Comprehensive "ACAAN" - Card Magic (Tutorial)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ก.ค. 2024
- Grab a cup of coffee!.. This is a long discussion.
(Volume 2: • Comprehensive ACAAN Vo... )
This is a comprehensive look at the "Any Card At Any Number" effect (also known as the "Berglas Effect" or the "Holy Grail Effect"). I don't cover all of the possibilities, but I deal with a broad spectrum of the major methods and their appropriate uses.
Contents:
0:00 Demo
2:07 Intro
6:39 ACAAN v CAAN
15:48 'Berglas Rules'
18:57 Forcing An Experience
24:43 Presentation IS the Method
34:45 Method Category 1: Mem. Stack
41:32 Method Category 2: Impromptu Stack
51:37 Method Category 3: Various Substitutions
1:05:57 Method Category 4: Various Forces
1:12:20 Method Sidebar: "Get Lucky"
1:19:23 DEMO METHOD: Force Everything!
1:27:53 Final Thoughts
In these kinds of videos you see the card tricksters that want to learn plain methods and complain about the lenght of the videos and then you have the magicians who appreciate every single minute of such lectures because this information and concepts are treasures for the mind. Some magicians like Tamariz explain 3 tricks in one 3-hour lecture, but you get much more out of that than from pure methods explained robotically to you. Magic consists of ideas and subtleties that make the art what it should be.
Don't wanna sound snobbish but Kudos to you my friend!
Exactly! I revisit these videos/lectures, every few months, and I feel like I retain new insight every single time. I’ve heard it all before, but I tend do not retain everything in one go. Same goes for my old classic books. I reread techniques and theory, over and over again, and it continues to provide fresh insight. The people only interested in method, I feel tend to be the younger generations ( with exceptions obviously ), that I see performing and teaching on YT, that have no business doing so
For those out there who have no patience, he explains how he does it at around 1:22:30. However I highly recommend you watch the full thing because he gives really good methods on how to do ACAAN especially if you don't have time for any setup at all. Thanks so much Common Magician. You just earned another subscriber!
well said
Thanks for the time stamp. He sounds like that actor from the big short and from the office, I think Steve Carroll Lmfao
@vic couldn't have said it any better nothing but senseless babbling about info that is completely irrelevant!!
I been watching his ring for 20 mins and its driving me crazy.
Except that's not the Berglas Effect. That has the card and number chosen by the audience.
Another excellent and thoughtfully produced Tutorial. Excellent stuff. Thank you for sharing. Love and respect.
Without watching the tutorial, I was fooooled soooo badly!!!! Really good!
that's a thorough idea about acaan. I just loved it. feeling enlightened :) so many simple things but when they are put in action in proper manners can do wonders. your vdos prove that. thumbs up !!!
The Berglas effect is a fancy term for perfect outcome for a trick that relies on multiple methods and outs. If you watch David Perform this, you can even see him handle the deck and cut it himself in some situations.
As magicians, we understand this effect is 100% impossible to achieve the perfect outcome every single time, which is why we are obsessed with the plot.
Stop chasing empty dreams and just learn Asi winds acaan, then move on to a better trick. Seriously, doing a pass and twirl changing an incorrect card to the specs card hits harder than the “holy grail”. The odds of hitting a card at any number is 1-52. Making a card visually change into a thought of card - there are no odds, this is impossible to a layman.
I want to tell you that this is one of the best videos I've seen regarding the explanation to a specific trick, the way you developed it, organized it, its entire explanation and details (I'm even writing this without having finished watching it yet) I think it's brilliant. I fell into this video because in a TH-cam recommendation they mentioned the Berglas effect and since it seemed impossible to me, I wanted to see if there was some explanation, which obviously has to exist and until minute 34, which is when I am writing this, it already seems like a good idea to me. Magnificent quality, the way you present it and how you address each of the points necessary for its explanation. I give you my most sincere thanks as a living man that I am and I congratulate you for your work. Greetings.
Emmanuel.
Holy moly this is in-depth alright
awesome discussion! THANK YOU so much.
I started loving it even before the tutorial ❤️❤️❤️❤️👌
Your lectures are really good. Lots to think about. I salute you!
This is probably one of the BEST video about magic here. No cap. It's so well explained, in depth and still understandable. Good job.
Your videos are brilliant. I just wish I’d found them sooner!
Berglas gave a lecture at our secret society in London. Very nice, intelligent man. And he said about ACAAN: “a good ACAAN, I can’t explain it… not that I don’t want to but there’s nothing to explain”. The main take away for me was Berglas’ trick that can’t be explained is so strong.
Dani Ortiz understands that well. You just keep going until something hits and you’ll milk it for all its worth. It’s really quick thinking whilst talking and doing moves, rather incredible!
Fantastic presentation. I'm celebrating my birthday today. Your video was a great present to me. Thank you.
Very Very good video mate watched it a couple of times now :)
34:54 methods if u don’t have time. But Common magician has really given us a gift, so if u have time, watch the whole thing.
