The body is the window to the mind
2
3
Cog
Pure mind reading methods for ‘think of a card’
Copyright Ben Seward 2013. All right reserved 1st Edition
www.bdeceived.co.uk
44
5
Introduction
A Free Choice
Take the Hit
Think of a Card
Colour
Flicker
Suit
Sylilable
Value
Count
Outs
The Trip
Coins
The Choice
Credits
Acknowledgements
6
Introduction
The techniques within this book will not come
easily, they will take time, many failures and
persistence to perfect, but once the methods are
down, the effects they create are astonishing
It is my hope that by releasing this book to the
public, others will master these techniques and
take them in new directions. Do not copy others,
always strive to be different. I look forward to see
what you all create.
When I initially set out to create this effect I did
not think that it would be possible, however
“If you aim for the impossible you will usually land just
short”
I wanted to be able to have a spectator freely think
of a card and be able to tell them what it was, no
forces, no instant stooges, no cards or writing, just
a pure ‘read’ between you and the spectator
This is Cog
7
A Free Choice
Making a spectators choice appear genuinely fair is
very important. That being said it is possible to
massively alter the chance of a spectator choosing
certain cards without appearing to do so.
The easiest method is to simply say the card
eliminating it i.e.
“just think of any card and picture it in front of you, like
the 4 of hearts would have to four pips, one in each corner”
If said before the spectator has selected their card
then they will not choose the named card.
Whole suits can even be eliminated by slightly
altering the script;
“think of a card but not something like the ace of spades”
said confidently it will not be noticed but the
spectator will be very unlikely to think of a spade.
My favourite method is simple but very effective.
“think of a card for me, got one? Yes, good. Now change it,
and again and again. So you’re happy that you didn’t
know what you were going to pick until you just did”
This changing of the card three times will make
the spectator very unlikely to choose a royalty
card.
8
Alternatively you can just tell the spectator to
choose a number card if you like but I like them
to feel that they could have chosen anything.
Another subtle method of directing a spectator
away from specific cards is to replace the word of
with the word or when naming a card e.g.
“Think of any card you would like but not the queen or
hearts, because that’s too obvious”
This will not be noticed by anyone watching but
done correctly the spectator will understand that
they are not to choose a heart or any of the
queens. Some of you will think that this idea
would not only lessen the impact on the spectator
you are performing it to but also assume it too
blatant to work. To them I would say try it out.
When said in a off hand manner and with just the
right emphasis huge chunks of cards can be
eliminate instantly.
I have even used these ideas as a multiple
outcome force;
“think of any card you want but not the queen or hearts,
the ace or spades, or the seven or diamonds, try to think of
a card that would be hard for me to guess”
This normally alters the most commonly named
cards to the 3C, the 4C and the 8C. I am aware
that this seems too obvious to get away with but
done correctly, a lot of spectators listen to the
9
instruction without properly mentally processing
it. So they follow the instructions without
remembering that they were told to.
Take the Hit
There are many situations where preventing your
spectator from naming specific cards, numbers or
objects may be beneficial, this however, should
not be something you choose to do
indiscriminately. Often it is far more beneficial to
simply allow the spectator to go for the obvious
choice without deterring them.
This then allows you to take the free hit.
An example of this is;
We are all aware that there are cards that are
named more than others, the queen of hearts, the
ace of spades, the seven of diamonds, the three of
hearts, and if you have a difficult spectator then
oddly enough the three of clubs. As these are
some commonly named that can be used as a
succession of ‘outs’ providing a safety net and
possible kicker all in one.
Place the queen of hearts in you top pocket, the
ace of spades in you wallet, the three of clubs face
up in the middle of your deck, the seven of
diamonds on top of the deck and the three of
hearts second from top. This set up allows you
have a possible prediction reveal for five cards.
10
Now five out of fifty two is not that good but the
odds are much higher than that.
Now perform Cog to ascertain the card the
spectator is thinking of, if the card is one of the
prearranged reveals then produce that card,
proving that you knew that they would choose
that card in advance. This method is particularly
effective if done with more than one spectator as
this ups the chances of them choosing one of the
five.
