Random I-Tunes Song of The Moment: Swingin' by John Anderson

Easy to Execute Card Trickery Four by Joker Jack Review

Six effects, eight dollars and one money back guarantee. Is it gem or is is rubble? Stay tuned.

Effect

You get six effects, each of which is a "reworking" of someone else's effect, namely Nick Trost, Karl Fulves, Kyle MacNeill, Aldo Columbini, David Acer and Peter Duffie. Read the ad copy for the effect descriptions. They do a decent job of explaining the effects.

Method

Generally speaking, the methods aren't terrible. However, in a few cases some are overly elaborate. For example, take Random Thot Expanded. The effect description says that the cards are shuffled after the spectator does the procedure. In reality, you don't quite shuffle, but rather you do more procedural "stuff." Very deliberate "shuffling" of the cards that clearly communicate to the audience, "If I don't do it this exact specific way, the trick won't work." The effect is that the spectator notes a card at (for example) the seventh position from the top. Then after your contrived and obviously procedural handling, the spectator's card is found to be . . . wait for it . . . seventh from the top. To me that's a weak method because the effect points to the method . . . obvious card control through procedure.

In most cases, the variation is not as good as the original and causes some issues that the original doesn't have. But there were cases where the variation was a slight improvement. But even in those cases, they are just minor handling changes. It's the equivalent of saying "I've improved on the method because I do a double undercut instead of a pass." To me, that type of thing is not worthy of publication.

One exception to that, however, is Joker Jack's handling of Kyle MacNeill's effect B + D Revisited. I think Jack's handling is a vast improvement on the effect, handling and method. Another exception: I did like a couple of the modifications Jack made to Nick Trost's effect, Observation Test With Aces. Jack's is impromptu and I like the ending better. However, one of the main magical moments that occurs is better with the Trost method; but if I had to pick one of the two versions to do, I'd do Jack's.

In Prediction and Change City, an alternate ending is given called Prediction And Catch City which should have been the only ending given. The ending in the main write up and the other alternates are very weak compared to this clean ending.

Jack's take on David Acer's Overtime is touted as being better because in Acer's version, you have to turn your back to the audience. I'm not sure why that's a problem, especially when you consider that other effects in the book require the magician to turn around. In the original routine by Acer, the turn around allows you to quickly get the deck ready. While Jack's version gets you ready in front of the audience without turning around, it's much more awkward and not as clean. Further, the final reveal is more convoluted, and not as clean and smooth as Acer's

Generally speaking, the methods are a bit procedural and sometimes contrived. But there are some exceptions to that rule as pointed out above.

Ad Copy Integrity

From Here to Nowhere is a very convoluted method and not as "quick" as the ad copy claims. Other than that, I'd say the ad copy is fair and honest, though biased. No blatant lies are told, just some hyperbole in a few wording choices. When all is said and done, the ad copy is legitimate.

Product Quality

There were a lot of quality issues. First, the images were difficult to see. It looks like some sort of fading technique was used on them making them almost impossible to see when printed, and very difficult to see when viewed on a screen. The writing style was very confusing. For example, read the following paragraph taken right out of the book, and then post a comment telling me how long it took you before you understood what he meant.

This is the very first paragraph of From Here to Nowhere:

Have four cards selected. Control the first selection second from the top of the deck with a Jog Shuffle. Control the next selection second from the top of the deck (above the top two cards) with a Jog Shuffle. Control the other two selections to the top of the deck (above the top four cards) with Hindu Shuffles.

It took me nearly ten times reading it before I finally figured out what he was saying. A large chunk of this book is poorly written in the sense that it's very confusing. Also, in many cases, he'll say, "do such and such move as described in the notes section of this effect." So because of that, you have to go to the notes section, read the method, then go back to the description of the effect and continue on. The problem is that the paragraph in the notes section seems to be as if it were cut right out of the description and pasted at the end of the section. In other words, the wording flowed much better if that paragraph were left in place instead of being dumped at the end of the section. Further, the paragraph in the notes often doesn't have a clear "end." After reading the paragraph from the notes, I continued reading in the notes only to realize that I shouldn't have read that next paragraph, but should've gone back to the main description. Are you confused? I was.

Every single effect has a section or a paragraph or something that was confusing and not clearly written. In some cases, the description of the move is not complete or not as clear as it should be, particularly if you're not familiar with a jog shuffle. I am familiar with it, but still was confused at its usage in B + D Revisited. I finally figured it out after playing with the cards. For more confusion, here's another excerpt. This one comes from an afterthought on Random Thot Expanded. You'll likely be confused due to the lack of context. However, ignore that, and focus on its bizarre and unanswered question about the number nine.

