Epitome Location: Any Deck

Any deck

Miracle V,

Epitome Location (non-sleight-of-hand)

THE EPITOME LOCATION

conceived, written and edited by

HARRY LORAYNE

cover created by RICHARD KAUFMAN

Published by. HARRY LORAYNE, INC. 62 JANE STREET NEW YORK, N.Y. 10014

Copyright © 1976 HARRY LORAYNE, INC.

For Robert Emery Lorayne

CONTENTS

THE EPITOME LOCATION

Pg. 6

BASIC PRINCIPLE

Pg. 7

REASONING AND LOGIC

Pg. 9

CALCULATIONS

Pg. 11

ENDINGS

Pg. 13

PRESENTATIONS

Pg. 15

STALEMATE

Pg. 16

POKER FACE

Pg. 17

TWICE AS FAST

Pg. 21

ANOTHER WAY

Pg. 24

COMPLETELY IMPROMPTU HALF AT A TIME

Pg. 24

TRIPLE MATE

Pg. 25

AFTERTHOUGHTS

Pg. 30

Books by Harry Lorayne: CLOSE-UP CARD MAGIC PERSONAL SECRETS MY FAVORITE CARD TRICKS DECK-STERITY REPUTATION-MAKERS TARBELL #7 DINGLE'S DECEPTIONS THE GREAT DIVIDE (a manuscript) RIM SHOTS AFTERTHOUGHTS THE EPITOME LOCATION HOW TO DEVELOP A SUPER-POWER MEMORY SECRETS OF MIND POWER MIRACLE MATH INSTANT MIND POWER MEMORY ISOMETRIC COURSE MENTAL MAGNETISM COURSE GOOD MEMORY—GOOD STUDENT! GOOD MEMORY-SUCCESSFUL STUDENT! THE MEMORY BOOK REMEMBERING PEOPLE, THE KEY TO SUCCESS

THE EPITOME LOCATION I had some lengthy conversations with myself trying to decide whether or not to write this up—to give it away. I have fooled all and sundry with it for some time now. And through the years I've gone through the I've-got-to-keep-something-for-myself song and dance quite often. I usually, as I'm doing now, end up being unable "to keep it for myself." (You see how good I think it is!) I hope you won't feel bad when you realize that you've spent your hard-earned money for a principle you probably already know. Please don't. Bear this in mind: If you already know a principle, but can't use it because it isn't workable or presentable—it's worthless. If you can find a way to make that principle workable; so workable, in fact, that you find yourself with an anytime, impromptu, miracle on your hands—it's invaluable, and worth any price! The truth of the matter is that this may be impossible to teach. Sleight of hand is easy to teach; but there are no sleights (to speak of) involved here. What I'm going to have to try to teach you is what goes on in my mind, and that's not easy. Also, it always takes longer, much longer, to explain what goes on in the mind than what actually goes on in the mind! I'd strongly suggest that you stay with me through the background, theory and the first effect ideas. The good stuff comes farther on, but you've got to understand the theory and basic effects before you can take advantage of the real good stuff. I want you to "fool the pants" off everybody. That's why I'll teach this as meticulously as I can. Nothing altruistic about it; it's purely selfish. I want you to fool people, to do it well—you then become my best advertisement!

—6—

BASIC PRINCIPLE:

This is all based on an idea that has intrigued me since childhood. It's probably older than you and me. I was never able to make it workable until just a few years ago when I gave it quite a bit of thought and attention. The idea I'm talking about is the one of adding all the values of fifty-one cards to find out which card is missing. Take it easy now—don't panic! Stay with me because, first of all, I do very little adding; I use subtraction mostly, which is easier and faster. Most important, and as I've said, I've made the entire concept workable. For a long time, we were told in books that, when a card was removed, we could add the values of the fifty-one cards and subtract that total from 364 (the total of all fifty-two cards, counting jacks as 11, queens as 12, and kings as 13) to find out the value of the removed card. The problem was (and is) obvious. It took too dam long, and if you didn't make a mistake with the addition, you made a mistake with the final subtraction. Mainly, it takes too darn long! Countless spectators have been lulled to sleep as young, hopeful, cardmen stared at each card, sometimes for as long as a minute, going through violent mental calisthenics. (Some older, more experienced cardmen, who should know better, did the same thing.) Even if the young hopeful worked fairly rapidly, and even if he made no mistakes, he still had to run through the deck again to see which one of the four values was missing. (I'll eliminate that "whichone-of-four" search for you.) Eventually, it was realized by some, that it is unnecessary to add up to those high numbers, taking all that time, and leaving all that room for error. It is much easier to eliminate (or subtract) 13's as you go. That is; if you are carrying 8, and the next card is a 9-spot, it becomes unnecessary to work with 17. You simply continue working with 4, which is 17 minus 13. The end result would be the same. If, when you finish with all the cards, your remainder (the number you are left with) is, say, 6—this is subtracted from 13. The value of the removed card, therefore, has to be 7. If you have no remainder, the removed card would be a king (because it's equivalent to 13). The problem here was (and is) that working with 13's still takes too long, even though you don't have to add all the way up to 351 (for a removed king) or 363 (for a removed ace). What I finally realized was that the easiest number to eliminate is JO. (Charles Hopkins mentioned adding aces to 10's only and subtracting the —7—

T H E EPITOME LOCATION

total from 220, in his booklet, Outs Precautions And Challenges. This necessitated ignoring all picture cards, and it still was necessary to add up to high numbers.) I won't waste your time by telling you how I tried 9's first, and that was fine, but that it created a problem I finally eliminated by using 10's. All right; there's still a problem. If you eliminate 10's, and if you consider all picture cards as 10-counts (which is important, because working with ll's and 12's is a drag), and if your final answer tells you that a 10-count was removed—you'd still have to go through sixteen cards (all the 10's, jacks, queens, and kings) to see which one it is. That's no good. One way of solving the problem is to have the spectator think of any card but a picture card, and remove it from the deck. Then eliminate 10's, ignoring the picture cards, etc. I don't like this either; any confinement (no picture cards) weakens the effect. We come now to my (if you'll forgive the immodesty) minor breakthrough. I thought this way: Since I'm eliminating 10's, why not eliminate them from the picture cards right away, and once and for all!? Easy. I started to consider a jack as 1 (11 minus 10), a queen as 2 (12 minus 10), and a king as 3 (13 minus 10). That really solves the lesser problem. Let me lay this out for you—make sure you understand it—before I get to the fast way of eliminating 10's. (When I say "fast" I mean that I can go through a deck almost as fast as I can deal the cards singly to the table, and tell you which card is missing. I've been timed, and I do it in about sixteen seconds! But—as you'll see if you hang in there, I'll show you ways of doing it as quickly as fifty-one cards can be dealt.) Your key numbers will be 4 and 14. Here's why: Don't, incidentally, give a thought to what the total of the entire deck is— that has no bearing now. All you need to know is that when you consider all jacks, queens, and kings as 1, 2, and 3 respectively, as explained, the remainder, after eliminating 10's from all fifty-two cards, will always be 4. Therefore; if a card is removed, and you still end up with a remainder of 4, the removed card must be a 10-spot. (A 10-spot is the only value that changes nothing when it is removed, since 10's are eliminated.) Any remainder less than 4 is subtracted from 4. Say your remainder is 3; the removed card is an ace or a jack (4 minus 3 is 1; remember that aces and jacks are the same— both l's). If the remainder is 2, the removed card is a 2-spot or a queen. If the remainder is 1, the removed card is a 3-spot or a —8—