Went there...same bs..."the most effective ACAAN is the one I don't do et. etc.
@@kingrobert1st Huh? I don't think I said that... anywhere. The most effective ACAAN is the one that convinces your spectator that you actually found any freely selected card at any freely selected number. The method is a secondary issue. That's why the first 30 minutes are important in this talk.
I said "The most complex, difficult methodology for this effect is one that I don't do". That's a very different thing. I demonstrate that an effective presentation doesn't have to be difficult at all. Many hard hitting effects are merely well planned and prepared, like some of the options that I present here.
Just discovered your channel and it is amazing. subbed
I've watched lots of these ACAN videos and not one of them reveals the trick. But then I guess that's what magic is all about!
You "believe" that none of them reveals the method. While many have, yet you don't accept it. Perhaps THAT is what magic is all about. Arthur Conan Doyle famously believed that Houdini possessed supernatural powers... and nothing that Houdini said could convince Doyle otherwise. To reject the various methods for the illusion (and there are many at work) is to assert that one knows, with certainty and specificity, of that which they do not know. This is impossible. The methods for ACAAN are not only known... they are well known, yet remain rejected by those with an unshakable conviction to the contrary.
As far as your statement about the real audience being the people at home and the people who hear about the trick : Penn and Teller have have a video where they went to India and did a version of the Indian Rope Trick. The method was that they had a bunch of people come of out of a courtyard and SAY that they had just seen the trick. The only physical evidence was a rope left lying on the ground in the courtyard! Not exactly a purist method, but effective! I believe some religions may have started this way!
Thank you so much for this trick you don’t know how bad I need it
Hi! Could you please share the link of the "best" version david berglas himself performing this effect? I found the "worst" version but I really cannot find the "best" one anywhere on youtube :(
I use the substitution at the end, only I palm it off early on and just drop it back at the end. Never caught. That way the spectator has the illusion of handling the cards. They can shuffle, etc. Thanks for a great video on this.
thanks for added information extra
Wow...brilliant! Do many people, or certain people, understand some of the more advanced "moves" and "language" utilized?
I watched your comprehensive performance and video
This is a comprehensive comment left on your comprehensive post and I felt comprehensive in leaving this comprehensive comment for other people to see and read so they can see how comprehensive this comprehensive comment is on your comprehensive video
And a comprehensive thank you for your comment.
Great video, really helpfull!!
Yoooooo I was actually thinking of 2 of spades!!!! Willld ass coincidence
Comprehensive and informative. All squabbling about terms aside, a lot to chew on. Got me thinking. I don't see myself abandoning my go to routine for any of these methods, that being said, it's good to have more tools in the tool box. Keep up the good work friend.
For your consideration, I'd offer "The odd couple" which can be found in "Mind Blasters 2 (Peter Duffie complied it if memory serves) it breaks a couple rules (psychological force and needing to touch the deck around 40% of the times you perform it). That being said the presentation covers all the dirty work, which is minimal and as you correctly pointed out the spectators memory of the effect doesn't even register that you ever touched the deck. Another plus of this routine is that it can be borrowed, shuffled deck (as long as it's full, plus one joker).
37. 17!
Anyway thanks for sharing.
I attended a seminar presented by David Berglas around the time he released his book.
His son (marvins magic) was also there.
He covered lots out of his book and demonstrated his acaan with a group and was bang on every time.
However sadly he never tipped his method (it's not in the book either)
Her was very professional and very down to earth. A real gent.
Thank you for sharing! You must be referring to the Richard Kaufman book. Richard's version was the one that I was referring to in the video but his name wasn't coming to me at the time.
The Common Magician it was around 2006 in Newcastle, some great magicians that year...
www.shieldsgazette.com/news/magicians-in-return-spell-1-1243181/amp
The Common Magician ps. it was the david britland book.
Very interesting and complete video.
To me, the only two ACAANs that are very very close to the original berglas effect are asi wind’s AACAAN and mitchell kettlewell’s Ice Cold ACAAN. These are the only routines in which the deck is in the box since the start of the trick, there is almost no manipulation and the spectator can freely name any card and any number. Between these two i prefer asi wind’s one, because the spectator can deal the cards himself and can choose really any number without restrictions.
But indeed the best ACAAN is the one with a stooge, even if i would never perform a trick using a stooge.
Marc Paul's ACAAN on Parkinson 20 years ago was the "Berglas Effect" and it was not Wind's, Kettlewell's and it was not 'stooged' (an assumption many made for years). There are other options for perfection that track closer to Berglas' methods... but there is a cost and bar of willingness for the performer to accept.
@@thecommonmagician i’ll search this also. Thanks for the informations
Nice vid
Could I link you a trick for you to put on guess the method pls
This channel is really a hidden gem! Are you a professional magician outside of youtube ?