This idea is a very old one the predictions can be
in a boxed deck in a pocket on the table or even a
deck that has just been placed on the table.
11
Think of card
This is my ‘go to’ effect whenever someone asks
me to perform something. There are three
sections to this effect, the colour, the suit and the
value. Within each section there is more than one
technique many of which have other applications
but I shall leave them for you to discover. When
performing this I use a loose script. That weaves
almost all of the techniques together. At first this
will seem like a lot of information and too much
to do at once but persist, the result is worth it
Before I begin I would like you to try something
for me.
I would like you to try to just in you head work
out 13 x 25
12
Your eyes will have flicked away from the page.
This allows you to begin concentrating on the
calculation. This is proof, not only that the
following concepts work, but also of their power
13
Colour
14
Over the years I have used many methods to
ascertain the colour of the spectator card. I no
longer use these for reasons that I will explain
later, but for the sake of completeness I will
explain my most reliable method
Flicker
There are only 2 suit colours but this technique
can be used to secretly differentiate between as
many things as you want, however you may wish
to stick to less than five as the technique can take
some time to work through.
When a person is asked to think of anything visual
in order to picture it, the spectator will have to
break eye contact. This is due to the way that the
brain works. Looking away allows their mind to
solely concentrate on the one thing by reducing
the information input from the eyes.
This means that when a spectator is asked to
visually picture their card their eyes will ‘flick’
away from yours, this ‘flick’ will normally be up
and to the performers right but it can be in any
direction. The movement can be small but will
almost always be visible (this is an old NLP idea).
It is very important that you catch this flick first
time as it is very hard to justify the spectator
repeating the process so practice this process as
much as you can until it is second nature.
15
The best ways to practice is to just ask people
visual questions such as “what did you eat for
breakfast” or “what colour are the pillows on your
bed”, watching for the eye flicks. This will become
very easy to spot over time.
The script for this would be something along the
lines of;
“Think of any card that you want and picture it in front of
you”
Watch their eyes, as the direction that their eyes
flick in will be the same as their flick later.
“Now if your card is red, I want you to picture the pips on
the card bleeding out until the whole card is red”
Watch for the eye flicks
“If your card is black, I want you to imagine each of the
pips hollowing out and fading from the card until the card
is completely blank”
Look for eye flicks again.
You will only get flicks on the colour that your
spectator is thinking of. This is because spectators
won’t picture the one that isn’t their card, as they
don’t need to (this is called positive affirmation).
By asking the spectator to not only picture their
card but change something visual about the card,
they will take time to imagine it, increasing the
length of the flick. It is important to ensure that
each visual idea is different or the spectator will
16
just skip ahead and apply the same process to their
card before you have told them too.
It is worth mentioning at this point that the type
of spectator that you choose will have a bearing
on how easy these techniques are to use. It is
easier to perform this for women to begin with
but over time you will find that there are very few
spectators that you cannot read. The spectator
must be interested and eager to join in or they will
not be easily directed into reacting in the way
required.
Finally, it is important to stress that they should be
picturing the things asked of them. I use this line.
“Now its really important that you try really hard to
picture the things I ask you to or this won’t work. If I ask
you to picture your card and you think of something
completely different then this won’t work. I can’t get your
card if you’re not thinking of it”
This ensures that the spectator will listen, it also
removes their desire to make you fail as you have
pointed out it would be their fault. By putting the
onus on them to picture things, they have a vested
interest in making the trick work.
Flicker’s applications are limited only by your
imagination. As long as you can create a different
visual picture for each item from the list then the
eye flick should be easy to spot.
17
If you are finding it hard to spot the eye flicks
then the best way of improving the size and length
of the flicks is to ask the spectator to recall a
memory or emotion associated to the think that
you are asking them to imagine.
The script would be something along the lines of:
“So you now have your card in your mind, yes, perfect. A
little known fact is that playing cards are based on tarot
cards. The black cards traditionally are negative or warning
cards, where as red cards are normally positive. If you are
thinking of a red card I want you to think of a time when
you were truly happy (watch for eye flicks). If you are
thinking of a black card I want you to picture something
that terrifies you (watch for eye flicks)”
by using an emotion as well as asking the
spectator to come up with a memory rather than a
object that they have recently seen. It takes
significantly more thought and therefore time to
be able to access those thoughts and emotions.
