Omni Mental Coins By Fraser Parker.pdf

Copyright © 2019 Fraser Parker OMNI – MENTAL COINS What follows is a way to know whether an imaginary coin randomly selected by your participant is heads or tails side up, after they have been instructed to mentally flip three coins in their mind, a few times at random. This happens entirely prop-less and with the words that you use and because this is over so quickly, it is a great way to set up further mind reading where you will be able to take this secret knowledge and apply it to other effects in order to gain additional information, such as their star sign, thought of playing card or drawing they have mentally constructed in their mind. It also lends itself perfectly to the setting up of a truth or liar presentation or any other routine that relies on calibrating how a

spectator answers in order to obtain binary pieces of information in order to nail down on their exact thought. This is based on a mathematical principle and old trick with actual coins I read about in one of Martin Gardiner's books, if my memory serves me correctly. I decided to update it so that it could be done entirely in the mind of your spectator without the need for any physical coins to be in play. I also wanted to be able to perform this procedure that much more quickly, so that I would be able to use what would typically be the final outcome of this effect as more of a means to an end, as opposed to the actual climax of the routine, in order to obtain additional information about the spectator. I wanted to essentially, be able to use this principle to obtain other information besides just being able to know if a coin selected at random by the participant was facing heads or tails side up.

The original effect consisted of either the performer or spectator taking out an amount of coins and with the performer turned away the spectator would be instructed to turn over whichever coins they wished to do so, at random, even turning over the same coins more than once, if they so desired. They would then be instructed to cover any one of the coins on the table and to take note of whether this coin is heads or tails side up. Then the performer would turn back around and instantly be able to tell whether or not the coin covered was heads or tails side up. I thought this was a pretty neat effect but still didn't want to have to go through this long procedure or need to actually have multiple physical coins in play. Therefore, I streamlined it to work with less coins and decided to make these coins imaginary.

I also created specific scripting to ensure the main principle behind the original effect would still work in a prop-less context where the entire method relies on your instructions and the words you use. I have purposefully not tipped the whole method at play in the physical version as this is not my method to teach. However, I will give you enough information to be able to perform my prop-less version of this wonderful effect. To begin with I say the following to the spectator. “I want you to imagine three coins in your mind and to make this easy for you to follow along, imagine these are the same type of coin and just focus on which of these are heads up…” That is essentially all there is to it!!

You now get the spectator to mentally flip any of the coins a few times and you will always be able to divine which coin is heads or tails side up. You state for them to focus on which of the coins are heads side up, seemingly to make focusing on the orientation of the coin as either facing heads or tails side up, easier to follow by instructing them to only focus on one side of the polarity, whilst you are in fact limiting their choices with your scripting, from the beginning. They will understand this line to mean … “focus on which of the three coins are already facing heads up” as well as understand it to mean “focus only on whether heads are facing up and forget about thinking about tails also, to make this easier to visualize”, whilst they appreciate the overall appearance of the illusion or if they try to back-track the effect.

What is great about this double meaning is it will force the spectator to think about more than one coin beginning in a heads up position to begin with, due to the fact you refer to these coins in the plural, within your instructions. They will automatically think of more than one of these coins being heads up as well as at least one of the coins needing to be the opposite way up. Again, this is inherent in the instructions you give and the way they will be interpreted by the spectator, in the moment. They do this without giving it much conscious thought and because these instructions are hidden as a way of seemingly making the process which follows easier for the spectator to follow along with in their mind, everything will appear above suspicion and this ruse will fly right past everyone. The reason this is fooling is because the overall appearance of the illusion created by your words, itself re-frames what is actually

taking place as something fair. The spectator follows along without feeling anything is a miss and then it is too late to back-track what has happened because from that point onwards they can only perceive the illusion created by your words and their meaning when placed within the context of the larger routine. This is also true for the shift that takes place in the minds of your audience. We also make it easier for them to follow by instructing them to imagine all of the same coin. This stops them having to mentally process three different types of coin and having to keep track of unnecessary information that could cause them to make an error and lose track of each of the manoeuvrers that follow. This scripting will ultimately create a situation where the spectator is now thinking of three imaginary coins all of the same type,

two of which will be orientated in a heads position and one in the opposite orientation (tails). We need to know that this is their beginning mental arrangement of coins, for the method to work. However, it will not be apparent to anyone that we are already this far ahead of proceedings. Everyone will have to imagine there is no way you could know the starting positions of each of the coins due to the fact your initial instructions will seem so nonspecific and free. Of course, we know this isn't the case. Now all we have to do is instruct the spectator to flip any one of these coins over and repeat this a set amount of times, to ensure we can always follow along in order to ultimately find their chosen coins orientation, later on. “Now just flip any one of those coins over in your head … Do this again, it doesn't matter