Thank you for the kind words. Actually I am not at all a professional. I make a living in public school music education. Magic has been a love of mine since I was very little and I do it on occasion for family and friends... sometimes I spring something on my students, especially if it can illustrate a lesson point or make a positive relationship connection. I have never earned a single cent on performing magic and that is really the point of this channel. The common magician, the hobbyist, the amateur can certainly acquire very powerful methods and approaches that baffle and inspire those that they come in contact with. Good magic doesn't have to come at a price too great for the full time working amateur to bear. Likewise, the professional need not knuckle-bust their way to amazement.
@@thecommonmagician Wow you are such an admirable person. I just graduated from my university, my major is BA. I've got into magic for about almost 2 years and I might be not pursuing magic as a main job like you. At the present I just want to be like you, have a main job as a businessman and keep magic as a hobby to make people around me happy, and i hope that magic will help me in my business too 😁
@@thecommonmagician Nice knowing your what your "real" occupation is. My initial thought was that you were in the sciences, a research scientist or a physician. Comprehensive for sure...much like review articles in medicine. Keep up the great work.
I thought this video was never going to get to the point - but it sure did, and covered many, many points! Awesome - learned so much.
He’s breaking the magicians code of secrecy....he’s cursed now
I added a little more to your method to increase options and increase the spectator's span of choice.
But did you explain the method of how berglas did it in the so called best acaan performance you've seen? I have watched his performance for months now but I still don't know how he actually did it. You said that you have a brief concept of how he did it. Could you be so kind and offer some help?
Cant tell you how but I perform it the same way th-cam.com/video/sqKMvN0lbqc/w-d-xo.html
Stooge is the guy that holds the cards
Do people prefer this method over Juan's (i'm intentionally being subtle , if you know you know) ? I've been doing Juan's method, and it seems truly impossible to spectators. Great explanation btw
I'm here after watching a vid of a long-retired berglas performing this trick twice in a single performance at a school activity. the first acaan performance was total crap, but the second was legendary.
I really appreciate how you go into great detail on this effect. very glad to become
a new sub to.your channel.
The first in that video was good for nearly everyone that was there, but it doesn't survive through video footage. That video was actually recorded as a demonstration for Richard Kaufman's book on the effect. Berglas would say that the first is ACAAN and not the Berglas Effect because he touches the cards.
hey bro can u analyse jason ladanye ACAAN and attempt to explain how he does it?
Very nice. What are the cards ?
They are a vintage-looking Bicycle print.
I currently use ice cold ACAAN with mnemonica. Bummer that the spectator can't deal but I'm not good enough for asi winds version
I use the asi winds acaan and I think it's the best. It is really not that hard, you just have to practice.
Heyy can u help me with the asi winds accan
Can you help me with Asi Wind acaan?
The cull/spread force has really inspired some ideas and I appreciate you sharing your knowledge. Happy subscriber here🤓
I give you credit for making such a long video, explaining that many methods to pull off this effect. Now, I think you should have a look at Boris Wild's ACAAN, in which he doesn't touch the cards, both the card and the number are actual free choices, the spectator deals the cards face up, and it doesn't use any stooge. In other words, it's still possible to perform the Berglas effect without stooges. (Trick's called ACAAB, any card at any birthday, because Boris Wild chose to use the spectator's birthday as a number. But you can do the same routine with any number between 1 and 52 if you want to. The trick isn't limited to numbers between 1 and 31)
Also, you should probably read some Dani Daortiz. His books about psychological influence can help you force a card or a number without making it look like you forced anything at all. (And I'll be honest, the way you forced both in the intro isn't fooling at all. I mean, you did everything yourself, without having the spectator name or pick, or choose any card or number. Plus you handled the cards, which we always wanna avoid as much as possible)
And one last thing about the difference between ACAAN and CAAN : yes, for the magician, the only difference is that the control you have over the card is different. But from a spectator point of view, it's always so much stronger to name a card than to pick one. The reason why the invisible deck is so strong is because people simply name a card, and you make it look like you knew it. They feel like you read their minds. Even if as a magician you might not make the difference, keep in mind that the spectator sees something so much more impressive when just naming a card.
Or you could check out my book where I talk more deeply about these things that you feel I should investigate:
th-cam.com/video/tT_TkYAGzFE/w-d-xo.html
@@thecommonmagician I don't think I need to, thank you. I really like the version of the ACAAN I'm doing rn, because it doesn't force anything and I let the spectator shuffle the cards at the begining.
I'm sure you did some good work in that book, but I'm not interested. I spent enough money on a trick that is not even that impressive, despite being the "Holy grail of card magic". After reading Juan Tamariz, I found so many stronger effects than the ACAAN.
It would be better if you just showed the method that you performed.......
But I appreciate that you made a long vedio telling everything about it.....
You get this video as a gift and you have the audacity to criticise?
What an insult.
It would not be better. What would be better would be if you shut your insolent, entitled mouth.
J G man chill
@@jangray395 deep breaths my dude
thanks for nice video..!! by the way can anyone explain this in few sentences for me? i watched but to me, enslish explanation is still hard... pls thx
How can I add Turkish subtitles to this video? (I am writing this comment from translation)
Anyone know any version of ACAAN using Si Stebbins stack? Can you give me the name or the performance link of that trick? Many thanks.