This makes for a much more reliable and much
longer eye flick.
I also use this method for ascertaining the suit of
the card. For example:
If the spectator is thinking of a red card
“If you are thinking of hearts I want you to picture a
person who is very close and important to you (watch for
eye flicks), if your thinking of diamonds I want you to
18
imagine the best gift that you have ever received (look for
eye flicks)”
if the spectator is thinking of a black card
“if you are thinking of clubs I want you to imagine a time
that you where completely spontaneous (look for eye
flicks), if you are thinking of spades I want you to picture
a time that you overcame a challenge (look for eye
flicks)”
These are simply examples of things that could be
used, I do not suggest you copy these verbatim,
create your own memories that can be associated
to each suit. The important factor is that the
spectator must recall a memory rather than a
current idea or picture.
As with all of the script in this book once you
understand why it works you can change it to find
any story or patter that you want.
My good friend Peter Turner has some truly
incredible ideas on the methods and uses of eye
accessing ques, which he calls the eye spy
principle. This information can be found in a
private release book called ‘The Book of
Demons’. If you have even the smallest of
interests in this subject area I suggest you look
him and his material up, his thoughts are second
to none
19
Suit
20
I have always felt that for mind reading to feel real
it must be simple and logical. If you could really
read minds why would you mind read the colour?
The suit would tell you the colour. This is why I
no longer use Flicker.
Sylilable
The key to separating the suits is syllables.
Diamonds is the only two-syllable suit. After this
there is spades, most commonly chosen by men,
hearts most commonly chosen by women and
clubs, which is rarely chosen at all.
The script is this
“I want you to loop the name of the suit of the card you’re
thinking of just over and over again in your head”
Nod at them as you say this, imitating the looping
of a word. The spectator will in turn start to nod
back at you. This nod will be in time with their
word.
As diamonds has two syllables it will be a slower
nod. With a little bit of practice you will be able to
tell. To begin with the easiest way to learn this is
to just loop ‘diamonds’ in your head in time with
their nods. If it matches then guess diamonds.
If the nod is faster then it is not diamonds. You
are left with only three suits and a preferential
order to put them in. Here I use an old fishing
technique.
21
If you are performing to a man, then say
“That’s right keep looping it like, spades, spades, spades”
If you performing for a girl then loop hearts
instead of spades.
If you are right then the spectator will smile or
look impressed or give some positive signal. If not
then the looping will just sound like a
demonstration of what they should be doing in
their head. If this is the case all you do is guess
whichever one you didn’t loop. For men, hearts.
For women, spades.
90% of the time you will have hit the answer by
now.
However, if you have not, then the worst has
happened and you just guess clubs. To the
spectator you will have only appeared to have
guessed twice.
If done fluidly and without hesitation then this
whole process will fly under the spectator’s radar.
Many have even claimed, after I have performed
this, that they thought of the suit and that I just
guessed it outright.
Very occasionally you will get a spectator that
won’t nod when prompted. If this is the case, just
repeat the first section and make a cycling motion
with your hand by the side of your head. This
22
subtly draws attention to the nod and they should
join in.
Very, very rarely the spectator will still not start
nodding. Just sadly tell them that they are part of
the very small percentage of people that this trick
will not work on. This is true of any section of this
process, people will not be offended as they feel
special and different and by allowing yourself to
appear to have failed you will only make your
performance more believable. If they do not nod
when prompted then it is unlikely that the other
ideas in the book will work on them either.
Do not be disheartened. Try again.
It is also possible to get the suit with a variation of
Flicker.
Just describe four different visual changes and
attach them to each suit. Such as
“If you’re thinking of hearts imagine that on the card is a
picture of someone you’re very attached to”
It is important to ensure that each visual idea is
different or the spectator will just skip ahead and
apply the same process to their card before you
have told them too.
I use the above method because I find it suits me
and I like the effect to be as streamlined as
possible. However, for those of you who do not
feel that the streamlining is necessary here is the
23
slightly longer but easier to perform method. Use
flicker to distinguish which colour the spectator is
thinking of but do not confirm it with them. This
is because if you do it makes the next step very
obvious.
