said, even if I knew exactly how the trick was done, I still enjoy it thoroughly. I'm the same way with movie/TV spoilers. Even if I know the ending, I still want to watch it all as it's happening.

 

BTW, marketdoctor, do you recall years ago a guy (forgot his name) who used to swallow a light bulb and then regurgitated it back up? Wonder how someone even begins to TRY that type of thing?!?

[The Crazed Spruce]

BTW, marketdoctor, do you recall years ago a guy (forgot his name) who used to swallow a light bulb and then regurgitated it back up? Wonder how someone even begins to TRY that type of thing?!?

 

Probably starts with a Lite-Brite peg and works  his way up. :)

[jhlipton]

Sorry, meant to say "And they revealed the rest of the trick on the show" (nail was either up his sleeve and/or palmed.)  Smart strategy.

 

They mentioned he did a "praying gesture" and dropped his hand just before smashing the last bag. That's when they think he added it to the unsmashed bag. Watching after their comments I could almost see it.

 

That's the mark of a great magician--everyone in the audience can know how it's done, but you still enjoy the trick, because of showmanship.  It's what make Penn and Teller great.

There's a video of Penn & Teller doing the Three Cup Trick with a giant wad of paper and three clear cups. And it's still hard to see what happens when.

[opus]

I didn't know where to put this, so if someone wants to move it they can. There's another magic competition type show premiering on the SyFy channel tonight involving Penn & Teller called Wizard Wars. I'm not entirely sure of the concept, so you'll have to look that up yourself.

[A Boston Gal]

Well, of course, jhlipton, I had to find that clip. It's very cool: 

 

Edited August 19, 2014 by A Boston Gal

[SomethingClever]

I'll just throw this out for any of you who are math-heads/logicians to think about and deconstruct. The trick with the jokers is self-working. That means it requires absolutely no sleight of hand. If you knew how to set up the deck, you could do it immediately. It is fiendishly clever, and I find it kind of delightful that Penn & Teller got fooled by it. 

[marketdoctor]

 

BTW, marketdoctor, do you recall years ago a guy (forgot his name) who used to swallow a light bulb and then regurgitated it back up? Wonder how someone even begins to TRY that type of thing?!?

 

I don't know who did that, but it's an impressive trick!  (I've heard of people who eat an incandesent light bulb, but just the glass part, by breaking up the glass as small as possible before chewing it and picking out the electronics.  This seems painful and a terrible idea; my guess is the light bulb regurgitator has a trick.)

[SomethingClever]

I believe this is the guy y'all are thinking of

 

 

 

If it's not real (and there is a great deal of speculation on that point), I have no idea how he does it. If it's sleight of hand, it's exceptional.

[MsTree]

That's the guy! He must have an awfully BIG mouth if he's using sleight of hand...well, either way I guess :-)

[Latverian Diplomat]

I don't know who did that, but it's an impressive trick!  (I've heard of people who eat an incandesent light bulb, but just the glass part, by breaking up the glass as small as possible before chewing it and picking out the electronics.  This seems painful and a terrible idea; my guess is the light bulb regurgitator has a trick.)

You can make edible "glass" from sugar, but getting it transparent and perfectly shaped is probably tricky. And I don't think you could light such a bulb.

 

The Regurgitator doesn't light his bulb either, so I wonder if it could be some kind of plastic that's collapsible? The only props he let someone else touch were the lock and key, which were relatively small. In fairness, the format of the show these clips are from doesn't give him a lot of time for audience participation. 

Edited August 21, 2014 by Latverian Diplomat

[opus]

For you magic aficionados, how did a deck of cards become such a staple in the magic world?

[Latverian Diplomat]

For you magic aficionados, how did a deck of cards become such a staple in the magic world?

I don't know, but I suspect that cheating at cards by sleight of hand came first. Then the very best people at that realized it was a lot safer and just as profitable to entertain people rather than cheat them. The use of cards for fortune telling may have also been an incentive. If you know what fortune a client most wants to hear, being able to pull the appropriate cards at will would be very useful.

 

Other than that, like coins, playing cards are aesthetically pleasing, familar everyday objects that fit easily in the hand. The fact that cards are identical on one side also makes them nice for surprising reveals and switches.

[jhlipton]

This week's tricks were fun but other than David Master's "3 cards and a knife" trick didn't seem to fool P&T much.