If you count the cards while doing the Milk Build Shuffle, you can figure out how many cards the noted card will be from the top or bottom. If the spectator deals 18 cards and you count 26 cards while doing the Milk Build Shuffle, the noted card will be ninth from the bottom and eighteenth from the top after the Over-Under Shuffle. You could flip the bottom half face up, do the Riffle Shuffle, and have the spectator deal to the ninth face-up card or use the cards set aside and have the spectator deal to the eighteenth face-down card. But the question is this: How is the number nine related to the trick? It's probably best to include the cards set aside when the Riffle Shuffle if the number of cards dealt by the spectator is not low.

I've re-read that paragraph a dozen times and am just as clueless now as I was the first time. Another thing that adds to the negativity of the reading experience is the back and forth nature of having to go back to previous effects to look at an illustration. That coupled with the back and forth-ness of the notes section in many of the effects made for an unpleasant reading experience.

In another effect, where a spectator has the choice to randomly think of any number they like, he suggests that in order to have them select a number is to use a convoluted method of writing down digits and crossing one off and adding the remaining digits. Since they have a free choice, why not just have them name a number? The procedure makes it confusing, meaningless, and seem as though you are controlling the outcome.

He also refers to using a presentational idea in another book of his. He basically says that if you use the presentation from my other book, this trick is better. However, he doesn't give us any details about what that presentation might be, so you end up having to buy that other book.

Final Thoughts

For the most part, this is just slight modifications of old effects . . . too slight of a modification to warrant a separate publication. However, this book is only $8. Maybe that's an ok price to pay for someone else's thoughts on existing effects, and it comes with a money back guarantee. Though there are a few decent points in the book, you may be better off keeping your eight dollars instead of getting it back after you read it.

Final Verdict:
2 Stars with a Stone Status of grubble (very little gem buried under a mountain of rubble).

5 Comments

  • J. JACK says:

    This is the author and this is my reply to Jeff ‘s review.

    you wrote – It’s the equivalent of saying “I’ve improved on the method because I do a double undercut instead of a pass.”

    JJ – I certainly don’t think like that.
    “From Nowhere to Here” is inspired by Peter Duffie’s “From Nowhere”, but it is not a variation of it.
    Random Thought Expanded
    you wrote – In reality, you don’t quite shuffle, but rather you do more procedural “stuff.”
    JJ – what you do is a milk build shuffle and an over/under shuffle
    you wrote – The effect is that the spectator notes a card at (for example) the seventh position from the top. Then after your contrived and obviously procedural handling, the spectator’s card is found to be . . . wait for it . . . seventh from the top.
    JJ – You make it sound like the performer asks the spectator to think of a number. As written in the effect description, the spectator deals as many cards as he wants from the cut-off portion into a pile. He looks at the last card dealt, places the card back on the pile face down, and places the rest of the cut-off portion on the pile.
    JJ – In your description of the effect, you left out that half of the deck is turned face up and is shuffled into the other half, followed by a false cut and/or shuffle. If the spectator dealt 7 cards to the table, they would either count to the seventh face-down card or flip the deck over and count to the seventh face-up card.
    JJ – What is described in the preceding paragraph is what I added to the trick. If you do the original, a spectator can possibly get the same results if they repeat the same actions. The Fulves’ trick exposes the results of the two shuffles. What I added to the trick provided a needed (I think) smokescreen.
    For the record, “B + D Revisited” is the name of my variation of Kyle MacNeill’s “Box + Deck.”
    you wrote – I did like a couple of the modifications Jack made to Nick Trost’s effect, Observation Test With Aces. Jack’s is impromptu and I like the ending better.
    JJ- I am glad to see what you wrote, because those are the two things I thought I brought to the table.
    You wrote – However, one of the main magical moments that occurs is better with the Trost method.
    JJ – I would love to know what you are talking about.
    JJ – I can understand if a person had a problem with “Prediction and Change City.” I would love to know what is your problem with “Countdown City.” I think it is stronger than Catch City.
    you wrote – Jack’s take on David Acer’s Overtime is touted as being better because in Acer’s version you have to turn your back to the audience. I’m not sure why that’s a problem, especially when you consider that other effects in the book require the magician to turn around.
    JJ – I don’t consider turning away to be a problem, it’s just a condition of the trick. The next sentence is speculation on my part. If you were not being so negative, you probably would have noted that the advantage of my version is that you can do the trick surrounded.
    JJ – My, oh my, what dim reasoning. Just because one changes something in a trick doesn’t mean that they think what was changed should never be done.
    JJ – Only one trick in my book requires you to turn away.
    Here is the product description for “No Turn Away Overtime”
    [A selection is placed on top of the deck. Attempting to push the card into the deck, the cardician pushes down on the deck. The top card is turned over. It’s not the selection. The spectator is asked how many cards do they think were turned over. Inexplicably, the top half of the deck is shown to be face-up. The selection is soon seen to be the only card reversed in the middle of the deck.