THE EPITOME LOCATION

king. (Queens and twos are the same, as are kings and threes.) If you have no remainder—you come out even—the removed card is a 4-spot. Any other remainder is subtracted from 14 to tell you the removed card's value. If your remainder is 6, the removed card is an 8-spot. The way I usually "think" it is, my remainder plus what equals 14? So, if my remainder is 9, I know that 9 plus 5 is 14; the removed card is a 5-spot. Incidentally, don't try to etch all this too deeply into your mind because you probably won't use it this way! Get to understand it, so you can practice it. The final shortcut I'll give you uses different keys, and that's what you'll most likely be using. For the time being, this chart lays it all out for you: If the remainder is the removed card is a(n) 0 (even) 4-spot 1 3-spot or king 2 2-spot or queen 3 ace or jack 4 10-spot 5 9-spot 6 8-spot 7 7-spot 8 6-spot 9 5-spot Yes; if you end up with a 1, 2, or 3 remainder, the removed card can be one of two values. But, as you can see from the chart, out of ten possible remainders, only three of them bring about that problem. The odds are better than two to one that you simply won't have to worry about it. Not to worry in any case. I'll give you one way to eliminate that problem with words, and in the final presentations, the problem simply ceases to exist. The "breakthrough" basically is that now, for the first time, you can both eliminate 10's and include the picture cards. To my knowledge, this had never been accomplished before. (Last minute note: Just found out that the thought did appear briefly in a book for laymen quite recently. Too late to help me! Fact is, I was probably the source! Anyway, no advantage was taken of the idea.) REASONING AND LOGIC:

Now, let's get down to two nitty-gritty points. First, and easiest to explain, is the method of going through the deck in order —9—

THE EPITOME LOCATION

to see each card. Spreading from hand to hand, or fanning the deck, just don't make sense! Where is the logic? Why are you doing it? Why is the spectator being forced to stare at you (or worse—lose interest) while you are staring at the cards? There has to be a logical reason for running through the deck. Not only that; spreading and/or fanning are confusing to you. You see too many cards at a time. Take my word for it, I've tried all conceivable methods. When you see too many cards at a time, rather than making it easier, as you might think at first, it makes it more difficult and leaves more room for error. The presentation method I use solves both problems—and more. It's logical, it involves the spectator, it enables you to see two or three cards at a time, which is perfect, and—it enables you to set your own rate of speed. I let the spectator remove any card, completely free choice. He's to look at it, remember it, then place it in a pocket or hide it anywhere. Now, here's the basic presentation idea. My patter: "I'm going to run through all these cards for you (you're shuffling, or the spectator is, as you talk). Ordinarily, I'd ask you to concentrate on your card when you see it. But since your card isn't in the deck, you can't do that. So, would you concentrate on the mate of your card when you see it? That is, if your card is a black ace, concentrate on the other black ace. If your card is a red king, concentrate on the other red king. Don't give me any clues at all. Keep a straight face, but do concentrate on your card's mate. Perhaps I'll be able to catch a piece of your thought (!?)" Turn the deck face up and hold it in normal dealing position. Now, simply deal the cards singly, and face up, into a pile, onto the table. You eliminate 10's as you go. Each time you deal a card, you'll be seeing two cards—the one you're dealing and the card now at the face of the deck. After you become proficient with the elimination, you'll be able to see three cards at a time by simply spreading off the face card with your dealing thumb as the other hand deals the card (it has just taken) to the table. Anytime during the dealing, if you need some "thinking time," do a bit of acting. Stop, and look up into the spectator's eyes as if trying to read his mind. Then go back to the dealing. You might make a remark like, "I don't think you've seen the mate of your card yet. But don't tell me anything," etc. And/or, square the already dealt cards with one hand. That covers a second or two each time you do it. Don't overdo it. The ending can be to either name the card in his pocket, or to — 10 —

THE EPITOME LOCATION

take its mate out of the deck. I won't get into the endings now. I will, as soon as I've taken care of the second "nitty-gritty." This is the essential aspect of the whole thing, and it's the sticky one to explain. The presentation I've just explained does you no good if you can't deal through the deck rapidly. I've spent much time slicing minutes and then seconds off the dealing time. The dealing method itself is important for that reason. That, in conjunction with a rapid way of eliminating 10's, does the "trick." CALCULATIONS:

Bear with me. Any cardman with whom I've ever discussed this has done two calculations for almost every card. For example; assume you're just starting. You see a 9-spot. The next card is a 10-spot, which you ignore. (You realize that all four 10's are ignored, since you're "dropping" 10's anyway.) The next card is an 8-spot. Now here are the two calculations I mean: First you have to add 9 and 8, to get 17. Then, you have to subtract (drop) 10, to arrive at 7. This may not seem too cumbersome at first; but think of the time you'd save if you could come up with the same result with only one calculation each time. It may save only a fraction of a second each of those times but, as I've told you, I'm interested in slicing seconds off the dealing time. And, think of the errors you'd avoid if you didn't have to add 7's, 8's, and 9's. All right; both goals are attained by using subtraction instead of addition. This is something I've always done, even way back when I was still eliminating 13's. I thought everyone did it this way until I discussed it with many other cardmen. When I see a 9-spot I don't think 9, I think "take away one," or minus one. When I see an 8-spot, I think "take away two" or minus two. For 7, I think minus three, and for 6 I think minus four. This is a clear, pristine, concept to me—yet I've had -trouble explaining it to others. I hope that's not the case with you. Look: Since 9 is one less than 10, why carry 9 in my mind when all I have to do is "take away one" from the next card I see? That would build that 9 to 10 and I can forget about it\ Look at it this way: To me, 9 is the same as minus one, which simply means to subtract one from the next card I see. So; if the next card I see is an 8, I take away 1, to leave me working with 7 (or minus 3). 7 is the answer I'd get if I added 9 and 8 and then subtracted 10. It's the same thing! It not only saves time but, as I told you, it also eliminates — 11 —