 

The "handling" of Juilia was magnificent.  Her deck had about 10 ncards all different on the bottom, but all the rest were the 9 of spades.  I'm noit sure how he forced Jonathon's card, but it seems he puit a card on top -- to move the 9 of spades to the 7th position?  He may count on people picking a number in a certain range and will subtly rearrange the cards to the correct position.

[Taeolas]

This week's tricks were fun but other than David Master's "3 cards and a knife" trick didn't seem to fool P&T much.

 

The "handling" of Juilia was magnificent.  Her deck had about 10 ncards all different on the bottom, but all the rest were the 9 of spades.  I'm noit sure how he forced Jonathon's card, but it seems he puit a card on top -- to move the 9 of spades to the 7th position?  He may count on people picking a number in a certain range and will subtly rearrange the cards to the correct position.

 

He can probably adjust his patter to get numbers in the range he really wants; which is what Penn implied with the "Do the act in 5 different rooms and see 5 different versions.". Had Jonathon said "25", he could have then said "Ok now add those two digits together to get 7. That will be your card.". From there, it's just a matter of removing/adding enough cards from the top to get it into the first 10 or so cards. (It's probably the 5th down, so he can remove 1-4 cards, or add 1-4 cards easily without giving things away).

 

Note the above is all pure guess work on my part. :)

[marketdoctor]

 

Had Jonathon said "25", he could have then said "Ok now add those two digits together to get 7. That will be your card.". From there, it's just a matter of removing/adding enough cards from the top to get it into the first 10 or so cards.

 

That, and I think he was hoping Jonathan would pick 7 (so the trick could work perfectly, and it's a commonly picked number), or 6 (so he could deal out 6 cards and then choose the next one as "your card.").  He might have had two of the chosen card in the deck, so he could force card #3 or #7 as well (you probably wouldn't notice if they're far enough apart.)  That's why he didn't force (for example) the ace of spades; it's got too much "name recognition" (likewise the three of clubs for P & T.)  I'd have probably had 3 or 4 of them in the deck, so if someone picked a really random number like 32, it still might work.

[SomethingClever]

The thing with Jonathan's card is a pretty well-known plot in magic called ACAAN, which stands for Any Card At Any Number. The plot is that a card is freely named, a number is freely named, and when that number is counted to, the named card is at that position. It's something of a Holy Grail effect, and as such there are about a million variations of it, and most of them, if I'm being honest, are pretty shitty. For this one, it's actually a CAAN, since he knows what the card is going to be in advance (hence, not "any card") since he forced it, as y'all already worked out, he just doesn't know what number Jonathan is going to name. I thought the version he used was actually fairly weak, and he kind of drew attention to his sleight, which is never a good idea (seriously, don't say "oops, there's a few more cards in the box." You don't want people to remember that happened). I actually do a version of this that is completely hands-off, and I'm a little surprised he didn't come to the show with something stronger. Anyway, you guys pretty much got all the elements of it between you, though I will say that he wouldn't have pulled any adding numbers together shenanigans. That's where what marketdoctor said about duplicates comes into play.

 

 

I won't normally be as open with confirming speculation and explaining the tricks, but y'all had pretty much gotten it, and since I think this wasn't a particularly good trick, I don't have any qualms about it. Besides, knowing something about it makes you appreciate it more when it's done really well. And in that vein, here's a really good ACAAN:

 

[ae2]

I won't normally be as open with confirming speculation and explaining the tricks, but y'all had pretty much gotten it, and since I think this wasn't a particularly good trick, I don't have any qualms about it. Besides, knowing something about it makes you appreciate it more when it's done really well. And in that vein, here's a really good ACAAN:

 

Is revealing someone else's trick as taboo in real life as it is always made out to be? With hi-def, DVR, and the Internet, I'm sure you can figure out most any trick, but when I first saw this show I thought they might reveal a little more than they have been. 

[SomethingClever]

Is revealing someone else's trick as taboo in real life as it is always made out to be? With hi-def, DVR, and the Internet, I'm sure you can figure out most any trick, but when I first saw this show I thought they might reveal a little more than they have been. 

 

There are wildly differing opinions on it. What is exposure, what is proper teaching, and what constitutes a trick "belonging to someone" are all kind of fuzzy issues of magic ethics. The internet, and youtube in particular, have made it a much thornier issue. There are plenty of places you can learn little tricks and elementary sleight of hand (Scam School being the most prominent). Some people think this is great for bringing in new people to magic and increasing the appreciation of magic at large, and other people think that it is unethical, disrespectful of other performers (who might use said tricks in their act), and antithetical to the spirit and history of magic. Lots of different opinions, and both sides think the other is crazy.