This will get you started. You need to take the math and use it in conjunction with a count and a shift to place the card at a particular number (like you would with any memorized deck). If you analyze the stack you may find ways to employ the method that I discuss at the end with the natural properties of the stack:
th-cam.com/video/TdTFweigAF4/w-d-xo.html
At witch time he explains the beginning trick
This is a tutorial for an effect... not a trick. You should watch the whole thing. If I explained the method straight out, you likely would dismiss it and you wouldn't appreciate the possibilities for the effect.
Volume 2: th-cam.com/video/Yoydz24y-qE/w-d-xo.html
Wow! A poliitian scientist.
my favorite is asi winds
LURK KARTMAN3XY I don’t know that one will look it up
LURK KARTMAN3XY is it me or does this guy deserve more subs I have a TH-cam channel but his is probably better than mind
Just saw it that’s amazing
Don't you mean Assy Wind?
I’m pretty sure its asi Winds not to be rude
just to be a bit strict : this is a monologue.. not a discussion ;)
Sure it's a discussion! You can talk back to me... I just can't hear you.
Magic is interesting. It's entertainment, deception and illusion. The easiest way to achieve this effect is to use a stooge. For the spectators it will look no different if done like Asi Wind, Berglas or simply by just using a stooge. Also, wether you use a stooge or not, the same spectators who believe you probably used a stooge, will believe it no matter which method you actually used to achieve it. With magicians using electronics these days and other methods that negate any magical skill, a stooge seams more organic at least. The fact that there are so many methods for ACAAN and other card plots is only because magicians are obsessed with the craft and methods. Or they are just trying to put out effects commercially to make a few bucks. It's all magical masturbation. The performance and the effect are all that matter to the spectator. This is why the simplest method is the best method.
Berglas is a Mentalist, he presents as such, not as a card magician or as a magician at all...so in his versions, especially the “worst” version you mention, he is masking the card handling with verbally bold manipulation of perception...thats the “magic” of mentalism...in his hands, the effect, which actually goes back to 1769, is not a card trick, its a mentalism effect...a demonstration of synchronicity that happens to use a commonplace object such as a deck of cards...
Yes, and a major point that I make in the video is that far too many card magicians consider the best variations on this effect to be the best due to their difficulty in mechanical method. One of the issues that I deal with here is that a solid presentation can be achieved through more accessible (and potentially more powerful) means by mere misdirection from a simple method (as was the case with that example that I gave with Berglas... which I now know, from Berglas himself, had a unique circumstance surrounding it). That being said... any trick done with a deck of cards is a card trick to the spectator, and the performer is a 'card magician' (whatever that is) in that moment. I don't think there is much of a purposeful argument to make on that minor detail, one way or the other. Plenty of great 'card magicians' of the past (especially those that wrote and taught on the subject) advocated that finding a way to successfully perform an effect without the use of a 'move' or the intervention of a sleight is always an improvement on the effect.
The Common Magician first i would like to say that i liked your presentation and discourse here. Very well thought out, informative & thought provoking. You are obviously quite the card man and have a lot of intelligence & passion for the art. I totally agree with you on most of the major points...
i have a deep love of cards myself, but i havent performed a “card trick” in 15 years or so...not that i dont use cards for demonstration purposes, but no one that ever sees me walks away thinking that they just saw a card trick nor do they describe it as such in recounting it to others...
I stumbled on your video by happenstance and i dig it...ill check out some of your others.
Job well done!
Keep up the good work!!
Hey. I like your video and your style to commentating. I am an adult male who has always been interested in magic and am trying to get my daughters to engage in something other than TicToc, Instagram and whatever challenge their friends found for them to try on some other social media network. In any case, magic seems to be working.
My comment to your video is a rather simple observation, which may have already been mentioned, and I apologize if it has, but you did not prove that you have a shuffled untouched deck. You touched the deck to shuffle it.
Your video did a good job at pointing out the textbook philosophies, various mechanics and principles involved behind the trick, the only way I can see around this would be to allow a random spectator to shuffle the deck and put it in the box.
Then you leave speculation of whether or not that spectator was in on the act.
A couple points on that, and they all have to do with spectator perception and how you guide it as the performer. You prove that you have a shuffled untouched deck IF you shuffle the deck and then (in the spectator's mind) the trick begins after the shuffle. When some people perform this in a stage environment where they never touch the deck and a spectator deals the cards face up, they have essentially 'proven' that the deck is shuffled because it appears shuffled in the deal and they prove that it is untouched because they never touched the deck. But the truth is that the deck got there somehow and was 'shuffled' (put in that state) by someone (logically, the performer). The reason why these truths are ignored has to do with the audience perception of when the trick begins.
So the questions are: Can an audience be convinced that a deck is shuffled when the performer shuffles it? And can an audience be convinced that the trick started after the deck was shuffled... and in that context, the performer never touches the deck?