if you flip the same coin … And finally, do this one more time, to make this entirely random …” We give the spectator a completely free choice of which coin they want to flip over each time we instruct them to do so, even suggesting they may turn over the same coin multiple times. However, we don't say “multiple times” in the scripting in order to keep our instructions clear. They should only flip one coin over once, after each instruction for them to do so. Otherwise, they could potentially mess up the method if they flip a coin multiple times in one go. That is not to say that they can't flip the same coin more than once throughout this larger selection process. As long as they flip only one coin over each time we instruct them to do so and we have

them do this a set amount of times, in this case a total of three times, we will always be able to discern the different possible orientations of each of the coins relative to one another. Now all that is left to do is have the spectator choose one of these coins at random and to discard the other two. This is yet another seemingly random process that when coupled with the previous mixing procedure and your initial double meaning for your instructions, combines to create a seeming entirely fair selection procedure. “Choose any one of these coins and remember if it is heads or tails side up and just call out whether the other two coins are heads or tails …” The spectator will now call out the orientation of the other coins not selected and this will tell you the orientation of the coin left over.

“ … Good, so you can see just how well you mixed these coins in your mind”. This line is added on after the spectator says out loud the orientation of the discard coins as a way to justify the spectator verbalizing this information. It should seem as if you had the spectator call out these orientations to demonstrate to the spectator and anyone else who may be watching just how random and fair everything has been up to this point. Now I reaffirm everything that has gone before by getting the spectator to agree with the seeming fairness and impossibility of the current situation. “Just focus on the coin that is left over … There's absolutely no way for me to know if this is heads or tails, correct?” I can now nail the exact orientation of this coin and end here as a mini effect or a

seeming way to calibrate to the spectator early on in a set or I can use this information to establish a truth or liar presentation or gain other information such as their star sign etc. Here are the rules to follow: If you have the spectator flip a coin over and you repeat this three times then you will only have the following possible set of outcomes based on their initial starting position of HHT … HTH … or THH … (all the same starting position essentially). HHH TTH THT HTT Therefore, if the orientations of the two remaining coins are the same the chosen coin will have to be heads side up and if the orientations of the two remaining coins are

different then their chosen coin has to be tails. It couldn't be any simpler! Just so that you can appreciate just how simple this process is I will outline the scripting again here before moving forwards with alternative uses for this principle. “I want you to imagine three coins in your mind and to make this easy for you to follow along, imagine these are the same type of coin and just focus on which of these are heads up…” “Now just flip any one of those coins over in your head … Do this again, it doesn't matter if you flip the same coin … And finally, do this one more time … to make this entirely random …” “Choose any one of these coins and remember if it is heads or tails side up and

just call out whether the other two coins are heads or tails …” “Just focus on the coin that is left over … There's absolutely no way for me to know if this is heads or tails, correct?” TRUTH OR LIAR PLAYING CARDS In order to convert this smaller effect into a truth or liar presentation all you need to do is calibrate the spectator's thought as to whether their coin is heads or tails into a specific role that they are going to act out when answering questions concerning a different thought. I have referred to this as reverse equivoque in the past. We will always instruct the spectator to take on the role of a liar, no matter which side their thought of coin has ended up.

If we know secretly that the spectator is focusing on their chosen coin in the heads up position then we say, “If your coin is heads up I want you to always lie to me and if it is tails side up then always tell the truth”. And if we know that the spectator's coin is tails side up then we instruct the spectator to also lie. “If your coin is tails side up I want you to always tell the truth and if it is heads side up then always lie”. The reason we always label whatever outcome we secretly know their coin to have landed as liar and not as a truth teller role, is so that the rest of the audience cannot follow along with their answers and get to the same outcome as us based on their answers, ahead of the reveal. This stops the impact of the

subsequent reveal from being diminished. In short, the spectator will always lie when answering our questions regarding a specific piece of information. It will seem as if the reason we had the spectator go through this initial coin flipping procedure was to create a fair and random way for them to decide if they are going to always tell the truth or always lie, in order for us to then read their responses. Now it is a simple case of asking a series of binary questions relating to a specific piece of information the spectator is focusing on and always reversing their answers in our own mind, in order to know the truth. For example, if we have the spectator focus on a playing card at random we could ask the following questions, in order to nail down on their exact thought of card.