Now use an altered version of sylilable to get the
suit. As you have the colour, it is only a one in two
chance, which means that the fishing is very easy.
As before ask the spectator to repeat the name of
the suit that they are thinking of over and over
again.
Then use the same idea as before;
“That’s right, keep looping it like spades, spades, spades”
As before, use whatever suit is relevant to the
acquired colour and gender of the spectator. If
you are right the spectator will react. If not then
name the other suit of the same colour.
This method is very helpful in the learning process
as it helps you learn the fishing method with very
little chance of failure. It can also be used to help
learn the diamonds syllable count. Once you have
used flicker to find out that the spectator is
thinking of a red card, watch them as they are
looping it and if the nod is slower than it should
be for a single syllable then just outright guess
diamonds. This gets great reactions and looks
completely impossible. If it is a quick nod guess
hearts. This is one of the hardest skills I have ever
chosen to develop and it will take as much time to
24
learn as any card sleight. Some of you will worry
about getting this wrong and I have included an
outs section for that very reason. I understand that
it can be daunting but I can’t begin to explain how
much fun it is to perform these methods. Because
they can go wrong, they are challenging, and this
makes them all the more exciting to perform.
25
Value
26
The value, is the final piece of the puzzle and the
one riddle that took me longest to solve. Here is
my solution
Count
This final part uses several techniques at once and
can be difficult at first but once you have Flicker
down this will follow with relatively little work.
As previously discussed, your spectator should be
thinking of a number card but to make sure use
this section of script.
“Imagine your card in front of you and make it really big.
Can you see it in front of you?
Look for eye flicks to ensure that they are
picturing it
yea? With the little numbers up in the top and bottom
corners”
Slightly emphasise the “numbers”. If the spectator
is thinking of a number they will have no problem
visualising this and they will nod enthusiastically
or simply perform a quick eye flick. At this point
simply say;
“So it is a number card then?”
Smile at them as you do this, it makes it seem like
a joke and it’s genuinely funny because you have
tricked them into telling you that their card is a
number card.
27
If they appear to be struggling or look confused
then they are not thinking of a number card. This
is not a problem. I will explain what to do in this
case shortly but for now let us assume that they
have confirmed that it is a number card.
The next technique has to be worded carefully but
as with all of this scripting, once you understand
the idea behind it you can alter the script.
“So on the card in front of you there are a number of spots,
dots”
As you say this nod getting them to nod back in
confirmation. Also point to where they are
picturing their card to indicate the pips.
“Now what I want you to do in your minds eye, making
sure that you don’t move your arms, is reach out and touch
each dot and count them in your head as you go, like one . .
. . . two . . .”
As you say one . . . . two . . . gesture as if you
were pointing to your own cards pips. Make sure
that you leave a one beat pause in between the
two numbers, this makes sure that when the
spectator counts, they will count at the same pace
as you. Once you have explained this to your
spectator watch their eyes, they will do the same
visualisation flick that they have been doing all the
way through this process. This flick will be held
much longer than before. As they are holding the
28
flick, just continue counting from two in your
head at the same pace you set before.
When the spectator looks back, stop counting,
whatever number you’ve got to, guess that. I
know it seems simple but you will find that you
will be within one or two numbers. After a little
practice you will find that you get the number
98% of the time with ease. You will start to get a
feeling for when they have stopped counting. For
example, if they look back at you as you count
seven then they are probably thinking 6 and
paused before they looked back.
Occasionally your spectator will instantly look
back at you or not look away at all. If this is the
case they will be thinking of either a two or a three
and they have completed their counting already.
Now to deal with the rare occasion that your
spectator chooses a King, Queen, Jack or ace. The
method I use for this is not fool proof but if you
have set the foundations of this effect correctly, it
is very rare for a spectator to choose a royal card.
“Imagine all four cards in front of you, the ace, the king,
the queen and the jack.”
As you say this point to four patches in mid air,
this is where the spectator will picture the cards
“Just imagine that you are going to reach out and touch
your card and your card only”
29
The spectator will look at the space where you
placed the card they were thinking of.