I think that the answer has to be yes to both, otherwise there is no trick that a magician can perform that will be effective. When you read about accounts of David Berglas' performances of this effect for small groups or individuals, you can often find places in the account where he is violating the rules and the spectator is willfully ignoring the violation by filling in the gap with their own wishful thinking. I.E. "I named a thought of card and then I named a thought of number... and then he told me to look in the front pocket of his brief case. There, I found a deck of cards... etc." This is totally hands off, but it actually violates some rules. Yet, in the spectators mind, the trick starts when they find the deck. It's an example of masterful planning and conditioning of the spectator.
The goal is not to actually perform any feat... but rather to find a way to convince a person or a group that a particular feat has been performed (when it actually hasn't).
Now all of that being said, there may be a way to have the spectator shuffle the deck, then have your hands on it (in a forgettable manner) and then have the trick 'begin' at a point where you then never handle the deck (I can think of a few ways to do that without involving a confederate).
is this a tutorial or a live reading of Remembrance of Things Past
It is a tutorial... a tutorial about a wide variety of methods and the things that are far more important than the method itself when performing the effect. Enjoy!... or not.
What do you man with the sentence the presentation might be the method. can you explain this a bit in more detail?
Telling the spectator what to believe in is more important (and often completely sufficient) than demonstrating a fact. Think about the most common form of the perfect ACAAN... The performer has a deck of cards in the box, sitting alone on a table or stool. The performer says that it is shuffled, but this is never demonstrated... and the deck is actually arranged in stack. Even though this is partly the most preferred method by most magicians, it essentially depends on 'presentation' as the method. The cards are not actually shuffled, they are arranged... but the premise is stated as a lie and then dismissed by the performer so that the audience will merely accept it. This is no different than having a spectator reverse count from the top and then turning the counted packet to reveal the bottom card... calling it the X card. It is a ruse that depends on the spectator accepting a false assertion without proof. There are no moves, just the need for a believable and bold presentation.
I don’t know why i expected for it to be both burglas himself xD
Edit: berglas*
You do know you can edit your actual typo right? :P
Christophe L yea
Jason has one where the girl shuffles and names a card and a number and counted down herself and there was the card she thought of. How is that even possible?.
Link?
name of the deck used?
These are Bicycle Autobike No. 1 playing cards. One of the classic/vintage type prints of the Bicycle deck that USPCC has put out.
I never saw a crazy appeal in this effect. The closest thing I perform is my own creation and it goes like this:
Card is selected and controled to the bottom. (the control is invisible, no shuffling).
The number s chosen, I count to it face up. When I come to the selected card I deal it aside, face down, but then I pick it up and cleanly put it back on top and go with: "the problem is, if that is your card, you will kick yourself all the night why I didnt choose another number, what it would be if I did etc" while I put the selection (bottom) in a clip and hold the whole deck in one hand. Than I tease spectator if he wants to change the number. Ofc they dont. NEVER in my life they did.
I pick up the top card and do a snap deal by Lennart Green while leaving the clipped selection on the table. I go wit the hidden card to pick up the deck from the left had and in process I depose it on bottom or top, no matter really, bottom if you want perfection, and put a deck on a table.
The face up cards are right number, the face down card is the selection, you are completely clean.
I used to do perform it with turning the cards in the same manner needed for the sleight, than when I come to number I bottom palmed it and performed undertow by D&D.
The problem was it leaves you with a double in your hand.
Third manner was also from abottom control. I would count the cards in my hands, and outjog the selected number. Than Id tilt it on one side and pull it out with the selection underneath. Similar to a halo cut, I think it by Lorraine
Igor Svačić
Nice! You know, I wish I had magician friends I could hang out with in person and talk about this stuff with. I feel like I’m the only guy doing this in a city of 130,000. I should find some meet ups.
I know the Lorraine move, I’ll start studying Green, I know he’s top notch.
@@johnhein2539 Well, I dont have a single person into magic :)
And Im not a magician, Im just a huuuge fan of magic and allways was, so I do it just for the fun, here and there I perform for friends etc.
Actually the time I spent with a deck or coins or rubber bands in my hands is illogical, compared to how much I actually perform. I just love to practice.
About Lennart, I dont actually like him that much. I think the theory of looking "as bad and sloppy" as you can so when you actually pull some things would be the biggest peak possible is a bad one.
But I am and will be eternally gratefull to him for his snap deal sleight. It was so usefull so good to me over the years. Altrough I never ever perform it in his "laser deal" style, I use it for switches mainly as in this case, but also for stealing cards , than for controls (you "deal" it on the half of deck and put the other half on top while in process you leave it on the other half, therefore control it on the top.)
My audience never know I use it. But its a great, great sleight, so innocent, so natural, so devious.
@@igorsvacic217 I spotted you criticizing very talented people again: I never saw crazy appeal in this one,
About Lennart, I don't actually like him (you seem to like the snap deal though what about top shot and green shot?).