 

My take, generally speaking, is that if you care enough about knowing how it's done that you feel the need to immediately Google it, one of two things has happened. 1) You're just the type of person who has no interest in being mystified and you're not going to rest until you know the answer. In this case, you're not going to enjoy magic anyway, so why should I care if you know the secret? 2) The magician screwed up. I don't mean that he flashed the move he did or whatever, but he made it a trick or a puzzle rather than a magical experience. If I do my job as a magician, you should leave with a sense of wonder rather than irritation. And that's about performance, staging, storytelling, attention direction and flawless sleight of hand.

 

(slight tangent to illustrate this second point) For example, look at Michael Vincent's performance beside David Masters' trick. Vincent isn't just doing sleight of hand, he's performing. He has a script, he has a pace, he frames the magical moments. Did you go away from his performance saying "I absolutely have to know how he does all that." Or did you go away saying "I don't know how he did that, but it sure was magical"? Masters does a really poor job framing his trick. He continually draws attention to how "fair" it is, and even if you don't consciously think it, your brain is going "If it's so fair, why does he have to keep telling me how fair it is?" There's also no story to it, no dramatic build-up, and no surprise. There's no magical moment you remember from the routine, and there's no entertainment to it apart from the trick (unlike the Asi Wind trick I posted). So instead of being left with a feeling of wonder or a sense that something amazing has happened, you just go "I know he tricked me somewhere in there, and darned if I'm gonna let that smarmy magician be smarter than me," and you try to look up or figure out how its done.

 

All that to say, exposure doesn't so much hurt magic as it hurts bad magic. For my favorite performers, it matters relatively little whether I know the secret or not, they still entertain me. It's considered a modern classic now, but Penn and Teller's cups and balls act with clear cups was fairly controversial at the beginning. Lots of people do the cups and balls, aren't they ruining it for everyone else? Nope, not if you do it right. Turns out, you can watch P&T "reveal" the cups and balls, then watch Ricky Jay's version of the trick and it's still just as magical as before.

 

Now, if you're watching a guy performing magic and go "I know how that's done", then you're just being a dick. And normally I'm not going to reveal how tricks are done because I've always found that people are disappointed if I do so. The secret is rarely as interesting as the trick, and if I tell you then I'm robbing you of the mystery. I don't know how Teller does his goldfish trick and I hope I never find out. It's a rare moment of beauty, surprise and pure magic, and I don't want to spoil that for myself. If people ask, I'll often teach a simple trick or two, and if they're really interested then I might teach them some sleights and point them towards a book. Like I said though, I thought this was a shitty, generic trick, so I have no qualms about pointing y'all towards the answer. 

 

I really ambled there, so this answer is probably way more than you were looking for.

[Taeolas]

For me as a viewer and not a practitioner, I tend to be curious and have a logical mind. So even as I'm enjoying a trip, I'm trying to figure out how it's done. Often times I'm wrong, sometimes I think I'm surprisingly correct (at least those times I actively go out to try and verify my theories one way or another). With good magicians, even if I know the trick, or figure out how it is done, the magic is still there. As said above, they've told a story, and they've entertained me, so knowing that the deck was stacked or there was a box of Altoids hidden in his cuff, doesn't ruin the trick for me. In fact, often times knowing how it's done makes me appreciate it all the more for me, since I'm amazed at what they can do with their hands to keep the objects hidden, especially if I can pause and know what is going on at a moment and still not see it. 

 

Others don't see it that way and prefer to stay amazed and that's their preferences. That's why when I do publicly speculate, I tend to preface with "I guess/I thinks" and I'll often spoiler tag my theories (or use a spoiler thread like this).

[Machiabelly]

Something Clever, I am glad to hear you say that about the goldfish trick...that was one of my favourite magic moments of the last few years, that was such a well done trick...and he doesn't talk, so that is one way of distraction removed.

[opus]

>>For me as a viewer and not a practitioner, I tend to be curious and have a logical mind. So even as I'm enjoying a trip, I'm trying to figure out how it's done.<<

 

True. I believe you can watch a movie being filmed, yet still enjoy it as a movie.

[MsTree]

The secret is rarely as interesting as the trick, and if I tell you then I'm robbing you of the mystery

 

Some folks don't want to be endlessly mystified. They can enjoy the "magic" just as much knowing how it's done. It's all in the performance.