THE EPITOME LOCATION

errors! It's certainly easier to make an error when adding 9 and 8 than when subtracting 1 from 8! Another example: I've just arrived at 7; I therefore think minus 3 (because 7 plus three more is 10, and can be eliminated). The next card I see is a 5. It's child's play to simply think 2 and keep-right on going without breaking mental stride. (5 minus 3 = 2.) Had I been thinking minus 3 and the next card happened to be a 3-spot (or a king), I'd simply think "even" (3 minus 3 = 0) and, again, keep right on going. If the next card was a 2-spot (or a queen), how would I handle it? Well, since I'm thinking minus 3, and 2 (for 2-spot or queen) from 3 is one, I'd keep right on going, thinking minus one. Do you see? It has to work out right. 7 and 2 are 9 and, to me, 9 is the same as minus one. So, when I'm thinking minus 3 (for 7) and see a 2-count, that's minus one. It's also completely logical; minus 3 plus 2 does equal minus one. There are two main things you have to get accustomed to; get into the habit of always thinking of jack being the same as 1, queen being the same as 2, and king being the same as 3. The second thing is to practice the subtraction concept I've just explained. It may seem a bit confusing to you now; you may even think that it's more time-consuming than the adding method—but you'd be wrong! There's no way that two calculations with larger numbers can be faster than one calculation with small numbers. Also bear in mind that if you're at "even" and you see any combination of cards that total 10, ignore them. I do that even when I'm not at even (zero) position. Say I'm carrying 4. As I deal the next card to the table and spread off the face card, I see a 7, a 2, and a jack. I simply keep thinking 4 until those three cards are dealt—because they total 10, and don't change anything. Incidentally, the subtraction idea works from right to left just as well as from left to right. If I'm carrying 4 and the next card is a 9-spot, that 9 is still minus one to me. So, I simply change the 4 to 3 (4 minus 1) and keep right on going. If I'm carrying 4 and the next card is an 8, I'd think 2 (4 minus 2); if the next card is a 7, I'd think 1 (4 minus 3). There's another way to look at this, that may be faster for you. You'd be doing the same thing—just "thinking" it differently. You're carrying 4, and the next card is a 9. Simply take one (because adding 1 to 9 makes 10) from the 4, leaving 3. That's all; and you're still using subtraction. If you're carrying the 4 and the next card is an 8, take 2 (because adding 2 to 8 makes 10) away from the 4, leaving 2, and so on. I use both ideas; I use the — 12 —

THE EPITOME LOCATION

one that's more convenient at that moment, according to the circumstances. After a while (practice that is; simply doing it over and over) certain combinations will become familiar and therefore easy to handle. Whenever you see a king and queen together, you'll simply think 5. You'll know (without thinking at all) that a king and jack together are 4, a queen and jack are 3, and a king, queen and jack are 6. Most important, work on the "take away" idea; you'll be surprised at how quickly you start eliminating 10's. ENDINGS:

Now let's get to the endings for the presentation and dealing through the deck ideas I've laid out. First the endings, then some more presentation ideas. Then, we'll get to the really good stuff! The most obvious ending is to take out a card, hold it face down, and ask your spectator to remove his selection and hold that face down. Tell him to turn over his card; you turn yours at the same time. The cards are mates! To take out the correct card: Say you ended up with a remainder of 5. Subtracting that from 14, tells you that he's holding a 9-spot. Fan the deck faces toward you and look for any 9-spot. Say the first one you see is red. Continue to look for the other red 9-spot. If you don't see it, remove the first red 9-spot. If you do see the second red nine, look for the only black nine and remove it. In either case, you'll have his card's mate. If your remainder is 1, 2, or 3 remember that you have choices. Say the remainder is 2; you'll have to do as explained above, except that when you do it with your first choice, check to see if there is another black, say, deuce. If there is, you know his card is a queen. So, do the same thing with the queens. You have an even chance of being right the first time, and if you're not, only another moment or two is necessary to find the correct card. But; you can eliminate fanning the deck altogether by making it appear as if you already know his card. It appears as if you simply blurt it out. How? By using the "direct statement" idea that I explained in my book, Rim Shots, in an effect called, The Mind Boggier. (It's based on an idea that Ed Mario used in an effect that appeared in Ibidem years ago.) Since I'm basically lazy, here's the idea, copied exactly from Rim Shots. (After you understand it, I'll show you how to use it to solve the "picture card" problem.) Start by saying, "Think of the card in your pocket" (or wherever he's put it). The reason for this — 13 —

THE EPITOME LOCATION

statement is to get his mind back to the card he removed and off its mate, which you've just made him think of. Now, from Rim Shots: Assume you know that he's thinking of a 4-spot (also assume it's the 4H, but you don't know the suit, of course). Your statements, and his answers, may go like this: "You're thinking of a black card!" Answer, "no." "It's a diamond!" Answer, "no." "The four of hearts!" This is an example of the most "no's" you can get; two of them. Or—"You're thinking of a red card!" "Yes." "It's a diamond!" "No." "The four of hearts!" Here you got only one "no" answer. The best that can happen, of course, is that you guess right. "You're thinking of a red card!" "Yes." "It's a heart!" "Yes." "The four of hearts!" Once you get the idea, your statements come without hesitation. No matter how many "no's" and "yes's" you get, it's a stunner when you name the card. Take my word for it. One more example of how the statements and answers might go. The spectator is thinking of the 8S. 1) "You're thinking of a red card!"—No. "It's a club!"-No. "The eight of spades!" 2) "You're thinking of a red card!"—No. "It's a spade!"—Yes. "The eight of spades!" 3) "You're thinking of a black card!"—Yes. "It's a club!"-No. "The eight of spades!" 4) "You're thinking of a black card! "—Yes. "It's a spade!"—Yes. "The eight of spades!" So—you can get two "no's," a "no" and a "yes," a "yes" and a "no," or two "yes's" only—before you name the thought-of card; and always with only three statements. In any case, it's a stunner. The feeling usually is that you're kidding when you get "no" answers. Study my examples and you'll see how two statements must "zero in" to the correct suit (you already know the value).—End of excerpt. I hope you see the beauty of this! Two statements to learn what his card is, and the third to name it! For a remainder of 1, 2, or 3, you'd simply start with one additional statement. Start by saying, "You're thinking of a picture card!" His yes or no answer tells you what you need to know. Now continue exactly as already — 14 —

THE EPITOME LOCATION

explained; two more statements, and name his card! Remember; you need this extra statement only if your remainder is 1, 2, or 3. PRESENTATIONS:

Now that you've come this far, here are some presentation ideas utilizing the concept as you now understand it. Let me remind you that I'll be changing that concept a bit in a little while. You'll still be able to use some of these presentations, of course. The difference will be that you'll do them better and faster! And others of the presentations will no longer be necessary, as you'll see. What I'm laying out for you are some of the "stepping stones" I had to climb in order to reach the epitome (at least, what I feel is the epitome). I do it for two reasons; first, to make sure you understand the entire concept and, second, who knows—you may like some of the "stepping stones" enough to want to use them. First is a way of breaking up the dealing through the deck into two parts. More important, it allows you to shuffle the deck in between. It also covers the fact that you see every card. Present it exactly as explained, then start dealing into a tabled, face-up, pile. When you're approximately halfway through the deck, remember your remainder at that moment (I usually stop at an "even" point, but it doesn't much matter). Also remember the card on top of the tabled half (the last card dealt). Drop the half deck you're holding as is (face up) onto the tabled half as you make an appropriate remark like, "I think you've already seen the mate of your card, but I'm not sure." By this time, you've picked up the entire deck, turned it face down, and you're overhand shuffling it. The shuffle: Undercut less than half the deck; run off and injog the first card, then shuffle off. Form a break at the injog, shuffle to the break and throw the remainder on top. This is the best "color separation" shuffle I know. What you're doing is shuffling the lower half only. These are the cards you haven't worked with yet, but you're keeping thern all at bottom. It doesn't matter how much they're shuffled as long as they stay at bottom. The card you remembered at about center is also staying at position. Turn the deck face up as you say, "Look at a few more cards, just in case." Start dealing to the table exactly as before. Continue the elimination-of-10's process, starting where you left off before. The card you remembered is your key that tells you when to stop. It is not included in your count, because you counted it before. — 15 —

THE EPITOME LOCATION

That's all. You've seen, and worked with, every card! Go into one of the endings already explained, as you say, "I'm sure you've seen the mate of your card now." You can use any shuffle you like, of course—so long as you keep the lower half at bottom, and keep the key card in position. The one I've described is best for me. STALEMATE:

This is a presentation of the same basic idea utilizing two spectators. The first spectator removes any card and puts it in his pocket, just as in the preceding. The second spectator also removes a card; the difference is that you must know that card. Use any method you like. A force would seem most direct. That's what I usually do. However, if I miss the force, I simply have him replace his card into the deck. I control it, and glimpse it, then really lose it into the deck. As if I just thought of it, I say, "Why don't you take your card out of the deck and put it in your pocket just as he (first spectator) did." So, accomplish it anyway you like, but know the second spectator's card. The patter and presentation now are the same. You'll run through the deck and each spectator is to look for, and concentrate on, the mate of his card. Deal through the deck and eliminate 10's —but remember to start your count with the known (second spectator's) card. For explanation's sake, we'll assume that you know the second spectator's card is the JS. (You'd start the count with 1.) It's the first spectator's card you must find out. Let's also assume that your remainder is 8. You've found out then, that the first spectator's card is a 6-spot. Tell each spectator to place his pocketed card face down onto the table. At the same time, pressure fan the deck, faces toward you, and look for two cards—the JC (mate of second spectator's card) and the mate (a 6-spot) of the first spectator's card. Find the proper 6-spot as I've already explained. Whichever mate you find first, place it before the wrong spectator. In other words, place the JC face down below the first spectator's card, and place the proper 6-spot below the second spectator's card. The four cards form a square on the table. Give your attention to the first spectator, and ask him to turn his card face up and leave it at position. You turn up the card beneath his, as you say, "Darn it, I missed." (He will have turned up, say, the 6H—you've turned up the JC.) — 16 —

THE EPITOME LOCATION

Turn to the second spectator. "I hope I've got yours. Turn up your card, will you?" He turns up the JS. You turn up the card beneath his—the 6D. "Darn! Missed again. I just can't do this trick!" That's the end. (You can, if you like, use the "two part" deal-through I explained just before. You have even a more "logical" reason; you're dealing through for one spectator at a time. For the first spectator, after you've dealt through approximately half the deck (and remembered the remainder and the key card, as explained) remark that you think he's already seen his mate. Do the shuffle, etc., and turn to the second spectator. Deal through for him, until you reach your key. Make the same remark to him, then go into the ending.) That's the way I end the effect, with the "wrong" cards. Tongue in cheek, of course. The "square" layout shows that you've found the correct cards, and it's good for a laugh. You can, of course, place the two cards properly. I like to end as explained. You'll find this effect much easier (and faster) to perform after you've read and absorbed my "speed-up" version, later on. Incidentally, if the two spectators happen to select the same value, you'd end up with four of a kind on the table. It makes it appear as if you planned it that way. It's happened to me a few times. POKER FACE:

Just before I get to the way I really use the idea, let me give you one more presentation. It's the same thing basically; you find the mate of a freely selected card. But, you do it by seeing five cards at a time as you deal two rounds of poker. A card is freely selected, remembered, and pocketed. The deck is thoroughly shuffled before and after the selection. Your lead-in, and reasoning, for running through the deck is the same—you want the spectator to look for, and concentrate on, the mate of his card. The difference is that you patter to the effect that you will be dealing out poker hands. He's to look for the mate, but give you no clues, no change of expression—he's to keep a "poker face." This is exactly the way I've been handling it: Spread off five cards and place them face up to the table, still in spread or fan condition. What you do is eliminate 10's exactly the way I've taught you up to here. The difference is, it's easier. You'll be seeing five cards at a time, and only five cards. No others to confuse you at that moment. There's more chance of seeing cards that total 10, so that they can be ignored. — 17 —

THE EPITOME LOCATION

What you'll actually be doing is ending up with a remainder after each group of five cards is placed to the table. That remainder is carried to the next hand, and so on. You'll be laying out a five hand poker display, then you'll shuffle the deck, and finally you'll lay out another five hand poker display. You will have seen every one of the fifty-one cards. All this will fall into place for you in a moment. Right now, I've shuffled a complete deck and removed one card without looking at it. In order to really explain this, I'll lay out the poker hands, and try to show you exactly how my mind is working. You might want to work along with me. The first group of five cards consists of a 9, 6, 10, ace, 10—in that order. In one glance, before my hand has left the tabled cards, I've eliminated all but one card, and I have a remainder of 6. The two 10-spots are automatically ignored. Then I saw a 9 and an ace; they equal 10, so forget 'em. Only the 6-spot is left, so I carry the 6. The next group consists of a 2, 3, 2, 2, queen. Since I'm carrying a 6—or minus 4—1 immediately eliminate two of the deuces. What's left is a 2, 3, queen. That totals 7, which I think of as minus 3, and which is what I carry to the next hand of five cards. Once you become proficient at this, you might have looked at this hand, noticed four 2-counts and a 3-count, totaling 11. That automatically is 1 (drop 10 from the 11). The 6 you're carrying, plus the 1, is 7 or minus 3. The third hand is a queen, 7, 8, 9, king. Working with minus 3, I automatically eliminate any 3-count. So, the king is ignored, and I'm at even position. There's another way to look at this; there are many ways, and I take the one that hits me first. For example, with this hand, I can eliminate four cards immediately, as I still carry the minus 3. An 8 and queen are always ignored. So are a 7 and king. All that remains is the 9-spot. Since I'm carrying minus 3, that leaves me with a remainder of 6. Had I continued as I first started to explain—by eliminating the king—I'd also immediately eliminate the queen and 8. I'd be left with the 7 and 9. I wouldn't even have to think here; 7 and 9 always leave a remainder of 6. The fourth hand consists of a 4, king, ace, king, 8. I'm carrying 6, or minus 4; so as soon as I see the 4-spot, I eliminate it. The ace and 8 make me think minus 1. Since two kings total 6, and I'm thinking minus 1, my remainder is 5. These first four hands have been dealt in a horizontal row. Deal the fifth hand near yourself, as in a poker game. This fifth hand consists of a 3, 4, 10, jack, 5. I'm carrying 5, so I immediately eliminate the 5-spot. (I could have eliminated the 4 and the jack— — 18 —