It is also possible to use these ideas to back up
forces with slightly lower hit rates. Use your force,
whatever it may be and then just guess the force
card. If you’re wrong then laugh and say
something like
“Oh well, had I been right, you’d have been up all night
trying to work it out. Keep thinking of your card, we will
try something”
Alternatively you can just use the force and have
that card in an envelope, in view or face up in
your deck and then work through the cog system.
If the force lands, you have a kicker to the trick, if
not, then you have just performed a very
impressive mind read.
Another method to work out which royal card the
spectator is thinking of is to (as before) create an
emotional link to each of the cards, this can then
be used to beautifully link into a side effect.
The emotional links that I use are:
Ace
– a secret hope or dream
King – a fear
Queen – the first person you kissed
Jack
– something you truly regret doing
The script would be something like:
30
“Now if you’re thinking of a ace I would like you to now
think of a secret dream that you have never told anyone
(watch for eye flicks). If you’re picturing a King I want
you to imagine something that really scares you (watch for
eye flicks). If you are thinking of a queen I want you to
remember the first person you ever kissed (watch for eye
flicks). And finally if you’re thinking of a jack I want you
to think of something that you really regret doing (watch
for eye flicks).”
This has now not only given you the card they are
thinking of, but a story to “hot read” off them.
A nice subtlety at this point is to just recap the
options before you reveal what option the
spectator is thinking of:
“so you are now picturing either a dream, a fear, your first
kiss or something that you regret doing, yes?”
this reinforces the idea that you still don’t know
which option they are thinking of. This also helps
hide the method with a small but effective time
delay.
Now begin to cold read the memory they are
thinking of. For example lets say they where
thinking of a queen and therefore the first person
they kissed:
“Really focus on that idea. Bring it right to the front of
your mind. Step into it. Feel how it would feel to be there
now. Perfect. I’m instantly getting the impression that theres
31
another person there, is that correct? There’s a lot of
numerousness to isn’t there? Yet its still a happy memory
and one that you look back on fondly, yes?”
with minimal effort you can appear to being
seeing a very accurate version of the spectators
thought. Once you have described the spectators
thought you can close with a lovely linguistic ploy:
All four of the thoughts are something that would
be rude to flat out reveal. This allows you to use
this to convince the spectator that you knew what
they were picturing without saying it out loud and
then confirming this by revealing the card.
Proving that you could see what the spectator is
picturing.
“This thought is private and not for me to reveal, although
you are free to tell others afterwards if you would like to.
but just to prove that I know what you are thinking of, the
card that you thought of . . . . was it the queen?”
this little change can play very big. The card has
become an afterthought yet you have used it to
confirm that you could see a whole situation that
you spectator was merely thinking of. Even the
most sceptical spectators will have to admit that
you guessed their card and that you used the
memory they where thinking of to guess, therefore
you must have know what memory they were
thinking of.
32
This idea of turning something as simple as
guessing a playing card into a meaningful
experience is important. It elevates your magic
from simply being a impressive display of skill, to
being life changing moment for the spectator.
33
Outs
34
I very rarely use outs for this effect as I believe
that being seen to have flaws not only adds
believability to my performance but also it gives
the spectator an insight into how hard mind
reading is. That being said, if the idea of having
nothing to fall back on when you are completely
wrong worries you, then here are a few of my tried
and tested ideas
The first out is not so much an out as a nice way
to move on to the next effect. Simply say
something along the lines of;
“So what card were you thinking of . . . . . . do you play
poker? . . . . You should. This is perfect, you are difficult to
read so you will be the best person to do this next effect on”
Then proceed to an effect that is mechanical in its
method, like a billet read or a drawing duplication.
The fact that they ‘beat’ you once will make the
second effect not only more believable but harder
hitting.
I have also found that this works as an over
arching misdirection for the whole performance,
regardless of whether or not the effect goes as
planned.
As you are genuinely reading body language it
adds a level of truth to the performance that the
spectator will notice and cling to. This ensures
that when performing subsequent effects the
spectator will continue to assume that you are
35
employing similar methods. This can create a
wonderful ‘blind spot’ in the spectators mind.
They will always be searching in the wrong place
for the method. I have had many spectators claim
that they could feel themselves giving the
information away in their body language and eye
movements even if I have been using a billet peak.
