The Elements of a Good Card Trick

[Cain]

I was going to post this to the Cafe, but I'll do a test run here:

-No Gaffes/Duplicates/cards from different colored deck. That is to say, a truly normal deck of cards.

-Impromptu: can be performed from a shuffled deck in use.

-No Table

-No Counting cards

-No Spelling

-The performer does not turn around while holding the deck

-The spectator is not asked to put the deck behind her back in order to: select a card, mark a card, etc. This applies to the performer as well

-Cards remain in good condition (they're not bent, folded, or ripped).

-Deck is examinable

-No extra props needed (see final bullet. A card to wallet is acceptable because a wallet is a mundane item that you're probably carrying with you wherever you go).

-The fewer the sleights, the better (generally speaking).

-If spectator participation is required, the instructions are not complicated

-The effect is not complicated. What occured can more or less be explained in one sentence.

-Everything is done for a reason.

-------------------------------

Notes:

This is my Platonic ideal of an excellent card effect. I do not regard many of the conditions listed above as anything resembling a sacred rule (except for perhaps the last three). Everything in the above is subordinate to the trick's wow factor.

For example, I do often carry a single duplicate for a gobsmacking transposition effect (since the selected card is signed, nobody suspects anything, but in cases where the deck is later handed out for examination, the dupe has never been discovered). I also sometimes use a different backed card for Chicago Opener. There's a place for counting cards, spelling names and so on assuming the action is not tedious.

I merely regard the above conditions as initial strikes against a trick. They mean the effect must be justifiably strong.

 

[Brown]

I generally apply the same criteria, but with a few modifications.

Impromptu: Even if a trick requires a set-up, I consider a trick to be "impromptu" if the set-up can be performed quickly and with discretion, or if the set-up can be performed "on the fly." Tricks that require stacking/postioning/reversing of more than three cards tend not to be "impromptu."

Table and props: I don't donsider a table to be something undesirable. I usually don't mind having a table available, even if it is unnecessary to the trick. In some of my favorite tricks, a table is pretty much a necessity. Similarly, there are some props that I don't mind using, as long as they are ordinary, non-gimmicked (and preferably borrowed) props (such as coins, dollar bills, etc.)

Things done for a reason: Part of this is that the patter must have some sort of flow to it. Perhaps you're doing an "experiment." Perhaps you're telling a story. Perhaps you're telling a joke. And all of the actions of the trick are geared toward the theme set forth in the patter.

 

[Cain]

Impromptu: Even if a trick requires a set-up, I consider a trick to be "impromptu" if the set-up can be performed quickly and with discretion, or if the set-up can be performed "on the fly." Tricks that require stacking/postioning/reversing of more than three cards tend not to be "impromptu."

I agree on this and I should have said something! With a borrowed deck one can easily (during a moment between effects) setup a few cards, give the deck some cuts, leave it sitting on a table and wait. Or under the cover of searching for two cards, another two can be pre-positioned for a trick.

 

[Anti_Hypeman]

Nobody wants to hear the story about jacks robbing a bank or a explaination of numerology. If a trick has a story attached just drop it.

Dont use dumb tricks just to fill time a 5 minute routine is better than 20 minutes with lots of lame stuff. When I go to a show I dont want to see tricks straight out of Mark Wilsons complete course in magic, not the self working ones anyway.

 

[NeilC]

I don't think hardly any of those parameters are a sign of a bad trick.

To ask what makes a good trick is like asking what makes a good film - there is no one thing. Some tricks just gel right and some don't. Some are right for certain situations and some aren't.

If you have the Derren Brown "Devil's Picturebook" video you'll see him do a very long 3 card routine that is on a table, involves a gaff, counting, spelling, tons of sleights and cannot be explained in one sentence. The specs are totally amazed and entertained.

One of my fave tricks to perform is Lovell's card to mouth where the card ends up folded and soaked in spit. People seem to like it a lot.

Stranger cards often create amazing tricks. I love Sankey's colour changing deck trick (I forget the name) which involves a stranger card and a DB card. It's a little stunner and you end up clean and can then use the cards for other effects. I can't think of a reason not to perform it despite it breaking your rules.

Someone without much of a repuation, doing effects to mates in a pub might require some of those rules since they tend to grab the pack, not follow instructions, claim everything is fixed etc etc.

 

[Brown]

I don't think hardly any of those parameters are a sign of a bad trick.

I expect that there would be general agreement with that. Card tricks are largely a matter of personal style, and for my personal style, I have certain preferences. A trick might not satisfy my preferences, but that doesn't necessarily make it "bad." It just might not be a good trick for me.

In addition, fellas like Derren Brown, Ricky Jay and the Amazing Randi (among others) can take some of what I would deem to be the lamest tricks.... and present them as utter miracles. Their polished style allows them to do it.

 

[SpaceFluffer]

David Regal, and probably others, have made the point that if you bring something to the party whose presence is invisible, to the spectators at least, the effect is effectively 'ungaffed'. A perfect example is a shell; it's never seen, so to the spectators there's no way that anything funny was going on and there's no reason to suspect a strange item.

This is also true, albeit to a lesser extent, with what Regal calls an 'oddity'. i.e. something that is introduced as a strange, intriguing item. In this way, the introduction of a gaffed prop can be passed off more easily.