THE EPITOME LOCATION

same thing.) The 10 is automatically ignored. The remaining 3, 4, and jack instantly mean minus 2 (3 + 4 + 1 = 8) to me. That's what I remember; minus 2. Now; turn over the top card of the cards still in your hands, and use it to scoop up your (fifth) hand. And use the fifth hand to scoop up all the hands. Obviously, you get a fast look at this "scooping" card and, of course, you include it in your count. I've just done that, and the card is a 7-spot. Since I'm carrying minus 2, I now automatically think; 5. At this point, I make sure that I remember that remainder. I've seen twenty-six cards! I now put all the cards together and shuffle them! The patter is that I'm not sure whether he's seen the mate of his card yet, so I'll show him a few more poker hands. It's the shuffling that's strong here. There are, of course, many ways to handle it. I use the same method all the time. I drop the scooped (twenty-six) cards face down onto the cards I'm holding. Now I do the standard red-black overhand shuffle. I shuffle normally until I get near center, then I run single cards until I'm sure I'm past center, then finish the shuffle normally. What this accomplishes is to really shuffle the cards, but the twenty-five cards I haven't seen yet are now on top! I do this one casual overhand shuffle as I talk, then one false cut, and I start dealing out the poker hands again, exactly as before. The first hand I place to the table consists of a jack, 8, ace, 4, queen. Remember now, I'm carrying a remainder of 5 from the end of the first layout. I see the ace and 4-spot and eliminate them (because they total 5, and that added to* my previous remainder is 10). Now I automatically eliminate the 8 and queen, leaving a remainder of 1 (the jack). The second hand is a 7, king, ace, 9, 6. Easy, and instantaneous. The first four cards are immediately and automatically ignored or eliminated. A 7 and a king equal 10, and so do an ace and 9. Only the 6 is left. Since I'm carrying a 1, to total 7, I think minus 3. This could have been mentally handled another way. I'm carrying 1 and I see a 9. That makes it "even." Now I see the king, ace, and 6. Eliminate them—they total 10. All that's left is the 7, that's minus (or "take away") 3. You'll come to the same remainder no matter which way you go. All right; the third hand is a 5, 3, jack, 5, 6. I immediately eliminate the two 5's, and the 3, jack, and 6 (total 10). I'm still thinking minus 3. The fourth hand is a 7, 3, 5, 6, queen. The 7 and 3 are ignored. — 19 —

THE EPITOME LOCATION

The next card is a 5; since I'm thinking minus 3, that leaves me with 2 (5 minus 3). Adding that to the next card (6), gives me 8, and I automatically think "even," because the next card (queen) is a 2-count. The last hand, which I again deal near me, is an 8, 2, 10, 4, jack. The first three cards are automatically eliminated. The 8 and 2 total 10 and, of course, I don't even look at 10-spots. The remaining 4 and jack total 5, and that's my final remainder. As soon as I put down this last hand, I know that his card (in this case, the card I put aside) is a 9-spot. I go into the ending immediately, and I work according to circumstances. Remember that twenty-five cards are lying exposed on the table. It is conceivable that I see three 9's here. If I do, I can instantly name the card in his pocket. If I saw two black 9's, I'd know immediately that his card was a red 9, etc. In this example, I don't see all three, or even two, 9's; I see only one. It happens to be the 9S. You have the same choice of two endings that I explained before. Make the three direct statements (four, if your remainder had been 1, 2, or 3) and in this example, I'd start with, "You're thinking of a black card." If he says "yes" you know immediately that it's the 9C, since you've seen the 9S. Or, look through the half deck you're still holding in your hands (pressure fan it). Look for the 9C; if it's not there, either name it or push the 9S out of its group to show you've found the mate—the card he was concentrating on. If the 9C is there, remove the first (and only) red 9-spot you see. Work according to circumstances; which vital cards you see, and so on. The beauty of this presentation is twofold. One, you can do the mental calisthenics faster, and yet you can almost do it at your own speed. If you need more time, simply put each group down slower. Spend another moment spreading the cards, ostensibly to let your spectator see them more clearly, and so forth. After some practice, that won't be necessary. And two, the shuffling. It will throw any magician who thinks of the mathematical method, although he shouldn't think of that anyway, because of the speed. You realize that I put it together this way only to enable me to see the fifty-one cards in an almost natural manner, and to hide that fact. You see twenty-six cards (including the "scooper") after the first deal, and then five poker hands—for the remaining twentyfive cards. No counting of cards is necessary, and neither is a key card. It's automatic. After you've practiced, you'll find many shortcuts. You'll start — 20 —

THE EPITOME LOCATION

to know the remainder that certain combinations of cards give you. For example, if I see three 8's in a hand, I immediately think 4, and keep right on going (3 X 8 is 24; eliminate two 10's, or 20, and you're left with 4). If I see two 8's, that's 6. Three 9's are minus 3 to me (3 X 9 is 27; eliminate multiples of 10, 20 in this case, to get 7; that's 3 less than 10—so, minus 3). If I see a 7, 8, 9 in one hand, that's (a remainder of) 4. A 6, 7, 8 is 1, and so on. You'll be amazed at how quickly you'll be able to put down the five-card hands after a while. TWICE AS FAST:

Now, because you've stayed with me up to here, and because you understand all that I've been teaching you—you'll get the benefit of this marvelous (forgive the immodesty) but really obvious idea. To me, this is the major breakthrough. This is what has fooled every cardman for whom I've performed it. This is the idea you'll try to apply to the presentations already described. This is the basic idea with which you'll fool everyone. If you can go through fifty-one cards, eliminating 10's, and including the picture cards, as quickly as you now can—if you've practiced what I've taught you—think how rapidly you could run through only half the deck] (Besides the fact that chances for error are cut to almost nil!) That's the obvious thought that struck as I was working desperately to shave seconds off my dealing time. And what is the most obvious way to halve the deck easily? Reds and blacks; what else?! As soon as the thought struck, I knew it was right. Now, if I knew that, say, a red card had been selected and removed, all I'd have to include in my calculations, as I dealt through the deck, would be the twenty-five red cards! I'll get to some presentation ideas in a moment, but first I'd better make you aware of the slight calculation changes. Your keys for half the deck are 2 and 12. That is; the remainder (after eliminating 10's, and considering the picture cards as 1, 2, and 3) of the twenty-six red cards, or the twenty-six black cards, is 2. When a card is removed, if your remainder, after eliminating 10's from the twenty-five remaining cards of that color, is still 2—then a 10-spot was removed. If your remainder is 1, then an ace or jack was removed; if you have no remainder then, obviously, a 2-spot or a queen was removed. (You're subtracting the remainder from 2, is all.) — 21 —