[The Crazed Spruce]

The way I see it, it's like professional wrestling.   I know going in that the results are predetermined, and most of the moves and spots in the match have been planned out beforehand.  That doesn't stop me from enjoying it.  In fact, the more I learned about the wrestling business, the more I appreciate the artistry behind a really good match.  (Take any of the bouts between Daniel Bryan and C.M. Punk from about a year ago, for instance.  They're practically works of art.)

 

It's the same with a good magic act.  Knowing (or at least guessing) how the trick is done helps me enjoy the artistry behind the performance.

[marketdoctor]

Even though I've put my guesses as to how tricks were done, I respect the "never reveal" axiom, both for the reasons outlined above and because once you reveal a trick, it's very hard to UN-reveal it.*

 

Personally, I think revealing a trick is fair game under one of three circumstances:

 

1.  If it's on a show that asks if you know how it's done.  Then you can, but you don't have to.

2.  To a lesser degree, if it's on a competitive talent show and/or the trick is done badly enough that you can see it.  In the latter case, the magician has already ruined the illusion.

3.  If someone claims to have psychic powers to the point where they're scamming people, or there are other health and safety risk issues.  At this point it might be a moral obligation.

 

The challenge is that the burden of proof is on you that you're not being pond scum when you do this, which is why some people go with never.  There are middle grounds to the reveal--like "check here or Google this if you really want to know".  I'll do that with the Magic Bullet Trick; I'll tell you it IS a trick, and it IS dangerous anyway, because if you get one step wrong, you're going to die--but other than that no dark arts are involved.

 

Also, context of the reveal matters--in an online discussion of how tricks are done, it's a different venue than during the trick.

 

I also think the qualifier of "here's how I would do that trick" or "I could be wrong" keeps a little of the mystery, and covers you if you're wrong about how a trick is done.  (I'm wrong often enough that I would not do well on this show.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

* You'd think it's impossible, but since some tricks can be done more than one way, you can fake-show one way to do it, then prove that's not how you did it.  This works to the degree your fake reveal is convincing.

[Sile]

There's a video of Penn & Teller doing the Three Cup Trick with a giant wad of paper and three clear cups. And it's still hard to see what happens when.

Watching them do that trick is, to me, more impressive and magical than seeing it done the 'normal' way where everything is hidden.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Sile

[Taeolas]

I agree, P&T's clear cup trick, along with their 7 rules of magic trick (I think that's the one, with Teller doing all the palming, distracting, puffing, etc... while facing to the right, then redoes the trick facing to the left while Penn outlines the rules that its demonstrating) are two of my favorites. And even seeing/knowing exactly what they are doing, they do it so smoothly it's still magical even though you know exactly what's going on.

[Latverian Diplomat]

Just wanted to post here on Morgan & West, who I don't think really deserved to win, but outargued Penn. 

 

How they did it: Penn caught the move that "altered" the deck, which was when JR crossed in front of him on his way to set down. That alone should have been enough. I say "altered" because the best explanation I've seen was that he added cards  in a known order to the top and bottom of the deck. Remember, during the act, they get the first few cards right, then he throws out a bunch of the middle cards, and then they get the final cards right. The cards thrown out are the cards JR shuffled. The only cards they guessed were the ones added to the top and bottom during JR's cross downstage.

 

Penn erred, in that he thought they did a whole deck switch, which was overstating the case. So, M&W seized on that, and made a big deal out of two points:

1) No extra, swapped out cards in the bag or on their persons.

2) Every card JR shuffled was in JR.s hand after he sat down. Technically true, but unimportant. Those cards were the ones tossed out during the act.

 

IMHO, the judge, who has occasionally chimed in to say P&T weren't close enough (rightly so) should have chimed in this time to say, P&T were close enough, nice try but no. I can see where that would have been even more uncomfortable because of M&W's attitude, but it would have been preferable to letting them skate through. Given the number of more talented and original acts who have conceded gracefully, it was a disappointment to see this work. I like teachers in general, and I really wanted to like these guys, but I think the temptation was just too great for them. They saw an opening and took it. I suppose, in fairness, the show or the judge is as much to blame as they are.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Latverian Diplomat

[theatremouse]

Every card JR shuffled was in JR.s hand after he sat down. Technically true, but unimportant. Those cards were the ones tossed out during the act.

