Random I-Tunes Song of The Moment: The Unforgiven III by Metallica
Luke Jermay: Game Review
One DVD, one effect, $30 bucks. Is it gem or is it rubble? Stay tuned to find out.
Effect
The shortest/simplest way to explain this is: You start with 4 face down cards in front of you on the table. The spectator shuffles the crap out of a deck of cards and then a card is fairly dealt to you. This fairly dealt card is the missing card that when added to your 4 face down cards equals a Royal Flush. This can be done with your own deck or with a borrowed deck.
Method
As the ad copy says, this is Dai Vernon's The Trick That Can't Be Explained taken to a whole new level. This is the kind of method that is very difficult to explain even when I'm not worried about exposure. However, in this case, it's even more difficult to say anything due to the risk of exposing too much.
This is a combination of the Vernon concept along with several added things that Jermay brings to the table that makes the method so much more effective. The additions from Jermay have taken the Vernon concept to a whole new level, a level that makes the original concept almost unrecognizable in a good way. The four prediction cards also play a part in the method, and the method can only be used in the context of one card completing a set of cards.
This is the kind of method that requires a little bit of thinking on your feet and improvising during the performance, but it's still very simple. A few practice runs and you'll get the hang of it. If you can already do Vernon's The Trick That Can't Be Explained then you'll be able to do this almost immediately.
Ad Copy Integrity
The ad copy is 100% accurate. If you understand the Vernon's The Trick That Can't Be Explained, then you'll understand that the effect doesn't look exactly the same every time. That being said, as clean as everything seemed and looked and felt in the video trailer is as clean as it will always feel, but it may not look exactly the same as what you saw in the trailer.
Product Quality
The DVD was produced well enough: decent lighting, well mic'd, etc. As mentioned earlier, this kind of effect is very difficult to teach. Jermay was smart and had a guest (John Archer) with him that allowed him (Jermay) to discuss the concept with Archer. This makes it a lot easier to get a sense of how it works. What you're learning is a concept, namely: the Vernon concept with layer after layer of deception added by Jermay. It was taught very well and covered the concept thoroughly.
Final Thoughts
If you like the effect and don't mind carrying around the small packet of cards for the prediction, you'll be very happy with this product. You can do this with your own deck or with a borrowed deck. There is a slight benefit when using your own deck, and that is that you can do everything face down.
However, having to do things face up is no different from Vernon's original handling. In the case of this routine (Jermay's), I would prefer to use my own deck, but I would certainly do it with a borrowed deck if the situation presented itself. In that case you'd need to be prepared in advance with the prediction cards in your wallet or pocket. If you like methods that keep you on your toes and require you to think and you liked the effect in the video trailer, you'll like this product.
Final Verdict:
4.5 Stars with a Stone Status of Gem.
11 Comments
I’m not a card guy, but I know plenty who will want this. I just can’t explain it!
It would be nice if people that put out gambling effects had ANY clue as to how the games actually worked.
Maybe it’s me, but I’m getting tired of seeing so called gambling effects that don’t work the way that the game actually works.
If you want to present this in another manner, there’s only 1 out of 52 cards, and let’s see if you can come up with that card, fine. But once you actually put it in the context of a (in this instance) poker game, then the effect should actually work the way that a poker game would work. You don’t shuffle and cut a deck in the middle of a poker hand.
Bart, I understand what you are saying, but I think most people who see this effect aren’t that into gambling, but they are still entertained, and isn’t that the point of performing magic – to entertain people?
Sure, there may be some folks who will scoff at this, but I think they are in the minority. If I wanted to be really accurate with a gambling theme, I would make sure I knew what I was talking about. I think a lot of magicians just want a decent, entertaining framework in which to insert their magical effects. Just my 2 cents – I could be wrong.
Mark,
I’m laughing a bit because I’m the one always arguing with other magicians about us needing to concentrate more on entertaining and less on fooling people.
And, I’m the one who’s likely wrong, but this specific effect is based on the person you’re showing it to knowing what the poker hands mean. Otherwise, as I said above, it is just the same as getting 1 card in 52. If they don’t know what a royal flush means, it’s not going to mean much when you show the ace.
Anyway, I am glad that we agree that entertaining should be the primary objective!
Bart,
Of course, if you do a gambling effect and the person has no clue as to what a Royal Flush is, you’ve wasted everybody’s time.
In the best of both worlds, we will astonish and fool the audience, but most importantly, in my book, we’ll entertain them. That’s why I don’t worry about performing “magician foolers.” I don’t expect to fool another magician. What the lay audience and magicians like are often, but not always, two different things. I’m glad we both agree on providing entertainment!
What you see in the demo, is NOT how the real trick plays out. Luke Jermay and Daniel madison baffled you all with bullshit in the explanation!
In the demo, john archer amazingly cuts to the ace, therby eliminating the need to do the sticky move!!!