THE EPITOME LOCATION

Any other remainder is subtracted from 12. Here's the chart: If the remainder is the removed card is a(n) 0 (even) 2-spot or queen 1 ace or jack 2 10-spot 3 9-spot 4 8-spot 5 7-spot 6 6-spot 7 5-spot 8 -.. . 4-spot 9 3-spot or king As you see, the handling of the picture cards is the same. Okay; when I came up with this obvious thought, the next problem that had to be solved was—how can I know the color of the selected (and removed) card. The simplest is often the best. Set the deck into reds and blacks, of course! So, let me talk about knowing whether the selected card is red or black for a moment, then I'll discuss how to handle the idea when you can't know the color in advance. With the deck set into reds and blacks, do any shuffle that keeps the colors separated. The two overhand shuffles mentioned in this treatise will certainly suffice; used singly, or one after the other. The secret, incidentally, is not to call attention to the shuffling; do it casually, as you talk; let it speak for itself. I use either of the above and, quite often, The Super Riffle Diffle, which I explained in Rim Shots. That's a full-deck shuffle, but is fantastic for color separation (if I may say so myself) as I also explained in Rim Shots. Lately, I've been using a simplified version of that riffle shuffle. For the first move of the shuffle (on the table, remember), strip out approximately twenty-six cards from the center. Try to leave as close to thirteen cards above and below this stripped-out section. Allow the upper and lower sections to come together in the one hand. Now riffle shuffle the two halves together as neatly as you can. According to how neatly you've done the strip-out, and the riffling, the colors will still be separated—basically; only some at the center will be mixed. And, that doesn't matter too much. Practice; it's a beauty. I'll give you one final tip on the shuffling: Are you a pretty neat overhand shuffler? If you are, try this: Separate the colors, and 22

THE EPITOME LOCATION

then just overhand shuffle the deck once. That's all. Now check the colors. You may be amazed to find that they're still really separated! There'll probably be a small group or two misplaced near center. All right, then; use any shuffle you like—or, don't shuffle! You see, it won't really matter, because you will allow the spectator to shuffle thoroughly after he selects his card! There can be no suspicion or evidence of any preparation or set-up. He breaks the set-up for you himself! Ribbon spread the deck face down. Be sure you know where the colors are located. I usually keep the Blacks on Bottom. Let the spectator remove any card. As soon as he removes the card, you know its color. He remembers and pockets his card; now tell him to shuffle the deck. Be sure he shuffles thoroughly. If he doesn't, or even if he does, you shuffle too. (You want the colors well mixed.) The presentation, now, is exactly as I've explained. He's to look for, and concentrate on, the mate of his card as you deal through the deck. But oh, what a difference! Try it and see. See how much faster you can deal through the deck, as I've explained, when you need calculate with only one color. With a minimum of practice, you should be able to know the value of the removed card after dealing through almost as quickly as you can. The hesitations are eliminated because you can be thinking as you deal the nonessential color cards! It will be even easier than you think. The best way to practice by yourself is to set the deck into reds and blacks. Then take any card from one color and put it aside. You don't know the value. Now shuffle the deck thoroughly. Then deal through and work with the color of the removed card. Try to deal through without hesitation. That's the key. You'll soon find your best rate of speed; the one with which you're most comfortable, and which you can handle without hesitation. Now, not only is the dealing-through faster—so fast, that nobody can conceivably suspect that you're "adding" cards—but finding out the correct card is also much faster. Since it's so easy to find the mate of the removed card, I usually end by holding it face down as the spectator holds his card face down. I turn my card as he turns his, to display the mates. If you know that the removed card is, say, red—and that it's a 6-spot, all you have to do is fan the cards, faces toward you, and find the one remaining red 6-spot. It's fast because you're looking for one specific card. If your remainder is 1, 9, or even, then you'd — 23 —

T H E EPITOME LOCATION

have to look for the singleton (say) red ace or jack, 3 or king, 2 or queen, respectively. You can end with the "direct statement" method, of course. For that matter, why bother? Just ribbon spread the deck face up. See which, say, red six is still in the deck—and name the other one! ANOTHER WAY:

I hope you see the value of this half-deck idea. I know how important, and strong, it's been for me. Laymen go without saying, but I've also fooled every cardman for whom I've performed i t fooled them badly. Now, a few thoughts before I get into the completely impromptu version, and to the final routine—the piece de resistance. Would you like to do the effect just as explained above, but with a legitimately shuffled deck? Even let the spectator shuffle before and after? Easy. Use a deck that has a one-way back! Separate the reds and blacks; then get all the backs pointing in the same direction. Now turn the reds (or blacks) to point the other way. Shuffle thoroughly without turning cards end for end. When ready to perform, shuffle thoroughly. Let the spectator shuffle. An overhand shuffle changes nothing; neither does a normal riffle shuffle. This is up to you; if you're nervous about it, do the shuffling yourself. It doesn't matter. The spectator will shuffle after the selection, anyway. Be sure you know which way one color is pointing before you ribbon spread for the selection. You know the color as soon as the card is removed. Take it from there. You'll be surprised how strong this can be! (And, you can repeat immediately.) If you liked Stalemate, the effect I explained earlier, you can do it now with a really fast deal-through of the deck. You'd still have to know the second spectator's card. If it's the same color as the first spectator's card, be sure to include it in your calculations. If it's the opposite color, don't include it in your count. And, if you liked Poker Face, try that using the half-deck idea. It's amazing how much easier it becomes! COMPLETELY IMPROMPTU HALF AT A TIME:

I told you that this gets better and better. This is the epitome— to me, anyway. It's an anytime, anywhere, any deck, impromptu miracle as far as I'm concerned. Although it shouldn't be a problem for you to set even a borrowed deck into reds and blacks, there are times when it can be awkward. (Like when you want to repeat the effect immediately.) Or you may simply prefer to let a specta— 24 —