Mmm. I suspected something similar when the guy made the point of saying "every card he shuffled is in his hand in the order he shuffled it" or something like that. He made a big point that the cards were all there, and in the order JR put them, without them being changed. And then Penn started looking annoyed because he knew he'd seen something. Semantics. I agree that most of the other competitors would've simply said "close enough" when Penn said "I saw you do a tricky move" with the bag.

 

His showing the empty "look there's no other deck" here spiel was also a little...protest much?

 

At the same time, when Penn started looking annoyed, surprised he didn't change his suggestion from "switch" to "add" but he too was probably assuming, if it were that similar, they'd simply acknowledge they were caught.

Edited September 11, 2014 by theatremouse

[Xantar]

Penn said afterward, "Now I know how they did it" but it was too late. The very careful way that Morgan and West described the cards in Jonathan's hand immediately told me that Penn & Teller were very close, and with a little bit of thought I think I would have figured out how they did it. But mostly I was just too annoyed to waste any more time thinking about them.

 

As I said in the episode thread, the staging just seemed really poor. I'm not a stage or performance expert in any way, but even if it had been pulled off technically and had fooled Penn & Teller, I would not have wanted to see them. It just wasn't fun and didn't give me any sense of wonder. It was just one guy flipping up cards while the other one reads them. That's a bar trick, not a world class magic act. I would much rather watch Michael Vincent any day even though he failed to fool Penn & Teller twice.

[jhlipton]

As I mentioned in the episode thread, they really didn't even have to fiddle with the cards at all.  West saw every card as it was turned up and made some comment, enough that Morgan could use it to know what the card was.

 

Definitely the worst act of the night, and possibly the show.

[SomethingClever]

Yeah, Morgan and West is probably the worst act on the show. I like the idea of their personas, but the trick itself was really transparent. There are a dozen different ways I could think of to do that trick, and it's just not that entertaining even if you couldn't see how it was done.

 

Einhorn's trick is incredible. Totally baffling. The only way I can think to do it would be so incredibly ballsy that I can't imagine someone trying it.

[Quilt Fairy]

I watched this show in reverse, that is I caught the last little bit live when Morgan & West won, and then went back and watched the show from the beginning. So coming in to their performance I figured it must be pretty spectacular. Instead I saw the most boring act ever, including West's pack-switch-that-wasn't-a-pack-switch when Jonathan Ross walked in front of him (something that I've picked up from watching all these damn magic shows). In fact, I had to laugh when the first thing Penn said was 'We saw your really bad pack switch' and when West denied it said 'Well, did you purposely do a really bad pack switch in order to mislead us?'

 

I don't think that West had to be feeding Morgan any info on which card was held up. Now that I understand why he was throwing out cards at random intervals, Morgan could have easily memorized the sequence of the 'fixed pack' much as Penn did with the nail gun at the end of the show.

 

If there is an independent judge on this show to verify that P&T do know how a particular trick was performed, I hope that judge took the win away from M&W. Since this show was filmed at least 3 years ago, does anyone know if M&W went to Las Vegas.

[Xantar]

I've been thinking about how the nail gun trick was done. Penn has said very strongly that he thinks performing a trick with any actual risk is unethical and wrong, so I think it's pretty clear that he doesn't actually memorize the sequence of nails. From there, I can only see two ways to do the trick. One is for the nail gun to be gimmicked in some way so that he controls whether a nail or air shoots out. If there was a button he could press with his thumb that would prevent a nail from shooting out, for example.

 

But that still seems too risky to me. What if he slips up? He's going pretty fast at some points, and even if he's just fine 99% of the time, it just takes that one time to ruin everything.

 

So the only other method I can think is that the nail gun never shoots anything at all and that instead the nails emerge up from under the plank whenever Penn points the gun at it. That would require some really impressive coordination, but it would keep everybody safe.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Xantar

[opus]

Can you head over to the spoiler thread and put down your guess?

Yeah, Morgan and West is probably the worst act on the show. I like the idea of their personas, but the trick itself was really transparent. There are a dozen different ways I could think of to do that trick, and it's just not that entertaining even if you couldn't see how it was done.

Einhorn's trick is incredible. Totally baffling. The only way I can think to do it would be so incredibly ballsy that I can't imagine someone trying it.

Please. Now you have to put down your guess.