The second out is to use an invisible deck.
Place the deck on the table before you begin but
don’t draw attention to it. This adds to the belief
that you must have known what card they would
choose a long time before the effect began.
The script would go something like this;
“So what card where you thinking of
Wait for them to reply
That’s interesting and why do you think that you chose
that?
Listen to the response
Free choice? Fantastic. The more astute amongst you will
have noticed that there is a deck of cards on the table that
has been there through out the entirety of this performance
and that I have not touched it since I placed it there.”
Pick up the deck at fingertips and slowly rotate it
to show it from all sides
36
“The 4 of clubs? which is a free choice”
As you say this take the deck from the box and
slowly spread through it to show their card face
up in the deck.
The third and final out is the one I use the most if
I have to as I always have it on me anyway, Daniel
Madison’s Advocate. For those of you who don’t
have, it I cannot recommend it highly enough. It
is without doubt one of the best deceptions
possible with a deck of cards. It is available from
www.danielmadison.co.uk or as a DVD from
www.ellusionist.com if you prefer visual learning.
The routine in using the advocate will be obvious
as soon as you have read and understand the
book. I do not wish to go any further into the
method as it is not mine to reveal.
37
The Trip
38
This section was written by my friend Fraser
Parker as a fail safe out. A out so simple and well
designed that a prediction can be laid on the table
before the trick even begins
This is a way of seemingly knowing the playing
card thought of by a spectator. They think of a
card and you reveal it. NO real work is needed to
divine the correct playing card. You simply say a
few words AND are seen to be right. That is the
whole of the method. You then move on to
another effect.
It is designed to be performed in with your
standard set, in between effects. This should be
performed casually, in an off hand manner so it
flies right by. The important thing about this is,
what is remembered by the audience. It will seem
as if you were truly able to do what only appears
to have taken place. They will go away
remembering the illusion of your seeming abilities.
This is one aspect of my “side effect™” concept,
to be explored more in the future and is a subtle
use of the DR ploy.
My idea is to work smarter instead of harder to
create illusion. If it seems like you may have done
what you claim to THEN that is enough to
convince everyone, in my opinion. The fact that
these “short cuts” to effect are performed in
between standard effects, ensures they can be got
away with. They are then left to do their work, on
39
the minds of the audience members and those
they tell about your magic, later on. This type of
work is what elevates what you seemingly perform
to the class of miracles.
I start off by saying the following words to a
spectator.
“If I were to ask you to think of a card there are a few
obvious ones that everyone seems to think of. These are too
conscious. So instead I want you to go with cards from your
subconscious – THE cards even YOU were NOT aware
were your favourites”.
This seems to offer the participant a free choice of
any card, whilst also making the process fairer. In
fact, you are subtly leading them towards a few
“force” cards, of your own choosing.
I then say,
“Look into my eyes”
as I pause for a few seconds. This is to imply that
I may be reading their thoughts at this point, to
the audience at large.
I also add on the line,
“Don't give anything away”.
This further suggests that I may be attempting a
feat of thought reading, as well as ensures the
participant does not talk at the wrong moment
and spoil the illusion.
40
I then say,
“There are a few cards this could be...”
This now seems I am going to reveal the different
cards the participant has been thinking of, during
this short phase of apparent Mind Reading. To the
participant, they will understand what I say slightly
differently to the audience.
“The 6... NO the 7 of Hearts, the Queen of Hearts OR
the 3 of Spades”.
They will think I mean for them to now think of
one of these cards. They may also believe, as does
the audience, that these cards came from their
subconscious. This is the beautiful thing about
labelling these as subconscious thoughts and is
how we get away with “forcing” their choice out
of three or four possibilities. They can NOT argue
these are NOT thoughts from their subconscious,
as they would NOT be aware of these thoughts, if
this were truly the case.
This of course, is “Awareness” words from
“Wonder Words” by Kenton used in a slightly
different way.
The next line ensures the participant definitely
thinks of one of the cards you mention.
“This is harder if you change your mind so focus
on one of those cards for me now”.