Anyways I think I'll give your acaan a try. Seems like a good one! I'm sure you remember me...
@@TheFolderOrigami Dude where Im criticizing him? Im criticizing the effect lol, theres million acaans I like perhaps 2 of them, and even than I perform only the one described.
I dont like Lennarts magic at all acually, I think he is waaay over the top with gicving the sloppy impression (so he can have the bigger gap between bad card handling and crazy effect).
Top shot never found a use for it (i dont like flourishing much in prformance), and I cant see how to use it for some change, decoy, etc.
Snap deal was super usefull to me over the years, but neveer performed it like him, my audience never know I use it.
@@igorsvacic217 well you're indirectly criticizing David berglass. One use for top shot would be to use it as a colour change the way Takumi Takahashi seems to use it a lot. Or you could use double backers with two different colours ( example: red on one side, blue on the other). That way you could achieve the same affect as Eric chien with his ribbon act. You would have to deal the cards normally and get the blue side of the card and when you topshot the card flips over and magically changes into a red one. I particularly like practicing Lennart greens effects because they usually seem to be quite challenging but fun to learn at the same time.
Follow Up Video: th-cam.com/video/xPY7rAtSSgw/w-d-xo.html
Force induced thoughts at the moment before the audience announces the card and number. Who induces the thought? He was helped by non- human entities.... spirits.
Did anyone notice that bicycle in a mirror is bicycle? 30:31
That's only because it is presenting in the mirror upside-down here. If it were held toward the mirror, the order of the letters would reverse.
I imagine Micheal Scott giving the tutorial.
Can you tell me how many second the tutorial? Please
loveu men
Mnemonica is my favourite acaan
Hey, do you know a way of avoiding the pass, I don't do the trick just because I suck at the pass
younes mohssen check out Asi wind ACAAN
So wait the point of this thing is that the audience supposedly did the pick before the main act? The magician "shuffles" the cards puts it's back in box and then the show begins with him asking and them saying the same before he shuffled?
You are very loosely describing the "pre-show" method of mentalism. Obviously the presentation of this method requires careful scripting to create the necessary dual reality.
@@thecommonmagician On the other hand.... this one.. th-cam.com/video/Jzl2qpi-gT4/w-d-xo.html
she shuffle after... how is it done?!
13:00 Oh, COM'ON!
Hey... people are actually quite militant about a difference between ACAAN and CAAN... but the spectator sees no distinction (because in practice there really is none, statistically speaking). This can be used to your advantage when developing your own method and passing it off as 'any card' found at 'any number'.
I'm so sorry maybe I'm slow but the tutorial looked way different than the demo at the beginning.
1:22:30 is where I talk about the exact method in play (which relies on pre-show development and dual reality for the live spectators). The tutorial is not merely about this 1 demonstration. The tutorial is about ACAAN... and a very wide variety of approaches to the effect.
Hey sir! Thank oh for that! Makes much more sense now. Cause I've always had the impression that that those guys have had some EXCLUSIVE ACAAN method that's just that DAMN good. But now that makes more sense.
Berglas told you his most kept secret, sure... :) Believe
There is no Berglas effect variations out there that can match the perfect Berglas which basically is a legend. All the tv, theatre, close up versions are fake, they involve at least 1 stooge. I know ice cold and affected by Berglas and the version Lu Chen performs it looks like the perfect version but is stooged. I have no idea how Berglas did the private version, for example the one in the airplane. Fact is, that is a magic trick and not supernatural power, the secret is a very clever one for sure.
My version looks just like the real Berglas effect, but method is different....I met David Berglas and Peter Turner last year and spoke with both of them till 2.00am in the morning ... and no I do not use any stooges... Davids a real gent
How did you found out about Lu Chens version? Did he also use a stooge? And do you think the version Marc Paul was showing in the long ago TV show were he was a guest was also involving a stooge?
@@themagicman6965 checout my latest video on my chanmel I revideoed it on Christmas Eve....and it is not stooged...however I beleive this is the same way thecoriganal was performed.
@@mysticmarkthemagician5852 I've just watched it. Of course that's the cleanest of the cleanest performances, but as a Magician I don't believe that what we saw in the video was all that happend^^
By the way, I recognize you. I might have stumped over your first video or so long ago.
To the Bierglas effect itself: I don't know how much you know and if you read his book. I can tell you that he really explains (despite what others say) it in the book and that the method has multiple outs/possibilitys and a lot of psychology. If one really want to do the REAL Berglas Effect, he has to study and train it for a long long time.
I wrote the Bierglas effect hahaha.
Can't this be totally impromptu??
Make sure you watch the whole thing as I present multiple methods. Also be sure to watch the Volume 2 link in the description (just posted a couple days ago and deals with burnable impromptu methods). But also watch this: th-cam.com/video/J4ys9TTov4Q/w-d-xo.html
which will answer your question as to performing the initial version on the video in an impromptu setting. Good luck!
Watch the whole thing... don't take the easy way out and don't discount any options.