Performer: “Is this a red or black card?” Spectator: “Red” Performer: “Just yes or no, is this one of the more common choices of suit: Spades or Hearts?” Of course, if the spectator says “red” previously and answers with a “no” here then we will know that their thought of suit has to be a Spade. If we received a “yes” then by reversing their answers we would know they have to now be focusing on a Club. It is a simple case of following the logic, as they give each of their answers and slowly building their thought of card up in our mind. Performer: “Is this a picture card?” Spectator “No”. If they responds with a “no” here then great! We know they are thinking of one of the

picture cards. However, if they respond with a “yes” I would opt for the spectator changing their choice in order to seemingly make proceedings fairer, again using the reverse equivoque principle. This will in fact, make nailing their card that much easier as we will always box the spectator into thinking of one of the picture cards of their suit. Otherwise, I feel there are too many questions that need to be asked and it becomes more obvious that you are narrowing down on their choice based on their previous answers. Performer: “If you happen to be focusing on a picture card then change it to a number card and if you are focusing on a number card then change it to one of the picture cards, such as a Jack, Queen or King, just to make this even harder for me to pick up on”. Now we can force the spectator to a Queen, whilst at the same time making it seem we may already be in their head and know if they are a liar or truth teller.

Performer: “If you are a liar and focusing on a picture card then change your card from male to female, otherwise feel free to change your card however you want”. Now all we need to do is take out a Queen from the deck that matches the suit we know they are focusing on, hold it facing away from everyone and ask the spectator to reveal the card they are now focusing on. Turn over and show that these match. “It's okay, you can go back to telling the truth now! Say out loud the card you are now focusing on …” This line suggests we also knew the role they were playing and that must have been how we also got the card correct even after offering seemingly free choices for the spectator to change their mind, throughout the process. I have other ways to achieve a thought of

card presentation based on polarity in my limited works that rely less on the actual truth teller premise. I prefer these presentations theatrically. Unfortunately, these approaches are reserves for those limited releases and are out of the scope of this manuscript. However, those with my previous work will see instantly how this beginning coin effect can be used as a solid way into these other presentations. TRUTH OR LIAR STAR SIGN In order to divine a star sign we can first set up the notion that the two problematic signs “Cancer” and “Capricorn” fall into specific halves of the year. This is necessary as Capricorn can be thought of as crossing over the end of the year and the beginning of the year and Cancer crosses over the middle halves of the year.

“There are specific cross over signs, just so that this doesn't become confusing if you are a Cancer sign I want you to imagine you were born in the first half of the year, if you are a Capricorn then imagine you were born in the second half of the year, just so that this doesn't become confusing, in a moment”. We are continuing along with the spectator playing the role of a liar. Performer: “Were you born in the first half of the year, within the Months 1 to 6?”. Spectator: “Yes”. Of course, we now know they were born in the later half of the year. We can now throw out three signs within that half of the year along with three signs from the first half of the year. Here it helps to know each of the star sign groups and where they appear throughout the year.

As the three signs from the first half of the year will not be relevant we can ignore these signs and simply use them as a decoy. By listening to the answer they give to the following question, we will be able to discern if the spectator is one of these relevant signs (from the second half of the year) or not. Performer: “Are you one of the signs that are considered more out going: Aquarius, Pisces, Aries, Scorpio, Sagittarius or Capricorn?” Spectator: “Yes”. Based on their answer to this question we now know they have to be one of the other remaining three signs, we didn't mention, from the second half of the year. Naturally, what signs we include in the previous question will change depending on each performance and the spectator's answer to the previous question regarding which half of the year they were born in. Here is a list of

the star signs in order. It helps if you think of these in groups of three, two of which fall into each half of the year. First half of year: AQUARIUS PISCES ARIES TAURUS GEMINI CANCER Second half of the year: LEO VIRGO LIBRA SCORPIO SAGITTARIUS CAPRICORN

If you refer back to my example script and follow the logic you will see I placed three signs from the first half of the year within the question as decoys, as these are not relevant due to the fact I know from the spectator's previous answer they must be one of the star signs from the second half of the year. I also included three signs from the second half of the year. Now based on their answer I can discern whether or not the spectator is one of the signs I mention from the relevant half of the year or not and by default know that they must be one of the other remaining signs of whichever half of the year I am working in. Because I secretly know the spectator will always be lying in this example I know the spectator must be one of the following signs: LEO VIRGO LIBRA Again, I have different ways to obtain a star

sign utilizing polarity in my limited works that doesn't rely on this truth or liar presentation but in order to protect these secrets, they are out of the scope of this manuscript to teach. If you know how I handle this three way out with the possible star signs left that could belong to the spectator then feel free to apply these methods here. If I were to end here and go for the reveal then I would first say to my spectator: “It's okay, you can go back to telling the truth now!” Again, this serves as a way to suggest I knew they were playing the part of a liar all along. Now we are safe to use the outs as taught in previous works, as you will get a truthful and correct reaction from your spectators now that they are no longer hiding their answers or lying. Otherwise, you can continue the truth or liar presentation and further narrow down on their exact star sign.