41
This suggests to the audience the participant may
have been changing their mind, which would
explain why you have different cards as your
impressions. They understand this line as a
direction for them to think of one of the cards
you mention.
I would simply guess the card at this point.
“The 7 of Hearts”.
Because of the fact that this is a 1 in 3 chance and
the peculiar way I am using classic psychological
forcing, I am usually correct. The 7 of Hearts is
placed second in the list due to you changing your
mind about your first impression. This is the most
psychologically appealing position, for items in a
list. The 7 of Hearts is also “marked” by this
apparent error. The Queen of Hearts is considered
too obvious a choice by the participant, as it is a
picture card. So too is the 6 of Spades, for being
the last item on the list.
The apparent change of mind of impressions also
helps to suggest the effect, to the audience.
So in performance your odds of a direct hit are
much better.
The audience will believe the participant had a
completely free choice, where as they will think
their choice was limited to a few cards from their
subconscious. They will still react strongly enough,
for the effect to play.
42
It does NOT matter if you are wrong, with this
presentation. The audience will still think you
were able to pick up on the subconscious
thoughts of the participant, you just went for the
wrong one, that's all.
To finish I would say,
“Oh. You went for the Queen of Hearts... BUT that was
one of the subconscious thoughts. That means you will be
perfect for the next effect!”
Then I would move right along and perform any
other trick.
This does NOT look like failure to the audience.
They still thought of one of the cards you
apparently knew they were already thinking of,
before hand.
This is the only “out” you need. The appearance
of an effect is your safety net. The performance
itself covers the notion of a trick.
The method also allows for a free prediction. I
now place a playing card face down, before
performing this. Of course, it is the card I know
the participant will usually end up thinking of. I
then turn the card face up at the end of the effect,
when I hit on the card. This blows the audience
away.
This can be used as a lead in to COG by Ben
Seward. If you make the list of cards larger with
43
more variety of value, suit and colour then you
can use the COG methodology to nail the exact
card. This cleans up any issues you may have had
with getting the value correct, when using COG
and also offers a “safety check”, for this method.
They fit perfectly together.
Fraser
44
45
Coins
46
Most of the ideas above can be applied to the
‘think of a coin’ routine as well as a ‘think of a
card’, which ever suits your performing style. As I
am from the United Kingdom I will be explaining
this using English coins but it would be a simple
matter to create a similar system to this for other
currencies
Ask your spectator to think of any English coin
except a £2 coin. Make sure that it is a coin in
current circulation, this limits the options to £1
(the only gold coin), 50p, 20p, 10p, 5p (all silver),
2p and 1p (copper).
Use flicker to ascertain the colour of the
spectators coin, the script should be something
like this;
“If your coin is gold, imagine that the gold colour is turning
bright yellow. If your coin is silver, then slowly change it
from silver to white. And if you are thinking of a copper
coin picture the copper becoming a dark brown”
Watch to see which of the three the spectator eye
flicks as before. It is important to pause between
each instruction to ensure the spectator has time
to carry out your instructions.
If the spectator has chosen a gold coin then it is
the £1 but this is very rare. It is more likely that
you have misread one or more of the spectators
signals.
47
If it’s a copper coin then just guess a 2p, as it is
one of the two most commonly named coins (the
other is a 10p).
If the colour is silver, 10p is the most likely choice
but as ten and five are one syllable and fifty and
twenty are two you can easily use a variation of
sylilable to work out which one they are thinking
of. The script would be
“Just loop the value of the coin in your head, (check to
see if one syllable or two) that’s right, keep going like
ten, ten, ten”
As before, if the spectator reacts then you are
right, if not guess the other option.
The cog system was never intended as a coin
routine, however, I have found that it is easy to
use with very little modification. There are many
approaches to the ‘think of a coin’ plot, some of
particular note are;
- Larry Becker
- Richard Busch
- Scott Guinn
- Max Maven
- Banachek
- Paul Brooks
48
49
The Choice
50
When first learning these techniques most failures
will be down to the learner not quite having
spotted the correct eye movement or rushing the
script. This being said, once you have the script
down and are looking in the right place at the
right time, most errors will be due to picking the
wrong type of participant. To help you avoid the
pitfalls that I have painstakingly struggled with in
developing this set of ideas, I’m going to briefly
discuss the sort of participant that I would look
for when using these methods
It is important when selecting your participant to
think about a few basic qualifying factors.