THE EPITOME LOCATION

tor shuffle the deck and remove the card while the deck is in his hands, or let him ribbon spread it himself. You can do either of these and still use the half-deck idea! Simply deal through the deck considering, say, only the red cards. (I usually "do" the reds first.) You have, of course, a fifty-fifty chance of being right! If you end with any remainder but 2, you are right. Simply end the effect. But—you'd better be aware of one little problem. That is, that you can end with a remainder of 2 and still be right. If a red 10-spot happened to have been removed, then you'd end with a remainder of 2. So, what I do (whenever I end with a remainder of 2 after calculating the first color only) is a fast face-up ribbon spread, as I say, "Are you sure you concentrated on the mate of your card?" In that second, I simply see if the two red 10's are there. If only one is there, I instantly know the removed card. The odds are against a 10-spot being selected, of course, but you'd better check it as explained. At first, I was palming out the red 10's before I started. I found that it was extra, unnecessary, work. Many times I don't have to spread and check because I happened to note the two 10's as I deal through. This happens if they're together in the deck, or if they fall near the end of the deal. I never make an effort to note them. All my attention is on my calculations. If it happens, fine; if not, I do the fast ribbon spread. All right; what if you end with a remainder of 2, and both red 10's are still in the deck? You've just used the patter line about "are you sure you concentrated," etc. Gather the deck, shuffle it, as you say, "I didn't get any message at all. Would you concentrate on it once more?" And deal through the deck again, calculating only the black cards this time! ! Simple? It sure is! It took me some time to arrive at it, however. And, how effective it is! No preparation; no nothing. And fifty percent of the time only the one fast deal-through is necessary. The important point is that it doesn't matter. The deal-through is so fast that doing it again just doesn't matter! TRIPLE MATE:

The above is what I use most often. Just the location, or "mindreading," of an obviously freely selected card. As I said, to me, that's the "epitome" location. For a real layman blockbuster, I use the following. It's fooled plenty of magicians, too. It's a triple — 25 —

T H E EPITOME LOCATION

mindreading effect, utilizing what I've just taught you, plus another pretty standard idea. Most important, it affords a "natural" reason for the second deal-through, if it's necessary. A bit of acting is also involved. You have three spectators sitting opposite you. From your left to your right, I'll refer to them as A, B, and C. Let the deck (a borrowed one, if it's complete) be shuffled by any or all. Tell spectator B, the center spectator, to take the deck and remove any card without looking at it, and to place it in his pocket. Your build-up for this selection can be as strong as your imagination will allow. For example, you can tell him to take the deck into another room to remove a card. He's on the honor system, and is not to look at the card; it would ruin the experiment, etc. Then he returns to the table. Take the deck and shuffle it. Turn to either of the other spectators (I usually work first with spectator C, the one on my right). Say, "He has taken a card which nobody knows, including himself. I'd like you to merely think of any card. Please think of a card that you see as I run through the deck. You must see the card you think of. Otherwise, you may think of the card he (spectator B) has in his pocket, and that wouldn't do." Here, I turn to spectator A, and say, "You do nothing as yet. As a matter of fact, don't even look at the cards now. I'll get to you in a moment." Deal through the deck for spectator C. I do this near him, turned slightly toward him. I do the eliminating of 10's with the red cards as I deal through for spectator C. I deal with spectator A according to what I find out after this first deal-through. If this first deal-through tells me that a red card has been removed—and also, of course, tells me its value—I won't have to deal through for spectator A. If the first deal-through doesn't tell me what I want to know, then I do know that spectator B removed a black card. And, I have a reason for dealing through again! Spectator A still has to think of a card. To make this clear, let's take each of the two possible situations. The first deal-through for spectator C, ostensibly to let him think of a card he sees, tells me that spectator B removed a red card. Patter to spectator C: "Have you thought of a card you just saw? Fine; please concentrate on it." I shuffle the deck as I turn to spectator A. "And would you think of any card you see?" I do a fast face-up ribbon spread for him; then I gather the spread. "Have you thought of a card? Good; please concentrate on it." As I've explained, using the half-deck principle, I have a fifty— 26 —

THE EPITOME LOCATION

fifty chance of getting the information I need during the first, and only, deal-through. Okay; that's the first possibility. The second possibility is that the first deal-through does not give you the information you need. So, handle spectator A exactly as you handled spectator C. Shuffle, and say that now he's to think of a card he sees as you deal through the deck. Deal through, calculating with the black cards only this time. That's all. You'll know the value of spectator B's card now. (Incidentally, if the remainder is still 2 after the second dealthrough, no need to ribbon spread—you know the removed card is a black 10-spot.) To repeat; the point here is that you have a logical reason for the second deal-through, if it's necessary. Obviously, it's preferable to do only one deal-through. (That's how I did it before I came up with the half-deck idea. Always with one deal-through, but calculating all the cards.) But, since you're doing each deal-through so rapidly, it just doesn't matter if you do it twice! All right, then; the two end spectators (C and A) have each thought of a card. You've done either one deal-through and a fast ribbon spread, or two deal-throughs. In either case, you know the color and value of spectator B's pocketed card. (Which is more than even he knows at the moment!) Now, the ending: Shuffle the deck and turn to spectator A, the one to your left. Pressure fan the deck faces toward you. "Please concentrate on your card. I'm having a little trouble with you. I may miss, but I'll get close, I think." What you're doing here, of course, is looking for the mate of spectator B's pocketed card! Find it, as I've already explained. You have plenty of time because you're supposedly trying to read spectator A's mind. Find that mate, and place it face down near spectator A. "Well, I think I'm close. I don't know why, but I think I missed by just a little bit. What is the card you're thinking of?" He names his card. This is all part of the acting now. Nod intelligently, and say, "Yep, I missed; but I'm close enough." Turn to spectator C. "Would you concentrate on your card?" Acting as if you're trying to read his mind, find the mate of the card spectator A just told you. (You could, of course, find the exact card. I never do; I'll give you my reasoning for this at the end.) Place this, face down, near spectator C. Start to turn to the center spectator (B). As an afterthought, turn back to spectator C, and ask for the name of his card. He names it. You nod happily, as you say, "No problem with you." — 27 —

THE EPITOME LOCATION

To spectator B: "You can't concentrate on your card because it's in your pocket and you don't know what it is. That's why I did it this way; I want to see if I can find out what it is without your help!" Concentrate on the fan of cards. Finally remove one. Of course, you remove the card that spectator C just named. Place it face down in front of spectator B. Your work is really all done. Mostly, anyway. As you talk, put aside the deck; casually pick up the card in front of spectator C (your right); drop it onto the card in front of spectator A (your left); drop these two onto the card in front of spectator B (original center). Do not try to hide this. Just do it casually as you talk. In a continuing action, slightly spread the three cards to the left. You'll have a small fan or spread of the three tabled cards. The top card to the left, the bottom card to the right. Look at spectator A (your left). "What is your card again, please?" He names it. Say, "I told you; I only got close. But close enough!" As you talk, turn up the top card of the small tabled spread, the card to the left, nearest spectator A. It is the mate of the card he named! Leave it, face up, near him. Turn to spectator C (your right). "And what is your card again?" As you talk, sort of indicate (tap with a finger) the bottom card of the two remaining spread cards; the one to the right, nearest spectator C. He names it. "I told you; I had no trouble with you." Turn up the lower of the two cards, the one you've been tapping. It's the correct card—on the nose! Leave it near him. Turn to spectator B (center). He's left for last because it's strongest. Nobody knows his card. "Well, sir; you still don't know your own card. But hopefully, I do." Tap the remaining face-down tabled card as you speak. "Would you take out that card that nobody knows? Turn it face up, please." As he does, you turn up the tabled card. Two mates come into view! The end! ! The description of a routine of this type can't help but sound confusing at first reading. Believe me, after you read it again, get the location of the three spectators in your mind, and try it a couple of times, it will clear up for you. The one-ahead idea is older than you and me, but in combination with the new, fast, way of eliminating 10's (the original idea of which is also older than you and me), you've got a blockbustera gasper! I speak from experience. A knowledgeable cardman may recognize the one-ahead principle, but • you'll lose him with the center spectator's card! The acting, of course, is important. You — 28 —