I would now list two of the signs from out of the three possible signs they could be along with others that are irrelevant. Performer: “Are you one of the signs considered more creative: Leo, Virgo, Taurus or Gemini?” Here I would include signs I've not yet mentioned as decoys. If you get a “yes” here then you know they have to be the only sign you've not mentioned out of the possible outs: Libra and can reveal accordingly. “It's okay, you can go back to telling the truth now. You are a Libra, correct?” They will react and you can finish your demonstration here. If you get a “no” then you are still down to two signs: Leo or Virgo.

Performer “Just yes or no. Are you a Leo?” If they respond with a “no” you can quickly say: “I knew you were lying. You're a Leo, correct?!” If they respond with a “yes” then you can end as usual with the following scripting: “It's okay, you can go back to telling the truth now. You are a Virgo, correct?” TRUTH OR LIAR DRAWINGS In order to get a drawing I would set it up as follows. Performer: “I want you to imagine you are back at school and just in your mind draw a simple image – make this a simple object – that others would instantly recognize, if you were to show them this drawing”.

This should force the spectator to think of an object out of a restricted field of simple drawings, without it feeling like their choice has been restricted. Instructing them to think of an actual object will stop them from drawing a simple geometric design such as a star or stick-man. Now based on whether they are telling the truth or lying I can narrow down on their thought of drawing with a few questions. Performer: “Is this natural or man made?” Spectator: “Natural”. This means their drawing is man made. Performer: “Is this something you can easily hold in your hand or is much larger?” Spectator: “I can easily hold it in my hand”.

I now know the spectator has to be thinking of either a: HOUSE BOAT CAR AREOPLANE The other options of typical drawings they could be focusing on depending on the logic of their answers could be either: Man made objects that they can easily hold in their hands: GLASS BALL CUP PENCIL PEN Natural objects that you can't easily hold in your hands:

TREE SUN MOON DOG CAT Natural object they can easily hold in their hands: FLOWER You can now instruct the spectator to tell you the truth, as follows: Performer: “Okay, if you were just lying then I want you to tell the truth otherwise lie to me”. Performer: “Focus on whatever this object is as a word. How many letters are in this word?” There answer will now narrow their choice

down out of the possible drawings, depending on what category you know they are focusing on. You can now say: “Okay, you can continue telling the truth now” and then reveal their exact drawing. You may be in the position where there are still two possible outs. Here you can tell them to revert back to whatever role they were playing before telling them to reverse roles and ask one further question that would help you narrow down their drawing. For example, if they are thinking of AREOPLANE as the word PLANE or potentially a HOUSE both of which have the same length of letters you could distinguish between the two with the following question: Performer: “Is this something that stays on the ground?” Spectator: “yes”.

We know the spectator is now back to playing the role of a liar and will be able to reveal they are thinking of an AREOPLANE. Again, we use the line to suggest we know they are currently lying to us and then end the routine with the reveal. Performer: “It's okay, you can go back to telling the truth now. You are focusing on an AREOPLANE, correct?” What is nice about getting the spectator to temporarily revert back to being a truth teller in order to obtain the correct amount of letters in the word is the fact, it allows us to guess other drawings they may have thought about not included in our list. We just have to think on our feet. For example, if their word is longer than five letters we can take a good guess at what the simple object they may have mentally drawn that is not in our restrictive field, based on the length of the word.

Typically, I would just guess what I feel the most likely drawing is they are thinking of, without asking this further question to narrow down or I would just use a two way out, either verbal or physical in order to keep this streamlined. The drawings I have found most common are: TREE HOUSE CAR BOAT FLOWER CAT DOG I should mention that this work is similar to my good friend Phedon Bilek's prop-less Drawing Duplication “Proteus”, of which I based my own prop-less drawing duplications on and it is with his permission I was able to release my own takes on this concept. If you

want a solid way to know a thought of drawing and want to learn a more in depth approach to this premise then I recommend picking up his book on the subject, as well as my own variations taught in my various limited works. Thanks for purchasing this manuscript. I hope you like my uses for this prop-less way of seemingly randomizing your spectator's choices utilizing mental coins and also find your own uses for this basic principle. Fraser