    In this version, you don’t have to turn away from the audience]
    first paragraph from the write up
    [In this version of David Acer’s “Overtime,” the performer can face the audience throughout the trick and there is an additional effect included. “Overtime” appears in David’s book, Random Acts of Magic.]
    JJ – I would love to know what cause you to say I touted this as being better than Acer’s version. The only comments I made about my version were factually accurate.
    you wrote – While Jack’s version gets you ready in front of the audience without turning around, it’s much more awkward and not as clean.
    I 100% disagree
    you wrote – Further, the final reveal is more convoluted, and not as clean and smooth as Acer’s.
    JJ – I was wondering what in the world you were talking about. I was thinking both versions ended the same. I went to look at Acer’s version again. I spread the cards face down to reveal the selection. Acer delays the reveal by spreading the cards face up. Boy, oh boy. I’m not saying that Acer’s reveal is not better. But what I would like to say is this: Jeff, you’re being picky.
    JJ – “From Nowhere to Here” – I will admit the product description needs to be changed. It’s not a quick location trick. But I will say this. Once the selections are shuffled back into the deck, they are quickly put into position to end the trick.
    JJ – “From Nowhere to Here” is written in steps. For some reason, Jeff left out the last sentence. Here is the complete first step.
    1. Have four cards selected. Control the first selection second from the top of the deck with a Jog Shuffle. Control the next selection second from the top of the deck (above the top two cards) with a Jog Shuffle. Control the other two selections to the top of the deck (above the top four cards) with Hindu Shuffles. From top down, the top six cards are
    in this order: selection, selection, random card, selection, random card, and selection.

    JJ – I would like to say something about procedural sequences such as down-under deals, reverse faros, and milk build shuffles (milking). Generally, I’m not a fan of tricks with a lot of procedural sequences, I can think of only one I like. For me, the key is randomness must be linked to the cards used for the procedure and the procedure must be brief or at least not go on for a long time.

    JJ – “From Nowhere to Here” and “Random Thot Expanded” are the two tricks from my book that use procedural sequences. In “Random Thot Expanded,” the selection is in a random location in a half-deck before and after the procedural sequence. The performer has no idea where the card is. In “From Nowhere to Here,” the effectiveness of the trick hinges on whether or not the spectator is convinced that the cards they “find” came up based on their own random decision.

    you wrote – Also, in many cases, he’ll say, “do such and such move as described in the notes section of this effect.” So because of that, you have to go to the notes section, read the method, then go back to the description of the effect and continue on.
    JJ – Oh, the agony of it. In the write up of two tricks, the reader is referred to the notes at the end. Here they are.
    One trick
    [3. Say, “I want to try two different shuffles.” Give the cards a Milk Build Shuffle (see notes). Note how the shuffle ends. The shuffle will end with one or two cards dealt on top of the pile. Let’s say the shuffle ends with two cards placed on top. Next, perform an Over-Under Shuffle (see notes).
    4. Turn the cards that were set aside face up. Riffle Shuffle them into the portion that the spectator cut off (that portion remains face down). A face-down card must be on top of the deck after the Riffle Shuffle (see notes). Give the deck a false cut or shuffle (you could do both – see notes for a false cut).]
    The other trick
    6. […Perform a Kosky Switch (see notes). ]

    JJ – I will admit this Switch should have been in the write up instead of the notes. But give me a break, it’s not that big of a deal.

    you wrote – In some cases, the description of the move is not complete or not as clear as it should be, particularly if you’re not familiar with a jog shuffle. I am familiar with it, but still was confused at its usage in B + D Revisited.
    JJ – Here is the write up for the jog shuffle in B + D Revisited.
    [The 7C and KH are on top of the deck]
    [2. Do a Jog Shuffle like this: Hold the deck in the left hand. Lift the top half of the deck with the right hand. With the left thumb, draw off the 7C and the KH from the top half, one at a time. In-jog the next card and complete the Jog Shuffle, bringing the 7C and the KH to the top.]

    JJ – If you know the jog shuffle and don’t understand the above instructions, I don’t know what to say.
    you wrote – This one comes from an afterthought on Random Thot Expanded. You’ll likely be confused due to the lack of context. However, ignore that, and focus on is bizarre and unanswered question about the number nine.