THE EPITOME LOCATION

must, with spectators C and A, implant the idea that you've actually placed each of their cards in front of them, before they each named their cards. But, even if you're a lousy actor, that center card must be a throw-off for anybody. The heart of the matter, of course, is to do the deal-through(s) quickly. Without that concept, the routine is meaningless. I can't give you a precise reason for the way I work with spectator A—the "I'm not sure, but I think I'm close" presentation. I've done it that way since I devised the routine. It's a "feel." I just know that it's stronger that way; stronger to "miss" his card by a little bit. It also sort of "sets" the mating idea at the end, with spectator B's card. It just makes the whole thing more real and logical. That's how I always do it. As I said before, you can use the exact card if you'd rather. About the gathering of the three tabled cards for the ending: Occasionally, if I!m too tired to think straight, I'll simply scoop up the three cards, mix them, hold them facing me, and go into the ending. I simply turn up the proper card at the proper time. Same thing. I rarely do that now, however. The way I explained it is what I use. Once you have it set in your mind, you really don't have to think about it at all. It's easy enough; drop the right-end card onto the left-end card; then the two cards onto the one card. One final thought: Once, I placed the mate of spectator B's card in front of spectator A, and then asked spectator A to name his card. He named the card I'd just placed in front of him! In other words, he had thought of the mate of spectator B's card! This is possible but, obviously, the odds against it are high. Anyway, I got flustered for a moment. I was thinking ahead— what card would I put in front of spectator C when I worked with him? How could I end with spectator B? The mate of his card was now in front of spectator A, etc. Fortunately, under fire, I usually do the right thing! What I did was even stronger than planned, and it completely solved the problem. As soon as he (spectator A) named his card, I simply turned over the card I'd placed in front of him. A miracle! Now, I placed it back into the deck and shuffled. I turned to spectator C, and placed the same card in front of him! When he named his card, I knew which one to place in front of spectator B. I scooped up the two cards and went into the ending with spectators C and B only. Perfect! The same basic reasoning and handling applies if spectator C OQ

THE EPITOME LOCATION

happens to think of the mate of spectator B's card. If, and this has never happened to me, spectators C and A think of the same card— you'll find that my presentation of "just missing" spectator A's card makes the entire thing work out all right. And, it appears even stronger. Once you're familiar with the routine, you'll see what I mean. But I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. Another presentation idea, and I won't go into detail—I've taken up enough space!—is to use another deck at the end, when you remove the three "thought of" cards. One benefit is that you'll be able to directly match spectator B's pocketed card. That's okay, but not worth it to me. I like to use the one deck, borrowed if possible. Afterthoughts:—Well, as I've said in a couple of my booksmodesty is becoming a drag! I believe in truth. I gotta' tell you that I feel I've given you something you can use to good benefit for the rest of your life! That is, if you practice the elimination-of10's method I've taught you. Time yourself. Then keep trying to better that time. Once you can deal quickly through and know a removed card's value, you've got something most cardmen won't have. The practice is not only important, but should be enjoyable. The parallel that comes to mind is The Ultra Move, which I taught in my most recent book, Afterthoughts. I knew I'd get letters, and I did. "Are you kidding? It's impossible! You've got to have six fingers!" and so on. Fortunately, the letters that rave, and tell me that they loved practicing the move, and that now they have something that nobody else in their areas have, and that they fool everybody with the sleight and routines utilizing it—outnumber the other kind by multitudes. So don't do what you, most likely, usually do. Don't wait until you see someone else, who's practiced, do it, and fool everyone. Practice now, darn it! Besides the effects, routines, and ideas I've included, think of the "out" you'll have when a wise-guy takes a card and challenges you to "tell me what my card is"! And, think how quickly you'll be able to discover which card is missing from a fifty-one card deck! When you're playing cards, that is. I've included the presentations that I generally, and personally, use—and enjoy doing. With a bit of imagination, you can change, combine, manipulate, etc., to come up with plenty of your own. — 30 —

THE EPITOME LOCATION

For example, you can use the old "21-card trick" idea as a vehicle for seeing all the cards. It's just another way to hide that fact, and to give you more time, if you need more time, for the calculating. It can be used for the entire deck, or for the half-deck principle when you know the color of the removed card. After the selection, and shuffling, etc., deal out three vertical columns of seven cards each, as you would for the old "21 card" effect. Do your calculations as you deal. Patter: "There's an old trick where I'd ask you to tell me in which column the mate of your card is. But I won't do that. If you see the mate, concentrate on it, but don't tell me anything." Here, you have time to finish your calculations, if necessary—while you're supposedly trying to read his mind. Remember the remainder. Gather the twenty-one cards. Get them to the bottom; there's plenty of room for shuffling. Deal out another twenty-one card layout, continuing your calculations. "Just in case you haven't seen the mate of your card yet," and so on. Remember the remainder and gather these twenty-one cards. Get them to the bottom as before. You've seen forty-two cards. The top nine cards still have to be figured into your calculations. Start to deal out another layout. Deal the first column of seven cards. Deal one card into the second column. Start to deal the second card (you've now seen all the cards!), pause, and say, "I think you've already told me what I need to know." Gather the cards, shuffle the deck, and go into your ending. The dealing-through method—from a face-up deck to a tabled pile—is what I use most often. I occasionally deal from hand to hand. That's faster. The one I taught you is better because it gives you more time to think—that extra bit of time that it takes to cover the distance from deck to table. And, what I've been doing quite a bit lately, is to let the spectator do his own dealing! Beautiful! I find that this gives me more time. He rarely deals as quickly as I do. I make it appear as if I'm hardly paying attention. He can't see me paying attention, because he's too busy dealing the cards! I tell him not to stop after he's seen the mate of his card. He's to go through the entire deck, otherwise he might give me a clue. You just have to be sure to see each cardno sticky cards, etc. Hopefully, you have found going on this mental trip with me worthwhile. I think you'll find it even more so after you've fooled the pants off some people, including other magicians. I said something at the tail end of my manuscrpt, The Great — 31 —

THE EPITOME LOCATION

Divide (which, incidentally, is one heck of a way to set a borrowed, shuffled, deck into reds and blacks in preparation for the ideas included here) which warrants repetition. "Don't give this away to friends." Let them pay for it as you did! Remember—every time you give it away you lessen its worth to you\ HARRY LORAYNE

— 32 —