You all bought this trick because in the demo, you saw the spectator shuffle the deck and then cut to the ace. And thats what blew you away!
Well thats NOT how the real trick works !!!!!!!!!
And it wasn’t a coincidence that johnny cut to the ace! The whole deck was shaved except the ace!
Daniel Madison fooled all the magicians with the demo, and then did something even better…. He gave a bullshit explanation for the trick,
And all the magicians ate it up and said yummm!
Jeff stone, you say you hate when the demo lies, and yet you gave this trick 4 stars. You sir were douped by the mind of Daniel Madison.
Get “exposed” by daniel madison from ellusionist. There daniel admits to doctoring demos!
Just remember one thing…..
THE DEMO FOR GAME IS NOT HOW THE REAL TRICK WORKS!!!!!!
THE DECK WAS FIXED IN THE DEMO SO THAT JOHN ARCHER WOULD CUT TO THE ACE, and they lied and said the deck
Wasn’t gimmicked!
@James – Thanks for the comment. Do you have this product? Have you watched the teaching segment? In the DVD they teach how to do the effect without a gimmicked deck. Also, I was not duped by the demo or Daniel Madison. I’m not sure what Daniel Madison has to do with this. This is a Luke Jermay product.
Further, in the DVD explanation, based on the method, the outcome shown on the trailer is a very common and realistic outcome. If you are familiar with the effect this is based on (Dai Vernon’s The Trick That Can’t Be Explained) and the extra “stuff” that Jermay added to this, you would see that nothing was dishonest here.
Hey jeff. I do have the dvd. And i had hoped that the trick would be EXACTLY AS IN THE DEMO. That absolutely
IS NOT THE CASE!
If you watch the demo again, john archer shuffles the deck, cuts the deck and amazingly deals luke
the ace of spades. Luke doesn’t even have to use his “sticky” card!!! That is completly false advertising BECAUSE THAT IS NOT HOW THE REAL TRICK WORKS!!! That demo fooled all of us because Luke was just handed the ace and didn’t even have to execute a move!!!! ! We were all looking for a move on the demo and couldn’t find it! Thats why we bought the dvd!!!! And then Luke tells us, “I JUST GOT LUCKY IN THE DEMO! NOW HERES WHAT TO DO WHEN THE SPECTATOR DOESN’t GIVE YOU THE ACE.” (Tell me i’m wrong!!!)
And Daniel Madison PRODUCED THE DVD! And guess what Jeff, Daniel Madison has a DVD out right now called
EXPOSED. its about how he doctored and edited demos, in order to sell DVDs.
one more little detail for ya,… The deck in demo was rigged to cut to the ace! Watch the DVD again, and you will see!
John Archer is very careful to square the deck befor cutting it. And if you own Lukes “seeing with fingertips”, you will know
That luke knows about St*****R decks all too well.
If you’re okay with Lukes false demo, then maybe you were a little hard on Shin Lim’s SWITCH review.
I am not saying that Lukes version of TTTCBE isn’t good….. I’m just saying that what we all saw in the demo
is not how it will be 90% of the time! The spectator WILL NOT CUT to the ace of spades, and you will have to perform
The “sticky” move. Thats all.
@James – I have no proof that Luke doctored the demo. Whereas I DO have proof that Shin Lim doctored his demo. I have no problem with the fact that he got lucky in the demo, and unless John Archer is also lying, he did not purposely cut to the card. He was just as surprised by the result as we were. Further, during the explanation, Jermay “got lucky” several times due to the fact that the nature of the method increases the odds of you getting lucky.
I did not feel/believe that the demo was a cheat. My believe has recently been further supported after watching his “Jermay’s Mind” DVD set. He really is very good at orchestrating “luck.” That’s an incredible skill, and I’ve used several effects in the past that rely on luck but have outs. That is the very essence of TTTCBE.
Everyone I’ve ever known who performs a version of that effect gets “lucky” well over half the time. Luke Jermay’s version increases those odds even more.
I have no problem if we don’t see eye to eye, but I would appreciate a better tone in your comments. Things like “and guess what Jeff . . . ” or “one more little detail for ya . . .” imply a tone that is disrespectful and not appropriate on this website. So feel free to continue to disagree with me, but please do it in a more civil manner.
Thanks,
Jeffro
Jeff, I owe you my sincerest apology! My posts were definitely made
in a condescending and disrespectful manner, and I came across as a true asshole.
I suppose I was so disappointed with Luke’s explanation of what I saw on the demo,
that I inadvertently took it out on you.
I also understand the reason why demos are being doctored these days. Because people like me
used to be able to watch demos and figure out the Methods.
I’m sorry for coming across the way I did Jeff. You have a great site here and you help out a lot
of magicians!
James
@James – No worries brother. Thank you. Apology (easily) accepted.