    “If you count the cards while doing the Milk Build Shuffle, you can figure out how many cards the noted card will be from the top or bottom. If the spectator deals 18 cards and you count 26 cards while doing the Milk Build Shuffle, the noted card will be ninth from the bottom and eighteenth from the top after the Over-Under Shuffle. You could flip the bottom half face up, do the Riffle Shuffle, and have the spectator deal to the ninth face-up card or use the cards set aside and have the spectator deal to the eighteenth face-down card. But the question is this: How is the number nine related to the trick? It’s probably best to include the cards set aside when the Riffle Shuffle if the number of cards dealt by the spectator is not low.”
    JJ – As noted, this is from the notes at the end. The workings of the trick have already been described. This paragraph and the two preceding paragraphs are talking about a possible different handling from the one that is in the write up.
    you wrote – Another thing that adds to the negativity of the reading experience is the back and forth nature of having to go back to previous effects to look at an illustration.That coupled with the back and forth-ness of the notes section in many of the effects made for an unpleasant reading experience.
    JJ – Two times the reader is directed to the first illustration in the book. Yes, I said two times. The illustration is a picture of a hand holding the deck in the Biddle Grip. Jeff, I hope you had a cold drink and a handkerchief to wipe the sweat when you searched for that illustration two times.
    As noted earlier, two of the six tricks referred the reader to the notes at the end.
    you wrote – In another effect, where a spectator has the choice to randomly think of any number they like, he suggests that in order to have them select a number is to use a convoluted method of writing down digits and crossing one off and adding the remaining digits. Since they have a free choice, why not just have them name a number? The procedure makes it confusing, meaningless, and seem as though you are controlling the outcome.
    JJ – This is incredible. You wrote the above as if I gave the reader one choice. The first thing I wrote was Ask the spectator to pick a number from 5 to 25. Then I wrote the following as additional options.
    [A random number can be obtained by rolling three dice. Another way to obtain a random number is to ask the spectator to write down four different single-digit numbers, eliminate one, and add the remaining three.]

    JJ – I have no idea why you decided to focus on that one option.

    you wrote – He also refers to using a presentational idea in another book of his. He basically says that if you use the presentation from my other book, this trick is better. However, he doesn’t give us any details about what that presentation might be, so you end up having to buy that other book.
    This is also incredible. I did not basically say that the trick is better if the reader uses the presentation from my other book. I wrote the following.
    [Countdown City – After the four tens are shown, add a card to the top of the deck by way of a Jog Shuffle or cut the bottom card to the top. A card does not have to be placed above the selection if the method/presentation from the trick Good and Simple Transpo from Easy to Execute Card Trickery 3.]
    JJ – What I said was one thing can be skipped if you use the method from the trick mentioned above. The reader is given a method for the trick. If they are interested in skipping the thing that is mentioned above, they can buy the book. If they are not, that’s fine too. Man, it’s unbelievable how much petty stuff you bought up in the review.
    you wrote – In most cases, the variation is not as good as the original and causes some issues that the original doesn’t have.

    JJ – If I interpret correctly, you gave a thumbs up to 3 of the 6 tricks. That would make your statement inaccurate.

    Your Final Verdict – 2 Stars with a Stone Status of grubble (very little gem buried under a mountain of rubble).

    My Final Verdict – The only mountain I see in your review is a mountain of your pettiness and exaggerations.

    • Jeff Stone says:

      You wanted my review and I gave it. As I’ve mentioned before, I don’t defend my reviews. If I defend everything I’ve written I’d spend all my time defending and none if my time reviewing.

      Your post here let’s everyone see both sides. I’ll even email my list to make sure everyone has an opportunity to read your response.

  • Grandpa Chet says:

    As you suggested, I read the quoted paragraphs. Please don’t make me try and diagram them. Perhaps English is not JJ’s first language.

    Then I read JJ’s response, which is a great example of why we should never respond to a review. It makes us think of Bogart’s performance of Lt Commander Queeg, specifically Queeg’s testimony at the court martial.

    There are times I wish I’d continued as an English tutor and teacher. Tonight wasn’t one of them. If I, who have graded and edited the most unintelligible essays, get a headache from this, it’s going to be really hard for the average citizen to comprehend.

    *jeep! & God Bless!
    —Grandpa Chet

  • KJ says:

    Jeff,
    Thanks for the honest review.

    JJ,
    Everyone doesn’t have to agree with Jeff’s reviews. However, your response just gives more credibility to Jeff’s points. You are so caught up in your world that you don’t appear to be able to put yourself in your audience’s shoes.

    KJ

    • Jeff Stone says:

      @KJ – Thanks for the feedback. Your statement is very true. Not everyone has to agree with my reviews. In fact, I welcome the questioning. My aim is to be accurate, not “right.” So if my reviews are inaccurate, I’m happy to change them.

Your email address will not be published.

 

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.