Edited September 13, 2014 by GaryE

[SomethingClever]

There's a concept in mentalism called an "instant stooge". Now, a stooge is an accomplice, someone you've planted in the audience. An instant stooge is someone who is truly picked randomly from the audience, but when you get them up on stage you essentially make them kind of a willing partner. The audience will be baffled, but the volunteer will more or less know what's going on. There are a variety of ways to do this, but for Einhorn's trick, it basically could be something like the cards all saying 

 

"<Your name> will sit at table <Table number> and will have <Dish>"

 

And what you're relying on is that an audience member, pulled up in front of everybody (and in this case on national TV), doesn't want to ruin the trick, so they just go along with it. The pressure to just do what the magician tells you at that point is immense (particularly if the first guy already did it). Again, those three aren't amazed, but the audience thinks they've seen a miracle. 

 

Do I think that's how Einhorn actually did it? Not really. Like I said, it would be an incredibly ballsy thing to do, particularly because he wasn't the one picking the volunteers out of the audience. You just need one smart-alec and the whole thing goes down in flames. It's the only method I can think of though. 

[theatremouse]

Interesting. I kind of like the simplicity of that, except I think it relies not only that you don't end up with one smart alec, but also that the person is paying attention. For example some people, even if they meant to go along with it, I think could easily end up just reading what it actually said instead of filling in the blanks. Sure it's dumb but I've seen people, even those familiar with teleprompter work, ask them on the fly to read something, not taking that split second to register they need to not just read what's literally on the card. So that adds another layer of difficulty to that approach.

Edited September 13, 2014 by theatremouse

[Latverian Diplomat]

I've been thinking about how the nail gun trick was done. Penn has said very strongly that he thinks performing a trick with any actual risk is unethical and wrong, so I think it's pretty clear that he doesn't actually memorize the sequence of nails...So the only other method I can think is that the nail gun never shoots anything at all and that instead the nails emerge up from under the plank whenever Penn points the gun at it. That would require some really impressive coordination, but it would keep everybody safe.

Here's my wild theory. The gun is rigged as a nail puller instead of a nail driver. The action of the nail puller never moves past the "barrel", so you could hold it up to your face or hand all day and never be hurt.  The board is full of nails driven almost but not quite flush, so the the puller can grab them easily. The board is slightly slanted so the nail heads aren't visible. Only the pulled nails are visible. It's possible that the puller uses a magnet instead of mechanically grabbing the nail, which would make it even safer and possibly more reliable.

 

It's a bit elaborate, but it gives Penn complete control and requires no accomplice pushing the nails up from below. Given that the nails have heads, I think they must be in the board already, whether Penn is pulling them up or something/someone else is pushing them out.

 

Just a theory, of course.  

[SomethingClever]

Interesting. I kind of like the simplicity of that, except I think it relies not only that you don't end up with one smart alec, but also that the person is paying attention. For example some people, even if they meant to go along with it, I think could easily end up just reading what it actually said instead of filling in the blanks. Sure it's dumb but I've seen people, even those familiar with teleprompter work, ask them on the fly to read something, not taking that split second to register they need to not just read what's literally on the card. So that adds another layer of difficulty to that approach.

 

There are actually a couple pieces in the presentation that kind of address this, which makes it seem like this is a possible method. Notice that he has them pull the cards out with plenty of time before he has the first guy read his, so they have time to read over it and see what's going on. He also tells them to read "the message", not "read what's on the card". And when he tells the first guy to "please read slowly and in a loud, clear voice", he really emphasizes the PLEASE.

 

I still don't think that's how he did it, but there are enough hints there to think that he might have.

[Xantar]

He still had to get the food correct, and the guys sitting at the table have no way of knowing what's under the covers. So at the very least, Einhorn had to have some way of either forcing the meals to the correct table or setting up the cards to have the correct meal.

[Taeolas]

One thing I noticed is they all seemed to have the cards held under the table, or at least not on the table as they were sitting down. So the cards could have been swapped at that point if they were instructed to. That's about the only way I could think of it; but there's still the matter of the names.

[theatremouse]

Okay, so I'm throwing this out there, but I don't really mean it, but eventually it'll be a viable theory:

I remember a year or two ago a company had a prototype of a screen, essentially a tablet, but it was paper thin, clear, and could be rolled up like a sheet of paper. So, if the cards secretly had small versions of THAT on them, rather than being regular cardstock cards, and off stage assistant could just type in the right thing to be displayed there, then they still need to get the food correct but if we're going to be hi-tech about it, tiny camera in the cloche.

[opus]

Maybe he's just a magical psychic? [insert smiley face].

Edited September 14, 2014 by GaryE