Eventually these factors will be of less importance
as the methods become second nature but until
then the following is worth bearing in mind.
When selecting your participant try to look for
someone who is enjoying themselves and is
comfortable to be stood in front of others
(especially if the group do not know each other).
People who are uncomfortable in front of others
will struggle to follow along and may give false
indicators.
Generally, younger female participants are the best
to go for as they tend not to be caught up in the
male idea of it being a competition or a puzzle to
be solved. As long as you are likeable and have
good communication skills, they are normally very
keen to keep the experience going and more than
51
happy to be on your side rather than against you.
This is important as a person who is trying very
hard to not move their eyes or head will be very
difficult if, not impossible to perform this on.
It is also important to use someone who is
involved and wants you to do well. This does not
only exclude hecklers. A participant who is only
half watching and not really paying attention, who
doesn’t care about the outcome of the effect, will
not put the effort in to correctly picture the things
asked of them. I have tried to get these people on
my side with part of the script;
“Now it’s really important that you try really hard to
picture the things I ask you to or this won’t work”
This should ensure that the participant has a
vested interest in the effect going well. Even so, it
is far better to pick a spectator that is keen before
hand rather than having to win them round
retrospectively.
The final factor is that the person should be
enthusiastic. These participants will freely offer
information and take subtle cues to confirm that
you are correct. This makes the effect seem much
smoother than you having to actually ask. Better
to have a participant that will smile and say “yes
that’s right” than someone who will sit stone
faced even when you are right.
52
The Learning Curve
It is vital when these techniques do not work to
assess why they failed in that situation. This is the
only way to continue to improve. In the same way
as one would watch a card sleight in the mirror
and assess how it looks, the same must be done
with these ideas. Each performance must be
reviewed and thought through retrospectively to
improve. Here are a few common reasons for the
techniques going wrong;
Rushing the script and not watching the spectator
for long enough. It is important to remember that
the pause is not a problem, it can really enhance
the effect. It can be very hard for a spectator to
keep up if you are flying through a script. People
need time to picture things properly
Not explaining what you want the participant to
do; not explaining what they should be imagining
and how they should be imagining things. E.g. in
the case of Flicker, the spectator should be told to
imagine the card in front of them and a picture or
their eyes will not perform the required flick
When performing Sylilable, if the spectator is
imagining the symbol of the suit instead of the
word then it will be impossible for the performer
to count the syllables
Other times the spectator will not have counted
the syllables in ‘diamonds’, this is again the
53
performer failing to explain to the spectator what
exactly they are meant to be doing
Another common reason for false positives is
when a spectator doesn’t react to the suit being
guessed correctly. This is frustrating as it is hard to
counter act but you will learn the signs. This is
also affected heavily by the choice of spectator. A
helpful spectator will confirm things happily and
be very impressed, instead of trying to hide their
emotions
54
I have used these method or variations of them
for a few years now and with enough practice they
can become powerful tools that can be applied to
a myriad of other areas within magic and
mentalism. I shall leave it to you to discover these
remaining secrets.
Thank you for your interest in my ideas. I hope
you find them useful.
55
Credits
I do not claim to be the first to have used or
discovered these ideas, however, everything I have
created has been independently developed. Any
work I have used as inspiration or built on I have
endeavoured to credit, however, it would be
impossible to credit everyone. If I have missed
anyone I will ensure that this is rectified in later
editions.
For full credits go to www.bdeceived.co.uk
Richard Bandler & John Grinder
E.a.c
Michael Murray
C.u.p.s
Peter Turner
Mixing old with new
Isabellas star two
Richard Busch
Scott Guinn
Max Maven
Banachek
Paul Brooks
56
“It is not the strongest of the species that
survives, nor the most intelligent that survives.
It is the one that is most adaptable to change”
57
Special thanks to
Dee Christopher
Fraser Parker
Peter Turner
Steven Dylan Palmer
Daniel Madison
Gianni Vox
Jeff Lianza
Laura London
Luke Jermay
Derren Brown
Mike Nickson
The 52