This was a 10 min video at its best. How many circles can you fucking run in geezus
You must have lost count of the number of methods, approaches and applications that I provided... not to mention the performance theory. A single method trick usually gets an average of 10 minutes on TH-cam. Methinks your math needs work.
You are welcome for the content and discussion. Which method do you use for this effect?
If you are a beginner is cool, if you are a magician is delusional if you are a card magician you will be pissed off
Nonsense. If you are saying what I think you are saying.
If you learned English you'd still be moronic.
To me the difference between CAAN and ACAAN is determined by the selection process prior to counting to the number. If the deck is handled after a card is named its CAAN, if not its ACAAN.
What about if the deck is recalled as not having been handled... even though it was? We should think differently about presentation and recall, not treating all effects as if they were captured on video with instant replay.
Why you posting a very big video
Because I am teaching a whole lot of stuff... and it isn't merely just methods.
@@thecommonmagician ok why you did'nt reveal the ice cold acaan
@@rathiravikumar8230 I did discuss the general principle in the video. But I won't show you the exact procedure for a marketed effect. That's not what I do.
Sometimes you sound like michael scott from the office, and sometimes you sound like daniel wormald from better caul saul
But usually I sound like myself.
Over and over again he says that the only way to do ACAAN is by forcing a card. This is nonsense. Contact me if you'd like to know how to do it without any force.
An hour and 30 min , OMG you have no business doing this , this shod of took 10min
You can't cover what I covered in 10 minutes. This is not some 'trick' give-away where I show you a method for an effect and then beg for subscribers and 'likes'.
First
Over and over again he says that forcing a card is required to do ACAAN. This is nonsense. Contact me if you'd like to know how to do it with no force.
No. I didn't. I am saying that if you can do a force, then you can do an ACAAN. There is also a difference between forcing what may look like a free choice and forcing what may look like a random outcome.
This video put me to sleep
I fell asleep waiting..
Yes, that is a feature on this channel to keep the merely curious viewers out. Most of my content is long-form and deep dive.
Sweet dreams!
I'm 70 yrs old. I don't have time for long drawn out technical jargon. I just want to learn the trick before I pass away for good. Nite Nite.
10mins in still waffling turned it off
Culling the herd.
Video is a pile of shit. An hour and a half of incoherent waffle about basic methods of acaan, be grateful you only wasted 10 minutes of your life.
If you’re looking for a real acaan, learn the mnemonica stack and practice Asi Winds acaan. Million times better than this garbage.
Good video. An advice. Edit your video. Too much repetition.
Verbose.
Sorry to disagree. Picking a card and naming a card is worlds apart for the spectator experience.
When a spectator names a card from a face up open spread, as I am discussing here, it IS a thought of card. They have complete control over the outcome and the randomness of the deck decides nothing. Some folks call this approach CAAN... but it most certainly is not. It is all ACAAN to the spectator that believes that their choice was free and fair. The problem is with the perception of freedom and fairness. The rest of it is just semantics.
Is he paid by the minute as this is very tedious and repetative.
Better cut and run while you can.
Talk about being long winded 🤔
Another one bites the dust.
You will not understand this trick if you do not have the experience of communicating with spirits. Only people with the experience of communicating with spirits will know he was helped by spirits within the same room.
Painful. Excruciating actually. Instead of watching this video I recommend...doing absolutely anything else.
Awe Michael thanks! That's very kind of you. I'm so glad that someone such as yourself got the point of the video and channel.
Hey... You're the man.
@@thecommonmagician Don't take my comment as a personal criticisms. They are not. They are criticisms of the video and its format:
This video is not satisfying on a fundamental level. There is no arc to it. No drama. No payoffs. We don't even see your face, but instead stare at your hands in a still shot. It goes on and on with comments that are off topic or barely on topic.
I think your previous video method of posting smaller videos was the way to go rather than one magnum opus. It's not as if there are chapters or a table of contents, so the viewer is obligated to watch this incredibly long discussion without a road map or any real payoffs along the way. Try to watch it yourself. I doubt you will get through it. Certainly not more than once, and learning a routine requires multiple viewings. So what are we to do?
The time honored method of "effect" and then "method" is much more satisfying. I do not think this long format is useful or enjoyable.
Again, it's not personal criticism. I'm sure you're a wonderful guy doing your best. To me, this experiment yielded valuable data.
You should see that as a victory.
The data conclusion? It is difficult to engage with a still camera shot of someone's hands for 90 minutes.
@@FriedlandM the irony in the discussion here is that your short response came across as smug (because it was)... yet your longer, more thoughtful response provided a deeper insight into your critique.
hmmm...
"You should see this as a victory". There is valuable data there for you. 😉
I believe in the long form. This channel isn't for move monkeys and highly experienced, working magicians. I doubt that there is a single thing on this channel that I can teach you (related to magic). I am speaking to others that are hobbyists and interested in video/podcast discussions (short and long) on ideas that are realistic to them. I don't monetize (because I have no need for it) and I don't hound for subscriptions and likes. I put up a camera when I can and talk to people about what I know and what I think... sometimes at length, with plenty of digressions and 'sidebars'.