I personally think there's very little to consider in the mechanics of an effect other than the effect in the minds of the spectators. Who cares how you get there so long as it blows them away? Of course, there are often more elegant ways of doing the same effect using sleights instead of gaffs, and that's all great. I just don't like the tendency of some to turn their nose up at an effect that happens to use gaffs (I'm not accusing anyone here of doing that, I've just observed it in general).

i.e. I hate the "No rough and smooth!" pitches - what the heck is wrong with R&S? It's one of the most devilish and versatile principles in magic!

 

[Cain]

I don't think hardly any of those parameters are a sign of a bad trick.

"Good" is a loaded word, and I probably should have chosen another term. Here you're assuming that if an effect fails some (or all) of these criteria, then it is bad. Not so. My post had a mechanism to deal with such criticisms:

Everything in the above is subordinate to the trick's wow factor.

Clearly I'm elevating the importance of versatility. No table is necessary, gaffes are not necessary, special cards, etc.

To ask what makes a good trick is like asking what makes a good film - there is no one thing. Some tricks just gel right and some don't. Some are right for certain situations and some aren't.

Yes and no. No doubt there is a confluence of factors at work, and their relationship is more important than characteristics viewed in isolation. Again, this is not intended as simplistic reductionism.

If you have the Derren Brown "Devil's Picturebook" video you'll see him do a very long 3 card routine that is on a table, involves a gaff, counting, spelling, tons of sleights and cannot be explained in one sentence. The specs are totally amazed and entertained.

Well, good for Derren Brown. This is all well and good in the context of a magician officially performing for paying spectators. He has his gaffes handy, the spectators have expectations (they're witnessing an entire "show" and so on.

One of my fave tricks to perform is Lovell's card to mouth where the card ends up folded and soaked in spit. People seem to like it a lot.

Here I shall confess that an aversion to destroying a card is a rather idiosyncratic trait.

Stranger cards often create amazing tricks. I love Sankey's colour changing deck trick (I forget the name) which involves a stranger card and a DB card. It's a little stunner and you end up clean and can then use the cards for other effects. I can't think of a reason not to perform it despite it breaking your rules.

Here again I thought I explicitly mentioned conditions under which I perform using dupes.

 

[Brown]

I propose another guideline for a good card trick: No confederates who are "in" on the trick.

That said, there are a couple of pretty good card tricks in which one or more spectators act as confederates without really being "in" on the trick. And there are some very good tricks in which one or more spectators think they are in on the trick, but they aren't.

 

[Cain]

David Regal, and probably others, have made the point that if you bring something to the party whose presence is invisible, to the spectators at least, the effect is effectively 'ungaffed'. A perfect example is a shell; it's never seen, so to the spectators there's no way that anything funny was going on and there's no reason to suspect a strange item.

This is also true, albeit to a lesser extent, with what Regal calls an 'oddity'. i.e. something that is introduced as a strange, intriguing item. In this way, the introduction of a gaffed prop can be passed off more easily.

I personally think there's very little to consider in the mechanics of an effect other than the effect in the minds of the spectators. Who cares how you get there so long as it blows them away? Of course, there are often more elegant ways of doing the same effect using sleights instead of gaffs, and that's all great. I just don't like the tendency of some to turn their nose up at an effect that happens to use gaffs (I'm not accusing anyone here of doing that, I've just observed it in general).

i.e. I hate the "No rough and smooth!" pitches - what the heck is wrong with R&S? It's one of the most devilish and versatile principles in magic!

Well, the trouble with gaffes -- especially for card tricks -- is that they often render a trick uninspectable. Also, if an identical effect could be performed using sleights versus a gaffe, of course magicians are going to scoff at the gaffed version. And not because it "takes the skill out", but that one would have to replace the gaffe. It also limits where and when the trick can be performed.

Brown, I agree with you again. Stooges are bad, ESPECIALLY on made-for-TV magic (see for instance Criss Angel). It's one thing to make something look spontaneous. It's quite another to have a paid actor levitate at your command, or simply "bump" into two people in the halls of a hotel . That's lame, and it makes the baby Jesus cry.

 

[Brown]

Stooges are bad, ESPECIALLY on made-for-TV magic (see for instance Criss Angel).

The folks who've likely used stooges in TV performances read like a Who's Who of illusionists: David Blaine, David Copperfield, Lance Burton, Franz Harary... even (gasp!) Penn and Teller (although they exposed their stooges at the end of the show).

 

[MagicFan]

Nobody wants to hear the story about jacks robbing a bank or a explaination of numerology. If a trick has a story attached just drop it.

I strongly disagree. Storytelling was probably the earliest form of entertainment. Admittedly, an old story like jacks robbing a bank may not appeal if the spectator has heard it before,but the brain is wired to enjoy a good story if it's not too long, well told, and fits in with the situation.

My own article (PDF) on "How to Entertain With a Deck of Cards" can be found here:
http://magicbunny.co.uk/tophat/issue45.pdf

 

[Garrette]

I agree in general with the OP, but only in general.

If you're looking at it from the audience's point of view, then you have to actually look at it from the audience's point of view, and few of them will be identical or have identical requirements.

If the audience leaves amazed that (from their perspective) I used an ordinary deck without preparation to present a comprehensible effect that wowed them with a stunner ending, then it makes not one whit of difference if in actuality I used specially ordered titanium cards, took three weeks to prep my five stooges, droned on about cute bunnies and their jelly beans, and required two flaming tigers to help.

 

[Stir]

My only criterion for a 'good' card trick

- The audience enjoys it & is entertained