I am a conservatory musician, composer and public school educator. That doesn't mean that I would offer demeaning remarks (especially without explanation) in an effort to turn others away from someone's hobbyist music channel. I don't have the time or insecurities for that nonsense.
So, I welcome your second response and consider your first to be trash.
Hey man. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. Evidently I did. The internet is a callous place and I didn't mean to offend you or contribute to that dark reality.
If the video meets your needs, then that's the end of it. I'm happy for you. We can't please everyone all the time!
I wonder if it could do more to satisfy you though. I think that producing videos that are shorter would fulfill the same need to share, while increasing your prevalence in searches. It also puts fewer eggs into each basket.
You are not shouting your thoughts into a vacuum, but releasing content on the internet, so I assume feedback of some kind is what you are looking for. You're not monetizing, etc...there has to be some reason. I think getting more positive feedback would feel good for you. Speculating of course.
Regarding long form, that's awesome. However, magic requires repetition to learn the concepts and moves etc. It is hard to get that repetition without some lines of demarcation to refer back to, such as chapters, page numbers, etc.
As a musician, I'm sure you acknowledge that good music has dynamics, and sections. Verse, pre chorus, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, autro, etc. A monotone, piece of music is not quite...music.
I believe the above criticism applies to the video you made, although perhaps I didn't give it enough of a chance? That is the downside of long form--if the first few pages or chapters don't pull in the reader/viewer, sometimes they jump ship, even if the work is a masterpiece.
Finally, imagine having a conversation with someone that doesn't make any facial expressions. It's...weird. Similarly, it's hard to stay engaged with this video without seeing your face and expressions adding to the underscoring of your feelings, whatever they may be.
In any event--didn't mean to hurt your feelings and let me know if I can be helpful to you.
All the best,
MF
@@FriedlandM a couple things:
You absolutely did not hurt my feelings, there are no worries there.
Your third response is even more welcome than the second... you are speaking your mind on specifics and I have a great deal of appreciation for that. I don't even disagree with you.
I show my face very little. That's not going to change. I do use my name and have shown my face a few times, but I am a public school teacher first and foremost and I don't need to paste my face all over the Internet. That's also the reason for a lack of monetization. I don't need it and I don't have the time or interest to commit to developing the channel into much beyond what it is. Consider that we have been fairly confined to home over the past month and I have uploaded very little. Even now, I don't have a lot of time for this. So when I deal with a topic, I have often put it all out there in a longer video discussion for a viewer to take or leave.
Even if the format doesn't suit one's liking (and that's perfectly fine), I think the idea that the presentation isn't worthy of anyone's time is disingenuous. When David Berglas shocked me by making contacting after watching the video, he indicated much the opposite.
For what it's worth, I intended for the video to be honest, and as complete on various (and I work through quite a few in the time given, if we are being fair) realistic strategies as a "common magician" could be.
I'm good with that.
Sorry but I ran out of patience...you talk to much and not enough action. Nice honey combed table top though.
"culling the herd" ;-)
@@cfirwin3 I watched it all now and I'm still not convinced because he didn't perform in front of a live audience.
@@kingrobert1st Convinced of what?
@@thecommonmagician Convinced it was a random selection and the magician actualy did in the tutorial what he said he did in the demonstration.
@@kingrobert1st this is an application of pre-show work / dual reality. The live spectator gets a slightly different trick from the video viewer. It's a fairly common (and very good) method for accomplishing the effect.
Why you repeat and talk a lot !!!!
So that you remember... if you are interested in learning.
Blah Blah Blah blah
It's some pretty useful blah blah blah.
why are u talking so much
...For you to listen. This is all about a broad range of concepts (most of them being psychological)... not quick videos about mere methods and mechanics (like what the 'cool kids' are doing these days).
@@thecommonmagician i like you 👍🏼
You speak so much but you say nothing... total waste of time
I'm sorry you didn't get anything out of this. But this talk (as with many that I have on the channel) is not about 'a method'... it is about 'pulling off the effect' by means of any (if not every) method. In short, if you came shopping for a 'bowling ball'... I'm sorry that we were having a limited sale on 'bowling shoes' in the 'store' today.
Only a waste of time for a reprobate idiot.
At witch time he explains the beginning trick
Does he not teach the method for the first trick at the beginning? I'm gonna watch the whole video either way because I'm very interested in this effect, but still curious. I'm sure I'll probably have the video watched before I get an answer to this question, as I'm starting to watch it now. But the method for the first trick is what I've been searching for for a long time. Even if he doesn't teach it, I'd really like like to know where I can find it. Is it in a book? Which book? I need to know lol. But here we go, off to the video.
just wasting your time with more than 1 hour talking and just showing how to show your fingers on mirror
Glad you got something out of it... like the dozens of combinations, methods and presentations for the effect.